Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuneau Area Electric Load Forecast Prepared For The Alaska Power Authority 1987Juneau Area Electric Load Forecast April 22, 1987 Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS FORK 2a FOURTH & BLANCHARD BUILDING RO.AONeeNe SITKA, ALASKA 2121 FOURTH AVENUE KETCHIKAN, ALASKA 9838) SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 99901 (206-441-7500 F j WENO S$S-1559-EG1-AQ April 22, 1987 Alaska Power Authority 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Gentlemen: Subject: Juneau Area Electric Load Forecast Pursuant to our agreement, we have completed electric load forecasts for the Juneau area in Southeast Alaska and herewith submit the report summarizing the results of our analysis and documenting our procedures and assumptions. Tnis report has been prepared in conjunction with a separate report, entitled "Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecast", prepared to describe the load forecasts developed concurrently for several other communities in Southeast Alaska. We appreciate the assistance and cooperation given to us by the staff of the Alaska Power Authority and by the many utility and community representatives in the Juneau area during the preparation of our analysis and report. Respectfully submitted, QUIT cee! Ceeint ch, Juneau Area Electric Load Forecast Table of Contents Page Section £ Number Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures I Introduction and Summary of Results TIQtROGUCE TON: s:e10;-\ :ereiciisieisiele eile afellerolieieleletstel sielelelsisisvereleete I-] Report Overview ....... ha a TTT TiitTrT tee was 1-2 Summary! of ReESUItS w.50 cis ocece +oeebaneaunens anes 1-3 Considerations and Limitations ..cccsccccsecsccseves 1-5 II Juneau Overview General PrOtlle sivccavecccucnsesnss04seeuunees enue II-1 Historic Population and Employment Trends OCODODO are II-1 AEL&P Historic Customers and Sales .......cccccccess II-3 GHEA Historic Customers and SaleS ....cecccesseees i II-5 Ill Forecast Methodology and Assumptions Forecast Methodology Overview ...-eeeeeeeee ajeleleteielors'e) III-1 Demographic and Economic Assumptions ......-sseeee oo III-3 IV Load Forecast for Alaska Electric Light and Power Company Residential Usage ........ ‘ee seCON EKO eee eeee+hieaee IV-1 Commercial Usage ..... efetelsteleleteleiers Bfotetetatele sietcielerote aieieite IV-2 Government Class ......eee5- aveennne eke Slelolelsisl ster sieteleole IV-3 Street and Area Lighting .....ccccesecssves etaretsrereterete IV-3 TOtallieSaveSuesiescicleicieraie vers ele shosiete afolstateteicteieYe) ole sieieieie oe IvV-4 Total Requirements ...ccccccccccccccvccccvccccccce ne Iv-4 Peak Demand .....csccccec conve piertresisisisishs beueneewe a Iv-5 Low Growth Scenario ........ SIGCCODDOOOUNDC PTTTe TTT ok IV-5 High Growth Scenario ...ceecesssccees ole shel-sielelelevere aoa IV-6 Employment Growth Sensitivity Analyses ....eeeeeeeee IV-7 Vv Load Forecast for Glacier Highway Electric Association Residential Usage ...... elafolelsioiots\eieie ale eleleielelsteietoiote etelers V-1 Commercial Usage ....eseececeee sjeletole) aie's eieiel SOUGUUNOG V-2 Street Lighting and Public Buildings Usage aie lsiolelolclols V-3 MOtale Sallesiisniccces arelotoietelel sletotetsisisrelersieieiete Bievohatcteletsletotot= V-3 Total Requirements .....eeeeee ++kbeuaeunn Kueweepabes V-4 Peak Demand .....-..cecee stheneonn saaevhuene eleister eieielele V-4 Low Growth Scenario ...cecccecceces otolsfelel vere (elsi eye mroleleks V-5 High Growth Scenario .....ceeeeseceees wioie lolclalereie slatelels V-5 Employment Growth Sensitivity Analyses ......++.see- V-6 Section VI Table of Contents (cont inued ) Combined Forecast for the Juneau Area OtallirSalies esis iii SiN OenenAnee pene sN4epsbUeUea ce Total REGUTREMENES ‘ccc ccs cro creisieie Met dene teterelorer cieteleteiete * Peak Demand ....... eenaneeheeeeine ChoeeN tee MRae ee os APPENDIX A - Juneau Area Employment Projections by the Alaska Power Authority APPENDIX B - Juneau Area Population Projections by David M. Reaume Page Number VI-1 VI-1 VI-2 List of Tables Table Number Title I-] Combined Juneau Area - Summary of Forecast Results - Total Energy Requirements 1-2 Combined Juneau Area Forecast - Summary of Price Elasticity Impacts on Base Case 1 oe ee ONAN HWNH— wo ' ea Juneau Area Population and Employment Alaska Electric Light and Power Company - Historical Statistics Glacier Highway Electric Association - Historical Statistics Summary of Juneau Area AEL&P AEL&P AEL&P AEL&P AEL&P AEL&P GHEA F GHEA F GHEA F GHEA F GHEA F GHEA F Juneau Juneau Juneau Juneau Juneau Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast orecast orecast orecast orecast orecast orecast Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Population and Employment Projections - Base Population Case - Base Employment Case - Low Population Case - High Population Case - Alternative Employment Case A - Alternative Employment Case B Base Population Case Base Employment Case Low Population Case High Population Case Alternative Employment Case A Alternative Employment Case B Area Combined Forecast - Summary of Forecast Results Area Combined Historical Loads Area Combined Load Forecast - Population Based Cases Area Combined Load Forecast - Employment Based Cases Area Employment by Sector Estimated North Slope 0i1 Production World Oil Price Forecasts Estimated State Severance Tax and Royalty Income Forecasts Unrestricted General Fund Revenue Local, State and Federal Government Employment in Juneau Ratio of Support to Basic Employment in Juneau Projected Juneau Area Employment Historical and Projected Juneau Area Population List of Figures Title Juneau - Population and Employment Compared with Customer(s) AEL&P - Residential kWh Usage per Customer AEL&P - Cost of Electricity - Inflation Adjusted GHEA - kWh Usage per Customer GHEA - Cost of Electricity - Inflation Adjusted AEL&P - Energy Sales - Base Population Case AEL&P - Total Energy Sales AEL&P - Peak Demand GHEA - Energy Sales - Base Population Case GHEA - Total Energy Sales GHEA - Peak Demand Total Utility Combined Juneau Area Forecast - Total Energy Sales - Population Cases Combined Juneau Area Forecast - Total Energy Sales - Base Population Case Combined Juneau Area Forecast - Peak Demand - Population Case Combined Juneau Area Forecast - Total Energy Sales - Employment Cases Unrestricted General Fund Revenue - Oi] Price Scenario A Unrestricted General Fund Revenue - Oi] Price Scenario B Juneau Area Population Projection SECTION I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS Introduction The Alaska Power Authority (the "Power Authority") is presently evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of constructing an electric transmission system to electrically interconnect the communities of Southeast Alaska ("Southeast"). Juneau, as the largest city in Southeast Alaska, would likely play an important role in the determination of the feasibility of this proposed transmission system. Historically, Juneau has experienced rapid and consistent growth during the past 20 years, a period that included a signifi- cant growth of employment in the government sector that accompanied expanding State of Alaska oi] revenues and the defeat of a proposal to move the state capital to central Alaska. It is generally accepted now, however, that Juneau's rapid growth of the past two decades is unlikely to continue at historic rates. Indeed, declining population and employment in Juneau is a real possibility at least during the next few years due to the steep drop in State revenues that has resulted from the fall in world oil prices. In light of these changing circumstances, the Power Authority has requested that a new and independent 20-year load forecast for the two electric utilities serving the Juneau area 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 two utilities that serve the Juneau area - Alaska Electric Light & Power Company ("AEL&P") and Glacier Highway Electric Association ("GHEA") - as well as from other public sources of data and from other studies recently conducted in the area. A separate report, entitled "Southeast Alaska Electric Load Forecast," has been prepared in conjunction with this report. That report details the load fore- cast for the other communities of Southeast for which load forecasts were prepared by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. The specific scope of services which was the basis for our study can be summarized as follows: ie Prepare 20-year electric energy and peak demand forecasts for AEL&P and GHEA by customer class on an annual basis using various econometric models which take into consideration the following factors: a. Trends in customer class usage of electricity b. Population Ge Weather Gis Economic factors such as state revenue projections, the price of oil, employment, and local economic activities e. The cost of electricity to customers I-2 Za Augment the results of the econometric forecast with projected requirements of the largest customers developed through dis- cussions with these customers. Additionally, through discus- sions with local Juneau area planners, develop electric load projections for planned loads. le Develop low, base case and high scenarios for the power requirements forecast. 4. Provide assistance, as necessary, in extracting basic data needed for this study from existing records. Bis Prepare a draft report summarizing the results of the load forecast and documenting methodologies and assumptions. Os Finalize the draft report after review by the Power Authority, AEL&P and GHEA. Report Overview This report contains analyses and results with respect to the fore- cast of future energy requirements for the two utilities serving the City of Juneau. Existing utility data were analyzed in order to estimate residential, commercial, industrial and public usage patterns annually for each utility from 1966 to 1985. An analysis of various causal factors that could explain changes in usage per customer over time was prepared and included the effects of weather, electric rates, income per capita, inflation, and appliance satu- ration. Based on these analyses, forecasting models were developed to fore- cast future usage levels. Projected numbers of utility customers were esti- mated based on the historical relationships between customers, population, and employment. Based on these analyses, 20-year forecasts of projected sales, energy requirements and peak demand were prepared for low, base case, and high growth scenario assumptions for each utility. These forecasts were combined to prepare 20-year forecasts for the Juneau community representing low, base case, and high growth scenarios. Section II of this report presents an overview of Juneau, including a general profile of the community, historic population and employment trends, and a discussion of the potential economic growth of the City. The two elec- tric utilities are also examined in Section II, including historic usage patterns of various customer groupings. Section III contains a discussion of the forecast methodology and assumptions that underlie the forecasts. Sec- tions IV and V present the load forecasts for AEL&P and GHEA, respectively, including alternative economic growth scenarios and sensitivity analyses. The projected combined Juneau load requirements under alternative economic growth scenarios over the next 20 years are presented in Section VI. Appendix A includes a projection of Juneau area employment as prepared independently by the Power Authority, and Appendix B provides excerpts from a Juneau population forecast report prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau by David M. Reaume. I-3 Summary of Results Based on the assumptions and analyses discussed in this report, the demand on the two utilities in Juneau is likely to see minimal growth over the foreseeable future with flat or declining demand during the next five years likely (see Table 1-1). In the base case forecast based on the population projections described in Appendix B, energy requirements in Juneau are pro- jected to increase from an estimated 260,000 MWh in 1986 to 320,000 MWh in 2006, representing a 1.0% average annual rate of growth. The slowest growth, however, is likely to occur during the next three-year period as a result of a general contraction of the Juneau economy. Peak demand over this same time period is projected to increase from an estimated 57 MWs in 1986 to 70 MWs in 2006 representing a 1.1% average annual rate of growth. High and low case growth scenario forecasts based on high and low population projections are also presented in this report and are summarized in Table I-1. The combined utilities peak demand growth is forecasted to grow 0.1% until 1991 and 0.4% annually thereafter in the low case scenario. Under the assumptions of the high case scenario, Juneau's energy requirement is projected to arow at 2.6% annually through 1991 and 2.7% annually thereafter. Combined peak demand for the two utilities is foreseen growing at 2.5% annu- ally until 1991 and 2.7% annually thereafter in the high case scenario. An additional load forecast has been made based on a Juneau area employment forecast developed by the Power Authority. The results of this employment forecast scenario show combined energy requirements of AEL&P and GHEA declining from 268,000 MWh in 1986 to 255,000 MWh in 2006, representing a 0.25% average annual decrease. Two alternative employment scenarios developed by the Power Authority result in only minor impacts to electricity demand over the base employment case forecast. Table I-1 shows that the forecast results for the low population case and the base employment case are very similar. Although prepared inde- pendently, the low population projection and the base employment projection yield similar results when the impacts on electricity usage are studied. The high population projection is thought by many to be optimistic, more so than the low projection is pessimistic. The base population projection, which is the average of the high and low projections, may therefore be optimistic for the "most likely" projection of Juneau area population for the next five years. Consequently, the resulting energy requirements forecast based on the base population case may also be optimistic for a “most likely" case. The high and low case projections should serve as a reasonable range of future power requirements with the range bracketed by the low and base cases more likely at least in the near term. 1-4 Table I-] Combined Juneau Area Summary of Forecast Results Total Energy Requirements : (megawatt-hours) Average Annual Increase 1986 (1) 1991 1996 2006 1986-91 1991-06 Base Population Case 259,700 272,800 293,200 321,000 1.0% 1.1% Low Population Case 254,800 256,300 266,700 257,900 0.1% 0.0% High Population Case 266,500 302,700 347,900 450,900 2.6% 2.7% Base Employment Case 268,000 250,100 253,000 254,800 -1.4% 0.1% (1) otal energy requirements shown for 1986 were projected prior to actual 1986 values being available. Actual 1986 energy requirements were 250,380 MWh. A key assumption used in the forecast of electricity consumption for Juneau is the projected cost of power to utility customers. For both GHEA and AEL&P a significant reaction to electricity price changes has been noted in historical usage patterns. As electricity prices have gone down or re- mained constant relative to general inflation, electricity usage per customer has shown a tendency to increase. The projected cost of power has therefore been included as a variable in the forecast models and affects the forecast results. Based on various factors described in Section III of this report, it has been assumed that the real (inflation adjusted) cost of power to Juneau area utility customers will decrease at 2% per year. The forecast results shown in Table I-1 are based on this cost decrease assumption. As a compari- son, Table I-2 summarizes the projected Juneau area energy requirements for the base population case assuming no real decrease in the cost of power. As can be seen in Table 1-2, total energy requirements are projected to be lower if the real cost of power does not decrease. If the real cost of power were to increase rather than decrease or remain constant, a further reduction in energy requirements would be projected. I-5 Table 1-2 Combined Juneau Area Forecast Summary of Price Elasticity Impacts on Base Case (1) Annual Changes Real Cost of Power Total Energy Requirements (MWh) to Utility Customers (2) 1986 T93t 1996 2006 2% Real Decrease (Base): AEL&P 236,400 247,700 265,900 289,700 GHEA 23,300 25,100 27,300 31,300 Total 259,700 272,000 293,200 321,000 0% Real Decrease: AEL&P 236,400 242,300 253,400 261,600 GHEA 23,300 24,100 25,000 26,200 Total 259,700 266, 400 278,400 287, 800 (1) Summary of forecast results for the base population case using different future cost of power assumptions. (2) Assumed annual changes in the real (inflation adjusted) cost of power to utility customers. A O% real decrease implies that nominal power costs as seen by utility customers increase at the assumed rate of general inflation. Considerations and Limitations The City of Juneau currently appears to be in the midst of a tran- sition between a long period of high population and employment growth and a new era of consolidation and lower economic growth. As with any projection of the future, the forecasts developed for this study are based primarily on historical trends, causal relationships, and expectations of future con- ditions. Although demographic and economic causal relationships can be ex- pected to generally remain relatively stable in the long term, the magnitude of economic change currently anticipated for Juneau during the next two to five years could distort these relationships significantly in this transition period. We have attempted to develop reliable forecasts, but the uncertain- ties inherent in the forecasting effort as well as in the specific assumptions that underlie the forecasts should be realized and considered when using the forecast results. For example, population and employment growth in Juneau has remained at a relatively constant 5% annual rate over the past 20 years as has the growth in utility customers. As population and employment growth rates decline or even turn negative, historic relationships between the growth rates for population, employment and utility customers may no longer be maintained, particularly in the short term. 1-6 For all of these reasons, the existing data does not provide a clear indication of the magnitude that future load growth in Juneau will take. During this period of transition, the forecasts should be updated fre- quently to account for new information and changes in expectations as to likely economic growth. Low and high case growth scenario forecasts are pro- vided in an attempt to bracket the expected range of projections. For Juneau at the present time even these alternative scenarios do not account for all possible outcomes. Consideration should also be given to the nature of the forecasting procedure used. The primary purpose of the forecasts was to develop a long-term projection of load requirements and as such, the pro- cedures implemented in this forecast have been used in an attempt to capture long-term historical relationships and to use them to project future load requirements. Short-term results may not be as accurate as could have been achieved using alternative forecasting techniques more appropriate for short- term applications. SECTION II JUNEAU OVERVIEW General Profile The City of Juneau is located on Gastineau Channel opposite Douglas Island in Southeast Alaska. Originally established around 1880 as a community to support gold mining activity in the immediate area, Juneau has served as the capital of Alaska since 1900. Gold mining played a major role in the community's economy until 1944 when the Alaska-Juneau gold mine was closed. Since that time the economy has generally been sustained by government, tourism, fishing and lumbering, although at the present time lumber no longer contributes significantly to the Juneau economy. State government employment presently represents about 33% of total Juneau area employment. In 1974 Alaskans voted to move the state capital from Juneau to a site closer to Anchorage and Fairbanks. The move was defeated in 1982 when voters turned down funding for the project. With the state committed at that point to keeping the capital in Juneau, a period of heavy development occurred in the area resulting from growth due to "pent-up" demand for housing and general optimism towards state government activity. The drop in world oi] prices in 1986 precipitated a contraction of the Alaska State budget and has ended Juneau area development at least for the time being. The Juneau area is served electric power by two utilities, the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company ("AEL&P"), a privately-owned utility, and the Glacier Highway Electric Association, Inc. ("GHEA"), a rural electric cooperative. The Alaska Power Administration, a federal agency, owns and operates the Snettisham hydroelectric project near Juneau which generates the majority of the power required by AEL&P and GHEA. Power is sold by the Alaska Power Administration to AEL&P and GHEA at wholesale rates. In 1985 AEL&P sold 223,790 MWh of energy to 10,646 electric customers and GHEA sold 19,715 MWh of energy to 1,360 customers. Historic Population and Employment Trends Since 1966, population and employment have grown rapidly and steadily with no real downturns in this continued growth until 1986. The population of the greater Juneau area has grown from an estimated 10,900 in 1966 to approximately 29,000 in 1986, representing a 5.3% average annual increase. Total employment has grown from 5,206 to 13,617 over the same period, a 5.2% average annual increase. The principal factor behind this con- tinued expansion has been growth of state government throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Roughly 50% of the total employment in the area is made up of state, federal and local government employees. The following table summarizes Juneau area population and total employment over the past 20 years: II-2 Table II-1 Juneau Area Population and Employment Employment (2) Total State Year Population (1) Government Total 1966 10,901 1,410 5,206 1971 13,556 2,394 7,176 1976 18, 310 3,470 9,614 1977 19,193 3,622 9,788 1978 20,465 3,760 10,383 1979 225,105 3,847 10,451 1980 2355) 3,882 10,838 1981 24,211 4,141 11,498 1982 25,000 (3) 4,358 12,205 1983 26,000 (3) 4,398 12,781 1984 27,519 4,423 135355) 1985 28,941 4,509 13,617 Average Annual Increase 1966-1980 5.5% ee be 1981-1985 4.6% 2.2% 4.3% (1) Data source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. (2) Data source: Alaska Department of Labor Statistical Quarterlies, annual averages. (3) Estimated. As can be seen in Table II-1, growth in state government employment has slowed considerably in recent years although total area employment has continued to expand. In addition to state government employment, federal and local government employment contributed another 2,468 jobs in total to the Juneau area in 1985. Total government employment totaled 6,977 jobs in 1985, representing 51% of total area employment. Between 1981 and 1985 state government employment in Juneau has increased 9%, federal government employ- ment has essentially remained the same, and local government employment has increased 34%. Over this four-year period total area employment has increased 18%. Aside from state and federal government employment, other "basic" employment in mining, fishing and manufacturing provided approximately 500 jobs in 1985. The potential for expansion in basic employment appears limited II-3 at the present time, primarily because of a contraction of the state budget, although some potential does exist for growth in mining and tourism. The Alaska Power Authority has prepared a projection of Juneau area employment that sees no significant expansion in total employment in the Juneau area for the next 20 years. State. government employment is projected to decrease. For a complete description of this employment forecast, see Appendix A of this report. Over the past 20 years the Juneau area has experienced sianificant growth in population and employment and the number of utility customers has increased correspondingly. Figure II-1 shows the relationship between popu- lation, employment and total utility customers that has existed in the past 20 years. At the present time projections of Juneau area demographic factors indicate that a period of no growth or even an economic contraction is likely to be encountered in the next few years, although the length of the economic downturn is impossible to foresee at the present time. Similarly, it is not known at present whether the similar growth relationships between employment, population and utility customers that have existed during the historical period will persist during this period of decline. Statistics from other areas indicate that relationships between demographic factors and utility customers can vary significantly between periods of economic expansion and periods of economic contraction. Because the available historic statistics only depict patterns that have existed during growth of these factors, it is impossible to predict with strong confidence the likely pattern of utility customer changes that will accompany declining population and employment in Juneau. AEL&P Historic Customers and Sales AEL&P serves power to the majority of the Juneau area including the City of Juneau and the residential areas of the East Mendenhall River Valley and Douglas Island. Total sales were 223,790,000 kWh in 1985 and peak demand was 52,442 kW in 1985 and energy sales declined slightly to 215,170,000 kWh in 1986. Between the period of 1966 and 1985 AEL&P experienced continued growth in energy sales and the number of customers served. Over this 20-year period the number of customers served has increased at an average rate of 5.0% annu- ally while total kilowatt-hour sales have increased at an average rate of 9.1% annually. Table II-2 provides historical statistics concerning the number of customers, kWh sales and usage per customer for each of AEL&P's customer classes for the period 1966 through 1986. Also shown in Table II-2 are reve- nues from the sales of electricity and the average cost of power to consumers over the same period. AEL&P serves power to three main customer groups identified as residential, commercial and government classes. Energy sales to residential customers comprise approximately 50% of total energy sales. Within each of these groups are several rate classifications and the statistics shown in Table II-2 have been compiled from these more detailed statistics. 11-4 In 1976 AEL&P separated its residential customers into three major categories: general residential service, residential with electric hot water heat, and all-electric customers with electric heat. Statistics shown in Table 11-2 differentiate between these residential classifications. Most of the growth in the number .of residential customers in recent years has occurred in the all-electric classification and is the result of rapid residential housing construction in the early 1980s and the tendency to build all-electric housing. Prior to 1980 the all-electric class was essentially non-existent, but then world oil prices rose to the point where electric space and water heat became more viable options in the Juneau area. It is anticipated that the breakdown of residential customers into the three major rate classes will remain constant in the future, especially in light of projections of very little area growth. AEL&P has noted some minor erosion of the all-electric class as conversions to oil neat may occur but this is not expected to be a significant factor. In evaluating AEL&P historical statistics several other factors can be highlighted as significant in regards to future projections. These factors include: oO Growth in the total number of residential customers has close- ly paralleled growth in Juneau area population over the period 1966 through 1985; 5.0% average annual growth for residential customers and 5.3% average annual growth for population. The total number of residential customers increased over 2-1/2 times over this time period, from 3,522 customers in 1966 to 8,902 customers in 1985. 0 Electricity usage per residential customer has increased steadily from 5,421 kWh in 1966 to 12,695 kWh in 1985, an average annual increase of 4.6%. Much of this growth can be attributed to increases in electric space heating since 1980. In the general residential class, usage per customer has only increased an average of 1.3% per year, indicating a much slower pace of growth when electric heat and water heat are ignored. Figure I]-2 shows residential electricity usage per customer as experienced between 1966 and 1985. ° The cost of power to residential customers as measured by average rates has decreased in real terms (adjusted for inflation) at an average rate of -2.4% per year for the perioa 1966 through 1985. Since 1981, the real cost of power has increased at an average rate of 3.4% per year through 1985 (see Figure II-3). Recent data indicate that the cost of power to residential customers went up nearly 20% between 1985 and 1986. 0 The number of commercial and government customers has in- creased dramatically between 1966 and 1985 at annual rates of 3.5% and 4.9% respectively, although some slowing in these II-5 rates of growth has been noted recently. Over the 20-year period, the number of commercial and government customers doubled to 1,500 accounts. 0 Usage of electricity per commercial customer has increased at an average rate of 4.6% per year between 1966 and 1985. 0 The cost of power to commercial and government customers has declined in real terms since 1966 at an annual rate of -2.6%, but has shown an increase between 1981 and 1985 of nearly 1% annually. Overall, statistical relationships can be derived that indicate the growth in customers closely parallel increases in population and employment. Further, increases in usage per customer can be explained primarily as a func- tion of decreases in the real cost of electricity (price elasticity), increase in real per capita income (income elasticity) and by increases in electric space heating. The proliferation of electric heat in the AEL&P service area in the past 10 years caused fluctuation in energy sales due to weather related heating requirements. The methodology whereby these historic relationships are utilized in establishing a forecasting model for AEL&P is explained in Section III of this report and the result of the forecast based on the speci- fic assumptions also discussed in Section III are presented in Section IV. GHEA Historic Customers and Sales GHEA serves power to the greater Juneau area north of the Menden- hall River, several miles north of the City of Juneau. The service district mainly comprises residential areas, small commercial establishments and cer- tain publicly-owned and operated buildings, the largest of which are buildings located on the campus of the University of Alaska. In 1985 residential energy sales totaled 14,115,000 kWh and represented 72% of total GHEA energy sales of 19,715,000 kWh in 1985. Sales to public buildings totaled 3,048,000 kWh in 1985 and sales to commercial customers totaled 2,506,000 kWh. Like AEL&P, GHEA has experienced dramatic and continuous growth in energy sales and the number of customers served over the past 20 years. Total energy sales have increased at an average annual rate of 10.5% between 1967 and 1985, while the number of customers served has increased at an average annual rate of 6.2% over this time period. Between 1981 and 1985 the total number of customers increased at an average rate of 8.4% per year, indicating an acceleration of the pace of growth and more rapid growth than in the gener- al Juneau area population. Since 1984, however, the rate of growth in the number of residential customers has slowed considerably from that experienced in previous years. Table II-3 provides statistical operating results for GHEA concern- ing energy sales, the number of customers and the average cost of power by customer class for each year from 1966 through 1985. In actuality, GHEA has II-6 several other rate classifications that are not shown in Table II-3 but the similarities between these classes and the relative size of the classes permits their combining for summary purposes. Many of the same comments made previously regarding AEL&P historic operating performance relate to GHEA also. Electric space heating has caused a significant impact on energy usage since 1979 as new housing with space heating has been constructed (see Figure 11-4). The cost of electricity as measured by GHEA average retail rates is higher than that experienced by AEL&P customers. Nevertheless, the real cost of power (adjusted for inflation) has decreased since 1966 at an annual rate of -0.8% with the lowest point in real rates occurring in 1981. Between 1981 and 1985, however, the real cost of power to GHEA consumers has increased at an average rate of 9.3% per year (see Figure II-5). GHEA has implemented metering procedures to encourage more efficient peak demand usage which should reduce the rate of growth in peak demand per customer in the future. Periodic changes in the classification of commercial and government customers in the past make it difficult to identify changes in usage patterns or in customer growth rates. Overall, it appears that these customer classes have grown steadily at rates similar to residential growth. Electricity usage per commercial customer has fluctuated widely and seems to have decreased in recent years. TABLE I1-2 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CD. HISTORICAL STATISTICS ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Mith) ee ee PEAK RESIDENTIAL TOTAL «OWN USE =LOSS) «DEMAND LOAD YEAR GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. ov LOSSES (KW) FACTOR 1966 19,088 0 0 8,990 899 42,962 MA NA NA Oy NA 11,560 M4 1967 17,309 0 0 8,531 787 39,076 Nu NA 4. NM NA 10,510 nA 1968 16,856 0 0 9,251 751 38,736 MA NA NA NA MA 10,418 M4 1969 21,363 0 0 12,577 83 49,223 NA NA NA M4 NA 11,620 wa 1970 23,026 0 0 13,542 833 53,011 NA NA NA NA NA 13,010 NA 1971 24,555 0 0 13,927 789 56,553 mM NA NA yy NA 14,420 mM 1972 27,891 0 0 15,327 781 62,468 NA NA NM Nw NA 15,928 oy 1973 30,290 0 0 16,399 775 (69,451 NA NA DY) Na NA 16,220 oy 1974 31,867 0 0 17,546 746 71,483 = 328. -8,561 80,372 0.5% 10.7% 16,870 54.4% 1975 33,858 0 0 22,009 756 = 82,194 532 8,315 91,041 0.6% 9.1% 20,000 52.0% 1976 22,649 13,122 4 2,762 1,169 89,441 © 276 -10,288 100,006 0.3% 10.3% 20,000 57.1% 1977 24,102 14,045 525 26,520 837 95,486 —-252_-12,035 107,773 0.3% 11.2% 23,380 52.6% 1978 26,451 15,708 581 26,021 858 100,912 439° 14,040 115,391 0.4% = 12.2% 23,100 57.0% 1979 27,282 16,074 42 28,834 985 107,759 887 13,356 122,002 0.8% 10.9% 25,900 53.8% 1980 28,826 18,878 4,097 30,518 1,006 119,716 863 14,880 135,459 0.7% = 11.0% 32,100 48.2% 1981 27,816 22,270 14,302 32,520 985 136,708 1,000 18,000 155,708 0.7% = 11.6% 39,600 449% 1982 28,439 25,647 29,727 36,884 965 168,587 1,000 19,000 188,587 0.6% 10.1% 41,600 51.8% 1983 28,258 25,761 39,857 42,551 «1,166 191,631 818 16,644 209,093 0.4% = B.0X 46,000 51.9% 1984 27,614 «25,375 47,331 43,223 1,171 204,113 719 20,324 225,156 0.4% 9.0% 48,590 52.9% 1985 28,961 26,515 57,537 113,014 63,472 46,283 1,021 223,790 = 782._—«14,377 238,949 0.3% 6.02 52,442 52.0% 1986 26,716 25,776 53,551 106,043 63,278 44,796 143 214,260 726 :14,096 229,062 6.2% Average: 1974-85 0.5% 10.0% 52.4% COMPOUNDED GROMTH RATES: 1966-85: 2.2% NA NA 9.8% 8.3% 9.0% 0.7% 9.1% NA NA NA NA i) 1966-80: 2.7% NA NA 9.1% 7.6% 9.6% 0.7% 8.6% NA NA NA mA 1981-85: 1.02 4.5% 41.6% 15.1% 13.1% 9.2% 0.9% = 13.1% 11.3% 16.9% -15.1% 7.3% 3.8% 1983-85: 1.2% 1.5% 20.2% 9.7% 8.4% 4.3% 6.4% 8.1% 6.% 9.58) | =19:1% 6.8% 0.1% 1984-85: 2.4% 2.2% 10.3% 6.1% 3.4% 3.5% ~6.6% 4.7% 3.0% “0.4% - 18.4% 3.9% -0.8% € $0 [ aBeq 2-11 FLqey TABLE T1-2 ALASKA ELECTRIC | I1GHT AN PIWER CO. HISTORICAL STATISTICS USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER RESIOENTIAL TuTAL RESTUENTIAL TOTAL YEAR GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. RES. com GOV. ST LIGHT «THI YEAR GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELF. RES. cm GUY ST LIGHT. TOTAL 1966 3,522 0 0 3,522 627 15 444,307 1966 5,421 ry NO 5,421 22,337 78,45 20,661 9,980 1967 3,654 0 0 3,654 701 7 444,495 1%7 4,738 Na NO 4,738 17,771 88,106 17,819 8,693 1968 3,573 0 0 3,573 652 106 49° 4,381 1958 4,718 Na NA 4,718 18,218 8,944 15,273 8,843 1969 3,763 0 0 3,763 615 12 504,546 1%9 5,677 NA NA 5,677 23,504 112,375 14,692 10,827 1970 3,832 0 0 (3,832 655 123 63 4,673 1970 6,009 NA NA 6,009 23,830 109,874 13,308.11, 344 1971 3,982 0 0 3,982 662 130 68 4,842 1971 6,167 Na NA 6,167 26,123 106,995 «11,534 11,680 1972 4,282 0 0 4,282 714 137 75 5,208 19/2 6,514 Na NA 6,514 25,855 112,013 10,391 11,995 1973 4,498 0 0 4,498 731 154 80 5,463 1973 6,734 NA NA 6/34 30,079 106,198 9,721 «12,712 1974 4,698 0 0 4,698 759° ht 90 5,801 1974 6,783 NA NA 6,783 28,114 69,122, 8,701,323 1975 4,861 0 0 4,861 8 238 101 5,958 1975 6,966 NA NA 6,966 33,727 92,345 7,506 13,795 1976 3,993 1,278 155,286 806 «187 116 6,395 197 5,672 10,270 23,981 «6,836 32,731 138,071 10,059 13,987 1977 4,359 1,299 22 5,680 8 200 124 6,898 19/7 5,579 10,809 24,852 HOS -32,947 132,653 8 76713, 843 1978 4,681 1,384 28 6,093 948 (202 150 7,392 19/8 5,651 11,349 20,875 7,015 33,027 128,923 «5, 72213, 651 1979 4,836 1,499 37 «6,372 992 222 168 7,753 1979 5,642 10,771 22,647 6,936 34,030 130,028 5, #6013, 898 1980 4,828 1,639 167 6,634 = «1,014 = 220 174 8,041 1980 5,971 11,517 24,520 7,809 35,895 138,928 5,785 14,888 1981 4,566 1,839 «= 602, 7,006 =—«1,003 229 181 8,419 1981 6,092 12,113 23,764 = 9,190 38,709 142,060 5,436 16,238 1982 4,405 1,964 1,119 7,487 1,072 230 197 8,986 1982 6,456 13,061 25/5 11,194 43,770 160,656 4,899 ‘18,761 1983 4,206 «1,954 1,662 7,821 1,123 261 195 9,401 1983 6,719 13,185 23,984 12,002 4,140 162,928 «5,969 20,385 1984 4,195 1,972 2,2% = 8,462,248 272 203 10,186 1984 6,583 12,85/ 20,617 11,865 47,598 158,811 5,782 20,039 1985 4,173 2,064 2,664 += 8,902s1,210 287 249 10,648 1985 6,940 12,844 21,598 12,695 52,446 161,545 4,099 21,017 5.0% 3.5% 4.9% 9.6% 4.9% 1.3% NA NA 4.6% 4.6% 3.9% -B.2K 4.0% 1966-80: 1.9% NA NA 5.0% || 34xi | SUZ | iOs7e | age 0.8% NA NA 3.8% 450% | 43%) 912) 3.52 1981-85: -2.2% «2.9% 45.0% 6.2% 4.8% 5.8% 8.3% 6.0% 3.3% ASL 2d BLA wat | 3037) <6Lex) | 6.72 1983-85: -0.4% 2.8% 26.6% 6.7% 3X 4H 12.9% 6.4% 1.6% 1.3% 0-5. 2.8L 4-04-17 1.5% 1984-85: 0.3% 2.3% 7.2K -NSY 2.6% 10.7% 2.2% 2.7% 0.1% 2.4t 2bY 5.0L 0.9% -15.7K 24% 2-II Flgel € $0 2 abey 1983 1966-85: 1966-80: 1981-85: 1983-85: REVENUES FROM SALES ($000) 12.2% 1.3% 19.0% 14.9% RESIDENTIAL TOTAL STREET GEN, «WATER ALL-E RES. = COMM GOV LIGHT 625 0 0 62 %3 «6K 559 0 0 559 48-328 548 0 0 S48 41 = 390 720 0 0 720 S46 453 865 0 0 86S 668 (S67 1,012 0 0 1,012 791 (644 1,157 0 0 1,157 865 = 72 1,188 0 0 1,188 7 719 1,185 0 0 1,185 935-763 1,330 0 0 1,330 1,112 982 1,122 Se 13 1,662 1,356 1,300 1,189 S65 20 1,774 1,501 1,340 1,317 613 22 1,953 1,530 1,238 1,352 648 32 2,031 1,726 1,466 1,422 738 156 2,335 1,861 1,514 1,42 934 576 2,934 2,043 1,698 1,599 1,187 1,320 4,105 2,685 2,035 1,602 1,262 1,890 4,755 3,093 2,298 1,593 1,261 2,306 5,160 3,460 2,415 1,933 1,527 3,268 6,729 3,944 2,716 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 6.1% MA WA 13.3% 11.6% 11.4% 6.2% 6.1% NA WALTZ 10.7% 1.9% 3.4% 7.9% 13.1% S4.4% 23.1% 17.9% 12.5% 18.6% 9.9% 10.0% 31.5% 19.0% 12.9% 8.7% 19.0% 10.2% 10.0% 19.1% 14.2% 6.8% 6.1% 14.2% 1984-85: 10.2% TNE 11-2 ALASKA ELECIRIC LIGHT ANU PIER CO. HISTORICAL STATISTICS COST OF ELECTRICITY (CENIS/KWH - NUMINAL) RESIOENT TAL TUTAL STREET GEN, WATER ALL-E ORES) COMM GUY LIGHT. TUNAL 3:3 NA WA srSeS) 1 S20) res eO 408) 718-9) 3.2 NA wm 863.20 «3.606 (3.8 «(5.0 3.5 3.3 NA m 3.3 3:6 36 4.2 3.¢ 3.4 NA WA 054) 38 a6 StS 8.8 3.8 NA WA 38 «644030 «4420 («6.04 4 NA MeN a6) 4G Oe ae 4 NA MASS esse ie sed ieel 19.0 3.9 NA RSS OLE ae Geir eey 3.7 NA Wr aer aia ase) G9) 1141 3.9 NA NA 3.9 44 4.5 74 4.2 5.0 4.0 Seo e sor eset oO Oe bese 49 4.0 SONA eGUnO-1 Osean tees 5.0 3.9 SO LOH CAD i esOstesO. teat: 5.0 4.0 S681 4261 Fosltiostin.O291 1111639 4.9 4.0 SiO ASS Set) EE Ss0 1 1 6s0 114.8 5.1 4.2 200426 toed Oreet HtAG eso 5.6 4.6 Ar4t 459) ose tiosoi s1Os9 Ose: S371 (G9) Wee ek ieee Hoa O +e Loto 5.8 5.0 4:9 15.4; 1:9:8 1719.6) (6:9) 17 5:5 6.7 5.8 Sof. G07 16-27 8:9 113.47 6-0 3.6% NA WA 3.2% 3.02 2.1% 5.5% 2.0% 3.3% NA Wa 2.4% 2.90% 2.1% 2.2% 2.4 6.9% 8.3% 9.0% 6.9% 4.2% 3.0% 17.5% 5.2% 6.5% 8.4% 9.4% 8.4% 4.0% 4k 27.2% 6.3% 7.6% 7.7% 6.0% 7.6% 3.3% 2.5% 22.3% 5.2% 5.8% 6.9% RESIDENTIAL TONAL STREET GEN. WAILR ALL-E ORES = COMM GOV CLIGHT 9.5 NA WA 9.5 10.2 1.6 14.0 9.1 NA WA 9.1 10.2 10.9 14.1 8.9 NA 7 6-911, 9:6 S818 8.9 NA WA 1859/1 10;0) (9.5) | 18-5: 3.5 Na NA 9.5 10.8 10.6 15.2 10.2 NA WA OS es ee ire 9.8 NA 938 1-0 TNL 1226 9.2 NA wm «9.2 7.8 NA NO 7.8 7.3 NA M3 OSS GeO i GokriTEes: 8.0 65 6.1 7.4 75 SS S86 6.9 6:6 9:5) se 176.3 61° 50 4.7 5.6 5:9 4.8 4.6 5.2 ek 5.0) 10.8) 5g GO o.cgeh oes 5.9 5.1 5.0 5.3 6:7 5/8 5-7 16:0) “1.8% NA WA -2.4% -2.6% -3.4% -0.2% “3.4% NA WA 4.2% -3.7% 4.52 -3.% Bak 457K 54k 354k ORK OLX 13:65 5.1% 5.0% 6.0% 5.0% 0.9% 1.0% 23.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.7% 6.3% 2.1% 1.3% 20.8% COST OF ELECTRICITY (CENTS/KWH - REAL “INFLATION ADJUSTED") : Ss SONNDRONE DR DVDDDLUEEN MAYNNNMMANN@NPWSSSwLYwwo “2.7% 4.2% 1.7% 3.0% 4.0% € $0 ¢€ abey alae! 7-TT TABLE 11-3 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION HISTORICAL STATISTICS ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Hh) non nnn nanan canna nn aan cnn nnnen nn nenne nace cen nnnnnnnn re cnnnncnsnnnannnnnanmns naa cannnnnenes PEAK SMALL LARGE STREET = PUBLIC TOTAL SYSTEM = TOTAL, «Own Use = LOSSES) DEMAND = LOAD YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILOINGS SALES OWN USL LOSSES — REUIS. as % Sales AS 2 GEN = (MM) FACTOR 1966 1,711 5/4 659 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA 770 NA 1967 1,816 503 543 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1968 1,932 665 670 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA 850 NA 1969 2,086 S44 798 0 139 NA NA NA NA NA 900 NA 1970 2,315 9/0 682 0 395 NA NA NA NA NA 1,100 NA 1971 2,580 659 730 0 417 19 M15 4,819 0.4% 8.6% 1,300 42.3% 1972 3,027 74 635 0 484 18 491-5, 408 0.4% 9.1% 1,250 49.4% 1973 3,185 We 568 0 566 18 788 «5,896 0.4% 13.4% 1,500 44.9% 1974 3,545 840 346 0 621-5, 352 23 746 «6,121 0.4% 12.2% 1,350 51.8% 1975 3,794 89 794 0 816 6,2 e 8/7, 135 0.4% 12.3% 1,600 50.9% 1976 4,126 952 876 0 790 «6,745 2 27,671 0.4% 11.8% 1,700 51.5% 1977 4,292 965 987 0 8737, 116 59 «1,227 8, 402 0.8% 14.6% 1,900 50.5% 1978 4,936 923 1,137 0 932 7,928 23 «1,129 9,080 0.3% 12.4% 1,850 56.0% 1979 5,353 a2 1,571 0 6328, 467 29 «1,412 9,908 0.3% 14.3% 2,100 53.9% 1980 6,376 685 634 1 1,988 = 9,684 59 1,511 11,254 0.6% 13.4% 2,712 47.4% 1981 7,92 875 698 86 1,965 11,526 152. 1,401 13,079 1.3% 10.7% 3,760 45.8% 1982 10,477 1,108 732 73 2,161 14,550 Wt 2,070 16,741 0.8% 12.4% 3,360 56.9% 1983 12,316 1,165 736 8b 2,536 1h, 838 318 1,568 18,774 1.9% 8.4% 4,080 52.4% 1984 12,847 1,285 1,062 90 3,398 18,683 59% 2,522 21,795 3.2% 11.6% 4,800 51.8% 1985 14,115 1,350 1,156 45 3,048 = 19,715 SIL 2,014 22,740 2.6% 9.1% 5,280 48.1% 1980-84 Average: 1.7% 10.9% 50.4% COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1966-85: 11.7% 4.6% 3.0% NA 50.4% = 10.5% NA NA NA 11.1% 1966-80: 10.7% 2.8% 0.4% NA 62.8% 9.5% NA NA NA 10.6% 15.6% 11.4% 13.4% -14.8% 11.6% 14.4% NA NA 14.2% 12.8% Th 70h 25.3% -27.6% 9.6% 8.2% NA NA 9.0% 13.8% 4.8% 2.5% 4.3% -29.3% 5.3% 2.7% NA NA 1.0% 4.9% € $0 [ abeg €-II atqey TABLE [1-3 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION HISTORICAL STATISTICS NUMBER OF CUSIOMERS USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER SMALL «LARGE = STREET = PUBLIC SHALL LARGE STREET PUBLIC YEAR RES COM COMM LIGHTS BLOGS TONAL YEAR RES Comm COMM LIGHIS ~—_BLOGS TOTAL 1966 412 28 2 0 2 444 1966 4,152 20,515 329,372 0 654 6,633 1967 444 28 2 0 2 465 1967 4,185 17,975 271,261 0 551 6,144 1968 451 32 ie 0 2 487 1968 = 4,783 -20,787 33,167 0 731 6,712 1969 457 32 3 0 4 496 1959 4,564 17,001 252,532 0 = 34,695 7,109 1970 462 4 3 0 6 505 19/0 5,012 16,759 227,204 0 65,887 7,846 1971 497 38 4 0 6 545 1971 5,191 17,330 182,461 0 69,517 8,046 1972 535 42 eS 0 7 58/ 19/2 5,658 17,944 211,629 0 69,087 8, 346 1973 551 39 3 0 6 $99 1973, 5,781 19,790 189,201 0 94,322 8,498 1974 583 43 3 0 a 636 1974 6,081 19,538 115,190 0 84,770 8,416 1975 609 47 3 0 8 6b? 19/5 6,730 18,481 251,216 0 101,985 9,344 1976 634 46 3 0 8 641 19/6 6,508 20,707 = 292,023 0 = 98,738 9,761 1977 683 SI 4 0 8 746 1977 6,284 18,915 246,668. 0 109,099 9,539 1978 743 57 5 0 Z 814 1978 6,644 16,198 227,401 0 103,514 9,740 1979 790 69 7 0 9 8/5 1979 6,772 13,764 235,637 0 72,177 9,682 1980 820 49 1 0 3 314 1980 7,772) 14,021 585,500 4,224 = 45,888 10,598 1981 880 5? 1 3 4S 986 1981 8,983 15,333 698,000 = 29,384 = 43,737 11,694 1982 971 Se 1 3 491,076 1982 10,785 21,487 731,600 24,740 44,402 13,527 1983 1,054 SI i 3 501,159 1983 11,685 22,834 735,94b 78,664 = 50,630 14,527 1984 1,182 49 3 3 63 1,299 1994 10,871 26,406 411,179 30,062, 54,375 14,387 1985 1,244 60 3 4 49 1,360 1985 11,347 22,533 338,399 11,510 62,424 14,496 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 6.2% 3.8% 3.2% NA 20.7% 6.2% 5.7% 1.1% 5.0% NA “3.4% 4.6% 5.9% 4.2% -12.9% NA 22.3% 6.1% 5.6% 3.1% 17.7% NA -9.2% 4.1% 9.0% 1.2% %.0% 7.6% 2.1% 8.4% 6.0% 10.1% —-16.6% = -20.9% 9.3% 5.5% 8.6% 8.4% 84.8% 14.3% “1.3% 8.3% “1.5% -0.7% 32.2% = - 6% 11.0% 0.1% 2.6% 11.0% = 15.0% 14.3% -11.6% 2.3% 2.2% = -7.6% 9.3% 38.12 71K 0.4% € $0 2 abey €-IIl arqey 1966-85: 1966-80: 1981-85: 1983-85: 1984-85: REVENUES FROM SALES ($000) RES COMM 15.2% 30.5% 21.2% 6.7% ASSSZBxS2 N S8RLsSees ee Baa NSmnnooccecccccccccccsd SPALL LARGE STREET PUBLIC COMM LIGHTS BLOGS 178 333 38 58.0% 20.5% 30.8% 26.1% 24.5% 48.7% 21.1% 8.8% 9.5% 18.8% 0.8% TABLE 11-3 GLACIER HIGHMAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION HISTORICAL STATISTICS COST OF ELECTRICITY (CENTS/KWH - NUMINAL) SMALL LARGE STREET PUB RES COMM =—COMM LIGHTS BLOGS 4.5 4.9 RSw2enern2mrnnnnv7nae Deven eun—- ava ru on 6.2% 3.2% 12.6% 15.9% 9.8% SSSSESSESESSESESE Swoon BROROAUBNUVWNHCSRB@—-SWOKL—& BouUeaun SYSwewrrernnaguyagnvsens 8 5.3% NA 15.3% 48.1% 11.5% 18.6% 67.3% 4.3% 54.9% 6.1% 8.0% 3.4% 3.0% 1.2% RLS 16.1 15.7 15.1 14.7 15.0 16.3 15.8 14.7 12.9 17.4 13.6 15.2 12.3 12.8 1.4 10.2 10.6 12.0 14,3 14.4 0.3% 4.6% 9.1% 9.0% 0.6% COS) OF ELECIRICITY 13.1 14.0 12.3 12.6 13.0 14.0 13.7 12.6 11.2 10.0 10.5 10.0 9.8 10.7 10.0 8.9 9.5 9.9 10.6 12.5 0.1% “4 Ah 8.8% 12.3% 8.5% 10.7 10.3 10.2 10.0 10.3 1.3 10.2 10.2 10.4 7.4 ia 7.0 Perey eae Sapa Sia] Shenae 0.8% 6.5% 11.5% 14.9% SSSSEESESSESESES oS we Ss Pe RES R55 3.0% 53.1% 5.0% 4.5% 7.8% 4.9% 3.9% (CLNTS/KWH - REAL "INFLATION AQJUSTED") SMALL LARGE STRLET COMM COMM LIGHTS 0.0% 4.4% 9.3% 9.2% 2.1% € $0 € abeg €-1L Fqey Persons or Utility Customers (Thousands) JUNEAU --— Population omployment Compared with Total Utility Customers eal Oat ia T ceca | greece ce | oe | T T (cial T la T 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 P— Pop. E- Emp. C— Utility Customers I-II a4nbi4 Kilowatt — Hours (Thousands) 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 ° ALASKA EL BORIC IGA] ce POWETE Residential KWh Usage Per Customer Si al fad T r T ze T 7 i T T i T T T Tv T T 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 oO General + All—Electric ° Tetal Z-II aunbL4 Cents per KWh — ($1985) oO ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER Cost of Electricity —Inflation Adjusted 2-74 1 o 4 a a pe | cee [ee] 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 Residential ay Commercial 2 Government €-II aunbry Kilowatt — Hours (Thousands) GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION KWh Usage Per Customer 28 4 10° —| 2. = oO T T T T T T T “Tv T T TT T T TT a T =—oap 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 ag Residential + Small Commercial p-II aunbLy Cents per KWh ($1985) o o> RAR EL) GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Cost of Electricity —Inflation Adjusted 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 Residential at Commercial © Pub Bldgs 1984 G-Tr aunbi4 SECTION III FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Forecast Methodology Overview Econometric models were developed for each of the customer classes of both AEL&P and GHEA separately. These models were derived from the evalu- ation of historical relationships between the numbers of electrical consumers, their usage of electricity pattern, and possible causal factors that might explain changes in these values. As an example, the quantitative relationship historically between area population and the number of residential customers can be estimated and used to establish a model for making projections of the future number of residential customers based on available population fore- casts. A separate model of usage per customer patterns for each customer class is also estimated and used to estimate future per customer consumption levels for each class on an annual basis. The product of each years customer estimates and estimated usage per customer level is then aggregated into esti- mated sales projections which are used to derive future demand and energy requirement levels. Growth of customers is generally the primary factor influencing future energy requirement levels. Typically, customer growth can be corre- lated closely with changes in population and employment and these relation- ships were studied for both AEL&P and GHEA. Although the alternative models based on population and employment were quite similar and equally valid from a statistical perspective, considerable debate currently exists as to future levels of each of these demographic measures of Juneau. A population forecast has been recently prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau and, alterna- tively, employment in the Juneau area has been projected recently by the Power Authority. These two demographic forecasts provide contrasting viewpoints on Juneau's future and therefore alternative load forecasts for Juneau were pre- pared based on both of these population and employment estimates. For AEL&P, residential customers were modeled as changing at a slightly higher rate than population growth (1.04 x population growth rate) over the next 20 years or alternatively at 1.19 times the employment growth rate. The division of residential customers among customer classes was held constant at the 1985 levels for all-electric, hot water, and general classes. GHEA residential customers were modeled to change at 1.18 times the population growth rate or at 1.09 times the employment growth rate. All models were adjusted to correct for significant autocorrelation biases. The number of commercial customers for AEL&P was modeled as changing at 0.79 times the popu- lation growth rate or alternatively at 0.86 times the employment growth rate. For GHEA small commercial customer growth was projected at either 0.65 times the population growth rate or 0.72 times the employment growth rate. The government class at AEL&P was modeled to increase at 1.04 times the population growth rate or alternatively at 1.08 times the employment growth rate. The government class at GHEA was projected at 0.80 times the population growth rate or at 0.92 times the employment growth rate. Customers in all other classes were either held constant at the 1985 levels or assumed to increase discretely during the forecasted period. III-2 Usage per customer estimates for each class of the two utilities were modeled separately. The cost of power is often a significant factor in explaining changes in electricity usage levels. As the cost of electricity declines in real terms (adjusted for inflation), the amount of electricity used per customer generally increases. Similarly, an increase in the economic well-being of utility consumers, as estimated by real (inflation adjusted) per capita income, is often reflected in increased usage per customer levels. The severity of the weather can often influence consumption patterns if a signifi- cant portion of the load is used for space heating. Changing appliance satu- ration levels (for example, changes in the percentage of residential customers classified as all-electric) can also explain changing usage levels. All of these factors were considered in developing econometric models for AEL&P and GHEA. The residential class at AEL&P is composed primarily of three rate classes: general residential (Rate 11), hot water (Rate 12), and all-electric (Rate 13). Data for all residential customers were aggregated annually for the fiscal years 1966 through 1985. Both real per capita income and the real electricity rate in 1985 constant dollars were significant in explaining the rapid increase in usage per residential customer from 1965 to 1985 and an income elasticity of 0.30 and a price elasticity of -0.16 were estimated. (This price elasticity factor implies that for every 10% increase in the real cost of power to residential customers, a 1.6% decrease in electricity con- sumption can be expected.) Also significant were changing appliance satu- ration levels and annual heating degree day levels. For the period 1970 to 1985, the residential model explained over 99% of the year-to-year variation in residential usage per customer. The commercial class at AEL&P was similarily forecasted in aggre- gate. Both real per capita income (income elasticity = +1.59) and real electricity rate (price elasticity = -0.43) were significant in explaining commercial usage per customer levels. Heating degree days was also a signifi- cant explanatory factor. For the period 1970 to 1985, the commercial model explained approximately 96% of the year-to-year variation in commercial usage per customer. A similar government class model was also developed with an estimated income elasticity of +0.74 and price elasticity of -0.30. Street lighting was combined with other outside lighting consumption and, as no sig- nificant explanatory variables could be uncovered, usage was held constant at the 1985 level. Residential usage per customer at GHEA was forecasted using a simi- lar model to that discussed for AEL&P. As appliance saturation data were unavailable for GHEA, data from AEL&P's residential class was used as a proxy and a strong statistical correlation supported this practice. A real income elasticity estimate of +0.53 and a real price elasticity estimate of -0.60 were both statistically significant in explaining changing consumption patterns, as were appliance saturation levels and heating degree days. The GHEA residential model explained over 98% of the historical year-to-year vari- ation of residential usage per customer. Tl=3 Usage per customer estimates for small commercial customers, large commercial customers, and street lighting were all analyzed and no significant causal variable or trends discovered. Consequently, historic usage per custo- mer levels were assumed for each of these classes. Government class usage per customer was modeled as a.function of real per capita income with an estimated income elasticity of +2.07. This government class model explained 90% of the historic change in usage per customer from 1970 to 1985. For each utility's station service or own use, losses, and peak demand, future estimates were based on the historic patterns of these measures with each utility's total sales and load. For AEL&P, company use has averaged 0.4% of total sales from 1981 to 1985, system losses have averaged 8.0% of total requirements over this four-year period, and the company's load factor has averaged a consistent 52.4%. These values were used to estimate future company use, losses, and peak demand for AEL&P. From 1980 to 1984, GHEA's own use as a percent of sales has averaged 2.2%, losses have averaged 11.8% of total requirements, and its load factor has averaged 50.0%. These values were used to estimate GHEA's future own use needs, losses, and peak demand. Demographic and Economic Assumptions Several assumptions were made in developing the load forecasts presented in this report. Primary to the load forecasts are future estimates of Juneau's employment and population levels as input to the customer models. Assumptions related to the Power Authority employment forecast are discussed in detail in Appendix A. The population forecast used as an alternate basis for the load projections is described in the report Juneau Population by Age and Sex, 1985 through 2013, prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau by David M. Reaume and dated May 27, 1986 and is summarized in Appendix B. Using alternative assumptions, low case and high case scenario population projec- tions have been developed representing alternatively pessimistic or optimistic growth expectations for Juneau and are the primary variation factors in deriv- ing the low and high growth scenario load forecasts. The projections of population and employment are described in the appendices and are summarized in Table III-1. The low population case is based on the assumption that real (in- flation adjusted) state and local government spending in Juneau will decrease at an average rate of 7.5% per year through 2001. The high case alternatively assumes that growth in the Alaska economy as a whole will be sufficient to offset the loss of economic stimulus from North Slope oil fields and the State will essentially maintain present levels of spending and employment in Juneau. The base case population projection has been established as the aver- age of the low and high cases. As Table III-1 shows, projected population growth in Juneau will average 0.1%, 1.9% and 1.0% per year through 1991 for the low, high and base cases, respectively. For the employment forecast, two alternative sensitivity analyses have been developed which represent variations on the base case employment forecast caused by increased employment due to development and operation of III-4 the Green's Creek Mine by 1990 (Case A) and development of Green's Creek and increased tourism employment (Case B). The cost of power in Juneau as measured by the rates of AEL&P and GHEA is assumed to decrease at the rate of 2% annually in real, inflation adjusted terms (2% annual decrease in real rates) as a result of minimal future load growth, very low capital outlay requirements for system improve- ments in the future and completion of the Crater Lake Hydroelectric Project. Although Crater Lake will increase debt service requirements included in power supply costs paid by AEL&P and GHEA, much of the impact of this increase is being borne presently because of the costs of diesel generation that will be offset by Crater Lake. Projections made by AEL&P substantiate that electrici- ty rates should remain relatively constant in nominal terms (decrease in real terms) over the next ten years. Following is a list of the other major assumptions which underlie each of the forecasts: ° Inflation will average 4.0% per year over the forecast period. ° Real (inflation adjusted) per capita income will remain flat (no growth) in the low and base case forecasts and will in- crease 1% annually in a more optimistic high case forecast. 0 Each utility's load factor will remain constant over the fore- casted period (1986-2006). 0 Weather in the Juneau area as measured by heating degree days will remain at constant 30-year normal levels in each year of the forecast. 0 The division of AEL&P residential customers into three primary rate groups (general, hot water, all electric) will remain constant at the 1985 level. Population (2): Base Case ..... ee LOW .cvcscccccs ve Hill Mi Retatel ele! sletersterers Total Employment (3): BaseliGasell isis ole GaserAl (4) iver. . CaseniBil (5))illfeierels Table III-1 Summary of Juneau Area Population and Emplo 1986 1991 30,040 28,190 31,890 12,690 13,090 13,140 1996 31,460 28,540 34, 370 12,460 12,860 12,980 ent Projections ) Average Annual Increase 2006 T3RE=31 1991-96 1996-06 32,500 26,010 38, 990 11,910 12, 310 12,700 -1.2% -.5% -0.5% 1.0% 0.3% 1.5% -0.4% -0.4% -0.2% 0.3% -1.0% 1.3% -0.5% -0.4% -0.2% (1) Population and employment projections summarized in this table have been prepared independently. (2) Source: Juneau Area Population by Age & Sex, David M. Reaume, May 27, 1986. (See Appendix B.) (3) Source: Alaska Power Authority, Table A-8.) ) ) Includes estimated employment and expanded tourism related employment. November 1986. (See Appendix A and Includes estimated employment impact of Green's Creek mine development. impact of Green's Creek mine development SECTION IV LOAD FORECAST FOR ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY This section describes the load forecast results for Alaska Elec- tric Light and Power Company under two base case scenarios as well as under low and high economic growth scenarios and two sensitivity analyses. The results of the load forecast are presented in several tables in this section along with comparable graphs and are also used in the combined forecasts shown in Section IV. Reference should be made to the Juneau area employment fore- cast included as Appendix A of this report and to the population forecast included as Appendix B to understand the primary basis of variation between the employment based and population based forecasts. Residential Usage Projected residential sales are presented on page 1 of Table IV-1 and in Figure IV-1 with projection of residential customers and usage per customer provided on page 2 of Table IV-1 for the base case forecast using the population projections. Under the base case, the Juneau area population is projected to grow at 1.02% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 0.93% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 0.33% annually from 1997 to 2006. Based on these population projections the current number of residential customers at AEL&P of 8,900 is projected to increase at 0.79% annually from 1986 to 1991, 0.95% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 0.34% annually from 1996 to 2006 to an estimated 9,784 resi- dential customers in 2006, representing 0.61% annual growth of residential customers over the 20-year period. The number of residential customers is projected to decline in each of the next three years to a low of 8,601 in 1988, but to increase again starting in 1989 and continuing to grow slowly thereafter. Residential usage per customer at AEL&P is projected to increase at 0.33% annually throughout the forecast period based on the assumptions dis- cussed in Section III. This increase in residential usage per customer is solely attributable to the estimated 2.0% decline in the real (inflation adjusted) costs of power to consumers each year and represents the price elasticity impact. Without this decline in the real cost of power, usage per customer would be projected to remain flat at approximately the 1985 level throughout the forecast period. As mentioned earlier, the division of custo- mers among the three subgroupings of residential customers (general, hot water, and all-electric) is assumed to remain constant at the levels experi- enced in 1985 throughout the forecasted period. Based on the projected number of residential customers and residen- tial usage per customer, projected energy sales to the AEL&P residential class are projected to increase from an estimated 110,325 MWh in 1986 at 1.12% annu- ally from 1986 to 1991, at 1.29% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.67% annually from 1996 to 2006 to approximately 133,000 MWh in 2006. For the 20-year period this represents an average growth of 0.94% annually. Total residential sales are projected to remain approximately flat for the next five years and to commence relatively slow growth starting in 1990. Approximately one-third of this residential sales growth is attributable to the projected Iv-2 declining real cost of power to the residential customers throughout the fore- casted period. Under an assumption of no decrease in the real cost of power, total residential sales would decline or remain flat for the next five years and would grow at approximately 0.61% annually throughout the forecasted period based on a gradual increase in total residential customers. For the forecast based on the base case employment projections as discussed in Appendix A, residential sales, customers and usage per customer are presented in Table IV-2. Under this base employment case, total employ- ment in the Juneau area is estimated to decline throughout the forecast period at -1.1% annually from 1986 to 1991, at -0.4% annually from 1991 to 1996 and at -0.5% annually from 1996 to 2006. AEL&P's 8,900 residential customers is projected to decline 1.87% annually from 1986 to 1991 under the employment projections, -0.42% annually from 1991 to 1996, and -0.60% annually from 1996 to 2006 to an estimated 7,576 residential customers in 2006. Over the 20-year period residential customers are projected to decline at 0.87% annually. Due to the impact of assumed declines in the real cost of power over this same period, however, usage per customer is projected to increase at 0.33% annually as discussed earlier. Based on these projections total residential sales based on the employment projections is projected to decline 1.54% annually from 1986 through 1991, to further decline 0.09% annually from 1991 to 1996, and further at -0.27% for the 10-year period 1996 to 2006. Over the 20-year period residential sales are seen declining from about 115,000 MWh to 103,000 MWh in 2006, or at an average 0.54% annual rate. The steepest de- crease in residential sales is seen over the next 5-year period when total residential sales decline from 115,000 MWh to 106,000 MWh. Thereafter, sales decline gradually throughout the forecasted period. Commercial Usage Under the base case with the population projections, commercial customers as shown in Table IV-1 are projected to increase at 0.81% annually from 1986 to 1991 and at approximately a 0.51% annual rate for the 20-year period ending 2006 increasing from 1,215 to 1,332 customers. Usage per custo- mer is seen to decline at a 7.3% annual rate from 1986 through 1991 but then to increase at a 0.88% annual rate thereafter. Over the 20-year period usage per customer is projected to increase approximately 0.47% annually due pri- marily to the price elasticity impact resulting from the 2% annual decline in the real cost of power. Based on these projections total commercial sales are estimated to remain approximately flat over the next 5-year period and then to increase at between 1% and 1.5% over the next 15 years. Over the 20-year horizon commercial sales are seen increasing 0.99% annually from 61,000 MWh to 74,000 MWh. For the near-term, however, sales are seen to be declining from approximately 61,000 MWh in 1986 to a low of 57,000 MWh in 1988, and then returning to the 61,000 MWh level in 1991. For the base case using the employment projections (Table IV-2), total commercial customers are seen declining at 0.83% annually from 1986 to 1991, and at approximately 0.3% annually thereafter, for a total loss of 62 IV-3 commercial customers or a decline of 0.49% annually over the 20-year horizon. Usage per commercial customer remains the same as under the population driven base case and is seen remaining flat for approximately the next five to six years and then growing gradually thereafter for a 0.47% annual 20-year growth rate. Based on these projections, total commercial sales are foreseen declin- ing 1.56% annually from 1986 to 1991 and then increasing gradually thereafter at a rate of approximately 0.5% annually. Over the 20-year forecasted horizon total sales for the commercial class is seen as declining from an estimated 64,000 MWh in 1986 to a low of approximately 59,000 MWh in 1991 and then gradually increasing back up to the 1986 of 64,000 MWh by 2006. Government Class The number of government customer accounts is projected to increase 1.07% from 1986 to 1991 as shown on page 2 of Table IV-1 and then to increase at 0.97% annually from 1991 to 1996 and 0.34% from 1996 to 2006. Annually this represents a 0.68% annual increase in the population based forecast with the total number of government accounts increasing from 285 in 1985 to 322 in the year 2006. In the near term, however, the number of government customer accounts is projected to remain approximately flat until the year 1990 and then a gradual increase is seen. Usage per governmental account is projected as increasing gradually throughout the forecasted period at approximately 0.6% annually due to the projected decline in real rates. Based on these estimates total governmental sales under the population projections is estimated to grow at approximately 1.67% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 1.57% from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.95% from 1996 to 2006. The government class sales are projected to remain at approximately a 44,000 MWh level for the next three years and then to grow gradually thereafter to approximately 57,000 MWh in the year 2006. Under the employment based projections (Table IV-2) government accounts are seen to be declining at approximately 1.95% annually from 1986 to 1991, and at approximately -0.4% annually thereafter. The number of govern- ment accounts is seen as declining from 287 customers in 1985 to 236 in the year 2006. Usage per customer is also projected to increase at 0.60% annually in this case. Based on these estimates total government class sales are pro- jected to decline at approximately 1.36% annually from 1986 to 1991, but then to increase at a modest rate of 0.1% annually thereafter. Over the 20-year period government sales are seen to be declining approximately 0.23% annually with the steepest decline coming in the first five years from 44,000 MWh to 41,000 MWh and then a gradual increase thereafter to approximately 42,000 Mwh in 2006. Street and Area Lighting Street lighting has shown a very erratic pattern with no specific increase or decrease in sales over the past five years. Consequently, the number of customer accounts and usage per account for the street lighting class are held constant at the 1985 level throughout the forecasting period Iv-4 under both the employment and population based forecasts at approximately 1,000 MWh annually. As this load represents less than one-half of 1% of total sales for AEL&P, alteration of this assumption would make very little impact on the overall forecast. Total Sales Estimated total sales for the AEL&P system are obtained by summing up the projected individual class sales for each year of the forecast. Under the population based forecast the base case results as presented in Table IV-1 and shown in Figure IV-1 and Figure IV-2 show a moderate increase in total sales of 0.94% annually from 1986 to 1991, 1.43% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 0.86% annually thereafter. Over the 20-year forecasting period this represents an overall average of 1.02% annual increase in sales which is substantially lower than the 9% sales growth that the utility has witnessed over the prior 20-year period from 1965 to 1985. Approximately half of the future growth in sales is attributable to price elasticity impacts resulting from the assumed 2% annual decline in the real cost of power to utility custo- mers. Under an assumption of flat real costs of power for the forecasted period, total sales of the utility would increase at a 0.51% annual rate throughout the forecasted period. On an aggregate basis, total sales for AEL&P are projected to increase from an estimated 216,605 MWh in 1986 to 265,420 MWh in 2006, but only to 239,672 MWh if flat real costs of power are assumed. Under the base case projections derived using the employment pro- jections (Table IV-2 and Figure IV-2) total sales are projected to decline at 1.5% annually from 1986 to 1991, and to remain approximately constant there- after. Total sales for the system are projected to decline from an estimated 223,993 MWh in 1986 to 207,640 MWh in 1991, and to only increase gradually to a 210,000 MWh level in the year 2006. Over the 20-year forecasted period total sales are seen as declining at an annual rate of 0.32% in the forecast based on the employment projections. Total Requirements Total requirements for AEL&P are projected based on total sales of the system for each year plus the utility's estimated own use and losses. Own use and losses for AEL&P are projected based on the 0.4% annual average for own sales aS a percent of total sales, and an 8% loss factor experienced historically from 1980 through 1985. Based on these estimates total require- ments are projected to increase from an estimated 236,332 MWh in 1986 to 289,654 MWh in 2006, representing approximately 1.02% annual growth rate in energy requirements for the forecast based on population estimates (see Table IV-2). Again, approximately half of the growth is attributable to an expected price elasticity impact resulting from lower costs of power and, without this impact, total requirements would only increase at approximately 0.51% annually. IV-5 Total requirements are seen as declining over the coming 20 year period under the forecast based on employment projections, decreasing at a 1.5% annual rate from 1986 to 1991 and remaining relatively flat thereafter. Under these assumptions total requirements declines from the estimated 244,445 MWh in 1986 to a-low of 226,598 MWh in 1991 and gradually increased to a 229,077 MWh level in the year 2006. This represents an average annual load decrease of 0.32% over the 20-year period. Peak Demand Peak demand for AEL&P has been projected based on the historic load factor of 52.4% from 1974 to 1985. Using this load factor AEL&P's peak demand is seen as increasing from an estimated 51.5 MWs in 1986 to 63.1 MWs in 2006 using the population projections, representing approximately a 1% annual growth rate over the forecasted horizon (see Table IV-] and Figure IV-3). Again, without the 2% real rate decreases, peak demand would increase only to an estimated 57.0 MWs in the year 2006 representing a 0.51% annual increase without the price elasticity effect. Peak demand is estimated to decline rapidly at 1.5% annually from 1986 to 1991 under the employment projection based forecast and to remain approximately constant thereafter (Figure IV-3). Under these assumptions peak demand declines from the estimated 53.3 MWs in the year 1986 to approximately 49.4 MWs in 1991 and increases very gradually to 49.9 MWs in the year 2006. Low Growth Scenario A low case economic growth scenario is presented in Table IV-3 and shown in Figure IV-2 and was developed based on the low scenario population projections as discussed in Appendix B using a methodology similar to that just explained for the base case estimates. In the low growth scenario, the Juneau area population is projected to grow at 0.1% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 0.2% annually from 1991 to 1996 and decline 0.9% annually from 1996 to 2006. Under these assumptions residential sales are seen as increasing at a 0.19% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 0.58% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and declining at 0.63% thereafter. Over the 20-year horizon under the low case scenario total energy sales to the residential class are seen as declining at a 0.13% annual rate from an estimated 108,000 MWh in 1986 to 105,000 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to decline rapidly over the next five years under the low case scenario from an estimated 60,000 MWh in 1986 to 54,800 MWh in 1988 and then increasing gradually thereafter. Over the 20-year horizon commercial sales increase at approximately 0.18% annually, but at the end of a 20-year period have increased to only 62,000 MWh from 60,000 MWh in 1986. Government sales are projected to decline over the next 3-year period but to recover modestly thereafter. Over the 20-year period governmental sales are seen as increasing 0.22% annually and in the year 2006 are projected at 45,000 MWh up from an estimated 43,000 MWh in 1986. Street lighting remains constant again in the low case scenario. IV-6 Based on the aggregation of these low growth scenario estimates, total sales are seen as declining over the next three to four years for AEL&P and then to be increasing slightly thereafter for the 5-year period, and then to decline modestly again from 1995 onwards. Over the forecasted period under the low scenario total sales fluctuate between 200,000 MWh and 223,000 MWh. Total requirements show a similar pattern decreasing over the next three to four years, gradually increasing thereafter for five years and then declining again from 1995 onwards. Total requirements under the low case scenario increase from an estimated 232,000 MWh in 1986 to 233,509 MWh in 2006 repre- senting a 0.03% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 50.9 MW in 2006, up only slightly from an estimated 50.6 MW in 1986. High Growth Scenario A high case scenario was developed based on the high scenario popu- lation projections as discussed in Appendix B using a methodology similar to that just explained for the base case estimates. In this high growth scenario, population in Juneau is projected to grow at 1.8% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 1.5% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at 1.3% annually from 1996 to 2006. Under the high case scenario residential sales are seen as increasing at a 2.29% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 2.20% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at 1.96% thereafter (see Table IV-4 and Figure IV-2). Over the 20-year horizon under the high case scenario total energy sales to the resi- dential class are seen as increasing at a 2.10% annual rate from an estimated 112,880 MWh in 1986 to 171,154 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to increase gradually over the next five years and then more rapidly for the next 15 years under the high case scenario from an estimated 63,000 MWh in 1986 to 120,000 MWh in 2006. Over the 20-year period under the high case commercial sales increase at approxi- mately 3.26% annually, and at the end of a 20-year period have nearly doubled. Government sales are projected to increase consistently over the 20-year period at an average 2.91% annual rate and in the year 2006 represent 80,600 MWh up from an estimated 45,000 MWh in 1986. Street lighting remains constant again in the high case scenario. Based on the aggregation of these high growth scenario estimates total sales are seen as increasing over the next 20 years for AEL&P at an average rate of 2.61% annually. Over the forecasted period under the high scenario total sales increase from an estimated 222,000 MWh in 1986 to an estimated 372,000 MWh in the year 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern increasing from an estimated 243,000 MWh in 1986 to 406,000 MWh repre- senting a 2.61% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 88.6 MW in 2006, up from an estimated 52.9 MW in 1986. IV-7 Employment Growth Sensitivity Analyses Two sensitivity analyses were developed based on alternative employment growth projections as discussed in Appendix A using a methodology similar to that explained for the base case estimates. Under the Case A assumption (Greens Creek development) residential sales are seen as declining at a 0.81% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 0.08% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and declining at 0.25% as a result of employment in the Juneau area declining over the 20-year forecast period, at -0.5% from 1986 to 1991, at -0.4% from 1991 to 1996, and at -0.4% from 1996 to 2006 (see Table IV-5). Over the 20-year horizon under the Case A scenario total energy sales to the residential class are seen as declining at a 0.35% annual rate from an esti- mated 115,000 MWh in 1986 to 107,000 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to decline rapidly over the next five years under the Case A assumptions from an estimated 64,000 MWh in 1986 to 60,000 MWh in 1990 and then increasing gradually thereafter. Over the 20-year period under this case commercial sales increase at approximately 0.13% annually, but at the end of a 20-year period have increased only 1,600 MWh. Government sales are projected to decline over the next 4-year period but to recover modestly thereafter. Over the 20-year period governmen- tal sales are seen as decreasing 0.06% annually and in the year 2006 represent 43,361 MWh, down from an estimated 43,854 MWh in 1986. Street lighting re- mains constant again in this case also. Based on the aggregation of these Case A estimates total sales are seen as declining over the next four to five years for AEL&P and then to be increasing slightly thereafter for the remaining 15-year period. Over the forecasted period under the Case A assumptions total sales decline from an estimated 224,000 MWh in 1986 to an estimated 211,000 MWh in the year 1990 then increase to 217,000 MWh by 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern decreasing over the next four to five years and then gradually in- creasing thereafter. Total requirements under the Case A assumptions declines only from an estimated 244,445 MWh in 1986 to 237,240 MWh representing a -0.15% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 51.7 MW in 2006, down modestly from an estimated 53.3 MW in 1986. Case B identifies the second employment sensitivity analysis and is based on the projections as discussed in Appendix A (Greens Creek plus in- creased tourism) where employment in Juneau is seen to decline at 0.5% annu- ally from 1986 to 1991 and at 0.2% annually from 1991 to 2006. Under the Case B assumptions residential sales are seen as decreasing at a -0.74% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, then increasing at a 0.01% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at a 0.04% rate thereafter (see Table IV-6). Over the 20-year hori- zon under the Case B total energy sales to the residential class are seen as declining at a 0.16% annual rate from an estimated 115,000 MWh in 1986 to 111,000 MWh in the year 2006. IV-8 Commercial sales are projected to decline significantly over the next five years under Case B from an estimated 64,000 MWh in 1986 to 60,000 MWh in 1990 and then increasing gradually thereafter. Over the 20-year period commercial sales increase at approximately 0.25% annually, but at the end of a 20-year period :-have increased only 3,300 MWh. Government sales are projected to decline over the next 4-year period but to recover modestly thereafter. Over the 20-year period governmental sales are seen as increasing 0.11% annually and in the year 2006 represent 45,000 MWh up from an estimated 44,000 MWh in 1986. Street lighting remains constant again in this Case B. Based on the aggregation of these Case B estimates total sales are seen as declining over the next four to five years for AEL&P and then to be increasing slightly thereafter for the remaining 15-year period. Over the forecasted period under Case B total sales remain nearly flat from an esti- mated 224,000 MWh in 1986 to an estimated 224,500 MWh in the year 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern decreasing over the next four years and gradually increasing thereafter. Total requirements under this Case B in- crease only from an estimated 244,000 MWh in 1986 to 245,000 MWh in 2006 representing a 0.01% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and is projected to equal 53.4 MW in 2006, up from an estimated 53.3 MW in 1986. YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06 33,733 34,081 25,884 25,827 25,853 26,399 26,977 27,370 27,778 28,196 28,623 29,058 29,177 23,303 29,436 29,575 23,721 29,944 30,172 30,405, 30,642 30,885 31,203 TABLE IV- ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWLR CO. FURECAST RESULTS BASE POPULATION CASE ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Hh) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 112,519 114,980 116,658 118,395 120,176 121,996 123,853 124,360 124,897 125,462 126,055 126,675 127,626 128,599 129,591 130,604 131,637 132,993 0.07% 1.62% 1.14% 0.99% 1.67% 1.57% 0.95% 1.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.94% 1.43% 0.86% Tura OKN SMES USE 216,605 866 215,654 863 213,488 854 218,346 873 223,383 894 226,977 OR 230,668 923 234,442 938 238,290 953 242,216 = %69 243,693 975 245,231 981 246,826 987 248,478 994 250,189 1,001 252,514 1,010 254,888 1,020 257,310 1,029 259,778 1,039 262,294 1,049 265,420 1,062 0.94% 0.94% 1.43% 1.43% 0.86% 0.86% 1.02% 1.02% 1.02% TOTAL OWN USL LOSS REUIS. AS X SALES % GEN 23k, 382 0.4% 8.0% 23, 344 0.4% 8.0% 232,980 0.4% 8.0% 238,282 0.4% 8.0% 243,779 0.4% 8.0% 247,701 0.4% 8.0% 251,729 0.4% 8.0% 25,847 0.4% = 8.0% 260,047 0.4% 8.0% 264,331 0.4% 8.0% 265,943 0.4% 8.07% 2b/,621 0.4% 8.0% 269, 362 0.4% = 8.0% 271,165 0.4% 8.0% 273,032 0.4% = 8.0% 275,569 0.4% 8.0% 278,161 0.4% 8.0% 280,803 0.4% 8.0% 283,497 0.4% 8.0% 286 ,242 0.4% «8.0% 289,654 0.4% 8.0% 0.94% 1.43% 0.86% 1.02% PEAK ULMAND (KW) 57,600 0.95% 1.44% 0.85% 1.02% LOAD FACTOR 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% S2.4% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 82.4% Z $0 [ abe T-AI 9L9PL YEAR 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06 2,064 2,010 1,999 1,995 2,030 2,068 2,091 2,115 2,140 2,185 2,191 2,193 2,195 2,198 2,201 2,204 2,214 2,223 2,233 2,243 2,253 2,269 NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. 0.79% 0.95% 0.34% 0.61% SSBBVRTAR 3 383 Syxee RBlaN 0.81% 0.73% 0.26% 0.51% 27 307 31 3 312 312 313 313 314 316 37 319 322 1.07% 0.97% 0.34% 0.68% TABLE IV-1 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT ANU POWLR CO. FURLCAST RESULTS BASE POPULATIUN CASE 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.78% 0.91% 0.33% 0.58% YEAR 1985 1986 198/ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995, 19% 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER RESIOENT IAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. 6,940 12,844 21,598 6,889 12,751 21,440 6,912 12,793 21,511 6,935 12,835 21,582 6,957 12,877 21,653 6,980 12,920 21,725 7,008 12,92 21,796 7,027 13,005 21,868 7,050 13,048 21,940 7,073 13,091 22,013 7,09 13,134 22,086 7,120 13,178 22,188 7,143 13,221 22,232 7,167 13,765 22,305 7,191 13,309 22,379 7,214 13,353 22,452 7,238 13,397 22,52? 7,262 13,441 22,601 7,786 13,485 22,676 7,310 13,530 22,750 7,336 13,574 22,825 7,358 13,619 22,901 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.88% 0.88% 0.47% 161,914 162,888 163,868 164,853 165,845 166,843, 167,847 168,856 169,872 170,894 171,922 172,956 173,997 175,044 176,097 177,156 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% ST) LIGH 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL 0.16% 0.52% 0.53% 0.43% Z $0 2 abey T-AI 9LgeL YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 i992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2004 é 2006 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: 0.54% 26,950 26,438 25,929 25,443 24,972 24,935 24,909 24,883 24 ,860 24,843 24,823 24,756 24,694 24,627 24,565 24,497 24,429 24,366 24,297 24,228 24,163 TABLE 1V- 2 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT ANU PORLR CO. FURLCAST RESULTS BASE EMPLOYMENT CASE ENERGY SALES ANU REQUIREMENTS (MWh) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. 112,683 110,513 108, 443 106,437 106,279 106, 168 106,057 105,957 105,886 105,800 105,514 105,250 104,965 104,700 104,412 104,123 103,852 103,559 103,264 102,987 1.54% 0.09% 0.27% -0.54% 59,763 -1.56% 0.60% 0.46% 0.01% cov ~1.36% 0.21% 0.11% -0.23% ST LIGHT 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TON, OWN SALES USE 223,993 896 220,653 883 213,871 855 210,632 843 208,057 832 207,640 BIL 207,983 83 208,334 833 208,69 835 209,081 8% 209,388 «838 203,695 830 209,532 «838 209,562 838 209,595 838 209,613 838 209,627 «839 209,651 839 209,660 839 209,663 839 204,911 840 “1.50% -1.50% 0.17% 0.17% 0.02% 0.02% -0.32% -0.32% ~1.50% 0.17% 0.02% ~0.32% THAL OWN USL REWIS. AS % SMES % GEN 264,445 0.4% 240,799 0.4% 233,398 0.4% 224,863 0.4% 227,053 0.4% 226,598 0.4% 226,973 0.4% 227,396 0.4% 227,751 0.4% 228,170 0.4% 228,506 0.4% 228 62% 0.4% 228,663 0.4% 228, 6% 0.4% 228,731 0.4% 228, 752 0.4% 228, /6/ 0.4% 22H, 793 0.4% 228,802 0.4% 2-8, 806 0.4% 224,077 0.4% 1.50% 0.17% 0.02% 0.32% USS 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% PEAK ULMAND (KW) 53,300 52,500 50,900 50,100 44,500 49,400 49,500 44,600 49,600 49,700 49,800 43,800 43,800 49,800 49,900 49,900 44,900 49,900 49,900 49,900 43,900 “1.51% 0.16% 0.02% -0.33% LOAD FACTOR 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.3% 52.3% 52.3% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% Z2 $0 [ abe 2-AI 9Lgel TABLE 1V-2 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWLR CO. FORECAST RESULTS BASE FMPLOYMUNT CASE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS USAGE (kWh) PER CUSTOMER RESIDENTIAL TOTAL RESTDENTIAL TUTAL YEAR GENERAL HOT WTR. ALL ELEC. RES. COMM GOV ST LIGHT =—TOTAL YEAR GENERAL HUI WIk. ALL ELEC. © RES. al GOV ST LIGHT = TOTAL 1985 4,173 2,064 = 2,664 8,902 1,210 287 249° :10,648 1985 6,940 12,844 = 21,598 = 12,820 48,920 159,792 4,099 = 21,017 1986 4,231 2,093 2,701 9,026 1,266 279 249° 10,820 198 6,889 12,751 21,440 12,726 = 50,771 157, 130 4,099 20,703 1987 4,137 2,046 = 2, 641 8,825 1,284 271 249° :10,630 1987 6,912 12,793 21,511 12,768 = 49,882 158,075 4,099 20,758 1988 4,044 2,000 = 2,582 8,627 1,268 263 249 :10,407 1988 6,935 12,835 21,582 12,811 47,674 = 159,026 4,099 20,551 1989 3,955 1,957 2,929 8,437 1,250 27 249° 10,193 1989 6,957 12,877 21,653 12,853 48,092 159,983 4,099 20,665 1990 3,869 «1,914 2,470 8,254 1,232 254 249 «9,989 1990 6,980 12,920 21,725 12,895 48,514 160,945 4,099 20,829 1991 3,851 1,905 2,458 8,215 1,214 23 249 9,930 1991 7,004 -:12,%2Z 21,79 +=—:12,938. = 48,940 161,914 4,099 20,910 1992 3,834 = 1,897 2,448 8,179 1,210 22 249° 9,890 1992 7,027 13,005 21,868 = 12,981 49,369 162,886 4,099 21,029 1993 3,818 =—-1,888 2,437 8,144 1,207 2 7499, BOL 1993 7,050 13,048 = 21,940 13,023 49,802 «163,88 4,099 21,149 1994 3,801 «1,880 2,427 8,109 1,204 250 2499, B12 1996 7,073 13,091 22,013 13,066 = 50,239 164,853 4,099 21,269 199 3,766 1,873 2,417 8,077 1,200 24g 299,776 1995 7,096 13,134 22,086 = 13,110 50,679 16d, B45 4,099 21,388 199% 3,771 = 1,865 2,407 8,044 1,197 248 249° 9,738 1996 7,120) 13,178 = 22,158 13,153 SI, 12416 B43. 4,099 21,502 1997 3,748 = 1,854 = 2,393 7,996 1,194 247 249° 9,685 1997 7,143 13,221 22,232 13,196 51,572 167,847 4,099 21,631 1998 3,727. 1,843 2,379 7,950 1,188 24s 249° 9,632 1998 7,167 = 13,265 = 22,305 13,240 52,025 168,856 4,099 21,753 1999 3,704 1,832 2,365 7,902 1,184 244 249 9,579 1999 7,191 13,309 22,379 13,284 52,481 169,872 4,099 21,878 2000 «3,683 1,822 2,351 7,856 1,178 243 249° 9,526 2000 «7,214» 13,353 22,452 :13,327 82,942 170,894 4,099 22,002 2001 «3,661 «1,811 2,337 7,809 1,174 241 2499, 473 2001 = 7,238 13,397 22,527 13,371 53,406 171,922 4,099 22,128 2002 3,638 = 1,800 2,323 7,761 1,168 240 a9) 93419 2002 7,262 «13,441 = 22,601 «13,415 53,874 = 172,956 4,099 22,256 2003 «3,617, 1,789 2,309 7,716 1,163 239 249° «9,367 2003 «7,286 13,485 22,676 13,460 54,347 173,997 4,099 22,382 2004 «= 3,595 1,778 2,295 7,669 1,158 237 249 9,314 2004 = 7,310 13,530 22,750 13,504 = 54,824 = 175,044 4,099 22,511 2005 «= «3,573. 1,767 2,281 7,622 1,153 236 249° 9,260 2005 7,334 13,574 = 22,825 = 13,549 55,305 176,097 4,099 22,641 2006 «= 3,552.1, 757 2,267 7,576 1,148 236 249° «9,210 2006 «= 7,358 13,619 22,901 13,593 55,790 177, 156 4,099 22,792 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1986-91: -1.87% -1.87% -1.87% -1.87% = -0.83% = -1.95% 0.00% -1.70% 1987-91: 1991-96: -0.42% -0.42% -0.42% —--0.42% = 0.28% = -0.39% 0.00% -0.39% + 1991-96: 1996-06: -0.60% -0.60% -0.60% -0.60% = -0.42% = -0.49% 0.00% -0.56% — 1996" 06: 0°33%|) | =0.75% 0.60% 0.00% 0.20% OU 0.88% 0.60% 0.00% 0.56% 0.93% 0.88% 0.60% 0.00% 0.58% 1986-06: -0.87% 0.87% -0.87% -0.87% — -0.49% = -0.83% 0.00% -0.80% 1986-06: 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% 0.93% 0.47% 0.60% 0.00% 0.48% 2 $0 2 abey 2-AI FL9eL TABLE IV-3 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. FURLCAST RESULTS LOW POPULATIUN CASE ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (MWh) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HO) WIR. ALL ELEC. YEAR 1986 27,701 1987 27,096 1988 26,575 1989 1990 27,705 1991 27,972 25,610 55,573 1992 1993 1994 28,826 = 26,392 57,269 1995 1996 28, 789 Igy? 1998 28,140 1999 27,821 2000 27,507 2001 27,393 2002 2003 2004 = 27,059 2005 26,949 24,673 53,539 2006 25,184 1986-91: 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 1991-96: 0.58% 0.58% (0.58% 1996-06: -0.63% + -0.63% + -0.63% 1986-06: -0.13% -0.13% = -0.13% TOTAL RLS. 108,098 105,734 103,704 105,856 108,110 109, 156 110,242 111,353 112,487 113,635, 112,343 111,069 109,811 108,566 107,338 106,897 106, 460 106,024 105,592 105, 161 105,415 0.19% 0.58% 0.63% 0.13% TOTAL WN COMM cw ST LIGHT §=SALES USE 60,098 = 43,331 1,021 212,548 850 58,209 42,779 1,021 207,744 831 $4,829 42,220 1,021 201,774 807 56,120 43,295 1,021 206,292 825 57,427 44,383 1,021 210,941 844 58,233 44,958 1,021 213,368 893 $9,053 45,542 1,021 215,857 863 59,883 46,133 1,021 218,390 84 60,727 46,733 1,021 220,967 884 61,582 47,340 1,021 223,578 894 61,432 46,929 1,021 221,726 887 61,284 4h, S22 1,021 219,896 880 61,136 46,120 1,021 218,088 872 60,988 = 45,720 1,021 216,295 865 60,841 9 45,325 1,021 214,525 858 61,030 45,260 1,021 214,208 89/ 61,221 45,197 1,021 213,899 856 61,412 45,134 1,021 213,590 854 61,605 = 45,071 1,021 213,289 853 61,798 = 45,008 1,021 212,987 B52 62,298 = 45,239 1,021 213,973 856 0.63% 0.74% 0.00% 0.08% 1.08% 0.86% 0.00% 0.77% 0.14% = -0.37% 0.00% = -0.36% 0.18% 0.22% 0.00% 0.03% 0.03% TOTAL OWN USE REQIS. AS % SALES 18,416 230,201 18,628 232,849 0.4% 18,845 235,566 0.4% 19,086 238,330 0.4% 19,291 241,142 0.4% 19,519 243,991 0.4% 19,358 241,970 0.4% 19,196 234,973 0.5% 19,040 238,001 0.4% 18,884 236,044 0.4% 18,729 234,112 0.4% 18,701 233,766 0.4% 18,674 233,429 0.4% 18,647 278,092 0.4% 18,621 232,763 0.4% 18,595 232,434 0.4% 18,681 233,509 0.4% 0.08% 0.77% 0.36% 0.03% = 0.03% LOSS 2 GN PEAK OL MAND (KW) LOAD FACTOR 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.3% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% 52.4% 52.4% 52.3% 52.4% 2 40 [ beg €-AI 9L9eL YEAR 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2,478 2,423 2,465 2,509 2,525 2,542 2,559 2,577 2,594 2,556 2.519 2,482 2,446 2,410 2,393 2,375 2,358 2,340 2,323 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR, ALL ELEC. 3,882 1,920 3,795 1,877 3,861 1,910 3,931 1,944 3,956 1,957 3,982 1,970 4,009 1,983 4,03 1,997 4,064 — 2,010 4,005 1,981 3.96 1,952 3,889 1,924 3,832 1,895 3,776 1,868 3,748 1,854 3,721 1,840 3,693 1,827 3,666 1,813 3,639 1,800 3,636 1,798 2,321 COMPOUNUED GROWTH RATES: 0.13% 0.25% 0.967 0.45% 0.45% NUMBER OF CUSTOMLRS 0.13% 0.25% 0.96% 0.45% 277 273 269 263 261 259 27 255 0.14% 0.26% -0.96% 0.38% TABLE 1V-3 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT ANU PAWLR CO. FORECAST RESULTS LOW POPULATION CASE ST LIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL 9,968 9,760 9,923 10,092 10,154 10,718 10,283 10,350 10,418 10,273 10,131 9,991 9,853 9,717 9,650 9,582 9,516 9,449 9,384 9,376 0.10% 0.23% 0.91% 0.42% 2003 1987-91: 1991-96: 199-06: 1986-06: USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER RESIDENT TAL GENERAL HOT WIK. ALL ELEC. 6,912 12,793 21,511 6,935 12,89 — 21, ba 6,957 12,877 21,653 6,980 12,920 21,725 7,004 12,962 21,7% 7,027 13,005 21,868 7,050 13,048 21,940 7,073 13,091 22,013 7,096 13,134 22,086 7,120 13,178 22,158 7,143 13,221 22,232 7,167 13,265 22,305 7,191 13,309 22,379 7,214 13,353 22,452 7,238 13,397 22,527 7,262 13,441 22,601 7,286 13,485 22,676 7,310 13,530 22,750 7,334 13,574 22,825 7,358 13,619 22,901 COMPUUNDEU GRIMTH RATES: 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% -0.73% 0.88% 0.88% 0.47% 161,914 12,888 163,868 164,853 165,845 166,843 167,847 1b8,856 169,872 170,894 171,922 172,956 173,997 175,064 176,097 177,156 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% $1 LG 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,039 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 4,099 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL 0.17% 0.54% 0.56% 0.46% Z $0 2 a8ey E-AT 9Lgey YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: 26,486 27,007 27,623 28, 300 29,020 29,659 30,319 31,000 31,697 32,411 33,070 33,743 4430 35,132 35,847 36,535 37,236 37,950 38,678 39,421 40,156 2.29% 2.20% 1.96% 2.10% TABLE. IV- ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND PAWLR CO. FURLCAST RESULTS HIGH POPULATION CASE ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (MWh) RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. TONAL RES. 112,888 115,11 117,736 120,622 123,688 126,411 129,228 132,127 135,097 138,145, 140,951 143,820 146,747 149,738 152,788 155,718 158,706 161,753 164,856 168,020 171,154 2.29% 2.20% 1.96% 2.10% 115,653 119,631 2.32% 3.71% 3.51% 3.26% 2.91% ST LIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL SALES OWN USE LOSSES 222,317 226,915 230,212 237 ,282 244,689 251,509 258,567 265,855 273,363 281,109 288,496 29%, 100 303,918 311,962 320,230 328,374 336,746 345,351 354, 187 363,268 372,418 2.50% 2.78% 2.59% 2.61% 889 908 921 49 979 1,006 1,034 1,063 1,033 1,124 1,154 1,184 1,216 1,248 1,281 1,313 1,347 1,381 1,417 1,453 1,490 #28 2.61% 19,409 19,811 20,099 20,716 21,362 21,958 22,574 23,210 23,866 24,542 25,187 25,851 26,533 27,236 27,957 28,669 29,399 30,151 30,922 31,715 32,514 TAL OWN USE L055 REUIS. AS % SALES % GEN 242,616 0.4% 8.0% 247,633 0.4% = 8.0% 251,232 0.4% 8.0% 258,947 0.4% 8.0% 267,031 0.4% 8.0% 274,473 0.4% 8.0% 282,176 0.4% 8.0% 290,128 0.4% 8.0% 298,322 0.4% 8.0% 306,775 0.4% 8.0% 314,837 0.4% 8.0% 304, 136 0.4% 8.0% 331, 66/ 0.4% 8.0% 340,445 0.4% 8.0% 349,468 0.4% 8.0% 398,357 0.4% 8.0% 36/,493 0.4% = 8.0% 376,883 0.4% =~ 8.0% 386,526 0.4% =~ 8.0% 3% 436 0.4% 8.0% 406,421 0.4% 8.0% 2.50% 2.78% 2.59% 2.61% PEAK DEMAND: (KW) 52,900 54,000 54,800 56,400 58,700 59,800 61,500 63,200 65,000 65,900 68,600 70,400 72,300 74,200 76,200 78,100 80,100 82,700 84,300 86,400 88,600 aaa 2.61% LOAD FACTOR Z $0 [ abeg p-AIT ALqeL YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: TABLE IV-4 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AN( POWLR CO. FURECAST RESULTS HIGH POPULATION CASE RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. 4,166 2,051 2,647 4,202 2,078 2,682 4,271 2,113 2,726 4,348 2,151 2,776 4,431 2,192 2,828 4,500 2,226 2,873 4,572 2,261 2,918 4,645 2,298 2,965 4,720 2,335 3,013 4,7% 2,372 3,062 4,863 2,406 3, 104 4,931 2,439 3,148 5,000 2,473 3,192 5,070 2,508 3,236 5,141 2,543 3,282 5,207 2,576 3,324 5,274 2,609 3,366 5,341 2,642 3,410 5,410 2,676 3,453 5,479 2,710 3,498 5,546 2,746 3,541 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1,65% 1.56% 1,32% 1.47% 1.65% 1.56% 1.32% 1.47% RES. 1.65% 1.56% 1.32% 1.47% BESRRSAIN 83 1.46% 1.19% 1.00% 1.17% 337 342 346 351 361 370 37 1.93% 1.58% 1.33% 1.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 1.49% 1.26% 1.40% YEAR 1986, 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19% lyy/ 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1987-91: 1991-96: 1996-06 6,910 6,953 6,997 7,041 7,085 7,129 7,174 7,219 7,265 7,310 7,356 7,402 7,449 7,496 7,543 7,590 7,638 7,686 7,734 7,783 7,832 USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER 0.63% 0.63% 0.63% 0.63% 0.85% 2.48% 2.48% 2.07% Gov 169,748 171,528 1/3,838 176,180 1/8, 553 180,959 185,396 185,867 188,371 190,908 193,480 196,086 198, 728 201 ,405 204,118 206,867 SLIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TONAL 2 40 2 abe b-AI 9LGPL YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. 26,950 26,438 25,929 25,443 25,438 25,871 25,847 25,823 25,802 25,787 58,481 57,369 56,264 55,210 55,201 56,138 56,086 56,034 55,989 55,957 55,919 55,778 55,648 55,508 55,378 55,236 55,094 54,961 54,817 54,671 54,535 TABLE TV~ 5 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CU. FORECAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE A ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Midh) 114,867 112,683 110,513 108,443, 108, 424 110,266 110, 164 110,061 109,972 109,910 109,834 109,558 109, 303 109,028 108,772 108, 494 108,214 107,953 107,670 107,384 107,116 0.81% 0.08% 0.25% ~0.35% 1.30% 0.87% 0.47% 0.13% Gov 0.70% 0.22% 0.13% -0.06% ST LIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 223,993 220,653 213,871 211,319 211,428 213,817 214,988 215,371 215, 766 216, 184 216,524 216,665 216,735 216,799 216,865 216,918 216,966 217,025 217,068 217,107 217,391 0.93% 0.29% 0.04% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% TOVAL OWN USL LISS RLUIS. AS 2 SALES % GEN 244,445 0.4% 8.0% 240,799 0.4% 8.0% 233,398 0.4% 8.0% 230,614 0.4% 8.0% 730,733 0.4% 8.0% 233,340 0.4% 8.0% 234,618 0.4% 8.0% 235,035 0.4% 8.0% 235, 466 0.4% 8.0% 235,922 0.4% -B.0% 236,294 0.4% 8.0% 236,447 0.4% 8.0% 236,523 0.4% = 8.0% 236,593 0.4% = 8.0% 23%, 666 0.4% = 8.0% 2%:,723 0.4% 8.0% 23,776 0.4% 8.0% 2% 840 0.4% = 8.0% 23, 888 0.4% 8.0% 23,930 0.4% 8.0% 237,240 0.4% = 8.0% -0.93% 0.25% 0.04% -0.15% PEAK DEMAND (KW) 53,300 52,500 50,900 50,300 50,300 50,900 51,100 51,700 51,300 51,400 51,500 51,500 51,600 51,600 51,600 51,600 51,600 51,600 St ,600 51,600 51,700 -0.92% 0.23% 0.04% -0.15% LOAD FACTOR 2 40 [ abeg SAT Agel YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: TABLE IV-5 ALASKA CLECTRIC LIGHT ANU POWLR CO. FURLUAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE A RESIDENTIAL GENERAL HOT WTR. ALL ELEC BSSIHstSRRZ8SRE: 2 <s 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8222 7,973 “1.16% 0.41% -0.58% -0.68% SRSAISIRSSSRVSZR 33 RLS 0.57% 0.01% 0.40% 0.34% 20 249 247 246 245 245 1.30% 0.38% 0.47% 0.65% ST LIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOIAL 10,820 10,630 10,407 10,197 10,151 10,263 10,239 10,199 10,161 10,124 10,086 10,033 9,980 9,926 9,873 9,819 9,765 9,713 9,659 9,606 9,595 1.05% 0.35% 0.54% 0.62% 1986, 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996, 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1987-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: RESIDENTIAL YEAR GENERAL HUT WTR, ALL ELEC. 6,889 12,751 6,92 12,793 6,935 12,835 6,95 12,877 6,980 12,920 7,008 12,962 7,027 13,005 7,050 13,048 7,073 13,091 7,09 13,134 7,120 13,178 7,143 13,221 7,167 13,265 7,191 13,309 7,214 13,353 7,738 13,397 7,262 13,441 7,286 13,485 7,310 13,530 7,334 13,574 7,308 13,619 21,440 21,511 21,82 21,653 21,725 21,796 21,868 21,940 22,013 22,086 22,158 €2,232 22,305 22,379 22,452 22,520 22,601 22,676 22,750 22,825 22,901 COMPOUNDED GRIWIH RATES: USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% = (0.33% 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.79% 0.88% 0.88% 0.47% cov 161,914 162,888 163,868 164,853 165,845 16,843, 167,847 168,856 169,872 170,894 171,922 112,996 173,997 175,044 17,097 177,156 0.0% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% S1 LIGHT 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% TOTAL 2 $0 2 abeyg S-AI PLGeL TANLE IV-6 ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO. FURLCAST RLSULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE B ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Midh) RESTOUNT IAL YEAR GENERAL HOI WIR. ALL ELEC. 1986 1987 1988 1989 27,841 1990 27,861 1991 1992 1993 26,359 26,950 26,438 25,929 25,490 25,509 25,964 25,964 25,964 25,967 25,977 25,983 25,990 26,003 26,011 26,024 26,032 26,040 26,053 26,062 26,069 26,082 58,481 57,369 56,264 55,311 55,353 56,342 56,342 56,341 56,347 56,369 56,382 56,398 56,425 56,443 56,471 56,489 56,507 56,535 56,553 56,570 56,597 1997 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1991-96: 0.01% 0.01% = 0.01% 1996-06: 0.04% 0.04% = 0.047% 1986-06: -0.16% -0.16% + -0.16% TOTAL RLS. 114,867 112,683 110,513 108,642 108,723 110,666 110,665 110,664 110,676 110,718 110,745 110,776 110,829 110,864 110,919 110,955 110,990 111,045 111,080 111,113 111,167 0.74% 0.01% 0.04% -0.16% TOTAL com = GOV. ST LIGHT «SALES 64,251 43,854 1,021 223,993 64,069 42,880 1,021 220,653 60,443 41,963 1,021 213,940 60,112 41,847 1,021 211,621 59,842 42,359 1,021 211,944 60,315 42,509 1,021 214,511 61,522 42,653 1,021 215,860 61,942 42,79 1,021 216,423 62,355 42,947 1,021 217,000 62,771 43,092 1,021 217,601 63,197 43,236 ~—1,021 218,199 63,617 43,388 ~=—«1,021 218,802 64,040 43,533 1,021 219,423 64,473 43,685 1,021 220,043 64,901 43,830 1,021 220,671 65,340 43,976 1,021 221,291 65,72 44,129 1,021 221,912 66,207 44,274 1,021 222,548 66,604 44,420 1,021 223,175 67,09 44,574 1,021 223,803 67,537 44,842, 1,021 224,567 “1.26% — -0.62% 0.00% 0.96% 0.94% 0.34% 0.00% 0.34% 0.67% 0.37% += 0.00% 0.29% 0.25% 0.11% 0.00% 0.01% 870 873 875 8/8 883 85 890 893 BYS Bw 0.86% 0.34% 0.79% 0.01% 0.86% 0.34% 0.29% 0.01% TOVAL REGIS. 244,445 240,799 238,473 230,943 231,,2% 234,097 235,569 236, 183 736,813 237,469 238,121 238,779 239,457 240,134 240,820 241,4% 242,173 242,868 243,552 244,237 245,001 0.86% 0.34% 0.79% 0.01% OWN USE AS % SALES LOSS %GN PEAK OLMAND (KW) SERRE NERE ees S2S828288833832 LOAD FACTOR Z $0 [ abe 9-AL FLqeL TALE IVb ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT ANU POWLR CO. FURLCAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE B NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER RESIDENTIAL TOTAL RESTDENT TAL TOTAL YEAR GENERAL HOT WIR. ALL ELEC. RES. COMM GOV. ST LIGHT = TOTAL YEAR GENERAL HUT WIR. ALL ELEC. = RES. Com aw ST LIGHT = TOTAL 1986 4,231 2,093 2,701 «= 9,026 = «1,266 = 279 749° 10,820 1986 6,889 12,751 21,440 12,726 90,771 157,130 4,099 20,703 1967 4,137 2,046 2,641 «8,825,284 271 249° 10,630 198/ 6,912. 12,793 21,511 ‘12,768 += 49,882 «158,075 4,099 20,758 1988 4,044 2,000 2,828,627 «1,268 = 64 249° 10,407 1968 6,935 12,835 21,582 «12,811 «47,674 159,026 4,099-—-20,556 1989 3,962 1,90 2,529 8,453,250 2 249° 10,213 1989 6,957 12,877 21,653 12,853 48,092 159,983 4,099 20,720 1990 3,952 1,955 2,523 8,431. 1,233 263 249° 10,177 1990 6,980 12,970 21,725 12,895 48,514 160,945 4,099 20,826 1991 4,010 1,984 2,550 8,554 1,232 83 249° 10,298 1991 7,008 12,962 21,796 «12,938 «48,940 161,914 4,099 20,831 1992 3,997 1,977 2,551 8,521,246 262 249° 10,283 1992 7,027 13,005 21,858 «12,981 «49,359 162,888 += 4,099 20,993 1993 3,983 1,970 2,543 8,497 1,244 249° 10,251 1993 7,050 13,048 21,940 13,023 49,802 163,868 = 4,099 21,112 1994 3,971 «1,964 2,535 8,470 1,241 261 249 10,221 1994 7,073 13,091 22,013 13,066 50,739 164,853 4,099,231 1995 3,959 1,958 2,527 8,446 1,239 260 249 10,193 1995 7,095 13,134 22,086 = 15,110 50,679 165,845 = 4,099 21,348 199% 3,947 1,952 2,520 8,420. 1,288 59 249 10,164 199% 7,120 13,178 22,158 13,153 SI, 124 166,843 4,099 21,467 1997 3,935 «1,947 2,512 8,395 «1,234 258 749 10,136 1997 7,143 13,221 22,232—«13,19% 51,572 167,847 «4,099 21,587 1998 3,924 1,941 2,505 8,371 1,231 258 249° 10,109 1998 7,167 13,265 22,305 «13,240 52,025 168,856 = 4,099 21,706 1999 3,912 1,935 2,498 8,346. 1,229 57 249° 10,081 1999 7,191 13,309 22,379 «13,284 52,481 169,872 «4,099 21,828 2000 3,902 1,930 2,491 = B323 1,226 6 749 10,054 2000 7,214 13,353 22,452 «13,5272, 942 170,894 4,099 21,948 2001 3,890 1,924 2,483 «8,298 1,223.86 249° 10,026 2001 7,238 13,397 22,52? 13,371,406 171,922 4,099 22, 071 2002 3,878 «1,918 «2,476 «= 8,273,221 255 249 9,998 2002 7,262 13,441 22,601 13,415 53,874 177,956 4,099 22,195 2003 3,868 «1,913 2,469 8,250,218 4 249 9,972 2003 7,285 13,485 22,676 13,460 54,347 173,997 4,099 22,317 2004 3,856 1,907 2,462 8,226,216 4 249 9,944 2004 7,310 13,530 22,750 13,504 54,824 175,044 4,099 22,443 2005 3,844 «1,902 2,454 = 8,201,213 253 249 «9,916 2005 7,334-13,574 22,825 13,449 55,305 176,097 4,099 22,569 2006 3,834 «1,89 2,447,878, 21 253 249° 9,891 2006 7,358 13,619 cz,901 14,593 -55,790 177,156 4,099 22,705 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: COMPOUNDEU GROMIH RATES: 1986-91: 1.07% -1.07% -1.07% = -1.07% = 0.53% -1.22% 0.00% -0.98% 198/-91: 0.33% = 0.3% 0.33% 0.33% = -0.73% 0.60% 0.00% 0.12% 1991-96: 0.31% -0.31% 0.31% -0,31% 0.06% = -0.26% 0.00% -0.76% 1991-96: 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.88% 0.60% 0.00% 0.60% 1996-06: -0.29% -0.29% 9-0.29% = 0.29% 0.21% = 0.23% 0.00% -0.27% 1996-06: 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.88% 0.60% 0.00% 0.56% 1986-06: -0.49% -0.49% -0.49% = 0.49% = 0.22% = -0.49% 0.00% -0.45% 1986-06: 0.33% = 0.33% 0.33% 0.33% 0.47% 0.60% 0.00% 0.46% 2 $0 2 abeg O-AI 9Lgey Megawatt — hours (Thousands) ALASKA ELECTRIC WGHT & POWER Energy Sales — Base Population Case 300 280 + Historical Projectec 260 7 240 - 220 + 200 + Government and Street Lights 180 - 160 - Commercial 140 4 1Z04 100 Residential - General and Hot Water 80 60 40 Residential - All Electric 20 Lina eae Tey ele aan Me app e eeT ePe T a ee 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 T-AI aun614 Megowatt—hours (Thousands) ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER Total Energy Soles 400 ————___—_ — Historical I Projected 350 + I I I 300 4 High Population Base Population 250 4 \ | Low Population kk Kk OK Kk OK Kk OK Kk OK 200 150 100 50 pl a 1966 197A 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 ——— Pop. Cases * * Emp. Base Case Z-AI aunbL4 Kilowatts (Thousands) ALASKA ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER Peak Demand 100] ——= 90 4 Historical Projected I 80 4 I I 70 4 High Population | Base Population 60 4 | | Low Population 50 4 KK OK kK Kk OK OK OK OK 40 30 20 10 O — TT Plt Tv T 7. 7 T , : 1 7 T T TTT T rT a = ——1—-| 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 ——-— Pop. Cases * * Emp. Base Case €-AI aunbey SECTION V LOAD FORECAST FOR GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCATION This section describes the load forecast results for Glacier High- way Electric Association under two base case scenarios as well as under low and high economic growth. scenarios and two sensitivity analyses. The results of the load forecast are presented in several tables and figures in this section and are also used in the combined forecasts shown in Section VI. Reference should be made to the Juneau area employment forecast included as Appendix A of this report and to the population forecast included as Appen- dix B to understand the primary basis of variation between the employment based and population based forecasts. Residential Usage Projected residential sales are presented on page 1 of Table V-1 and in Figure V-1 with projection of residential customers and usage per customer provided on page 2 of Table V-1 for the base case forecast using the population projections. Under the base case, the Juneau area population is projected to grow at 1.02% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 0.93% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 0.33% annually from 1997 to 2006. Based on these population projections the current number of residential customers at GHEA of 1,244 is projected to increase at 0.58% annually from 1986 to 1991, 0.85% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 0.32% annually from 1996 to 2006 to an estimated 1,343 residential customers in 2006, representing 0.51% annual growth of residential customers over the 20-year period. The number of residential customers is projected to decline in each of the next three years to a low of 1,196 in 1988, but to increase again starting in 1989 and continuing to grow slowly thereafter. Residential usage per customer at GHEA is projected to increase at 1.25% annually throughout the forecast period based on the assumptions dis- cussed in Section III. This increase in residential usage per customer is almost totally attributable to the estimated 2.0% decline in the real (infla- tion adjusted) cost of power to utility customers each year and represents the price elasticity impact. Without this decline in cost of power, usage per customer would be projected to grow slightly to 12,180 kWh in 1990 and remain at this level throughout the forecast period with the change due primarily to weather normalization. Based on the projected number of residential customers and residen- tial usage per customer, projected energy sales to the GHEA residential class are projected to increase from an estimated 14,834 MWh in 1986 at 1.93% annu- ally from 1986 to 1991, at 2.07% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at 1.53% annually from 1996 to 2006 to approximately 21,000 MWh in 2006. For the 20-year period this represents an average growth of 1.77% annually. Approxi- mately 75% of this residential sales growth is attributable to the projected declines in the real cost of power for residential customers throughout the forecasted period. Under an assumption of no decrease in the real cost of power, total residential sales would remain flat for the next four years and would grow at approximately 0.55% annually throughout the forecasted period based on a gradual increase in residential customers. V-2 For the alternative base case forecast based on employment projec- tions as discussed in Appendix A (with total employment in the Juneau area estimated to decline -1.1% annually from 1986 to 1991, at -0.4% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at -0.5% annually from 1996 to 2006), residential sales, customers and usage per ‘customer are presented in Table V-2. The number of GHEA's residential customers is projected to decline 1.25% annually from 1986 to 1991 under these employment assumptions, -0.39% annually from 1991 to 1996, and -0.49% annually from 1996 to 2006 to an estimated 1,072 residential custo- mers in 2006. Over the 20-year period residential customers are projected to decline at 0.66% annually. Due to the impact of declining real cost of power over this same period, however, usage per customer is projected to increase at 1.25% annually as discussed earlier. Based on these projections total resi- dential sales based on the employment projections is projected to increase at 0.09% annually from 1986 through 1991, at 0.81% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.71% for the 10-year period 1996 to 2006. Over the 20-year period residential sales are seen increasing from an estimated 15,000 MWh in 1986 to 16,800 MWh in 2006, or at an average 0.58% annual rate. Commercial Usage Under the base case based on population projections, the number of small commercial customers, as shown in Table V-1, is projected to increase at 0.98% annually from 1986 to 1991 and at approximately a 0.48% annual rate for the 20-year period ending 2006 increasing from 60 to 66 customers. One additional large commercial customer is assumed to be added in 1997. Usage per customer is projected to remain constant at the 1986 level for both small and large commercial customers with no statistical significant price elastici- ty impact resulting from the assumed 2% annual decline in the real cost of power. Based on these projections small commercial sales are estimated to grow slowly at 0.48% annually over the next 20 years and large commercial sales are seen increasing from the additional customer. Over the 20-year horizon small commercial sales are seen increasing from 1,352 MWh to 1,487 MWh. Large commercial sales are seen to be increasing from approximate- ly 1,000 MWn in 1986 to 1,354 MWh in 1997, and represent a 1.45% average annual growth rate over the 20-year forecasted period. For the base case using the employment projections (Table V-2), total commercial customers are seen declining at 0.3% annually from 1986 to 2006, for a total loss of 4 commercial customers over the 20-year horizon. Usage per commercial customer remains the same as under the population driven base case. Based on these projections, small commercial sales are foreseen declining 1.02% annually from 1986 to 1991 and then remaining flat there- after. Over the 20-year forecasted horizon total sales for the commercial class is seen as increasing from an estimated 2,400 MWh in 1986 to approxi- mately 2,600 MWh in 2006 as a result of the increase in large commercial sales. V-3 Street Lighting and Public Buildings Usage The number of public building accounts is projected to increase 0.73% from 1986 to 1991 as shown on page 2 of Table V-1 and then to increase at 0.70% annually from 1991 to 1996 and 0.34% from 1996 to 2006. Annually this represents a 0.53% annual increase under the population based forecast with the total number of public building accounts increasing from 49 in 1985 to 60 in the year 2006. Street lighting accounts remain at a constant four until 1997 when it is assumed that one additional account is added. Usage per public building account is projected to decline gradually over the next few years at approximately 0.5% annually until a historical average usage of 54,641 MWh is reached and remains flat thereafter. Street lighting usage per account increases until the historic average of 25,000 MWh is reached and this level is assumed to be maintained thereafter. Based on these estimates total public building sales based on the population projections is estimated to grow at approximately 0.20% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 0.70% from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.34% from 1996 to 2006. The street lighting sales are projected to increase to 100 MWh over the next three years and then to increase to 125 MWh in the year 1997. Under the employment based projections (Table V-2) public building accounts are seen to be declining at approximately 1.29% annually from 1986 to 1991, and at approximately -0.4% annually thereafter. The number of public building accounts is seen as declining from 53 customers in 1986 to 48 in the year 2006. Usage per customer is also projected to decrease at 0.13% annually in this case. Based on these estimates total public building sales are pro- jected to decline at approximately 1.29% annually from 1986 to 1991, and then to decrease at a rate of 0.4% annually thereafter. Over the 20-year period street lighting sales are seen to be increasing from approximately 68 MWh in 1986 to 125 MWh in 1996 and then remain constant thereafter under the employ- ment base case. Total Sales Estimated total sales for the GHEA system are obtained by summing up the projected individual class sales for each year of the forecast. Under the population based forecast the base case results as presented in Table V-1 and in Figure V-1 and Figure V-2 show an increase in total sales of 1.55% annually from 1986 to 1991, 1.69% annually from 1991 to 1996, and 1.37% annu- ally thereafter. Over the 20-year forecasting period this represents an over- all average of 1.49% annual increase in sales which is substantially lower than the 10.5% sales growth that the utility has experienced over the prior 20-year period from 1965 to 1985. Approximately 65% of the future growth in sales is attributable to price elasticity impacts resulting from the assumed 2% annual decline in the real cost of power. Under an assumption of flat real cost of power for the forecasted period, total sales of the utility would increase at a 0.58% annual rate throughout the forecasted period. On an aggregate basis, total sales for GHEA are projected to increase from an esti- mated 20,300 MWh in 1986 to 27,300 MWh in 2006, but only to 22,600 MWh if no decrease in the real cost of power is assumed. v-4 Under the base case projections derived using the employment pro- jections (Table V-2 and Figure V-2) total sales are projected to decline at 0.16% annually from 1986 to 1991, and to increase at between 0.5% and 0.9% annually thereafter. Total sales for the system are projected to decline from an estimated 20,400 MWh in 1986 to 20,000 MWh in 1989, and to only increase gradually to a 22,200 MWh level in the year 2006. Over the 20-year forecasted period total sales are seen as increasing at an annual rate of 0.42% in the forecast based on the employment projections. Total Requirements Total requirements for GHEA are projected based on total sales of the system for each year plus the utility's estimated own use and losses. Own use and losses for GHEA are projected based on the 2.2% annual average for own use as a percent of total sales, and an 11.8% loss factor experienced histori- cally from 1980 through 1984. Based on these estimates total requirements are projected to increase from an estimated 23,291 MWh in 1986 to 31,324 MWh in 2006, representing approximately 1.49% annual growth rate in eneray require- ments for the forecast based on population estimates (see Table V-1). Approximately three-quarters of this growth is attributable to an expected price elasticity impact resulting from a lower real cost of power and, without this impact, total requirements would only increase at approximately 0.58% annually. Total requirements are seen as declining over the coming 20 year period under the forecast based on employment projections, decreasing at a 0.16% annual rate from 1986 to 1991 and increasing at between 0.5% and 0.9% annually thereafter (see Table V-2). Under these assumptions total require- ments decline from the estimated 23,634 MWh in 1986 to a low of 23,18] MWh in 1989 and then gradually increase to a 25,689 MWh level in the year 2006. This represents an average annual load increase of 0.42% over the 20-year period. Peak Demand Peak demand for GHEA has been projected based on the historic load factor of 50.0% from 1980 to 1984. Using this load factor GHEA's peak demand is seen as increasing from an estimated 5.3 MWs in 1986 to 7.2 MWs in 2006 using the population projections, representing approximately a 1.54% annual growth rate over the forecasted horizon (see Table V-1 and Figure V-3). Again, without the 2% real decrease in the cost of power, peak demand would increase only to an estimated 6.0 MWs in the year 2006 representing a 0.62% annual increase without the price elasticity effect. Peak demand is estimated to remain flat at 5.4 MWs annually from 1986 to 1993 in the employment based forecast and to increase to approximately 5.9 MWs in 2006 for an overall growth rate of 0.44% annually over the 20-year period. V-5 Low Growth Scenario A low case economic growth scenario is presented in Table V-3 and shown in Figure V-2 and was developed based on the low scenario population projections as discussed’ in Appendix B using a methodology similar to that just explained for the base case estimates. In the low growth scenario, the Juneau area population is projected to grow at 0.1% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 0.2% annually from 1991 to 1996 and declining 0.9% annually from 1996 to 2006. Under these assumptions residential sales are seen as increasing at a 0.87% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 1.26% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.04% thereafter. Over the 20-year horizon under the low case scenario total energy sales to the residential class are seen as increasing at a 0.55% annual rate from an estimated 14,500 MWh in 1986 to 16,200 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to decline over the next three years under the low case scenario from an estimated 1,329 MWh in 1986 to 1,307 MWh in 1988 and then increasing gradually thereafter until 1996 and then declining steadily. Over the 20-year horizon commercial sales decrease at approximately 0.17% annually, but at the end of a 20-year period have decreased only 45 MWh from 2,344 MWn in 1986. Public building sales are projected to decline over the next 3-year period, to recover modestly until 1996 and then to decline thereafter. Over the 20-year period public building sales are seen as de- creasing 0.42% annually and in the year 2006 are projected at 2,732 MWh down from an estimated 2,974 MWh in 1986. Street lighting remains constant throughout the low case scenario. Based on the aggregation of these low growth scenario estimates, total sales are seen as declining over the next three to four years for GHEA and then to be increasing slightly thereafter for the 5-year period, and then to decline modestly again from 1995 onwards. Over the forecasted period under the low scenario total sales fluctuate between 19,000 MWh and 21,700 MWh. Total requirements show a similar pattern decreasing over the next three to four years, gradually increasing thereafter for five years and then declining again from 1995. Total requirements under the low case scenario increase from an estimated 22,786 MWh in 1986 to 24,388 MWh in 2006 representing a 0.34% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 5.6 MW in 2006, up modestly from an estimated 5.2 MW in 1986. High Growth Scenario A high case scenario was developed based on the high scenario popu- lation projections as discussed in Appendix B using a methodology similar to that just explained for the base case estimates. In this high growth sce- nario, population in Juneau is projected to grow at 1.8% annually from 1986 to 1991, at 1.5% annually from 1991 to 1996, and at 1.3% annually from 1996 to 2006. Under these assumptions residential sales are seen as increasing at a 3.47% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 3.31% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at 3.21% thereafter (see Table V-4 and Figure V-2). Over the 20-year V-6 horizon under the high case scenario total energy sales to the residential class are seen as increasing at a 3.30% annual rate from an estimated 15,255 MWh in 1986 to 29,183 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to increase gradually over the entire forecasted period under the high case scenario from an estimated 2,390 MWh in 1986 to 3,700 MWh in 2006. Over the 20-year period under the high case commercial sales increase at approximately 2.21% annually. Public building sales are projected to increase consistently over the 20-year period at an average 3.10% annual rate and in the year 2006 represent 5,800 MWh up from an estimated 3,150 MWh in 1986. Street lighting grows at an assumed 3.1% annually in the high case scenario. Based on the aggregation of these high growth scenario estimates total sales are seen as increasing over the next 20 years for GHEA at an average rate of 3.15% annually. Over the forecasted period under the high scenario total sales increase from an estimated 20,841 MWh in 1986 to an esti- mated 38,766 MWh in the year 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern increasing from an estimated 23,912 MWh in 1986 to 44,479 MWh representing a 3.15% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 10.2 MW in 2006, up from an estimated 5.5 MW in 1986. Employment Growth Sensitivity Analyses Two sensitivity analyses were developed based on alternative employment growth projections as discussed in Appendix A using a methodology similar to that explained for the base case estimates. Under the Case A assumption (Greens Creek development) residential sales are seen as increasing at a 0.76% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 0.82% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at 0.73% thereafter as a result of employment in the Juneau area declining over the 20-year forecast period, at -0.5% from 1986 to 1991, at -0.4% from 1991 to 1996, and at -0.4% from 1996 to 2006 (see Table V-5). Over the 20-year horizon under the Case A scenario total energy sales to the resi- dential class are seen as increasing at a 0.76% annual rate from an estimated 15,000 MWh in 1986 to 17,400 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to decline steadily over the next five years under the Case A assumptions from an estimated 2,400 MWh in 1986 to 2,300 MWh in 2006. Over the 20-year period under this case commercial sales decrease at approximately 0.34% annually. Public building sales are projected to decline over the 20-year period at -.52% annually and in the year 2006 represent 2,677 MWh, down from an estimated 2,974 MWh in 1986. Street light- ing remains constant again in this case. Based on the aggregation of these Case A estimates total sales are seen as increasing over the forecasted period for GHEA (see Table V-5). Over the forecasted period under the Case A assumptions total sales decline from an estimated 20,384 MWh in 1986 to an estimated 20,149 MWh in the year 1988 then increase to 22,848 MWh by 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern V-7 decreasing over the next four years and then gradually increasing thereafter. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and ends up at 6.0 MW in 2006, an in- crease from an estimated 5.4 MW in 1986. Case B identifiies the second employment sensitivity analysis and is based on the projections as discussed in Appendix A (Greens Creek plus in- creased tourism where employment in Juneau is seen to decline at 0.5% annually from 1986 to 1991 and at 0.2% annually from 1991 to 2006). Under the Case B assumptions residential sales are seen as increasing at a 0.85% annual rate from 1986 to 1991, at a 0.94% annual rate from 1991 to 1996, and at a 0.97% rate thereafter (see Table V-6). Over the 20-year horizon under the Case B total energy sales to the residential class are seen as increasing at a 0.93% annual rate from an estimated 15,000 MWh in 1986 to 18,000 MWh in the year 2006. Commercial sales are projected to decline over the next five years under Case B from an estimated 2,367 MWh in 1986 to 2,322 MWh in 1989 and then increasing gradually thereafter. Over the 20-year period commercial sales decrease at approximately 0.01% annually, but at the end of a 20-year period have decreased only 68 MWh. Public building sales are projected to decline over the forecasted period from 2,974 MWh in 1986 to 2,787 MWh in 1986. Street lighting remains constant again in this Case B. Based on the aggregation of these Case B estimates total sales are seen as declining over the next three years for GHEA and then to be increasing slightly thereafter for the remaining 17-year period. Over the forecasted period under Case B total sales remain nearly flat from an estimated 20,400 MWh in 1986 to an estimated 23,600 MWh in the year 2006. Total requirements show a similar pattern decreasing over the next three years and gradually increasing thereafter. Total requirements under this Case B increase from an estimated 23,600 MWh in 1986 to 27,300 MWh in 2006 representing a 0.73% annual growth rate. Peak demand follows a similar pattern and is projected to equal 6.2 MW in 2006, up from an estimated 5.4 MW in 1986. TABLE V-1 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSUCIATION FORECAST RESULTS BASE PUPULATIUN CASE ENERGY SALES AN) REQUIREMENTS (Hh) soen canner nanan ence anne c nnn nn nce nen ncn nn ne can ese cnnne anne nenneennnnnnnnnenennnanenesen PeeK SMALL LARGE STREET. PUBLIC. TOTAL SYSTEM TWIAL On Use LOSSES DENMAN LOAD YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS SALES OWN USE LOSSES REGIS. as % Sales AS X GEN (MW) FACTOR 1986 «14,834 1,352 «1,015 68 3,030 20,300 482,543 23,291 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 50.0% 1987 14,983 1,352, 1,015 84 2,966 20,401 451 2,555 23,407 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 590.0% 1998 = «15,093 1,375 1,015 100 2,954 20,536 454 2,572 23,562 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 19899 15,526 1,375 1,015 100 3,006 21,022 = 464—2,633 24,120 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1990 15,983 1,397 1,015 100 3,005 21,501 475 2,693 24,669 sak, 11.8% 5,f00 50.0% 1991 16,325 = 1,420 1,015 100 3,060 21,920 842,746 25,150 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 50.0% 1992 16,687 «1,420 -—s41,015 100 3,060 22,281 492 2,791 25,565 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 1993 17,067 1,442, 1, 015 100 3,115 22,739 = 5022848 26,089 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 1994 17,465 1,442, 1,015 100 3,115 23,137 SH 2,898 26,546 2.2% 11.8% 6,100 50.0% 1995 = -17,8801,465 ‘1,015 100 3,169 23,629 = 522, -2,960 27,110 2.2% 11.8% 6,700 50.0% 1996 18,083 1,465 1, 015 100 «3,169 23,832 S26 2,985 27,344 2.2% 11.8% 6,700 50.0% 1997 18,2 1,465 1,354 12 3,169 28,410 539 5,058 28,007 2.2% 11.8% 6,400 50.0% 1998 18,524 1,465 1,354 12 «3,169 24,637 544 «3,086 28,267 2.2% 11.8% 6,500 50.0% 1999 18,761 1,465 1,354 12 3,169 24,873 «549 3,116 28,538 2.2% 11.8% 6,500 50.0% 2000 19,008 «1,465 «1,354 12 3,169 2,120 555 3,147 28,822 2.2% 11.8% 6,600 50.0% 2001 19,317 1,465 1,354 12 3,169 25,429 562 3,185 29,176 2.2% 11.8% 6,700 50.0% 2002 19,638 «1,465 «1,354 12 3,224 25,803 »=—«570--3,232 29,605 2.2% 11.8% 6,800 50.0% 2003 «19,93 «1,465 1,354 12 3,224 26,131 5773273 29,981 2.2% 11.8% 6,800 50.0% 2008 = 20,301 1,487 1,354 12 3,224 25,490 585—«3,318 30,394 2.2% 11.8% 6,900 50.0% 2005 = 20,647 «1,487 1,354 12 3,224 26,837 «$933,362 30,791 2.2% 11.8% 7,000 50.0% 2006 = 21,057, s«1,487— 1,354 12 3,278 27,301 «= 603 «3,420 31,324 2.2% 11.8% 7,200 50.0% COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1986-91: 1.93% 0.98% 0.00% 8.02% = 0.20% «1.55% 1.55% 1.47% 1991-96: 2.07% 0.63% = 0.00% 0.00% 0.70% 1.69% 1.69% 1.70% 1996-06: 1.53% 0.15% 2.92% 2.26% 034% 1.37% 1.37% 1.51% 1986-06: 1.77% 0.48% 1.45% 309% 0.39% 1.49% 1.49% 1.54% Z $0 [ abeg T-A FLgeL 1991 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: TALE V1 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS BASE POPULATION CASE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SMALL LARGE = STREET = PUBLIC RES COM COMM. LIGHTS. «BLOGS. TOTAL 1,212 60 3 4 541,333 1,203 60 3 4 541,324 1,196 61 3 ‘ 541,318 1,215 61 3 ‘ 55 1,338 1,236 62 3 4 55 1,360 1,247 63 3 ‘ 56 1,373 1,259 63 3 4 56 1,385 1,273 64 3 4 571,401 1,287 64 3 4 571,415 1,302 65 3 4 581,432 1,301 65 3 4 581,431 1,300 65 4 5 5B 1,432 1,301 65 ‘ 5 581,433 1,302 65 4 5 581,434 1,303 65 4 5 581,435 1,308 65 4 5 58 1,440 1,314 65 4 5 591,447 1,320 65 4 5 591,453 1,326 66 4 5 591,460 1,333 66 4 5 59 1,467 1,343 66 4 5 60 1,478 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 0.58% 0.98% 0.0% += 0.0% (0.73% (0.60% 0.85% 0.63% 0.0% ~=—«0.0% = (0.20% = 0.83% 0.32% «0.15% 2.9% 2.3% 0.34% 0.33% 0.51% 0.48% 1.45% 1.12% 0.53% 0.52% YEAR 1986, 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 202 1987-91: 1991- 1996-06: RES 12,242 12,459 12,624 12,780 12,935 13,092 13,250 13,411 13,573 13,737 13,904 14,072 14,742 14,415 14,589 14, 766 14,944 15,125 15,308 15,494 15,681 1.21% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 1.25% 0.00% USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER COM 338, 399 338,399 23322333 S22ee883 Beeeses STREET LIGHTS 25,000 OR DR DR DAD DDR DYDD DR OO DR SSSSSSSSS22=S22 ’ 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.95% PUBLIC BLOGS 56,116 54,933 54,700 54,653 54,644 54,642 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 54,641 -0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% TOTAL 0.95% 0.85% 1.04% 0.97% Z $0 2 abey I-A 9LgeL TABLE V-2 GLACIER HIGHWAY FLECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS BASE EMPLOYMENT CASE ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (MWh) wanna nnn cn een c ence ne cence ee nnn enn nnn nnne nnn nn nnn nnnnnnnannnnnnnannmnnn anne PEAK SMALL LARGE = STREET. «= PUBLIC. TOTAL SYSTEM TOTAL. «Own Use = LOSSES. DEMAND YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS SALES OWN USE LOSSES REOTS. as % Sales AS % GEN (MA) 1986 14,974 1,352 1,015 68 2,974 20,384 450 2,800 23,634 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 - 1987 14,964 1,329 1,015 84 2,911 20,304 449° 2,789 23,542 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1988 14,883 1,307 1,015 100 2,844 20,149 445 2,768 23,362 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 1989 14,784 1,307 1,015 100 2,787 19,993 442 2,746 23,181 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 1990 14,910 1,284 1,015 100 2,787 20,096 444 2,760 23,301 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 1991 15,039 1,284 1,015 100 2,787 20,225 447 2,778 23,450 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1992 15,166 1,284 1,015 100 2,732 20,298 448 2,788 23,534 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1993 15,294 1,284 1,015 100 2,732 20,426 451 2,806 23,683 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1994 15,426 1,284 1,015 100 2,732 20,558 454 2,824 23,836 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1995 15,556 1,284 1,015 100 2,732 20,688 457 2,842 23,986 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 1996 15,659 1,284 1,354 125 2,732 21,154 467 2,906 24,528 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 1997 15, 766 1,262 1,354 125 2,732 21,238 459 2,917 24,625 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 1998 15,870 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 21,288 470 2,924 24,682 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 1999 15,977 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 21,395 473 2,939 24,807 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 2000 16,082 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 21,500 475 2,953 24,928 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 2001 16,187 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 21,604 477 2,968 25,049 2.2% «11.8% 5,/00 2002 16,295 1,239 1,354 125 2,623 21,635 478 2,972 25,085 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 2003 16,400 1,239 1,354 125 2,623 21,741 480 2,986 25,207 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 2004 16,505 1,239 1,354 125 2,623 21,846 483 3,001 25,329 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 2005 16,614 1,239 1,354 125 2,623 21,955 485 3,016 25,455 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 2006 16,815 1,239 1,354 125 2,623 22,156 489 3,043 25,689 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 0.09% = -1.02% 0.00% = 8.02% = 1.29% -0. 16% -0.16% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00% 5.92% 4.56% 0.40% 0.90% 0.90% 0.73% 0.71% 0.36% 0.00% = 0.00% -0.41% 0.46% 0.46% 0.52% 0.58% -0.43% 1.45% 3.09% 0.63% 0.42% 0.42% 0.44% Z 40 [ abey é-A 9Lgey YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2003 2005 1986-91: 1991-96: 1996-06: 1986-06: TABLE V-2 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS BASE EMPLOYMENT CASE LARGE 1.02% 0.00% 0.36% 0.43% STREET LIGHTS 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 1.12% PUBLIC BLOGS -0.77% -0.40% 0.41% -0.49% TOTAL YEAR 1,343 1986 1,320 1987 1,296 1988 1,273 1989 1,268 1990 1,266 1991 1,259 1992 1,254 1993 1,251 1994 1,246 1995 1,242 1996 1,235 1997 1,228 1998 1,222 1999 1,216 2000 1,210 2001 1,202 2002 1,196 2003 1,190 2004 1,184 2005 1,184 2006 -1.21% 1987-91: 0.34% 1991-96: 0.48% 1996-06: -0.63% 1986-06: USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER LARGE COMM 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 336, 399 338,399 336,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 STREET LIGHTS 17,000 21,000 25,000 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.95% PUBLIC BLUGS 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% TOTAL Z $0 2 abeg 2-A FLgeL TABLE V-3 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSUCTATION FURECAST RESULTS LOW POPULATION CASE NERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Mth) TONLE apogee eee te eee eee cee PEAK SHALL LARGE «STREET.» PUBLIC. «TUT SYSTEM TOTAL «Own Use = LOSSES DEMAND YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS SALES OWN USE LOSSES — RFUIS. as % Sales AS % GEN (HM) 1986 14,495 1,329 1,015 46 2,974 19,860 439——-2,488 22,786 2.2% 11.8% 5,200 1987 14,315 1,329 1,015 46 2,857 19,562 432245022, 444 2.2% 11.8% 5,100 1988 14,089 1,307 1,015 46 2,790 19,247, 42522, 083 2.2% 11.8% 5,000 1989 14,488 1,329 1,015 46 2,842 19,720 436,470 22,626 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 1990 14,905 1,352 1,015 46 2,89% 20,214 447 — 2,532 23,193 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 1991 15,140 1,382 1,015 46 2,89 20,449 = 4522, S61 23,462 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1932 15,390 1,352 1,015 6 2,89 20,699 45/7 2,593 23,749 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 1993 15,653 1,375 1,015 46 2,951 21,039 465 2,635 24,140 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 1994 15,929 1,325 1,015 46 2,951 21,316 = 471267024, 456 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 1995 16,216 1,375 1,015 46 2,951 21,603 477.2, 706 24,786 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 1996 16,115 1,375 1,015 4% 2,951 21,501 475 2,693 24,669 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 1997 16,018 1,352 1,015 46 2,8% 21,327 = A712 672 24,470 2.2% 11.64 5,600 1998 15,926 1,382 1,015 46 2,841 21,181 468 2,653 24,302 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 1999 15,838 1,329 1,015 46 2,841 21,070 455 2,639 24,175 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2000 15,753 1,307 1,015 46 2,787 20,908 = 462-2619 23,988 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2001 15,800 1,307 1,015 46 2,787 20,954 463 2,625 24,042 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2002 15,849 1,307 1,015 46 2,787 21,006 464 2,631 24,099 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2003 15,899 1,307 1,015 4 2,732 21,000 442,630 24,094 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2004 15,952 1,284 1,015 a 2,732 21,029 = 465 2,634 24,128 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2005 16,005 1,284 1,015 46 2,732 21,083 = 466 2,641 24,190 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 2006 16,179 1,284 1,015 4 2,732 21,256 470—.2,663 24,388 2.2% 11.8% 5,100 COMPOUNOED GRUMTH RATES: 1986-91: 0.87% = 0.34% = 0.00% = 0.00% = 0.53% 0.59% 0.59% 0.76% 1991-96: 1.26% 0.33% = 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 1.01% 1.01% 0.73% 1995-06: 0.04% = -0.68% = 0.00% 0.00% 0.77% = -0.11% -0.11% 0.00% 1986-06: 0.55% 0.17% 0.00% = 0.00% 0.42% 0.34% 0.34% 0.37% 2 $0 [ abeg E-A 9LgeL TABLE V-3. GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS LOM POPULATION CASE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS USAGE (Kh) PER CUSTOMER SMALL = LARGE «STREET = PUBLIC SMALL LARGE SIRFET = PUBLIC YEAR RES Com Com LIGHTS BLUGS TONAL YEAR RLS COMM COMM LIGHTS ~—-BLIGS TOTAL 1986 1,184 59 3 4 531,303 1986 12,242 22,533 338,399 11,510 56,116 = 15,241 1987 1,149 $9 8 4 52 1,267 1987 12,459 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,933 15,441 1988 1,116 88 3 4 St 1,232 1988 12,624 22,533 338,399 «11,510 54,700 15,622 1989 1,134 so 3 4 52. 1,252 1989 12,780 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,653 15,756 199 1,152 60 3 4 53 1,272 1990 12,935 22,533 338,399,510 54,644 15,888 1991 1,156 60 3 4 531,276 1991 13,092 _ 22,533 338,399 HI,510 54,642 16,020 1992 1,161 60 3 4 531,281 1992 13,250 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,A41 16,153 1993 1,167 61 3 4 54 1,289 1993 13,411 22,533 338,399 «11,510 54,641 16,320 1994 1,174 61 3 4 541,296 1994 13,573 22,533 338,399,510 54,641 16,452 1995 1,180 61 3 4 54 1,302 1995 13,737 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 16,586 199% 1,159 61 3 4 541,281 1996 13,904 22,533 338,399,510, 54, 641 16,784 1997 i, 138 60 2 4 531,798 1s97 14,072 22,533 338,399 1,510 54,641 = 16,949 1998 1,118 60 J 4 52. 1,237 1998 14,742 22,533 338,399 «11,510 54,641 17,119 1999 1,099 59 3 4 $2. 1,217 1999 14,415 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 17,317 2000 1,080 58 3 4 St 1,196 2000 14,589 22,533 338,399,510, 54,641 17,485 2001 1,070 58 5 4 St 1,186 2001 14,766 = 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 17,668 2002. «1,061 58 3 4 St 1,177 2002 14,944 = 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 17,852 2003 «1,051 58 3 4 501,166 2003 «15,125 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 = 18,007 2004 1,042 Ss? 3 4 SO 1,156 2004 = 15,308 22,533 338,399 11,510 54,641 18,19] 2005 = 1,033 7 a 4 50. 1,147 2005 15,494 22,533 338,399 11,510, 54,641 18, 381 2006 = 1,032 5? 3 4 50 1,146 2006 «15,681 22,533 338,399,510 54,641 18,553 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: COMPOUNUED GRUMTH RATES: 1986-91: -0.47% 0.34% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% -0.41% 1987-91: 1.35% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% = -0.53% 1.00% 1991-96: 0.05% 0.33% 0.0% 0.0% 0.37% 0.07% 1991-96: 1.21% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% = -0.00% 0.94% 1996-06: -1.16% — -0.68% 0.0% 0.0% 0.77% = - 1.11% 1996-06: 71% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% = -0.00% 1.01% 1986-06: -0.69% -0.17% 0.00% +— 0.00% 0.29% -0.64% 1.25% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -0.13% 0.99% 2 $0 2 abey E-A FLgeL 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 199% i997 1998 1999 2000 2001 TABLE V-4 GLACIER HIGHMAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FURECAST RESULTS HIGH POPULATION CASE ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (Midh) PUBLIC 4,505 4,663 2.97% 3.09% 3.17% SHALL LARGE = STREET YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS 15,255 1,375 1,015 46 15,823 1,397 1,015 46 16,364 1,420 1,015 46 16,930 1,442 1,015 46 17,530 1,465 1,015 6 18,088 1,465 1,354 58 18,678 ‘1,487 1,354 58 19,298 1,510 1,354 58 19,948 1,510 1,354 58 20,629 1,532 1,304 58 21,287 1,532 1,692 69 21,972 1,555 1,692 69 22,685 1,577 1,692 69 23,427 1,577 1,692 69 24,196 1,600 1,692 69 24,960 1,600 2,030 81 25,752 1,622 2,030 81 26,571 1,645 2,030 81 27,418 = 1,645 2,030 81 28,2% «1,667 2,030 81 29,183 1,667 2,030 81 COMPOUNUED GROWTH RATES: 3.47% 1.28% 5.92% 4.56% 3.31% 0.91% 4.56% 3.71% 3.21% 0.85% 1.84% 1.55% 3.30% 0.97% 3.53% 2.84% 3.10% TOTAL SYSTEM SALES OWN USE LOSSES 2,611 20,841 460 21,430 473° 2,684 22,103 488 (2,769 22,815 504 2,858 23,568 S21 2,%2 24,611 544 3,083 25,299 5593, 169 26,083 576 (3,267 26,879 594 3,367 27,733 613 3,474 28,827 637 3,611 29,693 656 3,719 30,592 676 = 3,832 31,428 694 = 3,937 32,391 716 = 4,057 33,681 744 4,219 34,599 764 «4,334 3,627 787 4,463 36,665 B10 4,593 37,677 832 4,720 36, 766 856 4,856 3.38% 3.21% 3.01% 3.15% PEAK TOTAL Own Use = LOSSES DEMAND RLOIS. as % Sales AS % GEN (Mid) 23,912 2.2h 11.8% 5,500 24,587 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 25, 360 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 26,177 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 27,041 2.2% 11.8% 6,200 28,237 2.2% 11.8% 6,400 29,026 2.2% 11.8% 6,600 29,926 eck 11.8% 6,800 30,840 2.2% 11.8% 7,000 31,819 2.2% 11.8% 7,300 33,075 2.2% 11.8% 7,600 34,069 2.eh 11.8% 7,800 35, 100 2.2% 11.8% 8,000 36,059 2.2h 11.8% 8,700 37,163 2.2% 11.8% 8,500 38,644 2.2% 11.8% 8,800 39,698 2.2% 11.8% 9,100 40,876 2.2% 11.8% 9,300 42,067 2.2% 11.8% 9,600 43,229 2.2% 11.8% 9,900 44,479 2.2% 11.8% 10,200 3.38% 3.08% 3.21% 3.50% 3.01% 2.99% 3.15% 3.14% LOAD FACTOR 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Z $0 [ a6eg prA Lge YEAR 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1938 1999 2001 2003 NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS COMM 73 4 4 LARGE COMM STREET LIGHTS TABLE V-4 GLACTER HIGIMAY ELECTRIC ASSOCTATION FORECAST RESULTS PUBLIC BLOGS 1.41% 1,00% 1.08% 1.14% HIGH POPULATION CASE TOTAL YEAR 1,363 1986 1,381 1987 1,402 1988 1,425 1989 1,450 1990 1472199 1,492 1992 1,515 1993 1,538 1994 1,563 1995 1,586 1996 1,609 1997 1,632 1998 1,654 1999 1,679 2000 1,703 200 1,726 2002 1,750 2003 1,774 2006 1,798 2005 1,822 2006 1.55% 1987-91: 1.50% 1991-96: 1.40% 1996-06: 1.46% USAGE (Kith) PER CUSTOMER cre 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 22,533 LARGE corm 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 338,399 SSeeeessse32 B222328888222 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1.89% 1.75% 1.75% 1.78% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% STREET LIGHS PUBLIC BLOGS 57,281 57,238 58,178 59,335 60,557 61,812 63,09 64,405 65,742 67,107 68,500 64,923 71,374 72,856 74,369 75,913 77,489 79,098 80,740 87,417 84,128 1.53% 2.08% 2.08% 1.94% TOTAL 2 40 2 abeg Dr-A FLGeL TABLE V-S GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCTATION FORECAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE A ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS (th) aannnnnn nn nnnn nanan nnn n nnn nn ence ce cece ene nn en cencncne cnc nennnncneceneccencnncnenes PEAK SMALL LARGE STREET == PUBLIC TOTAL SYSTEM = TOTAL, «Own Use = LOSSES = DEMAND. LOAD YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS SALES OWN USE LOSSES REOTS. as % Sales AS 7 GEN (MW) = FACTOR 1986 14,974 1,352 1,015 68 2,974 20,384 450 2,800 23,634 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1987 14,964 1,329 1,015 84 2,911 20,304 449° 2,789 23,542 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1988 14,883 1,307 1,015 100 2,844 = 20,149 445 2,768 = 23,362 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 50.0% 1989 15,036 1,307 1,015 100 2,842 20,300 448 2,788 23,537 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1990 15,420 1,329 1,015 100 2,841 20,706 457 2,844 24,008 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1991 15,555 1,329 1,015 100 2,841 20,841 460 = 2,863 24,165 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1992 15,689 1,307 1,015 100 2,841 20,952 463 2,878 = 24,293 2.2h 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1993 15,823 1,307 1,015 100 2,841 21,086 466 2,A96 24,449 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1994 15,961 1,307 1,015 100 2,841 21,224 469 2,915 24,609 2.0% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1995 16,097 1,307 1,015 100 2,787 21,306 471 2,927 24,703 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1996 16,207 1,307 1,354 125 2,787 21,779 481 2,992 25,252 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 1997 16,320 1,307 1,354 125 2,787 21,892 484 (3,007 25,383 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 1998 16,430 1,284 1,354 125 2,787 = 21,980 486 3,019 25,485 2.2k 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 1939 16,544 1,284 1,354 125 2,787 22,094 488 = 3,035 25,617 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 2000 16,655 1,284 1,354 125 2,732 22,150 489 3,043 25,682 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 2001 16,767 1,284 1,354 125 2,732 22,262 492 3,058 = 25,812 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 2002 16,882 1,284 1,354 125 2,732 22,377 494 (3,074 25,945 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 2003 16,394 1,262 1,354 125 2,732 22,466 49 3,086 = 26,049 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 2004 17,106 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 = 22,524 498 = 3,094 26,116 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 2005 17,222 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 22,640 500 3,110» 26,750 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 2006 17,430 1,262 1,354 125 2,677 22,848 505 3,138 26,491 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 1986-91: 8.02% “0.91% = 0.45% 0.45% 0.37% 1991-96: 4.56% -0.39% = 0.88% 0.88% 1.07% 1996-06: 0.00% 0.40% 0.48% 0.48% 0.34% 1986-06: 0.76% 0.34% 1.45% 3.09% 0.52% 0.57% 0.57% 0.53% Z $0 [ abe G-A FLQeL TABLE V-S GLACTER HIGHAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE A SMALL LARGE = STREET YEAR —RES COMM COMM LIGHTS 1986 1,223 60 1987 1,201 59 1988 1,179 58 1989 1,177 58 1990 1,192 59 1991 1,188 39 1992 1,184 58 1993 1,180 58 1994 1,176 88 1995 1,172 $8 199% 1,166 58 1997 1,160 58 1998 1,154 57 1999 1,148 s7 2001 1,136 sv 2002 1,130 Ss? 2003 «1,124 56 QaAnnnnnnVKMTne een enn none 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 1986-06: -0.48% -0.34% 1.45% 1.12% PUBLIC BLOGS 0.38% 0.39% 0.40% -0.39% TOTAL YEAR 1,343 1986 1,320 1987 1,2% 1988 1,294 1989 1,310 1990 1,306 1991 1,301 1992 1,297 1993 1,293 1994 1,288 1995 1,284 1996 1,278 1997 1,271 1998 1,265 1999 1,258 2000 1,252 2001 1,266 2002 1,239 2003 1,231 2004 1,226 2005 1,226 2006 -0.56% 1987-91: -0.35% 1991-96: -0.46% 1996-06: -0.46% 1986-06 USAGE (KWh) PCR CUSTOMER LARGE COMM 33eeeeaeeRs wWwewuww 38, 38, 338, 38, 38, 38 38 38 338, 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00% STREET LIGHTS 21,000 25,000 DR DR DK DR DADE DE DR DR OR DK OE OR DDK ORO DR 2222322222222 822328 PUBLIC BLOGS -0.53% 0.00% -0.00% 0.13% TOTAL 2 $0 2 abeg S-A 9LgeL TABLE V-6 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION FORECAST RESULTS ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE B ENERGY SALES AND REQUIREMENTS. (Hidh) wos ccennn nec nneccetnnne cn neec cc nnne ne nnncene anne ca nnnnnnasnecnnnnneacnnnecnnaneanenne snes PEAK SHALL LARGE = STREET PUBLIC. TOTAL SYSIEM TOIL Own Use LOSSES DEMAND. LOAD YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIGHTING BUILDINGS SALES OWN USE LOSSES REQTS. as % Sales AS % GEN (MM) FACTOR 1986 «14,974 1,352, 1, 015 68 2,974 20,384 = 450-2800 23,634 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1987 14,964 1,329 ‘1,015 84 2,911 20,304 «= 4492, 789 23,542 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1988 = «14,907 1,307, 1, 015 100 2,844 20,178 = 45,771 23,391 2.2% 11.8% 5,300 50.0% 1989 15,074 = 1,307 «1, 015 100 2,842, 20,338 «= 449.2794 23,581 2.2% 11.8% 5,400 50.0% 1990 «15,471 1,329 1,015 100 2,841 20,757 «459.2851 24,067 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1991 15,620 1,329 1,015 100 2,841 20,906 «= 462-2872 24,240 2.2% 11.8% 5,500 50.0% 1992 15,767 1,329 1,015 100 2,841 21,053 485 2,892 24,410 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1993 15,916 1,329 «1, 015 100 2,841 21,202 468 «2,912 24,582 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1994 16,068 = 1,307, 1,015 100-2841 21,332,471 2,930 24,733 2.2% 11.8% 5,600 50.0% 1995 16,219 1,307, 1, 015 100 2,841 21,483 «= 475.2951 24,908 2.2% 11.8% 5,700 50.0% 1996 16,372, 1,307, 1,354 125 2,841 21,998 = 486 —«3,022 25,506 2.2% 11.8% 5,800 50.0% 1997 16,528 = 1,307, 1,354 12S 2,841 22,155 489304325, RRB 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 1998 16,683 1,307, «1,354 12 2,787 22,255 = 492-—«(3,057 25,804 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 1999 16,842, 1,307, 1,354 12 2,787 22,415 495-3079 25,989 2.2% 11.8% 5,900 50.0% 2000 =—17,000 «1,307 S154 12 2,787 22,573. «499-3, 101 26,172 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 2001 17,159 1,307 1,354 1% 2,787 22,732 «502-3, 12226, 356 2.2% 11.8% 6,000 50.0% 2002 17,323 «1,307 1,354 125 2,787 22,895 = 506 3,145 26,546 2.2% 11.8% 6,100 50.0% 2003 «17,485,284 1,354 12 2,787 23,035 «= 509-3, 164 26,708 2.2% 11.8% 6,100 50.0% 200 «17,648 =—‘1,284 1,354 125 2,787 23,198 ~=— S123, 187 26,897 2.2% 11.8% 6,100 50.0% 2005 «17,816 =, 284 1,354 12 2,787 23,366 «= 516 3,210 27,092 2.2% 11.8% 6,200 50.0% 2006 = 18,032‘, 284 1,354 125 2,787 23,582 S21 3,239 27,342 2.2% 11.8% 6,200 50.0% COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1986-91: 0.85% 0.34% 0.00% 8.02% “0.91% 0.51% 0.51% 0.37% 1991-96: 0.94% 0.34% 5.92% 4.56% ~0.00% 1.02% 1.02% 1.07% 1996-06: 0.97% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% -0.19% 0.70% 0.70% 0.67% 1986-06: 0.93% -0.26% 1.45% 3.09% 0.32% 0.73% 0.73% 0.69% Z $0 [ abeg Q-A atqey GHEA-ENP TABLE V-6 27-Jan-87 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 04:17 PM FORECAST RESULTS \p NN ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE B NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS USAGE (KWh) PER CUSTOMER SMALL == LARGE = STREET = PUBLIC SMALL LARGE STREET PUBLIC YEAR RES COMM COMM LIGHTS BLOGS TOTAL YEAR RES COMM COMM LIGHTS — BLOGS TOTAL 1986 1,223 60 3 4 53 1,343 1986 12,242 22,533 338,399 17,000 56,116 15,176 1987 1,201 59 3 4 531,320 1987 12,459 22,533 338,399» 21,000» 54,933.15, 382-. 1988 1,181 58 3 4 521,298 1988 12,624 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,700 15,544 1989 1,179 58 3 4 52. 1,296 1989 12,780 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,653 15,687 1990 1,196 59 3 4 52. 1,314 1990 12,935 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,644 15, 796 1991 1,193 59 3 4 $2. 1,311 1991 13,092 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,642 15,945 1992 1,190 59 3 4 S2 1,308 1992 13,250 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 16,096 1993 1,187 59 5 4 52. 1,305 1993 13,411 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,641 = 16,249 1994 1,184 58 3 4 521,301 1994 13,573 22,533 338,399» 25,000 54,641 = 16,398 1995 1,181 58 3 4 521,298 1995 13,737 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,641 16,555 199 1,178 58 4 5 $2. 1,297 19% 13,904 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 16, 967 1997 1,175 58 4 5 52. 1,294 1997 14,072 22,533 338,399 25,000. 54,641 17,127 1998 1,171 58 4 5 St 1,289 1998 14,242 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 17,260 1999 1,168 $8 4 5 St 1,286 1999 14,415 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 = 17,426 2000 «1,165 38 4 5 SI 1,283 2000 «14,589 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,641 = 17,590 2001 1,162 58 4 5 St 1,280 2001 «14,766 22,533 338,399 = 25,000 54,641 17,757 2002 «1,159 58 4 5 St 1,277 2002 14,944 = 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 17,927 2003 1,156 3? 4 5 Si 1,273 2003 15,125 22,532 338,399 = 25,000 54,641 = 18,095 2004 1,153 Ss? 4 5 St 1,270 2004 15,308 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 18,268 2005 1,150 Ss? 4 5 St 1,267 2005 15,494 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 18,443 2006 1,150 7 4 5 Sl 1,267 2006 15,681 22,533 338,399 25,000 54,641 18,613 COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: COMPOUNDED GROWTH RATES: 1986-91: -0.50% + -0.34% 0.0% 0.0% -0.38% -0.48% 1987-91: 1.35% 0.00% 0.0% 8.0% — -0.53% 0. 1991-96: -0.26% += -0.34% 5.9% 4.6% 0.00% -0.22% 1991-96: 1.21% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% = -0.00% 1. 1996-06: -0.24% = -0.17% 0.0% 0.0% -0.19% -0.23% 1996-06: 1.21% 0.00% 0.0% 0.0% = -0.00% 0. 1986-06: -0.31% -0.26% 1.45% 1.12% -0.19% — -0.29% 1986-06: 1.25% 0.00% 0.00% 1.95% 0.13% 1. 2 $0 2 a6ey 9-A 9Lqey Megawatt — Hours (Thousands) 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 2: 10 oO FV fF D DW Energy Soles — Base Population Case GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION es ee 1966 1971 Historical Projected Commercial ublic Buildings Residential 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 I-A aunBbey Megawatt—hours (Thousands) GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Total Energy Sales 50 Historical | Projected I | 40 7 | I I I High Population | 30 4 I | | Base Populatio I | 20) | | Low Population | | I I 10 7 | 0 4 at ae Mi RM a Nn pal rea rl ee Cen einem Cop atieegh rt T TT tT. T T TT T_T TT 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 ——— Pop. Cases * * Emp. Base Case 2-A aunbey Kilowatts (Thousands) 12 11 10 GLACIER HIGHWAY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Peak Demand al Historical | Projected | =I I High Populatio | al I I | | | Base Population I | > oe x kk FT * ae * | Low Population | I | | | I T T ila ie, il T T T T T 2 = T T ose Taal TT T " Taamennny rr Tieteetaen eae 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 ——— Pop. Cases * * Emp. Bose Cose €-A aunbuy SECTION VI COMBINED FORECAST FOR THE JUNEAU AREA The results of the forecasts for the two individual utilities in Juneau - AEL&P and GHEA - as described in Sections IV and V were totalled to produce total community forecasts. Table VI-1 summarizes the combined fore- cast. For comparative purposes, historical energy sales, energy requirements and peak demand for the two utilities combined are shown in Table VI-2. Table VI-3 provides estimates of the total sales, total energy requirements, and combined peak for the Juneau area based on the population projections described in Appendix B. Table VI-4 provides the same information based on the Power Authority's employment forecast described in Appendix A. The infor- mation shown on Tables VI-2, VI-3 and VI-4 is also shown graphically on Fig- ure VI-1 and Figure VI-4, respectively. As can be seen on the tables and figures, the dramatic growth experienced by Juneau in the past 20 years is projected to essentially end as the Juneau community adapts to the current economic slowdown. Total load growth in the future is projected to be greatly reduced in the base case and a decline in area loads in the near term appears likely. Total Sales Estimated total sales for the Juneau area are obtained by summing up the projected sales for both AEL&P and GHEA for each year of the forecast. Under the population based forecast the base case results as presented in Table VI-3 and shown in Figure VI-1 and Figure VI-2 show a moderate increase in total sales of 1.0% annually from 1986 to 1991 and 1.1% annually from 1991 to 1996. This represents a substantially lower sales growth than the 10.9% sales growth that the utilities have witnessed over the prior 10-year period from 1975 to 1985. On an aggregate basis, total energy sales in Juneau are projected to increase from an estimated 236,900 MWh in 1986 to 292,700 MWh in 2006. Under the base case projections derived using the employment pro- jections (Table VI-4 and Figure VI-4) total sales are projected to decline at 1.4% annually from 1986 to 1991, and to remain approximately constant there- after. Total sales for the two systems are projected to decline from an estimated 244,400 MWh in 1986 to 227,800 MWh in 1991, and to only increase gradually to a 232,100 MWh level in the year 2006. Over the 20-year fore- casted period total sales are seen as declining at an annual rate of 0.03% in the forecast based on the employment projections. Total Requirements Total requirements for the two utilities serving the Juneau area are projected to increase from an estimated 259,700 MWh in 1986 to 321,000 MWh in 2006, representing approximately 1.07% annual growth rate in energy requirements for the forecasted period based on population estimates (see VI-2 Table VI-3). Total requirements are seen as declining over the coming 20 year period under the forecast based on employment projections, decreasing at a 1.4% annual rate from 1986 to 1991 and remaining relatively flat thereafter. Under these assumptions for the Juneau community total requirements decline from the estimated 268,000 MWh in 1986 to a low of 250,100 MWh in 1991 and gradually increased to a 254,800 MWh level in the year 2006. This represents an average annual load decrease of 0.25% over the 20-year period (see Table VI-4). These projections contrast sharply with the historic growth of total requirements for Juneau which has averaged 10.3% annually over the past 10 years. Peak Demand Peak demand for the combined Juneau community has been projected based on the historic load factors for AEL&P and GHEA. Using these load factors, peak demand is seen as increasing from an estimated 56.8 MWs in 1986 to 70.3 MWs in 2006 using the population base case projections, representing approximately a 1.07% annual growth rate over the forecasted horizon (see Table VI-1 and Figure VI-3). Peak demand is estimated to decline at 1.4% annually from 1986 to 1991 under the employment based forecast and to remain approximately constant thereafter (Table VI-4). Under these assumptions peak demand declines from the estimated 58.7 MWs in the year 1986 to approximately 54.8 MWs in 1991 and increases very gradually to 55.8 MWs in the year 2006. Again, this contrasts with Juneau's historic peak load growth of an average 11.5% annually from 1976 to 1985. Table VI-1 Combined Juneau Area Load Forecast Summary of Forecast Results Historical Average Projected Average Annual Growth Annual Increase 1986_ 1991 1996 2006 1976-85 986-91 1991-06 Total Energy Requirements (MWh Population Based Cases: Base Case 259,700 272,800 293,200 321,000 10.3% 1.0% 121% Low Case ... 254,800 256,300 266,700 257,900 0.1% 0.0% High Case 266,500 302,700 347,900 450,900 2.6% 2.7% Employment Based Cases: Base Gase <0. -<.-.-- 268,000 250,100 253,000 254,800 10.3% -1.4% 0.1% Case Ai ocisie sists wisi wi s10 268,000 257,400 261,100 263,200 -0. 8% 0.1% Case B .vcccccsseces 268,000 258,300 263,500 272,400 -0.7% 0.4% Peak Demand (kW) Population Based Cases: Base Case 59,700 64,200 70,300 1.5% 1.0% Val% Low Case ... 56,200 58,300 56,500 0.1% 0.0% High Case 66,200 76,200 98,800 225% 2.7% Employment Based Cases: Base Case .....ceeee 58,700 54,800 55,400 55,800 11.5% -1.4% 0.1% Case A .ccessccsesee 58,700 56,400 57,200 57,600 -0. &% 0.1% GaSe Bl meee eles sie 58,700 56,500 57,700 59,600 -0.8% 0.4% Total Energy Sales (Mah) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELAP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Sales (MWh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area 107,677 20,000 1967 39,076 2,863 41,940 11,210 1977 95,485 7,116 102,601 107,773 1401 116,174 23,380 1,900 25,280 10,418 850 11,268 115,391 9,080 124,471 23,100 1,850 131,912 25,900 2,100 28,000 TABLE VI-2 JUNEAU AREA COMUINED HISTORICAL LOADS 1970 1980 119,716 9,683 135,459 11,253 146,712 32,100 2,712 34,812 1971 1981 1972 1983 191,630 16 838 208,468 209,092 18,725 227,817 46,000 4,080 1984 204,113 18,683 222,796 225, 156 21,794 246,951 48,590 4,800 53,390 1975 1985 223,789 19,715 243,505 236,948 22,241 Average Annual Increase C-IA 9L9eL Base Population Case Total Energy Sales (Mh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Lom Population Case Total Energy Sales (MWh) AELOP GHEA Total Juneau Aree Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area High Pe Total Energy Sales (Mh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) PEL OP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Dewand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area TABLE VI-3 JUNEAU AREA COMBINED LOAD FORECAST Population Based Cases 1989 1990 1991 1992 206,300 210,900 213,400 215,900 20,400 226,000 231,100 233,800 236,600 225,100 230,200 232,800 235,600 55,600 Z 40 [ abeg €-IA 9lgeL Base Population Case Tote! Energy Sales (Mth) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Aree Tote! Energy Requirements (MWh) *eLBP GHEA Total Junesu Area Peak Desand (KH) AeLBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Low Population Case Total Energy Sales (Mh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Aree Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELOP GHEA Totel Juneau Area Peak Oewand (KM) AELOP GHEA Total Juneau Area High Population Case Total Energy Seles (Mth) seep GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) *ELOP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area 303,900 30,600 334,500 331,700 35,100 366,800 8,000 80,300 84,700 TABLE VI-3 JUNEAU AREA COMBINED LOAD FORECAST Population Based Cases 2001 2002 2003 2004 265,400 27,300 292,700 289,700 31,300 321,000 63,100 7,200 70,300 Avarage Annual Growth =--Histor rcal--~ 1976-85 1981-85 10.7% 13.1% 12.7% 14.4% 10.9% 13.2% 10.2% 11.3% 12.6% 14.2% 10.3% 11.5% 11.3% 7.2 13.4% 12.8% 1.5% 7.7% 10.7% 13.1% 12.7% 14.4% 10.9% 13.2% 10.2% 11.3% 12.6% 14.2% 10.3% 0 11.5% 11.3% 7.3% 13.4% 12.8% 11.5% 7% 10.7% 13.1% 12.7% 14.4 10.9% 13.2% 10.2% 11.3% 12.6% 14.2% 10.3% 11.5% M.3k 7.3% 13.4% 12.8% WSt 76% ~--Prosected--- 1986-91 1991-06 0.9% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 1.12 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.6% 10x 1.x 0.12 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2.5% 2.7% 3.4% 3.10 2.6% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 3.4% 3.1% 2.6% 2.7% 2.5% 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% 2.5% 2.7% 2 $9 2 abeg €-IA PLgeL Base Employment Case Total Energy Sales (MWh) *eLBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) ELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Deeand (KW) AELOP GHEA Total Juneau Area Alternative Eaploysent Case A Total Energy Sales (MWh) AELBP GHEA Tota! Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Alternative Eaployment Case B Total Energy Sales (MWh) AELEP GHEA Total Juneau Ares Total Energy Requirements (MWh) PELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area Peak Dewand (KW) AELBP GHEA Total Juneau Area 1989 TABLE VI-4 JUNEAU AREA COMUINED (000 FORECAST Employment Based Cases 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 19% 1996 224,000 220,700 20,400 20,300 244,400 241,000 244,400 240,800 23,600 23,500 268,000 264,300 53,300 52,500 5,400 5,400 58,700 57,900 Z 40 [ abey b-IA atqey Total Energy Sales (1h) Pity Gita Totel Juneau Area Totel Energy Requirements (MWh) weLeP GHA Total Juneau Area Peak Demand (KH) AELOP GEA Total Juneau Area Alternative Employsent Case A Total Energy Sales (MWh) EL BP GHA Total Juneau Area Total Energy Requirements (MWh) AeuuP GHEA Total Juneau Aree Peak Demand (KK) weep GHEA Total Juneau Aree Alternative Employsent Case B Total Energy Sales (?h) eLeP GHA Totel Juneau Aree Total Energy Requirements (MWh) *eLep GHEA Total Juneau Ares Peak Demand (KH) AeLeP HEA Total Juneau Area 1997 1998 1999 239,100 236,700 TABLE VI-4 JUNEAU AREA COMUINED LOAD FORECAST Eaployaent Based Cases 2001 2002 2003 2004 58,800 59,000 59,2 Average Annual Growth ~--Historical--- ---Projected--~ 1976-85 1981-85 1986-91 1991-06 10.72% 13.1% “1.52 0.1% 12.7% 14.4% -0.2% 0.6% 10.9% 13.2% 0.1% 10.2% 11.3% 0.12 12.6% 14.2% 0.62 10.3% W.S% 0-142 0.1% 11.3% 13.4% 11.52 7% “1.4% 0.1% 10.72% 13.1% -0.9% 0.1% 12.7% 14.4% 0.4% 0.6% 10.9% 13.2% -0.8% 0.2% 10.2% 1.3% -0.9% 0.1% 12.6% 14.2% 0.52 6% 10.3% 11.5% ~0.8% 0.2% 11.3% 7.3 -0.9% 0.1% 13.4% 12.8% 0.4% 0.6% 11.5% 7.1% -0.8% 0.2% 10.7% 13.1% -0.9% 0.3% 12.7% 14.4% 0.52 0.62 10.9% 13.2% -0,72 0.4% 10.2% 11.3% -0.9% 0.3% 12.6% 14.2% 0.5% 0.8% 10.3% 11.5% -0,7% At 11.3% 7.3% 0.9% 0.3% 13.4% 12.8% 0.4% 0.8% 11.5% 7.2% -0.82 0.42 2 40 Z abey br-IA 9LgeL Figure VI-1 asog yuawAojdwy ss0g yy * 900G LOO S661 L66L 9861 L86L 9Z61L LZ6L 9961 ee ees reece a seer een ene Necross paqzdal0ug [OdL4uOYSLH saso9 uonojndoy — sajoS ABuaug jo},oO, ISVOIeO4 VAEV NVANNE GANIGNOO 0 OS OOL OGl 00 OG oor ose OOv OSY (SpuDsnou,) sunou—zOMDHsw Megawatt—hours (Thousands) COMBINED JUNEAU AREA FORECAST Total Energy Sales — Base Pop. Case 450 400 — Historical Projected 350 4 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 et 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Z-IA aunBbly Kilowatts (Thousands) COMBINED JUNEAU AREA FORECAST Peak Demand — Population Cases 100 90 4 Historical Projected 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Ea em 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 * * Base Employment Case €-IA aunBby Megawatt—hours (Thousands) COMBINED JUNEAU AREA FORECAST Total Energy Sales — Employment Cases 450 —___, Projected 400 4 Historical 350 4 300 250 200 150 100 50 O re ree 1966 uS74 1976 1981 1986 119911 1996 2001 2006 v-IA a4nbey Appendix A Juneau Employment Forecast Prepared by the Alaska Power Authority November, 1986 Current employment estimates by sector in the Juneau area are displayed in Table A-1. The employment sectors are grouped into three cate- gories: basic employment, support employment, and local government employ- ment. Local government is identified separately because it has both basic and support sector characteristics, as discussed further below. State and federal government employment together presently consti- tute approximately 90% of basic employment, with state government by itself accounting for about 60%. The first step in generating a Juneau employment forecast is therefore to estimate the future of state government employment. Because the State of Alaska budget is funded primarily by oi] revenues and is expected to be funded in the future primarily by oi] and non-tax revenues (i.e., interest earnings on the Permanent Fund), state government employment levels are more likely to be a function of these state revenues rather than a steady reflection of statewide employment or population. The state employment forecast therefore begins with a state revenue forecast. State Revenue Forecast The dominant factor underlying the revenue forecasts for Alaska State government is the expected long-run decline in North Slope oil produc- tion. Estimates obtained from the Alaska Department of Revenue (ADOR) are displayed in Table A-2. ADOR issues a quarterly publication entitled "Revenue Sources", which contains a long-run state revenue forecast. The most recent issue available at the time of this writing is dated September 1986. Petroleum revenues are estimated at the 30th percentile level, and are keyed to average expected world oil prices rising from $12.49/bb] in fiscal year 1987 to $15.98/bb1 in fiscal year 2000, expressed in 1986 dollars. Augmentation of state general fund revenues from reinstatement of a personal income tax or from diversion of Permanent Fund earnings is not assumed in the published forecasts. In order to develop a better understanding for how state revenues would respond in the long-run to various oil price futures and revenue augmen- tation measures, an effort was made for purposes of this load forecast to generate rough estimates of future state revenue based on a range of pertinent assumptions. Although the methodology used for generating these estimates is not sophisticated, the overall shape and magnitude of the results is instruc- tive. State oil revenues come primarily from severance taxes and royal- ties, both of which are inherently dependent on the price of oi]. Two world oil price scenarios were used for this analysis and are displayed in Table A-3. A-2 These scenarios correspond roughly to the "lower" and "upper" oi] price trends currently in use by the Alaska Power Authority for its feasibili- ty analyses. The lower trend reflects a constant real price of $15/bb] through fiscal year 1990, followed by an $18/bb1 constant real price from 1991 through 2006. The upper’ trend reflects the idea that real prices will climb back to the $35/bbl range over the next twenty years. The scenarios are displayed both in real (1986 dollar) terms and in nominal terms assuming a 4% annual inflation rate. The production forecasts in Table A-2 and the oil price scenarios in Table A-3 were entered as input to a simplified forecasting model supplied by ADOR. The resulting forecasts of severance tax and royalty income produced by the model are displayed in Table A-4. To these estimates were added the forecasts published by ADOR in the September 1986 issue of "Revenue Sources" for the following state revenue categories: oi] and gas property tax, oi] and gas corporate income tax, mineral rents, General Fund interest, and non-petroleum, non-interest reve- nues. After deducting 25% of estimated royalty income for the constitution- ally mandated deposits to the Permanent Fund, the resulting figure is the "Base Estimate" of unrestricted General Fund Revenue. This is displayed for each scenario in Table A-5. Revenue augmentation consisting of three distinct components was then considered for each case. The three components include: reimposition of a personal income tax, diversion of Permanent Fund earnings currently used for inflation-proofing the Fund, and diversion of all remaining Permanent Fund earnings beyond those required for inflation-proofing. For this analysis, it was assumed that a personal income tax would raise $300 million per year (in 1986 dollars), that "“inflation-proofing" the Permanent Fund would be calcu- lated on the basis of a 4% annual inflation rate over the next twenty years, and that the real rate of return on Permanent Fund investments will be 3% per year. Figures A-1 and A-2 display incremental revenue levels that would be realized for scenarios "A" and "B" if one or more of these measures were adopted in fiscal year 1988. Tnere are countless scenarios and assumptions that can be con- ceived, involving not only the magnitude of events (e.g., oi] price and interest rate behavior, additional oil production from new fields, etc.) but also the character and timing of political decisions. However, the numbers presented still suggest the following conclusion: real state government expenditure is likely to decline significantly over the next twenty years. Even under scenario "B" (the upper oil price trend) with full augmentation of revenues, the 1986 dollar value of revenues declines below $1.4 billion by the end of the twenty-year period. Assuming that the capital budget will again be financed by bonds rather than cash expenditure, this implies a real reduction in the state operating budget of about 25% based on a current operating budget slightly below $2 billion. Under scenario "A", the reduction over twenty years with full revenue augmentation would be nearly 50%. A-3 The judgment adopted for purposes of this employment forecast is that real state expenditure will decline by 30% over the next twenty years, and that this decline will be spread over the entire period though its impact will be sharpest over the next few years. This implies that the operating budget expressed in 1986 dollars will decline to about $1.4 billion during that period. The state's operating budget (including general obligation debt service) most recently approximated that level in fiscal year 1980. As shown in scenario "A", the state budget could suffer a decline to the $1.4 billion level as early as fiscal year 1988 simply by a combination of $15/bb1 oil prices and an unwillingness to augment revenues. Further, using the rule of thumb that a one dollar decline in the price of oil results in a state revenue decline of about $150 million at today's production levels, the state budget could decline below $1.0 billion if oi] prices again erode to the $12/bb1 range. On the other hand, the state does have the option of liquidating certain cash balances still available in the treasury to help mitigate sudden reductions in government programs, and may in addition choose to augment revenues in any of several ways, including those described above. Over the long run, oil prices become less important than interest rates in determining state revenue levels, and the interest rate assumed in this analy- sis (i.e., a 3% real rate of return on Permanent Fund investments) may well be conservative. The judgment adopted for this forecast reflects the idea that the state will probably do what it can to moderate the effects of funding shortfalls in the short run, but will not be able to avoid the substantial long-run reductions necessitated by the expected decline in North Slope oil production revenues. State Government Employment in Juneau A future expected budget level must then be translated into a fore- cast of state government employment in Juneau. Various theories are held regarding the manner in which budgetary reductions will be allocated. One theory is that an effort will be made to reduce the “administrative overhead" of government (i.e., the central state bureaucracy) aS much as possible in order to minimize reductions in service levels and financial aid around the state. This would imply a reduction in Juneau state employment at least pro- portional to the overall loss of revenue. Another theory is that a relatively high proportion of central government employment has a "fixed cost" character about it in contrast to field services and financial assistance. Consistent with the latter view is the observation that state government employment in Juneau increased less rapidly than did the overall operating budget during the recent period of high budget growth. As noted above, the state operating budget most recently approxi- mated a $1.4 billion level (in 1986 dollars) in fiscal year 1980. (In nominal dollars, the combined budget during that year for operations and general obligation debt service was $1.035 billion.) State government employment in Juneau during that year averaged about 3,900, which is about 700 jobs or about 15% less than today. Since that historical experience appears to be the A-4 clearest available guideline, it is assumed for this forecast that state government employment in Juneau will be rolled back to about 3,900 jobs by the end of the twenty-year period. This reduction has been allocated in the fore- cast by eliminating 100: state government jobs in each of the first three years, with the remaining 400 jobs eliminated gradually over the following 17 years. It should be noted that the impact of these reductions, though sig- nificant in proportion to the Juneau economy, is insignificant in proportion to the magnitude of the state's revenue shortfall. Assuming for illustration an average savings of $50,000 per job, a reduction of 100 jobs would save the state an estimated $5 million per year. A reduction of 700 jobs would save an estimated $35 million per year. Clearly, if the state must eventually reduce its operating budget by approximately $600 million per year, the elimination of 700 state government jobs in Juneau would be a very small part of the solution, contributing only about 5% of the required savings. Users of this forecast should realize that a clear potential exists for reductions in Juneau state government employment well beyond the level assumed in the present analysis. Federal Government Employment in Juneau State and federal government employment together comprise the bulk of basic sector employment in the Juneau economy. As indicated in Table A-6, federal government employment declined between 1980 and 1985 from approximate- ly 1,190 to 1,040, a loss of 150 jobs. Representatives from several of the larger federal employers in Juneau were contacted to determine whether plans exist for further changes in staffing levels in the Juneau area. Inquiries were made at the Coast Guard, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Forest Service. The "best guess" offered by the Coast Guard representative was that Coast Guard employment in Juneau will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. There is currently some debate within the organization concerning the desirability of centralizing certain functions currently performed in the district offices, and a study on that subject is currently under review. Centralization would result in a loss of some jobs in Juneau. However, imple- mentation of the idea is considered highly speculative at this point by the Juneau representative. Tne Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has reduced its Juneau staffing levels to a significant extent over the last several years. Although a reorganization plan is also under review presently by the BIA, the Juneau representative believed that any further reduction in Juneau staffing that would result from such reorganization would be insignificant. The expressed view was that BIA employment in Juneau was most likely to remain unchanged. The Forest Service representative believed that a staffing reduction of about 5% (or about 10 jobs) in the Juneau office was the most likely prospect. A-5 Overall, the view that emerged was that federal government employ- ment in Juneau is more likely to decline than it is to grow, but that the amount of such decline is likely to be slight and is difficult to predict. In the absence of any clear plans to make significant staffing changes, the judg- ment adopted for this forecast is that federal government employment overall will remain unchanged throughout the forecast period. The projected loss in basic sector employment from state and feder- al government is therefore about 700 jobs over the next twenty years. The impact of this decline can be offset to the extent that gains are made in other basic sector employment categories, including primarily tourism, fish- ing, and mining. Tourism, Fishing and Mining Precise data regarding tourism and fishing employment is not avail- able since tourism employment consists largely of some fraction of services and retail trade, and fishing is typically not reported in wage and salary employment statistics. However, employment directly attributable to tourism in the Juneau economy has been estimated in a study performed for the City and Borough of Juneau at approximately 300 jobs. Various opinions have been expressed regarding the prospects for significant long-term growth in tourism employment. One view is that the prospects are extremely good for continued expansion in summer tourism given aggressive marketing, and for increased winter tourism based to a great extent on the local ski area. A contrary view is that the probability of encountering foul weather will ultimately limit the appeal of Juneau as a tourist destination. The assumption made for this fore- cast is that tourism employment will undergo a moderate expansion over the next ten years at approximately a 3% annual rate of growth, leading to an aggregate increase in tourism employment of 33% (or 100 full-time equivalent jobs) over that period. No change in tourism employment is forecast beyond the tenth year. Employment directly attributable to fishing has also been estimated at approximately 300 full-time equivalent jobs. Fishing opportunities in the Juneau area are inferior to those available elsewhere in southeast Alaska. Consequently, fish processing facilities are located in other southeast com- munities but no longer exist in Juneau. Though there is currently some dis- cussion on the prospects for opening a new fish processing facility in Juneau, it is assumed for this forecast that competition from facilities in other communities and from floating processors that are closer to prime commercial fishing areas will prevent such expansion from occurring in Juneau. No scenario with a reasonably good probability has been identified that would result in a significant expansion in fishing employment in the Juneau area. Fishing employment is therefore held constant throughout the twenty-year forecast period. A-6 The two significant mining prospects in the Juneau area are the Greens Creek mine on Admiralty Island and the possible reopening of the A-J gold mine. For the Greens Creek mine at current metal prices, silver would provide the greatest contribution to the value of mine output, followed by gold. Lead and zinc are also available but are estimated to make relatively small contributions to output value. The sponsors of the Greens Creek project anticipate completion of their feasibility study in January 1987. A decision to proceed followed by an estimated two-year construction period could bring the mine into operation by the end of 1988 or early 1989. Estimates of mine employment vary between about 150 and 300 jobs. Mine life is presently esti- mated at ten years, though additional information on reserves could result in a significant extension. A decision to proceed will therefore reflect the sponsors' forecast of silver and gold prices during the 1990s, coupled with an assessment of production cost. The possibility of reopening the A-J gold mine is currently under investigation by Echo Bay Exploration Inc. According to their representative, the mine could conceivably begin operation by 1993. Although all information about the venture is very preliminary, it is anticipated that the scale of operations would be relatively large if the project were to proceed, and that direct employment could be in the vicinity of 300 jobs. An assessment of the feasibility of either of these ventures is beyond the scope of this employment forecasting effort. The opinion commonly expressed is that, of the two projects, Greens Creek appears more likely to proceed to actual development. The decision to proceed, however, is funda- mentally dependent upon the sponsors' perception of future gold and silver prices, a perception that is exceptionally hard to anticipate. In general, it is probably unwise to ascribe a probability greater than 50% to the successful development of any particular mine venture. Therefore, neither of these proj- ects is included in the "Base Case" forecast, but both are instead accounted for in the sensitivity analysis. Support Sector Employment As a result of the considerations discussed above, basic sector employment in Juneau is characterized by a net decline of about 600 jobs over the next twenty years in the "Base Case" forecast. Of equal importance is the outlook for support sector employment, which currently accounts for roughly half of total employment in the Juneau area. As indicated in Table A-7, support employment compared with total employment in the Juneau area grew slightly between 1980 and 1985, from approximately 42% to 45%. Over this same period 1,560 support sector jobs were added to the Juneau economy as opposed to 1,170 basic sector jobs. This indicates that for every basic sector job added, 1.34 support sector jobs were added. Most of this increase in support sector employment occurred in the categories of services, retail trade, and to a lesser extent, construction. A-7 The major cause of this phenomenon is generally thought to be the 1982 de- cision by the voters to keep the capital in Juneau, which unleashed a backlog of local investments that had been inhibited by the capital move possibility. In addition, rising real. incomes among state workers and the expectation for future growth in state income and employment encouraged support sector growth. At issue for this forecast is the probable response of support sector employment to the anticipated decline in basic employment. The ques- tion may be divided into two parts: 1) If basic employment were to remain unchanged, should the support to basic ratio be expected to increase, de- crease, or remain the same? and 2) With basic employment declining, would the support to basic ratio tend to be higher as a result of the desire of support sector businesses to hold on as long as possible even with diminishing returns? This forecasting effort cannot produce answers to these questions with any confidence. With respect to the first question there are a few observations that can be made. For example, the support sector investment Phenomenon stimulated by the 1982 vote appears to have run its course, and the expectations for future growth in state income and employment have now been reversed. It is possible that the support sector expansion that occurred is not sustainable, and that a contraction in the ratio of support to basic employment could occur. On the other hand, increase in the ratio of support to basic employment is a phenomenon that has occurred throughout the popu- lation centers of Alaska and the rest of the nation for a number of years, suggesting that some underlying structural changes may be occurring that are not easily understood. Further, it has been suggested that declining real incomes in the Juneau area could actually produce an increase in the support to basic ratio as local residents find themselves less able to afford outside travel, recreation, and purchase of outside services. In the absence of a persuasive argument on one side or the other of this question, the judgment adopted for purposes of this forecast is that one support sector job will be lost for every basic sector job that is lost. This one-to-one relationship implies that the current support to basic ratio will remain essentially unchanged over the forecast period. Local Government Employment Local government employment is considered separately because it has elements of both the basic sector and the support sector. Approximately one- third of the most recent municipal budget was funded by state government grants, and to that extent could be considered a basic "driver" of the econo- my. The other two-thirds, however, was funded by traditional local taxes and should therefore be considered as part of the support sector. The history of local government employment in Juneau is displayed in Table A-6. Statistical analysis reveals that local government employment levels in the past have been closely correlated with state and federal employ- ment levels. Therefore, local government was independently forecasted as a function of these two variables. A-8 Total Juneau Employment - Base Forecast and Sensitivities The forecast of total Juneau employment produced by the analysis described above is displayed in Table A-8. As can be seen in Table A-8 for the Base Case, total government employment is projected to decrease from 6,796 in 1986 to 5,940 in 2006, a 0.7% average annual decrease. Although other basic employment is forecasted to increase, primarily because of minor in- creases in tourist related employment, total employment is projected to decrease by over 1,500 jobs between 1986 and 2006. Two sensitivity cases have been developed to determine the impacts on area employment of alternative economic conditions. The two cases, labeled Case A and Case B, both utilize the Base Case government employment projec- tion. Case A includes the impacts of development and operation of the Green's Creek Mine, a precious metal mine located on Admiralty Island and presently under consideration. Green's Creek is assumed to provide 100 "basic" Juneau area jobs in 1989 and 200 jobs beginning in 1990. Case B also includes the impacts of Green's Creek and adds additional basic employment in tourism related businesses. Additional tourism jobs in Case B are assumed to be 300 over the next 20 years. Timing of these new jobs is assumed to be a uniform 15 per year. As previously indicated, the Base Case assumed that 100 tourism related jobs would be added in the next ten years. Table A-8 shows the resulting employment forecasts for both Case A and Case B as compared to the Base Case. All three cases show a decline in total area employment over the next 20 years of between 1,500 jobs for the Base Case to 750 jobs for Case B. Table A-1 Juneau Area Employment (Annua hoe 1982 Private Employment Mining il Construction 539 Manufacturing 151 Transportation/Communications/Utilities 916 Wholesale Trade 169 Retail Trade 1,703 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 526 Services 1,694 Agriculture/Forestry/F isheries 32 Nonclassified 83 Subtotal 5,774 Governmental Employment Federal Government 1,037 State Government 4,357 Local Government 1,037 Subtotal 6,431 TOTAL NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT 12,205 Source: Statistical Quarterlies, Alaska Department of Labor, 1982-1985. 1983 25 774 151 802 199 1,767 534 1,857 24 82 6,215 994 4,398 1,174 6,566 12,781 1984 26 796 180 TAS 184 2,013 572 1,916 30 99 6,591 1,020 4,422 Ig322 6,764 135,395 1985 4] 733 253) 777 178 1,942 615 2,034 36 3] 6,640 1,040 4,509 1,428 6,977 13,617 Table A-2 North Slope 0i1 Production jon barrels/year 1986 657.8 1987 640.8 1988 599.4 1989 588.7 1990 572.9 1991 548.6 1992 500.4 1993 503.3 1994 460.8 1995 412.0 1996 429.1 1997 379.1 1998 C37 1999 272.2 2000 232.0 2001 194.1 2002 161.3 2003 134.3 2004 W1.1 2005 90.4 2006 Mee. Table A-3 World Oi] Price Forecasts iol lars/Bb Scenario "A" Scenario "B" . OIL OIL OIL OIL FISCAL PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE YEAR (Nom _$) ($1986) (Nom $) ($1986) 1988 16.22 15.00 20.15 18.63 1989 16.87 15.00 21.69 19.28 1990 172155 15.00 2335 19,96 199] 21.90 18.00 25.14 20.66 1992 22.78 18.00 27205 21.38 1993 23.69 18.00 29.12 22513) 1994 24.63 18.00 31.34 22.90 1995 2962 18.00 33.73 23.70 1996 26.64 18.00 36.31 24.53 1997 Ci | 18.00 39.09 25.39 1998 28.82 18.00 42.08 26.28 1999 29.97 18.00 45.29 27.20 2000 Slee 18.00 48.75 28.15 2001 32.42 18.00 52.48 29.14 2002 3367/1 18.00 56.49 30.16 2003 35.06 18.00 60.79 3la2il 2004 36.46 18.00 65.43 32.30 2005 37.92 18.00 70.43 33.43 2006 39.44 18.00 Ueack) 34.61 * Expressed in nominal dollars, assuming 4% annual inflation. Table A-4 State Severance Tax and Royalty Income Forecasts* ——— eer eee FISCAL YEAR - Scenario "A" Scenario "B" 1988 1,094 1,579 1989 1,045 1,603 1990 1,044 1,670 1991 1,334 1,669 1992 15210 1,591 1993 1,256 15726 1994 1,188 1,664 1995 1,074 1,566 1996 UR 1,730 1997 972 1,562 1998 806 1,359 1999 660 1,166 2000 551 1,021 2001 439 882 2002 361 761 2003 295 655 2004 239 560 2005 190 470 2006 149 388 * These estimates include total royalty income, including that portion con- stitutionally dedicated to the Permanent Fund. Table A-5 Unrestricted General Fund Revenue Base Estimates ($1986 Millions) FISCAL YEAR Scenario ' Scenario "B" 1988 1,401 1,817 1989 1,281 le757 1990 1,263 1,796 199] 1,482 1,764 1992 1,364 1,685 1993 1,394 1,792 1994 1,317 1,722 1995 1,205 1,623 1996 1,246 1,754 1997 1,148 1,649 1998 984 1,452 1999 836 1,262 2000 723 1,118 2001 620 990 2002 556 89] 2003 480 781 2004 428 696 2005 380 614 2006 342 542 Table A-6 Local, State and Federal Government Employment in Juneau Local State Federal Total YEAR Government Government Government Government 1966 451 1,410 1,076 2,937 1967 48) 1,501 1,090 3,072 1968 533 1,666 1,083 3,282 1969 603 1,885 1,120 3,608 1970 682 Ze lon 1,198 4,011 197] 755 2,394 1,253 4,402 1972 636 2,890 914 4,440 1973 855 2,672 966 4,493 1974 917 2,868 942 4,727 1975 976 3,282 991 5,249 1976 1,006 3,470 1,084 5,560 1977 1,007 3,622 1,094 55723 1978 1,013 3,760 1,244 6,017 1979 964 3,847 lez? 5,988 1980 980 3,882 1,187 6,049 198] 1,064 4,141 1,010 6,215 1982 1,037 4,357 1,037 6,431 1983 1,174 4,398 994 6,566 1984 1,322 4,422 1,020 6,764 1985 1,428 4,509 1,040 6,977 Source: Annual averages from Alaska Department of Labor Statistical Quarter- Niese Table A-7 Ratio of Support to Basic Employment in Juneau (1) Ratio of Change in Basic Support Support to Change in Year Employment (2) Employment (3) Basic Employment 1980 6,318 4,573 1981 6,532 4,964 1982 6,794 5,411 1983 6,965 5,816 1984 7,184 6,171 1985 7,485 6,132 Increase 1980-85 1,167 1,559 1.34 (1) Data source: Statistical Quarterlies, Alaska Department of Labor. (2) (3) Basic employment assumed to include employment in mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, agriculture/forestry/fisheries and government. Support employment assumed to include employment in construction, trans- portation/communications/utilities, retail trade, finance/insurance/real estate, services and non-classified. TABLE A-8 PROJECTED JUNLAU ARCA EMPLOYMENT BASE CASE CASE A CASE B Other Total Other Total Other aa ee nen ae Basic Support Govern- Basic Govern- Basic Total Ww (2) Total ment (3) a) Support otal ment (3) (5) Support otal 1986 4,550 1,032 1,214 6,796 518 «6,132.13, 446 6,796 518 = 6,132 13,446 6,796 523 6,132 13,446 1987 4,450 1,032 1,192 6,674 528 6,020 13,222 6,674 528 6,020 13,222 6,674 538 6,020 13,222 1988 4,350 1,032 1,170 6,552 538 5,908 =-12,998 6,552 538 = 5,908 = 12,998 6,552 5535 913-13,018 1989 4,250 1,032 1,148 6,430 548 5,796 12,774 6,430 648 5,896 = 12,974 6,430 * 668 5,906 13,004 1990 4,225 1,032 1,142 6,399 558 5,775 12,732 6,399 758 $,975 13,132 6,399 783 5,990 13,172 1991 4,200 1,032 1,137 6,369 568 = 5,755 12,692 6,369 768 = 55,955 13,092 6,369 798 = 55,975 13, 142 1992 4,175 1,032 1,131 6,338 578 5,734 = 12,650 6,338 778 5,934 13,050 6,338 813 5,959 13,110 1993 4,150 1,032 1,125 6,307 588 5,713 -12,608 6,307 788 =—-455,913 13,008 6,307 828 =, 943 13,078 1994 4,125 1,032 1,120 6,277 598 = 5,693 12,568 6,277 798 = 5,893 12, 968 6,277 843 =—-55,928 13,048 1995 4,100 1,032 1,114 6,246 608 =5,672 12,526 6,246 808 §=—5,872 12,926 6,246 858 =, 912 13,016 1996 4,075 = 1,032 1,108 = 6,215 608 85,641 = 12,464 6,215 808 =, B41 12, 864 6,215 873 5,896 «12,984 1997 4,050 1,032 1,103 6,185 608 «5,611 = 12,404 6, 185 808 = 5,811 = 12,804 6,185 888 = =—5, 881 = 12,954 1998 4,025 1,032 1,097 6,154 608 = 5,580 12,342 6,154 808 = 5,780 12,742 6,154 903 5,865 12,922 1999 4,000 1,032 1,092 6,124 608 5,550 12,282 6,124 808 = =—5, 750 12,682 6,124 918 5,850 12,892 2000 3,975 1,032 1,086 6,093 608 5,519 12,220 6,093 808 865,719 12,620 6,093 933 5,834 12,860 2001 3,950 1,032 1,080 6,062 608 =, 488 = 12,158 6,062 808 = 5,688 =—-12,558 6,062 948 = 5,818 = 12,828 2002 3,925 1,032 1,075 6,032 608 5,458 «12,098 6,032 808 5,658 12,498 6,032 963 5,803 12,798 2003 3,900 1,032 1,069 6,001 608 895,427 12,036 6,001 808 =5,627 12,436 6,001 978 =, 787-12, 766 2004 3,875 1,032 1,063 5,970 608 95,396 «11,974 5,970 808 =—5,596 =—:12,374 5,970 993 65,771 «612,734 2005 3,850 1,032 1,058 5,940 608 5,366 11,914 5,940 808 = 5, 566 = 12,314 5,940 1,008 5,756 12,704 2006 3,850 1,032 1,056 5,940 608 = 5,366 «11, 914 5,940 808 = 5,566 12,314 5,940 1,008 5,756 12,704 Average Annual Increa 1986-1991 ~1.6% 0.0% -1.32 -1.3% We9k0)|| |= eae) |||) tos calles: § 8.2% -0.6% 0.5% 1.3% 8.8% -0.5% -0.5% 1991-1996 0.6% 0.0% -0.5% -0.5% 1.4% -0.4% —-0.4% 0.5% 1.0% -0.4% 0.4% -0.5% 1.6% -0.3% -0.2% 1996-2006 ~0.6% 0.0% -0.5% -0.5% 0.0% -0.5% -0.5% ~0.5% 0.0% =O:S% -0.4z -0.5% 1.42 0.2% =052% Notes: (1) - Estimated non-governaent employment in “basic industries” such as mining, manufacturing, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Includes ten additional tourism related jobs per year between 1986 and 1995. (2) - Ratio of support to basic employsent in 1986 is based on 1985 levels (see lable A-7). In subsequent years support employment is projected to decrease or increase on a one to one basis with total basic employment (lotal Governaent plus Uther Basic). (3) - Same as for Base Case. (4) - Includes estimated employment impacts of Green's Creek mine development of 100 new jobs in 1989 and 100 new jobs in 1990 (200 total). (5) - Includes estimated esployment impacts of Green's Creek mine development as described in (4) above, and 15 additional tourism related yobs per year through 2006 (300 new lourism jobs total). e-¥ FLqey BILLIONS OF 1986 DOLLARS UNRESTRICTED GENERAL FUND REVENUE OIL PRICE SCENARIO "A" 0.8 Base + Inflation Proofing 0.6 Base + Inflation Proofing + Income Tax 0.4 Base + Inflation Proofing + Income Tax + Remaining Permanent Fund Earnings 0.2 1990 1995 2000 2005 L-v aunbey FISCAL YEAR BILLIONS OF 1986 DOLLARS UNRESTRICTED GENERAL FUND REVENUE OIL PRICE SCENARIO "B” mn nnn a in i os ee ew es eee tee Base Estimate 124 14 Base + Inflation Proofing 0.8 4 Base + Inflation Proofing + Income Tax | 0.6 4 Base + Inflation Proofing + Income Tax + 04-1 Remaining Permanent Fund Earnings 0.2 - .t— OOo) eae TT 1990 1995 2000 2005 FISCAL YEAR Z-¥ aunBi4 Appendix B Juneau Area Population Projections The population projections used as a basis for the Juneau area load forecast were developed for the City and Borough of Juneau by David M. Reaume in May, 1986. Reference is made to the report entitled: Juneau Population by Age & Sex, 1985-2013, Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau, by David M. Reaume, May 27, 1986 The Reaume population projection provides three separate cases: low, high and a medium case labeled zero net migration. The high and low cases, with some modification to the low case, have been used for the purposes of this load forecast. A third case, defined as the base case, has been developed as the average between the low and high cases to reflect a compro- mise between the two scenarios. The population of the Juneau area has increased steadily for the past 20 years from 10,900 in 1966 to 28,940 in 1985. Average annual growth has been 5.3% over this period. Much of the increase in population is attri- butable to significant increases in state government employment in Juneau in the past. Table B-1 and Figure B-1 show the dramatic increase experienced in Juneau area population since 1966. It should be noted that the historical population numbers, provided by the Alaska Department of Community and Region- al Affairs, vary from other historical figures for Juneau. The overall change over time remains the same for all population figures, however. In the future the rate of growth in Juneau area population experi- enced in the past is not projected to continue even under optimistic con- ditions. This is due primarily to an anticipated reduction of state spending in Juneau and a reduction of state government employment in Juneau, both as a result of a contracting state budget resulting from reduced state oi] revenues. The low case population projection developed by Reaume assumes that real (inflation adjusted) state and local government spending in Juneau will fall at an annual average rate of 7.5% through the year 2001 and then grow at 1.5% per year thereafter. Non-agricultural employment is projected to decrease by 25% before resuming growth. The result of this forecast is that the Juneau area population is projected to remain relatively constant at 1985 levels through 1995 and then decrease about 1.0% per year thereafter. For the purpose of the electric load forecasting effort it has been further assumed that the population will decline between 1985 and 1988 to a level of about 27,000 people, return to 1985 levels by 1995, and then decline at 1.0% per year thereafter. The resulting forecast is shown in Table B-1 and Figure B-1. The high case basically assumes that growth in the Alaska economy as a whole will be sufficient to offset the loss of economic stimulus from North Slope oi] fields. As a result, non-agricultural employment in Juneau is B-2 estimated to increase at slightly over 0.5% per year. The underlying economic assumptions behind this high case compare favorably with scenarios offered in early 1986 by Scott Goldsmith of the University of Alaska. Although this high case is considered optimistic it still results in projected Juneau area popu- lation growth of only 125% per year between 1986 and 2006. Results of the high case population forecast are shown in Table B-1 and Figure B-1. As previously mentioned the Base Case population forecast has been developed as the average of the low and high cases. The Base Case results in a slight decline in population between 1985 and 1987 and then a gradual in- crease of about 1.2% per year through 1995. After 1995 the Base Case shows a projected average annual increase of 0.3%. Results of the Base Case popu- lation projection are shown in Table B-1 and Figure B-1. For further reference to the population projection see the afore- mentioned Juneau population report. TABLE B-1 PROJECTED JUNEAU AREA POPULATION Historical Base Case Low Case High Case 1966 10,901 - -- -— 1967 217355 — -- = 1968 11,828 > a C7 1969 27322 -— -— —— 1970 12,835 -- -- -- 1971 13,556 —_ —— —— 1972 13,895 -- -- = 1973 15,079 -- -- == 1974 16,593 -— —— = 1975 17,355 =-— = a 1976 18,310 ao — = 1977 19,193 — —— —— 1978 20,465 —— — —— 1979 22,105 - -- -— 1980 23,215 -_— —— == 1981 24,211 = -- —— 1982 25,000 - -- = 1983 26,000 = cae = 1984 27,519 = -- = 1985 28,941 28,941 28,941 28,941 1986 -- 28,553 28,000 29,105 1987 -- 28,582 27,500 29,664 1988 -- 28,617 27,000 30,233 1989 - 29,157 27,500 30,814 1990 —— 29,703 28,000 31,406 1991 —— 30,039 28,185 31,893 1992 —— 30,380 28,312 32,388 1993 -- 30,726 28,560 32,891 1994 -- 31,076 28,750 33,401 1995 -- 31,431 28,941 33,920 1996 - 37,455 28,536 34,374 1997 - 31,486 28,137 34,835 1998 - 31,523 27,744 35,302 1999 - 31,566 27,356 35,776 2000 - 31,615 26,974 36,256 2001 -- 31,742 26,783 36,701 2002 _ 31,873 26,594 37,152 2003 - 32,008 26,406 37,609 2004 - 32,146 26,220 38,071 2005 -— 32,287 26,035 38,539 2006 -- 32,503 26,013 38,993 Average Annual Increase: 1966-1976 5.3% er —— i 1976-1985 5.2% —— — — 1986-1991 -- 1.0% 0.1% 1.8% 1991-1996 -- 0.9% 0.2% 1.5% 1996-2006 - 0.3% -0.9% 1.3% Persons Juneau Area Population Projections Source: D.M.Reaume — May, 1986 40 35 4 High Case Base Case Low Case 25 i, ” Uv cS Oo 0 20 2] o & Ww 15 10 5 _ Historical Projected oO —_ T TT 4 Te TT TTT eh T T TT T T T TT T_T T T T T T T T TTT 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 T-@ aunb.y