HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA574J
f ---1>-
r
1>-
--!5.?~--~.t:..-_;0
"gJ--~!0-ao co--=;0o _[;;
(;--(/)~-_rco-_......,
-ro;0--=1>-
;0===-<--
HD
9685
U6
R35
v.ID
1
ALASKA RESOURCES LIBRARY
U.S.DEPT.OF INTERIOR
Community Meeting Public
Input for the Railbelt Electric
Power Alternatives Study
Volume X
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor's Policy Review Committee
under Contract 2311204417
C)Banelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
j\LASKA STATE DOC
-----J
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Battelle as an account of sponsored
research activities.Neither Sponsor nor Battelle nor any person acting
on behalf of either:
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION,EXPRESS .OR
IMPLIED,with respect to the accuracy,completeness,or usefulness of
the information contained in this report,or that the use of any informa-
tion,apparatus,process,or composition disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately owned rights;or
Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of,or for damages result-
ing from the use of,any information,apparatus,process,or composition
disclosed in this report.
M,~R:3 1983
ALASKA RESOURCES LIBRA~
U.S.DEPT.OF INTERIOR
HD
q(P~5
'/AlP
R35'
V,/lJ
COMMUNITY MEETING PUBLIC INPUT FOR THE
RAILBELT ELECTRIC POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY
Volume X
A.D.Chockie
September 1982
Prepared for the Office of the Governor
State of Alaska
Division of Policy Development and Planning
and the Governor1s Policy Review Committee
under Contract 2311204417
Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Richland,Washington 99352
l
SUMMARY
The participation of the Alaskan public is an important part of the
Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study.As part of the public
participation program,a series of community meetings was held in May 1981,
the results of which will be used in developing long-range plans for Railbelt
electric energy generation.In addition to presenting information about the
study,these meetings also sought information on the attendees'attitudes
toward electric power development in the Railbelt.To this"end,a question and
answer session was held and an opinion survey was administered.This report
presents the results of the opinion survey activity.
The objective of the opinion survey was to obtain an indication of the
attendees'attitudes on four aspects of the preliminary Railbelt electric
energy plans:1)the planning objectives to serve as a framework for
developing the energy plans;2)the issues associated with the selection of
the alternative technologies;3)the energy resources available for possible
electric energy generation in the Railbelt;and 4)possible state incentive
programs to promote various electric power alternatives.
Sixty-two individuals attending the Anchorage,Fairbanks,Talkeetna and
Soldatna meetings completed the opinion surveys.The survey respondents
indicated,on the average,a strong desire that alternative energy resources
and environmental concerns should be given a high priority in the development
of plans for meeting future Railbelt electric needs.This concern for the
environment was again evident in the relatively high scores the respondents
assigned to the environmental issues associated with the selection of electric
power technologies.Based on the average number of points that were assigned
to the ten major technology selection issues,a preference analysis exercise
was performed.The results indicated a potentially strong preference for the
development of conservation and small-scale solar and wind systems for the
Railbelt.In the third portion of the survey,the respondents agreed strongly
that conse~vation and hydro energy resources should be emphasized when meeting
the Railbelt's electric needs.Nuclear power was generally felt to not be
appropriate for the Railbelt.
iii
In the final portion of the surveY,the respondents indicated a relatively
strong preference that the state should promote conservation by the use of
incentive programs.They felt,to a somewhat lesser degree,that small-scale
renewable alternatives and large-scale renewable alternatives should also be
promoted with state incentive programs.The results from a set of 34 surveys
distributed and mailed in subsequent to the meetings generally coincided with
those of the meeting respondents.
iv
CONTENTS
PREFACE iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 3
3.0 PLANNING OBJECTIVES -OPINION SURVEY RESULTS •7
4.0 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ISSUES 11
4.1 OPINION SURVEY RESULTS 12
4.2 PREFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS 14
5.0 ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT -SURVEY OPINION RESULTS 25
6.0 STATE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES -SURVEY OPINION RESULTS 29
APPENDIX A:MAIL-IN SURVEY RESULTS A-1
APPENDIX B:RAILBELT ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED B-1
APPENDIX C:PREFERENCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.C-1
APPENDIX 0:PERFORMANCE INDICES 0-1
APPENDIX E:PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES E-1
APPENDIX F:SURVEY RESPONDENTS COMMENTS F-1
v
TABLES
1.Average Scores and Rankings Meeting Attendees Assigned
to Railbelt Electric Planning Objectives
2.Average Scores Conservation-Oriented and Development-
Oriented Respondents Assigned to Railbelt Electric
Planning Objectives.
3.Average Relative Importance Assigned by Meeting Attendees
to Electric Power Technology Selection Issues
4.Average Relative Levels of Importance Assigned by
Conservation-Oriented and Development-Oriented
Respondents to Electric Power Technology Issues
5.Candidate Electric Power and Conservation Alternatives •
6.Average Scores and Rankings of Meeting Attendees on
Energy Resources to be Emphasized in Meeting Future
Electric Needs .
7.Average Scores and Rankings of Conservation-Oriented and
Development-Oriented Respondents on Future Energy
Resources to be Emphasized in Meeting Electric Needs
8.Average Scores Respondents Assigned to Electric Power
Alternatives the State Should Promote with Incentive
Programs
A-I Average Scores and Rankings Mail-In Respondents
Assigned to Planning Objectives
A-2 Average Relative Importance Mail-In Respondents
Assigned to Electric Power Alternatives Selection Issues
A-3 Average Scores and Rankings of Mail-In Respondents on
Energy Resources to be Emphasized in Meeting Future
Electric Needs •
A-4 Average Scores Mail-In Respondents Assigned to Electric
Power Alterantives the State Should Promote with
Incentive Programs
C-l Issues of Concern
C-2 Issues and Associated Performance Measures
E-l Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Cost of Power
vi
8
10
12
13
16
26
27
30
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
C-4
C-5
E-2
E-2 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Consumer Effort E-4
E-3 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Scen ic Impact E-6
E-4 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Impact on Fish
and Wi ld 1ife E-8
E-5 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Air Quality E-10
E-6 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Potential
Long-Term Health Effects.E-12
E-7 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Catastrophic Accident Potential E-14
E-8 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Potential for In-State Employment E-16
E-9 Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Social Boom-Bust Impacts.E-18
E-IO Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Potential for Individual's Self Reliance E-20
FIGURES
l.Preference Analysis Results -Conventional Alternatives 17
2.Preference Analysis Results -Coal Alternatives 19
3.Preference Ana lysi s Results -Distillate and Gas Alternatives.20
4.Preference Analysis Results -Renewable Alternatives 22
5.Preference Analysis Results -Conservation Alternatives.24
C-1 Opinion Survey Question on Issue Importance C-8
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study was mandated by the
Alaskan State Legislature to examine potential strategies for future electric
development in the Railbelt region.To achieve this objective,several
alternative long-range (1982-2010 ) plans for futuree lectric power development
in the Railbelt region are being identified and investigated by Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories for the State of Alaska.The results of this
investigation will be used by the Office of Governor to formulate
recommendations to the Legislature for power development in the Railbelt.
The long-range plans for electric energy production consist of various
combinations or sets of electric generation alternatives to meet peak demand.
The specific electric generation technologies comprising these sets will be
selected based on their potential for achieving certain energy planning
objectives Alaskans may wish to pursue.Such objectives might include
maximizing in-state investments,maximizing the use of renewable energy
resources,and minimizing the cost of electrical power.These plans will be
based on the consideration of five factors:1)the availability of natural
resources for the production of electricity;2)the current generating
facilities and systems and the scheduled plans for developing new generation
capacity,transmission interconnections,and load management and conservation
programs;3)the performance and availability of the alternative technologies
being considered;4)forecasts of electric energy needs;and 5)the
environmental,and socioeconomic effects of the plan.
The attitudes and desires of the Alaskan public will play an important
role in developing and assessing these plans.In order to provide the public
with information about the study and an opportunity to express their views and
concerns,a public participation program was set up.As part of this public
participation program a series of public meetings was held in May 1981,the
results of which will be used in developing the plans.One portion of the
public meetings was devoted to completing an opinion survey.The results of
the opinion survey are presented in this report.
1
The public participation program is described in Chapter 2.The
following four sections are devoted to the results of the opinion survey.
Chapter 3 presents the respondents'views on the study's planning objectives.
Their concerns related to various issues associated with the selection of
electric power alternatives are ranked in Chapter 4.Chapter 4 also analyzes
the implications of these rankings on the public's potential preferences for
various alternative conservation and supply technologies.The results of
questions concerning future use of various energy resources and state
incentives for power development are reviewed in Chapters 5 and 6,
respectively.
The results from the surveys submitted subsequent to the community
meetings are presented in Appendix A.Appendix B lists the 53 Railbelt
organizations contacted to attend the April workshops and to provide input to
the study effort.Appendices C,0,and E,respectively,examine the
methodology,performance indices,and estimates of alternative technologies
used in the public preference analysis effort.A list of the written comments
received from the survey respondents is presented in Appendix F.
2
2.0 THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
There has been an increasing interest and desire on the part of the
public to have a say in the decisions that will affect their future.In order
to provide Alaskans the opportunity to become involved in the study's decision
activities of the Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study,a public
participation program was created.
The public participation program was designed to disseminate information
about the study to the public and to obtain the views and concerns of
interested citizens.Throughout the project,information has been made
available to interested individuals and organizations through workshops,
community meetings,newsletters and project reports.The public is given the
opportunity at all workshops and community meetings to express their views and
concerns on any aspect of the study.The public is also requested to
communicate their questions,views,and requests to Battelle at any time
during the study's period.The study's public participation facilitator
located in Anchorage,has been designated as the public information contact.
The facilitator is able to supply any requested study documents to the public
and transmits questions or comments to the study team.Specific public
participation program activities are as follows:
•Workshop Sessions
Representatives of 53 organizations interested in the study were
invited to workshops held in April 1981 in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Informati on concern ing the study was presented and comments were
received on the demand forecasting methodology,the proposed
candidate alternatives and the proposed public opinion survey.
•Community Meetings
Community meetings were held in May 1981 in Talkeetna,Anchorage,
Fairbanks and Soldatna.The purpose of these meetings was to
provide interested citizens with an overview of the study and to
obtain their comments and opinions on the technology selection
issues (the issues associated with the selection of electric power
alternatives for the Railbelt).A~opinion survey was
administered.
3
~~--------------------
•Mid-Project Review Community Meetings
Mid-project reviews were conducted in September 1981 in Anchorage
and Fairbanks.The agenda of the mid-project reviews included a
review of electric power alternatives selected for further
consideration and a presentation of the preliminary Railbelt
Electric Energy Plans.
•Final Project Review Community Meetings
Final project reviews are scheduled for February or March 1982 in
Anchorage,Talkeetna,Fairbanks,and Soldatna.The findings of the
Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives study will be discussed at
these meetings.
•Legislative Briefings
A Legislative briefing was held in May 1981 in Juneau and a second
briefing is scheduled for January or February 1982 in Juneau.The
briefings are designed to provide the Legislature with information
about the study,review preliminary and final findings and obtain
comment from the representatives,their staffs,and interested
citizens.
•Newsletters
Periodic newsletters are produced to explain the activities and
purpose of the study,review interim findings and discuss the final
results of the study.The newsletters,available at all community
meetings,will be distributed to all individuals requesting them.
The four newsletters are scheduled as follows:
March 1981
August 1981
November 1981
February-March 1982
•Library Reference Reports
Several reports produced by the Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives
Study are -distributed to the libraries in the Railbelt region.They
are available at the reference desk for public review.These
reports are also placed in the Alaska State Library in Juneau.
4
As summarized above,a series of community meetings was held on May
18-22,1981"in Talkeetna,Anchorage,Fairbanks,and Soldatna.The purpose,
structure and schedule of the study was explained at these meetings.The
forecasting methodology for electric demand projections was presented.The
set of candidate electric power supply and conservation alternatives being
considered for inclusion in the power development plans was also described.
In addition to presenting information on the Railbelt Electric Power
Alternatives Study,these meetings also sought to solicit information on the
public's attitudes toward electric power development in the Railbelt.To this
end,a question-and-answer session was held following each presentation and an
opinion survey was administered.The objective of the opinion survey was to
obtain an indication of the attendees'attitudes on four aspects of the
preliminary Railbelt electric energy plans:1)The planning objectives to
serve as a framework for developing the energy plans;2)the issues associated
with the selection of the alternative technologies,3)the energy resources
available for possible electric generation in the Railbelt;and 4)possible
state incentive programs designed to promote various electric power
alternatives.The results of th is survey,presented in the fo Howing
sections,were taken into consideration,along with oral and written comments
received during and subsequent to the meetings,in developing the Railbelt
electric energy plans.
The attendance at the meetings was somewhat lower than anticipated.
There were 10 people in attendance at the Talkeetna,42 at the Anchorage
meeting,and 9 at the Fairbanks meeting.In Soldatna only one individual
turned out for the community meeting.
5
L _
-.1
l
3.0 PLANNING OBJECTIVES -OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
The first part of the four-part opinion survey addressed the objectives
of electric power system planning.A list of fourteen objectives was
developed,representing the major concerns Alaskans have been expressing with
respect to future Railbelt electric power systems.This section was intended
to provide an indication of the attendees'attitudes on the direction of
future Railbelt electric planning efforts.
Initially,we intended the survey to be administered only to individuals
at the four community meetings.But at the Talkeetna and Fairbanks meetings,
several attendees requested additional copies to distribute within their
communities.Copies were made available and as a result a number of surveys
were mailed to us subsequent to the meetings.Because the individuals
attending the meetings received an introductory presentation for each part of
the survey and the mail-in respondents did not,the two groups were reviewed
separately for the purposes of this report.The nmail-in n survey results are
presented in Appendix A.
The respondents were requested to indicate the degree to which they
agreed or disagreed with 12 questions dealing with (fourteen planning
objectives (one question consisted of three parts).The results are shown in
Table 1.The respondents had the option of checking one of six boxes that
best represented their views.These were:strongly agree, agree,
indifferent,disagree,strongly disagree,or no opinion.The responses were
scored based on the assignment of two points for strongly agree,one for
agree,zero for indifferent,minus one for disagree and minus two for strongly
disagree.The average score of the response of the 62 respondents to each
question is shown in Table 1.Thus,average scores approaching 2 indicate
strong agreement;average scores approaching -2 indicate strong disagreement.
As seen in the table,there is a marked preference for renewable energy
sources and for the preservation of the environment.Most respondents
indicated a general disagreement with the statement that Railbelt electric
power system development should be structured to encourage large-scale
industrial growth,create jobs,or to minimize the risk of future inflation in
electric power costs.
7
TABLE 1.Average Scores and Rankings Meeting Attendees Assigned to
Railbelt Electric Planning Objectives
Statement
Alternatives using renewable energy resources
(wind,tidal,solar,hydro,geothermal,wood
waste and refuse)should be given preference
over alternatives not using renewable resources
The protection of fish and wildlife resources
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs
The protection of the following Alaskan
environments should be the primary objective
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs:
a)Forest,meadow,muskeg and tundra
b)Streams,lakes and rivers,
c)Saltwater and coastline
Maintenance or improvement of air quality
should be the primary objective when
meeting Railbelt electric power needs
Increasing the reliability of the electric
service should be the primary objective when
meeting Railbet electric power needs
Conservation alternatives should be given pre-
ference over electric generating alternatives
Minimizing the cost of power should be the
primary objective when meeting Railbelt
electric power needs
Electric power development should be based on
local,small-scale generating alternatives
The retention of dollars within Alaska spent
on construction,operation and maintenance
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs
Minimizing the risk of future inflation in
electric power costs should be the primary
objective when meeting Railbelt electric
power needs
Avera~~)Score
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.7
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.2
-0.4
Rank
Order
1
2
6
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
Creation of jobs should be the primary objec-
tive when meeting Railbelt electric needs
Encouragement of large-scale industrial growth
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs
-0.8 13
I.~
-1.0 14 II
(a)The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an
opinion on the following scale:strongly agree =2,agree =I,
indifferent =0,disagree =-I,st~ongly disagree =-2
8
L
Development-oriented and conservation-oriented individuals tend to hold
potentially very different values.In an attempt to identify these
differences,the responses of the many of meeting's participants have been
divided into "development-oriented"and "conservation-oriented"categories.
This was done based on the responses received to the planning objective
statement,"Encouragement of large-scale industrial growth should be the
primary objective when meeting Railbelt electric power needs".If they agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement,then they were categorized as
development-oriented.If they disagreed,or strongly disagreed,then they
were placed in the conservation group.Of the 62 individuals at the meeting
who completed the survey forms,42 were categorized as conservation-oriented
and nine as development-oriented.
The average scores assigned by conservation oriented and development
oriented individuals are presented in Table 2.The conservation oriented
group generally agreed that environment objectives should be of primary
concern.The development-oriented group scores indicated a preference for
planning objectives that minimize the cost of power,encourage large-scale
industrial growth,and increase the reliability of electric service.The
conservation-oriented group,by definition,did not agree'that large-scale
industrial growth should be encouraged.They also indicated that electric
power development should not be designed to create jobs.The
development-oriented individuals somewhat disagreed that,when meeting
Railbelt electric planning objectives,local,small-scale generating
alternatives should form the basis of electric power development,that
conservation alternatives should be given preference,and that the protection
of the forest,meadows,muskeg and tundra should be the primary objective.
9
TABLE 2.Average Scores Conservation-Oriented and Development-Oriented
Respondents Assigned to Railbelt Electric Planning Objectives
Average Score(a)
Statement
Conservation-Oriented Development-Oriented
Respondents Respondents
1.1 -0.1
1.5 0.4
1.4 0.4
1.4 0.7
The protection of fish and wildlife resources
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
The protection of the following Alaskan envi-
ronments should be the primary objective when
meeting Railbelt electric power needs:
a)Forest,meadow,muskeg and tundra,
b)Streams,lakes and rivers,
c)Saltwater and coastline.
Alternatives using renewable energy resources
(wind,tidal,solar,hydro,geothermal,wood
waste and refuse)should be given preference
over alternatives not using renewable
resources
Maintenance or improvement of air quality
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
Conservation alternatives should be given pref-
erence over electric generating alternatives.
"Electric power development should be based on
local,small-scale generating alternatives.
Minimizing the risk of future inflation in electric
power costs should be the primary objective
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Increasing the reliability of the electric service
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
The retention of dollars within Alaska spent on
construction,operation and maintenance
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
Minimizing the cost of power should be the
primary objective when meeting Railbelt elec-
tr ic power need s•
Creation of jobs should be the primary objective
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Encouragement of large-scale industrial growth
should be the primary objective when meeting
Railbelt electric power needs.
1.6
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.1
o
o
-1.3
-1.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
-0.5
1.0
1.2
0.7
1.5
0.6
1.4
(a)The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an opinion on the
following scale:strongly agree =2,agree =1,indifferent =0,disagree =-1,strongly
disagree =-2.
10
4.0 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ISSUES
An important aspect of the selection of electric power alternatives for
the Railbelt energy plans is the consideration of the public's potential
preferences for various alternative technologies.Two sets of questions on
the survey were designed to provide results that would assist in understanding
the pub lic I s views concern ing the candi date technologies.The first set,
Section B,addressed the importance of various technologies selection issues.
The second set,Section C,discussed in the next section,examined the
emphasis that should be given to developing different energy resources.
In Section B the respondents were asked to indicate their level of
concern with respect to 10 issues associated with the selection of electric
power alternatives by distributing 100 points among the 10 issues.Issue
considered to be relatively more important were to be assigned more points and
those they felt were of less importance were to be given fewer points.
The 10 issues presented were considered to be the main factors of concern
to Alaskans in the selection of future electric power alternatives.Initially
a list was developed based on discussions with individuals who are involved in
Railbelt electric power planning,reviews of public comments at past Railbelt
community meetings (such as the Alaska Power Administration's Susitna Hydro
community meetings and the Alaska Public Forum community meetings)and
examinations of the issues addressed in previous Railbelt energy assessment
studies.Copies of the list were sent to representatives of 53 organizations
having a potential interest in the study for their review and comment.(These
organizations are identified in Appendix B.)Copies were also presented at
the April 1981 workshop sessions.The preliminary list was modified as a
result of the comments received from these organizations and from an internal
review effort.The final list of 10 issues was presented in Section B with
the objective of identifying how important each issue is to the survey
respondents.These issues and the average response scores are shown in
Tab le 3.
11
TABLE 3.Average Relative Importance Assigned by Meeting Attendees
to Electric Power Technology Selection Issues
Issues
Protecting fish and wildlife resources
Minimizing energy costs
Protecting air quality
Protecting the scenic quality of the region
Avoiding potential catastrophic accidents
Avoi ding long-term health effects
Promoting energy self-reliance
Avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts
Promoting in-state power-related employment
Reducing consumer effort
4.1 OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
Number of Points
16.0
12.3
11.6
11.4
11.3
10.5
9.5
8.4
4.9
4.1
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
As can be seen in Table 3,the individuals attending the community
meetings generally felt that protecting the fish and wildlife resources of the
region was the most important issue,assigning it 16.0 points.Of the next
three highest ranked issues,two are oriented toward protecting the
environment.These are,protecting air quality (11.6)and protecting the
scenic quality of the region (11.4).Minimizing the cost of energy was
assigned an average of 12.3 points,placing it second in the order of
importance.Socioeconomic issues constituted the majority of the issues
receiving the fewest average number of points.Promoting energy-self
reliance (9.5),avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts (8.4)and promoting
in-state power-related employment (4.9)were ranked seventh,eighth and ninth
respectively.Only the issue of reducing consumer effort received fewer
po i nt s (4 •1)•
One of the reasons for categorizing many of the meeting attendees
responses as either conservation-oriented or development-oriented was to
identify the possible range of viewpoints.Knowing this range would prove
useful in understanding the survey responses.The responses to Section B by
these two groups of individuals revealed a significant difference of opinion
12
r
concerning the importance of various electric power development issues.
Table 4 presents the average number of points assigned to each issue by the
two groups.
TABLE 4.Average Relative Levels of Importance Assigned by Conservation-
Oriented and Development-Oriented Respondents to Electric Power
Technology Selection Issues
Issues
Protecting fish and wildlife,
resources
Conservation Oriented
Responses
Average
Number of Points
17.9
Development Oriented
Responses
Average
Number of Points
7.2
Protecting air quality
Protecting the scenic quality of
the region
Avoiding potential catastrophic
accidents
Avoiding long-term health effects
Promoting energy self-reliance
Minimizing energy costs
Avoiding "boom-bust"social
impacts
Reducing consumer effort
Promoting in-state power-related
employment
12.6 6.6
12.4 7
11.9 8.3
11.3 6.8
9.6 9.2
8.9 28.1
8.4 8.3
3.5 6.6
3.4 11.6
The conservation-oriented individuals generally assigned the greatest
number of points to the three environmental issues,protecting fish and
wildlife (17.9),protecting air quality (12.6)and protecting the scenic
quality (12.5).The public health and safety issues received the next highest
number of points.As can be seen in Table 4,reducing consumer effort and
13
promoting in-state power related employment were rated significantly lower
than the other issues,each receiving about 3.5 points.
The development-oriented responses produced quite different point
assignments.The issue of minimizing the cost of energy was by far the most
important issue to the group and was given an average of 28.1 points.In
contrast the conservation group by comparison,assigned it 8.9 points,ranking
it seventh.The development-oriented group considered the issue of promoting
in-state power related employment to be second in importance (11-.6 points).
The conservation group gave it 3.5 points,placing it at the bottom of their
list.As shown in Table 4,the other area of disagreement was with respect to
the environmental issues.The development-oriented group rated them
relatively low in importance,assigning them 4.5 to 20.6 points less than the
conservation group.Both groups rated the issue of reducing consumer effort
as of relatively low value.
The responses to Section B proved useful on two accounts.First,they
assisted in identifying the degree of importance various interested
individuals assign to electric power development issues.Second,the
responses provided a basis for an analysis effort that would assist in
identifying the public's potential preferences for different electric power
alternatives.This analysis effort systematically combines the projected
performance of each alternative on the 10 issues with the stated importance
the public assigns to the issues.A discussion of the analysis methodology is
presented in Appendix D.The following section presents the results of the
ana lys is.
4.2 PREFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS
An important aspect in the development of future electric power
alternatives is the consideration of their public acceptability.When there
are a large number of technically diverse alternatives,as is the case in this
study,it is difficult to obtain a direct statement of their acceptability
from the public.In general,the public has limited information on the
anticipated technical performance and impacts of many of the alternatives,
particularly the more advanced systems,on which to base an opinion.If the
14
~
c
E
C
E
c
public had the necessary technical performance information for each
alternative,a direct rank ordering of the alternatives could be made.
Because the public does not have the necessary information,a preference
analysis operation was performed.This analysis helped to produce a ranking
of the alternatives.
The analysis was based on three elements;1)the relative importance the
public attending the community meetings assigned the ten issues in question B
of the survey,2)the estimated range and most likely values of performance
estimates of the alternatives and 3)the potentially decreasing value
associated with decreasing levels of performance for each issue.Based on
this information,a general indication of the public's preference was
developed.The following sections present a comparison of the alternatives'
relative preference scores.The comparisons focus on the mean preference
scores.Because of the range of uncertainty associated with the anticipated
performance of the alternatives,review of the preference scores revolves
around the gross,rather than fine,differences between scores.A discussion
of the analysis methodology is presented in Appendix C and the performance
estimates are presented in Appendix E~
There are thirty-five electric power and conservation alternatives being
considered for inclusion in the power development plans.Power generation
alternatives include technologies such as coal-fired steam~electric power
plants,hydroelectric facilities and large wind energy conversion systems.
Conservation alternatives include systems that conserve electric energy from a
utility grid perspective,such as building insulation,wood residential space
heating and small individually owned wind electric power generating devices.
The list of all thirty-five is presented in Table 5.For the purposes of
comparison,the alternatives have been divided into five categories:
conventional,coal-based,distillate and natural gas,renewable,and
conservation alternatives.
Conventional Alternatives
Conventional alternatives consist of those technologies that are
currently available for commercial order.This category of twenty-one
alternatives is the second largest of the five categories.It includes
15
TABLE 5.Candidate Electric Power and
Conservation Alternatives
Coa1 Steam Electric
Coal Gasifier Combined Cycle
Coal Gasifier Fuel Cell Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Steam Electric
Natural Gas Combustion Turbines
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Fuel Cell Stations
Distillate Combustion Turbine
Distillate Combined Cycle
Distillate Fuel Cell Stations
Diese 1 El ectri c
Refuse Derived Fuel Steam Electric
Geothermal Steam Electric
Large Wind Power Stations
Solar Photovoltaic Stations
Solar Thermal Electric Plants
Cook Inlet Tidal
Lake Chakachamna Hydro
Keetna Hydro
Snow Hydro
Bruskansa Hydro
Cache Hydro
Browne Hydro
Talkeetna 2 Hydro
Strand line Lake Hydro
Devil Canyon Hydro
Watana Hydro
Hicks Hydro
Allison Hydro
Bradley Lake Hydro
Building Conservation
Passive Solar Heating
Active Solar Heating
Small Wind Electric Energy Generators
Wood Space Heating
13 hydroelectric projects,three natural gas-fired alternatives (combined
cycle;steam electric,and combustion turbines),two oil-fired alternatives,
diesel electric,and coal steam electric.
Natural gas combustion turbines and natural gas-fired combined-cycle
plants rank at the top of the list in the analysis of the meeting attendees'
responses to question B (Figure 1).Four hydro projects,Cache,Browne,Hicks
16
C<lIl~[I<VA 11 (JIj-01'I UITlDrRr!.I'OIHJlIlTS
Tf
W H \1f wT
oj 85 90 95 100 105 110
T
If
DEVELOPMENT-OR I EIITED If
RESPONDENTS IfrIf
f ~f If
Tw ITlfwww
i UWiIIII
80 85 90 95 100 lOS 110
T
'f 'ff
'f f wIJ~I ALL MEETING
if i RESPONDENTS
Jr w wiiIi i
80 85 90 95 100 lOS 110
PREFERENCE IIlDEX
(A)NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
(B)IIATURAL GAS COMBINED CVCLE
(C)DISTILLATE COMbINED CVCLE
(D)DISTILLATE COMBUSTION TURBINE
(E)DIESEL ELECTRIC
(F)IIATURAL GAS STEAM ELECTRIC
(G)COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
(H)SrlOw HVDRO
(\)BRADLEV LAKE HVDRO
(J)LAKE CHAKACHAMI~A HVDRO
(K)DEVIL CANVON HVDRO
(L)BRUSKANSA HVDRO
(~)STRANDLINE LAKE HVDRO
(t;)HATANA HVDRO
(0)KEEFNA HVDRO
(P)TALKEETNA 2 HVDRO
(Q)CACHE HVDRO
(R)BROWNE HVDRO
(S)HICKS HVDRO
(T)ALLISON HVDRO
FIGURE 1.Preference Analysis Results--
Conventional Alternatives
17
k __~_~_~_~_~_~_~~
and Allison,are the least potentially preferred conventional alternatives,as
shown in Figure 1.In examining the conventional alternatives using the issue
weights assigned by the conservation-oriented and development-oriented
respondents,the results,presented in Figure 1,indicate that both groups
tended to rank Cache and Browne hydroelectric projects at the bottom of their
list due to the relatively high estimated fish and wildlife impacts.Natural
gas combustion turbines and natural gas combined-cycle plants were ranked one
and two,respectively,by both the conservation and development groups.In
general,non-hydro conventional alternatives received potential public
preference scores slightly higher than the hydro alternatives in all cases.
Coal Alternatives
Coal-fired steam-electric power plants,coal gasifier combined-cycle
plants,and coal gasifier fuel cell combined-cycle plants are the three
coal-based alternatives being considered for the Railbelt.Of these three,
coal steam-electric received a high relative preference ranking by the meeting
attendees,the conservation-oriented and development-oriented respondents due
primarily to its relatively low estimated catastrophic accident potential.
Coal gasifier combined-cycle plants and coal gasifier fuel cell combined-cycle
units were almost indistinguishable in their mean public preference scores for
all three analysis groups.Their estimated performance levels were similar
for many of the issues.The range between coal-fired steam electric and the
other two coal alternatives remained relatively constant in each analysis
effort,as can be seen in Figure 2.
Distillate and Gas Alternatives
Eight distillate and gas alternatives are being considered as possible
candidates for development in the Railbelt.The four natural gas-fired
alternatives are gas combustion turbines,gas combined-cycle plants,gas fuel
cells,and gas steam-electric plants.The four oil-fired alternatives are
distillate combustion turbine,distillate combined-cycle plants,distillate
fuel cells,and distillate-based diesel electric plants.
Due to their relatively low environmental impact for the amount of power
produced and their moderate cost of elect~icity,the natural gas fuel cell
18
as
Je )7/DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED
I RESPONDENTS
W
I'"i i i I i i
80 85 90 95 100 105 110
~PUBLIC PREFERENCE INDEX
WT CONSERVATION-ORIENTED
~i IIII IIII\II__I_I __R.2.s.PO~iN.D.E.NT.S_IIII!I~__""'1
AD 85 90 95 100 105 110
ALL MEETING RESPONDENTS
19
le
Jr
PUBLIC PREFERENCE INDEX
fw W""I---"'1---"1---~""~--~I----Pi---~i
80 85 90 95 100 105 110
PREFERENCE INDEX
(A)COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
(8)COAL GASIFIER FUEL CELL COMBINED CYCLE
(C)COAL GASIFIER COMBINED CYCLE
FIGURE 2.Preference Analysis Results--Coal Alternatives
plants,the natural gas-fired combustion turbines and natural gas combined
cycle plants were ranked first,second and third,respectively,by the
majority of respondents in all three analysis groups.As shown in Figure 3,
the remaining six alternatives were generally ranked somewhat as a group,with
19
n4
tl
CONSERVATION-ORIENTED
RESPONDENTS
rl
RI
rl
ml
1,
h
Sl
al
tl
dl
pi
Sl
91
a
01
O'
a
tl
il
120
120
115110
DFVELOPMENT-ORIENTED
PESPONDENTS
105
ALL MEETING RESPONDENTS
r
If
100
100
2;rII 'VSf Wiii i
105 110 115 120
r
95
95
'f
f
%Sf IlL,'fSf :fi.Iii i
95 100 105 110 115
I
90
90
,
90
PREFERENCE I~DEX 91
dl
/
FIGURE 3.Preference Analysis Results--
Distillate and Gas Alternatives
(A)NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
(E)HATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
(C)NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE
(D)DISTILLATE COMBINED CYCLE
(E)DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIONS
(F)DISTILLATE COMBUSTION TURBINE
(G)DIESEL ELECTRIC
(H)NATURAL GAS STEAM ELECTRIC
CI
Sl
er
CI
d
II
20
natural gas-fired steam-electric plants falling at the bottom of the list for
the conservation-oriented,development-oriented and entire community meeting
respondents.
Renewable Alternatives
The renewable alternative category contains 19 alternatives that use
renewable resources.The majority,13,are river or lake hydroelectric
projects.The remaining six alternatives are solar thermal electric plants,
solar photovoltaic stations,refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plants,and
large wind energy conversion stations.
The preference analysis indicated that of these 19 alternatives the
meeting attendees would rank refuse-derived fuel steam-electric plants the
highest.Next were solar thermal electric plants,followed by geothermal
steam electric.As can be seen in Figure 4,these three alternatives stand
apart in their scores from the remaining renewable alternatives.This is also
the case,as shown in Figure 4,for their rankings by the conservation-and
development-oriented respondents.The meeting attendees and conservation
group responses tended to bunch a large number of the hydro and the tidal
alternatives at the mid to low end of the scoring range.The development-
oriented respondent's weighting of the issues created a distinct low-end group
of alternatives consisting of Cache,Hicks and Browne hydroelectric.One
alternative on which the conservation and development-oriented groups appear
to hold distinctly different views is the Cook Inlet Tidal Project.As shown
in Figure 4,the Cook Inlet Tidal plant is ranked very low by the conservation
group while it falls in the upper half of the preference range for the
development-oriented group.
Conservation Alternatives
Potential conservation alternatives for the Railbelt region are passive
solar space heating,active solar space and hot water heating,small-wind
energy conversion systems,wood residential space heating,and building
conservation (insulation).These do not produce any electricity but rather
displace the need for electricity in the buildings where they are installed.
In the case of the solar and wind alternatives,operation is directly linked
21
L _
80
ALL MEETIUG PESPONDENTS
PREFERENCE IllDEX
I
110 us
(h)Ro"USE-DERlVED FUEL STEAM
L=:CTRIC
(B)S:~AR THERMAL ELECTRIC
(C)GEOTHE?r.AL STEAM ELECTRIC
(D)S:;JW HYDRO
(E.)E;:;;'DLEY LAKE HYDRO
(F)LARGE \:If~D POWER STATIONS
(G)LAKE CMAKACHAMNA HYDRO
(H)SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
ST;'TlOllS
(I)DEVIL CAllY ON HYDRO
(J)WATAUA HYDRO
(K)KEETIlA HYDRO
(L)BRUSKANSA HYDRO
(M)STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
(N)COOK INLET TIDAL
(0)TALKEETNA 2 HYDRO
(P)HICKS HYDRO
(Q)BROWNE HYDRO
(R)CACHE HYDRO
(S)ALLISON HYDRO
FIGURE 4.Preference Analysis Results--
Renewable Alternatives
22
with weather conditions and are therefore intermittent.The total effect of
the widespread use of these alternatives can be to reduce the need to operate
certain cycling generation units and thereby save fuel.
The rank ordering by preference of the five alternatives was the same for
the meeting attendees t the conservation-oriented group and the development-
oriented group.Building conservation was given the highest score t followed
by passive solar heating t active solar heating t small wind generators and
finally wood residential heating (Figure 5).Building conservation and the
two solar heat alternatives were generally grouped at the top of the
preference ranges.Small wind generators fell about midway.Although the
wood residential heat alternative was ranked appreciably lower than any other
conservation alternative because of its estimated air emissions t scenic
impacts and long-term health impacts t it ranks relatively high in comparison
to all the other non-conservation alternatives.In fact t the three top
conservation alternatives (analyzed on a 200 megawatt-electric equivalent
basis)received highest public preference scores of all 35 alternatives being
rev i ewed for all the ana lys is group s•
23
re
e
CONSERVATION-ORIENTED RESPONDENTS
11
re
W J7 1;\0/&
re
~;
"I ariIiiIiI
9\)95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
l ir
ir
DEVELOPMCNT-ORIENTCD RESPONDENTS er
;y a~
I i j7 fl ~:f ,
i
II 2
~J 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
ALL MEETINr.RESPONDENTS
PREFERENCE INDEX
I
':J,)
1;
95 100 105
;f.,
110
~
115 120 125 130
c(
A
h)
ac
pI
c(
Tt
bi
(A)BUILDING CONSERVATION
(B)PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
(C)ACTIVE SOLAR HEAT
(D)SMALL WIND GENERATORS
(E)WOOD RESIDENTIAL HEAT
FIGURE 5.Preference Analysis Results--
Conservation Alternatives
24
re
-(
or
d'
A'
Wi
tl
91
sl
5.0 ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT -SURVEY OPINION RESULTS
The third question in the opinion survey examined the various energy
resources the respondents feel should be emphasized when meeting the Railbelt's
electric power needs.The Railbelt region has a large variety of energy
resources that could be used for electric energy generation.Eleven energy
resources that could assist in meeting projected electric demands
are presented in this section (Table 6).
As in the first question of the survey,the respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement or disagreement (strongly agree, agree,
indifferent,disagree,or strongly disagree)with the emphasis of various
energy resources.Their responses were scored with 2 points for strongly
agree,1 point for agree,0 points for indifferent,-1 point for disagree and
2 points for strongly disagree.
As indicated in Table 6,meeting attendees agreed most strongly that
conservation measures should be emphasized in future Railbelt electric needs.
A second energy resource the attendees generally felt should be used was
hydro (receiving a score of 1.1).The following five energy resources,ranked
according to their average scores,were all renewable based resources.As
presented in Table 6,the meeting attendees scored natural gas and coal and
coal-based synthetic fuels relatively low (0.3 and 0.1 points,respectively).
The attendees tended to disagree with the idea of emphasizing peat and peat-
based synthetic fuels or nuclear power in meeting their electric needs.Peat
resources received an average score of -0.3 while nuclear received a score of
-0.6.
In reviewing the responses of the conservation-oriented and development-
oriented individuals that completed the opinion survey,there are some distinct
differences of opinion concerning which resources should be emphasized.
Although both groups agreed that conservation measures should be emphasized,it
was not at the top of the list for the development respondents as it was for
the conservation respondents.As shown in Table 7,the development-oriented
group indicated a stronger agreement that coal and coal-based synthetic fuels
should be emphasized (2.2 points).The development-oriented respondents
25
TABLE 6.Average Scores and Rankings of Meeting Attendees on
Energy Resources to be Emphasized in Meeting Future
Electric Needs
Avera~e)Rank
Energy Resources Score a Order
Conservation 1.5 1
Hydro 1.1 2
Solar 0.8 3
Geothermal 0.7 4
Refuse and Wood Waste 0.6 5
Wind 0.6 5
Tidal 0.5 6
Natural Gas 0.3 7
Coal and Coal-based o 1 8
Synthetic Fuels
Peat and Peat-based -0.3 9
Synthetic Fuels
Nuclear -0.6 10
,(a)The average score was based on the number of
individuals expressing an opinion on the following
scale:strongly agree =2,agree =1,
indifferent =0,disagree =-1,strongly disagree =-2.
also felt that hydro and tidal resources should be emphasized.Solar,wind,
geothermal and nuclear all received negative scores from the development-
oriented group (-0.1,-0.4,-0.4,-0.7 respectively).Of these four resource
categories,the conservation-oriented group assigned a negative score to only
one,nuclear (-1.6).The other three received relatively high positive scores;
wind,1.0,solar 1.0,and geothermal 0.6.As shown in Table 7,the
conservation-oriented group on the average favored the emphasis of renewable
resources,other than tidal,and expressed an indifference or lack of favor for
the fossil fuel options,natural gas (0),coal resources (-0.3)and peat (-0.8).
26
Table 7.Average Scores and Rankings of Conservation-Oriented and
Development-Oriented Respondents on Future Energy Resources
to be Emphasized in Meeting Electric Needs
Average Score(a)
Issues
Conservation
Wind
Solar
Refuse and Wood Waste
Hydro
Geothermal
Natural Gas
Tida 1
Coal ~nd Coal-based
Synthetic Fuels
Peat and Peat-based
Synthetic Fuels
Nuclear
Conservation-Oriented Development-Oriented
Responses Responses'
1.8 1.2
1.0 -0.4
1.0 -0.1
0.7 0
0.6 1.2
0.6 -0.4
0 0.6
-0.2 1.0
-0.3 2.2
-0.8 0
-1.6 -0.7
s;
'or
8)•
(a)The average score was based on the number of individuals
expressing anopinion on the following scale:strongly agree =2,
agree =1,indifferent =0,disagree =-1,strongly disagree =-2.
27
6.0 STATE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES -SURVEY OPINION RESULTS
To encourage the development of certain electric power and
conservation alternatives,it has been proposed that the State of Alaska
initiate incentive programs.In the fourth question of the opinion survey,the
respondents were requested to indicate how they felt concerning the use of
state incentive programs to promote four general groups of alternatives.These
four groups are as follows:
•conservation alternatives
•small-scale alternatives using renewable resources (solar,hydro,wind)
•large-scale alternatives using renewable resources (solar,hydro,wind,
geothermal,tidal,wood waste,refuse)
•alternatives using synthetic fuels obtained from Alaska coal or peat.
The respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement with the use of
state incentive programs to promote these alternatives by marking the
appropriate box.The responses were scored the same as for the first and third
questions of the survey:2 points for strongly agree,1 point for agree,0
points for indifferent,-1 point for disagree and -2 points for strongly
disagree.The resulting scores are presented in Table 8.
The average scores of all meeting respondents indicated an agreement or
strong agreement with the possible use of state programs to promote
conservation (1.5 points),small-scale (1.2)and large-scale (0.9)alternatives
using renewable resources.Alternatives using synthetic fuels obtained from
Alaska coal or peat were apparently not favored by the meeting attendees for
promotion with state incentive programs.This group of alternatives received
an average score of -0.2 points.
The conservation-oriented respondents felt rather strongly that state
incentive programs should be used to promote conservation (1.8 points).As
shown in Table 8,small-scale renewable alternatives also received a strong
score from this group,1.5 points.They also agreed,but to a lesser degree,
that large-scale renewable resource-based alternatives should be promoted,
29
Table 8.Average Scores Respondents Assigned to Electric
Power Alternatives the State Should Promote
with Incentive Programs
Average Scores(a)
wo
Electric Power Alternatives
•Conservation alternatives
•Small-scale alternatives using renewable
resources (solar.wind.hydro)
•Large-scale alternatives using renewable
resources (solar,wind hydro.geothermal.
tidal.wood waste.refuse)
•Alternatives using synthetic fuels obtained
from Alaskan coal or peat
All Meeting
Respondents
1.5
1.2
0.9
-0.2
Conservation-Oriented
Respondents
1.8
1.5
0.7
-0.4
Development-Oriented
Respondents
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.9
(al The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an
opinion on the following scale:strongly agree =2.agree =1.
indifferent =O.disagree =-1.strongly disagree =-2.
'11'1'1 :1'1 nWI :n"l i11:t"tY"rr,,"y:"1:r 1 ",.'":"I',,:,":101:••:I~
~~~0 ~~~~~
resulting in an average score of 0.7.The conservation-oriented respondents
somewhat disagreed with the idea of incentives programs with alternatives using
synthetic fuels (-0.4).But,of the four categories of alternatives,the
development-oriented respondents generally agreed the most strongly that
alternatives using synthetic fuels should be promoted in this manner.The
other three alternative groups also received positive scores from the
development-oriented group.Conservation alternatives received a score of 0.5;
~r,
j small-scale and large-scale alternatives using renewable resources received
~respective scores of 0.4 and 0.2.
A
~.~
~'~
,~•:,1;~
1;~~
i~J
I
\I\fii!t
31
APPENDIX A
MAIL-IN SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX A
MAIL-IN SURVEY RESULTS
At the Talkeetna and Fairbanks community meetings held the week of
May 18-22,1981,several individuals requested additional copies of the
questionnaire to distribute within their communities.Approximately forty
copies of the opinion survey questionnaire were picked up for distribution.
During the next few weeks following the meetings,34 completed survey forms
were returned by mail.The resulting average responses and scores are
presented in Tables A-1 through A-4.
The responses of this mail-in group are presented separately from those
of meeting attendees because of the uncertainty of the background information
and survey completion instructions the mail-in group received prior to filling
out the survey.The results of the 34 surveys parallel closely those of the
conservation-oriented meeting participants.
A-1
TABLE A-I.Average Scores and Rankings Mail-In Respondents
Assigned to Planning Objections
Statement
Alternatives using renewable energy resources (wind,
tidal,solar,hydro,geothermal,wood waste and refuse)
should be given preference over alternatives not using
renewable resources.
Average
Score (a)
1.9
Rank
Order
1
1.2 4
1.4 2
1.4 2
1.3 5
1.1 6
0.7 7
0.5 8
0.2 9
0.2 9
-0.1 10
-0.6 11
-1.6 12
The protection of fish and wildlife resources should be
the primary objective when meeting Railbelt electric
power needs.
The protection of the following Alaskan environments
should be the primary objective when meeting Railbelt
electric power needs:
a)Forest,meadow,muskeg and tundra,
b)Streams,lakes and rivers,
c)Saltwater and coastline.
Electric power development should be based on local,
small-scale generating alternatives.
Maintenance or improvement of air quality should be the
primary objective when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Conservation alternatives should be given preference over
electric generating alternatives.
The retention of dollars within Alaska spent on construction,
operation and maintenance should be the primary objective
when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Minimizing the risk of future inflation in electric power
costs should be the primary objective when meeting Railbelt
electric power needs.
Minimizing the cost of power should be the primary
objectives when meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Increasing the reliability of the electric service should
be the primary objective when meeting Railbelt electric
power needs.
Creation of jobs should be the primary objective when
meeting Railbelt electric power needs.
Encouragement of large-sale industrial growth should be
the primary objective when meeting Railbelt electric
power needs.
1.4 2
(ar-The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing ~n
opinion on the following scale:strongly agree =2,agree =1,indifferent
=0,disagree =-1,strongly disasgree =-2.
A-2
TABLE A-2 Average Relative Importance Mail-In Respondents Assigned
to Electric Power Alternatives Selection Issues
Issues
Protecting fish &wi ld 1ife resources
Protecting the scenic quality of the region
Protecting air quality
Avoiding long-term health effects
Avoiding potential catastrophic accidents
Minimizing energy costs
Promoting energy self-reliance
Avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts
Promoting in-state power related employment
Reducing consumer effort
A-3
Number of Points Rank Order
20.0 1
15.3 2
13.9 3
12.1 4
10.9 5
8.6 6
7.6 7
4.9 8
3.6 9
3.1 10
TABLE A-3.Average Scores and Rankings of Mail-In Respondents on Energy
Resources to be Emphasized in Meeting Future Electric Needs
(a)Issues Average Score Rank Order
Conservati on
Solar
Wi nd
Geothermal
Ti dal
Natural Gas
Refuse and Wood Waste
Hydro
Coal and coal-based synthetic fuels
Peat and peat-based synthetic fuels
Nuclear
1.4 1
1.4 1
1.3 2
1.3 2
0.7 3
0.4 4
0.3 5
-0.2 6
-0.6 7
-0.9 8
-1.5 9
(a)The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an
opinion on the following scale:strongly agree =2,agree =1,indifferent
=0,disagree =-1,strongly disasgree =-2.
A-4
Electric Power Alternatives
TABLE A-4.Average Scores Mail-In Respondents Assigned to Electric Power
Alternatives the State Should Promote with Incentives Programs
Average Score(a)
Small-scale alternatives using renewable
resources (solar,wind,hydro)
Conservation alternatives
Large-scale alternatives using renewable
resources (solar,wind,hydro,geothermal,
tidal,wood waste,refuse)
Alternatives using synthetic fuels obtained
from Alaska coal or peat
1.5
1.2
0.4
-0.7
rent
(a)The average score was based on the number of individuals expressing an
opinion on the following scale:strongly agree ~2,agree ~1,indifferent
~0,disagree ~-1,strongly disasgree ~-2.
A-5
APPENDIX B
RAILBELT ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
APPENDIX B
RAILBELT ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
The following organizations were contacted and requested to attend the
April workshop sessions.They were all provided reports on the public opinion
survey approach,the economic development 'assumptions used in the study and
the descriptions of the electric power alternatives.They were requested to
provide comments and suggestions on each of these topics at the workshop
sessions and/or by mail.
~ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS)
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Alaska Center for the Environment
Alaska Conservation Society,UCIC
Anchorage Audubon Society
Denali Citizens'Council
Fairbanks Environmental Center
Friends of the Earth
Kenai Peninsula Conservation Society
National Audubon Society
Sierra Club -Alaska Chapter
Sierra Club -Alaska Office
Sierra Club -Denali Chapter
Susitna Study Group
Trustees for Alaska
RECREATIONAL GROUPS
Knik Kanoers and Kayakers
Mountaineering Club of Alaska
ENERGY GROUPS
Alternative Energy Resource Center
Alaska Rural Electric Coop Association
B-1
Alaska Energy Extension Services
Alaska Regional Energy Association
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Services
Susitna Power Now
GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
Federation of Community Councils
League of Women Voters-Anchorage
State League of Women Voters
SPORTSMENS GROUPS
Eagle River Sportsmen's Game Preservation Society
Izaac Walton League of America
MINING GROUPS
Alaska Miners Association
COMMERCIAL FISHING GROUPS
Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association
Commercial Fisherman of Cook Inlet
North Pacific Fishermen's Association
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce
Homer Chamber of Commerce
Kenai Chamber of Commerce
LOCAL,STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
City of Palmer
City of Valdez
City of Delta Junction
Municipality of Anchorage
B-2
RP
BU
Fairbanks Northstar Borough
City of Fairbanks
Mat-Su Borough
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Services
U.S.Geological Services
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Land Management
RAILBELT UTILITIES
Eielson Air Force Base
Chugach Electric Association
Matanuska Electric Association
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power
Golden Valley Electric Association
Fairbanks Municipal Utility
Copper Valley Electric Association
Homer Electric Association
Seward Electric System
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Richardson Power Plant
BUSINESS GROUPS
Commonwealth North
B-3
APPENDIX C
PREFERENCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX C
PREFERENCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Whenever a decision involves of a large number of issues and options
there is a potential need for a structured decision analysis.In the case of
this study,there is a need to identify the most appropriate electric power
and conservation alternatives for possible future Railbelt development.One
aspect of the identification operation is the consideration of the public·s
preferences.With 35 alternatives and 10 major issues associated with the
selection of the alternatives,obtaining a statement from the public on their
preferences for each of the 35 is extremely difficult,if not impossible.
Many people have limited technical information on which to base an opinion
about many of the alternatives.They do,though,have definite views on which
issues are important in the selection of the alternatives.Using these views
in the form of the importance of each of the 10 issues (as obtained through
Section B of the opinion survey),the estimated performance of the 35
alternatives,and the value functions (the changing importance of value
associated with changing performance),a preference analysis exercise was
undertaken.The results provide an indication of the potential public
preference for the development of the various alternatives.
Prior to the development of the opinion survey form,three crucial items
of information were identified:the decision problem,the alternatives,and
the decision group.This information provided the foundation and direction of
the preference analysis activities.
The basic decision problem addressed using the decision analysis
methodology is the identification of the electric power alternatives that the
Alaskan public would potentially prefer to see developed in the Railbelt.
The 35 electric power and conservation alternatives selected for review
as candidates for future Railbelt development were all considered to have some
potential technical viability for the Railbelt and to be commercially
available prior to the year 2000.
C-1
....
The decision group participating in this study was comprised of
individuals who attended the community meetings held in May.Individuals
attending the meetings were not anticipated to constitute a "representative"
sample of the Alaskan public.Indeed,it would be unlikely that a
representative sample would be obtained since the committment of personal time
required to attend a public meeting (or to respond to any form of survey short
of a door-to-door survey)would tend to eliminate all but the most interested
individuals from the survey process.What was expected,(and confirmed by
analysis of the survey results)was the appearance of groups of individuals
holding fairly well-defined and divergent views on issues related to future
electric power development in the Railbelt.The appearance of these groups
among the survey repondents provided an indication of principal points of
disagreement,and agreement,and provided a basis for identifying electric
power alternatives that might be favored or disfavored by either one or both
groups.
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ISSUES
The primary objective in the development of any alternative is to improve
the quality of life in the Railbelt region.Associated with achieving this
objective are four major subobjectives:1)the consumer should experience
minimum electric energy cost and operational inconvenience;2)environmental
degradation should be minimized;3)the public's health and safety should not
be compromised;and 4)impacts to the socioeconomic structure of the region
should be minimized.The 10 issues presented in Section B of the survey
issues are considered to address the major factors in achieving these
subobjectives.
A preliminary list of specific issues within the subobjectives described
above was developed based on discussions with individuals involved in the
Railbelt electric power planning,reviews of public comments at past Railbelt
community meetings (such as the Alaska Power Administration's Susitna Hydro
community meetings and the Alaska Public Forum community meetings)and
examinations of the issues addressed in previous Railbelt energy assessment
studies.Representatives of fifty-three organizations having a potential
C-2
interest in the study received copies of the list of issues for review and
comment.Copies were sent by mail and were also presented at the April
workshop sessions.(These organizations are identified in Appendix S.)The
preliminary list was modified as a result of the comments received at the
workshops and by mail as well as from an internal review effort.Two issues
ori gi na 11y proposed,"impact on the consumer from the constructi on of excess
capacity"and "the reliability of the alternatives,"were replaced by two
issues deemed to be of more significant concern.These were "protection of
the air quality"and "avoiding potential catastrophic accidents."The
remaining eight issues were rewritten for more clarity.The final ten issues
identified as important to Alaskans are presented in Table C-l.
ESTIMATES OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVES
Estimating the performance of the alternatives on each issue consists of
two operations.First,indices for performance measurement are identified or
developed.The second operation involves estimating the probable performance
of the alternatives using these indices.
Some performance measures are "natural"while others are "constructed."
Natural indices are composed of such units as mills per kilowatt-hour for the
issue "electric energy cost"and the hours per month a consumer must devote to
the operation and maintenance of a facility for the issue "reducing consumer
effort."Unfortunately,not all issues have convenient units to indicate the
performance of the alternatives.Many times issues are composed of multiple
factors,each with their own performance measures.In these cases
"constructed"indices are developed based on the important factors associated
with the issues.Table C-2 presents all ten issues and their associated
performance measures.A more detailed discussion of the development of the
constructed indices is found in Appendix D.
Surrounding each estimate of performance is a degree of uncertainty.An
advantage of the decision analysis methodology used in this study is its
ability to consider effects of this uncertainty.Performance estimates were
generally produced as ranges with the probability of each performance value
taken into consideration in the analysis.The principal data source for the
C-3
TABLE C-l.Issues of Concern
COST AND CONVENIENCE ISSUES
•minimizing the cost of energy
the cost of electric energy to consumers,as measured in millsl kilowatt-hour,should be
as low as possible
•reducing consumer effort
the hours per month a consumer must devote to the actual operation and maintenance of an
electric generation or conservation technology should be as few as possible
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
•protecting the scenic quality of the region
the aesthetic impact of a facility on its surrounding environment,taking into account
the facility's area,height,location,and site terrain and vegetation,should be
minimized
•protecting fish and wildlife resources
the region's fish and wildlife should be protected from electric facility operational
impacts measured by the quantity of water and the quality and quantity of land
disturbed
•protecting air quality
the air emissions from a facility should not significantly impact the region's air
quality.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES
•avoiding long-term health effects
the long-term health of a community should not be affected by the operation of an
electric generation or conservation facility
•avoiding potential catastrophic accidents
the affects of a catastrophic accident,such as the release of hazardous materials or
stored energy at the facility,should be as small as possible on the surrounding
communities and environment.
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES
•promoting in-state power-related employment
the development and operation of electric power generation alternatives should provide
direct financial benefits to Alaskans in the form of in-state expenditures and related
employment opportunities for Alaskans
•avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts
the construction of electric power alternatives should not create drastic changes in the
social structure of the surrounding communities either due to the influx of construction
personnel or due to their sudden departure
•promoting energy self-reliance
individual energy self-reliance in the form of individual ownerships of dispersed
electric power generation units is preferred for Alaska over large central power
stations controlled and operated by the utilities and utilities,consortium,or the
state.
C-4
TABLE C-2 Issues and Associated Performance Measures
Issues of Concern
Minimizing energy costs
Reducing consumer effort
Protecting the scenic quality
of the regi on
Protecting fish and wildlife
resources
Protecting air quality
Avoiding long-term health effects
Avoiding potential catastrophic
acc idents
Promoting in-state power related
employment
Avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts
Promoting energy self-reliance
Performance Measures
Mills per kilowatt hour consumer electric
costs
Hours per month a consumer must devote to
facility operation and maintenance
A constructed scenic impact scale based
on the terrain,vegetation and facility
size and height
A constructed fish and wildlife impact
scale based on the land area and the
amount of water consumed or affected
Pounds of pollutants emitted per million
British Thermal Units (Btu)of energy in
the fuel
A constructed scale based on the annual
amount of air emissions and the
population density surrounding the
facility
A constructed catastrophic accident
impact scale based on the quantity of
stored energy,the rate of energy release
and the persistence of the accident1s
impacts
Amount of total project expenditures
spent out of Alaska
A constructed boom-bust impact scale
based on the surrounding community
populations,the size of the construction
force and the length of construction.
A constructed scale based on the nature
of entity that would operate the facility
C-5
performance estimates was the technology assessment profile report prepared by
Battelle and Ebasco for the Railbelt Electric Power Alternative Energy
Study.(a)The performance estimates for each a;ternative on each issue are
presented in Appendix E.
ISSUE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS
To obtain the public's relative level of concern for each issue,a survey
form was developed.A preliminary survey was produced,tested and
subsequently modified.After the survey was internally tested,it was
presented to the representatives of the fifty-three Alaskan organizations
invited to the April workshop sessions.Their comments and concerns resulted
in extensive revisions to the survey form and survey approach.The initial
survey structure had been well received and applicable in the past studies for
small groups of technically knowledgeable and interested individuals.
However,it was not appropriate for use with large public groups having only
limited information or understanding of the alternatives being considered.As
a result of the responses from the workshop participants,an extensive review
of the approach was undertaken.The amount of information the public was
required to provide for the decision analysis effort was reduced.At the same
time it was determined that additional information should be requested from
the public on three topics:the electric power system planning objectives,
the energy resources to be emphasized when meeting Railbelt electric power
needs,and the use of electric power development incentive programs.Two
additional test sessions assisted in refining the survey and the lead-in
presentation.The first test session involved approximately twenty
individuals at Battelle not involved with the Railbelt Electric Power
Alternatives Study.The second test was performed at a local junior high
school with a class of eighth-grade students.Based on these tests,minor
modifications were made to the question concerning the relative importance the
(a)King,J.C.et ale 1981.Candidate Electric Energy Technologies for
Future Application in the Alaska Railbelt Region.Volume IV,Prepared for
the Office of the Governor,State of Alaska by Battelle,Pacific Northwest
Laboratories,Richland,Washington.
i
!
II
I
e
r
1
a
1
r
~
p
e
a
r
q
f
W
dl
tl
fl
e'
pi
Wl
C-6
public assigns to the issues (Section B).As can be seen in Figure C-l,the
final format of Section B required that the respondents distribute points
among the issues to indicate their relative importance.
The final survey form was presented to the participants at the community
meetings held in May.Sixty-two forms were filled out at the meetings.A
number of survey forms were also distributed in the Fairbanks and Talkeetna
areas by participants at the community meetings.Thirty-four of these
surveys,categorized as mail-in surveys,were received and the results are
presented in Appendix A.
VALUE FUNCTIONS
The importance one assigns to a certain level of performance can be
expected to change if the performance level is varied.For example,the
relative importance of cost of power in comparison to other issues is likely
to increase as the cost of power increases.In the preference analysis
approach used in this study,as the performance deviated from the preferred
levels,the importance associated with the specific issue is assumed to be
reduced.The survey respondents were requested to assign relative importance
weights to the issues based on the consideration that the preferred
performance levels could be achieved.But,as the actual performance
estimates of the alternatives generally fall below the preferred level,the
associated importance weight is appropriately reduced.The amount of this
reduction is indicated on a value function curve.
Originally it was anticipated that the value function would be based on
questions in the survey on how much the importance weights should be reduced
for different performance levels.Based on the comments received from the
workshop participants and an internal project review operation,it was
determined to generate the value functions internally.It was also determined
that linear value functions would not provide significantly different results
from the non-linear functions that might have been obtained from a survey
effort.The value functions cover the range of performance of the electric
power alternatives and provide a linear reduction in the issue importance
weight as the performance deviates from the preferred level.
C-7
FIGURE C...;l.Opinion Survey Question on Issue Importance
B.Please indicate your level of concern with respect to the following issues associated with selection of electric
power alternatives.
Column 1 -Describe the importance of the issue using the following code:
VI -Very Important
MI-Moderately Important
1I-Little Importance
NI -No Importance
Column 2 -Indicate how important each issue is to you by distributing 100 points among the ten issues.
n
I
00
Improve Quality of
Life in the Railbelt
Issues
I Minimizing energy costs
Cost and Convenience ~Reducing consumer effort
-1 Protecting the scenic quality of the region
Environmental Protecting fish and wildlife resources
Protecting air quality
Public Health and Safety!..Avoidin~long-term h~alth effects~AVOIding potentIal catastrophIc accidents
~Promoting in-state power-related employment
Socioeconomic Avoiding "boom-bust"social impacts
Promoting energy self·reliance
Column 1
(Importance)
Column 2
(Points)
The preferred performance levels were defined as the performance of the
alternative or alternatives that best achieved the issue objective.In the
case of the issue "cost of power"the objective was to minimize the cost of
electric power to the Railbelt customer.The estimated lowest cost of
electric power of the 35 alterntives was considered to be the preferred
performance and was assigned a value of 1.0.The least preferred performance,
or the highest cost of electricity of the 35 alternatives received a value of
0.0.Between these extremes a linear value function was drawn.The relative
value weights for the other alterantives were obtained from this linear value
functi on.
ASSESS THE RESULTS
The fifth activity of the preference analysis effort was the assessment
of the public1s relative preference of the candidate electric power generation
or conservation alternatives.The assessment operation was based on a
methodology developed by Litchfield et al.(a),which combines the
performance estimates for each alternative,the relative importance weights
the respondent1s assigned to the 10 issues,and the value functions.The
results are an indication of the potential relative preferences of the
respondents to the development of the various alternatives.
The assessment operation consisted of three basic activities.First,the
performance estimates for each alternative on each issue were combined with
the value functions for each issue area.These performance estimates
generally cover a range with a varying degree of probability of achievement
across this range (Appendix E).The resulting adjusted performance estimates
for each alternative and each issue were then multiplied by the average
importance weights the meeting respondents assigned in Section B of the
survey.
(a)Litchfield,J.W.,J.V.Hansen,and L.C.Beck.1976."A Research and
Development Decision Model Incorporating Utility Theory and Measurement of
Social Values."In IEEE Transactions on Systems,Man and Cybernetics,
Vol.SMC-6,No.6.
C-9
Finally,the weighted adjusted performance estimates for each alternative
on all 10 issues were combined to produce a total relative preference index
for that alternative.This was done for all 35 alternatives and the mean
relative preference indices were then used in Section 4.2 of the report to
provide an indication of the potential relative preference of the
respondents.
C-10
APPENDIX D
PERFORMANCE INDICES
APPENDIX 0
PERFORMANCE INDICES
A major factor in developing a preference for one alternative over another
is the anticipated performance of the alternatives.In performing the
preference analysis of the 35 Railbelt electric power alternatives,it was
necessary to identify the possible performance of each alternative on each of
the ten issues presented in the second section of the survey (e.g.,cost of
power and reducing consumer effort).Because of the uncertainty associated
with the performance of the alternatives,the estimates were developed as
ranges around the most likely performance value.In most cases the performance
indicators were constructed from several performance characteristics.For
example,there is no one standard indicator for the degree of social impact a
facility might have on the surrounding communities.Such impacts are
primarily a result of such factors as the size of the community,the size of
the construction and operating crews and the length of a construction.Based
on these factors,a boom-bust social impact scale was developed.Similar
indices were produced for most of the other issue areas.The following
sections describe the thinking and factors that went into these indices.
ENERGY COST INDICATOR
The cost of energy either generated or displaced by the various
alternatives was compared on the basis of the levelized lifetime cost estimates
with 1990 as the first year of commercial operation.The units of comparison
were mills per kilowatt-hour in 1980 dollars.In developing the levelized
lifetime cost estimates,several input assumptions were made.These included
the standard facility rated capacity,capacity factor,fuel cost,unit
investment,operation and maintenance costs,availability factor,construction
period,lifetime payout method,and a cost uncertainty factor.
CONSUMMER EFFORT INDEX
Depending on the alternative developed,the consumer may be required to
devote a certain amount of time periodically to the operation of the unit.
0-1
This is primarily the case with small-scale solar,wind and wood-fired
systems.The units of comparison were the number of hours the consumer must
devote to the operation of the unit.For passive solar units it was assumed
that up to 5 minutes a day,or 2 1/2 hours/months,would be needed for units
consisting of shutters.Active solar and small wind units would require a very
brief check-out period each month.Residential wood heating would necessitate
around 40 minutes a day of work,or 20 hours per month in the cold season.
SCENIC QUALITY INDEX
The impact of a facility on the scenic quality of its environment is a
function of several factors.The scenic impact scale was developed based on
the consideratin of the general locations in which the various alternative
might be developed (the terrain and vegetation conditions)and the area and
height requirements of the facility.The "resulting scale ranges from 0 to 1:
o is not apparent from about 1/2 mile;1 is greatly apparent from about 1/2
mile distance.The resulting score was weighed by the degree it conflicts or
harmonizes with its surroundings;0 for harmonizes;1 for greatly conflicts.
The final scores were then adjusted for a standard 200-MW facility.
FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACT INDEX
As a rough indication of an alternative1s impact on the fish and wildlife
of the Railbelt,an index was developed based primarily on the amount of land
or water directly disturbed (for a stand and 200-MW equivalent facility).The
amount of water (gallons per minute)consumed for cooling purposes or passed
through power turbines was identified for each alternative.Also the land area
permanently disturbed was identified.The land area was converted to a gallon-
per-minute impact value based on the fact that the Railbelt has an annual 12"
annual runoff (.6 gallons per minute per acre).A weighting value,based on
the potential locations of the facilities,was applied to the terrestial impact
figure.Remote areas were assigned a full five points.Developed areas
received a weight of one point.Between these extremes fell semi-developed
lands (2 points),inhabitated farm or rural areas (3 points)and unihabitated
areas with no permanent settlements (4 points).The aquatic impact values were
0-2
also modified by about one half if they were turbine-pass-through flows rather
than consumed water figures.The aquatic and terrestial impact values were
then combined to provide a general indication of the relative degree of fish
and wild 1ife impacts.
AIR QUALITY
The impact of the majority of the alternatives on the region's air quality
is a function of sulfur dioxide,nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions.
Without attempting to weight the differences in the three pollutants,the air-
quality figures for the alternative were defined as the estimated total
emission levels for there pollutants (in pounds per million Btu).
LONG-TERM HEALTH-IMPACT INDEX
The potential long-term health impacts on the public from the operation of
a facility were assumed to be primarily a result of air emmiss.ions.The
greater the number of people exposed the greater the likelihood of long-term
health p!'oblems.Therefore,the air emmission estimates were adjusted
according to the general size of the community that they could potentially
impact.
POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENT IMPACT INDEX
The primary factors that were taken into account in the development of the
scale to compare the relative hazards associated with the candidate
alternatives are the amount of energy or hazardous material available at the
site;the rate of release of this energy or material during an accident;and
the consequences of the accident on the surrounding area.Also,two major
assumptions were made.First,although all facilities are designed,
constructed and operated in a manner to avoid catastrophic accidents,for
comparison purposes an accident is assumed to occur.Second,all safety or
backup systems are assumed to fail and the energy or material is assumed to be
released.
The three primary factors of the catastrophic accident scale are the
quantity of energy or hazardous materials available for release (ranging from
D-3
0,or no energy,to 4,or greater than 10 12 Btu),~he rate of release (from
0,no release,to 3,less than an hour),and the persistence of the
catastrophic impacts of the accident (from 0,or none,to 4 severe,or greater
than 20 years).The catastrophic impact scale ranges from a (no energy,no
release,no impact)to 48 (major quantity of energy,rapid release,severe
persistent effects).
IN-STATE EMPLOYMENT INDEX
As an indication of the possible level of in-state employment directly
related to an alternative,an estimate was made of the percentage of the total
expenditures that were spent outside of Alaska.This percentage included
capital,operating,maintenance,fuel and financing charges.
SOCIAL BOOM-BUST INDEX
The construction and operation of a facility can have a potentially
significant impact on a community.The degree of impact is a function of the
size of the community,the construction crew,the remaining operating staff and
the length of construction.The longer the construction period the greater the
chance for the community to grow and be less influenced by the loss of the
construction personnel at the completion of the job.The degree of impact on a
community due to the influx of construction personnel was classified as minor
(a less then 1%change),moderate (a 1%to 10%change),significant (10%to
40%change)and severe (greater than 40%change).The impacts for each
alternative on the communities near the most probable development sites were
'identified and averaged.These figures were then adjusted based on the length
of the construction period - a slight reduction in the impact values for
projects requiring about seven years and a moderate reduction for projects
taking over 12 years to complete.
ENERGY SELF-RELIANCE INDEX
To identify the relative degree of personal energy self-reliance the
various alternatives afford,they were ranged on a scale of 1 to 5.This scale
0-4
"
indicated the range of ownership possible,ranging from individual to regional-
state consortiums.The other three ownership options were neighborhood
ownership (assigned 2 points),community utility ownership (3 points)and large
utility ownership,(4 points).Each of the 35 alternatives was examined and was
assigned a level of probability of being owned and operated by the various
entities.
0-5
APPENDIX E
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
APPENDIX E
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
The following tables present the estimated performance of the 35
alternative technologies on the ten major development issues.Surrounding each
estimate is a range of uncertainty.The extremes of the estimate range are
assigned a very low probability of occurrence.Associated with the most likely
performance level is also a degree of uncertainty.For the purposes of the
preference assessment activity,these most likely performance estimates were
assigned a probability of 0.8.In those cases where the performance levels
are highly certain,they were assigned a probability of 1.0.
A detailed description of the factors incorporated in the various indices
is presented in Appendix D.
E-1
500
E-2
I
100 200 300 400
MILLS/KILOWATT -HOUR ($1980)
a
.....
CACHE HYDRO
BR(]>INE HYDRO
SNOW HYDRO
KEET::A H,(D~O
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
T_URBINE
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
STATIONS
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
T·URB I NE
BRUS KASNA HYDRO
DISTILLATE COMBINED
QLlli
LAKE CHAK,",C:-:An:.'\
HYDRO 1-1__.....i:i:lli.ii",","kQ.\~_
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
SUTIONS
TABLE E-l.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Cost of Power
DIESEL ELECTRIC
lARGE HIND POWER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
FUEL STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
l::!1:l 1=
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL CELL
COMBINep Cye!e
TABLE E-l.(contd)
TALKEETNA 2
HyDRO
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
\'IATANA HYDRO
DEVIL CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
520
ALLI SON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
COOK INLET TIDAL
SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRIC
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
SWIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SOL~HEAT
AcrIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL \'J IND GENERATORS
HOOD REs IDENTIAL HEAT
Ia1002CO nJ 400 5.."0
MILLS/KILOWATT-HOUR ($1980)
E-3
r-
.L~
-)r
·
·
·r
·
·
·(r
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·,..
·
I I I I I
t-4
BROl~NE HYDRO
o 5 10 15 20 25
HOURS/r10NTH OF CorISU~1ER OPERATION EFFORT
KEETNA HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
SNOW HYDRO
DIST!~LATE FUEL CELL
SUTIONS
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~i=
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
~INE
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
STATIONS
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
Wi=
DIESEL ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL CEL
COMBINED CYCLE
BRUS KANSA HYDRO
lARGE VIIND POWER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM£LECTRIC
CAC-iE HYDRO
TABLE E-2.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Consumer Effort
TALKEETNA 2
jjvDRQ
STRANDLlNE LAKE HYDRO
\'IATANA HYDRO
DE'!IL CANYON HYDRO
HiCKS HYDRO
Au..i SON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
COOK INLET TIDAL
SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRIC
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
STATIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
AcrIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL \'lIND GENERA70RS
\'1000 RESIDENTIAL HEAT
TABLE E-2.,(contd)
l-
I""
r-
Io
l-
I-
il-
I--
~I~
A.-:::::
I I I I 1
o 5 10 15 20 25
HOURS/MONTH OF CONSUMER OPERATION EFFORT
E-5
TABLE E-3.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Scenic Impact
1086
I
4
E-6
2o
BROl'/NE HYDRO
KEETNA HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
SNOW HYDRO
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~!=
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
TURBINE
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIQNS
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL.
.5..rAI.10NS
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
DIESEL.ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL tEL
COMBINED CYCLE
lARGE HIND PO\'/ER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
BRUSKANSA HYDRO
CACHE HYDRO
TABLE E-3.(contd)
11
13
I
I
800
~,
J~
I
0 ')4 ,..8 10'-u
SCEN IeQUALITY INDEX
~.cTI\iE SOLAR HEAT
DEVIL CANYON HYDRO £t-tZl...-------------------
HICKS HYDRO ,~
f-1"~---------------
,~L:"ISCN rlvDRO
\IATANA HYDRO
BUiL..DiNG CONSERVATION
SOLAR ?HOTOVOLTArC
STATiI'NS
TALKEETNA 2
_J±t~...l'o;;RQ~_
STRANDL I NE LAKE ~YDRQ
SI'1ALL I'!IND SENEPATORS
I-foOD RES IDENTIAL HEAT
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
BRP-DLEY LAKS HY:JRO I il
-c-oo-,K-r-NLET-,-T-l-IiM-,L----l
i
""'ll"";_'l---------------------
E-7
TABLE E-4.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Impact on Fish &Wildlife
2501)
lxld~
E-8
500 1000 1500 200 n
FISH &WILDLIFE IMPACT INDEX
I
o
KEETNA HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIONS
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~
SNOW HYDRO
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
~ONS
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTR IC
DISTILLAT-E COMBUSTION
TURB INE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
DI ESEL ELECTR IC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
LARGE~VlI NDPOWER
SYSTEM
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL eEL
COMBINED CYCLE
13R00';NE HYDRO
BRUSKANSA HYDRO
CACHE HYDRO
TABLE E-4 .(contd)
..1\I I 6
TALKEETNA 2 2xl05 lxlO
b'vDRO
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
\'!ATANA HYDRO
DEVIL CANYON HYDRO
HrcKS HYDRO
.Au.!SON HYDRO
BpJl.DLEY LAKE HYDRO
COOK INLET TlDAl '\~2.3xl08
SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRIC 500 2500
SoLAR PHoTOVOlTAIC
STATIONS
BUILDING'CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
ACTIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL \'I IND GENERATORS
\'1000 REs IDENT"IAl HEAT
I
a 500 1000 1500 2000 2500·
FISH &~IILDLIFE IMPACT I rlDEX
E-9
TABLE E-5.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Air Quality
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL CEL
COMBINED CYCLE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
lARGE HIND PallER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRic
DIESEL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
SjATIONS
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
IYRBINE
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATlONS
SNOW HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
I:tLD£.Q
KEETNA HYDRO
BRUSKANSA HYDRO
CACHE HYDRO
BRQ\'INE HYDRO
o
f
0.5 1.0 1.5 2,0
LBS,OF EMISSIOtlS/I0 6 BTU
E-l0
I
2.5
TABLE E-5.(contd)
TALKEETNA 2
HYDRO
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
\'lATANA HYDRO
DEY IL CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
ALLISON HYDRO
BRADLi=Y LAKE HYDRO
COOK INLET TIDAL
SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRIC
SOl.J\R PHOTOVOLTAIC
STATIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SoLAR HEAT
AcrIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL WIND GENERATORS
\'1000 RESIDENTIAL HEAT
14 35
I
a 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
LBS.OF EMISSIONS/l0 6 BTU
E-ll
TABLE E-6.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Potential Long-Term Health Effects
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL CEL
COMBINED CYCLE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAs-STEAM
ELECTRIC
lARGE HIND PoweR SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
DIESEL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
STATIONS
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
~INE
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIQNS
SNOW HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
KEETNA HYDRO
BRUSKANSA HYDRO f
IX"'Hvn'"~
BRO\'INE HYDRO
I
o
r i r-'----r--1-,
10 20 30 40
LONG-TERN HEALTH H1PACT HlDEX
E-12
l
50
TALKEETNA 2
HYDRO
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
\'IATANA HYDRO
DEVIL CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
ALLr SON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
CooK INLET TIDAL
SOl.J\R THERMAL ELECTR IC
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
SWIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SoLAR HEAT
ACTIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL \'lIND GENERATORS
\'IOOD REs IDENTIAL HEAT
TABLE E-6.(contd)
a 10 20 30 LID 50
LONG-TERM HEALTH IMPACT INDEX
E-13
TABLE E-7.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Catastrophic Accident Potential
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL eEL
COMBINED CYCLE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
lARGE HIND Pa.-/ER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
DIESEL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
~IONS
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
mrNE
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIONS
SNOW HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
KEETNA HYDRO
BRUSI<ANSA HYDRO
CACHE HYDRO
BRO\'/NE HYDRO
o 10 20 30 40 50
POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENT INDEX
E-14
TABLE E-7.(contd)
TALKEETNA 2
HVORO
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
I"IATANA HYDRO
DEY IL CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
ALLISON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
CcoK INLET TIDAL
SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRIC
SOUtR PHOTOVOLTAIC
STATIQNS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
ACTIVE SoLAR HEAT
SJ'1ALL \'I IND GENERATORS
HOOD RESIDENTIAL HEAT
o 10 20 30 40 50
POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC ACCIDENT INDEX
E-15
TABLE E-8.Estimated Performance of Alternatives _
Potential for In-State Employment
N
N
N
c
G
D
lAA,
R
C
E
OAL STEAM ELECTRIC I
OAL GASIFIER fUEL CELL ICOMBINEDCVCLE
:OAL GASIFIER COMBINED ICVCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM IELECTRIC
-.
IARGEHINDPOtIERSVSTEM
EFUSE-DERIVED FUEL ISTEAMELECTRIC
EOTHERMAL ELECTRIC I
IESEL ELECTRIC I
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION ATURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED ~(veLl;
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL A~STATIONS
DISTILLATE Cor~BUSTION ITURBINE
DISTILLATE COMBINED I(VCLE
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL ISnTIONS
SNOW HVDRO I
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA IHypRO
KEETNA HVDRO I
BRUSKANSA HYDRO I
CACHE HYDRO I
BRO\'iNE HVDRO I
I 1 i I I I I 1 I 1
o 20 40 60 80
%EXPEflDITURES SPENT OUTSIDE ,~LASKA
100
E-16
TALKEETNA 2
HYDRO
STRANDLlNE LAKE HYDRO
VIATANA HYDRO
DEvIL CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
ALLI SON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
COOK INLET TIDAL
SOlJlR THERMAL ELECTR IC
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
SBTIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVAT10N
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
ACTIVE SOLAR HEAT
SMALL \'I INO GENERATORS
\'IOOD RESIDENTIAL HEo..T
TABLE E-8.(contd)
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
l-
I-
I I I I f I I I I 1o20406030100
%EXPEND ITURES SPENT OUTS IDE ALASKA
E-17
TABLE E-9.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -Social Boom-Bust Impacts
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER rUEL CEL
COMBINED CYCLE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
LARGE WIND POWER
SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
DIESEL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~I=
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
STATIONS
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
TURBINE
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~I=
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
STATIONS
SNOW HYDRO
Lo,KE CHAKACHAMNA
ltt:JlaQ
KEETNA HYDRO
BRUSKANSA HYDRO
CAQiE HYDRO
BRat/NE HYDRO
1 2
~
3 4
E-18
BOmllBUST INDEX
32
BOOM/BUST INDEX
E-19
1
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
\'!AT.ANA HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
DEVIL CANYON HYDRO
ft.l-:..I SON HYDRO
TABLE E-9.(contd)
PASSIVE SOlJlR HEAT
COOK INLET TmAL
SOLAR THE.~l ELECTR IC
BUILDING CoNSERVATION.
ACTIVE SOLAR HEAT
SOLAR PHOTOVOlTAIC
STATIONS
\'IOOD REs IDErITIAL HEAT
SMALL WIND GENERATORS
TALKEETNA 2
--ltro.l.LR~Q,--1---------------..1
STRANDLINE LAKE HYDRO
TABLE E-10.Estimated Performance of Alternatives -
Potential for Individual IS Self-Reliance
COAL STEAM ELECTRIC
COAL GASIFIER FUEL eEL
COMBINED CYCLE
COAL GASIFIER COMBINED
CYCLE
NATURAL GAS STEAM
ELECTRIC
LARGE \'lIND PO\'lER SYSTEM
REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
STEAM ELECTRIC
GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
DIESEL ELECTRIC
NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION
TURBINE
NATURAL GAS COMBINED
~
NATURAL GAS FUEL CELL
STATIONS
DISTILLATE COMBUSTION
TURBINE
DISTILLATE COMBINED
~
DISTILLATE FUEL CELL
SUTTONS
SNOW HYDRO
LAKE CHAKACHAMNA
~
KEETNA HYDRO
BRUSKANSA HYDRO
(,ACHE HYDRO
BRa'iNE HYDRO
o 1 2 3 4 5
ENERGY SELF-RELIANCE WDEX
E-20
TABLE E-l0.(contd)
TALKEETNA 2
_JiYDRQ
STRANDLlNE LAKE HYDRO
I-IATANA HYDRO
DEvIL,CANYON HYDRO
HICKS HYDRO
ALLIsON HYDRO
BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO
CooK INLET TIDAL
SOLAR THEI~MAL ELECTR IC
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC
SjATIONS
BUILDING CoNSERVATION
PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT
ACTIVE SoLAR HEAT
SJI'lALL \'!rrm GENERll..TORS
\'IOOD RESIDENTIAL HEAT I
f t or ,i,
0 1 2 3 4 5
ENERGY SELF-RELIANCE WDEX
E-21
SlN3WWOJ SlN3aNOdS3~A3A~nS
~XIGN3ddV
APPENDIX F
SURVEY RESPONDENTS COMMENTS
The following is a list of the written comments received from individuals
who completed Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study opinion survey.The
list includes comments received at the May 1981 community meetings held in
Anchorage,Fairbanks,Talkeetna and Soldotna and from the surveys mailed in
subsequent to the meetings from the Fairbanks and Talkeetna areas.
F-1
ANCHORAGE COMMENTS
Decrease dependence on non-renewable resources espec ia 11y those "imported"
from outside Alaska.
Agree with several previous comments -strong consideration of forest and
wildlife habitat protection,maintenance of natural resources important to
Alaskans -aesthetic environment,clean air.Also decentralized power appears
to be more secure from a national security standpoint as well as a safeguard
against site specific geological-based dam failure.
Develop power in increments that meet conservative demand forecast.
The state should not promote development projects that would have sub-
stantial negative impacts on the fish and wildlife resources of the state,as
recommended by the Fish and Game Department.
Thanks for asking my opinion.
Would not support tidal power at this time because I lack information
on potential adverse environmental impacts.Do not bring nuclear fission to
Alaska.Hydropower should concentrate on small and moderate-sized systems.
Susitna proposal is too large and far reaching in environmental degradation.
General:Railbelt Electric Power Alternatives Study limits scope and,
hence,utility of study;sources and uses must be matched.
Questionnaire design:in many cases it is impossible to respond;how can
there be more than one (the)primary objective (Section A)?What is the dif-
ference between "indifferent"and "no opinion?"is this like a "firm maybe?"
Schedule -we need to do all we can to ensure timely development.
Perhaps under the conservation alternative,flex-time (flexible schedul-
ing of work time)could be considered to help level out peak load times.
Why are you guys and gals weak on load-management options when they can
be so significant!!
F-2
\
If you guys don't hit load management and peak-pricing (and other pricing
mechanisms)first you are missing the boat.
I anticipate that hydro will be one of the major electricity sources
finally selected.This study should compare'site specific environmental costs
and merits in evaluating one hydro project against another.For example,com-
binations of Lake Chakachamna +Bradley Lake +other hydro versus Susitna.
Several of the "alternatives"mentioned herein have not been demonstrated
to be viable alternatives -for example conservation could reduce energy
requirements but is clearly not an alternative to any energy.
Producing a solid power base is most important to an economic base.The
only method to achieve this necessary requisite is large hydro.Get with the
program and build Susitna.
Providing reliability and near-future needs should be emphasized.Pur-
suit of small projects should be deemphasized and emphasis should be put on
meeting the needs that will be created as existing gas-fired and oil-fired
equipment reaches useful life and utilities are faced with replacement costs
which could be offset by firmly pursued large-scale projects.
I think building the two proposed Susitna hydro dams would be a waste of
money and would have many adverse effects on the environment as well as very
costly.
Your study should investigate "wind spots"as potential larger(r)scale
wind power sites,despite lack of current data on these sites.
Better education in natural sciences in Alaska so that energy can be
properly understood in those economic and political issues for which this
su rvey is made.
Answers to all these questi onna ires shou 1d not be construed to apply
outside Railbelt area.I believe this questionnaire will not yield useful
information:question B "points"is pointless.
My stance can be summed as follows:provide a safe reliable source of
energy at least cost prOViding Alaskan self sufficiency at minimal environ-
mental impact -it is immaterial what technological scheme is utilized.
F-3
L__
Questi on 12 of Secti on A is badly structured.
I do not agree with large-scale development of hydro power as envisioned
at this time by the Alaska state government.I strongly believe that more
study is necessary to make an educated decision on this issue.
Wi nd,solar,wood,geothermal,and other sma ll-sca 1e techno 1ogi es are
important but should not preclude the development of large-scale hydro that
will bring hydro power to the Railbelt for years to come.Small scale and
conservation are personal things.They should be important but they are
definitely in second place.
I do not think Alaska should develop large-scale hydro power at this time.
We can meet our increased demands through use of alternative energy -solar,
wind,small-scale hydro,etc.
Let the people have what they want.People in urban areas (Anchorage and
Fairbanks)prefer centralized large-scale power production.Smaller communi-
ties (Talkeetna,Hope,Cooper Lake)do not want to be controlled by outsiders.
They want local control and therefore want decentralized,small-scale local
resources used to generate power.
Energy alternatives that could meet future needs but not encourage exces-
sive future industrial development should be emphasized.
Balanced resources competitive sources all under PUC.
I feel very strongly that there should not be one primary objective most
of the objectives are worthwhile and should be considered.I feel uncomforta-
ble with this questionnaire.
This is a very poorly worded survey!!
Pay people for completion of this form.
F-4
FAIRBANKS COMMENTS
I think that the actual test should first be a fair economic evaluation.
Secondly,the resource options should be based on a matrix of important issues
that pertain to environment,self-sufficiency for Alaska,society and social
impacts as based on public opinion and review of same by technical modeling.
As long as utilities are expected to have sufficient reserve capacity for
all consumers at all times,small-scale projects will not replace a renewable,
non-polluting source of generation for utilities.
The cost and quantity of power should permit the use of electricity for
home heating.
In general,I agree with Question 10,Section A,but EPA requirements
which make further coal generation at Healy impossible are stupid.
I just don't know enough about the practicality of tidal,wind,solar and
geothermal to vote.
Part B -public safety.Of course,a dam shouldn't collapse with cata-
strophic damage -but 1 1m confident that Susitna,if bUilt,will not.I do
not oppose building bridges because occasionally one collapses.
Check into a scenario of using natural gas until alternate technologies
such as fuel cells become available.
Combination of conservation and duplication of solar,goethermal wind and
small hydro is goal.Present high-energy costs are incentives.Reducing use
of nonrenewables can 1)make resources last longer 2)reduce environmental
impacts.Creating jobs,reducing boom-bust potential,etc.,would tend to
follow.
Reword question 8,Section A.
I do not think the Susitna Dam should be built.
A primary objective should be equal benefit to rural as well as urban
and bush communities.
I think this poll of opinions is poorly organized,confusing and
ambi guous.
F-5
Small-scale alternatives are best.
The major Alaskan power needs are for home heating -not necessarily
electric power.
F-6
------
TALKEETNA COMMENTS
My opinion is to keep the Alaskan environment as clean and unencumbered
as possible.The alternative energy study aspect for finding a possible
alternate for energy is really the only way worth going.To find another
source more suitable for all concerned than the hydro dam will be well-
received in this area.Wind and solar in my opinion are the way we should go!
My main objective is to promote energy development that has the least
impact on the environment.We are an electric nation and need electricity but
we must preserve our natural resources.
Solar - 2 actual data graphs and 3 swags.Guessing!Hydro is the only
way to go.Only question is scale.
The state is ready to fund large-scale electric generation while many
residents will realize no benefits due to the high cost of distribution of
that electricity.
What about the effect on people's lifestyle?Do we have the alternative
of saying "no alternative?"If so,I so say!
11 m against hydro -due to salmon runs -we can look to Oregon and
Washington and see the problems there.I can foresee this same problem with
tidal,but hopefully it can be worked on.Do we really need power so badly to
destroy the peat and animals and plants involved.I believe most of this
power that is so-called I needed ,is not for Alaska,but for the outside.This
has already been shown in the plan in this year's legislature.In fact,your
company is based in Washington.lid like to see more solar,wind,etc.,used
in combinations.Not all people living in the Railbelt area want electric
power.Lifestyle is important.
The go/no-go decision for the Susitna dam FERC application should be
pushed back until Battelle can adequately investigate all the alternatives or
combinations thereof so that we the people will receive an informed and aware
rep ly /dec isi on.
F-7
I believe that refuse burning not only solves local generation problems
and demands as we 11 as accommodat i ng conservat i on and supp ly prob 1ems.
Demand should create supply and not supply create demand.
Rather than Susitna hydro -why not another set of viable hydro alterna-
tives along with other alternatives -refuse,etc~
A favorable rate of interest on small,energy efficient,owner built
homes would be a good incentive for the people of Alaska.
Minimize adverse effects on residents of the Railbelt area who do not
utilize electrical power.
Being a nonconsumer of electrical energy I do not want to have my life
changed negatively because someone in Anchorage wants lower rates.No Susitna
Dam and no Intertie,please!
1 1 m greatly opposed to the Susitna Dam Project on many grounds and would
like to see an alternative to hydro power used.Your last meeting in Talkeetna
would have been of great interest to me.However,living north of Talkeetna
in the bush I was unaware of this meeting,as many of my neighbors.Most
people of this area are also opposed to the Susitna Dam project and would have
had many worthwhile opinions and comments to express.May I suggest that in
order that the opinions of concerned citizens be heard that you find some means
of notifying the public of your meetings.Possibly,you could send notices to
boxholders informing them of such meetings a few weeks in advance.Also,I
would like to request to be on your mailing list to receive any literature.
I fee 1 th at an a1ternat i ve to hydro power wou 1d be more benefi cia 1 in
protecting our environment and the public health and safety.Continual rape
of our environment in the name of "progress"will only contribute to unrepara-
ble damage for generations to come!
One of the primary objectives should be protection of Alaskan life style
and scenic quality along areas where people make a living in the tourism
industry and subsist on our land.
F-8
Local use of large-scale alternatives like wind or hydro for small COITJTIU-
nities with an accent on local.
Please make public the date of your meetings one month prior as many
interested people live in the bush and communication takes longer.
One of the primary objectives should be the existing needs of the people
who do not rely on any existing or proposed power influx.
One of the primary objectives should be tourism.
I find that this form is misleading and its about time to start thinking
about the real power potential that is available and renewable that also is
acceptable to the life style that we now enjoy!
Should concentrate on small-scale self-sufficiency for localized areas.
The dams and the power lines are totally unnecessary for the area.It is
just a scheme that will destroy our river and woods for people in Fairbanks,
so they can heat electrically in Fairbanks when its -60 degrees instead of
heating with wood like most around here do.Acres American may think their
dams and wires blend in with the woods,but they definitely don't.
It does not make sense to become dependent on one central power source.
Small scale ;s the only responsible choice.
F-9