HomeMy WebLinkAboutRuth Lake Hydro Phase II App
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 1 of 26 9/2/2008
Application Forms and Instructions
The following forms and instructions are provided for preparing your application for a
Renewable Energy Fund Grant. An electronic version of the Request for Applications (RFA)
and the forms are available online at http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html
The following application forms are required to be submitted for a grant recommendation:
Grant Application
Form
GrantApp.doc Application form in MS Word that includes an outline of
information required to submit a complete application.
Applicants should use the form to assure all information is
provided and attach additional information as required.
Application Cost
Worksheet
Costworksheet.doc Summary of Cost information that should be addressed
by applicants in preparing their application.
Grant Budget
Form
GrantBudget.xls A detailed grant budget that includes a breakdown of
costs by task and a summary of funds available and
requested to complete the work for which funds are being
requested.
Grant Budget
Form Instructions
GrantBudgetInstr.pdf Instructions for completing the above grant budget form.
• If you are applying for grants for more than one project, provide separate application
forms for each project.
• Multiple phases for the same project may be submitted as one application.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project, provide a plan
and grant budget for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting
funding for an advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the
preceding phases are satisfied and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
• If you have additional information or reports you would like the Authority to consider in
reviewing your application, either provide an electronic version of the document with
your submission or reference a web link where it can be downloaded or reviewed.
REMINDER:
• Alaska Energy Authority is subject to the Public Records Act, AS 40.25 and materials
submitted to the Authority may be subject to disclosure requirements under the act if no
statutory exemptions apply.
• All applications received will be posted on the Authority web site after final
recommendations are made to the legislature.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 2 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
SECTION 1 – APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name (Name of utility, IPP, or government entity submitting proposal)
City of Petersburg, Alaska d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Type of Entity:
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05. The City of Petersburg has full
control and ownership over Petersburg Municipal Power & Light, a public electric utility operating and serving the Mitkof
Island area in and around Petersburg, Alaska.
Mailing Address
PO Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Physical Address
11 South Nordic
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone
907-772-4203
Fax
907-772-9287
Email
pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
1.1 APPLICANT POINT OF CONTACT
Name
Joe Nelson
Title
Power & Light Superintendent
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833-0329
Telephone
907-772-4203
Fax
907-772-9287
Email
pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
1.2 APPLICANT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Please check as appropriate. If you do not to meet the minimum applicant requirements, your
application will be rejected.
1.2.1 As an Applicant, we are: (put an X in the appropriate box)
X An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS
42.05, or
An independent power producer, or
X A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities);
Yes
1.2.2. Attached to this application is formal approval and endorsement for its project by
its board of directors, executive management, or other governing authority. If a
collaborative grouping, a formal approval from each participant’s governing
authority is necessary. (Indicate Yes or No in the box )
Yes
1.2.3. As an applicant, we have administrative and financial management systems and
follow procurement standards that comply with the standards set forth in the grant
agreement.
Yes
1.2.4. If awarded the grant, we can comply with all terms and conditions of the attached
grant form. (Any exceptions should be clearly noted and submitted with the
application.)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 3 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
SECTION 2 – PROJECT SUMMARY
Provide a brief 1-2 page overview of your project.
2.1 PROJECT TYPE
Describe the type of project you are proposing, (Reconnaissance; Resource Assessment/
Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design; Final Design and Permitting; and/or Construction) as
well as the kind of renewable energy you intend to use. Refer to Section 1.5 of RFA.
The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project is a conventional hydropower project that would
be located in an unincorporated area northeast of the City of Petersburg. PMPL proposes to
prepare and file an Application for Preliminary Permit with the FERC on February 1, 2008 and
an Application for License in 2011. Project phases include:
• Phase I – Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit
• Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
• Phase III – Final Design and Permitting
• Phase IV – Construction and Project Start-up
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provide a one paragraph description of your project. At a minimum include the project location,
communities to be served, and who will be involved in the grant project.
The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of
Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site would include construction
of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission
line segments.
Attachment F to this Grant Application provides:
• Exhibit F.1 – Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project – Location Map
• Exhibit F.2 – Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project – Southern SE Alaska Transmission
System
• Exhibit F-3 – Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project – Photo depicting location of proposed
dam
Proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Features:
• Reservoir. Ruth Lake is fed primarily by rainfall and snowmelt, with some smaller firn or
hanging glaciers that contribute melt water during the summer months. The Project
would include a dam to provide a potential usable stored capacity of 17,000 acre-feet.
(See photo of proposed dam site at Attachment F – Exhibit F.3
• Lake Tap / Power Conduit. The inlet works would consist of an arch dam and lake tap.
As presently planned water would initially flow through a 10-foot diameter tunnel for
approximately 3,500 feet. The remaining 7,800 feet of the conduit system would consist
of a 6-foot diameter buried or surface steel penstock.
• Powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of
Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of
1,300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy
output would be roughly 70 GWh.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
• Site Access. The Project is separated from the nearest town of Petersburg by Frederick
Sound. The only access for either construction or long-term operation and maintenance
of the Project would be via boat or aircraft.
A dock would be located on Thomas Bay for loading and unloading people and supplies
from a boat. A road would be constructed between the powerhouse and dock.
Construction access would also be provided by helicopter in association with a limited
local temporary access road system to transfer equipment within the construction area.
During operation, the Project would be fully automated and access would be provided
via boat or aircraft.
• Transmission Lines. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new
overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long
running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. (See Map at
Attachment F) The transmission segment would integrate the project to the Southern
Southeast Intertie System which currently connects Petersburg and Wrangell to the
Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal. Completion of construction of the
Swan Tyee Intertie will interconnect the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric
projects; proposed new transmission intertie segments would add Kake and Metlakatla.
(See Map at Attachment F – Exhibit F.2)
• Other Structures. An intake structure housing controls would be constructed at Ruth
Lake. Housing would be provided for power plant operators, staging areas for
construction and substation facilities
Use of Power
Power generated by the proposed Ruth Lake Project would provide the interconnected
Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current
dependency on diesel generation; enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for
electricity as customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for
electric heat; and reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions.
• Attachment G to this Grant Application includes excerpts from the “AK-BC Intertie
Feasibility Study – Southeast Alaska Final Report”, September 2007, prepared by Hatch
Acres for AEA, describing the loads and resources of the Southern Southeast Alaska
regional utilities that will be interconnected following completion of the Swan-Tyee
Intertie under construction; and the future proposed new transmission intertie segments
that would add Kake and Metlakatla.
• Attachment H to this Grant Application includes two tables presenting estimated
greenhouse gas emissions in the region between 2007 and 2031 with & without
conversion of oil-fired heating furnaces.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 5 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
2.3 PROJECT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Briefly discuss the amount of funds needed, the anticipated sources of funds, and the nature and source
of other contributions to the project. Include a project cost summary that includes an estimated total cost
through construction.
Funding for the Project would occur in four phases:
• Phase I – Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit
• Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
• Phase III – Final Design and Permitting
• Phase IV – Construction and Project Start-up
PHASE DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE
COST
ESTIMATE
I Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit 8/2008 – 2/2009 $ 205,000
II Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding 3/2009 – 3/2014 $2,520,000
III Final Design and Permitting 3/2014 – 3/2016 $5,820,000
IV Construction and Project Start-up 3/2016 – 3/2020 $101,430,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $109,975,000
Anticipated sources of funds:
PHASE DESCRIPTION GRANT LOCAL
I Pre-feasibility and Application for Preliminary Permit 80% 20%
II Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding 80% 20%
III Final Design and Permitting 80% 20%
IV Construction and Project Start-up 80% 20%
2.4 PROJECT BENEFIT
Briefly discuss the financial benefits that will result from this project, including an estimate of economic
benefits (such as reduced fuel costs) and a description of other benefits to the Alaskan public.
Regional Benefits
The Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) is in the process of ‘Restructuring’. Under this
planned restructuring of the Agency, the Terror Lake and Solomon Gulch projects will be sold or
transferred to Kodiak Electric Association and Copper Valley Electric Association respectively.
The remaining FDPPA assets will include the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake hydroelectric projects
and the associated transmission lines delivering power and energy to Petersburg, Wrangell and
Ketchikan. The Swan-Tyee Intertie, which will interconnect the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake
projects and is currently under construction, will also be owned by the Agency. The Agency
name will be changed from ‘The Four Dam Pool Power Agency’ to ‘Southeast Alaska Power
Agency’. The legal entity, which is a Joint Action Agency organized under State statute, will
remain the same.
The City of Petersburg d/b/a PMPL, The City of Wrangell d/b/a City of Wrangell Light
Department (WLD), and the City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) will
comprise the member utilities of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) following
restructuring of the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) to SEAPA. The existing Tyee Lake
Hydroelectric Project, Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project, and electric transmission segments that
connect the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan, including the Swan-Tyee
Intertie currently under construction, and related facilities will be owned and operated by the
SEAPA. Membership in SEAPA can be expanded beyond the original three members noted
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 6 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
above to other eligible Public Utilities.
Proposed future electric transmission segments would interconnect Kake and Metlakatla to the
SEAPA Transmission System.
PMPL acknowledges and agrees that the Ruth Lake Project shall be constructed, owned, and
operated for the benefit of the Southern Southeast Alaska Region and will not deny any person
benefit of Project facilities.
The Ruth Lake Project would provide 70 million kWh of clean renewable hydropower to regional
utilities through the interconnected SEAPA Transmission System, replacing current use of
diesel in all interconnected communities. SEAPA Transmission Segments include:
• Existing transmission segment from Tyee Project to Wrangell & Petersburg
• Soon to be completed Swan-Tyee Intertie that interconnects Wrangell, Petersburg &
Ketchikan
• Proposed transmission segment from Thomas Bay to Petersburg Substation
• Proposed transmission segment from Petersburg to Kake
• Proposed transmission segment from Ketchikan to Metlakatla
Attachment F – Exhibit F.2 presents a schematic diagram of the Southern SE Alaska
Transmission System showing existing, under construction, and proposed transmission
segments.
The annual net benefit to the SEAPA participants of the Ruth Lake Project is estimated to be
approximately:
• $13,300,000 in the case of 80% grant funding through construction, or
• $4,900,000 in the case of traditional municipal financing without grant funding
Public Benefits
• Reduced reliance on high-cost diesel to generate electric power and oil heat resulting in
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and reduced air emissions; and reduced cost of
power to ratepayers of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency.
• Local jobs during construction
• Increased system reliability
• Availability of clean renewable energy and power to attract new economic development
in Southern Southeast Alaska Region, including ongoing mine development.
Attachment G to this Grant Application includes excerpts from the “AK-BC Intertie Feasibility
Study – Southeast Alaska Final Report” describing the loads and resources of the Southern
Southeast Alaska regional utilities that will be interconnected following completion of the Swan-
Tyee Intertie under construction; and the future proposed new transmission intertie segments
that would add Kake and Metlakatla.
Attachment H to this Grant Application includes two tables presenting estimated greenhouse
gas emissions in the region between 2007 and 2031 with & without conversion of oil-fired
heating furnaces.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 7 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Benefits to PMPL
PMPL’s primary sources of power are the 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project owned and
operated by PMPL and purchased power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project
currently owned by the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas
Bay Power Authority (TBPA). In an average year power from the hydro projects provides
typically 97.5 % of PMPL’s generation.
PMPL also owns and maintains redundant diesel generation units. In recent years, PMPL’s
diesel generation has averaged about 1,000,000 kWh per year.
Delivery from Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project is often interrupted due to line outages and
during periods when Tyee is off-line for major maintenance. Power from the 2 MW Blind Slough
Project is not adequate to serve PMPL’s load. For these reasons PMPL has to maintain 100%
redundant diesel generation capability. PMPL is facing the need to relocate and replace the
aging diesel plant at an estimated capital cost of $20 to $25 million. PMPL would prefer to
replace the diesel generation capability with clean renewable energy from the proposed Ruth
Lake Project.
With completion of the Ruth Lake Project, PMPL would be a 100% hydro-generation served
community. This would enable PMPL to displace approximately 75,000 gallons of fuel per year
at current usage levels which equates to approximately $260,000 per year at a fuel price of
$3.50 per gallon. The cost of diesel generation for FY 07/08 was approximately 28 cents per
kWh and will increase to 33.8 cents per kWh in FY 08/09. As loads continue to grow in
Petersburg, the amount of diesel generation would be expected to increase. With the estimated
cost per kWh for Ruth Lake, the net savings are estimated to exceed:
• $280,000 in the case of 80% grant funding through construction; or
• $160,000 in the case of traditional municipal financing without grant funding.
2.5 PROJECT COST AND BENEFIT SUMARY (2009 dollars)
Include a summary of your project’s total costs and benefits below.
2.5.1 Total Project Cost
(Including estimates through construction,
excluding financing costs.)
$ 109,975,000
2.5.2 Grant Funds Requested in this application. $ 2,000,000
2.5.3 Other Funds to be provided (Project match) $ 520,000
2.5.4 Total Grant Costs (sum of 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) $ 2,520,000
2.5.5 Estimated Benefit (Savings) Region PMPL
i. 80% grant funding through construction $13,300,000 $280,000
ii. Without grant funding $4,900,000 $160,000
2.5.6 Public Benefit (If you can calculate the
benefit in terms of dollars please provide
that number here and explain how you
calculated that number in your application.)
Deferred cost for diesel plant
relocation: $20,000,000 to $25,000,000
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
SECTION 3 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Describe who will be responsible for managing the project and provide a plan for successfully
completing the project within the scope, schedule and budget proposed in the application.
3.1 Project Manager
Tell us who will be managing the project for the Grantee and include a resume and references
for the manager(s). If the applicant does not have a project manager indicate how you intend to
solicit project management Support. If the applicant expects project management assistance
from AEA or another government entity, state that in this section.
Project Manager:
Joe Nelson, Superintendent
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
PO Box 329
11 South Nordic
Petersburg, AK 99833
TEL: 907-772-4203
FAX: 907-772-9287
e-mail: pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us
Reference for Project Manager:
Richard Underkofler
Petersburg City Manager
PO Box 329
Petersburg, Alaska 99833-0329
TEL: 907-772-4425 Ext. 22
Runderkofler76@comcast.net
PMPL has contracted Hatch Acres Corporation to manage the activities for the feasibility studies
and license application. This includes field work, results, work papers, etc. Richard Griffith is
the lead consultant for feasibility studies and Nan Nalder is the lead consultant for the license
application.
Please see ATTACHMENT A for resumes.
3.2 Project Schedule
Include a schedule for the proposed work that will be funded by this grant. (You may include a
chart or table attachment with a summary of dates below.)
Please see ATTACHMENT E for a detailed Project Schedule.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 9 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
3.3 Project Milestones
Define key tasks and decision points in your project and a schedule for achieving them.
Milestones for each quarter of Phase I and II of the project:
DATE PROJECT MILESTONES
2008
4th Quarter
Conduct Prefeasibility Study
Prepare Application for Preliminary Permit
2009
1st Quarter
File Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC – 02-01-2009
Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies
Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested
participants
2009
2nd Quarter
Receive Order Issuing Preliminary Permit
Meet with FERC and State/federal agencies to discuss project and identify studies
Design field and office studies in consultation with agencies and other interested
participants
2009
3rd Quarter
Begin first year field and office studies
2009
4th Quarter
Continue first year studies and prepare summary reports
Prepare scope of work for second year field studies
Prepare Preliminary Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent to File Application
for License (NOI)
2010
1st Quarter
File PAD, SD-1 & NOI with FERC and provide to Participants
Prepare and issue Public Notices for Scoping Meetings
2010
2nd Quarter
Hold Pubic Scoping Meetings in Petersburg & Juneau. File record of meetings with
FERC.
Begin work on Draft Application for License
2010
3rd Quarter
Conduct second year field and office studies program
2010
4th Quarter
Provide final study reports to agencies and Participants
Conduct teleconference meetings with agencies and Participants
2011
1st Quarter
Complete and submit Draft Application for License for pre-filing review and comment
Request recommendations for license terms and conditions
2011
2nd Quarter
Begin Final Feasibility Study
Receive comments on Draft Application
Conduct consultations with agencies to discuss comments on the Draft & recommended
terms & conditions
2011
3rd Quarter
Complete Final Feasibility Study & prepare Supporting Design Report (Exhibit F of
License Application)
2011
4th Quarter
Prepare and file Final Application for License with FERC and provide to agencies and
other Participants
2012
1st Quarter
to
3rd Quarter
Begin Phase III Preliminary Engineering activities
Respond to FERC Requests for Additional Information
Review FERC-prepared NEPA document
Receive FERC Order Issuing License
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 10 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
3.4 Project Resources
Describe the personnel, contractors, equipment, and services you will use to accomplish the
project. Include any partnerships or commitments with other entities you have or anticipate will
be needed to complete your project. Describe any existing contracts and the selection process
you may use for major equipment purchases or contracts. Include brief resumes and references
for known, key personnel, contractors, and suppliers as an attachment to your application.
Hatch Acres Corporation is PMPL’s main contractor for this Project. Dick Griffith is the lead
consultant for Hatch Acres, and Nan Nalder, Hatch Acres, will serve as licensing manager. Nan
and Dick bring over 40 years experience in the hydro industry. Resumes for Dick and Nan are
included in ATTACHMENT A.
Hatch Acres will contract out the field work necessary to complete the field studies and license
application. The subconsultant team to provide field and office study support will include:
• R&M Consultants Inc
• ABR Inc – environmental research & services
• Northern Land Use Research
At this stage of the project, PMPL has not purchased any major equipment.
3.5 Project Communications
Discuss how you plan to monitor the project and keep the Authority informed of the status.
PMPL will submit quarterly reports to AEA on progress to date and which milestones were
accomplished and describe any changes or updates to the schedule and/or scope of the project.
3.6 Project Risk
Discuss potential problems and how you would address them.
Potential Problems Solutions to Problems
Rising diesel costs Closely monitor market escalation and factor
into total cost of project
Rising equipment costs Factor into total cost of project
Lead time Factor into total cost of project
Site access during construction and long-
term project operation & maintenance
Address long-term access to the project
following completion of first year studies.
Inclement weather Monitor weather conditions and adjust
schedule accordingly
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 11 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
SECTION 4 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TASKS
• Tell us what the project is and how you will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2 of the RFA.
The level of information will vary according to phase of the project you propose to undertake with
grant funds.
• If you are applying for grant funding for more than one phase of a project provide a plan and grant
budget for completion of each phase.
• If some work has already been completed on your project and you are requesting funding for an
advanced phase, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that the preceding phases are satisfied
and funding for an advanced phase is warranted.
4.1 Proposed Energy Resource
Describe the potential extent/amount of the energy resource that is available.
Discuss the pros and cons of your proposed energy resource vs. other alternatives that may be available
for the market to be served by your project.
Potential extent/amount of energy resource
At present, there is no generation project at Ruth Lake.
The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would develop the hydro potential at Ruth Lake. The
powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three
impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of 1300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse
would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh.
The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would be interconnected to the existing transmission
infrastructure currently owned and operated by the FDPPA.
Pros and cons of Ruth Lake vs. Other Available Alternatives
SEAPA Region
All regional utilities are seeking hydropower projects to replace the high cost of diesel generation
throughout the region. Ruth Lake, due to its location and potential installed capacity would serve as a
regional resource. Ruth Lake would provide enhanced reliability throughout the region and enable utilities
to retire aging diesel plant and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region. Availability of power from
Ruth Lake would enhance regional economic development to all interconnected utilities and their
customers.
• Attachment G to this Grant Application provides excerpts from the “AK-BC Intertie Feasibility
Study – Southeast Alaska Final Report” describing the loads and resources of the Southern
Southeast Alaska regional utilities that will be interconnected following completion of the Swan-
Tyee Intertie under construction; and the future proposed new transmission intertie segments that
would add Kake and Metlakatla.
• Attachment H to this Grant Application includes two tables presenting estimated greenhouse gas
emissions in the region between 2007 and 2031 with & without conversion of oil-fired heating
furnaces.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 12 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
PMPL System
The only alternative energy source to serve PMPL’s load is to relocate and reconstruct the diesel
generation plant at an estimated cost of $20 to $25 million.
The cost of diesel fuel is vulnerable to fluctuations of availability and cost. The comparative cost of
hydroelectric generation vs. diesel generation is:
• Hydroelectric generation: 4.2 cents for power generated at Blind Slough; 6.8 cents for purchased
power from Tyee, and, under traditional financing and absent grant funding, an estimated 18
cents for power generated at the proposed Ruth Lake hydro. Cost of power from Ruth Lake
would be considerably less if grant financing can be secured.
• Diesel generation - FY 06/07 at 28 cents per kWh; costs for 07/08 are 33.8 cents per kWh.
Continued reliance on imported fossil fuel and the high cost of diesel generated electricity is not
acceptable to PMPL and its ratepayers. In addition to uncertainty in future cost of fuel, diesel generation
emissions contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and degrade local air quality.
Please also refer to PMPL’s Rate Structure at 4.2.1 (below)
4.2 Existing Energy System
4.2.1 Basic configuration of Existing Energy System
Briefly discuss the basic configuration of the existing energy system. Include information about the
number, size, age, efficiency, and type of generation.
Peak System Load
PMPL’s peak system load is 9.0 MW.
Existing System Generation Resources
The City of Petersburg, d.b.a. PMPL, has three power generation sources to serve the existing load:
• PMPL generates electric power at its 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project
• The Downtown Diesel Plant located at PMPL’s office campus in downtown Petersburg.
• PMPL purchases power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project currently owned by the
Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas Bay Power Authority (TBPA).
Power from Tyee is delivered to Petersburg via the existing transmission segment from Tyee to the
Scow Bay Substation. Service from the substation to the City is via a City-owned 24.9 kV
distribution line.
PMPL-Owned Generation Resources
The base loaded 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project, located at Crystal Lake, includes two impulse
turbine/generator units: Unit 1 with installed capacity of 400 KW and Unit 3 with installed capacity of 1600
KW. Average annual generation is 11.3 GWh. The 400 KW unit is from original project construction in
1924 and the 1600 KW unit was installed in the late 1970’s. PMPL uses both automated and manual
methods to operate the project.
The existing maximum generation capacity of the Downtown Diesel Plant is 10.1 MW. However, 3.5 MW
of this capacity is in poor condition and unreliable, with potentially excessive rebuild costs. Currently diesel
generation in Petersburg provides backup power to the Tyee system and is estimated to operate less than
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 13 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
500 hours per year.
This operation is divided into an estimated 350 hours of scheduled maintenance of the Tyee
transmission/generation system and 150 hours of unscheduled outages to the Tyee
transmission/generation system. Diesel generation must also operate when the line from the Scow Bay
Substation to the City is interrupted.
If PMPL were to continue to rely on diesel generation to meet future load growth, the diesel generation
would be relocated to Scow Bay. Some of the existing diesel generation equipment will not meet the more
stringent emissions standards that will be required for a new facility air quality permit.
PMPL Rate Structure
Electric Rates Effective February 2008
Customer Class Base Rate Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Residential $9.00 0 - 325 KWH
11.8 cents/kwh
326 - 650 KWH
11.4 cents/kwh
Over 650 KWH
7.0 cents/kwh
Small Commercial $9.00 0 - 1500 KWH
11.1 cents/kwh
1501 - 3000 KWH
10.9 cents/kwh
Over 3000 KWH
7.6 cents/kwh
Large Commercial 28.00+
$3.10/kw
0 - 30,000 KWH
10.8 cents/kwh
30,001 - 60,000 KWH
10.6 cents/kwh
Over 60,000 KWH
8.1 cents/kwh
Boat Harbor $9.00 0 - 500 KWH
11.1 cents/kwh
501 - 1000 KWH
10.9 cents/kwh
Over 1000 KWH
7.6 cents/kwh
Avoided Cost
PMPL’s avoided cost of energy during FY 06/07 was 28 cents per kWh. Cost for FY 07/08 is 33.8 cents
per kWh.
4.2.2 Existing Energy Resources Used
Briefly discuss your understanding of the existing energy resources. Include a brief discussion of any
impact the project may have on existing energy infrastructure and resources.
PMPL Existing Generation Resources
The City of Petersburg, d.b.a. PMPL, has three power generation sources to serve the existing load:
• PMPL generates electric power at its 2 MW Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project and provides 26% of
system power.
• The Downtown Diesel Plant located at PMPL’s office campus in downtown Petersburg provides
backup when the transmission service from Tyee is interrupted. During FY 06/07 the diesel plant
provided 2% of system power.
• PMPL purchases power from the 22.5 MW Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project currently owned by the
Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas Bay Power Authority (TBPA)
and provides 72% of system power. Power from Tyee is delivered to Petersburg via the existing
transmission segment from Tyee to the Scow Bay Substation. Service from the substation to the
City is via a City-owned 24.9 kV distribution line.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 14 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Impacts of Ruth Lake on Existing Energy Infrastructure and Resources
Development of the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would displace the need for a total redundant diesel
generation system in Petersburg. Power from Ruth Lake would be available, not only to displace the cost
of operating diesel generation to replace lost power when the transmission line is down from Tyee, but
would also encourage new economic development in Petersburg and Mitkof Island and other
interconnected communities in southern Southeast Alaska.
4.2.3 Existing Energy Market
Discuss existing energy use and its market. Discuss impacts your project may have on energy customers.
Regional Energy Market
The current Southern SE Alaska electricity marketplace includes several geographically constrained sub-
markets:
• Petersburg and Wrangell - interconnected by the existing FDPPA-owned transmission line that
delivers power generated at the Tyee Lake Project to PMPL & WMLP
• Ketchikan and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough - connected by the existing FDPPA-owned
transmission line to the Swan Lake Project and served by KPU
• Metlakatla on Annette Island - currently isolated and served by a mix of hydro and diesel generated
power
• Kake on Kupreanof Island - currently isolated and solely reliant on diesel-generated power.
Significant disparities in the cost of power in SE Alaska communities exist today, in part related to
availability of low cost hydropower. Many isolated load centers are currently served solely by diesel
generation. Utility rates and services affect the quality of life for residents, influence economic development
in communities within the study area, and shape future opportunities in all sectors of the economy.
Decisions to locate new commercial and industrial development are influenced by the availability of reliable
and low-cost power.
The economy of SE Alaska has experienced broad-based transition from a commodity resource-based
economy to one where the economy is mixed, with increasing development of general service-oriented
businesses including government services recreation and tourism. This transition reflects national trends
over the past decade where rapid employment growth is occurring in the services, retail trade, and
government sectors. It is also a reflection of the decline in the wood products sector along with a
substantial growth in the number of visitors to SE Alaska. Average annual employment in SE Alaska grew
over the past decade, but at a slower rate than the national average. Changes in employment varied by
community and by economic sector. In some communities in SE Alaska, employment has reduced in part
due to the high cost of energy from diesel generation in isolated communities. As SE Alaska communities
respond to transitions in the economy, the need to have an interconnected electric system becomes even
more apparent.
Development of proposed transmission lines to interconnect these sub-markets will enable new economic
development in many of the currently isolated load centers and improve quality of life for residents
currently encumbered with high cost energy service from diesel generation.
Petersburg Energy Market
Since its beginning in the 1890s, Petersburg’s economy has been based on commercial fishing and timber
harvests. Several processors operate cold storage, canneries and custom packing services. Unlike
Ketchikan and Wrangell, Petersburg does not have a deep water dock suitable for cruise ships. The
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 15 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Census 2000 population figure for Petersburg is 3224; the estimated population at July 2005 is 3010.
The current population is approximately 7 percent larger than the population in 1980.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light buys the majority of its electrical requirements from the Tyee Lake
Hydro Plant (22.5 MW) owned by the FDPPA. In addition the city owns a hydro facility at Blind Slough
(Crystal Lake) which has a capacity of 2 MW and a small diesel plant. Generation and sales data currently
available for Petersburg includes monthly net generation, sales by tariff category and number of customers
from 2000 to 2006. The data are summarized on an annual basis below.
Monthly sales data displays a low in the summer and a peak in the winter. The non-resident sales have a
well defined summer peak based on the operations of the large commercial sector associated with the
fishing industry.
Table - Petersburg – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 1,316 13,027,144 666 22,229,387 35,256,531 39,120,307 6,860
2001 1,321 13,084,396 666 23,661,263 36,745,659 40,841,874 9,080
2002 1,327 12,825,151 651 22,529,651 35,354,802 39,442,490 8,180
2003 1,347 13,247,992 655 22,814,913 36,062,905 39,627,828 8,010
2004 1,363 13,132,812 663 23,470,133 36,602,945 39,929,252 8,380
2005 1,365 13,463,651 690 24,131,183 37,594,834 41,708,013 7,880
2006 1,376 14,600,288 704 24,348,294 38,948,582 44,843,573 8,810
Source: AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study – SE Alaska; Final Report – September 2007; Report prepared by Hatch Acres
Corporation, Dryden and LaRue Inc, and Hardy Energy Consulting for Alaska Energy Authority.
2007 and Forecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements
The above table was excerpted from the AK-BC Final Report. Presently, PMPL is involved in updating its
forecasted sales and energy requirements. Total energy sales reported in 2007 were 41,265 MWh; and
peak demand was 9 MW. Total energy requirements reported in 2007 was 46,617 MWh, including use and
losses at 10% of total sales and own use.
Tables showing forecasted monthly energy sales and energy requirements during the period 2008 through
2027 are provided in Attachment I to this Grant Application.
Ruth Lake – Positive Effects on Ratepayers and Community
The Ruth Lake Project would have a positive impact on PMPL’s ratepayers by displacing the cost of
relocation of the Diesel Electric Plant and future operations & maintenance cost necessary to provide
redundant generation capability for the Tyee Project that currently provides 72% of system requirements.
In addition, the Ruth Lake Project would enable PMPL to proceed with heat conversions and serve new
load with electricity thereby improving local environmental conditions by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 16 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Supporting Referenced Materials
• Attachment G to this Grant Application provides excerpts from the AK-BC Intertie
Feasibility Study – Southeast Alaska Final Report describing the loads and resources of
the Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities that will be interconnected following
completion of the Swan-Tyee Intertie under construction; and the future proposed new
transmission intertie segments that would add Kake and Metlakatla.
• Attachment H to this Grant Application includes two tables presenting estimated
greenhouse gas emissions in the region between 2007 and 2031 with & without
conversion of oil-fired heating furnaces.
• Attachment I to this Grant Application presents Forecasted Monthly Energy Sales and
Energy Requirements for the period 2008 - 2027
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 17 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
4.3 Proposed System
Include information necessary to describe the system you are intending to develop and address
potential system design, land ownership, permits, and environmental issues.
4.3.1 System Design
Provide the following information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location
• Optimum installed capacity
• Anticipated capacity factor
• Anticipated annual generation
• Anticipated barriers
• Basic integration concept
• Delivery methods
Information for the proposed renewable energy system:
• A description of renewable energy technology specific to project location – development
of hydropower potential at Ruth Lake located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the
City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site would include
construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant,
tailrace, and transmission line segments.
• Optimum installed capacity – 20 MW
• Anticipated capacity factor – 40%
• Anticipated annual generation – 70 GWh
• Anticipated barriers – Failure to receive a license to construct and operate the project is a
barrier to developing any new non-federal hydropower resource in the US.
• Basic integration concept – Electric power from Ruth Lake would be integrated to PMPL’s
resources to serve current and future loads. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system
by a distribution segment. Following restructuring, the current FDPPA-owned
transmission system would be owned and operated by the Southeast Alaska Power
Agency (SEAPA), comprised of PMPL, WMLP, & KPU. Power surplus to PMPL’s needs
could be delivered to SEAPA for use within the region. (See also Attachment G)
• Delivery methods - Electric power from Ruth Lake powerhouse would be transmitted by
overland and submarine transmission segments to the Scow Bay Substation on Mitkof
Island. Power would be delivered to PMPL’s system by a distribution segment and to
other southern Southeast Alaska utilities by the interconnected transmission system
currently owned and operated by the FDPPA. Following restructuring of the FDPPA and
subsequent asset transfer, the current FDPPA-owned transmission system in Southeast
Alaska would be owned and operated by the Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA)
comprised of PMPL, WMLP, & KPU. (See also Attachment F – Exhibit F.2 for a
schematic diagram)
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 18 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
4.3.2 Land Ownership
Identify potential land ownership issues, including whether site owners have agreed to the
project or how you intend to approach land ownership and access issues.
Lands that would be occupied by the Project are within the Tongass National Forest. PMPL has
contacted the Petersburg District Ranger office and the FERC specialist to discuss use of
National Forest Lands at Ruth Lake and Delta Creek. Ruth Lake is in an Old Growth Reserve
(OGR) Land Use Designation (LUD) or management prescription under the 2008 Tongass
Forest Plan. The OGR management prescription is a Transportation and Utility System (TUS)
avoidance area which provides that “Transportation and utility sites or corridors may be located
within this LUD only after an analysis of potential TUS corridor opportunities has been completed
and no feasible alternative exists outside this LUD.” This does not necessarily prohibit a TUS
development (including hydropower development) but there will be an analysis process and
documentation that will have to deal with the issue of “feasibility” in order to meet the direction of
the Forest Plan. PMPL will consult with the Petersburg District Ranger office and FERC
specialist during preparation of the pre-feasibility study and application for preliminary permit to
identify the analysis process and documentation that the Forest Service will need to allow
development of the proposed Ruth Lake Hydropower Project.
4.3.3 Permits
Provide the following information as it may relate to permitting and how you intend to address
outstanding permit issues.
• List of applicable permits
• Anticipated permitting timeline
• Identify and discussion of potential barriers
PERMIT /
APPROVAL AGENCY
PERMITTING
TIMELINE
POTENTIAL
BARRIERS DISCUSSION
FERC
Preliminary
Permit
FERC File 02-01-2009 None identified Application due at
FERC 02-01-2009
FERC License FERC
Studies to support
the FERC license
will commence
following issuance of
the Preliminary
Permit.
Timeframe for
licensing: 2nd Quarter
2009 – 3rd Quarter
2012
None identified
FERC regulations
require consultation with
interested federal and
state agencies; local
governments; Indian
tribes; land-owners;
non-governmental
organizations; and other
interested individuals
and/or organizations
prior to filing an
Application for License.
FERC regulations
specify the content of
the Application for
License.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 19 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Compliance
with NEPA FERC & USFS
Timeframe for
licensing: 2nd Quarter
2009 – 3rd Quarter
2012
Non identified
PMPL proposes to
prepare a Preliminary
Draft Environmental
Assessment (PDEA)
and submit the PDEA in
the Application for
License.
USFS Special
Use
Authorization
(SUA)
USFS
Consultation during
pre-filing FERC
process. Application
for SUA following
license issuance.
Old Growth
Reserve Land
Use
Designation
Consultation with USFS
Title 16 Habitat
Permit ADF&G
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
ADF&G during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
ADF&G conditions use
of waters and aquatic
habitat in permit.
Nationwide
Permit (NWP) USACE
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
USACE during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
USACE will identify
appropriate NWP based
on proposed project
description.
NWP also addresses
project-related effects
on wetlands under
Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act.
Water Right ADNR – Water
Resources
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
ADNR during FERC
pre-filing process.
None identified
Section 10
Permit USACE
Application prepared
and filed following
consultation with
USACE during
FERC pre-filing
process.
None identified
Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899
requires a permit for
structures or work
affecting navigable
waters of the US.
Thomas Bay and
Frederick Sound are
navigable waters.
Section 106 –
National
Historic
Preservation
Act (NHPA)
USFS;
ADNR-SHPO;
Indian Tribes;
and, if
necessary with
the Advisory
Council on
Historic
Preservation
Applicants for FERC
license are required
to conduct field
surveys and
evaluate project
potential to affect
historic properties.
None identified
The proposed project is
located within the high
sensitivity zone for
cultural resources.
Consultation is required
under NHPA and NEPA
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 20 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Alaska Coastal
Management
Plan (ACMP) –
Consistency
Determination
ADNR-DCOM
Section 307 of the
Coastal Zone
Management Act
and the approved
ACMP require
Applicants for FERC
license to prepare
and submit a Coastal
Project
Questionnaire (CPQ)
None identified
Completion of the CPQ
requires copies of all
permits and other
approvals required to
support the FERC
license Application.
ADNR-DCOM circulates
the complete CPQ for
review and comment. A
complete CPQ is
required prior to FERC
issuance of a License.
4.3.4 Environmental
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
• Threatened or Endangered species
• Habitat issues
• Wetlands and other protected areas
• Archaeological and historical resources
• Land development constraints
• Telecommunications interference
• Aviation considerations
• Visual, aesthetics impacts
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers
Address whether the following environmental and land use issues apply, and if so how they will
be addressed:
• General Note: PMPL will conduct consultations with federal and state agencies during
the pre-filing development of the Application for License. These agencies will submit
recommended terms and conditions for inclusion in any License issued by the FERC.
• Threatened or Endangered species – PMPL will consult with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS &
USFS, conduct required studies to identify any species of concern in Alaska and/or
Federal sensitive species, and implement measures to avoid and/or protect any species
during construction and Project operation.
• Habitat issues – PMPL will consult with ADF&G, FWS, NMFS & USFS regarding aquatic
and terrestrial species and habitat use within the Project area, conduct required studies,
and implement measures to protect habitat of concern during construction and Project
operation.
• Wetlands and other protected areas -PMPL will consult with the USACE, ADF&G, and
the FWS and conduct an on-site wetland delineation to identify wetland acreage, types,
and functional assessments within the proposed Project boundary and consult with the
agencies regarding any potential effects of constructing and operating the Project.
• Archaeological and historical resources - PMPL will conduct consultations and studies;
and prepare reports required to address Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 21 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
• Land development constraints – PMPL will consult with the BLM regarding any mineral
claims; consult with agencies and the public regarding any effects on recreational use;
consult with private land-owners, and consult with the USFS regarding the Land Use
Designation for National Forest Lands that would be occupied by the Project. Measures
addressing land use will be incorporated in easements and the USFS Special Use
Authorization.
• Telecommunications interference – Not applicable
• Aviation considerations – Not applicable
• Visual, aesthetics impacts – PMPL will consult with the USFS and other federal/state
agencies, conduct studies and develop management plans to protect the visual and
aesthetic resources at Ruth Lake and Delta Creek
• Identify and discuss other potential barriers – none identified at present
4.4 Proposed New System Costs (Total Estimated Costs and proposed Revenues)
The level of cost information provided will vary according to the phase of funding requested and
any previous work the applicant may have done on the project. Applicants must reference the
source of their cost data. For example: Applicants Records or Analysis, Industry Standards,
Consultant or Manufacturer’s estimates.
4.4.1 Project Development Cost
Provide detailed project cost information based on your current knowledge and understanding of
the project. Cost information should include the following:
• Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
• Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind
• Identification of other funding sources
• Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system
• Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system
• Total anticipated project cost, and cost for this phase
- Total project cost = $109,975,000
- Cost for Phase II = $ 2.520,000
• Requested grant funding = $ 2,000,000
• Applicant matching funds – loans, capital contributions, in-kind = $ 520,000
• Identification of other funding sources - None
• Projected capital cost of proposed renewable energy system. PMPL proposes to develop
the project in four phases. PMPL will provide a 20% match to any State funds. Please
see attached RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form for breakdown of potential State funds and
local match.
• Projected development cost of proposed renewable energy system. In addition to the
local 20% match, PMPL will provide in-kind match funds as shown on the attached RFA
AEA09-004 Budget Form (see ATTACHMENT C).
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 22 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
4.4.2 Project Operating and Maintenance Costs
Include anticipated O&M costs for new facilities constructed and how these would be funded by
the applicant.
• Total anticipated project cost for this phase
• Requested grant funding
• Total anticipated project cost for this phase: Estimated Project O&M costs $1,200,000
based on comparable project O&M costs in the Southern Southeast Alaska region.
• Requested grant funding: PMPL will not request grant funding for any O&M costs for the
new facilities. O&M costs will be funded through the electric rates.
4.4.3 Power Purchase/Sale
The power purchase/sale information should include the following:
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s)
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project
• Identification of potential power buyer(s)/customer(s): PMPL proposes to sell power to its
ratepayers under the rates approved by the Petersburg City Council.
• Potential power purchase/sales price - at a minimum indicate a price range: The rate
structure for future power sales to other interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska
utilities would be determined in consultation with SEAPA. Rates will be sufficient to
generate sufficient operating revenue to cover the cost for operation, maintenance,
depreciation and debt service for the project. The wholesale rate is expected to range
from 6 cents/kWh to 18 cents/kWh depending upon the level of grant funding secured for
the project.
• Proposed rate of return from grant-funded project: PMPL is a municipal utility and does
not earn a rate of return from any of its projects.
4.4.4 Cost Worksheet
Complete the cost worksheet form which provides summary information that will be considered
in evaluating the project.
Please see the Cost Worksheet at ATTACHMENT B
Source of information: Joe Nelson, Superintendent, PMPL provided data regarding PMPL’s
electric utility presented in the Cost Worksheet
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 23 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
4.4.5 Business Plan
Discuss your plan for operating the completed project so that it will be sustainable. Include at a
minimum proposed business structure(s) and concepts that may be considered.
Existing Electric System Operations
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMPL) is a municipally owned electric utility providing
electric service to approximately 2,000 customers within the Petersburg city limits and on Mitkof
Island.
PMPL owns and operates the 2-MW Blind Slough Project that supplies approximately 25% of its
requirements. PMPL’s primary source of electric energy is the 22-MW Tyee Hydroelectric
Project, owned by the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA) and operated by the Thomas
Bay Power Commission. PMPL also owns and operates a standby 10 MW diesel generation
plant and the electrical distribution system serving Mitkof Island.
Presently PMPL relies on electrical energy from the Blind Slough and Tyee hydro projects to
serve its load. When service from Tyee is interrupted, PMPL provides energy from the diesel
plant. PMPL is faced in the very near future with the need to relocate and reconstruct the stand-
by diesel plant at significant cost.
Future Modifications to System Operations
PMPL proposes to construct and operate the Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project located at Ruth
Lake and Delta Creek in an unincorporated area northeast of the City of Petersburg. PMPL
would use power generated at Ruth Lake to replace current use of diesel-generated power;
power in excess of PMPL’s energy requirements would be sold to regional utilities.
The proposed Ruth Lake Project would provide significant benefits and enhance system
reliability: (1) provide an alternative source of power when the line to the Tyee Project is
down and (2) generate energy to enable PMPL to retire its diesel plant.
The FDPPA is currently going through restructuring and subsequent asset transfer. Following
restructuring SEAPA will continue to own the Swan and Tyee Projects, the Swan-Tyee Intertie,
and the line from Tyee to Wrangell and Petersburg. PMPL will be a member of SEAPA, but will
continue to operate the Blind Slough Project and the PMPL electric distribution system to provide
service to PMPL’s customers. Power excess to PMPL’s energy requirements generated at the
Ruth Lake Project would be sold to regional utilities.
In addition to the existing interconnection with Wrangell and future interconnection with
Ketchikan when the Swan-Tyee Intertie is energized, line segments interconnecting Petersburg
with Kake and Ketchikan with Metlakatla are in the planning stages. Ruth Lake would be a major
addition to the resources to serve communities in an interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska
grid. See Attachment F - Figure F.2 for a schematic of the Southern SE Alaska Transmission
System.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 24 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
Development of Ruth Lake
PMPL will pursue a FERC Preliminary Permit for the Project and conduct studies to support the
Application for License during the 3-year term of the FERC Preliminary Permit.
PMPL will file the Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC on February 1, 2009.
PMPL will oversee Hatch Acres who is providing a majority of the consulting work.
A business plan for future Ruth Lake operations will be developed during the Phase II Licensing
and Feasibility.
4.4.6 Analysis and Recommendations
Provide information about the economic analysis and the proposed project. Discuss your
recommendation for additional project development work.
PMPL’s FY 08/009 diesel generation will cost approximately 33.8 cents/kWh. Absent grant
funding, the estimated cost of power from the Ruth Lake Project is approximately 18 cents/kWh.
Ruth Lake would provide PMPL and other utilities in Wrangell and Ketchikan, and eventually
Kake and Metlakatla with long-term sustainable environmentally clean energy.
PMPL proposes to prepare an economic analysis regarding the proposed Ruth Lake Project and
include in the Pre-feasibility Report that will be prepared during Phase I Reconnaissance (4th
Quarter 2008 – February 1, 2009). That analysis will be refined during Phase II Licensing &
Feasibility (2nd Quarter 2009 – 3rd Quarter 2012.
SECTION 5– PROJECT BENEFIT
Explain the economic and public benefits of your project. Include direct cost savings,
and how the people of Alaska will benefit from the project.
The benefits information should include the following:
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project
• Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership)
• Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits)
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available)
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
• Potential annual fuel displacement (gal and $) over the lifetime of the evaluated
renewable energy project: SEAPA regional savings would be significant with addition of
Ruth Lake as power delivered from Ruth Lake would replace current use of diesel
generation. Regional cost savings will be assessed in the Pre-Feasibility Study and
throughout the FERC licensing process. The Ruth Lake project would allow PMPL to
displace approximately 75,000 gallons of fuel per year which equates to approximately
$260,000 per year at today’s fuel prices. The lifetime for well operated and maintained
hydro projects can exceed 100 years.
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 25 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
• Anticipated annual revenue (based on i.e. a Proposed Power Purchase Agreement price,
RCA tariff, or avoided cost of ownership): Annual revenue will be sufficient to cover the
cost for operation, maintenance, depreciation and debt service for the Project. The
revenue requirement is expected to be $1.2 million per year (in 2009 dollars) based upon
comparable annual operating expenses of the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project.
• Potential additional annual incentives (i.e. tax credits): PMPL does not propose to apply
for additional annual incentives.
• Potential additional annual revenue streams (i.e. green tag sales or other renewable
energy subsidies or programs that might be available): Not applicable
• Discuss the non-economic public benefits to Alaskans over the lifetime of the project
o Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from displacement of fossil fuel
– Please see Attachment H for information regarding avoided GHG emissions related
to electric heat conversions
o Increased system reliability in the Southeast Alaska Power Agency service areas.
Please see also Attachment G for excerpts from the AK-BC Intertie Report that presents the
regional energy market and loads and resources for the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell,
Ketchikan, Kake, and Metlakatla.
SECTION 6 – GRANT BUDGET
Tell us how much your total project costs. Include any investments to date and funding sources,
how much is requested in grant funds, and additional investments you will make as an
applicant.
Include an estimate of budget costs by tasks using the form - GrantBudget.xls
Provide a narrative summary regarding funding sources and your financial commitment to the
project.
The total cost excluding financing costs to develop the Ruth Lake Project is approximately
$109,975,000. Total local match funds (cash) are estimated at $21,980,000; and total match
funds (In-Kind) are estimated at $75,000. In this request, PMPL is requesting grant funding for
$2,000,000.
The Grant Budget.xls form is provided in ATTACHMENT C
Renewable Energy Fund
Grant Application
AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 26 of 26
City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Phase II – Application for License and FERC Licensing Proceeding
November 3, 2008
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION1
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WITH YOUR APPLICATION:
A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and
suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4 – SEE ATTACHMENT A
B. Cost Worksheet per application form Section 4.4.4 – SEE ATTACHMENT B
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6. – SEE ATTACHMENT C
D. An electronic version of the entire application per RFA Section 1.6
E. Governing Body Resolution per RFA Section 1.4 – SEE ATTACHMENT D
Enclose a copy of the resolution or other formal action taken by the applicant’s
governing body or management that:
- authorizes this application for project funding at the match amounts indicated in
the application
- authorizes the individual named as point of contact to represent the applicant for
purposes of this application
- states the applicant is in compliance with all federal state, and local, laws
including existing credit and federal tax obligations.
F. CERTIFICATION
1 Please note that PMPL also provides the following additional Attachments: ATTACHMENT E to Section
3.2 Project Schedule; and four attachments referenced in several sections of this Grant Application:
ATTACHMENT F - Maps and Drawings; ATTACHMENT G – Southeast Alaska Market; ATTACHMENT
H – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions With/Without Heat Conversion; and ATTACHMENT I –
Forecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements as allowed in the Grant Application
Instructions.
ATTACHMENT A - RESUMES
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
A. Resumes of Applicant’s Project Manager, key staff, partners, consultants, and
suppliers per application form Section 3.1 and 3.4
3.1 PROJECT MANAGER: JOE NELSON, PMPL SUPERINTENDENT
REFERENCE: RICHARD UNDERKOFLER, CITY MANAGER
3.4 PROJECT RESOURCES
LEAD CONSULTANT FOR HATCH ACRES TEAM: A. RICHARD GRIFFITH
LICENSING MANAGER NAN NALDER
ATTACHMENT B – COST WORKSHEET
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
B. Cost Worksheet per application for Section 4.4.4
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 1
Application Cost Worksheet
Please note that some fields might not be applicable for all technologies or all project
phases. Level of information detail varies according to phase requirements.
1. Renewable Energy Source
The Applicant should demonstrate that the renewable energy resource is available on a
sustainable basis.
Annual average resource availability. Hydropower Output ≈ 70,000,000 kWh
Unit depends on project type (e.g. windspeed, hydropower output, biomasss fuel)
2. Existing Energy Generation1
a) Basic configuration (if system is part of the Railbelt2 grid, leave this section blank)
i. Number of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
ii. Rated capacity of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
iii. Generator/boilers/other type See attached Exhibit A
iv. Age of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
v. Efficiency of generators/boilers/other See attached Exhibit A
b) Annual O&M cost (if system is part of the Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Annual O&M cost for labor $47,700
ii. Annual O&M cost for non-labor $290,960
c) Annual electricity production and fuel usage (fill in as applicable) (if system is part of the
Railbelt grid, leave this section blank)
i. Electricity [kWh] 1,000,000 kWh
ii. Fuel usage
Diesel [gal] 75,000 gallons
Other -na-
iii. Peak Load 9 MW
iv. Average Load 5.4 MW
v. Minimum Load 2.8 MW
1 Information provided on this Application Cost Worksheet addresses PMPL’s system. Please note that the Ruth
Lake Hydroelectric Project is proposed to be developed as a regional resource to serve members of the Southeast
Alaska Power Agency, formerly the Four Dam Pool Power Agency.
2 The Railbelt grid connects all customers of Chugach Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Golden
Valley Electric Association, the City of Seward Electric Department, Matanuska Electric Association and Anchorage
Municipal Light and Power.
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 2
vi. Efficiency 13.5 kWh/gallon
vii. Future trends Increasing load due to electric heat conversions & interconnection with other
communities in southern Southeast Alaska.
d) Annual heating fuel usage (fill in as applicable)
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu]
ii. Electricity [kWh]
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu]
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu]
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons]
vi. Other
3. Proposed System Design
a) Installed capacity 20,000 kW
b) Annual renewable electricity generation
i. Diesel [gal or MMBtu] -na-
ii. Electricity [kWh] 70,000,000 kWh
iii. Propane [gal or MMBtu] -na-
iv. Coal [tons or MMBtu] -na-
v. Wood [cords, green tons, dry tons] -na-
vi. Other -na-
4. Project Cost (2009 dollars) Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Total capital cost of new system $133,015,000 $27,153,000
b) Development cost:
licensing, feasibility & final design $8,545,000 $1,745,000
c) Annual O&M cost of new system $1,200,000 $1,200,000
d) Annual fuel cost -na- -na-
Renewable Energy Fund
RFA AEA 09-004 Application Cost Worksheet revised 9/26/08 Page 3
5. Project Benefits
a) Amount of fuel displaced for
i. Electricity
ii. Heat -na-
iii. Transportation -na-
b) Price of displaced fuel 70,000,000 kWh @ $0.338 / kWh = $23,660,000
c) Other economic benefits
i. Diesel Plant Retirement $20,000,000 to $25,000,000
d) Amount of Alaska public benefits -na-
6. Power Sales Price Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Price for power sale $0.18 / kWh $0.06 / kWh
7. Project Analysis Without Grant Funding With 80% Grant Funding
through Construction
a) Basic Economic Analysis
Project benefit/cost ratio 1.8 5.0
Payback 30 years 2 years
ATTACHMENT B
EXHIBIT A
PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT
RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
APPLICATION FOR FERC LICENSE AND RELATED STUDIES
EXISTING DIESEL ENERGY GENERATION
Unit Manuf. Year kW Rating Condition
Efficiency
(kWh/gal.
1250 Superior 1956 1,250 good 14.6
D398 Cat 1981 600 fair 17.6
D399 Cat 1981 800 fair 12.6
16V71 Detroit 1970 350 good 10.0
EMD-16 GM 1972 2,100 good 13.5
EMD-20 GM 1972 2,500 good 13.0
EMD-21 GM 1977 2,500 good 13.9
TOTAL INSTALLED CAPACITY 10,100
EXISTING HYDROPOWER ENERGY GENERATION
Unit Owner kW Rating Average Energy (kWh)
Blind Slough PMPL 2,200 10,400,000
Tyee Lake1 FDPPA 20,000 25,600,000
TOTALS 22,200 36,000,000
1 Power purchase from Four Dam Pool Power Agency
ATTACHMENT C – GRANT BUDGET FORM
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
C. Grant Budget Form per application form Section 6
Alaska Energy Authority - Renewable Energy FundBUDGET INFORMATION (2009 dollars)Milestone or Task Federal Funds State FundsLocal Match Funds (Cash)Match Funds (In-Kind)Other FundsTOTALSI Reconnaissance $0 $160,000 $40,000 $5,000 $0 $205,000II Licensing & Feasibility (2009-2012) $0 $2,000,000 $500,000 $20,000 $0 $2,520,000III Final Design $0 $4,640,000 $1,160,000 $20,000 $0 $5,820,000IV Construction $0 $81,120,000 $20,280,000 $30,000 $0 $101,430,000Totals $0 $87,920,000 $21,980,000 $75,000 $0 $109,975,000IIIIII IV TOTALS1 Direct Labor and Benefits $15,000 $15,000 $25,000.00 $55,0002 Travel, Meals, or Per Diem$5,000$5,000 $5,000 $5,000.00 $20,0003 Equipment$11,960,000 $11,960,0004 Supplies$05 Contractual Services$200,000$2,500,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $14,300,0006 Construction Services $83,640,000 $83,640,0007 Other Direct Costs$0TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES$205,000$2,520,000 $5,820,000 $101,430,000 $109,975,000Legend:Renewable Energy Fund request activityFuture activities - Amounts shown for Tasks III & IV are preliminary pending completion of Task IIBUDGET SUMMARY:BUDGET CATEGORIES:Milestone # or Task #RFA AEA09-004 Budget Form
ATTACHMENT D
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
E. GOVERNING BODY RESOLUTION
PER RFA SECTION 1.4
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 4th Quarter 2008 – 3rd Quarter 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2008 1 ATTACHMENT E 3.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPLICATION FOR FERC LICENSE AND RELATED STUDIES SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST 4TH QUARTER 2008 THROUGH 3rd QUARTER 2012 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2008 4TH Quarter Conduct Pre-Feasibility Study Prepare Application for Preliminary Permit $155,0001 $ 155,000 Complete Pre-Feasibility Study and Application for Preliminary Permit File Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC – 02-01-2009 $50,000 $205,000 2009 1st Quarter Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies (use FERC guidelines for Preliminary Application Document (PAD)). Identify proposed multi-year studies plans – engineering, economic, and environmental Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested participants $100,000 $305,000 2009 2nd Quarter Receive Order Issuing Preliminary Permit from FERC2 Meet with FERC staff in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Project and the FERC Licensing Process. Meet with State and Federal resource agencies in Juneau to discuss the Project and the required studies to support the Application for License. Meet with engineering and environmental studies team to discuss the Project and the phased approach to studies to support the Application for License. Prepare initial year engineering and environmental field and office study plans in consultation with agencies and other interested participants. $100,000 $405,000 2009 3rd Quarter Began first year field and office studies Continue to consult with Federal and State resource agencies $560,000 $965,000 1 Phase I – Grant Application Activity 2 Estimated quarter to receive FERC-issued Preliminary Permit. The Preliminary Permit will require PMPL to prepare 6-Month Reports summarizing activities within each 6-month period and providing a list of activities to be accomplished in the following 6-month period. This Schedule will be updated to reflect receipt of the FERC-issued Preliminary Permit.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 4th Quarter 2008 – 3rd Quarter 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2008 2 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2009 4th Quarter Continue first year field and office studies and prepared reports summarizing study method and results. Prepare Exhibit G Maps and other figures for inclusion in the Application for License. Prepare scope of work for second year field and office studies; submit to Federal and State resource agencies for review and comment. Hold teleconference meeting to discuss results of first year studies program and proposed studies for second year field season. Prepare final PAD and Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Application for License. Prepare Scoping Document No. 1 (SD1) $350,000 $1,315,000 2010 1st Quarter Continue office studies. Receive Federal and State resource agency comments on proposed second year studies program; prepare and issue final study plans; and file with FERC. File PAD, SD1, and NOI with FERC and provide to Participants in the proceeding Prepare and issue Public Notices for Scoping Meetings $50,000 $1,365,000 2010 2nd Quarter Continue office studies. Hold Public Scoping Meetings in Petersburg and Juneau. File record of Public meetings with FERC. Begin work on Draft Application for License $150,000 $1,515,000 2010 3rd Quarter Conduct second year field and office studies program. Prepare reports to be inserted into the Draft Application for License. $460,000 $1,975,000 2010 4th Quarter Provide reports to Federal and State Resource agencies. Schedule teleconference meetings with agencies and Participants to discuss the proposed project any potential terms and conditions agencies will recommend to FERC. Continue work on Draft Application for License. $225,000 $2,200,000 2011 1st Quarter Submit Draft Application for License to FERC, agencies, and other participants for pre-filing review and comments. Request preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. $50,000 $2,250,000 2011 2nd Quarter Begin Final Feasibility Study. Receive comments on Draft Application and preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. Hold consultations with Federal and State Resource Agencies and other Participants to discuss their comments on the Draft Application. $75,000 $2,325,000 2011 3rd Quarter Complete Final Feasibility Study and integrate information to the Final Application for License – Supporting Design Report that is part of Exhibit F of the Application for License. Continue consultations with agencies and Participants regarding comments on the Draft Application. $175,000 $2,500,000 2011 4th Quarter Prepare and file Final Application for License with the FERC and provide to agencies and other participants. $175,000 $2,675,000 2012 1st Quarter to 2012 3rd Quarter Begin Phase III Preliminary Engineering activities. Respond to FERC requests for Additional Information. Review FERC-prepared NEPA document and provide comments. Receive FERC Order Issuing License. $50,000 $2,725,000
ATTACHMENT E – DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE
SECTION 7 – ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION
E. Schedule and Estimated Cost – 4th Quarter 2008 through 3rd Quarter 2010
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 4th Quarter 2008 – 3rd Quarter 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2008 1 ATTACHMENT E 3.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE PETERSBURG MUNICIPAL POWER & LIGHT RUTH LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPLICATION FOR FERC LICENSE AND RELATED STUDIES SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST 4TH QUARTER 2008 THROUGH 3rd QUARTER 2012 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2008 4TH Quarter Conduct Pre-Feasibility Study Prepare Application for Preliminary Permit $155,0001 $ 155,000 Complete Pre-Feasibility Study and Application for Preliminary Permit File Application for Preliminary Permit with FERC – 02-01-2009 $50,000 $205,000 2009 1st Quarter Prepare preliminary draft document to begin consultations with agencies (use FERC guidelines for Preliminary Application Document (PAD)). Identify proposed multi-year studies plans – engineering, economic, and environmental Begin consultations with Federal and State resource agencies and other interested participants $100,000 $305,000 2009 2nd Quarter Receive Order Issuing Preliminary Permit from FERC2 Meet with FERC staff in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Project and the FERC Licensing Process. Meet with State and Federal resource agencies in Juneau to discuss the Project and the required studies to support the Application for License. Meet with engineering and environmental studies team to discuss the Project and the phased approach to studies to support the Application for License. Prepare initial year engineering and environmental field and office study plans in consultation with agencies and other interested participants. $100,000 $405,000 2009 3rd Quarter Began first year field and office studies Continue to consult with Federal and State resource agencies $560,000 $965,000 1 Phase I – Grant Application Activity 2 Estimated quarter to receive FERC-issued Preliminary Permit. The Preliminary Permit will require PMPL to prepare 6-Month Reports summarizing activities within each 6-month period and providing a list of activities to be accomplished in the following 6-month period. This Schedule will be updated to reflect receipt of the FERC-issued Preliminary Permit.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Schedule and Estimated Budget – 4th Quarter 2008 – 3rd Quarter 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2008 2 DATE ACTIVITIES CURRENT PERIOD ACCUMULATIVE 2009 4th Quarter Continue first year field and office studies and prepared reports summarizing study method and results. Prepare Exhibit G Maps and other figures for inclusion in the Application for License. Prepare scope of work for second year field and office studies; submit to Federal and State resource agencies for review and comment. Hold teleconference meeting to discuss results of first year studies program and proposed studies for second year field season. Prepare final PAD and Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Application for License. Prepare Scoping Document No. 1 (SD1) $350,000 $1,315,000 2010 1st Quarter Continue office studies. Receive Federal and State resource agency comments on proposed second year studies program; prepare and issue final study plans; and file with FERC. File PAD, SD1, and NOI with FERC and provide to Participants in the proceeding Prepare and issue Public Notices for Scoping Meetings $50,000 $1,365,000 2010 2nd Quarter Continue office studies. Hold Public Scoping Meetings in Petersburg and Juneau. File record of Public meetings with FERC. Begin work on Draft Application for License $150,000 $1,515,000 2010 3rd Quarter Conduct second year field and office studies program. Prepare reports to be inserted into the Draft Application for License. $460,000 $1,975,000 2010 4th Quarter Provide reports to Federal and State Resource agencies. Schedule teleconference meetings with agencies and Participants to discuss the proposed project any potential terms and conditions agencies will recommend to FERC. Continue work on Draft Application for License. $225,000 $2,200,000 2011 1st Quarter Submit Draft Application for License to FERC, agencies, and other participants for pre-filing review and comments. Request preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. $50,000 $2,250,000 2011 2nd Quarter Begin Final Feasibility Study. Receive comments on Draft Application and preliminary recommendations for license terms & conditions. Hold consultations with Federal and State Resource Agencies and other Participants to discuss their comments on the Draft Application. $75,000 $2,325,000 2011 3rd Quarter Complete Final Feasibility Study and integrate information to the Final Application for License – Supporting Design Report that is part of Exhibit F of the Application for License. Continue consultations with agencies and Participants regarding comments on the Draft Application. $175,000 $2,500,000 2011 4th Quarter Prepare and file Final Application for License with the FERC and provide to agencies and other participants. $175,000 $2,675,000 2012 1st Quarter to 2012 3rd Quarter Begin Phase III Preliminary Engineering activities. Respond to FERC requests for Additional Information. Review FERC-prepared NEPA document and provide comments. Receive FERC Order Issuing License. $50,000 $2,725,000
ATTACHMENT F
MAPS & PHOTO
• Exhibit F.1 – Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project – Location Map
• Exhibit F.2 – Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project – Southern SE Alaska Transmission
System (map)
• Exhibit F.3 – Ruth Lake Project – Ruth Lake Outlet (photo)
Project Location
Transmission Line
to Scow Bay
Scow Bay
Petersburg
Ruth Lake
Exhibit F.1
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Location Map
Kake Ruth Lake
Tyee Lake
Swan Lake
Transmission System Legend
Existing
Under Construction
Proposed
Exhibit F.2
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Southern SE Alaska Transmission System
Exhibit F.3
Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project
Ruth Lake Outlet
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
1
Attachment G
Excerpts from:
AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study - SE Alaska
Final Report
September 2007
Report prepared by Hatch Acres Corporation; Dryden and LaRue, Inc.; and Hardy Energy
Consulting for the Alaska Energy Authority
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
2
Excerpts from Section
3. SOUTHEAST ALASKA MARKET
NOTE to Reviewer: The following information pertains to the Southern Southeast Alaska
communities that will be interconnected with completion of three new transmission
segments:
• Swan-Tyee Intertie connecting communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and
Ketchikan
• Kake-Petersburg Intertie that will add the community of Kake
• Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie that will add Annette Island
The proposed Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project would provide energy and capacity to
serve the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska Region.
A potential future interconnection between the above discussed interconnected Southern
Southeast Alaska Region and Prince of Wales Region is also discussed in the Report, but
sections specific to the POW Region have been deleted from this Attachment G to
Petersburg’s Grant Application for Ruth Lake Project.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
3
3. SOUTHEAST ALASKA MARKET
3.1 Overview
The current SE Alaska electricity marketplace includes several geographically constrained sub-markets:
• Petersburg and Wrangell - interconnected by the FDPPA-owned transmission line that delivers power
generated at the Tyee Lake Project to PMPL & WMLP
• Southern sector of Prince of Wales Island – Hydaburg, Hollis, Craig. Klawock, Kasaan, and Thorne
Bay are interconnected by AP&T-owned transmission to hydro plant
• Ketchikan and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough - connected by the FDPPA-owned transmission line
to the Swan Lake Project and served by KPU
• Metlakatla on Annette Island - currently isolated and served by a mix of hydro and diesel generated
power
• Kake on Kupreanof Island - currently isolated and solely reliant on diesel-generated power.
Significant disparities in the cost of power in SE Alaska communities exist today, in part related to availability
of low cost hydropower. Many isolated load centers are currently served solely by diesel generation. Utility
rates and services affect the quality of life for residents, influence economic development in communities
within the study area, and shape future opportunities in all sectors of the economy. Decisions to locate new
commercial and industrial development is influenced by the availability of reliable and low-cost power.
The economy of SE Alaska has experienced broad-based transition from a commodity resource-based
economy to one where the economy is mixed, with increasing development of general service-oriented
businesses including government services recreation and tourism. This transition reflects national trends over
the past decade where rapid employment growth is occurring in the services, retail trade, and government
sectors. It is also a reflection of the decline in the wood products sector along with a substantial growth in the
number of visitors to SE Alaska. Average annual employment in SE Alaska grew over the past decade, but at
a slower rate than the national average. Changes in employment varied by community and by economic
sector. In some communities in SE Alaska, employment has reduced in part due to the high cost of energy
from diesel generation in isolated communities. As SE Alaska communities respond to transitions in the
economy, the need to have an interconnected electric system becomes even more apparent.
Development of proposed transmission lines to interconnect these sub-markets and provide an
interconnection with BC will enable new economic development in many of the currently isolated load
centers and improve quality of life for residents currently encumbered with high cost energy service from
diesel generation.
3.2 Loads and Resources
The following sections outline the status of data collection for the load forecast task aspect of the study.
3.2.1 Current Loads and Resources
Ketchikan
Ketchikan is an industrial center based on fishing, fish processing, tourism and timber. The Census 2000
population figure for Ketchikan is 7922 plus an additional 431 for Saxman. The estimated populations for
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
4
July 2005 are 7685 and 405, respectively. Population growth has averaged less then 0.4 per year percent
over the past 35 years.
Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) buys, generates and resells all of the electricity consumed in the City of
Ketchikan/Ketchikan Gateway Borough area. KPU owns Ketchikan Lakes Hydro and Beaver Falls Hydro
(including the Silvis Plant) totaling 11.5 MW, and operates Swan Lake Hydro (22.5MW) which is owned by
the Four Dam Pool Power Agency (FDPPA). KPU also owns and operates a four-unit diesel plant with a
capacity of 23 MW.
Monthly sales and generation data were available for Ketchikan for the years 2000 to 2006. The data are
summarized on an annual basis below. The detailed monthly data are presented in Appendix H01.
Although some growth is evident into 2006, total sales and generation are lower for 2006 than in either 2000
or 2001. Monthly sales display consistent seasonal patterns over the years. Residential sales are markedly
lower in the summer, particularly August and September and peak in December and January. The seasonal
pattern for non-residential sales, however, is less well defined displaying only slightly lower consumption in
the summer and slightly higher in the winter. The monthly consumption patterns are presented in Appendix
H01.
Table 3.2-1 Ketchikan – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 5,612 56,769,397 1,909 102,635,997 159,405,394 166,375,424 28,100
2001 5,662 58,008,912 1,846 100,594,515 158,603,427 166,133,715 27,400
2002 5,643 56,913,013 1,828 87,226,943 144,139,956 151,502,672 26,300
2003 5,577 56,723,524 1,914 88,277,148 145,000,672 153,472,585 25,900
2004 5,597 57,332,811 1,842 88,063,078 145,395,889 150,586,782 27,600
2005 5,584 56,815,618 1,859 88,428,512 145,244,130 153,306,333 27,000
2006 5,630 59,870,257 1,882 92,289,675 152,159,932 159,543,140 28,900
Petersburg
Since its beginning in the 1890s, Petersburg’s economy has been based on commercial fishing and timber
harvests. Several processors operate cold storage, canneries and custom packing services. Unlike Ketchikan
and Wrangell, Petersburg does not have a deep water dock suitable for cruise ships. The Census 2000
population figure for Petersburg is 3224; the estimated population at July 2005 is 3010. The current
population is approximately 7 percent larger than the population in 1980.
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light buys the vast majority of its electrical requirements from the Tyee Lake
Hydro Plant (20 MW) owned by the FDPPA. In addition the city owns a hydro facility at Blind Slough
(Crystal Lake) which has a capacity of 2.2 MW and a small diesel plant.
Generation and sales data currently available for Petersburg includes monthly net generation, sales by tariff
category and number of customers from 2000 to 2006. The data are summarized on an annual basis below.
The detailed monthly data are presented in Appendix H02.
Like Ketchikan the monthly sales data displays a low in the summer and a peak in the winter. Unlike
Ketchikan the non-resident sales has a well defined summer peak based on the operations of the large
commercial sector associated with the fishing industry. The monthly consumption patterns are presented in
Appendix H02.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
5
Table 3.2-2 Petersburg – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 1,316 13,027,144 666 22,229,387 35,256,531 39,120,307 6,860
2001 1,321 13,084,396 666 23,661,263 36,745,659 40,841,874 9,080
2002 1,327 12,825,151 651 22,529,651 35,354,802 39,442,490 8,180
2003 1,347 13,247,992 655 22,814,913 36,062,905 39,627,828 8,010
2004 1,363 13,132,812 663 23,470,133 36,602,945 39,929,252 8,380
2005 1,365 13,463,651 690 24,131,183 37,594,834 41,708,013 7,880
2006 1,376 14,600,288 704 24,348,294 38,948,582 44,843,573 8,810
Wrangell
Wrangell’s economy is based on commercial fishing and timber from the Tongass National Forest. Fishing
and fish processing represent a significant portion of the economy. Although Wrangell has a deep-water port
it caters only to small cruise ships. The nearby Stikine River attracts independent travelers for sportfishing.
The Census 2000 population figure for Wrangell is 2308 while the estimated population at July 2005 is 2117.
This is barely 4 percent larger than the population in 1970.
Wrangell Municipal Light & Power buys the vast majority of its electrical requirements from the Lake Tyee
Hydro Plant (20 MW) owned by the FDPPA. WMLP also owns a 5 MW diesel plant which is used for
backup.
Generation and sales data currently available for Wrangell includes monthly net generation and sales by tariff
category for 2000 to 2006. The data are summarized on an annual basis below. The detailed monthly data
are presented in Appendix H03.
Monthly sales display consistent seasonal patterns over the years. Like Ketchikan, residential sales are
markedly lower in the summer, particularly August and September and peak in December and January. Also
like Ketchikan, the seasonal pattern for non-residential sales displays only slightly lower consumption in the
summer and slightly higher in the winter. The monthly consumption patterns are presented in Appendix
H03.
Table 3.2-3 Wrangell – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 1,049 8,059,451 486 17,688,705 25,748,156 21,211,028 -
2001 1,050 8,176,301 487 12,323,052 20,499,353 20,650,274 -
2002 1,055 7,454,245 474 11,986,928 19,441,173 20,691,304 -
2003 1,037 7,355,292 469 11,943,332 19,298,624 20,372,554 -
2004 1,033 7,384,010 468 12,499,331 19,883,341 21,079,459 -
2005 1,039 7,558,321 477 13,109,814 20,668,135 21,598,602 -
2006 1,037 7,935,625 474 12,635,433 20,571,058 22,382,718 -
Kake
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
6
Kake is a Tlingit community with a fishing, logging and subsistence lifestyle. The City, School District and
Kake Tribal Corp are the largest employers. The Census 2000 population figure for Kake is 710, the
estimated population at July 2005 is 667. Population growth from 1970 has averaged 1.1 percent per
annum.
The City of Kake is supplied by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative through a local diesel plant of
approximately 3.4 MW. Customers in Kake are eligible for the PCE subsidy but high electricity costs place
industries and the community in general at a competitive disadvantage compared to communities with hydro-
based supplies.
The goal of the PCE program is to provide economic assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska where
the kilowatt-hour charge for electricity can be substantially higher than the charge in more urban areas of the
state. The RCA determines the PCE level for each eligible utility based on reported fuel and non-fuel
expenses. The AEA issues payment to the utility based on documentation of the eligible power sold to cover
the PCE credits that the utility has already provided to its eligible customers. Individual customers can
receive credits for consumption up to 500 kWh per month. The PCE level per kWh is calculated as 95
percent of the eligible costs between 12 cents per kWh and 52.5 cents per kWh. The maximum PCE level is
38.48 cents per kWh.
The currently available statistics for Kake include monthly sales and number of customers by tariff category
for 2000 to 2003 as well as for 2006. Monthly consumption in Kake is similar to the patterns observed in
Petersburg. That is, the residential seasonal consumption pattern has distinct winter peaks and the non-
residential pattern has distinct summer peaks. However, average monthly consumption per residential
consumer is lower and below the 500 kWh per month limit for PCE subsidy. The data are summarized on an
annual basis below. The detailed monthly data are presented in Appendix H04. The monthly consumption
patterns are also charted in Appendix H04.
Table 3.2-4 Kake – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 287 1,599,883 79 2,006,533 3,606,416 - -
2001 284 1,588,409 74 2,207,608 3,796,017 - -
2002 272 1,498,186 71 2,465,530 3,963,716 - -
2003 276 1,486,738 73 2,227,138 3,713,876 - -
2004 - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - -
2006 238 1,149,995 72 1,824,006 2,974,001 - -
Metlakatla
Metlakatla is a traditional Tsimshian native community on the federal Annette Island Reserve; the only Indian
reservation in Alaska. The economy is based primarily on fishing and fish processing. The largest employer
is the Metlakatla Indian Community which operates a hatchery, the tribal court and all local services.
Annette Island Packing Co. is a cold storage facility owned by the community. A cannery and two sawmills
are no longer in operation. The Census 2000 population figure for Metlakatla is 1375, the estimate for 2005
is 1397. The annual population growth is 0.3 percent per year from 1970 to 2005.
Metlakatla Power & Light generates at two nearby hydro sites; Purple Lake (3.9 MW) and Chester Lake
(1.0MW). They also have the 3.3 MW Centennial Diesel Plant.
The currently available statistics for Metlakatla include monthly generation, sales and number of customers
by tariff category for 2000 to 2005. The seasonality of consumption in Metlakatla is similar to that in
Ketchikan – winter peak for residential consumption but no distinct peak in the non-residential sales. The
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
7
data are summarized on an annual basis below. The detailed monthly data are presented in Appendix H05.
The monthly consumption patterns are also charted in the appendix.
Table 3.2-5 Metlakatla – Annual Sales and Generation
Residential Non-Residential Total Net Peak
Customers Consumption Customers Consumption Consumption Generation Demand
(#) (kWh) (#) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kW)
2000 549 5,673,097 275 9,208,041 14,881,138 16,372,245 -
2001 556 5,608,302 264 8,544,195 14,152,498 15,327,234 -
2002 569 5,602,555 263 7,939,954 13,542,509 14,820,061 -
2003 528 5,608,157 261 8,394,246 14,002,403 15,122,842 -
2004 556 5,672,531 261 8,049,878 13,722,409 14,761,380 -
2005 555 5,809,401 255 8,488,425 14,297,826 15,316,636 -
3.2.2 Projected Loads
Forecast Approach
The communities of SE Alaska have experienced slow population growth for decades, their economies based
traditionally on the natural resources of fishing and timber. The gain or loss of a single cannery or sawmill
can mean the difference between prosperity and negative growth. The increase of tourist activities, including
the arrival of cruise ships, is beginning to change the economic base, especially in the larger communities in
the region. Electricity consumption has and will continue to increase but at a slow rate, more in line with
general population growth.
The principal exception to this population-based growth approach is the observed trend in heating loads.
The utilities are currently experiencing a large number of conversions from oil space heating to electric heat.
This trend is explicitly addressed in the forecasts.
In the absence of official forecasts of population and/or economic growth for these communities the power
market forecast has been developed on the basis of a range of low general population growth expectations
plus the power requirements of specific anticipated and announced loads. A reference forecast as well as a
low and a high forecast are produced.
Residential Sector
Sales to the residential sector account for roughly 40 percent of total electrical sales in the communities of SE
Alaska. For purposes of the forecast residential sales are projected on the basis of number of customers and
consumption per customer. For the reference forecast the number of residential customers is projected to
increase at 0.75 percent per annum. This is the average growth rate observed in the Census population
figures for the period from 1970 to 2005. The average consumption level per customer is also projected at
0.75 percent growth per year. This is the observed average per customer growth from 2000 to 2006. Implicit
in the growth rate of consumption per customer is that each customer will use electrical appliances more
intensely, either using existing appliances more or purchasing new appliances. This is balanced somewhat
by the fact that many of the new appliances will be more efficient than those that are replaced, such as LCD
monitors for computers.
Non-Residential Sector
The forecast for non-residential sales is also projected on the basis of number of customers and consumption
per customer. For the reference forecast the number of non-residential customers is projected to increase at
0.50 percent per annum. This is somewhat larger than the average growth rate observed in utility statistics for
the period from 2000 to 2005, but is a reflection of the optimism expressed by the utilities at the December
19, 2006 AK-BC Intertie Meeting in Ketchikan. No annual growth is projected for the average consumption
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
8
level per non-residential customer. This assumes that electricity use by new non-residential customers will
not vary significantly from the current use.
Spot Loads
A number of specific spot loads were noted by the utilities at the December 19, 2006 AK BC Intertie Meeting
in Ketchikan. Subsequent discussions have removed several of these developments from the list of spot loads
as the loads have already been connected to the system and are included in the base data.
The remaining spot loads are a Ship and Dry Dock Facility in Ketchikan which has been included in 2 phases
– 350 kW at 65% load factor in 2008 and 175 kW also at 65% load factor in 2010 and a 500 kW kiln in
Wrangell starting in 2008.
Heating Load Conversions
Information available in the 2000 Census indicates that approximately 10% of residential dwellings used at
least some electric heating at that time. The utilities are currently experiencing a significantly large number of
conversions from oil space heating to electric heat. These conversions are currently concentrated in those
communities where lower cost hydro-based electricity offers a reasonable alternative to rising oil prices. As
the hydro-based systems expand, the demand for electricity for heating can also be expected to expand.
These conversions, however, will ultimately only be installed and operated when the cost of oil is relatively
high compared to that of electricity. If we assume that the average oil-based system is 60 percent efficient in
the conversion of oil to heat and the price of oil is $2.60 per gallon; the threshold electricity price is $0.106
per kilowatt-hour. That is, electricity is more cost effective than oil if it is below $0.106 per kilowatt-hour.
The greater the efficiency of the oil heater the lower the required electricity price – 90 percent efficiency at
$2.60 per gallon requires $0.07/kWh electricity. The following chart shows the comparative prices at various
efficiencies and over a range of possible oil prices.
Figure 3.2-1 Electricity Price Threshold for Conversion
Electricity Price Threshold for Conversion
(eg. at 60% oil heating efficiency and Oil Price of $2.60 per US gal, electricity price must be less than $0.1056/kWh for conversion)
90%
Oil Heating
Efficiency
60%
70%
80%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00
Oil Price ($/USgal)Electricity Price ($/kWh)
In the residential sector of SE Alaska the recent trend has been that many new houses are built with all
electric heating, while older homes will have electric heating added without removing the oil-heating
equipment. The former would require uninterruptible electricity supply while the latter could tolerate
interruptions. It is understood that a large number of portable heaters have been purchased and added to the
heating mix.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
9
One concept that does not appear to have been investigated is the addition of plenum heaters in existing oil
furnaces. These heaters are typically in the range of 3 to 5 kW and are not intended to supply the total
heating requirement. They would, however, be capable of supplying all required heat during the shoulder
seasons and often during the day even in mid-winter. Their principal advantage is control. Plenum heaters
can be connected in such a way as to be controlled centrally by the utility such that they can be turned off at
times of critical supply and left on during surplus. Electronic controls are available which would seamlessly
use the oil furnace during those times when the plenum heater is turned off or insufficient to supply all of the
required heat. In return for this potential interruption the customer could be supplied at a special lower rate
which would encourage the use of the plenum heater over a portable unit at regular rates.
The reference forecast assumes that 50 percent of new customers will install electric heating and that 5
percent of the existing customers will undertake partial conversions through the use of portable heaters or the
addition of one or two baseboard heaters to supplement their oil system. It is assumed that conversions will
stop when 35 percent of the customers have full conversions.
The estimated heating load at various locations was compared to the heating degree days at those same
locations to determine a relationship which could be adapted in Southeast Alaska. A relationship was
observed for both old detached houses as well as new detached houses, where old houses are assumed to
have been built before 1990. Both housing types are approximately 2000 square feet.
Figure 3.2-2 Relationship Between Heating Load and Heating Degree Days
Old Detached
New Detached
y = 0.0115x + 13.188
R2 = 0.8809
y = 0.0088x + 4.4596
R2 = 0.8533
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
5,000 7,000 9,000 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000
Heating Degree Days (deg F) Heating Load (GJ)
On the basis of this relationship for new detached housing (the lower curve in Fig 3.2-2) the following annual
electricity requirements have been assumed for this forecast:
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
10
Table 3.2-6 Annual Electric Heating Requirements
Heating Degree
Days(F°)
Heating
Requirement
(GJ)
Electricity
Requirement (kWh)
Ketchikan 7,207 67.9 18,861
Petersburg 8,176 76.4 21,222
Wrangell 7,706 72.3 20,100
Elsewhere 7,700 72.3 20,100
Partial conversions have been assumed to require 5,000 kWh per year in all locations.
There are plans to convert a number of the government and institutional buildings in Ketchikan, Petersburg
and Wrangell from oil to electric heating. It is anticipated that these conversions will be undertaken over a
number of years and that once implemented that they will be an interruptible load. No information was
available on the potential for conversion from oil to heating in the private business sector.
Table 3.2-7 Anticipated Commercial Electric Heating Conversions
LOCATION NAME STARTING POWER
(Kw)
L. FACTOR GROWTH
Ketchikan State Bldgs I 2010 257 100% 0.0%
Ketchikan State Bldgs II 2012 257 100% 0.0%
Ketchikan City Bldgs I 2012 1313 100% 0.0%
Ketchikan City Bldgs II 2014 1313 100% 0.0%
Petersburg City Bldgs 2011 650 100% 0.0%
Wrangell City Bldgs 2011 385 100% 0.0%
3.2.3 Forecast Parameters – Reference Case
Table 3.2-13 lists the principal forecast parameters used in the Reference Forecast. All load centers on Prince
of Wales Island are all assigned the same parameters. In addition, a 50 percent factor has been assigned to
the commercial conversions to electric heating. This factor can be viewed as a probability that the forecast
values will either not be achieved as planned or that there will be interruptions in the supply of electricity
due to short falls in supply from hydroelectric plants.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
11
Table 3.2-8 Principal Forecast Parameters – Reference Case
REFERENCE FORECAST Prince of
Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales
Island
Residential
Customer Growth 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75%
Unit Consumption Growth 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75%
Non-Residential
Customer Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Unit Consumption Growth 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Heating Conversions
Start Year 2000 2000 2000 2015 2000 2020
New Customers
Full Conversions 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Partial Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Existing Customers
Full Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Partial Conversions 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Maximum Full Conversions 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Unit Consumption (kWh)
Full Conversions 18,861 21,222 20,100 20,100 20,100 20,100
Partial Conversions 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
3.2.4 Monthly Sales Patterns
The nature of generation in Alaska necessitates a forecast on a monthly basis. The monthly sales patterns of
the existing loads are introduced in Section 3.2.1.1 above. The patterns derived for each load center based
on the historic data are applied to each year’s forecast to produce the corresponding monthly forecast. The
existing patterns are also applied to the annual spot load forecasts. These patterns are detailed for each load
center below.
The heating conversion forecasts require a somewhat different approach. The heating degree day data used
to determine the total energy requirement above is available on a daily basis. This information is aggregated
by month to determine a monthly pattern of required heating which is applied to each of the annual
conversion values for each of Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell. An average derived from these three
communities is used in the other load centers. Figure 3.2-3 presents the heating degree day pattern over the
year for each community. These curves are based on climate data for 1971 to 2000 from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
12
Figure 3.2-3 Heating Degree Days – Southeast Alaska
Ketchikan Forecast
The power market forecast for Ketchikan consists of growth in both the residential and non-residential sectors,
a number of full and partial electric heating conversions as well as new spot industrial loads and commercial
electric heating conversions.
Based on the reference case parameters listed in Table 3.2-13 for Ketchikan the annual forecast is presented
in Table 3.2-29 at the end of this report section. The table also includes historic values from 2000. The
overall growth rate for net generation over the 25-year planning horizon is 1.9 percent per year. Clearly, the
majority of the consumption growth occurs early in the forecast period in response to the spot loads and
commercial electric heating conversions.
The monthly forecast is based on the monthly consumption patterns for the residential and non-residential
sectors displayed in Figure 3.2-4 while the electric heating conversions are distributed on the basis of the
heating degree day values for Ketchikan. The three sets of monthly distribution values are listed in Table 3.2-
14. The detailed annual and monthly forecasts are presented in Appendix H-1.
Note: Figures 3.2-4 to 3.2-13 display the seasonal consumption patterns for each community. Each smoothed
curve is based on 12 monthly observations. While monthly values might normally be best displayed in a
bargraph, the intent of these figures is to highlight the relative levels between the residential and non-
residential sales categories. These relative levels are best observed from smoothed curves.
Heating Degree-Days - Monthly Values
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecHeating Degree DaysKetchikan (7,207dd/yr)
Petersburg (8,176dd/yr)
Wrangell (7,706dd/yr)
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
13
Figure 3.2-4 Seasonal Consumption Patterns – Ketchikan
Ketchikan - Seasonal Sales Patterns
Residential Sales
Non-Residential SalesTotal Sales
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 3.2-9 Monthly Sales Distribution – Ketchikan
Monthly Distribution - Ketchikan
Non- Ketchikan
Residential Residential Heating
Existing Existing Deg-Days
Jan 10.25% 8.93% 13.50%
Feb 10.03% 8.92% 11.17%
Mar 9.08% 8.16% 11.29%
Apr 8.95% 8.14% 9.17%
May 8.19% 7.95% 7.13%
Jun 7.53% 7.54% 4.69%
Jul 7.23% 8.00% 3.16%
Aug 6.80% 8.73% 3.01%
Sep 6.98% 8.98% 4.97%
Oct 7.57% 8.32% 8.28%
Nov 7.94% 7.87% 10.91%
Dec 9.45% 8.46% 12.71%
Petersburg
The annual forecast for Petersburg Municipal Power and Light includes residential and non-residential growth
as well as residential and commercial electric heating conversions.
Based on the reference case parameters listed in Table 3.2-13 for Petersburg the annual forecast is presented
in Table 3.2-30 at the end of this report section. The table also includes historic values from 2000. The
overall growth rate for net generation over the 25-year planning horizon is 1.4 percent per year.
The monthly forecast is based on the monthly consumption patterns for the residential and non-residential
sectors displayed in Figure 3.2-5 while the electric heating conversions are distributed on the basis of the
heating degree day values for Petersburg. The three sets of monthly distribution values are listed in Table 3.2-
15. The detailed annual and monthly forecasts are presented in Appendix H-2.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
14
Figure 3.2-5 Seasonal Consumption Patterns – Petersburg
Petersburg - Seasonal Sales Patterns
Residential Sales
Non-Residential Sales
Total Sales
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 3.2-10 Monthly Sales Distribution – Petersburg
Monthly Sales Distribution - Petersburg
Non- Petersburg
Residential Residential Heating
Existing Existing Deg-Days
Jan 11.34% 7.51% 13.59%
Feb 9.27% 7.32% 11.08%
Mar 9.26% 7.15% 10.81%
Apr 8.71% 8.10% 8.41%
May 7.29% 7.19% 6.48%
Jun 7.24% 7.27% 4.28%
Jul 6.65% 11.49% 3.44%
Aug 6.65% 13.33% 3.89%
Sep 7.14% 9.13% 5.71%
Oct 7.83% 7.62% 8.51%
Nov 8.68% 7.25% 10.97%
Dec 9.94% 6.63% 12.82%
There is also the possibility of future mining expansion on Mitkoff Island as well as a new mining
development on Woewodski Island. Both developments are in the range of 5 to 7 MW load and would
require a dedicated transmission extension from the Petersburg to Kake line. These potential loads have not
currently been included in this forecast.
Wrangell
Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WMLP) sees development that mirrors that of Petersburg. They are
currently adding 2 meters per week for electric heating, which they meter separately. At the December
project meeting in Ketchikan the development of a cannery (3 MW from May to Sept), a cold storage facility
and the conversion of the hospital to electric heat were discussed. They are also pursuing port development,
a regional solid waste facility as a possible energy plant and are looking for more development at the saw mill
if it is sold. These are all longer term development opportunities. Without specific information as to load,
load factor, timing and operating characteristics these potential developments could not be added to the load
forecast.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
15
A spot load for a new kiln has been added to the forecast as has the conversion of the Wrangell Municipal
offices to electric heat.
Based on the reference case parameters listed in Table 3.2-13 for Wrangell the annual forecast is presented in
Table 3.2-31 at the end of this report section. The table also includes historic values from 2000. The overall
growth rate for net generation over the 25-year planning horizon is 2.2 percent per year based on the new
kiln and the commercial conversion to electric heating early in the forecast.
The monthly forecast is based on the monthly consumption patterns for the residential and non-residential
sectors displayed in Figure 3.2-6 while the electric heating conversions are distributed on the basis of the
heating degree day values for Wrangell. The three sets of monthly distribution values are listed in Table 3.2-
16. The detailed annual and monthly forecasts are presented in Appendix H-3.
Figure 3.2-6 Seasonal Consumption Patterns – Wrangell
Wrangell - Seasonal Sales Patterns
Residential Sales
Non-Residential Sales
Total Sales
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 3.2-11 Monthly Sales Distribution – Wrangell
Monthly Sales Distribution - Wrangell
Non- Wrangell
Residential Residential Heating
Existing Existing Deg-Days
Jan 10.48% 8.17% 14.14%
Feb 9.89% 8.26% 11.60%
Mar 8.58% 7.90% 11.13%
Apr 8.26% 8.35% 8.64%
May 7.57% 7.49% 6.46%
Jun 7.22% 7.93% 4.19%
Jul 6.55% 8.49% 3.09%
Aug 7.26% 10.20% 3.24%
Sep 7.57% 9.05% 5.05%
Oct 7.67% 7.69% 8.18%
Nov 8.70% 8.33% 11.06%
Dec 10.23% 8.14% 13.21%
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
16
Kake
The City of Kake is seeing the loss of the logging industry and no new industrial development in its future.
Currently all electricity is generated at the diesel plant; it is expensive and is a serious deterrent to new
industry. The community struggles due to a lack of new jobs. With a connection to Petersburg and access to
less expensive power the development a fish meal plant may move forward as well as expansion in other
areas of the fish processing industry. For this forecast, residential conversions to electric heating have been
delayed until 2015 to ensure that hydro supplies from Petersburg are well established. No commercial
conversions are assumed.
Based on the reference case parameters listed in Table 3.2-13 for Kake the annual forecast is presented in
Table 3.2-32 at the end of this report section. The table also includes historic values from 2000. The overall
growth rate for net generation over the 25-year planning horizon is approximately 1.8 percent per year based
on the residential conversion to electric heating included in the forecast. A connection between Kake and
Petersburg would enable the supply of hydro power at a cost very significantly below that of diesel power
could result in higher growth as the lower cost of power spurs development of the economy.
The monthly forecast is based on the monthly consumption patterns for the residential and non-residential
sectors displayed in Figure 3.2-7 while the electric heating conversions are distributed on the basis of the
average heating degree day values for Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell. The three sets of monthly
distribution values are listed in Table 3.2-17. The detailed annual and monthly forecasts are presented in
Appendix H-4.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
17
Figure 3.2-7 Seasonal Consumption Patterns – Kake
Kake - Seasonal Sales Patterns
Residential Sales
Non-Residential Sales
Total Sales
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 3.2-12 Monthly Sales Distribution – Kake
Monthly Sales Distribution - Kake
Non- Kake
Residential Residential Heating
Existing Existing Deg-Days
Jan 9.86% 5.59% 13.59%
Feb 8.81% 6.08% 11.08%
Mar 8.48% 5.82% 10.81%
Apr 8.07% 5.85% 8.41%
May 7.73% 5.35% 6.48%
Jun 7.90% 6.73% 4.28%
Jul 7.53% 12.99% 3.44%
Aug 7.46% 14.98% 3.89%
Sep 8.16% 13.29% 5.71%
Oct 8.07% 9.06% 8.51%
Nov 8.84% 7.47% 10.97%
Dec 9.09% 6.81% 12.82%
Metlakatla
Metlakatla Light & Power sees expansion at the Baldridge Aggregate mine as well as the fish processing plant
although no specific details were available to this forecast. For this forecast residential conversions to electric
heating have been included based on the existing hydro supplies. There are, however, no commercial
conversions.
Based on the reference case parameters listed in Table 3.2-13 for Metlakatla the annual forecast is presented
in Table 3.2-33 at the end of this report section. The table also includes historic values from 2000. The
overall growth rate for net generation over the 25-year planning horizon is 1.5 percent per year.
The monthly forecast is based on the monthly consumption patterns for the residential and non-residential
sectors displayed in Figure 3.2-8 while the electric heating conversions are distributed on the basis of the
average heating degree day values for Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell. The three sets of monthly
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
18
distribution values are listed in Table 3.2-18. The detailed annual and monthly forecasts are presented in
Appendix H-5.
Figure 3.2-8 Seasonal Consumption Patterns – Metlakatla
Metlakatla - Seasonal Sales Patterns
Residential Sales
Non-Residential Sales
Total Sales
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 3.2-13 Monthly Sales Distribution – Metlakatla
Monthly Sales Distribution - Metlakatla
Non- Metlakatla
Residential Residential Heating
Existing Existing Deg-Days
Jan 11.10% 9.93% 13.50%
Feb 9.02% 8.42% 11.17%
Mar 9.23% 8.80% 11.29%
Apr 8.59% 8.65% 9.17%
May 7.54% 7.55% 7.13%
Jun 6.55% 6.75% 4.69%
Jul 6.74% 8.36% 3.16%
Aug 6.71% 8.26% 3.01%
Sep 6.97% 8.19% 4.97%
Oct 8.45% 8.72% 8.28%
Nov 8.84% 7.66% 10.91%
Dec 10.25% 8.72% 12.71%
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
19
3.2.5 Forecast Summary
Table 3.2-24 summarizes the net generation forecast for the reference case by load center.
Table 3.2-14 Net Generation – Reference Case
NET GENERATION – REFERENCE
Prince of Prince of
YEAR Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales Wales
System Remote
1998 22,008,300 2,537,647
1999 24,916,800 2,636,477
2000 166,375,424 39,120,307 21,211,028 16,372,245 26,036,945 2,087,150
2001 166,133,715 40,841,874 20,650,274 15,327,234 25,456,637 1,439,855
2002 151,502,672 39,442,490 20,691,304 14,820,061 25,384,793 1,462,362
2003 153,472,585 39,627,828 20,372,554 15,122,842 26,011,522 1,510,776
2004 150,586,782 39,929,252 21,079,459 14,761,380 25,878,446 1,674,163
2005 153,306,333 41,708,013 21,598,602 15,316,636 25,972,300 1,738,785
2006 159,543,140 44,843,573 22,382,718 15,316,636 26,546,168 1,745,356
2007 164,195,077 42,037,124 22,300,166 3,166,174 15,434,358 25,685,497 1,676,440
2008 169,479,267 42,850,032 25,832,352 3,185,824 15,730,835 25,920,324 1,684,390
2009 172,659,475 43,649,659 26,343,055 3,205,700 16,023,047 26,156,961 1,692,422
2010 178,037,955 44,475,346 26,844,657 3,225,804 16,311,004 26,395,427 1,700,536
2011 181,141,042 48,300,345 29,121,423 3,246,137 16,594,717 26,635,740 1,708,733
2012 191,484,034 49,105,241 29,604,869 3,266,702 16,874,196 26,877,918 1,717,015
2013 194,514,993 49,897,139 30,084,551 3,287,502 17,149,451 27,121,980 1,725,381
2014 203,595,043 50,681,359 30,555,192 3,308,539 17,425,783 27,367,946 1,733,833
2015 206,591,619 51,457,929 31,016,808 3,414,567 17,697,913 27,615,833 1,742,371
2016 209,558,011 52,226,879 31,474,706 3,520,837 17,965,852 27,865,661 1,750,997
2017 212,511,846 52,988,239 31,923,610 3,622,061 18,229,611 28,117,450 1,759,711
2018 215,441,214 53,747,329 32,368,826 3,723,531 18,494,490 28,371,220 1,768,513
2019 218,346,242 54,498,888 32,810,371 3,819,960 18,788,683 28,626,989 1,777,406
2020 221,264,797 55,242,947 33,301,433 3,916,640 19,078,912 29,475,088 1,871,142
2021 224,164,744 55,984,828 33,788,992 4,008,283 19,370,481 30,309,470 1,954,388
2022 227,046,215 56,737,214 34,273,064 4,100,183 19,658,113 31,119,576 2,037,727
2023 229,927,409 57,482,383 34,753,668 4,192,342 19,947,112 31,916,009 2,121,159
2024 232,795,877 58,225,660 35,230,822 4,279,473 20,232,200 32,698,791 2,204,686
2025 235,651,755 58,967,077 35,704,545 4,366,867 20,518,683 33,467,943 2,283,017
2026 238,528,204 59,706,671 36,174,855 4,454,529 20,801,285 34,223,489 2,361,444
2027 241,397,828 60,444,475 36,641,772 4,537,170 21,085,308 34,965,450 2,439,967
2028 244,260,772 61,180,525 37,110,604 4,620,083 21,365,479 35,699,142 2,513,298
2029 247,182,428 61,914,856 37,576,080 4,703,271 21,647,100 36,424,585 2,581,438
2030 250,097,894 62,647,503 38,038,220 4,781,446 21,930,188 37,131,224 2,649,677
2031 253,046,131 63,378,503 38,497,043 4,859,902 22,209,466 37,829,661 2,712,726
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
20
3.2.6 Sensitivity Analysis
In addition to the reference forecast, low and high forecasts have also been developed. The forecasts are
defined by lower (or higher) basic growth rates in the residential and non-residential sectors as well as less (or
more) aggressive conversions to electric heat.
In the low case, a 50 percent factor has been assigned to the commercial conversions to electric heating.
This factor can be viewed as a probability that the forecast values will either not be achieved as planned or
that there will be interruptions in the power supply under interruptible tariffs for electric heating.. Table 3.2-
25 lists the principal forecast parameters for the low case.
Table 3.2-15 Principal Forecast Parameters – Low Case
LOW FORECAST Prince of
Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales
Island
Residential
Customer Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Unit Consumption Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Non-Residential
Customer Growth 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%
Unit Consumption Growth 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Heating Conversions
Start Year 2000 2000 2000 2015 2000 2020
New Customers
Full Conversions 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Partial Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Existing Customers
Full Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Partial Conversions 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Maximum Full Conversions 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%
Unit Consumption (kWh)
Full Conversions 16,975 19,100 18,090 18,090 18,090 18,090
Partial Conversions 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
21
In the high case, a 100 percent factor has been assigned to the commercial conversions to electric heating.
This factor can be viewed as a probability that the forecast values will be achieved as planned. Table 3.2-26
lists the principal forecast parameters for the high case.
Table 3.2-16 Principal Forecast Parameters – High Case
HIGH FORECAST Prince of
Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales
Island
Residential
Customer Growth 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75% 0.75%
Unit Consumption
Growth
1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Non-Residential
Customer Growth 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Unit Consumption
Growth
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Heating Conversions
Start Year 2000 2000 2000 2015 2000 2020
New Customers
Full Conversions 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0%
Partial Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Existing Customers
Full Conversions 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Partial Conversions 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Maximum Full
Conversions
40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Unit Consumption (kWh)
Full Conversions 20,747 23,344 22,110 22,110 22,110 22,110
Partial Conversions 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Table 3.2-27 summarizes the net generation forecast for the low case by load center.
Table 3.2-28 summarizes the net generation forecast for the high case by load center.
The year by year values for the low, reference and high forecasts are shown graphically in Figure 3.2-14.
The annual reference forecast data for each of the SE Alaska communities is contained in Tables H-1 through
H-10 which are located in Appendix H.
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
22
Table 3.2-17 Net Generation – Low Case
NET GENERATION – LOW
Prince of Prince of
YEAR Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales Wales
System Remote
1998 22,008,300 2,537,647
1999 24,916,800 2,636,477
2000 166,375,424 39,120,307 21,211,028 16,372,245 26,036,945 2,087,150
2001 166,133,715 40,841,874 20,650,274 15,327,234 25,456,637 1,439,855
2002 151,502,672 39,442,490 20,691,304 14,820,061 25,384,793 1,462,362
2003 153,472,585 39,627,828 20,372,554 15,122,842 26,011,522 1,510,776
2004 150,586,782 39,929,252 21,079,459 14,761,380 25,878,446 1,674,163
2005 153,306,333 41,708,013 21,598,602 15,316,636 25,972,300 1,738,785
2006 159,543,140 44,843,573 22,382,718 15,316,636 26,546,168 1,745,356
2007 163,448,149 41,839,538 22,179,606 3,157,968 15,384,355 25,581,999 1,671,870
2008 167,948,079 42,453,470 25,590,398 3,169,272 15,630,302 25,712,325 1,678,113
2009 170,285,938 43,052,715 25,978,862 3,180,658 15,871,449 25,843,447 1,684,403
2010 174,249,705 43,637,281 26,357,370 3,192,127 16,107,799 25,975,368 1,690,739
2011 176,515,679 45,718,649 27,618,051 3,203,680 16,339,357 26,108,095 1,697,121
2012 182,371,755 46,279,170 27,976,660 3,215,316 16,566,125 26,241,633 1,703,550
2013 184,547,230 46,830,326 28,325,325 3,227,037 16,788,107 26,375,987 1,710,026
2014 189,722,643 47,372,125 28,669,342 3,238,843 17,010,596 26,511,162 1,716,549
2015 191,813,046 47,904,575 29,003,424 3,314,220 17,228,306 26,647,165 1,723,121
2016 193,866,252 48,427,684 29,327,576 3,384,393 17,441,240 26,784,001 1,729,740
2017 195,899,475 48,941,461 29,647,091 3,454,652 17,649,401 26,921,675 1,736,407
2018 197,900,979 49,445,914 29,961,976 3,519,709 17,852,793 27,060,193 1,743,124
2019 199,870,802 49,941,052 30,266,943 3,584,853 18,056,710 27,199,560 1,749,889
2020 201,814,269 50,432,172 30,575,969 3,644,795 18,255,865 27,820,439 1,820,188
2021 203,726,126 50,913,994 30,880,464 3,704,826 18,450,261 28,421,017 1,879,957
2022 205,616,989 51,391,816 31,180,433 3,764,947 18,645,192 29,001,299 1,939,775
2023 207,481,605 51,860,356 31,475,881 3,819,868 18,835,372 29,574,056 1,999,644
2024 209,337,609 52,324,914 31,766,812 3,874,879 19,026,094 30,131,894 2,059,563
2025 211,172,853 52,797,840 32,053,233 3,924,692 19,212,072 30,669,529 2,114,242
2026 212,987,374 53,266,925 32,335,148 3,974,596 19,398,600 31,197,550 2,168,973
2027 214,786,502 53,732,177 32,612,563 4,024,593 19,580,391 31,710,671 2,223,756
2028 216,564,984 54,193,608 32,885,482 4,074,684 19,762,738 32,214,190 2,273,300
2029 218,328,149 54,651,225 33,153,912 4,119,578 19,945,647 32,708,114 2,317,606
2030 220,111,971 55,105,040 33,423,148 4,164,566 20,123,830 33,181,868 2,361,965
2031 221,880,681 55,555,063 33,687,904 4,209,649 20,302,581 33,646,039 2,401,086
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
23
Table 3.2-18 Net Generation – High Case
NET GENERATION – HIGH
Prince of Prince of
YEAR Ketchikan Petersburg Wrangell Kake Metlakatla Wales Wales
System Remote
1998 22,008,300 2,537,647
1999 24,916,800 2,636,477
2000 166,375,424 39,120,307 21,211,028 16,372,245 26,036,945 2,087,150
2001 166,133,715 40,841,874 20,650,274 15,327,234 25,456,637 1,439,855
2002 151,502,672 39,442,490 20,691,304 14,820,061 25,384,793 1,462,362
2003 153,472,585 39,627,828 20,372,554 15,122,842 26,011,522 1,510,776
2004 150,586,782 39,929,252 21,079,459 14,761,380 25,878,446 1,674,163
2005 153,306,333 41,708,013 21,598,602 15,316,636 25,972,300 1,738,785
2006 159,543,140 44,843,573 22,382,718 15,316,636 26,546,168 1,745,356
2007 164,484,346 42,111,953 22,353,221 3,169,241 15,454,089 25,711,171 1,678,097
2008 170,065,032 43,000,937 25,939,158 3,192,065 15,770,792 25,972,528 1,687,746
2009 173,547,070 43,877,911 26,504,323 3,215,221 16,083,733 26,236,568 1,697,522
2010 180,423,860 44,779,310 27,061,111 3,238,714 16,392,933 26,503,326 1,707,426
2011 183,839,898 51,699,061 31,178,050 3,262,548 16,698,412 26,772,839 1,717,458
2012 201,772,287 52,582,455 31,718,172 3,286,728 17,000,189 27,045,140 1,727,622
2013 205,122,429 53,459,576 32,250,005 3,311,259 17,298,286 27,320,268 1,737,918
2014 220,612,574 54,330,478 32,778,869 3,336,144 17,592,723 27,598,259 1,748,348
2015 223,937,277 55,195,220 33,299,504 3,448,269 17,883,522 27,879,149 1,758,913
2016 227,243,304 56,053,859 33,811,941 3,560,757 18,175,993 28,162,978 1,769,616
2017 230,560,109 56,906,452 34,321,500 3,668,324 18,464,869 28,449,782 1,780,459
2018 233,858,972 57,753,059 34,828,213 3,776,266 18,750,171 28,739,601 1,791,441
2019 237,140,140 58,599,031 35,326,822 3,879,295 19,073,210 29,032,474 1,802,567
2020 240,422,089 59,439,136 35,860,161 3,982,708 19,392,972 29,957,301 1,900,716
2021 243,692,400 60,273,437 36,390,936 4,081,220 19,709,483 30,869,548 1,988,430
2022 246,951,333 61,120,451 36,919,183 4,180,125 20,028,060 31,758,677 2,076,292
2023 250,234,431 61,967,337 37,444,938 4,279,429 20,343,440 32,635,313 2,164,304
2024 253,512,243 62,808,875 37,968,238 4,373,846 20,660,941 33,499,499 2,252,467
2025 256,785,044 63,650,422 38,489,119 4,468,673 20,975,300 34,345,990 2,335,493
2026 260,066,842 64,492,048 39,007,620 4,558,624 21,291,835 35,185,412 2,418,674
2027 263,349,755 65,333,822 39,523,777 4,648,995 21,605,285 36,012,520 2,502,012
2028 266,634,073 66,175,815 40,037,630 4,739,792 21,920,969 36,832,651 2,580,219
2029 270,008,075 67,018,100 40,549,216 4,825,729 22,238,916 37,640,561 2,653,297
2030 273,384,355 67,860,748 41,063,867 4,912,103 22,553,865 38,436,297 2,726,537
2031 276,799,601 68,703,833 41,576,330 4,998,919 22,871,137 39,225,199 2,794,652
Attachment G – Southern Southeast Alaska
Information Regarding Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, Kake & Metlakatla Electric Systems
Excerpts from September 2007 Final Report - AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study SE Alaska
City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application
November 2008
24
Figure 3.2-9 Net Generation Forecast – All Sensitivities
Net Generation - Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, Kake & Metlakatla
Low
High
Reference
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031
Net Generation (GWh)
ATTACHMENT H
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
WITH/ WITHOUT HEAT CONVERSION
Attachment H – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions With & Without Heat Conversion SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO AK-BC INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application November 2008 1 Table 1: Estimated Emissions for Cases Without Conversion of Oil Fired Heating Furnaces Year CO2 SOx CO NOx Year CO2 SOx CO NOx Year CO2 SOx CO NOx(ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton)200728,036 195 127 556200728,036 195 127 556200728,036 195 127 556200831,890 221 140 612200831,890 221 140 612200831,890 221 140 612200934,217 237 146 638200934,217 237 146 638200934,217 237 146 638201026,217 180 101 442201013,592 92 42 181201013,592 92 42 181201118,520 125 52 226201117,134 115 46 198201115,153 102 36 157201222,891 154 56 243201222,221 149 53 229201220,228 135 44 188201324,458 164 59 256201323,907 160 56 244201321,715 145 46 199201428,625 191 64 278201428,900 193 66 284201423,336 155 39 169201530,262 202 68 292201527,377 182 54 232201524,900 165 42 181201631,898 213 71 307201628,969 193 57 246201626,431 175 45 194201733,551 224 75 323201730,532 203 60 260201727,930 185 48 206201835,193 235 78 339201832,075 214 64 274201829,548 196 52 222201936,829 246 82 355201933,606 224 67 288201931,402 208 56 242202038,466 257 86 371202035,377 236 71 307202033,416 222 62 267202140,087 268 90 387202137,279 249 76 329202135,414 235 67 291202240,288 269 87 375202237,777 252 75 323202237,396 249 73 315202341,910 280 91 392202339,664 264 80 346202335,394 234 60 257202443,693 292 96 413202441,528 277 85 368202437,314 247 65 281202542,179 281 85 366202543,375 289 91 391202539,230 260 71 305202643,638 291 88 381202636,848 243 56 240202633,952 223 42 180202745,128 301 92 397202738,154 252 59 252202735,250 232 45 192202846,731 312 96 415202839,488 261 62 265202836,568 241 48 205202948,418 323 101 435202940,935 271 65 280202938,014 250 52 220203048,704 325 99 427203042,365 280 69 296203039,443 260 55 235203150,370 336 104 447203143,797 290 72 311203140,872 270 59 251Total 912,198 6,123 2,235 9,672 Total 829,041 5,543 1,840 7,952 Total 770,639 5,135 1,564 6,743Isolated Case Isolated Case With STI Interconnected Case With STI
Attachment H – Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions With & Without Heat Conversion SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO AK-BC INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY City of Petersburg Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application November 2008 2 Table 2: Estimated Emissions for Cases With Conversion of Oil Fired Heating Furnaces Year CO2 SOx CO NOx Year CO2 SOx CO NOx Year CO2 SOx CO NOx(ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton)200727,962 195 133 579200727,962 195 133 579200727,962 195 133 579200831,980 223 152 662200831,980 223 152 662200831,980 223 152 662200934,618 241 164 716200934,618 241 164 716200934,618 241 164 716201025,086 175 119 51920107,369 51 35 15220107,369 51 35 152201114,202 99 67 29420118,514 59 40 17620116,616 46 31 137201218,331 128 87 379201210,939 76 52 22620129,168 64 43 190201319,657 137 93 407201312,161 85 58 25220139,885 69 47 205201423,868 166 113 49420149,154 64 43 18920146,120 43 29 127201522,343 156 106 462201510,102 70 48 20920156,867 48 33 142201623,893 167 113 494201611,068 77 52 22920168,080 56 38 167201725,625 179 121 530201712,432 87 59 25720179,653 67 46 200201827,362 191 130 566201812,006 84 57 24820189,026 63 43 187201929,106 203 138 602201913,646 95 65 282201910,590 74 50 219202029,481 206 140 610202015,383 107 73 318202012,175 85 58 252202131,215 218 148 646202117,112 119 81 354202113,789 96 65 285202229,803 208 141 617202215,702 110 74 325202215,595 109 74 323202331,323 218 149 648202317,233 120 82 357202317,571 123 83 364202432,858 229 156 680202418,999 133 90 393202419,542 136 93 404202534,413 240 163 712202520,824 145 99 431202521,505 150 102 445202635,980 251 171 744202622,680 158 108 469202619,778 138 94 409202737,540 262 178 777202724,551 171 116 508202721,701 151 103 449202839,127 273 186 810202826,418 184 125 547202823,648 165 112 489202940,906 285 194 846202928,310 197 134 586202925,615 179 121 530203042,787 298 203 885203030,207 211 143 625203027,588 192 131 571203144,692 312 212 925203132,305 225 153 668203129,760 208 141 616Total 754,157 5,260 3,576 15,603 Total 471,672 3,290 2,236 9,759 Total 426,202 2,972 2,021 8,818Isolated Case Isolated Case With STI Interconnected Case With STI
ATTACHMENT I
FORECASTED MONTHLY ENERGY SALES
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
2008 – 2027
Petersburg Municipal Power & LightForecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements(MWh)Total Energy Sales (MWh)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Increase2007 (act.) 4,070 3,164 3,394 3,765 3,425 2,730 3,487 4,549 3,108 2,957 3,368 3,247 41,265 2008 4,112 3,369 3,491 3,698 3,353 2,994 4,085 4,667 3,396 3,150 3,535 3,637 43,487 5.4%2009 4,172 3,569 3,674 3,875 3,619 3,058 4,160 4,751 3,471 3,333 3,701 3,758 45,141 3.8%2010 4,475 3,637 3,816 4,073 3,729 3,151 4,159 4,948 3,561 3,385 3,819 3,837 46,589 3.2%2011 4,552 3,755 3,912 4,118 3,782 3,256 4,339 5,015 3,672 3,491 3,927 3,998 47,816 2.6%2012 4,676 3,868 4,036 4,242 3,911 3,328 4,404 5,111 3,747 3,591 4,040 4,099 49,053 2.6%2013 4,775 3,912 4,094 4,311 3,960 3,374 4,446 5,188 3,797 3,630 4,096 4,152 49,734 1.4%2014 4,830 3,973 4,151 4,358 4,010 3,424 4,521 5,245 3,852 3,685 4,154 4,222 50,424 1.4%2015 4,901 4,030 4,214 4,423 4,073 3,468 4,571 5,312 3,901 3,737 4,214 4,280 51,125 1.4%2016 4,979 4,086 4,275 4,486 4,129 3,515 4,629 5,381 3,954 3,787 4,274 4,342 51,836 1.4%2017 5,049 4,145 4,337 4,546 4,187 3,564 4,691 5,447 4,008 3,841 4,335 4,407 52,558 1.4%2018 5,124 4,205 4,401 4,610 4,248 3,612 4,750 5,516 4,061 3,895 4,398 4,471 53,290 1.4%2019 5,201 4,265 4,466 4,675 4,308 3,661 4,811 5,585 4,116 3,949 4,460 4,536 54,034 1.4%2020 5,277 4,326 4,531 4,740 4,370 3,711 4,873 5,656 4,172 4,005 4,525 4,603 54,788 1.4%2021 5,356 4,388 4,598 4,806 4,432 3,762 4,936 5,727 4,228 4,061 4,590 4,670 55,554 1.4%2022 5,436 4,452 4,666 4,873 4,496 3,813 4,999 5,799 4,285 4,118 4,655 4,739 56,331 1.4%2023 5,516 4,516 4,734 4,941 4,560 3,865 5,064 5,873 4,343 4,176 4,722 4,809 57,120 1.4%2024 5,598 4,581 4,804 5,011 4,626 3,918 5,129 5,947 4,402 4,235 4,790 4,879 57,921 1.4%2025 5,682 4,647 4,875 5,081 4,692 3,972 5,196 6,022 4,461 4,295 4,860 4,951 58,734 1.4%2026 5,766 4,714 4,947 5,152 4,760 4,027 5,263 6,099 4,522 4,355 4,930 5,024 59,559 1.4%2027 5,852 4,782 5,020 5,225 4,828 4,082 5,331 6,176 4,583 4,417 5,001 5,098 60,396 1.4%D. Hittle & Associates, Inc.10/31/2008
Petersburg Municipal Power & LightForecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements(MWh)Total Energy Requirements1 (MWh)Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Increase2007 (act.) 4,628 3,605 3,866 4,253 3,856 3,071 3,893 5,068 3,480 3,352 3,821 3,724 46,617 2008 4,686 3,827 3,974 4,175 3,778 3,361 4,550 5,196 3,805 3,564 4,015 4,140 49,074 5.3%2009 4,743 4,052 4,180 4,372 4,076 3,431 4,634 5,291 3,887 3,764 4,200 4,275 50,905 3.7%2010 5,082 4,127 4,335 4,591 4,195 3,536 4,634 5,508 3,984 3,824 4,327 4,368 52,510 3.2%2011 5,170 4,257 4,442 4,641 4,254 3,651 4,832 5,582 4,109 3,941 4,450 4,544 53,873 2.6%2012 5,305 4,384 4,580 4,779 4,398 3,731 4,905 5,688 4,192 4,052 4,576 4,657 55,246 2.5%2013 5,416 4,433 4,646 4,855 4,452 3,783 4,951 5,774 4,247 4,096 4,637 4,717 56,007 1.4%2014 5,478 4,501 4,710 4,908 4,508 3,838 5,034 5,838 4,309 4,157 4,704 4,795 56,780 1.4%2015 5,558 4,566 4,780 4,982 4,579 3,887 5,090 5,911 4,363 4,216 4,771 4,860 57,564 1.4%2016 5,646 4,628 4,849 5,052 4,641 3,940 5,154 5,988 4,422 4,272 4,838 4,930 58,360 1.4%2017 5,724 4,695 4,919 5,119 4,706 3,994 5,223 6,061 4,482 4,333 4,907 5,003 59,167 1.4%2018 5,809 4,762 4,991 5,191 4,774 4,048 5,288 6,138 4,542 4,393 4,976 5,075 59,986 1.4%2019 5,895 4,829 5,063 5,263 4,841 4,103 5,356 6,215 4,603 4,454 5,047 5,148 60,818 1.4%2020 5,981 4,898 5,137 5,336 4,910 4,159 5,426 6,293 4,665 4,516 5,119 5,223 61,662 1.4%2021 6,069 4,968 5,212 5,410 4,980 4,215 5,495 6,372 4,727 4,579 5,192 5,299 62,518 1.4%2022 6,158 5,039 5,288 5,485 5,051 4,272 5,566 6,453 4,791 4,643 5,266 5,376 63,387 1.4%2023 6,249 5,111 5,365 5,561 5,122 4,330 5,637 6,534 4,855 4,708 5,341 5,455 64,269 1.4%2024 6,341 5,184 5,443 5,639 5,196 4,389 5,710 6,616 4,921 4,774 5,417 5,534 65,164 1.4%2025 6,435 5,258 5,523 5,717 5,270 4,449 5,784 6,700 4,987 4,840 5,495 5,615 66,073 1.4%2026 6,530 5,333 5,604 5,797 5,345 4,510 5,858 6,785 5,055 4,908 5,573 5,697 66,995 1.4%2027 6,626 5,410 5,686 5,878 5,421 4,572 5,934 6,871 5,123 4,977 5,653 5,780 67,931 1.4%1 Includes own use and losses at 10% of total sales and own use.D. Hittle & Associates, Inc.10/31/2008
Petersburg Municipal Power & LightForecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements(MWh)Primary AssumptionsSmall Large OwnRes Harbor Comm Comm UseAnnual Increase in Number of Accounts2008 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 2.0%2009 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%Thereafter 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% Annual Increase in Usage/Customer2008 6.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 1.0%2009 6.0% 2.5% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0%2010 5.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0%2011 4.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.5% 1.0%2012 4.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0%Thereafter 1.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0%Losses 10.0% (Shown as % of Total Sales and utility own use)D. Hittle & Associates, Inc.10/31/2008
Petersburg Municipal Power & LightForecasted Monthly Energy Sales and Energy Requirements(MWh)Total Energy Requirements-1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMegawatt-hours2007 (act.)200820092010D. Hittle & Associates, Inc.10/31/2008