HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1570.. ,
·r
/', jp
.•.. : r
' N
~ • i
I
J ,.
r' ,;
p . . ". ~.~ ,
(,
r rf
r {, ,J
r:
r:
'
~~ f,, .
1' .:.:"
f~
~:i
~
:::...&zo.:
·Plea~& Rttum 1o
aecuatnCOIRRGL
THE PO'~ENT!AL FOR ELECTRICITY CONSERVA-TION
" liN TRE RAILBEJ.T lEGION OF ALASKA
DAVID A. TlLLMA1J
HARZA-ZBASCO JOIN.T YE:NTURE
MAY 3• 1983
1.0 Introduction --··-=:=-: ,.
lnergy con•ervatiop baa nu•erous aeaninss including: (1)
eli•ination uf ~&~te, (2) accoapliabing the •~•e tam~s (or
life•tyl~) wi~b laaa energy expenditure, and (S) simply usifig
le~• ene~gy. CottiHtlt"'?ation can be au:coriplif.ibed by ~~ var:tety of
~ea~a iaeluding technical adjustments (e.g., waste heat
.re~ov.e·r.y 10· hou$~bo!d ineul~t i.9n) ii ~nd l if.'! .~.t.y.le adju9tme:nt5 . ."
(e.g., lovering the setting on the thermosta~). It can be
accoaap 1 isbe<i.•i.n" ·r·et iaerri! ~. i, ct~uu~atn:·e i~ l,; :~ndu·i$·t r·ia 1; · and
institutional economic sector~; and it can be ~ccompli•b~d.~icb
respect to all fuels and energy GourceG. Energy cons~rvation
can be effected by two means: (1) establishment of programs
pro~oting or 5ubsidizing conservation. and (2) relianace on
economic fore~$ GS$aclated with ri5ing cost$ of ~nergy. Tbi5
re·pori:. ·de~,l~ .w~~-~ .. ethir;Sy·. c~l_l~e.i'~ii~}~.ta. ~~it~ bi:<?~d~~H-~ s~~~~~ ..
ueing leas energy; and it includes technical and lifeGtyle
. . ...... ~ ...... .
-..-.. ...... ~..,-m""'-.~ :~~!I --~·-----if!,.~-"'·-r.l-A-'1"'!'.1'3 ,_.;~.,.&~.~~ !'!>' -'-,.,•,.., --!a.a.. ....... ._. _ _.,J;;;·;:~if,.;z:!"tot ·:·;?,o Su·i>l ·;a¥V."i:r';.-·;;ota. 'l:t';.. ""~""""'·-~~""""*'srta;,. ·~· ........ ,.. . .,ti'if,s:~ .. :;·:~·-.. · S<""'"'P'~~~;~!tf·.·-&.'£;£:'·',.· .. • ·4-' .: -: ~... . '
both prograaatic ~nd market driven ene~gy conservation.
However, this repqrt deals specifically ~ith.electricity
COD$ervation rather than the reduction in use of all fuels.
In oraer to· f·ccua· on .. el.ec:tr·iciey ·ct>nscr'Y'·at ~rt, ·it is u.sef·~l to
... ..._,._.:.,. . ., .,.1-................ '/ ,0 . .,...,. ... .dl"'""•~ ........ eft ,&1•.af.,_. s• Q ._.,t....,.l.-. c$-..5. :.,. .. s.a_..,._ e ........... e .. iie ....... -• .,. -x ... -.. ""' ... _.. ....... 1 •• fi ......... a ..... -..... ,_ .,.., , .......... ..... .... •• ""
Railbelt particularly. These are presented in Tables 1-3. lt
is sd.anific;a~t to note that .. elec.tricity "•~counts. for; only 6.1%
of the t"otal ene.rgy budget in t!aska; and th~t it has its
highest uae in industry (6 xlO Btu)8 with about equal
amount$ being us~d ic re$ident1al and commercial applications.
Given the fact that mueb of the manuf~~turing basd of Alaska
(pulp aillsJ aavmilla, canneries) is in the Goutheaat region. it
ls necessary to ex~mine aor~ closely the distribution of energy
usage io the Rallbelt Region. This is shown in Table 3.
Fro• Table 3. it can be seen that electricity is not u1ed a~
sauch irt the Railbelt Region as in Alaska as a JJhole. Electricty
@
,tpiP' ..
-r ' -'
~
r
aecouots for 5.5% of the non-utility energy budgets within the
reaion (eleccricity accounts fo 4.61 of tbte total eneray
consu•ed in the reaion). Fro• Table 3 it can also be seen that
t.be doainant ei:ectrieity coneuaing sectors are coaaercial
(33.7~) and reaidentiai (32.8%), with the industrial sector
accou,t\ting for 18.7% of electricity eona.uaption and the •ilita~ry
sector accounting for 14.8% of ~lectricity usage.
The dominant electricity conserv•tion potentials in the
R.ailbelt Region, thee, are in the t·esideKltial and coaaercial
econo•ic sectors. Industrial and ailitary uses of eloctricity
iu the R.ai lbe,lt R-egion are f-ar less iaportant.
lecaull~ the t>esiden~ial aeetor is one of the tvo iraport.ant
eleetricitJ con8u•ing groups in the Railbelt, it it iaport•nt to
exaaine, ~ore closely, tbia aecto~'s energy budgete. Tables 4
and 5 are preaented to •bow the distribution of epace and hot
wlt~ h.~•tift·g in the· ltailbelt Region. Electricity bas only 10%
of the space .. heating market, while oil 8nd ~as combine to have
· n~a1:ly 831 .. o-f t~hat earket as is shown in TabLe 4. Electricity
haQ',.t:~~red only 2~' of. the hot water heating market in the
Railbelt Region, while oil and gas eoubined have 73 percent of
the hot water heating market as is shown in Table 5.
Electricity bas captured a very ~•all portion of the residential
·the~mal ~•rketg ~~ ia shown in Tables 4 and 5. Further, the
aajothy .. o·f ·~«!i.raw.at·t ·hours consume~ by the residential sector
·~·r·.·""D>., ··:··" ......... ~r.~ .. not. . .;;;9.Jt.f~~~~ .t.o.,,rulrve thermal ap?licationa. This dis-
. · tribution ~f electri~ity consumpion in the residential sector is
· ; shown in Table 6~
r ..
r~'
' !
1 l
.
The coamercial sector in the Railbelt Region is housed largely
i~ the.lo8d -~~nte~• of Attehor~ge and Fairbanks. Like the
resith!ntie·1 S11;ctor~ :it relies largely upon non-eiectic !~lf!ersy in
thermal applications. In Anchorage, the dominant ~ouree of
the'Fmai ·en~t"gy i4 n4.t.ural &•• (Poray, 1983; also see A.D.
Littlet 1983),· In fairbankw, nearly 60% Df tbe thermal ene~gy
is supplied by patroleum products (e.g., distillate oil).
Future d•~•nds at~ likely to eontinue the current distribution
of ther•a& eneTgy loads bet~een aon-electrlc and electric energy
aou~:ces. tn Anc!uu.·•ae. eleetriccl,ty tleat.ed homes are considet"ed
a d~aa on the ~~rket, and they are not being built at this tiae
(Poray. 1983). Tbeir share of the market i~ expected !o decline
over t:i~,t~ 1!ouae, 1983). With ele,ctrieity coating 8.Si1kWh in
• r:
rl
. .)
'~
r'.' /
!: ;
t.~
L
Fairbank• (Reauae, 1982), or $24.90/aillion Btu. it is difficult
to f'reca•t a rise in el.ctric beat in that load center (parti-
cularly when diotilla,te 1~il costs a5-90t/gal or $6.30•$6.ti7/
•illioo Btu in-that cc:ua•t~nity). In the Ancho&:age area, tb.e
dQ•inant load cente~, abt!)ut 70% of tlur. co•••erc ia 1 off ice apace
baa beeu built aince 19713. Almost all of it (with one •ajor
developcaent exception) iJ5 heated with natural gas (Poray, 1983).
Poray expect1 this trend to extend into the future. In
F~irbanka 1 wbere 2.1.1% of the c:oaaerieal apace is heated with
electricity, 59.1% by fuel oil. and 19.7% by steaa, the
relative prices of distillate oil and electricity favor
conti,"ua.tion of this diat~·ibution (Reau•e, 1982).
Given tho•e data concerning energy con•umption in tbe ljllbelt
Region, certain conclu•ions can be drawn:
(1) The l~rgeat markets for energy coneervatioo 3 the
thermal markets 1 are served predominantly by
non-electric energy sources. Therefore, the largest
conservation potentials lie outside the electricity
arena.
(2) The dominant uaes of electricity are non-thermal
applications (e.g., lightiag) where co~se~vation
potential~ are less significant and less importafitQ
(3) The ut~s of electricity in industry, vber~ proces$
chan~es can effect energy conservation, are not
particularly aignlfic~nt in the Rmilbelt Region of
Alaakil.
Given tbose limitation~ on electricity conauaption in the
Railbelt Region, it is important to ~xamine the programatic and
market potefttials for reducing th~ use of electricity.
2,.·0 ProL~!.a&t~at!,c ~,2,2roach~s to Ener~-~ CoruhH:'Vation
Energy conservation proarams i•pactlng upon eleeticity con-
au•ption h•ve been developed ~nd implemented both by tbe State
of Ala•ka and by the various utilities withift the Railbelt
Reaion. Additional progra~a have been developed by the City of
Ancho~&ge. All of these programs have. to some extent, reduced
the consu•ption of electricity in the Rallbelt Region~
n
" • , ;
·~·
' ~··.: . '
. )
r r ~
r
r.,.-J. ' '
... }
r.
j. _)
Virtually all of th~ proar••• bave been directed at the
residen~i•l aector~ However, in Anchorage. aoae progra•• have
i•p~ct•d che g~vern•ental sector (including lnternal use of
eL0ctri~city by Aneboraae l!&.Y.cipal Light and Power).
conaervat ion in the co•a~{i~al and industrial sec. tor a baa
Larsely been left to marketplace driven actions.
t.l .!..ttl ~t&~e (DEPD) frosraa
The DEPD energy prcgrac bas been in place since 1981. Thla
p~ograa bas involved the following activities:
(1) Tr~ining of enersy auditors;
(2) Perfor•ance of r•sidential energy audits, which are
pbysic~l inspection:1 including •easure•ents of heat
loss, upon request;-
(J.) Providing grants of up to $300/household, o-r loans,
for enersy conservation improvements based upon tbe
audit;
(4) Providing r~t~ofit (e.g. insulation, weatberi~ation)
for low inco$e homes.
The key to the program is the audit. which is performed by
private contractors. The forma ~mployed are designed to show
••vings that can be achieved in tbe first year, tbe seventh
year, and the tenth year after energy conservation measures have
been imple•ented. The aavinga demonstrated provide the basis
tor qualifyina for a gran,t or loan. The audits focus on majotr
coQservatioa opportunities such as insulation and reduction of
infiltration (e.g., by veather •tripping, caulking. and stor•
vindov application).
The DEPD prog~a•$ overelt, achieved a.significant Level of
peftetration into the conservation marketplace, as is shovn in
Table 7. Penetration in the state as a whole acbieved 24%; and
r; ~~be state ia charged for • portiQ• of the coat of the
audit. on a sliding scale. depending upon location in the f state. The ho•eowuer pays the differ~nce between t-at p~ice
L~ and tbe market p~ice.
Jl
R
~ ::X
~
~
~
! ,
~ ,
,_ ,.
.~
" ,
... ci
r:
~ .
~~
. t
•) t
L
•
in tbe co•hln•d load center• of Anchorage and Fairbanks lt also
~cbiev~d 24%. It ia useful to note that the audit proar•• waa
aore effective in blgh cost enersy &reae (e.g~, Fairbanks)
lndicatina thai public participation was based upon aarket
fo~eea at least to ao•e mod~st extent.
The DSPD ~rograa, accordina to ita representative a. Qou1e, h~s
•cbie:v•d a 30 mill ion Btu/houae/yr or a 4. 2% aaviaaa of energy
in Alaska~ of which 18% ia electricity (House, 1983). Over 80
perc~nt of the ene~g~ cofiserved baa beE~ in the area of fossil
fuels. This is cgnaiatent with the directioQ of the program
towards cher•al enersy aavinsa (Brewer, 1983).
The DIPD prograa ia currently being phased out, except for low
inco•e faaily ascistance, particularly in the Bu•b Com•unities
(B~ewer, 1983). Even in those communities. only 13% of the
homes vill be treated (at ~ cost of $2000/bouse) in the next l
years (Brewer, 1983). Educational efforts, however, will
continue (House~ 1983). tf progra~s are constructed for the
future, they will b~ directed at fosall fuel conservation.
Particularly in the remote areas (Kou•e, 1983).
2.2 lhe qity of Ancbo!age Progra~
The Anchorage Program is the other non-source-$peeific
conservation progra• operated by the En~rgy Coordinator for the
City of Anchorage. This program also inYolvea audits, weather-
ization, and educational efforts. CursDry walk-through audita
have been perforeed on city buildings and •ehoola, and detailed
audits have been performed on •elected inatitutional buildings.
According to energy coordinator P. Poray, few coat effective
donservation measures were ~ncovared by the sudits {Poray,
1983) ..
Tbe ~eatherization proaram is applied in the case of low income
perso~~el, and involv•~ Jiving grants of up to $160U f~r
~aterials and incidental repairs. Labor is supplied from the
Compreh•naive !aployment Training Act (CETA) program. It is
designed to help those families hardest hit by rising energy
costs including the elderly and the handicapped (ML&P, 1902).
the educ&tionaL program haa involved wo~king with realtors •
bankers, contractors an4 businessmen. It also has involved
infofaal contacts with eoa•er~ial building maintenance
.)
I
1
·~
j
d
'
·~··i .. ,
' . '
r
,.~
\
j
r: ~ .
r:
r;
' fj
. r··~
I ":*
\
per•Ganel. finally, it has involved contacts with the aen~rcl
pub 1 ic.
2. 3 !h.~ Anc,:.horaae t1unic i pal Light. and P~wer {ML&P) -~,~o~~~-
Ti'i.~ HL&P pl'oar•• specifically addresses elutricity c~nservation
i~n. both residential c;nd institutional setti~l-•· It is a for•al
conservation program as aandated by the Pov~rplant and
Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (PUA).
The p~ogr•• of M~&f i• de~igned to ~cbieve a !01 Teduction in
electricity consumption froa the base year, July 1. 1980 to June
30. 1981, as shown in Table 8. To achieve this level of con-
servation, ML&P provides infor•ation on available state &ad city
programs (some employing Federal funds). Additionally, it has
programs to:
(1) distribute bot water flow restrictors;
{2) in•ulate 1000 electric bot water heaters;
(3) heat the city water supply, increasing the temp~ratnre
by 15•F (decreasing the thermal needs of hot wat~r
heaters); and
(4) convert two of its boiler feedwate~ pumps from
electricity to steam.
(5) convert city street lights from mercury vapor !amps to
high pressure sodium lamps; and
(6) convert the transmission system from 34.5 KV to 115
KV.
ML&P also supp!iea edecational materials to its customers along
with "F~rget-~e-not" •tickers for light switches. lt has a full
time energy engineer devoted to energy c~nservation prograa
deve~opft:ent.
The project~d impacts of specific ML&P enet'y conservation
proara•a are detailed in T~ble 9. They are doain•ted by
non-residential public aeetor programs such as street light
conve..-sioa, tt:ansmis•ion line conversion, and poliler pl•nt boiler
feed pump conversion. the•e thr~e programs, for example,
··~
" " ·~
" " t ~
" /1 , .. '
F
~
r
r ;
r J
r
,-
J' •
r t.
r t,..,.~
r
(..
r ~
' -,.., j
r # >
1-,., ,,;:i
r
,,,-~v
..,..
provide 25,408 HWb of electrlci;y conaervatlon in 1987. or 721
of tb•'· total proar••••t ic eneray conservation. They .ar;e
con•idered to be one-allot suceeasesa by AML&P (Ke.itcb. 1983)
that vill p~ak-iB 1982.
The aarket driven conservation expectation of AML&P are c:ospatt·ed
to the progra•aatlc efforts in Table 10. As can be seen. aarket
driven conaer\tation is the doainant force. If one further pl11•t•
pro&ramaatic cona~rvation proir••• i•pacting reaidential
dvelliB& (weatherization, atate proaram•• flow reetricto~•• and
water heating) aaai~at market induced conservation, the
~ominance of that latter force iA ~• follo~•:
Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Market con•ervation as of
a % of total private aector
conservation
77.8
79.8
82.5
82.9
83.6
83.7
83.9
The total conservation forecast by AML&P is $hown in Table 11.
It 1• clear that. after 19bl, the rate of inc~ease in
conservation decline• precipitously~ The rate of improvement
dropa sufficiently that the obse~vationa of Keitch (1913), that
realistic conservation reacbes ~ aaxiaua realistic level by
1983~ can be reasonably docuaented. Beyond that time frame
~arket driven conservation may be considered as the ove~whelming
contributor.
2.4 The G~lden yaLley El!'ct,!J~. Associaeion Pru.1.ram
Golden ValLey Electric Aaaa. • in Fairbanks, provides an
education oriented •pproacb to ~nergy cons~rv~tion programs.
this utility, which serves •11 of the electric best custo•ers in
Fairbanks (Coloaell. 1983); La Marca, 1983)• relies heavily upon
tb~ ••rketplace and provides it• customers with inforaatioQ
concerning bov money can be aaved. tt uses heavy reliance en
Market lore~• due to the blgh cost of electricity in that city
($57.01/500 KWh in Fairbanks vs $28.08/500 KWh in Anchorage~
Oct~. 1982) and the hi&h coJt of electric energy vs other fuel
2s abown in T•ble 12.
'"""' "-r
~ ..
0
"
r
I
f t
r
; ~ .. . ~ . . ,.. .' : .
··:: -.:~~::#-., ~ ~-:~~ ~~h :~~~-... :~:: •• ~
. -.... -....
f. ~< •• • ~., ~ • -•
:.:. ·/·-~:-~~~
To as~oapliab the educ&tion progra•• GVEA baa adapted a· plan
pur,auint to REA, resulations$ Thi.a utility nr•loya an Enersy Us4~
Advisor vbo pe~for•• the following taako:
(1) perforas advisory (non-quantitative) audite;
(2) counsels cueto•ers on an individual basis on aeans
to cona~rve electricity;
(3) provides group pr•aent~tioas and panel diseu•slons;
•net
(4} provi-des printed aaterial, including pt:eas 1:elea~es
and publications*
-· --
GVEA also eliminated ita ~pecial rate fo~ all-~leetric homes~
and placed a aaoratorius on electric hofae book•upm in 1977. It
bas given out flow restrictors~ lt ha5 prep~red displays and
presentations for the Fairbanks Ho~e Sho~ ~nd tb~ Tanana ¥alley
State Fair~ tt cootdlnatea It$ proara~~ with tke state (DEPD)
program and with ether programs.
The CVZA budget for conservation activities involves 1.8 man
years of effo~t. In 1981. the last year for which data were
available, it budgeted $102a733 for its conservation efforts.
The efforts of GVEA, combined with price increases and other
a.ocioeconortic phenomena! produced a eonset,Jation effect as shown.
tn Tabl~ 13. lt is i•possible to attribute the entire reduction
ln en~rgy use per household to the program •$ to price
conservation p~f •~• hovftver the dat• do show • radnctlo~ from
17,331 lt\olh/houaeiyr in 1975 to a level of 9,303 KWh/house/yr in
1982. Electricity consu2ption per household bas been cut nearly
in half (by 47.6%). ·
The data in Table 13 also sbo~ a moder•te upturn in elect~iclty
consumption per househoid in 1982, indi~ating tbat the practical
limit of cons~rvatlon •ay have been r~ached in the GVEA sy•tem.
This is the belief of GVEA (Col~nell, 1983).
2.S Other Utility Prosr,am.!.
Other uti t ity progr2as in the ~aajor load eenter_.a are
represented by the Anehorage based Chugach El~ctric Aseoclaticn
,
I •I
f
¥
j
c
f
\!I
(CEA) and the Fairbank• Municipal U~ility Systea (PMVS). Both
proar••• are afaecl &t get&iftg i.nfora•tioa to tlle public
conca~ning the 1ollar aavina• aasoclated with electricity
conservation. Both utilltiee rely on aarket forces, and aid in
conauae~ gecognition of those forcea. Althouah their electrical
rates are not aa hiah aa those associated vlth GVEA, they are
•ufficiently bigh to induce •arket driven conservation.
(See Fiaure 1) .•
3.0 Price Induced ~ectricity Con•~!X•tio~
Pri~e induced electricity conaervation bas been showA to be
•ere ieportant than progra•aatie conaecvation, and for several
reasofts.
(1) it already i• having the doainant i•pact, part-
icularly in the Anchorage area (see Table 9-11);
(2) programQatic effo~ts in the areas of subsidized
audits and investments for residence• •re being
phased out;
(3) programmatic effo~ts in the areas of inctitutional
building$ and systems are approaching the practicaL
limit of impact; and
(4) the dominant programs for the present and future, •~
i•ple•ented by electric utilities and government
agenc iea, are educational pror&ram;;l designed to
support, r~ther than supplement, price or ~arket
induc«d coneervation.
The details of aarket induced conservation are covered
elslewhere in this report. Ho~ev~c, it is significant to
concl~de that the procese has been going on for a sufficient
length of tiMe due to high prices tb4t many oppoctunitiea are
eabedded in tbe eai•ting building stock, and th•t further
opportunitlea •~Y be li•ited~
.(.~q).,
lY
~
" "
" " ' \
. 1*. r t ·~
. '
~.·.·. ·~r .~ : .
0 . ,;
r
f
r
. r
,.
f r
.
0
'flt.,JL.E 1
•u• r Mllf·
SECTOR
Residential
Co11aercia1
tnduatrial
National
Defense
transportation
Total~./
.. IHD USE OF ENERGY IN~ ALA.SK'A IY ICONOMIC SiCTOR
AND FUEL, 1~81 (TRILLION BTU).
FUEL TYPE
fuel Natu~al Coal Electricity Wood tot at.!/
Oil Gaa
15.1 8.3 0.1(. 4.5 3 .. 1 31.0
3.3 7.6 1.1 4.4 -o-16.4
32 •. s 32.3 -o-6.0 -o-70.8
15.4 4.6 5.9 1.7 -o-27.S
127.4 -o-o. 1 -o--o-127.4
193.6 52.7 7.2 16.6 3.1 273.2
Source: Arthur D. Li..tt·le, 1983 (Append.ix S).
.r
r ;
·.··' -·· ' t,. ~
K '
TAIL£ 2
ENERGY US£ DtSTRIBUTION IN ALASKA, 1981 (PERCENT) • ...
SECtOR FUEL TYPE
Fuel Natural Coal &lectTicity Wood
Ites ich~nt ia l
Industrial
Nat. ional
Defense
Transpot:tation
Tot at.!/
01 .. 1 G •••
48~7
20.1
45.9
56.0
100.0
71.9
2,6'!'8
46.3
45.6
16.7
-o-
19.3
REG~:.!
6.:.1
-o-
21 .. 4
0.1
2.6
t~totals Do Not Add Due to Rounding
-1 1.1.3% of Total Energy ConsuaHlld in Alaska i-6 .. 0% of Total Energy Cuneuaed in Alaska -~25.9~ of Total Energy Conau•ed in Alaska f 10.11 of Total Energy Conau~ed in Alaska
-1 46.61 of Total Energy Consumed in ALaska
..
14.$
26~8
8.5
6.2
-o-
6. 1
Source: Arthur D. Little. 1983 (App~ndi~ S).
10.0
-o-
-o-
-o-
-o-
1 .. 1
Tot.cat!-.1
too.o!.i
99. 9·'-' S:,.l
too.o!l
100. 3!.1.!1
AOO.l~/!l
tG'l.o!.1
??' • •
I .
c
~ , ,
·a
" ':
·~
~· . .
~ ~: ,,
'
tt
1
~
r,
.,_....., .'1
r~
r J :
~ ,),
,.
tw
[
:_~~
L
• c
i .....
TABLE 3
•
ECONOMIC
SECTOI
Utilities
Co•aercial
Industrial
Res i.dent ial
Military
Other
Total
..
RA .. ILBELT ENERGY DIS~RlBUTlON FOR 1981, BY ECONOMIC
SECTOR AND FUEL (VALUES IM TRILLION BTU)
FUEL TYPE
Fuel Natural Coal ELect~i~ity Wood
Oil ~as
2.15 5.41 29.65 ""o-2.90
2.26 ItO? 1 ~.33 -o--o-
13 .. 26 --o~, 31 .. 44 -o--o-
9.65 u .lS 8.11 1.$6 -o-
15.36 5.89 4. 59 -o--o-
95.08 0.07 -o--o--o-
137.76 12.58 81.12 1.56 2.90
Source: Arthur D. Little, 1983 (Appendix S).
247.31 4.6
207.20 s.s
total
-o-
s.a2
2 .. 13
3.75
-o-
-o.--
11.39
I
w
r
I
I
f •
TABLE 4
, ·cnltMttlf I t'Y
REGI.ok·
JllSTliBUT!.ON OF IESIDEMTI,AL SPACE HEAt' IH THE
.AAIL8ELT REGION BY FUEL TYPE, 1981 (PERCENT).
FUEL
El"ct~icity Natural Fuel Pl'opaQe Wood Coal
Gas Oil
Anchorage to!.1 62 %6 2 0 0
Fairbanks 5!.' 0 70 s 17 3
Valdez/ 0 o. 94 0 6 Q
Cordova
.Kenai le.C./ o--28 4S 0 6 0
Matanuska-zs!1 0 69 0 6 0
Susitna
Southeast 0 q 94 0 0
Vairh.:snks
Tot~l 10.2 40.9 41.8 2.1 4.4 Qt. 6
Source: Arthur D. Little, 1983 (Appendix S)o
Total
lOG
100
100
100
100
100
100
i'~B,attelle .Placed th~s value at 16.1%. ..
-Battelle p!ac~d th&s value at 15.2%~ the Fa1rbanks Consumer
Advocacy Com•ittee placed it ac 9.6%, and the Interior Woodcutters
Association placed it at 7.8%. f~Batteile pl•c.ed tbis value at 20 .. 6% ..
~Battelle placed this value ac 27.7%.
(/
I
cl
·~ ,
" ~ \,
r
r
r 1
f
COHHUNlTY
lEGION
"' DlSTI.IIUTtON OF B.ES,lDENT.IAI. HOT WATER HEATING
IN tUE R.AILBELT REGION BY .FI)IL TYPE, 1981 (PERCENT:).
FUEL
Etettticity Natural Fuel Propane Other Tot a!
Gas Oil
Anchorage 12 55 21 4 0 100
F4i rbardu~ 14 0 74 12 0 100
Valdez/ 13 0 75 12 0 lOU
Cordova
Kenai 32 28 40 0 0 100
Matanuaka-53 0 3S 12 0 100 Susitna
Southeaat 20 0 80 0 100
Fairbanks
Total 21.6 36.8 36.0 5.6 0 100
S9urce: Arthur D. Little, 1983 (Appendix S).
~; 0
•
~
-~
!-
ul
" .
~~--\,i
/f, jl;,~ :~r
0
-';)
CONSUMPTiON OF ~ECTRICtTY FOR. RESIDENTIAL THERMAL
APPLICATIONS AS 4 PERCENt OF TOTA.L ELECTRICITY COISUHED
!f~ THE RAILBELT REGION, 1981.
liLSCtRICl*tY
COHSUHPTION
SECTOR
Wat«u: Qe~~lng
~~.-1 Reaidentia!
KWH
CtiNSUMED
384,327
116,937
1,097,725
Source: Arthur o. Little, 1983 (Appendix S).
% OF TIME
35.0
10.7
.... 1-8 -f{
ltJO,O
.-,
I
.I
I f .
r
r
I J· I
TAIL£ 1
COMMUNITY
REGION
Kenai
Peninsula
Anchorage
Matantu&ka-
Susicna
Faix-banks
Southeast
Fairbanks
Total
..
MARKET PEHETRATIOR OF ·~HE DEPD AUDIT
P!OCRAH AS OF.' 1983.
HOMES AUDITS
11,740 2,659
70,363 16,.2.97
10,198 2,801
22,708. 6,202
2,490 734
39 J 188
HARKE~ PRODUCTION
(%)
22.6
23.2
17.7
27.3
29.5
Source: Arthur D~ Little 1 1983 (Appendix S).
• ...
r
f
r •
1\
l!
'tA.ILB 8
--~ "Y'
BASE YEALt
·PERIOD
J\il. , '80!
At.~& • ~ '80
S•lp., '80
Oc: t. ~ •so
Nov. • •so
Dec., •so
Jan., '31
Feb<)' , '81
Mar.,. 1 81
Apr. • •st
Hay. '81
l.,tt~..:...;r •at
'Total.
Te#t Year:
I Source: AML6P, 1982.
~
I
EHIRGi1' GEN£R.A'l 1 IOH FOR !.CLiP ---,.,_
M.t,6P NIT GEN. ' PUll.
GJJ:H. (KVH) (KWH)
._Ntf~ '5 .,
;;
311410440 43410797
3~1967600 42626788
~13371400 44974121
41815000 49635210
47803480 50876384
59459560 64276SOl
4774·1 520 52873639
42382280 49064429
39289000 50301269
38478600 47449439
404~~6200 42789541
3844.2120 43564710 -
4926,57200 581843030
I '
I < '
I
J
i , .
•
r
'
r ..
r ..
r •
PROOIWIATIC EHERGY CONSERVA1:101 I'_,JECTIOifS FOR MU.P
HWh/Yil)
Proara Year ,,...,.,._
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Weatberizat io111 586 .. 762 93rJ 1.114 1,290
State Progr_. 879 1,759 2,199 2,683 3,078
Water Flow 200 464 464 464 464
lestrictic.me
Water Heat 3~4!2 3,922 3,922 3,922 3,922
Injec.tion
Hot Water NA NA 249 249 249
Heater Wrap
Street .Light 0 sss 1,859 3,307 4,788
Conversion
Transmission 0 0 4,119 8,732 9,256
Conversion
Boiler Pump 7,148 7,148 7,148 7,148 7,148
Convez:sion
TOTAL 12,735 14,609 20,896 27,619 30,195
% Ch•nge NA 14 .. 7 43.0 32.2 9.3
FrOil Previcuo
Year
Source: AHL&P, 1983
1986 1987
1,466 1,641
.3,518 3,737
464 464
3,922 3.922
249 249
6,306 1,861
9,911 10,399
7,148 7,148
32,614 35$421
9.8 8.6
;I
I
I
-
I
I
I
J
r ....
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
PIOORAHAflC VS HARUT· DRIVU MERCY C'ASIRVATIOH
PB.OJECTlONS IN ·THE A.KU.P SERVICE Ai!A
Proaraaatic
Coaaervation
(MWb)(% o,f total)
12,73S ,39.5
191,609 34.9
20,896 37.1
217619 41.1
30,195 40.4
32,614 40.6
35,421 41..0
Market Driven
Conaervation
(MWb)(%)
19,558 60 .. 5
27,243 6Sol
35,374 62CJ9
39;;560 58.9
44,536 59.6
48,133 59.4
50,940 59.0
Total
(HW1i)(%)
32,194
41,853
56,289
67,133
74,730
81,015
86,363
Source: AKL&P, 1983
C•
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
' ; . If
I ..,..,,
I
·I ......,.
I
J
I .\J;.<.•,
I
I ..
I ••
,,
~ABLE 11 -
Year
1981
1982
1983
.1984
1985
1986
1987
TOTAL PROJECTED ILECTillCtTY CONSER.VA'llOH 18
AHL&ll SER.VlCI ARIA BY Y!Ai
Projected
Conaerv.-~ion
(KWh)
32,294
41,853
56,269
6~,133
74,360
81.015
86,363
% Change
Froa Previous
Year
HA
2S.6
34o4
19.3
.10.8
8.4
6.6
Source: AML&P, 1983
••
I .
I •. ·?,~
I
TAIL£ 12
I ··· ruel .. , -
l!lect:-ieity
i2 Heatin& Oil
I coaL
.Propane
Stea
.Wocd
Birch
SprU-ce
THE COST OF 1HERHAL ENERGY IM FAIRBANXS
1982
Dollar• Per Million BTU•
Neat Coat~nt Coat Per
Unit of Mea•ut:e (BTUa/Unit) Unit*
lilowatt-Hour,KWb 3,414 Btu/K"Wb 8.371
Gallona, G 138,000 Btu/G 114.30f
Tons, T 17,400,000 Btu/T $83.00
Gallons, G
Pounds,
Cords, C
Corda. C
lbs.
91,800 Btu/G 123.CJt
970 Btu/tb. 0.6Si
21,500,000 Btu/C**$100.00
1s,soo,ooo Btu/C** 92.50
Typical
Heat ina
Syct•
lffiei~ncy
100%
6S%
60%
70%
100%
52%***
52.%***
Cost Per One
Million BTU
$24.52
12.74
7,95
19.28
6.70
8.46
10.85
I.
*the co•t per unit assumes bulk delivery of fuel:. the cost for electricity is the MUS and
GV!A averas~ tuuaed on 2,000 KWh delivered; the cost of #2 heatinv, oi.l ~•~waes auto-
delivery of 500 sallons; the ct>st of coal i.a for one ton ~f lump ~o•~ de!J.v~1:ed; the
propane cost is for bulk delivery of beating propantt; ilnd the COl't of wood as~u!uts
delivery of one cord cut to length or aplit.
I
** Air-dried,"''moitture content of 2·0% and 80 cubic feet of wood. per cord.
*** Assuaea an airtight. woodstove is used.
Note: tbia table deals only with the cost co~apariaon between different fuel or energy
aourclle. The initial. cost of the individual heating ·~fstea (furnace or atove andotber
haJ:>dware) ia not included ..
J Source: Fai;-banka North Star Borough Co•unity ReJearch Center, ~let.. 1982.
:~,
I -
,., ..
I
~ .. • TAIL! 13 • F _&& ,,..
f''
I
I
I
I
I
I ·iJ
I
1972
1973
107&. -...........
1975
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
c
AVERAGE ANNUAL !L!CTI.tCl'tY COKSUMPtJ.OH PER HOUSEHOLD
ON Til£ GYIA SYSTEM, 1972-1982
Annual Monthly
Conswaption Conauaption Pereent
(kvH) (kvll) Cbai11tl
13,919 1.160 +5 .• 6
14,479 1,207 +4.0
15,822 1,319 +9.3
17,332 1,444 +9.S
15,203 1,267 -12.3
14,2SS 1,188 -6 .. 2
lt,S74 96.5 -18.8
10,519 877 -9.1
9.767 td14 -7.1
9,080 757 -7.0
9,303 775 +2.5
I
I
I Source: GVEA (Colon~li, 1983)
I
I ..
,, •.. ·J~ . . 3 ;:;· ., ·:;c
'.• /-·-· . I ·~:.. ~~ ltJIIIIr tmm~~~•
(l n
~·--------------~----~----111.1 ~ .. ~; --""""""'""--OAU:',_.~ __ ""'!' __ _
"~
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
. I
/!
l
' ......... , ' I CKICtCEO PAGI: --01 --PAQD
...
Figure'
PRICE Of 1"1100 ~!'f .. OIIAn-HOURS OF RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICifY
for Selected Utiltties
• ...
F~trblnks, Anchorage, and Seattle
1978-1982
120~---D------~~~~·--------------~-~--~ -
o._.-------~·----p--·-·-~~,--~----~------~~ Fall
1971
Flill
1979
Fall
1981
Fall
1982
" .•
... I " ... J r · flii I.& :alit••• ua n u u; rli t • .t