Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
APA328
[}{)&00~£ 0 ~liD&®©@ Susitna Joint Venture Document Number Please Return To DOCUMENT CONTROL -------~~~-----------------. -·-· ----~----~Jt.:~ll··~~-~-.~··~·:t~:-~n~T?~-T~~~.r----~~~~ I I J SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT r l l Prepared by: A~ID TERMINATION REPORT TASK 1 : POWER .STUDIES SEPTEMBER , 1980 I . j .. ·I{ • I I . I ' 1 ... , . 1 .. ! ' ; ·J!.·.· ' . J J .J .I ALASKA PO~~R AUTHORITY SUS.ITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT . TASK 1 -POt~ER .STUDIES TEPJ1INATION HEPORT .. SEPTEMBER~ 1980 ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED 1000 Liberty Bank Building Main at Court · Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone (716) 853-7525 I I I I I I I I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES TERMINATION REPORT SEPTEMBER, 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS - LIST OF TABLE~ iii 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1-Background •••••••••••••••••••••.••••..•••••••• ~ •..••••••• 1-1 1.2 -Report Content .......... ,. • • • • • • . . • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • 1-1 2 -SUMMARY 2.1-Scope of Original Task 1 Studies ·······&················· 2-1 2.2-Status of Terminated Activities ··········~··············· 2-1 2.3-Termination Activities -Subtask 1.08 •• ., ................... 2-2 3 -SCOPE OF ORIGINAL TASK 1 STUDIES 3.1-Task Objectives ·······~··················~··············· 3-1 3.2 -Status of Subtask 1.01 • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • • . . • • • • • • . • . • 3-2 3 .. 3-Status of Subtask 1.02 .................................. ~. 3-3 4 -STATUS OF TERMINATED ACTIVITIES 4.1 -SuiTillary of Events .................................. o •••••• 4.2-Post-T~:Jssing Revisions to POS ............................. . 4.3-Status of Subtask 1.03 ............................. ~······ 4.4 -Status of Subtask 1. 04 ••..•... o •• , ........................ . 4.5 -Status of Subtask 1.05 .................................... . 446 -Status of Subtasks 1.06 and 11.03 5 -, TERMINATION ACTIVITIES -SUBTASK 1.08 • • ~ W e • • • • • I • • e • • • • • • • • • • 4-1 4-3 4-4 4-6 4-9 4-11 5.1-Scope of Work ............................................. 5-l 5.2-Continuation of Acres' Susitna POS .....••..••...•.•....•. 5-l 5.3-Termination Cost Statement ·············o·······H········ 5-3 i t 1 ··~ ., I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) I I I I ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES TERMINATION REPORT SEPTEMBER, 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con 1 t L APPENDIX A -DRAFT OUTLINE OF INTERIM REPORT: TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES B -REVIEWS OF ARLON TUSSING REPORT BY ACRES AND WCC C -SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: REVISED SCOPE, TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES D -LEITERS FROM APA TO ACRES DATED JUNE 13 and 30, 1980 E-MINUTES OF MEETINGS ON JANUARY 7, 1980 and FEBRUARY 20, 1980 F -NOTES ON MEETING ON MARCH 20, 1980 G -REVIEWS OF ISER'S REPORTS BY KIRKWOOD/SIOSHANSI (WCC) H -PARTIAL LIST OF ISSUES RAISED DURING MEETINGS ON JUNE 10 and 11, 1980 I -DETAILED WORK PLAN FOR REVISED TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES, POST-TUSSING J -WOODWARO-.CLYDE PROPOSED MODIFIED APPROACH FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR MEETING RAILBELT ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS K -ACRES PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING POWER GENERATION ALTERNATIVES -THE DELPHI METHOD L -"NOTES ON MULTIPLE CRITERION DECISION ANALYSIS AND THE ACRES APPROACH TO SUSITNA FALLS 11 {SIC) BY DR. CHRIS CHAPMAN M -PRELIMINARY DRAFT REPORT ON WIND POWER N -INVENTORY OF HDYROELECTRIC SITES IN THE RAILBELT 0 -LIST OF TECHNICAL REPORTS REVIEWED P -NOTES ON MEETINGS BETWEEN APA, ACRES, WCC, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, JUNE 10 and 11, 1980 Q -COPIES OF OTHER RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE R -WCC TERMINATION REPORT S -TES TERMINATION REPORT ii 1 1 1 1 1 'I J I •• I I I J I I J J 1 I I I I I I I I 1. ~ _,.,, LIST OF TABLES 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 Projected A 1 ask an Average Annual Growth Rates (ISER) List of Significant Events Screening Criteria for Alternatives Details of Environmental Criteria Original POS Budgets Summary of ~xpenses by Subtask for Task 1 and Subtask 11.03 Through June 6, 1980 Cost Changes Resulting From Termination of Task 1 (Exclusive of Termination Claim) ' . . 111 I I I I 1 .... . 1 -INTRODUCTION - 1.1 -Background The Plan of Study (POS) for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, w:1ich was prepared and revised by Acres American Inc., was issued by the Alaslc.r. Power Authority for public review and comment in February, 1980. The scope of power alternatives studies to be undertaken in this POS under Task 1 -Power Studies, was originally developed to satisfy the anticipated requirements of a FERC 1 icense application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, should the project ha proven feasible. As a result of concerns expressed by various individuals and agencies, the Alaska State Legislature resolved in June, 1980 that the 11 Power Market and Alternative Supply Studies be deleted from the Acres contract for Susitna Feasibility Studies .. , Orders were issued to Acres by the Power Authority on June 13 and 30, 1980 terminating work on Subtasks 1.03 through 1.06 and 11.03 of th~ original POS. This report presents the results of work undertaken by Acres Jlrnerican Incorporated (Acres) and its subcontractors, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) :t and Terrestrial Environmental Specialists {TES}, within the Susitna Plan of Study prior to this termination order. 1.2 -Report Conte~ Section 2 of this report is a summat"Y of the events leading to the issue of the termination order! the results of Task 1 activities prior to termination and the activities remaining to be completed. Section 3 deals with the originally proposed POS for Task 1 and presents a status ~eport on on-going Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02, which were not terminatedo Section 4 of the report presents the results of work completed under Subtasks 1.03 and 1.07 prior to termination, including additional work undertaken at the request of the Power Authority in ar, attempt to respond to public comment on the scope of alternatives studies. In Section 5, a description is presented of termination activities undertaken at the request of the Power Authority under a new Subtask 1.08, including planning of expanded alternatives studies in response to public corrment, subsequent to the State legislation. A series of Appendices, A through S, are attached to document the various reports and letters which deal with relevant Task 1 activities prior to termination .. I I I I J I ,J I 2 -SUMMARY 2.1 -Scope of Original Task 1 Studies The overall objectives of Task 1 -Power Studies as stated in the February 1980 POS were: 11 To determine the need for power in the Alaska Railbelt Region, to develop forecasts for electric load growth in the area, to consider viable alternatives for meeting such load growth, to develop and rank a series of feasible, optimum expansion scenarios and finally to determine the enviromenta1 impacts of the selected optimum scenarios" .. To accomplish this objective the study had been divided into six Subtasks: Subtask 1.01 -Review of the ISER Work Plan and Methodologies Subtask 1.02 -Forecasting Peak Load Demand Subtask la03 -Identification of Alternatives Su~.task 1.04 -Selection of Viable Expansion Sequences Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Sequence Impact Assessments Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternatives Study Report Work on Subtask 1.01 is essentially complete. A complete report will be drafted by mid-September 1980. Work on Subtask, 1.02 is well underway with initial results anticipated by late September 1980. A subtask 1.02 completion report will be prepared in October 1980. Work on Subtask 1.03 through 1.07 has been terminated by Acres as instructed by APA on June 13, 1980. 2.2 -Status of Terminated Activities A summary of the events that precipitated the termination of Subtask 1 .. 03 through 1.06 and Subtask 11.03 activities is presented in Section 4.1. Work was terminated as a result of an Act passed by the Alaska Legislature in June 1980. Table 4.1 lists chronologically all events of significance that occurred in the period from January 1, 1980 through June, 1980 prior to termination of work • . In response to a public meeting held in mid-April and a draft report issued by Arlen R. Tussing et al on April 15, 1980 entitled 11 Susitna Hydropower: A review of the Issues 11 for the Alaska State Legislature, the Scope of Subtasks 1.03 through 1.06, were being significantly revised during May and early June. A new Subtask 1 .. 07 -Power Study Review Panel, was also added at that time. The revisions to the POS, the work camp ·r eted prior to revision, and the project activities occurring during the revision process, are discussed in Subtasks 4.2 through 4.6 of this report. The most significant revisions were made to Subtasks 1.03, 1.04 and 1.05 and are discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of this report respectively. 2-1 I I I ' ~ I ~ •. f ' I I. I -{ I I The Y'evised scope for Task 1 is presented in Appendix C, and the detailed plan I of s.tudy is presented in Appendix I . 2.3 -Termination Activities -Subtask 1 .. 08 As of June 6, following the passage of the Act "Relating to power projects of the Alaska Power Authority and the Susitna River Hydroelectric Project 11 by the Alaska State Legisla.tyre, work on Subtasks 1.03 through 1.07 and 11 .. 03 was terminated at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Section 5.1 describes the scope of termination activity. Section 5.2 discusses the relationship between Task 1 -Power Studies and Task 6 -Design Development, and the need to implement Task 6 by those activities that prior to termination of Task 1, would have been completed in Task 1 and input to Task 6. Principal areas of overlap were an analysis of generating sources, cost analysis, scale and scheduling of Susitna development, and generating planning analysis. The casts for termination of Task 1 activity are discussed in Section 5.3. 2-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1 3 -SCOPE OF ORIGINAL TASK 1 STUDIES 3.1 -Task Objectives The original objectives of Task 1 -Power Studies as stated in the February 1980 POS were: 11 To determine the need for power in the Alaska Railbelt Region, to de\felop forecasts for electric load growth in the area, to consider viablB alternatives for meeting such load growth, to ddvelop and rank a series of feasible, optimllll expa.nsion scenarios and finally to determine the enviromental impacts of the selected optimum scenarios 11 • The primary pur·pose of the Task 1 Studies was essentially the establishment and documentation of appropriate load forecasts for the Alaska Railbelt area and the development of optimum system expansion sequence scenarios to meet this forecast. This portion of the study was to have been undertaken in essentially three parts. The initial phase was to have included evaluation of the various project energy consumption scenarios developed by independent study teams. From these forecasts, the Acres team would develop kilowatt load forecasts appropriate for the low, medium, and high growth rate scenarios. The second portion of Task 1 would have dealt with the development of optimt.m mixes and sequences of -::easible alternative sources for meeting future power demands. These mixes were to have been developed with and without the Susitna Project, which at this stage was assumed for study purposes to be that developed by the Corps of Engineers. The third section of the study would have dealt with the preliminary comparative environmental ~d socioeconomic impacts of the developed optimum mixes on the Railbelt Region. To accomplish these objectives, the Task had been subdivided into six Subtasks: Subtask 1.01 -Review of the ISER Work Plan and Methodologies Subtask 1.02 -Forecasting Peak Load Demand Subtask 1.03 -Identification of Alternatives Subtask 1.04 -Selection of Viable Expansion Sequences Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Sequence Impact Assessments Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternatives Study Report If these studies had indicated that the Susitna Project was not the optimum development for the Alaska Power Authority then it had been intended that the ongoing studies would have been halted pending discussions with Alaska Power Authority to determine the future course of action most appropriate. On the other hand, had Task 1 studies confirmed the earlier studies undertaken by the Corps of Engineers and others that the Susitna Project, with dams at Watana and Devil Canyon is the appropriate means of meeting future load growth in the Railbelt area, the study would have continued as planned. The specific oujectives of .each Subtask were as follows: 3-1 I I I I :1; r~ I I I I I I (a) Subtask 1.01 -Review of the ISER Work Plan and Methodologies Critically review the work plan and the methodologies developed by the University of Alaska 1 s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) for forecasting energy demands. Review and comment upon those written documents prepared by ISER as a part of its study and other relevant documents prepared by various authorities. Reach a thorough understanding of the assumptions used by ISER in its work. Exchange information with ISER regarding data needed by the Acres team in its subsequent work. Ensure adequate data output by ISER through coordination efforts. {b) Subtask 1.02 -Forecasting Peak Load Demand Derive scenarios describing a reasonable range of load (kW) and load duration ~yrve fQrec~st~ fgr the system thrgugh the year 2010~ Prepare data in a form adequate for incorporation in the· power system model to be developed in Subtask 1.04. (c) Subtask 1.03 -Identificatiot of Power Alternatives Identify and select for evaluation purposes alternative power sources appropriate for inclusion in future Alaska Railbelt Region load-growth scenarios. (d) Subtask 1.04 -Selection of Viable Expansion Sequences DeteJ'"tlline the total system costs of selected future Railbelt Region expansion sequences, both with and without incorporation of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, and rank the preferred generation expansion scenarios. · (e) Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Seguence Impact Assessments Compare, from an environmental standpoint, the consequences of developing the selected alternative expansion scenarios in the Alaska Railbelt Region, including_ historical, socioeconomic and other factors. (f) Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternatives Study Report Prepare power ·alternatives study report for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. 3.2 -Status of Subtask 1.01 A substantial portion of work in this subtask has been sub-contracted to Woodward Clyde Consultants (WWC). The Closeout Report on Acres• and WCC's 3-2 I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I "l f . 1 ' ~. I ~~ I I I I I I I :a I work is the subject of a separate document. The initial ISER work plan was issued November 14, 1979. This has since been the subject of numerous meetings and reviews by various individuals and agencies, including Acres and wee, and the issue of draft and final reports by ISER. This final report was issued May 23, 1980. In ISER's words, "The electric power requirements of the Alaskan Railbelt will continue to grow over the next thirty years as the economy expands and personal income grows41 Based upon the analysis of a large number of economic, demo- graphic, and electricity consumption factors, the most likel1 growth rates for the most important state economic variables and railbelt electric utility sales over the next thirty years areu • " •• I.e. shown in Table 3.1. Electrical energy sales for the Railbelt Region were projected to grow from a 1980 value of 3,101 GWh to minimum, most likely and maximum economic growth scenario values of 4,807, 6,141 and 8,927 GWh respectively by 2010. These values are substantially less than the 1978 forecasts produced by the Alaska Power Administration. Credible load forecasts are required for the continuing Susitna studies, for purposes of planning the expansion of generating capacity in the Railbelt Region, both with and without the proposed Susitna development. The Acres' Closeout Report will therefore seek to establish appropriate low, and high load forecasts which will take into account the various authoritative critiques made of the ISER forecast by individuals, agencies and others. and an immediate fore- cast for use with a reasonalbe degree of confidence in ongoing Susitna Planning Studies. The Subtask 1.01 Closeout Report is scheduled to be issued to the Powef' Authority in draft form late September, 1980. 3.3 -Status of Subtask 1.02 A substantial portion of work on this Subtask has also been sub-contracted to wee. The Closeout Report on Acres' and WCC's work will also be the subject of a separate document presently scheduled to be issued in late September, 1980. Work is currently underway on establishing relationships between peak loads and load durations with energy sales forecasts based on Alaskan experience and char- acteristics of such relationships elsewhere in the u.s. 3-3 I ,_ I I ' .. I I I I I ' TABLE 3 .. 1: Time Interval HISTORICAL 1965 -1970 1970 -1975 1975 -1980 PROJECTED 1980 -1985 1985 -1990 1990 ,. 1995 1995 -2000 2000 -2005 2005 -2010 PROJECTED ALASKAN AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES (ISER) Statewide Statewide Rail belt Population Employment Electric Utility Growth (~) Growth (~} Sales Growth (~) 2.7 5.6 13.9 6.0 12.1 13.5 o.a 0.5 7.0 3.7 4.6 5.8 1.7 1.4 2.6 2.7 3 .. 2 5.0 2.3 2.5 4.5 2.0 2.0 3.3 2.0 2.0 3.4 3-4 I I I I I I I I 4 -STATUS OF TERMINATED ACTIVITIES 4.1 -Summary of Event~ Table 4.1 lists chronologically all events of significance which took place in the period from January 1, 1980, the scheduled conrnencement of Acres work on the Sus,itna POS, to termination of work on Subtasks 1.03 through 1.07 in June 1980. Several of these events ~sd to proposals for revisions to the POS in regard to Tasks 1 and 11 in particular4 These events and the consequences of them are summarized as follows: (a) Public meeting~ and workshop sessions held in Alaska between April and July 1980 (b) A series of conmunity meetings were organized by APA to present the PuS for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and other power alternatives.. The schedu 1 e: of these meetings was as fo 11 ows: Fairbanks, 7 p.m., Monday, April 14 Travelers Inn Gold Room, 813 Noble Talkeetna, 7 p.m., Tuesday, April 15 Talkeetna Elementary School Wasilla, 7 p.m., Wednesday, April 16 Wasilla High School Anchorage, 7 p.m., Thursday, April 17 Bartlett High School Yellow Cafeteria The records of these meetings are the subject of a separate report issued by the Power Authority. During these sessions it became apparent that it would be desirable to increase the level of effort devoted to studying alternative generating facilities to Susitna and also to alternative developments within the Susitna basin. By expanding the scope associated with th8$e aspects it would be possible to address the concerns expressed by a large group of people that the Scope of Work as outlined in the February 1980 POS unduly favored the Susitna Project. This increased level of detail was considered ~'cessary to upgrade the degree of accuracy associated with all possible alternatives to the currently proposed U.S. Corps of Engineers scheme, thereby faci'litating more accurate comparisons of costs and environmental and other intangible aspects. Report to che Alaska State Legislature on Electric Power Supply Planning issued in May 1980, bX Arlon R. Tussing and Assocjates, Inc. This report, which was first issued in draft form April 15, 1980, reemphasized the aspects discussed above and gave further impetus to increasing the level of detail associated with studying alternatives to "1··.·.· f : I I I I I I I .• ~-. .· ~ I i \ ' J I I I I ' development of the Susitna Basin. APA instructed Acres on April 23, 1980. (Appendix Q) to proceed to develop expansions to the studies in Tasks l, 6 and 11 in order to address the concerns discussed above. Summary responses to specific issues raised by the Arlon R. Tussing Report were sent to APA on April 24 and May 2, 1980. These reviews are included in this report as Appendix B together with attachments of comments by wee. A revised scope of Task 1 -Power Studies, post-Tussing, was prepared and sent to APA for review and comment on May 7, 1980 and is attached as Appendix C and discussed further under Section 4.2 below. (c) The Alaska State Legislature Act 11 Relating to power projects of the .&taska Power Authority and the Su~itna River hydroelectric projectn This was passed by the Alaska Legislature in June 1980 tind as of June 6 effectively debarred Acres from participating any further with the alternatives studies out·l ined in Task 1 and th::. risk studies associated with the alternatives to Susitna under Task 11. · (d) Meetings Between APA, Acres, WCC, and Representatives of the Office of the Governor, June 10 and 11, 1980 These meetings were held to discuss the current status of Task 1 studies and to review the various options av a i 1 ab 1 e for proceeding with the Sus i tn a studies under various interpretations of the Alaska State Legislation. A summary of these meetings is presented in Appendix P. As a result of the above developments and of subsequent decisions made by the Office of the Governor on interpretation of the State legislation, APA instructed Acres June 13, 1980 and June 30, 1980 to make the fo 11 owing revisions to the POS: TASK 1: Complete work on Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02 as originally proposed in the February 1980 POS and terminate all work on Subtasks 1.03 to 1.07. Prepare a completion report which includes discussion of a plan for forecast improvement. TASK 6: Revise the work plan to incorporate more detailed study of alternative Susitna Basin developments and to allow Acres to proceed with planning the Susitna Basin development, as part of the Railbelt sy~;tem, complying as closely as possible with the February POS study schedule. The revised work plan should include preparation of ap~ )priate inputs to ·the 11 Pre1 iminary Reportsn to be submitted by APA to the State Legislature by March 30, 1981, and April 30, 1982, reconmending whether work should continue on the Susitna Project. TASK 11: Revise the scope of work by eliminating the risk studies associated with the 11 assessment of power alternatives" (Subtask 11.03). 4-2 .. I I i I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I On August 4 a draft Revision 1 to the POS responding to these requirements was submitted to APA for corrment and approval. "fhis document will be issued as a formal revision to the ros in due course. . 4.2 -Post-Tussing Revisions to POS In the development of scope of Power Alternatives Studies undertaken prior to termination, the content of the Power Alternatives Report originally scheduled to be issued in November, 1980, had undergone a series of reviews. An outline of the Interim Report on Task 1 proposed by Acres was presented to APA for discussion on April 15, 1980. Also discussed in this meeting was a methodology for a global evaluation of alternative power generation plants for the Railbelt. The outline and the methodology were presented in response to APA recorrmendations on alternative power sc.1urces and parameters to be considered in the Power Studies as stated in a letter dated March 19, 1980 (Appendix Q). Thf! outline of the Interim Report was modified to incorporate changes agreed to during this meeting. A copy of the final outline is attached as Appendix A. As stated in Section 4.1 above, in response to the May 1980 Tussing Report and other public corm1ent during the period April-June 1980, proposed revisions to the scope of Task 1 studies were developed and forwarded to the Power Authority May 7, 1980, for review and approval (Appendix C). These revisions involved significant expansion of scope of all subtasks and the addition of Subtask 1~07-Power Study Review Panel. Pending formal approval of this expanded scope, work continued on Subtasks 1.01 through 1.05 until the action of the State Legislature terminating Acres• involvement in power alternatives studies June 6, 1980. The proposed expanded scope for Task 1 is summarized as follows: (a) Perform additional engineering studies under Subtask 1.03 to better formulate non-Susitna a1ternatives, including conservation and load management. (b) Identify several cf the most promising expansion scenarios for more detailed evaluation rather than a single recommended plan. (c) Conduct detailed feasibility studies on each of the s~~er-al most promising expansion sequences, to inc1ude·marketing, financing, cost scheduling, and risk analyses. (d) Formulate a plan for improving the data base for future energy and load forecasting and execute the plan~ (e) Based on the improved data base, perform another forecast of energy demand, peak load and load duration curves. (f) Incorporate marketing, financing, risk analysis, cost and scheduling into selection of the optimum Susitna Basin development (Task 6)a 4-3 1 .. r.· y I I I 1' .. ' ' li I 'I ···"-~ .. \, fl ' : ' lin I' I I ll •... ~~.·· li (g) Using the results of (e) and (f), perform a second iteration of power studies using a generation planning model (perhaps OGP-5). (h) Establish a multid-isciplinary panel to review assumptions and the various analyses. (i) Reiterate using the results of (g) to assess risk in the face of unlikely but possible load growth scenarios. (j) Identify an additional decision point in early 1982 when the feasibility studies will be complete and when a single development plan will be identified for preparation of license application. 4.3 -Status of Subtask 1.03 (a) Pre-Tussing Activities Subtask 1.03 -Identification of Alternatives, was originally scheduled in the February POS to commence late May 1980 and be completed August 31. Subsequent rescheduling of Project Activities April 17, 1980 led to March 24-July 7, 1980 latest start-completion dates for Subtask 1.03. Substantial portions of wo~k on Subtask 1.03 under the original POS had been subcontracted to wee and TES.. WCe were to develop all data relevant to "non-hydro .. alternatives, and TES the environmental data relevant to hydro and tidal alternatives. Public comment relayed to Acres through the Power Authority led to a requirement to rescope Subtask 1.03 in terms of the number and types of alternatives to be considered as part of future Railbelt region generation expansion scenarios. Work on rescoping and relevant discussions between Acres, wee, and the Power Authority were actually started March 31, 1980. Discussions between Acres and wee resulted in a preliminary scope agreement reached during a meeting on April 18, 1980 in San Franc·isco. Under this agreement, WCC would proceed with Subtask 1.03, 11 non-hydro 11 alternatives with a preliminary scope of work detailed as follows: (i) Global evaluation of alternatives utilizing the criteria presented in the Interim Report Outline (Appendix A), and to inc1ude the following: -energy resource availability in Alaska -technical and COIIJllercial use availability -expected fuel dependency -site availability -preliminary safety and environmental concerns -global cost estimates in mills/kWh -corresponding ranking (ii) Preparation by wee and submission to Acres for consideration and approval of an analytical approach incorporating proposed decision analysis techniques to be used in making the global evaluation of alternatives. 4-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [] I I I I I I I I I ll IJ It IJ (iii) Evaluations to be made by WCC of: -Fossil Fuel Alternatives: . coal-fired steam cycle • oil-fired steam cycle . natural gas-fired steam cyc1e . oil-fired combined cycle • natural gas-fired combined cycle . oil-fired combustion turbines . natural gas-fired combustion turbines -Nuclear Alternatives: • converter reactors (LWR, HWR) • breeder reactors . fusion -Other Generation Alternatives and Alternative Fuels: . municipal solid waste . wood-fired steam cycle . biomass gasification applications ~ biomass-fired steam cycle ~ solar thermal steam cycle . solar photovoltaic . solar satellite The evaluation of hydro, tidal, geothermal and wind-powered alternatives together with decentralized systems possibly also involving cogeneration, peat-fired steam cycle, and small-scah~ hydro alternatives would be undertaken by Acres and TES. Consideration of conservation and load management as non-structural alternatives would also be Acres • responsibi 1 ity. (b) Post-Tussing Activities Following the issue of the draft and final Arlon Tussing Reports April 15 and May 9, further reviews of scope of Subtask 1.03 studies were undertaken to expand the methodology for selection and screening of alternatives in response to Tussing's comments. Following further discussions on the expanded scope of Subtask 1.03,. responsibility for evaluation of biomass-fired steam cycle and so1al .. satellite alternatives was also transferred to Acres. The criteria for initial screening of alternatives were also modified as shown in Table 4.2. Work on data collection for various power generation alternatives was initiated to a significant extent prior to termination of Subtask 1.03. Work on some alternatives was more advanced than on others. Specifically, a preliminary draft of the proposed report on Wind Power is attached as Appendix M. An inventory of hydroelectric sites in the Railbelt Region is presented in Appendix N. A list of technical reports reviewed at a preliminary level, and a brief surrmary and indication of the possible use of the information contained in each of these reports as input to Task 1, are also attached in Appendix 0. 4-5 ll \ ! ' . .i I ' I 11 I ; I J I I I l I 4.4 -Status of Subtask 1.04 The original POS schedule for Subtask 1.04 activities was to have commenced July 1 and be completed by October 6. Subsequent rescheduling -of all POS activities April 17, 1980, resulted in early and late schedule start dates for this activity of April 7 and December 22, 1980, respectively with cort·esponding completion 15 weeks latere Although some planning activity for this Subtask was initiated April 7, no significant work output was accomplished prior to the Tussing Report. Following the issue of that report, however, activity was initiated by Acres and wee on developing a proposed modified approach to be used in the selection of alternatives and generation expansion sequences. {a) Proposed Revised Approach by Acres The revised approach to selection and ranking of alternatives under Subtask 1.04 proposed by Acres is presented in Appendix I. A key aspect of this approach is the invo 1 vement in a 11 decision processes of a .Review Pane 1 of experts representing an appropriate cross-section of Alaskan opinion and knowledge. The actual decision process would be accomplished by the technique of the Delphi Method discussed in Appendix K. The actual analysis of alternative generation expansion scenarios would be undertaken essentially as proposed in the original POS using the OGP5 computer model. It is stressed that although this model does have some in-built optimization capability, its use was intended to be principally that of a mathematical tool to investigate the sensitivity of various expansion scenarios to changes in basic parameters such as load forecasts, costs, interest rates, fuel costs and availability, environmental restrictions, etc. By this means it had been planned that a free and exhaustive interchange of information between the Review Panel and the study group would have resulted in a credible consensus on the generation expansion scenarios to be evaluated and selected. (b) Propose~ Modified Approa~h by ~cc The wee proposal for use of a decision analysis approach to evaluation of alternative options for meeting Railbelt electric power requirements was submitted to Acres May 19, 1980 (Appendix J). The overall objective of the activities proposed by wee were stated to be: -To evaluate the options available for meeting future Railbelt electric power requirements in a realistic manner which recognizes: • • The sequential nature of the decisions that will be made in the future regarding methods for meeting electric power requirements, and The risks and uncertainties that will exist as each of these sequential decisions is made. 4-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I The proposed scope of the work specifically excluded any analysis of the advisability of proceeding with Susitna feasibility studies. Nevertheless, the staged approach proposed was intended to provide timely information to support upcoming decisions regarding the advisability of proceeding with feasibility studies for the Susitna Project. This proposal was !lased on a fundamental premise that a log·ical and defensible procedure for analyzing the options available for meeting the Railbelt's need for power must explicitly address the uncertainties in the situation and the sequential nature of the decisions that are made. In addition to uncertainties and the sequential aspect of the problem, two other factors were considered central to a defensible analysis of the options for meeting Railbelt power needs: - A variety of different concerns must be addressed in evaluating the desirability of each option, and - A variety of groups within Alaska have legitimate reasons for having some input into the analysis. The approach proposed by WCC would explicitly address multiple evaluation concerns, including financial aspects, public health and safety, environ- mental effects, socioeconomics and institutional factors. It would also provide a well-defined mechanism for incorporating the views of persons outside the Alaska Power Authority and the Acres team into the analysis. Uncertainties would be analyzed using probability theory. In situations where sufficient data existed, these probabilities would be determined from this data, while in other situations expert professional judgment would be used to establish the probabilities. Because of the lack of data in Alaska~ it was expected that these "judgmenta1 11 probabilities would be particularly useful for Susitna planning. The multiple evaluation concerns would be analyzed within a decision analysis framework using multiattribute util.;ty functions, for which the underlying theory is well established. Thes; functions would allow the multiple concerns to be addressed in a quantitative manner that allowed explicit consideration of the tradeoffs among the concerns. In this manner, probabilities and utilities would be combined to evaluate and rank various available alternatives. Experience had shown that the proposed approach could be effective in providing a fruitful mechanism for communications in situations where there are disagreements among interested parties over both the facts and the re 1 at i ve importance of various evaluation concerns. (c) Acres' Critique of WCC Approach The specific environmental and socioeconomic aspects of the wee proposed approach are addressed in Section 4.5 of this report. Although the wee proposal is considered acceptable in principal, Acres' review concluded that some aspects could lead to significant difficulties and potential delays in meeting the objectives of the Susitna POS;o A separate critique by Dr. Chris Chapman of Acres International Management Services, is presented in Appendix L. Specific conments related to Activities II and III of the wee proposal are as follows: 4-7 (i) Activity II: Consideration of Alternatives The approach proposed by WCC for consideration of alternatives essentially follows the revised Task 1 guidelines proposed by Acres~ Activity II is aimed at single alternatives and is intended to result in a Report on Alternatives available to the proposed Review Panel and the public~ This report would include a summary showing the alternatives, their evaluation measures (cost, resource availability, technical feasibility, health ana safety concerns, environmental and socioeconomic effects, institutional factors) and the corresponding ranges generally as proposed in the revised Task 1. However, the treatment of uncertainties is considered to be somewhat artificial. It is obvious that there is potentially a considerable amount of uncertainty about the levels of the evaluation measures for the alternatives. The proposal to assign judgmental probabilities to the range limits is, however, considered unconvincing. In the inevitable environment of a weak data base, no probabi 1 ity distribution can be defined based on available records. The logical procedure is to account for the uncertainities by generating alternative levels for evaluation measures which 9 as alternate inputs to the generation planning model (i.e. OGPS), will generate new scenarios for sensitivity analyses~ The proposed panel of experts--used in a structured interaction within the Delphi procedure--is considered to be a superior mechanism for providing credible alternate ranges and producing the basis for sensitivity analyses. (ii) Activity III: Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options The purpose of this activity is to analyze the information g.enerated by previous activities to arrive at a preferred strategy for electrical development in the Railbelt. The first step--the identification of the scenarios (sequential decision options)--will use the generation planning computer analysis (iee. OGPS) as the basis for construction of the scenarios. The procedure is identical to that proposed in the revised Task 1 scopee The next step proposed is the preparation of data to evaluate and compare the expansion scenarios. The approach proposed is similar to that in the revised Task 1 scope--the use of experts to articuldte issues/concerns related to various scenarios. The use of the Delphi method as discussed in the revised Task 1 scope to suJTil1arize issue!i, to decompose than into objectives tn be reached by various scenarios and to establish attributes (and corresponding ranges) which would represent the objectives is considered to be more suitable than the procedure proposed by WCC. Within the Delphi method, appropriate questionnaires can be constructed and consensus can be reached in many important issues. The last step in Activity III is aimed at the evaluation of the scenarios and at identifying the preferred option. The approach proposed, the use of the techniques from multiattribute utility theory, is in fact, the only important departure from the revised Task 1 scope proposed by Acres. 4-8 I I I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I The procedure uses mathematical algorithms extensively, which will inevitably suffer fran the 1 ack of an adequate data base within the Railbelt. Individual utility functions (per attribute) varying from 0 to 1 are developed, usually as an exponential fit to three points. While the limits of 0 and 1 correspond to the range limits per attribute, the intermediary point is generally defined through interviews with experts and is intended to rep~esent their general risk-attitude toward the particular attribute (e.g. risk averse, less risk averse or risk neutral). The expectations from these interviews are obviously unrealistic, especially considering that with the exception of costs, the majority of the attributes are environmental in nature, difficult to scale and practically impossible to quantify in tradeoffs. The individual utility functions are used to provide attribute values to characterize scenarios. The individual attribute values are aggregated into a general preference structure represented by the multiattribute uti·l ity function.. The function is calibrated, based on value judgements and preferences of individuals. When the individual attributes are aggregated (the simplest mathematical algorithm representing this function is a product of all the individual utility functions), it results in a single numerical indicator which is then used to rank the scenarios. Again~ despite the mathematical algorithms used, the aim to represent all the intangible impacts corresponding to a development scenario in a highly environmentally sensitive area by a single number oversimplifies the issue. Such an exercise may prove interesting and useful in showing that efforts were spent to explore every possible type of analysis. However, in Acres• judgement a quantitative (cost) and qualitative matrix of impacts corresponding to the scenarios constructed through generation planning should be the principal approach. These matrices will represent.the basis for the panel sessions to be conducted under the Delphi method, in order to progressively narrow the preferences and to define the preferred scenarios. Within the total scope of work under Task 1, the application of the multiattribute utility theory, with its extensively mathematical approach might be used as a second method in parallel for purposes of verification. 4.5 -Status of Subtask 1.05 Work on Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Sequence Impact Assessments was scheduled in 'the original POS to commence July 21, 1980 and. be complete by November 10, 1980. Rescheduling of all PQS activities April 17 resulted in early and late start dates of April 28 and June 16 respectively with a 16-week duration. The major portion of work on predominantly non-hydro generation expansion sequences had been subcontracted to wee and that on predominantly hydro sequences has been subcontracted toTES. Prior to termination only preliminary planning activities were undertaken by these subcontractors on Subtask 1.05. 4-9 ,, ' '·:1. Acres• p1roposed approach to expanded environmental assessments to alternatives and a ltel'"nati ve generation expansion scenarios fa 11 owing the Tussing Report, is presented in Appendix I, and that of wee in Appendix J. Details of environmental criteria to be used in these expanded studies are presented in Table 4.3. It had not been proposed that TES would be involved in these studies. The Acres' approach in the evaluation of alternative scenarios did not attempt to rigidly quantify the impacts in terms of expert judgement. Rather the Acres• approach, as discussed under Section 4.4, would be to solicit the input of a screening panel and the general public to reach a concensus that the decisions being made are in agreement with the views of the State of Alaska. Using the Delphi approach, the potential difficulties of face-to-face interaction among members of the panel would be largely eliminated. To this end: -the selection of panel members would be as non-biased as possible; -representation of key groups would be provided; -nontechnical, as well as technical representation would be emphasized; -the development of questions would be as unbiased as possible, if necessary by means of separate outside review; -selection of the evaluation measures would be made in cooperation with the panel and the general publice The basis for environmental evaluation of alternative scenarios would be as follows: -establish evaluation criteria {panel review) -obtain information on alternatives -evaluate alternatives by screening (panel review} -develop selected scenarios (input from panel) -evaluate and rank scenarios (panel review) Although considerable effort would be directed toward the collection of defensible estimates for the evaluation measures, it must be realized that there are numerous data gaps which cannot be easily overcomeo The wee proposal to quantify uncertainties through the use of standard judgemental probability encoding techniques is itself subject to severe limitations. For example, the proposed conversion scale for transmission line mile equivalents is as follows: Raw Mileage 1 1 Mile Eguivalent 2 10 Level of Impact Urban route traversing populated areas; route traversing BLM or Indian-owned lands; or aesthetics intrusion on primary highways Route traversing state or national parks; wildlife refuges; historical monument sites or habitats containing unusual or unique communities or supporting endangered species 4-10 I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This can be interpreted to mean that 50 miles of transmission line traversing BLM land is equivalent to 10 miles of line traversing a national park or areas supporting endangered species. It is not realistic to use this quantitative scale (or any other similar scale) to 11 explicitly express how well a development scenario achieves a particular objective ... The problem becomes even more complicated when these quantitative scales are used to compare essentially unrelated impacts, e.g. transmission line mile equivalents to impact on fisheries to socioeconomic effects. 4.6 -Subtasks 1.06 and 11.03 No work was initiated on these Subtasks in the pe:riod prior to tennination ... 4-11 TABLE 4.1: LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Event Date (1980) Reference (1) -Original Plan of Study February 4 "Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Plan of Study," Section A.5.2-Task 1: Power Studies, pages 5-3 through 5-24 (2) -Meet.ing of Alaskan February 15 Records of meeting by E~omJmists in Anchorage, Ir1stitute of Social and ISER offices Economic Research, University of Alaska (ISER) (3) -Issue of ISER's Progress March 14 "Electric Power Require- Reporit menta for the Rail belt", ISER (4) -Letter from APA offering views and indicating March 19 Appendix Q expectations for the alter- natives study and report (5) -Meeting at Acres Anchorage March ZO Appendix F office (ISER, Acres and WCC) to discuss ISER Progress Report and future work (6) -Public Meetings in April 14-17 "Energy for the Future - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Tal-A eonmunity Meeti-ng on keetna and Wasilla -APA the Susitna Hydroelectric Presentation of Plan of Project and Other Power Study, February 1980 Alternatives", APA records (7) -Presentation of Interim Report outline on Task 1 -Power Studies to APA Apri.l. 15 Appendix A (B) -Meetings of Acres with ISER April 14-18 Fact-finding meetings in Anchorage, and wee in San Francisco (9) -Reviews of ISER Progress Report by Acres and wee March, April Appendix G 4-12 TABLE 4.1: LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd) Event (10) -Draft Report by Arlon Tussing ( 11) -APA Request for Additional Work (12) -Acres Recommendations for Changes to Power Altarnatives Study (13) -Review of Arlen Tussi1ng Report (14) -Revised Scope of Task 1 (Post-Tussing) ( 15) -Final, Report by At~lon Tussing ( 16) -Final Report by ISER (17) -Reviews of Final ISEFt Report by Acrt39 and WCC (18) -Rev:ised Detailed Plan of Study for Task 1 Date (1980) April 15 April 23 April 24 May 2 May 7 May 9 May 23 Jooe June 4-13 ' Reference "Susitna Hydropower: A Review of the Issues" prepared for the Alaska State Legislature by Arlen R. Tussing, Lois S. Kramer, Barbara F. Morae Appendix Q Appendix B Appendix B Appendix C "Introduction to Electric Power Supply Planning with Special Attention to Alaska's Railbelt Region and the proposed Susitna River Hydro- electric Project", prepared for the Alaska State Legislature by A~lon R. Tussing and Associates, Inc. "Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements," ISER Appendix G Appendix I J I I .I·•. . . I I 1 I ' ' I I I I I I ;~t t TABLE 4.1: LIST OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS (Cont'd) Event (19} -Utility and Public Workshops in Anchorage (20) -APA -Acres Meetings with WCC and the Governor's Offi~e Representatives (21) -Termination of Work Orders from APA to Acres Date (1980) Reference June 10, 11 APA Records of Meetings June 10, 11 Appendix P June 13, 30 Appendix D 4-14 I ••••• • ,-; , "'r ' I I TABLE 4.2: SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES J I Criteria Elements \ •.. ~ .· . I s I I I .~ I ) l j . I ' I Economic -Capital Coat -Cost/kWh Technical -Inatalled capacity -P 1ant factor -Resource availability ·-Transmission facilities -Access Environmentld* Physical -Water -Land -AtmospherE1 Ecological -Fisheries -Wildlife -Vegetation Social -Land use -Quality of life Institutional -Licensing -Schedultj -Finance *for detailed environmental criteria, see Table 4.3 T~ees of Attribute $ $ MW I Quantity $ $ Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I·. ~: TABLE 4.3: DETAILS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA Physical/Chemical effects (direct effects) Ecological Effects Environment Type Water -groundwater -sut"face water -coastal water Land -topography -soils -natural cover Atmospheric Meteorological Geological Noise Consumption of natural resources Fisheries Effects -deterioration of water quality -change in flow rate -alteration of waterway -change in water table, water availability -change in ice conditions -geomorphic processes induced (erosion, sedimentation) -removal of natural cover ~ alteration of topography -deterioration of soils -alteration of geologically important areas -solid waste disposal -air quality change (emissions) -long-term atmospheric effects (e.g. green house effect) -chsnge in local temperature -energy loss from environment which effects local climate (e.g. large solar may cause loss of heat to earth) -alteration of geologically important area -alter~~ion of chain of natural evenls (e<~• prevention of natural scouring of riv.er valley by periodic floods) -induced seismicity oe disturbance of human/natural population -water, forestsr natural energy -loss of natural passageways -loss of ~pawning grounds -destruction of population -alteration of natural food chains -loss of endangered and important species or Pther !Sl,i.que species 1 ' I < . I ' J ' ' I . J . I I' . . 'I j I 1 I I TABLE 4.3: DETAILS Of ENVIRONMENTAL CRJ:TERIA Ecological Effects (Cont!d) Social Effects Environment Type Vegetation Land Use land quality land planning Quality of Life -community -opportunities -economics -infrastructure -demography 4-17 . Effects -removal of natural cover -alteration! of food chain -introduction of incompatible species -loss/altei!ation of land use -wildernes~r:, scenic -recreational opportunities -forestry -archaeolo!aical and historic -traditionml livelihoods (hunting, fishing, trapping) -urban -(:r:esidential, con~~~ercial, industria.!) -mining -agriculture -ownership -loss/alteration/improvement of Q.O.L. fa.ctors -disturbance/creation of convnunity -create/destroy -effects ctf temporary economic stimulation -change ir11 property values -overburdetn existing public facilitiets -change in property values -short-teJ:m/long-tarm creation of job markot I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I 5 -TERMINATION ACTIVITIES -SUBTASK 1.08 As of June 6, following the previously discussed changes in State legislation, the Power Authority directed Acres to terminate work on Subtasks 1o03 through 1.07 and 11.03 and to complete Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02, as originally proposed in the February 1980 POS. Acres were also requested to make formal recommendations to the Power Authority on the interfacing requirements with the independent consultant to be appointed to undertake Power Alternative:s studies following termination of Acres• involvement in these studies. These requirements were such that Susitna Task 6 -Design Development, and Task 1.1 -Marketing and Financing Studies, could be continued without delay to the scheduled submission by APA of the r·equired 11 Preliminary Reports" to the Alaska State Legislature in March 1981 and April 1982. The Power Authority also dire!cted Acres to prepare this termination report for the terminated Task 1 and Task 11 activities .. Subtask 1.08 was therefore created to undertake this work. 5.1 -Scope of Work The scope of work to be undertaken under Subtask 1.08 is presented in Revision 1 to the POS dated Septembers 1980. The objective of this work is to 11 perfonn all activities necessary to terminate Subtasks 1.03 to 1.07 and 11.03, and prepare a Task 1 Termination Report" . . This subtask was introduced to incorporate all Task 1 work performed at the request of APA, other than on Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02, following the termination of work on Subtasks 1.03 to 1.07 and 11.03, June 6, 1980. This work includes: -preparation and presentation to representatives of the Governor's Office of proposals for options available for continuation of objective power alternatives studies; -assessment of impacts of State Legislature actions on Tasks 6 and 11 studies; -determination of the interfacing requirements between the independent power alternatives studies and Acres• Task 6 and 11 studies; -preparation of this Task 1 Termination Report; -documentation of associated administrative costs, inc'luding preparation of the final termination cost statement. 5.2 -Continuation of Acres' Susitna POS The scope of work for Tasks 1 and 11 in the original February 1980 POS was such that a number of key inputs to Tasks 6 and 11 of that POS would be possible. These are, most notably: (a) Forecasts of a range of likely growth rates for energy and peak demand through the year 2010 and the shapes of the corresponding load duration and daily load curves (Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02). 5-1 I (b) Estimated costs, planning characteristics and scheduling of a range of the most likely mixes of generation sources which would b~ installed in the Railbelt region to meet the capability and reserve requirements of the system through the year 2010 (Subtasks 1.03 through 1.07). (c) An assessment of risks associated with the planned expansion of the Railbelt system (Subtask 11.03). These inputs are necessary to allow studies to proceed to determine the optimum capacity, energy output, characteristics, scheduling and cost of the proposed Susitna River Basin development. Presentations were made to representatives of the Office of the Governor June 10 and 11, 1980, of four options available for continuation of Susitna studies and the proposed independent alternatives study. Each of these options, which are presented in detail in Appendix P, would have varying levels of impact on the ongoing Susitna studies. As a result of these presentations, a precise interpretation of the legislation was possible and appropriate work termination orders were issued by APA June 13 and 30. Subtask 1.01 and 1.02 activities were substantially complete at the time of the termination order. It was therefore most logical that this work should be continued to completion and hence would not delay the ongoing Susitna studies. The results of this work will thus also be available in a timely manner to the consultant selected to perform independent alternatives studies. The scope of work under item (b) above necessary for uninterrupted continuation of Susitna studies, is somewhat less exhaustive than that appropriate to the development of a comprehensive, preferred plan for Railbelt region development, such as that currently contemplated in the independent alternatives study. It was therefore appropriate that the scope of Susitna Task 6 studies be expanded to accommodate the requirements of Susitna Project planning, as proposed in Revision 1 to the POS. . The assessment of risks of alternatives is also a key element in the development of a credible financing and marketing plan for the proposed Susitna Project. The proposed expanded Task 6 Studies wi 11 also seek to examine the risks and uncertainties associated with planned expansion of the Railbelt region electric power generation system, both with and without the proposed Susitna development. 5.3 -Termination Cost Statement (a) Original POS Budget Table 5.1, reproduced from the February 1980 POS, provides a summary of estimated costs for Task 1 as it was originally conceived. At the time it was prepared, the major roles to be played by Acres were in the analysis of hydroelecric power alternatives outside of the Susitna River Basin (Subtask le03), generation planning to produce viable expansion sequences (Subtask 1.04)~ final report preparation (Subtask 1.06), and, of course, management of all subtasks. TES would have provided envionmental analysis for 5-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~) GLJ I I J ~. I . ' ' . I I I ' . . I I I hydroelectric portions of selected expansion sequences (Subtasks 1.03 and 1.05 respectively). The bulk of the work had been allocated to wee in terms of reviewing the ISER work (Subtask 1.01), load forecasting (Subtask 1.02), analysis of non-hydroelectric alternatives (Subtask 1.03)~ and environment a 1 impact assessments ( Subtask 1 .. 05) . Because early and continuing public involvement placed great emphasis on the study of power alternatives, APA requested that Acres provide a full time representative in the Anchorage Project Office to facilitate communi- cations in this area as well as to increase the level of effort to be applied to Task 1. Assignment of Mr. James Landman to fulfill there- quested role resulted in a budgetary increase $95,900 for labor, additional disbursements, and his relocation cost. This latter value does not appear in Table 5.1. (b) Costs Expended Prior to Termination By the time that termination action had been taken on June 6, 1980, for various Task 1 activities, funds expended were $145,478. Table 5.2 pro- vides a summary of expenses by subtask for Task 1 as well as an indication that no funds had yet been corrmitted for Subtask 11.03. (It should be noted that a 1 though Subtask 11.03 was a part of Task 11, Finane i ng and Marketing Studies, it bore directly upon Task 1 work for it provided for a risk analysis of alternatives to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project). Table 5.2 indicates that $31,741 had been expended for Subtask 1.03 by June 6, 1980. A portion of this total had been devoted to expanded activities undertaken after May 7, 1980, when proposed revisions to the POS were submitted to APA (see paragraph 4.2). (c) Cost Summary for Amended Task 1 Table 5.3 provides a summary of cost changes to Task 1 resulting from partial termination action. As may be seen from the tabulation, the total cost for Task 1 was reduced to $233,884, a net savings of $229,460 from the ••original budget." (Seed below for a brief discussion of the relationship between the POS cost estimates and the 11 original budgetu developed for cost control purposes). Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02 reflect totals in excess of those carried in the 11 origina1 budget 11 because of some wor.k which had been done in connection with scope revisions submitted on May 7, 1980, as well as the fact that the ISER report was completed late and monitoring requirements were in excess of those originally planned. (d) Conversion from POS Estimates to Original Budget A'J'ter publication of the POS in February 1980, cost estimates contained therein were converted to a new format to facilitate cost control. This new format is referred to as uoriginal budget 01 in Table 5.3. Some of the principal features associated with this conversion include: - A new Task 00 was formed to provide for explicit accounting for management and overall project activities. 5-3 I ' 1.· ' .•. l ' " ~ l ' .. I I ,.; : 1 "' I ; 1: . ' ' I I I -Fees which had originally been contained within the total Acres manhour costs in the POS were redistributed to provide for proper accounting by Task in accordance with the Acres-APA Agreement. - A number of changes approved by APA (such as the addition of a power study specialist as noted in paragraph (a) were incorporated into the "original budget ... The format of information contained in Table 5.2 is consistent with that of the "original budget••. Details providing a reconciliation of the original POS estimates and the 11 original budget 11 were provided to APA by letter dated June 12, 1980. Table 5.3 provides costs for Subtask 1.08 in the amounts of $7,000 for a termination report and $19,177 for preparation for termination. In addi- tion to those costs, it is anticipated that certain administrative, travel, and relocation costs will be incurred in connection with the termination action. A termination cl~im will be submitted to APA by December 31, 1980, in accordance with the terms of the Acres-APA Agreement. 5-4 I I I ~· I I ,. :. I I I I I -... --.... SUSITNA HYOROELECTRIC PROJECT -AlASKA POWER AUTHORITY Addendum to POS December 18, 1879 TABlE 5.1 -ORIGINAl POS BUDGET:S Consultant Subtask -1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 Hanhours Costs ·-,. ACRES Han ours 50 70 540 740 70 280 1,750 Hanhour Cost $ 1,700 $ 2,500 $19,000 $26,000 $ 2,500 $10,000 $ 61,700 Disbursements 1,30() hlQ.Q. J,OOO _!,000 500 2,000 12,300 -- Subtotal $ 3,000 $ 4,rB!) $22,000 $30,000 $ 3,000 $12,000 $ 74,000 wee Hanhoura 350 450 790 ,1,200 2,790 Hanhour Costa $22,200 $28,700 $49,300 $77,000 $177,200 Disbursements 102000 15l000 15 1 000 13 1000 53,000 Subtotal $32,200 $43,700 $64,300 $90,000 $230,000 01 I TES Manhours 320 1,430 1,750 01 Hanhour Cost $ 8,900 $40,400 $ 49,300 Disbursements 1 1 100 4 1 60.Q ~700 Subtotal $10,000 $45,000 $ 55,000 TOTAl MANHOURS 400 520 1,650 740 2,700 280 6,290 TOTAl COSTS $35,200 $47,700 $96,300 $30,000 $138,000 $12,000 $359,200 * Including Alaska Office Expense J ~ :~\~ ~ ~ ~~ ~:* =~>~: ; ___ ._:~~ ~ +~. 4 ··~~ ~ ILJR .IIJIJ lf1t '11 .. .lilt ... lillt .. Cf'lill .. .Jifl• .... · .. TABLE 5.2 -SUMMARY OF EXPENSES BY SUBTASK FOR TASK 1 AND SUBTASt< 11.03 THROUGH .JJNE 6, 1980 Not Broken Total down by Task 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 Sub task 1 11.03 - 1. Acres American Inc. Project Cost of Services Invoiced 10,71'2 9,431 7,755 87 28,045 June 1-6, 1980 9!16 1,.488 4.621 -7,075 Subtotal l1,7'Jlf 1o,9W 12,376 1fT 3Sj12o Overhead 8 75~ 8 1 804 8,189 8 2262 65 36,340 Subtotal 20,542 19,108 21,658 152" 26,340 Disbursements Invoiced 9,772 9,772 Accumulated, Not Inv~A~ed 3,917 3,917 Estimated Additional 42000 4,000 Subtotal 17,689 17,689 Handling Fee 2~ 1,602(8) 1,602 Fixed Fee 2,328 2,328 TOTAL 20,542 19,108 21,658 152 21,619 83,079 01 2. wee I - 0\ Invoiced 18,453 13,915 -32,368 Paid But Not Invoiced 7,795 1,564 779 305 10,443 In Circulation 560 1,312 9,038 10,910 Estimated Additional(A) J,OOO 3,000 fixed Fee 3,910 3,910 TOTAL 26,808 16,791 9,817 305 6,910 60,631 J. TES - Invoiced 210 42 252 Paid But Not Included In Circulation 56 56 Estimated(~~ditional(A) 500 500 Fixed Fee 960 960 TOTAL -~ liZ 1,460 1;7bR 4. GRANO TOTAL 47,350 35,899 31,741 152 347 29,989 145,478 5. NOTES: (A) Accounts fo1~ costs incur?ed but not yet billed by suppliers (B) Fixed fee al\location in Task 1 through end June (C) fixed fee alilocation through end May [-.-.,! ~ L J ~:::dftl ---Ill! .. ~----... -.. j -.. .. - ~ • :il -'.,. " ;. .. 't' ~ . I i I I I I I I 11 i:J!i I-:] tJ ~ ~ r::1 t1 A '-' A lJ 0 fl u n w r1 ' TABLE 5.3 -COST CHANGES RESULTING fROM TERHINATION OF TASK 1 (EXCLUSIVE OF TERMINATION CLAIH) Acres P.anhours Project Cost of Service Overhead Handling Fee Disbursements 900 Hisc 901 Tt-avel 902 Telephone/Telex/etc. 903 Reproductions 915 Publications 916 Photography 921 Co""uler Subtotal Disbursement Fee en Services TOTAL ACRES wee Original Task 1 8udoet(1 ) 3,350 55,268 41,453 6,397 3,000 9,600 4,200 4,100 4,500 900 6,000 32,300 11,586 147,004 Budqet Sub task 1.01 (3) 11 J 738 8,804 Budget Sub task 1.02(3) 14,000 10,500 Hanhours 3, 900 600 BOO Hanhour Costs 212,600 29,400 40,900 Disbursements 17,600 2,800 2,800 E1<pcnded thru June 1.03-1.06 12,463 9,347 Subtask 1.08 Termina- tion Report 190 3,771 2,828 200 100 100 4UU Prep for Termine- lion 510 10,729 8,048 200 100 100 4UO Total Task 1 r~anpower Budgets 52,701 39,527 Disburse- ments.thru June 6 728 1T,b89 Disburse- ments to complete 1.02 728 200 200 200 60J Task Wide Costs --- 2,276 19,089 11! 048 Total Task 1 Budqet 52,701 39,527 2,276 19,089 11 ,048(4) Net Chanoe from ~ ~nal(1 ) (2,567) (1 t 926) (4, 121) (13,211T (538) '(23-;-JbJJ TOTAL wee 230,200 32,200 43,700 17,032 92,932 _,_ . 92,932 (137,268) TES Manhours Manhour Costs Disbursements TOTAL TES SUS TOTAL ESCALATION GRAND TOTAL Notes: 1,750 51,500 5,830 5/,TIIJ 434,534 28,810(2) 453,344 -·-~-~---· --1;768 7,000 (1) Based on POS budget as restructured for monitoring purposes under Acres Cost Report System. 19,177 (1) Allocated portion of tolal contract escalation after removing fee escalation from total contract escalation. (2) Budget to complete is greater than original budget for these subtasks due lo: a) effort expended in Hay on Tussing changes, b) late completion by ISER on energy forecast and extraordinary monitoring requirements. {3) Prorated in same ratio as in Colunn 1 for fee to labor cost. 5-7 r;T6!f ____ --::m:;-.?gJ ___ ~_ ~ 219,341 (215, 193) 14,543 (14,267) 233,864 (229,460) '-.......... I , I I -il l i I I I I . I I I I, I I,. ~ .) I .J I ••r~ I I, A -DRAFT OUTLINE OF INTERIM REPORT: TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES . "" .~· = Q I I I I I , •. I I I ;I :1 :I I I I SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES (First Part) INTERIM REPORT CHAPTER 1 ~ INTRODUCTION 1.1 -Project Description 1.2 -Interim Report Content CHAPTER 2 -SUMMARY 2.1 -Electric Energy Demand Forecast 2.2 -Electric Peakload Demand Forecast 2.3 -Existing Generation Plan 2.4 -Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatiaves for Future Generation Plan 2.5 -Further Evaluation of Alternatives 2.6 -OGP Analyses and Formulation of Expansion Sequences 2.7 -Preliminary Environmental Assessements 2.8 -Acres Recommendations CHAPTER 3 -ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST 3.1 -Introduction 3.2 -Past and Present Electric Energy Demand 3.2.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area and Kenai Peninsu1a 3.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.2a3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.3 -Methodology for Electric Energy Demand forecasting 3.3.1 -Existing {recent) Forecasts and Data Base used 3.3.2 -Review of existing Electrical Energy Demand forecasting methods 3.3.3 -Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Data Base for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska 3.3.4 -Selection of the most suitable method for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska. Basic Assumptions. 3.4 -Future Electric Energy Demand Scenarios 3.4.1 -Impact of Conservation Measures on Electric Energy Demand 3.4.1.1 -Residential (weatherization, house heating efficiency improvement, solar home heating; electric appliances efficiency improvement) 3.4.1.2 -Commercial (improvement of electric energy supply efficiency in existing buildings; more stringent codes for new buildings) 3.4.1.3 -Industrial (cogeneration) 3.4.2 -High Probable Future Demand Scenario 3.4.2.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.2.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area· ( -~:; l :· ' } 1·-~ ., ' . ' ' ' . " ' _, [ IJ 1 ll ~·. 11 IJ til 11 IJ -~~ ' I ; l IJ.·' ; ' < l IJ,, I' ll a; IJ 3.4.3 -Low Probable Future Demand Scenario 3.4.3.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.3.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.3 .. 3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.4.4-Public and Local Agencies Input 3.4.4.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.4.2. -Fairbanks -Tanana Vailey Area 3.4.4.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3~4.5 -Base Case Scenario ATTACHMENT: ISER's Study 3.4.5.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.5.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.5.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area CHAPTER 4 -ELECTRIC PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECAST 4.1 -Introduction 4.2 -Past and Present Electric Peak Load Demand 4~2.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 4.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 4.2.3 -Glennallen -Valdez Area 4.3 -Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (Summary of paragraph 3.4.5) 4.4 -Methodology for Electric Peak Load Demand forecasting 4.4.1 -Existing Forecasts and Data Base used 4.4.2 -Review of Peak Load and Load Duration forecasting methods - 2 4.4.3.-Qualitative and Quantitative Analsyes of Data Base for Electric Peak Load Demand Forscast 4 .. 4.4 -Selection of a suitable method of forecasting Electric Peak Load and Load Duration in Alaska. Basic Assumptions .. 4 .. 5 -Future Electric Power Demand Scenarios 4.5.1 -Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (with ISER's total electric energy conservation measures built-in) 4.5.1.1 -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer cat~gory and study region 4.5.1.2 -Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and study region 4.5.1.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios for characteristic points on the load-duration curves 4.5.1.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load Ratios, by months 4.5 .2 -Impact of Load Management Measures 4.5.2.1 -Voluntary Measures 4.5.2.2 -Forced Measures (time-of-day pricing, demand controls at distribution) 4.5.2.3 -Additional Electric System Interconnections 4.5.2.4 -Cost Implications of Load Management Measures 11 1::"1 •IJ) . l ll. t j IJ' i ~· IJ ·1]1 l ll .1.''"~ i .. 'IJ ll ll I} 4.5.3 -Low Load -Growth Scenario (Addition: with L. M. measures applied) - 3 4.5.3.1 -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer category and study region 4.5.3.2 -Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and study region 4.5.3.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios, for characteristic points on the load~duration curves 4.5.3.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load ratios, by months 4.6 -Power Study Panel Input 4.6.1 -Summary of Panel Reconmendations 4.6~2 -Effects of Reiterations. ATTACHMENT: WCC's Study CHAPTER 5 -EXISTING GENERATION PLAN 5.1 -Introduction 5.2 -Railbelt Area System Capability {MW) and Peak Loads, January 1980 {per type of Generation and Utility) 5.3 q Committed and Planned Changes in Generating Equipment (near-term) 5.3.1 -Retirements 5.3.2 -Reratings 5.3.3 -Additions 5.3e4 -Purchases and Sales ATTACHMENTS: 1980 Utilities• Reports CHAPTER 6 -PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE GENERATION PLAN 6.1 -Introduction 6.2 -Preliminary Evaluation Criteria 6.2.1 -Energy Resource Availability in Alaska 6.2e2 -Technical and Commercial Use Availability 6.2.3 -Expected Fuel Dependency 6.2.4 -Site Availability 6.2.5 -Preliminary Health, Safety and Environmental Concerns 6.2.6 -Global Cost Estimates (mills/kWh) 6.2.7 -Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analysis 6.3 -Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Alternatives 6.3.1 -Fossil Fuel Alternatives 6.3.1.1 -Coal-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.2 -Oil-Fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.3 -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.4 -Oil-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.5 -Natural Gas-fired Combined Cycle 6~3.1.6 -Oil-fired Combustion Turbines 6.3.1.7 -Natural Gas-fired Combustion Turbines ·~ ,1} .• ~ . 5 ~if\ 'II . .J 11 I] .IJ ·~ IJ ·~ ll IJ ·~ ·IJ.l, l '\ Jj IJ I ~ 4.5.3 -Low Load -Growth Scenario (Addition: with L. M. measures applied) - 3 4.5.3.1 -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer category and study region 4.5.3 .. 2 -Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and study region 4~5.3.3 ~ Per Unit Load Ratios, for characteristic points on the load-duration curves 4.5.3.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load ratios, by months 4.6 -Power Study Panel Input 4.6.1 -Summary of Panel Reconmendations 4.6.2 -Effects of Reiterations. ATTACHMENT: WCC's Study CHAPTER 5 -EXISTING GENERATION PLAN 5.1 -Introduction 5.2 -Rai lbelt Area System Capabi 1 ity (f·in) and Peak Loads, January 1980 (per type of Generation and Utility) 5 .. 3 -Committed and Planned Changes in Generating Equipment (near-term) 5b3.1 -Retirements 5.3 .. 2 -Reratings 5.3~3 -Additions 5.3.4 -Purchases and Sales ATTACHMENTS: 1980 Utilities• Reports CHAPTER 6 -PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE GENERATION PLAN 6.1 -Introduction 6.2 -Preliminary Evaluation Criteria 6.2.1 -Energy Resource Availability in Alaska 6.2.2 -Technical and Commercial Use Availability 6.2.3 -Expected Fuel Dependency 6.2.4 -Site Availability 6.2.5 -Preliminary Health, Safety and Environmental Concerns 6.2o6 -Global Cost Estimates (mills/kWh) 6.2.7 -Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analysis 6.3 -Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Alternatives 6.3.1 -Fossil Fuel Alternatives 6.3.1.1 -Coal .. fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.2 -Oil-Fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.3 -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.4 -Oil-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1 .. 5 -Natural Gas ... fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.6 -Oil-fired Combustion Turbines 6.3.1.7 -Natural Gas-fired Combustion Turbines :fjr .1 : I 1 l '! ' fJ j i .~ i i .• i : J ~ ~ ·~ I I 11 ' l I I I ;1, ;. " 1 .1,"'.; . ' ( I 1 .. ' l 6.3.2 -Nuclear Alternatives 6.3.2.1 -Converter Reactors (LWR, HWR) 6.3.2.2 -Breeder Reactors 6.3.2.3 -Fusion 6~4 -Other Generation Alternatives and Alternative Fuels 6v4.1 -Municipal Solid Waste 6o4.2 -Wood-fired Steam Cycle 6.4.3 -Biomass Gasification Applications 6.4.4 -Wind Energy Driven Trubines 6$4.5 -Geothermal Energy Driven Turbines 6.4.6 -Solar Thermal Steam Cycle 6.4.7 -Solar Photovoltaic 6.5 -Hydro and Tidal Alternatives 6s5.1 -Other Conventional Hydro Developments 6.5.2 -Small-scale Hydropower Plant Potential 6.5.3 -Tidal Power Resources of the Cook Inlet Region 6.6 -Susitna Hydraulic Project (SHP) 6.6.1 -Corps of Engineers Project Cost Update 6.6.2 -Preliminary Financial and Marketing Study 6.6.3 -Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analyses 6.7 -Additional Electric Energy Conservation Measures (Non-structural Alternative) 6.7.1 -List of Additional ,Conservation Measures 6.7.2-Cost Implications of Additional Conservation Measures 6.8 -Ranking and Selection of Alternatives 6.9 -Power Study Panel Input 6.9.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 6.9.2 -Effects of Reiterations CHAPTER 7-FURTHER EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (January 1980 Price Level) 7.1-General Assumptions 7.2 -Unit Sizes and Years of Availability/Unit Size 7.3-Plant Capital Costs ($/kW) -4 7.4-Annual Capital Requirements ($/kW/Yr) 7.5-Operating (non-fuel) and Maintenance Costs (Fixed-$/kW/Yr Variable -mills/kWh) 7.6-Fuel Heat Contents (Btu/unit) and Prices {$/unit) 7.7-Heat Rates (Btu/kWh) and Fuel Costs (mills/kWh) 7.8 -Differential Fuel Cost Escalation 7.9 -Scheduled and Forced Outage Rates CHAPTER 8 .. OGP ANALYSES AND FORMULATION OF EXPANSION SEQUENCES 8.1 -General Assumptions 8.2 -Expansion Scenarios with SHP 8.3 -Expansion Scenarios without SHP 8.4 -Decentralized Expansion Scenarios 8.5 -Identification of Other Expansion Scenario (less economic attractive) 8g6 -Power Study Panel Input 8.6.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 8.6.2 -Effects of Recommendations on Expansion Scenarios. I I I I I I I I I I I I .'l fj 11 •I]~ ,] .11 .} ;~ t 11 ' . ' ll 11 ll I ' . IJ I ·I I I I I CHAPTER 9 -PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 9.1 -Assessment Criteria and Methodology 9.2 -Expansion Scenarios with SHP + 9.3 -Expansion Scenarios without SHP 9.4-Decentralized Expansion Scenarios 9.5 -Other Expansion Scenarios (less economic attractive) CHAPTER 10 -GENERAL PUBLIC HE'JIEW 10.1 -Summary of General Public Comments 10.2 -Effects of Reiterations 10.3 -ACRES Recomnendations .. -5 --n~ ' J j : ·r:.! ; ~ I ' ! ' ll· ' ' ' < ) ' ,] IJ 1: f li 'I! I I I I I . B~ -REVIEWS' OF ARLON-TUSSING REPORT BY ACRES-AND WCC r r~ 1\ I' I~ a: I I) ~·j [ I I I. I • ~ ~r.• ..... t ...... , ...... '•(1 •. -·· -.. .. . . ., . 'J '· t' .·!.:J. :' ,, .. ,,\·: ' ' )' 'f' l .• ,_ r ·-·------ April 24, 1980 P5700.11 Mr. Robert Mohn Director of Engineering Alaska Power Authority 383 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Robert: Susitna Hydroelectric Project Recommended Changes to Power Alternatives Study The purpose of this letter is-to provide a rap1d response to reconmendations contained in the Arlen Tussi'ng Report which we received Apri 1 21. On the basis of that report and the obvious pub 1 ic concern about the Power Alternatives Studies, we -·~ recommending certain changes be made to the scope of the work. These \. ..tnges are summarized herein: subject to your agreement in principle w·ith our proposal, we will be pleased to forward mor~ detailed work plans within the next week. We .. believe that these \.hanges will respond to the very valid concerns raised . by Mr. Tussing and othars, and result in a high quality product. We would welcome any further comnents you may wish to make. Before discussing our specific proposals, we believe it to be important to note that: (1) (2) ' The GO-NO-GO decision points in the POS relate to continuation of study efforts for Susitna and not construction of the project. We are now recommending two such decision points, one in early 1981 much as originally proposed, a second in the spring of 1982. The first decision was and is still intended to provide the Authority with some assurance that continuation of Susitna Project studies are likely to be worthwhile. The second decision will provide the more detailed comparison of all viable alternatives suggested by Tussing · such that a decision can be made on whether to proceed with licensing of the project • . When the Plan of Study was prepared origi~ally, we set out to describe a program for the study of alternatives which.is, in our view, sufficient to satisfy the pertinent requirements far license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission {FERC). In ( the interest· of minimizing costs, we included no more effort than this sufficiency requirement. , ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Cunsulllng El)giuocrs ru~ llhutly l~;,nk Uuildwu. Mnin nl Coutt Uul(:l?U, Nuw YOtk I-12U2 • I i I I •' I I I • I I I I I I I :1 I I I; I I •' ! . , . I / i I .. I Mr e Robert Mohn April 24, 1980 - 2 / A 1 ask a Power Authority :1 . ! Basis for Recommended· Scope Changes Having attended all of the recent public meetings,, I am keenly aware that there is a strong interest in the alternative stu~y effort. It. is evident that whatever decision is made about future generating capacity in the Railbelt, it must be based upon unusually exhaustive studies which clearly support it. In addition, you were kind enough to provide us a list of questions which should be addressed by us prior to the tirrie that the Governor makes the first GO-NO-GO decision early in 1981. Some of these questions also highlight the need for a strong alternatives study.. We, therefore, cone 1 ude that it is in the best interests .of the State ·and, in particular, of the Alaska Power Authority, to increase the level of effort expended on power alternatives studies to a point well above the minimum necessary for successful license applicationo In the event that funding can .be made available for the purpose, I recommend that the Scope of Work covered by our agreement of December 19, 1979, be changed to accommodate the broader objective of providing convincing evidence to the public that any recommended future expansion sequence for generating capacity is the best possible selection, regardless of whether or not the Susitna Hydro- electric Project is contained within ita Satisfaction of this latter objective will more than meet the test of FERC scrutiny if Sus.itna appears to be an appropriate development. I believe the recommendations contained within Arlen Tussing's report are basically sound~ and I have prepared a number of attach- ments for your consideration describing how we would implement them ·if additional funding were made availablec The tabulation at Attachment 1 begins with tasks and subtasks as currently detailed in the Plan of Study and distributes recommended funds in a manner which we believe best meets the broader objectives described above. To the· extent that new subtasks appear appropriate, they are desi g- nated by descriptive titles. Remarks are provided so that you will have .some understanding of our rationale in the construction of this table. Attachments 2 and 3 are a set of flow charts which display the manner in which information is developed and processed through- out the course of the work. ACRES AMERICAN tNCORPOHATED • ' ! I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I ! r i' l· L I ' I I / J/ ,. I I I I . I I I •• I I I I I I I Mr .. Robert Mohn Alaska Power Authority Summary of Scope Changes Our proposed approach is as follows: April 24, 1980 -3 (I) We propose to significantly increase the work involved in dealing with the identification and description of power alternatives. Tnis proposed increase accounts for a.number of · issues raised by Mr. Tussing and others: · (a) Whereas we had anticipated eliminating a sizeable number of alternatives at the initial screening stage because of questions of technical availability {including avail- ·ability of reliable systems), obvious high costs, and severe environmental conseque_nces, it now appears th.at many more alternatives should survive the first screen. In short, there are more alternatives to be studied in greater detai 1 . (b) More detail is appropriate for site specific aspects of certain a.lternatives so that more refined data can .be· generated regarding costs, risks, schedul~s, and · financing. ("c) To ensure most effective public input as well as profes- .sional review, we now propose to insert a number of new screening points (as may be seen from the flow diagram), which may lead to further iterations. These in turn may be expected to yield additions of alternatives not previously addressed as well as mod1fications to site 1 oc at ions, p 1 ant sizes, assumed av ai ·tab i li ty date?, and the .1 ike. Sufficient funds must be provided if these reiterations are to be accomp 1 i shed. (d) · We propose to increase our description and analysis of . conservation and load management.. (It is worth noting, by . the way, that the POS did address time of day pricing and ·demand controls in Subtask 1.03, despite Mr. Tussing's assertion to the contrary). (2) Whereas we had originally planned to identify the single most promis1ng (and therefore recommended) expansion sequence by the end of Task l, we now propose to present a number of alterna- tive sequences for pub 1 ic review. Our own recommendation to you in the final report for Task 1 will be made only after the public scrutiny process is complete. • ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED I I I ! i l I I :i I' " < I I I I I I I ~· I ' -t i -1 I i ! j I I I J ! /· . . Mr. Robert t4ohn April 24, 1980 -4 Alaska Power Author1ty . . (3)· We have from time to time in the past several months expressed some apprehension as to the quality of the data base for ISER•s work. Gaps do exist, and I believe we can gain from continua-4 tion of the ISER work well beyond submission~of their initial· · report. Thus, we propose that the sum of $100,000 be appropri- ated for continuing support of ISER's forecasting effort. There are related data base deficiencies insofar as load fore- casting is concerned. These, too, we propose to address by increasing the level of effort now allocated to Subtask 1902. We hope to involve ISER in the development of load forecast and load duration curves, particularly as these items will be affected by load management strategies. (4) While details as 'to marketing, financing, cost, risks, and schedules are clearly appropriate in a final Susitna develop- ment selection, such information will not be available at the time of the first GO-NO-GO decision. Stated simply!' such details cannot b~ produced with precision until the alternative Sus itna deve 1 opme.nts are themse 1 ves c 1 early defined. We propose to modify the nature of the first GO-NO-GO decisi.on. By the end of the first year of study, we will have developed expansion sequences with and without Susitna as well as for a decentralized alternative set. (It' is important to note that "with Susitna 11 implies a development of the Corps of Engineers ~cheme; pass ib ly with an enve:l ope defined around its parameters to express the likely range· in which other Susitna alternatives might lie. The Corps plan does have defined costs and a schedule, though we must update this information to the present). These sequences as we 11 as other pre 1 iminary d-ata on costs and impacts wi 11 be the subject of an interim report and wi 11 be presented at a pub 1 ic meeting early in 1981. If Susitna·is not selected by the Optimum .Generation Program even when it is a part of the input set, strong evidence will exist to suggest that the decision should be 11 NO G0 11 and that further study work on Susitna should be stopped, probably in favor of more detailed study of whichever alternative set (or sets) appears best for railbelt needs. If, on the other hand, clear . economic advantage can be seen in the uwith Susitna 11 sequence, it is 1 ikely that further study can be justifiedo The second GO-NO-GO decision point would occur about a year later. At that time, detailed studies will have been made of possible alternatives within·the Susitna Basin and each of the various expansion sequences will have been studied for financial and marketing aspects, environmental impacts, risk analyses, and cost and schedule refinements. A sensitivity analysis will also have been conducted and reiterations, where appropriatet • ACnES AMERICAN INCORPORATED ,• l I I I I ( I I WI ) I ·'j l··. ,;,:,.., ~ .. ~ I . I · ~~-Mr. Robert Mohn A1aska Power Authority Apri1 .2~, 1980 -5 .. will have been made. This second decision p~int would be a decision to proceed with license application and to do Phase II work or, alternative 1y, to stop further work all the project --.; 1/ I I I ,I I I I • I I 'I •• I I I 'I I again, perhaps, with an indication that any favored alternative set should be pursued. (5) As noted above, reiterations after detailed marketing, finan~ irtg, cost and schedule, risk, and environmental studies may be necessary. Certainly the demand itself could change as a function of the way in which generating capacity comes on 1 ine to satisfy it. Peak loads and load duration curves may also be modified. In addition, of course, ongoing ISER studies (see Item 3 above) may have yielded new demand and load data. our pro pes a 1 accounts for. a number of rei ter at ion dec is i a ns as shown on the flow charts at Attachments 2. and 3. However, it is import"ant to note· that ·the _coSt estim3.tes and schedules are based on no more than one reiteration in each case. (6) We agree with the recommend at ion to estab 1 ish a multidi scip 1 in- ary panel arid a new subtask has been created to identify it and its objectives explicitly. We are prepared to recommend the composition of this panel, but we believe that the ~ctual selection of its members should be made by APA. (7) One important part of the sensit·'vitY analysis to be conducted in the latter phase of the study will be an examination of "what if" questions o~ the type Mr. Tussing poses in his recom- . mendation Number 7. (8) While the Tussing report does not include specific recommenda- tions regarding environmeiltal studies of alternatives, we are convinced that increases in level of effort devoted to such matters as technical aspects, financing, and the 1 ike should be b a 1 anced by corresponding i ncre as es in environment a 1 assess- ments and analysis. We propose a substantial increase in environment a 1 eff art dev a ted to a 1 tern at i v e studies • ( 9) The total order of magnitude of study work suggested in Attachment 1 amounts to an increase of approximately $1.1 million for efforts by the ACRES team and $100,000 for additional I SER work • These v a 1 ues are sltbj ect to refinement because they were of necessity generated rapidly. We will be pleased to develop· detai 1 ed work plans, manhour allocations, and disbursement estimates in the event that you favorably consider this proposal. ' -. ACRES AMERICAN tNCORPORATED • I I I {: " ' . ' I I I I I I I f '····! . 'l i I .. I ' I :ll I I I I ' l l j 1 1:·.'· I I I I : . J . , l • " ' Mr. Robert Mohn Alaska Power Authority Schedule and Personnel Requirements April 24, 1980 - 6 We have done an initial analysis of the schedule required to undertake the proposed work and we believe that it can be accomplished in time to· accommodate the two decision points I described aboveo Much will depend, of course, on the extent to which reiterations may be required as well as on the earliest possible availability of ISER's initial repart.(naw scheduled for May 15). I suggest that we work together closely to monitor these items. In any case, a precise date far the next set of public meetings should not be selected until the latter part of 1980. Should the legislature decide to provide funds for this expanded scope of ·work, we are prepared to increase the commitment of certain key project personnel (e.go A. Vircol) as well as to supplement the cu~rent study team with individuals within our organization experienced in the study of a 1 tern at ive energy concepts •. We wi 11 furnish resumes far these persons \vhen the detailed work plan is submittedv I have not at this time attempted to counter various assertions contained wtihin the body of the Tussing report, though I do not agree with some of ·them. We will be pleased to provide detailed response in the near future if you desire. · I look forward to your comments on this proposal. Should you find it appropriate, a meeting can be arrange.d in the very near future to discuss its content." CAD/JDL/rw Attach. ACRES AMEJUCAM INCORPORATED . Sincerely, . . • "I • ....<:..-· . . , C. '!.. "v v "._...c. ...... , ......... '-~ ··~· ( ,~ . ~· john D. Lawrence Project Manager • I I I . ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I' r .. , f t --= Swtask ISZR Work • 1 .. 01 -Review ISER 1.02 -forecasting Peak load Demand 1.03 -Identify Alternatives 1.04 -OGP Analyses and Exoansion Sequence 1.05 -Impact Assess- ments . . ~· ~ -- Uriginar- POS Value $ 60(1 ) 35.2 47.7 +100 96.3 +100 30.0 138.0 ... ---.. ~ -.. - , AT T ACW·•ENT 1 SlJHNARY Of CHANGES RECOI1f1£NDED TO INCREASE LEVEL Of EffORT FOR ALTERNATIVE POWER STUDIES ($ x 1000) Other Recommended I New Chanqes Value . +100 ~160 + 50 85.2 . 147.7 +100 296.3 + 70 100~0 +150.0 288.0 .. ·~ ..... ·--~ ~ ' Remarks Provides funds for major updates, especi; after census data is in Permits continuing interaction with ISER ~ including the formulation of a place for proving the data base for future energy a; load forecasting Provides separate peak load and load dural for each load martagement strategy at each demand level · Provides detailed analysis of load manager. strategy and conoiders interrelationship ~ conservation strategy. Develops energy co servation in more detail as an alternative Provides for refined site-specific data to assess energy resource availability, techn and commercial use availability, expected dependency, preliminary safety, health and environmental concerns, costs per unit of electricity supplied, schedules and input risk analyses. Si9nificant increases due to: (1) More alternatives to be evaluated in- depth and screened through OGP Progr (2) Decentralized scenario added (3) Imposition of three load management strategies on each demand level (4) Reiterate when necessary using additl; OGP analyses and Delphi method whe:: appropriate. Balances more detail on study of other fa·· (cost, risk, site specificity, finance; el. Has to be expanded to additional scenarios (Decentralized scenario, three load manage1 strategies). .. Ull!!f i·~. 1.1'~ • > Cllll r111iiiiiiii!i ~ llal LlliJ tJ.II .. ~Iilii ' Jlli jJJr1J Jill liiil ~ ...... Jiiil .... Jill liiil , .. ~~J" ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont'd) SUNNARY Of CHANGES RECOt111£NDED TO INCREASE LEVEL Of EffORT fOR ,\lTERNATIVE P.OWER SHJPIES ($ X 1000) . Original Other . Subtask POS Changes Associated Wit~4 ) Recommendation Number Recommended Value 1 -2 J 4 5 6 8 Chanqes 1. 06 -Report 12 + 25 + .50 ' . I 6.01 .... 6.08 354.6 +200 . tsusltna alts) . $ 191.1(2 ) + 50(J; . 13~01~ .• 02 -Pfoj.ect . ver J.ew and nt:ernal Reports . . . • 11.03 -Alternative 17.5 + 50 . Ri.sk Analysis . (J; . . . . . 11.04 -Susitna Risk 24.5 ' + 50 . Analysis (3 . 11.12-Preliminary (Now) .. + 75 Marketing and . Financial Studies 1.07 -Power Study Panel (New) + 75 . . rn .,.. c;; ·mn,; .9 :zoo 2.75 150 75 75 120 zuu l50 (1) The ISER work is funded in part hy Ar>A ($30) and in part by the Legislature ($30) (2} Although this is the POS value for subtasks 11.01 and 11.02, the work involved is only psrtially in support of power studie$ • .. (3) These values may not require full additional funding by the Legisla~ure if pending ploposed Task 11 changes are accepted by APA. . . New Value 87.0 . 554.6 $241.1 . . . 67.5 . 74.5 75 . 75 . . I ll:>1.9 {4) Numbers above each column are keyed to numbr.red recommendations ort pp 22-23 of the Tussing report. e-·-· ~·-. J.,__ -. r:;-:::;~.tt ~ ... -~ llilllll-.. --......:o.s;.... __ ~-......... ' Remarks \ $50k for interim report ~nd updates. $25k t account for reporting on broader scope, mar alternatives, etc. Develop more details on cost and schedule fr,, all Susitna alternatives (not just '~electe~ . scheme) Alt~oX~h Task 11 is ~tAl~ under d~scussion WJ.t A, changes no e ere are ased on effect of Tussing recs on plan as currently in POS Major increase in number of expansion sequences to be considered requires corres- pending increase in risk analysis . . Risk analysis would now be done on all Susitr alternatives (not just one) Marketing and financing studies were to be made only for Susitna and only if selected • More detail .is now sought earlier per Hr • Tussing's comment •· ' . Adds subjective probability factors permittir increase in information available at review points • Adds objectivity factor to eliminatE .potential bias . ' .. l~.' ~ I • • i I : t : ' ..-I t•e Gill ~ G8l i:l'"ii8 f'~ ~ ~rrc _ ..... Jill ,J..:-11 Jliiil JJiflil .iiiiil ... Jilil iill .iiiil • . I . . ' • ... ' -. . . . . I -----------------------------------------------------~~cr~o""' ~UT.•2) ~--~----------------------------------------------·----------------, f Possaeu. CDNSZRtJAT!Of . 'S."TlViU.CioiU I n~~ ~ • TO~A~ :-' LOAD$ . . , 1 tJo -~~ 'I ~~> MJ'IN 1 M"r CO$,. IOfNTIF'( • 1111 ,., .. ,.,.o I I p ,1 • I LO~D ~-OUIOI:ATION.S IOE)JTIF'Y t-o.-.~ 1"\AH' M•l" f."PTV4Tl-'l. I I iNE~-gv;. cos.T l"oo\AAo.l' M 1 T MPUC:AT~ I t! • StJSJT-"'"-PRILIMIN"lt~ (C.OL f~J>.HCJ~ f IMJP:JC.l.TiH£ ""oPo) ;t.L s) 'Tuoy lh • • jl P#I>.WCL ~c.u ... ....a UGI.SL\T&.D lb I I .... LOAD MAI-4'M'T .. !tPANSIOfo.l " ~ scr.~ffl'05 ru . ~USI'TJ:t.,, ..... t . . J!AP AtU IGtl Plt.NEL II SCIJ.JAf:IO$. !;C~f._.., Y~t"Oia.JT '!o-U~ITN..._ PULJMIN~ ~ANK. t CO'IoT. ln~l{ C..ILN&Jit.tC. a...ua..-.c..: Al..Ti!~t-IP.T f.".MJ~L ......,_..a.~IU1'Y S£LS.C.T ' ·~----~----------------J l . . . t Pttf.LI)o\IN"Pl'f "\ { "'"~""-"'q MM:ttTING. ~TUD'( Ell).,l,lt-J._TL ~-IW~~~~ I (~D-N ~ll'l:rY' .••=n:~1'41\T~3 '---vr.s .Rr.•uJtAu -- NO Df.ClNTl'N..-L,..f I C. C. D l.')(P"AN:totOH ~ClN,.Ktos -- I IOf:NltFY ~ ----•-lfllCDt"OMIC.A&... {.1(,./'WJI~ l"~t-----·1 SCtf.lt\~10 S. I . . . . ' J..--.1 fl'f"l l.RIN\ Ru>-OJtT l f'llaLtc. Ca-tt·\f.l" T Yt~ COttTIHUE GO .IOI!.TAfi..I.D I ~:\Tftd •• ~lLIDII~ D£Til-.IU:O /A..NJ..,.lY s.t3 0, P-l'T tltUAT NO '-~ur. 2. I APPI!O>C • S.C.U £.Out..(. If> (v .. ~u.Ks. ' . Y:lf:Ofl\ . Z.l 2.4 %Go ~ 40 NOGO 4L ~ . STOP ~LL V\/OKK:. SUSITNA. UYDROtLECTRIC PROJECT PLAN OF STUDY ALT[RNATI Vb:S STUDY SWT .\It\ APRIL. 23_. '80 tNt.."/ 1,"80) I '"· r.::~·~ ... -.i,;.;."'"..-~~':. ~ .. ...,."~~~ .:""' ';.•# .,._" .... --1. ;~·,.·~.rtt..;", :· .. to ~ ·: • • ~ "' ""-;·";~ ;., + 'y' ·:~ ... ...... • .. • ~ ~ j \ • ~ : ",..·~· :· ' ~ ~ ........ ~~:··~~---~~~hjlq ~ ;jt'~'. ..... ~ ,:lliiiiiiiiiiii! .. > .~ ~ ,·~ -/'''• ~ ,.~ -;····· ~ ..... ~ .~,,.~,~--+••-~' ~ '~ • .-~ I '-·-··~~,•·-.-,.,. •···''•···'*~-- r . . • ! I .. .. • ~ I . • .. .. • ; ·. I .- . . APPROX. .•• • _sou: CU.E · '"·. ; J .1MK£le:S --=45:::::.-::--1='~.1-.""'\ . :MAY_j,_co, . _ . . . ·. .. • 6 ...:31 :-:.:.. ·· . · . .• ) ) ) Sl . . . -. ... . :;: . . .: :' .. .. ·. ·, f!?ENSTivrrrj· f~>A.NE'L' J-~ " AN"AL'I'SES • ..SCR~ . •. ... ~osrs :-t ~ • ~SCU[CI.U I -' ' • R~EMenS • . -Puet..IC ... . . --COMMENT I ~ .:..5Gu• • f -. . . -1 I : =co_:·_--· .. K •• ~ •• • . . -CSO -------:g4 . .. ....... . . -a~ ... -~ r. _JQ-;t" -· •. ~--."' ---... ' .... ----..:-" . . . . . . .. . - • _;,-·· " :t:ATER :UPDATES .' "'}.K}GQ II STOP-... :AlL W'ORK _ ·,,----· -:..114 . . : ''• "... "" ... . ........... :· .,.._. . -· . . . . -·•. .. . ~ . • ! •• • • • ... 1-· : .· --· • , -~., ---_,., (f · . . . . . : · ·. '· · 3USITI>JA-J:lYDROt;:l·~~cr . . •· .. ~ . · ... · · .. ·.., ·' ., . ·: ' . · '· : ' · · ' · Pl A 1\1 • OF STI JOY·· . ·' ' . . . . . .. . .. . . . . I . J . . . . --.. . . . .. . . '. . . -• . -· . ... I --. ~ -•• ~ I . " ' . . . . -. ._ __ . ·····. ·"· ... , ,., .. ' I . . ., . .,,. -" ·. ' . s----·· ·~·"·.-: ........ · .. , : ···, · · '·. · ·-· ·: : >: . • :.:a1JNCLUDES':IX;C~~ • . . ' • .. · _ -~·· .... • ··· .... :.-,: ... ~ .;.:::.""-: ·· · , : -.Jrr-rr-Ru·~Ttvr-s-:-sruol.Es-7) sur;~:;T:? I I --" . .. • . . . ... -.. ' . . . . . -"\LJ.I::; ..... ~. • . .. .J •• • " -. •. • . . .. . . . . . . . . •. _,... . . . . . . -= • . . --eo . - "' . . . . . . • ·• •• . .. . • ·. .• . . . .... ,. •• f . -APRI[ 23 -· .... -.. . .. . -.. . . .. . ... ,.. . •j D ,•" " • • • • • •· . ' '" • • '• ' • "';"" • -,·•· • • ' ' ' z • • . . ·:.. • •. :z • . . ~ . • •. . => • • K • ' ' . .. . . ~ . . ------:"" -------·~·--·----="' -• -· --.-,,-·-..-.~.-..-.;-·-~--'---, ll 11 . I , } "'' I I , •• I ' ... ". 1 I 'I .,. I ,J I I ~ .. ~,- I '1 . . J I ·l ~I M,..::r:ri c · P ." Yould ~ ' · ·Exe,cut1ve: Director .. A1aska···Power Authority 333F West 4th·. Avenue.· Su1 ttl 31 :. An(:horage,·. Alaska 99501 r, ·At·tent1 on: :. Mr. Robert A. f1ohn I • , . 'Hay· 2, '1980 I P5700.11 T ~133 :·~ (le·ar:tRobert: ~·Sus1tna Hydr.oelectr1c:-·Projeet l\ Review of Arlon. Tussing Report •. Q .• I I. I ,. 11 ~ ~ ..... .,~ ... ,. • ,. .,. ..... ,.. .,. _ • ~ • • ! l"tta,.·pteased to attach a .su11111ary,.r~s~psa to sp~~f1c~1ss~~s,raised :J~b~f .. :the .. AI,ton Tussing Repor:t. ~· .. We! are;c;oJ1t1nu1ng~ .• ~o~:d~veJop our r:: ptropcsals for-deta1Ject a~o~!ttstLtot;~e POS~ 4nt.t~e .. ~~s1s. of. gur 1 . ..11stter.. .. dated .AP:r:11:·.2.4a Pi~le•se ca.ll ;11i .Y.D~;Jl.av~ .• ~;ny:J1~.~~:\,1p!J~· :· .:S1 ncere lY, ... ~ • ,...... ' .. w. .. . ,. .. " .. , -1 . . . t .~ • I' . .. , ., , .. ., J • .. " . . ACRES J',MEf:ICAN IJ.lCSJHPOA 1\ TED 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I •• I .. ' " SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT REVIEW OF REPORT BY ARLON R. TUSSING ET ALIA DATED 15 APRIL 1980 1 -INTRODUCTION P5700.14.0l The report entitled "Susitna Hydropower: A Review of the Issues" was issued as a 11 Review Draft 11 by Arlen R. Tussing, Lois S. Kramer and Barbara F. Morse on 15 April 1980. Tids report, referred to in this document simply as the "Tussing Report" contains a critical revie.w of the Alaska Power Authority/Acres Pmerican Incorporated Plan of Study (POS} for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project dated February 1980. The purpose of this document is to present the considered response of Acres American Incorporated to several of the key issued raised in the Tussing Report. ln this response we initially summarize in Section 2 the purpose of the POS and discuss its intended philosophy. In Section 3 we discuss some of the specific· issues raised in the Tussing Report. It is proposed that amendments be made to the POS to reflect some of the points matle in the Tussing Report: further documentation will be forthcoming to support such changes as they become available. 2 -PURPOSE OF POS The Susitna Plan of Study is a dynamic document which has been and will continue to be modified and expanded as the concerns and needs of various agencies and the general public become known. There are obviously a number of courses of 'action 1 which the Power Authority might take over the next 10 years or so to meet the future electric power needs of the Railbelt Region. As presently conceived, the Susitna POS embodies but one of these courses of action. The scops of work will: -establish the criteria by which the technical) economic, financial and environmental feasibility of the Susitna Project should be measured; -assess whether Susitna or some other alternative future Railbelt generation expansion plan satisfies such criteria; and finally, if such criteria are satisfied, pursue the FERC licensing of the Project. In other words, the study will establish whether the Susitna development is appropriate and if so, how best to proceed with that developmeht. The POS has since its inception undergone a continuing process of evolution in satisfying the overall objectives (as presented in SectionAl). At the same time, provision has been mada for tapping the input of those concerned through . ., . 4 • • - 2 reviews, public meetings and the action list. As a result, the scope.and direction of the Susitna st~dy may be chanyed at any time or the study even terminated, should the evidence indicate that some other course of action should be pursued instead. · 2.1 -The Evolving Study Process . A prime example of the process of evolution of the POS is expansion of environmental studies which has already taken place. This was as a res~lt of concerns expressed by the State and Federal environmental agencies involved. A number of other concerns have a 1 so been taken into c~ons ide ration (Section A4). The Tussing Report evinces probably the most detail~p assessment yet maqe of the POS, and is welcomed as a positive contribution to tne development of ~n acceptable course of action. : It is regrettable that Tussing has made his report carry comments which are entirely out of place or which appear to be· carrying a bias message emanating from those in opposition to the project. By and large, the "Review and· Issues" is well prepared, thoughtful;· and well written. Continued input by Tussing and his associates to the House Committee of the Alaska Legislature would no doubt be a useful contribution to the projecte As our work·on the basis of t~e POS . p~oceeds, the scope for criticism will surely diminish. · I •• I I I .I I I I A significant flaw in the Tussing Report, however, is perh_aps its preoccupation · ... with making explicit judgements before al.l the evidence is in, i .. e, before the. study is don.e.J Many of Tussing•s comments may well be valid, but until studied, cannot be verified. With few exceptions, to do more requires that the work actually be done first: It should be understood that the study as presently planned, a 30 month, $30 million ex~rcise, can only be fully described by the actual products of the study, which are the numerous repqrts and documents which •• will be prepared during the course of the work. The POS is an attempt to summarize what will.be done, how, when,·by whom, and at what cost. 2.2 -The Go-No-Go'Decision Points A major misunderstanding of the Tussing Report also appears to relate to Go-No-Go decision points. In the original POS there were essentially three such decisjon points. During the proposed 30.-month study period, each of these decision points relate to "continue-to-study11 or J•not-continue", rather than 11 build the·project 11 • We wholeheartedly agree with Tussing that a Project as large as Susitna requires extensive study and cost expenditures to fully determine whether it is the appropriate course of action. In Acres' judgement, a 30-month period and a $30 million expenditure is neces~ary for a final der.ision to be made which adequately considers all issues involved. Nevertheless, it would clearly not be cost effective to defer an obvious No-Go decision until the end of the 30-month period. The power Authority has not . • • .. : ' . " ~ • I I . - . 1 ... I I I ~! I • I - 3 . only fiscal responsibility, but also cannot delay its power generation· expansion planning activities for that long. The first Go-No-Go decision in early 1981 will consequently be made on the basis of an initial comparison of alternatives essentially based on available information and considerable well-informed · judgement. There appears to be no difficulty in establishing that, with the constraints imposed on data collection, load forecasting, alternative energy studies, etc., it will be difficult enough to make the decision whether or not to proceed with the study within one year; it would be entirely impractical and imprudent to take the much more profound decision regarding whether or not to build at that time, unless some overwhelming factor(s) intervene (either for or against). As a result of Tussing•s comments, we agree that advancing and· expanding the scope of s·ome activities will aid in making this decision. Nevertheless, the· decision process will also involve significant public and state legislative participation. We are certain that the Susitna studies will not be allowed to continue without a convincing demonstration that Susitna is likely to competitive with its alternatives. 2.3 -Modification to Power Alternative Studies The recommendations by Tussing in regard to increase in the level of effort in the Power Study area, if adopted, cannot help but improve the quality of _ information before APA and the Alaska legislature at the time of the decision to proceed with study or not. It is not for Acres to judge whether the additional . funding required be made as this is a matter of budgeting priorities for the state government. In accepting the·scope of work and schedule under the revised POS for Task 1 Acre~ and its subcontractors. undertook a challenging task which could, however, be achieved if inputs from other sources were available to the extent required and on schedule. In all probability, more than the planned input effort could have been required and provided. While still pursuing a course which limits as far as possible outlays in the first year of study, Acres would certainly now recommend adoption of many of the Tussing proposals.. To contradict them after they have been made in a somewhat challenging manner would be imprudent, as any perceived shortcomings in future output from the Acr~s study could be attributed to an overly stringent cost approach at ·thfs~-vitally .. Hrfportant stage of a major· project. -In fairness to the _ position adopted by Tussing~ it should be noted that Acres was becoming. . . increasingly aware of some limitations being'imposed by the r.evised POS.on the level of effort that would be necessary to treat all concerns being more recently expressed by APA and the public. The second of the three Go-No-Go decision points referred to above, as originally co·nceived, related to the optimum development in the Susitna basin. This was essentially a "fine-tuning" of Susitna project design to ensure that more rea 1 i stic c9sts and schedules. f"or the development wer.e cons i dt;red .; n the • ' . ; : . 1-, ! . .. l ' "' ll I < i I . ' . I I I I I I I I I I ,{ I ' I j ·~ I I ·I I - 4 . - comparison. As a resu 1 t of the Tussing Report, we reconvnend this wor'k be advanced such that.the two.Qecision points will now coincide. The third {now second) decision point wi 11 occur in early 1982 after all design, environmental, alternat·lves, financial, marketing, economic, scheduling and risk assessments are made and will involve deciding whether or not to.proceed with licensing of the project. Again. any recommendation will be subjected to the clos.est state and public scrutiny before it is implemented~ 3 -ISSUES RAISED IN THE TUSSING REPORT The Tussing Report presents a useful overview of the planned Susitna hydroelectric project in relation to· likely future developments and economic trends in Alaska's Railbelt Region. in this regard, however, the Report is biased towards a general scenario which sees preferential pricing of natural g-as continuing into the next century and a resource-depletion-led-slow-down in the mid 1990's. This bias strongly influences the arguments presented in relation to the marketability of Susitna power and energy. While there is some support for the cautionary attitude regarding competitiveness .of Beluga coal and other alternatives, the situation regarding these must certainly be taken ~ the time as nnot proven.11 In fact, this level of relative competitiveness with Susitna hydroelectric power production will be only partially.established one year from now ~en the __ decision is taken whether, Qr not to proct;ed with the study ( 1 et a 1 one the project). ~ I I I I I I I I I ·I .~ 3.1 -~1arketing and Financing St~·dies . The "Marketing and Financing" issue ca 11 s for a more potent cha 11 enge· ofl: Tussing's assertions. The c.ontent of Task 11 as proposed in the POS does not appear to be·properly understood. The Tussing report suggests with emphasis that "Susitna's viability will not be II based on either its economic or financial feasibility ... This.is incorrect. Task 11 requires incisive studies and reports on: '!Possibl-e Economic Limits to Project" 11 0verrun· Possibilities .. usecurity of Project Capital" and Structure" I I 11 Evaluation of Alt2rnative Markets for Susitna Output 11 "Evaluation of A1ternati ve Options for Meeting Rai 1 be 1 t Power Needs" I From these reports and other pertinent study work on economic impact, a vitally ' important element of the Project Overview would be developecl. Admittedly, withl ~ i~' -....,; : ~] . ~j : • ~J I . I ' ... I ~ I I I I . I I I I I I JJ JJ B .D ·I u . , ,. • ... . - 5 the deferment to all work in Task 11, its output~would not be available, as originally planned, for the Power Study phase. Acres, however, did not overlook the need for properly conducted analyses of marketing, financing and risk assessment. Apparently, however, we have not clearly enough stated the true significance of the output of Task 11. Furthermore, proposals to eliminate the input from Salomon Bros., suggesting that the all important financing issues can be dealt with in the normal course of events rather than with intensive professional study, can now be seen as a possibly retrograde step£ Th~ downgrading and deferment of Task 11 have in no small measure contributed to the apparent shortcomings of the POS highlighted by Tussing. An immediate start at Week 1, as planned in the original POS, would have brought into being a draft Project Overview by about this time and 11 availab1e for comment,. by September 1980. The general thrust and tenor of this init1al overview would have been very similar to that embed~ed in the Tussing ~aper (avoiding, however, the bias which appears to have ~een introduc~d, pr~bably reflecting the overly strong reaction being stimula:ted by .Chugach~. The Project Overview would be well suited far· the audience being addressed by Tussing; it . would also be written in simple, easily understood ~ext; it would take'as objective a view as possible and aim at establishin~ without any doubt that both negative and positive aspects of Susitna and altern~tives were being Rroper1y b a 1 anced • 7 : 3.2 -Project Financil!9, One particular point in Tussing's report deserves particular attentio~. Th.is relates to Project Financing--and particularly to. CQnstruction Financing. It is fully realized that one of the problems to be faceq~with a capital intensive development such as a hydropower plant is th~/c the cost of service with ~he project in the system is likely to exceed the cost ~f ~ervice without ~hi project in the system for the first several years (probably 8~10). P4rticular attention will be necessary to find ways and means of alleviating the·~urden o~ Alaskan consumers in this century of co:;ts of servi~e which will benefit the next generation. This is a very major issue which will require revie~ of a number of options and it should not be r.eadily assumed that past praci;ices will prevail. · In two places in the report, Tussing refers to the burden imposed on consumers by the Construction F_inancing burden {AFUDC). It suggests that the consumer will pay in advance for electricity they may·not receive fop 10 y0ars or, in Tussing's words, 11 if ever.11 Capita·lization of AFUDC is yet cmother issue that will be exhaustively studied and treated in the marketing and financing tasks. It is quite improper to assert at this stage that "Non-recourse financing waul d require all-events contracts (compelling consumers to pay for Susitna whether or not they ever got Susitna Power and no matter how much it turned out to cost) prior to construction... The statement is correct if the words in parenthesis • . . ' i l j ::: h_ ' ' ., I I J ' l ! I I I i I I I I ·I . -~ \ I •• .I '1 -:j I l I 1 ( u u u· . . f • • . - 6 are omitted; but the inference with the \\Jrds left in is, to say the least, provocative and misleading •. The authors may claim that under Alaska PUC rules this has occurred in the past on other arrangements between whrilesaler and utility delivering to consumers, but it is a gross assumption that is is the approach for Sus itna. · · .;;:. I I I I I I I .1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D . ; To: J. Lawrence From: G. Warnock Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project Tussing Report -"Review of Is!iues" May 1, 1980 (1) The review draft of the Tussing report issued on April 15~ l980t presents a useful overview of the planned Susitna hydroelectric pro.,iect in re 1lation to likely future developments and economic trends in Alaska's Railbelt region. It is biased towards a general scenario which sees preferential pricinH of natural gas continuing into the next century and a resource depletion led s'low down in the mid 1990's.. This bias strongly influences the arguments presented in rela- tion to the marketability of Susitna power and energy. While there! is some sup- port for the cautionary attitude regarding competitiveness of Belu~Ja. coal and other alternatives, the situation regarding these must certainly be\ taken at the time as 11 not proven. ll In fact, this level of relative comp1etitiveness with Susitna hydroelt!ctric power production will be only partially established one year from now when the deci- sion is taken whether or not to proceed with the study (let alone the: project). The major difference of approach advocated by Tussing to that ·in Acr·es/APA POS is in the level of knowledge and information available at certain milt~stone points and in the type of decision then to be taken.. APA sees the gel/no go as being whether or not to proceed with the study and preparation of li<:emse appli- cation. Tussing sees this being the decision whether or not to build Susitna. There appears to be no difficulty in establishing that, with th1e cons;traints im- posed on data collection, load forecasting, alternative energy studie1s, etc .. , it will be difficult enough to make the decision whether or not to proceed with the study within one year; it would be entirely impractical and imprudent to take the much more profound decision regarding whether or not to build at that time, unless some overwhelming factor(s) intervene (either for or against). The reconmendations by Tussing in regard to increase in the level of E!ffor·t in the Power Study area, if adopted, cannot help but improve the quality of infor- mation before APA and the Alaska Legislature at the time of the decision to pro- ceed with study or not. It is not for AAI to judge whether the additional fund- ing required be made as this is a matter of budgeting priorities for th·e state government. In accepting the scope of work and schedule under the revised POS for Task l, AAI and its subcontractors undertook a challenging task which could, however, be achieved if inputs from other sources probability, more th.an the planned input effort could have been required and provided • While still pursuing a course which limits as far as possible out'lays ·in the first year of study, Acres would certainly now recorrmend adoption of many of the Tussing proposals. To contradict them after they have been made in a somewhat challenging manner would be imprudent, as any perceived shortcomings in future output from the AAI study could be attributed to an overly strigent cost approach at this vitally impor.tant state of a major project. In fairness to the position adopted by Tussing, it should be noted that Acres was becoming increasingly aware of some limitations being imposed by the revised POS on the I l ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I level of effort that would be necessary to treat all concerns being most recent- ly expressed by APA and thP public. (2} The "Marketing and Financing 11 issue calls for a more potent challenge of Tussing•s assertions. The content of Task 11 as proposed in the POS does not appear to be properly understood. The Tussing report suggests with emphasis that 11 Susitna's viability will not be based on either its economic or financial feasibility." This is incorrect. Task 11 requires incisive studies and reports on: 11 Possible Economic Limits to Project" "Overrun Possibilities" 11 Security of Project Capital and Structure 11 11 Evaluation of Alternative Markets for Susitna Output" nEvaluation of Alternative Options for Meeting Railbelt Power Needs 11 From these reports and other pertinent study work on economic impact, a vitally important ele.rnent of the Project Overview WCluld be developed. Admittedly, with the deferment to all work in Task 11, its output would not be available, as originally planned, for the Power Study phase. Acres, however, did not overlook the need for properly conducted analyses of marketing, financing and risk assessment. Apparently, however, we have not clearly enough stated not had clearly enough understood the true significance of the output of Task 1lo Even internally, I think, there has developed an .attitude that much of the output was not essential to the goal of the POS. Certainly, APA have, in eliminating the input from Salomon Bros., indicated that they feel that the all important financing issues can be dealt with in the no1rmai course of events rather than with intensive professional study. The downgrading and deferment of Task 11 have exposed both APA and AAI to criticism fr·om Tussing which we could have well avoided. An imnediate start at Week 1, as planned in the origiPiil POS, Y«>uld have brought into being a draft Project Overview by about this time and 11 av ai 1 able for com- ment" by September 1980. The general thrust ~and tenor of this inital overview would have been very similar to that embedded in the Tussing paper (avoiding, however, the bias which appears to have been introduced, probably reflecting the overly strong reaction being stimulated by Chugach). The Project Overview would be well suited for the audience bing addressed by Tussing; it would also be written in simple, easily understood text; it would take as objective a view as possible and aim at establishing without any ·dc1ubt that both negative and posi- tive aspects of Susitna and alternatives were being p~operly balanced. (3) One particular point in Tussing 1 s report dt~serves particular attention. This relates to Project Financing--and particularly to Construction Financing. It is fully realized that one of the problems to be faced with a capital inten- sive development such as a hydropower plan is that the cost of service with the project in the system is likely to exceed the cost of service without the pro- ject in the system for the first several years (probably 8-10). Particular at- tention will be necessary to find ways and means of alleviating the burden on Alaskan consumers in this century of costs of service which will benefit the next generation. This is a very major issue which will require review of a number of options and it should not be readily assumed that pase practices will prevail. 1 ~, .l ~, ~,, •• 'I I ') I I I .I I .I ,j I n JJ ! ' l r~ . j _J I I ' ' I I I· I I I I· I I I I D I ' JJ u u In two p 1 aces in the report, Tussing refers to the burden imposed on consumers by the Construction Financing burden (AFUDC). It suggests that the consumer will pay in advance for electricity they may not receive for 10 years or, in Tussing's words, 11 if ever." Capitalization of AFUDC is yet another issue that will be exhaustively studiad and treated in the marketing and financing tasks. It is quite improper to assert at this stage that 11 Non-recourse financing would require all-events contracts (compelling consumers to pay for Susitna whether or not they ever got Susitna Power· and no matter how much it turned out to cost) prior to construction." The statement is correct if the words in parenthesis are omitted; but the inference with the words left in is to say the least provocation and misleading. The authors may claim that under Alaska PUC rules this has occurt"ed in the past on the other arrangements between wholesaler and uti 1 ity delivering to consumers, but it is a gross assumption that it is the approach for Susitna. (4) It is regrettable that Tussing has made his report carry comments which are entirely out of place or which appear to be carrying a biased message emanating from those in opposition to the project. By and large, the 11 Review of the Issues" is well prepared, thoughful, and well written. Continued input by Tussing and his associates to the House Cor1111ittee of the Alaska Legislature would no doubt be a useful contribution to the project. As our work on the basis of the POS proceeds, the scope for criticism will surely diminish. I t·· I I '1.·. ' . I ·I I I I I Jj IJ TO:. . J. Lawrence FROM: Peter Sqndor Review of A. R. Tussing's Paper: ''Introduction to ·Electric Supply Planning Dr. Tussing I as far as I ~now,. used to be in charge of· ISER before going on his own. This might have influenced his attitude to what he perceives to be an ISER-APA-Acre~·team. ·I was not asked· tore- flect on his criticism regar.ding Acres' plan (Chapter IV), there- fore· I 'tvill review o.qly on his capacity oriented remarks {Chapter II) 1 and specifically his \vo-rk covering demand forecasting and facilities planning. . In summary, Tussing goes out of his w-ay putting forward a "no growth" scenario. If there are public hearings, the fallacies o£ his approach can be brought out .. in cross-examination of exper.t witnesses. Here are my first thoughts on his·work. Tussing's monograph represents a most intelligent display of the minimalist, "no growth" attitude displayed by an influential section of the American academic establishment. The risks"of underplanning and of shortages are underplayed as compared to the dangers of overexpansion. It is interesting to observe Tussing's remark -that forecasts in Alaska during low growth periods have tendeq to underestimate actual power demand. His subsequent evaluation indicates to me that he is following the same path. Under the title "Economic Boom in the, 1980's·" Tussing conc·ludes that Alaska,s economic outlook is dominated by government spending. I would conclude (as discussed in Appendix A) that this implie.s higher growth t..han ISER' s "lO'r.v•.• projection. He follows up with the statement that .this will lead to a "Decline in the 1990's" .. I have failed to find his quantitative proof? ~ussing overlooks the impact of those major resource based developments for which funds are firmly co~nitted. · Talking about "Electricity consumption per capita", attention is drawn to the fact that air conditioning cannot be expected to· grow in Alaska. True. But air conditioning growth was not assumed by any forecasters for Alaska and ISER's work still indicates electricity consumption growth per household. Other appliances (water heaters, clothes washers/driers, etc) are to be considered. Tussing makes a statement, that "residential and commercial .structures already committ,ed to oil or gas (have) -little or no opportunity to provide {a new power source) for heatin9". This - 2 1 statement is uncorroborated and is contradicted by both theoretic(l calculations and practical experience. ~t is possible to convert oil and gas heaters to electricity. The· evaluation of energy intensive industries has a strong down-~~ ward bias •. A new aluminum reduction plant will seek a combination of cheap, reliable power and of a year round harbour. An Alaskan= location (wi i;h. Sus~ ~na power hypo~~7ti.cally . a~ailable) .. qualif'ies J as well as K~ t~mat ~n north~rn Br1 -c·1.sh Columb~a. Tuss~ng refers to a·const~uction cost factor in Alaska of 1.6. I would suspect, __ that this .is an overestimate. The hardware of an a·luminum smelteJ 1 (e.g. transformers, rectifiers, control equipment, etc) has to be · manufactured in· the industrial heartland of America and transported to the site, · wherever the smelter is to be built.. The constructith · cost difference (if any) has to be.written of£ in cheaper power af costs over the lifetime of the plant. It is necessary to use a reasonable' escalation of world Oil prices in current dollar ·terms·~ against. the fixed costs per kWh of a hydroelectric plant to come up with a valid answer. One does not require a major difference in the first years in orqer to get a result favouring hydro. Tussing's simplistic approach can be misleading., I have very little knowledge of Uranium enrichment needs, but I. would venture to say that the statement "the u.s. market for new I light-water reactors has virtually disappeared" is not valid for the 1980-2010 period. It probably is only part o£ the "Jane Fonda syndrome" . _ I The· remarks regarding pumping and compressor stations are somewhat pe~simistic. If these pipelines have to cost their own fuel {cruc ~ oil and natural gas) at.$40/bbl equivalent or more, they may well I opt for fall time electricity priced at full cost, not for self- fuelling combined with off peak power • . Tussing's comments regarding the "Federal restrictions on use of natural gas·" are very. important. The availability and price of ·.;j gas for electrical power generation are.the determining variables · of modal choice.. The statement ''Since the law (the Plant and ..._~ Industrial.Fuels Act, PIFUA) was enacted in 1978 however~ the. ' g national outlook for natural gas supply has imp~oved radically" ~ is misleading. Natur-al gas can replace crude oil based fuels in ~J both home heating and industrial applications. Transformation ·of heavy fuels (e.g. Bunker C} into motor fuel i's making· quid:k" ~j: _. progress since 1978 .. · The market 'for· Amer~can ·natu·ral gas· in· the " .. ,_ "Lower 48" will be increasing on the long run as· part of the self- sufficiency strategy of the U.S. government. It is not at all ·Mil likely tha PIFUA would be stopped or significantly mollified. As ~.J far as natural gas liquids are concerned, their true market value (shadow price) will escalate' with OPEC prices ·and thus they· cannot-1 ·. be used as cheap fuel alternatives for power generation. J ft/ • • r } •• I I I ,I' ~ I I I I I I I I I ~ - 3 It is hard to imagine that Congress will allow an expensive and fuel ·wasting loophole to PIFUA by sanctioning the production of methanol from Alaskan natural gas and its us~ in local pow~r generation. This option would require large ~ounts .of investment and a waste of BTU's.. It would deprive the "Lower 48" from Alaskan n.atural gas while increasing electricity costs in Alaska itself. Tussing takes a rather facile approach to the problem. -of reserve generating capacity and systems reliability. It may well be possible to lower the generating reserves by more interties, better maintenance, load management,· etc. On the other hant;t in the harsh climate of Alaska the same blackout will have a much more severe impact on life and property than in the more ;forgiving environment. of California or New York. By ut;lizing existing natural gas burning power.plants.at·higher rates .it is. feasible to save invest- ment but this approach still uses more of the scarce resource& compared to moving into hydro or even coal. · --· ' ' . ..... * . -- I I I I I I I I I I ll ~ ~ ~ ~ Jj TELEX FROM WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS To: Alex Vircol Acres American Incorporated From: Craig Kirkwood Office: San Francisco, CA Date: 5./2/80 Subject: Tussing•s Report 11 Susitna Hydropower: A Review of the Issues,. This memorandum is in response to your telephone request of April 30 that we collll1ent on the Tussing report. You spec i fica lly asked for conments on the sec- tions of Chapter 17 related to electric energy demand forecasting. In addition, we will make some general observations about issues raised in the report. General Comments The general thrust of Tussing's comments is that o The scope of concerns addressed in the Task 1 Power Studies is much too narrow, o The resources proposed to carry out Task 1 are much too small, and o The Task 1 activities are insufficiently integrated. Woodward-Clyde has expressed the first two views on a number of occasions, and we are pleased that another source is finally expressing this opinion also. Our recent discussions with you have addressed the third point above~ but the poli- tics of the situation seem to dictate that it will continue to be a problem. We agree with may of Tussing's specific comments about shortcomings in presently proposed Task 1 activities. In particular, we believe a careful decision analysis of the need-for-power and alternatives for meeting this need would be useful. However, the large technical modeling effort Tussing seems to propose will not be useful in the absence of a logical and well-structured general approach for analyzing these questions. We will now conment on several of the section in Chapter 11 of Tussing 1 s report, and, in the process, expand on the comments above. In what follows, the section headings are those used by Tussing. Information for Decision Making Tussing's comments regarding the effects of contingencies and risks are significant. We have raised similar concerns on a number of occasions, and to date neither ISER nor Acres has addressed this issue. I wi 11 surrmari ze my past conments here. In general, they agree with the remarks made by Tussing on pp. 61-66 of his reportG ' I l I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I WCC TELEX (Continued) -2 May 2, 1980 It appea~s likely that plausible forecasts .of.the need _for power made using !!!X. forecasting method, regardless of how soph1st1cated, w1ll have a large amount of uncertainty. In particular, possible low estimates will probably suggest that no major new generation facility is necessary, while high estimates will suggest that even the Sus·itna Project wi 11 be insufficient to meet the projected demand. Because of these variations, no s~ngle demand forecast will be completely defensible basis for an evaluat~on of alternatives. For this reason we believe analysis of uncertainties should be explicitly incorporated into the Power Studies at all stages. Tussing notes that it will be necessary to do this using expert judgments. We agree with this, but would add the further conment that such judgments must be carefully elicited if they are to be defensible and useful. ISER's Demand Scenarios The comments above regarding urcertainties apply here also. However, I would add to Tussing• s conments my o~,,, observation that ISER does not seem to have developed any systematic procec~ure for developing scenarios, let alone quantifying uncertainties about which scenario will come true. Forecasts of Peak Loads and Load Duriltion cu~·"ves Tussing's comnents are correct; however, they are not completely relevant. Woodward-Clyde has agreed to forecast peak loads and load duration curves based on scaling historical data to account for changes in total electric energy demand. This approach has been extensiitely used in the past, but is subject to the errors Tussing points out. Tussing seems to feel that more sophisticated methods will provide more accurate forecasts. I think this is a naive view. Nobody has had great luck in forecasting an .hin related to future energy demand over a long period of time. I question w et er any approach currently available will provide better forecasts than those obtained using historical data with judicious hand corrections for load management effects. However, more sophisticated modeling approaches would enable use to assure that consistent assumptions are being made in the various parts of the demand forecasting activities. This consistency has certain advantages, particularly in presenting the results of the analysis to an audience that is not technically sophisticated. As a final note regarding Woodward-Clyde's budget, I note that there has never been any thought that we would address load management effects in Task 1.07 in other than a very crude manner. If these are to be addressed in a detailed manner, then our current budget is clearly very inadequate. ~~ 1 ! ~~~ 1 .~l c:l < I I I .J I I I I J __ I lj j ~ ~ ~ ' ,; '' ~ -~ n .L l' I I' I I' I n II IJ ll IJ ll ll WCC TELEX (Continued) -3 May 2, 1980 ~eak Responsibility Pricing and Load Management The canments Tussing makes in this section are a continuation of those in the last section, and my comments above apply here, also. Selection of New Generating Faciiities Although Tussing's language is somewhat extreme here, he does have a point. It seems misleading to use a fancy model like OGP-5 when most of the required input data will have large uncertainties. There is another concern I have about using OGP-5 not raised by Tussing. Basically OGP-5 selects generation alternatives to achieve optimal financial results. However, as I noted in my April 24 letter, finances are only one of several areas of concern in evaluating alternatives. If OGP-5 plays a major role in the evaluation, it is not clear how these other concerns will be adequately addressed. Summary of Recommendations I will now corrment on each of Tussing 1 s recorrmendations in turn. 1. Total and peak loads, and load duration curves, must be derived by one study team, in a single effort, and m'Jst take into account th potential impact of peak-responsibility pricing and load management on the need for peak generating capacity. A credible effort of this sort would require at 1 east $2509 000 and one year. I strongly support the recommendation for a single integrated analysis effort. However, I believe Tussing does not go far enough--it would be highly desirable to have a single integrated effort addressing both the need for power and the alternative strategies for meeting this need. This would be desirable because some of the alternatives might significantly affect both the tot a 1 energy demand and the shape of that demand ( i • e., the 1 oad duration curve) D Hence, it is important that the energy demand forecasting procedures be developed in a manner that effectively supports the evaluation of these alternatives. This requires an integration of the demand forecasting and alternatives evaluation into a single analysis activity. 2. Preliminary cost, risk, and scheduling analyses for alternative Susitna scenarios should be available as inputs to the decision of generating strategy. These preliminary analyses YKJuld cost at least $300,000, and require one year. A systematic decision analysis should address these issues, as well as others. such as public health and safety, environmental factors, socioeconomic factors, i nst itutiona 1 considerations and techno logic a 1 feasibi 1 it.y. // l I I I I I I I I ' I ' I I I I WCC TELEX {Continued) -4 May 2, 1980 3. Cost, risk, and scheduling analyses for the most prom1s1ng alternatives to Susitna according to the current studies should be as thorough and reliable as those for Susitna itself. At least $150,000 and six months would be necessary. l If Tussing really means what he says here, then the budget for this should be substantially larger than what is proposed under recommendation 2 since more ~- alternatives must be studied here. J When, and if, an Environmental Report is written for the Susitna Project consid- erable detailed information will be needed on the various alternatives that were considered. It 'isn't clear that this much detail is needed now. 4. Preliminary marketing and financial analyses are necessary as inputs to the demand, cost and risk, and, scheduling studies, and to any practi- cal decision regarding Susitna. The cost of these studies would probably be about $75,000 over six months. No conJnent. 5. A multidiscipiinary panel of contractor, subcontractor, agency and out- side E:Xperts should examine and reexamine the major ~c;sumptions used in the demand, cost, risk, schedul:ing, marketing and financing studies. The views of these experts should be translated into probability dis- tributions and systematically incorporated into the assumptions by means of Delphi or comparable methods. This process would cost on the order of $75,000, and run concurrently with the other studies mentioned hers. Although I think the specific mechanism that Tussing proposes has problems, the basic thrust of the recomnendation is correct. It is highly desirable that the views of a variety of knowledgeable people be incorporated into the analysis. 6. The program used to rank expansion strategies for Railbelt electrical generating capacity should take account of all of the information gene- rated in the power studies, and its results should be expressed in terms of probabilities. Operating a state-of-the-art power planning model with the information described here would cost at least $100,000. I do not believe any current power planning model has the capabilities listed. One could be developed based on decision analysis principals. 7. The results of the decision model should be 11 run backward" through the process that led to those results. That is, those strategies the model ident·ifies as having the greatest expected not benefit, or having the greatest benefit in the most likely scenario, should be analyzed under other plausible assumptions in order to compare {say) the consequences of not building Susitna if it turned out to be "needed" with the conse- quences of building the facility if its power turned out to be unmar- ketable. The cost of this process are incorporated in the previous figures, which total (at minimum) $950,000. Good analysis practice requires that sensitivity studies of the type proposed here be done. ='1 ~~~ ] '.] 'J I I __ ) I .dl "J J n u I I I I I I I I I 'I ll 11 Jj IJ IJ ll u u u \ C -SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT: REVISED SCOPE.,. TASK I -POWER STUDIES' . )· I I I I I ll I I 11 I] ~ ~. 11 JJ ll u u L! -Mr. Robert Mohn Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Robert: May 7, 1980 P5700.11 F.l-C Susitna Hydroelectric Project Revised Scope, Task 1 -Power Studies We are forwarding herewith for your review and corrment our pr·oposed revised scope for Task 1 -Power Studies. This revised scope reflects those changes arising out of conments by Tussing and others, essentially as proposed in our letter and attachments of April 24. · We are currently engaged in discussions with our sub-contractors, Woodward-Clyde Consultants and TES, to determine the extent and cost of t·heir participation in the expanded scope of work. Consequently, we are not forwarding at this time a detailed breakdown of man-hours and cost. Also, please note that the detail"~ scope of the "second part" of Task 1 may well be modified when the results of the "first part 11 become known. Furthennore, we have refrained at this time from describing in detail our proposed approach to the planning of the following two items: - (a) derivation of peak 1 oads and 1 oad duration curves based on I SER • s energy forecasts {b) the method to be adopted to translate the inputs of review panels into usable assumptions on a probabilistic basis, as recorrmended by Tussing. These two items are also the subject of our current discussions with our sub-contractors. We will advise you of our conclusions as soon as possible. The necessary rescheduling and preparation of detailed scopes of work for changed portions of Tasks 6 and 11 will also be forwarded as soon as possible. With regard to Task 11 in particul~r, it is important to know whether you agree with the proposal presenteGt to you !?y Gavin Warnock on April 17. Your early response on this latter point will permit us to ;-repare new Task 11 scope combining Gavin's ideas with those of Arlen Tussing. JDL/ls ACRES AMERICAN INCORPORATED Consulting Engineers Suite 329. The Clafk Building Columbia. Maryland 21044 Telephone 301·992·5300 Washington Ltne 301·596-5595 Sincerely, /'.' / u/v~,~~~ t' John D. Lawrence Project Manager Other Offtces: Buffalo NY: Prttsburgh, PA· Raleigh. NC Washington. DC I I I I •• ll IJ 11 ~ IJ IJ ~ I ! :2.l IJ IJ (J I'{ .J lJ u I . TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES The objective of this task is to provide convincing evidence to the public and to local authorities and agencies (a) that the future electric energy and peak demand needs in the Railbelt, if any, have been properly evaluated, and given that expansion is necessary, (b) that any recommended generation expansion sequence designed to cover these needs in the Railbelt is the best possible solution. Should it be convincingly demonstrated that an appropriate development of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project should be included in the recommended expansion scenario. The Task 1 total output will also provide enough support for a decision to be· made whether to proceed with the 1 icensing of the project. The analyses and studies completed within this task will more than meet the FERC licensing requirements. In order to meet the above objectives of Task 1, other tasks of the Plan of Study will proceed in pa-rallel, providing direct or indirect input into the various Task 1 studies. These will essentially involve the field investiga- tions perfonned under Task 2 -Surveys and Site Facilities, Task 3 -Hydro- logy, Task 4 -Seismic Studies, Task 5 -Geotechnical Exploration as well as activities representing direct input into the power studies such as Susitna alternatives design development (Subtasks 6.01 -6.08), environmental impact assessment of Susitna and alternative scenarios (Subtasks 7.03, 7.04 and parts of Subtasks 7.05 and 7.07), preliminary financial and marketing analysis (Subtasks 11.01 -11.02, 11.12) and risk analyses (Subtasks 11.03, 11.04). The completion of the above activities implies a significant effort to be spent before a final decision is made.. However, Task 1 has the built-in capability of producing interim evidence whether the Susitna Project represents an appropriate development. Should the Task 1 studies demonstrate that Susitna is not the appropriate development, the ongoing studies would be halted pending discussions with the Alaska Power Authority to determine the future course of action most appropriate. On the other hand, should Task 1 studies confirm earlier studies undertaken by the Corps of Engineers and others that the Susitna Project with dams at Watana and Devil Canyon is among the appropriate means of meeting future toad growth in the Railbelt area, the study will .continue as planned. To facilitate the decision process mentioned above, two Go-No-Go decision points related directly to the continuation of study efforts are included in Task 1. The fir.st is in early 1981 and is intended to provide the Authority with some assurance that continuation of Susitna Project studies is justified. To assist in this decision making process, a Task 1 Interim Report on Power Studies will be completed early in 1981. I f I J J 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I If the decision made at that time is to proceed with Susitna studies, a second year of Task 1 studies will be completed. It will lead to a second Go-No-Go decision point in the spring of 1982 and will provide detailed comparison of all viable alternatives such that a decision can be made whether to proceed with licensing of the project. At this time, the whale sequence of findings, analyses and studies completed under Task 1 activity will be presented to the Authority in a Final Report on Power Studies. 1 1 '1 . ....... ~'\ It should be noted that in parallel with the above activities, efforts under ·1· Task 11 will result in Project Overview Reports and updates thereof which will be designed to provide the financial and marketing community with appropriate infonnation for accomplishment of the objectives of Task 11. 1 The scopes of work to be completed under the two parts of Task 1 are described in the following pages.. Within each part, a series of subtasks have been identified. Subtasks representing the same generic activity bear the same identification number under both parts, although it is obvious that a subtask listed under the second part of Task 1 represents a more detailed analysis. Attachment 1 presents two flow charts displaying the manner in which infonnation. is developed and processed throughout the course of the work. · 'l ~I el ""I ] "I ,I 'j _) ,I J J I J I I I I I 'I I I I I ll 11 I} "\ ~J ~ IJ 'lJf '' ' IJ IJ IJ TASK 1 -FIRST PART - fgiJER STUDIES, 1980/81 (i) Objectives To detennine the need for power in the Alaska Railbelt Regions to deve 1 op forecasts for e 1 ectri c 1 oad growth in the area through the year 2010, to consider viable alternatives for meeting such load growth, to develop a series of feasible expansion scenarios (including a preliminary environmental assessment) to be presented for public revi ea« and to support the first Go-No-Go decision process re.l a ted to the continuation of study efforts for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. (ii) Output The primary output of Task 1 (First Part) will be an Interim Report presenting viable expansion sequences for power development in the Alaska Ra·nbelt Region, with and without the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as well as a small-scale decentralized expansion scenario, without or in combination with Susitna. The study results and recomnendations made by the Acres team will at key points in the progress of the work be subjected to a screening process by a Review · Panel· of experts experienced and knowl edgeab 1 e of conditions in the· Rail belt Regions. The Interim Report will be presented for public review early in 1981. The resulting comments will possibly lead to iterations of the study process in order to reflect public concerns. The final version of the Interim Report will include Acres reconrnendations after the public participati.on process and will be submitted to the Alaska Power Authority for review and approv{~l in May 1981. The Interim Report content wi 11 provide technical support for the first Go-No-Go decision process by the Authority as to whether continuation of Susitna·Hydroelectric Project Studies is likely to be worthwhile. (iii) List of Subtasks Subtask 1.01 -Review of the ISER Work Plan and Methodologies Subtask 1.02 -Electric Peak Load Demand Forecast Subtask 1.03 -Identification of Power Alternati.ves Subtask 1.04 -Optimum Generation Analyses and Selection of Expansion Sequences Subtask lft05 -Expansion Sequence Impact Assassments Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternatives Study -Interim Report Subtask 1.07 -Power Study Review Panels . ~ ; I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ {iv) Scope Statemen~ The primary purpose of Task 1 as discussed in Sections ( i) and ( i i) . above is the establishment and documentation of appropriate load forecasts for the Alaska Railbelt area and the development of viable systsn expansion sequence scenarios to meet these forecasts. Initially, various projected energy consumption scenarios will .be eva 1 uated by independent study teams. From these forecasts, the Acres team will develop kilowatt load forecasts appropriate for the low, medium, and high growth rate scenarios. Simultaneously, mixes and sequences of feasible alternative sources for meeting future power demands, with and without the Susitna Hydroelectric Project (which at. this stage '~ill be assumed for study purposes to be that developed by the Corps of Engineers), will be developed. A small-scale decentralized expansion scenario will be also identified. Finally, the study will deal with the preliminary environmental impacts assessments of the developed expa.nsion scenarios of the, Railbelt Region. 1 1 1 1 '1 =· ... 01 .. , II I I ] 1 J l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I, . ... 11 ··{ I JJ I ) J .~ u IJ ·ut 1 .. IJ I . IJ .§..ubtask 1 .. 01 -Review of the ISER Work Plan and Methodologies (a) Object·ive Critically review the work plan and the methodologies developed by the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research (!5ER) for forecasting energy demands. Review and comment upon those written documents prepared by ISER as a part of its study. These documents will include, but will not be 1 imited to, those documents 1 isted under Section (b) of this Subtask •. Reach a thorough understanding of the assumptions used by ISER in its work. Review the conservation strategies considered in ISER's scenarios. Collltlent upon the extent of the conservation measures considered and suggest additional measures to be accounted for in ISER's study. L.ist other conservation measures to be developed separately as an alternative to Susitna under Subtask 1.03. Exchange infannation with ISER regarding data needed by the Acres team in its subsequent work. Fonnulate a plan for improving the data base for future energy and 1 oad forecasting • Ensure adequate data output by ISER through coordination efforts. (b} Approach ISER is under contract with the Power Authority and the State of Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency to develop projections of the possible future energy consumption trends for the· Railbelt Region. As part of this work, ISER is responsible for developing the methodologies used for' the projection; for the collection of data used in its models; and for· producing projections deta i 1 i ng the energy cans umpt ion trends for six categories of consumers in three distinctly different areas of the Railbelt. The six categories of consumers for which individual growth projections will be made are: -Residential -Commercial -Non self-supplied industrial -Self-supplied industrial -Potential industrial .. -Users who cannot be supplied by the urban power grids The three· geographical areas which will be studied individually are: -The Anchorage-Cool< Inlet area which fonns the southwestern section of the Railbelt Region. This area will include the Kenai Peninsula. l I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -The Fairbanks-Tanana Valley area lying to the north. -The Glenallen-Valdez area which is the southeastern area under study. These three study regions c1re relatively distinct areas of load .concentration. The. approach taken by ISER, as broadly described in its contract with the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency, and as further defined in its "Detailed Work Plan" dated November 14, 1979, consists of four major areas of effort: (1) A review of available econometric forecasting methods and models. The most apparently suitable model will be selected for further use in lSER work. A written report will be produced describing the advantages and disadvantages of the methods which were studied. (2) A review of the available electrical energy consumption forecast- ing methods. The most apparently suitable method .will be selected for further use in ISER work. A written report will document the advantages and disadvantages of the methods which were studied. (3) Data needed for implementation of the forecasts of 1 and 2 above will be collected and analyzed to detennine its limitations and potential uses. A written report will describe. the data collection and the uses to which it will be pui: in future work. i (4} Incorporation of all appropriate data into the econometric and electric energy use forecasting models. These models will then be used to predict electrical energy consumption through the year 2010. Inputs to the models will be varied to produce values of energy consumption growth at the most likely level, a highest probable level, and the lowest probable level. As a general rule, the scernario method implies a consistent description of a system•s evolution by fixing, through exogenous assumptions, the evo 1 uti on of the scenario components: those vari ab 1 es character·ist i c of the system. The components selected by ISER, as well as the assumptions upon which the decisions to select those components lie, wi11 be critically reviewedll Finally, the electricity use projection methodology developed by ISER and the steps involved in its use; namely model design, regression equation and forecasting, will be examined. Model designs involves the selection of the independent variables which affect model output and the fonnulation of the mathematical relations between those variablese Estimation of the form taken by the regression equation involves the use of historical data. Limitations in the data may, in some cases, preclude the use'of otherwise relevant variables. Availability of data will be studied and a statistical analysis of the model's accuracy and validity will be undertaken. ! '1 1 '1 =-1 ~, ·~1 "I .I J I I I _I I I _j I I I I I I I I I I II ll I} A summary report on the review of the ISER model and recommendations for further analysis to IJe undertaken by ISER will be submitted to the Power Authority by the Acres team. Provision has been made for ISER to undertake such additional analyses and may prove to be necessary. The total electrical energy demand projections finally derived from the IER study will fonn the basis for electric peak load demand forecast (Subtask 1.02) and the preliminary financi·al and marketing studies (Subtask 11.12), required by the evaluation of alternatives. (c) Discussion (d) It is the responsibility of the Acres team to carefully evaluate the steps undertaken by the ISER in developing its energy consumption projections. Undoubtedly, to successfully accomplish subsequent Task 1 work, it is imperative that the Acres team have a thorough understanding of, and a high degree of confidence, in the work of ISER. This can come only by close cooperation between members of Acres team and those involved in the ISER work. ISER submitted a detailed work plan to the Alaska Power Authority {APA) dated November 14, 1979. This work plan was r€viewed and modifications were suggested to ISER. The energy and econometric modeling methodo·l ogies and the development scenarios proposed by ISER will be reviewed for the validity of their· assumptions following the study issuance on May 15, 1980. Schedule Weeks 1 through 26 I I I I I I li ll Subtask 1.02 -Electric Peak Load Demand Forecast (a) Objectiv_!! Derive scenarios describing a reasonable range of load (kW) and load duration curve forecasts for the system through the year 2010. Prepare data in a fonn adequate for incorporation in the power system model· to be developed in Subtask 1.04. (b) Approach Based on projections of energy {kWh) consumption as developed by ISER (see Subtask 1.01), annual power (kW) demands for each of the three defined Railbelt Regions will be forecast through the year 2010. The forecasts will include both peak load levels and the shape of the load demand over time in the form of load duration curves. The Load Manage- ment potential will be identified and the impact of Load Management measures will be reflected in two of the scenarios: the cost-incentive load management scenario and the legislated load management scenario. Cost implications of applying these scenarios will be identified. The identification process will take into account not only voluntary measures, but also certain forced measures to include time of dax. ericing (an economic incentive to use energy.consumptive appliances during off-peak hours), demand controls (such as devices to limit the maximum amount of electric energy provided to a particular distribution point) and more efficient use .of existing sys~~ r ... e.§~ources (such as providing· interties between generating stations or e·tectrica1 systems which would otherwise independently deal with different peak load · requirements). To ensure that the maximum accuracy of the system mode'1 is rea 1 i zed, 1 cad duration curves wi 11 be deve 1 oped for both typical weekend and mi.dweek days.. These data will be produced separately for- each of the three geographic areas of the study region and for e~ch of the six consumer groups within each of those regions. (c) Discussion As noted in Subtask 1.01, ISER will prepare projections of future energy consumption in the Railbelt area. ISER will not predict peak power demands (kW) or load duration curves. This information will be developed by the Acres team in a manner which is consistent with the economi~, social, political and technical assumptions made by ISER when developing their energy consumption forecasts. It is intended that the forecasts to be developed by the Acres team satisfy the dual purpose of filling out ISER data into a total picutre of electrical demand for the study period and of providing detailed data input to Subtask 1.04 for direct utilization in the system planning model. This required data will include consideration of load shapes on a monthly basis as well as typical daily load shapes for weekday and weekend occurrences. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Load duration curves describe the percentage of time that a power systen operates at any fraction of its full power 1 evel. Load duration curves can be dave1oped on an annual, seasonal, monthly or even a daily basis. A load duration curve can be interpreted to yield the average power level for the time period described by the· cur.ve. The average- to-peak ratio is known as the load factor of the system. Several methods can be used to produce peak load (kW) forecasts once energy (kWh) consumption predictions have been made. The basic procedure is to divide the energy consumption (kWh) of a given time period by the product of that period•s length (in hours) and its load factor· to obtain power (kW). From the above discussion, it is evident that a crucial point in producing credible load forecasts is the development of the load duration curves. The available methods and the degree to which they will be applied to the system under study will be reviewed to determine their suitability to the problem at hand. (d) Since the subsequent Task 1 work is dependent upon the efforts of this subtask, it is imperative that the data produced by this subtask is accurate, complete and in a r.eadily usable form. A discussion of the methods used, the assumptins and the resulting scenarios (no load management, cost-incentive 1oad management and legislated load management) will be summarized in a report. A panel of outside experts will screen the report and may make recommendations to enlarge the assumptions field and to iterate the forecasting process including the global electric energy projections done by ISER. For use in the system modelling work of Subt.ask 1.04, the following data are finally required: ( 1) Month-to-annua 1 peak 1 oad ratios for fu 11 12-month period" (2) For typical weekend and midweek days, hourly-to-monthly load ratios, arranged in descending order, month to month. {3) Per unit peak load ratios associated with the 0, 20, 40 and 100 percent points on the monthly load duration curve month by month. (4) Peak power level annual. (5) The year-to-year variations of the quantities 1-4 above. To remain consistent with earlier work, data outputs will be broken down along the same geographical and consumer lines as the energy oredictions of ISER • . (e) Schedule Weeks 8 through 42 .-~~ •"] '~I t"l "] rl t I I -, I I ... I I "I ~I· J J I I ,,!1' I I I r 1~. j I. 1: t: ·~ I~ .... ) I· '~ I_ 1.~ ~~ t~ l. Subtask 1.03 -Identification of Power Alternativ~s (a) Objective Identify and select for detailed evaluation purposes alternative power sources appropriate for inclusion in future Alaska Railbelt Region load-growth scenarios. (b) Approach This subtask will be subdivided into further work packages~ -Non-hydro alternatives -Hydro and tidal alternatives (including Susitna alternatives) -Added conservation alternatives These packages will be undertaken concurrently. Each package will include appropriate analyses to identify which energy sources would be viable alternatives to the Susitna Project. The evaluation will also include an initial review of the March 1978 "Analysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Regior.11 published. by Batte 11 e Laboratories. In selecting viable· alternatives, they will be initially screened based primarily on technical availability, fu2l availability, generic impacts, cost, scheduling an risk analyses. At least the following basic factors will be. included in the screening process: -Anticipated demand (location and amount) that the alternative must supply 7 The maximum amount of power that could be supplied to the Alaska Railbelt Region by each alternative -Technical and commercial use availability of the alternative within the study period. -The cost per unit of electricity suppl·ied by each alternative (mills/kWh) -Construction and licensing schedule of each alternative -The non-cost impact of implementing each alternative (preliminary safety, health and environmental hazards and concerns) The risk analysis of the alternatives will be perfonned under Task 11 {Subtask 11.03 and 11.04). t I I I I I I I I I l l i ...... ) I! .. ,u I' I; ·"~.-4 I! ~ IJ I II '"·---~ The intent will be to examine the widest possible range of alternatives using published data. The v~able alternatives will be ranked based on a qualitative-quantitative analyses of the above criteri1. A multi- disciplinary panel will examine the major assumptions and findings and panel recommendations may generate iterations in the preliminary assessment of the alternatives. The results of the evaluations under- taken in this subtask will produce the system planning model input data required in Subtask 1.04. (c) Non-hydro Alternatives The non-hydro alternatives to be examined include "traditional" energy sources such as coal or gas.:.fired steam turbines, combustion turbines (including combined cycle design), diesel electric systems and nuclear power plants. Studies undertaken to date for the Railbelt Region suggest that develo~ent of the Beluga and Nenana coal fields may be a viable alternative source of large quantit·i~> of power. Published data already developed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants on behalf of the Golden Valley Electric Association will be used in the proposed study. 11 Non- traditional" alternatives will include solar generation, wind, biomass, geothennal, and energy from wood and municipal waste. The Alaska Po\'1er Administration is presently pursuing a study of the potential offered by wind generation in the Cook Inlet Region. The results of this study will be utilized in the evaluation of non-hydro alternatives. (d) ~xdru anq Tidal Alternatives The hydro alternatives considered will not only involve a single conventional large. hydro project but also will include a group of smaller hydro projects with, for instance, a gas-turbine installation to provide finn capacity backup along with conservation measures which could serve to limit projected growth. Within the Southcentral Railbelt of Alaska, the Susitna and Copper River drainage basins and other small rivers, including Crescent~ Chakachatna, Beluga, Yentna, Skiventna Chulitna, Talkeetna, Bradley (Creek) and Love were identified in the 1976 Alaska Power Survey by the Federal Power Commission as having significant conventional hydropower potentials. This study identified 23 projects, including Devil Canyon, Watana and Vee on the Susitna, with a potential installed capacity for all 23 sites of 8,419 megawatts. There are currently indications that the 70 MW Bradley Lake Project in the Kenai Peninsula may be developed in the foreseeable future. Current studies are r:-so being undertaken by the Alaska Power Admi ni strati on to identify "s1 .• a11 hydro 11 potenti a1. The above references, in addition to other earlier work by the Bureau of Reclamat·ion and Corps of Engineers and the most recent national Hydropower Study inventory by the Corps of Engineers, will be used in the overall assessmetit of available hydro potential in the region. The data contained in the previous studies will be used to develop hydro alternatives which could satisfy proj~cted load demands at least as well as the Susitna Project. Published reports on the potential for development of the tida! power resources of the Cook Inlet Region will be reviewed for conside1 iion of this-alternative. I I I I I I 'I 'I I I I I I 'I I ;- ~~~ I II fl r·~ LJ I I I I I I I I I I. fl ~~ ,,, ~:~ It ~-~ At this stage of the study, the Susitna alternative used will be the Corps of Engineers scheme, updated to 1980 prices. A band of confidence applied to this updated cost will approximate the costs corresponding to the Susitna alternatives which will be evaluated in parallel under Task 6: Design Development. A preliminary financial and marketing analysis performed under Subtask 11.12 for the Susitna alternatives will represent an additional input into the preliminary evaluation of this alternative for the generation expansion analysis. (e) Added Conservation Alternatives Conservation measures of various kinds may be regarded as 11 non-structura1 11 alternatives. To the extent that conservation can produce a reduction in total energy demand, it leads to changes in demand projections. The ISER model will be structured to permit consideration of the effects of conservation on demand projections. Same energy conservation measures will be built-in in the total electric energy demand forecasts derived under Subtask 1.01. Additional energy conservation measures will be identified after the ISER study becomes available and will be evaluated as a "non-structura1 11 alternative. (f) The analysis of electrical energy production alternatives for the Rail- belt Region requires input from Subtask 1.02 as well as the forecasting work performed by ISER as described in Subtask 1.01. These efforts predict the anticipated need for power and energy consumed in the Rail- belt Region regardless of its ultimate source. The-1 oad duration curves produced in Subtask 1. 02 are of key importance to tha alternatives study~ Depending upon the general shape of the load duration curves, various alternatives may stand out. as particularly attractive to meet the future needs, of the Railbelt Region. Concurrent with the development of load duration curves, an evaluation will be made of the·amount of energy tr~~t can be supplied by each of the technologies considered. This will involve a preliminary review of the estimated amount of total energy and peak po\'ler that are available from each resource in Ala$ka, including such items as coal and oil reserves, solar, wind and tidal patterns and geothermal as well as other hydroelectric resources. The estimates for developing techno1ogies will also include the availability date for commercial use. Pr"'el iminary cost estimates will be developed for each technology (cost/unit energy) based on the many existing studies (for example see "California Electricity Generation Methods Assessment Project", 1976). These cost estimates may vary ~~ih the amount of energy delivered, reflecting the necessity to use scarcer resou~~es. I 1 I I ·, ~ ; I 1 ~ j I i ~ I ;, I \ I I I I I ; I ,; I I I A scheduling analysis will be conducted to detennine when the technology(s) for the alternative will be available and what lead times are necessary for construction. Finally, an evaluation will be made to identify the generic (non-cost} impacts of each alternative. These impacts are likely to inc·lude environmental impacts (air quality, water quality and ecology); public health and safety impacts; socioeconomic impacts (such as a 11 boom-bust 11 cycle of population during plant construction); and the licenseability of specific alternatives to the extent that no. i nsunnountab 1 e 1 ega 1 or env i ronmenta 1 barriers are evident. Non-cost concerns will be organized into a set of attributes for measuring the overall desirability of each alterna.tive and combined with cost and scheduling concerns to evaluate each alternative. Each attribute will have an associated scale (or measure) to identify the level of achievement of each alternative with respect to attribute. Scales will be designed to be meaningful to decision makers and to be measurable using existing data as much as possible. If no natural scale (such as dollars for the cost attribute) exists, constructed (judgmental) scales will be used. The results of this analysis can be presented in a matrix showing the level achieved on each attribute for each alternative. The assistance of a Review Panel will be utilized in applyi.ng the ranking and selection process and perfonning any iteration studies which may be necessary. As a result of these global evaluations of alternatives, all viable technologies (or group of technologies) will be selected for a more detailed and comprehensive analysis to be undertaken in Subtask 1.04~ (g} Schedule Weeks 1 through 40 I I I I I tl 1 1 ] J _I I 1 l .I .J J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I. II. Subtask 1.04 -Generation Planning Analyses and Selection of Expansion Sequences. (a) Objective To perform a detailed cost analysis for the alternatives retained, to determine the total system costs of selected future Railbelt Region expansion sequences, including expansion scenarios with and without the Susitna Hydroelectric Project, a decentralized expansion scenario (without Susitna) and other scenarios. (b) Approach The detailed cost analysis of each selected alternative wi11 still be based primarily on published studies. The analysir; will include the evaluation -for each alternative -of following technical and economic elements: -Unit Sizes and Years of Availability/Unit Size -Plant Capital Cost ($/kW) -Annual Capital Requirements ($/!~W/Yr) -Operating (non-fuel and Maintenance Costs (Fixed-$/kW/Yr, Variable-Mills/kWh) -Fuel Heat Contents (Btu/unit) and Prices {$/Unit) -Heat Rates (Btu/kWh) and Fuel Costs (mills/kWh) -Differential Fuel Cost Escalation -Scheduled and Forced Outage Rates -~conomic Lifetime of Equipment The most straightforward method of evaluating the potential economic benefit of a hydroelectric project in a given system expansion scenario is to compare capital investment and system operating costs on an annual basis, throughout the term of the study, for various scenarios, with and without the benefits of the proposed hydro project. A number of mathematical models are available to facilitate the vast number of calculations involved in this type of study. In simplified terms, the user of such a model provides the program with data which includes the characteristics of the forecasted loads and the character- istics, availability and costs of generation sources which will be available throughout the period of the study. The model then selects the generation sources available to it to satisfy the projected load in the most economical manner. To evaluate the economics of a given project, a comparison may be made of total annual costs of the various system scenarios on a year-by-year basis throughout the· study period. If the system with the hydro project available. is less costly throughout the planning period, the project is obviously attractive (though not necessarily selected, because impacts must also be accounted for). Conversely, if this \ I i I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I l I l ' I I I (c) system is more expensive in all years, then the project is unattractive. It is possible, indeed likely, that the outcome of an economic evaluation would prove not to be so clear cut.. It may be that the system incorporating the hydro plant would be more expensive in some years of the s_tudy~ and less expensive in others, than the systems without that project. In this situation, it would be necessary to perform comparisons between present worth values of operating cost for systems, represented by the two scenarios. Although such a strategy may provide a valid economic comparison, the results may be inconclusive. This is most likely to occur in the case of a hydro project having a capacity which is relatively small when compared to its connected system. The economi·c comparisons may produce a relatively small difference in two large numbers. This is not valid~ however, for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project which is expected to represent an important generation capacity within the system, for th~ scenarios including the development. An external multidisciplinary panel will screen the results of the first set of program runs presented in terms of annual operating costs (and of corresponding present worths) per scenario and will provide feedback for subsequent runs. The final results will be presented in the Interim Report for public review, together with a preliminary environmental assessment (Subtask 1.05) of the scenarios gene~ated by the planning program. Selection of Model In the search for a usable generation planning computer model, three characteristics of the model are paramount: ..., Flexibility--does the model allow for a varied combrination of alternatives? -Accessibility--is the model presently available and can it be used with a minimum of learning time? -Reliability--is the model actively mainta1ned by its supplier and has it been used by other utility planners? · A preliminary survey of the market has revealed one model which satisfies all three criteria. Other models may be available, but these are generally developed either by or for specific utilities to solve their particular problems or they are-so intricate so as to require special training for their use. The computer model selected by Acres for this study is the General Electric Optimized Generation Program, Version Five (OGP-V). Several of Acres• staff have become familiar· with the use of this program on ] .] ] ] :l ~I ~] ~I ~I .J _] _I '"J I .I ~..I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I other studies similar to the Susitna alternatives evaluations. The model is currently being used by Acres for the evaluation of small hydro sites in the eastern U.S. Earlier versions of the model, OGP-III and OGP-IV were used in studies performed fcrr the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in evaluating alternatives for New England Power Supply scenarios through the year 2000. This study was part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 944 MW Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project in Maine. (d) OGP-V The OGP-V program combines three main factors of the generation expansion planning decision process: system reliability evaluation, operations cost e~timation, and investment cost estimation. The program begins by evaluation of the power system reliability in the first study year by mean·s of one of two methods --either a percentage- of-reserves calculation or the computation of the loss of load probability (LOLP). When the system demand. level rises ta the point at which either the use-specifed reserve level or the LOLP criteria is vi0lated, the program "instalis11 new generating capacity. The program will add generation capacity from a use-provided list of available sources. As each possib 1 e choice is eva 1 uated, the program carries out a. product ion cost calculation and an investment cost calculation, and eliminates those units or combinations of units whose addition to the system results in higher annua.l cost than other units or combinations. The program continues in this manner until the least-cost system addition combination is determined for that year. In cases where operating cost inflation is present, or where outage rates vary with time, OGP-V has a look-ahead feature which develops levelized fuel and O&M costs and mature outage rates out to ten years ahead of the 11 present" time. Once the apparent least-cost additions to the system necessary to satisfy reserve or LOLP criteria have been selected, the optimum system is described .. (e). Discussion Load forecasting and daily load variation data generated in Subtask 1.02 will be used as input to the computer model together with th~ following technical and economic planning criteria: -generation capacity and energy reserve requirements -addit.ion capacity and energy reserve requirements -·technical and economic elements of various alternatives (as presented under paragraph b) ·. I l f I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I -economic discount rate -period of analysis This data will be established in consultation with Alaska Power Authority, other utilities in the Rai1belt Region and other pertinent agencies. The analysis will be carried out at the base rate with sensitivity testing over the possible range for selected alternatives. The sensitivity testing will be based mainly on the external panel recormtendations. One of the benchmarks against which the economics of a power generating facility may be measured is the economics of its alternatives. In many cases~ it is possible to identify specific alternatives against which a given project may be directly compared. Most generating projects are intended for a specific operating regime within the power system, such as base-, intermediate·-, at• peak-load operation. For such sources~ it is a relatively straightforward task to evaluate the cost of operating a specific alternative. Hydroelectric projects, due to their hydrologic characteristics, must be evaluated in a somewhat different manner. A hydro project can be subject to significant seasonal variations in its generation capacity. Factors such as ra1nfal1 patterns and springtime snowpack runoff can work to make base1oad and peaking benefits available from the same hydroelectric project. Also, although· initial studies of the Devil Canyon-Watana installations were based upon fifty percent annual capacity factor (1,394 MW, 5,100,.000 MWh/yr), some base .... load (greater than 80 percent capacity factor) and some peak-load (less than 10 percent capacity factor) anergy can be expected to be available. The way in wh·ich such additional capacities become available complicates the evaluation of a hydroelectric projecto Conventional base-load plants such as coal-fired or nuclear steam plants are commonly built to take advantage of the econvmies of scale available to large plants of this type. Conversely, peaking plants are usually relatively small {less than 100 MW). The base-load energy produced by even a large hydr-o plant may be available only at such a small capacity as to make comparison with the conventional alternatives meaningless. For example, if the Susitna project, with. its 1~394 MW output at 50 percent can produce only 125 MW at capacity factors greater than 80 percent, it is difficult to make comparisons with base-load nuclear or coal plants with capacities on the order of 500 MW or larger. In the same senset hydrologic conditions may make a great deal of capacity available at a given site for very short periods of time as peaking energy. Such large amounts of surplus energy may make meaningful comparisons between the hydro project and its conventional alternatives (combustion turbines) difficult. I 1 1 II I ~. 'I I I I ~· .I I .I I .I I ~ I I I I I I , •. l I 'I I I I •• I I I I I I Thus, the Susitna Hydroelectric Project will be evaluated in the light of its effect upon the mix of alternatives in the power system and any possible deferment of capital expenditures for other facilities. To properly take into account the capacity variations of the projects, its operation within a power system will be analyzed on a monthly, or at least a seasonal, basis. More detailed analyses could be performed to define exact operating procedures, but such detail is not justified in a long-term planning study. · (f) Schedule Weeks 42 through 56 I I I I I I ll I I) ;ll I) IJ IJ ll IJ IJ Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Sequence Impact Assessments (a) Objective To compare, from an environmental standpoint, the consequences of developing the alternative expansion scenarios selected for public review, including historical, socioeconomic and other factors. (b) Approach The approach to review and assessment of expansion scenarios will be to primarily utilize existing data, and available aerial photography of the selected or potential sites whenaver and wherever sufficient information is available. However, it may be necessary to gather 1 imited site-specific data for the assessments, since the environmental resources of mayn of the more remote portions of the study corridor have not be inventoriedo The key to this approach is the use of staff who have an in-depth knowledge of both fish and wildlife habitat requirements and the short-term and long-term effects of construction and operation of various facilities in Alaska. The environmental consequences of developing alternative energy sources are dependent upon numerous factors including energy source, production method, site location characteristics, site fish and wildlife characteristics, land-use patterns, and facility construction and operation. A thorough assessment of the impacts of generation expansion scenarios is also dependent upon an understanding of the critical (or limiting) habitat requirements of local fish and wildlife during their life history; such as fish overwintering areas, and nesting and feeding habitats of endangered or threatened fauna. The significant impact-producing actions will vary with the individual alternative being assessed. At times, the selected site location will be the prime factor, while for other alternatives~ the short-term or long-term air quality or water quality perturbations, or wildlife habitat degradation may be the overriding factor. Some of the more significant potential concerns are discussed below. The environmental evaluation of the selected hydroelectric and tidal power development alternatives (if any) will identify the associated potential impact issues, and their relative magnitudes. Such issues will involve the relative sizes of reservoirs and impacts on water quality a,nd fish and wildlife habitats in particular. The environmen- tal analysis will be performed on the basis of available data, which will be compiled for this purpose. Transmission facilities associated with the hydr.o alternative .sites will be included in this environmental analysis. t . j (c) With coal-fired power plants, such as those associated with the Beluga and Nenana field, the collection of large quantities of coal through surface mining would create environmental concerns. These concerns are related primarily to large-scale, long-term habitat alterations affect- ing fish and wildlife. The operation of coal-fired plants would also create problems relating to air quality, cooling water discharges, and run-off from fly ash ponds. However, plants can be designed to successfully mitigate (though not eliminate) these concerns. New gas or oil-fired power plants require construction of pipelines that at least lead to short-term concerns associated with river crossings, wetlands disturbance, and habitat alterations. On-site facilities can cover large acreages, and operation can create air quality problems related to nitrogen emissions and winter steam plumes. Wood-produced energy would also cause air quality problems such as those currently found in the Fairbanks area. Such plants would furthermore· require clear-cutting of vast acreages of timber. rnis may not be environmentally wise due to the slow regeneration times required for time timber production and hence would lead to long-term wildlife habitat alterations. Potentially severe impacts to stream habitats and local fish populations may also result. Field investigations will not be undertaken to confirm the potential magnitude of impacts of the alternatives within this preliminary environmental assessment of scenarios. The impact assessments for the alternative sequences submitted for public review will be presented in the Interim Report, together with the economic evaluations (Subtask 1.04). Parameters for computing and evaluating the expansion scenarios are presented in Attachment 2. Land and Water Use Land ownership in the vicinity of the alternati~es will be identified as federal (including agency jurisdiction), state, borough, private and Native Corporation. Land ownership status may be in transition due to the Alaska-Native Claims Settlement Act and State Selection under the Statehood Act. Land management plans and regulations affecting alternatives will be evaluated. The various federal, state and local agencies,. and some Native Corporations will have land classification and management systems governing activities that are allowed on those lands and waters being managed. Stipulations concerning allowable activities could affect the feasibility of alternatives. Land and water use patterns (historical, current and proposed} will be documented in order to evaluate impacts and potential use conflicts posed by alternatives. I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I 1 l ! ' l l . •• !:'- l } I ,, l \. ,, ' ,j ' ! c i I ~ ..J I' ·~·J Unique features in the vicinity of alternative projects, such as ·recreation areas and aesthetic/visual resources, also will be identified. The presence of popular recreation areas and unusual aesthetic quality may present impact and feasibility problems, particularly when on public lands. (d) Socioeconomic Characteristics Demographic data, historic, current and projected, will be evaluated to estimate the impact created by the influx of construction and operations work forces. Employment characteristics of the work force in the vicinity of alternative projects will also help to evaluate positive and negative impacts created by project implementation. This information would include emplo)fllent and unemplo)1Tient by region and skill classification, and wage rates {also regional and skill specific). Financial characteristics of any borough or municipal governments in alternative project. areas will be considered. Tax revenue, mill rates, and tax base data will help estimate potential impacts. Housing characteristics, such as available stock (including rental units) and vacancy rates, will be utilized for impact evaluation. Community infrastructure could be impacted by implementing alternatives to the Susitna project. Current loads on infrastructural systems (i.e., electricity, water, sewage) service areas, and sys~em capacity will. therefore be considered. Transportation systems potentially affected by project alternatives ~ill be identified. Data will include current traffic estimates, capacity, area of service, and intermodal connections • . Sociocultural characteristics could be an issue in several project areas. Life style, ethnic traditions and subsistence use patterns of biological resources will be documented. (e) Archaeological and Historical Resources Existing archaeological and historical sites will be inventoried in alternative project areas, as available data allow. The State Historical Preservation Office maintains a statewide file of known sites and will be utilized in this effort. (f) Schedule Weeks 56 through 66 """'1 U: .~ IJ 'I I I I I Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternatives Stud,r: -Interim Reeort {a) Objective Prepare power alternatives study Interim Report for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. (b) ApproacJ! (c) The power alternatives study Interim Report will present economic evaluations and preliminary environmental impacts assessment for expansion scenarios with and without Susitna, as well as for a · decentralized alternative scenario documenting the findings of Subtasks 1.01 through 1.05 and including various external panel reviews and corresponding iterations. The 11 With Susitna 11 Scenario implies a development of the Corps of Engineers scheme, posSibly with an envelope defined around its parameters, to express the likely range in which other Susitna schemes might lie. The Interim Report will be presented at a public meeting for review early in 1981. Public commments may induce at that time the need for refined analyses starting as far back as the global evaluation of alternatives (Subtask 1.03). The reviewed Interim Report will represent the basic document to be considered il'1 the first GO-NO-GO decision process. Discussion If, based on the Interim Report prelimina~ data on costs and i~acts, Susitna is not selected by the Optimum Generation Program even when it is a part of the input set, strong evidence will exist to suggest that the decision should and that further study work on Susitna should ~.,e stopped i~e., "NO G0 11 , perhaps in favor of more detailed study of another expansion scenario that appears best for Railbelt needs. If, on the other hand, clear advantages can be seen in the 11 With Susitna 11 sequence, it is likely that further study will be undertaken. (d) Schedule Weeks 58 through 66 I i l ' I I 1 I I J • Subtask 1.07 -Power Study Panel (a) Objective Examine major assumptions, analyze results and make recommendations related to all major study subtasks: electric energy demand forecast, global evaluation of alternatives, cost, risk and scheduling studies,· expansion scenario evaluation and preliminary environmental assessments. {b) Approach A multidisciplinary panel will be established and the selection of its members will be made by APA. Panel recommendations may induce iterations at main review points within the study. Major screening points occur at the end of Subtasks 1.02 (electric energy demand and electric peak load demand forecast), 1.03 (ranking and elimination of alternatives based on global evaluations) and 1 .. 04 (expansion scenarios generation by OGP). (c) Discussion I I li I I I I I I • The present proposal (cost estimates and schedules) is based on no more 1· ·. than one iteration at each review point. {d) Schedule. Weeks 40 through 58 I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I . TASK 1 -SECOND PART POWER STUDIES, 1980/81 ( i) Q.bjecti ves To study the financial and marketing aspects, to complete a preliminary environmental impact analysis, to complete a risk analysis, to refine the cost and schedule, and to perform a sensitivity analysis on selected expansion scenarios with and without the Susitna Project (including decentralized development scenarios). Optimum expansion scenarios will be identified and presented for public comment and to support the second GO-NO GO decision process. as whether to proceed with 1 icense application for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. (ii) Output I The output of Task 1 (Second Part) will be the Final Report presenting the. analyses and studies completed under this Ta.sk, including methodology used, final panel and public reviews, Acres recommendations and the Authority decision. A preliminary report identifying optimum expansion scenarios will be presented for public review in March 1982. The resulting comments will possibly lead to iterations of the study process. The final report.will include Acres response to the review process and will provide the technical support for the second GO.-NO GO decision process. (iii) List of Subtasks Subtask 1e04 -Generation Planning Analyses and Selection of Optimum Expansion Sequences Subtask 1.05 -Environmental Impact Assessment Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternative Study -Final Report Subtask 1.07' -Power Study Review Panel (iv} Scope Stat~ment The ma1n purpose of Task 1 (Second Part) as discussed in Section (i1) above is the selection of viable expansion scenarios with and without the Susitna Project to meet the future electrical needs in the Railbelt area and to identify the optimum ones based on more detailed studies. ' .c I The detailed Task 1 studies will use the data generated as part of Subtask 6.01 -6.08 studies of hydroelectric developments within the I· Susitna River Basin, including the detailed evaluation of the tunnel alternative, the Devil Canyon site, the Watana/Devil Canyon staged development, the preliminary Watana Dam and Devil Canyon Dam I alternatives, the preliminary financial and marketing study (Sub- task 11.12), the preliminary environmental assessment of impacts in the socioeconomic, archeological -historical resources and land use I areas (parts of Subtasks 7.05, 7.06 and 7.07), and preliminar~ risk and scheduling analysis (an expansion of Subtask 11.04) will be completed. Based on these more precise data~ new runs of the OGP Program (Subtask 1.04) will be completed to generate updated II expansion scenarios which include alternative Susitna developments. The work done under the first part of Task l (year 1980/81) will permit the selection of viable expansion scenarios without the Susitna Project (including a decentralized scenario). However, the level of detail relative to the non-Susitna expansion scenarios. will also be updated. Next, a new evaluation of the· scenarios wi11 be conducted to rank both groups of expansion sequences -with and without the Susitna Project. These in-depth evaluations will consist of: -a financial and marketing analysis, to be perfonned as part of Subtask 11.12; -an environmental imp?:;t a$sessment, essentially an extension of the Subtask 1.05, covering parallel activities to those ii;:CltJded under Task 7 but applied to alternative scenarios; -risk and scheduling analyses, basically an increase in the scope of work of Subtasks 11.03 and 11.04. The results of the above evalu!l.tions will undergo a sensitivity analysis, and will integrate the multidisciplinary panel recommendations (Subtask 1.07). Preliminary and Final Reports will be written, r~vised and updated under Subtask 1.06. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '.l ' ( Subtask 1.04 -Generator Planning Analyses and Selection of Optimum Expansion Sequences (a) Objective (b) To determine the optimum system expansion scenarios with the Susitna Hydroelectric project to select viable expansion saenarios with and without Susitna for detailed assessment, to identify the optimum expansion scenarios based on the detailed assessment and on sensitivity analysis performed with the results of the above assessments. Approach The total system cost of expansion scenarios will be evaluated using more detailed data generated for this phase of Task 1. The General Electric Optimized Generation Program, Version Five (OGP-V) would probably be used for the purposeo At that time, the detailed studies performed under Task 6 (Subtasks 6.01---6.08) will be available; also avail able will be preliminary financial marketing studies and cost-risk-scheduling analyses performe~ under Task 11 as well as preliminary environment assessments. All the above parallel studies will be input into the analyses thus representing a key reiteration processes regarding level of detailed analysis to be performed within this study. This det~iled analyses will permit a scenario selection process based on actual (1981 level) Susitna Project economic- financial characteristics and environmental impacts. The entire array of expansion sequences, both with and without the Susitna Project, will be studied in detail as follows: -an in-depth financial and marketing assessment will be conducted under Task 11 · . - a detailed environmental impact assessm~nt of the expansion scenarios without Susitna Project will be performed -a risk and scheduling analysis of all the expansion sequences will be conducted under Task 11 - a sensitivity analysis based on the results of the above studies will conclude the in-depth scenarios assessment, and iterations--where appropriate--will be made. f l, ·' •• ••••• ~ t ' •• ' . .: ~ (c) (d) The multidisciplinary external panel of experts will screen the assessment of expansion scenarios and will present its recommendations. The assessments, the results of sensitivity analysis and the panel recoiTinendations will pennit the identification of the optimum expansion scenarios to be presented for public review. Discussion Iteration after detailed marketing, financing, cost-schedule, risk and environmental studies may prove necessary as a basis for the sensitivity analysis. The multidisciplinary panel may itself induce iterations resulting fran its recortlllendatians. The demand energy itself may change as a function of the way in which generating capacity comes on line to satisfy the demand. Peak loads and load duration curves may also be modified, especially as the industrial-commercial sector takes a particular shape and becomes a significant entity • Ongoing ISER studies may yield new demand and load data. The work to be per-"fonned under this subtask may require numerous iteration as the optimum expansion scenarios are identified and submitted for pub 1 ic review. Schedule Weeks 51 through 104 I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I ., l ~ • • I . . l Subtask 1.05 -Environmental Impact Assessment (a) Objective To assess and compare, from an environmental standpoint, the consequences of developing expansion scenarios to meet future electric demand needs in the Railbelt area • (b) Approach An increased level of detail, as compared to the environmental studi.es perfonned under the first part of Task 1, to be completed • Specifically·, it will be necessary to gather more site specific data for the assessment of the scenarios which include such alternatives as coal-fired plants using the Beluga and Nenana coals, gas or oil-fired power plants using local resources, wood-or peat-fired steam-electric plants or wind-driven turbines installed in clusters. Tite socioeconomic analysis will include, in addition to a literature search, a·preliminary socioeconomic impact study based on a profile development and intended to identify the significant scenario impacts. Finally, an evaluation of these significant socioeconomic impacts will be perfonned. The analysis will represent an extension and application of parts of Subtask 7.05 to alternative expansion scenarios. The cultural resources investigation will identify archeological and historical sites within the proposed development sites included in the alternative expansion scenarios. The site inventory will be based on the existing statewide files and on short reconnaissance trips on field. To evaluate the land use impacts, the land types covered by various developments included in alternative expansion scenarios will be identified. Their historical, current and proposed use pattern will be investigated in order to evaluate impacts and possible conflicts posed by developing the alternative expansion scenarios. Special features in the areas covered by the developments included in the alternative expansion scenarios, such as recreational areas and aestethic and visual resources, will also be identified by reconaissance trips on field, as they may represent heavy impacts, especially when on public lands. The analysis will represent an application of parts of Subtask 7.07 to alternative expansion scenarios. Additional factors to be considered include institutional factors, licensing prospects, public health and safety aspects as well as State and Federal regulations (i.e. Fuel Use Act, Antiquities Act, etc.) ""I····. . ' . ' ~) ' (c) Discussion The socioeconomic, cultural and land use impact analyses perfonned under this subtask will represent an extension of the effort in Subtask 1.05, under the first part of Task 1. The impacts identified, inventoried and evaluated for the alternatives making up a scenario will be superimposed in order to represent the total scenario impact. Additional activities to be completed will consist mainly of site-specific evaluations such as reconnaissance trips to the field and in a further evaluation of the most significant socioeconomic impacts. (d) Schedule Weeks 60 through 90 I I I I I I I I I fl I I I I I I I I I 1 .J ) 1 Subtask 1.06 -Power Alternative Study -Final Report (a) Objective Prepare power alternatives study Preliminary and Final Report for Susitna Hydroelectric Project. (b) Approach The power alternatives study Preliminary Report will present few optimum expansion scenarios identified as a result of detailed studies of all selected expansion scenarios including Susitna Basin alternatives. The selection will be based on financial and marketing aspects, environmental impacts, risk analyses and cost and schedule refinements and a sensitivity analysis. The Preliminary Report will be issued for public review in March 1982. Public comments may induce several iterations, requiring refined analyses starting as far back as the reevaluation of future· electric energy demand forecast (Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02)~ (c) Discussion If, based on the Preliminary Report detailed analyses on costs and impacts~ the Susitna Project is not included in the optimum expansion scenarios, the decision should obviously be 11 NO GO" and all work will be stopped. If Susitna is indeed included as a development within one or more of the optimum expansion scenarios identified and the decision is 11 GO", a Final Report will be issued incorporating all the· findings, analyses and studies perfonned under Task 1. In parallel, detailed studies an the Susitna Hydroelectric Project will continue and the licensing application will proceed. (d) Schedule Weeks 100 through 114 ;] Subtask 1.07 -Power Study Review Panel {a) Objective Examine major assumptions~ analyse results and make recommendations related to the selection of expansion scenarios (with and without Susitna). (b) Approach The multidisc.iplinary panel established and selected in 1980 by APA will have a major screening role at the end of Subtask 1~05. Panel recommendations related to the detailed study of the expa·nsion sequences for financial and marketing aspects, environmental impacts~ risk analyses and cost and schedule refinements may induce iterations which will be handled mainly as additional sensitivity analyses. The panel is expected to produce direct input into the Final Report development. (c) Schedule Weeks 90 through 98 I I I I I I I I •• I I I I I I •• I I I ·--. I [ { lOl ----·~--·-----·-·-. ----j-;~ . ., ··-· r • ~0" S"T. 2'\ POSSIBLE --__ 'J 1.02 NO LOAD MAN' MIT /SUB TASK I co,.,;sERVArtm~ I STI:ATEGIES 1.02 t I tot TOTAL PEAK l.OADS !' DEMAN;.r,j =II I.OZ LOAD DURATIONS I 1.03 t. SASITNA 1 IU2 PRELIMINMlY FINANCIAL a MARKETINIS 1---------. &:ROPCS~1 STUDY I r I 1.03 NON-HYDRO ALTERNATIVES l.o3 -., ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMEUT COST ~RESOURCE AVAILABILITY tHECHNICAL AI!AilABILITY FACILITY OPERATIONAL - CHAP.ACTERISTICS lNSTlTL!TlotiAt FACTORS ~ I 03 I v EliVIRGri!·!EUTAL FACTORS • OCIOECu'iO~·Il C EFFECTS LICENSING PROSPECTS OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFEn HYDRO a TIDAL STATE A!~J fEDEP.Al r.:t ALTERNATIVES I REGULATIONS ·;I RISK ANALYSIS l_r! FHIJ!NCIAL AND 1-'.ARKETING . ~~ALYSIS I'~ r~·,i w 1.03 ADDEO 1 CONSERVATION!-• -4------------~ ALTERNATIVES 11.12 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL a MARKETING STUDY, SHT 2. APPROXIMATE i n SCHEDULE 3J L!E.Exs FRoM .Uan 1 19so) I 39 ... ~ 11.03/11:04 1.07 RA~:LE~~D 1-i+~""'' PANEL II ALTERN:jj I SC:E~N I 1.03 r ELIMINATE NON-AVAILABLE (LOW PROSILTY)t-------' ALTERNATIVES c ITERATE? __ __;__~ I 42' I 44 1.04 PLA~·~ING A';~• YSTS L04 EXPANSION SCENARIOS WITHOUT SUSITNA • 1.04 I DECENTRALIZED ~"'>'I EXPANSION SCENARIOS 1.04 1.02 11.03- INFO FROM LEGEND ~ 1 .OS SCENARIO ASSESSMENT H>t. COST 1 FACILITY OPERATIONAl CHARACTER 1ST! CS j ENV IRONHEilTAL EFFECTS 'SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS LICENSING, PROSPECTS INSIITUTlotiAL FACTORS PrJ .PUBLl C HEALTH AND SAFET\ u STATE AND FEOERAL REGULATIONS RISK ANA~YSIS • F INAt.CIAL At:D !I.~Rt\ETltiG ANALY~l~ ~ I+ 1.07 PANEL SCREEN 1....---.,..-_l 1.06 INTERIM REPORT NO >------:. IDENTIFY tb I I >-!NON-ECONOMICALd ' EXPANSION ' SCENARIOS rr ---···-] r -· PUBLIC I COMMENT --=-==~=:~=:..., yES ,r ITERATE? cHT. 2 TASK II t------i CONTINUE SUSIINA FEASIOILITY ST":JY STUDY OF EXPN.S I C'· SCE'U1RICS w/o SUSITNA NO FURTII£1l STUDIES l I I GI~Y~ES ____ .;' J I 54 I 58 I 60 I 68 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PLAN OF STUDY TASK I-POWER STUDIES I FIRST PART " (• I L,, 1!.02. n.ol. 11.02 TOTAL PRELIMINARY FIIIANCIAL DEMAND { MARKETING {SHT. U STUDY ~ \:':i ;-.. -d 1.04 GENERATION CONTINUE SUSlTNA COST, RISK, TASK 6 TASK 6 SUSITNA ' CONTINUE DETAILED I ~ SUSITNA H f {PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES FEASlBlliTY STUDY -ENVIRONMENT STUDIES • ASSESSMENT Ill ,.1 PLANt'.ING ANALYSIS 'TASK 7 I J.G4 t 1-----DEVELOPHEt-1~ 1 REPORT SUSITNA. STUDIES 6.01 ••••• ••• 6.08 I I ~ • 1.04 STUDY OF EXPANSIOt SCEUARIOS POINT W/o SUSITNA 11.01, 11.04, ]1.}2 I EXPANSION FINANCIAL .& MARKETING -------, SCENARIOS l ASSESSMEtiTS W/SUSITNA _ SELECT I RISK :r· . I L ( I I I I Jt 1.05 I ·-. 1 1 n ENVIRONMENl'AL . I ~ @ -t---....L---.., -=:J IMPACTI .... ---::~t ASSESSMENtS 1.04 "'--' r~ 6 ~j '-' A lj ll G APPRQX. f~HEDULE £13 \ ·YEEKS FROM Jan. NO FURTHER STUDIES I 68 ··. -~--·-1 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES • LICENSING PROSPECTS ~- 1-------------..-..j lNSTlTUTlONAL fACTORS L TATE & FEDERAL REGULATIONS 1 -~ • 1.04 ~ : ~ 1.....--------:~·------o· SCH'!DULE. ·-~ 1" cosT a ·~ : • REFlt-.EMENlfS, I 7A .·. ': ·~ I 78 ~ I 108 6 01.. •••.. 6.08 J 112 '.'' l980) "I b (I) INCLUDES DECENTRALIZED SCENARIOS 1--e-- 1.07 PANEL SCREEN I i-1""4 f----1- L04 • IDENTIFY OPTIMUM EXPANSION SCE::NARIOS I i22" TO SHEET J. ' i r ' ! t PREPARE LICENSIN APPLICATION FOR SUSITNA PROJECT ( I FINAL REPORT 8 RECOMMENDATION yes 1-JO STOP ALL WORK Bo SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PLAN OF STUDY TASK I-POWER STUDIES/SECOND PART ' ATTATCHMENT I SHEET 2 OF 2. I I I I ·I I Attachment 2 PARAMETERS FOR COMPARING AND EVALUATING EXPANSION SE9UENCES A.. COST PARAMETERS 1. Total system costs 2. Costs to consumer (typical household) 3. Cos't trend (stab 1 e, subject to i nfl ati on, cost eventually decreases after amortization,etc.) 4. Ownership/control (municipal, utility, state) 5. Uncertainty and risk regarding cost (reflecting history of cost overruns in constructing the alternatives in this expansion sequence) B. SAFETY AND HEALTH PARAMETERS 1. Catastrophic failure impacts {probability and costs) 2. Health effects fran pollution (probability) 3. Interruption of service (probability) C. ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS 1. Noise 2., Smell 3. Visual (from populated areas, from air, etc.) 4. Water quality impacts · 5. So 1 i d waste· impacts 6. Impacts on fish (relative to the size and value of the resource) 7. Impacts on birds (relative to the size and value of the resource) 8. Impacts on wildlife (relative to the size and value of the resource) 9. Impacts on important ecosystems 10. Water consumption (relative to supply) ll. Property damage D. SOCIOECONOMIC PARAMETERS 1. Extent of generation system diversification 2. Employment impact (a) construction (number, type and from where) (b) operation 3. Relocations necessary 4. Surplus power . (a) description (b) probable effect on growth, industry relocation, etc. 5. State energy independence 6. Regional settlement patterns Attachment 2 • PARAMETERS FOR COMPARING AND EVALUATING EXPANSION SEQUENCES (Cont'd) E. OTHER PARAMETERS 1. Fossil fuel consumed 2. Efficiency (ratio of energy out to energy in) 3. Natural systems altered 4. Plan flexibility I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I 1 SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES INTERIM REPORT OUTLINE (MAY l98lj CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION 1.1 -Project Destription 1.2 -Interim Report Content CHAPTER 2 -SUMMARY 2.1 -Electric Energy Demand Forecast 2.2 -Electric Peakload Demand Forecast 2-3 -Existing Generation Plan Attachment 3 Page 1 2.4 -Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatiaves for Future Generation Plan 2.5 -Further Evaluation of Alternatives 2.6 -OGP Analyses and Formulation of Expansion Sequences 2.7 -Preliminary Environmental Assessements 2*8 -Acres Recommendations CHAPTER 3 -ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST 3.1 -Introduction 3.2 -Past and Present Electric Energy Demand 3.2.1 -Anchorage·-Cook Inlet Area and Kenai Peninsula 3.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Va1ley Area 3.2.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.3 -Methodology for Electric Energy Demand forecasting 3.3.1 -Existing (recent) Forecasts and Data Base used 3.3.2 -Review of existing Electrical Energy Demand forecasting methods 3.3.3 -Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Data Base for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska 3.3.4 -Selection of the most suitable method for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska. Basic Assumptions. 3.4 -·Future Electric Energy Demand Scenarios 3.4.1 -· Impact of Conservation Measures on Electric Energy Demand 3.4.1.1 -Residential (weatherization, house heating efficiency improvement, solar home heating; electric appliances efficiency improvement) 3.4.1.2 -Commercial (improvement of electric energy supply efficiency i·n existing buildings; more stringent codes for new buildings) 3.4.1.3 -Industrial (cogeneration) 3.4.2 _, High Probable Future Demand Scenario 3.4.2.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.2.3 -Glenallen : Valdez Area --· I j I -I ~ I I I ! • I . .• ~··.Ji .. ' '\ II I Attachment 3 Page 2 3.4.3 -Low Probable Future Demand Scenario 3.4.3.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.3.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.3.3 -Glenallen-Valdez Area 3.4.4-Public and Local Agencies Input 3o4.4.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4 .. 4 ... 2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.4.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.4.5 -Base Case Scenario ATTACHMENT: ISER's Study 3.4.5.1 -Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area 3.4.5.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.5.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area CHAPTER 4 -ELECTRIC PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECAST 4.1 -Introduction 4.2 -Past and Present Electric Peak Load Demand 4.2 .. 1 • Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 4.2.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 4.2.3 -Glennallen -Valdez Area 4-.3 -Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (Summary of paragraph 3.4.5) 4.4 -Methodology for Electric Peak Load Demand forecasting 4~4.1 -Existing Forecasts and Data Base usEd 4.4.2 -Review of Peak Load and Load Dul .. ation forecasting methods 4.4.3 -Qualitative and Quantitative Analsyes of Data Base for Electric Peak Load Demand Forecast 4.4.4 -Selection of a suitable method of forecasting Electric Peak Load and Load Duration in Alaska. Basic Assumptions. 4.5 -Future Electric Power Demand Scenarios 4.5.1 -Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (with ISER's total electric energy conservation measures built-in) 4.5.1.1 -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer category and study region 4.5.1.2 -·Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and study region 4.5.1.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios for characteristic points on the load-duration curves 4.5.1.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load Ratios, by months 4.5.2 -Impact of Load Management Measures 4.5.2.1 -Voluntary Measures 4. 5.2.2 -Forced Measures (time-of-day pricing, demand controls a£ distribution) 4.5.2.3 -Additional Electric System Interconnections 4.5.2.4 -Cost Implications of Load Management Measures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I Attachment 3 Page 3 4.5.3 -Low Load -Growth Scenario (Addition: with L. M. measures applied) 4.5.3.1 -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer catego~y and study region 4. 5.3.2 -r~onth-to-Annua 1 Load Rati as, per consumer category and study region 4.5.3.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios, for characteristic points on th~ load-duration curves 4G5.3.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load ratios, by months 4.6 -Power Study Panel Input 4.6.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 4.6.2 -Effects of Reiterations. An ACHMENr: wee • s study CHAPTER 5 -EXISTING GENERATION PLAN 5.1 -Introduction 5.2 -Railbelt Area System Capability (MW) and Peak Loads, January 1980 {per type of Generation and Utility) 5.3 -Committed and Planned Changes in Generating Equipment ( near-tenn) 5.3.1 -Retirements 5.3.2 -Reratings 5.3.3 -Additions 5.3.4-Purchases and Sales ATTACHMENTS: 1980 Utilities' Reports CHAPTER 6 -PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE GENERATION PLAN 6.1 -Introduction 6.2-Preliminary Evaluation Criteria 6.2.1 -Energy Resource Availability in Alaska 6.2.2-Technical and Commercial Use Availability 6.2.3 -Expected Fuel Dependency 6~2.4 -Site A~ailability 6.2.5-Preliminary Health, Safety and Environmental Concerns 6.2-6 -Global Cost Estimates (mills/kWh) 6.2.7-Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analysis 6.3 .. Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Alternatives 6.3.1 -Fossil Fuel Alternatives 6.3.1.1 -Coal-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.2 -Oil-Fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.3 -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.4 -Oil-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.5 -Natural Ga§-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.6 -Oil-fired Combustion Turbines 6.3.1.7 -· Natural Gas·fired Combustion Turbines I .I I ~· ~ I I j I f I I. ~ ! j I l I ~ ' i I : I I I \ l . ,1·· ! ( I I I \ J I l I 6.3.2 -Nuclear Alternatives Attachment 3 Page 4 6.3.2.1 -Converter Reactors (LWR, HWR) 6.3.2.2 -Breeder Reactors 6.3.2.3 -Fusion 6.4 -Other Generation Alternatives and Alternative Fue~s 6.4.1.-Municipal Solid Waste 6.4.2 -Wood-fired and Peat-fired Steam Cycle 6.4.3 -Biomass Gasification Applications 6.4.4 -Wind Energy Driven Turbines 6.4.5 -Geothermal Energy Driven Tur~ines 6.4.6 -Solar Thennal Steam Cycle 6.4.7 -Solar Photovoltaic 6.4.8 -Cogeneration (Industry, District Heating, Institutional) 6.5 -Hydro and Tidal Alternatives 6.5.1 -Other Conventional Hydro Developments 6.5.2 -Small-scale Hydropower Plant Potential 6.5.3 -Tidal Power Resources of the Cook Inlet Region 6.6 -Susitna Hydroelectric Project (SHP) 6.6.1 -Reservoir Operation, Monthly t::nergy Production and Capacity Factors 6.6.2 -Corps of Engineers Project Cost Update 6.6 •. 3 -Preliminary Financial and Marketing. Study 6.6.4 -·Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analyses 6.7 -Additional Electric Energy Conservation Measures (Non-structural Alternative) 6.7.1 -List of Additional Conservation Measures 6.7.2-Cost Implications of Additional Conservation Measures 6.8 -Ranking and Selection of Alternatives 6.9 -Power Study Panel Input 5.9.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 6.9.2 -Effects of Reiterations CHAPTER 7-FURTHER EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES (January 1980 Price Level) 7.1 -General Assumptions 7.2 -Unit Sizes and Years of Availability/Unit Size 7.3-Plant.Capital Costs ($/kW) 7.4 -Annual Capital Requirements ($/kW/Yr) 7.5 -Operating (non-fuel) and Maintenance Costs (Fixed-$/kW/Yr Variable-mills/kWh) 7.6-Fuel Heat Contents (Btu/unit) and Prices ($/unit) 7.7 -Heat Rates (Btu/kWh) and Fuel Costs (mills/kWh). · 7.8 -Differential Fuel Cost Escalation 7.9 -Scheduled and Forced Outage Rates CHAPTER 8 o OGP ANALYSES AND FORMULATION OF EXPANSION SEQUENCES 8.1 -General Assumptions 8s2 -Expansion Scenarios with SHP 8.3 -Expansion Scenarios without_SHP 8.4-Decentralized Expansion Scenarios ,, 1 ] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I •• Attachment 3 Page 5 8.5 -Identification ~f Other Expansion Scenarios (less economic attractive) · 8.6 -Power Study Panel Input 8.6.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 8.6~2 -Effects of Recommendations on Expansion Scenarios. CHAPTER 9 -PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 9.1 -Assessment Criteria and Methodology 9.2 -Expansion Scenarios with SHP 9.3 -Expansion Scenarios without SHP 9.4-Decentralized Expansion Scenarios 9.5 -Other Expansion Scenarios (less economic attractive) CHAPTER 10 -GENERAL PUBLIC REVIEW lOlll -Summary of General Public Comments 10.2 -Effects of Reiterations CHAPTER 11 -RECOMMENDATIONS :1,.~ ·~ I li ·~ I) IJ I ~ I} ~ 11 CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 -POWER STUDIES FINAL REPORT OUTLINE (MAY 198~1 1.1 -Project Description 1.2 -Report Content CHAPTER 2 -SUMMARY Attachment 4 Page 1 2.1 -Electric Energy Demand Forecast 2.2 -E1 ectri c Peakl a ad Demand Forecast 2.3 -Exist1ng Generation Plan 2.4-Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatiaves for Future Generation Plan 2.5-Detailed Evaluation of Selected Alternatives 2.6 -Susitna Hydroelectric Project Alternatives 2 • .7 a OGP Analyses and Fonnulation of Expansion Sequences 2.8 -Acres Recommendations CHAPTER 3 -ELECTRIC ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST 3.1 -Introduction 3.2 -Past and Present Electric Energy .Demand 3.2.1 -Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area and Kenai Peninsula 3.2.2-Fairbanks-Tanana Valley Area 3.2o3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.3 -Methodology for Electric Energy Demand forecasting 3.3.1 -Existing (recent) Forecasts and Data Base ~sed 3.3.2 -Review of existing E1ectrical Energy Demand forecasting methods 3.3.3 -Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of Data Base for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska 3.3.4-Selection of the most suitable method for Electric Energy forecasting in Alaska. Basic Assumptions. 3.4 -Future Electric Energy Demand Scenarios 3.4 .. 1 -Impact of Conservation Measures on Electric Energy Demand 3.4.2 3.4.1.1 . -Residential (weatherization, house heating efficiency improvement, solar home heating; elect~ic appliances efficiency improvement) 3~4.1..2 -Commercial (improvement of electric energy supply efficiency in existing buildings; · more stringent codes for new buildings) 3.4.1.3 -Industrial (cogeneration) -High Probable Future Demand Scenario 3~4.Z.1 -Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area 3.4.2.2 -Fairbanks -ranana Valley Area 3.4.2.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area I ' ,( J ) ··m·. ' ' j • t ·-1 I I ~ -J -I l ~ I IJ IJ ··~ gj I j l E ' Attachment 4 Page 2 3.4.3 -Low Probable Future Demand Scenario 3.4.3.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.3.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.3.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area 3.4.4 -Public and Local Agencies Input 3.4.4.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 3.4.4.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.4.3 -Glenallen-Valdez Area 3.4.5 -Base Case Scenario ATTACHMENT: ISER's Study 3.4.5.1 -Anchorage-Cook Inlet A~ea 3.4a5.2 -Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 3.4.5.3 -Glenallen -Valdez Area CHAPTER 4 -ELECTRIC PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECAST 4.1 -Introduction 4.2 -Past and Present Electric Peak Load Demand 4.2.1 -Anchorage -Cook Inlet Area 4.2.2 .. Fairbanks -Tanana Valley Area 4.2.3 -Glennallen -Valdez Area 4.3 -Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (Summary of paragraph 3.4.5) 4.4 -Methodology for Electric Peak Load Demand forecasting 4.4.1 -Existing Forecasts and Data Base used 4.4.2 -· Review of Peak Load and Load Duration forecasting methods 4.4.3 -Qualitative and Quantitative Analsyes of Data Base for Electric Peak Load Demand Forecast 4.4.4 -Selection of a suitable method of forecasting Electric Peak Load and Load Durati-on in Alaska. Basic Assumptions. 4~t5 -Future Electric Power Demand Scenarios 4. 5.1 .... Base Case Scenario for Future Electric Energy Demand (with ISER's total electric energy conservation measures built-in) 4.5.1ol -Annual Peak Load Demand, per consumer category and study region 4.5.1.2 -Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and stydy region 4.5.1.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios for characteristic points on the load-duration curves 4.5.1.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load Ratios, by months 4. 5.2 ,.,., Impact of Load Management Measures 4. 5·.2.1 -Voluntary Measures 4.5.2.2 -Forced Measures (time-of-day pricing, demand controls at distribution) 4 .. 5.2.3 -Additional_ Electric System Interconnections 4. 5.2.4 -Cost Implications of Load Management Measures I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I IJ I 'll II IJl .} .l I) l 11 f I It; I J ' . . .•. ~ J Attachment 4 Page 3 4.5.3 -Low Load -Growth Scenario (Addition: with L. M. measures applied) 4.5.3.1 -Annual Peak Load Oemand, per consumer category and study region 4.5.3.2 -Month-to-Annual Load Ratios, per consumer category and study region 4.5 .• 3.3 -Per Unit Load Ratios, for characteristic points on the load-duration curves 4. 5.3.4 -Weekday and Weekend per unit Hourly Load ratios, by months 4.6 -Power Study Panel Input 4.6.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 4.6.2 -Effects of Reiterations. ATTACHMENT: wcc•s Study CHAPTER 5 -EXISTING GENERATION PLAN (1981) 5.1 -Introduction 5.2-Railbelt Area System Capability (MW) and Peak Loads, January 1981 (per type of Generation and Utility) 5.3 -Committed and Planned Changes in Generating Equipment ( near-tenn) 5.3.1 -Retirements 5.3."2 -Rerati ngs 5.3.3 -Additions 5.3.4 -Pur.chases and Sales ATTACHMENTS: 1981 Utilities• Reports CHAPTER 6 -PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FUTURE GENERATION PLAN 6.1 -Introduction 6.2 -Preliminary Evaluation Criteria 6.2.1 -Energy Resource Availability in Alaska 6.2.2 -Technical and Commercial Use Availability 6.2.3 -Expected Fuel Dependency 6.2.4 -Site Availability 6.2.5 -Preliminary Health, Safety and Environmental Concerns 6.2.6 -Global Cost Estimates (mills/kWh) 6.2.7 -Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analysis 6.3 -Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Alternatives 6.3.1 -Fossil Fuel Alternatives 6.3.1.1 -Coal-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.2 -Oil-Fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.3 -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle 6.3.1.4 -Oil-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.5 -Natural Gas-fired Combined Cycle 6.3.1.6-Oil-fired~ambustion Turbines 6.3.1..7 -Natural Gas-fired Combustion Turbines I ! I -i I .J. ·I I I i t \ ·~ I ~ l I I I 6.3.2 -Nuclear Alternatives Attachment 4 Page 4 6~3.2~1 -Converter Reactors ·(LWR, HWR) 6.3.2.2 -Breeder Reactors 6.3.2.3 -Fusion 6.4 -Other Generation Alternatives and Alternative Fuels 6.4.1 -Municipal Solid Waste 6.4.2 -Wood-fired and Peat-fired Steam Cycle 6.4.3 -Biomass Gasification Applications 6.4.4 --Wind Energy Driven Turbines 6.4.5 -Geothermal Energy Driven Turbines 6.4.6 -Solar Thermal Steam Cycle 6.4.7 -Solar Photovoltaic 6.4.8 -Cogeneration (Industry, District Heating, Insitutional) 6.5 -Hydro and Tidal Alternatives 6.5.1 -Other Conventional Hydro Developments 6.5.2 -Small-scale Hydropower Plant Potential 6.5.3 -Tidal Power Resources of the Cook Inlet Region 6.6 -Additional Electric Energy Conservation Measures (Non-structural Alternative) 6.6.1 -List of Additional Conservation Measures 6.6.2 -Cost Implications of Additional Conservation Measures 6.7 -Ranking and Selection of Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation 6.8 -Power Study Panel Input 6.8~1 -Summary of Panel Rec~~endations 6.8.2 -Effects of Reiterations CHAPTER 7 -DETAILED EVALUATION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES (January 1980 Price Level) 7.1 -General Assumptions 7.2-Unit Sizes and Years of Availability/Unit Size 7.3 -Plant Capital Costs ($/kW) 7.4 -Annual Capital Requirements ($/kW/Yr) 7.5-Operating· (non .. fuel) and Maintenance Costs (Fixed-$/kW/Yr Variable.-mills/kWh) 7.6 -Fuel Heat Contents (Btu/unit) and Prices ($/unit) 7.7 -Heat Rates (Btu/kWh) and Fuel Costs (mills/kWh) 7.8 -Differential Fuel Cost Escalation 7.9 -· Scheduled and Forced Outage Rates CHAPTER 8 -SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (SHP) ALTERNATIVES :~1 -Description of Alternativ~s ! 8~1.1 -General Characteristics 8.1.2 -Reservoir Operation, Monthly Energy Production and Capacity Factors 8.1.3 -Economic Characteristics (Capital Costs, Annual Capital Requirements, 0 and M Costs, Outage Rates) 8.1.,4-Preliminary Risk and Scheduling Analysis 8.2 -Preliminary Environmental Ajsessment of SHP Alternatives 8.3 -Preliminary Financial and Marketing Study of SHP Alternatives I I. I I I I ') I I ,J I I I I I I I I J I . li ~ ~ ,I) IJ It CHAPTER 9 -OGP ANALYSES AND FORMULATION OF EXPANSION SEQUENCES 9al -General Assumptions Attachment 4 Page 5 9.2 -Expansion Scenarios with SHP 9.2.1 -Selection of Scenarios 9.2.2 -Cost Refinements and Environmental Impact Assessments 9.2.3 -Risk Assessment and Scheduling Analysis 9.2.4 -Financial and Marketing Assessment 9.3 -Expansion Scenarios Without SHP 9.3.1 -Selection of Scenarios 9.3.2 -Cost Refinements and Environmental Impact Assessments 9.3.3-Risk Assessment and Scheduling Analysis 9.3.4 -Financial and Marketing Assessment 9.4 -Sensitivity Analysis 9.4.1 -Rationale of Parameter Selection 9.4.2 -Range of Parameter Variance 9.4.3 -Results of OGP Analysis 9.5 -Power Study Panel Input 9~5.1 -Summary of Panel Recommendations 9o5.2 -Effects of Panel Recommendations 9.6 -Optimum Expansion Scenarios CHAPTER 10 -GENERAL PUBLIC REVIEW 10.1 -Summary of General Public Comments 10.2 -Effects of Reiterations CHAPTER 11 -RECOMMENDATIONS D -LETTERS FROM APA TO ACRES DATED JUNE 13 AND 30~ 1980 fl; f ~ . .. .. . H . WEST 4th AVENUE. SUITE 31. ANCHORAGE, ALA.SKA 99501 f-,. _._......_._ . . [ . ~ 1" __ ., t; I~, t·:. Mr. David C. Willett Vice Pr·esident Acres American Incorporated 900 Liberty Bank Building Buffalo, New York 14202 Dear Dave: .. j .. • June 13, 1980 '·· Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-2715 '··•.· , . In compliance with Artic1es I and XIII of our Susitna Project . . agreement dated December 19, 1979, we are hereby notifying you of an [: · :: · : :anticipated change in project scope and directing that certain work be r :r •••• :· .. • .•. ··:·. stopped immediately pending final disposition of the issue • . . :::· .. ;· ;: ~··. . . : . ·. ·. . . . . . -. · · ·· The Alaska Legislature has directed that the 11 Powcr Market and {t ~~~~+!t·R ... \ . Alte~n~t~ve Supp!y Studie: be d~1eted from the Acres contract f ..... r Susitna ·' ··\tA · J · Feas1b1l1ty Studv~s". Th1s act1on arose through no fault of Acres but ~ · · 1 . rather as a result. of a perception of possible conflict of interest that t· t· ;.oo . l . caul d ~otttnti a 11y bias. the resu·l ts of. the a 1 tern:-tives study. ~:~'~L:E~:::f '.~:. · :· .. In kee.p .. ing \'rf.th the Legis.lative intent an~·~· after consultation and ·J 1-::.....?,: .. .,7 \ ·. di r·ect~ on ·fro~ the Office of the Governor, we are directing that the ~~ r·. 1•. · --r . fo 11 0'!'11 ng act1 ons should be taken: ) , ~ .. L ~ ! ·. 1. ·. Co~tinue and· comp1 ete subtasks 1. 01 and 1. o2 • s per the 'existing J !~ ·1. ~ I Plan' of Study and subcontract with Woodward ·clyde Consultants. The cost ~~~~~L;i:i~·--of this wo~k shall not exceed $82,900. ~~ ~~~:_\ · ( · · The work ·an these subtasks should' include consideration of and ·· ~ .. :: 0 :.;_1 . recommendations regarding suggestions offered at the uti 1; ty and pub 1 i c , .J .. :,i; { · J workshops of June 10 and 11, 1980. A partial list of issues rai.sed is l r-:.,-H"·I~i included as Attachment 1 ~ Attachment 2 is a set of written comments -~.-->1 ?$-{· ·1 from ~1r. Bob ·Hufman of Golden Va11ey Electric Association. Add'itional /·,;;~7j1j----:-~ written comments from workshop attendees will be forwarded upon receipt. ·C~;·~~5·1 -··{ · ~he ... product of subtasks 1.01 and 1.02 should in_c_1_ud_e_a_pl_a_n ....... __ f_o_r_f_o_r_e_ca_s_t ___ l(_\l _ -1 e . ·-r·-} 1 mpj ovement. '.J ;-· 1:: f·l T I ) ... --·-.. .____, . . _, ~.::-· .. _:--·i , I~ 1: 1,~~-~~~r~~::~ i 2. Stop work on subtask 1.03 until further notice. That further f ~ , v notice is expected within two weeks. If later requested to continue rr~.: RC work on subtask.1.03, you wi'11 only be directed to develop technical parameters for each alternative; the work shall not include any evaluation or screening of alternatives. In the meantime, please provide a budget ( Page Two \vi 11 ett 1 etter June 13, 1980 allocation for subtask 1.03, based on the expanded post-Tussing seep~ as presented in your May 7$ 1980 letter, that shows costs a11otted to development of technical parameters on the one hand and alternative evaluation and screening on the other. 3.. Discontinue any p1 anning for an~ do not initiate. the fo11 0\1/i ng subtasks: 1.04, 1.05, 1.06, 1.07, 11.03, and 11 .. 12.(new) •. Upon final direction from the Office of the Governor, we sha11 prepare a draft conttact amendment describing the reduction in scope, the appropriate fee adjustment, the changes in estimated cost, and any change in comp1etion schedule that may resuit. Sincerely, j\AM~.~~ ... ~ :·· ~· .. : .. ·.-: ~: .... "'· ·.· Terry J .v McGuire . ·.: · :. ··;;\:: .; .-_··~,:::~.. : -~.;,. ~... .. ,.. . .. " , Director of finance FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • < • .. !~' .. c .... ~ .. . ... ' t!.~ •• ... :. ~ ~ ~~··:. · ·.·En. cl ... :.~ . ~-''·· ·.·:.:.· .. ·r·.;<.·.· -:.·.-_,, ··~;•·-, .. _.~· " .. .... .. ... ·.. ~·~· .• ·. .. ~ ~ ~· . . .. . .• ·. . •• ' ... ••• I!! .. .. ~- "• ·~ ~~~ .... _.:. ... ~~ .. .~ ·;::·:, ~ '""~ ... 1' ~ ~ .. . ... .. . .. :. . ._ .... .. . ;~·~. -. ,I !;:--• ' \, "! ~· ;·~ .. - -.. ,. ..... · .•.. . ~ ... . .. .. '. . . .· ' ·~ "r • I • • ........ t ····>~':..-.• ~ .... ;-:.·: .. .. , .. "' ..... .. ··-. .. ... . : "" .. ·., ! ,•" ~ . .. .. . .., .... ·." . ... . .• .. ' ~ .. . . . " . ~ .. . .... ~ . .. . ,· . ~-.. . ,. ~ .• .. . . . ......... ·~--~ .. ~ . .... ... " l, ,. • • • ~ • ~'"' ·. :. ,. ·~ -... " ..,!"" • !' ,.·.I • J.. ~ . . ~ •. . ' ' • • ·:; ' ~ ::•;r·.: •• ~.;.··:.· .. .;: .:. . .. -:. . .,..1 ' • . •••· •"' • •. ,·,·.· • •· :1.: ··;. ·. ... \• : .. ··..... .. . . . ' ~ ,. .. ~· ~ • '<~. ~ ' • * • H • J . . ~. . ... . ~ ' . :. :. .. ;, ·: ... ., .. ... ( ., -.... . "' ·~. ~ : ,.~. ~~ . ~~ • •. ~-: '·' • :-·· ... • ' .,t\\41;:i _ .. : .., ••. "~ •••• -~· .. ... ... .,. _... < ~ • •. • , ·::: ....... .:; ••• .. ~---· ·: ,.• . .. ... ,.•"!> .... ~ ... ~·. • .. ~ • • .. ;J '! ,. ... • ~ .. · .. :'·~~~ f J:.: .... ~~..,..-~ "' ... • ... ., \ ... .. .. : ~~r • ~.., '~;,,.,. ·"'\ •:~_.,.,. .. ' "' ~ ;·-::·:. •. : ~ .. ; :. : • ·~· .'l ' :. .... ,,;· : . . . . .. . .. · .. ... .. . ' .. ,,. ·' ., . . .. . . .. . . . . . t ..... ~. ~.~'. •• ":' f ., .. . .... .. ' ~'.. .. ..... J . ··.· .. • . . ' . . .-• <lw ' ~ . . .. t .... . . . ' ·~·· .. . . ·t• ..... 't .. . ... ; ' .. -· . ' . . .. . . . . .. ~ . ·. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I ·t ·J [: f R·E-:CElVr·r .... (.;,() · /·;/;./) c:. u : · i; =-;-;t··'laao ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ~f~t,~ 333 WEST 4th AVENUE· SUITE 31 ·ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 l' . ' . June 30, 1980 ·' . . .. ~·· . Mr. Dave W111ett . 900 Liberty Bank Bldg. Buffalo, New York '14202 Dear Dave, ... .. . ~ . ·: .. • • • 6 :· •• : •• • •• :· <i •: · . Phone: (907) 277·7641 (907) 276·2715 .. ; .. '· :.. . . .. - i d I l ~ J l \ r ·. v~J ....... ~ S. HAMMONQ ./ uUVL.Hf,.(JII • .S ·r ~\. T 1~ <) 1" .-\ I-.~\. H h: .\. • rJI f IL (. l1 r H 1 L' 1 oil VI: I~NJIIf ,J ll ~ I~ A I I June 24, 1980 ::.a.~. Mr. Charles Conway Chairman, Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 31 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr.. Conway: . This letter is to info~m y~u of the Govornof's decisi upprove a·recommendation made by the Govwrnor's Budgcl. Committee (BRC) concerning implementa~iqn apd manageme" ·the Railbelt Power M~rket ~nd Supply St4~y.· The dccisi, · was reached following . the frank u.nd· open discussion hclq by all interested par~ies on Thursday, ~~n~ 19th in the Governor's Conference Room. ,. .. :The decision is composed of two parts. Regarding the implementation of the study, the BRC dac~dc~ £hat ACRES and its subcontractors should be request.~'d fO terminate Clll'· Task I work immediately. 'l'he only excepl:io~· is Subtask ~ ... 1.01 an~ 1.02 work substantially comple~Ad ,Y ISER and : Noodward-Clyde, including review of ISEllfs {iemand forecast;. . and preparation of peak land forecasts. ·:;~ ~t · · · .. ... Regarding managament of the Study, t.he f:\(lf: fias decided to ;:. retnin a Projc:ct Nrtnagcr in the Governor!.s ~fficc to man~~c: the contract and insure coordination amqJi9 Btl~ intcrestQ9 ·; · par tics. ~}·~: ~~ -' · .. .r.t* : .. ~ ~ "' ••.• ' • J: • ... To provide for the development of the Pc)~~;:~·.'~'4arkct and .. . . ' Supply Study, the BRC intends to cstnbl.ish n Comnn.ttce consistiny of the Ch;tirmun of the Alr:1sk"1 Power l\uthot·ity and the Directors of tiie Divisions of Energy and Power Development, Policy Development nnd Planning, and Budget and r-tnnngcmcn t. 'l'hc rcsponsibi1 i tics of this Commit tee \ . include: 1. 2. .. . selection of the Project MQn~yuc design of the study Request for Proposals (the study must be designed to integrate with the Susitna.Pl~n of Study and avoid delays to that effort) ... ..... • il . .. . . ~ .] . ;1 '1 ] 1 I I • •• .. :'! • I I I I I I ' 0 • .J . Mr. Conway -2-.. June 24, 1980 3. selection among bidders of contractor # 4. policy oversight The BRC has chosen this approach due primarily to the strong mandate given the Governor's Office by the Legislature to address the issues energy policy and administration. This decision is based upon the clear legislative Xntent to sepurate this study from the ACRES.contract and in no way reflects upon the professional ability or quality of ACRES work. The Governor's Office received several appropriations for energy policy work and also r~ceived a letter from the Speaker of the ~ouse requesting that energy issues receive special attention by th~ Governor's Office.· Given th' pivotal nature of the Railbelt Power Murket and Supply Study, it was felt that this stud~ should be managed within t~e Governor's Office by a Project Manager able to devote full time to this study-and coordination among the concerned agencies. Sincerely, ., \ E -MINUTES OF MEETINGS ON. JANUARY 7J 1980 AND FEBRUARY 2DJ 1980: ,! u ,, u L ,, ,,' q r \ 1: ,; ~. ;/ t 't ;_i 1\ '" Il L:J , I· I I· Meeting Notes: January 7, 19801 Is<ZR. o:;.r;.t"ce.sJ f-),c.4orqse_ Attendees: Scott Goldsmith ISER Jerry Lee Huskey ISER Jim Landman Acres Craig Kirkwood WCC These notes were prepared by Craig Kirkwood. Unless otherwise noted, the comments and opinions expressed are those of Scott Goldsmith. I. The MAP model -developed over a six year period under NSF support -has been used for • policy analysis (elimination of income tax) • econ. impact anal. of large scale projects (gas line) • econ. projections (popu. & unemp. in 1990) -components • econ. projections -employment, residential -exogenous • employment in petroleum, commercial • demographic -sectors • military (25,000 uniformed) • natives (70-80,000) • civilian non-native -exogenous • militar·y • exogenous native growth rates -civilian non-native projected based on economic activity (including in-migration) • gov't. 1 .,. gov't revenues -exp~~ndi tures projected projected state, local gov't. 30,000 • generally assumes be spent ava.i 1 ab 1 e money wi 11 out of 100,000 (~mployment) ~ I I I I II II ! II ! ! I{ , ' I .~j 'i '-l ,, -data base: 1961-1978 -output: on an an~ual basis -regional aspects: -originally 2 models were built o aggregated; 7 sectors (problem -400,000 people, half in greater Anchorage. Also cumbersome to use) -revision underway -will attempt to estimate shar·es of total state in regions of interest. II. Other Economic Models of Alaska -short-run forecasting (2 yrs.) -dept. of com -short-run forecasting -dept. of labor I/0 model not appropriate because not much interaction between sectors or manufacturing . III. Possible Alternatives to the Susitna Project -railbelt has potential for: IV.. oil, gas, coal, hydro -coal -probs. are environmental no good cost estimates gas primary current Anchorage source; cheap -uncertainties on future supply, fed~ gov't. regulations (could attempt to get exemptions from these) -oil -used in Fairbanks (from pipeline) -probably expensive for Anchorage -hydro -2 small projects supply Anchorage; another being built The relative desirability of the alternatives depends on national and international developments, however, coal vs. hydro seems to be the decision for the long-run. -The choice will depend on the preferred space heating fuel. The Select Legislative Committee Brian Rogers, Fairbanks Hugh Malone (conservation) (cost/effectiveness) 2 (I I ·I I I ·I I I I I ·I I I I I I I. I I I r I .~ I' I I I I I· I I I I I I. I. l l V. Difficulties with Projecting Electric Energy Demand for Alaska • economy very small, backward • future size heavily dependent on a few exogenous variables -petroleum industry -state gov•t spending (oil tax money) VI. ISER Projections: preliminary toward end of ~eb. -more final mid-to late-March main difficulty (time-consuming) is getting agreement on assumptions 3 I I' I I. I I I I I I "i I ., I li I I I MEETING NOTES: Feb. 20, 1980 11 a.m. -5:20 p.m. i WCC.. tl\-~;c"-l / ~" t".-Q,si< Attendees: Scott Goldsmith, ISER Peter Sandor, Acres Gary Smith, wee Perry Sioshansi, wee Craig Kirkwood, WCC The attached note$ were prepared by Craig Kirkwood. noted, the comnents and opinions expressed are those Un 1 ess otherwise of Scott Goldsmith. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1. I i: ,•' I I I I I I I·' "'-.. I I I I I I I 1-· I ... .... AGENDA February 20, 1980 Meeting--A~res, ISER, WCC I. Review of the roles of everybody: --ISER --Acres --wee --Others II. Review of existing models of Alaska economy III. Review of alternative potential economic and total electricity demand projecting techniques IV. Review of status of ISER modeling/ analysis work, and estimated. schedule V. Review of ISER-directed meeting of 2/15/80 VI. Discussion of ISER modeli~g/analysis work: general structure of models feedback of energy prices and availability on Railbelt economic development interfuel substitution (including pricing of alternative fuels and escalation rates) ' I l ' I I : I ~ J I 1 I I ' . .. I. Agenda Item I: Review of the roles of eve~_ybody. A. WCC's·role (presented by Kirkwood): primarily interested in getting defensible results from ISER as a basis for estimating load duration curves. B. Sandor's role (presented by Sandor): c. D. --translator between forecasters and epgineers to assure ISER & WCC activities fit into overall Acres Susitna work ISER role: --Background--a subcommittee of 2 from the state l.egis1ature wanted a check on the Alaska Power Authority's (APA) Susitna work • they hired many consultants for a short period of time (this work is behind schedule) • ISER was one of these ISER is pTojecting energy demand through 2005. Legislature wanted: • check on APA • tool for study of conservation-oriented legislation It was decided to have ISER do the forecasting for APA as well. --ISER's work is being reviewed by Energy Probe, WCC and Brad Tuck. Other Consultants of Particular Interest: --Arlon Tussing may have best overall understanding of energy issues in Alaska o:~ anyone. --G:t"eg Erickson doesn't have much formal background in the area, but he has a good understanding of the practical issues. --Alaska Center· for Policy· Studies. is an umbrella o.rganization for several engineers and political (conS,ervation) activists . --especially the' Alaska Public Interest Research Group. I I I I I I I •• •• I I I I I I I I I I ' .. I ~ I t) I I. I I I I ••• -.. I I I I I I I 1- I --These studies are all short term, but other similar studies will probably continu,g in the· future .. · --The Alaska Div. of Energy & Power Development also should have some role in energy generation planning, but it hasn't been too active. E. Final Comment: The needs of APA and the legislature with regard to ISER's study are somewhat different. In particular, the legislature doesn't need a forecast as much as it needs to realize that by its decisions it can determine what fuels will be used in the future. II. Lunch--during which the history of the Susitna project was discussed. III. Agenda Item I continued: The legislature needs forecasts for only a few benchmark years, while Acres wants much more detail. ISER feels it would be on weak grounds providing this level of detail • IV. Agenda Item II: Review of existing models of Alaska economy A. Three econometric models of the state exist: --ISER's MAP model --Two state agency models (neither is designed for long- range forecasting) • Department of Commerce • Department of Revenue B. There is also an input-output model somewhere (Washington State?) C. Due to the ongoing st1~ctural changes in the Al~ska economy the I/0 model is not appropriate for use on the Susitna project. Thus, by process of elimination, the MAP model was selected foT use. V. Agenda Item III: Review of alternative potential economic and total electricity demand projecting techniques ' A. The growth of Alaska will be driven by ~esource development. Thus~ the·selection'of'an economic and total energy demand. projection technique becomes a question of how t·o best predict this development. I I I I I J ( B. c. D. There are two broad approaches to doing this: --Examine the menu of possible resource development projects . and use these as a basis for. the projections. The problems with this approach are: •· it is myopic; it is difficult to think of possible projects in the distant future • it doesn't show the (possibly significant) aggregate affects of mru1y small projects Extrapolation based on historical data. This can capture past interactions in the economy well, but can't explicitly handle structural changes in the economy. ISER would like to combine the best features of each of these approaches; i.e~, use a scenario/project approach to handle possible structural changes but include extrapolation to over- come myopia problems. There was no discussion of how this combination would be done. Techniques for projecting total energy demand --Extrapolation: The problem with using this in the Railbelt is that the basic structure of electricity use has changed significantly over the past few years (particularly the per cent of households hooked up to electricity and the electric use per hook-up). Econometric: The major problem is the lack of sufficient data to establish the required mathematical relations. In addition, Goldsmith is skeptical of the validity of the approach for this use. End-use: The major problem is similar to that with using a scenario/project approach to economic forecasting--it is myopico An advantage is that it is straightforward to check the model against current data. Econometric end-use: An econometric model could be used to predict the saturation rates for the end-use model. However, ISER doesn't currently have the required data for the Railbelt. · VI. ;Agenda Item IV: Review of ISER mode·li.ng/a1'1alysis work, and estimated schedule. A. ISER, like the other consultants to the Alaska legislature, is behind schedule. The deliverables due to date (and not delivered) were mostly boilerplate._, I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -( I .. ·~ \,_-_, __ ·) I I I I I ·- I I I I I -~I' I I I·· I B. c .. D. --To. attempt to de-fuse possible future.criticism of ISER's work by informing interested'parties about the work and develop~ng a concensus on the economic development scenarios to be used by ISER. --To conduct an experiment to see what information could be obtained from the group by non-traditional means. Meeting was attended by 20 to 25 people (economists and some others): --Most of the attending economists work for the statev --·However, there was still a surprising diversity of views. Meeting had two parts: Discussion of the structure and assumptions for ISER's modeling. There was little response from those present, and most of it was in the· form of requests for information rather than critical comments, --An attempt to elicit feelings of those present regarding three basic economic variables for the year 2000: • input variables for ISER models: level of real government spending and employment in resource development activities •· output variable from ISER model: state population· Elicitation process: --The elicitation was to have been done twice; the first time with little data. The results of this elicitation were pr~sented to the group along with some preliminary MAP model output. There was to be a s,econd elicitation following this presentation; however, most· of the attendees views didn't change following the presentation. The purpose of the elicitation was not so much to get specific numbers as to gain insights from the discussion dur~ng the process. I I! li I J I i I I: ~ II c II VIII: ·Agenda Item·vr: Discussion of ISER model~ng/~alysis work A. The MAP model· --Output: annual outputs in three sectors: • demographic •· economic • fiscal --The model does no optimization B. The basic approach to. generating energy demand is to do this for benchmark years rather than for every year. C. Structure of the ISER modeling effort. --There seemed to be considerable confusion in everyone's mind about how the various parts of the ISER modeling effort fit together. --After some discussion the following was agreed to as representing the structure: Inputs' Outputs economic economic scenarios ~ model •· employment (modified • govt spending MAP model) t energy ena ... BTU's consumed use model , by different uses energy supply \if, model scenarios mode split >:End use by fuell ... e: politics "7" model •l prices • availability ~ --There is no feedback in the model from end use to price/availability. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i, t II, l ' L11r I . • I r-~ . • ) I ,. I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I· I \ D. At the moment the mode split model is not developed, and the best method to use is not clear. IX. The meeting adjourned at· 5:20 p.m. .. ,., 1'1 .~ f I ( I 1: I I I I I I I 'I I F -NOTES ON MEETING ON MARCH 20., 1980 I,.~ ~~·~~ffi ~ s-) I r. OFFICE MEMORANDUM MAR 3 11980 4f~· i TO: JeK .. Landman I P.E. Sandor Date: File: cc: March 25, 1980 ~o.e:r 1'.s7oo. Jq,aJ ~ /(J- ~s r I ·SUBJEC~ SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dr. P ~ Sioshansi (Woodward-Clyde Consultants) . I -· I I -e ; PONER • tmiORilY SUStTNA I . P5700 . ill,O/ May I briefly review the results of our meetings with Dr. Scott Goldsmith on March 20 and 21. I do not propose to repeat the material covered in my memos of February 28th and March 18th, but most remarks still apply. I have some difficulty putting my thoughts into writing, as I have to balance my professional and personal respect for Dr. Goldsmith on the one hand, with my worries about some important aspects about the accuracy of ·\ the expected results of his MAP/end-use model. .The progress made by Scott and his sole assistant s~nce the February 20th meeting is impressive, still it is difficult to see how ISER will be able to finish the project on time at the required quality. In the body of this lett~r I will generally describe my thoughts regarding the deviations for ISER's detailed work plan, about the MAP model runs and also cover the progress on the end-use model. An Appendix will list my detailed remarks regarding ISER's draft report of March 14th. In summary, I am having doubts about the defensibility of the methodology. I am worried by the lack of progress in struc- tural scenario formulation and even more so by the very con- servative input to the MAP model runs. Even in the "high 11 version a radical drop in construction is assumed from 1983 one No provision is made in the econometric input for an~ source of energy to meet the demands of Alaska beyond the early eighties. I recommend an increased invo~vel!'ent in the load forecasting project .. i ¥iCC 1. ISER' s Detailed Work Plan !TES · R&M The methodology described in the "Detailed Work Plan" of November 14, 1979 serves as the terms of reference for ISER. The method--4-+A~D_F_&_G+-~ ology has been significantly simplified under the pressure of i1L1-~:.:...,L.;.~--. time and because of lack of data. This applies mainly to the ~----+-~ interfuel substitution section (Task D) • The idea of building '_A_LE_....__ econometric relationships has been completely abandoned and the estimation of modal choices will be entirely judgmental. This I I is true for points D7 through D9, which are related to total . . . ·12 i i l l l l . l I 11 ! l i l I i I I l i I . • I ~- [ I I •. I I 1 --i I - I I I .. ... I I' I I I . . ... .. .. .. . . .. . "'' . J.K. Landman - 2 .. .. March 25, 1980 .... . -. energy and also for :010·:.-~hich .. is descri'b.in~! the estimation of _short .~nd long tenn price'" elasticities~ . Task E will also be highl~ simplified; point.E~· is-completely ~issing from the recent P.lanS 1 aS the COmmercial/fndUStrial . SeCtOr getS Very ~ little attention; proce~j eh~rgy demands of future projects ·are not yet .. estit1atE~d even· judgmentally;. . .. . • ... ~ ~ ..,· ~~.~ .,.,: ...... ·~··:: .. " ··: : 1....... .. . • ..... .. It is clear that much more. s'opliistication· is not justified • We have to live with the unavailability-of historic and inven- tory type data in Alaska, ... and also with the lack of statisti- cally established price and-income elasticities, and substitu- tion effects. We are faced with immense uncertainty regarding absolute and relative energy cost escalations. On the other hand, we have to realize that critics of ISER (and potential opponents of all power development) may use this significant deviation from approved terms of reference as a reason for rejecting all conclusions and .recommendations based on the ISER forecast. These critics may well remind the Government of Alaska that the above mentioned lacunae should have been recognized before the detailed terms of reference were sub- mitted and approved. As a specific problem, I \¥ould like to mention that the simpli- fied methodology omi±s a quantified forecast of conservation and of improved energy efficiency. This is not very reaiistic and (if not corrected) it may be the target of attack by some vociferous pressure groups. 2. ~MAP Model Runs .. . ~ t ~ ," The updating of the· MAP :rrtodel includes in 'the data base the years of the "post pipe.line blues". The population forecasts including .these yea;:-s :'in' -!:he base ccime ·out much lower than . previous projections •. ~··A~· Dr•. Perr_y Sioshansi carried out a det~iled· analysi:; of this subject, I would only like to remark that' in generai forecasts carried out at a time of recession or of •'slow growth are k!iown.'•'to 'underestimate future trends • ISER' s conserva'tive app'roach might be appropriate for the "low" macro-economic scenari·o·; bi.ii::. even for the "moderate" or "most likely" one I would ~a~hei s~lect the.continuation of decadal growth patte.rns instea~f.of a slowdown in the energy-richest State of the Union. The "highn scenario should definitely be much bolderc If you look up the MAP ·scenarios (pages 3.11. through 3.16) none of them includes any "special project" sup- plying the energy base for the State. As the expanded use of natural ga·S for electric power production is prohibited by · Federal law, electricity will have to be generated by hydro- electric, coal-fired or (less likely) nuclear plants. None · .•• /3 . , . . I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I ! \ I . .. t' •. ,. ' #• " ........ . . I . . - •• I . I I .~ I I I I I I I I II ... J .. K. Landman-3 March 25, 1980 :. .. .· . , ... -~f these_.major i~ve!?.tm~~t· it·~~s. is. i'isted •. The :employment . associated with any .of these. proj ec:t[a will have. a. signi- : ficant impact on the 'overail' econom:~t of~ the Statei. Omitting all of them makes the r·esul ts of the·· MAP runs subject of criticism for underestlmating''mahpow'e:r demand and economic . . growth •. If the "mod~rate" and "hign"···i:icenarios would be aug- mented by unspecified ···energy. supply ''pr'o)ects', this problem could be rectified. wi'thout the incestuous inclusion of Susi tna itself · # • .. ·~· r~· · ~::. ~· ·-"'f~ •. ?;~~:-·4 ~.~..-:.r ~ .... ~: • ,-·.;,. ·:~ ·4 ::.. , • .. ~:: ; • ~: • I'~~,· •::~~· • •• ~' ~~ :f~~'{(;.:t~~/.'•. • ;;~~:· ~;~>.·.~·.:· ' .>> I 0 ' 0 ' The "high" scer1c1rio. should, in my opinion, assume some growth in military employment,·'.as such expansion is not at all unlikely tq happen. · :>:~ ·• ::. ·.~. · " ... ".,~: ~:.. . ... .. ... - -1!. ~. ~ •. • • .. .... • ,K An·area of further clarification is that of .state spending. It was not clear i~ there is an accounting equation ·in t~e MAP model controlling the financial balance of the State of Alaska. The equations on page 2.5 do not provide equilibrium. It is my opinion that over a long period of time (1980-2010) there has to be an overall balance. Even for each individual year, the sum of spending on capital and operations plus net saving must equal total current revenue plus investment income, plu$ net dissavings. Dr. Goldsmith expressed the opinion that it is not possible to project gover.nrnent decisions regarding such po).itically sensi- tive matters. He may well be right. If this is so, I fail to understand how the annual estimates for the government's capital and operating expenses can be quantified. Handling these as endogenous variables does not seem to be entirely logical. If you turn your attention to the "special projects" employment tables on pages 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19 you will find that the "myopia" of a project-oriented approach is clearly visible even in the "high" scenario. After the crest of presently known. construction endeavors passes by 1983, there is no assumption for the trend of development to continue. This approach con- tradicts the"methodology statement which clearly indicates a combination of the two approaches. More'importantly, the dis- appearance of all major projects from the mid-eighties on is unlikely; it gives the econometric model a downward bias. Although scenario selection is'clearly ISER's responsibility, I would strongly suggest a much more growth-oriented set of assumptions for both the "moderate" and particularly for the "high" alternative. My suggestion for the inclusion of power projects might have some merit. As a minor observation, I think the slight ups and downs of the forecasts in the "far down" y7ars give the impression of more ..... /4 • • • < . t • . . I . . J.K. Landman 4 '. March 25, 1980 . I . .. " • t .... . ... ... .•. .. .. • • ", ... 1.. # • .. ••• .. --~ • • •• < i •. J ... ~ • ., ... • • .. t.· ' -~ '... . ~ f .; :. . • · ·· · ... ··~r . ;, . · ' : ;~<-:. . ~=:.;! ~ ·_; --~ ·., . -.~:·~ Si·~~-· <~{!=:. .•.. ~f :>. · =·.> .. -'·k( ;r. ·' -~~· · .. : -~(;\~ :: ~ . ,: :; :· · · • ~ :::::·1 :;~· • accur-acy, t'han' intended."~;''±t'-might b~ 1nor·a··'app£.opri'a'te; to round .. ;'~:.,~;.!:· ,;~ ... the-_fi'gures to' the riear'est hundred ··and'~ to 'show smoother trends. j}\,. ::,:: ;: ~-,. /,~~;.~ . -~~-~--; ~-~: V' fr~; . : !~~ ,~,A?!P:~~9~~tt~ :~ _i;~:f~;~~( ;~, !(~~1~::/_.}:: ( ':·. :: . . ·~·-· . . " ; 3 • The End Use Model . :··r.:.. ·~· . • • . -~·!· .. · • ~-;~;. ,, .. · . . . • .. . . . . . . . . •• , w • ~ ., ' •• • : ~4~ • .:~t .: .. : ·· .. ~·.:· .. ;· ·: : :-• .• ~~ f!." . ~ ·. :-:!_ .... ·~ ·:·: .. • 1 .. • ·f . . 1 ..$. • ' ' .. ~ • ,• • .. • •• '. . • • It was my observation that ISER still has no~clear idea of the scenarios to be selected for either the total Btu (energy demand) or the kW·h oriented {electric p~wer) .parts of the end- use model. A clear, consistent and well-designed combination of these with.the MAP alternatives is crucial. The overall envelope of cases should show the most likely and the realistic upper and lower values of electricity demand; probabilities should also be assigned to them. This is the main objective of the entire exercise. The· cases should also cover some rational alternatives regarding policy choices: The number of runs must ' I I I. I be .lim~ted not <?z:ly beca':lse <?f t~me a.nd cost limitations but mainly :1 to avo~d confus~ng over-~nforrnat~on by dozens o.f outputs·. , The above statements look somewhat general, but they implicitly cover such diverse ~Ieas as household size, housing type, saturation, . intensi:ty of use and ,efficiency of appliances, conservation efforts,. industrial development, electric cars, competitive fuel pri;ces, government policy regarding energy and budgets, etc. It. may well be advisable to outl.l.ne in advance the structure of the final evaluation cases and assign the appropriate level to the exogenous variables in lirie with.each combined scenario. The subsequ~nt hierarchies of MAP-Energy Demand-Electric Power and even OGP would then follow the same logic. At the time of our recent meeting, ISER had not yet started to make assumptions regarding relative energy prices, price elasticities, conserva- tion/efficiency effects. These numbers will determine the rasuits more than everything else combined. It is the area o; scenario formulation where cooperation between ISER on one side and Acres with its associated consultants on the other, would save time, effort and potential friction. At present there is little conscious structure in the choice of levels for exoge- nous variables in ISER's progress report pointing to "high" or "low" scenarios.. The assumptions which may lead to a "low" boundary could well be attacked for not being sufficiently. conservation oriented; the omission of process energy demands, of a fast movement towards all-electric homes and offices, no appearance of electric cars, etc., does not seem to cover a uhigh ~lectric" case. · I know very well that scenario formula- tion i~ ISER's duty and prerogative, but I also think that Dr~ Goldsmith has up to now concentrat~d on the ''moderate" scenario set. and may well be willing to incorporc:-te friendly advice from . . ! • .. . .. /5 -.. . ' : ~ . ,. ~ .,.. ...... ·., .... ; . .. .. • .-· I ... ~ I I I ·I I I I I I I • ~+ ~ ~ . , .... • If r ••• ·t •. •. . • ""' • ~. • .. • -...... ~1 • . • • « ~ .. •• I· I· ·-:- I -~· I I I •• I I I I ·~. •• : .I I I J.K. Landman - 5 March 25! 1980 .. ' • • < .. .... " .. . : ...... I . ' . . - .. • .......... -~ ..... :· ... #' , ... • •• .. ., .. . ... ~ .... ' -.. .. .. . . . . .._ • • • ' ~ .;: • ::,..e _.. ~ 't' ·~ . " J :: I ~ ' : • 't '• !IJ•" .., ~· ., • ~ • • • • f . ·.. . . .. ; ~. ~·· ...... .,. .. .. . ... _.~ . . ..... .. ... ~ .-. "'~ .. ::;: ... ..... . . : ·'. . . In the light of the above described observations; I believe t.hat the project \~ould benefit from_ ·a: ~ore activ~ cooperation by Acres in ISER's work. Either the APA and th~ Legislature. should be persuaded t~ provide~ funds-~or this endeavor which was not originally.part of our terms.of reference, ·or there is a danger that the results of the ISER forecast will not be sufficient a·s a reliable base of the OGP work.~·· . PES:md Att. ... ... ' . .. l ... · .... . . . ... .. . ' . .. . ' -~r. •• .. .. .. .. ' t •• •' . .. ... .. ' : · ... ''-L' u e v I Peter E. Sandor .... ~.. . ... . ... . ~ -...... :· . .. . . . . .. I • ... .• • + . . . . . ' t :.. • " .. . t . .. ••• \ . •' ·. ·.• ' . • .. 11 .#! ~11 1.· ll~.~- 1: ' .11 ' . 'I . i I I , .• ; . . . I 'I I I ;I I , •.. ~. ~ ..... I 'I .. APPENDIX .. . . ~ DETAILED REMARKS REGARDING ISER 1 S PROGRESS REPORT March 14, 1980 .. .. t·. I I I I . I. .I :1 I • r- I I I I ;I I I ,I I Remarks regarding Part I -South Central Alaska - 1978 Energy End-use Inventory Page 1.3 The remark at the bottom of the page regarding process elec- tricity is questionable. Process electricity might be a g:rowing consumer of power with the increasing industrializa- tion of Alaska. Process electricity required for major, identifiable projects such as LNG etc* should also be con- sidered • Page 1 .• 4 I would suggest that aggregate energy should also be expressed in terms of a common unit (e.g. kWah, Btu or joule). Page 1.7 and subsequent tables It might be a good idea to provide an example to explain the use and interpretation of the tables • Page 1.20 The estimate of 45 percent electric may need better corrobora- tion. This is a very important parameter and may be different under high, moderate or low electric asstunptions. Page 1.29 Saturation rates for freezers should take into account the increasing proportion of apartments in the housing stock be- cause these are unlikely to have freezers. Part II -Component Description of the Energy Demand Model Page 2 .. 1 The diagram shown is incomplete, it does not indicate where industrial/co~~ercial demands are calculated. The efficiency model (including conservation and "t:echnological impacts) should enter the calculations before the mode split mode~. ' .' . .. ... /2 .. .( i l I 1- ~ ~ I ~ I I l I 1 ;lj ' ~ -} ' I I I 'I I I ! I 1 1 I 2 Page 2.5 The level of government· spending should be subject to a financial balance equation. · Page 2.10 'Non-native and native household formation rates require care- ful adjustment to Alaskan conditions and an extrapolation to 1995-2010. As this is a rather important variable dominating the housing market, a stro:q.g corroboration of all assumptions is necessary. ~ge 2.13 The share model is not yet operational but its results are quite important due to the different supply of nat .:ral gas to Fairbanks versus Anchorage. The ·present approach (as to be shown later) is not completely consistent. Ecor1omic activities as described in the last paragraph on this page should be slightly amended. The basic sector should include the direct infrastructure associated with the listed indus~ries. Th~ transportation part of the support sector should not cover the pipelines which are basic. Page 2.14 The assignment of non~basic sector activities involves assump- tions regarding urban hierarchies in Alaska and their change. Although detailed analytical work cannot be carried out, justification of assumptions must be provided. The 11 historical people per dwelling unit ratios" and the "housing choice com- ponent" mentioned on page 2ol5 have to be carefully developed and documented, this again will have great impact on energy end-use. It is quite likely that different assumptions will be required for the high, moderate and low scenarios. Page 2.17 It is my opinion that the methodology is subject to criticism. Utilization rates of many important appliances are not related to real income· and on the other hand conversion efficiency and conscious or mandated conservation should outweigh this impact (if any). At' least for the low scenario a change .in this assumption is recommended. ... /3 m _ ___.._ ..... _________ ---.. -., .. ·-. ··-. · .. . .. ... ~ . " .. .. :... ' ... <. . I I I I ;I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ••• •' -. I I I I I . I I I I 'I I I I I 'I ~I IJ ll ' II • ' Page 2 .. 18 I agree~ with the statement mentioned under "current status" that the construction of detailed models for saturation and utilization rates is unjustified. On the other hand, judg- me~tal assumptions for change in these rates are necessary. I am somewhat confused by the statement in the "current status" section and the description of "future work". I am .¢onvinced that some additional work \V'ill be carried out. ~age 2 .. 19 3 Under "sources of variationu I would like to see the mention of electric cars. The effects of conservation and increased technological efficiency might enter at this point if these are related to total Btu demand rather than mode split. Individual estimates of energy use by major industrial cus- tomers and of general industrialization might also be included at this step. Page 2. 22. The housing mode split which is to be carried out "on the basis of local and national trends" is related to the "people per dwelling unit ratio" mentioned on page 2.14; my remarks apply. Page 2.23 I suggest that the title should be amended to "energy pricing and availab;lity scenai:io 11 • The methodology of this work element is extremely important. The judgmental determination of the parameter values of the mode split model (present and future) have at least as much influence on the fore~as~ as all other parameters put together. Even if analytical-modeling work is not carried out, all assumptions must be well documented and a list of sources should be shown. The chaise o£ parameter values must be ex- plained. It is this area where outside criticism is hard to deflect. Page 2.24 If Woodward-Clyde and Acres would ha:ve the chance to review "future work" before the results go into a report, problems and delays might be avoided. ! •• /4 I ! 'I I I I IJ *. " • • • : 4 tpage 2.27 The "lower price" mentioned in point 1 should include the depreciation of the appliance. The assumption under point 2 does not seem to be realistic. It is not likely that incre- mental customers will immediately swing to alternative fuels whenever the price of one falls below the other. The combina- tion of normal and premature replacement rates assumes some .weighting on the basis of points 1, 2 and 3. Maybe keeping them separate would have some advantage. Page 2 .. 28 ... . The tasks described under "future work" are important but I do .not know how this amount of research fits into the availability of time. It maybe that.:the increased availability of natural gas in Fairbanks should be "introduced as part of at least one scenario.in this section of the model. * .. o-.. • . . -. Part III -Development of an Electric Power Requirement Projection Page 3.2 On Figure 1 the Btu final demands should be adjusted for the effects of conservation and transformation efficiency. Page 3.5 Process energy should be considered here, as mentioned before. Pag:e 3.6 Regional allocation indicates a significant drop in Fairbanks and a compensating increase in Kenai-Seward. Dr. Goldsmith did not have an explanation for this shift, it may deserve some analysis. Page 3.7 Section I is not in line with the house mode split analysis described in the previous task. Energy conservation might be assumed to be better at least for the "low" scenario. Point ? seems to prejtidge the mode split to be carried out in line with the methodology described in page 2.25. The same remark applies to points 4: 7 and 8. The assumption in point 9 that in the ... /5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51 - " ••• :I ••• a-. I .I ••• ·I •• I I I I I I II 5 commercial/industrial/government sector, there will be neither conserva~ion nor improvement in trarisforma.tion efficiency seems to be pessimistic. The growth o£ unspecified electric- ity demand as described in point 10 may serve as· a proxy for the process use mentioned above. If this is so, the 2 percent assumption should be rationalized. . .. I have described my remarks regarding scenario selection in the body of my memorandum. I think that unspecified but sig- nificant projects should be expected to happen after 1985 and that at least in the urnoder&te" and "high" scenarios appro- p~iate employment levels should be assumed for them. Other- wise there is no provision to provide the energy base for Alaska • Pages 3.17-18-19 .. The remarks for. the scenarios apply to employment figures. As the third column (transportation) includes the existing pipeline, I question the need to list it under ·"special projects" .. In order to show no more accuracy than intended, the numbers should be rounded to the nearest hundred, mino.r fluctuations should be smoothed. PES:md March 25, 1980 . I· (:1 ., .... :1· I I . I. ·I I I •• I I 'I •• .~ I I TO: Gavin Warnock FROM: Peter Sandor Review of ISER's Report: Electric Power for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements At your request I have carri·ed out a quick survey of ;rsER' s fore- casts, dated May 23, 19 80. Let me start the review \V'i th a ·brief description of the main parameters governing the need for the Susit_na project, and then continue with remarks regarding the report • The need for Susitna !f one looks at the "low" utility sales projection of ISER, it shows a growth factor of 2.3 over 1978 by the year 2000. As the generating capacity in the railbelt was very close to 1.0 gigawatt in the base year, a "Susitna-size" addition seems to be well justified by 2000. Going further in the future and/or using any of ISER 1 s faster growth scenarios yields an even more optimistic· picture. There are two questions. Firstly, should the incremental electric generation in Alaska be mostly hydraulic or are otqer options more attractive? Secondly, is !SER's "low" forecast by an:¥ chance higher than what is to be reasonably assumed? Let. me adqress the modal choice problems first • Th~ rationale for choosing natural gas, coal or waterpower for future electrical generation in Alaska will not be an analytical or even economic one. It will have to be mostly political.. At present natural gas is sold approximately at one twentieth of its market value to Alaskan oower utilities and at similar dis-.. counts to residential and o~her users. By not selling this gas (in the form of LNG) to "Lower 48" customers, the State of Alaska would forego large future revenues. Most people would .. a·lso assume that Congress will enforce legal restrictions on the use of natural gas in existing and particularly in projected power plants. For these reasons it is hard to imagine a political environment in which more than twice the present volume of3 gas would be ava.ilable to utilities below 20 cents per 1000 ft ?:· If the gas is sold at a "shadow price" the cost has to be pro- portional to OPEC crude prices • One o~ the generation alternatives should in my opinion cover the possibility of the gradual phasing out and replacement of exjsting gas burning power plants under the pressure of escalating gas prices and federal legislation. I The development.of Beluga coal for power generation in Alaska competes O.Jainst the export option of the same commodity. It • ... /2 I ··!· .. -. 1 : :{ ' i . i l ' I i ·I! ~i .• f. . l I IJ IJ -2 is most important for Acres to assure that the independent A.E(> doing therevaluation of alternatives includes the cost of .. 0 .natural gas at full shadow prices and/or the revenue loss by the State on subsidized sales.· The environmental impact of buring coal should also be quantified, including the long · distance damage caused by downwind acid· raine The next quest.j.on is that of the volume of demand. In the subsequent sections I will review the ISER projections. The levels of demand covered bv ISER - I I I I I I Acres must know if the ISER forecast is methodologically de- fensible and also realistic. I am pleased to report that most inconsistencies of the previous draft have been resolved. Some I parts of the actual methodology are much less sophisticated than• originally promised in the.workplan, but they are at least acceptable. The still existing inconsistencies all point towards I an overly conservative approach. No provision is made on the investment side for the construction of either a coalmine plus thermal station or of a hydroelectric plant; to meet projected power demands. One must somehow· provide electricity! Even the "high" .. go~er.nmen t _ ~~penditure·;scenario implies a hoarded government treasur~· of $4 8. 9 billion by the year 2000. It is extremely likely that this money will be spent or.handed directly to the people and thus enter the investrnen~ and/or personal income streams of Alaska. This would radically speed up all economic indicators, particularly in the years beyond 1990, which are assumed to have such a ~ow growth rate. It is very likely that the manufactu~ing sector would grow significantly faster than projected even in the "high" scenario. Alaska starts from an extremely low manufactur~ng and services bc.se; with the growth of population and income, all precedents indicate that one should assume the establishment of olants and offices replacing goods and services presently imported from the "Lower 48" .. This is particularly likely under the preferential tax regime of Alaska. The above remarks are directed towards some of ISER's seeming inconsistencies. F.urther points have to be made regarding the downward bias in ISER's judgement~ While one would not argue wiuh the "low" scenario, the "most likely" and particularly the "high" one should include at least some new major investment projects starting after 1984. These would show up through the acceleration of employment, population and housing in the power demand. The picture for the late '90's and the 2000-2010 period • I I I I I I I I I ... . ·13. ••• -. rl ,, " I I I) ·I ·I I I I I I I I ·t I 11 \f IJ .. - 3 might radically change if self-sustaining growth is assumed. ·. Bath the LNG plant and the ALPETCO petrochemical plant are . . ;, assl;lined to be self-:supplied with eleqtricity. thus not included . < .-•• in .. the utility demand. They shoulc1 be changed for the high~-.. :· ·: :·~ ·: ~ electric scenario to network supplied, as the shadow value of · · · oil and gas would exceed the cost of a coalfired or. hydroelectric station. Electric cars are explicitly excluded, these are. a · logical part of a "high 1 ' scenario. demand. The retrofitting of:·. home heating from gas to electric heat could be faster and .· . . more complete than assurne~if the price of the competing fuels ;· is in line with a scenario evaluating the upper bounds of .demand.'. In general ISER may be overreacti~g to the upward errors shown by power forecasts prepared in boom periods. History has also shown that projections done during recessipns tend to be too low. This may well be the reason 0£ their unrealistically low "most likely .. -and "high" projections .. • ~ I \1. I APPENDIX I WOODWARD CLYDE'S REVIEW OF ISER DRAFT REPORT •• SOME REMARKS BY P. E. SANDOR ·,I . :I I I /' . Cl; I I I I I I ~ ¥ lJ May 5, 1980 m • I cl I •• ., .I ·I I tl I FIGURE 3.1 (page 10) In an economy which will be driven to a large extent by Government investments, incentives and directives, there is ~trong interaction between Basic Private Sector Activity and State Government Activity. This is not only a question of putting a two-way arrow between the boxes on the graph. I believe that scenario formulation should start with a set of assumptions regarding State policies towards both public and private spending. For instance, the future of the Beluga coal fields {for local and/or export consumption) will be decided by Government but it is likely to fall into basic private sector activity. The State decision regarding maximum export of natural gas at world market price or con- versely favoring maximum domestic consumption will have a great effect on private sector investments~ SPACE HEATING (page 12) The modal choice for space heating (and waterheat) is probably the most important assumption besides the question of overall growth. I do not necessarily agree fully with Woodward-Clyde's conclusions. If natural gas is exported and world market prices are applied for it in Alaska to both utilities and private homes, this may make hydroelectric and/or coal gener- ated electricity more (and not less) competitive for space heating., The answer is not absolutely clear and can only be settled after the cost of electricity is computed and then compared with the estimated world market price of natural gas adjust.ed for transportation cost. This question deserves great care because it swings lot of GW·h and also because it involves both technological calculations and crystal-balling of world markets. INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL ECONOMETRIC MODELS (page 13) T!·.!-~ attractive modelling embellishment may well be the first one 1 would drop in order to keep things simple. Woodward-Clyde's remarks ir1 the final sentence of 2.1 {page 4) are fully applicable. STRUCTURE OF FORECASTING MODELS (FIGURE 3. 3 before pag-e 20) .. This lucid representation deserves full credit. Let me suggest some further improvements. In the Commercial/Industrial Stock Model in block II, a separate entry for Government as an industry • .,./2 11 ·-~ I .I -1 ' ' I . ~~ I [ 'I. s I 4 j i l l I lj c ,..,I: 1 . 1: 1 I I • 2 is recommended. Whether we like it or not, Government is a growth industry, particularly in a State with a huge projected cash surplus. The end use models (i III} should take into consideration the · increase in process energy consumptione With the growth and mat1:1ration of Alaska's economy 6 this aspect deserves at least • I I I I an educated and well documented guessa If, for instance, large-scale development of Beluga coal takes place, this will certainly consume significant amounts of energy, so would any I other government encouraged new primary and processing industry.· ENERGY UTILIZATION (page 27) I I completely agree with Woodward Clyde that this part of· ISER' s J', model requires thorough revamping and quantification. On the other hand, I believe that "time of day pricing" probably belongs into the sphere of peak estimation rather than energy forecasting. ISER has already enough on its plate, let us leave this out. A ONE-STEP APPROACH TO FINAL ENERGY DEMAND E~TI~mTION (page 28) I only partly agree with Woodward-Clyde on this recommendation. Some very important factors (space heat, water heat, electric automobiles) definitely require a two-step approach: first total energy and after· that, modal selection shifting over time and in line with other policy and pricing assumptions. I would be willing to trade simplification in other forecasting sectors (e.g. the use of the ag~ of the household head as proxy for income and age on page 32) for a quantified and well- documented two-step calculation of electric space heat. PES:md ,. I I I I I I I ., . ' ' I I .I I ~~ t~; T :.j 11 ; .I l • ' l l I I 'J } ·I .J :1 IJ I G. -REVIEWS OF I SER 'S REPORTS BY KIRKWOOD/SIOSHANSf <WCC) . -•: j, ·~ .I •• t l l. I I J } I J J-- REVIEW OF ISER DRAFT REPORT by Craig W. Kirkwood F. Perry Sioshansi Apri,l 1980 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94111 . 1 l I ,. , .. l I ' 'I 3 1:, •. ,~. • ! I • ··~1 27.3/11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 OVERALL REVIEW CONCLUSIONS 3 2.1 General Conclusions 3 2.2 Specific Conclusions 4 3.0 DETAILED REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT 7 3.1 Alternative Forecasting Methods Considered by ISER 7 3.2 Forecasting Methodology 8 3.2.1 Economic Growth Scenarios 9 3.2.2 MAP Statewide Econometric and Demographic Model 13 3.2.3 Household Formation Model 14 3.2.4 Regional Allocation Model 15 3.2.5 General Comments Regarding Remaining Model 16 Components 3.2.6 Appliance Saturation and Energy Utilization 20 Model 3.2.7 F.inal Energy Demand Model 28 3.2.8 Housing and Appliance Stock Model 29 3.2.9 Energy Availability Scenarios 32 3.2.10 Mode Split Model 34 3.2.11 Energy Efficiency Model 37 3.2.12 Energy Requirements by Fuel Type 37 3.3 Quantity and Accuracy of Data 38 3.4 Methods Used by ISER ~o Consider Uncertainties 40 4.0 IMPLICATIONS OF OTHER WORK 42 5. 0 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF ISER WORK 46 REFERJZNCES 51 II ;;;:;;;.~ • I ' ! 77/14 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.1. Components of Residential Use Per Customer 21 Table 3.2. Population, Households, and Customers 22 Table 3.3. Appliance Saturations and Contributions to 23 Annual Average Residential Use . Table 4.4e Comparison of ISER's Population Projections [ISER 1980, 44 Table 0, P.3.6.] To the Alaska Power Administration's Population Projections [U.S. DOE, Alaska Power Admin- istration 1979, Table 8, P. 34] For the Railbelt Area Table 4.5. Comparison of ISER•s "Dry Run" Electric Power Demand 45 Projections [ISER 1980, Table 00, p. 3.9] and the Alaska Power Administration's Projections [u.s. DOE, Alaska Power Administration 1979, Table 12, p. 46] for the Railbelt Area I •• I I I I I I I I I ·I I I I I I I I r) ~ ' I 1 :.1' •• I l l .... ' .c:J a·: ·-~ 77/14 Figure 3.1. Major Exogenous Variables and Economic Scenarios Figure 3.2. Major Components of An Electric Demand Forecasting Model Figure 3.3. Detailed Components of an Electric Demand Forecasting Model Figure 3.4. Housing Unit Model LIST OF FIGURES Page 10 18 19 31 1 ·I .. ·. , I .I -I . I . . . 1···. I I u ,, I 273/9 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the written critique of the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) draft re- port as required by Section 1.1.5 of the Scope of Work for agreement no. P5700.10.21 between Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) and Acres American Incorporated (Acres). Under Subtask 1.01 of the abovementioned Scope of Work, WCC is to review the methods investigated by ISER for possible use in its forecasting, and to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the methods selected by ISER for its forecasting. This review and assessment is to include consideration of the techniques and methods investigated by ISER for use in: 1) 2) 3) 4) Projecting economic development, Selecting input scenarios for its economic development models, Developing its econometric-end-use mode for forecasting electricity load requirements, and I Considering the uncertainties in its forecasts. In addition, the review is to consider the quantity and accuracy of the data used in the ISER forecasting methods. Furthermore, WCC 1 I .. ~ .... ~., . ' •• I . . :i ; •... ' ' . · . . ~ . ·:1.~· .. ~ t l J - :I I ' ' I ' I I ' ••• ' ' 273/9 is to assess the implications for the ISE& work of the work done by others in the area of energy and economic development in the Railbelt Region. These issues are addressed here to the degree possible given the information in ISER's draft report. It should be noted that ISER refers to their dr~.ft report as a "progress report. t! However, it is clear from discussions with them that this report is the draft report called for in Clause I of the contract between the State of Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency and ISER. Hence, it is this report that WCC is to re- , view under its agreement with Acres to critique the ISER draft report. This review is organized into the following sections: 1) a summary of the general conclusions of our review 2) a detailed review of the draft report 3) 4) a consideration of the implications for the ISER work of the work done by others, and an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the ISER work. 2 1 . -lj . ·~J !.· !' ..,..._ l ' l r~-~ :r-..... t . ' ·--~·-·,., I I'. ' . .. ' I . , 1". ' . ~ l . 'j : I ! . ., .. ! - '· ~ r -} I I .... j I I 1- ' . .I I . ! .... -~ • + ' . I'. ' ... I J· J ' _, \ f.-~ ·-1 273/9 2.0 OVERALL REVIEW CONCLUSIONS 2.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ISER's basic approach to forecasting total electric energy.demand is state-of-the art~ Because the approach requires substantial model developnent effort and an extensive data base, it has generally only been attempted by large utilities or other organizations with substan-· tial resources. Althouth the basic approach that ISER has taken is sound, the specific methodology they have developed to implement the . . approach·has serious technical deficiencies which substantially limit the defensibility of the results obtained. In addition, there are se- rious weaknesses in the data base that ISER is using to support their modeling work. Most of the methodological weaknesses could be corrected with sev- eral person-months of additional development work by knowledgeable anal- ysts. Some deficiencies in the data base could also be corrected with several additional person-months of data collection. Additional work would also be required to adequately document the methodology and data base. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I .I I .I I I I f •. ........ : r--Lb .. I I .. . , I I I I I I· I I I IJ I I ., .... :1 ~· Jt:· ! ' 273/9 However, even with this additional work, certain types of data that are important for defensible forecasting using ISER's approach could only be collected by a well-designed data-gathering program over a period of some years. This length of time is necessary to obtain information on variations in electric energy consumption patterns as weather conditions change with the seasons. With the additional model development, data collection and documen- tation effort, defensible forecasts could be produced for use in the Susitina Project power studies. However, the sophisticated methods that are being used by ISER will probably not produce forecasts that are, on the whole, necessarily more defensible than what could be obtained using considerably simpler methods. This is because there are substr-.ntial uncertainties about some of the major inputs needed by any model that forecasts future Railbelt development. The variations in the forecasts resulting from 'plausible variations in these uncertain input quantities will probably be gree:tter than errors that may result from using a simpli- fied forecasting model. 2.2 SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS Our specific conclusions regarding the work presented in ISER's draft report are summarized in this section. The results of our de- tailed review of the draft report (which serve as the basis for these conclusions) are presented in Section 3. 4 273/9 We conclude the following: e: ISER's overall approach, utilizing economic and population pro- jections coupled with an end-use model to forecast total elec- tric energy demand, is soundG However, their methodology for impletnenting this approach has numerous technical and proced- ural flaws. In addition, there are numerous deficiencies in the way they have implemented this methodology. i • Many of the methodological deficiencies could be reduced with moderate additional effort by knowledgeable analysts. Simi- larly, substantial fmpravements in the implementation should "-, . -·: . < ., ~:a• ~· ,._ -----'1...1-__ ........ __ ..:~ ___ .__ -.=.d ....... ___ , ----1* II.#G }o'UOO.A.LI.A."C; W.a.l.o.U .W.UUt:I.C:Z.I.oC QU .I.S..I.UUCl.A. WUJ.l'\.e Some deficiencies in the current work are due to lack of some important data and the poor quality of other datae Some im- provement in data would be po~sible with a short-term data ·collection program. However, n.ajor improvements can only be achieved by an ongoing data collection program over a period of years. End-use models, by their nature, require an extensive data base. Due to the current lack of quality data, the forecasts made using the ISER end-use model are not necessarily superior· to those provided by ~ simpler analysis approach. Based on our review of other applications of end-use models, we expei:t that the defensibility of the end-use model results will im- prove over time as better data become available. At present, ISER's end-use model is incomplete and poorly docu- mented. In particular, distinctions be'tween the residential and commercial/industrial sectors are not well addressed. The treatment of the commercial/industrial sector is very weak, and within the residential sector not enough emphasis bas been placed on analyzing various types of residential housing and their associated electric demands. The documentation in the draft report is generally poore Many important assumpti~ns are not substantiated while others are n~t explicitly stated. A systematic documentation of all input assumptions, and the rationale for making them, is highly desirable. The draft report does not indicate that any structured ap- proach was ~sed to develop input scenarios regarding possible future developments in the Railbelt. In view of the dynamic political climate and great uncertainties about the future of Alaska, .it is essential that input scenarios be carefully selected if the resulting forecasts are to be defensible. 5 I I I I I I I • •• I .I I I I I I -I JJ '-........... . ~ •• 'I I I ••• ••• ~.··r··-. . ' . ,' . .. I . I I u II u I ......... ·- 'tt~.i II . l_l II 273/9 • The draft report indicates an inadequate review of existing literature and data sources regarding modeling and forecasting demand for electricity. Some of ISER's model components could be substantially improved by adopting existing similar models or model components~ Any one of these deficiencies would compromise the defensibility of ISER's forecasts for the purposes of the Susitna Project. In our judgment, the combination of all the above deficiencies means that ISER's current serve as a defensible basis for assessing the need for the power the Sustina Project would provide • We have provided specific suggestions for overcoming many of the de- ficiencies as part of our detailed critique in Section 3. Some of the deficiencies can be overcome without excessive delay or effort. Other deficiencies, particularly data inadequacies, would require more effort and time to improve • There are some important issues related to the Susitna Project power studies that are not directly addressed by the ISER work. Con- sideration of these issues goes beyond just a review of ISER's work, so further discussion of them will be deferred until ~ection 5 where there is an assessment of the strengths and limitations ~f ISER's work with regard to the Susitna Project power studies. 6 ···I .. ' . .•... : : .,_ I ·u· I ·u \ --i i .I (1 t _,<· :1 ~ u .... • 273/9 3.0 DETAILED REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT This section contains a detailed review of the ISER draft ~eport~ In keeping with the scope of work for our review, this section con- siders the following: 1) Alternative forecasting methods considered by ISER, 2) The forecasting methodology used, 3) Quantity and accuracy of the data used, and 4) Methods used to consider uncertainties. Because of serious editorial problems with the ISER draft report, it is often difficult to be certain exactly what was done. In what follows, page numb~rs in parentheses refer to pages in the ISER draft report unless otherwise noted. I~ numerous places we have suggested further work that could be done or additional sources of infor- mation that we believe would be useful for ISER's work. Strictly speaking, these suggestions are beyond the :Immediate scope of our reviewe Ulti- mate responsibility for the total electric energy demand forecasting work rests with ISER, of courseo· 3.1 ALTERNATIVE FORECASTING METHODS CONSIDERED BY ISER The draft report contains no discussion of alternative forecasting methods considered by ISER before adopting their present methodology. 7 I ··ti ·~. . . . ' • ,t . . ............ .r;~ ·I •• ·I • ~:I I I···· L . ~ ...... -~- ·-· . ,.A' ••• I I m -~ I -~ at•'•~. I ' / ·~ . < 273/9 From our discussions with ISER it appears that they considered various alternative forecasting methods. It would be helpful to discuss what alternative methods were considered and the rationale for selecting the methodology used. ISER's contract with the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency calls for a report on this topic in mid-January 1980; this has still not been delivered • Considerable research has been carried out elsewhere in the U.S. on forecasting electric power demand, and ISER appears to be unfamiliar with this literature. There are no references to this work in ISER's draft report. Several references and data sources are suggested in our discussion in the following section • . 3., 2 FORECASTING 11ETHODOLOGY The forecasting methodology used by ISER is presented in Part II of their draft report. The methodology consists of eleven components: !o Economic Growth Scenarios :LI. MAP Statewide Econometric and Demographic Model JCI.A. Hou~ehold Formation Model III. Regional Allocation Model I:v. Appliance Saturation and Energy Utilization Model v. Final Energy Demand Model ' Vl t-Housing and Appliance Stack Model VII. Energy ~~ailability Scenarios 8 :.1 c i :1 c ' ' .. I CJ :1 ( m r I[ .IJ r~ .. · L 273/9 VIII. Mode Split Model IX. Energy Efficiency Model x. Energy Requirements by Fuel Type Model Each of tht:3e is separately discussed below. Economic Growth Scenarios This model component is critical as it influences every other as- pect of the model. At present, this component is inadequately defined, as well as poorly structured and presented. Although further discussion of economic scenarios is presented in Part III (pp. 3.10-3.16), even with this added discussion, the scenarios are inadequate and poorly documented., Major problems are tha~ relationships between endogenous and exo- genous variables are not well defi11ed and that thc::.sources and relative magnitudes of impacts for given scenarios are not discussed. This is a significant shortcoming since several major exoganous factors are the \asic driving forces of the Alaskan economy. These exogenous variables influence three major sectors which, in turn, affect everything elae in the economy (see Figure 3.1). To develop credible economic scenaricr~, one must start with a clear specification of t~ese basic entiti~s and their interrelationships. Particular attention, for eltample, should be given to state government policies. The role of the f~)deral ga•vernment must also be considered, particula~ly as it applies to energy policies. 9 111 ... ~. I I I I I I I I I E I I I, I I I I I ,. ~b .,.- :1 ... •• "''"' ":'1· .. ~-· . ~ :~.1 :.I :I r I I IJ ll 11 I IJ ~- 273/9 Major Exogenous Variables • National/International Economy • World Market Fuel Prices • National Energy Policies • State Government Investment/Expenditures • Discovery of Major New Fuel Reserves in Alaska Basic ·p~ivate Sector Activity ' State Government Federal Government Activity Activity ~ • ~~~ Macro-Economic Scenario Figure 3.1. MAJOR EXOGENOUS VARIABLES AND ECONOMIC SCENARIOS 10 ' :J :~:--' ~~ •• •• ~ -I· • :·· I J; •' ··I 1 'I - 1 1 ' I. II - II IJ. I i I· ~C. u 273/9 The role of the private sector must be defined in the context of state and federal regulations and poltcies. A defensible scenario combines reasonable and internally consistent assumptions about these basic sectors. ISER's scenarios are not well documented and presented. For example, their "High Scenario" (pp. 3.14- 3.16) results in conotruction employments (Table 3, Po 3s19) which are not only low but, in fact, incredible for the 1990-2000 period. Part of this problem (which is also present in the "low" and "moderate" scenarios) may be attributed to myopia. ISER only considers projects that are currently being considered and can be expected to be completed by 1990. This implicitly assumes that no additional projects will start in the 1990s. At the very least it seems appropriate to assume a con- tinuing, reasonably healthy level of construction activity under the "high" scenario. Another shortcoming of ISER's w~rk is the absence of direct or induced state government investment/expenditure (although part of the indirect involvement may be implicit in. ""!SER' s "Industry Assumptions" [pp .. 3.11-3.16] regarding industries such as agriculture and fisher.ies). In view of Alaska's large expected budget surplus for the next couple of decades* and of the potential for further exploration, development, *According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "The extra money will total $53 billion over the ne~t 10 years and a further $44 billion in the succeeding decade•• (Wall Street Journal, 1980). 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~ ~'\ \ ; '-....... ·I I I •• I ·~ •. '• ;I ' •.. ll IJ G tt: 273/9 and export of oil and natural gas, particular attention should be de- voted to the role of state government. The high scenario, in particular, should consider a sizable and increasing state government surplus which can be used to accelerate economic development and growth • FuTthermore, the effect of state and/or federal regulatory deci- sions~ energy and conservation policies, and politically induced legislations are not considered. Any of these factors could have a significant j;mpact on the Alaskan economy and demand for electricity in the Railbelt. To illustrate the importance of carefully considering input see- narios, consider the possibility of a trans-Canada natural gas pipeline or an LNG facility on the Kenai Peninsula. Currently, all utilities in the Anchorage area use natural gas, at rates far below the world market price, to generate electricity, and their customers enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. As a result, many homes are electrically heated. If the natural gas were to be exported the local utilities might be forced to pay higher prices which would be passed on to their customers. Under these circumstances, electric space heating might no longer remain attractive. The long-term effect of this on future electricity consumption i1·• likely to be sizable. There is cur- rently strong opposition by some of the gas burning utilities to such an eventuality. Hence, it ~~y be politically unpopular to vote for the gas pipeline or LNG plant. On the other hand, federal regulations may make it progressively more dii:ficult to use natural gas for power 12 I " ' ' I ' ' . ~ 1 J ! : 'II ' ' ~ . ' i • i 1,'· . . ' -. t :. .,-·" 1'"·1· ,: ' ' I IJ I· 273/9 generation when other alternatives are available. This example illus- trates the importance of well thought-out and consiotent scenarios. ISER's "Current Status" (p. 2.5) is clearly not adequate, and their proposed "Future Work" (p. 2.5) does not appear adequate to provide de- fensible scenarios. 3.2.2 MAP Statewide Econometric and Demographic Model* The current MAP model appears to be a defensible method for providing overall population, employment, and income level forecasts for Alaska for the Susitna. Projecta In the long-run, however, MAP should be modified to better accommodate policy type variables and macro-economic scenarios • The link between the national and Alaskan economies should also be strengthened using a national macro-economic model (such as th~se avail- able from Data Resourcas, Inc. and Chase Econometrics). Variables other than wage differentials (e.g., low mortgage rates, lower taxes, etc.) may attract people to Alaska in the future and should be considered and appropriately modeled. A .particularly useful economic/ demographic model which may be of value to ISER' .s subsequent work is the model jointly developed by New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) and Battelle Columbus Labo- ratories (1977). *Our comments on the MAP model are based on documentation provided by ISER dated May 31, 1979: "Man-In-The-Arctic-Program, •• compiled by Oliver Scott Goldsmith, Institute of Social & Economic. Research, University of Alaska, Anchorag~, Alaska. ' 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I l 1·.1 • ..,. '1-J ,.. ,. .._ ... •• I ··-' ~ . . ; •. ~ . : I I .I . ' ; ..•. ·-.·\ ...y.:" {IJ . IJ JJ ~ ·~ D _I f? 273/9 3.2.3 Household Formation :Uodel ISER has linked this model to the MAP model. In our judgment, it would be better to link this model to the Regional Allocation MOdel. It appears simpler to allocate total population to the Railbelt area first and then forecast household formation rates for the Railbelt • ISER's modeling component diagram does not show this subcomponent and its .relationship to the housing and appliance stock model (po 2.1). Particular reasons for recommending the above modification are: (1) the Railbelt area comprises Alaska's most developed and populous region and better data (compared to the rest of Alaska) is available for this area, (2) the Railbelt has a relatively low percentage of na- tives (whose household formation and size patterns are not as well under- stood), and (3) the modification would simplify the link between the MAP and Regional Allocation MOdels • Since similar models have heen developed previously and adjustments for Alaska's unique characteristics could have been readily made, we are not sure why ISER developed their own model. The present model is fairly crude and its forecasts depend on several key assumptions that are not adequately documented. ISER's claim that '*In reality, the complexity of the household formation decision· and the important recent structural changes make any statistical estimates of this relation questionable" (p. 2.9) is only partially true. While there are disagreements between demographers on future rates of household formation, certain q~alitative trends are likely to continue and can provide useful forecasting bounds 14 I ~ ' :"·""·-.t I J I l . 1 I ~ j j I l i I l i l ~ I \ 1 .. :·· . l ~- ' i I •• l . I I t I , l ! I l ., I ,_,. I 273/9 (for example, see Slater 1980; NEPOOL and Battelle 1977; u.s. Department of Commerce, Projections of the Population of the US: 1977-2050, 1976). Despite these shortcomings the ISER model could provide adequate results which could be tested against more detailed models. This would provide an opportunity to fine tune their model and calibrate its para- meters. However, we were not able to verify if the model is appropri- ately formulated because ISER's intermediate results (such as the aver- age number· of people per household, etc.) are not presented in the draft report. We recommend that such information be summarized in their final report and that they compare this information to national trends and . trend forecasts. Furthermore, we recommend that ISER perform sensitivity analyses on the key assumptions used and present these results in summary form. Their statement, "The future household formation rates are asstued to follow the pattern of change projected at the national level," (p. 2-10) r~quires substantiation. 3.2.4 Regional Allocation Model This model component converts MAP's statewide projections to cor- responding projections for the Railbelt area, bypassing the development of a separate regional economic model. This is a reasonable approach because many development and construction activities are likely to take place outside the ~ilbelt which affect the residential and commercL~l activities in the Railbelt. This is true because of the central geo- graphical location of the area and the fact that more than three quarters of the state's population lives within its boundaries. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I _I I :1 .I ,I .I ~· I I 1~ I I I .I I I I I IJ '11 ll IJ IJ ···~.· ~ ~ ... u- ·IJ 273/9 ISER's present approach appears to be based on a continuation of historical trends and past relationships between various regions. While. we do not recommend a detailed analysis of regional economics and growth patterns, it is suggested that analysis of historical regional growth trends be complemented by a study of their relative potential for future development and economic activity. For example, some regions of the state may be expected to prosper more than proportionately as a result of new discoveries of natural resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, wood products) and subsequent development of these resources. Such possibi- lities should be considered in the context of the overall economic see- narios to produce consistent and credible resultss ISE.L,,'s "Current. Status .. (p. 2.14) indicates that this model com- ponent requires additional work. Their present documentation does not clearly indicate exactly which factors are assumed to determine each region's share of activity (po 2.13). Better documentation would be necessary to judge the validity of ISER's assumptions. It would be adviseable to perform sensitivity analysis to identify and better define the most influential parameters. 3.2.5 General r,omments Resarding Remaining Model Components Following·a review of several other forecasting approaches (in particular NEPOOL and Battelle 1977; Pacific Gas and Electric Co., California Energy Commission, Burbank 1979; Comerford 1979; Thomas 1979; To~renaa and Maxwell 1979; Fitzpatrick 1979; National Research Council 1978; and DRI 1976), taking into account Alaska's unique characteristics, 16 l j --·-1 : ~. ->\ ~ ·--\4 j I I . ·-i I I --~ ! • ,.,,.,I } 1 ' ·~ I I I l I I l I I I I I -. 273/9 data inadequacies, and ISER's time and resource constraints, we conclude that a reasonably sophisticated and defensible electric demand forecasting ~odel of the type ISER is developing should include the ~allowing four major components (Figure 3.2): • Scenarios that provide the primary exog~rs·Dus inputs of the model (as discussed in Section 3G2.1), •· Economic projections that take variou~ scenarios and other data as input and generate forecasts of population, employment, in- come, and so on using econometric models, • End-use models that convert the output of the economic projec- tions into forecasts of electric appliance ownership (purchase/ replacement) and utilization taking into account factors such as price of alternative fuels, income of the household, regu- lations on average efficiency of electric appliances and so on (Note that a direct link between the scenarios and the end-use models is required.), and • Electricity demand projections that simply sum total electricity consumption across individual consuming units using information generated in the previous two steps. These components should be linked so their interdependencies are technically correct and logically consistent. ISER's present model co~ ponents (p. 2.1) do not fully satisfy either qualification. Figute 3.3, a more detailed version of Figure 3G2, shows the subcomponents of a reasonably sophisticated and defensible model and their interdependence. A comparison of this figure and that shown in ISER's report (p. 2.1) suggests how ISER's model components might be rearranged and what new components are necessary. (Some of these subcomponents may already be implicit in ISER's work but not specifically referred to or presented.) The suggested rearrangement should not involve substantial additional work and would result in a better structured and ~ore defensible model. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I ·~ '....,.__;;.,· ,. ... ""t I . , 'I . . . { ; ... I I I I 1 ... :·,, • ,.. ,w ... I ll :~ c .IJ , . ; ,, . ~~ . ' 273/9 I. Scenarios 'w II. Economic Projection s 1 III. End Use Models -.. '( IV. Electricity Demand ProjectioTLS ·'----1 -- Figure 3.2. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF AN ELECTRIC DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL I i . . -~~ ,.. . -. I ql.' : ' _._ l ,J l I I il :~ ·n·· j ' ' . I. MACAO sct:NARIOS e.'-'-v.-... • N•iaNI/IntwNiiONI El:Gnomy w 'l~ie .._..,FilM Plica • N•lolwl II.• .. F ....... l E-w flolilllll • StaWLOCII 1-vc a a lap rr-.l'ollcla •~af,._,F&* ,..._iiiAIIJU l StMsGowr-I I F ..... G••-t I l ... ,.,._._ j . K Mon .... Awilllbllity _, l'l'lc8 K fQtioNI/ft...,_. Trwndl -{Energy A~y _, l'riat c-ion/Lold ._.,.,.,../ -{ Efficielwy it_.,. -{ l"rlc:e EL:!nic:itV c:-tlon/Lold _..,iillfiil,~ ,...,.,lbilftv of SUbltltum ! C.• Input II. ECONOMIC moJECTIONS MAl' IIICidlil J. .._...e....-._.. ~ ·~ •E~n•il ~ ··-eSt.n"-IE~c HOUIIfiOid FOift'..rion Aollodll ~ ~ R~ HCIUiintStoca ..._ • Slftlle Femi!y • Multi Fll!liiy ..... ~ •ExlaintUniu Ill. ENO.USI MODeLS ......_. .. El'd-UIWitodc lllodel l ...,.._s..r.tlon ..... ! ~,IIMT~"~W ! J ~Eictridty c-..•fll- ! ~Utlilln0n l'l _ _,,mem IV. I!LICTftiCITY DIMAND PftO.IECTIONI J ......... EiecuWtv 1 Oai!'IMII Modll ! l Nlriolwl~~ .l._ &IIIIIOf't s.:tor AclivitYModtl ! ~JindwluW ltadllliodlf .... •lmlll c-.cw •tMta~·~ ·~c--Ion • Exiati,. Unla COitwo.,c:ialllllduftrW End-UIWS1odc ~ Afl!JI .... s-.tinn All• ! """''--FilM Type ! l ~ Et.c:tric:ity CoNil!nlltlon ,._ ! ARlliela Utillutlon l'la.llld ,.'""' CcmrMn:illlllndc,wW I El«:tric:ity DMwnd ~ ! Si!nil meR · s· erto -..niel idt Figure 3.3. DETAILED COMPONENTS OF AN EU:ctr'RIC DEMAND FORECASTING MODEl. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., ..... ,, ' ·~ h ~ ... . . " ) . I l 273/9 3.2.6 Appliance Saturat;on and Energy Utilization Model This section of ISER's model is poorly documented. The assumptions/ results presented in Part III are difficult to interpret and are generally shown in unconventional units and terms. The assumptions made about fu- ture saturation and utilization rates,. when presented, are unsubstantiated. Substantial additional work and better documentation and presentation are required on this model component. It would aid the reader if a summary table were included, showing for residential and commercial customers: 1) Saturation rates for major appliances, both historical and projected (%), 2) Average consumption rates for appliances, both historical and projected (kWh/unit/yr), and 3) Average utilization rates per appliance, both historical and projected (kWh/household/yr). Since this type of data is available for many lower 48 utilities, (for example, see Table 3.1) a rough check on the validity of the projected rates could be made if this information was presented. The information in this proposed table, coupled with information on numbers of households, would allow a computation of total demand per household, which could also be compared to national data (for example, see Tables 3.2 and 3.3). Much of the desired information is in the report, but one has to sift through several tables and do additional calculations to convert it to the de- sired format. 20 r-> : •. :! ~·: 'e i 1·:j : --i •.· ' ·~ t 1'' ' .. -· i il) :·- ·! ~. I I .I I i . :I •••••• : ' . I : .· I \-~ ·, : . ! i,. ~· ~ I i ( ~ I l I . J_ . l { . 11. \., . .... - 1 .. , Table 3el. COMPONENTS OF RESIDENTIAL USE PER CUSTOMER+ Frost-free refrigerator Refrigerator Freezer Color television B&W television Water heater Electric range Clothes washE!r El ectri c dryer Dishwasher Air conditioner, window Air conditioner, central Lighting Small appliances Heating plant Annual Kilowatthours kWh/Unit 1400 860 1400 500 235 4500 1200 103 993 363 390 3200 1000 300 560 1976 Saturation 0.678 0.493 0.271 1.048 0.924 0.067 0.474 0.837 0.455 0.517 1.020 0.115 1.000 1.000 0.975 kWh/Cust .. 949 424 379 524 217 302 569 86 452 188 398 36~ 1000 300 546 6702 kWh* *6702 kWh/customer compares with. an actual 1976 experience of 66SS kWh. **1.92 kW/customer compares with an actual 1976 exper~ence of 1.90 kW. + Data abstracted from "Peak Load Forecasting Methodology" by George L. Fitzpatrick, Long Island Lighting Company, Mineola, Ne~ York. Presented in EPRI Symposium on Electric Load Forecasting (FJ.tzpatrick 1979). 21 1 1 I 1 ~. ~. 'I :t 1 .-. •• I _I I .I I .I J ·~ .~ N tv .. ._... ~ l!IIJ .... ... ....... . . Table 3.2~~ POPULATION, llOUSEJIOLDS, AND CUSTOMERS+ Population Households per Calendar per Residential Year Population* Household Households* Customet ..... , 19~0 5059 3.80 1331 1.37 1955 5071 3.70 1371 1.12 1960 . 5349 3.61 1483 lc05 1965 5630 3.44 1635 1.00 1970 5882 3.23 1819 0.97 . 1975 6285 3.09 2033 0.92 1980 6630 2.93 2265 0.90 1985 6940 2.72 2550 0.89 1990 7252 2.61 2783 0.89 *1970 TVA region (thousands). + Table reproduced from "Three Methods of Forecasting Residential Loads" by James Torrence and Lynn C~ Maxwell, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Presented in EPRI Symposium on Electr lc J .. oad Forecasting (Torrence and Maxwell 1979) • Residential Customers* 970 1229 1418 1635 1868 2203 2509 . 2852 3143 . ~ '') .,.,. -,If/ .... ...._j ;, . ) '_It J.!S.:C...:~JI!!!!I·~ ~·:---~ . l!!!!i!l!!!!l' .. ---st'''7Dlr!. i · ;;"-'"'"''!! 1_ nl= ·?· . ./~ ' . ----,;i;.A.._ .... , · .. \ t, d J! -.r • J : .• J ),, ~' j ~~ • \ ' 'j .I . ~ Table 3~3. APPLIANCE SATURATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANNUAL AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USE Calendar Year 1976 Calendar Yea7 1986 ~verage Use eontr1button Average Use Contrtbut1on Aimual of to Annual of to Annual Growth " Saturation Appliance Average Use Saturation Appl tance Average Use Rate (I) (I) ____{!Wh) (kWh) (I) (kWh) {kWh) 1976-86 Electric heater 44_ 9300 4,092 55 8580 4,720 Range 80 1330 1,064 B6 1210 1,040 Water heater 73 . 5000 3,650 B4 5000 4,200 Atr conditioner 63 2900 1,827 81 2650 2,145 Refrigerator 99 1220 1,208 100 1560 1,560 Freezer 47 1075 505 56 lUJO 665 Washer 74 100 74 75 100 75 Dryer 45 1370 616 5 1350 760 N Dishwasher 24 350 84 40 330 130 w Lighting, TV, other 1,797 3,210 Average use 14,917 18,505 2.2 Average customers (lOGOs) 2,251.0 2,918 2.6 Energy use (106 kWh) • 33,577.4 53,998 4.9 -----~ ---; ...... + See footnote for Table 3-2. --.. -.. .. ............ r·_ ~ . ~ --... 1MIIIi --I ... ... ~ -., ~I l-~ ·~ 'I . ~ 1 I I I I :I Jl ... J 273/9 Several important types of appliances (lighting, TV, refrigerators) are apparently combined together under the heading "non-substitute elec- tric"~ (p. 3.27). We suggest that all "major" appliances be separately accounted for. The reason for this being that improvements in efficiency standards~ price elasticity of demand, and numerous other variables are likely to affect these appliances tu different ways, hence the need for separate record keeping. Other small electrical appliances can then be combined under one category. Electric cars should be considered for the period· 1990-2010, since they may become. commercially available during that time frame (Burbank 1979; EPRI Journal 1979). There is little documentation presented on per unit comsumption of various appliances, their saturation rates, average useful life, and expected improvements in efficiency. What little data is presented is fragmentary and divided between Parts I and III of the report. Ap- parently; ISER has not utilized the available information from several generally qu\lted sources such as: • Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) -Informa- tion on average size~ consumption, and replacement of major appliances. • Federal Energy Administration (FEA) -Information on enargy efficien~y targets for major applianees. ~ Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) electr-ical load forecasti~g and modeling. following four reports: ~ Information on !n particular, the (1) "How Electrical Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Pro- ceedings,'~ EA-l035-SR, March 1979. 24 r·.a;l <IJ '~ 1 :u . IJ .I •. '1 . ! 1 .. J ,__,I 273/9 : .... (2) "Patterns of Energy Use by Electrical Appliancesll" Report prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI), EA-682, January 1979. (3) "Analysis of Household Appliance Choice," F.eport prepared by. Charles River Associates, Inc. (CRA), EA-1100, June 1979. (4) "Electric Load Forecasting: Probing the Issues with Models -Final Report, .. Report prepared by Stanford University EA-1075, April 1979. • Edison Electric Institute (EEI) -Various reports. • Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the u.s., Electrical Appliances, various years. Other useful data sources include: • FEA Electric Pricing Experiments -Conducted on ten regions of the country and aore u~derway in other areas. Questio~naire surveys were used for each pricing experiment and a complete documentation on all of these data sets should be available shortly. Detailed information on housing type, income, age, number and types of appliances, and utilization rates are included in these data sets. 8· .. Models for J .. ong Range forecasting of Electric Energy and Demand, .. models and report jointly developed by the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) and Battelle Columbus Labora- tories, June 30, 1977 (revised and updated version forth- coming). • Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies (WCMS) -Conducted two national surveys on number and ages of household residents, household income, attitudes toward energy consumption, insul- ation type used and extensive information on appilance owner- ship and utilization. • San Diego Gas and Electric -Conducted extensive customer sur- veys on a number of household and appli,ance characteristics ~nd use pactern~ • A.C. Nielsen C.o. -Conducted a survey for the State of Illinois which was restricted to single family dwellings. 25 I I ~'"' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·ll IL . .. ··r· r-,~~ l I . ) .,) ... ) •I':" . .. 'l .J .. , .. ~ ;( j u ' • IJ ··~ Jti' u/ . .....,. u 273/9 Failure to consider the various available data sources is a significant deficiency of ISER's present work. ISER's definition of the saturation rate, defined as "the number of appliances divided by the number of consumers" (p. 2.17) is unconven- tional. This makes it more difficult to interpret and compare their assumptions/results to other studies. The conventional definition of the saturation rate uses number of households (as opposed to number of c.onsumers)·and makes more intuitive sense since many appliances (e.g., black and white TVs) are approaching 100 percent saturation by this definition (U.S. Department of Commerce). The "logistic curve" (p. 2.17) is not completely defined in the draft report. A simpler approach might be to extract useful information from the EPRI reports (ii) and (iii) mentioned above and to calibrate this model to fit /uaskan data. The above two studies identify several relevant at- tributes affecting the choice and use patterns of most comttton appliances and can provide the basis for better end-use modeling as well. While we agree with ISER's statement t;ha.t "it does not appear cost- effective to construct detailed models for predicting changes in [satur- ation and utilization] rates" (p. 2.18), we believe that development of simple, common sense models based on results of similar ~tudies elsewhere (e.g., 'Thomas 1979) would be desirable. 26 ' ·-! :~ 1 t :. ~ .. 1 If -.1: -, \ ! -I 1 ' i I "' J j I 1 ~ . ' ' I • i 1 ! 'l l '·• '• 273/9 The following are a number of other specific comments/suggestions which may be useful in ISER's subsequent work on the appliance satura- tion and energy utilization model~ Some of these comments/suggestions are applicable to other model components as well. eMore emphasis should be placed on forecasting per capita and per customer electricity demand and cost. The relationship between cost of electicity and utilization rate (i.e., price elasticity of demand) should be considered, • If possible, develop t'elat:iva cost of labor ratios (Alaska vs. national average) for some major commercial/industrial sectqrs (Burbank 1979). This information would be useful in determining which commercial/industrial sectors may attract workers from the lower 48 states. ., Consider the effect of new energy efficiency standards mandated by Federal Energy Administration (FEA)--now part of DOE (FEA 1977). For example, a 50 percent energy use reduction for cer- tain types of end-use by 1990 may not be unreasonable (Burbank 1979). Higher and lower energy efficiency improvements should be considered in the context of appropriate economic and regu- latory scenarios (see Figure 3.3). • Consider the possibility of different rate structure for elec- tric space heating (as was once the case in the Anchorage area) and declining vs. inverted block ratesQ • Consider establishment of time-of-day-pricing in the 1990s and beyond, particularly for large users. Also consider the po- tential for heat pumps and heat storage systems in the same time frame. • Consider higher insulation standards in response to: (1) higher electricity rates (i.e., voluntary action due to economic inducements), (2) regulations, either forced or through incentives. • Consider the implications of the following two events on demand for electricity: (1} price of natural gas (used for power generation) rising to world market price, and/or 27 I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·f .. 273/9 (2) a federally imposed ban on use of natural gas for power generation. 3.2.7 Final En~rgy Demand Model -U ISER's current ~odel forecasts total energy demand (in BTUs) fol- -~ .. n~ lowed by a second model component which breaks total energy demand into subcomponents (e.g., electricity, gas, oil). For the purposes of the -ll Susitna Project, this two-step approach is Gnnecessarily complicated •. It would be sufficient to directly forecast electric energy demand. The two-step approach is more involved and produces results which are not of immediate .interest in the context of the Susitna Project. Furthermore, to obtain defensible results, the approach requires simultaneous analysis of mode splits (between various fuel types) and supply and demand (one for each fuel type). This, in turn, requires development of a series of internally consistent and plausible scenarios concerning the supply of, and demand for, each fuel type at various prices. To date, ISER has not undertaken this complete of an analysis .. The approach we recommend, given ISER's limited resources, is to concentrate on electricity demand and derive it in a one-step process using an end-use model. The advantage of a well thought-out end-use model is that. it cc:...._ generate alec.tric~ty demand prcjecticns directly taking as input data on number of households and housing units, income, assump- .. 1 tions about relative fuel prices, and .several other parameterso Similar I ' ' studies have been carried out in the lower 48 (e.g., Burbank 1979) and would be relevant to the present study. 28 1: ,~-1 .. _1:: ,.......,... _,-~1 . J .. . l I ......... r-;-,.,. ( * 1 #~,,~.,~ ---: . .. :. ; ..... . J]' . 'f'l .. '' u f { u u ·- ' i f1 ~ . ' 'l . . w . ' . . ' ! ld J' 273/9 The "Sources of Variation" (p. 2.19) listed in ISER's draft report leave ~ut several important variables (e.g., rise in price of energy rel- ative to labor and commodities). ISER' s "Methodology'o section suggests, "For the commercial-industrial sector, there is no data on average con- version efficiency, so no final demand model exists" (p. 2.19). If this is true, then additional effort in this area is required.. This is not mentioned in their "Future Work" section. Finally, ISER's implicit ass~ptions suggest that total energy de- mand is not sensitive to price. This is clearly implied by the figure on p. 2.1 where energy availability and price scenarios and energy ef- ficiency models follow the final energy demand· model. This assumes per- .feet price inelasticity in demand for energy. It is a strong assumption and requires further substantiation. 3.2.8 Housing & Appliance Stock Model The "Model Description" (p. 2.22) for this m~del component indicates that ISER has projected future housing stock en the basis of local and national trends. _An approach more in keeping with the rest of ISER's fore- casting m~thodology would be to develop a model incorporating demographic information, pe;rticularly household formation rE.;t:es and income/employm.ent data, into a demand for housing .function which can then be broken down into single-family and multi-family components taking income, housing supply,_ and mortgage availability .into account. The model need not be complicated, and the required effort need not be substantial.. Modals of 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,~11 -1 ~ '1'1 : . 1 ~ . J J'"l_. t -} ' ('1 . l :1 -~--~ ' ' ; ' • ~ I f I"f1 l . j -' ljl " J rt ,, f -. ;} I ' I ·; J 273/9 this type have been developed (e.g., NEPOOL and Battelle 1977) and can be readily modified for the present study. Since Alaskan mortgage rates are currently subsidized by th~ state governmeut and may continue to be influ- enced by forces other than availability and cost of funds in financial markets, they should be accounted for as part of the state government scenarios • Single-family units should be separated from multi.-family units. Sim- ilarly, new homes/businesses should be distinguished from older homes/busi- nesses since their energy consumption rates and patterns generally differ. A flow diagram similar to Figure 3.4 would be helpful. We do not fully agree with ISER's statement that estimation of hous- ing stock and mode split should be carried out "on the basis of housing demand without significant supply constraints" (p. 2.21). Both housing deman.d and mode split decisions are Sc"~.lSiti ve to c;upply condi tiona alt_hough they tend to be sluggish. A supply crunch, for example, ~an j.ncrease the ' ~~ ~ . ,, cost of housing and affect the ratio of single-family to multi-family units. A similar result can also occur if the supply of available fund~/ for housing dries up or government subsidies on m~~tgage ~ates arc removed. ' In the lower 48, housing vacancy rates, particular~ for ~wner-occu- pied single-family dwellings, are quite low. (The u.s. national average for 1976 was 1.2 percent, u.s. Department of Commerce, Statistical Ab- stracts 1976). From ISER's discussion of the topic it appears that this is not the case in Alaska. The same apparently applies to second 30 ~ I ~ . ...... l r "-~' •• ~ ·c;--..... J.IIIiiil from economic;/ dlmotriPhk: ~ hpulltion bvlll ....... ,••• I ·'· t •' --,_,......:• ~ -~ .-~-~~-~-..--'--~-.....,·--........ ----~ -· ---~·----L. __ :::c::::;:::__~--~----------~ _ ... ,_·lit ....... .. ~.., .... H•• ' f ~ \ I ' l . i r-------r-----------, I · . I l . . I ~~ I f•mllv · I demoUtiona I I"*'' """' \ ., t ' / I I I I ~~ .. H famUy Tollllinde- conatructlon f~mll\' unitl I ., Torwldlndll lll•mocW - I, Tctal dlnWid I _I Net cllmlnd ~ ~ Total f« houllna ,_.... for houling conatruction ) ' ___ _,.. flows ----... ..... dflowa I I I I ,.. Muldt..rntv ) "" demoUiiGN ,ToreskMntlll -----..... model Multif~mllv 1 ~I Tolll connruction r--1 multifmJiy 1 ,. LWiitl L-~---~-~~-----~~-~~ o-E-•-D-Endooonauonrllblo Figure 3-.4. Housing Unit Uodel Source: See Table 3.2. ~,, m• ~ -iali -·--- 1111111 iiiiJ ... .. .. ; ........ " ~ . 273/9 '1' '' .1 homes~ If this is the case, better discussion, documentation and model- ·t ing of vacancy rates and second homes is. required. ISER's discussion on "preference" (as opposed to "affordability") for a houtlng type and "household head age" as explanatory variables I (p. 2.22) are not strictly correct. The two most important determinants of housing type are household income and size (U.S. Department of Com- I merce, Statistical Abstracts). (Age of the household head is sometimes I used as a surroga:e for income and/or family size.) ISER propose~ to project housing mode split on the basis of local national trends in Part II (p. 2.22). What they have actually done, how- .. I ever, is to take the present mode split percentages and assume that they remain constant over time (see p. 3.7 and pp. 3.21-3.23). In the absence I of more documentation and better substantiation, this assumption is clearly I I unacceptable. Since h~using mode split is an important parameter affecting all subsequent work, small variations in this split can lead to significant I variations in electricity demand. 3o2.9 Energy Availability Scenarios This model component, which would more accurately be called "Energy Price and Availability Scenarios," is treated as a separate model compo- nent. In our view, energy price and availability are more defensibly treated as outputs of the economic scenarios already discussed. This distinetion is important because energy scenarios are a major component of any economic scenario developed and should be consistent with the 32 '!· ... ~.-i i -. I ) 11 •IJ I 11 I I J l I i j I ·~ ; ( ; I ._..,. ~ I 273/9 other scenario assumptions and implications. For this reason, energy price and availability scenarios should be carefully integrated with other endogenous and exogenous variables, such as state and. federal government regulations or policies; relative price of alternative fuels in the world market over time; and critical energy 1.·ela.ted projects such as an LNG plant on Kenai Peninsula or the trans-Canadian gas pipe- line. A defensible scenario considers a consistent sequence of events/de- cisions over time and makes reasonable assumptions about its implications. According to their draft report (p. 2.24), ISER has not developed such scenarios. This ~s a critical step in any forecasting model and particu- larly in energy forecasting. No ona can expect to accurately predict the future, and so scenario generation is designed to allow analysis of a num- ber of "what if" questions in order to show the sensitivity of the projec- . tiona to variations in important parameters. The results obtained allow a study of the implications of given decisions/policies under a variety of assumptions about the future. It is difficult to evalute ISER's work; on this aspect of the problem since very little is presented about it in the draft report. In particular, it is not clear if ISER' s energy· price and availability scenarios are con- sistent with the more general ~era-economic scenarios affecting the MAP model. 33 I I I I I I I I, •• I I I I I I I I I .• ~ ;i ll ·~· . l I ~ :I. :l.· ' ' \ 1~'''\ i ) '. ' ; 1\ IJ ·~I I ~-i il/ ,.,.. 'I 273/9 3.2.10 Mode Split Model According to ISER's stated '"Objective" this·model component deter- mines "the proportion of consumers owning a particular appliance, type of housing, or type of commercial-industrial space that utilizes a par- ticular fuel type'' (p. 2.25). It describes the process by which a con- suming unit decides to purchase new, or replace existing, appliances. The single most important "appliance" under consideration is, of course, space heating. Other appliances are not as energy intensive individually, but they become significant collectively •. For certain appliances (e.g., lighting) the choice of fuel types is fairly limited, whereas in other cases several alternative fuel types may be available, each with its par- ticular attributes. The question addressed in this model component is which alternative fuel type will be. chosen when several are available. This problem is a typical marketing problem and can be analyzed in two stages. The first stage deals with the question of whether to buy a new appliance and/or replace an existing one (Theil 1967; Charles River Associates 1979). The second stage considers the type of appliance (e.g., size, fuel type, model) chosen once a decision has been reached to purchase a new appliance or replace an old one (McFadden 1974; Theil 1971; Domenich et al. 1976). ISER's initial approach (p. 2.26), if used in a dynamic context, appears adequate. This approach is, however, considerably simplified before it is considered ready to apply through a number of unrealistic 34 • r~-1.: t •. t : ·' ' ' . t ~ . t ~ .. t·.~:J ' ,:, ... .. ! ' I . ·,.ld I .td i ~· , ., -· ~ .: . . Ul 273/9 assumptions (p. 2.27) and reduced to the form presented on page 2.28. This simplified approach ia crude, and many of its important parameters (e.g., replacement and. saturation rates) appear to be judgmentally set (e.g., P• 3.28). In addition, there is a discrepancy between what is proposed in Part II (pp. 2.25-2.28) and what is actually carried out in Part III (e.g., p. 3o 7 and pp. 3 .. 21-3.23). Percentages of residential. units on electric spaca heating, for example, are assumed to remain constant (pp. 3.21-3.23) at their present levels (p. 1.8) over the next thirty years (also see, e.g., pp. 3~27-3.29). It is misleading to present a mode split model in Part II, since it is not a~tually used.* As already pointed out, an ·important component of the mode split model should be its sensitivity to economic and fuel price and avail- ability scenarios. Based on what is presented in Part III, ISER's cur- rent approach is inadequate. There is nothing in the draft report to indicate that these deficiencies will be addressed in future work. In modeling mode splits it is desirable to distinguish purchase/ replacements in three appliance markets that are known to differ on their choice of appliances (Burbank 1979): *strictly speaking, !SERes report refers to what appear to be input as- sumptions/restuts as •'electric power requirement wor.k.sheet" (pp. 3.20 - 3.38). In the absence of better e.larification, we assume that what iS,j presented in these ''worksheets" are indeed assumptions that are fed into tha model by the modelers. 35 I I I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' f9 :'!~ 1 .,.;; .... t " l ' . ~ } ' . ~~ .t f ·I'~' . J 4 \ [,, ' ' . t.l ' : A 273/9 • the new housing (residential or commercial) market, • the liplacement market, and • the existing markete New homes or commercial establishments consider all available alter- natives and purchase appliances based on several impo~tant parameters such as: • perceived initial costs, • perceived op!rating and maint-enance costs, • perceived availability and cost of fuel, and • perceived safety and convenience. New homes and commercial establishments have great flexibility in their choice and take long-run marketability of the home/establishment into account (NEPOOL and Battelle 1977). The replacement market deals with existing homes or commerci.al es- tablishments with particular appliauces that are wearing out, becoming obsolete, or becoming uneconomical to operate. This market does not have the flexibility of the n~w market (e.g., lack of duct work may make it difficult/expensive to add central forced air· heating systems~ The third market consists of existing houses or commercial estab- lisbments without. particular appliances which are considering purchase of new appliances. It also includes households/establishments that are considering duplicating appliances (e.g., second TV)~ A complete housing stock model would provide information ~n new and existing housing stocks which could be used to provide input regarding 36 .,. -. 1 ; --0 ~'- ""' ...... l 1 ! I· 1 .1 ' I ., ! 'l·-·- ll L } ... IJ1 .. I ; ._ ... r " Cj 11 r I~ ,J [ [/ ,, ",i (l . ~ ,;;J _,. [l ~ ... · ... J r .. AI 273/9 the above markets. At a minimum the new housing market should be distin- guished from the other two and treated separately. Similarly, single-family dwellings should be distinguished from multi-family units, and small com- mel;'cial (e.g., small retail) from lar.ge commercial~ Their use patterns and available choices are different enough to warrant: separate treatment • . 3.2.11 Energy Efficiency Model We recommend including this model as an integral part of the end-use model (Figure 3.3}, since the decision to purchase a particular appliance and appliance fuel type is affected by its perceived operating and main- tenance costs which are .dependent on its fuel conversion efficiency. As currently presented in ISER's work, a person's purchase decison is una£- fected by improvements in efficiency standards because the model component which considers this follows the mo~e split model. The current model's only fun~tion is specification of appliance fuel efficiefi~y (p. 2.30) which is, apparently, judgmentally set. ~TU demand for various appliances and efficiencies of electric c.onversicin are, for example, set without any supporting rationale (e.g., pp. 3.27-3.29). Speci- fication of appliance fuel efficiency, should be part of the input scenarios that are fed into the end-use model and should be consistent with FEA's ef- ficiency st&ndard targets (FEA 1977). 3.2.12 _!nern ~quirements By Fuel Type_ No comm~n·ts. 37 1 1 :I "I 'I I ,I J ,I I I 1 .,, . ~ .. [ 273/9 3.3 QUANTITY AND ACCURACY OF DATA A defensible forecast requires reasonably complete data in addition to a logical, well-structured, and technically ~orrect model. Our comments in Section 3.2 were directed at ISER's model. In this section, we consider the accuracy and adequacy of the available data. End-use models are data intensive because many parameters have to be identified and specified over time. Based on. our experience and review of other end-use models (e.g., those of the California Energy Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Company), these models generally take several years of data gathering and calibration before they can provide completely defensible forecasts. For this reason we believe that ISER's end-use model cannot be realistically expected to become fully operational in the short- run. ISER has undertaken an ambitious task in attempting to put together an end-use model for the Railbelt area. Their model should provide more defensible forecasts as additional data are collected and the remaining deficiencies of the model are rectified. The quantity and quality of Anchorage data could be improved. The data for the Fairbanks area is even less satisfactory. MOre specifically, the following comments are addressed at data and inpu~ assumptions pre- sented in Parts I ~nd III. • TI1e documentation and discussion of the end-use inventory should be presented separately from the data, which belong in an appendix. • Factual data should be distinguished from assumed data. 38 1-., ' ' 'j 1'!_. ". '! ' .I 1-·_"• I j • ' . '· ' ·' ~ ' ·1'1 .. •.f .1 ' ' ~- ' . I ; . . ~-1 ~ . I ._. ... j -._:<,-1 I [ ~ i \ ............ , l1 _, 11 I,. , .. 11.1 } ' ' .~: I I:_ . 1 j , l ' ~-!! ~ L~ .L . . . ... ·~ •' ~ i ,'' ' ' .' ~ i j -· '1·1 .... .. " ·t·. 273/9 • Factual data should be appropriately referenced. Assumed or estimated data should be substantiated and discussed to the extent possible. Judgmental assumptions should be distin- guished from assumptio,ns based on historical trends or similar studies done elsewhere. • Each data sheet and inventory table should come complete with its footnotes and references. • It appears that the key on p. 1.7 contains much redundant in- formation (i.e., only three pieces of information are neces- sary to complete the remaining five blank spaces). If so, a more compact format, with instructions on how to obtain addi-· tional information could be presented • • Many important input assumptions (e.,g;, percent of year-round housing units [p. 1.15] and electric consumption for space heat- ing [p. 1.14]) are crudely estimated... Substantial additional effort appears necessary to improve these rough estimates. • In cases where nation~! (as opposed to Alaskan) data is used (e.g., p. 1.18), judgmental adjustments for Alaska, based on the available information, seem appropriate. • Estimates regarding all-electric homes and electric space heat- ing are crucial.. ISER' s rough estimates (p. 1.20) should be better substantiated and double checked to the extent possible. •· Appliance unit demands, energy efficiencies and annual con- sumption rates (pp. 1.30-1.33) should be augmented with more recent and accurate data (e.g., [Fitzpatrick 1979], [Charles River Associates 1979], [Midwest Research Institute 1979], [Edison Electric Institute]) and adjusted for Alaska. • The flow pattern presented in Figure 1 (p. 3.2) is confusing. • Assumptions stated on p. 3.7 are unsubstantiated. Each one of them is critical and requires careful consideration, evaluation and sensitivity analysis. As presently stated, they are clearly indefensible • • The heading for Table 00 (p. 3.9) is incomplete. •· The "Electric Power· Requirement Worksheets" (pp. 3.20-3.38) are undocumented and their assumptions are questionable and unsub- stantiated. Many of the stated assumptions are dependent on future economic and energy scenarios. It is not clear if and how these scenarios will be integrated into more reasonable input assumptions and if and how sensitivity analysis will be performed • 39 I I I I I I ·I ·I I I I I 'I I I ·I I I I [· .ll'\ ......... -·--. r' ·.(· I (_ .... ,: I I. I .I~ I _I .• , I ~ ' ~"' I~ 273/9 • The Commercial/industrial sector requires a finer breakdown of the "Generalu category (p. 3.33) while certain other categories (e.g., Manufactu~ing and Warehouse) may be combined. • Fairbanks area d~ta appears non-existent (e.g., pp. 3.36-3.38) or of poor quality (e.g., p. 3.45). Better documentation of assumptions such as housing size and heat requirements (e.g., p. 3.40) is necessary. 3.4 METHODS USED BY ISER TO CONSIDER UNCERTAINTIES The accuracy of total electric energy demand forecasts produced by ISER's models is affected by three major factors: 1) The degree to which the models accurately capture the true structure of energy use in the Railbelt,, 2) The accuracy of data ab~ut current conditions in the Railbelt, and 3) The degree to which the assumed input scenarios for future economic development and energy use are accurate. ISER's draft report, as well a$ our discussion elsewhere in this critique, sho~-1s that there are aignifican·t uncertainties about all three of these factors. It is important that these uncertainties be considered in the forecasting work in a systematic and realistic manner if the results are to be defensible. The draft report does not indicate how ISER intends to address these uncertainties. The steps generally used to address them include the following: .. 1) Sensitivity analyses to .identify which structural !eatures and input. data m~st significantly affect the forecasts, 2) Additional modeling work or data collection where the sensi- tivity analyses indicate it is warranted, and 40 -·· :j :f-0 ... ;".1 .~ ~l ,_ •• ; : ' \•. r~ • .. ··-~ ' . i r~'.l .. l " -' . l f 1·1 ~ - : ! ... ~ · r -l ) i 1 l .I 1: -·. l •• .-, . ·'---. I J .. I' J I ... '~ ' .1. . -r' /". . . \.. ... .. . . f 273/9 3) Incorporation of a broad range of viewpoints into the pro- cedure for selecting input scenarios. ISER has apparently not yet estabished methods for carrying out these steps. Although we foresee no particular difficulties in doing this, our experience indicates that carrying out the steps can be time-con- suming. 41 ,'I ,li I 1 1 1 J :1 :1 I .I J I J J I J . " ·-1 '.(, ~~ r.-{., .,."'"""' : .• . . il ~~ Jt I I ' ~--~-,_, ' I :, . 'I ~-''! I I J _I ·I . . _,,~. :( . ' " 'I 273/10 4.0 IMPLICATIONS OF OTHER WORK A review of several other electricity demand forecasts for the Rail- belt region ([U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration 1979], [U.S. Department of the Army, Corp of Engineers 1979], and [Battelle Pa- cific Northwest 1978]) indicates that past work has used less sophist!- cated methods than those proposed by ISER. None of these studies. make use of end-use models~ Generally, the studies are based on crude esti- mates of per capita energy demand and demand growth rates based on his- torical trends. The Corps of Engineers Report, for example, uses per capita consumption. projections for "comparable regions in the Pacific Northwest, "(U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 1979, Appen- dix, Part I, p. C-32) as the basis for its projections. The population projections used are typically those provided by ISER's previous MAP fore- casts with a consideration of "low" and "high" growth scenarios. Overall, these fo~ecasts have limited defensibility since there is little documentation and specification of their critical parameters and . input assumptions. Furthermore, various assumptions are not well integrated (e.g., population scenario, per capita conswnption and energy. price and availability scenarios are not necessarily consistent with one another) • However, the assumptions are clearly stated and can be readily varied to produce alternative forecasts. 42 r~-~ ~. ii t ... t .. i i --' c-.... " ~. ' . \. .· 1 fJ'~.! i I . ( ' . ' . ~ . t .. _ •.. " . . ~ - ' ••• . . i f; . ~. I I ' . . . ··-~ ~ " .. ~ ... ,. :·· -' .. . ·I· ' . i ·.. . -~..,; I :· -1' . . '1J ..... i i 'li. \ ;~ t ~ ·_I •. ) . . ,. l ' . f • ...~ .. - 1. I: ·. \ . 1 '\ ,# . I -i ~. l I. , ~ •. ~-··(·---·. '...-' . ' ' ~ .._.., I 273/10 The two most ~ecent power market analyses [U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administrat:i.<On 1979] and [U.S. D~partment o_f the Army, Corp of Engineers 1979] are based on ISER's MAP population projections (December 1978 revisions). These population projections, reproduced in Table 4.4 for easy reference, are higher than ISER's current projections (compare Table 8, p. 34 of [U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration 1979] to Table 0, p. 3.6 of [ISER 1980]). In fact, ISER's previous "low" pro- jections for 1980, 19-90, and 2000 exceed their respective present "medium . range ... Similarly, the previous "low" forecasts of total annual energy demand for 1980, 1990, and 2000, reproduced in Table 4.5 for easy refer- ence, exceed ISER' s present "medium range~· forecasts (compare Table 10, p. 40 of [U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration 1979] to Table 00, p. 3.9 of [ISER 1980}). Most of the discrepancy between these two population forecasts appears to be the result of updating of the MAP model; the previous populatio~ forecasts were based on a MAP model calibration using data up to 1973 where the more recent forecasts are ap- parently based on a recalibration of MAP which includes data up to 1978, including post Arab oU embargo data. 43 1 1 1 ] ] 1 :J J I I _I .I I I I 'li" '· . -- \b·· '; '' \.." ' . . .. '"''" .. . . ~· .·--~ ;.1 \ . . 1 ..... \.. ~· rl: c' .. ~.-.1 ~· ~[·""' i .·' ., ' ' ... i .... ~· . 'l :···· .. ·.·,· ; \. . ~ ~ ... '. .; I ' i 24/7 Table 4.4 COMPARISON OF ISER'S POPULATION PROJECTIONS [ISER 1980, TABLE 0, P. 3.6] TO THE ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION'S POPULATION PROJECTIONS [U.S. DOE, ALASKA POWER ADMINIS• TRATION 1979, TABLE 8, P. 34] FOR THE RAILBELT AREA population in thousands, rounded to nearest full thousand ISER' s "Medium Case Scenario" Projections APA's Projections Anchorage Area+ Fairbanks Area+ Year 1980 1990 2000 Anchorage Area* 208 286 371 Fairbanks Area* 61 78 97 "Low" 240 299 424 "High" 270 407 651 "High" 60 62 75 95 90 140 *ISER uses Anchorage-Matanuska Susitna and Fairbanks-Southeast Fairbanks, respectively. +APA uses Anchorage-Cook. Inlet and Fairbanks-Tanana Valley, respectively• 44 l i (--~; L ~ h ,, ••.•• ' -t . ' -:! .. \Jil: ;~. ~-\ ·~ ' "'-"" \ . . -~~4 ' . ';"1: I' .· \ .... i ,! w ~ ' I '~---•. 1·- ' I -... ; . ' '.1· ' '. ::t·. l ... I I' \ ..... !: . . ' t '· ;I . . ] . ] ,_ I .I' ;1:. ;I' . I ~ ~ ... ,J ; ·J' \ '.:'··1· '' . #,. -,.-~ 'll j '. J' :I . \ . ' 24/7 Table 4.5. COMPARISOll OF ISER'S "DRY RUN .. ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND PRo- JECTIONS [ISER 1980, TABLE 00, P~ 3.9] AND THE ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION'S PROJECTIONS [U.S. DOE, ALASKA POWER ADMIN- ISTRATION 1979, ~ABLE 12, P. 46] FOR·l~ RAILBELT AREA* Total Annual Electric Demand in GWh, rounded Year 1980 1990 2000 ISER'S Medium Case Scenario Projections 2,200 3,800 5,700 Low 3,400 5,200 7,900 *Includes the entire Railbelt area •. 45 APA's Projections Medium 3,700 7,100 12,700 High 3,900 11,000 21,000 I I I I I I I I , • ·I I I I 'I I I I I I 1 tb' ' . ' .. \~ .·• -., ,J ·-~~ ' •• :I !l ;I ] :·r) "• _, I . . I I :I •• ~-. .J :,1 :·_, ''; I ·~ ••••• .. l •• l ... ,- 273/10 5.0 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF ISER WORK ISER's work has the ambitious objective of accomplishing the first integrated combination of economic and end-use models for the Railbelt region. This is a major undertaking. It requires a systematic inventory of current end-use devices, their replacement, and utilization rates, efficiency levels and use patterns over time. In addition, future pur- chase/replacement decisions have to be modeled and integrated with va~ious possible assumptions about relative price and availability of alternative fuels, energy efficiency standards, as well as policies and regulations on conservation • A well integrated. economic/end-use model can be a powerful planning tool for considering the possible implications of proposed actions or -policy changes. However, attempts to develop such models by electric utilities and regulatory commissions in the lower 48 states have been carried out with E;Jubstantially more resources than the work by ISER. Generally, it has taken two or more y~ars of data collection, model specification ~nd calibration to achieve reasonably defensible results. 46 -•• ~ j \ :j·O \4 C"l . - 1 •• : ! ~. ,Jt ·~ l . ; ... ..., 1 ~I . ... :a ' , :.a-. ! 'I { *-; r ..• ~) t .: t . ' c·~ : :I r·· :I ·:I :I ' ' \., . (I. i : • .. .I . ~I ' .. ' (1 ;j lJ, .J ( ~. , I . 273/10 Our review of ISER's present work indicates that substantial ad- ditional work will be required before their model becomes fully integrated and operational. This assessment is based on our conclusions (see Section 2) that serious deficiencies exist in !SER's work eo date~ (A detailed discussion of these deficiencies is presented in Section 3.) At the pre- sent state of development, the model's forecasts are not necessarily more accurate or defensible than forecasts from a less sophisticated approach. This is true because: • ISER's present model is not complete nor fully integrated, •· The model is based on an incomplete and possibly inaccurate data base, and ., The selection and sp~cification of input scenarios is not adequately addressed. Additional work would substantially improve the defensibility of ISER's forecasts. However, there are other !mportant. +ssues related to the Susitna Project power studies that are not directly addressed by the ISER work, a·t least as it is presented in the draft report. These are not, strictly speaking, technical deficiencies in the work but rather limitations on the scope of what ISER is attempting to do. However, they may limit the ultimate usefulness for the Susitna Project of ISER's work. A variety of studies have been carried out during the last two de- cades to assess future electricity demand in the Railbelt. Several studies have assessed the desirability of building the Susitna Project. Generally, 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I. ·I :~ \. . 0--....._,. , ... ;I ,...,."""' :I ~· ' ~· :• r-··~ '· r ... :I r···· ···. ., - :I ~· • {I I \ .... . ' ..• t . . . i .. ·;' \ I ;J .-. ·LP 273/10 these studies have concluded that there will be a need for substantial ad- ditional electric generating capacity and that the Susitna Project would be a reasonable way to meet this need. However, the Susitna Project continues to be highly controversial, with both support and. opposition by substantial interest groups. There is no reason to believe that another forecasting study, regardless of how complex it is or how carefully it is carried out, will damp the controversy surrounding Susitna. Fundamentally, the assessment of the need for the Susitna Project is not an issue that can be "resolved" by analysis. In view of the many uncertainties that exist regarding the future of the Railbelt, . there is no way to assure that any forecsst of future demand for elec- tric energy is accurate. In view of this, the central focus of Susitna Project concerns with regard to the need for power might profitably be shifted from concern for forecasting by itself to the follow.ing question: "For what level of future dem9.nd is it pru~ent that the Alaska Power Authority plan in carrying out its responsibilities to the citizens of the Railbelt?" Addressing this question requires some forecasting work; however, it also requires caref·uJ. consideration of a variety of other factors. Given the enormous influence that the state government will have on de- velopments over the next few decades, the question requires careful con- sideration of options open to the government during this period. Perhaps .f 48 :\ _ ...... r..., • . I . i ·I + •• I I : .Jl ' ' \., ~ li' .: .. \ ; : I .. , ·It (. :I j \1· ......... (.·I'". ............. " 'I :I .. I ' ~. !I ' .. I \ .I ~·. I :_,~{ 1.~ ·~ ....... ~,. ( . i ' .. ·-· I 273/10. most importantly, it requires careful consideration of the consequences of having over-or under-generation capacity relative to the demand. This last point warrants further discussion. An analysis of Table 4.5 shows that ISER's projected "medium case .. total electric energy de-· mand growth from 1980 to 2000 averages 4.9% per year while the Alaska Power Administration's "'low", "medium.'' and ;'high'' projections average, respectively, 4.3%, 6.4% and 8.8% annual growth over this period. Thus there is a range of 8.8%-4.3%•4.5% in the Alaeka Power Administration's projected growth rates. The differences between ISER's forecast and those of the Alaska Power Administration appear to be due mainly to updated initial conditions and differing estimates of future population growth. In both cases the MAP model was used to do the population estimation. Thus it seems likely that there is roughly the same level of uncertainly associated with ISER's forecasts as with the earlier forecasts by the Alaska Power Administration based on the MAP model. If we assume this then the growth rate might be as low as 4.9-4.5/2•2.7% or as high as 4.9+4.5/2•7.2%. Using these growth rates, starting form a base of 2200 GWh in 1980, results in the following project.ions of total electric energy demand in 2010: • For 2.7%/yr. growth: 4900 GWh • For 4.9%/yr. growth: 9200 GWh • For 7.2%/yr. growth: 17,700 GWh 49 1 1 1 1 I 'I •• I •• I J I I I I I ~.~1 :". r. \.. ·~ \. j ·-"'"'......_ ~. il ~. :.1 f .• i,l :I fl :a~ :I il ••• ' •. :J •• . I ,., I ~ "' ...... !~ 273/10 Note that the range of these estimates is 12,800 GWh. The firm annual energy frOD', the Susitna Project is estimated to be 6,100 GWh, so the un- certainty in the projections is as great as two Susitna Projects! An important issue relative to the power studies for the Susitna Project is which demand figures should be used for planning purposes in view of this uncertainty. For example, if the APA plans on th~ assump- tion of 2.7~/yr. growth in demand, and the actual growth is 7.2%/yr. the consequences for the citizens of the Railbelt are likely to be very dif- ferent than if plans are made for a 7.2%/yr. growth and the actual growth is 2.7%/yr. Questions of this type are not addressed in the ISER work, except in a very indirect manner. Thus, we believe that even if the technical de- ficiencies in ISER's work are corrected, it will not address some impor- tant needs of the Susitna Project. 50 fl· ] ~ .: " 1t : .• il !I t . : . II: :I j . :I . ~ ·! ·.I ' . 77/14 REFERENCES Abromaitis, Stanley c .. , Jr. "Integrated Methodology for Forecasting Electric System Energy and Demand Requirements." Economic Research and Planning Dept .• , Gilbert Mangement Consultants. Reading, PA. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings," LT. Crow (ed.) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 18.1-18.30. Alaska Water Study Committee, Electric Power Work Plan Committee. Phase Technical Memorancum: Electric Power Needs Assessment (Draft). March 1979. American Demosraphics. Various issues. Average Electric Bills by Company. Boston, MA: Electric Council of -New England. Various years. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Alaskan Electric Power: An Analysis of Future Requirements and Supply Alternatives for the Railbelt Region. Final Report, Vols. I and II. Ma~ch 1978. Baumgartner, Mark, and Samuel Skaggs. Energy Conservation Potential for Alaska's Railbelt. Draft prepared for Alaska Center for Policy Studies by the Alaaka Federation for Community Self-Reliance, !nco March 1980. Burbank, Donald H. "Forecasting Residential Demand for Electric Energy." Northeast Utilities. Berlin, CT. In "How Electric Utilities Fore- cast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings, "R.T. Crow (ede) March 1979 •.. EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 1.1-1 .. 91. Carlton, Robert W. .''Methodology foA: Forecasting Commercial Kilowatthour Consumption at Consolidated Edison." Consolidated Edison Company of N.Y., Inc. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings," R:T. Crow (ed.) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, pp • 9.1-9.10. Charles River Associates Inc.~ /malysis of Household Appliance Choice. Final Report. Prepared· for EPRI EA-1100. June 1979. Comerford, Richard B. "PSE&G Method for Forecasting Residential Kilo- watthour Consurilption." Public: Service Electric. & Gas Company • Newark, N~J. In •·Haw Electric Utilities Forecast• EPRI Symposium Proceedings," R.T. Crow (ed.) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, pp. 2.1-2.12. Crow, Robert E., James H. Mars, and Christopher J. Conway. .A Preliminary Evaluation of the I.S.E.R. Electricity Demand Forecast. Working Paper #1. Prepared by Energy Probe, Toronto, Canada, for the House Power Alternatives Study Committee (HPASC). Undated. 51 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~.1 [&--, \ J ~_ .... r: L.l f-. {, I : .•. :0; ~.,. . '.I f-1 \ . fl :I ~ •···. ~ . -· :I . ~· :I ' .. ~ I 77/14 Data Resources, Incorporated. " "The Data Resources Energy Model: Model Description~a" July 1976. . Domencich, Thomas As and Daniel McFadden. Urban Travel Demand. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. 1976. Edison Electric Institute. Economic Growth in the Future: Debate in National and Global Perspecti~~· New York: 1976 • . The Growth McGraw-Hill. Edwards, J.M. "Methodology for Forecasting Coumercial and Small Indus- trial Kilowatt/hour Sales." Hous'i:on Lighting & Power Company. Houston, IX. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Sumposium Proceedings, u R7T. Crow (ed.) EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 10.1-10.8. Energy Modeling Forum. "Electric Load Forecasting: with Models." Volume 1. Stanford University. April 1979. Probing the Issues Stanford, CA. --~-~- " "U.S. Oil and Gas Supply, Summary Report" {Staff Draft). Stanford Unive~sity. Stanford, CA. November 1979. Electric Power Resea:cch Institute. "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proe~edings," R.T. Crew {ed.) EPRI EA-1035-SR. March 1978. -------~ • "Costs and Benefits of Over/Under Capacity in Electric Powar System Planning." Prepared by Decision Focus, Ince EA-927. October 1978 • • "Piecing Together the Electric Vehicle." EPRI Journal. ----~N~o-v_e_m~b-er 1979. Federal Energy Administration (FEA). "Energy Conservation Program for Appliances: Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets." Federal Reg- ister. July 15, 1977. Washington, D.Co: U.S. Government Printing Office. ------· "National Energy Outlook." Washington, D.C.: u.s. Gov- ernment Printing Office. 1976. Federal Power Commission. Trpical Electric Bills. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Var.ious years. Fitzpatrick, George L •. "Peak Load Forecasting Methodology." Long Island Lighting Company. Mineola, N.Y. In "How Electric Utilities Fore- cast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings, 'iR.T. Crow (ed.) EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 5.1-5.13. 52 I_ , .-t· :11 ·" \ 1 • / \ ' . ,,, : 11 ... , j ':I I l I .. 1-, .. :I~ . . _'.I' . . . ' '·· .C! ' f .. l, L"". -~ . ~-1·. ~· : 77/14 Fuller, Xeith. "Forecasting Peak Demand and Load Shapes." New York State Electric & Gas Corp. Binghampton, N.Y. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings~ R.T •. Crow (ed.) EPRI EA-1035-SR, pp. 7.1-7.24. Goldsmith, Oliver S. "Alaska Electric Power Requirements: A Review and Projection. •• Alaska Review of Business and Economic Conditions, Vole XIV, No. 2. June 1977. --~~~~ • "Alaska's Revenue Foreca.sts and Expenditure Options. •• Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions, Vol. XV, No. 2. June 1978. ----~--~~' compiler. Man-In-The-Arctic-Program, Alaskan Population Model, Documentation. Institute of Social and Economic Research. University of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. May 31, 1979. -------, compiler. Man-In-The-Arctic-Program, Alaskan Economic Model, Documentation. Institute of Social and Economic Research. University of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. May 31, 1979 • Hudson, E.A., and D.W. Jorgenson. ··u.s. Energy Policy and Economic Growth 1975-2000." Bell Jout·nal of Economics and Management Sci- ence. Autumn 1974. Institute of Social and Economic Research. ••Electric Power Requirements for the Railbelt," Progress Report. University of Alaska. Anchorage, AK. March 14, 1980 • Judd, B?Uce R., H.G. Mike Jones, and Allen C. Miller III. "Electricity Forecasting and Planning Report: Decision Analysis Framework for Future Electrical Planning," Vol. I. California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Conmission. November 1976. Kalscheur, Robert J. "Forecasting Peak Demand and Load Shape for Wis- consin Electric Power Company." ·Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Milwaukee, WI. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings," R.T. Crow (ed •. ) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, pp. 6.1-6.20~ Manne, A. S. "ETA: A Model for Energy Technology Assessment. :e Bell Jour- nal of Economics. Autumn 1976. Marcuse, W., L. Bodin, E. Cherniavsky, and Y. Sanborn. ••A Dynamic Time- Dependent Model for the Analysis of Alternative Energy Policies." Brookhaven National Laboratory. 1975. 53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I· ........ ' . I \ .; 1. i r· i ·. J . 1'"1• , . I . . I . \. ' 1 rJ L .. il ' ' ·. 1' .. ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' .... J 77/14 McFadden, Daniel. "Conditional Logit Analysis ~f Qualitative Choice Be- havior." Paul Zarembka (ed.) Frontiers of Econometrics. New York: Academic Pressv 1974. McMahon, J.A. and L.C. Maxwell. Load Forecasting in Today's Environment. Chattanooga, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority. April 1977. Midwest Research Institute. ances," Final Report. "Patterns of Energy Use by Electrical Appli- Prepared for EPRI, EA-682. January 1979 .. National Research Council. "'Energy Modeling for an Uncertain Future, e• Supporting Paper 2. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 1978. New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) and Battle Columbus Laboratories. "Mod- els for Long Range Forecasting of Electric Energy and Demand." June 30, 1977. (Available from New England Power Planning, 174 Brush Hill Ave., West Springfield, MA 01089; revised and updated version· forthcoming). Nordhaus, W.D. "The Demand for Energy: An International Perspective." In W.D. Nordhaus (ed.), Proceedings of a Workshop on Energy Demand. May 22-23, 1975. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Report CP-76-1. 1976. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Private Communications. 1980 Slater, C.M. "Pieces of the Puzzle: What Economists Can Learn From Demo- graphers." American Demogr~phics. February 1980, Vol. 2, No.2. Taylor, Lester D. "The Demand for Electri,~ity: A Survey.'' Bell Journal of Economics, pp. 74-110. Spring 1975 • Theil, H. Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. 1967. -----------· PrinciEal~ and Econometrics. New York: Wiley. 1971. Thomas, Brian. ..A Common-Sense Approach to Forecasting.'' Puget Sound Power & Light Company. Bellevue, WA. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings,"R.T. Crow (ed:) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 3.1-3.6. Torrance, James M., and Lynn c. Maxwe.11. "'Three Methods of Forecasting Residential Loads." Tennessee Valley Authority-. Chattanooga, TN. In "How Electric Utilities Forecast: EPRI Symposium Procet\dings," LT. Crow (ed.) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 4.1-4.21. 54 ,,_ t~ ! ••• j (~' .: ! \.~ ,r- \ ... ·-" •. J I I l I ' I 'i -· -- l I I I ..•. ! : "I· ' . ' ·--' .:. •• •• • : I 1 ·-. .J l ., 1---· • j' { ' .• '_, ' t-t. I 77/14 U.S. Department of the Army. Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. "Hydroelectric Power and related purposes. Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Upper Susitna River Basin," Interim..Feasibility Re- port. 1975. Anchorage, Alaska. ---=-~-:---=- • "Hydroelectric Power and related purposes. Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Upper Susitna River Basin," Supplemental Feasibility Report. Appendix Part 2. Anchorage, AK. 1979. u.s. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Household and Family Characteristics~ Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Various years. ----~-----· Population Estimates and Projections, Series Pe25. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Officee Various years. • Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Gov- -----e-rnm---en--t Printing Office. Various years. ----~-----· 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Fuels, and Electric Energy Consumed, Nos. MC72 (SR-6) and MC72 (SR-65). Washington, D.C.: Government P~inting Office. 1974. ----~~--~· Projections of the Population in the u.s., 1977-2050. Series P.27. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1976. U.S. Departme~t of Energy. Alaska Power Administration. River Project Power Market Analyses. ·• Juneau, AK~ •oupper Susitna March 1979. u.s. Department of the Interior. Alaska Power Administration. "Alaska Electric Power Statistics 1960-1976." Fifth Edition .. Juneau, AK. July 1977. • "Economic Analysis and Load Projections .. " :~ 97 4 Alaska --~--~ Power Survey. Juneau, AK. May 1974 • The Wall Street Journal. •·Belated Millions: As Oil Money Rolls In, Alaska Has to Decide What to Do With It... Friday, April 11, 1980. Weiss, Moshe. "Integrated Approaches to Forecasting." National Economic Research Associates, Inc, New York, N.Y. In .. HOTtT Electric;; Utili- ties Forecast: EPRI Symposium Proceedings,~.T. Crow (ed.) March 1979. EPRI EA-1035-SR, PP• 19.1-19.19. 55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~l . . : .. ~ ' ' ' .... I I I I ,I ·I I ( •. ... I I I •• I •• I . ,, I " , Review of The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research Report "Electric Power Conswnption for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements" by Craig w. Kirkwood F. Perry Sioshansi July 1980 Woodward-Clyde Consultants 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700 San Francisco~ CA 94111 ii I'(~ ~ __ .. ' I i I I ; ' I i I I I : . t ' ..... I I I t I -l ·' I :! ~ .. I ~ 1 I 'i INTRODUCTION This document constitutes the written critique o~ the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) final report [S., Goldsmith and L. Huskey, uElectric Power Consumption for the Railbelt: A Projection of R6quirements," May and June 1980] as required by Section 1.1.5 of the Scope of Work for .agreement no. PS700.10.21 between Woodward- Clyde Consultants (WCC) and Acres American Incorporated (Acres). In accordance with a let·ter of May 14, 1980 from Acres, this review is brief. Primarily it is an update of WCC's review of th~ tSER draft report {C. W. Kirkwood and F. P. Sioshansi, "Review of ISER Draft Report", April 1980] • For a complete review of the ISER electric demand forecasting work, this . earlier document should be read in conjunction with the current critique. The conclusions reported here are based on a. review of all three parts of the ISER final report: the Executive ~ummary dated May 16, 1980, the main body dat·ed June 1980 and the Technical Appendices dated May 23, 1980. Additional perspective was gained by WCC attendance at a workshop for Railbelt utility representatives on June 10, 1980 and a publi.c work- shop on June 11, 1980. At these workshops Scott Goldsmith of ISER present.- ed the results of the ISER study and answered questions. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~· I' ' I 'I I • I t .,; .. ..__,...· I I I I I I I (··~~ I I I I I I I •• I REVIEW CONCLUSIONS ISER's.work is the first attempt to construct an econometric/end use electric energy demand forecasting model for the Alaska Railbelt. It is the most comprehensive look at future Railbelt electric energy needs to date. Given the difficulty of obtaining much of the needed data and the liutited time available, the ISER work is a major achievement. However~ there are significant limitations in the work which restrict its useful- ness in a study of alternatives for meeting the Railbelt's future need for electric power. Most of our conclusions reported earlier regarding the work discussed in ISER's draft report apply to the .final report as well. In particular, we conclude the following: ~~ ISER's overall approach, utilizing economic and population projections coupled with an end-use model to forecast total electric energy demand, is sound. • The modeling work suffers from a lack of some important data and the poor quality of other data. Substantial improvements in this would require an ongoing data collection program over a period of years. · • It does not appear that a structured approach was used to develop input scenarios regarding possible future development in the Railbelt. In particular, the scenarios appear to represent only the personal professional views of the authors with no systematic attempt to incorporate other points of view. • Uncertainties associated with the forecasts are treated in a c:rude manner. Because of this it is difficult to determine the significance of these uncertainties for power system planning. • Only very limited sensitivity analysis was carried out to study the implications of varying the input assumptions used in the forecasting model. • For the above reasons, the forecasts made by ISER are not neces- sarily superior to those provided by a simpler analysis approach. 2 ! I ·I ~ ~ ' ~ ! 11 ~ 11 . 1 ' 1 I IJ I. : j· J "ll { I ' i . ..i ll ll i I I I I ; I i ·' l I ' i \I I -.., \ ~ .,. ·-· : . .· IMPLICATIONS OF OTHER WORK The ISER final report contains a summary of other electric demand forecasting studies that have been carried out for the Railbelt. In general, previous studies have forecast greater future demand than the current ISER study. At the utility and public workshops, Professor Goldsmith commented that he believes other studies done during the last decade were overly influenced by the high rate of development occurring during the oil pipeline construction period. However, he also noted that the scenario approach to fGrecasting, which is used in the ISER work, may be myopic and, as a result of this, underestimate future growth. He discussed steps taken in the ISER study to counter this tendency. In addition, he noted that previous studies that used the scenario approach have not systematically underestimated the Rail belt groltt'th that has actually occurred to date, although the details of the growth have turned out to be some- what different than what wa~ forecast. An important reason for the differences in forecasted energy demand growth between the ISER study and previous studies is the difference in forecasted population growth. The factors influencing future popula.- tion growth in the Railbelt are subject to many uncertainties. The assumptions about these factors that were made in the ISER study should be given careful consideration since the authors of the study have considerable knowledge and experience regarding Railbelt development. However, as the utility and public workshops made clear, there are other reasonable points of view about these factors that might lead to substan- tially different forecasts of future electric energy demand. 3 1 I I I I I I I I ' r r~ -. ,~: ~~, I' I' 1-1, I 1.) 5\ I ' f ••. ' ·- 1; I' f I I 11 ',_ .• '• j r -··: I -, STRENGTHS A~D LIMITATIONS OF ISER. WORK A well-constru1cted econometri~/ end-use .model can be a powerful tool for studying the possible implications of proposed energy-related actions or policy changes. However, past experience indicates that substantial time and resources must be invested to achieve reasonably defensible results with such a model. The ISER work to date provides a solid basis for development of an econometric/end-use model. However, we believe that at its current stage of development, the ISERmodel does not give results that are more defensible than those of previous forecasting studies. The previous studies were, however, limited, one-time efforts while the ISER work could form the basis for an ongoing modeling and data collection effort to develop a sophisticated energy forecasting tool for the Railbelt. Regardless of what model is used to forecast future electric energy demand, there will be substantial uncertainties about many of the input assumptions made in the model. These will lead to substantial uncertainties in the forecasted electric energy demand. For example, Professor Gold- smith commented in the public workshop that he believed there was approx- ' imately a 20 or 25 percent chance the actual future demand would be below . the "low" forecast presented in the ISER final report and a similar chance it would be above the "high" forecast. With this degree of uncertainty, there are reasonably likely levels of future electric demand so low that the Susitna Project could provide • more electric energy than would be needed. There are also reasonably likely levels of demand for which substantially more capacity would be needed than could be provided by the Susitna Project. 4 " . It appears desirable to analyze the over-and under-capacity risks associated with Susitna Project planning in the presence of these large uncertainties about future demand for electricity. Such an analysis requires that uncertainties be treated explicitly in the demand forecasts. This is not done in the ISER work; this is a major limitation of the work with regard to its usefulness for the Susitna Project. A second, related limitation is that the input assumptions and scenarios used in the modeling work represent only the judgments of ISER professionals. While these experts are very knowledgeable about potential future Railbelt developments, it appears from the utility and public workshops that there are other knowledgeable individuals who have somewhat different views about the future of the Railbelt. It seems desirable to have these views incorporated into the demand forecasting work. This was not done systematically in the ISER work. 5 I I I I •• I I I I I I I I .I I J .;1·. '• J .• : ,. I tl· . ·•· '· I I I I I I I I I ·.I I I I I I· I H -PARTIAL LIST OF ISSUES RAISED DURING MEETINGS ON JUNE 10 ANU 11., 1980 ' I -1 I I I I I I I I I I :. I I I I I I Partial List of Issues Raised During Energy Requirements Forecast Workshops, June 10 & 11, 1980 1. A sensitivity analysis of the forecasting model needs to be performed in order to determine the sensitive assumptions and the degree of variability in the outcome from changes in the assumptions. One par~ ticular question is how sensitive is the forecast to the set of con- servation assumptions. 2. Scott Goldsmith stated that the limits of the forecast range represent 20-25% probability of exceedance; in other words, that there is a 40 to 50% chance that the actual energy requirements would fall out- side the forecast range. This is a much narrower band than APA had assumed. Is it too narrow? Goldsmith should be asked to clarify the issue. 3. Do subjective probabilities have to be assigned over the forecast range to permit later risk analysis? Can it be done? 4. Consider a legislatively mandated shift away from electrical use, especially space heating. 5. There appears to be a downward bias in the econometric model due to the inability to identify discrete exogenous projects in the period after 1985 and before trending takes over in the year 2000. 6. Should a high level growth case with a mode switch toward electric (i.e.3 an H-E case) be added? AL-E case would not be useful since the forecast range would not be enlarged. 7~ Should supply side information be fed into the forecast at some future date to somewhat define the nature and timing of the gas-electric mode split? 8. The conversion response time in the electric space heat conversion scenario may be underestimated. I I I I I I I I I •• I I ;I I I I I I I Comments by Bob Hufman General Manager Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Fairbanks, Alaska Study forecasts sales only -need to adjust 8 to 10% to compensate for losses. Low figures are accentuated by projecting sales only when com- pared to previous reports estimating gross generation. Study assumes alternate energy will be "cheap 11 energy. Photovoltaic cell installation just on-line costs 3 million for 100 kW = $30,000 per kW. Study fails to address the probability of increased use due to a stable rate provided by ample hydro capacity. In Fairbanks, deregulated oil will eventually not be competitive for space heating. Wood will be depleted. Coal will cause additional air quality problems. Natural gas may or may not be available. However, electric heat with a stable rate base will be a top contender when produced from hydrov The study declares that electric heat retrofitting does not occur. If the price incentive is there it will occur. GVEA can attest to that fact. In addition, many of the systems have hydroni c baseboard which are easy inexpensive conversions to electric boilers. The Cantwe·ll Surrmit area should be included in the forecast. The probability of seeing a substantial number of electric cars by 1990 is great. Even though most would hopefully recharge off peak, the total kWhs may be substantial. We may see 10% by 1995-2000. We expect electric heat conversions to bottom out by 1981. Those left will stay there regardless of price -perhaps 250-350 accounts~ Decline of revenue from petroleum royalties will be compensated for from natuY'al gas royalties and new discoveries. Would prefer to have Bob Richards from Alaska Pacific Bank do an econometric study, Military plants wou1d purchase eneY'gy from hydro beyond that derived from a stearn/electrtc overall plant balance. Wainwright, Eielson, Clear AFB, Elmendorf, Ft. Richardson. Heat pumps may be practical in southcentral with hydro. Who is doing demand forecast? Thi's has a major bearing on installed capacity. I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Utilities are cognizant of the inherent dangers of grcg5ly underestimating demand/ener'gy projection for planning purposes. It is quite easy for those w·ith zero responsibility to keep the lights on, to use the ultraconservative approach most favored by obstructionists and no-growthers. There may be some economic penalty to overbuilding but most likely the penalty would be wiped clean by inflation within a short period of time. However, the penalty for underbuilding could be a disaster both economic and otherwise. 1 1 I I I I I I ;I I I I I I I I I II · I -· DETAILED WORK PLAN FOR REVISED TASK 1 - POWER STUDIES~ POST-TUSSING ' I I -:' I I I I I I I I C.. I I I I I I I . . I I • ' ~ ...._. '. -~, r .-_-;·, n ' ... : .. DRAFT Detailed Work Plan For Task 1 -Power Studies 1 -Introduction The Task 1 work will be divided chronologically into two phases. The first phase, . tak.ing place throughout 1980 and carrying on into early 1981. The second phase to be commenced following a "Decision Point 11 at the end of phase one and continu- ing to mid 1982. Contained in this document is Acres detailed methodology for completing Task 1 with particular emphasis on the work to be completed by early 1981. The work to be completed during the first phase is divided into the following subtasks: 1.01 -The determination of the rate at which the demand for electrical energy in the railbelt will grow over the· period 1980 to 2010. 1.02 -Using the resul~s of 1.01 develop load demand curves and peak generating capacity requirements taking into consideration various conservate measureso 1.03 -Explore all the alternatives for generating electrical energy that may be used to satisfy the load curves and peak capacity require- ments developed in 1.02. Data will be collected for each alternate identified; the alternatives will be screened, ranked, and submitted to a panel for review and cqmment. (It is recognized that after this .· Subtask!l a large amount of data assembled on the alternatives will necessarily be general in nature, although site-specific infonnation will be gathered where possible within the time constraints of the project) .. 1..04-A methodology will be developed and applied to the alternatives that are judged.11 best 11 in 1.03 to assemble the incffividual alterna- tives into generation expansion scenarious capable of satisfying the load growth out to year 2010. ~1.05 The generation expansion scenarios will be assed in greater detail and as site specific as possible by early 1981. These more detailed assessments will be resubmitted to the panel~ the public, and APA for review and comment • 1.06-A Power Alteration Study report will be prepared following the review process and incorporating the comments received, The report, containing reconmendations, will be submitted to APA as a decision making tool i ~ -I '! i - ~ I i ! I I ~ -1 ! I ' ' I I II I I I ' i I i I l 'I ' ~ i I . from whic-h APA can select the .most desirable scenarios (3-6)~to to study i'n greater detai1 duri.ngttha· second ·phase of Task 1. The Detailed methodologies to accomplish the six subtasks listed above are desire- able in the foll~\"~i~~ ~~c~1.ons. 2-Subtask l.Ol'Metnodology - The University of Alaska's Institute for Social and. Economic Research (ISER) . receotly completed a contract issued jointly by the Alaska Power Authority and to the Alaskan Legislature•s Legislative Affairs Agency to estimate the annual electric energy use in the· Railbelt through the year 2005. Early in the Susitna project,. Acres had decided to study loads and alternatives through the year 2010. ISER ag.reed to revise their work plan and incl ud~d these extra five years in their study. The projection work under.taken by ISER ·was based upon their own data gathet•i ng efforts and the use of their econometric computer program, the 11 MAP" model.. ISER pro,duced their first large, definitive energy growh~ study using these methods in 1976. That work has been the basis of other subsequent energy pt"ojecti o11s. Th~i r wo·rk is generally thought of as one of the more credible energy projection in the Railbelt .. This may largely. be because they are not associated with any power generation entity and are thus not perceived as. having a vested interest in the expansion of generation facilities. As part of the Sub task 1.01 work, Acres, through their subcontractor \~oodward-Clyde, must· identify the strengths and weaknes·ses of ISER' s methods so that their end results can be judged as to their suitability for the Susitna study. The work of Acres group is designed to understand as well as possible ISER' s methods, data bases, and assumptions used as input. This effort will later allow Acres tp know the limitations of ISER's work. ISER's final report was published in May o.f 19~0 and presumably its findings will not be significantly altered during 1980. Therefore, during the first phase of Task 1 Acres work will be based on the ~1ay 1980 ISER report. As part of the work to be.· completed in this subtask, Acres will investigate the need for further improvement in ISER's model their input data base and the·.\ and the assumptions used to develop their input scenarios. In a continuing effort to increase the acceptability of the energy projections being used for this study. (..... l ~ l ·I I I I I :I I I I I 'I I I I I ~ I I ....... I ! I I R· I I I{ \ !. ' I " I I I I I I I I .. Interviews will be held with recognized experts in such fields as energy and economics. These.epople will be asked to assess the uncertainties in the input parameters. The results of these interviews will be used to assemble a set of well defined scenarios. The interviewing process will be useful to identi}Y the depth and divergence of the disparate opinions unique Alaska. Speakers for special interest groups re·presenting . a spectrum of economtic and environmental philosphies will be sought out and asked for their judgments on the future growth of the Railbelt~.area. This will provide a forum by whiah virtually the entire range of rational viewpoints can be.aired .. 3 -Subtask 1.02:Metnod61ogy As follow-up work to the analysis of the ISER Final Report Woodward-Clyde must forecast peak power demand (megawatts (Ml~) for the period 1980-2010. The missing link between electrical energy norecasts .. and.power demand forecasts is the concept of load. duration curves. The 'derivation of load duration curves used to describe the consuming .systems• load characteristics will be an important . . part of this work. The major utility comparaies in the Rail belt (Chagach Electric Association~ .Anchorage Municipal Power and Light, Golden Valley Electric Assoc.iati.on, and Fairbanlds Municipal Utilities. System) are all required to file records with the· Federal Energy Resource Commission concerning tne operation of their systems. The data filed by:the individual utilities includes the load characteristics of the utility. The utilities file records of hourly data far three separate one week periods annually. The data filed peak sunmer, winter, and·.:a typical spring week. From these three data sets plus data reflecting month to month variations in energy, load duration curyes can be develoP.ed by inte.rpolation for each month of the year. The differences between mi'd-week and weekend daily load patterns will also be obta.ined by this process. Such infonnatian will be relevant to unit dispatch and production costing ca·lculations pei"formed in Subtask 1.04. Basea on the .forecasting off the 1 aad duration curves and peak power demand wee -wi 11 produce the fa·llowi ng output pr~duce the· fall awing output products: 1. Variations of monthly load expressed as a decimal fraction of the annual peak monthly load. 2. For. each month, load duration curves for mid-week and weekend days. These curves will express the 1 a ads as decima 1 fractions of each month • s peak I 1 oad. These dai 1y curves wi 11 be de vel oped as a series of 24 hourly values for both weekend and mid-week days. . i i ~~· .. l . I > .1 1 • I --'' I .·-{ l I ._j ~ l ~ I d .. . ' 4. The load duration. curves will be in a non-dimensional fonn. That is, the absissa axes wil be'scaled in decimal fraction values from 0.00 to 1.00 to represent "fraction of total ~-.~~ with a notation made indicat'f11g the numbe~ of hours represented by the 1 oad durarion curve. The ordinate axes will be scaled in decimal fraction values from 0.00 . to 1.00 to represent "fraction of peak load 11 .. Alternately, axes may be scaled_ from o.o· to 10p.o, with the axis labels noted as 11 percent.~ .. :" rather than 11 fraction ••• 11 • Using the total electrical energy consumption projection developed by ISES and monthly energy consumption levels developed by wee it is a relatively straightforward-matter to· deve.lop projected month_qy peak power loads.. Since the load duratfon cur¥es are developed in a non- dimensional form, the non-dimensional araa-under the load duration curve· is also a non-dimensional quantity know as a 11 load-factor11 o The load factor represents the power level, in terms o.f a fractional part of the _peak, at which a. system would have to operate for the entire period under investigation in order to provide a particular amount of energy to the system. In other words: · Energy (kWh) = Peak Power (kW) x Load Factor x Time (h) Peak Power (kW) = Energy (kWh)/(~oad Factor x Time (h) } It is these concepts which will oe used. to derive the power levels from the monthly energy use projec~ions. 4 -S·i:lbtask 1.03 -Methodology 4.1 General This part of the Task 1 work will develop information to permit the evaluation of.a number of alternatives using a set of consistent criteria. Factors used to evaluate the alternatives in this subtask will include: -cost -resource availability -·technical ayailabil'ity -facility operational characteristics and constraints In addition to the above factors, which can be expressed in tangible terms (X dollars per kilowatt, Y percent plant factor, etc.), alternative evalua- tions wiil'be•incomplete without consideration of less easily quantified· factors such as: . ' I I 11 I I I 'I I I I ~I :I I .I I ·.I I I '• 1 -1 ~~ J I J I I I (_. .-• .:1 -1 I _j I -I ,, •, 1 J I I I· .1 I . ' ,;J .... 1: .. ~-· ~~ ~ .. } .. -Institutional factors -environmental effects -socioeconomic effects -licensing prospects -public health and safety -state and federal regulations -risk analysis, financial and marketing analysis Except for an estimation of an alternative's lF~enseability, the criteria for evaluating this last set of factors will be more fully developed as a part of Subtask 1.05. Therefore, there \'iill be interaction between Subtask 1.03 and 1.05. Subtask 1.03 sha11 assemble the available information for each· of the alterntives. The alternatives under consideration for use in the Railbelt can be separated into two generic groups: Those which generate electric energy in _response to the system load "on .. l ine 11 at any given time, and those which act to reduce the energy requirements of the system. F~r the purposes of this study, the first of the above groups will be further ' divided into two groups, one consisting-of hydroelectric alternatives (those which produce electric energy by conversion of the kinetic en~rgy in falling water to el~ctrical energy by means of. hydraulic turbines and generators) and another of non-hydroelectrtc alternatives. Th·e hydro'electric alterna- tives evaluation will ·taKe into consideration the exploitation of tidal energy in the Cook Inlet, as well as the development of the mo~ conventional river-and ... storage reservoir schemeso The. non-hydroelectric alternatives include a larger number and types of a.lternatives than the hydro work. Presently, the types of alternatives under consideration·include: -coal ~·oil -gas -nuclear -·biomass -solar ·"'·wind ,.. geothenna 1 -solid waste -·wood' · . . . There may be more than one m~thod of utilizing each of these resources but only the generic types are listed above. As infonnati on is gathered· characterizing an a 1 ternati ve type or a parti ~u1 a r . . .· . . :I ;- f ' j fl . } -I j :1: .-: ; i .. ,: I li ·BJ I l :1· .... 1 l ~ -I I .. ' J I ! . f .• ' 1.:. • I ,.,~· : ' I •; l 1 ' ' { l j I ·l . I 1 l ), -··I , ' · .. 1 I I I l I I l l.! ' ·! i i I ·I I .. -... )' ,4 ~ •.. .. .. ' .. ~~ # .. I alternative at a specific site, it may become evident that incorporation I of such an unacceptable option. ·rt may be possible at that point to eliminate t from~. further consideration any altemati. I 4. 1.1 -Tangible Eva~ uation Fa.ctors In order that meaningful comparisons can be made between various alternatives, t hydro and non-hydro alike, it is important that estimates of the ~ost of I those alternatives be built on a common base. For the first phase of the Task 1 work, all costs be given in terms of 1980 dollars. In the case of a number of alternatives results from previous st4d·ies are available •. Such studies may have investigated the alternative tq ·the extent of developing detailed cost estimates. If this is the case and the basis of the estimate appears reliable, the adjusment to 1980·cos;: levels. is a fairly stnaightfontJard procedure using tpe lat~st version of the I I Handy-Whitman Inde~. -I In those cases where no. reliable cost estimates can be found, the 1ates version : ' of the U.·S. Army Corps of Engineers cost/cap~city curves of Acr~s~ cost ,, estimation methodologies will be applied to conventional hydro plantse For . . alternatives~ standard cost/capacity data must be used to arrive.at a valid 1980 capital cost fo the alternative.plqnt~i· =·~~ ~ Total capital costs for any alternatives shall b~ broken down as follows; 1. Land Acquisition and Site Preparation 2. Plant Construction (Detailed breakdown wher.e possible) 3. Transmission Lines (Based on length and per un.it. cest. for appropriate }ine) 4. Access Roads Based length and .per~unit cost) . $ ____ _ $ ____ _ &~----- $ _____ _ 5. Other cost elements associated with a particular alternative. &;,__ ____ _ Total I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 '"~ -·· \( . , I ! 'I ! .• ;J ·) I I :I I I· I I I C., ·I I ,I I ,. ·:1 I 'I ·1. .. All of the above ·costs'shall be expressed in terms of 1980 dollars. Enough infonnation must be gathered on alternative plant operating characteristics so th~t reliable cost of electricity evaluations . can be made for. any given al terna.tive plant. The factors entering into cost of electricity calculations include: -plant fixed charge rate ($/kW) -plant capacity (kW) -plant annual energy production (kWh) -plant fuel costs ($kWh) -plant 0 and M costs ( $/k\~ and $/kWh) -plant A and G· costs (.$/kW and $kWh) The fi·rst factor noted above, the fixed charge rate for a particular plant or unit is itself a function of a number of factors. This fixed charge 1s the amount which must be charged per kilowatt· of plant or machine capacity· to raise the revenue necessary·to meet the annual requirement for capital. Ttte ·annual revenue requirement ·.is generally.~ l expressed as a percentage of the total capital cost of the plant or unit and is cornnonly called the 11 Fixed Charge Rate". The exact figure used for the fixed charge rate varies fr.om facility to faci 1 ity and among different types of ownership categories. In addition to the relevant cost data, other operational data is needed by Acres to successfully incorporate an alternative plant into its Subtask 1.04 work. A summary of the data needed for each plant or alternative develop- ment is shown below: NON-HYDRO PLANTS 1. Year of Availability. Due consideration must be given to construction times and to. development times for advanced technologies. 2. Maximum N~·t Power Output (MW). This is power output at the 1 ine-si de of the unit transformer minus any plant auxiJiary load taken from that point. . 3. Net Heat Rate, (Btu/kWQl. Again, taken at the 1 ine-s.ide· of the unit transfonner minus any plant auxi 1 iary 1 oad taken from that point. 4. F~el Cost (cents/MBtu). In the case of some unit types which may 'be· able to use more than one type of fuel or which have multiple fuel 7 I ! I -~ r .I -~ ·~ ·~ I ' ·~ ' I I I I ~ I 'I I ~ .. 1 \ . ; ' contracts, provisions are made to accept up to three different fuel ?J costs. In the event that multiple fuel ·costs are de vel oped, a pro- jection of the percent of time that the unit in question· uses each ~·1 particular type of fuel is necessary. I 5. Plant Lifetime (years). This value will be used for fixed charge rate ] calculations as well as 1.04 work. 6. Forced outage Rate (percent). 7. Plan ned Outage Rate ( pe·rcent) • 8. Minimum Net Power Output {percent). ] ] 'I 9, Fuel Consumption at Minimum Output (per 4nit of· fUll 1 oiid fUel consumetion ·1 ' 10. Fuel Heating Value lBtu per unit of'fuel:, gallon~ ·tori, pounds, etc.). HYDRO· PLANTS 1. .Year of' Ava·i·l abil i tx. Same as non-hydro 2. Maximum Net Power Out.(MW). Same as non-hydro except that values must be monthly. ~. Minimum Net Power Power Output (MW). Again, monthly values are necessary. 4. Net· Energy Outputor.(GWh). Monthly values. All.of the above data is in addition to that which was noted to be necessary for cost of electricity calculat.ions. 4.1.2 ~ Intangible Evaluation Factors .. ·1 The approach to review· and assessment of intangible factors relative to each alternative will be to primarily utilize existing data, and available . aerial photography of the selected or potential source sites whenever· and wherever sufficient information is already available. .I 'I I I .I '• I I .J J J I I 'I 'I I. I .· \ I I I I I .. '··· . I •I· I I I I " ~ I I I ~- ., ' -· .. ' . However, it may be necessary to gather limited site-.specific data for the assessment, sirice the environmental resources of many·of the more remote portions of the study corridor have not been inventoried. The key to this approach is the ~se of staff who have an in-depth knowledge of both fish and wildlife habitat requirements and a shor~-term and long-term. effects of impact-producing actions of construction and operation-of various facilities in Alaska. The environmental consequences of developing alternative energy sources are highly dependent upon numerous factors including energy resource, collection method, site. location characteristics, site fish and wildlife characteris- tics, land-use patterns, and facility construction and operation designs. A thorough assessment of the impacts of optimum generation expansion mixes (Subtask 1.05) fs also dependent upon an understanding of the habitat requirements of local fish and wildlife during their life history; a knowledge of limiting habitat factors; and sensitivities such as fish overwintering areas, and nesting and feeding habitats of endangered or threatened fauna. The significant impact"!producing· acti'ons will var.y with the alternative being assessed. ,At times, the selected·s~te location will be the prime factor, while for other alternative~, the short~term or long-term air quality or water quality perturbations, or wildlife habitat degradation may be the overriding ·factor. The environmental evaluation of the selected hydroelectric and·tidal power development alternatives (i.f any) will identigy the associated potential impact issues, and their relative magnitudes. Such issues will involve the ~lative sizes of reservoirs and impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife habitats in particular. The environmental analysis will be performed on the basis of available data, which will be compiled for this purpose. Transmission· facilities associated with the hydro alternative sites will be included in this environmental analysis. For ~his· assessment work set of criteria must be de vel oped. A proposed group of evaluating factors is shown below: En vi ron menta 1 Physical Ecological -water · ~ 1 and .. atmosphere -fisheries -wildlife -vegetation Descriptive ·Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Desc ri pti ve . ' I 1 t I I I I ' ~ I . I I t 1 .. Institutional Public health and safety State and Federal regulations . . ~ land use -quality of life Descriptive Descriptive -licensing Descriptive -schedule Descriptive -finance. & risk analysis Descriptive -environmental aspects -catistropic events -man induced problems -fue 1 use act. -anticquities act. -withheld/owes Desc ri pti ve Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive 4.2 Detailed Scope of Work for Alternatives Asse~ment·· 4.2.1 Hydro and .Tidal Alte.matives. The activities listed in tab1e 1 will be cpmpleted to prepare pata relative to·t.the hydro and t.idal alternativr.s for input to the screening and ranking process. ~owever, before any con~eptual work .is done standard criteria to si·ze the main components of a ~cheme must· be adop~ed; for example: 1 ] ] ] ] ·'I 'I ' I -installed components as a function of mean annual flow ·1 -standard water passage velocities for si.zing al] ma~or pas.sage~ -spillway design flood -aiversion flood -provision for multi-level outlet -etc. The data base used to size the components .will consi.st of: (a) Mean Annual Runoff Identify study area; abstract all'! 1 a test USGS gaged mean annt4iil flow values ar.d plo.t a 1:250,000 or 1:500,000 scale mapping; superimpose mean annuai ppt. mapping, if available; draw a mean · annual flow map; abstract mean annual flow for each site. (b) Reg~onalized Storage Vjeld Analysis For two or three 1 ong~tenn gages representing full range of hydrologic conditions. carry out storage/yield simulations; establish storage requirement for specific finn monthly yi.el'd; . non-dimensionalize by dividing ~ean annual flow; extrapolate to other $ites to calculate required storage capacity; calculate . average annual drawdown in volume units; non-dimensionalize as· · above and extrapolate. .· f:' l ·. { ' . ' J I} \ l ~f ( . ~ .......... I ""-'·-- 1 ~.- ) 1.:> 1:\'·. <I •.· '[{ . I •• ·~ .!.II ·t'': ., ,j ., ,I, 11 <!t ' ' .jj : 11 f .. (c) Installed Capacity Calculate as ! times mean annual flow (or finn· monthly flow}. (d) Avera·ge Annual Energy C?·lculation From· simulations ·carried out in point (b) above, calculate usable flow as percent of mean annual; extrapolate percent to other site·s, multiply by site mean annual flow and ~verage head to calculate mean annual energy. (e) Finn Power Firm yield x firm head x firm flow Table 1 Description 1 -Review Available Material ---~----------~------~ hydro and tidal 2 -Develop Work Plan '-:A~ ~dmin.i~tration inventory. r~port and backup .materia-l -US Corps inventory and current small hydro study· -CH2M Hill reports -map.ping (-topographic; population, land. status,. geologic, etc.) Product -sheet memo outlining impart.ial, findings. and information sources 3 -Regional Hydrology Studies I -As outlined in Section Produ.ct -mean annua 1 runoff map and outl. i ng· procedures 4 -Evaluate Engineering Attributes for All Selected.Sites (assume 50 sites) i.e. capital costs, average energy costs' et~ •. Includes provision for neworking say 20 sites, i.e. changing storage, installed capacity, etc • . 5 -Ana 1 yze Tida 1 Power Schemes Update cost estimates, prepare attribute values (consider involving R. Tanner, N.F.) Product -memo. comnenting on schemes, revised cost estimat~s. and attributes 6 .-Modify, Refine, Add to etc. Hydro Inventory (includes provision for doing more detailed work at certain sites 7 -Prepara~ion of Input Regui red' for Generatj on Planning: Progl"OJ!l· assume required for short listed 10-15 sites. Methodology as outli'ned in Section • - Product -table containing inpUt data for each site • . .. . J \ i ~ -j I ' t I t l ·~ J I I ' ' I ~ I ' { j I r I l t I I I I i I I i I Provision for (i.e. oniy required if;alternative hydro carried thro.u.gh into second year). 8 -Conceptual Design of 5 Schemes (say 3 large 2 small hydro) carry out detailed power and energy calcu- lations as in Section ___ • Prepare conceptual layouts. Calculate costs. Include provision for site reconnaissance (200 hns.). Product -drawing for each site and memo containing descriptions of site and table l!isting all attributes. . 9 -t4odify, Refine, Add to etc. Conceptual Layout Studies The detailed work plan for large hydroelectric schemes is included in the Task 6 detailed plan of study. For small ·hydroelectric facilities the follow- ing steps will be completed: ~ identify potential load centers on a map -screen US Corps, .Alaska Power. Admin·istrat·ion, etc. inventories, for potential hydro site to each load center -add these sites to this study .inventory (if not on· a1~ady) -(for interconnected system) add additiona·l small hydro sites which can be tied into·grid to the inv~ntOl"Y -for decentralized load·centers for which above approach does·not yield any suitable schemes:, consult available mapping, identify sites, if any, evaluate costs (by 1980 cost methodology) and add to inventory. Step 2 of this process is essentially complete at this time. It should also be noted that the data gathered in Step 1 following· completion of Subtask 1.01 and 1. 02 \'li 11 a 1 so be app 1 i cab 1 e to 1 a rge hydroelectric s cheines. Because an important aspect of evaluating any ·scheme(large or small) a consistant method of updating or estimating must be followed. Intially the following steps will be used to es·timate costs: (a) Wn.ere cost estimates have been derived from calculations of quantities ·-use available. cost data and update using inflation indes established from latest Handy .. ~Jhitman indices~ Take out all indirect costs such as tontingenc1es, engineering. interest during construction~ etc. . (b) Where cost. astimates are. very o1 d and/or have Qeen derived from a1 d cost-capacity curves (e~g. much of AP Administration 1'/0rk) -U$e, lates standard US Corps (or aiternative) cost-capacity curves to calculate new costs. { I .. . I .I .I I J ~ l ' f ' . '. ~ r l:l f[r ~~ I_! 1·:~ (. ·' 1.:' ( r,! if·~ '" (":, I~·· I; 1:· j' . ' .1 ·.·.· ;,. ( . '--~ . ....,., i", L [' ' ' .. (c). Wher no cost data is available.~ as for (q}.' (d) Transmissi·on lines -add in transmission ·line cost estimates based on length and unit cost for appropriate capacity line. (e) Access roads -add in access road costs based on length and unit cost. (f). Cost basis -1980 (g) Convert above capital costs to annual costs using following parqmeters: 1 ife = so. years? ~. · · interest rate + 10 percent? 9&M -2 percent capital cost? f ~4· (These assumptions to be reviewed with manag~ment before finalization) .. As the study progress from 1980 to 1981 the cost estim~ting procedure will be reviewed to provide as reliable as possible a cost estimate for viable alternative-. . . ' The· detailed environmental data to be collected are shown below. Physi ca 1 /Chemi.ca 1 e.ffects f di rect effects)~ Env.i ronment Type · Water -groundwater -surface water -coastal waters Land -topography -soils -natural cover Atmospher Effects .-de~ertoration of water quality -·:change· in flow rate · -alteration of waterwar -chang~ in water table) water availAbility ~ -chang@· i~ ice conditiP.ps !:i -geomorphic processed induced {eros;of1, sedimentation) ... remobal of natural cav~r alter. topography . -de~erioration of soils. -alternation of geolGgically important areas ·· -sol1tfwaste disposal -air. quality change (emissions) ~ 1 ong term atmospheric effects. (green house· effect -example) , I ' ~ , I c ( -! .1 '1 ti ·1 . { 'l 1 l t ~ 'I l ' ' ·~ : ' : "1 ~J r~ t! 'l '1 j I t I '1 J '' I J t ( l H I[ 1 ' t j 1 .t I L ; 'I il': l • c .. -, Physical/Chemical effects (direct effects) oont. Ecological Effects ( ' -. ·-. Social Effects • I Environm::nt Type Meteorological Geological Noise Consumption of natural ... resources Fisheries Vegetation Land Use land quality lan1 planniDJ '~ Effects -change in local temp -enex:gy loss from environment whidb.effects local.climate (e.g. , large solar may cause lose of heat bo earth) -long term atrnosph~ric effects -fogging, ice formation, change in natural patterns -alteration of geologically in'{:'ortant area · -alteration of Chain of natural events (e.g~, prevent~on of natural scouring of river valley qy periodic floods -induced seismicity -Distup human/natural ~pulation -water, forests, natural energy .• • -loss of natural passageways -loss of spawing gr6urxls -·destruction of popUlation -alteration of natural food ch . ..... .. al.l1S . -loss of eroangered . and in'{:'ortant species or other unique sp3cies -removal of natural cover -alteration of food chain -introduction of inCompatible . ~ specl.es -loss/al teratio:t. ·o:f· 'lar:d use -· wilde:cness, scenic -recreational opportunities -forestry -archeological and histori.c -traditional livelihoods (hunting, fish4lg i ·trapping) -urban -(residential, o:mnerical, industrial) • • -mlnl.ng -agriculture -ownership \ .. ' . . . ; ~ -· •! ' ''l . ·~ ' ~ i • t . , .··"') ! ( { ; \ .... .. " f .· i! . /.·~. I • ··' . . . ;• I ' . . . . :-' Environment Type . Effects .. .......... . .. .. . '. Social Effects (cont.) Quality of Life -loss/alteration/improvement of -conmuni ty -opportunities -economics Q.O.L factors · · -disturbance/creation of oomnunity -create/dest~y -effects of temporary economic -infracstruc- ture stimulation -change in· property values -overburden existing public facilities -change in property values -denography -short t~long te~ creation of job market -aesthetics· -improve/dtsturb and cultur-al . aspects ··~ scenic values aDd resources ...; alter .. .. For each'alternative scheme being considered an information. table will be constructed~ This tabl~ will include a description of the project, and . identification of expected chang~s and a prediction of the effect with .. these changes. ·An example format for an information table is shown in T ~~· On this table, data gap·s will be ~learly identified and judgment decisions on impacts noted. TABLE 2 Alternative ----- Type. Capital Cost Cost/RWH ----- Installed Capacity __ Plant Factor ---- Resource Availabil i,ty ___ _ volume, '# of years sup~ly • . .. Transmission Req~·; retl ___ _ distance, cost, feasibil. ity ' . Access Required -----distance, cost, feasi bi l.i ty \IO!l""'C' I . ~ ! < ·1 ' I rJ ·\ ' l ." ·~ .. l -" "\ 1 ,, .. This criterion will be used to reject a·14ernatives if any of the attributes of the alternatives pertain to the criterion· list. Otherwi-se, the alternative will be retained and subjected to further screening. As alternatives are rejected, they will be grouped according to.the component of the criteria on which they were-rejected (e.g., rejected because of economic, technical, environmental or institutional constraints). Any alternative rejected will be reassessed to determine if the con- straint can be mitigated. If mitigation is possible, the technical or ecpnomic modifications required for mitigation will be incorpor.ated into the design. This alternative·will then be reevaluated and subjected aga·in to the screening process. Screening will continue until reasonably sized pools of alternatives remain. These alternatives will then be considered for inclusion with the expansion scaparios • . 4.2.2 -Non hydro alternatives . Not completed at this time. 4.3 .... Screening and Ranking Procedure ' The screening procedures are to be used to reduc~ the planning burden by eliminating the alternatives which: -are non-significant for the .decisi-on-making process -are plainly dominate~ by other major or minor a·lternatives -are out of the system•s interest. The screening procedure described below is based on. ~~n \,interactive rriultiple criteria screening process. It will be used for· setting up reasonably sized ~ pools of a~ternatives for subsequent ranking procedures and/or the Qeneration '' planning exercises. The basic methodology involves establishing eva14at1on criteria, anq then I determining these criteria for each site.. The screening process is fhen achieved by setting up appropriate screening criteria which are then: used to screen out all sites which· do not meet these criteria. 4:,~.\19 Evaluation Criteria (tentative) The basic criteria to be used include the following components:1 -economic -technical -environmental -instjtutional o Each of.the above components is divided into several elements, e.g. the economic.cpmponent may include the following elements, cost of energy I ($/kWh)~. total capital cost ($, etc ••.• ). . . ~~~. &t . -,.. ·' . \ 1:· ·~' 1- \ o Each· element is ascribed an attribute which can be a number (e.g .. $50/Mwh), a· numerical range or· an alphanumeric description of an. effect (e.g. severe, slight, etc.) .. o The attributes can be changed during an interactive screening process to ' accomplish the fall owing: -sensitivity analysis; -to force some alternatives to enter or to leave the selected set (see paragraph on screening errors correction); -as a result of a 1'best compromise 11 option during the. planning· process. o The list of attribute-s and· their values/definitions constitute the basic . data base of the screening procedure. o The following elements and attributes are proposed (for hydro and tidal):. (i) economic -total capital cost ($) -the cost of energy produced ( $/t-1Wh) (ii) technical -installed' capacjty {rvM) -.plant factor (i.e. ratio of average output to installed capacity) (iii) environmental -effect on fish (significant~ minor, negligible, unknown) -effect on wildlife ( as for fish) · -socioeconomic impact (?) (iv) institutional -probability of approv-al (high,. medium, 1 ow} k \ ~ Screening Criteria •• & ' The screening criteria is a list of· attributes or logical combination of I, 1(', ..........., I '·· -'' I~ -....:... .... attributes. Logical operators such as OR.or And will be used to link the attributes to give a specific type· of screen. An example of such criteria is as follows: 11 capita1 cost 1ess than $3,000,000.AN.D. cost of energy less than $50/MWh.AND.plant factor greater than o·.s No significant.effects on fish.OR.wildlife, etc ••• " This criterion will be us~d to select alternatives for a specific list if ~11 the. a~tributes of the alternatives· pertain to .the criterion 1 ist. I Otherwise, the alternative is rejected. . . ' 1 1 J .. i . ·~.! ' . .. . ·~ j ·~ Q 1 . ' .. n . , ·I n ' .~ Q J l ·I ·I ·' ... I' . 1 • i .. Q 1 I .; ·' .. ! . . It ·is expeeted that inadequate information vtill be.available for evaluation of some alternatives~ Since our scre~ning process will only eliminate those alternatives ~-. . l ,lr.o. · ·. that are known to be unacceptable, alternatives with insufficient· infonnation for < proper e.valuation are expected to remain at the end of the friening process. If ), · those alternatives are incorpo.rated into an expansion scenario, additional effort . wil-l be required to fill in any data gap prior to final scenario evaluation. . A list of proposed evaluation eriteria will be sent to the personnel re~ponsible for assessing the various types of generation (i.e. ,hydro, non-hydro, conservation). I Following their review an~·comment, a final list will·:O"'be prepared for p~sentation II ·to the screening panel. The panel. will be expected. ta4 ·review, revise and approve the evaluation criteria prior to th~ implementation. A computer program will be developed to undertake this screening work • ·An Example ·. Tne data for this example are taken from a ~tudy of Alaska Power Jl.\dministration (Appendices A and!JD) ·~The ~ydropower .~·l.ani p~posed . to be analyzed in Agashok~ The eJefen attr1butes correspondeqt to the outputs and .. effects are 1 isted ~elow. •. ;:....;_ ... -----. N.ame ... ,. -. . -,. ~ . , . • ·--·· .• , ....... , .... ·, ~;.--.:; ...... :· ,.~ "" :o: .·:.~~··· ."· ~. ••• • ,, ........ -' . . . .. .. ..., .. -..... . .. . , .... - . . . . . .. . 0 Agashashok Jij· • Size 1 A . ., '· H .. _ ,... . . Wi1d·44 • ••• ... • ~ :Hi~.;. ·~P:~A'~.V . -· ~/;IJ~f; Costs Fish 1 i·fe Dist Acces power.· £ • ·• } C9Dita1. Atb:ttt • ~ • .... .. ~ • ..-. ... + • 3 4 5 6 7 ·B 9 10 11' . I L . • .• t L ·t S . . Q 0 r .. I s 0 iY . -=-H. .. . . . . . .. . ':,~ ./..-' J.tf'~.t.-"13 ~ •• J I I . ·- -· . . . • ! The se~lecti'ng criteria will be 'fonnulated as: .. ·1 2 3 4 5 6 . L (E lbi f1 t·1 I 00 M N N tQ1 . ·s . M· 0 o I . 7 8 9 E ll1l lMl • . N .N . ' . •. ·. . . 10 . 11 1' p .ITll liD , . .. . . . . i t ! . . t • • * u:s~· .. Department of Energy, Alas.ka Power Admin~strat~on: · ; ·: · "Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Rfi11belt , June~u, .~ • .. • .. .... ~... ' "t ~ .. I : .. I I ' .• ·! I ·: J .. J I ·l 1 . : .~-----.-.. ..--------....:..-----~----,--JO-B_N_U_M_B_ER-_:-"'!""-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_.;...· · .... _.1 -:-t~ ! l .! · : • C · I ! t. · .. -l J.; <~: ·:: SU=E~Uta 10~5.:;:. ·• ,,..,,, ;: ,, ,. . :::;uM~R-· __ 0_F~::::: · j . :. /~> ~~~m · . . ·· .. , BY---DATE._ 11 tr . :· l-~--~~~.;...~~:.._-d~4=~---------~-A:.::P.:..P-=====-..:D~A~:TE===:=.J j! . \ li! 11 l l{ ~-.q ·n. l 1ft . 1 . ti ' . ·u·· . . .. ! \ ·~r.r· .. \ • . I I ' ;;' \,.~·~ . If ·. , ; .... ·m,. · .. I ··~ ----. .. . !:,. ._ ____ _... . . ... ... . . . ; • • • 11 · . .. . . . -. . . .. . .. - ' . ·. : . · .. . ... '• . . . .. . ' I .. . . . ... ... . ·-. . .. . . .· ··. . . " ~ . . .. · ... ~ ... . . ·. . : . .. ~ . . .. . , • • . . . . . . .. .. . . ., I • t ' . \. ·' .. . . ~ . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ~ .. " . ~ \ ~ . '-~ . ~ . . .. t .. , I ~ . '• : .. .. . 11 • I • ~ j .. ~ J 1 I ( \ I I . .. • 0 .. ~ \ .. t .. ,._ \ ., I •• ' \ _. •t " ., In other words, we are looking for all alternatives with higp peaking capabilities, low or mediu~-e: {;Osts, min·or negligible or unknown environmental effects, not far from Railbelt region* : easy to access, minor or negligible effects in terms of ·spcio- . economic aspects and indifferent from the regional aconomic impact • This criterion \'lill reject the al~emative Agashashoke because of . . its adverse environmental conditions (4 anq 5) and difficult a~cess. (7).; A re-evaluation of additional costs to improve environ-. . .. . .._ mental conditions·and a re-evaluation of the costs of transmission· . . will ra·ise the t.;ni t .energy costs to 18¢e In this case, the new· ~ attributes of the alternative wi11 be: ·. 1' 2 3 4 .. 5 6· 7 s· 9 10 11 .. .·] . .] ·] 1 .. 1 "I ') ·] .. ~ Agash~shok A H . 0 E M ·o 0 .. 'I and the alternative will be accepted. . . .I J · At this stage, .. some deci sian makers may consider that an outflow· :1 I I . .. of capital from the region is ·not a desired effect and modify the criteria ~s follows: 1 2• 3 .. 4 5 6 L []] L ffii 1]] I I]] Iii N N :@1 . s . I . u u· • . . M , . . 7. 8 9 10 m {E} f!l I .. . N M . . . 11 ,. p @] • .. I ..... I ' ,I . . , ... • • ' \ . ~ .. ,, . . : ·~; . . I • n n~ ~, \ ~ n u t D ~ ft3,J ~ Screening Error Correc'ti dns·. • I The above screening process on·ly .. incorporates a representative sample of all the possible attributes of a project. The value of certain ·attributes may be uncertain and some values can be changed:by changing to the nature of tt1e·-project (i.e. reducing dam height: to mitigate environmental impact, etc.). Two basic types of errors may therefor.e arise: Type 1 -acceptance of a bad alternative . Type 2 -rejection of. a good alternative. An error of Type 1 may be corrected by 1ookin~ at the selection list and performing all the corrections aad adju~tments manually to reject the alternative accepted. An .error of Type 2 is more difficult to correct. It requires a reasse~sment of the attributes which res.ul ted· in the rejection of ~ . certain marginal projects. 4,~, 1 *Ranking Procedure . . . . I c· The procedure to be· adopted 1nvo1ves settlng·up several screen1ng Cr1teria IJ ... and listing those to screen out groups of projects of qscending and decend- ing ra!lk. Screening Criterion 1 (most severe) --Selected Gro.up 1 .... Rank #1 Screening Criterion 2 (less severe than 1) --Selected-Group 2. then (Group 2 ~ Group 1) --Rank #2 / ~ ""L ~ ~ Panel Review ~7r Public comment a~d opinion. will be welcomed at any time and will be I I I ;·· L I I actively sought at a number of public. meetings and workshops scheduled to take place throughout the course of Task 1· (see Task 12). ~~here appropriate,-additi.onal topics suggested by the public will be considered for incorporation into Acres• study. If·it is perceived that a particular topic is especially relevant to the production of an adequate study but that the study of the topic is beyond the contracted scope of work, negotiations will be initiated with the client to modigy the tenns of the contract to provide.for such study. Similarly, Acres will solicit the opinion and comment of review panels . made up of members selected by the client for their knowledge .of Alaskan. . economic and energy needs and potentials. These panels will meet at strategic times in the study schedule to review Acres• activities and l I I ! 1 I l I I ~ (~ I ! I ' I i l I 1 ! l I I l 'J •.. I . ' -I ' f j' I I ' I ~ ' I . ; I i I ....... .. progress. By virture of the stature of their members, the recommendations . of these panel~ will ·be taken ~ery seriously by Acres and will be incorporatedj into our work where at all possible. As with comments from the general :' public, however, if changes· are needed to the basic study scope of work, negotiations will be initiated with the client to modify the contract. Acres will, of course, incorporate the thoughts of its own internal· experts and those of its subcontractors. The amount of data gathere.d and analyzed during the course of Task 1 work is of little value if it is not somehow disseminated for the client to act upon and for public information. Such distribution will b~ accom- ' plished by n~o methods: formal written reports and i-formal P4Plic meetings and workshops (see Task 12). Formal reports to the client will be produc~d at the end of eacn phase of the Task 1 work. Presentations will be made to the review pctne1s to enable them to perfonn their eva,luation~dut'(es. Much of the material •• f. ; ·produced for these purposes will be of a hi~ply detailed and ~echn1cal nature. At the public meetings and workshops, the. infonnation \t{ill necessarily be presented more informally and at a less sophisticated level. It is ant.icipated, however, that the client will make our tl ~ ~ ,, .. detailed reports available for public use. .. ·s -Subtask 1.04 -Generation Planning Analysis The work in this subtask will be intended to pull together the ~ata "' :" gathered as a p~rt of the Subtask 1.03 work so that a number of coherent power generation scenarios may develop. ] ] ] 1 1 .I ] .I I I ~The most straightforward method of evaluatir)g ~he potential economic bepefit .I of a hydroelectric project in a given system expansion scenario is to compare capital investment and system operating costs on· a~ annual basis, through-I out·the term of the study, for. two scenarios: one without the benefit of the proposed hydro project; the other with it. .I A number of mathemat1ca1 models are available to facilitate the vast number of calcu·lations involved in this type of study. In simplified terms, the user of such a model provides the program with data which J includes the· characteristics of the _forecasted loads and the c~aracteristics,rJ availability and costs of generation sources which will be available through- out tha period of the study •. The model then selects the generation sources J' .. availab'le to it to satisfy the projected load in the most economical manner. I 11 D ~ '' ""'\ IJ ( .. I IJ I) I I • I, I I \ .. I • • To evaluate. the economics. of ~ given project, ~ compar'is.on. may be made of '" ,. . .. . . . total annual costs of the two system scenari'os on a.year-by-year·oasis throughout the study period. If the system. with the hydro project avail- able is less costly throughout· the planning pertod, the project .is obviously attractive (though not necessarily selected, because impacts must also· be accounted for) • .'Conversely, if this system is more expensive in all years, then the1 •• project is unattractive. It is possible, indeed ~ikely, that the outcome of an economic evaluation would prove not to be so clear cut. I.t may be that the system incorporating . the hydro plant would be more expensive in some ,Y.ears of the study, and less expensive in others, than the.system without that project. In this situation, it would be necessary to perfonn compari.sons between present worth values of operating cost for systems represented by the two scenarios. Although such a strategy may provide a valid economic comparison, the results may be inconclusive. This is most likely to occur in the case of a hydro project ·having capacity wp4ch is relatively small when compared to its connected system. The economic comparisons may produced a relatively small difference in two l~rge numbers. This is not valid, howevet• for ~+he Susitna Hydroelectri'c Project which is expected to represent an importan'i generation capacity within .the system, for the scenarios including the developmartt. An external multidisiplinary panel will screen the resu.lts of the first set of program runs· presented in terms of annual operating costs (and of corresponding present worths) per sce~a_rio and will provide feedback for subsequent runs. The final results will be presented in the Interim Report· for public review, together with a preliminary environmental assessments (Subtask 1.05) of the scenarios generated by the planning program .. : t ' 1[ ... I I I· - I .I ' I l I ' I 6 ... -'\ ( ' \-·" "~,.._,. .. ( f ' \ •· .. . . . ... In the search for a usable generation planning oamputer mode~, three characteristics of the model are paramount: .. .• -Flexibili~ --does the model allow for a varied oambination of alternatives? --Accessibility-is the rrodel presently available and can it ~ used .. with a minimlm of learning time? .. -Reliability-is the IrO<lel actively mainta~ped by its supplier and ' i H~ has it been used by other utility planners?~; .. , .. I • A preliminaey survey of the market has revealed one nodel which ~ · . ~ satisfies all three criteria. Other rrodels may be available, but ~~ese: are generally developed either qy or for specific utilities to solve their pcn:ticu~~ ~blems or they are so intricate 9.') as to require special training for their use·e The c:arputer ncdel selected by Acres for this study is the General . Electric Optimized Gen~ration· Program, Version Five ( OGI?-V) • Several of Acres • staff have qea:me familiar· with. the use of this. prbgram en other studies similar to the ·susitna alternatives evaluations. The OGP-Vp~am combines three main factors of the generation expansion planning decision process: system reliabili~ evaluation, ·operations cost estimation, and investrrent cost estimation. The • program ~~s by evaluation of the }.X)wer system reliability in the~ · • . . . ' I ' . . . .. • I II I I I I I I I I I I I I •• ~ 4 D ,.· '"'"'. ' . IJ _ _., I' '{ j ~ -~ IJ ~ ~ I I)(' \, IJ ~ ·-.. . ·~ -··· I I ' I , I . ( ' I j I .. ·-. ·• ' \ ' ' :. . ' ~ :· 1 • first study year by means of ore of t\<AJ methods -either a percentage-.. of-reserves calculation or the oomputation of the loss of load· prObability (LOLP). ·-... When the system demand level rises. to the p:>int at \\bich either the user-specified reserve level or the LOLP criteria is violated, the program "installs" new generating capacity •. The program wUl a:id · generation capacity fran a user-provide:l list of available sources. As· . each p::>ssibl~ choice is evaluated, the program carries out; a production rost calculation and an investment cost calculation, and eliminates . those units or corrbinations of units \tfhose c:Cldition tp the system ,• A results in higher annual cost than other units or combinations.: · '!be · ~ram continues in this manner until the least-cost ~stem addition combination is detex:mined . for that year.. In cases where ·opera tina cost inflation is presen~, or where ootage rates vary with. tiJre, o:;p-v has a . --.. look-ahead feature which develops levelized fuel and O&M rosts an:J mature c:utage rates out to ten years ahead of the "present" time. Once the apparent least-cost additions to the system necessary to satis~ reser.ve or IDLP criteria have been selected, the optimum system is described. Ioad forecasting and daily load variation data gene~ated in Subtask 1 •. 02 will be used as input to the computer m:x:lel together with the following technical and economic planning criteria: -generaticn capacity· and energy reserve requirements • \ I • • • ' 11 I] ll I I -i -I I ., i ' ' ' ----- . ' .... addition of new units/re.'f;irements qf older units -economic discount. rate -period of analysis This data will be established in. consultation with Alaska Power Authority, other utilities in the Railbelt Region and other pertinent agencies. The analysis will be carried out at i:he base rate with sensitivity testing over the possible range for select~d alternatives. The sensitivity testing will be based mainly on the external panel recomnendations • . One of the· benchmarks against.which· the economics of a power generating facility may be meas.ured is-the economics of its altet'natives. In many cases~ it is possible to identify specific alternatives against which a given pro- ject may be directly compared.. Most. generating projects are intended for a speci fie ope~at·ing ~gime. W·ithjn the power system, such as base-, intermediate-, or peak··load operation. ~or such sources, it is a relatively straightforNard task to evaluate the cost of operating a spec·ific alternative. Hydroelectric projects, due to their hydrologic characteristics, must be evaluated in a somewhat different manner. A hydro project can be subject to sign·ificant seasonal var~ations in its generation capacityo Factors such as . rain fa 11 patterns and springtime snowpack runoff can work .to ma!'e base 1 oad and peaking benefits avaiable fl·om the same hydroelectric. project. Also, al- though initial studies of the Devil Canyon-Watana installations were based upon fifty percent annual capaci-ty factor (1,394 MW, 6,100,000 MWh/yr), some base- load (greater than 80 percent capacity factor) and some peak-load (less than 10 percent capacity factor) energy can be expected to be available. The way in which such ~dditional capacities becom~ available complicates the evaluation of a nydroelectric project. Conventional base-load plants such as coal-fired or nuclear steam plants are ' commonly built to take advantage of the economie·s of scale available to large i I I I . -I I I I I I I I I I I plants cif this type. Conversely, peaking plants are usually relatively small J (less than 100 f>M). The bas~oad energy produced by even a larger hydro plant ./. may be available ~nly at suA a small" c"apacity as· to make comparison with the I conventional alternatives meaningless. For example, if the Susitna project, with its 1,394 · MN 'OUtput at 50 perc~J1t .can produce only 125t4W at capacity . .A ·vv\ factors greater than 80 percent, it is difficult to make comparfsons with base-v ~ t load nuclear or coal plants with capacities on the. order of 500 MW or larger, ·n [l J .. ( \ 11 I [l \ J 11 (] lfl IJ IJ ~ J ~/· ~ I ~ ~ I] .~ 1 IJ IJ ll I) I .. In the same sense, hydrologic· conditi'ons may make a. great deal of capacity " .. 4 4 ~ .. available at a given site for very SQOrt periods Of time as peak1~g energy. Such large amounts of surpl'us energy may make meaningful comparisons between the hydro project and its convention alternatives (combustion turbines) diffi- cult. Thus, the Susitna Hydroelectric Project will be evaluated in the light of its effect upon the mix of. alternatives in the power system and any possible defer- ment of capital expenditures for other facilities. To properlv take into account the capacity variations of the projects, 'its operation within·a power system will be analyzed on a monthly, or at least a seasonal, basis. More detailed analyses could be performed to define exact operating procedures, but such detail is not justified in a long-term planning study. Scenarios used as input wi 11 be. chosen· for their apparent techni ca 1, en vi ron-· mental, and economic merits. Guidance· ~rom Acres' en vi ronmenta 1 engineers wi 11 be sought for the formulation of the scenarios. 6 -Subtask 1.05 -Expansion Scenario· Impace Assessments This .subtask is an in~eractive work package having· inputs to Subtask 1.03, 1.04,. and 1.07. The basic purpos~ of Subtask 1 .. 05 ts to compare from an. environmental standpoint, the consequences of developing the selected alternative expansion scenarios in the Alaska Rail belt Region, including· historica·l, socioeconomic . . and other factors. The approach to review and assessment alternatives will be to primarily utilize exis·~ing data, and.available aerial photography of the selected or potential source sites whenever and·wher.ever sufficient infonnation is already available. However, it may be necessary to gather limited site-specific data for the assess-. ment, since tne· environmental resources of many of the more remote portions. of the study corridor have not been inventoried. The k~y to this approach is the use of staff who hav.e an· in-depth knowledge of both fish and wildlife habitat requirements and a short-tenm and long-term effects of impact-producing actions of construction and operation of various facilities in Alaska~ .The environmental consequen1:es of' developing alternative energy sources are hi.ghly dependent upon numerous factors inc1 uding energy resource, collection method, site.location'characteristics, site fish and wildlife characteristics, • I land-use patterns, and facility con·struction and operation designs. A thoro.ugh assessment of the impacts of optimum generation expansion mixes is also dep~ndent upon an understanding of the habitat requirements of local fish and wildlife . ' ' I I I j r ... I I ' I I ' . "' du q ... . . ' during their 1 i fe hi stray; a knowledge of 1 imi ting habitat factors; and sensitivities such as fish oven1intering areas, and nesting and feeding habits of endangered or threatened fauna. The significant impact-producing actions will vary witil the alternative being assess~d. At times, the selected site location will be the prime factor, while for other alte~·natives, the short-term or long-tenn air quality 9r \•later quality perturbat1ons, or wildli.fe habitat degradation may be t~e ove-r- riding factor. Some of the more significant poten~ial concerns are discussed ' . below. The environmental evaluation of the selected hydroelectric and tidal power " develo.pment alternatives (if any) will identify ~hq associated potential impact h ' issues, and their relative magnitudes. Such issue~ will involve the t'J:!la~ive . sizes of reservoirs and impacts on water quality aqd fish and wildlif~ habitats in particular. The envi·ronmental analysis will be·,perfonned on the b4sis of available data, which will be comp.iled for this pu~pose. Transmissioq faci1 i- ties associated with the hydro alternative sites w1'11 pe included in t~is .. environmental analysis. For this a·ssessment work' set· of criteria· must be develpped. The d~ta provided . to the· review panel at tne end of this subtask will d~scribe the econqmic, .. .. .. social, and environr.:.Jnta1 impacts of all alternatives ~canaries examinad. Sucn .. ·' . ~. infonnat~on will pennit.the client to decide if additi.onal expenditut·~~ far 'the study of the Susitna project are justified, or··if!pursuit of alternat;ve scenarios may be wiser. 7 -SUBTASK 1.06 Interim Re~ort The power alternatives study Interim Report will present economic evaluation$ . . , and preliminary environmental impacts assessment for expans.ion scenarios with and without Susitna, as well a$ for a decentralized alternative scenario documenting the findings of Subtasks 1.01 through 1.05 and including various external panel reviews and corresponding iterations. The uwith Susitna 11 Scenario imp'Ities a development of the Corps of Engineers scheme, possible with an envelope defined around its parameters, to express the l~kely range in which other Susitna schemes might lie. The Interim Report will be presented at a < ' public meeting for review early in 1981. Public comments may induce at that time the need .for refined analyses starting as far back as the global eva1uation of alternatives (Suhtask 1.03). The rev·iewed·Interim Report will represent:the basic· document to be considered in the first GO-NQ-GO decision process. . ' 2t I ~. .~. ll 'I rl I I I I I ~· ·I J J j j ·~ ,,j 11 If' I I I I I I I J J J 'Of 8 -SUBTASK 1.07 -Panel Screen' The panel will examine major assumptions, analyze results and make recommenda-· I tions related to the selection of expansion scenarios (with and without Susitna) and to their detailed evaluation, and provide input into tl1e sensitivity analysis. ' The multidisciplinary panel established and selected in 1980 by APA will have a major screening point at the end of Subtasks 1.03 and 1.05~ Panel recommen- dations related to the detailed study of the expansion sequences for financial and marketing aspects, environmental impacts, risk analyses and cost and schedule refinements may induce reiterati-ons which will be handled mainly as additional sensitivity analyses. The panel is expectecd to produce direct input into the Preliminary Report. '. .. Z9' ll ll I I I I I I I I I I .) 1 J :I ~· J -· WOODWARD-CLYDE. PROPOSED MODIFIED APPROACH FOR EVALUAT:~~& AlTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR MEETING RAlLBELT'ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS I} I~ \' ,; IJ 11 ll I I I I (I I I I J 1 :J J J/ ] . • A PROPOSED MODIFIED APPROACH FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR MEETING RAILBELT ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS (TASK 1, SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT) Submitted to Acres American Incorporated Suite 329, The Clark Building Columbia, Maryland 21044 by Woodward-clyde Consultants 3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94111 May 19, 1980 I I ' I ' i I 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1~0 Objectives and Overview 2.0 Overall Approach 3.0 Detailed Discussion of Approach 3 .1 Activity I: Electric Demand Forecasting 3.2 Activity II: Consideration of Alternatives 3.3 Activity III: Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options 3.4 Activi.ty IV: Revised and Updated Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options 4.0 Schedule of Activities -3. 0 Personnel Requiremant&: aaa Goats· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I .I I I I 11 ·"· ' .. . . .... I I· I I I I I I I I •• I ~. ·I I /···~ ( •.. :· . .... .. ' l I 1.0 OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW The overall objective of the activities proposed here is: • To evaluate the options available for meeting future Railbelt electric power requirements in a realistic manner which recognizes: • The sequential nature of the decisions that ~11 be made in the future regarding methods for meeting electric power requir~~ents, and •· The risks and uncertainties that will exist as each of these sequentia~ decisions is made. It is not within the scope of the work proposed here to directly analyze the advisability of proceeding with Susitna feasibliity studies. However, the staged approach proposed should provide timely information to support upcoming decisions regarding the advisability of proceeding with feasibil- ity studies for the Susitna Project. Our basic framework for thinking about this objective is shown in schematic form in Figure 1.1. In this figure the square boxes indicate points at which decisions are made by the Alaska Power Authority, the various Railbelt utilities, and the Alaska sta~e government which will impact the capacity of the Ra.ilbelt for meeting future power requirements. t I· ·"· ' . . .. .. ~ .. ..,.,, I I· I I I I I I I I I 'I 'I ',I ; ' ~· /'· ..... ~ •.. I loQ OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW The overall objective of the activities proposed here is: • To evaluate the options available for meeting future Railbelt electric power requirements in a realistic manner which recognizes: • The sequential na~ure of the decisions that will be made in the future regarding metl:ods for meeting electric power requirements, and •· The risks and uncertainties that will exist as each of these sequential decisions is made. It is not within the scope of the work proposed here to directly analyze the advisability of proceeding with Susitna feasibliity studies. However, the staged approach proposed should provide timely information to support upcoming decisions regarding the advisability of proceeding with feasibil- ity studies for the Susitna Project. Our basic framework for thinking about this objective is shown in schematic form in Figure 1.1. In this figure the square boxes indicate points at which decisions are made by the Alaska Power Authority, the various Railbelt utilities, and the Alaska state government which will impact the capacity of the Railbelt for meeting future power requir~ents. t . • I r----\ ·- Resolution of Uncertainties from 2005 to 2010 Available Options in 1985 Resolution of Uncertainties from 1985 to 1990 Available Options in. 1990 \ 1985 0 0 1990 I I I ~ I I I ~ ~ 2010 Decision point--where an option is selected fox addressing the need for power in the Railbelt Uncertainties--periods during which some uncertainties are resolved by the passage of time and the col- lection of new information Figure lel. The Sequential Nature of Alternative Options for Meeting Railbelt Electric Power Requirements 9 ., j' '-· n l ' i j n \ r. ~~ 1 l l 1 ;"1 ··J I J ., J -.J 11 ~ The several lines radiating from each box indicate that a variety of options is available at each decision point. (The dashed lines at various points in Figure 1.1 indicate that parts of the complete figure have been left out to keep the presentation simple.) At any decision point a large variety of options exists, consisting of various combinations of generating facilities, conservation measures and load management. In Figure 1.1 we indicate that such decisions are made every five years until the end of the Susitna Projec~ planning horizon in 2010. Of course, in reality such decisions are made at irregular intervals; however, the tree structure in the figure illustrates the sequential nature of these decisions. The circles in Figure 1.1 illustrate periods between each decision point when various uncertainties will be resolved by the passage of time. Thus, for example, when a decision is made in 1985 concerning an option for meeting electric power requirements, the actual demand for power over the per.iod from 1985 to 1990 is uncertain. However, by the time the next decision point shown in the figure is reached in 1990, the uncertainty about demand over the period 1985-1990 will have been resolved. Of course, there will still be uncertainty about the demand for power beyond 1990. The fans emanating from each uncertainty circle illustrate that there is a variety of possible ways the uncertainty may be resolved. It is a frustrating, but importan·t, part of Railbelt power planning that many uncertainties will not be resolved until _efter important decisions have been made. We believe that a logical and defensible procedure for analyzing the options available for meeting the Railbelt's need for power must explicitly address the uncertainties in the situation and the sequential nature of the decisions that are made. Failure to address uncertainties would mean that the possibly significant consequences of having over-or-under capacity could not be considered. Failure to consider the sequential nature .of the decisions might lead to drawing unwarranted conclusions about the 3 I ... 4 -J J \~~ . ··-"' I l I ' l ' • i j I ,_, J J i J ,I l I .t J J J i (11 \ . ..... .,~;# ~ 1 J significance of some decisions. For example, if the sequential nature of the decisions is ignored, then an analysis of the consequences of deciding not to build the Susitna Project in 1985 might indicate that there is a significant probability of a shortfall in generating capacity by 2010. Figure 1.1 shows, however, that if a decision is made not to build in 1985, this decision can be reversed at a later time. A few years will have been lost, but the Susitna option will not have been ruled out for all time. In addition to uncertainties and the sequential aspect of the problem, two other factors are central to a defensible analysis of the options for meeting Railbelt power needs: • A variety of different concerns must be addressed in evaluating the desirability of each option, and • A ~ariety of groups within Alaska have legitimate reasons for havinl some input into the analysis. Our proposed approach explicitly addresses the multiple evaluation concerns, including financial aspects, public health and safety, environmental effects, socioeconomics and institutional factors. It also provides a well-defined mechanism for incorporating the views of persons outside the Alaska Power Authority and the Acres tea~ into the analysis. Our proposed approach is discussed in the next section. It is based on a logical, defensible and time-tested approach utilizing multiobjective decision analysis. With a decision analysis approach all of the concerns discussed above can be addressed within a single unified framework. The sequential nature of the problem is captured using a "decision tree" along the lines shown in Figure 1.1. Uncertainties are analyzed using proba- bility theory. In situations where sufficient data exists, these prob- abilities can be determined from this data, while in other situations expert professional judgment can be used to establish the probabilities. J J J J I ,.....,., )l, "'-# ' I I I I I I • .-·~-· '. ·, " ' ' ..,.<il'"" I I I I .I J .I ~. ~· .. (f ~· Because of the lack of data in Alaska we expect that these "judgmental" probabilities will be particularly useful for Susitna planning. Woodward- Clyde has extensive experience obtaining_ such probabilities. The multiple evaluation concerns are analyzed within a decision anal- ysis framework using multiattribute utility functions. Thes~ functions allow the multiple concerns to be addressed in a quantitative manner that allows explicit consideration of the tradeoffs among the concerns. The theory underlying utility functions is well established, and Woodward-Clyde has extensive experience using utility functions in a wide variety of engin- eering planning problems. Decision analysis provides a logical and defensible procedure for ~ombining probabilities and utilities to evaluate and rank various avail- able alternatives. Extensive applications experience over more than two decades has shown that the approach is particularly useful in complex decision problems like those of interest in the Susitna Projecto We have found that the approach is particularly effective in providing a fruitful mechanism for· communications in situations where ther~ are disagreements among interested parties over both the facts and the relative .importance of various evaluation concerns. 5 ' ~ I l I l l -~ ~ ( ' I I I I I 1 I I I t I 1 i I ~ I i ,: I I i ' & f j \ ' 1 .. ' -'"' ! . \ ~ .... •• ¥ i \.. •' .... 2.0 OVERALL APPROACH Our propose,d overall approach for evaluating alternative options for meeting Railbelt electric power requirements is briefly sketched in Figure 2.1. It consists of four major Activities, the first two of which proceed simultaneously. The figure shows that major activities are completed at weeks 26, 50 and 104 after the start of the analysis effort. These weeks correspond with_times when major decisions will be made by the Alaska Power Authority regarding whether to proceed with the Susitna Project or not. Because of the structure and schedule shown in Figure 2.1, useful information should be available from the studies to support each of these decisions. The central activity in our proposed approach is III, Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options. During this activity an analysis will be carried out which addresses all of the complexities discussed in Section 1 above. Important information for this analysis will be provided by Activities I and II, where the demand and supply sides, respectively, of the need for power question will be addressed. In Activity IV an update of the analysis in Activity III will be carried out. This update will primarily consist of more detailed information I I 1 ) ') 1 I _I .J J ~J J J I I I I Activity I I • Electric Demand Forecasti11g • Identification of Demand Parameters • Identificat1.on of Demand l'rojec.tion Tec~miques I • Assessment of Uncertainties in Demand P~rameters • Generation of Demand Proje:::tions • Comp~ison of Demand Projections vith Other Forecasts • Panel Screen r- • PreparaLiOn of OGP-5 Input I !----" I Activity II Con~ideratioa of Alternatives I • Ident1.ficati~~ of Evaluat1on Measures • Selection of Alternatives Considered o Development of Information Base for Alternatives I-- • Prel~minarj Evaluction of Alternatives • Panel Screen 1 • Preparation of OGP-5 Input -----------~ I I I 0 16 I I I I I I 7 Activity III Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options • Development of Evaluation l-leasures • Assessment of Utility Func:ion • Identification of Sequential D~cision Options • Identification and Analysis of Uncertainties • Identification of Preferred Options • Performing Sensitivity Analysis • Panel Screen • Documentation and Interim Report Preparation Activity I\' Revised and Updated fvaluation of I •I Public Comment 1-Sequential Decision Options ~ • Revision and Updating of Information Base Public Cc~ent o Integration of Public Input 50 o Revision of Activit} III ~pproach o Revision of Activity IV Results • Panel Screen Estintated P.-oj£>ct Sch£>dulc--h'l•eks I 104 Figure 2 .1. Schedule of Activities for Evalua tj on of Sequential DeLision Options--Susitna Hydroelectric Project. I ll @ Jl 1 .. I I '>'. I I II ;I I I I I. I I u I I I I I I f.l about the exact nature of the Susitna hydro alternatives which will be~ome available through the analysis and testing activities currently being undertaken by Acres and its subcontractors. Our approach to Activity III will simultaneously address the sequential nature of generation expansion decisions and the uncertainties which make these decisions difficult. The approach will have three elements: 1) A set of alternatives which are available to address the need for power a.t each decision point, 2) A description of uncertainties which are present at each decision point but which will be reduced by the time the next decision point is reached, and 3) An evaluation function which can be used to assess the desire- ability of sequences of decisions over time. Using th1.s approach, Railbelt electric power development will be analyzed as a serl'.es of decision stages. At each stage a decison is ma.de trJ follow one of a set of alternative courses of actions. The information available to make each decision includes knowledge about decisions made at previous stages and the values of certain relevant parameters (such as current fuel costs and demand). Uncertainties will remain about such things as future fuel costs and demand. In addition, the types of alternatives available at each stage will depend on decisions made at previous stages. For e1cample, if a decision' to continue feasibility studies for Susitna is made at one stage, the next stage might include the alternatives "Begin construction of Susitna Project", "Delay start of construction at least until next decision, point," and "Drop further consideration of Susitna and order 500 MW of gas turbine capacity".. On the other hand, if feasi- 8 bility studies are stopped at one decision stage it may not be possible to "begin construction of Susitna Project" at the next decision stage. The decision stages and associated uncertainties will be organized into a "decision tree" like the one sketched briefly in Figure 1.1. Each "pa" ... h" from left to right through the tree represents a sequence of decisions and resolutions of uncertainty which is a particular scenario for future electrical development in the Railbelt. We propose to develop an evaluation function which will be used to identify the preferred decision at ~ach stage. If this function is to provide a defensible basis for the identification o± preferred decisions, it must include consideration of all the multiple concerns of importance for a complete evaluation.. These include cost, public health and safety, environmental impacts and other factors. These concerns will be add~essed by developing a "multiattribute utility function" which quantifies tradeoffs between the multiple and often competing concerns mentioned above. Wood- ward-clyde has used such utility functions with great success in a variety of ~ast projects. This approach, involving a decision tree and a multiattribute utility function, addresses the central issues of the electric power capacity planning problem in a defensible mannere However, to keep the analysis tractable some ~\pproximations will need to be made. The two major types of approximation.s will relate to the number of decision stages analyzed and the variety of alternatives analyzed at each stage. !he decision tree shown in Figure 1.1 shows decisions being made every .five yearso In reality, of course, decisions concerning generation alternatives, conservation or load management can be made at any time. It is not feasible to construct or analyze a tree which includes this compl~ity, and thus it will be necessary to approximate the true situation by assuming that decisions are made at some interval, such as the five yaars shown in Figure 1.1. q I I I I I I I I I I I I I II l •I II 1. I 1' .. . - > ~. I ••• I I I I I I I I I I I •• I I In addition, it is not feasible to analyze all the myriad of generation, conservation and load management alternati~es available at each decision point. We believe, however, that based 01r1 the preliminary analysis carried out in Activities I and II (which is discussed below), as well as the OGP-5 analysis Acres will be carrying out as part of Activity III, the principal al.ternatives available can be identified and analyzed. We eA"'Pect that there will be five to ten such alternatives at each decision point. Because of the approximations discussed above, some caution will be necessary when drawing conclusions from the analysis about which options are best for addressing the Railbelt' s future need for power. However, we believe that the only realistic alternatives to the type of analysis we propose will have to make other assumptions that are considerably more unrealistic than those we propose. In particular, more "conventional" approaches to capacity expansion planning often assume that future demand is known with certainty. This is clearly not true, particularly in Alaska with its mineral resource based boom-bust type of economy, and assuming that future demand is known for certain can lead to widely inaccurate conclusions about the relative desirability of various options for addres- sing power demand. This inaccuracy is likely to be particularly severe when comparing large capital-intensive options (such as hydrp) with smaller alternatives (such as gas turbines). This is because such differing alternatives may provide significantly different flexibility for meeting unforeseen changes in demand. The situation in the Railbelt will require that such alternatives.be compared. Even with the approximations discussed earlier, the decision tree analysis will be fairly complex, and it will be necessary to utilize computer methods to construct and analyz~ it. Much of the input required for the analysis in Activity III will be provided by Activities I and II. As shown in Figure 2.1, these activ- ities will precede Activity III chronologically. This assures that useful 10 ~ \ I ~ I l I I I ~ ' j -I l I i - I I f' I i I - -~ ~·~.!( II ' I I •, and timely infonnation wil1 be available to the Alaska Power Authority when it makes its first decision whether or not to proceed with Susitna feasibility· studies. In addition, this sequential approach will allow a review of the results of Activities I and II by interested agencies, groups and individuals before the analysis in Activity III is carried out. Activity I will consider one of the most critical factors bearing on the power planning question~ namely the future demand for power. The analysis proposed for Activity I will explicitly recognize and characterize the uncertainties that are inherent in any forecast of future energy demando Bri2fly, this will be done as follows: the parameters will be identified which are crucial to determining the level of electrical demand in the Railbelt (e.g., commercial growth, demographic trends, etc.). Next, an appropriate mode~ will be i~entified or developed which can take specific levels of the crucial param~ters and translate them into a specific electric energy demand level. Third!il interviews will be held with appropriate ex- perts in Alaska and elsewhere to assess the range of uncertaint.Y in the ""-~ . crucial parameters in a quantitative and structured manner. These uncer- tainties will then be structured into a set of well defined scenarios with associated probability values~ The model will then be used to obtain a probability distribution over demand. Models for forecasting futi'lre energy demand range from simple back- of-the-envelope calculations Co sophisticated econometric-end use models of the type under development by the California Energy Commission. The existing data base for many important characteristics of the Railbelt is very weak. Since a model is only as good as the data used to construct it, the weak data base implies that it would not be productive to construct a highly sophisticated forecasting model for us~ in Activity I. Our current thinking is that the MAP Model of the Institute of Social and Economic Research might be an appropriate method for forecasting future demographic and economic trends in the Railbelt. An additional simple II 1 l 1 J J I J· 1 .. ,. } . ,. I I :I I I I I I I I f~ 'f J 1-. I --'*.....,, i- I I. •• I I I: ····.·, lk' 'I I ;I I •• I I I I ~~el involving a few equations would then be constructed to relate the economic and demographic variables forecast by the MAP model to total energy deman.d in the major g~ographic regions and economic sectors of the Railbelt. Finally, historical data from utilities would be used to esti- mate load factors and load duration curves assoi:iated with the projected total energy demand. The use of ~i.storical data from utilities implicitly assumes that no significant load IilB.:n.agement measures will be undertaken in the future. Such measures would be analyzed in Activity II, and the forecasts obtained in Activity I will be modified as appropriate when these forecasts are used in Activity III. .Activity II, Identification of Alternatives, will consider the ~~ern -....... atives that are available to deal with different levels of demand. This task will require considerable collection and analysis of relevant inform- ation. The activity will require the development of a comprebcnsive list of evaluation measures which cover all important character1stics necessary to describe each alternative. Careful thought will be needed to decide on the specific evaluation measures, but we expect that these will cover at least the following areas: • cost, • resource availability, • te~hnical feasibility, • licensing, scheduling and financing risks, • public health and safety, • environmental effects, • socioeconomic effects, and • institutional factors. Once ~he list of evaluation measures has been selected, it will be necessary to determine levels for these measures for each alternative. Although this task will be relatively straightforward, it will require 12 I 1 -i l ·I I ! IJ 'I I ' I 1 ·····.! ' I B I . . ·. considerable work to provide defensible estimates for the levels asso- ciated with each alternative. We anticipate that a major portion of the effort put into the entire alternatives study by Acres, Woodward-Clyde, and other subcontractors will be spent on this task. t It is likely that there will be considerable uncertainty about the levels of some evaluation measures. We propose to quantify this through the use of standard judgmental probability encoding techniques which we have successfully used in a variety of similar situations in the past. The principal result of Activity II will be ~ matrix describing the characteristics of a wide range of alternatives that have potential for dealing with future power needs in the Railbelto After review by inter- ested outside groups and individuals, it may be possible to drop certain alternatives from further consideration as obviously inferior. We noted earlier that Activity III was the central activity in the evaluation of options for meeting Railbelt electric power requirements, and that Activities I and II provide necessary information for this eval- uation. Activity IV will be a re-doing of the analysis in Activity III with updated information. Our understanding is that the primary updating will be with respect to information about the Susitna hydro alternatives. Since, as indicated below, Woodward-Clyde does not have a role in devel- oping information about the hydro alternatives, we anticipate that we will have only a limited role in Activity IV. }3 I I I I I a· I I ' .•.. . . I I :I I I I I I I () i:J 'I;. "... ( I ,.-'I! < . -~ •• I I I I ll :1 • IJ I I •• ;IJ. 61/10 .3.0 DE~A!LED DISCUSSION OF APPROACH This section discusses the various Subactivities that we propose to carry out within each of the four activities outlined in the pre- vious section. In order to present the activities as unified wholes we will show both those subactivities that Woodward-Clyde would carry out and those that Acres or its other subcontractors would have re- sponsibility for. In several cases responsibilities would be jointly shared. The specific split of responsibilities that we propose is indicated on the figures throughout this section that summarize the subactivities. 3.1 Activity I: Electric Demand Forecasting The objective of this activity is to provide projections of future electric energy demand for the Railbelt area under various plausible economic and regulatory scenarios. Demand projections will be prob- abilistic and "nominal" i.e., they will be p~obabistic~lly stated and will not include conservation and/or load management efforts, The effects of conservation and load management are separately considered under Activity II. Two different approaches are proposed for Activity I. Our pre- ferred approach presumes that Woodward-Clyde will undertake demand· forecasting, perhaps with assistance and input from ISER or other knowledgeable organizations or individuaL:;. This approach, discussed in more detail below, will result in a probabilistic projection of demand. The second approach, not described in detail, assumes that ·- \4 \ -i I .~ .. i ~ ,, i -i i ~ j ·~ l 1 ~ ·~ -~ i ~ ~ j Jj I} 'I} l.t ·~ I \ IJ. ( '· 61/10 total demand forecasts are provided by ISER and that Woodward-Clyde would attempt to attach a probabilistic distribution to the output of the ISER work. The first approach will be more costly than the second, but is expected to result in forecasts that are better integrated with the rest of the work being done. Activity I (first approach) consists of six subactivities (see Figure 3.1) as outlined below: I.l. Identification of Demand Parameters-The purpose of this subactivity is to identify the major parameters and driving forces that affect electric consumption in the Railbelt over the long-run (far examples see Figure 3.1). TI1ese parameters would be the major inputs that determine future demand for electricity. !.2. Identification of Demand Projection Techniques -Following a study of available forecasting models/techniques, one will be chosen to project future electric energy demand in the Railbelt. (It is likely that ISER's MAP model would be used to provide population, demographic and economic projections based on inputs provided by Woodward-Clyde). The projections produced by the model or technique would then form the basis for 1:otal electric demand forecasts. and load duration curve a. I.3. Assessment of Uncertainties in Demand Parameters -Since the parameters 1d~ntified in Subactivity I.l above are subject to variations over the long-rL,n, experts' professional judgments will be elicited to put bounds on tho ~ange and likelihood of variations. This subactivity will result in probability distributions for the parameters •. !.4. Generationof Demand Projections-Total electricity demand and lo~d duration curves will be projected using the technique/model adopted in Subactivity 1.2. The forecast will be probabilistic (e.g.t 15 . - I I •• I I I . I I I I I I I I I I •• I JK ~ru n .. ' ' . m -· "' .. I . ' - ,, e (} ' .,, J 11 u .. ~ 11 <' ... 11 I} I' i ·I] li I I ., v~ ti . • c . 61/11 *Proposed Activity I: Electric Demand Forecasting I. 1. Identifica1:ion of Demand Parameters -Alaskan Economy -National and International Economy -Demographic Trends -Income and Taxes -Price of Energy and Relative Price of Electricity -Government Decisions -Electrical Consumption Patterns I.2. Identification of Demand Projection Techniques -Total Electricity Demand -Load Duration Curves I.3. Assessment of Uncertainties in Demand Parameters -Identification of Experts and Information Sources -Assessment of Probability Distributions -Resolution of Conflicts of Judgment -Structuring of Scenarios l.4. Generation of Demand Projections -Total Electricity Demand' -Load Durations I.S. Comparison of Demand Projections with Other Forecasts I.6. Panel Screen Iu7. Preparation of OGP-5 Input Figure 3.lo Subactivities Proposed for Activity I (Preferred Approach) *Under our proposed Approach 1 Woodward-clyde would have principal responsibility.for all of Activity I, except I.6 and 1.7. Under proposed Approach 2 lSER would have responsibility for total energy demand forecasting. i ;-·' ,. ' -t ,~l ~ ~- ~ ~ I m ;.~ll .. >! . ~ j Ill j .u.~.· ... , ; ~ ~ 11 IJ ll n 11 . ., j l 1 ti l ' l ' '! . 1 1 ~~1 11,j til ! 'l ti:J ... t l \ ' . ,---'._ 62/3 it would project that total demand in the year 2,000 would not exceed x with probability p). I.S. Comparison of Demand Projections with Other Forecasts -The results of the previous subactivity will be compared to previous studies of Railbelt electricity demand. Major differences, if any, will be recon- ciled and/or discussed. I.6. Panel Screen -In keeping with Acres' proposal to the Alaska Power Authority, the results of Activity I will be reviewed by an out- side panel and modified as necessary. !.7. Preparation of OGP-5 Input-Acres intends to use GE's OGP-5 program. during Activity III, and it will be necessary to prepare demand forecasts in a format compatible with that program. The da.ta base .for Alaska may be insufficient to provide a complete basis for some inputs required by OGP-5, and Acres will retain ultimate responsibility for determining these inputs. However, Woodward-clyde will provide the best available estimates for the required inputs within the schedule and budget constraints of this subactivity. 3.2 Activity II: Consideration of Alternatives The objective of tbis activity is to provide the necessary infor- mation for an evaluation of each generation technology or other means of addressing the Railbelt's future power requirements. This activity does not evaluate the alternatives, except for the elimination of clearly inferior alternatives. Activity II consists of six subactivities (se·2 Figure 3.2) as outlined below: 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •.·· 11 /~ ~- .1} .~ I} _j 11 11 IJ v· 11 IJ I ll II Jj .. 61/11 Proposed Activity II: Consideration of Alternatives ***II~l. Identification of Evaluation Measures -Cost Consideration (Capital Costs) O&M Costs, Busbar Costs, etc.) -T2chnical Feasibility -Public Health & Safety -Environmental Considerations -Socioeconomic Effects -Institutional \)nsiderations -Reliability -Licensing & Regulatory Considerations -Lead Time ***II.2. Selection of Alternatives Considered -Susitna -Other Generation Alternatives -Non-Generation Alternatives ***II.3. Development of Information Base for Alternatives -Identification of Uncertainties -Development of Information Matrix **II.4. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives -Classification of Alternatives Based on Type & Size -Elimination of Clearly Inferior Alternatives ***II.5. Panel Screen · .. **II.6. Preparation of OGP-5 Inputs t Figure 3.2. Subactivitiea Proposed for Activity II *Woodward-clyde has principal responsibility **Acres has principal responsibility ***P~sponsibility is jointly shared t8 ' I -I I ij 1-~1 . I . I ~-J ·l t l l ! ' 'I -; ~ l . ~.1 i·····.l • 1 5 ·~·I 1 ..._ fl .·.!(! ·I· I · r L, ' l I j l -'/ -~~ I. I . 'l • i . l 1 'I·-.: ~ l i i '·; r I .. l. '~ i . ! 1 , •.. ; ,, -. Jil: 1 ·'. l . i ·. 1 ~ \ j ~.·J: . l ' . I . 1····1 t< I i ! ! 11 ! ! 1 1 1.1· :.·. ; . 1 62/3 II.l. Identification of Evaluation ~~asures -There are a number of characteristics which must be considered to defensibly evaluate alter- natives and discriminate between them. A preliminary list of important ·• characteristics is presented in Figure 3.2. These characteristics will be identified in this subactivity, and evaluation measures developed that can be used to summarize how well each alternative addresses each characteristic • II.2. Selection of Alternatives Considered -All potential alter- native means for meeting the need for power in the Railbelt will be identified and discussed. A preliminary list of alternatives to be considered is presented in Figure 3.3. These altetnatives can be clas- sified into three broad categories as shown in Figure 3.2, II.2. II.3. Development of Information Base for Alternatives -Rel~ vant information on important characteristics will be collected for eilch of the alternatives under consideration. This will also include assessment of significant uncertainties affecting each alternativeo This information will be used to determine the level of each evalu- ation measure associated with each alternative • IIo4. Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives -If alternative A is no worse than alternative B on all characteristics and is superior to alternative B on at least one characteristic, then alternative A is clearly supe:rior to alternative B. This concept, known as "dominance," may be useful to identify certain clearly inferior alternatives within the initial list of alternativese The remaining alternatives will be evaluated using more detailed analysis in Activity III. II.5. Panel Screen -In keeping with Acres proposal to the Alaska Power Authority, the results of Activity II will be reviewed by au out- side panel and modified as necessary • \9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •• I I t, ... : ' ... I I I I~ c r \ '·· ·I f. .. ' I I ,. ~ •... .~.: . •' I 'I I l I '"··' ' ~ : I; I • 62/11 **•· Susitna Hydroelectric Project • Other Generation Alternatives *Fossil Fuel Alternatives -Coal-Fired Steam Cycle ~ Oil-Fired Steam Cycle -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle -Oil-fired Combined Cycle -Natural Gas-fired Combin.ed Cycle -Oil-fired Combustion Turbines -Natural Gas-fired Combustion Turbines *Nuclear Alternatives -Converter Reactors (LWR, HWR) -Breeder Reactors -Fusion *Municipal Solid Waste *Wood-fired and Peat-fired Steam Cycle *Biomas Gasification Applications ~*Biomass-fired Steam Cycle **Wind Energy Driven Turbines **Geothermal Energy Driven Turbines *Solar Thermal Steam Cycle *Solar Photovoltaic ••Solar Satellite **Cogeneration (Industry, District Heating, Institutional) W**Hy~~o and Tidal Alternative -Other Conventional Hydro Developments -Small-scale Hydropower Plant Potential -Tidal Power Resources of the Cook Inlet Region **• Non-Generation Alternatives -Conservation (Forced'.~ or Induced) -Load-Management -Other Figure 3.3. A Preliminary List of Alternatives Considered *Woodward-clyde has principal responsibility **Acres has principal responsibility I .,.,,,¥""!: i I ~ ~ I l -I --I I ' I ' i ;I I I I' ~-~ 1 ' ' 1 --J IJ 1 1 li r' ! • . \ ' 62/3 r II.6. Preparation of OGP-5 Input_-Acres intends to use GE's OGP-5 program during Activity III, and it will be necessary to pre- . pare information about alternatives for meeting demand in a format that is compatible with the program's input requirements. OGP-5 requires considerably more detailed information about some aspects of the alternatives than needed for Subactivity II.4. Thus, addi- tional work will be needed to prepare the OGP-5 input. The data base for Alaska may be. insufficient to provide a complete basis for some inputs required by OGP-5, and Acres will retain ultimate respon- sibility for determining these inputse However, Woodward-Clyde will provide the best available estimates for the inputs within the sche-· dule and budget constraints of this subactivity. 3.3 Activity III: Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options The purpose of this activity is to analyze the information gene- rated by Activity I and Activity II to arrive at a preferred strategy for electrical development in the Railbelt. Because of the sequential nature of development decisions and because of the uncertainties sur- .o rounding these decisions, it is unlikely that a single deve1pment plan will be most desirable under all circumstances. It is likely that while the best initial step in the development process may be clear, the best decisions further in the future will be dependent on how un- certainties are resolved over time. To analyze this type of situation it is necessary to develop a model which can simultaneously analyze many pos~ible future scenarios. One of the most successful approaches to this type of problem has been through the use of a decision tree uf the type shown in Figure 1.1. Activity III consists of six subactivities (see Figure 3.4) as outlined below: il ~. I \1 I I ,, :1 I ;I I I I I I I I I [t \J,.v . ,., ' " I .,( -~ .. ,"', .. r., _,..,.. I 'I .. ,.il I J]. ",... ' ~-. ''•, ... 'I JJ IJ I 1!. IJC 62/5 Proposed Activity III: Preliminary Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options ***III.l Development of Evaluatil)n Measures • Economic Factors • Public Health and Safety • Environmental Impacts •·Socioeconomic Impacts • Institutional Factors *Ilia~ Assessment of Evaluation Function ***II!.3 Identification of Sequential Decision Options *IIIo4 Identification and Analysis of Uncertainties • Uncertainties in Demand • Uncertainties in Fuel Prices • Uncertainties in Other Economic Considerations • Uncertainties in Leadtimes for Alternatives • Uncertainties in Other Evaluation Measures ***III.5 Identification of Preferred Options • Finalize Decision Tree Structure • Make Necessary Simplifying Assumptions •·Implement Computer Algorithm • Make Model Runs *III.6 Performing Sensitivity Analysis ***III.7 Panel Screen ***III.8 Documentation and Interim Report Preparation Figure 3.4. Subactivities Proposed for Activity III. *Woodward-clyde has principal responsibility **Acres has principal responsibility ***Responsibility is jointly shared 22 ~ I ~ ~ ' ~~ i l :~ ~~.· '1 :~ ' j ' \ . \ 62/3 III.! Development of Evaluation Measure..!_-A critical initial step in developu1g a decision analysis type of model is to identify the objectives that are to ba achieved in selecting a development strategy. Discussions will be held with a variety of experts and interest groups to identify the widest range of concerns related to .electrical devel- opment. These concerns will be organized ar.d consolidated into a hierarchy of objectives. Some objectives likely to be included are: • Minimize costs e Minimize impacts to public health & safety • Minimize environmental impacts • Minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts •,Minimize adverse institutional effects Once the objectives have been agreed upon, a set of evaluation measures will be developed., These ~ill be quantitative scales that explicity express how well a development scenario achieves a particular objective. III.2 Assessment of Evaluation Function -The evaluation measures defined in Subactivity III.! characterize the "quality" of a particular development scenario. It is unlikely that a particular scenario will be more superior or inferior on all the measures than the others. 'rhus to identify a preferred scenario it will be necessary to make tradeoffs between various levels of the different measures. This is a task that necessarily involves subjective judgement. We propose to use _E.echniques f1:om multiattribute utility theory to assess the preferences for these tradeoffs of a group of individuals identified by Woodward-clyde and Acres and to encode these in the form of a multiattribute utility func- tion. This function will allow the evaluation measure values to be combined into a single number which indicates a scenario's overall desireability. I I I I I I I !I •• I I I I I I I ,I I E. .r . I . _} I .1 62/3 III .. 3 Identification of Sequential Decision Options -Each gene- ration scenario will consist of two elements: a string of expansion decisions interspersed with a string of resolutions of uncertainty over time. This subactivity will use the results of the identification of alternat;i'Tes ~>.:\ A.:.tivity II and of Acres' OGP-5 computer analysis as the basis for con~1:ruction of sets of sequential decision options that will be avai]ab.1e at particular points in time. The OGP-5 analysis should be particulary useful for estimating the financial consequences of including various generation alternatives. Of course, there are an almost infinite number of alternatives which may be chosen at a given time (e.g., "continue Susitna feasibility studies and construct a 100 MW turbine unit and implement a time of day pricing scheme" might be an alternative that is chosen at a single time). In order to keep the size of the problem tractable, a representative set of alternatives will be identified for analysis for each stage. In addition, it may be desireable to break certain large projects such as Susitna into sections (e.g. Feasibility Studies, Licensing and Construction). Once the initial set of altertt.atives (i.e. the alternatives for the first decision stage) is .identi.fied, the consequences of selecting each alternative. must be assessed. These include changes in the set of alternatives that may be selected at the next stage, and impacts on the evaluation measures as a result of including the alternative in a development strategy. III.4 Identification and Analysis of Uncertainties -The second major component of the decision tree model will be a careful analysis of the uncertainties which influence the choice of alternatives at each decision stage. Thase uncertainties fall into two categories: demand uncertainties and uncertainties in the consequences of selecting a particular alternative. Demand uncertainties were structured in Acti- vi~y I. Here these uncertainties will be incorporated into the decision tree model. Uncertaintie$ affecting the alternatives were initially r·\ I ,,,~ , 'i j ; . -.~ ' .\ J\ i .. , ' J ~~J ~ -~ " J. J ·. 1 ¥ 1 •'\ .. .J '\ \ :r .. J !Y' • ·: \ .., . ~ ~ .. 1: ; ·, ( \ .... . .,"" ... 62/3 structured in Activity II. Care must be taken at this stage to make sure that interdependencies. and uncertainties affecting more than one alternative are properly incorporated into the decision tree structure. Subactivities III~3 and III.4 must, of course, proceed simultaneously and will result in the completion of the decision tree structure. III.5 Identification of Preferred Options -Wi~h the completion of subactivities III.3 and III.4 the decision tree model is essentially complete. Conceptually it is a simple matter to "solve" this type of model based on logically defensible principles of decision analysis and identify the optimum decision at each stage given all possible future .. outcomes. However there are two difficulties with performing this computation. First, the evaluation measures will have been developed to consider complete generation scenarios. Thus accounting procedures will have to be developed to allow the individual impacts of decisions made over time to be aggregated into overall levels of the evaluation measures and thus into a single value using the multiattribute utility function of subactivity III.2. This will be straightforward if care has been used during earlier subaetivities in defining the measures and in characterizing the various alternatives. The second difficulty is computatio:-:al in nature.. The large number of alternatives, uncertainties and decision stages can be combined into a tremendously large number of complete generation scenarios. It may be extremely costly to analyze each of these scenarios. If so, methods will be investigated to identify the optimum solutions without analyzing the entire tree. Pos~lble approaches includ~ Monte Carlo simulation and algorithms using the concept of probabilistic dominance. Much research has been done in the area of developing computer algor- ithms to analyze decision trees. It is likely that a previously developed algorithm can be modified for the current problem without ext~nsive I I· I I I· I I ·I I I I I I I I .I ,,, . I I ~. !JI ·~ . ·It 'ti I I 11 · .. [} I' J 11 I} ;I I I· 1--· 62/3 developmental effort. Significant programming effort will be required in structuring the data base and interfaces with whatever existing code is used; however this is expected to be straightforward. III.6 Performing Sensitivity Analysis -Once the decision tree model has been completed and an initial preferred strategy has been identified, it will be necessary to make additional model runs to see if the optimum strategy changes if the modeling assumptions are changed. These "sensitivity" runs will examine the effects of such things as changes in the relative importance of the evaluation measures and changes in the probability distributions of certain critical paramaters. Addi- tional runs may be based on the results of the panel screen, described below. lbe sensitivity analysis process will provide additional confi- dence and defensibility in the results produced by the model. III.7 Pa?el Screen-In keeping with Acres' proposal to the Alaska Power Authority, the results of Activity III will be reviewed by an out- side panel and modified, as necessary. III.8 Documentation & Interim Report Preparation -Due to the in- tense public scrutiny that is expected of the forecasting and modeling effort, it is necessary that each step be carefully documented. In addition, it is planned that 1.fter completion of the modeling effort an interim report will be prepared and delivered to the review panel ~md other interested parties. Summary of Activity III Figure. 3. 4 summarizes the modeling steps described above.. The im- plementation of the approach described above will provide a state-of-the art approach to the planning of generation needs for the Railbelt. It will have the advantage of explicity considering uncertainties in vari- ables such as demand and fuel prices. In addition, it will explicitly " l.\ ; ' j l ;I !I I 1 I J ~ t '.· .1·'· I' ; f I 1 ~ 1.· ~ ·. , ,l j l l I ' l l j i 1, i j ;j 1 ,l I I j 1 ,f I I l I 62/3 identify areas where subjective judgements have been used and will help focus discussion on these critical judgements. The technical elements of the model are well defined and have been successfully used in many other applications. Available computer codes can be modified to suit the particular needs of this problem. 3.4 ~tivity IV: Revised and Updated Evaluation of Sequential Decision Options The purpoae of this activity is two-fold: (i) to update the data.base by integrating additional information which will be available on all alternatives, particular~/ Susitna hydro- electyric alternative, and (ii) to revise the evaluation process, if necessary) in respcnse to comments and suggestions made following the release of Activity III Interim Progress Report. This activity can be subdivided. into four sub- activities: IV~l Revision and Updating of Information Rase -The objective of this subactivity is to integrate whatever new information becomes avail- able which may affect the results of the previous three activities,. In particular, it is expected that much usaful information about the Susitna hydroelectric alternative, not previously known, would become available. In addition, it might be necessary to revise and udpate the electric demand forecasts if given parameters have changed or new data has become available. Similarly, new developments on alternative energy sources may become available. IV.2 Integratit>n of Public InEl:!~ -Following the release of interim progress reports, particularly Activity III Interim Progress Report, interested parties may have certain objections 01: suggest improvements ~J \1 r], ·- r]. ~ fi'-J .,......._;, } I .J f·.;~ * !' ! I, 62/3 in the evaluation process. These suggestions can be integrated into the evaluation process at this point. :r.:v.3 Revision of Activity III Appro&ch -If necessary, the proposed approach of Activity III (and for that matter, those of Activities I and II), would be revised to accommodate the new information base and public participation input. IV.4 Revision o~ Activity III Results -The results of Activity III will be revised and updated as necessary by the previous three sub- activities. The end result of the above four activities (see Figur~ 3.1) will be fully documented and presented in the Final Report. Since the major work in this Activity will involve re-analysis of Susitna hydroelectric alternatives we anticipate that Woodward-Clyde would have a relatively small role in Activity IV. ! i I I J • ~ " !~1 f! i I ~ ... 4o0 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES Figure 4.1 presents ou~ proposed schedule for carrying out the WQQdward-Clyde portion of the Activities described in the previous sections. I "' I I I I ;I ;I; ,I ' ... ' II I 'I I I ;I I :I ·I I -~ , I ·fr .. ' I··~ ' j ... ··. ',1; . . . \ '...~ Activity I Activity II 1-1 Activity III Activity IV 0 ..L 6 25 5 - 3 4 - 5 -6 -7 - 50 WEEKS 8 75 (The numbers above the bars refer to subtasks.) Figure 4.1 SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 30 100 K -, ACRES PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING POWER GENERATION; ALTERNATIVES -THE DELPHl METHOD ,r;·, f', ~. 1', I'· l· 1:· 1.:' I. 1'. -. ...: I I~ I 1.> l' IJ t THE DELPHI METHOD The use of the expert panel under Task 1 revised scope of work (May 7, 1980) was and is intended to be based on a form of structured interaction among a group which eliminates the face-to-face "committee-type 11 sessions. This ~ethod, which replaces the group discussion with individual interrogations, is known as the Delphi method when applied to the problem of forecasting. The individual interrogatory will be accomplished by questionnaires with regard to their expectations for a series of future events such as: -energy and peak load demand growths; -applicability of cost incentive and mandatory energy conservation and load management measures (extent, effects and cost implications); -availability of various resources for electric generation in the Railbelt, their expected generic, economic, environmental and institutional impacts in the study area and in the state of Alaska; -overall impacts (economic, environmental, financial and marketing) of alternatives and alternative scenarios in the study area and in the State of Alaska. As obvious from the above, the panel of experts will be utilized under this method throughout the Task 1 study period and will participate in evaluating uncertainties inherent in forecasting electric demand (Subtasks 1 .01 and 1.02) in analyzing alternatives and conservation measures (Subtask 1.03) in assessing alternative scenarios (Subtask 1.05). The panel input within the application of the Delphi method is structured as a self-contained activity, namely Subtask 1.07. The panel will be solicited at least four times during the two-year Task 1 study. The four sessions will start probably during the weeks 24, 28, 42 and 94 and each session will last for three or four weeks. The last two screening sessions are scheduled conveniently to provide input into the two decision points. The multidisciplinary panel of experts will be established and the selection of its members will be made by APA. During each session, three subsequent rounds of questionnaires will be com- pleted. After the first set of questionnaires will be obtained from indi- vidual panel members, the numerical answers will be assembled as distributions defined in terms of means and quartiles and the qualitative estimates will be categorized in anonymous groups. These summaries and some additional questions by the interrogators (the project team) wi 11 be presented to the panel participants. Respondents will then be asked to submit revised estimates together with reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the initial consensus (the mean and a confidence interval). In the third and last round, the procedure is repeated, with additional commentary and impersonal debate. It is envisaged that three rounds will be sufficient to result in a.con- vergence and narrowing of the range of estimates and opinions. J I \I I ~ I ""1 I ' . ( I It is also hoped that the panel operation under the Delphi Method will eliminate major objections to the use of committees which decrease the overall efficiency, such as: reluctance to back down from publicly announced positions, personal relationships among individuals (antipathy or excessive respect), differential skills in verbal debate, etc. In order to avoid a·potential bias of the pollster (it may be that the interrogators, by selecting the questions, can to some extent guide the trend of the answers), the questionnaires will be reviewed by the client before being sent to the panel members~ Additional comnen"ts on related. matters, including the structure of the questionnaires, will be welcomed. - 2 The panel should include at least 12 to 15 experts to render the method effective, but a larger number would normally be required to allow for the effect of self-selection atOOng respondents {some experts may decide not to respond to particular questions). The self~selection is an important principle as it replaces subjective group interactions·, such as implicit weight factors which committee members instantly attach to each other 1 S opinions (giving least weight on a given issue to the opinion of the least informed). Previous experiences in applying the Delphi Method (TWR and Rand Corporations) have demonstrated that the distribution of individual forecasts tends to become progressively narrower and more sharply peaked as the successive rounds of interrogation and ·commentary occur. In successful cases" the result is a balanced forecast in which the best information available has been utilized in a way that no sample model or statistical extrapolation could have been able to duplicate. Alexis Ce Vircol (6/6/80) ,, {I I ~I I ~· I ·I ,, I s I ~I .I ·.1 "' ~J :I ·I .. , ~, -~ I ., 11 I I I L -"NOTES ON· MULTIPLE. CRITERION DECISION ANALYSIS I I ·' I lr \ --~ I, I ',.;;> .I I ........., I - I = AND, THE. ACRES APPROACH TO SUSITNA FALLS" (SIC) BY DR~ CHRIS CHAPMAN • • > I~ _; / .. ,;':!. 1., 1··:· " •' I . ' . ' ; I ·~ (: l i i1 ., . 1.· I I I I ' I ' ";' ; / l I' .• . NOTES ON MULTIPLE CRITERION* DECISION ANALYSIS AND THE 11 ACRES APPROACH" TO SUSITNA FALLS as requested by Gavin Warnock during a meeting June 5~ 1980 -Chris Chapman June 6, 1980 *The Woodward-Clyde document uses the term "multiattribute utility function" which is a special form of multiple criterion decision analysis • -- I ' ' I ltj ~~ ( ....... \ ,f Taking a decision like whether or not. to proceed with the Susitna Falls Project can be associated with five·aspects: (1) option identification (2) qualitative option evaluation (3) quantitative option evaluation (4) inefficient 0ption elimination (5} option selection. These aspects follow a logical sequence, but they must be pursued in an iterative manner, and they are not strictly independent. In particular, the fourth (inefficient option elimination) aspect has to overlap the first three using some of the values associated with the fifth to keep the task manageable:. However, when the decision. is public and politically sensitive, it is extremely important to avoid a restrictive approach to the first three. aspects~ and a questionable approach to the fourth. Cost effectiveness analysis (CE) is a widely used tool concerned with the third and fourth aspects {quantitative option evaluation and ineffi- cient option elimination). It seeks to remove options which are "dominated .. in the sense that they are worse than some other option w·ith respect to all measurable criterion. It is a very reasonable first step ·in terms of attempting formal decision analysis.. However, it has its critics. They argue it obscures. the second.aspect \qualitative option evaluation), and tends to make the option selection process dominated by technocrats. If it is to be used successfully, it must be seen as a part of the total deci$ion taking process, carefully and sensitively integrated with the other aspects~ • • -- .I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I I .I ,, I n I ~ ' LJ ' •• ' ·~ ( . ...., . '· I. I~ ••• I' ' • . I I I I '· I I I .,~ I ·I I ~ 1 .. j I ~--· I Cost benefit analysis (CB or BC) attempts to take the formal decision analysis process a stage further than CE analysis, by employing an aggregation process for the separate criterion measures generated for qualitative evaluation. This aggregation process is usually in money forms. It is indirectly defined in forms of perceived public prefer- ences (revealed preferences) as defined by past beha'Jior, and other considerations of this kind. It can be seen as an attempt to make even the ftnal option selection process.a formal decision ~nalytic process, but most proponents would advocata restricting its use to inefficient option elimination. It is a. very reasonable notion in some respects, but it has much str"'onger critics i:nan CE. In addition to furthering the technocratic smokescreen aspect, it has fundamental conceptual weakness·es. For· example, in 1980 all the people i.n Alaska might agree that of options A, B and C, they prefer A; but in 1985, these same people might a11 agree they prefer B. In both cases, they may agree for very different reasons. For· example, for some a new project may be a source of employment; for others,·it may be a source of pride; for· others it·may be the least.unattrac.tiv~ ~ource of environ- mental, pollution, and so on. The changes in these preferences may be for reasons difficult to quantify .•.. For example, expectations for the future may change, concern for future generations may change, as a consequence of a major accident, market change-11 and so on. A per- fectly performed CB study in 1985 based on 1980 urevealed preferences" waul d not only choose· A instead of the unanimous "corre~t·~ choice B, it wou~d do so in terms of upublic preferences 11 which are a non- existent 11 averageu of views wholly ir-recons.illable, needing discussion • . --- 0 . '' .• "s .. Jr. 11 --1 -::;t / ~~i.\:· .. ~~· ~ .. --: ... ·.-~-· -----·-.· ."·-.1.· ,_J ~· ~ ~) '. {;:;-' :..' :. I ,; 1'.1 . f j 1 . -~ ··lt ;.l . -: it 'I l . j l l i 1 § 'I -I ,l I l I ; I l i -J I I '4 .. ' ' of the case for B versus A qui~e impossible in terms of the CB itself • Some opponents of· CB would argue it i.s precisely becatJse it stifles discussion it is politically attractive, bearing in .mind the scope for selecting a way of measuring preferences which supports any choice you . might care to argue. Risk and uncertainty can be made measurable criterion in a CE or CB contex.t, in the limited sense that uncertainty v1ith respect to quantifiable criterion can be measured and considered in conjunction with other measurable criterion. The more usual approach is sensitivity analysis with respect to major and crucial sources of.uncertainty-- separate "what-if 11 evaluations. · Multiattribute utility function analysis (MA} does not have the . ..,. ... extensive development history of CE or CB, which have been used world wide for many years. It is a recent comparatively academic develop- ment of statistical decision theory. Its advocates (Raiffa and Keeney at Harvard and MIT, Moore and ·Howard at the London Graduate School of . Business Studies~ and others) claim to have applied it with success. However, it is a great deal more restrictive than CB analysis; it is theoretically based on a specific axiomatic framework which is not easy to understand; and it could easily attract substantial expert·criticism. . In effect, it takes the CB framework. several stages farther, imposing special preference structure forms on the way measurable criterion are 1 inked in ot'Qder to achieve a parti·ettl:a.r. form of "consistent" treatment of risk, insisting upon probabilistic treatment of risk. as a basis for analysis, and suggesting a formal decision analytic procedure can be • .. -- <) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I r1 J I ... I . I •. - 1 ;I I I I I l• I I I I I I I ,. I ... used with minimal reference to non-quantifiable 11 attributes." The concern for consistency is well founded in the context of repetitive discussions by sin9le decision takers if non-measurable attributes are constant or unimportant. It is not unreasonable in terms of a Susitna type decision, but it is not worth the price required by a multiattribute utility theory approach. Historically, ! perceive the emphasis on a total quantitative final choice selection arises from a wish to deal directly with multistage decision force~. The Woodward-Clyde document reflects thi.s, with its strong emphasis on 5- year decision point treese This sort of.decision tree structure clearly does underlie the problem situation, but it is not at all clear it needs to be treated by the rather simple-minded sledgehammer approach suggested. To stick one•s neck out with specific utili.ty functions in order to deal explicitly with such forces is a very risky posture to adopt, since no one apart from the panel involved will necessarily agree with the tradeoffs .. As I understand the ~Acres Approach," we are suggesting the use of a wide range of engineering and other skills (political, economic, etc.) to pursue aspects one to four as fully a·s possible. We have clearly overplayed the engineering side, underplayed the rest, but this balance is being redressed. Our intention is. to use some clearly defensible engineering, economic and politica.l judgments to weed out inefficient options. However, we could also use (I think should use) descriptive risk analysis t~chniques of the BP type to make similar structured judgmencs with respect to costs, market/cost combinations, and so on. • ... -- ,. ~··· "<'.' . T' \. ;' I That is, we could use formal analysis·techniques which are concerned with identifying and structuring the total picture, including participant responses to risks, providing a rational and consistent explanation for the. set of choices and scenarios we intend to assess. Having fdentified and· assessed a defens~b.ly ·representative .set of scenarios, we would not wish to suggest a specific optional choice· at this stage. One concern is "robustness," in the sense that we . , would suggest looking for options which preserve a satisfactory situa- tion over a wide range of potential outcome:5, .and do not court dis- aster for any forseeable possibilities. Attempts to measure robustness have been made (Rosen head., LSE., et a 1).. Its importance is widely recognized. It is comparatively simple to eliminate· non-robus·t solutions in a scenario framework,. but it is not a concept which can be optimized in the MA sense, no matter how detailed the decision tree structure employed.. Another concern is the "feasibility gap'~" between options which look attractive and parameters which participants may be able to change or may have to.wait to change. That is, the analysis would suggest which opt.ions are. currently feasible and .robust!' ff any, and which would become robust under.what circumstances. Detailed qut1ntitative and qualitative assessment would be provided for these choices. However, Acres would presume to use quantitative tradeoffs of the CE, CB or MA type only if it proved impossible to decide between a few remaining options, including the same basic project with different timings. If such techniques are required, they ought t~ be applied to such a b«tsis, and there is no reason fOr pre-j£fdgi:n.g.:wh.ic.h· might be appropriate. Onl~ when the first three aspects have Beert thoroughly . --... / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~.1 . l ) I .. I 1·- 1 i·l·· . ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I 1:.· ; I . I addressed can a. clear decision be made with respect to a suitable mechanism for final option selection; but it is more im~ portant to be clear about ·a degree of formality and structuring for the inefficient option elimination aspect. ·. As a consequence, the goal of an nAcres Approach" based on aspects one to four is a carefully det~iled set of potentially viable options, properl~ evaluated in·qualitative and quantitative terms, with clearly explained recommendations based. upon both formal analysis and judg- ments as appropriate. Acres would.not attempt to put pr.ob&bilities on possibilities which do not need probabilities in order to understand I their implications; Acres would not attempt. to measure considerations which would not be clarified by measurement; Acres would not attempt to use a specific valuation procedure like CE, CB or MA unless ·it would clarify a particular set of options in terms of relevant tradeoffs, and Acres would concentrate upon providing an information base which would allow those concerned to make a rational ~hoice based on a -clear under- standing of the implications of that.decision, including the actions necessary to ensure its success, and. the conditions.necessary to make it vi.able. • • . -- (_ , I J~ I ' ' I I ! . I I -~ I '· ! ' I . 1 I I, I< I • " ' I { '• .... _... II I r . TEXT OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM DR. C~ B. CHAPMAN June 20, 1980 June· 16, 1980 Dear Gavin:· " A few more comments on the Woodward-Clyde document in response to _ your cable .. I now understand Ralph Keeny is an associate of Woodward-Clyde, which explains their interest and experience with multi-attribute decision analysis, and their emphasis on its 11 state-of-the-art11 and 11 logica1, , defensib1e 11 nature. On rereading the document, it all makes reasonable sense, apart from the conviction that trees will have to be examined in activity III and the conviction that attribute functions will have to be measured, as distinct from measuring attributes, which I do agree with. The use of complex sequential decision trees is conceptually in- teresting in this context. Such models underlie all the BP risk analysis, although we make the analysis process more eff:icient by employing a "Semi- Markov Processu type memory-pruning the decision tree by restricting the memory of previous decisions to only those characteristics which matter, and we concentrate on cost-risk trade-offs for such model decision purposes .. As noted before, there are two main reasons for avoiding a direct decision tree approach of the kind proposedo One is conflicting objectives which cannot be put into a single preference function by a panel. If a decision theoretic approach were needed, Meta game approaches are more relevant. A paper is enclosed to illustrate these ideas. The second is the 11 optional ·solution" decision idea (which) is simply not relevant to such decisions in · my view--robustness is what must be sought, because any probabilities are highly objective, the planning hnrizon is so long, and so many people are • • involved who canndt participate directly in the decision. Multiattribute decision functions depend on the notion that there is a best or optimal decision given a consistent set of prefer~nces and a valid set of subjective probabilities. When the validity of the p;eferences and the probabilities is in doubt, this is not a defensible emphasis, and it is certainly not a • I I I I 1- I I I I I I I I I I I .I I r1 L~.J ...-::;::.::;:::' ,,;--- -·--~ .. 1---·-·-·-·· .• ;.. 1 I; ·~ -,. t I I I I I I I ,~ I I I I I I ' I I -2 . defensible premise. The Woodward-Clyde document does discuss sensitivity analysis, but it plays down the notion that an "optimal" decision in a decision theoretic sense may turn out to be an unmitigated disaster, or "non- 'optimal" by a wide margin in the majority of possible outcomes. A 11 robustness based" approach would explicitly try to avoid these possibi1i~ ties, and .it would provide information of the form if fuel cost x is greater than y by a factor of z for at least w years and cost is deemed most important, provided no major.~. and --- etc. then choice A will be best --we think these are reasonable assump- tions if x relative to y . . . . . . however B saves only ••. relative to A etc. hhis sort of information is what will be needed to make future decisions at .the decision points associated with the Woodward-Clyde approach -not the multiattribute decision functions, and there is no comparative advantage for their tree based analysis as a description of the future. Hope all ~oes well in your discussions with them. Please let me know if you want further comments. Best wishes, Chris .. " I ' I ~ . .:-·---:-\ i .. .J . .. ~-)"' ., . ... t i .. ' .. I l J l t ..... .I I I • 1 I I I . 'i . : ; ''=-' ~-· s ... \\•1 .ll." rr .';· tl• .~,.~ l'l!':~lllh•ll i'.~"'' ltdl'll'O l'nnte.! m (;,,-,ulltn.t:n • Opo:t.UII'no~l ~CJ~e;sr~h s.-..,ny 1.111 Metagan1e Analysis of the Poplar River Co11flict NIALL M .. FRASER and KEITH \V. HIPEL Department of Systems Dc:sjgn Engineering. Uni\'ersity of Waterloo. Waterloo. Ont~trio, Canada The technique of metagame qnalysis enables the assessment of the political feasibiiity of engineering projects. The building of a large power plant in Saskatchewan. Canada. has resulted in a conflict hetwecn Canadian and U.S. interests over the apportionment of water in the Poplar Rh·er. which Oows across the international border from Saskatchewan into the American State of Montana. Metagame analysis is used to determine political resolutions to the Poplar conflict based on lhc published preferences .of the interested prtrti.:s. It is shown that mctugame ;maly:;is conveniently organizes information and provides in~ight into conflict resolution. INTRODUCTJON IN 1974 the Saskatchewan Power Co!poration announced a plan to build a thermal power plant which would use water from the Poplar River in southern Saskatchewan, Cunada. Because the Poplar River flows from Canada across the international boundary into the United States (U.S.), protests were immediately made by the potentially affected parties. The conflict does not possess a simple solution due to the divergent interests of the concerned groups and the international scope or the project. Consequently, the Poplar contlict constitutes a current political problem for which some type of op~rational research technique can be used to aid in the analysis. Af etagama Analysis or the analysis of options has been suggested as a tool for analyzing water resources conflicts 1•2 and has been used for the analysis of other forms of con- flict>'-!" In metagame-anaiysis a conflict is considered as a yame with a limited number of players, where each player has a specified number of options. Information about the preferences of the players for outcomes associated with the qonflict is used to determine possible equilibria or resolutions to the conflict. A detailed explanation of the technique is gi,·en by Hmvard 6 and also Hi pel et at. 1 Following a description of the Popl.ar River conflict, the problem is formulated as a game. Metagame analysis is then employed for predicting feasibl~ political solutions to· the conflict, using published information to assess the preferences of. the interested pnrties. If special knowledge about the conflict exists. the analysis should be performed with the preference structure, player selection. or possible options which are most relevant. HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT The Poplar River Basin lies in the southern part of the Canadian Province of Saskat- chewan and the northern part of the U.S. State of ~1ontana. The river and its tributaries How southward to join the Missouri River near Poplar. Montana. The Poplar watershed encompasses an area of 8620 km 2, which is about the ~ume size as the basin of the River Thames. The northern third of the Poplar watershed is in Saskatchewan, while the !-outhcrn third lies within the Fort Peck Indian Reserve. in Montana. Except for a few small towns the area is rural. with. a population of about 7·-8000. The Poplar River region has been subject to severe. droughts which have lasted as long as a decade. The Poplar River has an average annual .. tlow of 42,000 cubic decameters at the internntional boundary. three-quarters of which occurs in the spring runoff which may last from lO days to 3 wccks.7 This can be compared with a flow of 1,000.000 cubic decameters annually at the mouth of the Thames. 377 • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' . I ~ i "\ ••• I I I : I . I I I I I I I l I i I I~ I I I j I i l ! . I ~ I I I I .lou mal '!/lht.! Opaativua/ Rt.•search Society J ~1/. 31. .Vo. 5 TAillr. I. PJ.AYt Rs ,,:--1> ol.''IHl:-,~ 1-oR Till: Ptli'LAR c·o:-;n.wT Suskmdu:wmr J,on·t•r Corjmratum Prm·inre of Stl$l.tlldzrwtm Fort Peck lndimr ·Tribes State of ,\-fcmtaua U.S. Stulf Dcpcmmelll Cmwditm Gm:ernment U.S. Gmwnnumt lmemmitmal Joint Cmnmis.'iion Opt11111 · huild inithil power plant build c~tcndl'<i puwer plant -hu.ild to full capacity import water -legal action based on Doundary Treaty and Helsinki Rules · huild full irrigation project -build reduced irrigation project -· legal action based on Boundary Treaty --legal action based on Winters' Doctrine --legal action bused on environment:ll concerns -Jcgnl action based on cn\'ironmcntal concerns -Hction based on environmental concerns -·action based on en\'ironm~ntal concerns -support apportionment ra .. ·ouring Canada -support apportionment favouring U.S. -support 50-50 apportionment --uction based on environmental concerns ' For the Fort Peck Tribes. two options include all the possible: irrigation projects which are available. It is assumed that there will be enough water to support the full irrigation project with a 70--30 split favouring U.S.A. and the partiaL project with either a 79--30 split favouring Canada, or else a 50-50 apportionment. In 1977, the I.J.C., the Canadian and U.& governments, and the State of Montana all indicated that water und air quality studies arc underway. Until these studies are com- pleted these parties cannot express positions on the conflict relating to water and air quality. The other player which expressed conceril about environmental quality is the U.S. State Department, but it has also indicated that it is in supporrt of any apportion- ment agrcement.7 The aforesaid would suggest that the two aspects ·Jf the Poplar conflict, apportionment and environmental conCf!rns, can effectively be separated. They are of course interdepen- dent, but because of the time factor, expressed options relating to environmental con- cerns cannot be freely chosen by the participants to have bearing on the apportionment conflict. This separation reduces the number of significant players in the conflict. Further simplification can be made by noting that the interests of the Province of Saskatchewan and the S.P.C. are identical. They are then considered as one player, whose total options include the options of both. The list of players and options for the. apportionment ccmflict as adju~ted in this manner may be found as Table 2. The ordering of players and options in Table 2 is used in the ensuing mctngame analysis of the Poplar Clmllict. An outcouw is indicated by a vector of ones and zeros, TARLE 2. PLAYERS AND O{'TIONS FOR. Til F. ,\I'PORTI(>:-IMI!~T c:orn·LICT Saskatchewan Power Corpc>rlltion Furt Pe,·k lntlimi Trilu:."i . ·. llflermltivtml Joilft Commi:;sioli Option ·-·build initial power plant -.. build extended power plant -build to full capacity -import water -legal ucuon bused on Boundary Treaty · .. build full irrig<lllun project -build reduced irrigation project -kgal acti~m bused on Boundary Treaty -lcg:alaction b~tscd on Winters' Doctritu: -·lluppporl apportionment favouring Canada -supp(\ft apportionment fa\'ouring U.S. -.. support 50··50 apportionment 380 ,,,.,, ·(i -.\J > d ' . ' ·1 ' 11 ! . ... . I I I I I I } I I .. . . ·--------·-. -. .• i I N .. \!. Frasc.•r wrd K. IV. Hipd-,\fetaJJWllt' Analysi., ~~!the Poplar Ril'cr. Conflict where a .. 1 .. opposite an option indicates that the option is chosen by a player, and a ··o" opposite an option means it is not selected. An outcome is written as a column in the metagame analysis tables. as can be ~el~n in Ta~lc 5. or is written horizontally in the text, where each position corresponds to an understood option. Thus [10000 0001 100] is · determined from Table 2 ~o mean the outcome where the S.P.C. builds its initial plant. the Fort Peck Tribes pursue legal action on the basis of the Winters· Doctrine, and the I.J.C. supports an apportionment scheme which favours Canada. Sometimes it is con- venient to place a dash, denoted by ··-", opposite an option to indicate either a ~~1" or a .. 0 ... Hence a column which contains 11 dashes represents 2" specific outcomes. PREFERENCES The. preferences of the players in a conflict must be ascertained in order to perform a metagame analysis. In the Poplar conflict. the S.P.C. would prefer as large a power plant as possible, but would prefer not to import Walcr because of the great expense involved. The Fort Peck Tribes would prefer a fuJI irrigation project to a partial project. A gener:il assumption can be made concerning the decision on the parts of the S.P.C. and the Fort Peck Tribes to initiate ~·legal" action. 1t is reasonable to say that a party would favour legal action if it anticipated.winning, and would not favour legal action if it expected to lose, In some situations this would not be true, such as a suit advanced to satisfy political pressure, but in the Poplar River conflict it is reasonable to determine the players' preferences for court action on this basis. Since the I.J.C.'s recommendation can be expected to parallel a judgement made by it should such ajudgementbe required, and the opinion. of the I.J.C. represents the most sound analysis available, it is assumed that legal action based on the Boundary Waters Treaty will fail unless supported by the I.J.C. recommendation. Thus either the S.P.C. or the Fort Peck Tribes are likely to initiate legal action when supported by the I.J.C., but not otherwise. The Fort Peck Tribes indicated that they may initiate legal action under~ the Winters' Doctrine under any circumstances other than a 70-30 split favouring the U.S. 7 The I.J,C: must ··secure the interests of both countries ... 7 Because it is in the interests of both Canada and the U.S. to have the conflict resolved, it would be preferred by the IJ.C. to make a recommendation. However, beyond this no preferences are permissible for the I.J.C. This player must remain impartial, and hence the I.J.C. cannot even levy sanctions against other players when performing the met(Jgame analysis. OUTCOME REMOVAL AND lVfETAGAME ANALYSIS The J 2 options in the Poplar conflict imply 2 12, or 4096, possible outcomes. There is no need to exhaustively examine aU of these outcomes becnuse only a few of them are worth considering as possible equilibria. The process of determining which outcomes constitute likely equilibria can be called .. outcome removal'' bccuusc outcomes that are identified as not being likely equilibria arc removed from the full set of outcomes. A large number of outcomes can be removed from the model on the basis of loeical infeasibility. O.ne form of logical infeasibility is where options are mutually exclusive .... For example, the S.P.C. cannot build more than one plant, the Fort Peck Tribes cannot build more than one irrigation project, and the IJ.C. cannot support more than one allocation plan. The removal of logically infeasible outcomes cannot incur any possible loss of information. and the number of outcomes remaining in the model will often be very small. For example, in the hypothetical dam allocation problem examined by Hipel et a/ .• 1 removal of the logically htfeasible outcomes reduces the set of possible equilibria from 1024 to a mere 16. After rc)noving logica11y infeasible outcomes from the Poplar con11ict. 768 outcomes remuin. To lurther reduce the number of outcomes to consider for analysis, it can bl.! noted that many outcomes can be removed on the basis that they recognisably will not form an equilibrium. For example. consider the set of outcomes [------1---1-J, which means ~ . .. 381 ' > I I I I I I I I I I •• I I I I I I I I· I I I I I ---- I : ... I I " r f \ . I ·= I ... "~--..,--~ ... ..... ~ .... ~ :...~ .. .~. I I ' I I I I I I \.. . .. I I· JPtmwl of til£• Opermimwl Res£•w·dt Society Vol. 31, No. 5 Outn•llh'.'i 11--- 1-1-- -11-- 11-- l 1 t- 1-t -11 -r-o--1- --10--1- --10---1 1---1-- 1-----1 ----1 -1- --1-1-- ---0 1-- ---0 --·1 000 000-- l\0-- --1- TAHLF. 3. LIST OF Rt:M0\'1.1> OUTCOMES -logically infeasible -logu:ally infca~ihle • -·logically infeasible -lugically infeasible -logicallv infeasible -·k,gically infeasible -logically infeasible -extended pl.mt not possible with only 30~-~ apportionment \\ithout imported water -complete pl<tnt nul po:.siblc \\ ith only. )()" .. appmtionmcnt witht,tU imported water -complete plant not polisible with only 50",. apportionment wit~HlUt imported water --full irrigation prnjcct not possible with only 30~~ apportionment ftlr u.s. -full irrigation prujcct not possible with unly 50",. <~ppllrli()nmcnt for U.S. -S.P.C. will J1f)t go to,court if not supported ~Fort .Peck will not go to court under the Boundary Treaty if not supported -Fort Peck will go to court under Winters• D(lctrine unless favoured ...:.Fort Peck will go to court under Winters' Doctrine unless favoured -the J.J.C. should make a recnmmcndation ~the S.P.C. will build some si1e of power plant -Fort Peck will build some sort of imgation project -it is too e~pcnsive to import water under an}' circumstances TARI.E 4. META<iAME ANALYSIS 01-Till! REDUCED SET OF OUTCOMES outcomes examined ·s.P.C. Initial plant 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 J l I 0 0 0 0 Extended plant 0 0 1 1 o.o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I l Complete plant 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Import water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legal-Boundary I 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 I 1 Forr Peck Build project 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Partial project 1 1 1 1 1 1 () 0 0 0 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I Legal-Boundary 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 I 0 l 0 l 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 t:csal-Winters' 1 1 1 1 1 l 0 I) 1 I 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 l.J.C. Favour Canada 1 I 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Favour U.S.A. 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 1 1 I I 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support S0-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 I l 1 1 1 t Swbility• S.P,C. i i i' i . r s r s r s s r l r r Ft.P. r s s r s r r i i i i . i i i s i s r i r l:J.C. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O\'erall u u u u E u E u u u u 1.1 u u u u u u E u u u Not est 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2. 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 • Notation: r = rational~ s = symmetric metarational; i = inescapable impro\ement; u = unstable for some player; E = equilibrium. . ; t Notes: \ 1: The S.P.C. would inescapably improve to a larger plant. 2: Fort Peck would inescupably improve to a larger project. 3: No need for t:llUrl action. 4: Fort Peck would drop the noundmy Treaty legal action . 5: See Table 5. 382 ... ,.. .. -.. "' .. l ;~ ' J ;I I 1 -l ~ J -~ 'l - ' •• I f I .. I .,.-... : ( ..,::_,;.~ •,.'t"::;'~- --·~~'---· ,-. .,),_~-~·~~ }'~ ... - -. l I .. ' . . ·-I I j l J I N. M. Frwier ami K. n·: Jl ipt!I--M ewoamt! Ana/ysL'l <?f rile Poplar Ril~er Conflict TABLE 5. STARILin' II!'OAL~'SJS Of OUT('l)ME [JGOOO 0100 UIOJ fOit TilE SASJ;.ATC.:HEWAN POWER CORPORATION Particular Preferred outcome Not preferred S.P.C. Initial plant 1 Extended plant 1 0 Cumplc:te plant 1 0 Imponwater 0 0 0 Legal-Boundary 0 Fort Peck Build project 0 0 0 Partial project I l 1 Legal-Boundary 0 0 0 Legal-Winters' 0 0 0 JJ.C. Fa,•our Canada 0 0 0 0 0 Fa'!lour U.S.A. 1 1 1 1 J Suppon so-so 0 0 0 0 0 Unilatc;al i~provomenl I I lnescapabte sanction that the Fort Peck Tribes build their full irrigation project and the I.J.C. supports an apportionment scheme which favours Canada. Clearly any outcome in this set js not a likely equilibrium because the Fort Peck Tribes would always prefer not to build the full irrigation project if there is not enough water to supply it Table 3 lists sets of outcomes which have been removed from the complete model. All these outcomes are. either logically infeasibl~, or may be removed on the basis of pub- lished preferences. Removal of these outcomes leaves 22 in the model for furtlier con- sideration. A computer program was used to remove the outcomes in Table 3 from the total set of ... outcomes, and ~ach of the resulting outcomes was subjected to a complete metagame analysis. The final results for the 22 remaining outcomes are fmind in Table 4, and an example of the actual analysis required to obtain the stabiJity results for the outcomes in Table 4 is shown in Table 5. The mathematical theory defining the various stability states listed in Table 4 may be found in the references1.6 , and examples are presented below. Consider analyzing the particular outcome [10000 0100 010] for stability using the meh1game analysis algorithm. This is the situation where the S.P.C. builds its initial plant. the Fort Peck Indian Tribes build a partial irrigation project, and the IJ.C. supports an apportionment scheme whi·ch favours the U.S. Table 5 illustrates the meta- game analysis from the point of view, of the S.P.C. From the particular outcome, the S.P.C. can unilaterally improve itself by building the extend~d or complete power plant. Howe\'cr. there is an inescapable scmction available to the Fort Pe~k Tribes in this situation. since they can initiate legal action based on the Boundary \Vaters Treaty, or on the \Vinters· Doctrine. The sanction is inescapabre because the ·s.P~C. can choose no options thut would subsequently result in an outcome which would be preferred to the particular outcome. as denoted by the ~ashes opposite its options on £he not preferred side. Because the I.J.C. :mpports an apportionment ~cheme that docs not permit an extended or complete plant on the pitrt, of the S.P.C., the legal action woufd lik~1y be successful. This credib/1! sarJction would'deter the S.P.C. from unilaterally moving away from the particular outcome to :.t more preferred outcome. An outcome which pqssesses stability of this type for a given player is said to be symmetric nu·rarlltimwl. 1 •6 By choosing to build a full irdgation scheme. the Fort Peck Tribes afso have a unilateral improvement from the particular outcome which is under consideration. This 383 .. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. I I I rl ,~_j 0, r-· ':; ~ .. ----·" ---- I ........ .. • ... •.ft "' ..... ... .. ~-fl' . . ~ .. _ r .. _I ·I ---------~ -. Jl· .. ~"'---.. . --.·-==· . ··.~~ .. •• 1: .. I I I I I I ---.. I l . j ' ,. i Joum~l of' tile Operational Research Society Vol. 31~ 1\·o. 5 is an inescdpable improt:emem because no matter what the S.P.C. subsquently does, the out.comc produced is invariably preferred to the narticular outcome. Consequently1 the outcome (10000 0100 010] is unstahle for the Fort Peck Tribes. Because the i.J.C. must act in an impartial manner, all recommendations are equally preferred and thus. there is no outcome which is preferred to the outcome [10000 0100 010]. TI1erefore, no unilateral improvements exist for the l.J.C. and the particular outcome is rational for that player. The outcome [10000 0100 010] is the. eleventh outcome from the left in Table 4. Following down the column, a code indicates the stability of the outcome from the point . of view of each of the players. As has just been determined. the table indicates that the outcome [10000 0100 010] is symmetric metarationally stable for the S.P.C., that there is an inescapable improvement for the Fort Peck Tribes, and the outcome is rational for the I.J.C. If an outcome is unstable for any player, as [10000 0100 010] is for the Fort Peck Tribes. it is not a possible equilibrium in the game. This is denoted in Table 4 by a ''u"' opposite .. overall ... When an outcome is stable for all players, it is an equilibrium, denoted by .. E", and a possible resolution to the conflict. In the Poplar analysis there are three equilibria, each of which depends upon a poss- ible I.J.C. recommendation. In the situation of an apportionment favouring Canada, the analysis suggests that an equilibrium wiii occur with the S.P.C. building the complete plant, and the Fort Peck Tribes building a reduced irrigation project while going to court on the basis of the \Vinters' Doctrine (fifth column from the left in Table 4). Where the apportionment favours the U.S., the suggested equilibrium is with the S.P.C. building the initial plant only, and the Fort Peck Tribes building the full irrigaiion project (seventh column in Table 4). With a 50-50 split, the eq·i1ilibrium has the S.P.C. building the extended plant and the Fort Peck Tribes building a reduced irrigation project and going to court on the \Vinters' Doctrine (nineteenth column in Table 4). Resolutions to the conflict are suggested for each of the three likely I.J.C. recommendations because the I.J.C. is considered an inactive player. At this point in the study, if the analyst determined that the l.J.C. would be more likely .to choose to support one apportionment plan. the corresponding equilibrium would. suggest the expected activities of the other players. For example. if the S.P.C. determines that the J.J.C. is likely to choose to support a 70-30 apportionment favouring Canad~ it may wish to make commitments for a greater amount .of power than available from a smaller plant. 'However, the mctagame analysis suggests that the Fort Peck Tribes are likely to pursue legal action based on the Winters' Doctrine. and the S.P.C. should be prepared to counter such action shou'ld they feel the threat is significant. From the point of view of the I.J.C. an analysis such as this may be useful in selecting a recommendation. It appears that if the I.J.C. supports either a 70-30 split favouring Canada or a 50-50 split. the conflict wiJI not be resolved. because the Fort Peck Tribes \VHl pursue legal action based on the Winters' Doctrine. As it is important for the conflict to be resolved, the l.J.C. may consider this a rationale ror selecting to support an apportionment plan favouring the U.S. lt will be interesting to see how the conflict develops, although the associated environ- mental conflict will al~o have an influence. The finai I.J.C. recommendation was a 50-50 split, with modificcttions to accomodat~· Saskatchewan. although an apportionment agreement will not be signed until the U.S. government submits an Environmerttal Im- pact Statemcnt.1s As of December, 1978. the initial stage of the S.P.C. power plant is near completion, and the Fcrt Peck Tribes have not followed through with any legal action bnscd on the Winters' Doctrine, 15 although they mf.ly do so in the future . . •. CONCLUSIONS The technique of mctagamc amtlysi~ has hc~3n US(~d to successfully study the political implications of the complc~ Poplar River apportionment conflict. The method provides: t. a systematic procedure for interpn!~ing conflict information~ j84 • j . r . .. -.... ;-" ...... --- ~"'" ·:: -~-------.. _..... .. .. , . · . . , J ;. \ .. I ! • ~ • N. M. Fraser am/ K. ~V. 1/ipel·-kletaomne Analy.-,is c~f the Poplar Ril't'r Ccmjlict 2. a framework for forcing a. thorough understanding of the conflict, 3. new insight into the conflict. 4. a means for predicting possible solutions to the conflict, For the Poplar River conflict. metagame analysis predicts that. based on the appor- tionment situation in late 1977, the responses of the jnterested parties were dependent on the forthcoming rec·ommendation of the I.J.C. Both the S.P.C. and the Fort Peck Trib.es would build projects which would usc up as much water as permitted under the T.J.C. recommendation, and in addition, the Fort Peck Tribes would go to court on the basis of the Winters' Doctrine if the l.J.C. did not support an apportionment pian favouring them. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors \\ish to acknowledge the ';nancial support of the National Research Council of Canada. and the assistance of the International Joint Ct,mmission and the CJnadian Departmcn1 of Exrernal Affairs. REFERENCES 1 K. W. HtPEL. R. K. RAGADE and T. E. UNNY (1974) Metagame analysis of w:.uer resource5 conflicts. Paper of the Technical 'Council on Water Resources Planning and Management. J. Hydrmll •• Dil'.. ASCE 100. 14J7 1455. 2 K. W, Hn•t:L. R. K. RA(iAI>Ii und T. E. UN~Y (l';l76) t-.tctagamc: theory ~md its applicatinus 111 w~1t.:r rc!iources. Wm. Rc•,'\our. Re.~. 12. 331-·339. 3 N. HowMc.o (1970) The Arab-Israeli conOlct; u mctagame analysis. Technical Report. Department of Sys- tems Design, University of Waterloo, Waterloo. Onl<trio. Canada. 4 J. M. Au:XAND£R (1975) An operational analysis of conflict in Northern Ireland: an American perspective. Paper presented to the Northern Irelund Constitutional Convention, Belfast • 'K. J. R~DFORD (1977) Complex Ded,dan Prohlem.~. Reston. Reston, Virginia. ,N. HoWARD (1971) PtJrudoxes of Rationality. Tlu!orJ' of Mettzgames mrd Polirictll Bclraviour. M.I.T. Press. Cambridge, MA. ' 7 lNTERNATIONAL JOJt.JT COMMISSION (1978) 'iazi!r ApportiCinment tn th~ Poplar Rh•tr BasirJ. Report to the Governments of C~mada and the United States. Ottawa, Canada. Washington, C.C. ' 8 S~Sii.ATC'HEWAN POWER CoRPORATION (1974) Antrual Report. Regina, Saskatchewan. 9 SASKATt11EWAN PowER CoRPORAnoN (1975) Amm&~l Rl!port. Regina, Saskatchewan. 10 SASKAT<11EWAN POWER CORPORAnON (1976) Annual Report. Regina. Saskatchewan. 11 lNTERNt.tTIONAL JotNT COMMISSION (1965) Rules of Procedure and Te~t of Treat)r. Ottaw.11. Canada. Washing- ton. D.C. 11 PROVINC'E OF SASKATCIIEWAN (1976) A brief rcspecli11g water apportionment in the Poplar River Bnsi11. Coronach. Snsk:ltchewan, May 27, 1976. · 13 C. J. CttAC'KO (1968) The Imernalional Joint Cmnmisian Bl!rween the Unftcd Sttlll!S of Amt!rka and the Dominion of Ccuwda. AMS Pres.-;. New York. 14 Personal communication Y.ith Samuel Wex, a leealadvisor in the Canadian Se:.:retadat l'f the l.J.C .. Ouawa. October 23, 1978. · - 15 Personal communication with Anne Park of the Canadian Department of External Affairs. Onawa. Octp~r 30. 197S. .. .. 3MS • -, t . 1 ~ ''-J ~1 ~-~ ~l \:. __ J J Ll ~J .. 'j ~ I ~ jid .:, .J J J J J n _j I I I I I·. I I •• I M: -· PRELIMINARY DRAFT' REPORT ON WIND POWER I I I I I ·I I I A~IU SU.SIT'NA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT .. 1··. OFFICE MEMORANDUM .; I I I I I I ~· I I I I I I I I I -·~ I ; . 1 f : __ ,\ . ~ I i ·; . .. -,# .. . - TO: DISTRIBUTION Date: June 18, 1980 FROM: JoK. Landman -Anchorage File: P5700.14.01 SUBJECT: Wind Power Study -Pre 1 imi nary Draft Attached please find a copy of my report on Wind Energy in the Alaskan Rail belt .. &ue· to the ongoing foul-up on Task 1, I have not had this draft retypedo Also:t I recognize that some areas m.aY need additional work. This version is intended to gather internal comments on format and content. It is my impression that the client expects at least this amount of effort for each alternative examined. Please examine the report and return your comments and suggestions to me in the next couple of weeks. If it would oe any easier, simply mark up a copy of the affected page (s) and send that. JKL/ja en - o J.D. Lawrence -Buffalo J.D. Gill -Anchorage i :j I I ·~ t ' "i ·-· '" I ' I l { I I j i t'HNO ENERGY 41 OJ A. A BRIEF HISTORY Although windmills have been used to generate electricity since the 1890's,. the ancestry of the modern 1 arge wind turbines dates back to the early 1940's. In 1941 the first wind turbine rated over on~ megawatt was assembled near Rutland, Vermont. This experimental machine, rated at 1.25 megawatts, sat atop a 110 foot high tower and had two stainless steel blades, each weighing more than eight tons, circumscribing a 175 foot diameter circle. The turbine oper- ated successfully fr·om late 1941 until 1943 when it was taken out of service for the. replacement of a bearing. Because of the war:~ such parts were virtually impossible to obtain and repairs were not completed until 1945. Shortly after being returned to service in 1945, a turbi.ne blade fai·l ed and caused the shutdown of the mach·i ne. Analysis by the project's backers showed that the economics of wind power at that time did not warrant further study and the experiment was abandoned. Some experimental work continued after the failure of the Vennont unit, but subsequent efforts were on a smaller scale: on the order of 100 to 500 kilowatts. Most of the development work done in the sso•s and •so•s W(. carried out in European countries, notably Denmark~ Gennany, and France •. 1 1 ] 1:-J, " '"" ~," 1-" 1 :1 ~)' :J ] ] I ,) I .. 1 ~· J J ·~ ,I~ ·-· I I I I I I I , •. .. I I I I I I I ;I/ I '· . B .. 2 RECENT U.S. RESEARCH . [2] ,[3] The present activity in the United States in large turbine research began in 1972, when the National Science Foundation and NASA made the.joint reconrnendation that:wind energy be developed to broaden tho~e energy alternatives open to the nation in the future. In 1973, the National Science Foundation was given the responsibility for the Federal Solar Energy Program. The National Science Foundation, in turn, designated NASA's Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, to manage the development and early installation of large wfnd turbines. ~ As a part of· this work, NASA began work in 1974 to design, construct, and operate a wind turbine for research purposes. This turbine, designated 11 MOD-0 11 sits atop a 100 foot high tower, and has a two- bladed rotor 125· feet in diameter. The turbine•s generator is rated 100 kW at a design wind speed of 18 miles per hocr. The MOD-O unit went into operation in September 1975, near Sandusky, Ohio. The . . MOD-O has been used to conduct research studies in the areas of blade dynamics, aerodynamic performance of large wind turbines, and the dynamic interaction between the wind turbine generator system and the . thl$ tv1cc:J-i"e utility system to which it is connected. As such, tA€ ~00 a-is being used primarily as a vehicle by which to test new wind turbine components and design ideas. The MOD-O wind turbine test program was followed up, beginning in 1975, by the MOD-OA progranf 4J The object of this effort was to bring large wind turbine technology out of the research phase and make it avail- able to the uti.lity industry. ' ;; l J. In $ ~f· l 3 Three MOD-OA wind turbines are presently on-line and operating at Clayton, New Mexico, Culebra, Puerto Rico~ and Block Island, Rhode Island, with a fourth scheduled to be brought into service in 1980 in Hawaii.[Jj . . it.s ·-' Exc~pt for~ larger generator of 200 kw (compared to the MOo-o•s 100 k\1), the MOD-OA is essentially identical to the MOD-O. Some equipment design deficien:ies were uncovered early in the program, but these were corrected as they appearedo So· far, no serious prob- 1 ems have been encountere~ and all three MOD-OA machines are opera t- ing successfully as the first modern units to be incorporated into U.So utility systems. The next step in the evolution of modern large wind turbines in the U.S. was the MOD-1 design.. With conceptual design work beginning in 1974, the first MOD-1 unit was dedicated in July 1979, at Boone, 5 . North Carolina.[J] [!f This. turbine· is equipped with two blades sweep- ing a 200 ·toot diameter circle (compared to the 125 feet of the MOD-O series). The generator installed at the Boone site is rated at 2000 kW (compared to the 100-200 kW of the MOD-O and -OA units). As of this writing (May, 1980), this first MOD-1 unit, altho~gh operational, is not without its problems~ The spinning blades cause a flickering television picture on some TV receivers within a 1 to 1~ mile circle. This problem was anticipated by NASA engineers from the beginning of design work. The problem seems to affect only those residences having -rv- specific receiver/turbine~station relationships. In early or mid 1981, plo.n1 +o NASI) .w+-H install a set of composite (fiberglass) blades on the Boone 1 ¢). •. ] ~'I ,_ ' I' i/ ~ ... -~ I I I I I !1. 'I ,, .. . . ,; '\ .#.· I I I I I I I '.1 I ' machine.. This is expected to greatly reduce the sever·ity of the interference problem. . 4 A problem neither anticjpated a low-frequency sound created by the spin11ing turbine blades. This noise, called j _.;Cfrasoun~' is apparently the result of resonances between certain local topographic features and the turbine. The effect has been noticed mainly in an area within 1 to 1~ miles from the unit site. NASA is planning on trying a lower rotational speed for the turbines, hoping to reduce or eliminate these resonance problems.C"iO] . C. PRESENT STATE OF THE ART The present state of the art in large wind turbines is exemplified by the MOD-1 unit installed at Boone, the 4 megawatt units·presently undergoing fabrication for installation at Medicine Bow, Wyoming,[G] · and the three units being manufactured under the NASA-sponsored MOD-2 program.[3][7] The sizes of these units represent nearly an order of magnitude dif- ' ference in terms of power output over. the earlier designs. The MOD-O and -OA units have served their purpose well as test units. The knowledge. gained from their operation has been incorporated in the larger units. The MOD 72 units for example, will be constructed with a tubular tower rather than an open truss tower; a special 11 tettering 11 hub will be used on the rotor to allow the blades to rock to-a~d-fro as winds of different velocities strike different parts of the blades; a hydraulic coupling will be installed between the rotor and the generator to r~educe the speed variations imparted to the power train 1 1 l ·I ' .• · 1 I l 'j I j I I ~ J ~ f D. l I \f .. ,..._,.,, l I 5 components by gusting winds. Many of these design improvements have served to reduce the amount of materials needed for structural strength of the assembly, thereby reduc·i.1g the cost of the units and making the cost of the ene·rgy produced by those units lower. The ~nit being installed at Medicine Bow, Wyoming, is part of an ambitious plan by the Department of the Interior•s Bureau of Recla- [~] vl4;;,.,fL "-< mation to develop a large windmill "fann. n Their~> plan is t0 in- stall approximately 49 large turbines at Medicine Bow and feed the energy produced by this fann into the existing interconnected e1ec.- ' . tri cal system serving the area. Si-nce the Bureau of Reclamation· also feeds this system with a number of hydroelectric projects located throughout the West, the energy produced by the wind· turbines could be substituted for that nonnally supplied by the hydro units. In this manner the amount of energy produced by the wind turbines is stored in the reservoi.rs for 1 ater use. The Alaska Power Administration, formerly a part of the Bureau of Reciamation, is·presently exploring the possibilities for incorporat- ing a large wind turbine with the operation of their 35 megawa~t · Ekl unta hydroelectric plant northeast of Anchorage. (g_] Although not on as large a scale as that being considered by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Alaska Power Administration's wind/hydro system would be functionally similar. LIKELY FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS . t:l<ely · Mast near-tenn· future work {1980-1990) on wind turbines wil~produce 1 1 ] :1 1 [I . ' '] 1 :J I .I HI .I J I ! ~· . ! I Jl I Jl l Ill) f Jj l j ' ···~""""· .. _, __ 1 · · . :; .;.:~·<;-:~ iJ"1i~t. ·;::·i::rj·~ ~:·. '·. ' .:::.:::\~-~~1.,.~!': <!:, 41 ,. ~~,;..i~~l(l~·:::;,fi.:~:: ... r;.fl~~·1~u.-~·~ ~~~~_.. ... ~,~-~·~~ .. :, ~~} ·. I' .l \ ". I ;I I I I I I ~· I I I I I I I . .... I ' 6 no radically new designs or larger units. Generator sizes are not likely to go above 5 megawatts; blade sizes will likely remain below· 400 feet in. diameter. Work will concentrate in evolving designs which are attractive to utilities from both economic and. operational standpoints. NASA is presently adminis.tering contracts -Far. the MOD-5 and MOD-6 wind turbine designs/(There will b~ no M'JD-3 or MOD-4). [7] These two designs, both having completion dates of late 1983 or early 1984, have the following project goals: MOD-S This will consist of a series of large machines in the 3 to 4 megawatt range. Early design proposals have rotors· with 300 to 350 foot diameters. One of'the contract•s design requirements is that the contractor produce a machine capable of producing. electrical energy for a cost · r,in ;q77 dollars of not more than 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Designs are based on the availability of a site with a mean wind speed of 14 miles per hour at an eleve:tion of 50 feet. MOD-6 The product of this work will be an intermediate sized unit whose only constraints will be a 125 foot diameter ,q,., rotor and. aAcost of electricity of less than 6 cent~ per kilowatthour. 'The design and wind will be the same as that mentioned in the MOD~S description. ,: I 1 ;~ j ·~ . I I ,1 ~ ~ 1 I I 'l 7 The units produced by this work will be applicable in two distinctly different utility situations, both which may be of interest to Alaskan utility planners. The MOD-S units would be useful to rela- tively large interconnected systems such as those in the Railbelt. The smaller MOD-6 machines would be more useful to small isolated systems such as the remote villages. Application of any type of machine is, obviously, dependent on finding a suitable site for their installation. This topic will be further explored in Section G. E. COSTS AND TRENDS As with virtually any emerging technology~ the costs of large wind turbines built to date have been exorbitant. The experim~ntal unit installed in Vermont in the 1940's cost $1.25 mi11ione[l] In terms of today's dollars, this would represent nearly $13 million (6 percent . ; ' annual inflation assumed). The MOD-OA unit was· erected in 1975 at a cost of about $1.61 million~ or just over $2.1 million in terms of today's dollars (again assuming a 6 percent inflation rate). The Vermont machine was more than five times larger than the MOD-OA unit in terms of power ratings, so on a per-kilowatt basis, the newer machine would appear somewhat less expensiveG Capital costs of Wind turbines have fallen drastically as newer designs have been developed and more units are built. NASA gives • ] ], ·r ,_ :1 1 ~. "' ' ~· ,, '] J J I I I ·-' I I 1 l I r ; ' I '"'I l I 1 I l i ,,,) i ! I ! l l :J~ I ' \ t I n f 1 ! ' Y'Jf-..,l I l I - " •• I ..,, '" \ "·-· I I I I I I I .... I I I I I I I . . t· I 'lhe following data for capital costs of prototype units:[J] MOD-OA (Installed 1977) MOD""l (Installed 1979)- MOD-2 (Installed 1981) g~~it(!mionst~---:~)6~ 1 __ l;_$___~;4 ) --~$ _ !~~ ( 8 ... ,.. 1 / a. isn Cost Per ! f ~;S....,,.u Kilowatt · $8,050 $2,700 $1,350 These costs are all given in terms of 1977 dollars, the basis of com- parison used by NASA's wind program group. As the large utility-sized machines gain acc~ptance and make the transi- tion from one-of-a-kind prototype machines to standardi·zed production units, costs can be expected to come down further. For the MOD-2 units, NASA studies have produced data to support the following comparison: PROTOTYPE MOD-2 Capita 1 r.$ 3 •. ~7 --, Cost (mill ions1'--~ -1--_v --- _....) Cost Per f · Kilowatt $1,350 c..l 05e., \ v~ . PRODUCTION MOD-2 -~~~$ ___ ~~~ l_ ) ( al~~, $ 860 Studies of smaller machines, offspring of the MOD-OA program, show the following cost projections: MOD-OA ~-----------------~ Advanced 200 kw Unit Capital [$ 1.61], Cost (mi 11 i ons'f--1 - ( .) Cost Per Kilowatt $8,050 --_( $ . 0.203 ~ ----1 ------.. _ ,.....J ( c..l;ct,., $1 ,015 ~ "----------~ Again, these figures are given in tenns of 1977 dollars. f j 1 1 ~~ ~,, ~~ : ; '·._/ . 1 1 ~ •1 ~ I 'J 1 ~ ~ ~c. ~ I I I ·I : .I . I I ,[ -·· \ •.. ,! I i I 9 NASA is not the only organization forecasting costs of wind turbines, although a literature search seems to show that they have produced the most detailed cost surrmaries. A finn in Massachusetts) JBF Scientific Corporation~ has al~o done a great amount of work in the field of wind energy. They have summarized the results of eight other studies on wind .energy system economics to provide a common basis to compare the variations of conclusions among researchers. [ii] A summary of the . capital costs identified by the JBF study are shown below. Also shown is NASA's estimate of the MOD-2 cost. " JBF STUDY COST ( $/kW) (1977} Lockheed-California Company 1150 Southwest Research Institute 815 Honeywell 700 Kaman Aerospace Corporation 650 AerOspace Corporation 560 General Electric Company 480 Average -,25 NASA (Pr·oduction MOD-2) 860 The JBF costs, originally given in terms of 1975 dollars. are shown above as adjusted to 1977 costs by using an inflation rate of 6 percent . annually. The NASA cost of $860/kw differs from the averaged JBF figures by about 25 percent. Considering the level of .experience in wind turbine system use, this seems to be a good correlationo For further work, the figure of $800/kw will be used (1977 dollars) and later adjusted to 1980 levels. This figure is approximate.ly the average of the JBF and the NASA estimateso ] ], l :1 1 ' 1 ~ 'I . ••• I I I J .I J NASA has broken the costs of their units down into various components.[3] ~· I To adequately incorporate these values in the complete alternatives J I . ' I . ' ).. " c ) '-·' I .,.1 ,. I I I r I tit '~~.f I I c.~.'/ I .:::::::J 10 study, certain adjustments must be made. First, all of the costs must be scaled down to the $800/kw level~ then some correction must . -' be made for transportation to and within Alaska and erection there~ finally, the 1977 dollars must be inflated to 1980 levels. The process is summarized below: CATEGORY ORIGINAL NASA COSTS Rotor $ L29,000 Drive Train p79,000 Nacelle ;184,000 1\) Tower I 271 !I 000 C.~~~\.. \el Transpor~atio~ 29,000 ~'no~ D'ljd Site Prepara-' L :===Jj on ~ 62,000 '-t'. ...... ---:::s;:; -I ~ \ Erection and Testing \137 000 \ , Spares and : Maint.Equip. ·. 35,000 I $800/kw ALASKAN COSTS COSTS $ 306,000 $ 306,000 353,000 353',000 171,000 171,000 252,000 252,000 27,000 54;000 151 ,000 211,000 127,000 ·178,000 33,000 33,000 Misc. 35,000 33,000 33,000 SUBTOTAL $1., 61,000. -$1~453,000 · $1,591,000 FEE (10%) 156,000 145,000 159,000 · TOTAL $1,717,000 $1,600,000 $1,750,000 w \-\.~ ""-.. "I.iiJ. ("' " l1.· . 1980 ~ .,.., COSTS ). ~oJ'\\ \IJ 0.1 . '(\fj ~a; ~ ,.. (j.\~~')(1'() Jr'' r~A The ·adjustment to transportation, site preparation, and erection and testing c s are only very rough estimates;[l2.]but should suffice for I ,y "~ t~'" !. 1-' ' _., I ,, ... ' ·" ·I .__:; Inflation figures used·to derive 1980 costs see""~ ~ ~-'" ""'4 .I.e 4 .t4.c. t::e~tttp~,.+tt '~ l l . ·i I I ~ I ~ I I 11 Other costs which will be incurred by operators of wind turbine systems will be those associated with operating and maintaining the units'. .For this data, NASA figures will be used as a starting point. [J] Again, adjustments must be made to take into account inflation and Alaskan cost differentials: CATEGORY ORIGINAL NASA COSTS ALASKAN COSTS 1980 COSTS Labor Parts \k JqBV . TOTAL $ 8,000 7,000 $ 15,000 $ 11,200 7,000 $ 18,200 $ t4 1 JOO a, eoo __ ~ 1.2 I']() 0 c, ~ s~ A ~S.J tw\.(. ~ ~if\ "-"~'~""~ 1 These figures ar·e based upon per-unit costs for operation and mafnten- i 4\~ -1.; 01\ • ~ r. ance of a 25 un1t cluster. y~~L ~1 . . 1. o.S f'Git'-011 -r. A ·f-igure of merit commonly applied to any type of generating faciJ ity is the cost of electri<..1ty as sent into the power system to which it is connected. This figure is called the cost of electricity {COE) and is usually expressed in tenns of cents per kilowatthour or mills per kilowatthour ( a mil is one tenth of a cent). The cost of electricity is computed as follows:[3] COE = {_To_t ....... a ..... l _c __ ap,_,i_t_a l __ C_os_t__._( $.,_)_X____.(,_Fl_Q x ..... e_d _C_ha ....... r_g ....... e_R_a_te__.(~%~)) I Annual Energy Production (kWh) ' ~---~• · + {Annual I O&M Costs ($) X (Levelizing Factor)X(lOO) Annual Energy Production. (kWh) wH[R[~the total capital cost and the annual O&M costs are developed as described above; the fixed charge rate is a capital levelizing factor which takes account of .items such as returns to investors, depreciation, taxes, insurance, and cost of money; the levelizing factor .·~ '0 I _______ ,I l I ~ ~. .. , • . cl .. r:l ~~ ') .I WI J i I i I I I I j I ! J I I .. 1 I j I i I I I I .,, I· ( I I ! .. 1 l .I I l fl l r I {>t~.:, .. ~ (# ,,~---··· .... .~ ·I'.·. ,· ' ~ i . .. I I I I I I I 'I I I I IJ I I I ••• I ., l l ' applied to the O&M costs is used to levelize those costs which tend to increase with time (labor costs, etc.) as well as to account for cost or capital and real escalation~ The levelizing factor applied to this work will be 2.0. l -F. TALLATION AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS 12 By the nature of the work carried out in the wind research programs to date, the installations in existence may not be representative of future large wind energy systems. In these future systems~it is. quite probable that a number of geographically dispersed sites, each consisting of a cluster of individual turbines~ will feed an inter- connected power system. Such an arrangement~has at least two distinct advantages over either small numbers of units at a site or onl¥ one group of machines connected to the system. The advantages of a large number of units at one site include shared transmission facilities; shared costs of site operations and maintenance; a reduction of the number of spare parts which must be kept on hand for each unit (presuming that individual units ar·e not unique); simplified· pennit- ing procedures; a smoothing out of the average power produced at the site under conditions of gusting winds. The advantages of the develop~ ment of a number of wind energy sites within an interconnected power system include a reduction in the probability that no contribution to the system • s energy supply wi 11 be made by the wind turbines; in the cases of geographically variable winds a reduction in the ·~ I .. ~. f l l 1 l I 1 ~ J I l ~ ~ ' i t ~ ~ !I f ' ·. ·I • .'! \f .... _. j I ' 13 vulnerability of the wind energy supply to loss of transmission faci1ities. The number of sites which are attractive for develop- ment of wind energy systems is dependent upon the economics and availability of those resources which the wind energy systems are intended to replace. As. these other resources become more expensive or scarce, more marginal wind energy sites wili become economically feasible to develop. Early in the course of wind energy resources • development, only those· sites having the greatest potential for annual energy production will be developed, with the less desirable sites· being developed later. At the individual sites there is also a 1,;mitation on the extent to which the wind energy can be exploited. As wind passes through the blades of a wind turbine the airflow becomes somewhat turbulent. This turbulence dies out away from the turbi·ne. Since. wind turbines operate more efficiently in undisturbed airflows, it is desirable to avoid this turbulence. At least one study[f3]has been done which shows that this turbulence is not present at a distance of 15 rotor diameters from the turbine originally causing the disturbance. This same refer- ence also makes mention of researchers using machine spacings of 8 and 10 rotor diameters. For purposes of this study, clustered machines will be assumed to be spaced 10 diameters.. It may be that in the case of a site having highly directional prevailin winds, the crosswind spacing of machines within a cluster coul~ . significantly reauced without reducing the efficiency of the group. No studies of this area of concern have been locate~~o the extent to which advantage of this ~l ~'I ~, rl ] 1 _I· '_J J J I ,J I I l I ! I <J I I I i ' ' l L--J J .f} } i~ 'I "''"J I ! ill ~11 ll. ,1} 11 I) I I} ! 11 I] ~ ll m I) 11 m ' . ' I . ~ 'J!· I 1· ... 14 idea can be exploited cannot be estimated. A critical factor in the evaluation of wind energy systems is the availability of the wind necessary to dr1ve the turbines. The charac- teristics of the wind at a particular site detenmine the suitability of that site for development. A record of the amount of time that a site experiences a particular wind velocity for a given period (daily, monthly, yearly, etc.) is used to describe the wind characteristics at that site. When presented graphically, such information is called a wind duration curve. The source of data used to derive wind duration is generally hourly wind data taken at meteorological stations. In many cases, these stations arG located at airports or in cities devel~pments deliberately located in areas of relatively calm :winds. For this reason, the energy potential of a particular site cannot nor..: mally be estimated from data established stations. Thus, for final decision making purposes, insttumentation must be installed at any proposed site to establish, with some degree of confidence, the true energy potential of that site. Fortunately, it is not necessary to blanket a study area with meteorological stations to make a rough esti- lnate of .the sites within the area which may be candidates for development. Studies have been done in recent years to " •.• assess the potential for wind energy conversion systems on a national scale and to identify high potential application (areas} for WECS.11 [l 3][l 4] Unfortunately, these studies are concerned wifh ve·ry large geographic· areas and cannot . be used for more than a very crude estimate of where wind energy si tez may be found. As a first pass for identifying potential sites within -'--··-----··-·-:-=-...... _,...._,__ __ ~------...----.,.-·""V --.--,·-··--~~~--·-·~···-'":0"'·":-;----·········-··· ... ---·-·"'·· .---·--~~. (:; yU 1 ;1 ' t :1 I ! ~ ~ \ ~ :j I ! j -1 I I I I ' l l ' ' ,. ,I • \ .... .,.,.1 15 a study area, an examination of a topographic map can provide a number of clues for the researcher. In general, broad flat areas such as 71;/f/~ ~1 a ins have relativelyAwind potential; rugged mountainous areas may cause such turbulence so as to not be useful as wind turbine sites; tops of smoothly rounded hills set in relatively open areas can make excellent sites; mountain passes or saddles aligned with prevailing winds are also good candidates as are narrow valleys leading out of . ,~vQ.\ li~ flat open areas when aligned withAwinds. By studying a topographic map of the study area and looking for specific features which would tend to channel prevailing winds into a relatively s "', ~(!e... +c.o... ..\..._yc,s small area, investigators can identify the valleys aRfl flasses which may indicate the presence of a relatively high wind potential. From that point, if the nuw~er of candidate sites identified is greater than that which would be practical or economic to instrument, there are a couple of methods which an be used to verify the researcher's suspicions. At least one study has been located which draws an' inference of wind conditions at a particular site from the deformation noted in vegetation growi.ng at the site. [l 5] This study shows that trees growing in consis- tently windy areas will tend to grow with their branches bent toward the lee side of the tree. It is also shown that tree trunks tend to grow eliptically, with their centers offset to the windward side of the trunk. The information gained from such tree growth, while it can show the presence of a strong wind potential, establisl~ent of the average wind speed at the site cannot be done with much certainty. At sites where no ~~istinct prevailing wind direction is present, di~tortions may . -1 1 (._./1 ~~:l :·1 r} l....:;1 f '1: '-- ~· J L_.;.... .J ,] .J .. J. . __ I .J J 1 ~·' ..1 -·--~·-·-··--·-~"-~1"'-"·-·-·---.---.~----·",0''"'-" ..... -......... ---·-··-··-···~--------.~·.·1-. ---- .. ·~ . . '.!}~;~·;.~ ',~...Iii.-·-: i 1_;.}; .,. ·Li) .; . 1 '1 d l ·~ J 'i H ,, , i !I ri •! 1 i i I ! :! 4 i l i i i ~ i ·" j a ~ ~ I 1 ~ i ' ·l ~ l ~l f. · ... 1 r ~·1 r:. t It /' !"i. \ I '' c ·~ j l j ' l ~ I ' ·I 4 .J i f ;J ~ .I '· Jl l ~ J , ~ . ;l · .... j ~ 'l u.,}< ~ .. t aJ ._} ~ I J " 1 " . ··t !,,...-) ~ J ~ ·J ... J ' .. { ·~ . .I -~' ~l 1 .J 16 not be present since the trees are su'bjected to winds from various directions. Additionally, deformation of trees can sometimes result from competition from other trees for space or sunlight~ or othe~ causes. Such a situation can be misleading to unwary researchers. Despite these drawbacks, this phenomenon can be applied to confirm, to some degree, a researcher•s initial hunch about a particular candi- date site. It can also identify the presence of high wind areas which may have been overlooked on an initial study of available topographic ma.ps .. Another promising method for identifying areas of high wind potential uses high-P1titude aerial photographs or LANDSAT imagery.[lG] By using such infonnation, researchers can identify ground features which are created or changed by wind action. To date, the techniques needed to estimate the available wind energy at a specific site from infonnation ·taken from sattelite photos 8~~· not exist. Future research will no doubt refine the knowledge in this area, but reliable information -------canno~gathered in this manne~entli) Another method which may prove useful in the future is that of numer- ical analysis on computer modeling. As a part of the Federal Wind . . Energy Program, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is undertaking the development of a methodology to estimate wind energy potentials in mountainous areas. [l?] Their work invol~es the development of a computer • model which simulates the interactions between airflow and topographic features. to identify those areas having high wind potential. At this point, these methods are in the developmental stage, with researchers refining their models and attempting to verify the computer study l 'J 'l ~ t' ~ ' '1 J ~l 1 ·~ -~ '~ ~ j t ·l ~ /4 "'i -l 1 j ~i 1 ' , ·-~ I l 'l ·~ '·~ J 1l ~! "1 \ J ' 1 : , ' J 1 . j ·~ ~ I, "'";t - ', \ .. , results. No consideration will be given to use of these techniques for the remainder of this study •. 17 Beyond those condiderations of wind energy available at a particular site, there are a number of environmental impacts associated with the installation of wind turbines. It would seem that a source of energy such as the wind turbine would be environmentally benign, but this is not necessarily true. The most obvious impact would be the aesthetics of a wind turbine or wind turbine cluster. In virtually all instal- lations, the wind turbines will be the tallest, and most prominent~ objects in the surrounding area. There are those who may object ·stren- . uously to the idea of a gi."'oup of, or even a single wind tu·rbine, intrud- ing on a ·favorite view. This1 to some extent is understandable with the ·newer large units~ with proposed blade sizes of up to nearly 400 feet the wind turbines will exhibit a profile unlike any other man-made object. The aesthetics of a wind turbine installation and their implica- tions on the decision to proceed with construction is a subject which . will be resolved in public debate. Land use impacts associated with wind turbines is relative.ly small on a per unit basis. A smal1 clear- ing at the base of the unit is required for tower installation and space for assembly of this turbine and its blades~ Additionally, access roads must be cut and transmission line rights-of-way established. . ' These 1ast two requirements caul d conceivably share the sa.me space. No consistently adverse impacts on animals, birds, or·insects living in the vicinity of any of the operating wind turbines has been noted.[lS] ~nother serious matter deserving consideration is that of safety. When t:'1e blade· on the ear-ly Ve.nnont machine failed, it was thrown about 750 feet away from the machine·.[l] A wind turbine installation in Ugashik~ 1: •• ·:I -] l J 1 •J'. 1 • l .-:J- 1 ,, '1 . I I I I •• •• I ? ':•! ~·~ 'j I ,J ., ' J I .J I ,, t·J ' * ' ' 18 Alaska failed in 1975, scattering debris for a quarter of a mile. [l 9] ·rhe consequences of being struck by flying blade parts could be serious . -: ....... e_ ed IIIU • A single MOD-1 blade weighs roughly ten tons. Studies done by NASA estimate that a large wind turbine operating at 40 RPM could con- ceivably throw a blade 550 feet~ZO] The slower machines, such as the MOD-1 (35 RPM) or the newer MOD-2 units (17.5 RPM) will have correspond- ingly-lesser throw distances. Another problem associated with wind turbine operation is that of elec- tromagnetic signal interference. This phenomonenon has manifested itself at the Boone, North Carolina MOD-l site, with reports of television i nterfer:-ence being received from residents as far as 1·:1 /2 mi 1 es from ·the site. The television interference appears as a 11 ghost 11 which fluc- tuates or flickers in time with the rotation of the blades. In severe cases, the entire picture· can exhibit a pulsed brightening and even a disruption of the vertical synchronism of the TV receiver with. complete br.eakup of the picture.[20] A more critical form of interference may be the potential for interaction w.i.th aircraft navigational systems. The Federal Aviation Administration has established regulations concerning the maximum tolerable level of interference with VOR {J_ery High Frequency ~nid'irectional B_ange} stations and has indicated minimum allowable distances of scattering source locations from VOR sites. Analyses carried out to examine this problem have indicated that if wind turbine siting is carried out within FAA guidelines, there should be no signi--.. cant interference with air navigation signals. [20] · t I I f I l ' ' " i 1 ' ~ J i ' 1 .:;:ol -( J !, I " ~ !I ., ,J ; ~ l 1 j ~ ' il il -~ I 4 ' ' rj j u 1 -.t .... ""'"' l , __ / 19 G. ALASKAN STUDIES AND INSTALLATIONS The most definitive work completea to date on wind energy in Alaska has been carried out by Professor Tunis Wentink, Jro, of the Geophysical· Institute of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. [lg][ 21 ][22] Presentl~ Or. Wentink is collaborating with Mr. J. Wise of the Arctic Environ- mental· Information and Data Center (AEIDC) to produce a 11 \~ind Energy- Atlas 11 for tha U.S, Department of Energy's wind analysis program. Their work is being carried out under contract to Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Washington. A final report is scheduled for rel ea.se during the fall of 1980" I!Jk be,e·, ... I I I. L I I I ll Center For Policv Studies[23 ] ~ I A repor~preparerl under contract to the Alaska to explore the potential of energy resources within the Railbelt area. While apparently neglecting. the fact that weather reporting stations · eon~l~eA are generally located away from windy areas, this report ~M~l;ed that there is little hope for the development of wind energy in the Railbelt. The r~port stated that " •.•• ex ami nation of [records fromJ{ 19fweather stations indicate only marginal potential for two locations (Gulkana and Homer) •.•• " Another study is being conducted by Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories . . on behalf of the Alaska Power Aaministration.. The purpose of this study is to identify sites within the Railbelt region having wind potential which may be developed to act as a supplement to the Administration•s Eklutna hydroelectric plant near Eag'le River. The final report from . . Batelle to the Administration is due in June,1980,and is expected to identify a number of sites whieh Batelle feels are worthy of instrument . ' >; ·,.··;w,.:~ ;/ ·>:I ~ ~:~~:~~ 'I J. I ,I I I \1 I J n 1..:._.1 t' ' .l ' ; ~ l I i " '· -~ ~. ;- ' a 1 ' A .i .J .... 1 J •. . ; I ....... J ' 20 insta11ation.[9] Presumably, data collected from these additional data collection stations could be used to make decisions as to where and if wind turbines could be constructed. The Batelle study ·is somewhat con- strained to the area served by the interconnected utility system serving the Anchorage/Kenai Peninsula/Matanuska Valley area. In the Nome area, General Electric has carried out a study showing that the installa;ion of a number of 200 kilowatt wind turbines could be economically competitive with the oil-fired diesel generators now in use. [Z 4] Wentink's 1976 report[lg] concluded that if one one-thousandth of the total kinetic energy av~ilable in the wind over Alaska was extracted by wind turbines, a resource of 3,400 megawatts would be available. This conclusion was followed by the admission that the factor of 1/1000 was arbitrary and that the actual power potential developable was dependent upon economics • Wen~ink emphasized the study of "mainland coastal Alaska, including the Alaska Peninsula, and the Aleutian and other Alaskan islands.~~Since Aere.s~ . . so,•N Ql\i (,C. ) ~· study examines only those sites located between se!mt\and 144° Wtl\~11\k•s r(!.tork 41'~ _,.a.;., and 152° W, much of the data found in.,.tiir i• not usable for /\ti¥8' ·study. Nonetheless, it provides a good basis for establishment of methodologies . ~+~ to be followed in ·etf11F'.:f"'rther work .. As a result of the early part of his research, Wentink installed a 6 kilowatt turbine at Ugashik on the Alaska Peninsula (57° 30 1 N5 157° 37' W). ,t ... uvi v~& During the four months :ta..t the machine~ -a¥ailable (first energy -t'- ·-." ·-~--~----~--:--~---;-·~--~-·-·-··-"·~-·-·-----·-"-···~----~···1' !?"· :,.,;,i:•~lliii"'.r.: · , :.-~ ' .. \). . / :..,:~ .: · : · .. J .. . .. ·\..... .. ' • *·\-~-·"' H. 21 produced early September 1975, machine destroyed by high winds in late December 1975) Wentink's report notes that " .•• the system functioned quite well ..... " A number of relatively minor, but apparently trouble- some~roblems plagued the operation of the unit throughout its brief life, but more careful design work of both the installation and the unit itself could likely have eliminated these problems. RAILBELT WEATHER DATA There are a number· of meteoiological stations located throughout the w'-aic.~ Railbelt. The vast majority of these stationsAare .. equipped to record wind data in the detail needed for a wind potential survey are located at airports--locations normally sited so as to avoid windy areas. None- - theless, some of this wind data may be used to draw some conclusions as to general wind patterns in the vicinity of the stations. From this work, it may be possible to identify areas of possibly high wind potential which should be instrumented to detennine in greater detail the nature of their winds. The statiops for which detailed wind data have been obtained are~ . Station Name Nearest City or Town Remarks Tanana Manley Hot Springs Fairbanks Internationa'l Big Delta Nenana Sumnit Tanana Manley Hot Springs Fairbanks Delta. Nenana Sumnit Poor Data Poor Data ~"I ~ .• ,~. 1(. ] 1 ~· ,J J ~· I .I I I J . . J J ,j I ,l '· \.:.., ........ I I: I I ~· •• I- I I~ I It 11 I I~ I t··· I Station Name Healy Homer Kenai Talkeetna . Cordova Gulkana Middleton Island North Dutch Anchorage International Nearest City or Town Healy Homer Kenai Talkeetna Cordova Gulkana Cordova Whittier Anchorage 22 Remarks Island in Gulf of Alaska Island in Prince William Sound This data was taken fr6m records an file at the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center in Anchorage. . . Analysis of the data to derive the wind energy potential at the meteoro- logical station is a mathematically straightforward process. Tc estimate the amount of that energy which can be extracted by a wind turbine involves some arbitrary assumptions as to the operational characteristics of the machines under consideration. The procAss involved will be fully explained below. For a given volume of air with mass (m) and a velocity (V), there is an associated kinetic energy (K.E.) such that: K.Eo = 1/2 mV 2 ·····-~ , A '-( eq 1 )·; The mass of the air flow.of given cross-sectional area (A) passing a point in any period of time is a funciton of its density(P} and its velocity such that: m = P VA (eq 2) Combining equations 1 and 2, and understanding are discussed, ) lj .J ~~ I I} i ,J I .. I ~· I ·' I 23 we can see that the power of an air flow passing· through an area in a unit of time is: (eq 3) ?&"' In the metric system,. if density (p) is expressed in kilograms~· cubic meter tkgfm3) and velocity (V)' in meters per second (m/S), the result, power (P) comes out in Watts (W) per unit cross sectional area or Watts per square meter (W/m2). l15] c~(QJ Taking the density (p) of air to be approximately 1.2047 kg/m 3, we can develop the equation: P = (~) (1.2047) v3 or P .::. ( 0 .. 60235) v3 (eq 4) Where: P is wind stream power, in 1 C:w~--------~- V is wind stream velocity, in I! @--------- ' . Note that this gives us the power density of the wind stream itself - - not the power which can be developed by a wind turbine exposed to that · wind. There is a theoretical limit to the amount of power which a wind turbine can e!(tract from a wind stream. This is known as the Betz limit and states that only about 59 percent of the wind's potential power can be obtained from a turbine.[2S] Machines in operation ta·date have power extraction efficiencies in the neighborhood of 35 percent, with improve- ments forseen which could raise that figure to 45 percent. Ultimately, ·I I I ~· I ~ ~ ·I I .'-1 I I I • I ·I I I I ·I l1 l I ~l. ' 1-\tli'\ \\ ~!\ ~0\) 24 researchers feel that efficiencies in the neighborhood of 50 percent are about as high as can be expected.[lg] This report will assume a turbine efficiency of 40 percent. When speed reducer losses (8 percent), ~~':'_(j ? ~ -~ \ : "S \(l.t..~->1 PI generator 1 osses ( 5 percent) , and transfonner 1 osses ( 3 percent) v (, '. ·~ ~ are ,, J rA'bl . accounted for, the true machine efficiency is about 34....6' percent. ~~ l~ vi c~ eluding this in our equation 4, we find that: In- .. I I I- I I m i •• .1} .;n ll I I- ll P = {0.340) (0.60235) v3 (eq 5) P = o.2os v3 This equation predicts fairly well~ the actual performance characteristics of the MOD-1 unit now in operation at Boone.[2?] Other considerations which must be included in wind energy discussions are those of the wind speed at which the turbine can begin producing energy; the speed at which it achieves its rated output; and the speed at which the turbine must be shut ddwn tb avoid damage to its components. These speeds, known· as the cut~in, rated, and cut-out speed respectively (Vci, Vr, V co)' can vary from machine to machine, but h~ve ~he following general ranges: Cut-In 4 .. 9 m/s {Mod-1) Rated llc4 m/s (Mod-1) Cut-Out 15.6 m/s (Mod-1) The relationship between wind velocity and power output in the region between cut-in ·and rated speeds, while in theory following a simple cubic functionris) in actual machine~ a more complex third order polynomial. This study will use a simple linear relationship between power and '1 • t . 1}tc . b t v d v .ve oc1 y 1n~s-reg1on e ween ci an t• Correlating weather data~ machine characteristics, and cost information, we can arrive at the following ranking of site potential and resultant --- ' I ~ I ---.. . . ~. --· I I i ~ I '! ' ' ~ i I r ' ; ' ~ I ...... 1 j I I I I I \ i ~ l l I I 25 ·I· I s ,. ~ .......--..... energy costs. v .. <:.. INTERMEDIAT~ Annual Energy Production ... MACHINE Cost of Electricity LARGE MACHINE Annua 1 tiTer~ Cost of · t'l Production Electricity ·· Middleton Island 2120 mwh ¢/kwh 8393 mwh ¢/kwh ] Sunmit North Dutch Kenai Gulkana Homer Anchorage Int•l Nenana Tanana Cordova Talkeetna Fairbanks Int•l 1445 l238 955 832 768 709 685 622 569 457 416 5023 4440 3024 2945 2323 2056 2323 1740 1657 1201 1004• Note that even the best of these:: stations pennits operatiou of the large (2.5 mw) machine at less than a 40 percent 'plant factor or less than 50 percent for the imtermediate size (500 kw) machine. This station, Middleton . Island is located on an island in the Gulf of Alaska. Its accessability {70 nautical miles south of Cordova) would seem to preclude its exploitation as a wind turbine site. The best land-based s.tation, Surrmit, would permit operation of large and intennediate wind turbines at capacity factors of . about 23 and 33 percent, respectively. Other land stations trail Summit's . potential by a wide margin. ' ·] f.l '~ rl . f J ~·· ·J I .I :I .I I .I '<~ : By the above discussion, it may be deduced that the possibilities for the ~• I l economical development of wind energy are quite limited. Frorr1 the data I fi I l availabl~thi~ is a reasonable conclusion. However, it must be kept in I' I .....,,, ··-· ·-~.----· .. ""--"-.:JJ".-·-.--·"~·-·"~"·. ~····-,-... . ' ,,~ . ·' ' ' ,; ; ' ' ~ j ~·,. 'i,'• ',\ -~. j"' i·-' . h v ~ •• ;.~ ''.""":' \" • .~ •~ ... ,. .... I· I· Il- l I} I· '• I 1:. II I ll ~ ,1} ~ 26 mind that most of the weather data stations are delibey·ately sited at locations not subject to strong winds. What is neededXs a program to gather detailed wind data from locations where terrain features may tend to channel and concentrate wind energies. Such a-program would involve the installation of a number of 10 meter high meteorological towers equipped with recording anemometers. From a brief examination of a topographic map, the following areas would appear to be candidates for such a preliminary instrumentation: Site 1. Windy Pass Area (from mile 215 to mile 230 of the Parks Highway) 2. Black Rapjds.Area (from mile 220 to mile 235 of the Richardson Highway) ~"'r· 3. :Portage Area (from end of Tu~nagain Arm across Portage Pass avoiding glaciated areas where pos,sible) 4. Glenn Highway from about mile 60 to mile 120 Feature Making Site Attractive Low notch in Alaska Range should tend to channel northerly and southerly winds through pass area Low notch in Alaska Range should tend to channel northerly and southerly flows High terrain of Kenai Peninsula and Chugach Mountains should channel westerly flows. Also, water surface of Turnagain Ann provides unobstructed- path for more than 40 miles High terrain of Chugach and ·ralkeetna mountains should channel w~lterly and easterly flows .There may be other areas which could hold promise fer wind energy develop- ment and these should be sought out. The Department of Energy, working through Botelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories and the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) and the Arctic Environmental Infonnation and Data Center (Anchorage), will be issui·ng a 'Wind Energy Atlas 11 of Alaska. This document should be available to the public in 1981. The Atlas ,, 7 i 27 -will attempt to show average wind energy in all parts of the state. In mid-1980, Batelle will suanit their findings on wind energy to the Alaska Power Administration as a par~ of ti1ejr contract to study wind resources in the Anchorage area. The findings of these two studie~ may· help to expand the list of candidate sites. To the extent appropriate~ it may be advantageous for the Alaska Power Authority to enter into a joint study with the Alaska Power Administra- tion in wind prospecting work. Should the wind prospecting work described in the preceding paragraphs identify sites which tentatively exhibit wind resources which could be exploited attractively further instrumentation of those sites would be appropriate prior to conlllitment to construction. In this second phase of instrumentation, towers at least as high as the uppennost reaches of the blades of the wind turbine under consideration ~··,\c). -be. ~ sc-. for ~nstallatio~. The purpose of this extra instrumentation step is to investigate the wind shear at the proposed site. Wind shear is the name for the phenomenon of winds at different heights flowing at·different velocities. A convential rule of thumb is that wind velocity tends to increase at the one-seventh power of elevation, or: vupper = vlower (~upper) 117 lower where: V V · upper, lower are the wind velocities at the upper and lower heights .. hupper, h . lower are the elevations of interest From this equation, we could expect that if a 10 meter per·second wind I '·· ·) ·I :1 ·I ,, r I .. I 'I .- ' ·I r_)l .I .I I .I J. 'J .I n -t.."l ~~ l ( l .-'t .-..... ..:~· I I I I I II ~ I il·: "'-",· .. ~-~ ~r IJ 1~. if ·~ w, w ll 28 were encountered at a height of 8 meters, a 12.9 meter per second wind would be found at 48 meters •.. Although.much of the wind energy literature mentions this one-seventh power rule, it is just as frequently mentioned with a caveat~ The exponent has been observed to vary from about one and a half to approxi- mately negative one.[14 ] This range implies that wind speeds have been observed to increase more rapidly than height; to remain constant with height; or to decrease with height. These latter two conditions are admittedly rare, but the characteristics of wind shear should ·be care~ fully investigated at each site under consideration for construction of a wind turbine. Wind shear has at least two important implications to wind turbine in- stallations. The first, and most obvious, is that depending on the magnitude of the shear exponent, more (or 1 ess) power cou 1 u be deve 1. oped by a wi.nd turbine operating at a height different from that at which initial wind measurements are taken. The second implication of wind shear is that as the turbine blades· turn from an area of high wind velocity to an area of low wind velocity, they are subject to variable stresses. These stresses tend to flex the blades, fatiguing the blade · materials and, if not designed properly, leading to premature blade failure. I. MODEL OF FUTURE RAILBELT INSTALLATIONS .. The costs associated with wind turbine installations in Alaska were developed in Section E and will not be treated irr detail here. In this section, discussion will focus on the relationship between wind turbine u '·V ·.: '"'"'. . I ; I (_,_" 29 operation and the. utility system to which they are connected. In mos:t utility systems, 9enerators are put on-line and their outputs adjusted in response to instantaneously varying load conditions. Con- ventional generating stations are. designed, to a greater or lesser degreet to respond direc.tly and· rapidly to orders to change. output. This degree of control ha3 a number of advantages for the utility system . -operators. They can select the units which operate at the lowest per- kilowatthour cost to supply as much of the load as possible, using more expensive units only as they are absolutely needed. The conventional generation sources also provide the operators a very reliable system to operate: It ~s generally presumed that, unless a particular unit is out of service for maintenance or repairs, it is available for operation as needed •. Wind turbines, by the nature of their driving· power supply, do not offer power system operators either· of these advantages. An operator cannot predict to any degree of confidence, how much energy a wind turbine will be capab.le. of· producing,. if it produces any at all, in any future period. This unpredictibility of the wind resource has been a major obstacle to the acceptance of wind turbine systems by utilities. Power companies have an obligation to provide their customers with reliable service at a... ruuc.-.q, h!tt.. · t.t;;te.laast ~f'petl.·e~ cost. It is unlikely that wind machines will meet ,d.d,.b;li~ ?ric"-c:!riktio.. this firs~ criteria in the foreseeable future; the £QS9Ad will be met as f~~e 1 prices rise· and research continues in the fie 1 d-of wind turbines. : () I I I I I I I' 1. I I I I --~ I ,__ I I ~ a~ ~U w II . - 'IJ~ ~ 30 There is a way around the natur·al unpredictibility of wind turbine operation. The wind turbine installation can be operated in conjunc- tion with some form of energy storage system. At times when wind turbine output was available but not needed, the available energy could be storai; when energy from the turbines was needed but not available, =- the stored energy could be released. Studies [l 4] have shown that storage systems which are constructed solely to absorb wind turbine excess energy cannot be economically justified. Thus, their incorpora- tion in the utility systems in conjunction with wind turbines :'lill not be considered·further. • A more econo.nically justifiable role for the wind turbine, and one which is conmonly assumed by· ·utilities operating wind turbines~ is that of a fuel ·saver. In this type of operation, the operating utility simply takes as much of the wind turbin~~put as it can absorb at any given· time, reducing the ou1:put of its conventional units and saving the fuel which would have been used in their operation. It is obvious that as the costs of fuel for the conventional units rise, the savings accrued by operation of the wind turbines wi 11 mount. This is the operational mode which will be. presumed for the operation of wind turbines in this study. In the cost evaluation of Section E, the construction of a group, or cluster, of wind turbines at any particular site was assumed. This type of construction allows the cost of operations and maintenance to be shared among the units at the site. Also, to some extent, costs associated with construction, such as site preparation and transmission ~; ,i. .-f:-.. .. ·. ,,,..: , .. , ,; t:. - I •t ,, ~ ~·. ,, ',. - ' I .~ ~ I ~ a ~ ~ ·I -· j - I I ' . I I ·1 ~ ~ ,, ! I facilities, can also be shared.. For !~his .... study, the construction of clusters of 25 units at any one site will be assumed. 31 As with any other utility equipment, wind turbines require periodic maintenance. The period of time that modern wind turbines are expected to be out of service ranges from 5 to 10 percent of the time on an annual basis. The outage figure of 10 percent is in line with most other generation equipment and will be assumed for this study. As far as site availability is concerned, it will be presumed that three sites, each with the potential of producing 25 percent more energy from a cluster of large units than would be available at the best known land based station ( Sull111i t), wi 11 be· found. Such a site wou 1 d produce: (5023 MWh/machine) X (1.25) X (25 machines) X (0.90 availability) L4l,D00 = 14.1. ooe MWh The three sites would be capable, then, of producing a total of approxi- mately 420,000 MWh of electric.al energy. At a cost of electricity of _______ $/kWh, computed as outlined in Section E, total costs would be $ • -~----------~----The energy produced by the wind turbines, if it were supplied by oil-fired generation, would require approximately 30 million gallons of oil. Assuming a cost o~ fuel oil of$ ----- per gallon. As shown from the above, a savings of $ is ----- represented. No capacity credit. will be given to wind units due to the unreliability of the wind. . It will be presumed that one site will be available for development in ·I I .I I I I I .I I I J. I I .I J J I .1. ~ l-~ '· Ia lc, ~ '.:J ! ! ! ! I ~ I ll •i!·· .J§~ IJ i~ IJ ~ ~ 11 ' ~ IJ ,,. ...... \.fj' ~ 32 time for an on-line date of 1990. The two other sites will be assumed to be available in 1995 and 1996 r~spectively. To summarize the characteristics of wind turbines as they will be viewed by this report, the following table has been prepared: 'SITE ON-LINE. DATE No. 1 1990 No. 2·: 1995 I No. 3 l 1996 ' • ' l INSTALLED CAPACITY 62 .. 5 MW 62.5 62.5 . CAPACITY ANNUAL ASSUMED FOR ENERGY LOLP CALCULATIONS PROJECTION OMW 141,000 MWh 0 141,000 0 141,000 ,·· COST OF ELECTRICITY 1980 $/kWh ANNUAL I . I I I l l . r I I I I I ' COST 1980 $ ,, J -J !- '! ! 'i ! ! I I I 'l ., f~ ,, '__,,.. '-:,_. -~ il i i -~ .~ I <j J ~ . ' J. 33 REFERENCES 1. McCaull, J., "Windmills 11 , Environment, Vol. 15, pg 6-17, Jan/Feb., 1973, Scientists• Institute For Public Information. 2~ Thomas, R.L. and Richards, T.R .. , .. ERDA/NASA 100 kW Mod-O Wind Turbine Operations and Perfonnance," presented at the Third Biennial ·Conference and Workshop on Wind Energy Conversion Systems, 1977 Proceedings pg. 35-58 (GPO) No. 061-000-00089-5) I I I I I 3. Ramler, J.R. and Donovan, R.~1., 11 Wind Turbines For Electric Ut·ilities: I Development Status and Economics,11 prepared for the Terrestrial Energy Systems Conference, 1979 (DOE/NASA/1028-70/23) 4. Rabbi ns , W. H. and Sholes, J. E. , 11 ERDA/ NASA 200 kW 1 -MOD-OA Wind , Turbine Program, .. pg 59-75 Ref .. 2 w 1\l;)d).S~ie.s' 5. -=---~~--=-~' "NASA Has Faith-in Windmil~l«'fiL~s' Homage · Irreverant," Anchorage Times, February 25, 1980, pg. B-2 I I 6. Telephone conversation with S.J. Hightower, U.S. Bureau o.f Reclamation,. _April 8, 1980.. 7. Telephone conversation with R.M. Donovan, NASA Lewis Research Center, I May 1, 1980. 8. Hightower, S ... J., and Watts, A.W .. , "A Proposed Conceptual Plan for Integration of Wind Turbine Generators With a Hydroelectric System 11 , I pg 107-117, Ref. 2 9. Telephone conversation with T. Heister, Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, May 7, 1980. 10. Telephone conversation with J .. Colli~s, NASA Lewis Research Center, May 2, 1980. 11. Johanson, E. E .. , 11 Summary ·of Current Cost Estimates of Large Wind Energy Systems,.. pg 273-284, Ref. 2 12. Conversation with R.M. Jens, F.M.Moolin and Associates, May 5, 1980. 13. Garate, J.A., 11 Wind Energy Mission Analysis," pg 209-221, Ref .. 2 14. Marsht W.O., "Requirements Assessment of Wind Power Plants in Electric Utility Systems, .. General Electric Co., Schnectady, N.Y., 1979 (EPRl No. ER-978, 3 Volumes) 15. Hewson, E·.w., and Wade, J.W., 11 Biological Wind Prospecting, 11 pg .. 335-348, Ref. 2 I I I I I I I I a~, r! t . • . -· s ! ! ! ~ BJ -~ ~ 34 REFERENCES 16. Marrs, R.W. and Marwitz,· J., 11 Locating Areas of High Wind Energy Potential by Remote Observation of Eolian Geomorphology and Topography," pg 307-320, Ref. 2 17. Hardy, D.M., 11 Numerical and Measurement Methods of Wind Energy -Assessment, 11 pg 664-676, Ref. 2 18. Rogers, S.E., nwind Energy Conversion---Environmental Effects Assessment,11 pg 402-406, Ref 2 19. Wentink, T., 11 Study of Alaskan Wind Power and Its Possible Applications," Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, A1 aska, 1976. 20. Kornreich, T.R., Kottler, R.J., u Environmental Issues Assessment, .. Paper presented at the Workshop on Economic and Operational Status of Large Scale Wind Systems, Monterey, California, March, 1979, Proceedings, pg 95-109, (EPRI Noo ER-1110-SR} 21. Wentink, T., "Alaskan Wind Power,11 pg 173-182, Ref. 2 22·. Wentink, T. ,. 11 Wind Power Potential of Alaska: Part II -~ Wind Duration Curve Fits and Output Power Estimates for Typical Windmills,11 Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 1976 23. Fryer, M., et.al., "Draft Report ·an Alternate Energy Resources, Alaska•s Railbelt,11 Mark Fryer & Associates, Anchorage·, Alaska, 1980 24. s{t,Jt be~n..5 proJ~c:e.J b'1 G. E:. -~,..· ~~'-?oc.;~r A,; -1-h a, i 1-r 25. Cheremi si noff, N.·P., nFundamenta.l s of Wind Enet'"9Y, 11 Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978. 26. s: 11 Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 50th Edition," The Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland$ Ohio, 1969 27. , 11 2000-Kilowatt Wind -Turbine Project,n NASA .. Lewis Research Center, Cleve'land, Ohio, 1980 ' . 0. '. :· ~ .. t>;~i[~·rJ;i·:~: .. ·."~-'" .. ""' · -~-----"~-·· ,. J ~ < -. ~ ·' I ~ ! . t ·- 1 ~J ; : I . I ' \ I -· ., ~ I . i ' -.'I 1 I -:a I ....... f j fJD'~ f1 I tV G / <f/t&U<:LC5 \ ~ ~o rv1 N AS~ 1: 'I I I I I I r .• 1 I J I . _I I ~· J J J ., . I ,. • • . • • ~ I l ~ .. t ~ • • .. • .. • • t ~ • ... · r. ; • -· s. 1 r-l· · t -• ·. • I·.--_:'~!!;! !!!!-.If~ ,t ~ ~--~·v· ! """"k•"""""·~ : ._ ._.... ··""TI· ~I ,_ '"""'--... ,,,,.,. • .i_ .,_ '.i 'j..........._ I'.-! --------.. -~ •••••••---··-.. ~-·• --~ • I_ ., I • • . • +, i ••.. i •• :l.j, i'l~ •t' ~~·· i lp!. '' I'•· I. 'I· I t • .. • • .. f ~ t !·t : :. .. il . !! ~! •t. i :r.: . • ,.,.. ,. t ~,·.'.},,~ '; f1~j;" 1 ·; .. ~ : ••. r-,,: I • i~ ~ .,f., j ,, I" • t 1 • ·~1 .t. • 1•-f i J, r f ;~ I . 1. 'f -'j· I • I . . ·f· ··: ' . '1 •. '. I• . I: I' II • 'I• !:' ·' . t'· ';!t.,l! \l I . · . . I 71-, '. : f ' .. f ' ' I: I -~ :. !, : . ':. J ' I'. ~ .. I i ~;r J , , ~: i · : 1·:---!•.,! :~~.; ·~. I 1 • • • ;•j 1 t . 1 ,J·l'·,'t,t ;·1¥.1 Ill ' ... I' I ·• · • • 1 1 H r• • I ,i ,.,,,,.f·t ,•j .. . t' . . .•• l . . ' Jif ! • :-: !' Q • H ~ ,j. t ·; j .. / .r 1t,l.:: '1'1: I •I •. :j ) l ,, ! !_.. ~ \~i1; .. -t • .:L :! :.,; ! •. ~r; t t: !jliJ•I (:,I I 111 f • l!ill'!r··t. :··--~-~ ·. l ~ l. tJ • J lt!l .j; • ' ' ·.,·, . I 'I' .. . _. ~ .. ; ' ' . , •· d•t ~ -~ ~ 1 It ~!~ .• t .... ! 1 J ! I ' .' ,J.'l' 1, L; ,. I 11 . • .. I II! ·1·:\ •• l .J 1 • . J... . ~ 't •• I II'· .. ,,. ~ ~ "1: it-1 ; i ',. I i ;-" I. ; I I' •i ' I ' . . I • . J;.·,tl•l .; ) 11 • . I : :J!: f 1J •" :-a • 14 ." I I. I ' i I' t " ~ i t • l t , : ~ j t • ,_ pI '~ • :'• i ' ~ .. . "-·-~ --:~ ·--"• ··-·-~-.--·-·- WIND i&;;l ~-""""! ..... ~--~ .• i .~or·~ L~ W ~ . ....l.ll __ ,,___ -----·-· • •· -. 1 -. LARGE WIND TUBINES 3(X)' 1r· ,....--· • 200' rr-·-.:.. ~ 5551 .,. i ~-:La .. . .. .. . :" .· . . . . .. . . . '• ' . .. ·.. . . . ... ... .. . . .. . . '• o ' I .. .1 ... di.J i·l,.j-1 .1 . 1 I' , I II·' • t '! ~ r . ., l ~·: r· ~1. r J 135' ··9· 2W .... . . : . . , ... . 11 ll • I : , I I,~ .t • : I ~ I .. • • l . • ~~-:. I . . ' ' 1-. ~· ::! ·I 'I' ... , ..... " • J , ..... . • 1 .f.; I~· 1 1 . 1 l ' ! . ll j . j. . l , l ! • : I ·. :·.: t \1 ; . I ; ' ;'t' ' ,r .· ..... \ .. ·£. • • • .,. • 11 •. I . I . . ·r .. I • '· • I • · 11 , ~ .i': ; j : t .. . ' ' . .. ·' . 'I: I . J' . 'I ' •• It i . :l' : . I 'H· :· i<~ . i. t 1> '! i I ( 41-.-• ~ ., .. I ', .. ,, i : !1 f ·: ·'' >I ... . ij' ; 1·-, \!4 (1,._~ ·_1.'<!.-- 100 MOD-O'MOD-DA ··. ,. .... MOD-1· .-:·-· · MAX" POWER OUTPUT: POWER OUTPUT (15 mph): 100-200 kW lll kW · 200l kW 450kW CS-78-2756 FIRST GENERATION L MOD-2 2500 kW 1420 kW ''. .. . .. ~ .. ( .. ,, .. ·~ ! ~ . . . ... ' . . . . . :, . WASHINGTON MONUMENT SECOND GENERATION lJII IIIII i • . :-·.. 7···--... a. t ,.. .. "' '•' . ~ ' . ~ l'!'!" . . i I ... _. I I ! i ' I :} I, . I : j . I : ' ~ : .. I t " I ! . t •. 1 . . . l > • I • • J: \ ' . t . I 'I · , I 1 'I l •I I I ; ,! . l I I· • I • i . ' I II f t -t ~ ; ' t J.. . ! "t-;: l 1 • . I' ~ . . ; . ' ~ ,. . i 1 ~ . ' : 4 • ~ !· . ; ! ~ '* l : ' I I : ' . :jl . i i 1 • • I 'I' . ·1· · .. i . ... r . 'lh: ' ... ~ _,• • It -~ ' .. :. "j I • I ' • I , :~:'!· .. ;.If· ~· .. ' . t • • t . . .I • J • r II .. ·! ·, . t d I • l f <''I . I . . • • . . ' !·t . J .. , .... j ! . •! tp -· ~, i l • ·:II J:,,l I 1 1" ~ ... ,.. . .. .. ~ • f' ~ ! : -.!ii.L . _JL_ . ::i ,.~ -. . r~ ~ ra~ r~ ~ ·~ 'u.::J :I-7"'1 ll::.. ... '"\1 -~ f-7-1 f'~fl r.-.:"1 •if':~ r---· llll . ~ r.::"":'jf'" I.!"'_;_ t.=.:. ~--;-~ ~.: .. ~··-~~ ~.~....:..... i!,..,.r~ ~ L~ ~ ·-~ ~ ~ ·~ -~ . T . , .. ··-. .,.~.il::Z:.-. .,._ .. __ -.. -.......... ~ ..... '"" ....... -... .,._,,. _ __, ___ ._.,.._... l! -.-.-... . , ... '" , .. _. ...,.,.. "' ... MOD-OA MOD-2 ( . Lf% ,._ 2 % ~ CONTRIBUTION -OF DESIGN ELEMENTS TO COST-OF-ELECTRICITY 47% DLADES/HUB/PCM/CONTROLS . - 24% • I! • • • • • BLADES/HUB/PCM/CONTROLS . . 22% • • • • . • • • • GEARBOX/GENERATOR/SHAFTS/BEARINGS 11% • • • • • • • • • • • • . TOWER/ACCESS . 11% e • • • • • • • .. • ~ . . NACELLE/YAW DRIVE/YAW BEARING 9% • • • • • • • • • • • • • FOUNDATION/SITE PREPARATION 9% • • • • • Gl .. • • • • ll , . OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE 8% ~ . • • • . ~ ' • . ~-, • . ASSEMBLY/CHECKOUT . • • , , • # • • • • ' • • • . OTHER <SPARES/EQUIP/PLANT> • • • • , • • • " , e • , • • TRANSPORTATION CS-79-1111 I I I I I ( .. • ""~ < 0 I ~ 0 Lt'\ N ...-i Cl>-LJ.J <..!:) >o 0~ 0::: 0 a..~· :s::: ::c -u LJ.J r- -e N I I Q Q ~ 0 E 0 -t t; :::;) Q 0 a: C- Lbl a: ::;:, r-~ N • ~ 0 E I I ' ' I I I I I I I "' ffi L1.J c... (I) Q :2:' -3: z: c::.: UJ r l.&.J 1--Cl) • j.,_,tl·~ •.t t I • I , < >'• l-· ~ .. ·----.:.f,,~·lJt· 'It I \: -~ ·; ._ ·r---. ~ -• t , j l J I • . : • • 1 I. . l . I J 11 . . . ! ~ ~ . .. ' • I ~ i-t ~ t' « .1 ~: ' .. :I ... .-• -l ; 1-I 'I 'J -.. :. -J :!t!h;. ' J I ~ -~ -~ :~ ~-~ ~ -.-r.== ...___ --1_... -~-.._ • .--·r·.--~ ...__ '"-~ ...... ___ ,_ -- --------... -1~ ·---1-_...._.,.._,. ---~~--.; ...... ..;. ,... ----JL. -· --.,· .. _...__ ......... ·-•*· ....... ~ ~ WIND TURBINE OPERATING RANGE POWER OUTPUT, kW CS-79-1108 - 2500 I10D-2. 2000 MOD-I 1500 1000 500 MOD-OA 01 x.rr I I I I . 10 20 30 lfO WIND SPEED CAT 30 FT> f1PH -..... .I ~ ;· :.•J.~ .... • .... · .,:;··. ~ ~'-·"'~ ..... .:..~ • t .!~ ;-~~· :: : ~. Jh: lJ,.-f '. -. •,..-·~--:. .--;;;~~;.,·..,\l;tk·:<io.~~:, .• ""~ ... ~ -· -.. ·11 :l •• ... ' ' .. ~ . . ..... ¢ . It ft: ""t '1'-""""'W"'t -r ... _ '--·~-,.,~--• ~;t;,(Wot.,.,_. _.. -~>.t..:.,.~ .. \,.·· 'or"~·--"""--'" .-."'•--"""''.'"' '·. --..• --.. ~S];;J;'il(~i'I:;~!Jt.~·~~-':iiO:,-;.c-'';' .P •·-" ,.• u ,t-'.: ·-;·=.~:· ~--• ..... · •--~._ •. ~ .. )II•; -· I •• , • I' r I • I .-.. ." -J) .. ,.""'-.:r-oor -:' · . •• '1 : \, ·~ ... .....,.- DOE/NASA 2000kW EXPERIMENTAL WIND TURBINE Howard's Knob, Boone, North Ca: ""lin a lEA lilr"i\, ~ --r~. . j} It' . '?'fl ~ L::ll ~:J ~ t:.J L3 t:..::J ~ ') ~~ .~ r.,;;;• L~~ C3 r;····-:-w ......_. ·~ L.;t ~ ("~ ... ~~ .J ~ 2000 KILOWATT WIND TURBINE SPECIFICATION .Rotor -_,,___ Number of blades. . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Diameter, ft ..................... : 200 Speed, rpm • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • 35 Direction of rotation . . Counterclockwise {lodking upwind) location relative to tower. . . . . . • . . . . . Downwind Type of hub •.. a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rigid Method of power regulation. . . • . . . . . Variable Pitch Cone angle, deg • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 9 Tilt angle, deg ••..•..•.........•. 0 0 Bla-de Length, ft. . ... . . . • . . • • . . . . , • • . . • . . 97 Material ......•••.. Steel Spar/Foam Trailing Edge Weight, lb/blade. . . • . • • • • . . . • • . . . . 21,500 Airfoil . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . NACA 44XX Twist, deg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 11 Tip chord, ft ..••.....•....•...... 2.8 Root c hq ra , ft . • . . • .. • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . 12 Chord taper • . . . . . . • • . • . • . . • . . o • Linear Tower Type ....•..•.••.•. e.. • • • • • • Pipe truss Height, ft. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Ground clearance, ft. • . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . • 40 Hub height, ft. • . . . • . • • • • • • • . . . . . . . 140 Access. . . : • • . . . . . . • . • • • . . . . . . . Hoist Transmission Type. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . Three-stage conventional Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . 51 Rating, hp .•..••....•.....• 0 • • • • 2209 <(. ·. "' i Generator Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . Synchronous ac Rating, kVA . . . • • . • . . . . • . . • • • 2225 Power factor. . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . 0.8 Voltage, V ••• ~ •••••• ~ 4160 (three phase) Speed, rpm ........ " . . • . . . .. . . 1800 Frequency, Hz ........ $ • • • • • • • 60 Orientation drive ---·~ Type. . . . • . . . . . . • • • • • Ring gear Yaw rate, degree/sec ...... . Yaw drive . . . . . . . • . . • • • • • . 2 5 Control system Supervisory . . Pitch actuator. ' . Performance . . . . • • • • . . . ' . . . . . . . . . • • • • 0 • • • Hydraulic Computer· Hydraulic Rated power, kW ....... . Wind speed at 30 ft, mph: • • • . . . 2 000 Cut-in •.••....•. Rated . . . , . . . . . Cut-out ..•...... Maximum design ..... Weight klb) , 11 25.5 35 125 Rotor (including blades). . . . . . . . . . . 103 Above tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . 330 Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 320 ro··al .... · ...•.....••...•. 650 ~.. ·;;:' '·. , •.-2 . J a , u ;J, ' . ]-.,c 3 ~ J rJ . j ~, w a i .· N -INVENTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC SITES IN THE . RAILBELT •. . J ~-\ ".'I ~-:r-..... _...,. ~ j l :l :~_.', lJ J , ~ J. J J a J ~J ' ~l I INVENTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC SITES IN THE RAILBELT REGION JUNE 1980 .. R.La PoWELL ~- JI :J ··---.. ·~·.''-'•' ;.. . "jJ . '! ... .. 'J ~~ ~ INVENTORY OF HYDROELECTRIC SITES IN THE RAILBELT REGION A preliminary examination was made of existing inventories of potential hydroelectric sites in the Rai1belt region. The purpose of this examination was to divide sites into various ranges of capacity which would later be used in the screening process, and to determine the number of'sites in each of the major Railbelt river basins. The primary inventories used include the DOE study "Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Railbelt", published in February 1980, and the Corps of Engineers "Preliminary 1nventory of Hydropower Resources, Pacific Northwest Region .. , published in July 1979. For some sites, these two inventories presented differing data for the potential capacity and energy developable. The probable explanation of some of these inconsistencies is the different plant factors used in each inventory. Also, the Corps inventory capacity data does not account for 1) reduction in head due to rising tailwater levels during high flows, 2) diversion or evaporation, 3) head losses and turbine inefficiency~ and 4) plant shutdown during high flow!~. The data obtained from these two inventories was supplemental by additional reports that covered a very limited number of sites and contained data essentially agreeing with the DOE and/or Corps inventories. The reports used contained little or nothing in. the way of specific . environmental comments on the sites covered by the inventories. This is considered to be a significant lack of information for initial screening • of potentia 1 hydroe 1 ectri c sites. in the Rail be 1 t Region. \ II··.~:_~ '' " . ':D' ~ ''· -~. ·~ J ·~ ,I ~ ·! .~ ~ ~ ~ ·~ .~ .. ~ ' :; r u ~ ~ ~ LA ·~ ' ·.R ~ i I 1 l I i I The total number of sites identified in the Railbelt is 117. These sites are divided among river basins as follows: Cook Inlet - 6 Susitna -33 Kenai -2(} Copper -27 Tanana -17 Mantanuska -8 Yukon -1 Other - 5 The capacity ranges into which the sites were divided are: a) greater than 100 MW b) 25 MW -100 MW .. c) less than 25 MW I I ] ~~· ... {]' \_ I ) :I --. _I .I ., .. 1 "' J J J J J .. 1 ll!l J ,, : ~::. .~J . S't J ;J l ~ ~ .ii. ·~ ~ u . • 8 ~ ..... -.. The results of grouping sites by capacity ranges are as follows: Range ·greater than 100 MW 25 MW -100 MW less than 25 MW Number of Sites 33 60 36 Due to the differing capacity data of the inventories u~ed, some of the 117 sites are included in more than one range. The preliminary power and energy parameters as well as hydraulic parameters are given in Tables A, B, and C for sites greater than 100 MW, sites bet\-1een 25 MW and 100 MW, and sites less than 25 MW, respectively. 5 ~ i.tiJ 1.1 ~ ~ 1 4 ~~ . ; t,~ ~ l ~' ' ' ' ' ~~-~ ,, . '' 1 l ... rl!'-. ..._ ' ~ ~, .. / I ·w j ,, i I ~ ! I! p:-c?'i ' REFERENCES U .. S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration -Hydroelectric Alternatives for the Alaska Railbelt, 1980 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Nation a 1 Hydroe 1 ectr ·i c Power Resources Study, Preliminary Inventory of Hydropower Resources, Volume 1, Pacific Northwest Region, 1979 Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy and Developnent, Alaska Regional Energy Resources, Planning Project Phas~ 1, Volume 1, October 1977 U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage Sheet (NP 5, 6) 1:1,000,000 series U .. S. Geological Survey, Fairbanks Sheet (NQ 5, 6) 1:1,000,000 series .. •• I .I I :I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I ·;q ~] I -.,. . . I . i i I I ·~ ,. i t~\.~,;: :• u·.:..:.· I ~~J l'-0 ffi ~ l Cll 2 ~ i .... I z 1&1 IIi • .... "' > ... ~ it a • ~ er-r r e : ,.. ..., -c -\ . " ... _ . '-... ~-.............. . .. " ::{· ~ ·-,.. ..... : ~, ... . -... -~~ ... •. ..... ~ ----------------------------------------------------~--------------------------~.~,~-~ 1~ 0 \Jl --~·----------------------------------------------------------------·-·----------------· ~~ ~ .~ -1 ~ - "t'~ ~oil~ ·~ 4 :1:1> 0 0 0 0 ..a " ..... ..... \n N .,. \II .... 0 ... ' -- -- 0 1.0 o- 0 \tl ...... "' 0 Q I I I -...... - --. ----~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. cal~ . 4 . p 0 r4 ... ..... 't'( ~ • t"( In ... .. in .- J 0 0 0 0 r 1 . ~ 0 0 0 0 J 0 N. \ll N • . <:ll () 0 0 r «:!: J J R . •" -- ... . . ... ~"· .. -- ..... . --· .. ... .. ,~, -~1 "' Ill I... t-"'" o~&.<< ! ;~~r~ t! ,.. 1 .. ., ~ . Q ~ . 4 ~ ~l ~ ~{ :1 ~ ~ I 1 t -~ ;:) ~ ... ~ ~J \) ~: . -z Ill . II Ill ... .. <J -: ~,...; . ~ :::! % > .. a g "' ... • < -~ 1 ~ 4 l :-~ 3 -~L I J . A J .i ~ 0~ • ~I .. 0 0 ow 0 0' 0 ~ 0 1'4· N " rr f) ~ "~L "jl .,.. 0 It) ~ \P I"\ II' jf1 \P r1 a II) rL .. ~I (11 ('o( U' rll ID 'C\ tit ~~ I -~ ... _ ..... -4.--..., --..._...._........._ l . .. .. !~'~l {~ -C)o ~ ..J "' j ttl 0 D 0 . . ,.:.. 0 (0 " 0 ' .... ,.. ..j r-oo :r-()o '~ 0 rt'. .\11 -:r I) iO " l'fl ~ ~ =....:.. ~ .liili o-<( 0.. r\ Ill ~ 0~ c \J) "' J 00 r:r 11. ~ ~ o-~ o-~ -~\n 0.. ~ ~-).. r( ~ .., -,_ ' " 0. . --·-· .;C·-r , . .• '"4 . ~ ~ lu -. 11.1 ., ,., "' 0 .., ... ~· r 1 11.1 a u t) 0 0 Ill 11.1 "' lu 0 0 0 v I,J '-v ,., "" 0 a .. lu tJ 'II( 'II 0 0 • 3 ~v A Q "' 0 0 .. 0 v Q tl) 0 I' Q u <\ 'C ~/'\ ~ Ul A t4 '{t ... -:t -., Q ... tlo-. ~ ,. 0 0 0 J . -~.,; ~ ...9 .J rJ ...:. Ul 0 ti' 0 ,;. ,.. "' 9~ ~ CP ttl ~~~~ r6 .g 0 r l)o ~~ t1. ..... In .:J Ge \1\ C'{ V\ 0 ti ~-~}-,.. cO "" :r A P' -.... (ft ' 1"\ ..... J .... .. -'· .. J ... =1 . -s 0 \1) -\ll ~ 1 1 .... rr 0'-~ 0 ~ "' cr (fl li a-Oo ").. " ~ ... ~ • ~ -. \J) ..... 1 Q -' -· J-~ .,..,., ; . () j~ . _,..._, ' '·" .. ll 0 0 0 ril a-r 0 r'l r-~~L ' -l 0 0 0 "'-a-a-0 cr a-j ~J' ---.. 'iii l . . 0 rJ 1 '11 ...., 0 -~ "' . ...... . 1 en T -"' o-(f) ..,. ~ ..9 -rr a-o-00.. ~ ··~ --('( ~ a-"' )-. ~ ~ o-d ':!-Ul ---. -...... ""' t:::>l w ~I ;to : . < ~ ,.,, i (J 0 0 0 0 0 0 . i () 0 a" 0 0 0 0 \l\ ~-.( Ul "' "' -r J -:/" 0 rr 0 ('ll r-~ Itt 1)1 c. 7 ci -" c6 -.9 t:r Ill 0 0.. oe 00 f 1 ~ g: --0 0. -':1' ----. . ·.n . ,., t-. ·o ,.. j., ';., ,.. . ,... ,... ..._ --~~ H 7 ~p -;. lA . "' 0 i M ,.., ItO ,. j(> ""' • "o •o • •o oe ·., • • 0 J l-r-:r ~ ~ ~ 2f -:r V\ ~ ~ :r ,. "' "' \II .. !.." ---r -... ..... -. -.. )_ ---~"" -... , ... .. ... ..... ,. "' ·..-a-·~ ... ",.A •.; "' .... 'H -~ ,.. 7 ·o "" ,;. "' ":t>. .. j C'"' ,. -... '. '!1" VI II) • • o VI .,.. •• • . 'o ' . -1 h h • ('Q •.., .1"\ 1o ,. oo-.,. 'T "" .J .., .., ..., ~ .., ..9 .., .. \'\ so::J ... + . ") 3 ; en 1/ ~ at J: . . ~ .. . ~ .. Q !'IJ.. ~ '(. ~ .....:.1: .~·1 a.L ·~ 0 \1'1 Qt ~ . . .. II\ ~ . ( 1 i i 1\ ,. 4 4 4 ' t { t .. j 4 j .j i ~ J ... ... ...., . 1 ~ t J r( .s20'1) J ~ d ~ ~ J ~ t :s t=:<t v Cl\ t1 ~ ~ ~ '2 ~ ~ In Q:) • ....... l,. CJ u -fJ ca ~ ,....---, . ~ ~ . " t (J ~ 0 ~ j ~ p tl ~ JJ •' .s [I ~ ~ .;s .J ~ d ,., £ f ·-fc:i1 ~0 J .., ~ -~ J'l _. ~ ~-d p J t ~ i ~ J. ~ ' I <i J (. 1 {' .... ~ ~£ 11 ;> '!I ~ ...._=L_.S :t I -\, 3 ~ u {I 0 rJ ct) I') Ol tO ..., WJO . . ,,. '. . l •'l ; . .,_,} ! I • I .I .. 0 0 - ~i ll • J \11 -Ill cQ . I : . .. : . . .. . ..... ... .. \:. . ..._ ... . ·--... .. ,. -~ .. ~ ..... -.... _.( ;t . ,.. . ""• "' ·• .. -~ ; .,. ~. : 0: .... -~· ... .• ~f...: .. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -9. .j j . ':: Ul ,.. ,., v Ill 5 ... .3 lu 0 u 0 0 0 \J\ ~.., Do?" Q"":f-...... ,... "':f. er .. ~ to_. ci ~ ~not .JII_o ~ N\ ... .. a v <U (J Q a r- ... -·--C"t"'--... '~-~, .. ,.--~--------·--~ .. ~ "';t. .. • .. • :.: ·. .. :.:.-.. -..• ~ .. : . :.. .~ r ....... ,, ,. ..... ·'9.., _: -: .: . ~ . -· "l .. , .. ;: . ~ .. .. ...... -.. ~· ... .; ·:.; ~·-~-;t ~ ..:';), ~ t"-('\ ... r( ----+----------···---·---~ -·-··· ·----. -------________ ,.. ______ _ ~J 0 0 0 00 0 Q ...., 0 o-r "' .. ~ l-. .. ·.: . - .. ··~ ....... . .. .:. ~ . -. .. 11~1 . ~ . . . . . .... .... "" < < ""' ~:Jr I . ') ~ ") 4 . t-0 l ~-j ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,. ,. -::i ;·· :l X .,_ z "' ,pi:f IIIII W Ill &. ~ ~ ii ~ ~ . J ~ ~ --() 10 \11 0 . .,~ r-0 ~ \Jl \J\ Vl-IS'I Vl .. ~J \0 "t" Vl U\ Vl \ll "' c6 \J'\ lJl U1 d. \t) ----. ·------·-· -I -_ .., -..... ,.,.. -'-•J! .. , _ -·· -..--.4 f/1': t...-~· ":: . . J ("'\ e< r $\J\ (t' \I\ \t1 ~ r-\.1) DO ~ ui . ~ c>e"::-... Ill ~ ., 1)0 rp ,... ~ 01' ~ \1' ~ r--t" r rl rO ('( N -~ .. n C() {'I t(J (11 ' w C"\ ... ci ·----.----··-----------·-- ' ~ \u ~ 0 "' 0 : * \J 0 " w -· '1. ~~.· 4 \1 .. ~ Ill '-' ... lo. at " 0 Ill " "' .,; Ill v 0 'l . { :J a Q oJ .. u. "' 0 5 • ~ v 0 . /) 10 • "' 0 ... ~ (\ 0. 0 ~ ll Q \1\ .... u 4l-~ ~ ' < \jl . ~ r-• 0 rJ -.. .... ~ . .., J I" \J\ 0 0 Ill~ 1>0 \J1 ~ ..g ..., ttl !J rn 1(1 Q->t;p ..) ~ ..., ...) ' . \" ~ ~ . . -hi (\'t "' rot J • ... .::0 , \ .... _'"' -··-· ·----..... , ..... ._........ ____ .-,. 14 ..) 0 0 0 ..., (;) \0 r 0 r~ 0 Q'!J rr .J --3 0'" N 'l .... . 0 ... t 1\ 8 . • -s "" tf'l ~ '). \P r-r-rJ 0 ,.., tl "' ~ ~ VO' 0 ('11 r {' -. "' ~ t.O \1\ r-~ I ~ "' (t'\ rl ""' 0 ~ r< ::r " .a -1 t. . . -"' .. .......... ~ .. .~ .... . ... ... . -~ 0 . . ' ... -\1\ 0 ~ . 0 .9 ~ \j\ 0 ~ . 0· .. "( \1\ a 0 \l) .. .. ' r-Q o-. 0"' ct> '(I .,. <r o-~ . ., ..!J ("\ N -o--I ---~ ~ ·o ~ --~ . .·1' -.,... ".!\ -\f) • . .. N fl\ \4) N . tO en Vl ~ 0 .. \sl • • • 1 -• l)oo ... 0. • 0"' w ~ .. .Ill \1) ~ ·cr-.,. ~ -:;... 0" =: ~ ~ ... ~ t -:»----..... • > ~ !' ··a" . ... ... ... ~ ... .. .. .. "' . .. .. . ~ .... ... ... if' a-. ... \1) 0 00 ..,. -~ ........ .., " rJ Ul --:r fl') ('( .. ... . . 1 -(1\ .-... "' •a 0 • .. . .tl' • "rl lW\ . !"' ~ .,_ l r1. ~ -:r '1:1" .,) . ...J " ... . ~ -4 .., .., -! ~ '] ''l .... 3 .i : :t ~ ' ~ \( -::~ . ,. ~ . U'J ' 0 0 ~ 0 . c 6j 0 • 0 C\l ~ \J. 4 0 '. . --~ -' ~ -.. , . l ~ "' I " ·1 cl cl " 1\1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :·:j. : . ·-• .i ~ ~ ~ J I J ., ' ~ J .'.\.. ~ ~ . . .. -J . ...... ,4 :l.:,:~ l J ."Y. 3: ~ "2. \! l ~ . (.)u-~ -. -UJ1 ca ~ J ' .. . . !~ ,.,~ ... ;-(.) ~ ~ I. N .... . j t ~~ N "' ' ... [i ~ 4 ·~ ~ . ~ : .t "2 ~ . .. • . " 1 ij ~ .. I. -~ (;' i . t ~ :f J ...... ..... , .. ~ ~ I. .. I -4. ~ ~ J j -~ 1 !' ~ ~ l .. t v-1 ~ ~ (.Q ~ ~ (i1 .>. \! 1.. I ('Q ...... ® ~ 9 ~ ® <w @ ® ® ~ ~ ~ YS .. l W.IO::J lO'Ml'09 • ~ ® ... J .II ~ :! 0 I) \J .. l-·'"' ... '"' ,. ,. ~ . .. ('. r, Cl • ~I . c-.1.1' ~ ~ ""' 'l tu~ 4 " 1i..c-I ' .·~ .. ~ ., ......... •• ~ • .1/1 ... .. • ........ ·.:; <. .~.:~\ ~ . ~. :JA a .. lUI .. • ""·-. ·.t~~l! ~ h J..----~-~~·~~~~·\ __________________________________________________________________________ ~ ~ ~ ,,N \ ~ j 0 10 .. ~ -~~~--·-----------------------------------------------------~~ j if tl ._ . ~I ~ .. . ... --~.-....~ -... .. ....... .3 .3 (7'oo ,... ..... r-,.. - , . ~ .... --... . ... .. ~ ..... -:a~-----... .. . ... ... ~ -·---------------------------------------------------------------------~-~- .., a v - "' 0 v \II D ..J Ia 0 Q. Ill 0 v .. "' 0 C) -11\ 1.11 • v .. .., .. Q ... 0 v ~ ... 0 ~ "')..· ~r ,# ... ... . -,.. .. ·----------------~-------------------------------------------------------~ .. . ~! .. ). ,. N ·~ .. . :: r' . • • ~r---------------------------·--------------·------------------·-------------------·~~ ~4 ..., l ~ ~.,J U' -·--·----~-__ ;. ___ -_____ ~-------------g--rn-----3 __ ·~--J 0 0 0 111 0 "' 0 -.3 0 0 ~ ~ ~ @J @ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L.WJO~o·~·oo.~ "' .... • • "" "' 1: Q ... ,,~ ' ' ... ~~J '. L .• J .... i s :{ ,, ~!J ... ') ~ 0 0 - \. ~ -.. -. -------------·-----------------------------~ VI til \t'J Ul \0 \I\ V\ t\. \J\ "'" -1 \n ~ \1\ Vi Ul \1\ 1..0"' \ll ~ ~ """' ~ ---~~---------------------------------·----------------------------------------- -...... -·· ~·· ... "' .... o-. -. -1---·------------·~ ---··----·-----------------------· * i :t; ! r1. :J c:t •l t4 \S 0 v t " 0 .. • • .J -... • ... 0 0 ~ lot • v ... * "' 0 u .., ... ' 0 Q rJ ~ -~ : .,. . . . ... '"'.;.. . . . . '. -. ··---·---------------------------------------- 0 (I \ll r- 0 Oo 'l 4 ..... _ __..._...._..,.. ._ ...... ..;..: ......... =< •• ~; 1 . ' . 'i-~~----------------------------------------------------------------~--~--~ 0 0 ,... 0 0 0 0 pl 0 (J"'" • (() - . .. r-.. ~. ~-~ -· ··-·-------·---~-------------------------. ~ 0 "' .... 0 0 \0 0 0 0 0 r.l 00 \1\ Q .... -.<07 .-. 'II;~-.... ' "" .. ·.,..;;.. ... . · . .. -· . ~ ~··:;..~ ~ ~-:· . -· .. . .. "'' : •. ~\~..,.~: ...... ..... ..,. __ 0 .. . ~ ....... to' "' -~. ·~ 1. • .. r---.: ·" . .. ~ ~151 e i ~r ~ c Cl:. llol ~ Ill ;£ ~ :l :I z ~ z llol • ~ llol > ~ ~ II: i•c ' ( "l t: V' 1'6 ... ·rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-:z: en ~1 r: 0 ·-· 1U (/'\ :; ·RJ - (.) t; -w m ;u (Ji:a ~ ~ I 0 1 .. en: == .....::;.:1 .\t\t' .... , "' ..... · ~~:, ' t _ _.......,. .:. .......... -:-;.:. ..... ~ .... ,.,.. ....... ~-·~A.~:,. • . , . . ' .. ..... ..~ ~ ~~ .. "". . -... t...: ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------:·~ . _;., \n Ul -. ----- . w 0 Q r- . ---·-·- - -()It• \D lj\ \,ft .• UJ ... ..... . . .... .. ~l''"•'f::. ... ,.,· ··.J -~------------=----c------:::..r -I"'" 0 0 ···""' ,.(; .. :,;'\,. • -1 • j .... -~ -------·-·------·-···-----------------_,----- "' ~ u . w • /3 -w 0 0 \ll ........ Q • Q a- c ... • -q ...... .... " .·~ -·~.i: . .;J ... . ~ ... "' " ... ~. -... :.~ ... ~, . ~~~f .. ~ .t • ~ ~ !·~ ;t ' ....... -... -----·--------------------------------------------------------·~ .. -· • :l""l'! --------------~-· . ..;. .... --------··-·-------------..... r;-' . . . -~ . :i ... .. ...... __ ..._._ ·-'~""'fl-. ........... ~ 1. cr 0 <:i o o o o o-co ,..l \1\ o 0 ';! <r ~ o :!. " t:r -:;-rol r ~ o-"' ~ o t ·~ ----~--·----------------~----------------------------------------------------------~·~~ j . j c r-r . 0 -~ "' - .J .J r .J .. ·~ . . ~f l ...,_.-··--..... _________ .,... ______________ ...;,·;;;o·j- ·0 • -\0 t: . . t ' .• t ... ....... .. ··~ ... WtrL WJO:.t uncros riA\ @ .... .... "<) , ..... . ' ~ -·l J ••• ...,. : t 1l . ,If':\. • • ;· i . v : t ~~:1 !f~( •.• 'Y. ' 1 ' tJ , ~ j • ' I I • • i l i I l. I \. . . .. . . . .... ·-... ....... . ·~ ....... .. ... .. . ... -. ~ -'"' t· ........ ... .. . , ... ' . ._. ... ~ .. . -:~~ ·_,:-.. " .. . ~ . ... . -. ~.-"' .. .. :: .... ·-::: .. : .. (•"' "i .. ,.;.· .. . -" . . . ... ... .. .... '~ ... ~---~-------··------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------· .... --... ...__.. .. ,.... • -. ,("e .... f"' c J 0. - \II • .• "' Y\ V\ \1\ :<;) ' ·.: • L· .,.-.•· - . ;: J, -· -·-------.-.-----------------------------~---------------------------------~.---.---.-----,,, ~ .tf f t u ! \aJ 0 v Ill & ~ 0 ~ . . .... ... . . 4::. • .J N . ..... .. . . # :" : .. ~.r.J~ .. • ' '•.t. ..._ -"•· : ._ ,... ..... ..... ~ IIi ..... . 0 .. .., ., u .-. --. ..-.~ ~-.. ,. • Q • ):1> Q. • .:..-...• '1: .... ~ ·:,..;.-; ("!:, ~ :· '! . ,.. -:-rJ! ..... -· ........ :r .... :-... ~ .. .:.5-*=-~~= .. ' ~I ?I --·--~·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i ..,, J I 0 0 l'li " •• I ' .. ., %j = J--r------·-----·-------. -·--·----·· --------------------------:- 1 . I <· . I Ill 0 ~ - ·.., c ·o Ul 0 -:r T - N Co - ~ ·o c,.. ~ 0 ... --,.. • \1\ 'f-. .... . ... • - , .. -" . • ttl en " . . . ·~ .. ""'":!'. . .. ... .. . ., .... ..,. ,;· .. , .... .... ... *';!'' .. " """ ·-\~ '- ..! ·;; :.. ·~ ._ ·--· __ ...;;.,;;.._. ___ .s ___ -9 ___ .., _____ ~ _____ ~-· .. ~·" ... .. .. . , :o,t~· .. ~~ ... ,., -"" ..... ~~ "J "J ir-.--:\ t 1". ' ( . . ' . .. -.-, .,... I 1. t . ; ~~.::). -. t ...... ~...,. .... l,f' ... <l __ ~~~--~~-~~~:_--~-~~---~~:_--~-------------------------:--------~--~----~ r-L--d ~ ,J ~· 0 c)o ~ w; .. r-"C., " \)a ,.. c;l ...... ..... -1 --. ---: ·--:0-----r -... ~ . I '1-'l f'( .. \1) ·~ Q"' ~ .... j ~ 3l ~ ~ -~ --" ~ -~ ... -\1\ ~ • II' . \1' 1ft "' "'n .,., '!.1 .... .) .., " .... -- ai. ! . J \, ~ " v t:J ~ t J t 1 .tl ~ ~ ~-~ u ~ \i j "' ~ fi C.! "' J ~ ·~ ~ f i t ~ ~ \,9 u u Jf ~ J ti ~ :i. I ..J + ® (;} @ ~ -~ ,, >I ,J •I (tl .!r ('1\ CJ. -... en .V' ':Jo ... . "' \1\ "' .., <!ol. .J l ; 1..51 j '"' ""' ' ...;. j ~ ,j ~ $ i ~ J tA ~ ~ J . .. .. . .. .. ' 1 ·: .J .~..J -~ .. . l " .)·:- ' l ' . .. . .$ ; ;; ' .,J .• 4 .. . /~ ',J·· • ~. . ..J . • l ,J ~ va,.L u.uo=' ta·..am ·1 • ~ ...J ; ,~,·1 . 4 11-:.-'J '' :uJ 1\'' ;i ~ l~ IJ 0 -LIST OF TECHNICAL REPORTS REVIEWED - ' ,If~. ,j·.\ 'r Ji u •rn f t ·' .~ . j· 'J!:;!_j • . ' OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: A. Vircol;.Columbia S. Krishnan, Buffalo SUBJECT: Susitna Hydroele~tric Project Task 1 -Power Studies Review of Available Reports Date: June 10, 1980 P5700. 14.01 Enclosed is a list of technical reports which were reviewed at a pre- liminary level in Buffalo with regard·to their input to·Task 1 studies. A short summary and the pos£1ble use of the information contained in each of these reports is attached. ~his is for your information· and possible incorporation· in the Nrap-up report as you may think fit. .• GK:cl ( ··. Enclosures rv . I !.. I t ., .• • ' ., ' ' .. , I!.; ' ,1 M . , !tf.", , r;. '.''·. ~J., ; ' .~ ,, ,.11 ,.,. l ~··. ', "l!' •'' . " I, '"' . ~$ '/~ '~ ""-' .. ,. >~ •• ' . . ... :- ,. ~L. l' ~ ., ~- ~ / to eM: . TASK 1 DATA SOURCE LIST OF REPORTS REVIEWED "' 1. CH2M Hill -Review of South Centra·l Alaska Hydropower Potential, Fairbanks Area and Anchorage Area--far u.s. Army Corp.s of· Engineers, Alaska · District, 1978. 2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Dist~ict -Harbors and Rivers in Alaska-Survey Report -Interim Report No. 2 -Cook Inlet and Tributaries, 1950 -Interim Report No. 3-Copper River and Gulf'~oast, Alaska,.195Q -Interim Report No. 4 -Tanana River Basin, 1q~1 . ~~ 3. Jones & Jones -Upper Susitna, Alaska.. An Inven~ory and Eval uatioq of the Envirormental Aesthetic and Recreational Resourqps -for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1975~~ · ~~ " 4. Glenn Bacon -Ar.cheoiogy in the Upper Susitna River Basin -for U~$. Army .'Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, 1978. 5. U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage -Water Resources (Surface and S~bsurface) of the Cook Inlet Basin-a rough, final·draft, 198P. ;· 6 .. 7 • 8. 9o 10. 11. ,, . ':? 9~ The Federal Power Commission -The 1976 Alaska ~pwe~ Survey, Volumes 1 anq 2, .. U.S. Army Corps of E.nginee.rs Institute. for Wateri Resources, The ~yqrologic Engineering Center -Nationa 1 Hydroelectric Pow~r Resources Study,.. · Preliminary Inventory of Hydropower Resources~ ~plume 1, Pacific Northwest Reg.i on, 1979. ~. u.s·> Oep~rtment of Energy, Ala?ka Power Adminis~ration -Hydroe1ec~ric Alternat1ves for the Alaska Railbelt, 1980. · · ; U.S. Department of the Interior -Susitna River Basin -A Report on the Potential Development of Water Resources in the Susitna River Basin of Alaska ~ for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1952 • U.S. Department of the Interior -Alaska Natural Resources and the Rampart Project.Summary Report. 1967. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Report on Rampart Canyon ~am and Lake,Yukon River Basin, Alaska, 1971. 12 •. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District -Interim Report No. 2, Cook Inlet.and Tributaries-Part1A Hydroelectric Power, Bradley Lake, A 1 as·ka, 1962~ :.-,~ ~ r, cJ.·y--• { IST OF REPORTS REV !EWED (Cant i nued) ~-·-· •ct< j - 2 13. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. Report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Resources and Electric Power Generation -for Alaska Power Administration, 1974~ •• -· .. ~' lli'oi" ··~ " .Q -·"" ~ "'l •tt \1!.,, ~"·" 1'' T4. 15. T6. T7. Jg . . ,g . U.S. Department of Energy -Alaska Power Administration -Upper Susitna River Project -Power Market Analyses, 1979~ Feder.a1 Power Commiss·ion -Alaska Power Survey, 1969. U.S. Department of the Interior-Devil·Canyon Project, Alaska, 1974o U.S. 'Department of the Interior -Bureau of Reclamation, Alaska. _Reconnaissance Report on the Potential Development of Water Resources in the Territory of Alaska, 1952 • eo~rs 1~~ p'1A. bt.: ~ •; 1o •. MA --A......-~.6 ]) ~~ 1 1--r A. 'c. I-<1 f.f e ?:. 1 l't?9 . .,..·· .. .• Ill· . , ~·c J ' • .# '/' _/7' 1 ., DATA REVIEW / --~ 1. CH2M Hill -for Corps, 1978. . Reconnaissance level study to identify the degree of potential acceptability of 61 sites -selected by Corps in the South-Central Railbelt -relating to environmental and land use constraints. Report develops criteria for rating and scale of evaluation (as attributes) for the contraints in consultation with participating . ~ agencies. Comments during public meetings are addressed and FJ.l1 -~~J,·l> · answered. Inventory excludes Susitna alternatives. c..t. :1' l \ 't il- -Rating and evaluation scales form a good base for parametric screening model to be developed under Task lo List of contacts and concerned agencies useful for further work. 2. Corps Studies, 1950-51 Reconnaissance level engineering study of'identifying, among other things, potential hydropower·sites. -18 si·tes in the Cook Inlet Basin (partly superceded by further work) -17 sites in Copper River Gulf Coast 11 sites in the Tanana .Bastn. Mainly historical value. Some engineering detail as input for screening model. Most information.~afs~d or included in later reports by various agencies. 3. Jones & Jones -for Corps, 1975 Environmental quality assessment reach by reach of 4-dam alternative . on Susitna. · ' \ -Useful list of environmental, aesthetic and recreational evaluation parameters and scale of evaluation. . • f k .. .I • ,.J' J / ' J ·.·c· .. ll!lll' '• •. . -··', . ,r; ~ v • ·:.-. ~ ..JI '\._. - 2 4. Glenn Bacon -for Corps, 1978 Only report on archeology in Upper Susitna BasinG -Identifies sites of archeological significance in the Watana, D.C. project area. -Necessary input into environmental impact assessment. . ' -Forerunner to p~oposed work in Task 7~ 5. USGS, 1980 --Rough Draft Hydrological analysis of wat~r resource (subsurface and surface) in Cook Inlet Basin. Some useful technical data for regional ·analysis. · 6. 1976 Power Survey-F.P.C • . . Reviews the present (1976) Alaska Power System. Projects demands for the next 25 years. Presents guidelines for future power system planning. Discusses future fuel casts, .impact of extensi~ oil and natural gas discoveries on Alaska economy, environmental and consumer . interest viewpoints. Su~vey is exploratory and suggestive m Includes reports of technical advisory committees on: -· Resources and electric power generqtion -Economic analysi~ and load projections -· System coordination and interconnection Environmental considerations and consumer affairs. Good stariihg point j;:;. ener:gy. generation planning., study, screening . model. Lists 76 more favorable hydro sites. .. ,. , .)' --.1' ' . -· 3 l . . . /"·.;..,:' DATA REVIEW ~Continued) ~ 1. Corps NHPR Study, 1979 -Volume 1 NW Pac.ific Region Part of national .inventory level study of hydropower resources based · on site specific analysis and evaluation of existing and potentially feasible sites. Includes site specific information on 465 sites including 427 undeveloped sites. Useful inventory (includes 76 listed in Ref. 6) £. 8. APA, US DOE, 1980 . Most recent inv.entory grade. evaluation (engineering) of 252 favorable sites selected out· of some 2~000 potential sites. . Reconnaissance level calculations available for 76 (same as in Ref.6) .of the more favorable sites. -Technical information useful as input to screening model. 9. USSR, 1952 ~ First Study \(~ •. First report on Susitna Basin hydro potential. Identifies Z9.sites with engineering and'some environmental details. -Also· describes a fevl large alternative development ~to Susftna,;. Eng'ineering information useful. 10. USDI, Rampa~t Project, 1967 Summary report -~ei1e! reporting on aspects of Rampart project including.ntarketing potential for power. Discusses alternative sources of energy i ncl udi ng thenna 1 , nuc1 ear and. other 1 arge hydr.o preliminary cost comparisons. i \ ' J ; ... / ' - 4 DATA REVIEW (Continued) 10. USDI, Rampart Project, 1967 (Continued} -Mostly out-of-date information but useful in screening model input. llo Corps, 1971 -Rampart Canyon Most comprehensive report, yet~ on subject.. Engineering and otper inputs for screening model. 12. Corps -Cook Inlet Tributar.ies -Bradley Lake, 1962 .. . ~ J51lfe.wa . ..;._ OJ !'ISO :-. .f......d..1•e. (,.,e./· :1.. a.b.ove) -du ....,.·~ "IJ.f.A. 17 f>~ e,;l;; .6...-. d .,._ ~ a-..~· /'.,..._,. (, U. ~ . . rg;._ .-vo:n:;._ 5fl!! C·l'f"t:.. .,U.s&...>.~ 4 ~· {.., ; ?.)"rJ~ l~.f...t ~f ~··(.; L. .L ' ; . ....._ I? / .t . -t-1.'\.. /:..c_ b ~'/fl.• tA:: .-,IAA.2·fwt. ecr·~a ~~"""' ...,.-... '':)~, ' ttF 13. State of A 1 aska, DNR -· for APA, 197 4·. -\\..-• 11111 j J r"""~ ~. ~ M-oue .. 14. US DOE/APA» .1979 Latest APA/DOE report on power market for the Upper Susitna Project. Update .of previous analyses used in '1975. Feasibility study by Corps • includes a new set of load projections for railbelt area through the year 2025 and a reviw of alte~native power sources; load/resource and P?Wer system cost analyses are prepared for different. scenarios c. Usefu1 input to screening model. Check/comparison of ISER work-data .· / /" ,---. ' • ).· . ..:?. DATA REVIEW (Continued) / e . . - 15. FPC, 1969 Report is superceded by 1976 power survey. 16. USDI -Devil Canyon·, 1974 ... · Latest USDI report on Devil Canyon projecto Engineering and other data for evaluating t~is Susitna alternative. Input to screeninq model. 17. USDI; 195Z - 5 " .a. ' / t '·-. .. , .. .. " Early report· on reconnaissance 1 eve-1 study of potential ~yctro · ::· .. development. in Alaska. Lists over 100 siteso Mostly, superceded; by later inventions. 18. Corps -Feasibility, 1975 .Public Meetings -. Infonnation on public views, discussions and respo~ses ·on Upper: ... Susitna Project. Important input.· ' l ~tf i <:,)· . ' . . .. ., ' . .. ~ . ~. . .. I " -·f ,....,... .. """'' ,,.., :1> "'"'' ' ~.--.c .... _ "",. __ ,..,~ ..• , ---.... d-- '""""~ ' :. ,. ~l· 4~1 " t L} l _j ' ·! I l l: • I .J; . 1 l • ... J . fi J J J ~~ ~ "' .. ~:,, ~"~ r-- ' --~ &~ ~ L. ·~ e-a:: ~ -~ ., ..... _ ~ (jd>'··:·- ~ ~ w. .. ""! ~ ;iii;;. , ___ __,.; -~~ -~--1 rrlli ~ ~.- 0 SUS ITNA l.ffi.TERIALS COLLEC'11~iN -r .. OCATED 'IN HYDRAULics· DEPARTMENT ' . . ~'~ ; ...... •· J. Alaska Dept:. of Conunerce ALASKA PO\tER & ECONOMIC. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2 Vol. . (798) 621.22.3 Al ;, Alaska ~ower Adm. Alaska Powe?J. Author:tty Arcti~ Envtronmental . Information & Data Center .. Bacon, Glenn o; JOBS AND POWER FOR ALASKANS: A PROGRAM FOR POWER & ECONOMIC DEVEL-11 OPMENT 2 cop$e~ I!~.~NTORY TYPE·CALCULATIONS FOR SOME POTENTIAL HYDROELECTRIC PRO-II , JECTS IN ALASKA . . ANCHORAGE-FAIRBANKS T~~NSMISSIO~t.: ECONOMIC FEASIBILJ;TY STUDY REPORT. (798) DRAFT. . 6 21. 2 2 • 1 Al FUTURE POWER REQUIREMENTS -REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMIT-(7~8.) . . . TEE ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & LOAD PROJECTIONS ··621.22.3 1\.l FUTURE ALASKA POWER SUPPLI'ES ..-REJ?ORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY CO~IITTEE ON RESOURCEs· & ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION .. RE~ORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDER (798) l\.Tl0N & CONSUMER AFFAJ:RS 2 copies . --621.22.1 S'USJSTNA HYDROELECTRIC PRO..lECT; A DETAILED PLAN OF STUDY 2 copies SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROaECT: PLAN OF S~UpY FOR PROJECT FEASIBIL- ~~y ~liD FERC L~CENSE APPLICATION CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ARCHEOLOGY·IN THE U~PER SUSITNA R+VER BAffiiN ;581.57 Al (798) 621.22.3 Al " .. .. (798) 621.22.1 Ar ' . (798) 621.22.1 Ba •, ::) ' ~·'"' ,., ~ ~ ('.·. 7. ,., .. ...._ SUSITNA ~mTERIALS continued Behlke, Dr. Charles E. AN INVESTIGATION OF SMALL TIDAL POWER PLANT ~OSSIBILITIES ON COOK INLET, ALSSKA ~ishops 1 Daniel M. A HYDROLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE OF THE SUSITNA RIVER BEL~W DEVIL 1 S CANYON Burrows, R9bert L. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN THE TANANA RIVER IN THE VICimiTY OF FAIRBANKS, ALASKA <-") i ~ ... * (798) 621.22.3 (798) 621.22.1 (2-82. 41) II Carlson, Robert F. EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL WEATBER SERVICE RIVER FORECEASE SYSTEM · MODEL FOR. USE Ili NORTHERN REGIONS._ (798) 621.22.1 · Federal Power Commission ALASKA POWER SURVEY Gray, T.J. .. Hartman, Charles W. Henry, J. K?tiser co. Inst. of Water Resources Univ. of Alq,ska Johnson, Roy w. Jones & Hones •·:-.:. ...-··. r ~ ~ ~.,:;:;. r ~'"""""' THE 1976 ALASKA POWER SURVEY, VOL~ I & II 2 copies TIDAL POWER (COOK INLET) EhWIRONMENTAL ATLAS OF ALASKA REASSESSMENT REPORT ON UPPER SUSITNl\. RIVER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOP-. . MENT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA STUDY OF THE BREP~UP CHAR~CTERISTICS OF THE CHENA RIVER BASIN USING ERTS IMAGERY HARNESSING COOK INLET•s TIDAL ,ACTIVITY UPPER SUSlTNA RIVER, ~LASKA: ~ INVENTORY & ~VALUATION OF ENVIRON- . MJi~'l!AL, ,..~fJ'TlfftXrcs e~~~ccS!.:rrct:A,~;~ Ru?r-uRc~o-~ ::':: . ~~~J e"~£j2 j, -~-~.,-~-"P '7 (798) 621.22.3 II (798) 621.22.3 (798) 621.22.1 (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) He (798) 621,22 .. 1 (282.41) {798) 621.~2.3 Jo (798) .962I--:;J 1,~~1 !t ' • , ~ I ~--<l -'} ~" :v >':1' ,~- i~~~-~- ~·: ~;'J.'t;.· .-_ ~~;:' _-·· it .... <'··-;~-.. :;~ '\'' &=' IL-:~ IlL~ B~"'"" ~ L..w ~ ~ -r-· .-;:=-L:.. ~ ~ ,/-,_ ~ ·!( ... ·: . ' iillf: --\ ~ li'fr-::J liiii:---·1 ~ -~) ,;,;;~ ~ Lamke,. R.D. · Naske, Claus M. Project Software & Development Inc. ! Salomon Brothers Scully, David R. Shira, Donald·L. U.S'. ARmy Corps of Engineers . SUSITNA MA~ERIALS COntinued FLOOD CHARACTERISTICS OF ALASKAN STREAMS TSE POLITICS OF HYDROELECTR1C POWER IN AI,ASKA: RAMPART & DEVIL CANYON, A CASE STUDY PROJECT /2 : SAJIW.I.E RUN ACTIVITY -ON-ARROW NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY, No. 3. PROPOSAL SURFACE WATER RECORDS OF COOK INLEi' BASIN, ALASKA, THROUGH SEPT. 1975 3 copies HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT SITING IN GLACIAL AREAS OF ALASKA COOK INLET & TRIBUTARLES, HARBORS & RIVERS IN ALASKA. SURVEY REPC~T COPl?ER RIVER & GULF COAST. ,IARBORS & RIVERS IN AlASKA SURVEY REPORT DRAFT & REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. (HYDROELEC- TRrC POWER DEVELOP~NT ~ SUSITNA RIVER BASIN, SOUTHCENTRAL RAIL BELT AREA F~NAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT {as above) (798) 621.22.1 La (798) 621.22.3 Na (798) 621.22.1 Pr 621.,22.3 (756) Sa (798) 621 .. 22.1 (282.4) Sc (798) 621.22.3 Sh (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un (798) 621.22.1 (282o41) Un (798) 621.22.1 :581.57 Un " HARBORS & RIVERS IN ALASKA. SURVEY REPORT, YUKON & KUSKOKWIM RIVER (798) BASINS 621.22 .. 1 Un HYDROELECTRIC POWER & RRT~~ED PURPOSES -INTERIM FEASIBILITY REPORT (798) SOUTH CENTRAL RAILBET~. 'A, ALASKA UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASI~ 621.22.3 Un _, .______,_____ • > ·-.,,....,.__#4'~---· . -. c ~~ .. -, .,. '; , .• '' >' •• ···~~~-~'\#~'<:~~ ~1511 2 .... ;.r :··:~ ' '"''"~<'I<, ' --~ """'"""" •. -__ . "~':?·;> ' ' --.'~ '·-... .... •• ~ ·""' • -~ ·., ¥" ;; ~-.;)I;_ --.-~ --~; ;-'·· . --it.:;-·---.--• ? l ~ 7 • -. \ u.s. Army Corps of Engineers .. .::: ..... ~~ ~ L.~~~1 ~=- 9 ,·-.,. ' . r . SUS!TNA MATERIALS continued INTERIM REPORT NOo 2, COOK INLET & TRIBUTARIES, PART NO. 1 - HYDROELECTRIC POWER, BRADLEY LAKE, ALASKA NATIONAL HYDROELECTRIC POWE~ RESOURCES STUDY -PRELIMINARY INVEN- TORY OF HYDRO POWER RESOURCE~, PACIFIC NORTHWEST 1978 SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY. SUSITNA'HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTf WATANA DAMSITE, DEVIL 1 S CANYON DAMSITE REPBRT ON RAMPART CANYON DAM & LAKE YUKOn RIVER BASIN ... ) ' . ' •' ' ' ........ ., (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un (798) 621.22.3 (798) 621.22o2 .006 Un (798) 621.22.1 RE~IEW OF REPORTS: COOK INLET & TRIBUTARIES, COPPER RIVER & GULF (798) . . COAST, TANANA RIVER BASINS, YUKON & KUSKOKWIN BASINS, SOUTHCENTRAL621.22.3 RAILBELT ARP.A. PUBLIC HEARING -FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 1974 REVIEW OF REPORTS ••• as aBove ANCHORAGE & FAIRBANKS PUBLIC MEETING 1975 tw copies REVIEW OF SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA. HYDRO POWER POTENTIAL, ANCHOR.l\GE 2 cop.tes SOUTHCENTRAL-RAILBELT AREA, ALASKA. (HYDROELECTRIC POWER STUDY- (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un (798) 621.22.3 u PUBLu!C HEARIN&, ANCHORAGE ALAS:{<,A .. ) 1974 · u SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBE~T AREA, ALASKA UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN. INTERIM FEASIBILiTY REPORT. Appendix 1 & 2. SOUTHCENTRAL RAILBELT AREA, ALSKA UPPER SUSITNA RIVER BASIN. MA,IN REPORT SUBSURFACE GEOPHYS~CAL EXPLORATION, PROPOSED WATANA DAMSITE ON THE SUSITNA RIVER ( l ' l 1 1-k,.-~~, [.___ [ 1.-=-. p ~>Uoo~Jt«. ~:::~~ !._,.~,-' ~~ ....,.- (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un (798) 621.22.3 un (798) 621.22 .. 2 .or,. fJn . ·-" ,-,"!" ~~ .I ~ &,;;:;.; ~ " ·" ~~ u.s. Army Corps of Engineers u.s. Bure?..~·of Reclamation .. u.s. Dept. of conunerce .u.s. Dept. of Energy U.S. Dept. of the Interior ~ ~ ,.. --., ~ ---. ~ _..-.,.:;;:;:;;.;;.. . --· -= ~ , . .........,_, • -j ~ ~ L.:! liiii';' ~; ~ ..... :1 i. :J i:.l£J ~-:...1i;;l ~ SUSl~NA MATERIALS continu~~ TANANA RIVER BASIN, HARBORS & RIVERS lN ALASKA SURVEY REPORT- TRANSCRIPT OF COORDINATION CONFERENCE FOR SOUTHCENTRAL RAILB~LT AREA, ALASKA INVESTIGATION DEVIL CANYON PROJECT 1 ALASKA FEA8IBIT,ITY REPORT ENGINEERING GEOLOGY REPORT, FEASIBILITY STAGE, DEVIL CANYON DAM _..,....._ ... , ··. ·•"'" (798) 621.22.1 (282.41.) Un (798) 621.22.3 Un (798) 621.22.2 .006 Un II REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE (798) SUSITNA RIVER BASIN OF ALASKA •. DIST~ICT MANAGER 1 S RECONNAISSANCB 6~1.22.1 REPORT (282.4) Un VEE CANYON PROaECT, SUSITNA RIVER ALASK~ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF VEE CANYON DBMSITE ALASKA ECONOMY: YEAR END PERFORMANCE REPORT 1978 CLIMATE OF ALASKA: CLIMATOGRAPHY OF THE. U.S. (798) 621.22.2 .006.1 Un ·(798) 621.22.1 Un II ANALYSIS OF I}WACT ON HYDROELECTRIC POTEN~IAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION' (798) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALASKA D-2 LANDS 621.22.3 Un HYDROELECTRIC ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ALASKA RAILBE~T 2 cqpies UPl?ER SUSITNA RIVER PROlJECT: POWER .MARKET ANALYSES ALASKA NATURAL RESOURCES & THE RAMPART PROJECT VOL;o I & II 2 copies n (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un (798) 621.22.1 Un -(-·~ ... • . u.s. Dept. of the Inter :tor u.s. Fish & W~ldli£~ Service u.s., Geological Survey • L::-. ~~ L-== l.~·--' 11 ~ ; ;ft) \ '-':! SUSITNA MATERIALS continued .. ALASKA -RECONNAISSANCE REPORT ON TH:E POTENTIAL DEVEJ.AOPMENT OF WATER(798) RESOURCES IN THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA 6.21. 22.1 Un ANALYSIS OF IMPACT H.R. 39 ON THE HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL OF ALASKJ\ (798) 621.22.3 Un DEVIL CAN~ON PROJECT, ALASKA REPORT. OF THE COMMISSION OF RECLAMATION(798) 621.22.2 .006 Un ' DEVIL CANYON PRO.TEC:T -ALASKA s•rATUS REPORT 2 copies II FUTURE POWER REQUIREMENTS : REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMI-(798) TEE ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & LOAD PROJECTIONS 621.22.3 Un SVSITNA RIVER BASIN; A REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF WATER (798) RESOURCES IN SUSITNA RIVER BASIN 621.22.1 (282.4) Un SUBSTANTIATING REPORT ON THE FISH & WILDLIFE RESOURCES OF THE YUKON (798) AND KUSKOKWIN RIVER BASINS 621.22.1 WATER RESOURCES DATA FOR ALASKA WATER YEAR 1977 2 copies WATER RESOURCES (SURFACE ~· SUBSURFACE) OF THE COOK INLET BASIN - ROUGH FIN~~ DRAFT 1 \.. .. "~··~~ l~ ,.. .. l·· . ~ L ' ~~~ ......... ~'-"" ' i1 t-.. -w".~ t i,':'"' ' ~~A~~ ., L~,J!j ~ -.!1 :581 .. 57 Un {798) 621.22.1 (798) 621.22.1 (282.4) Un . 'f.-.. ).' ~ u· ~ . ~··.· .. I -~ ; l ~ ~ ~· '. . ..... P,. -NOTES' ON MEETINGS BETWEEN APA~ ACRES~ . WCC AND REPRESENTATIVES' OF THE GOVERNOR 1 .. S OFFICE~ JUNE 10. ANIT IlJ 1980 1 --~---·--• -:.·I "-; .j ~ u· J J ·~ J ~ ~~ Hr. Robert Mohn Alaska Power Authorfty 333 West 4th Avenue Suite 31 Anchorage. Alaska 99501 Dear Robert: June 30, 1980 P67B01fll!.11 T.248 Sus1tna Hydroelectric Project Task I Partia1 Tmn1nation I 1m forwarding herewfth a copy ·of notes and attachments prepared duM.ng our meetfngs J:me 10 and 11. Pleaso advise ff you note any inaccur1c1es fn ·thfs record •. I also confirm my understanding of your letters dated June 13 . and 16 (%). as mocf.1ffect fo11ow1ng our telecon June 23. as follows: . 1. The budget-11mftat1on foJ-Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02 cf $82,900 per ycur·lette,. dated Jun~ 13 should be revised to ~efl~ct budgets whfch currently exist in the Acres/CDC cost reporting system. Revisions should also reflect ·the changes wht·ch have resulted from consideration ·of the Tussing Report and providing additional responses to public t;~onRent Rer fpaa letters dated June 13aand June 16. Deta11s of this budget should be forwarded as soon as possible. 2. The requested Plan for Forecast Improvement", per your letter dated June. 13, should be 1n summa-ry fonn, tailored to th~ available budget~ rather than a detailed plan. 3. Early confirmation of the cost of partial termfnation 1s requetted togethe~ with the actual termination report for Whfch $7,000 has been budgeted. 4.. An Updlted detailed su~~~t~ry of sunk cos.t..s to June 6 should be· forwa.rded as soon as ·possible~ s. A clear 1ftdieat1on of Revised Scope statements. cost. estimates and schedules indicating interfacinq require-· ~nts between· the Susitna studies and the remaining Task I studies, should be forwarded as soon &sspossible. •. ,. I (. -·· j I Alaska, Power Authar'l ty . Robert Mohn - 2 .. ... . ... -=} June,30, 1980 I 6. The estimate· of costs for undertaking Item 5 should also rs.~1 be fanfarded: this wort should. be charged to Subtask 1.03 1 and kept· to. 1 mtn1mtn. · . .J 7. Acres.shoild assume for planning purposes that the additional $200.000 fn Tast 6 and $100,000 in Task 11 re- .que,ted as a result of the Tussing Report (excludtng Alternative Risk Assessments) wfll he available. t~ are dealing with each of the above as rapidly. as possible and hope to respond w1 thin a. week. · .. " .,. JDL:jh JDL I ' .. .. Sincerel~~ John D.. lawrence· Project Manager . .. .. ' .. _j J .J .J .j .J ~J J ·J· · .. : J J [J ':,'J J 'J ~ ~ -~ ~ ~.-~. ~ ' . . . SUSITNA HYDROELECTRiC PROJECT NOTES ON MEETINGS -ALASKA. POWER AUTHORITY JUNE 10 & 11: 1980, ANCHORAGE 1 • Meeting of June .1 0 Present: R. Mohn ) . APA . . . , D. Baxter) ·J • Lawrence) J. Hayden ) Acres J. Landman ) ' C. Kirkwood) WCC· (par-t time) ,R. Ftrth ? ) .. . . 1.1 Introduction . . P5700 .13 The. pur.pose ·of the meeting was to.review'with APA/WCC .the current· statuS' of Tasl{ I studies and to discuss the remaining differences between Acres an~ WCC's prapo~ed approaches. The me~ting continued in the absence~of~CC to discuss the options available to APA and .the Gover~or•s office for continuation of Task I studies. 1.2 Status of'Task ~ .. Robert.Mohn c~mplained th~t Acres had 'still not submitted the detailed scope for Part 2 of the revised (post-Tussing) scope nor the revised budgets .. He had hoped. to be able to present to the Gover~or•s offjce representatives an agreed plan fully responsive to Tussing and in 1 i'ne with the overall tost estimates already submitted. · Acres advtsed that this had not been po~sible because, following meetings May 6 and 7, WCC had submitted a new proposal for its increased .involvement in Task I beyond that previously suggested by Acres. This proposal was not received by Acres until May 27. We were concerned that~he wee approach would cause further increases in · cost ·and might in any case not be appropirate for the alternatives study. By June 4 (6 working days later), the date of termination ~f Task I work, Acres• review. of the proposal had reached a point where further discussions with wee were about to be scheduled to attempt the .resolution of the differences.' It had been. hoped that this resolution would have been successfully accompl}ished. However,·the main point of difference between Acres and WCC . I. . . " .... 2 . " concerned the method to be used for screening, ranking and selection of load forecasts, the list of alternatives for further consideration and finally the 1 oad. gon~th scenarios themse 1 ves. Kirkwood explained WCC's case that the approach to the alternatives study should be a planning exercise in which the. State of Alaska should be attempting to decide the best options available for meeting project power needs in the Railbelt on a continuing basis and not ·specifically for· the with or without -Susitna Project cases ' , as currently proposed (See Attachment· 1). Ther~ appeared to be some room stil-l for accomplishing an approach similar to this proposal withi~ the·framework of Acres• propos~d ?lan for Task I. i.3 Options for Continuation of Task I Work This part of the discussion took place in the absence of wee. The available options presented by Acres were discussed at some length and .modifieaas shown in Tables 1 and 2 attached to the notes on the meeting of June 11. A great deal of the discussion centered on (a)· the questionable objectivity of wee to continue in Task I studies, when they themse 1 ves had more than $1 nii 11 ion of work in Task 4 } ·through mi d-1982 and the prospec.t of continued wol'k in this area .J (b) the desirability of retaining sub-tasks 1.01 and 1.02 as currently proposed and of allowing Acres to continue with development of Sub-task 1.03 at least in the gathering of all technical data for· the a1ready·agreed list of alternatives. This data would then be reviewed and if necessary modified by the selected A/E, to preserve objectivity. (c) The desirability of allowing Acres to continue Susitna - · Task 6 studies of alternatives using the appropriate Sub-task 1.03 technical data input, thus avoiding excessive termination costs and delays of up to 4 months while the new A/E is selected and familiarizes. · ~ : . ' ' ~J J J 1!1 ' -- .. ~ ... . ~· [~ l~ J ~J r-~ • :J J J ~1 iU . J . ' 2. Meeting of June 11 Present: John Haltennan (Deputy Director)) Office of the Governor, T.om Singer '" ) DPDP R. Mohn ) T, McGuire ) APA D. Baxter ) N. Blunck ) J. D. Lawrence) J. W. Hayden ) Acres· J. K. Landman) 2.1 Introduction The purpose of the meeting was to discuss with repres.entati ves of the Governor•s Office the intent and inter·pretation of recent legislation concerning Susitna marketing and· alternatives studies (see Agenda, Attachment 2) and the options available for implementation of the legislation and Jts impact on continuation of the Acres• Sus i tna Studies. 2.2 Governor•s Office Interpretation of ~gislatiQ!l John Halterman stated that the legislation would be jnterpreted literally in excluding Acres from all further alternatives studies. However, his recommendation at this time would be that APA retain responsi·bility for man(l~Qement of the Task I Studies . .This would not preclude the selection by.DPDP of an independent consultant to oversee the work. 2.3 Status Reoort on Task I Activities The following presentation was made by J. Lawrence (Attachment 3, pages.A3-1 through A 3-9) 7 (a) Subtask·l.Ol -Review of ISER Forecast (Pages A3.l, A.3.2) Activity 90% complete; final report currently in draft form .. ·Forecasts to be used in alternatives study wi1 'I be based on this report. (b) Subtask 1.02 -Peak Load Forecast and Lo·ad Duration Curves Activity about 20% complete in data gathering and establishment of methodology. Required as input to generation expansion studies. (c) Subt'ask 1 :·o3 -Identification of Power Alternatives (Pages A3 .3 through A3. 0) . Activity about 10% complete in assembly of list of alternatives i.n ~qpsul,tation with APA, the public and other agencies. A 1 :t ' .. 'l \o . . ... I proposed list of parameters associated with alternatives for purposes of screening and ranking in Subtasks 1.04 and 1.05 has also been as?embled. (d) Subtask 1.04-~election of Viable Expansion Sequences Activity restricted to discussjon with Woodward-Clyde Con- .. sultants on methodology to be used. wee have submitted ·a proposal for an amended study approach which was under considerati.on by Acres when wark was stopped on June 6. This proposal also covered work to be done under Subtasks 1.05, 1.06 and 1.07, and involved significant cost increases (see Page A3.9) (e) Sunk Costs (Page~.7) The estimated sunk costs are .not exact at this time, but reasonably accurate. ·Revised POS costs were incurred developing the amended scope of work as a re~ult of the Tussing Report, mostly under Subtask 1.03. The total budgets for Task 1, pre-and proposed post-Tussing, ar~ indicated on Page A3.8. The proposed post-Tussing budget had been based on·Acres in-house estimates and scope of work, and were significantly 1 OWer than those ·r1dW proposed by WCC. 2 .. 4 Revised Power Market and /;lternatives Study (Attachment 4) A presentation of the Acres proposed revised Task I study was made by John Hayden. This p~oposal was the subject of revised scope descriptions and cost estimate summaries which were being prepared by Acres when work was stopped June 6. L 2.5 Options for Continuation of Task I Studies (Attachment 5) <I R. Mohn described the avai1able options and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Cost implications are indicated on Page A5.6. Option 1 was clearly unacceptable to the Governor•s Office under their interpretation of the legislation. Option 4 was not feasible under the current contractual arrangements between Acres and wee. o·ption 2 would involve minimal cost and schedule impact and could probably b~ handled essentially as a change in scope of existing contracts. Option 3 could involve delays of up to 4 months which would in turn delay submission of the FERC license. This option would have to be regarded as a partial termination with its attendant increases in l ! i l I ,J ) .J ' ! J q !.J J cost. No attempt had been made to estimate additio.nal costs resulting from a potential 4 to 5 month lengthening of the contract period. 2.6 Discussion The Governor•s.Office undertook to.ma.J<e its decision by the:end of the week, but agreed that Subtasks 1.01 and 1.02 should be continue9 to c~mpletion. The costs associated·with the potential delay in submission of· the-FERC license application will have to be established at some point •.. . There was some discussion of the questionable objectivity of continued participation of WCC in Task I studies in light of their significant involvement ·in seismic studies.; Haltennan believed that APA should continue to m~nage the alternatives studies, possiply with counseling by a select corrmittee, and also to manage the proposed ti da 1 s.tud i es • J \ :I . . ;; ' ' l ' 1 I ' J J ' 1 ·l r~ 'l , ... ' J ',· :1 .. ll r 'I Lal , .. J ' ll1 J J ,. ~~ :: .... ~- ... ' i. 1 ~ \ A ITA(.,ij n~ ..t~L~\.Sii..t\. l))f)\VI~Il "~lJTII()IliTY SUSITNA ALTERNATIVES STUDY MEETING Wednesday, June 11, 1980 Anchorage, Alaska PROPOSED AGENDA 1. Discussion of Le~islative Intent and Office of the Go\arnor•s , ) ... I nterpreta ti on. ·(· , , , .. df) V,.,·~o.... r~ L l-(,. ; """-"'' ::· ~" .... PURPOSE: Establish the constraints in broad terms 2. Status Report on Task l Activities. (OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR) PURPOSE: Identify-progress to date and sunk costs so that the implfcations of program changes are Rriown. ,\.r • • _ . (ACP.ES) J.~~oo .. ~,.~ .. ~· _ 3. Description of the Revised Power Market and Alternatives Study. PURPOSE: (a) Explore the extent to which the current POS meets the criticisms of Tussing and Woodward-Clyde •. 1:1-i-t'":j"'-t:·.~ {b) Separate the issu~ of POS adequacy from the related but different issue of objectivity. ...., 1 (ACRES, APA) f'\ 1,.'-'i.·~ ... ~~ I 4. Proposed Program changes to comply with Legislative Intent. ~. PURPOSE: Offer options with~ccounting of advantages and disadvantage~ . 5. 6. -!< I ~t,.l,:,J"'" . w-(APA) Discussion and Decision -'1~,.{-··-·-I .. ·-..-· . Other Issues (a ) Ava i 1 ability of Funds 1 \. S ......t,.(........_; e....j"'~~ ,.._;-y_;, · (b) Tidal Power Study (;;, ... . ll /_ ) ' /. ~ \!!.~c---o) &170 J.t.r ~ L,~~ ~t-.t"l .'11.C l:x.c.. V-t'\ Ll ... I,_ "'\ l ~ r~ 1-AM._w\::..~ -~ 1\P'A.} .J;, ooo . ! ~~ ()fJO l ~ 12,aou 1 . .,. ..:;aoo I ;;aao •, / •' .)/ , .... ~·· <--.. #. .,..... , ,/ ., . . '~ ..... I I· .I I I ~1 A1;1 At-tt,vtc:N-r ) 3 l ' . f!~· e\~·l I ,lo\. ~ I . • I : I \ ! _, i ' ' 1 r; 1r. ~ ~j ) ~j :{ -.1 ~--+1----·--~------------~-------~----------~--~--~---tl-.-.. --·----- 1'177 /'lBO .; 00 (') ~ . i ·w J ! J ' . S"o{;"f.~ I .ol ~11 ELECTRIC PO\~ER REQUIREMENTS FOR. THE RAILBELT _If ~J Ex~cut~ve Summary '~1 :~ Results of the Analysis .l The electric power requirements of the Alaskan railbelt will con- tinue to grow over. the next thirty years as the economy expands and ' l ~ personal ineome grows. Based upon the analysis of a large"numb~r of u 'J II . :~ • economic, demographic, and elecJ:ricity consumption factors,, the most . • ~ikely growth rates for the mast important state economic varjables .. and railbelt electric utility sales. over the next: thirty years are as follows: '- Time Interval TABLE A. PROJECTED ALASKAN GROWTH RATES ,(Average Annual Percent) Statewide Population Growth ·Statewide Employment , Growth . Rail belt Ele~tric Utility Sales Growth I R JIY HISTORICAL 1965 -1970 1970 1975 1975 1980 PROJEC1.ED 1980 -1985 l9S5 •1 1990 1990 -1995 1995 -2000 2000 -2005 2005 2010 ,., ... ,._ . ..,.#Oot ...... . 2. 7 (;.0 .. 8 3.7 1.7 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 . . 5.6 12.1 ~.5 4.6 1.4 3!'2 .., 5 ... 2.0 2 .. 0 -'"""-···----,..,.,• ".' ~ 'ij"'-·- 13.9 13.5 1-r)). 5e8• 2 .. 6 5 .. 0 4o5 3.3 3.4 " >\ .. Jll . ·. ,·· ' ... . ... ** .~ S usi tn_!l Hyd roe lee. tric Proj ec: t,. . ., Other Generation .\lternatives *Fossil Fuel Alternatives -Coal-Fired Steam Cycle -Oil-Fired Steam'Cycle -Natural Gas-fired Steam Cycle -Oil-fired Combined Cycle -Natural Gas-fired Combined cycle -Oil-fired Combustion Turbines -Na~ural Gas-fired Combustion Turbines *Nuclear Alternatives -Converter Reactors (LWR. HWR) -!reeder Reactors -Fusion *Municipal Solid Waste . *Wood-fired and Peat-fired Steam Cycle *Biomas Gasification Applications **P.iomass-fired Steam Cycle · *~w1nd Energy Driven Turbines •r*Geotherma-1 Eaergy Driven Turbines *Solar Thermal Steam Cycle *Solar Photovoltaic **Solar Satellite **Co~eneration (Industry, District Heating! Institu~ional) ***Hydro and Tidal Alternative -Other Conventional Hydro Developments -Small-scale Hydropower Plant Potential -Tidal Power Resources of the Cook Inlet Region **• Non-Generation Alternatives J ) -Conservation (Forced or Induced -Load-Hanagement -Other Figure 3.3. A Pr~liminary List of Alternatives Considered *W.oodward-Clyde. has PI:'incipal responsibility **Acres has pr:t.ncipal responsibility . . . .. .. ' J j . .J .~ .. J J J ~ ' . J )·o J·!;-; A-?lk-S 1 A o ·s; i . o ~ . -. SUGGESTED SCREENING CRITERIA AND ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS -- . . .. Criteria Economic Technical Environmental Physical Ecological Social Institutional Elements TYpes of Attribute -Capital Cost -Cost/kWh -installed capacity -plant factor -resource availability / -tra~ssion facilities -access -water -lan.-1 -atmosphere -fisheries -wildlife -·vegetation · -land use -quality of life -licensing -schedule -finance $ $ MW * ·QuantitY $ $ Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Cescriptive Cescriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive U Details of the environmental criteria are aS shown below: ' ii • J. ·~·l ,, ' Physical/Chemical effects (direct effects) Environment · Type ·water -groundwater -surface water -coastal waters Land -toi=Ography -soils -natural oover Atmospher • Effects ~detertoratian of water quali~ -change in flow rate -alteration of·waterway -change in water table, water availability -change in ice conditions -geomorphic processed induced (erosion, sedimentation) -renobal of natural oover -alter topography -deterioration of soils -alternation of geologically important areas -soild waste disposal -air quality change (e.'llissions) -long term atmospheric effects (green house effect-example) \ • ''-''-! \. ,_, •. ~ . ' . Physical/Chemical effects (direct effects) cont .. Ecological Effects Social Effects Environment Type Meteorological 'Geological Noise Conslliiption of natural resources Fisheries Vegetat~on Land Use land quality lam planning Effects -change in local temp -energy loss from environment whim effects local. cl:ilnate (e.g .. , large solar inay cause. lose of heat to earth) -long term atrrospheric effects ' . ,._, "..... ... .. -fogging, ice formation, change in natural p:~tterns -alteration of geologically in'portant area -alteration of chain of natural events te.g., prevent,ioo of natural scouring of river valley qy periodic floods -induced s.eismicity -D~stub human/natural population -water, forests, natural energy -loss of natural passageways· -loss of spawing groun:Js ·-destruction of pJpulation -alteration of natural food chains -loss of endangered and important species or other unique· species -removal of natural cover -alteration of food chain -introduction of incompatible species -loss/alteration of land use -wilderness, scenic -recreational opportunities -forestl:y -archeological and historic -traditional livelihoods (hunting, fishing, trapping) -urban-(residentialf corrmerical, irxlustrial) -mining -agriculture -ownership ~ ~ . . ' t l J .. J J 1 1 ~ ... ~' ·J 111' c,~ J ' nt li# ~,,.., ~n nt Ill f l! ' •' ~ ;·" ·"if !FJ if} ~~ ,Z, :n ~ t.J_i\ N.,? ~ ill rtr ·,i'{ w :-tr 'i Wi Fi ii WI l • rJI; I' eJi ilj ','j .;.u J:d ' ,. ~ "' I . ' • . ... Sue .,.. Dt<;)C. s L-o ... .[, J 1 . a ~ Environnent Social Effects (cont .. ) Type Quality of Life· -CDiTiilUili ty -opportunities -economics -infracstruc- ture -denography Effects -loss/alteration/improvement of Q.O.L factors -disturbance/creation of OOllll1l.lili ty ·- -create/destroy -effects of temporary economic . stL~Jll.ation -dlz.nge in property values -overburdell existin; public facilities; -change in property values -short ter.mVlong te~ creation of job market 4 i ' "' J ~ y " ~ .ll ~. 1 f l ~ ,, 1 i ~ ' ! ~ l ~ I i j ! 4 I il i liJ ~ I ACRES SUSITNA H~DROELECTRIC PROJECT IASK.l-POWER .STUDIES SUNK_COSTS THROUGH JUNE 6¥ l98Q ORIGINAL REVISED POS POS * " i $ .. SOJIOO 31,~000 WOODWARD-CLYDE 41 ... 100 19,000 TES 8QQ_ 20Q -.. TOTAL , TOTAL $ 81,100 60,100 1,300 92~000 · SOJSOO 142J500 * REVISIONS FOLLOWING TUSSING REPORT .., f'Aerc ·" L \ ' ~ • ._J ~J 't 9 X _j J J J I . ' I· . ~· .. · (]~ ' .I M if}: W2 ar lit· ;..JJ lt jft. ill SUSITNA HYDROELE:TRIC PROJECT IBSK.l-POWER STUDIES BUDGET SUMMARIES ORIGINAL POS REVISED p'os * . IN 1980 $ IN 1980 $ EscALATION $ TOTAL $ ACRES 74;000 WOODWARD-CLYDE 230.~000 TES SUB-TOTAL ISER REVIEW PANEL TOTALS TSUBTASKS 6A01 (HROUGH 6.u8 ACRES) SUBTASKS 11i0l THROUGH 11. 2 (ACRES) TOTALS 55,000 "359,~000 60.~000 419JOOO 355,000 233.~000 1.~007,000 373.~000 396,000 114,000 883.~000 148.~000 66,000 1,~097)000 431.~000 2.,059:~000 .. 51.~000 54.~000 16,000 121.~000 12.~000 9,000 142,~000 73.~000 59.~000 274.~000 * BUDGETS PROPOSED FOLLOWING TUSSING REPORT.~ WCC COMPONENT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATION (To"tAL5 eXCLU-5tV£ Ot= . ORiCrlN.~L POS ') , 424.~000 450.~000 130,000 1.~004.~000 160.~000 75,000 1.~239.~000 604JOOO 490.~000 2.~333)000 ~ .... . . . ' .;. . SlEITNA HYDRlE ECIRIC. PROJECI TASK 1 -po,fR STIJDIES WCC PR(REAL CO'PARISOOS <1~0 $ X lOCQ) it- SLJBTA)K ¥At: 8~ I PIAL . ACRP ~II~ iC1 CR 1.01 so•• 29 -89 1.02 44 30 -74 1.03 116 133 9 . 258 1.04 130 60***' -170 1.05 115 16 105 236 1.06 63 60*** -103 TOTAL 526 328 114 970 * FOLLOWING TUSSING REPORT **·.INCLUDING $32~000 ALREADY EXPENDED . 46 100 118 -· 132 - 396 *** ACRES INVOLVEMENT REDUCED ASSUMING WCC INVOLVEMENT INCREASES 29 30 133 9 88 ·. - 16 105. 77• 373 114 Jr;;'.::(..:.~ p:;:-1 r ~ ·........-' JQIA[ 75 ... 130 260 88 ' ' 253 ' ' •• ..1 77 . ~ ~ 883 ~J i Ul' ~ I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I POSSIB!,E CONSl.RVA'ltOH ·;tTRATECIES 1.03 SASITNA (COE PROPOSAlS) l03 NON-HYDRO ALTEF:NATIVES PEAK 1.0ADS 1.02 1.02 LO.t.<D DURATIONS 11.12 PREUMINARY 1.02 IDENTIFY LOAD MAN 1 M 1 T POTENTIAL FINANCIAL 8 1--------, MARKETING STUDY ALTEIDIATIVE ASSESSMENT COST RESOURCE AVAILABILITY TECHNICAL AVAILABiliTY FACILITY OPERATIONAl - CHARACTERISTlCS ltlSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ENVIRONMEfiTAl FACTORS SOCJOECONOMJC EFFECTS L1 CEllS ING PROSPECTS OTHER I t· 1 PLIBU c HEALTH AND HYDRO B TIDAL I STATE AND FEDERAL :TERNATIVES REGULATIOiiS 1.03 RISK ANALYSIS Fl HANClAL AND MARKETING AIIALYSIS ADDED 1 1 CONSERVATIONr-;--------------_. NO LOAD MAN I MIT 1.02 COST INCENTIVE LOAD MAN'M•T LEGISLATED LOAD MAN 1 M'T RANK AND SELECT ALTERNATIVES EU ,·,_ ((·~· l ·p-:: -·---,_-... --~-· .. ·-+-+-... !.02 I :11 'ANEL . . • :REEN PANEL SCREEN 1.07 NON-,...v"'''-"'O&...~C. ~LOW PROB'LTY'J.------' ALTERNATIVES 1.07 ----~ ..,_.-··-· .. ..--.... ,....,. .. - ----------------------------·--------~~~ FROM SH~ l04 EXPANSION SCENARIOS WITH SUSITNA 1.04 DECENTRALIZED EXPANSION SCENARIOS I /SUB TASK 1.02 LEGEND COST FACILITY OPERATIONAL CHARACTER! STI CS ENVIRON!~ ENTAL EFFECTS SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS Ll CEliS lNG PROSPECTS lNSTITUTlONAL FACTORS PUBLIC HEALTH A:ID STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATlOUS RISK ANALYSIS • FINANCIAL AND HARKETlllG 11.03- INFO FROM 1.07 PANEL SCREEN 1.06 INTERIM REPORT TASK II Al-rAL.HME:J-. r 4 PAC:re A4, l ALTERNATIVES. YES NO I !o-INON-ECONOMICALII' I EXPANS,ON I PUBLIC COMMENT APPROXIMATE 11.12 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL a MARKE.TING STUDY,SHT2 I SOIEDULE 3EJ . {WEEKS fROM i)an-J lSSO) I 39 I 42' I 44 ---~--------~ .. -------~-~--\\ .... --.. ·~------~~---------lr----~-;..,.,.0 . ~~ () • \ • • c ;' • • ' " '• .... y.: '0 <" '. I 54 SCENARIOS I 58 SUSITNA I 60 YES I 68 t------1 CONTINUE SUSITNA FEASIBILITY STUDY STUDY OF (J:P.htiSl SCENARIOS W/o SU!>lTI~ 110 FURTHER STUDIES HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PLAN OF STUDY TASK 1-POWER STUDIES I FIRST PART U .• !ltJ!IIdl ~ -1iW'f' m ,,,.,..._,., · mrram nrirnr i&re£ ·.' · · ·· _.:-;,; /;--·· '., , ... · ·· ·- I • I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I ;:. LOI/1.02 SUSITNA ALTERNAtiVES STL*DJES 6.01. ••.••• £.08 APPROX. SCnEDULE .;]3 (WEEKS FROM Jan·. I, 1980) ----:-----------·--· -· PREliMINARY flliANCIAL I MARKET lUG STUDY :-:.--_-- CONTI tlUE SUS ITNA fEASIBlllTY STUDY NO FURTHER STUD U.S '-------.J I l 68 .. • PRELIMINA COST, R ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 1.04 STUDY OF EXPANSJ SCUiARJOS W/o SUSilNA I 74 {I) ltiCLUDES DECENT RALI~EIJ SCENARIOS 1.04 GENERATlOti PLN;tlll/G ANALYSIS SELECT EXPANSION SCENARIOS \'r:/SUSITNA J 78 --.. _.,... TASK 6 SUSITtlA DEVELOPMEtiT l REPORT 11.01, 1L04, 11.12 RlSK Htt.NCll.t I. K;IMTI ASSESSMENTS 1.05 ENVIRONM ASSESSMENTS 1.04 .._ ·--- I 108 -----:-------;:-. ~-.. -.-..........,.,_.......,---.-. ·----. ------~~ •0 TASK 6 COIITlNUE DETAILED ----.. --.._, -----.. _._ _,. -· ___ ,.., __ .,. --·-... -----~- TO SHEET I. SUSITNA r-----------------------T STUDIES 1.04 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES '~6.0L •.•••. 6.08 I ll2 1.07 PANEL SCREEN I in l04 . !DENT OPTIMUM EXPANSio"N SCENARIOS 1.06 PRELIMINARY REPORT P BLIC COMMENT I 1-zz PREPARE Ll CENSI }.JO STOP ALL WORK l:!3o SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PLAN TASK 1-POWER STUDIES/SECOND OF PART 2 STUDY ATTATCHMENT I 1:,.:. -~ ,.j· [I ·-.... -·--... ' < j pr'"-C' fj .; . --~ -~ • [1 ....::l:..-:...1.,. •r l!l .-~--:~ '----• \.,,., ...... 1,.. -,-... J.-~--•---~ ~~-L-'-t:::-~ ·" -~--~--.-~·""-' 6 ~-·' -~'--·"· !.,_ .. ,,< •~ . TABLE 1 WORK CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH OPTIONS WORK AVAILABLE FOR DISPOSITION OF TASK 1 OPTION No. 1 OPTION No. 2 OPTION No. 3 ACRES TO STOP TASK 1 WORK. • • INDEPENDENT FIRM TO CONTINUE PlANN!NG OPTION No. 4 WORK REMAINS AS IS, SUBTASK NUHBER I BUT GOVERNOR. s PANEL ANO DESCRIPTION REVIEWS ACRES' ACTIVITIES 1.01 I AS 'PROPOSED REVIEW OF ISER l«JRK PlAN AND · METHODOLOGIES ].02 ElEC'{RIC·PEAK LOAD DEMAND FORECAS!S 1.03 lDENTIFlCAHOH OF POWER Al TERNATJ'tES 1.04 h bENERATION FLAN- NING ANAlYSIS AND SElECTION OF EXPANSION SCENARIOS 1.05 EXPAf~SION SEQUENCE IMPACT ASSESMENTS AS PROPOSED AS PROPOSED HON··HYDRO: WCC HYDRO: ACRES/TES CONSERVATION: ACRES AS PROPOSED, BUT DELPJII TECHNIQUES WOULD BE APPliED TO SCENARIO FOR~ LATION (See Note 2) AS PROPOSED ACRES DEVELOPS DATA ON AlTfRNATIVES ••. OPPORTUNITIES FOR I INDEPENDENT FIRM TO CARRY PANEL REVIEW OUT GEN£RATJON PlANUING -FORECASTING MODElSIWOOOWARD-ClYOE TO COMPLETE -INPUT PARAMATERS REVIEW OF !SER CURRENT -GROWTH SCENARIOS WORK; INDEPENDENT FIRM -RESULTS ·TO REVIEW FUTURE UP.DAJES ·- SAME AS FOR OPTION 2 (See Note 1) ACRES AND WOODWARD-ClYDE TO REVERSE CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR ROlES SAME AS FOR OPTION 1 WORK TOO FAR ADVANCED TO CHANGE wooDWARD-cLYDE TO coMPLETE I SAME ~s FOR OPTION 2 1 SAME AS FOR OPTION 1 TnEIR WORK NOW UNDERWAY, -WORK TOO FAR ADVANCED TO CHANGE INDEPENDENT FIRM TO REVIEW (See Note 1) -METHODOlOGY -RESULTS -AllERtlATJVES SElECTED -CHARACTERIZATION OF ALTERNATIVES -SCREENING METHOD- OlOGIES -RESULTS AND UPDATE WHERE NEEDED DATA NEEDED FOR CHARACTER-. IZATIOii OF ALTERNATIVt:,-· .. TO BE DONE BY ACRES. - AND WOODWARD-CLYDE ••• INDEPENDENT FIRM TO -·-·- REVIEU DATA AND CON--. DUCT SCREfNING [See Note Jr NO INVOLVEMENT BY ACRES OR THEIR SUB- CONTRACTORS · {See Note 1) . -. .- ... -PlANNING METHOD-INDEPENDENT FIRM TO CON-NO INVOLVEMENT~¥ OLOGY DUCT PlANNING STUDIES ACRES OR THEIR SUB- -SCENARIO fORMUlAT-CONTRACTORS iON -RESULTS IN PARAllEl TO ACRES --~ CONTINUING WORK ON -· SUSITNA FEASIBILITY STUDIES . ( s·ee tlote 1} WOODWARD-CLYDE TO SUPERVISE AND DIRECT WORK. • • NON-HYDRO AlTfRNATIVES STUDIED BY ACRES AND WCC; WIND, GEO- THERMAl, AND COGENERATION BY ACRES; HYDRO AND TIDAl BY ACRESi CONSERVATION BY ACRES. • • (wind study largely complete, hydro and tidal work underway) WOODWARD-CLYDE TO SUPERVISE AND DIRECT WORK. • • ACRES TO PROVIDE INPUT AND ASSiS1ANCE FOR ITER~TIVE PROCESS --------~--------------------------~-----~------------------------METHODOLOGY -RESULTS INDEPENDENT FIRM TO DIRECT WORK. • • ACRES AND WCC TO PROVIDE DATA AND ~SSISTANCE; - IF DESIRED NO INVOl~EMENT BY ACRES OR THEIR SUB- CONTRACTORS (See ~ote H WOODWARD-ClYDE TO SUPERVISE ANO .: DIRECT WORK. • . ACRES TO PROilDE DATA ANP ASSISTANCE -; , .. .• ~ ')> r..l a, ~ If\ .. .,,_,_, •••• ....... ............ , ~-~ ~'"" ,..., f"i ~.J.. ...,_,,,,~ ~-.. ~~::£ " .. , ..... .--E....: ...... S.-.----=-~-' f!l .. ~-c> p!,._ .fF:Lo.::.~-~·-· ~~ Ill-:: • ,, -~-~-"·'·-.:.-~ ........ ----·-~~-~-~~--~-'~ "--.,_ ...[· . >,\ {1 ... .._ • l I '··: .. ~ .. ! -~ .. ! . ~}~f-~~-~ 1 ........ _.· __ -· .. -: .. · :"-.; ~--: . :. :-\ . ... I . •· -·}l ~ ... -·--... ---.. - - OPTION No •. 1 OPTION No. 2 OPTION No. 3 OPT!ON No. 4 ACRES DEVElOPS DATA ACRES TO STOP WORK REMAINS AS Is. . · ON AlTERNATIVES. • • TASK 1 WORK. • • ., ACRES AND WOODWARD-ClYDE SUBTASK NUMBER BUT 60VERNOR•s PANEl OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDEPENDENT fiRM TO CARRY INDEPENDENT fJ~ TO REVERSE AND DESCR)PTJON REVIEWS ACRES' ACTIVITIES PANEl REVIEW OUT GENERATION PlANfiiNG 10 CONTINUE PlANNING CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR ROLES 1.06 AS .PROPOSED -TABLE Of CONTENTS INDEPENDENT FIRM TO PRO-NO lNVOlVEHEHT BY WOODWARD-CLYDE TO PRODUCE INTERIM REPORT • -DRAFT OF REPORT OUCE. • • ACRES OR THEIR SUB-REPORT. . • ' ACRES lu ASSIST WHERE CONTRACTORS ACRES TO ASSiST WHERE REQUESTED REQUESTED (See Note 1~ 1.07 POWER STUDY PANE!, AS PROPOSED -PAt,El SElECTION (Governor's panel may direct ~ower study pane1.l iNDEPENDENT Fl:tM TO WORK WJTH PANEL. •• NO INVOlVEMENT BY ACRES OR THEIR SUB- CONTRACTORS WOODWARD-CLYDE TO ACT AS PRINCIPAL CONTACT WITH PANEL 6.01 through 5.0UAS PROPOS£D SUSJTliA AlTERNATIVES ACRES AND THEIR SUBCON-. TRACTORS TO PARTICIPATE AS REQUESTED -SITE ALTERNATIVES lAS PROPOSEO -lEVEl Of AlTERNAT- IVE DEVELOPMENT (See Note 1~ AS PROPOSED I . . I none SAM~ AS FOR OPTION 2 AS PROPOSED SAME AS FOR OPHON 2. , • 13.03 I AS IN GiUGUVAl PLAtf OF DATA A!:QUISITHlN STUDY FROM OTHERS INPUT NEEDED FROM INDEPEN~ DENT FIRM TO ACRES TO COM- PlETE FERC EXHIBIT "U" INPUT "EEDEO FROM INDEPEN- DENT FIRM TO ACRES TO COM- PLETE FERC EXHIBIT 11 W11 INPUT NEEDED FROM WO<Y.JWARD-:CLYDE TO kCREf. TO COMrlETF.: FERC EXHIBITS . EX~IBH. PREPAR-srunY none ADDITIONAL COORDINATION SAME ·AS FOR OPT{OH 2 SAME AS fOR OPTION 2 ••• 10.04 . I ;\S ~H ORIGiNAL PLAN Of ATION COORDlNAT-· EFfORT HEEDED BETWEEN COORDiNAliON NEEDEO WITH 10 .. 09 . AS IN ORIGINAL PlAN Of none PROVISIONS NEEDED FOR SAME AS .FOR OPTJO.-. 2 SAME AS FOR OPTION 2 ••• lOU ,, INDEPENDENT FIRM AND ACRES WOODWARD-CLYDE OOCUHE~TATION STUDY INTrlACTION BETWEEN ACRES . . COORDINATION NEEDED WITH REVIEW ANP . ' I . AriD iNDEPENDENT FIRM . WOODWARD-Cl't'OE DEfECIENCY CORRECTION I I . 11.01 and ll.OZAS PROfOSEO --INPUT TO REPORT PREPARAIJON AS PROPOSED · •SAME AS fOR OPTION 2 • (See Note 1) i - ----... ...... -...... -- WOODWARD-CLYDE TO CONDUCT .... -- .. 'i f ' • 1' ~ a: ·;p V\ .. ,, ...... · -F r '~ ~ ·~ -p.! -i=--~ . l'i·~ ~~~L ~~~-•. • Jll!t,,, -~ ··~· ......... ......_.,.; ; "~-,.~...... ~.,·,:_-....:.... ~-~~ ,'1 n ~~l.l ~ .. ~ • ~# lt>-_ . ..,._,·_ -~~,.,;;, -~~= ~:~~-.··~ "'"~ ... ~ . ~ ,. ~· OPTION No. 1 • OPTION No. 2 OPTI ot• No. 3 OPTION No. 4 . . A~RES DEVELOPS DATA ACRES TO WRAP UP WORK REMAINS AS IS. . . ON ALTERNATIVES ••• TASK 1 WORK. • • ACRES AND WOOD\~ARO-ClYDE SUBTASY. NUl·lBER BUT GOVERNOR'S PANEL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDEPENDENT FIRM TO CARRY INDEPENDENT fiRM TO REVERSE AND DESCRIPTlON REVIEWS ACRES' ACTIVITIES PANEL REVIEW OUT GENERATION PLANUING TO C01HINUE PlANtiiNG CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR ROLES '"' AS. PROPOSED . 11.03 ~:g ll.Q¢ -METHODOLOGY INDEPENDENT FIRM TO DIRECT SAME AS FOR OPTION 2 WOOmJARD-ClYOE TO COND~CT WORK . Al T!:i<NATIVE . -RESULTS WORK .•• PORER SOURCE ACRES TO PROVIDE INPUT (See Note 1) . RISK ANALYSIS AND ASSISTANCE liS REQUEST-. EO . 11.12 AS PROPOSC:O -METHODOLOGY INDEPENDENi fiRM TO DIRECT SAME AS FOR OPTION 2 WOODWARD-CLYDE TO CONDUCT WORK PREL\MINARY -RESUlTS WORK. • • MARkETING AND . ACRES TO PROVIDE JNPU¥ AND (See Note 1) Flt,ANCIAl . ASSISTANCE AS REQUESTED STUOIES - NOTES: J. EXACT SCOPE OF WORK, INCLUDING INTERACTION BETWEEN ACRES AND THE NEW INDEPENDENT FIRM, TO BE DEFINED BY AlASKA PO~ER AUTHORITY AND INDEPENDENT FIRM z. CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO INCORPORATING TECHNIQUE OF DECISION ANALYSIS AS PROPOSED BV WOODWARD-~lYDE ~ 3. TO STREAMLI~E ACTJVITJES, IT WOU~D BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO REDUCE NUMBER OF CONSULTANTS INVOLVED TO A MiNIMUM .. ,... ... ....--... -- ·. • .. -·----5---· .... -...... ' -----. ---.. T !~ ' . t .. ' I "' .) ' ' ~ . t -· .... ~-#ftrt"'-·»...<-•s~--'~~~;:;;.·~---'"""""""'>4 ~-,.:....--, ... , T~ __ .--.,.._ .>.-.~·•""-__.._._.__,~~·~,...-"'"" ..... ..:..._,_ ~< <.>,<•,.,........•• --...d:--~ ~$.,-:;;1::!.."a • t • I I ~ ; I •• !' "' ~ ----......... ·-· ... r· "--L- SUBTASK HUMBER • TABLt= 2 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST .. TASK 1 OPTIONS ~NO DESCRIPTIONI OPTION No. 1 OPTION No. 2 9PTION No. 3 OPTION No. 4 1. 01 tfirough 1.07 POWER STUDY 1\DVANTAGES . ADVANTAGES . ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES -MINIMUM DISRUPTION Of ·REDUCTION IN LEVEL OF -ELIMINATION Of APPARENT -MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SCHEDULE APPARENT CONFLI'CT OF CONfliCT Of INTEREST SCUEOULE -GOVERNOR'S OffiCE PARTI-INTEREST -INFUSION OF NEW IDEAS -REDUCTION IN LEVEL OF AP- C!PATIOH ··INFUSION Of NE~ I'DEAS -PliTENTIAL FOR REOUCHiG PARENT COMflJCl Of INTER- -CONTit.UITY Of WORK -MINIMUM OISRUfTION Of PROJECT LOGISTIC PfiOB-EST · REMAINDER OF SUSiTNA LEMS RELATIVE TO -CONTINUITY OF WORK STUDY SCHEDULE OPTION 2 -REDUCTIOU Of APPARENT CDr2rUCT Of INTEREST -IMPROVED C~1UNICATIONS AND LOG.t STICS I I ~~----------------------DISAO~ANTAGES -APPARENTlY INCONSISTENT WITH WISHES OF AlASIU\ • LEGISLATURE r 6.01 through I 6.08 DESIGN DEVELOP- HENT 10.01 thr'Ough -APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST REMAIUS ADVANTAGES (See Note 1) DISADVANTAGES . (See Note 1) . I 10.10 ADVANTAGES LICENSING -MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SCHEDULE 01 SADYANTAGES I (See Note 2) -Jf ~ L__. L_ L._ .t>"-:...' OISADVANTtAGES -MUIOR IMPACT ON SCHEDUlE -INCREASED PROJECT LOGIS-. TICS PROBLEMS -NEW COMMUNICATION LINKS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGE~ (See Note 1) DISADVANTAGES· (See Note 1) . ADVANTAGES (See Note 2) I DISADVANTAGES . -NEW COW1UNICATION LINKS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED -POTENTIAl ~lnP~T ON SCHEDUlE • ~ --L-:. i:...-.:;.ll DISADVANTAGES -ACRES. WC~. TES LOCAL EXPERTISE AND CONTACTS HO LONGER AVAilABlE -MAJOR IHPACT ON SCHEDUlE 4-5 MONTHS DElAY -NEW COMMUNICATION liNKS HEED TO BE ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGES (See Note 1) . QISADVANTAGES (See Note 1) ~~ (See Note 2) DISADVANTAGES ~NEW COMMUNICATION LINKS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED -POTENTIAl MAJOR IMPACi' ON SCHEDULE -. ' .... 1 • ~-=c.----~~.,~ ~ ... io( ,....,._::~ DISADVANTAGES -APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST REMAINS . -NO WCC TASK 1 REPRESENTATIVE· "PERMANENTlY LOCATED IN ANCUORAGE -NEW C0~1UNICATION LINKS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED ADVANTAGES (See Note 1) OISADVANTAGfS (See Note 1) ADVANTAGES -MINIMUM DISRUPTION OF SCHEDUlE DISADVANTAGES (See Note 2) ? ""'""""'" .... .._.a, "" ..... " t .o:~ ;{$",. • ~~ • ...X ;e.;. ::.,lk " ( r ). ~ ) v I ·"" -SL-. ~-~ !!'! ~~' ~-~ ~~~-lit f' SUBTASK HUMBER AND DESCRIPTiON OPTION No. 1 11.01 through ADVANTAGES U.OJand 11.12 -GOVERNOR'S OtFICE PARTICI- MARKETING AND PATION -CONTINUITY OF WORK FINANCING DISADVANTAGES . (see note 2) NOTES: .L ·-.. • __ , - ' OPTION No. 2 OPTION No, 3 ADVAIHAGES ADVANTAGES -REDUCTION IN LEVEL OF -ELIMINATION OF APPARENT APPARENT CONFLICT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST INTEREST . -INFUSION OF NEW IDEAS -INFUSION OF NEW IDEAS • DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES . -INCREASED PROJECT LOGIST--HEW COMMUNICATION LINKS ICS PROBLEMS 10 BE ESTABLISHED -NEW COMMUNiCATION LINKS .. TO BE ESTABLISHED .. -~· I -~. L..;;;.:,. ~,'-1 \ OPTION No. 4 ADVANTAGES -....j; -REDUCTION OF APPARENT LEVEL OF CONFLICT Of INTEREST DISADVANTAGES -HEW COMMUNICATION LINES TO BE ESTABliSHED .. 1. THIS TASK OR SUBTASK TO CONTINUE AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND IS NO! IMPACTED BY ELIMINATION OF TASK 1 FROM ACRES' ·CONTRACT 2. NO ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES IDENTIFIED ~ ... ; ·"··--,~~~-·~~-~~,_.~,_s'"''~,~--r.-\,,, ... ~,~~'IIF~~-~"'"··>!I"J~JI'~.·-. ,~~:tii*;Mi$Jitl$it&;ms;Jq@;IJ• ~~-~ . . '" . , .. () . . ..... · .. ·--~ -:~ '. ·. -·~ . . . . . . .-... , .. -.-~, :,.., ... m~ ..... Jl .. ~_-· . ~i !~ ~ -~;-.~: ""·-~.~t. Q~~ ~.::L~~~j --~] I ("• t 't. .. /• ' " r \ !.:. J ,., ... ('" ... (" .... ,. v v l ) ;1 :1 i -l n I •, I ·- SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TASK 1 POWER STUDIES WORK CHANGE OPTIONS -COST IMPLICATIONS ADDITIONAL COSTS ($1 ,000) TASK OPTION 1 OPTION 2 o·PTION 3 OPTION 4 l 15+*· 9·0+*.~* 90+*** 10 10** 10** 10** 1 1 10+* 10+* ' Gavernoritov. Off. 30 20 20 Review Acres/WCC Panel 15 10 10 TOTALS: 45 70+ 110+ 130+ NOTES: *ACRES ADDITIONAL COORDINATION COSTS + UNKNOWN COSTS FOR INDEPENDENT A/E **PREPARATION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR LICENSE APPLICATION ***INCLUDING ACRES/WCC/TES TERMINATION COSTS + UNKNOWN COSTS FOR INDEPENDENT A/E 1 ~I ~] -, ~] ·~I ·] ] I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I l I ... I . a • I Q -· COPIES OF OTHER RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE , 0 .. I -I' I I I I I .. ..,. r, ~;:: «.:'!:' t'l RECEl\JED :··;_ ... :,~ ,: _. ·· ·-~ ALASii.A POWER AUTHORITY 333 WEST 4th AVENUE· SUITE 31 ·ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Mr. John Lawrence Project f~anager Acres Ameri.can Incorporated 900 Liberty Bank. Building · · , .. Main at Court · . ... ·· Buffalo, New York .14202 ·· · : ". ·: .:·· "' . -~ . . : .. · . -•:.• . March 19:~ 1980 ·. -. ·-.. . ~ ·. Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276·2715 l ! I L r· I l l l t I I I I I , I ' J I j .. ~ •I -• :i - I , -1 I . . 1 I · I l l l i ! -j l 'i .. ' Mr. John Lawrence March 19, 1980 Page Two The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project Power Alternatives Study Final Repor~ (April 1977) was provided by Acres as an example of what can be expected for Susitna. We have reviewe~ that report and have chosen to comntent on it as a vehicle for presenti_ng our views and expectations. The study appears to be done in five major steps: 1. Identification of all potential alternative modes of en~rgy generation (and storage}. 2. Initial screerii.ng based on: •, . a. technical_ feasibility over the planni.ng period, and .. .. . . . b!.'. ·!·unit· seal~: (th~· minim~m unit,size is related. tq the projected ....... ·· .. :< ... ,·:. : .. av·e~age ·year.Ji··capacity increnienf req.uirem~nt)~---~ : ... : · . . , •. 'I . : ,; ;. • :·i -~-~:~;;, ~· •• ";:t '. :.::'·}~ • . '\t< ;:,;•::; ~,.'~)"~ ,::;, ::~'.\•~ ,-;,::; ;.<'> ;_., \ >:~ :··~; :~ •. . . • . :··}; ··>':: :. !·.\, ~· . . . . 3: •. .f .. :.Formu1~tion of expan~ion sequences·-·for· various· load· forecasts from amo.ng " ~~~.~he remai~ing viable alternatives. This, in effect, is another screeni~g ··.··:~;:.,·:.:;process,; th'is time ·accomplished by the compute~.~.based upon certain input .:· · .. · ·~:··· ··criteria ' ·: \ · ··... ·· -~~:·.,::. ,, .. : · ·· ·· .:-.. · · · · -·~· \ ..... ~-· ··... · ·· · ·.:\),,; : :~~.:1; ·~:;~ ~~~. -,~~~~:0:'\. ;~:.~~·::·:?:!.,:··.;~:\> ,. ·-~-/-'<·:·~/:· .; :~· .. ~·;::· ... ; .. -·~··>·>~. 4~: Screen1~g of.exgan$ion·sequences· based on comparative sy~tem costs. ·: :. ~~-.-:,:.-'~ ;· /'~~;:f".',::i;~~~.if: . ,. .'.:~.,-;,~ .. ~~-~tJ';:\ · .: . ;;:r : .r:J,::· .. :-.;•~jf:~: .. (~.:.: · .. -: >'~'.:.~f.: · · · · · ·. · .. 5. :. Ei1\d ro.nm~i1ta 1 'i mp'~c·t assessment done.,J{n 'h~o parts·.:';; .. :, · .·· . ·.. .'', ·:·:< · .:-..;.'::.~';_r-:_~'f;;:{.; '::: ~ · :t:~~. ~-:~~~;-~~ ,,·.;_.: • . · ·· ·n.: :. : ~.:.: . :...:-·:· -':~~~ .. ~.:~.-!~ \·. ~·.:.:!::7i:;·~~· . :. 1. ; .,'· • • •• .. :" .( > a:~:;~;\-:_1 Ass~s~l1lent-'5!(qu._a1i~ati_ve ·:terms of th7;}.~pact o_f _e~~~ .... of,the alter-' .. · : .~.. .':. ~ ,. ... :,~r .na 'tJ.ves . -eha:t ... s_ur.vlyed step #2, ... .-,,;,:• .. a. '··~ ·••·• ' : .. . · ·.:··· ~,.~-· .. :~:~ ~::: :":~·:=·{·~~:liJJ/r~J.;i~:~~· · ~-:-~i~.:;~} ij~~?:~li¥.(!:~~~;·!~-:.:~-~~;:"": · ~t ·~~--·· .. · !,:&;·:;. :~ ·.: · •. · :,.~· · · ... . :-.~. ::.: .b:·./i;/,.Quantitativ~ ·analyse~.·. for the more importan~~;env~.ronmental_ para~ .-. •o. • •• :·: t .., th , II • th 11 d li • th t 11 'j . • .~,. . .·~ ·. . · ~~..-.~·~·c~ ... ~e ers .. o~ ... e;·\·. w~.· .. ·· .. ~n .. · w1 ou exP.an.s .Pni' ~~qu~.nces. .. . ... · ~ ,• •. • .... * * .. , ·•• •;t' •. · •...; ~ t '•:-: · · .• ·l~~,.._ -. . ..;· .~· ~*•~<•r~ .. : ,:(:· •' ;..;: ';/ .:.""n• -.1"· _...;,t;··• · ...J..,.--t...,~ .• ~.,!-• ~ • · n · ff • · • • "'··:.• .. ,#~ ..;., ~-:f! l .. •!. ~ ,'• "f'\vi,·:~..i.l\'-"· .it ;-..y':4: .·-""s .';"~·,:1_! .~ --\:.• ···,.·i,. .. , tR4&. ~ .·l· ::.. •· ~, .. , •f•'"• ·•• .· ._ · • ~· ~ • '.• . ~-... ':;.:· .4~, .. ~ •: .. ~-~~~it .. ~-~r..~~ .. ·~7~'' .. :"':·.:.. ....... {~"' ... ··~ . .'~ .. :..·~· .. --· ..... * ~l~~ i·.~·"'f~ .. ~ ~.·! ~·r.. ~-~ : . .l. f :-. While we· ju_dge·. this'.-fjye s·tep procedure to be.,Pas.ically. sound, we suggest several modification's' to adapt it to our· specific needs. .. ··. ~ .. •: • • ~ "', t.' ,, r : ; " ;.. ..... ~ .. . ! ..... , t ~ -~!; •: ~" _. = • '· ~, 41 H ~ ;:~." ~~ .. • .. ~·... \t" .. ,.-;.. .,'!,.J.. .... "·.... • :! • :t· ~ .. .. . T ~ • "' :.: • ~ • • t !;,...t 4.. ~;.. -.:._,,,;: !~ 4 ~·· ~ .. ; ..... • • • ~ .. •,' ,. ". .. "· ·'· ~ .~ -. •• Firs.t of all, .th~ .addi~ion ·of sever.a1. _steps is=· requested •. Public input should be· sought and assessed between steps 2 and 3~;_ The tentative resu~ts of the· first screening should be presented for public scrutiny and comment~ and then the screeni'ng should be reconsidered: on the·· basis of comments received. A workshop 'forum mig.ht be ideal for: thi's purpose .•. · .. · Afte·r steps 4 and 5 are complete. bu-t ·prior to any conclusions bei.ng drawn·,··_public _input should again be sought. The purpose would be to find out how the public values the various evalu'ation parameters. For example, we ·will need to know if cost is more important than emmissions, or if conservation of fossil fuels is valued higher than decentralization. of gener~ti6~~-Th~ se~ond set ~f· public meetings could be well suited to this effort and can be ·scheduled accordingly. Only· after this public input was received woulg the report' be finalized wi~h recommendations. Thus, the evaluation procedu~e woula become an eight step Process· · ~ · .: · · · .·:::·= ~ .• : .' ~._ ;. · • · ~· · • .... .. -. ,. ~ ~ ~ "># ... • , ~ ., • .. ... ....... ~ "'; , :r .. ~, ·" . . . . .. :' .... . . : ~ . .. .. ' ""' 'l ~ • ~·.. ""' . '\ ··-· : .'. ·.);; '. <": ::\ ~;: .~; ... ~· .. . -f.. ,,.. ~ . j: "-... ·-. ..1 <~~"'• . .. . ;;,~ .... ~_ ·. '::.·. ': .~:: .:. \' / :. ·.~ . . . t "'""'...: .. .-~ , .. • .. • ... ~ ........ I"•. ' ,f.:,. -,..... .... ~~.~. .. .. -. t• .! ..... , .. ·~-• " -~···. . .. I .I -~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I c I I t I l I ' I l ! l""' •• -I I I I I I g· I I I ·~ Mr, John Lawrence March 19, 1980 P_age Three A. Identification of alternatives. -\.; . B. Initial screeni_ng based on technol_ogical availability and scaleo C. Public review and reconsideration of step 2. D.. Formulation of expansion sequences. E. Expansion sequence~creen~ng based on comparative system cost. F. Environmental assessment in two parts. . ~ . . . . G. Public revi~w; ·., ._ . .., -··· . . .. ... .. .. : ·~ .. ~ .":.· ~· ~ . .; :: . H~ : :. Recomm~nd~,ti i,"~:, ~: x~~;, cii:~; z:·· t> ,·:~;i :.,;~,-:,· > • ,.;t ;t: · .. , :~~><;fi:~ :i· : . · · Other-· suggested inodi.fica.tions· ·to the Dickey-Lincoln study follow in the form of spec';":fi c comments on'~_'procedures fo 11 owed.~. ·:·: ~·· .· ;:~ .. : ... · . . - :. ~-: :: ... : .. :·. , . ; . '':/ .. >-~-.: .,; . :;' ~-··.:· :·~;· , ... ~:":j~·!\~:.:··-;·. ,,, . .. -·: '; . . . :::\_' ·:~ .. ~<~ .~-: .. : .. . ·'·. . 1 ~--.. :~ .. Referen~~· ~h~. J ~; ti a 1: s·ct:'eening based~ on_ techni ca.l feas i bi 1 i ty. A 1 terna- . ·._;.:· ·; ... :tives. wer.e r·eje~~ed.:.1f: __ te~hnica1.·9·r· economfc feasibility was not expected .. -·::,_!_' .. to· be proven: duri.ng. th~~f'i've-year period.· following __ power-on-line of the . . :.~ '·>:::: Oi c~ey-L i ~co 1 n. pro_ject. :·.Today we, .·are ;See_ihg._ cr:a.'SlJ prog~ams and major : ·. :t~,~~·~dvanc~s. 1r1. en~rgy,. techn~l.ogy.. P.eopl e· ar.e. b_eg1 ~nl.ng ~o assume that . . f., ... :lmportant. breaktbroughs are .. to be,.e{Cpecteq~ .. .Th1s env1ronment makes 1t . · . . _.-.. · .: ~~.i ffi cul.t. to'. a.r·gu·e 'that~ .an u'nproveri·· tec·h~.~ 1:ogy should be rejected from . · : ... : consid~.ration wh~n·. the_., planning. period extend~ .... into the next century and·. · ~ .. ,;;::,.the .. ) iJ~~:·~.t::.~he ,hyc;h:.PPQ.wer. project exceeds. JOO years~. Yet, that a_rgument .. :·:, .. _· .. wi.ll'..have to'. be 'made J.n.~soine cases.. It would seem that. in l_ight of' the .·:· -:: .. ;~· .. : ~ .. ge~era.~.-optim.i s~2 ~egar:qln,9 ·;te~hno1.9gi c~ 1 advan~em~~t-_._i ~-this area,. the .. _··.--... cr1t~r1 a._ fo~:. accepta11ce;::,o.f:. an _a 1 ternat1 ve.\?_ho.r.H d b~. sl.l ghtly relaxed. · .. , -:,. ::.·.frqm that· use~Lin ;~h~_1 Dfckey-Lincoln stuqy.~:-~. C1~~rly there are. risks . .. : .... _:·: ... i.nvol v:d.)n s·u.clt~a:.., wa.i~.S~~~.--:h;ope. _approach. ari~ ':t~~re. i s.1 unce~ta i ~ty · · ~egardJ_ng ~ost~.,.~ .,._These.. l?1 ~.r<s and unc~rta ~ nt.1 es should. be h1 ghl_1 ghted, but the'qption of-accepting such risk·should not be~s~mmarily rejected. · .. ·.:.~. . ... ;~· ... ~ .~:~.~-... · · \\;.·. T'"r-{.~;. '.;· J~ <-...~:-~;;~/;f:;·~·. ··J~ .. ).u;: -· · ........... _.· .. · .. · 2. Refe.ren~e .the' initial'·screeni.ng basecC~ri .. ~ni.t ··c,a·paci~y;. ·certain alter- natives were rejected if the.unit~-~ize:wa~ not.~onsistent with the anticipated ·s-cale of year1y system",expan~_ions;· 'For Dickey-Lincoln the cutoff was 700 MW for base·· load ·plants~·an,d 400. M~l fqr intermediate load plants.·· .There is: some interest:; in .Alaska' i'n the 11 Small ·;s beautifu1 11 approach that calls fc;n; decentra:n.zed. gen.er?tion ·systems made up of small, 11 appropriate tec~nology 11 ·components:. With this in mind, it would· be a mistake to reject an alternative only_on the basis of unit scale. Alternatives that _ar~ 6nl~ avail~bl·~ in_small unit sizes are not neces- sarily 1 ess worthy of consi derati'on.. The' tru·e test wi 11 come in the comparison of costs·and environment~l i~pa~t-6f the~e small-unit alter- natives as they a·re ev~J uated. a~· components· of an expansion sequence. ···"":; ~-·. < . : ;· .:·. :·.~-·· .. ~ ·.: . \. ·:· . 3. Reference the computerized formulation 'of' expansion sequences .. As mentioned above, there is a great .deal of interest in a decentralized • --:: .. ~ .. .ri , ..... : ., ,. " • 9 .~... • ... . ~ ' ' . • '' . . #" ·: •• • ,• ; 't,_· • >c • '( ....... ·~~· .... ..... i ~-~!·· . '.:.t"" •• .·'.. ....... ..... !.. • ;.· ':l' f f 1 ~· _ ... ?0>~· • .. ·! -........ • :"\ · ... ,;... J' ' ' f .. ; .. l : ~ l ~ l I l I ·I i .l Mr. John Lawrence March 19, 1980 Page Four g_~neration system of smaller scale components. It is likely that such an expansion sequence would be more costly than a more conventional centralized system and may result in greater adverse environmental impact. The point is, we want to fo-rmulate this type of expansion sequence so that those cost and impact comparisons can be made. There- fore, some altered computer input criteria will probably have to be used to permit the computer formulation of this type of small-scale decen- tralized expansion sequence. A minimum of one such expansion sequence should be carried at least through step G of the evaluation process. . . . . 4. Reference the screening of ~xpansion sequences based on comparative system costs. As diicussed above,· we have need to bro~den this criteria to allow further conside~ation of certain type expansion sequences r:egardl. ess of cost .. ~· .. >-.,~·~·:.: .. ~:,.:::. ,· ,_~ :::, ~-. · .· · · . · .· .. ··. .. .. . ! · :;~~;;_ ;,:·.: .... <~'':':.-: .. ;::·~::· J:::~'\1~~;i.:·-.\~:~,;/··.".:i;:) ··<.::~·j :r:-.?·;~--·. ·. ·· · .-','~,:·'0::.':: .. s. . -~~ferenp~ t~e::q~al i~~-~rv~. ·a-~s~ssme.nt: __ o.f short a~d 1o.ngt~rm enviror.mental . 1 mpacts. 9f each·' aJ ternat1ve~·· The purpose of th1 s step 1s not clear from t~e Di c;key~L incol n. r:epor;t.. _rt does not appear to have been factored · into the earl ier:screeni_ng ·steps. Perhaps it· is_··simply a necessary . . · ·prel~de_'~o -t~e· impact ~ssessment _of'.expan~Jon ·sequenc·es~· The purpose of . ·. this··?tep··~ho~1d be ·cra·r;:f.ied in"the .. repo~t iri the event you decide to .. · ~ ... · ~ t · • -•t\ .:, .... t-~" · ~ ~th ,.' .. ~-fi~':\Ue 4 , ;~~..,.~~ • .... " ~1.:. •• \r~.~···--.. ·~:":.. ,"'•!i·'-.. , .... -.e-' , : , · · . · re a1n .. , · · ·· ~-· ·' ,, ..... 11 •••• ,~ " .• ••...•.•• , .. , ..• •··· '"'······•''··· •..• : ......... . : · . :. ·~:-.,.,·~ : · f6;.~:~:::;~~fu~h£~ \~~:z~s~~1::~~t, ·:: .. ~:,;~:· ;~~~~:~'i\~;; · ··:·).?~}~~\~itt\:-:;:~~~~\~):\~.~~~~;-,~ ~>-t~·,:;i~-~~ .. ~ if .• ··{.', . . 6 .: ...... R~f.~~~~~~:~.t-~_e::~~~,~~7Jii~ .. .Qv·:.~~J,l~ ~o_T1~~~:E?.r_nr: il!lpact~~~ assessment for the ., surv1V1.ng'·.(,·;~ •. ;~:2J~;e~pa.ns·lon. sequenc_~$!~~ .. f1rs~. of all, please note that .:·~· th_e17~ "'ight b~ 'i)Ji'P.o-~~ant·. short-.ter.rn impac~s of the selected expansion · .... seque.nces .that merJt.considera:tion. These should be included in the ... .' ···~~~ .... an(l~Ysl~>-Se~9~g:._;:;~(i~~~Jjmt.t~c.t: .. t~e. evaluation· to four "impor1:ant."· .. . :· ... ~. env1 ronmenta 1. pararne.ter;s~i,~; :·~t~~ 1 s· not clear how., th~se .. Par:ameters were :~.-.. · s71ected from~_:th~' al:mo~~:~~.~~~di.ng:J_,ist of po~sJJ?~~. impacts. As you .. ·. ·· m.1 ght expect, we are.;.lf?OKJ.ng:_.toward.~ a mut;h~ more .complete set of parameters; ... · · they are. factors: ttt~~-.k~Y.~.5~e.~isi_on makert ~nd:. ~he: public have iden~ified . . as being importaDt;;~A.Ji~~that··can serve as a starting point is 1ncluded as Attachment· A:~ ... ~ I:t;. .. i s"' ve.ry: important. tha:t. the . expans·; on sequences be presented in siti.~pecif~c·terms wheri possible so that th~ impacts can be more clearly d~finea~ Also it·is~imperative'that the p~rameters be related to human·experience whenever .. possible,· so.th.at tr9 actual affect on peapl e and property can b~ ~va 1 ua.t¢~:.·~~:..l.:1!; ~·:~:~:~£} ~\-;/ .. ·. :". ·.: . ~.: .,_.... .• . . ·.:: , : ">'(. .• . : -~·~~~ ~~\~~-:\l· -~ . J: .. 1~·,';.. ,: ·~.:1·. ~~ . .·· :,; . . . 7. In addition to the s_uggested paraJ!I~t~~.s o( Attachment· A, Attachment B (to follow) wi11 be a list of questions' that the general public has asked~ or is expected to ask, aboui the vario~~ ~lternatives. Answers to questions· in Attach~ent ... B wil.l provi~e the. general public the kind of information they .want to· under~tand the alternatives available and the trade-offs 'involved in thi~·decisibn~ The'answers to many of these questions could be .. covered·in the·narrative descrip.tion of the alternatives that· will appear_in the report·~:::.:-_..-:··:·.. . .. .. : · .. ~ :. ·~ .. : .: : .·· .. ,·.·.:.·:.:···:.:.~~~: ... ;-: .. -~··. ·: .:: ..: '.. .... t ·~ ; ... ··~~. .. .. ~,-· ~-• .. • . . ... .. ... .. . . . " ."' ··'· . ... .. :· .,.;. .: : ... :.. .. "--: . . . . : ... . . ... ... ... ' ~.. . . :,. ' . . ,. .......... ·· .. ,. .. ,...., . .. : ·-::': : ........ :: ·:·; ::·/:·~:~ .: .~:-'{: ... .,~,,.:.~ " f c * 11-• . •,..:-..;...;, . ..:. ..... :~ ~·4·:: .. , .. ~.· .. :·: .· . ,.,. . . . • ; : • • ...... , .... ~ •• t • . ... ~ .... ~ .r~ _. ... ~ .• ..-. .. ; It -..... .. ,"-. : ~ .... ..,-..: .,•""~. ~ ... , ... :\ .• : •. f ... .... •:.;: .. # "" ~.-~~- . · . .. .. ............ t. f'~. -~ • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. John Mat .. ch 19, Page Five Lawrence 1980 I ~ope these thoughts serve to clarify our expectations Alternatives Study. ·Naturally, we want to hear your advice. for the Power FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ., Attachments: As Noted-. cc: ·. .- . . . ...... -t' ··- . · ... ! • ·. ... !. ~ • ' . :·:: .. ~: ~ ·: ... • .. Sincerely, 'f?~;I7Jlo4 Robert A. Mohn Director of ~ngineeri~g ·,It • .. '· •' •· . ' '··I l .. 1 I I~ 1 l I I ·I ' I I l l I I I 1 I r J I , r ~ j ~ 4 ~ l ·,, ~ AL.i\.Sii.A I•Oll'Eil ..t\.UTIIOiliTY ATTACHMENT A . PARAMETERS FOR COMPARING AND EVALUATING EXPANSION SEQUENC~ A. COST PARAMETERS # 1. Total system costs 2e Costs to consumer (typical household) 3. Lost trend (stable, subject to inflation, cost eventually decreases aft~r amortization~ etc.) 4. Ownership/control (municipal, utility, st~te) 5. Uncertainity and ri'sk regarding c~st (reflecting history of cost overruns in construct~ng th~ alternatives in ~his expansion sequence) B. SAFETY AND HEALTH PARAMETERS 1. Catastrophic failure impacts (probability and costs) 2. Health effects from pollution (probability} 3. Interruption of service (probability} C. ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS 1. Noise 2. Smell 3. Visual (from populated areas, from air, etc.) 4. Water Quality impacts 5. Solid Waste impacts 6~ Impacts on Fish (relative to the size and value of the resource) 7.. Impacts on Bir.ds 11 u n 8. Impacts on Wil dl; fe " 11 11 9. Impacts on Important Ecosystems 10. Water consumption (relative to supply) 11. Property damage D. SOCIOECONOMIC PARAMETERS 1. Extent of generation system diversification 2. Employment impact a) construction (number, type:~ and from where) b) operation 3. Relocations necessary 4. Surplus power a) description b) probable effect on growth, industry relocation, etc. 5. State energy independence s: Regional ~ettlement patterns Page 1 • l -1 ~·~, -·, ~1 I r 1 J J I I J J J __ ] .J .. J r .. . ' I I . ' .J.\.L..t\.Sii.A I•OlVER AUTIIOitl'l'Y I E. OTHER PA~1ETERS I 1. Fossil fuel consumed 2. Efficiency (ratio of energy out to energy in) · 3. Natural systems altered · · I 4. Plan flexibility ·I I I I I I ~age 2 I I i I ; I I I I I· I ' ~ ;I • . I I I 1 •• ·I I I 1 c:-j j ~·~ I I ·.1 .; I _l_J * 5 t .. '·~ '~ -·~ --·- The following utilities were invited to participate in the Uti 1 i ty and Pub 1 i c meeting on June 10-1.1, 1980 Mr. Fred Braningham Comptro 11 er Fairbanks Municipal Utility System Post Office Box 2215 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 456-1000 Mr. R. L. (Bob) Hufman General Manager Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Post Office Box 1249 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 452-1151 Mr. Malcolm Cheek Genera 1 Manager Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. Post Office Box 1148 Palmer, Alaska 745-3231 Mr. Thomas R. Stahr Genera 1 Manager Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Department 1200 East First Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Mr. L. J. (Bud) Schultz General Manager Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Post Office Box 3518 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-3500 Mr. Clarence (Johnny) E. Johnson Utility Manager City of Seward Post Office Box 337 Seward, Alaska 99664 224--5215 Mr. Kent c. Wick Genera 1 Manager Homer Electric Association, Inc. Post Office Box 429 Homer, Alaska 99603 235-8551 Mr. Robert (Bob 1 Cross Admintstr~tor Alask~ P~wer Admintstratton Post Offtce Box 50 Juneau, Alaska ~9802 586-7405 Ms. Clqrissa Quinlan, Dtrector Division of Energy· &.Pqwer Development Department of Commerce & Economic Development 33o Denali Street, 7th Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-0508 Mr. James S. Palin Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Post Office Box 45 Glennallen, Alaska 99588 822-3211 I I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I SI~A POWER 0TUOI<iTY SUSITNA. ~~ •· 0 570fJ ....... ~ I ~ , ... ~ . -· ___ .... ___ , ..... ,,.-.,..-NlQ . ;.i'lvr.:. h'i • • 1 .J .:( I ! .,. , I ·- p• ¥;,3., TL_!~~-~i_ r.=.~-: ~=annr'+= y .. ...... -i~::.i='-::: ::-= ~e have a ch~H~~ ~..su1ts of scenario~. • "J .... .. ~)~· =-=f~ ..! ...:... ~::s ~-:.2t ...;.:=S:'::-:.=4--=z-::i ..,":"': ...t ::=::'"!-::-:-n 1~ ~-i Ui.:: au::G.ii:...wi:i.:;!i: ¥~lt! :u~=:;-~~ in¥i~tlon ~o impi~v.e nur plan {.,.. f·'k-1:1i ut! I - .I I I I I I . •• I I I I ·I , I 'I I !I I :I I I I I I' R -WCC TERMINATION REPORT I -=----I I 'I I a I g, "-- a a. a -~ a 1'-. . ' I li G I a a a a a J Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94111 415·956-7070 Woodward-Clyde Consultants September 10, 1980 Project Manager Susitna Hydroelectric Project. Acres American Incorporated Liberty Bank Building, Main at Buffalo) New Yprk 14202 Attn~ Mr. Jclm D.. Lawrence Court Re: Technical Termination Report for. Subtask 1.03, Identification of Power Alternatives, of the Susitna Hydroelect~ic Project Dear Mr. Lawrence: This letter constitutes the technical termination report for Woodward- Clyde Consultants •· activities on Subtask·.l:.-03 of Agreement Number P5700.10.41 for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. As requested in your letter of June 24, 1930, this report submits the results of work completed to dateo The associated costs are discussed in a companion. letter. ALASKA POWER AUTHO.rm·y SUS!TN.l\ -... ·• ··-By means of a meeting on April 18, 1980 and a subsequent exchange of Fli ~ 1.:·:.;i·oo letters, Acres and Woodltrard-Clyde agreed to a scope of work for the p 1e-_. ··-··~-- liminary stages of Subtask 1. 03. In particular, it was agreed that: ~-~?;::-;-;:·:-1.···:·:~·--- -.J~\"u .~ ., -"'0 ! a. ,_ ........ .._ '" • 1) Woodward-Clyde would describe in detail and submit to Acres J--~~L for consideration and app:t•oval an analytical approach (deci!?~nt; d : analysis) to be used in making the global evaluation of 9 · i;;. .: $ 2) .--~ ... ... alternatives. ·. :~~~~-::~ •--.... -wee would be :responsible for the global evaluation of the i--j®-.... · .. :. i ·--·-foll~wing alternatives: i 1.01 .r ·! ·• --- I "!. C... (, ', •• •. --·-. • Fossil Fuel Alternatives coal-fired steam cycle oil-fired steam cycle natural gas-fired steam cycle oil-f~red combined cycle natural gas-fired combined cycle oil-fired combustion turbines natural gas-fired ~ombustion turbines • Nuclear'Alternatives . . Consulting Engineers, Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices in Other Principal Cities converter reac~ors ~L~g, ~~R) breeder re~cto~s fusion ··· · ·· · · · ~~ ! .. ·-· •• ··! . /@:)-;. ·; ' :· . .... ··-·' ' J t ' i-· I i-.,@ii : . --1 t I (1•·· ·-• ·-••• , l t. '. -iYTI"/1' I.~: -1-~ .': . I I' ···-• ' "' ,, • J 1-····I .. : .... _ .. ____ I • l: ·: ' ' ' ' . " •-.. -,--/· .. ····--,,. · .. t •• 't 1--.... _, __ ; u1 ... ,t •' I ~~~9.~~·:-= J ' ·- ----j ' ·-·--------{- I -g,~- .. .... I I ' I ' I \ I l I I J I I I I I ' I l I j I ,, I ,I I I / I ( - Woodward-Clyde Consultants. ., Other Generation Alternatives and Alternative ~uels municipal solid waste wood-fired steam cycle biomass gasification applications biomass-fired steam cycle solar·thermal steam cycle solar photovoltaic solar satellite 3) The criteria to be used· in the .. global eval\..oa.tion should include the following: --energy resource availability in Alask.a --· technical and commercial use availability --expected fuel d~penqency ·_;_ site availability · --preliminary safety and environmental concerns --global cost estimates in mills/kWh and corresponding ranking. · Following -this agreement· we bega..11 work on Subtask 1 .• as·, concentrating on preparation of a proposal for a decision analysis· approach to the global evaluation of alternatives. This. propos~ approach was submitted to Acres in a memorandum on May 19, 1980. We also pursued limited. activities to identify sources of information for the global evaluation of the.various alternatives identified above. These activities were exploratory in nature, and there a:re no specific results to be reported regarding theme A£ter receiving Acres' telephone call· and telex of June. S, 1980 ordering a termination of Task 1 work, we immediately ceased all· technical work on Subtask 1.03. Since that time our..only activities.on this Subtask have been those needed to prep~e this termination report. ' . CWK/jh 1 I __ I I .I .I J I I 0 .I I I I I· •• I I . I ·I I I D B I ;I ' tl B 'I £ 7" TES TERMINATI'ON REPORT I I I I: I I I I I I 5 ·a ~ _I ~a a m a I errestrial ~~ nvironmentat pecialists, inc. R.D. 1 BOX 311 PHOENIX, N.Y. 13135 . . . ..,. 00:: ;:: i ..J . .,.. ·-(..) . :.::: c: I ,. :-•o i-::.; 1(3 ;:.. C.') I t: ; Q ..• ·~· ~ I .. ,.__.__ . Pl:oj ect Z.,lanager Susitna Hydroelectric Ptojeqt Acres American, Inc. IJiberty Bank Building, Main at ·Court Buffalo, New York 14202 · Dear John: Attention: .r.'x. John Lawrence Re: Task 1 T~nation Report August 21 , 1980 218.281 J J,.; .. ,·. -r-.. )',. .: ' . . -~ ·-'-·. DCW I I I J 0 t---!Z:'=·' . _, -,: -.:: __.. I ..... ~(.. CAD·j . •• JDG ~--· r--., . -~ J.W}: I " I . I 'J ?S I -. I ?GH I £1\1-.. ;:) I I SN,j- D ii:! !.. i -r\1·R v · HRC I= , .. I 1-··· .. ,.:._:'-.., -=-r- t-"~· - - ~ . ~Pr ._ -T~FILE Enclosed is the technical p:>rtion of the Termination Report involvement in Task 1 of the Susitna Hydroolectric Project.. As I with John Hayden oo August 20, the oost p:>rtion of the Termination Report will be suani. tted to you at a later date. dl.SCUSSed VJL:aj Enclosure Sincerely, p u~~ Vincent J. ~ucid, Ph.D. Project Environmental Study Director .. h, .!· .• ,.; ·~ il I •• 1 :j J I I J 1 1 I ~ I ' I I I I I J j I I SUSI'INA HmiDELECTRIC PIOJEX:'l' TASK 1 'I'ERMINATICN REPORt' Subtasks 1 .03 and 1 .05 Prepared by Terrestrial Envirc;nmental Specialists, Inc. August 1980 When the notice to stop work on Task 1 of the Susi tna Hydroelectric . Project was zeceived from Acres, little effort. had PE:en inyesteCi in this task by Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. '!his effort had consisted of the begintiings of a literature seax::ch 0'1 hydroelectric alternatives and the developnent. of logic diagrams ~or profOSed awroachs ro each of the subtaslcs ( 1 • 03 and 1 • OS) in which TES was involved~ · -· Literature ~Brch 'Ibft literature search had oonsisted primarily of a review o:t the subject . . index of the Rasmuson Libracy at the University of Alaska§' Fairbz~nks. The subject headings Ch~ed were the names of the rivers identified in the Plan of Studjt under Subt.ask 1.03. Additional references were fouro incidental to other aspects of the environmental study., Tbe ·potentially applicable . references found are ei ted on the li.~t addended to this report. FEM of these references were actually in~ted be determine their applicability or usefulness. Approach PlanninSl. The pro:EX'SeQ schemes of approach forTES i.nvolvement in Subtasks 1.03 and 1 • OS are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2r respectively. Tnese flowcharts were developed, for discussion ~q=o~es, wi~out availability to Acres . ' :revised sc.."ledule for Task 1 ~ · An oral pres~tation and discussion of these . approach scherpes at a neeting in Acres Colurrbia office en May 29, 1980 revealed that some rrodification \&Puld be required ~ the awroacn to make. it 1 --1 1~ '] 1 -. ~, .l 'I I l I .I I J .J J J '".1 J I .-. I I I~ I u· 0 n 0 •. cx:mpatible with the overall approach to Task 1. Plans were made to exchange flowcharts wi t.l-t Acres and wol:k out incomPatibilities, but the stop work order was received before this was done. Thus, Figures 1 and 2 illustr,;tte the a:pproach proposed prior to the May 29 discussion. Cbnseguences of Task 1 Termination As p;-eviously discussed with Acres, the severance of Subtasks 1.03 and 1 • OS has several consequences in relation to the environmental study program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. One .ramification is that, with the exception of Socio-economic Analysis, the evaluation of Susitna altematives {as well as alb1:rnatives to Susitna) ''~e"=e part of the Task 1 envi~nmental effort. The Ta!:;k 7 program is based upon ·the two-dam scheme (Watana aro .. Devils Canyon) proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, under the remai11ing Soop:! of ~rk (Task 7) TES will be unable to assist Acres in the evaluation of altematives to t.his two-darn scheme. However, recomnendations for mitigating inpacts by means of project design at Watana and Devils Canyon , will still be made • . Another raml.~5.cation of Task 1 tet:inination is that, to conply with EERC reg~ations, the Environmental Rep::>rt (Exhibit W) must still contain a _;, . discussion of nail realistic altex:natives" to the pro}?:)sed action.. Both the absence of a scope of 'WOrk ar..d associated budget for liaison wib."l t..~e Task 1 consultant selected by ·the Governor • s Office, and tlle ~l".tedule for a::m'lpletion of the alternatives repOrt by this cOnsultant, p~ohibit TES fran assuming any .re~nsibili~ ~natsoever for incorporation (including discussion or summary) of the alternatives evaluat~on into the ;Envirol'lll1ental Repot:tOj • • .. .. • • • • ,, • ~.... • < • . ! . m ~--~. m at:,;;,i* ~ m .m 11:!.3 .~ ~ iQii.'& ~ · ...,........ it!Odl . .... llllf1IFl ...,.. -.. .... ,. .. 1 ,. • ' ~NTS "CoMPLETE" LIST OF ON AlTERNATIVE SITES GENERIC . ~p;;·&~ REPORT . • • I I I I -' • ~PLY CRITERIA • EsTABLISH r1DRE SPECIFIC t PRELIMINARY · • • I TO VAAIOUS J. 11. CRITERIA FOR ~ .. ScREENING-OUT OF "'-r AccEP'fAB I LITY VS. • UNACCEPTABLE ~~SION ScENARIOS IJNACCEPTJl.BILITY SITES . " - '" . • IDENTIFY . -VARIABLES . . . .. -· "' " , , , ENERIC REPORT PRELIMINAAY REcQ/MENDATION REPORT- ON CRITERIA GENERIC WIT~ EXAMPUSSJ AND · AND. REc(lvflf:NDED .... 1ST OF 1 r,s TO VARIABLES • EVALUATE IN SUBTASK I 05 ' j --·------- . •. NTIFICATION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER AlTERNATIVES -SUBTASK 1.03. _________ ,__ ____ ___ --:~ ~ .... .... IJI1IIIIi --..... ~ 01 m::1 1::1 m L-:J r::1 ~ .m till -. ._ 111!11 IIR IB ....... .., ~"""""' \-K:C .PLANs FOR NON-HYDRO EVAl.UATIOO CRITERIA I I SET UP.NON-NUMERICAL . QJALITATIVE f14TRIX 1 OF CRITERIA vs. SITES ; EVAW!-\TE AND DISCUSS tACH SITE • • RE-EVALUATE AND ·CoNCLUDE :IES FiLL IN MATRIX AND IDENTIFY Mc\JOR DATA VoiDS FOR SPECIFIC SITES SoLICIT AGENCY CoMMENTS ON SHOOT LIST IF : fik:lRE DATA OR (a;MENTS · lNCQNSISTENT WITH IL:S EVALUATION ARE PECE I VED . OF SITES . .. . ... 'vDRoELEcrRic AND TIDAL PoWER ALTERNATivEs ~:~aiirAsK 1.os, · · RECOVMENDATI 00 REPORT ·I I t! ' ' I I I I I I I I ~ ~· " u ~ ~ i I 1 I () a t1 Preliminary List of References Potentially Aa;>lic:able to Environ'llental Assessment of Hydroelectric Alternatives to The Susitna Hydroelectric Px:oject -August 1980 - ADCED. 1977. Alaska regional energy resources planning project-Phase 1, Vol. II. Division of Energy and PC!Wer Developnent, Alaska Department of Conmerce and Ecooomic Developnent. ADCED. 1979. Alaska regional energy resources planning project-Phase 2. · Division of Energy and Power Oevelopnent, Alaska Department of Comnerce and Economic Developnent. · · ADF·i\1. 1973. Alaska's wildlife and habitat, Vol .. Io. Alaska Department of F:sh and Game, Juneau, ~. ADF&G. 1975. catalOg of waters important for spawning and migration of anad.rorrous fisheso· Habitat Protection Section, Alaska Departlnent of· Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. ADF&G. 1976. · Alaslt"-a wildlife management plans -south~!\tral Alaska. Alask~ Department of Fish· and Game, Juneau, AK. ADF&G.. 1 976. A compilation of fish and wildlife resource information for the· state of Alaska. Volumes 1-4 (draft)~ Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK. ADF&G. 1978. Alaska's wildlife and habitat, Vol. IIe Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. ADF&G. 1978. Copper River-Prince William Sound s::>ckeye salmon inventory and assessment. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. ADF&G. 1978. Alaska's fisheries atlas, Volo I and II., Alaska Department of Fish and Game,·Juneau, AKo ADNR, Division of Parks, Office of Statewide Cultural Programs. 1974. :U:,wer Copper and Chi tina Rivers; an historic resource study. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Juneau, AK. 46 pp. AI:NR, Planning and Research Section. 1977. Resource bibliography., Susitna River basin.. Alaska Rivers Cooperative Studies. Alaska Deparbnent of Natural Resources, Juneau, AKo AEIDC. 1974. Alaska regional profiles, southcentral region, Vol. 1. · Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 255 l:P· l' • •• 4 • • Ahtna, Inc. 1.973. The Ahtna Region~ backgroUnd for regional and comnunity planning. Prepared by Ahtna, Inc. with assistance fran the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, lJni versity of Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 250 :f:P• ~I ~I -I :J 1 I --~ ,"~1: i I I It . I I! ! .~ II I l .1~ "' J .I .I I· ~I· ' I ;',<'' I J' .~ ' .. , u Q 0 0 ~-8 0 0 u a Preliminary List of References Page 2 Alaska Power Administration. 1977. Anaiysis of i.lt'pact of H.R.39 on· hydroelectric FQtential of Alaska. .f\..laska Power Administration, Juneau, 2\EC. . , Alaska Pc:Mer Administration. 1978. Analysis of impact on hydroelectric potential of the Administration's recorm.endations for Alaska D-2 lands. Alaska Power Administration, Juneau, AK. ~ Alaska Power· Administration.. 1980a Hydroelectric alternatives for the Alaska Railbelt. u.s. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, Juneau, AK. Alaska Water Study Comni ttee. 1979. Southcentral ~.laska water resources study -level B (draft). Battelle Laboratories. 1978. Analysis of future requirements and supply alternatives for the Railbelt region. ~Collins, T. M., T. J. Sheehy, and D. N. Swanston. 1975., Reoormaissance investigation of geonorphic landforms in the Chitina River valley, Wrangell Mountains area •. u.s. Forest Service, Juneau, AK. 38 pp. Cross, R. J. 1973. Inventory re:port -surface water resources a.OO developnent-southcentral region. Joint Federal State Land Use Planning COmmission for Alaska, Anchorage, AK. 55 pp. Edgington,· J. 1977. Revised anadronous stream catalog of s:>utheastem Alaska: A:ppendix A, District 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, ~uneau, AK. FPC. 1969 • Alaska :t;:OWer su~"ey.. Federal Pc:Mer Comnission. FPC. . 1976.. Alaska power survey. Federal Power Corrmission. Gasbarro.~ A. Fo (ed.). 1976. Copper River -Wrangells 'HOrkshop rotel:cok. May 17-21. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Gasbarro, A. F. 1978:-Copper River -Wrangells regional analysis. School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, Agricultural Experiment· Station, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Hegg, K. M. 1975·. TUnber resource statistics for the Copper River inventory unit, Alaska, 1968 •. Resource Bull. ~'t-62, u.s. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 55 pp. Hutchison, a .. K .. 1 968.. ~.J.ask..a' s forest resource .. Resource Bull{! PNW-19, u .. s .. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 7 4 1?.1?· · \ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·B e \ ~ .. .. Preliminary List of References · Page 3 Irving, w. N. 1957.. An archaeological survey of the Susitna valley. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. · ISER.. 1976. Copper River-Wrangell ~untains region socio-ecooomic p:.;ofile. (Working draft) • Institute of Social, Economic and Gcve~...nt Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks,· AK. ISER.. c. 1976. Electric p:Mer in Alaska: 1976-1995. Institute of Social and Ecooomic Research, University of Alaska. Janson, L. E. 1975. The copper spike. Northwest Publishing Company, . Anchorage, AK. 175 ];:p. Joint. Federal State Land Use Planning Comniss1on for Alaska. Resources of Alaska - a regional surrrnax:y. Anchorage, AK. 1974. 619 l:=P· Kramer, M. · 1976. Annual i?erfoimance reiX>rt for inventory and cataloging interior Alaska. Division of Sp:>rt Fish, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Leopold, L. B. 1969. Quantitative comparison of ~me aesthetic factors among·.rivers. u. S~ Geological Survey, Washington, oc .. Logscbn, C. L., et al. 1977. Copper Ri ver-Wrangells socio-economic overview. Institute of· Social and Econorni ~ Resea:r:ch and the Agricultural Experiment Sltation, University of Ala.sk:a, for -the U.s. Forest Service. 113 pp .. Matanuska-Susi tna Planning Department. 1976. Matanuska-Susi tna.. Borough 1976 census. Palmer, AK. Michaelson, N .. E. 1974.· Inventory re~rt -soils and watershed- · southcentral region. Joint Federal State Land Use Planning Cotmtission for Al~ka, Anchorage, AK. 143 B?o Schallock, E. w. 1974. Low winter dissolved oxygen in Alaskan rivers. National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Developnent, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, OC" Shinkwin, A. D. 1975. Dakah De'.nin's village and the Dixthada site: a oontribution to Northern Athapaskan prehistory. University of Wisoonsin, Madison, WI. ('lb.esis). 326 l?P· u.s. A:rrcrf Corps of Engineers. 1954. Harbors and rivers in Alaska" u.s. Government Printing ·Office, Washington, oc ... u.s. A:rrcrf Corps of Engineers. 1972. Flood plain information: Talkeetna . :River, Susitna River, Chulitna River: Talkeetna, Alaska. Prepared for· the Martanuska-Susi tna Borough by the Department of the Army, Alaska District, CotpS of Eng~neers, Anchorage, AK • • 1. I I I I ~ a D D a a a. a a~ I I I I I !' ! ·~ .. ' ,I '! ! I ·I ' I. ! ! ! ~ ~ ~ m ! ·~ - ~· 'I ~ Prel~nary List of References Page 4 USDI·. 1967. Alaska natural resoux:·ces and the Rampart project. u.s. Department of Interior. uspi. 1973. Final environmental statement, protx>sed Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, AI<. u.s. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. i64 pp. u.s. Forest Service. 1973. Final environmental statement, prop::>sed Wrangell M:>untains National Forest, AK. U.s. Department of Interior, i~ashington, DC. 713 pp. u.s. Forest Service, Alaska Planning Team. 1977. Cower River-wrangells area guide: · preliminaey. u.s. Department of :Agriculture, Anchorage, AK. 115 B?· u. S. National.Park Service. 1973.. A master plan· for Wrangell-St:. ,Elias National' Park. u. s. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 148 pp. Weber, S. 1976" Wild rivers of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publist.ing . • Conpany, Anchorage, AK.. · White. G. F.· 1977. Environmental effects of oomplex river developnent. Westview Press, Boulder,· CD. • Williams, F. n.d •. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish waters of the Cog;>er River·, Prince William Sound, ~ the Upper Susitna River drainages. Annual Performance Retx>rt for Inventory and Cataloging, Vol. 1 6. Division of Sport Fish, Ala~a Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. ,.., ' • "r