Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4039I I TK 1425 .S8 A23 no.4039 _.---------.'---_._---_...,--- REASSESSMENT REPOR T ON UPPER SUSITNA RIVER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE STA TE OF ALASKA September 1974 HENRY J.KAISER COMPAN Y 'AkLlS lA.lasm'ltelsdilrces', Library'&Information Service,s Anchorage,Alaska - - Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TAB LES ACIs:NOWLEDGMENTS_ A.Reassessment and Alternate Concept II-I B.Electrical Load Growth Forecasts and System II-2 Balance G.Hydroelectric Power Capacity of Susitna I II-3 D.Conceptual Engineering Studies II-4 E.Principal Proj ect Featur es II-4 //F.Estimated Susitna I Project Cost II-S /G.Financial Evaluation and Economic Analysis II-S H.Conclusion and Recommendations II-6 - .... I II III INTRODUCTION A.General B.The Devil Canyon Proj ect C.An Alternative Concept to Devil Canyon Project SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS POWER AND ENERGY FORECASTS A.Methodology B.Service Region C.Population and Employment Forecasts D.Energy Consumption Forecasts E.Generation and Peak Loads F.Power System Balance I-I I-I I-I I-I II-I III-l llI-l III-l III-3 III-IO III-I? III-19 1-----_ - - - - - - Section IV V VI VII VIII IX TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) HYDROLOGY A.Study Information B.Past Studies C.Updated Studies at Gold Creek D.Runoff at Proposed Damsite E.Impact of New Data F.Long Range Hydrologic Studies TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY A.Introduction B.Topography C.General Geology D.Engineering Geology POWER STUDIES A.Introduction B.Operation Studies C.Comparison with the U.S.B.R.Devil Canyon Project CONCEPTUAL PROJECT STUDIES A.Introduction B.Selected Proj ect Concept COST ESTIMA TE AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN A.Summary B.Construction Plan C.Construction Schedule FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A.Introduction B.Financial Evaluation C.Economic Analysis· Page No. tv -1 IV -1 IV -1 IV -2 IV -2 IV -3 IV-6 V-I V-I V-I V-I V-3 VI-l VI-l VI-2 VI-3 VII-l VII-l VII-I VIII-l VIII-l VIII-l VIII-4 IX-I IX-l IX-l IX-5 ---'-----------------------_.__._....__.•......_._...__...J '"" .~ r-; ~ I r- ! Section X XI XII TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES ENVIRONM ENTA L CON SIDERA TIONS A.Introduction B.'Canyon Section of the River C.Denali and Vee D.The Transmission Systems E.Summary FUTURE DEVELOPMENT A.Introduction B.Downstream Development:Susitna II C.Upstream Development:Susitna III D.The Ultimate Development E.Comparison with the U.S.B.R.Scheme Page No. X-I XI-l XI-l XI-I XI-2 XI-2 XI-2 XII-I XII-l XIl-l XII-2 XII-2 XII-,3 I - ... APPENDIX L----------~.-..-----.---------. -,~I - ,------------------------------------------------, LIST OF,FIGURES Figures are placed at the end of the section. I~ Figure Noo II-I IV -1 IV -2 Power System Balance,Anchorage - Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas, 1968 -1990 Coefficients Relating Susitna River Runoff at Gold Creek to Runoff at Site B Probability Distribution of Annual Discharge at the Proposed Damsite B on Susitna River Based on Runoff Records for Gold Creek Station and Cantwe 11 Station Section II IV - VI-l p..."", VII-I ,.,.,...VII-2 VII-3- VIII-l Reservoir Operation and Power Generation VI Data Site Location Plan VII General Layout VII Sections V II Tentative Construction Schedule VIII ----------------------------------------- ,-' - - .- Table No. III-l III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 1II-7 III-8 III,.9 III-iO IV -1 IV-2 LIST OF TABLES Forecasts of AlaskaLs Total Population Alaskan Civilian Employment Forecasts, 1975 and 1980 Record and Forecast of Total Population and Civilian Employment,Southcentral and Interior Regions,1961-1990 Energy Sales to Residential-Commercial Customer s in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area, 1961-1973 Energy Sales to Residential-Commercial Customers in the Fairbanks Area,1961-1973 Record and Forecast of Total Energy Sales, Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas, 1961-1990 Energy Sales,Net Energy for System,and Peak Load,Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fair- banks Areas,1968-1990 Power System Balance,Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Area,1968-1990 Projected Installation of New Generating Capacity,Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas Capacity and Sales Proj ection Probabilities of Annual Discharge at the Pro- posed Damsite on the Susitna River Frequency of Occurrence Page No. III-4 III-5 1II-8 1II-15 1II-16 III-18 1II-20 III-21 1II-22 III,.25 L.--..._ - f·---------------------- LIST OF TABLES (Cont) Table No.Page No. ,- -- .- - VI-l VI-2 VIII-1 IX-1 IX-2 IX-3 IX-4 IX-S IX-6 Summary of Thermal Load Factor sUnder Normal and Dry Year Conditions Annual Summary,Reservoir and Power Operation Summary of Capital Cost Estimate Pro Forma Income Statement and Sources and Applications of Funds Summary of Fixed and Variable Annual Charges Computation of Cost to Power and Allocation by Service Area Cost of Gas Turbine Power,Early 1980s Cost of Coal-Fired Steam Power with Gas Turbine Peaking,Early 1980s Comparison of Project Costs,Susitna I v. Devil Canyon VI-4 VI-S VIII-2 IX-2 IX-6 IX-7 IX-12 IX-13 IX-IS - -1 APP ENDIX TAB LES Records and Forecasts of Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Area Utilities,1968-1990 2,Alaska Power Administration,"Utility Load Estimate Extended to 1990 11 - .~ 3 4 Alaska Power Administration,"Statewide and Regional Utility Load Estimates,1972-2000" Stream Flow Summary,Susitna River,Gold Creek - - ,- .... 5 Stream Flow Summary,Susitna River,Cantwell 6 Stream Flow Summary,Susitna River,Damsite B I,,-1 - - - - !/- ,,- ,.... - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In preparing this report,the Henry J.Kaiser Company proj- ect team has been given invaluable as sistance by the staff of the Office of the Governor,the Departments of Economic De- velopment,Labor and Natural Resources,as well as the electrical utilities and municipal agencies of the Anchorage- Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas.The Federal Power Com- mission,Alaska Power Administration,and the Alaska Dis- trict of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,and the Alaska Chapter,Associated General Contractors of AmeriCa,Inc. have also generously extended their cooperation.In addition, many private firms and individual Alaskans were interviewed in the course of this study.The Henry J.Kaiser Company would like to express sincere gratitude for this support. ~--------- 1.INTRODUCTION- - .~ .- -r ' r·------------------------~---_ l A.GENERAL The hydroelectric developITlent potential of the upper Susitna River has long been recognized.Investigation of the river was begun by the U.S.Bureau of ReclaITlation (U.S.B.R.)in 1950,and by 1953 an ultim.ate developm.ent plan was form.ulated.The initial proposed developITlent recom.m.ended by these and subsequent studies was the Devil Canyon Project.The U.S.B.R.feasibility report for this project was com.pleted in May 1960 and endor sed by the State of Alaska in June of 196 L The Alaska Power AdITlinistrat.ion "Devil Canyon Status Report "of May 1974 contained minor modifications to the original de signs arid presented a cost estimate updated to January 1974. B.THE DEVIL CANYON PROJECT The Devil Canyon Project report proposed construction of a concrete arch dalTI in Devil Canyon and a low earth-rockfill darn at Denali as the first step in the Susitna River I s development.A power plant was proposed for the Devil Canyon sit~only because heavy drawdown of Denali reservoir would make power generation there uneconomical. T he project IS transmis sion system would supply electr icity to sub- stations in Anchorage,Fairbanks,and the proposed site of the new state capitol. A s visualized by U.S.B.R.,the ultimate development of the upper Susitna River would also include dams and power installations at Watana and Vee Canyon at some later date.Further detailed studies were recommended by U.S.B.R.to confirm the econoITlic feasibility of the ultilTIate developlTIent plan indicated. C.AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT TO DEVIL CANYON PROJECT In 1973,the Henry J.Kaiser Company prepared a preliminary anal- ysis of the hydroelectric development potential of the upper Susitna River.At that tiITle it was considered that growth of regional power I-I - .... - markets and rlsmg cost of fossil fuels could now make it feasible to begin the long-delayed hydroelectric development of the river. It was also anticipated that if the river were capable of producing sufficiently economical power,a major energy-intensive industry could be attracted to utilize any long-term surplus. Following evaluation of the Devil Canyon Project as planned by U.S.B.R.,the Henry J.Kaiser Company outlined an alternate and potentially more e~onomical development concept. This alternate concept visualizes a single dam and powerhouse in- stallation near Devil Canyon in lieu of the two-dani,single power- house scheme recommended by the U.S.B.R.This concept would eliminate,at least from the initial development,the Denali dam and reservoir,which appear to present unresolved technical,economic, and environmental problems.Early in 1974,this alternate concept was presented to the State of Alaska,along with a proposal to under- take a small preliminary study.The study,as proposed,was to in- clude preparation of a conc eptual design,order of magnitude cost estimate,and a preliminary feasibility report for an alternate hydroelectric project on the upper Susitna River. .On June 4,1974,the State of Alaska contracted with HenryJ. Kaiser Company for performance of the services set forth intb.e proposal. This report presents the results of Kaiser l s study.In this study, the project concept recommended by Kaiser for initial development of the Susitna River is identifie.d as Susitna 1,Future projects to utilize the ultimate.development potential of the river are identified as Susitna II and Susitna III. 1-2 - - - - - - r----------,----,-------------------------~------------ II.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A.REASSESSMENT AND ALTERNATEtCONCEPT, This study has reassessed the U,S.Bureau of Reclama-tion (U,S.B.R,J scheme for development of the hydroelectric potential of the upper Susitna River and presents an alternate concept for it-s initial and ultimate development. The U.S.B.R.scheme consists of a concrete arch darn and a power plant at Devil Canyon and an earth-rockfill darn at Denali as the fir st step in the Susitna River 1 s development.Ultimate development would include darns and power installaJions at Watanaand Vee Canyons. These facilities would effect full regulation of the river and provide a total instailed capacity of 1,372,000 kilowatts with firm annual ener gy production of 7,000 million kilowatt-hour s.The installed capacity of the Devil Canyon plant would be 600,000 kilowatts and the firm annual energy production would be 2,900 million kilowatt- hour s.-The construction cost for the fir st step,based on January 1974 prices was estimated to be $597,100,000.With $84,900,000 of interest during construction,the estimated total project invest- ment cost was $682,000, 000. The Kaiser concept includes three projects,designated Susitna I,II, and III,which would be located as shown in Section ~II,Figure VII-I. The initial project,Susitna I,which is the main focus of this report, would consist of a hydroelectric development at a locat-ion about five miles upstream from Devil Canyon.The power plant would have an installed capacity of 700,000 kilowatts and a firm annual energy pro- duction of 3,372 million kilowatt-hours.As in the Devil Canyon1s sch:eme,the Susitna I project transmission system wot.1ld deliver power to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas.Subse- quent stage s of development would include Susitna II,a darn and -tun- of-river power plant located below Portage Cr eek,with an in- stalled capacity of 163,000 kilowatts and an annual energy produc- tion of 785 million kilowatt-hours.Susitna III would consist of a dam and power plant located approximately at the headwater limit of the Susitna I reservoir.Susitna III would nave an installed capacity of 445,000 kilowatts and an annual energy production of 1,840 mill ion kilowatt-hour s. II-I - ....------------'-----------_..._..-...._--------,---_._----------, The construction cost of Susitna I was estimated at $525,720,000 based on June 1,1974 price levels.Including interest during con- struction of $77,000,000,the estimated total project investment co sts would be $602,720,000.On the basis of the schedule shown in Section VIII,Figur e VIII-I,with engineering starting in early 1975 and main constru ction starting in 1977,the estimated total project investment costs would be $638,100,000, The overall alterna te development cone ept would have a total in- stalled capacity of 1,308,000 kilowatts and a total annual energy pro- duction of 6,309 million kilowatt-hours.These totals are slightly less than the figures presented for the U.S.B.R.development scheme, and the reduction is directly attributed to avoiding development of the Denali Reservoir which may have an unfavorable environmental impact. Economic comparisons of Susitna I with alternative thermal develop- ment and.the Devil Canyon-Denali scheme indicate that Susitna I is the most attractive alternative. The findings of this report are summarized on the following pages. B.ELECTRICAL LOAD GROWTH FORECASTS AND SYSTEM BALANCE Load growth forecasts through 1990 have been prepared for major Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Area utilities,resulting in the following conclusions on the region 's energy consumption and peak load.-Anchorage-Cook Inlet Fairbanks Total Net Peak Net Peak Net Peak Energy Load Energy Load Energy Load Year million thousand million thousand million thousand kwh kw kwh kw kwh kw Actual-1968 559 125 161 43 720 168 1973 1,090 213 318 73 1,408 286 Forecast 1975 1,400 271 410 87 1,810 358 1980 2,740 513 803 164 3,543 677 1985 5,080 928 1,354 266 6,434 1,194 1990 9,420 1,721 2,281 434 11,701 2,155 "'-" II-2 I '-----------~--------------~--------_.----__.__._..._.J - - - ~---..:..-------------------_._--------_.. Existing system expansion plans for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet A rea are capable of satisfying this forecast through mid-1979.Prior to mid-1981,the earliest date at which Susitna I could be commissioned, it would be neces sary to add approximately 84,000 kilowatts of new capacity to serve this area.Existing expansion plans for the Fair- banks Area should satisfy load growth require~ents until mid-1982. The power system balance indicates that if Susitna I were commis- sioned in mid-1981,its 700,000 kilowatt capacity would be fully ab- sorbed by the systems normal load growth through early 1986. Power and energy forecasts by area and the overall power system balance a.re illustrated in Figure II-I. C.HYDROELECTRIC POWER CAPACITY OF SUSITNA I Hydrologic studies based on 23 years of recorded river flow at Gold Creek indicated an estimated flow at the Susitna I site as follows: Annual Flow in Acre-Feet - Minimum 3,772,000 Average 6,639,000 Maximum 7,795,000 - ,- The minimum annual flow was recorded in 1969 and was not taken into account in the Alaska Power Administration 1 s "Devil Canyon Status Report,II 1974. Reservoir operation studies for the 23-year period of record and hydrologic studies indicated that 3,372 million kilowatt-hours of ener gy cOllldbe produced at lea st 97%of the time. Because Susitna I will be part of alar ger system including sub stantial thermal capacity,the system as a whole could be operated to meet overall demand i~a dry year,such as 1969,despite a reduction in Susitna I energy production.Accordingly,the project's firm annual energy capability has been established at 3,372 million kilowatt- hour s for an installed capacity of 700,000 kilowatts at 55%plant fq.ctor.On the average,500 million kilowatt-hour s of secondary energy can be produced per year. II-3 ---------------------------_._--_...__.__..._---_.......-.....__..-----------_.-._._------ - - - - - D.CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING STUDIES These studies used U.S ..GeologicaL.5urvey maps.to identify sites potentially favorable for locations of dams and impoundment of large reservoirs.River runoff records from the Up S.G.S. Gold Creek and Cantwell stations,and clim.atological data from a number of weather stations in the region were used to assess the water resource of the river.All of these data were combined to eva1u- ate several alternate concepts of project scope and layout.The geo- logic and engineering reconnaissance survey made early in the study confirmed the superiority of the terrain of the selected site over several alternate sites.It revealed the occurrence at the site of a granitic-type bedrock eminently suitable for project location and use in dam.construction,and identified important geologic features which were significant in selecting the layout and location of main project features.The reconnaissance also provided preliminary informa- tion on the availability of other construction m.at.erials p Estimates of cost were based on conceptual designs,site character- istics,and most recent inform.ation on costs of labor,equipment, and materials,all related to the project site. E.PRINCIPAL PROJECT FEATURES Type of dam Crest elevation,feet (m.s.1.) Crest length,feet Height of dam,feet Reservoir m.aximum normal capacity,acre-feet Reservoir area,acres Power plant type Installed capacity -kilowatts Units Average gross head,feet Range in gros s head,feet Annual plant factor,percent Annual firm energy,kilowatt-hours Annual average energy, kilowatt-hour s Transmis sion line,rating kilovolts Length to Anchorage,mile s double circuit Length to Fairbanks,mile s single circuit Concrete face rockiill 1,755 3,050 800 -approximately 5,760,000 24,200 Underground 700,000 4 @ 175,000 Kw,Francis type 702 758-518 55 3,372 million 3,872 million 230 139 214 II·A - - ._--------------- F.ESTIMATED SUSITNA I.PROJECT COST The estimated construction and equipment costs for the project, ba sed on June 1,1974 price level s,are summarized below: Hydroelectric Plant .... - ,.... .... Site access,reservoir clearing, and diversion tunnels Darn and spillway Power plant and related facilities ..~ Living quarters and general property Subtotal T ransmi s s ion System Total construction costs Interest during construction Total Estimated Project Investment $47,185,000 263,690,000 129,570,000 2,880,000 $443,325,000 82,395,000 $525,720,000 77,000,000 $602,720,000 - The above estimate includes contingency and engineering costs but does not include escalation to the date of award of the construction and equipment supply contracts. G.FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A pro forma income statement has been prepared for Susitna I in order to determine whether the project l s cost,construction schedule,and revenue base are consistent with a practical financ- ing plan.The results of this analysis indicate that the project would be capable of making regular interest payments beginning in Janu- ary 1982,six months after I3tartup,and that regu'lar sinking fund installments could begin in the fourth quarter of 1985. ·11-5 r----~--------------------------------------- - - - The project would produce power valued at an average 14.5 mills per kilowatt-hour at the service area step-down sub station.Allow- ing for differences in load factor and especially the incremental cost of transmission,SusitnaI power would cost 13.5 mills per kilowatt-hour in Anchorage and 17.5 mills per kilowatt-hour in Fairbanks. For comparison with Susitna I costs,it is estimated that power gen- erated by new thermal capacity commissioned in 1981 would be ap- proximately 15.9 mills in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area,and approxi- mately 18.6 -21.0 mills in the Fairbanks Area.It has also been estimated that Susitna I power cost would be approximately 75%that of the U.S.B o R.Devil Canyon project. H.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The summary presented above indicates that the Susitna I project pro- vide s an economical means of meeting the service area electrical load growth requirements of the 19808 .. The generation of fir st power in 1981 is contingent upon the comple- tion early in 1976 of the definitive designs and cost estimates required to firm-up project feasibility and provide a sound basis for project financing measures.This requires that engineering be started early in 1975 so that the prerequisite site mapping and detailed geologic in- vestigations can be carried out as early as possible in 1975. Application for preliminary licensing by the Federal Power Commission should be made before the end of 1974.Environmental studies should be started as early as possible so that environmental questions can be resolved without causing delay to project implementation. The key steps in the implementation of the project and generation of first power in 1981 are as follows: •Establishment of Power Authority_ It is recommended that the State of A laska establish an auto- nomous development authority to undertake the Susitna Project. Such an agency would have a s its immediate re sponsibility the financing and management of this project;however,its role II-6 l-.._-.-------..----.-...._..__ - /'~......:r- - - - .~. - - • • • later could be expanded to include similar developments in other parts of Alaska. Initially,the operations of such an authority probably must be funded by the state government.However,as the authority develops into a revenue-producing ag~ncy,it is considered desirable that it become fully self-sufficient. Application for Preliminary Licensing by the Federal Power Commission. Environmental Studies. Land Acquisition. Most land in the upper Susitna Basin,particularly in the area of Susitna I is both withdrawn as a Federal powersite and also ear- marked for selection by native regional corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).It is not clear whether either of these designated uses establishes a peremptory claim to use of the land. It is considered that the State of Alaska may require Susitna Basin lands either by arranging for assignment of the Federal powersite withdrawal,or by negotiating for NACSA selection of eligible lands,with subsequent lease or sale to the State or its power authority. •Engineering. This will include the following main items: Mapping of project site area Detailed investigations of site geology including drilling and investigation of construction materials Development of definitive de signs Preparation of definitive cost estimate and application for full licensing by the Federal Power Commission II-7 1-,,-....._.__ - .- - - Preparation of specifications and contracts for construction and for supply and installation of m.ajor equipm.ent Recom.m.endations for awards of construction and supply contracts Engineering and m.anagem.ent of construction II-8 l )) 1=/G'Ut:lE II - , SUs/rNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ANCHORAGE .COOK INLET AND FAm8ANKS AREAS POWER SYSTEM BALANCE 1968 .1990 --.-----~~-~---+----.J 12,000 ~ ~ /0,000 ~ ...... :::::.! ~+--+--A---+-----l==1 r==l -~8,000 ~ ~ ~ 6,000 fi. ............ 4,000 ~ ANCHORAGE -COOK INLET ~ r-~NET ENERGY ~ ,2000 ~ I ANCHORAGE -COOK INLET $FAIRBANKS ' TOTAL NET ENERGY +ACTUAL I +I FORECAST I I ! ANCHORAGE -COOK INLET 4 FAIRBANKS AREAS GENERATING CAPACITY ANCHORAGE-CODKINLET $FAIRBANKS AREAS I I I I "---+TOTAL PEAK LOAD ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET PEAK LOAD o /96B /969 1970 [971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 /977 1978 1979 /980 1981 1982 1983 1984 /985 1986 /987 1988 1989 /990 '*UNSCHEDULED CAPACITY ADDITIONS ""-....(', - III.POWER AND EN ERGY FORECASTS A.METHODOLOGY The methodology used in forecasting Susitna 1 proj ect power and energy demands is as follows: • A primary service region was selected for the project. •Population and employment of the service region were forecast to 1990. •Growth of regional utilities'electrical energy sales was forecast based on its historical relationship with population and employ- ment;nonutility industrial and U.S.military energy consumption were also evaluated. •Power system generation and peak loads were projected in terms of recorded system operating parameters for regional utilities. •Power and energy demands on Susitna I were projected in terms of the regional demand-capacity balance in the 1980 s. B.SERVICE REGION The primary service region selected as a forecasting base for proj- ect power sales consists of the U.S.Census Divisions of Anchorage, Kenai-Cook Inlet,Matanuska-Susitna,and Seward--designated the '1Anchorage-Cook Inlet Ar ea;II and Fairbanks--designated the II Fair- banks Area.II The criteria for this selection are as follows: 1.Service to Population Based on the 1970 U.S.Census,and subsequent estimates by the Sta te of Alaska Depa.rtment of Labor,the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area today comprises approximately 90%of the population of Alaska l s South Central Region,one of the state's five major geographical subdivisions,and it includes approximately 50%of the population of the state as a whole.The Fairbanks Area com- prises approximately 80%of the population of the Interior Region and 15%of the state as a whole. III-1 - ..... - - Together,the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas make up 65%of Alaska's total population.Through 1990,it is antic- ipated that the growth rates of these areas will be higher than that of the state as a whole. On the basis of this selected service region p it is believed that the project can convey benefits to a sufficiently large and broadly distributed population base to justify its sponsorship by the State of Alaska. 2.Transmis sion Economy The Susitna 1 project site is located approximately 139 transmis- sionmiles north of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area and 214 trans- mission miles south of Fairbanks.It is projected that transmis- sion to both of these areas would follow the present routes of the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway,and!or of the Alaska Railroad. Roughly 900/0 of the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area population is lo- cated adjacent to this main transmission route,while the remain- ing 10%is interconnected by transmission systems of area utility systems.Approximately 100%of Fairbanks Area population is located adjacent to the terminus of the northern transmission sec- tion.As a result,the 'extension of service to both of these areas offers a reasonable concentration of electrical load in terms.of the length of transmission required. In addition to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas,a small additional population is now located ip the Susitna-Chulitna and Nenana valleys adjacent to the p'roposed transmission main- line.It is expected that this population will increase rapidly due to ease of access via the new Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway.The propo s ed new location of the Alaska state capitol is also in this area.Therefore,the practical service region of the project has a substantial capability of expansion along its transmis sion mainline. Areas which have been excluded from the service region in this report fall into two categories.The first of these includes re- mote areas which,for the foreseeable future,are not expected to have sufficient population and electrical load to make extended transmission of Su sitna-generated power competitive with local generation,even where the latter is very costly.The second IlI-2 - - - - category includes two areas which now have small population bases,but which could warrant extended transmission in the fu- ture.The first of these areas is the middle Tanana valley,in- cluding the community of Big Delta.It is probable that this area will be connected by Fairbanks Area utilities prior to completion of initial development of the Susitna River power,The second area is the eastern perimeter of Prince William Sound,including Valdez and Cordova.This is expected to be one of Alaska's fastest growing population centers in the late 1970s and 1980s due to the construction of the Alyeska Pipeline,the probable construction of a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope,and subsequent development of refining and petrochemical industries at the pipeline termini.This area has been excluded from the service region in this report for the following reasons.First, serving it would require an additional transmission system nearly as long as the mainline;this would add substantially to the deli- vered cost of Susitna power in this area.Second,this area is expected to have relatively inexpensive sources of fuel for local power generation,which,due to transmission cost of Susitna power,could easily be more competitive.Third,although this areal s population should increase several times from its present base,inclusion of the r elated electrical load in this report would n'ot affect the economic feasibility of the initial Susitna project. C.POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 1.Forecasting Guidelines To forecast growth of population and employment in the Anchorage- Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas through'1990,two sets of state- wide and regional forecasts have been used.These were prepared by the State of Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Anal- ysis Section (ADL)and by the National Bank of Alaska,Economics Department (NBA).Other population and employment forecasts have also been consulted,particularly those prepared recently for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,Inc.,and the University of Alaska,Institute of Social,Economic and Government Re- search.In addition,reference has been made to forecasts cited in the drafts of the Alaska Power Administration l s Alaska Power Survey,1974.The ADL and NBA forecasts are summarized in Tables III-1 and III-2. III-3 _. - TABLE III-1 FORECASTS OF ALASKA'S TOTAL POPULATION ..... - - 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Alaska Department of Labor (ADL) 357,200 386,600 448,400 National Bank of Alaska (NBA) 361,300 406,900 433,2.00 446,100 461,000 473,700 479,900 Sources:Annual Population and Employment Projections 1961-1980, Alaska Department of Labor,Research and Analysis Section National Bank of Alaska,Economics Department. III-4....__..._..__.__-.J - - TABLE III-2 ALASKA CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 1975 AND 1980 Alaska Department oL Labolr (ADL)Annual Rate Industry 1975 1980 of Change Construction 18,000 12,000 -5.9--Mining 3,000 6,400 16.3 Distributive and Service 59,100 77,600 5.6 Government 46,400 56;900 4.2 Federal 17,500 IS,OOO • 6 State-Local 28,900 38,900 6.2 Manufacturing 10,500 13,500 13.2 Other 14,200 16,200 2.7 TOTALI 151,200 182,600 3.9 - - i .;0.;.;0.. National Bank of Alaska (NBA)Annual Rate Industry 1975 1980 of Change Construction 18,100 14,100 -4.1 Mining 3,000 5,500 12.9 Distributi ve and Service 65,000 83,000 5.1 Government 49,900 62,500 4.6 Federal 17,400 17,900 . 6 State -Lo cal 32,500 44,600 6.5 Manufacturing 13,500 12,100 -2.0 Other 14,300 16,300 2.7 TOTAL 160,000 193,500 3.9 1Totals may not add due to rounding, Source:See Table Ill-l. III-5 .,...,-..... \~ .- - - ~.. The ADL and NBA forecasts extend to 1980.Both forecasts have been based on polynomial regression analysis of historical trends, with estimates of the impacts of Alyeska Pipeline construction be- ginning in 1974.Both forecasts anticipate sustained growth of population and employment following the peak impacts of Alyeska Pipeline's construction in the late 1970s.This growth will be based on activity in mining p and other industrial sectors,as well as public,commercial,and residential construction.In addition to private sector growth,the NBA forecast has noted that the State of Alaska"will receive net royalties and severance taxes of as much as $900 million per year from first-stage North Slope oil and gas production;these revenues are expected to stimulate in- creased investment and employment in state and local government. The ADL and NBA population forecasts differ principally with re- spect to growth between mid-1974 and mid-197 5.During this period,ADL forecasts an increase of 29,400 persons compared to the NBA forecast of 45,600.Beyond this,for the period 1975 through 1980,ADL projects a population gain of 16.0%with an annual compound growth rate of 3.0%.For the same period,the NBA forecasts an overall population increase of 17.90/0,with a corresponding annual growth rate of 3.3%. Key differences between the ADL and NBA employment forecasts are as follows: (a)Compared to ADL,NBA forecasts that Alyeska Pipeline con- struction will have greater impact on employment in distribu- tion and services,.and in state government. (b)NBA forecasts a smaller drop in construction activity in the late 1970s than does ADL,with less strength in mining and manufa c tu ring. (c)NBA forecasts a larger total employment gain from 1975 to 1980 than does ADL. Both forecasts indicate that approximately 90%of Alaska i s new employment in the last half of the 1970s will be in the distributive and service sectors,and in state government. III-6 Kaiser's judgment is that both the ADL and NBA forecasts have been conservative in their evaluation of industrial impacts on Alaska's economy resulting from further development of the petroleum industry in the late 1970s,particularly relating to gas pipeline impact and development of the manufacturing sector. Further p it has been impossible for the forecasters to consider the magnitude of po s sible impacts from major expansion of the oil indu stry in southern Cook Inlet,the Gulf of Alaska,and pos- sibly other areas.Such developments are probable and will justi- fy substantially greater forecasting optimism when their size can be determined. For this analysis p the higher NBA forecast has been selected as the basis for estimates of population and employment growth through 1980.In order to relate the NBA statewide forecast to the Susitna project service region,Kaiser has estimated the probable Southcentral and Interior regional components of this forecast,based on ADL data.The result revises the NBAI s statewide figures to a regional base consistent with the historical distribution -r ecorded by ADL. 2.Forecasts to 1980 and 1990 The record of growth in Southcentral and Interior Alaska's popula- tion and employment from 1961 through 1973 is indicated in Table 1II-3,along with forecasts to 1980 by ADL and by Kaiser based on the NBA statewide data as noted above. Kaiser's forecast to 1990 is also shown in Table III-3.In the absence of authoritative guidelines,trends in population and em- ployment to 1990 are based primarily on a statistical extrapolation of the historical record from 1961 through 1973,and of the revised NBA fotecast through 1980.The annual growth rates forecast for the 1980s are somewhat less than those experienced in the past decade and those expected in the remainder of the 1970s.This reflects the substantially greater population and economic base to _ be achieved by 1980 and the associated probability that even very large industrial development proj ects will have a smaller percent- age impact on growth than the Alyeska Pipeline has at the present time.Even with this limitation,the forecast annual volume of growth is on the average substan~ially larger than for the years prior to 1980. 1II-7 TABLE III-3 RECORD AND FORECAST OF TOTAL POPULATION AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT SOUTHCENTRAL AND INTERIOR REGIONS 1961-1990 Southcentral Interior Year Population Employment Population Employment 1961 115,900 35,400 48,100 12,300-,1962 119,100 36,600 49,850 12,950 1963 122,400 37,850 51,650 13,550 1964 123,800 40,300 50,700 13,850-1965 132,600 44,700 50,500 14,850 1966 136,550 46,700 50,850 15,100 1967 140,200 49,500 51,050 15,000 1968 146,100 50,950 50,950 15,400 1969 151,800 54,900 52,500 16,950 1970 164,900 59,100 56,500 17,600 .~1971 174,600 62,950 55,000 18,350 r""'"1972 183,000 66,800 56,400 1 9,100 1973 188,700 71,100 56,300 19,300-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - F ORECA ST -- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - --- - - - - 1975 ADL 223,100 84,800 66,500 26,500 Kaiser 1 236,000 90,000 70,000 28,000 1980 ADL 265,000 104,000 70,000 28,000 Kaiser 1 284,000 111,000 75,000 30,000 1990 Kaiser 415,000 162,000 128,000 51,000 1 Based on NBA'statewide forecasts. Sources:1961-1971,State of Alaska,Department of Economic Develop- ment,Alaska Statistical Review,1972 1972-1973,State of Alaska,Department of Labor,Annual Population and Employment Projections,1961-1980,and unpublished data. III--8 '------------------------,---------,..,,--_._----------- - - ;- - In Kaiser!s judgment,this forecast is warranted and probably conservative due to the following factors: (a)Alaska 's production of crude petroleum natural gas and other minerals,particularly coal,limestone,and iron ore,is ex- pected to increase substantially in the 1980s,both asa result of new petroleum production in the North Slope and other areas,and the increasingly short supply and high world prices of mineral ores,which will encourage development of known Alaskan deposits of these materials.Growth in distribution, services,and government similar to that of the 1970s is ex- pected to accompany expansion of these extractive industries. (b)Alaska i s manufacturing s ector is expected to developsubstan- tially in the 1980s,particularly if North Slope natural gas,or gas from offshore sources,becomes available on the Gulf coast.Alaska is in an excellent position to exploit domestic and foreign export markets for gas-derivative petrochemical produ cts and,also,to apply its r ela tively low-co st natural gas as fuel to facilitate cement manufacturing,coal beneficia- tion,and direct reduction of iron and other ores.At present, both U.S.West Coast and Far Eastern markets for these prod- ucts are heavily dependent on imports from the eastern U.S. and other sources.As a result,Alaska's remoteness and high labor cost,which typically have deterred local manufacturing, are expected to be outweighed both by availability of resources and the advantages of shipping them as semifinished products from near the source of the raw material.Development of these industries,which are relatively capital and labor- intensive compared with crude oil production,should be accom- panied by a high rate of activity in distribution,service,and construction sectors. (c)Alaska's expected revenues from oil and gas royalties,and its outright ownership of royalties in kind,make the state uniquely capable of controlling and encouraging local indus- trial development and of providing the community facilities and services necessary to mitigate impacts of population and industrial growth.As a result,it is expected that the State of Alaska itself will be capable both of promoting and assimilat- ing a high rate of growth in the 1980s. III-9 --,.; ,.... ,..,... - D.ENERGY CONSUMPTION FORECASTS The selected Su sitna proj ect servic e region,consisting of Anchorage- Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas,cornprises all but a small part of the population and employment of Ala.ska's Southcentral and Interior Regions~as noted above"Therefor e,the growth tr ends forecast for the Southcentral and Interior Regions as a whole have been taken as representative of the service region. At the present time,the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Ar eas are served by the following utilities: Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area ,l<Chugach Electric As sociation,Inc. ~~{Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Department Homer Electric As sociation,Inc. Matanuska Electric Association,Inc. Seward Light and Power Department Fairbanks Area *Golden Valley Electric As sociation,Inc. >1<Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System Of these seven utilities,four,indicated by asterisk (*),have regu- larly operating generating capacity.In the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area,Chugach Electric and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power deliver power to the other smaller systems,along with the Alaska Power Administration,which supplies the systems in this area from its Eklutna hydroelectric plant. Records of these utilities for the period 1961 through 1973,compiled by the Federal Power Commis sion and the Alaska Power Administra- tion,have been used as the basis.for forecasting electrical energy sales in the Susitna service region.Two categories of electrical load were established for forecasting,following the most cons-istent division of the recorded data:residemtial and an aggregation of commercial-industrial and other uses.Other uses include sales to public buildings and stl"eet lighting,which together c6mprise about 5 %of total consumption. III-10 -----------------------_._---_._._--_.._. - - - - 1.Residential Energy Sales To forecast residential energy consumption in the Anchorage- Cook Inlet Area,a correlation was established between population of the Southcentral Region and the number and energy consumption of individual customers in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area,In this analysis,the data for 1961 through 1973,shown in Table III-5, were first translated into logarithms.Using a computer,a reg- ression analysis was then prepared,taking the change in number of residential cu stomer s as the dependent variable and population as the independent variable.The following formula was derived: Log R =Log a +b(Log P) where:R =number of residential customers a =intercept on Y axis b =factor describing slope of growth line P =population The result was as follows: Log R =-4.11281 +1.6671l(Log P) For the Fairbanks Area,no reliable formula could be obtained by computer to forecast the number of residential customers.Popu- 1a tion changes occurring in the Interior Region,possibly because of shifts in military personnel,wrere not immediately reflected in comparable changes in number of residential customer s.For Fairbanks,however,a relationship was noted between average annual population growth from 1961 through 1973 and the average annual growth in number s of residential customer s for the same period.Growth factors derived £:rom this relationship were then applied to the population.forecast to estimate energy consumption. Using these data the following forecasts were made for energy sales per customer in both areas through 1980: III-11 ----------_._-----~_..._._-------.-.-.....__._------_..... Energy Sales per Residential Customer l ~"- -1961 1968 1970 1973 1980 Anchorage-Cook Inlet (kwh) 5;130 6,480 7 1 830 9,280 -----------Forecast 13,000 Fairbanks 3 1 590 4,880 8,820 11,000 14,000 -----...__.._--_.-...__._----_. ..... - - .~". These forecasts of per-customer residential energy sales reflect the following considerations: (a)The average annual increase per capita income in Alaska be- tween 1974 and 1980 will exceed the average annual gain of 5.7%recorded between 1959 and 1971 and will stimulate fur- ther increases in energy consumption per residential customer. (b)A decline in the price of residential energy sales has undoubted- ly stimulated consumption in both the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas,but this trend probably will not continue in the last half of the 1970s.It is expected that rising costs, particularly of fue1s 1 will lead!to leveling and possibly in- creases in energy charges. (c)The Fairbanks Area,with its <colder climate and its sharply in- creasing use of electricity for home heating,will continue to outpace Anchorage in consumption of energy per residential customer. 2.Commercial-Industrial Energy Sales Commercial-industrial energy sales for both the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas were forecast by identifying a correla- tion between total civilian employment and numbers of customers. Again using a computer program,the following formulas were derived: I III-12 I I........J - ,t"_ ",....1 For Anchorage: For Fairbanks: Log 0 :::-.446306 + •8777366(Log E) Log 0 :::-2.4790,~+1.35334(Log E) ,-where:0 :::the number of nonresidential customers E :::total civilian employnnent Forecasts of the number of commercial-industrial and other cus- tomers were next applied to separate forecasts for sales of energy per cU$tomer through 1980,as indica ted in the following table: Energy Sales per Commercial-Industrial Customer - - - 1961 1965 1970 1973 1980 Anchorage-Cook Inlet (kwh) 29,730 46,270 64,860 80,390 Foreca.st 148,000 Fairbanks 31,970 38,000 62,510 76,190 118,000 - .- In forecasting sales of energy per commercial-industrial customer, the following factors were considered: (a)Employment increases in distributive and service industries and state government will be accompanied by growth in the average size of commercial and industrial establishments and govern- ment office buildings. (b)The cost of commercial-industrial energy,which fell sharply between 1961 and 1973,will tend to level,or possibly rise,as generation and distribution costs are affected by inflation . (c)In the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area,energy consumption per commercial-industrial custom€:r increased at an average annual rate of 8.6%from 1961 through 1973,and is forecast to in- crease at 9.10/0 from 1973 to 1980. III-13 ------------- '.- "'-,---------,,--,'-,---,---,---'------'--'---l (d)In the Fairbanks Area,growth in energy c.onsumption per commercial-industrial customer averaged 7.5%annually from 1961 through 1973,and is expected to increase at 6.4%annual- ly from 1973 through 1980. Tables 1II-4 and 1II-5 summarize records and forecasts of energy consumption by residential and cornmercial-industrial service categories for the years 1961 and 1980. 3.Nonutility Industrial and Military Energy Sales Alaska Power Administration data indicate that today approxi- mately 17%of Alaska's total electricity generation is by nonutility industrial plants,and that 22%is by U.S.military installations. Nonutility industrial generation is more or less evenly divided be- tween the timber industry of Southeast Alaska and the petroleum industry of Cook Inlet and the North Slope.The timber indu stry utilizes wood scrap with a residual oil supplement for much of its fuel,primarily to generate process steam;most of this industry's electric power is then produced from a combination of fresh steam and recycled process heat.In general,this type of indus- trial power generation would not be replaced by utility sources even if they were available,and would not contribute demand to a project like Susitna 1.The oil industry generates its own power in locations which either do not have established utilities,such as the North Slope,or which are inaccessible to utility distribution, such as the production platforms of Cook Inlet.Again,this mar- ket is not capable of being serviced from utility sources and would not enter into Susitna's demand base. Past trends in utility load growth in Southcentral Alaska have in- dicated that new industrial loads which local utilities can reach will be connected.This has been true of the Kenai oil refining and petrochemical industries,which are served by Homer Electric Assn.,Inc.,and also of portions of the Alyeska Pipeline,which may be served by Golden Valley Electric As sn.,Inc.In Kaiser I s judgment,the forecast trends in industrial growth for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas give reasonable weight to prospective new industrialloada. III-14 ..- TABLE 1lI-4 ENERGY SALES TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AREA 1961-1973 Residential Customers --- - ---- - ----- -----------F 0 RECA ST -,-- - - - - --- - -~------- --- - - Energy Number of Sales Customers (million kwh) -- -- - 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1980 108.9 12l.3 129.4 146.7 169.5 190.0 204.Z 22.7.6 256.4 302.4 362.0 416.3 45Z.8 1,135 21,as 12,17'( 23,443 24,813 26,164 27,278 28,690 3!,61? 34,428 38,589 41,765 46,983 48,880 87,300 Energy Sales Per Customer (kwh) 5,130 5,470 5,520 5,910 6,480 6,960 7,120 7,180 7,450 7,830 8,670 8,860 9,280 13,000 -Camme rcia r-Indus tria "'l Cus tome rs Energy Nurnber of Energy Sales Sales Customers Per Customer (million kwh)(kwh) 1961 108.5 3,650 29,730 1962 125.7 3,776 33,280 1963 142.0 3,850 36,890 1964 153.0 3,904 39,190-1965 46,270185.9 4,017 1966 209.8 4,220 49,710 1967 239.7 4,391 54,590 1968 270.9 4,773 56,740 1969 304,3 5,011 60,no 1970 353.4 5,449 64,860 1971 409.4 5,812 70,450 1972 481.1 6,498 H,080 1973 546.7 6,800 80,390 -- - - - - --- --- - - ------- - - --FORE CA ST - -------- - ---- -_-------- -- 1980 I,425 9.600 148,000 I~"·'· Sources:1961-1967 Alaska Power Administration,"Statistics of Major Utilities in the Railbelt Area.I' 1968-1973 Federal Power Com,mission,"Power Syste!n Sta.tements."Cugach Electric Assn.,Inc.,Anchorage Muni- cipal Light and Power Dept.,Homer Electric Alisn,,Inc., Matanuska Electric Assn.,Inc.,Seward Light ane!Power Dept.,Alaska Power Administration,Eklutna Plant,Golden Valley Electrlc Assn.,Inc.,Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System. Ill-I:;' .-.1 !"'-~r TABLE 1II-5 ENERGY SALES TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE FAIRBANKS AREA 1961-1973 - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FORECAST --- --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - --- --- - - --- - ----- --- - - - -----FORECAST ..- --- - - ---- ----- - - - - - --- Commercial-Industr ial Customers - - 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1980 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1980 Energy Sales (million kwh) 23.8 27.5 29.5 29.9 39.3 46.7 51.1 62.5 75.2 90.7 109.2 121.0 132.0 307 Energy Sales (million kwh) 34.8 39.1 43.2 54.6 54.0 58.0 63.5 81.8 89.5 117.2 132.4 138.9 160.0 440 Residential Customers Number of Customers 6,636 7,013 7,875 7,957 8,055 8,094 8,467 8,903 9,442 10,289 10,876 11,281 12,000 21,900 Number of Customers 1,090 1,167 I,333 I,38:2 1,421 1,531 1,533 1,59!) 1,781 1,874 1,904 1,987 2.100 3,700 Energy Sales Per Custome r (kwh) 3,590 3,920 3,750 3,760 4,880 5,770 6,030 7,020 7.960 8,820 10.040 10,720 11,000 14,000 Energy Sales Per Customer (kwh) 31,970 33,500 32,420 39,530 38,000 37,850 41,400 51,290 50,230 62,510 69,510 69,880 76,190 118,000 I I I I I I I I· Source:See Table IlI-4. - ,-------------_._------'----~----".~--'"" If new electric power supplies became available at sufficiently low cost to induce large energy-intensive industries to locate in Alaska,it could then become necessary to provide for a nonutility inclustrialloacl sector in forecastingo However,it is evident that the Susitna I project will have neither the prerequisite low cost nor long-term capacity surplu s to do this o It also appears inappropriate to include Do So military loads in the forecasts for Susitna.In the past,Alaskan military bases have been largely sel£-sustaining.AltllOugh in some cases inter-ties have been set up with local utilities,these have not drawn or de- livered significant net amounts of energy.Because the D.S.mil- itary establishment in Alaska is now declining,a trend which probably will continue in future,it appears that existing military power plants should be adequate for futur e needs. 4.Total Energy Sales Through 1980,total energy sales in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of 14.4%. For the Fairbanks Area,annual growth is forecast at an average 14.4%. For 1990,the growth trend for total energy sales has been forecast based on the overall tr end from 1961 through 1980.For the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area,the average annual rate of growth from 1980 through 1990 is expected to be approximately 13rro.For Fairbanks it is forecast at 11 %.In both cases.these rates are less than the trend forecast through the latter part of the 197050 Table III-6 summarizes the record of total energy sales in Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks }i.reas from 1961 through 1973, with Kaiser's forecasts through 1980 and 1990. For reference,these forecast data may be compared with forecasts of individual utilities in the Ancho:rage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas,and the Alaska Power Adrninistration as compiled in Appendix Tables 1,2 and 3, E.GENERATION AND PEAK LOADS Proj ections have been made of power system generation or net energy input and peak loads associated with the above forecasts. 111-]1 TABLE III-6 RECORD AND FORECAST OF TOTAL ENERGY SALES ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AND FAIRBANKS AREAS 1961-1990 Record Anchorage-Cook Inlet Fairbanks (million kwh) Total - .- 1961 1962 1963 1964 19~5 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 217.4 246.9 271.4 299.7 355.4 399.8 444.0 510.6 577.9 673.6 785.1 892.4 996.3 58.7 66.6 72.7 84.6 93.3 104.6 114.5 141.5 170.3 211.4 250.7 259.8 291.0 276.1 313.5 344.1 384.3 448.7 504.4 558.5 652.1 748.2 885.0 1,035.8 1,152.2 1,287.3 --- - - --- - - - --- - --- - --- - - -FORECAST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _--- 1980 1990 Source: 2,560 8,800 See Table III-4. 747 2,121 3,307 10,921 AILASKA RESOURfES LIBRARY u.s.Department of ttM;!tn.t~rlm' III-18 - - For this purpose,Federal Power Commission data on operations of Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks utilities have been compiled and analyzed for the period 1968 thrc,ugh 1973.To compute net en- ergy input,distribution losses for both areas were projected at a long-term average rate of 7%.This rate is lower than the average recorded losses of all but one utility from 1968 through 1973;how- ever,a downtrend in losses is observable,and the higher rates ex- perienced by some utilities in recent years are considered to reflect long-distance transmission losses,equipment and operating prob- lems,and recording errors,which either would not be present in the future,or would not apply to energy received from Susitna o Addi- tional transmission losses for Susitna itself are estimated in the Power System Balance section,below. To compute peak load resulting from forecast net energy require- ments,system load facto'rs were examined also over the period 1968 through 1973.In both the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas,. there has been a trend toward higher system load factors.This trend has been extrapolated through the forecast period,with an arbitrary limit set at 62.5%for the Anchorage-·Cook Inlet Area system,and 60.0%for the Fairbanks Area systerrl.These load factors would be relatively high for systems of comparable size in other areas;how- ever,it is r ecogniz ed that Alaskan winter energy consumption pro- videsa much more continuous load than typical in other areas.Al- though the system load factors may eventually exceed these set limits, it is considered more conservative to underestimate them for plan- ning purposes,thereby allowing for a.margin of peaking capacity. Operating statements of the four generating utilities and the Alaska Power Administration do not indicate any significant diversity of peak loads during the 1968-1973 period. Table 1II-7 summarizes energy sales and recorded and forecast net energy for system,and peak load,as well as system load factors for the years 1968 through 1990. F.POWER SYSTEM BALANCE A power sy:;tem balance has been prepared for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas for the comparative base period 1968 through 1973 and subsequently through 1990,as shown in Table liI,-8. Capacity expansion plans for existing systems have also been com- piled for the years 1974 through 1980;these are shown in Table III-9 III-lq ) TABLE III-7 ENERGY SALES,NET ENERGY FOR SYSTEM,AND PEAK LOAD ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AND FAIRBANKS AREAS 1968-1990 Anchorage-Cook Inlet Fairbanks Total -~-_...- Energy Net Peak Load Energy Net Peak Load Energy Net Peak Load Sales Energy Load l Factor Sales Energy Load Factor Sales Energy Load Factor (million kwh)(t!)ou sand kw)-~(million kwh)(thousand kw)__"/<_0_(million kwh)(thousand kw)__0/._'_ Actua12 1968 510.6 559.4 125.0 51.0 141.5 160.8 42.7 42.9 652.1 720.2 167.7 49.0 1969 577.9 631.4 132.4 54.4 170.3 190.3 45.6 47.6 748.2 821.7 178.0 52.7 1970 673.6 739.8 153.5 55.0 211.4 235.9 57.1 47.1 885.•0 975.7 210.6 52.9 1971 785.1 873.2 178.3 55.9 250.7 279.3 65.1 49.0 1,035.8 I,152.5 243.4 54.1 1972 892.4 979.3 196.4 56.9 259.8 302.5 66.0 53.3 I,152.2 1,281.8 262.4 55.8 1973 996.3 1,089.8 213.0 58.4 291.0 318.4 72.5 50.1 1,287.2 1,408.3 285.5 56.3 F~ 1974 I,140 1,220 3 238 4 58.5 333 358 3 764 53.8 1,473 1,578 314 57.4 197';1,305 1,400 271 59.0 381 410 87 53.8 1,686 1,810 358 57.7 1976 1,493 1,600 307 59.4 436 469 98 54.6 1,929 2,069 405 58.3 1977 1,709 1,830 349 59.8 498 535 111 55.0 2,207 2,365 460 58.7 1978 1,955 2,090 396 60.2 570 613 127 55.1 2,525 2,703 523 .58.9 1979 2,237 2,390 450 60.6 652 701 144 55.6 2,889 3,091 594 59.4 1980 2,560 2,740 513 61.0 747 803 164 55.9 3,307 3,543 677 59.7 1981 2,896 3,100 576 61.4 829 B91 180 56.5 3,725 3,991 756 60.3 1982 3,277 3,510 648 61.B 920 989 199 56.7 4.197 4,499 847 60.6 1983 3,708 3,970 729 62.2 i,022 1,099 219 57.3 4,730 5,069 948 61.0 1984-4,195 4,490 820 62.5 1,134 1,219 242 57.5 5,329 5,709 1,062 61.4 1985 4,746 5,080 928 62.5 1,259 1,354 266 58.I 6,005 6,434 1.194 61.5 1986 5,370 5,750 1,050 62.5 1,397 1,502 293 58.5 6,767 7,252 1,343 61.(, 1987 6,076 6,500 1,187 62.5 1,551 1,668 323 58.9 7,627 8,168 1,510 61.7 1988 6,874 7,360 1,344 62.5 1,721 1,851 356 59.3 8,595 9,211 1,700 61.8 1989 7,777 8,320 1.520 62.5 I,911 2,055 393 59.7 9.688 10,375 1,913 61.8 1990 8,800 9,420 1,7Z 1 62.5 2,121 2,281 434 60.0 10.921 11,701 2,155 61.8 I Based on recorded peak loads of Chugach Electric Assn••Inc.,Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Dept,Golden Valley Electric Assn.,Inc.and Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System;individual years adjusted 1-6%for Alaska Power Administration sales to Matanuska Electric Assn.•Inc.and other minor generation. 2 Federal Power Commission,"Power System Statements,"1968-73 for utilities indica.ted in Table 111-4. 3 Computed from energy sales,assuming distribution losses at 7%.. 4 Computed from net energy,based on load factors shown. III-20 ) TABLE llI-8 POWER SYSTEM BALANCE ANCHORAGE.COOK INLET AND FAIRBANKS AREAS 1968-1990 1968 19M 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 ,1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 -!-9 8 6 1987 1988 1989 1990 ~ta as of ye~d (thousa~) Anchor ..ge -Cook Inlet Area Peak Load 125.0 132.4 153.5 178.3 196.4 213.0 238 271 307 349 396 450 513 576 648 729 820 928 1,050 1,187 1,344 1,520 1,721 Existing and planned dependable capacity 189.I 192.6 210.9 230.9 284.6 325.6 429 444 497 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 552 (Ie ..)system reserves (51.0)(51.3)(48.0)(48.0)(64.1)(99.5)(108)(123 )(123 )(123)(123)(123)(123)(123 )(123)(123 )(123)(123 ) (123)(123 )(123)(123 ) (123) Assured capacity l38.T i4T.3 i62.9 182.9 ~226:""T"321 321 374 429 429 4Z9 429 4Z9 429 4Z9 """429 429 """429 429 429 429 429 OrIginal balance 13.I 8.9 9.4 4.6 24.I 13.I 83 50 67 80 33 (21)(84)(147)(219)(300)(391)(499)(621)(758)(915)(1,091)(1,292) New dependable Capacity: Othe r than Su sitna 1 21 84.84 84 84 84 84 154 350 569 780 1,021 Su sitna I 66 149 263 364 500 583 550 518 518 518 (Ie.,)Susitna I Josses (3).L2l L.!.U L~.!..El ~(28)(26)(26)(26) Subtotal 63 142 252 348 478 554 522 492 492~ (less)adjusted reserves (7)(36)(41)(63)(87)(114)(146)(181 )(221) Adjusted balance 13.I 8.9 9.4 4.6 24.I 13.I 83 50 67 80 33 -0--0--o·-D.-0--o.-0--D-00.-0--0--D. Fairbanks Area Peak Load 42.7 45.6 57.I 65.I 66.0 72.5 76 87 98 III 127 144 164 180 199 219 242 266 293 323 356 393 434 EX1Sting and planned dependa ble capacity 70.8 76.I 104.3 112.8 130.8 130.8 131 131 131 184 184 184 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 (Jess)system reserves (28.5)~.LE.2)~~.L..E.:2l (~(34)(34)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53)(53) Assure-d capacity 42.3 64.9 72.0 80.5 97.1 97.I 97 "9'f 97 I3T l3T l3T'lii"4 """"i""84 ""Tii4 l1l4 184 184 184 184 184 l84 184 Original balance (0.4)19.3 14.9 15.4 31.I 24.6 21 10 (I)20 4 (13)20 4 (15)(35)(58)(82)(109)(139)(172)(209)(250) New dependable Capacity: Other than Susitna I 6 12 21 66 113 Su.itna I 16 38 62-88 117 150 182 182 182 (Jess)Susitna I losses (I).I 3)(4)(6)(8)(II)(13)(13)(13) Subtotal .--""'l5 35 -----sa ----sz l<i9 l"3"9 """i69 """i69 "'"i"(;9 (less)adjusted reserves (6)(12)(18)(26)(32) Adjusted balance (0.4)19.3 14.9 15.4 31.I 24.6 21 10 (I)20 4 (13)20 4 -D·-0-.0--0--0--0--0--0--D· 1II-21 ..~ --}) TABLE 1ll-9 PROJECTED INST ALLA TlON OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AND FAIRBANKS AREAS ) Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area Planned capacity: Beluga 4 &5 Anchorage 8,9 &10 Other capacity (not sized) Fairbanks Area Planned capacity: North Pole 1 Healy 2 Other capacity (not sized) Susitna I: Units 1 &2 Units 3 &4 1974 7 fl.0 40.0 1975 15.0 1976 70.0 55,0 1977 53.0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Data as of year end (thousand kw) 53.0 350.0 1984 1985 350.0 1986 70 6 1987 196 6 1988 219 9 1989 211 45 1990 241 47 1ll-22 along with the proj ected commis sioning schedule for Su sitna and other capacity requirements to occur before and after the Susitna project. 1.Criteria In preparing the power system ba.lance,Federal Power Commis- sion datal on existing systems!dependable capacity and reserves were compiled for the comparative base period 1968 through 1973, Generally.during this period.system reserves were relatively high as a percentage of peak load due to the fact that each of four utility systems maintained a reserve more or less equal to its largest unit,plus some minor standby capacity.Over the period 1974 through 1990,system reserves for both the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas have been projected at 20%of peak load, or the size of the largest generator unit in the system,whichever is greater;in general the 20%ratio is the governing factor.Com- pared to previous reserve ratios in the region.the projected reserve levels are relatively low and may have the effect of very slightly under stating demand for the Susitna proj ect. During its fir st four year s of operation.from late 1981 through 1985.the Susitna project will add a substantial capacity surplus to the system.This will make it unnecessary to add capacity dur- ing this period for the purpose of increasing system reserves.Be- ginning in 1986.it is assumed that additional reserves will be in- stalled at other locations. Susitna transmission losses of peak power have been estimated at 5%of Anchorage-Cook Inlet peak demand on Susitna and 7%of Fairbanks peak demand.The resulting overall energy loss is es- timated at 1.25%.Losses for other remote plants in the system, such as Beluga.Healy.and North Pole,which are nearer their respective load centers are estimated at 3%of peak demand. 2.System Capacity Requirements IlI-?3 J Since 1969,the Fairbanks Area has had proportionally greater capacity surpluses than Anchorage-Cook Inlet;however,present system development plans indicate a less adequate margin over demand through 1978.A small but significant capacity deficit is indicated for the Fairbanks Area in 1979,but the installation of new capacity in 1980,as now planned,should be capable of restor- ing a surplus through late 1982. Commissioning of Susitna is projlected for October 1,1981,at which time 4 x 175,000 kilowatt turbine-generator units would be ready for service as shown in Table III-9.Capacity of the Susitna project is assumed to be allocated according to immediate demand in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and }i'airbanks Areas until it is fully utilized.The resulting shares would correspond to the relative peak loads of the two areas;Anchorage-Cook Inlet would receive 74%and Fairbanks would receive 26%. As indicated in Table III-la,98%of the 700,000 kilowatt peak ca- pacity of Susitna I would be required as assured capacity by the end of 1986,approximately five year s after commis sioning,with 100%utilization in the following year.From 1986 through 1990, the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area would require an additional 927,000 kilowatts of new assured capacity,while the Fairbanks Area would require 113,000 kilowatts during the same period. 3.Susitna I Generation It is not considered necessary to prepare a complete system en- ergy balance in order to estimate consumption of Su sitna I energy. In general,past installation of thermal capacity for peaking has provided the system with a substa.ntial excess energy capability, becau se the system load factor,which in 1973 averaged approxi- mately 56%,is less than the optirnal plant factor for most fuel- fired plants.As a result,the Susitna project has been designed to a 55%plant factor,on the basis of which energy output of the system l B thermal capacity may be increased to a more optimal 65%plant factor by 1988.In each year of operation,the Susitna project is assumed to supply new peak demand as indicated in the system balance,with corresponding primary generation computed at its design plant factor.During the years 1981 through 1986, III-24 -.-._,-,---- )-I 1 I 1 1 ) TABLE III-10 CAPACITY AND SALES PROJECTION Peak Demand Net 3 Net Energy Sales Dependable Anchorage 1 Fairbanks 2 Energy Year Capa~~Cook Inlet Total Capability Primary Surplus (thousand kw)(million kwh) 1981 330 63 -63 1,515 158 1,357 - 1982 330 135 15 150 3,030 733 2.297 1983 330 216 35 251 3,030 1.265 1,765 1984 330 307 58 365 3,030 1,832 1,198 1985 661 415 82 497 3,180 2,498 682 1986 661 537 109 646 3,330 3,263 67 1987 661 522 139 661 3,330 3,330 1988 661 492 169 661 3,330 3,330 1 Losses excluded @5% 2 Losses excluded @70/0 3 Losses excluded @ (average)1.25% i t::: H, N 111 ~ - - when Susitna has surplus energy capability.it is as sumed that it will be operated at 100%of its continuous energy capability and that surplus energy will be sold in the system at a reduced rate to replace use of fuel by the systern's thermal plants. Estimated Susitna energy deliveries are shown in Table III-IO,and provide the basis for Susitna project revenue estimates. - - III-2.() IV.HYDROLOGY A.STUDY INFORMATION Hydrologic studies were based on mean monthly river discharges re- corded at U.S.Geological Survey gaging stations and precipitation records of climatological stations as described b~low: ..... River Gaging Stations Susitna River Gold Creek Cantwell Denali Maclaren River Paxson Years of Record Oct 1949 -Sept 1972 May 1961 -Sept 1972 June 1957 -Sept 1966 and July 1968 -Sept 1972 June 1958 -Sept 1972 (23 ) (11) (10) (5) (13) Climatologic?l Stations and Elevation -ft Years of Precipitation Records Big Delt& Gulkana McKinley Park Snowshoe Lake Summit Talkeetna Gracious House Trims Camp B.PAST STUDIES 1,268 1,570 2,070 2,410 2,401 345 2,550 2,405 30 31 43 11 32 43 3 (some records missing) 16 - ,,..... Hydrologic studies and subs equent power generation studies for the Devil Canyon project were based on runoff records of the Susitna River at Gold Creek Station for the lO-year (period from October 1949 through September 1959.Use was made of runoff data from the Denali Station which began operation in May 1957 and the Denali data were extended to cover the 1949-1959 period by correlation with the runoff data from the Gold Creek Station.The runoff data for the Devil Canyon site were derived by a straight-Hne relationship between drainage areas and incremental runoff. IV-l 1---,-------------",,------- I J The Devil Canyon Status Report of May 1974 made use of the same data described above without further study of hydrologic data for years later than 1959. C.UPDATED STUDIES AT GOLD CREEK Hydrologic data for the years 1950 to 1972 were gather ed by the Henry J.Kaiser Company early in 1974. Examination of the data for the Gold Creek Station revealed the oc- currence in 1969 of a new low in annual runoff at this station.The main information resulting from examination of the 23 -year runoff record at the Gold Creek Stat~on is summarized as follows: Average Annual Runoff, acre-feet Minimum Annual Runoff, acre-feet (year) Ratio of Minimum to Average 1950-1959 Record 7,139,500 5,815,000 (1950) 81% 1950-1972 Record 7,131,000 4,052,000 (1969) 57% l""'.' In the 23-year record,the 1970 inflow was second lowest at 5,496,000 acre-feet and the 1950 inilow was third lowest.Only three of the 23 years have a runbff of less than 6,500,000 acre-feet. D.RUNOFF AT PROPOSED DAMSITE Damsite ,B as proposed by the Henry J.Kaiser Gompany for the loca- tion of Susitna I is on the Susitna River between two gaging stations. The upstream station,called Cantwell,is near Vee Canyon and the downstream gaging station is near Gold Creek.Records for the sta- tion near Gold Creek are available for the 23 water years 1950-1972 (see Appendix Table 4),and records for Cantwell station are available for eleven water years 1962'-1972 (see Appendix Table 5).The 11 years of joint records were used to compute monthly coefficients to adjust the Gold C reek flows to the proposed damsite.With this set of coefficients and the Gold Creek runoff records,23 years of records of monthly runoff were computed for Damsite B.In Appendix Table 6 these estimated flows at the damsite are presented in acre-feet'per month. '.IV -2 1-__-,,-..__--'-..:'...... The evaluation of these coefficients utilized the ratio between the average monthly discharge for the 11 years of overlapping Gold Creek and Cantwell records and the ratio between the drainage areas of the damsite and the two gaging stations. The formula used to compute the monthly coefficient is as follows: The coefficient is used as shown below: where: Q =Average monthly discharge for 11 water-years (1962-1972) °1 =Average monthly discharge for the gaging station at Gold Creek Q2 =Average monthly discharge for the gaging station at Cantwell ~ AD =Drainage area in square miles for the damsite .-Al =Drainage area in square miles for gaging station at Gold Creek A 2 =Drainage area in square miles for gaging station at Cantwell -- The coefficient will be obviously higher during the summer months due to the glacier runoff and snow melt coming from the high eleva- tions and due to the high summer precipitation.(For monthly coeffi- ci~nts,see Figure IV -1 at the end of this chapter.) In order to simplify the calculations and because the discharge d\+ring seven months is only approximately 12%of the total annual discharge, an average annual coefficient for the year was computed from the average monthly distribution of runoff and the monthly coefficients. E.IMPACT OF NEW DA TA From exainincHion of the hydrologic data for the years fromL9 50 to 1972 inclusive,it was evident that the two succes sive dry years of 1969 and 1970 would have a significant impact upon the results of studies based on hydrologic information prior to 1969. IV-3 I I j -~In order to assess the impact of these dry years,the probabilities of annual discharge volume at the proposed damsite were calculated. The probabilities of annual discharge equalling or exceeding a re- corded event were calculated by use of the following equation: Probability ~-~n +1 where m =rank n =number of recorded events =23 TABLE IV-I PROBABILITIES OF ANNUAL DISCHARGE AT THE PROPOSED DAMSITE ON THE SUSITNA RIVER ,,,,,..,,... Discharge-Water Year (acre-feet in thous;ands)Rank Probability 1962 7795.81 1 4.2 1956 7735.52.2 8.3 1967 7562.10 3 12.5 ,1963 7463.43 4 16.7 I 1972 7341.14 5 20.8 1961 7287.11 6 25.0 1959 7117.53 7 29.2 1957 6999.25 8 33.3 1955 6912.20 9 37.5 1971 6910.11 10 41.7 1965 6852.54 11 45.8 1953 6801.32 12 50.0 1968 6616.17 13 54.2 1964 6607.06 14 58.3 1960 6549.25 15 62.5 1954 6525.52 16 66.7 1952 6438.94 17 70.8 1958 6386.99 18 75.0 1966 6356.97 19 79.2 1951 6138.25 20 83.3 1950 5413.57 21 87.5 1970 5116.38 22 91.7 I19693772.32 23 95.8 I!- I I IV-4~ Table IV -1 indicates that the minimum annual discharge at the pro-. posed damsite,calculated to be 3,772,320 acre-feet,would be equalled or surpassed nearly 960/0 of the time, To further evaluate the frequenc y of extremely low river runoff,the overall basin runoff for years of record at Gold Creek was studied with respect to measured annual precipitation in the region.The an- nual precipitation records for three stations which coincided with the Gold Creek station record period were examined.These stations were Gulkana to the southeast,Talkeetna to the southwest,and Sum- mit to the northwest.The Denali station records were not sufficiently complete for use in this analysis. Precipitation data from the three stations were used to relate the frequency of occurrence of ranges of precipitation depth to the fre- quency of occurrence of the same ranges of overall basin runoff depth as measured at Gold Creek.The results are shown in Table IV-2,below. TABLE IV-Z FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE Depth,Inches Overall Basin .Runoff at Gold Creek Precipitation Talkeetna Summit'Gulkana 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 *1969 **1950,1970 2*::::: 18 2 23 1 1 4 9 7 o 1 23 1 2 13 5 2 23 10 13 23 In the year of lowest runoff at Gold C reek--1969 --the precipitation was also the lowest recorded at all three stations;in addition,it was IV-5 I J .,...:.. - - the lowest of 43 years of records at the Talkeetna station.The uni- form distribution of the annual depths of rainfall at Gulkana is clo se- ly related to the continental climate in this area. F.LONG RANGE HYDROLOGIC STUDIES Preliminary computations of discharge on the Susitna River by re- gression analysis on climatological data and by Stochastic Hydrology indicate that the frequency of extremely low annual runoff events will be less than indicated by the shorter term historical records. 1.Gold Creek Station--Regression Analysis Computations The discharge records at the Gold Creek Station for 23 years were used to extend the discharge records to 30 years by regression analysis using river runoff and precipitation records. The best prediction of one dependent variable can be obtained from another independent variable or variables by determining mathe- matical models of correlative association of two or more variables. The models are called regression functions. Several conditions which precluded the development of an optimal multiple correlation model are as follows: •Insufficient numbers and/or location of rain gage stations in and around the drainage basin to give representative basin precipita- tion records, •Lack of useful temperature records,and •Short duration of all records. The results of the regression analysis conducte~indicate,however, that there is sufficient precision to extend the recorded occurrence of low annual runoff. The developed regression equation for calculating annual runoff at Gold Creek gave a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.8434. The regression equation developed in this study is based on 23 years of annual discharge at Gold Creek and on 22 years of pre- cipitation records at Talkeetna and Gulkana. IV-6 -~"~"-'-"-'---'---'---"'---------------------------_.__._---_......_._..,_._--_._.__J log Q 2 =3.52958 +0.358166 x log log Q =3.52958 +0.358166 x logn - The Talkeetna station is almost entirely dominated by maritime influenc es,where the Gulkana station represents continental cli- matic conditions in the South of the Alaska Range.Based on numerous correlation calculations among eight climatological sta- tions in the North and the South of the Alaska Range,it was estab- lished that precipitation records in the South of the Alaska Range are much more representative of climatic conditions in the Susitna River Basin. The annual records for the water years were taken in order to eliminate the influences of winter storage and snow melt. Volume changes of the glaciers,temperature fluctuations,as well as precipitation in the previous year,are expressed partially in the equation by the discharge of the previous water year. The equation for the annual runoff at the Gold Creek Gaging Sta- tion is: log Q l =3.52958 +0.358166 x log p~+0.314512 x log p~+ 0.362557 x log QO 1 2 P2 +0.314512 x log P 2 + 0.362557 x log Q 1 1 -2 P .+O.3 14512 x 10 g P +n n 0.362557 x log Qn-l where: on Qn-l =Discharge in acre-feet of water year n at the Gold Creek Station. =Discharge in acre-feet of the previous water year n-l at the Gold Creek Station..The average of the 1950-1972 records (00 =7,131,000 acre-feet)was assumed for the first year. =Annual precipitation at Talkeetna in inches for the water year n,and, =Annual precipitation at Gulkana in inches for the water year n. I IV-7 ).....-l Using climatplogical data for the water years 1943-1949,the an- nual runoff at Gold Creek and at the proposed damsite were calcu- lated.The annual runoff for both stations IS as follows: Annual Discharge in 1,000 acre-feet for the Water Year Station 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 Susitna River at Gold Greek 7956 8258 9133 7941 9046 7844 8065 Susitna River at the Pro- posed Site B 7407 7689 8503 7393 8422 7302 7508 As a consequence of the above-mentioned results,the frequency of th e extr em el y low annual runoff in 1969 will be 3.2 %ins t ead of 4.2%(see Figure IV-2).The studies extend the period of hydro- logic records from 23 to 30 years and the extremely low flow of 1969 would occur one e in 30 year s. The regression equation predicts an average annual runoff from 1950 to 1972 at Gold Creek of 7,133,313 acre-feet,which is 0.03% higher than the average annual recorded runoff of 7,131,000 ac re- feet.The average annual estimated runoff at Gold Creek for the extended period of 1943-1972--7,410,260 acre-feet as derived by the equation--is 4%higher than the measured average annual re- corded runoff for the historical period of 1950-1972.--7,131,000 acre-feet. With 43 years of precipitation records at the Talkeetna rain station, an extension for cODlputing additional 13 years wOItld have belm possible.Since there are no other rt'cords available for the Gu!kana Station,any further regresSilll1 analysis must be based either on one or more new favorable variables,or on a different regression function which expresses better the relation between Gold Creek discharge and Talkeetna precipitation. In order to assess further the reliability of the extremely low an- nual runoff predictions,it is expected that additional detailed evaluations of regression analysis functional relations between runoff and climatological data would be made in the next stage of the work.These studies could provide estimates of the accuracy of the confidence interval of the predicted stream flpws. IV -H - - ,- -' ,- --·---------·----·----·-1 2.Gold Creek Station--Stochastic Hydrology'Computations These calculations were made to extend the discharge records at Gold Creek.They made use of the computer program No.723- X6-L2340 which was prepared in the Hydrologic Engineering Center,U"S ..Army Corps of Engineers at Davis,California. This program analyzed monthly stream £lows at interrelated gaging stations on the Susitna River to determine their various statistical characteristics and generated a sequence of hypothetical stream flows of the desired length having those characteristics. In order to get complete records over 23 years for all the gaging stations,missing stream £lows for the stations at Denali,Maclaren, and Cantwell were first constituted,utilizing all available monthly discharge records of the Susitna River gaging stations--Denali t Maclaren River,Cantwell,and Gold Creek.To obtain the mis sing values,a regression equation in terms of nOrmal standard vari- ables was computed by selecting required coefficients from the complete correlation matrix for that month and solving by the Crout method. Next,77 years of hypothetical stream £lows at Gold Creekwere generated.The multiple correla.tion regression equation developed in reconstituting the historical stream £lows was solved simultane- ously on a step-by-step basis..A Stochastic random variable term was added to the solution process.The 23 years of historical re- cords at Gold Creek station and the 77 years of generated £lows provide 100 years of usable monthly discharge records. The results show that there are only two years in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 million acre-feet annual discharge (the minimum recorded annual discharge was 4,052 million acre-feet).The maximum historical annual discharge.of 8,373 million acre-feet is exceeded by four events.Although these results do not give the same ac- curacy as the regression analysis,the probability of a year as dry as 1969 would still be quite low,statistically.Independent factors such as very low precipitation over the whole basin and low temperCl:-tures almost everywhere in the basin have to occur simul- taneously to give such a low £low year.As the probability of these two events individually is quite small,the probability of their oc- curring simultaneously is exceptionally small.Therefore,the re- sults seem to be understandable for the magnitude of the basin IV -9 ----------------~------- - - - investigated;however,further detailed investigation by Stochastic Hydrology methods will improve the degree of obtained accuracy. From these studies it would appear that the frequency of occur- rence of the extremely dry year of 1969 would be even lower than one year in thirty. IV -10 I I .-.1 I 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 1 1 1 1 \I 1 ,.~1 I i 1 1 .I )) FIGURE IV~1 COEFFICIENTS RELATING SUSITNA RIVER RUNOFF AT GOLD CREEK TO RUNOFF AT SITE B -,I '"'" SELECTED ANNUAL, COEFFICIENT.K:=0.931 ~---1-.------10-__ l- ff I ""~/ V ~~~MONTHLY COEFFICIENT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP - - - V.TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY A.INTRODUCTION ~ In order to make a preliminary assessment of the technical feasibility of constructing the Susitna I hydroelectric project at the selected Site B,a geologic reCOllna is sance of that site and other a rea s of intere st was made in late June 1974.The prime objectives of thi.s reconnai.s- sance were to identify the type of rock,assess its general condition, and to assess any features of terrain and geologic structure which would affect location,design and construction of the proJect.In addl- tion,it was necessary toassess the availability of construction nlat- erials,and of materials suitable for use as concrete aggregates. The reconnaissance was made in a fixed wing aircraft for general overall observations supplelnented by use of a helicopter to provide access for on-the -gro und ob se rvation s. B.TOPOGRAPHY The topography at the selected site conforms generally with the one inch to the mile maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey. The canyon is generally V -shaped.The average slope of the north abutment is about 45 0 for the first 500 feet above the river;above this the slopes flatten to about 25°up to a height of 1,000 ft:et above the river.The south abutment slopes upward at an angle of 45 0 for the first 200 feet above the river;for the next 800 feet the slope averages about 25°.In the steepest part of the canyon,r'ock walls on each side rise almost vertically for several hundred feet above the river leveL At the higher elevations on both sides of the river the terrain becomes noore rounded.While the north abutment of the canyon is covered with dense forest extendillg to the uplands,the forest on the south abutment thins several hundred feet above the river to patches and islands of trees,and the uplands have very little tree cover. C.GENERAL GEOLOGY 1.Glacial Deposits The site area has been extensively glaciated and is mantled with glacial and nonglacial deposits.The glacial materials consist primarily of moraines and eskers composed of erratic lenses and V -1 L---_.__._.____._..•_..•.,...........__•._.•_.__.._.• - - - - layers of sand,rounded to angula.r gravel and cobbles,boulders, silt and considerable rock flour.Some older glacial deposits ex- hibit considerable weathering evidenced by iron stains and chemi- cal alteration. Material size ranges from rock flour to boulders three feet in di'- ameter,with a high percentage of material larger than four inches in diameter.Because of the high content of rock flour,and with the exception of occasional granular pockets or stringers of sand, the moraines should be impervious. 2.Talus and Swamp Deposits The nonglacial materials are primarily talus,outwash,and swamp deposits.Talus material,unsorted.angular to subangular.occurs generally on the south abutment area and a.lso near the base of gul- lies and cliffs on both sides of the canyon.It is almost entirely granitic in composition and is derived from adjacent outcrops.The blocks range in size from a few inches to 15 feet in maximum di- mension.Deposits on the upper bench areas probably do not ex- ceed 10 feet in thickness;however,on the steep slopes of both abutments they average about 20 feet in thickness and locally may be as much as 40 feet in thickness. Swamp and muskeg deposits occur on benches on the south abutment in areas of poor drainage.The deposits are composed of moss and low shrubs mixed with fine sand,gravel,and silt.These deposits generally are less than three feet thick and are underlain by mo- raine and outwash. 3.River Terraces and Gravel Bars River-deposited terraces and gravel bars occur several miles up- stream of the damsite.They are composed of coarse to fine sand, subrounded to rounded gravel and boulders observed to five feet in diameter.The terrace gravels on the river floor extend to about 60 feet above the river level with an unknown thickness below river level.The rock composition of the materials varies from phyllite to granite to basalt. V-2 --_.,_..,--._--_.----_. 1 "1 1 I l 1 l ') 1 1 1 )J \')I FIGURE IV-2 PROBABILITY DISTIUBUTION OF ANNUAL DISCHARGE AT THE PROPOSED DAMSITE BON SUSITNA RIVER BASED ON RUNOFF RECORDS FOR GOLD CREEK STATION AIID CANTWELL STATION (REF TABLE v·31. 99.99 99.9 99 95 90 80 70 60 40 !O 10 5 2 1 0.2 0.05 0.01 sooo 7000 I- lIJ l1J U. W !r U« o 8 ~6000 W ~ !r« :I: U ~o ...J« :::l Z Z «5000 if000 , "'"• '"~;-~AVERAGE DISCHARGE =6,639.000 AF ~ "\ • ~ I IL'.M ,.,",'"'""""'""..".,"... I ,;- - ---------- 4.Bedrock The bedrock on the site,as observed in mas sive outcrops on both sides of the river is a fine-grained granitic roc k composed mainly of quartz,feldspar,biotite.and hornblende.Well-developed sets of regional joints occur in the damsite area.The major joint set bas a strike that is almost perpendicular to the river channel;it averages about N 25 0 W but varies from due north to N 45 0 W.The dip averages 80 0 east but varies from 65 0 east to vertical. Two prominent and well-developed shear or fault zones occur on the north abutment,but are obscured by overburden on the left abutment. These two zones have caused the formation of near-vertical V-shaped gullies;they appear to have a general strike of N 25 0 Wand a dip ranging from 80 0 NE to vertical.These two fault or shear zones are located upstream of the proposed dam,on the north abutment;on the south abutment they may intersect the proposed diversion tunnels near their entrances.In that area on the south abutment,however, a diabase-like intrusion is exposed,and it appears that this under- material has deflected the course of the river at this point.From aerial and ground reconnais sance and air photo interpretation there does not appear to be any faulting or rock structure dislocation par- alleling the river. The steep escarpment faces in the river canyon have resulted in large blocks 15 to 20 feet high distinctly separated from adjacent bedrock on the north abutment.No conspicuous faults or displace- ment features were noted in the south abutment escarpment area adjacent to the river.There appears to be no appreciable depth of weathered rock on either abutment. D.ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Aerial reconnaissance supplemented by a study of existing geological data indicates that the reservoir basin will be tight at the selected site for Susitna 1. 1.North Abutment The most obvious features of the north abutment are the two well- developed shear or fault zones. V-3 - .... ..... .... .... The sheared rock is not well healed,and intensive fracturing with open crevices is common.It was not pos sible to estimate a lateral or vertical displacement in the fault zone.As noted above,fissures 15 to 20 feet deep were observed in the steep escarpment faces near the river. The upstream toe of the dam is located several hundred feet down- stream of the nearest shear zone.While further geologic investi- gation is required,the occurrence of the shear zones would appear unlikely to affect the stability or performance of a rockfill dam. The occurrence of fis sU,res in the bedrock foundation of a rockfill dam are significant only to watertightness of the foundation which will be remedied as necessary by the customary foundation treat- ment techniques. 2.South Abutment There is no observable evidence that the two shear zones of the north abutment extend to the south.If these zones do continue on the south abutment,they might intersect the upstream ends of the diversion tunnels but this occurrence would present no major con- struction problems.The rock structure of the escarpment face at the river shows no conspicuous faults or displacement features.and joint faces are well healed.The diabase intrusion at the bend up- stream of the dam is an extremel~'competent,fine-grained dark grey rock mass;it displays a uniform set of joint planes dippingoabout5to10southeast. This abutment will require more excavation to remove deposits of soft overburden and to remove or spread talus materials.The bedrock appears to be tight,and no particular problems are anti- cipated in cut-off curtain grouting . 3.The Riv.erbed Due to the depth and velocity of river flow,no observation of river- bed was pos sible.The depth of boulders and gravel above bedrock may range from 30 to 60 feet.Although it will be necessary to ex- cavate through to bedrock where the impervious membrane of the dam meets the riverbed,the main body of the rockfill dam can be founded on the compact river gravel-boulder mass. V-A l - .- 4.Spillway The spillway will be located on the south abutment of the dam and nominal grouting may be anticipated under the crest structure. The unlined and stepped discharge channel will be excavated in massive granite which is expected to be highly resistant to erosion by spillway releases. 5.Underground Powerhouse and Tunnels The restricted topography and favorable geological conditions indi- cate the desirability of an underground powerhouse in the south abutment.The competency of the granite bedrock indicates the possibility of excavating an underground chamber and various tun- nels with a minimum of support.Deep drilling,of course,will be required to fully outline the problems which may arise during con- struction of the powerhouse chamber and the various tunnels. Because the powerhouse will be located below the dam impoundment level,extensive grouting may be necessary to prevent water inflows through joint and fracture systems. 6.Construction Materials The granitic bedrock materials are adjudged to be well suited for the construction of a rockfill dam and would also be suitable for use in the manufacture of concreb~aggregates.The occurrence of natural sands and gravels appears to be limited to small river terraces and gravel bars located upstream of the damsite.These deposits are composed of fine to coarse sand,subrounded to rounded gravel and cobbles,and boulders ranging up to five feet in diameter.The rock materials include greywacke,phyllite,granite, and basalt.A terrace deposit ranging in height to 60 feet above river level is located about 3-1/2 miles upstream of the site. Glacial deposits at elevations ranging upward from the 2,ODD-foot contour are comprised largely ofa silty rock flour with inclusions of generally angular rock fragments.These areas are generally barren except for a thin muskeg cover.The silty rock flour ap- pears to be suitable for use as impervious material and similar glacial till has been used for that purpose in other northern areas. From 01'1-site observations,the exploitation of moderate quantities of impervious materials appears to be economically feasible. V -5 ,- - - ----,._---,---..-..-------_...,----,-------~ I 7.Permafrost Permafrost may be encountered in access road construction and the exploitation of borrow materials.It will be encountered in transmission line construction. V -6 --..._-,-----------------------"----- - .~ - VI.POWER STUDIES A.INTRODUCTION For the Kaiser proposal on the Susitna project.a preliminary eval- uation of the power capability of the river was made,using hydro- logic data contained in the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation (U.S.B.R.) II Devil Canyon Project Report,II of May 1960.These data covered the period from October 1949 to September 1959.After submission of the Kaiser proposal,hydrologic data for the full 23-year period from October 1949 to September 19'72 became available,and these data were used for the power studies described herein. u.S.Geological Survey topographic maps were used to prepare reservoir area capacity curves and to estimate tailwater elevations at the selected project site,in conjunction with topographic data furnished by the Alaska Power Administration. The monthly energy and peak load requirements upon which the power studies were based,were taken as percentages of total annual energy generation and annual peak load respectively.These percent- ages are the same as used in the U.S.B.R.Devil Canyon report and are as follows: "'- Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Monthly Load Distribution (%of annual total) 9.3 8.1 8.3 7.7 7.6 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.0 8.9 9.4 10.4 Monthly Peak Load (%of annual peak) 89 87 81 71 67 63 68 71 81 89 94 100 VI-l - - - For these studies an average hydraulic efficiency of 82%was u sed on gross head.On the basis of the preliminary layout of the project, the operational range of the project,and the operational range of the reservoir,this efficiency is considered to be reasonable. The result of this initial assessment indicates that the economic maximum normal level of the reservoir is 1,.750 feet elevalion.A more detailed study should be made when improved data on topography, hydrology,and geology become available.As in the U.S.B.R.Devil Canyon report,reservoir evaporation was considered to be negligible. B.OPERATION STUDIES Initial operation studies were made to ascertain the firm continuous power which could be generated over all 23 years of hydrologic rec- ords.Under this criterion,firm continuous power was found to be 325,000 kw,with corresponding annual energy generation of 2,837 million kwh;this was governed by the extremely low water year of 1969. If hydroelectric power from the Susitna River was the sole input to a power system,its nominal continuous power would necessarily be limited to the lowest predictable dry year inflow.However,Susitna power will be integrated into a system comprised of natural gas and coal-fired thermal generating plants,.as well as other hydroelectric plants.This system is considered to have sufficient energy capability to meet system requirements in a low water year by operating on a higher than average plant factor.Therefore,analyses were made to develop criteria whereby thE:Susitna reservoir co'Uld be op- erated to produce a higher level of continuous power in normal years with a curtailed output in an isolated extremely dry year.On the basis of the 23 years of water records,two reservoir rule curves were established,as shown in Figur,e VI-I,at the end of this chapter. When the reservoir level is on or above the upper rule curve,actual power generation should equal or exceed normal firm continuous power;that is,secondary power may be generated.When the reser- voir level is between the upper and lower rule curves,power genera- tion should be equal to normal firm continuous power.When the reservoir level is below the lower rule curve,power generation must be curtailed below the normal firm continuous level to allow the reservoir to recover the upper rule curve. VI-2 1 ----,....._.__••._., - ~.",-------~----- Power studies carried out on the basis of the two reservoir operating rule curves resulted in firm continuous power of 385,000 kw for the period from October 1949 to May 1969,and also from December 1970 to September 1972.For the dry year cycle,between June 1969 and November 1970,firm continuou s power was 250,000 kw.The studies also indicated that the higher level could be increased to 390,000 kw, with a corresponding dry cycle level of 210,000 kw.As noted in the hydrologic studies,Chapter IV,the probability of occurrence of the 1969 low water year is less than one in thirty;therefore,energyout- put of the Susitna project would be curtailed less than 3%of the time. To substantiate whether the higher continuous power figure could be used for system planning,an analysis was made of the projected power system balance for the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks ar ease As shown in Table VI-I.a dry year occurring in 1985 would impose the most stringent operating conditions on thermal units of the system.The annual average load factor for thermal units in a 1985 dry year would be 82.9%;re-regulation of the Susitna reservoir could pr event monthly load factor s from exceeding this leveL It is believed that it would be feasible for the thermal units in the system to maintain this level of operation in an isolated dry year.Beyond 1985,addition of other assured ther:mal capacity would reduce the system thermal load factor to be maintained in a dry year. The conclusion of this analysis is that the proj ect can be based on firm continuous power of 385,000 kw,with corresponding firm annual generation of 3,372 million kwh.Using a plant factor of 55%,the re- sulting Susitna I installed capacity is 700,000 kw. Reservoir operation rule curves are presented on Figure VI-I.This drawing also shows inflow,outflow,and elevation,and average monthly power generation when the reservoir is operated to these rule curves for the 23-year period of record.Typical yearly load curves are also shown for normal years and for an extremely dry year. Table VI-2 presents a summary of a.nnual operating data for the 23- year period of runoff records. C.COMPARISON WITH THE U.S.B.R.DEVIL CANYON PROJECT ,The power and energy capability of the U.S.B.R.Devil Canyon proj- ect'as described in the 1960 and 1974 Project Reports,was based VI-3 ---------------._----------_.._-----....-.-_.__.,..----_._-.._---.--_.----. <...... I *'" TABLE VI-l SUMMARY OF THERMAL LOAD FACTORS UNDER NORMAL AND DRY YEAR CONDITIONS Net Energy Susitna Thermal Assured Thermal for Generation Generation Thermal Load Factor Year System Normal Dry Year Normal Dry Year Capacity Normal Dry Year (million kwh)(million kwh)(thou sand kw)% 1980 3,543 --3,543 -697 59.6 1981.3,991 158 -3,833 -697 63.8 1982 4,499 733 -3,716 -697 60.9 1983 5,069 1,265 -3,804 -697 62.3 1984 5,709 1,832 -3,877 -697 63.5 1985 6,434 2,498 2,190 3,936 4,244 697 64.5 69.5 1986 7,252 3,263 2,190 3,989 5,062 697 65.3 82.9 1987 8,168 3,330 2,190 4,838 5,978 849 65.1 80.4 1988 9,211 3,330 2,190 5,881 7,021 1,039 64.6 77.1 1989 10,375 3,330 2.190 7,045 8,185 1,252 64.2 74.6 1990 11,701 3,330 2,190 8,371 9,511 1,484 .64.4 73.2 I~_~.----"..,-\.t ').)J .))J 1 )J ". j 1 ) TABLE VI-2 ANNUAL SUMMARY RESERVOIR AND POWER OPERATION Year Release Reservoir Ending for Content Firm Secondary Total Sept.30 Inflow.Power Spill End of Year Energy Energy Energy 1,000 acre-feet (million kwh) 1949/50 5,414 5.7Z2 -5.364 3.373 -3,373 50/51 6.138 6,016 -5.486 3,373 -3.373 51/52 6,439 6.253 -5,673 3.373 292 3,665 52/53 6,801 6,801 -5,673 3.373 740 4,113 53/54 6,526 6,463 63 5.673 3,373 499 3.872 54/55 6.912 6,867 45 5,673 3,373 752 4.125 55/56 7.736 7,140 596 5,673 3,373 921 4,294 56/57 6,999 6,811 188 5.673 3,373 742 4,115 '57/58 6,387 6,431 -5.629 3.373 537 3,910 58/59 7.118 6.652 422 5.673 3,373 597 3.970 59/60 6,549 6,322 227 5,673 3,373 438 3,811 60/61 7,287 7.268 19 5,673 3,373 1.049 4.422 61/62 7,796 7,584 212 5.673 3,373 1.220 4,593 62/63 7,463 6.978 485 5,673 3,373 858 4,231 63/64 6,607 6,607 -5.673 3,373 565 3,938 64/65 6,853 6,690 163 5,673 3,373 636 4,009 65/66 6,357 6,357 -5.673 3,373 448 3,821 66/67 7.562 7,052 510 5,673 3,373 846 4,219 67/68 6,616 6,616 -5.673 3.373 621 3,994 68/69 3,772 5,416 -4,030 3,084 -3,084 69/70 5.116 4,184 -4,962 2,205 2,205 70/71 6,910 6,198 -5,673 3,373 138 3,511 ;S 71/72 7.341 7,341 -5,673 3.376 1,055 4,428 I '"Mean 6,639 6,512 127 3,309 563 3,872 )--.-}-- "' - - on the hydrologic record for the years from October 1949 to Septem- ber 1959,and the low water year of 1950.From the analysis above, it is believed that r easses sment of the power capability of the Devil Canyon project using the full 23 years of runoff records would signif- icantly r educe this proj ectr s power capability if the dry year were considered to govern.Of course p this project would also become part of the same system with the probable result that its normal firm continuous power capability would be only slightly reduced from the level shown,and that thermal generation could be used to supple- ment its dry year generation. The Devil Canyon proj ect and Susitna I may be compar ed as follows: Continuou s power Load factor Installed capacity Annual ener gy Devil Canyon 330,000 kw 550/0 600,000 kw 2,900 million kwh Susitna I 385,000 kw 55% 700,000 kw 3,372 million kwh .... The peak power and energy generation ofSusitna I is 16.6%greater than that of the Devil Canyon project• .... -- - VII,CONCEPTUAL PROJECT STUDIES A.INTRODUC TION The project concept originally advanced by the Henry J.Kaiser Company as ail alternative to the U.S.B.R.Devil Canyon Project, consisted of a single high dam located near Devil Canyon with a power plant located at or near the dam.This concept was aimed at the formation of a re servoir in a location where the water released from the re servoir could be used directly for power generation. This concept would eliminate Denali dam and reservoir from the first stage of river resources development at least and at the same time significantly reduce the effect of first stage river development upon the natural environment. In the initial studies an alternative concept was considered.This secondary concept was comprised of a dam and power plant several miles upstream of Devil Creek,shown as Site D ,'_combined with,a dam and power plant just downstream of Portage Creek;shown as Site A on Figure VIL-l,at the end of tbis chapter. Comparative studies of these two concepts which included evaluation of power potential,increased length of access,and transmission facilitie s indicated that the original concept of a single project instal- lation was the more favorable.Consideration was given in each case to location of the power plant further downstream;however,the gain in head from fall in the river was not sufficient to justify location of the power plant beyond the immediate vicinity of the dam. B.SELECTED PROJECT CONCEPT 1.General The main features of the selected project concept designated as Susitna 1 are a.dam approximately 800 feet high,aspillwa,y con- trolled by three tainter gates,a power intake and tunnels which carry water to generating unih in an underground powerhouse, a switchyard and a transmission system which supplies electric power to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks areas.The location of the project is shown on Figure VII ..-l and the layout of the main project features is shown on Figure VIl-2. I 1 VII-l '--------------------------------------------------------- ,-------------------------_.__. 2.The Dam - - - -- Consideration was given to three general types of dams;namely, concrete arch,concrete gravity and,compacted rockfill.All three types have been built in other locations to heights exceeding that of the darn required lor the project concept"While concrete arch darns are usually well suited for V-shaped canyons,the spread of the V at Site B was considered too wide for an arch darn. The cost of a concrete gravity darn,considering especially the limited availability of naturally occurring sands and gravels,was not competitive with the cost of a rockfill darn. Two types of compacted rockfiU dam were considered,the sloping core type and the concrete face type.The main structural element of the sloping core type darn is the downstream rockfill zone. This is overlain by the impervious earth core which is protected by several layers of sand and gravel filters at the upstream and downstream faces of the core.The core and filter zones are overlain by upstream rockfill which provides structural stability 1 for the impervious earth zone.The principle of the vertical core type of darn is similar.Co:re-typ~dams of si:milar height range include Mica Dam in British Columbia which is 800 feet high;Oroville Dam in California,774 feet high;Chivor Dam in Colombia which will be 727 feet high when completed in 1975. Nurek Dam,now under construction in Russia,will be about 1,040 feet high when completed.The sole structural element ofthe concrete face type of rockfiU dam is a single rockfill zone. This zone is similar in size and performs the same function as the downstream rockfill zone in the inclined core type rockfiLl dam.The dam is made impervious by a reinforced concrete face which varies in thickness from top to bottom of the darn.The concrete face is underlain by and bonded to a zone of graded rock- fill limited to maximum rock size of six inches.Existing major darns of this type include Exchequer Dam in California and Anchicay Dam in Colombia,both 500 feet high.The proposed Areia Dam now being designed by a Kaiser affiliate in Brazil will be 520 feet high and the proposed Yacambu Dam in Venezuela wiLL be 540 feet high. A concrete face type of rockfill dam has been tentatively selected for use in the conceptua L project.Recent progre s s in improvement of concrete face da~s due to increased knowledge and major im- provements in rockfill design favors the use of such dams to heights greater than presently established.The dam proposed in VII-2'--------------------------------------_..•_.__._~.__._..__.. ---_.-.~-_.__._._--_.,-------------------, ItehairSthc~nocreePtovhearslabl.enenb ITlaOduifpi:td eb :f use ofkfa1'lc l onven~iOnthal limO perv 3 i O o O us _( ~y n .,r dITl roc z on e mewe r feet.This earth core and rockHill is placed over the lower 300 feet of concrete face and the lower part of the daITl thus has two distinct impervious barrier s.The height of concrete face con- stituting a single impervious barrier is about SOD feet,the same as Exchequer and Anchicay dam.s,The typical dam.section and profile are shown on Figure VII-3, The m.odified concrete face rockfill dam has been tentatively selected over the conventional.core type rockfHl dam for the following reasons: (a)Availability of Materials The core type of dam requires a m.uch larger volume of impervious earth than the selected type,It also require s sands and gravels for protective filter zones.Field recon- naissance indicated that the volumes of these materials readily available for economic darn construction is relatively limited.It is anticipated that filter materials would have to be produced by crushing rock. (b)Volume of Dam The volume of the core type of dam would be 30 to 400/0 greater than the concrete face dam and could require a s much a s two years longer to complete. (f)Clim.ate Frequent rainfall and low tem.peratures during the seven to eight month darn construction season would inhibit placement of the irnpe rvious ea rth core 'Nhich requires careful moisture control. (d)Diversion and power tunnels would be longer with the core type of dam. A s noted,the selection of the cone rete face type of dam as modified is tentative.More field exploration for materials and more detailed study and analysis are required before final selec- tion of rockfiU dam type can be made. VII.·.<, - - 3.Spillway The spillway'will be located on the south abutment of the dam as shown on Figure VII-2.The main elements of the spillway are the approach channel,the control structure,and the discharge channel. The concrete control structure will be provided with three 40-foot wide by 45-foot high tainter gates.The control structure will be de signed to pa s s the de sign flood with a re se rvoir surcha rge of five feet.The design flood,which will have a peak inflow of 213,000 cubic feet per second and a fifteen-day volume of 2,460,000 acre-feet,was established in the Devil Canyon Status Report of May 1970. The spillway discharge channel wi.ll be paved and lined with concrete walls for a distance of about 100 feet downstream of the control structure.The remainder of the channel will be unlined.Down- stream of the initial sloping section,the spillway discharge chan- nel will be excavated in a series of 50-foot high steps down to river level as shown on Figure VII-3.With this arrangement,much of the energy of the spilled water will be dissipated by the time the water reaches the river.The discharge channel will be located well away from other project features,and final release will be in the direction of river flow.Th.e fine-grained granite bedrock will be well suited for the cascade type of flow which has been successfully .used in other projects.Rock derived from excavation of the spillway will be used in construction of the dam. 4.Power Features a.Intake I The intake structure will be located upstream of the dam on the south abutment.It consists of two intake units,each servicing two generating units in the powerhouse.Each intake unit will be equipped with a semicircular steel trashrack and an hydraulically operated fixed wheelgate.Two concrete-lined tunnels will con- vey water to the powerhouse area where each tunnel will bi- furcate into two steel-lined tunnels which will deliver water to the turbines. VII-4 - - - ..... - b.Powerhouse An underground powerhouse ha s been tentatively selected for the project,and it is located under the dam on the south abutment as shown on Figure VII-2.The tailrace tunnels will discharge into the diversion tunnels. The tentative selection is based on the apparently favorable rock structure of the south abutment,and consideration of the very steep and narrow canyon at river level as well as the severe winter climate. The total installed generating capacity will be 700,000 kilowatts, and tentative selection has been made of four 175,000 kilowatt generating units • The 241,OOO-horsepower Francis turbines will be equipped with electrohydraulic governors and each turbine will be provided with a butterfly valve at the entrance to the scroll case.The generators will be rated at 194,000 kva,13.8 kv with a power factor at O.90 and will be equipped with static excitation.They will be capable of operating at an overload capacity of 15%.The generators will be coupled with six single pha se transformer s each rated at 75,000 kva,13.8-230 kv. High tension cables will be carried in a tunnel from the power- house to the switchyard. Major powerhouse equipment will be installed and serviced by twin 3S0-ton capacity bridge cranes. S.Transmission System The transmis sion system consists of a single circuit 230 kv line to Fairbanks,.a double circuit 230 kv line to Anchorage,and substations at both of these line terminals. 6.Sedimentation In studies carried out by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1963,it was estimated that without upstre~m storage,sediment inflow to the Devil Canyon area would amount to 593,000 acre-feet in 100 years. The reservoir visualized for the Susitna I project has a total capacity of the order of 5,670,000 acre-feet,and the effect of· one hundred years of sedimentation would be of no consequence. VIl-5 )')') "0"1"'11"1'0/51 :"''''/'2 1"1'2/5'.'3/5.:"''''1'5'1''''/5<>''~'O/"1''~57/''''I"I'&/'"li'''I'''I/~I'''IIiOI'''II"I'''/G2!1"I"2Io'II"l(U/..II"I".I051'~o.looll"oo/"11I"1"1/"5I'"lG&/""1'"1""/701 '"11"/11 1'"11'/n R.E:Se;R.YOIR E:L..E::Vp,.TION 1il 1'l.Ul4 CURVIl ~- I 'I I---i-i-1-~. I I! , IZl;se~VOlR OPeAATION Ru...e CURveS l-I I I--.--...va~ae.;.e;;t::U-KW 'f==='I--r''0 -~-,f--I I I r ,.r=..:.I=c r-i-,t--,;J.~l;;;w,r---..............,."".,....;AA. I I-,-I-I--,I OC'f'NtlV .ee JAN ~q,"""lAP!'.....y JU"!-Ju~l"'"I- ~."""L++--I 'Iftt\J ZQJ'),OGIO I '' 17eo THE HENRY J.KAISER COMPAJ.JY SUSITNA I HYDROELECTRIC I"RI7JECT RESERVOIR OPERATION AfJD F't'WER GENEAATION Di'TA FI6U....VI-1 TYPICAL YEARL.Y ...OAD CURVES 2.00,ClQO 150,~ 4~,OOO 10 20 3c7 4D ~o C;C'7"sa .,a IlDO ........ ~,ooo ,""" 2.~,00C' PERCEfJT OF TIME exceED OR EquAl.. z ~lei,., ~~ II1lci~ II( ~~'5"" ~ ...•r 1700 .~- '!: 3:"!ISO,OCiO '"""'..... llC<>._l~~m+HIl I""I/UI I"!GZ/"5 I,.,..'/....1"'''4/''''II"IGS/<Ool I"I"/G71I"1G7/G5 II'lGlI/GI"II "'G"I/11111"17"/71 11"111/n !NFL..OW I'<.ese I'<.YOIR.OUTF'L..OW POWE:~GE:NE:R.p,.itOl-J (A.VE'FV..Ge.MONTHl-Y) --~. t- Wl'TS'"yeA...I.~M t:lf:.T.1 TH~GH S!!fI"'T<:90 --.----._.---:-n--- 1"14"1/'"1"15<>/51 fl'i511 5Z i 1"I'ZI"Ii"l5,/5+!'"I,../'5:1"155/5"1 1"15<l/!>11'''1''1/56I'''1''5/5''III''I,.,/aa I1"100/01 , !I I,I : i ,.-.---rI1I~.I )j JI fi ~~I \t~r\~f\11 __1\-r t fL,,~(__I!Jl .~,.j ..... fi _..- \.it.."~'-,'-~I.....1'- '".~/501 1"150/51 ,",51/'2 ,"'52/53:1~'3/~1~!l4/'5 ,"",/...:'"'0/'1 ""1/!l&1"156/'"1 1'15"1/~!1"I0"/'"1"I"'/G2 I"IG2/~1"1"'/....1"1,.../...1"1<>5/"';1"I.0/G1 "'G1/"5 I"IG&/G"I 1"IG"I/10 1"170/,71 '1"I11/n N"T.' ° rl-Ft;)W8fL-1I.Sj..1J......'ft5 1600 I n 'aF'I ....L.o !j I 1M" :;;1M"I:I t'!I!=±='---~:~:----L .__._,_I..._--It--I i _------j l:l '0""I---l I .------f---'--------+---lIt---+-----II---+---lI-t---+----+---+-----j---------j~"100_-:I III 000 ~h~---,-----n .llel--l'-+.t-~...--jf--...TIlJ _.__~______.~,rL=-~lit--n.",·~:~.u_...l,.:..")."-2 lLu •"u. n lLu '\~ILUlJ I [I.U Itu Il,~U'I r:...-J1lJ ~LP_ L '._~+-____.1-----1 ~7(1()<> --(i,t;O "ea> ~4a:><>-''''''L 2aI z ~ "l 11. t ~"'"1II... ,;, III Zl>'" \I ( i '0<» ;=~f\W···0$11\~..~1\;,\liViVi~l\~1=------:-V+.-1--j---r 'oJ- Ul ..,I t .J !'I w:~ 1~4V50t"""/51 ""1"/52 ·1"I.zj5,II"I.,/5+ &tJa,O()() 1oa,OOf) ~.oo,..., ~~0lP.600 fti 4UQ,DOO ~ ~_.<W ""'.- 100,"'" )) ~) VICINITY PI..AN o 10 -52-_..2..00 "'I~~S!"IIIl __.~~__ TI-IE HENRY..J.KAISER COMPANY SUSITNA I HYDROEI..ECTRIC PROJECT SITE LOC""iION Pl-A"-I F-16UI=I:~VJI -I 14 "". T 2.\S T,U'!o I ""l N. ft.!.e:. 10.IZIl'FUI~ "'~ 1O.1~e: Pt.IWR.2.W MIL.E$ f(.~W.R.4W.FU:ioW SITE 1..0CATION PL.-AN o 5 10 20 M =:::s ".w~~'"R lOW ~,w l'\.\IW ~2."," """ Z5 ,$ -:-~l;..J ":205 T ~3N "'ZlS -~,.,S-1--_-......... I,I :11//L--+-r~~I-t 0~.'r 0 r--ro~~--1---t/I--1 "f::L~"~~~'=-C 1\.1_J-........2~~~~t:::=::~;q~~t---==-",;O:~JS'T"A NO rI-'!i y--"-'!3i!!A .\I 'I T >,·'"-'>1 ~o"o S..,SITNA No Ii;:I (-----L- '".•c""~~..""E"I It,---17 (>'r .--+-----~-Ii..; t ~-_.--:----lit-!:II,.",w, r5 I I !I 0)_"'-?<'N I I I i ----w--- ,"-----+------+----:\;~ ----I I :'iii I :I I I :I ~r:~--L~I (, -------+-------Q.4~Rse ~~e:FUE RZE:R~lS ))) ))) / -~- \bGO /' / THE HENRY J.KAISER.COMPANY !SUSITI-IA 1 HYDROE..ECTI'tIC PRO.JECT GENERAL LAYOUT Fi~W-"Z J ,/---- ~ .\. .' / ----~-.. '/9"0 #/ --~,-------...-.-~400' / 200.'---o ZOO' -.~/' ,;; ~/ ,,' / /'t /.:,,~ ,/" ."'"'>I '> \lOG -~-~ --....,,- \bGG / ~/ \. ,- -----// ---J .~-----< /./.----//\~GO ))) ) 1." '"-.crItDGJiUeHl5.It "UN ~-f4JNue ,GHSIU ~P'..u --::::~:z7"\ l"~vWl'US -,.,.,............ 1~ CDNC~--• ...........-1--<PI'<'IJT Rlf.""'" TypIC"'-J...DAM secTION ~~'E;I"'"'Z4t)'-(r 7" MIL,.~IDN .ACRB""S'T z ~04-II •~e 10 It ~~~~U M "" T""Ue,,~o .-.cfl,Il!S !'t.!5S!5FtVOII't AFt5A -CAPACITY CURVe: , b-......, C,A.PJ"!Grr,..-..I'-...I.--I-::vI-'" ".v -'V .,/v·I '/A~eA /,±1/1 i I I I I I L_1 .-LI !!...CtJ~O+OO 1800 I- 1'lllOr ItOllll \I}''''''III "-"''''',-2 14DO 2 I-... 1200 ~IUJo < >"""---1--~t \I} '''''''-'"''''''".,.., '"""'""" 2!HOO:"+0015+00 '--~~)uu'l'"-j----!-I__--.1 UPSTREAM EI-EVATION OF OA~ .&GAj".15 ~1"'..:u:t::J'~I%OHTAl".~VERTI""'L.- 10+00 SPIl..L-W......V 4;..PROFlt.~ ~I,..!IW ""'"..".,.Utn""""t 'w'ID';T1CAl. --~~i,,~;:;...,,".--i----------------------1---------------+- I~ 1+00 IGGID 11100 2000 ~~+Q:1 ICOC) THE HEI>IRY J.KAI5E~COMPAI>IY SUSITWA I HYDFlOEL.ECTRIC PROJECT ~ECTIONS fl_VU-~ .~TOO04-Q'tDDS5+Dt:I 1-. aQ+QD2e+c:JOZDtoo ·-1- 15tOO I I ----.---1------- ..' ---t·---------l-i JOtClO - ------------------- :..00 _-_0-.~-_--20Q0 r Ie""....... 1i00 ~ ZI:>1400 r< ;;IZOO -'.. 1000 () )) - ..... VIII.COST ESTIMATE AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN A.SUMMARY The estimated cost of Susitna -I,by project features,is shown in Table VIII-I.This estimate was based on June 1,1974 cost levels for major equipment items.materials,and civil construction of the project.Included in the estimate are provisions for escalation of prices during the construction period.Also included are allowances for engineering design,supervision of construction,administration of contracts,contingencies,and interest during construction. The total estimated cost for the project at completion of construction, excluding interest during construction,is $525.72 million.Assuming an interest rate of 6%,interest capitalized during construction would total $77.0 million,the resulting total investment in the project would be $602.72 million.as detailed on Table VIII-I. The estimated cost for supply,transportation,and installation of· major items of permanent equipment was based on information sup- plied by equipment manufacturers.The estimated cost for construc- tion of main project features was based on analysis of the construction methods which would be used.Analyses were made of construction plant and equipment r~quirements,along with labor force,and mate- rials ands,upplies;costs were built up in the manner required for actual bid preparation.All costs were based on latest material prices applied to Alaskan conditions and recent Alaskan trade and craft labor rates.The transmission system cost estimate was based on available data,including recent experience,on the cost of constructing high voltage transmission lines in Alaska. B.CONSTRUCTION PLAN 1.Climate The climate of ceiltral Alas ka is the factor which most affects the timing and certain costs of project construction.In the past years the heavy construction season in similar climates has been gener- ally limited to the six months from April to September inclusive. SpeciaHzed techniques developed in the construction of similar projects in winter climates have,however,enabled extension of the construction season from mid-March to mid-November. VIII-l ._------------------------------------------- TABLE VIlI-l SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE I (June 1974 Costs) Hydroelectric Plant 1 ,.- .- Site Access,reservoir clearing,and diversion tunnels Dam and spillway Power plant and related facilities Living quarters and general property Transmission System Total construction costs Interest during construction TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT $47,185,000 263,690,000 129,570,000 2,880,000 $443,325,000 $82,395,000 $525,720,000 $77,000,000 $602,720,000 lThe above costs include conting~ncy and engineering costs but do not include escalation to the date of award of the construction and equip- ment contracts. VIII-2 ~-_._-----------------------------_._-,----,---,-_.,-"....- '.... - Freezing temperatures at the extremes of this construction season would have relatively little effect on excavation of rock and place- ment of rock in the dam,particularly considering the low precipi- tation in the area in those months.Certain l1nderground operations can continue on a year-around basis,once well established,and some above-ground concreting can be carried out in sub-zero temperatures. 2.Access In order to expedite the start of project construction and economi- cally reduce the overall length of the construction period,it is proposed to start work on the acces s road one year before the award of main construction contracts.The road would be sched- uled to provide reasonably good access for the first stage of con- struction at the site and would be later improved for the movement of major construction eq uipment and materials.It is as sumed that the road would commence at Gold Creek,and during the early years of the project,project supplies and equipment would be carried to that point via the Alaska Railroad.Later the road would be extended to the Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway to facili- tate routine acce s s. 3.Diversion Two tunnels have been tentatively selected for diversion of the ,river from its normal channel.Cofferdams will be placed up- stream and downstream of the dam,and the downstream cofferdam will be incorporated in the toe of the dam.In the first stage of dam construction,rockfill will be placed to the full length of the dam in the riverbed.To provide for the possible occurrence of a major flood flow in the first diversion season,the downstream toe of the rockfill will be reinforced with a network of steel wire mesh and welded steel reinforcing bars.In the event that major flooding causes overtopping of the initial low dam portion,the toe rein- forcement,used in other similar projects,will prevent damage to the rockfill.The following season the dam will be raised high enough to route major river floods through the diversion tunnels. After closure,the diversion tunnels will be used as part of the powerhouse tailrace. VIII-3 - .- .- ..... '-" .. 4.Major Excavation and Dam Fill The largest construction operation will consist of the excavation of rock and its subsequent placement in the darn.Rock for the darn will be derived partly from excavation required for construc- tion of the spillway,intake,powerhouse,and switchyard.It will al.so be taken from one or more quarries that will be established in the reservoir area near the darn.The use of several major sources of rock will permit more efficient use of excavation equip- ment and will minimize the congestion of traffic transporting rock frorn source to the darn.Major excavation will be planned so that rock can be placed in the dam at or near the level from which it is excavated. 5.Underground Construction The scale of underground construction required for Susitna I is comparable to projects of similar size and scope in many parts of the world.Once initial access to underground works is achieved, no unusual problems are anticipated,either in construction or in the installation of permanent equipment. 6.Transmis sion System While the transmission lines wUl traverse some difficult terrain and permafrost will be enc~untered,'no um~sua.l copstruction problems are foreseen at this time. C.CONSTRU CTION SCHEDU LE A tentative schedule has beenpr~paredfor the implementation of the project,and is shown on Figure VIII-I.It is estimated that fii"st power can be generated about six-and-one-half years after commence- ment of work on the project. About two-and-one-half years will be required for the completion of preconstruction engineering.This will include site mapping,detailed geologic inve.stigations and the preparation of designs,specifications and documents for construction and equipment supply contracts. Documentation required for project licensing by the Federal Power Commission will be prepared in the early stages of engineering work. '\ VIII-4 "'l--'-......;;._"~_=__.~_...,'.~.•...__.,_..._._,....--1 - Construction of the access road is scheduled to commence about one year after the start of engineering and work on the diversion tunnels is scheduled to start six months later.The contract for construction of the main project features is scheduled for award about two years after the start of engineering,and contracts for the supply of major items of permanent equipment would be awarded during the following six-rnonth period.Transmission system engineering and constructiop would be phased to provide for the transmission of power to the An- chorage area upon generation of first power,and to the Fairbanks area one year later,as required by present electrical load growth forecasts. VIII-5 ----------------- L I .J ") ,1 l }I J J 1 I i 1 l) FIGURE VIII-1 SUSITNA I TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE YEARS 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 .1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 ENGINEERING _______----- ACCESS ROAD --DIVERSION TUNNELS _______------- SITE PREPARATION DAM CONSTRUCTION _ _ _____--_..--------- INTAKE EXCAVATION _______------------ CONCRETE EQUIPMENT __________----------------- SPILLWAY EXCAVATION _______~------------ CONCRETE EQUIPMENT ____.____--------------- POWERPLANT 1 2 3 4 EXCAVATION ____------------j I IICONCRETE-.- EQUIPMENT _ _ _ _ _ _------------ SWITCHYARD , EXCAVATION ______----------- EQUIFMENT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM I I l..INES _ _ _ _ _ _ _---------- SUBST ATIONS )!)} J \. ( { ( l f . \ t. IX.FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A.INTRODUCTION The financial and economic evaluations have been based on the tenta- tive construction schedule shown on Figure VIII-lo The schedule visualizes the commencement of detailed engineering in early 1975, the commissioning of the first two generating units in 1981 and sec- I ond two in1985,in accordance with the projected load growth of the a:t"eas to be served by the project. B~FINANCIAL EVALUATION L Method A pro forma income statement has been prepared for Susitna I in order to determine whether the projectr s schedule,costs,and revenues are consistent with a practical financing method. This analysis takes into account total costs estimated for the project,along with projections of revenues to accrue from sales of primary and surplus energy. The pro forma income statement is presented as Table IX-L 2.Financing Plan It is believed that if the Susitna project were undertaken by the State of Alaska,a state issue of tax-exempt revenue bonds would be the most practical method of financing the major part of its cost.It is considered possible that leveraged lease financing could be used for major equipment items,comprising 10 to 20% of total cost,reducing the magnitude of the revenue bond issue by a corresponding amount.The use of these financing methods would require that the project be capable of obtaining firm com- mitments for revenue power sales to its utility cu stomer s,and possibly that the project's financial obligations also be guaranteed by the State of Alaska. In order to make best use of the term of the revenue bond issue, it is assumed that bonds would be sold approximately six months prior to project comm.issioning,although bond market conditions)~~ \. I 1L _IX-1 ) TABLE IX-l PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT AND SOURCES AND APPllCATlONS OF FUNDS 1987- Total 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 2015 T};';;USands of Dollars ($000),except as noted R-evenues Primary Energy Sales kwh (thousands)--1?8,000 733,000 1,265,000 1,832,000 2,498,000 3,263.000 3,330,000 Revenue @ $.01447 --2,286 10,607 18,305 26,509 36,146 47,216 48,174 Surplus Energy Sales kwh (thousands)---1,357,000 2,297,000 1,765,000 1,198,000 682,000 67,000 Revenue @ $.0082 11,127 18,835 14,473 9,824 5,592 549 Total Revenues -13,413 29,442 32,778 36,333 41,738 47,765 48,174 Annual Costs Operating Cosfs @ .00205 310 740 7(,0 780 1,050 1,308 1,308 Interest Paytnents @ .06 0 .35,213 36,614 37,451 38,066 38,288 38,288 Depreciation @ .01 2,855 6,028 6,176 6,307 6,344 6,381 6,381 Total Annual Costs 0 -3,165 41,981 43,550 44,538 45,460 45,977 45.977 NET INCOME -10,248 (12,539)(10,772)(8,205)(3,722)1,788 2.197 Source!of Funds Net lncotne .-10.248 (12,539)(lO,772){8,206}(3,722)1,788 Z,197 Depreciation -2,855 6,028 6,176 6,307 6.344 6,381 6,381 Debt Bond Pyoceed.s or Notes 5(,1.100 1,600 17,400 69,000 75,700 109,600 128,800 91,800 31,900 14,800 13,100 7,400 Capitalized Interest 77,000 50 620 3,250 7,780 13,800 21,790 29,710 "~ Total 638,100 1,650 18,020 72,250 83,480 123,400 150,590 134,613 25,389 10,204 11 ,201 10,022 8,169 8,578 Applications for Funds CDnstruction Program 561,100 1.600 17,400 69,000 75,700 109,600 128,800 91,800 31,900 14,800 13,100 7,400 Interest During Construction 77,000 50 620 3.250 7,71\0 13,800 21,790 29,710 Subtotal 638,100 1,650 18,020 72,250 83,480 123;400 150,590 121,510 31,900 14,800 13,100 7,400 Sinking Fund @ .0126 -0 -2,042 8,040 8,040 Total 1,650 18,020 72,250 83,480 123,400 150,590 121,510 31,900 14,800 13.100 9,442 8,040 8,040 NET CASH SURPLUS (DEFICIT)-0--0--0-00_-0--0-13,103 (6,511 )(4,596)(1,8'i8)580 129 538 Cumulative -13,103 6,592 1,996 98 678 807 1,345 16,409 IX·2 ) // )) - - - might indicate a different date.In the interim,it is assumed that bond anticipation notes would be issued to finance construc- tion,following the issuance of a Federal Power Commission license for the project. Prior to federal licensing of the project,it would be necessary to provide a source of interim funding sufficient for prerequisite engineering and environmental studies.Although preliminary commitments to purchase the proj ect l s power may be obtained from prospective utility customers prior to this initial funding, it is recognized that an element of uncertainty would remain which would prevent use of revenue bonding at this early stage. This uncertainty involves the possibility that in-depth site inves- tigations,definitive cost estimates,complete environmental re- ports,or unforeseen conditions could indicate that the project was not capable of being carried forward.As a result,it is be- lieved that State of Alaska general obligation bonds would be the most practical method of financing these initial project expendi- tures.These bonds would later be refunded by the project's revenue bond issue when the project could adequately guarantee its financial obligations. 3 ..Terms of Financing The following outline of terms of financing has been used: - Revenue bond financing as percent of total capital investment Interest rate or gross yield,for revenue bonds,general obligation bonds,and anticipation notes Sale of revenue bond issue Term and type of revenue bond issue Fir st payment of in terest First sinking fund payment 80-100% 6% Fir st quarter 1981 30 year sinking fund; 5 years grace First quarter 1982 Fourth quarter 1985 IX-3 -- - - - - .-----------,....-----------------_._------ If leveraged lease financing were used,it is expected that its term.s would be sim.ilar to those for the revenue bond issue,ex- cept that the rate of interest should be O.5%to O.75%lower.It is possible that the lessor would provide advance funding to re- place use of anticipation notes for the portion of project cost to be covered by the leveraged lease contract. 4.Pro Farm.a Incom.e Statem.ent Param.eters a.Analysis Period The pro form.a incom.e statem.ent covers each unique year of project operation from.1975 through 1987.Following 1987, individual year 1 s data are assum.ed to be identical,throughout a financial period extending through 2015,when bonded in- debtedness is fully am.ortized. b.Operating Costs Operation,maintenance,and adm.inistrative costs are charged as 0.15%of total capital investm.ent for the hydroelectric plant and O.5%for the transm.ission system.,averaging 0.205'%for the project as a whole.Operating costs are reduced to 60% of normal from.m.id-198l through m.id-1985,prior to installa- tion of Units 3 and 4. c.Interest Interest during construction is com.puted sem.iannually as sum.- ing that the m.ean point of each year l s capital expenditures is at m.id-year.Following project comm.issioning,interest is com.puted as a constant annual charge accompanying sinking fund repaym.ent of debt. d.Depreciation Depreciation is listed as a noncash charge based on 100-year s ervic e life. e.External Cash Flow and Secondary Financing No cash flow other than revenues from.energy sales is applied to cover the cash obligations of the project. I I ..-I, IX-4 I ..._----~._--- ----~._-_._._-----_.__._-._-----_.-._._".__._-'-- f.Surplus .- _. Under the revenue base selected for the project~a net cash surplus is generated equal to O.10/0 of total capital investment in the hydroelectric plant beginni,ng in 1987.Surpluses aver- aging approximately 50%of this level are generated in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Applicable fixed and variable annual charges are summarized in Table IX-2, g.Revenues Revenues are computed from the schedule of primary energy required by the system,plus surplus energy available from Susitna I during its early years of operation.Primary energy is charged at 14.47 mills per kilowatt hour,the average en- ergy charge computed for the complete proj ect.Surplus en- ergy is assumed to be salable at 8.2 mills per kilowatt hour, the projected least cost of fuel in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area.In this analysis,no allowance has been made for the difference in Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Area rates, which could slightly affect some years l revenues. 5.Cone lu sian s This analysis indicates tha.t the proposed construction program for Susitna I and related estimates of costs and revenues are consistent with a practical method of financing the project and repaying its indebtedness. C.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1.Cost of Susitna I Power by Service Ar~ Using the project financing and operating cost criteria outlined above,the average cost of net energy delivered by Susitna I is computed at 14.47 mills per kilowatt-hour,including 12.13 mills per kilowatt~hour for generation and 2.34 mills for transmission, as shown in Table IX-3.This average cost is not equally alloc- able to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks service areas because of two factors.First,the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area is expected to drawSusitna I energy on a slightly higher load IX-5 I...-_--------:-------------------~--_._------- I J I ._.J TABLE IX-2 SUMMARY OF FIXED AND VARIABLE ANNUAL CHARGES '!:!ydroelectric Plant ...... Interest @ 6% Sinking Fund @ 30 year s Subtotal Operation.Maintenanc e,and Administration Subtotal Surplu s Total Transmis sian System Interest @ 6% Sinking Fund @ 30 years Subtotal Operation,Maintenance,and Administration Total 0,0600 0.0126 0.0726 0.0015 0.0741 Q.OOIO 0.0751 0.0600 0.0126 0.0726 0.0050 0.0776 IX ...·6 .-I I TABLE IX-3 COMPUTA TION OF COST TO POWER AND ALLOCATION BY SERVICE AREA IX-7 -------------------------------------------------------------1 1 I -~factor than Fairbanks.To account for the value of this,project costs have been attributed to power and energy on a 50-50 division, and then allocated to the two service areas based on demand.The resulting Anchorage-Cook Inlet revenue base at the power plant is 1 L 93 mills,while the Fairbanks base is 12.75 mills.Second, the co sts of transmission to Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks are nearly equal,although the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area draws about three times as much energy from Susitna 1.The allocation of transmission costs produces a charge of L 59 mills per kilo- watt-hour for Anchorage-Cook Inlet,and 4.71 mills per kilowatt- hour for Fairbanks.The resulting total cost of Susitna I power at Anchorage would be 13.53 mills per kilowatt hour,while the corresponding total for Fairbanks would be 17046 mills. - - 2.Cost of Thermal Power in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas The present average cost of power generated by Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Area utilities has been estimated based on data from Federal Power Commission and utility sources.1 Cost items included are operation and maintenance of generating plants and 10ng-distance transmis sion,fuel cost,and allowances for depr ecia- tion and administrative costs. - - For Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area utilities,the resulting average cost of energy generated in 1973 is estimated at 8.9 to 9.2 mills per kilowatt-hour.Of this total cost,fuel alone averages about 40%.The corresponding fuel prices range from a low of approxi- mately l6~per million Btu for natural gas at Beluga,to a high of approximately 38¢per million Btu for natural gas delivered to Anchorage.In 1974,the cost of natural gas delivered to Anchorage was increased to 41¢per million Btu.In the last half of the 19,70 1 s, it is expected that costs of Cook Inlet gas will continue to escalate, reflecting the value of the gas in export markets.It is also con- sidered probable that uniform Federal Power Commission price regulation and usage restrictions will be applied to Alaskan natural gas when a substantial level of exports to the lower 48 states de-' ve10ps.At the present time,expansion plans for Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area utilities rely solely on gas-fired capacity. 1 Federal Power Commis sion,II Statement of Income for Year," and 11 Electric Operation and Maintenance Expenses,"1973, Chugach Electric Assn.,Inc ••Anchorage Municipal Light & Power;Golden Valley Electric Assn.,Inc.,Annual Report,1973 IX-8 ,.- For Fairbanks,there is a wide spread between the 1973 costs of -, the two area utilities;therefore the lower of the two systems' average costs is taken as indicative.This was approximately 20.5 mills per kilowatt-hour.Of this,the fuel cost component was ap- proximately 20%.The principal fuel used for power generation in the Fairbanks Area is Healy coal,for which the most indicative price is the present contract for mine-mouth delivery at Healy. In 1973,this contract was 40¢per million Btu;however,this val- ue has now been increased to 47¢per million Btu,with provision for escalation following U.S.government indices to 1989.Fair- banks utilities are planning to take power fronl a crude or residual oil-fired gas turbine plant to be set up at a proposed refinery at North Pole,beginning in 1977.followed by the po s sible addition of coal-fired capacity at Healy in 1980. A key factor in determining the value of power in the Anchorage- Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas in the early 1980 s is the expected market value of Alaska's petroleum products on the U.S.West Coast.Recent data from petroleum industry sources indicate an I expected long-term average price of $8 to $10 per barrel of crude oil,with a similar value for residual fuel oil.This corresponds I to a residual oil heating value of approximately $1.25 to $1.60 per million Btu.It is probable that the cost of fuel products refined ,-, in Alaska will roughly equal West Coast prices less the equivalent of freight charges on crude oil.On this basis,the outlook for residual oil prices in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas in the early 1980s is approximately $7.50 to $9.50 per bar- rel,or about $1.20 to $1.50 per million Btu.This estimate in effect assumes that today's fuel price levels will still be current in the early 1980s. For natural gas,the West Coast nlarket value in the early 1980s is also expected to be in the range of $1.25 to $1.50 per million Btu.In the case of gas,the cost of liquefaction and shipping from Alaska would be approximately 50¢per million Btu,resulting in a market value in Alaska of about 75¢to $1.00 per million Btu.This estimate is also consistent-with EI Paso Natural Gas Conlpanyl s estimated transmis sion toll of approximately 65¢per thou sand cubic feet (1,000 cubic feet =1 million Btu),from the North Slope to Gravina Bay,plus wellhead prices of 10¢to 35¢per thousand cubic feet.It is considered probable that Cook Inlet natural gas prices will escalate to approximately this level,If the EI Paso line is constructed,the Fairbanks Area may also be supplied with IX-9------------------------_._-----,,_..___.,.._..__-,--'. ..... natural gas.However,due to the smaller volume in the Fair- banks Area and the need to install line taps and distribution facili- ties at relatively high unit cost,it is estimated that gas will cost about $1.00 per million Btu in Fairbanks. If new sources of oil and gas are brought into production in South Cook Inlet or the Gulf of Alaska,it is expected that their produc- tion costs will be in the range of these prices,due to the cost of new field development in the 1a st half of the 1970 s. It is possible that coal will be among Alaska's cheaper fuels in the 1980s.Under a current contract with a Fairbanks utility, Healy coal is now available at 47¢per million Btu,subject to an escalation agreement which could increase this price to approxi- mately 73¢per million Btu by 1981 and to $L 00 per million Btu by 1986.On the other hand,a California firm is now exploring a coal deposit near Beluga;very tentatively,this deposit is thought to be capable of producing at a mine-mouth cost of about 25¢per million Btu,but only in very large quantities.It is also considered possible that the existing coal mines at Jonesville could resume production at a cost of 50¢to 75¢per million Btu. A major deterrent to use of coal as fuel will continue to be the capital and operating costs of coal-fired steam power plants, which are much higher than tho se of oil-and gas-·fired plants. In addition,it is probable that environmental regulations on coal mining and mine reclaiming practices could substantially increase the selling price of coal from today's estimated levels. In addition to these fuel cost indicators,it is estimated that capital costs of fossil-fueled power plant and equipment,and operating costs other than fuel,will escalate at an average of about 6%per year through the early 1980 s. With regard to possible alternate power sources other than hydro, it is not expected that nuclear power will be competitive in Alaska in the 1980 s due to the size of Alaskan power markets.the rapid- ly escalating cost of nuclear plant and equipment,and potentially serious thermal pollution problems in the Alaskan climate.While Alaska may have attractive geothermal resources,it is believed that several years of preliminary exploration,testing,and re- search are required before these can be regarded as a practical alternate power sourc e. IX-IO As a result of these cost indicators,estimates of power cost have been prepared for new thermal generating systems commissioned in 1981;these are indicated in Tables IX-4 and IX-5.These esti- mates are considered roughly comparable to present power sys- tem costs and also to Susitna proj ect power costs estimated for; I this report,These estimates include allowances for transmis-. sion of thermal power from remote sites such as Beluga,Healy, and North Pole.It is expected that most future thermal capacity added to the Alaskan systems will be installed at such locations both to save the cost of transporting fuel and to minimize thermal pollution in urban areas. 1 I - The Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area is expected to have natural gas available for fuel at approximately 75¢per million Btu,provided that federal regulation does not restrict use of gas as utility fuel. On this basis,the most economical method of thermal generation in this area in the ear ly 1980 s is expected to be combined cycle gas turbine base loading with open cycle peaking.The cost of gen- eration produced by new plants of this type in the early 19805 is expected to be 15.9 mills per kilowatt-hour,as shown in Table IX-2. In the Fairbanks Area,it is considered possible that the EI Paso transmis sion line will make natural ga s available at approximately $1.00 per million Btu.Alternatively a spur from the Alaska- Arctic Gas Co.line also could make gas available in Fairbanks, although probably at higher cost.Provided that gas is available at $1.00 per million Btu,gas turbine capacity similar to that used in the Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area may be used in Fairbanks in the early 1980 s with a resulting power cost of approximately 18.6 mills per kilowatt-hour.If gas is not available in Fairbanks,a combina- tion of coal-fired steam base loading and oil-fired open cycle gas turbine peaking probably will be most economical,at a cost of 21,0 mills per kilowatt-hour.The Fairbanks Area is expected to experience a smaller percentage increase in costs than Anchorage because of sharp declines in costs of system overhead and reserves as its relatively small base expands. 3.Comparison of Susitna I and Devil Canyon Project Costs Estimated cost of Susitna I has been compared with that of the Devil Canyon project based on data presented in the Alaska Power Administration,"Devil Canyon Status Report,11 May 1974.For IX-ll I L - TABLE IX-4 COST OF GAS TURBIN~POWER EARLY 1980s Combined Cycle:50 -75 thou sand kw Gas-Fired Residual Oil-Fired (Costs escalated to 1981 @ 6-1/2%) Capital Cost,$/kw Continuous 1 Gas Turbine Unit 70%@ 180 124 Steam Turbine Unit 30%@ 470 141 Average Cost/Base kw 265 Allowance for Peaking Capacity, gas turbine only @ 61.8%1£: 180 x .6 108 - Subtotal Allowance for Transmission Total Annual Capital Charges,$/kw/hr 6%-20 years =.0872 Cost to Power,mills/kwh @ 8,760 kwh/yr Operation,Maintenance and Admin- istrative Costs,Fixed and Variable Fuel Cost Gas @ 75~/million Btu x 10,900 Btu/kwh3 Residual Oil @ $1.20/million Btu x 10,900 Btu/kwh TOTAL p mills/kwh Ga s @ $Jl /million Btu 372 150 522 45.52 5.2 2.5 8.2 409 2 150 559 48.74 5.6 2.5 13.1 21.2 IBased ;n 1974 costs as follows:gas turbine $125/kw,waste heat boiler and steam turbine $350/kw;transmission $115,000/mi.I including sub sta tion s. 2Residual oil-fired gas turbine plant estimated approximately 10%higher than gas fir ed. 3Assumes combined cycle base loading at 10,000 Btu/kwh,with open cycle peaking at 14,500 Btu/kwh. 4Probable least cost in Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area. 5probable least cost in Fairbanks,assuming availability of natural gas. IX-12 TABLE IX-5 COST OF COAL-FIRED STEAM POWER WITH GAS TURBINE PEAKING EARLY 1980s (Costs escalated to 1981 @ 6-1/2%) [ I~\ Capital Cost,$/kw Continuous l Steam Plant Gas Turbine Pla.nt 180 x ,6 Subtotal Allowance for Transmission Total Annual Capital Charges,$/kw/yr 6%-20 years =.0872 Cost to Power,mills/kwh @ 8,760 kwh/yr Operating,Maintenance and Administrative Costs,Fixed and Variable Fuel Cost Coal @ 80%x 25¢/million Btu x 9,000 Btu/kwh Gas @ 20%x $1.OO/million Btu x 14 ~500 Btu/kwh TOTAL,mills/kwh Coal @ 50¢/million Btu Coal @ 75¢/million Btu Alternate Oil-Fired Peaking Capital Cost Adjusb:nent Gas Turbine Plant 108 x .1 x .0872 -+ 8,760 Fuel Cost Residual Oil @ 20%x 1.20/million Btu x 14,500 Btu/kwh TOTAL,mills/kwh Coal @ SO¢/rnillion Btu Coal @ 75¢!million Btu 600 108 708 150 858 74.82 8.5 3.5 1.8 2.9 16.7 18.5 20.3 . 1 3.5 17.4 19.2 21.02 I I.~ lBased on 1974 co sts as follows:coal-fir ed steam plant $450/kw;gas turbine $125/kwh;transmission $115,OOO/mi.,including substations. 2Probable least cost in Fairbanks if natural gas is not available. IX-l j _._-~-_...__.._----_._._.•.•._--- ),J)r)1'1,1 ) APPENDIX TABLE 6 (Cant) )11.r )SUSITNA'RIVER D~~1E B _ I ____'/4 ,1/4.Sec.__,__R __,.8 c.M LoomON _ACTIVITY SOURCE OF RECORD Genera~ed:..-Qq.Q.._~._9_..23.1 ., S .t R·B·1 t 000 RUNUFf OF.us~na ,~ver as~n STREAM FLOW sur,~rv1/~RY UNIL_acre";'feet AREA --5J.Q9_.S:l """'. I~b'\SON r-'OCT.I NOV.I DEC.JAN FEB.~A~I~~;;;-r-~;,{,(I ,):)NE JULY AUG':'~LPT -~~:I:'-;-:-'!.1--.~-t 1970 I 178.85 67.31 49.591 47.18 I 39.71 I 44.411 59.84 \651.511032.48 1296.8811~43.271 505~35i 5116.38 : ---..-...j .-_..._-_.....-.--......._...._-......----.--..._._..-...._..J ....-.--_.-_.._-.•_.-._-.-..'''''-'·•....·-----t··..--·-·--t·-------·....I 1971 I 302.67 I 188.71 131.09 1 82.54 I 53.551 54.38 !59.92 1214.41:1824.76 1371.36 1826.62 800.10 i .6910 .{1 i ,.I I -'--#---'"I i ---!I --t·---r -1---'+-----1------i---·-·}._J ,,'I I!I ; ~'-'-,~Q2.88.Il!l,lot 63.841 62.47{74..7Bj _76B.sa.~6 Q~5J 7Br_hl!6639-':~ .,•.~-'--'.-.----.------+----~------l----I--·---1------j-----I---·--L-----1----~-----I----1 .r-Annual-..--5.....-0_-.......,g=J.1 L__~.2...j .w....+1.0 +..lL•.9._I._.._L..l.....l._..~'7 I 1'),f\I -19...3-.t--11 .•5 -1-.lQO%__~ ,i !111 I~I 'i ',I I J ;!I I .N L':'.r----j·'''''-,---1-----r--'-1---r-'H 1-.-.-·--·--1---·1---'-1---1--1----,--------·--·~; !I j'Iii I i ii I !.t=-1·----.-------,,··-----+-.-[-j----+--+----+----!----+-----j I --'1----1---+----r-------1--·,-..-----r----r--~+--Ii------t----·..·------.if-------[f-,-c--I 1-----~-.r---.---!------i'----t----t-----!---.-;.;-~.-_.------'1 .t I---~·-..·--T----H .'I----r '---.-----t---t I-I t---------i .- ----I i i I lr---------,~!I _.~=i =---ri~--ti-..._.'11 .'1-". I -"-_....._--..I I j~-'--[-'--""'-'---,-:'I ..._j i .)+1 __.LI .__._...L.-----..--·.l.-.-··....·+--------T---··~J·------...--------I }---.'-_.---------=.~--].~J -~--+-------i--~r----l-I---~__=-__J l .---'--'''----J.I ..I I -l ...t_·'·--=__.L '.__.....L ._..-__........-l..-~__. APPENDIX TABLE 6 STREAM FLOW SUMMARY , ACTIVITY SOURCE O;~~COR;G~~e;;.te-d:-QGc-~-O-~-931 \1,000 -------- UNIT acre-feet .AREA _576~Sq Mi\.>s -,'I 1 1 1 1)l11lclI11 ..ac.Hlc"bJI'I'NA RIVER IlAMSITE B----------------------- .__l/4.1/4,Sec.__T__R_-.•__._SE.M 'RUNOFF OF Susitna River Basin :SEASON I OCT.I NOV.I DEC_I JAN.r FEB.I MAR T APR.I MAY I JUNE I JULY I AUG I SEPT I TOTAL I.~.362.62.~43.~0 _82.36 I 58.8~!40.721 41:.571 48.201 658.961~085.5511294.o91il37.681 459.9~1 5413.57 1 ~~95~220.28 72.02 62.97 54.96 '.1952 i 318.871 152.03 108.74 I 91.59 1953 469.50 1 193.741 97.29 62.97,, ..1--1954 320.73 116.381 85.87 74.42 1 51.71 .44.65 6-8.4;-/989.6;1398.36 1165.61 1494.25 715.47 6525.52 -lh~955 I 307.42 ~2.87~J:7.~2 ~02 .69 72.39 62.97 __~6.47._533.46 ~654.39 ~577.il ~4 73.77 791.54_.~9~-=--~o.... ~~9~J_28~4()1 ~05 .30 J 74.42--l 56:~0 I.5~.95 ~53.8~1 52 .63!'=Oil.crr ~847•~o ~780.07 ~403.95~~5 •721.7735 .~ ,~95~1_332.31 168.981122.6~L_97.29[77.56 68.7~_66.47 j 787.44 ~67~.~4 1334.12 1175.85 ~096.~2r 699~.25 ~58 '.470.06 219.06 Ie 186.85 112.471 67.59 65.•74 84.9~_L 738.19 1423.50 1309.92 12 90 .37,418.30r_~~_~_~~~~ 1959 275.39 119.0~86.60 I 82.92 1 67.59 56.10 69.25 1 915.17 1292.23 1430.95 1784.7~937.52 7117.53 I I·1960 375.38 157.90 1 125.96 105.671 77.74 68.51 72.02 903.35 860.52 1315.50 1350.88 1135.82 6549.251rI1------.------------.-'-.----f---.-_"...1 !1961 446.14 1 166.181 154.17 .140.3°1 90.67 103;62 146.82 994.31 1632.04 1406.74 1265.23 740.89 7287.11 l L=~21 33B.7d~49.6~T 120.l~I ..~08.7{~.~~~.~~~~4.22 ~!!0.69,=397.32 _~480~~S --=31,8~~L880.2~~7795_~~~1 !~963 I 384.88 ~55.il~4.51g.59r 77.56 .57.251._~5.98 ,=°89.27 ~440.26 ~969.06 ,=355.54 682.42 7463,:,4:! 1964 369.1~124.661 85.49 60.011 51.75 40.~4l.27 246.53 2802.31 1313.6~941.24 530.2C 6607.06~ 1965 360.11 155.111 ~9.30 54.96 44.47 51.52/75.35 743.40 1424.43 1593.87 1208.44 1071.5t 6852.54 1966---4~115.9~1 93.3~"'"80.~4 67.22 ._74.-421~=98.~~~~~5-2.~t 1825.69 1136.75-1249._~..651.1L ~-35~.9~J ~967 I 238.31<88.64 1 85.87 I 85.87 72.39 68.7~~64.63 886.22,~634.84 ~534.25,~867.59 934.72 7562.~o I ,..i96st·---;80.5ic-~30.34j1l7-:59 113.4o ~01.76 ~0B.74 i05 :&;-926.OJ ~M .49 ~5~2.8f983 .1:4>-488;4c --6616.~71 ,19691218.7c 90.301 50.51 41.46 37.40 46.7;;:83.65 632.31.858.85 921.7 508.3:282.1(3772.32 j R~NOFV of_SQ$ITNA RIVER BASIN )1111 ACTIVITY ...,......__-,-_ SOURCE OF RECORD USGS,__._ 1 9 000 UNIT -ac~e-feet AREA 4140 $'.~.~1'f'5 11}..J )1 APPENDIX'TABLE 5 STREAM FLOW SUMMARY 1111~} LOCATION SUSTTNA RIVER.C~j.,__-1__ ___1/4.1/4 j Sec.__T__R __•__B &M I-_~EAS'JN I OCT.I NOV.I DEC,'JAN FEB MAR I .WR !M/\Y JUNE JULY AUG S~PT.TOif'L'1 G96_2 .~6.~112.,90 .Jl8,}!!._~,08 __61.09~.6.J,.49__II .~~.L§ll.2Q 1822.go J21.33,Q9 _;JJ.05.00 626 .60 6~8.00I 1'1 ~I 1963 __26.6.00 130.90 86.08 61.49 47.21 46.7?-t._~_~4 t-697.20 892.60 ,1401.00~e.00 .546.60 5337.00 ir-:;;;-,236.60 _77.36 ,53-95 _39.59 33.70 '._26.~.~_J!7,..§7.1_.172.60 .2060.:..q()~048.00.307:50 _31.a~14.a02,()~.J t l 1~L192.70_..E3 •7()G~·65 46.73 37.77!~,~+.6Z·.~6 1.542 ,5.0.9'r.7.g()112~00 I 826.40 [768.10~.4799.00_) 1966 ,191.60 59.50!46.12 43.04 36.10 39.97 1 52.07i 269.801101.00 751.10 I 779.501 388.10 13757.10 I 11967 ~142.80 46.41 04.27 41.81.'--25.54 i .1.~3 4 .'le:>..55 j5.8~.2~tll~.00~~8.00 j1l8_0.0~1 ~ll.~i 4954:.~.!1.19~81~~·60 88.66 ~~.~~?-1--_I?'74.69.~~L73._._.1..?-....t.--.-_.1.2•.I9 j.._?§2.'~'.~~i ~160.9E+1075..00 -t..i72 .4{]21.?_O.~445CL~tl..._~.1969~48.00 63.27 i 37.98 L:31.24..I 26.94 1_33.:70 I.__59.~tl-459.40 ~..50 i 830 ~.70t_3~0.9~J_~031.00 -! 1970 1100.70 48.50 I 33.40f;6.B61 23.641 28.48_~_:52.76 __466.10 589~54.70 I 757.80 310.10 13293.00 i~;-r~~~.50 91.041-"~4.46 r-;-;;l--;-.;r-;8.~8 I ~1.46!-~~;7011307 .00 11115.0~j 1396.0J 583:10 !~40.00 -~ 1972 I.~49.50 122.00 I 84.30_~.~__53.~'.54 .1~]'.__5.2 .J,l:1_596 .OO~1l~0.~O~1026.00J~60.60 I 560.70fY.(Jl":..~.~----+-I I L--t-------------J-----l I.-----L-'.I F'I.--! . 1Avers&e IB8.78..ID:.30~~0 I ~1.20,_ ,I Ii.II I I I I ! 1 'J I IJ I !I J I'l1:_4'11.9+~4_1.1 0.9 _0.:1:~~_I~lo~oi--2~~~j 23.1 1 19 . 6 lQ.3 _laoS _.~ ----j'---·..----r---'--··..-r------~--.·-----l.------------1----.--.-;--.----'-----l~---.f----+----L +-------rl ---~i------1 I J L I !I '-1 I !L--..__.._~.._.....__....__.--'-..~__h _.~J ______1/4 ,.__1/4 ,Sec.__T R ,9£.M R:i:,GfF OF SUSITNA...RI.'W.~Bw;AS!3Wolw.N1--._ APPENDIX TABLE 4 (Cont) STREAM FLOW SUMMARY }1111 ACTIVITY _ SOURCE OF RECORD .\l§.®...____._ 1,000 - UNIT _acr~_-f~et _AREA __-.-61..60 . _$q Mllo's 11)11\1 1 1 )SUSITNA..RIVER~lO~/\TiON _._ f :u..sC:J 1 OCT.l~NOV.DEC.JAN..1 FEB_I M,'\R I i.r-R.MAY JUNE JULY t.UG SEPT.-lOTALI,.--wi !!, !1970 I 192.10 72.30 53.26 50.68 42.65 47.70 64.27 699.80 1109.60 l393.00 1228.00 542.80 5496.00 ~-,-------._. l~2.~_~25.10 202.70 -140.80 88.66 57.52 58.41 64.36 230.30 1960.00 1473.00 1962.00 829.40 ~~~~.OO_ _!------4-----._.--..---.--_...a I I --_.-I I- I------._---j-_._-_.-.--...__.- _20.8 20.0 r~.1~~ 1167·22 1520.161 1334~~775.86 ,712 5,0.0 ':1Ii'_18-L1.2:~ -I lAverage L i '1'·I I .1 1 I I I I --+r962-7~i 333.,86~40.33 r 03 .tg :--57 .31.t_·11 .4l.1J-.43 1-.aCl....~4 j .1I.2·.2.5-r.J.~~5.1\!507 ..10+~21.D~_+706~.QQ-I ~9~~~r~::;j-~.-;id __~.5f-u~:2'!--l:Ju 1.0 -1 -l~j-~O.;-~~.:'2L;'~;';---10.;J '19~"1' !!I It·!I.~~;~~'fr J24'98}~.~j=~Q~~~~__9_0~13_jl~68.5t67~~r~O.D~~;5.Q~169~~~~494'~+13~'J~'~~;~L 7l3~;_~ t~=-5.01 2.J-~.5j-.-1.3--'1-_1.0 1-0'9~=Ll~.6 2~;--21~0 I 1;~':~-l10;;~'J i!f I ,;I ill I j ~..-L . )1 J 1 ,.1 1 1 1 'J 1 1 l·"c,1 1 GOLD CREEK )ACTIVITY -_._------------_.- 6160 _.,_SQ Miles SOURCE OF RECORD USGS1,000',---, l1NIT acre-feet ,AREA APPENDIX TA BLE 4.. STREAM FLOW SUMMARYi-lut~C;Ff'OF_Susit~River ~:=s:.::i:::n=--_ '"T"J ) ''''' LOCA,ION _)suSITNA RIVER, ,,1/4.1/4,Sec T R •8 &M TOTALSEPT.AUGJULYJUNEMAYAPR.MAR. 45.50 I 54.11 FEB, 45.54 57·52 I I 43 •741_44.6~_.~~1 707.80 11166.0°11390.09 1222.001 494.00 I 5815.00 I i ,r i r t t ,I i 1 i •..-, r-SEASON I OCT.~Nev.r DEC.I JAN. I . U950 L389.50 ~153.701 88:46 1 63.17 !19;-1236.60.77.361 67.641 59.03 :--1952 342,,50!163,,30f 1~6.80 I 98 ..38 54.74 333.20 1926.001 1622.0q 1286.001 861.60 I 6917.00 ,-r------4-----+---.---~, i 1953 I 504.30 208.101 104~7 .64 45.54 50.42 96.10 1185.00 1626.00 1242.OC 1267.00 908.80 7305.00 I I 1954 344.50 125.00r-;2..23j 7;:;;.55.54 4~.96 ·~~.4;'1063.00 1502.00 1252.0C 1605.001 768.50 7009.00 i i 1955 330.20 164.201 125.80 110.30 77.75 6_7,,_64._.!1_._40 573.00 1777.00 1694"oc 1583.00 .8_5_0.2_0.__._74_24_'~~j 1_1956 _304.40 113.1~;__79:~~~.26 t-~57 .80 ~6.5~:~.~1984.00 1912.0(1508.00 1091.00 8309.00 i 1957 357.00 181.501 131.70 104.50 r 83.31 73.79 n.4oj 845.80 1795.00 1433.0(1263.00 1178.00 ..75{8.00 j ~9~8 _I 504.90'23;:;}200.7~-12~.80 -;;.60 ---;;-:6~--91.;4 792.90 1529.00 1407.0<1386.00 449.30 ~~60.ooJ I 1959 295.80 I 127.90 1 93.02 89.06 72.60 60.26 74.381 983.ob 1388.00 1537.0(1917.00 1007.00 761J.5.00 l1960 I 403.20 L169 .60 T 135 'ffi 1],).50 8~:~_73.~__:77 .3~i 970.30'92~.3l1413.a<j 1451 •0 Oj 1220 .00 1__2~35.00, I ~479 .20 I 178 .50 165.60 150.70 97 .39j 111.30 157.70h068 .00 1753.00 1511.or-1359.ad 795.801 7827.00 •i 1962 ~_363 .80 L:-~.701~129 '~I ~116.80 ~~~.31 i 86 .08__:':1.~ol_774.10 12575 .00 --=~90.:0 945.50 I 8:~4.~-; L!~_~~3.,4o_1 __~6 :61 123 '~1 ya .3~1 83.31 61.49 __~9.391117.:'.·00 1547.00 _2115 •0 1~~_73~.~~__8017.00 I I 1964 I 396.50 I 133.901 9L831 64.46 1 55.58 43.851 44.331 264.8013010000 1411.0 1011.0 569.50 7097.00 I I.-~96;r;B6.80 ~166.601 74.44,_59.:~~L_47.761~~~{_~O.93,__.298 .50 _,1530.00 1712.00 _1298.OC 1151.00r-7~,2.00i-1966 J 44~----=:4,5C 100 .30 ~.:08 72.20I~~~J _::'~60_593.~~_1961~1221.0 1342 .()(_699.40 _6~29 .~ ~196!__-l.~56.00 95.21 92.23,92.23_77.75 73.791 69.42 951.90 1756.oc 1648.0 2006.oc 1004.00 ...~122_~00 __1968_1~01.30 140.0(126.30'121.80 109 .30 ~--ll3.70 994.70 1877 .O(1625.0 1056.0<524.60 ._7106.00 I 1969 I 235.00 96.95 54.25 44.53 40.17 50.18 89.85 679.2Q 922.5C 990.1)546 0 0c 303.10 4052.00 this purpose,Devil Canyon cost data based on January 1974 prices have been escalated by 6%to a level comparable with the June 1974 estimating base used for Susitna 1.The value of interest during construction has also been adjusted to repr esent the differing in- terest rates used under each set of criteria.As shown in Table IX-6,Susitna I project costs in mills per kilowatt-hour of energy sold equal 75.4%of the comparable costs for Devil Canyon. ------------'---------------,~---_.., I----~ TABLE IX-6 COMPARISON OF PROJECT COSTS SUSITNA I V.DEVIL CANYON Economic Financial Susitna 1 of dollars ($OOOL except as noted Federal Susitna 1 Economic Financial thousands C "t "1rlerla Devil Canyon Kaiser Criteria2 Devil Canyon Total Capital Investment Annual Capital Charges Rate Amount 649,300 .0689 44,737 633,300 .0601 38,061 742,000 .0689 51,123 722.900 .0601 43,446 638.100 .0726 46,326 729,000 .0726 52,925 Annual Operating Costs Rate Amount Total Annual Costs Energy Sales,kwh (millions) Cost in Mills/kwh Susitna 1 %Devil Canyon .0015 .0015 .0015 .0015 .0029 3 .0029 974 950 1,113 1,084 1,846 2,114 45,711 39,0 II 52,236 44,530 48,172 55,039 3,330 3,330 2,866 2,866 3,330 2,866 13.75 11.72 18.23 15.54.14.47 19.20 75.4 75.4 75.4 ---{'-,,- r-< X VI IFederal criteria specify the following interest and amortization criteria: Economic analysis,interest 6.875%,amortization 100 years. Financial analysis,interest 5.625%,amortization 50 years. 2Kaiser criteria are interest 6%,amortization 30 year s. 3Includes allowances for sinking fund and cash surplus., \ «----'\, X.ENERGY -INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES Prior to the preparation of this report,it was believed that the addition of a large industrial energy user to the Anchorage-Cook Inlet or Fair- banks Areas would be necessary if Susitna I were to be developed on the largest and correspondingly most economical initial scale. Accordingly,the Henry J.Kaiser Company obtained expressions of in- terest in purchasing Alaskan hydropower from Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation and other primary aluminum manufacturers. These firms were interested in obtaining approximately 300 I 9Q,Q co:gJ.\.E: !lOPS 'd 1 g w 8:bhs of pOWer,approximately 2,600 million kilowatt-hours~<per year,at an average cost of less than 10 mills per kilowatt-hour.1£such a power source were made available in Alaska,it is probable that an aluminum reduction plant could be located in the state. As this report materialized,three main factors became clear.First, it was evident that reasonable and conservative forecasts of utility load growth in the Anchorage·-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas would be sub- stantially higher than previously anticipated.Second,the optimum or most economical capacity of Susitna I was determined to be 385,000 con- tinuous kilowatts,instead of 450-500,000 as originally considered prob- able.Third,due to the substantial and probably non-recurring inflation of the first half of 1974,the cost base for Susitna I escalated to an un- expected high level. As a result"it has been concluded that lltility demand in the Anchorage- Cook Inlet and Fairbanks Areas is capable of providing a sufficient revenue base for Susitna I and that mor,eover,the full capacity of Susitna I can be utilized within five years of normal utility load growth. The estimated cost of Susitna I power is estimated to be less that that of alternative methods of utility generation in the early 1980 I s;however, it is higher than the ceiling which an aluminum manufacturer would consider at the present time. X-I ..... XI.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A.INTRODUCTION The environmental impact of land inunda tion in the upper Susitna River Basin has been evaluated by a number of governmental agen- cies;namely,the Fish and Wildlife Service,the Bureau of Mines, the Bureau of Land Management in respect of forestry resources, and National Park Service,and the Corps of Engineers.Various of these reports ar e contained in the Devil Canyon report of 1960 and a further listing of reports and additional comments ar e made in the Devil Canyon Status Report of May 1974 . While some recommendations have been made in connection with further studies,it has been generally concluded that the reservoirs created by the construction of dams at Denali and Devil Canyon would have r ela tively small impact on the environment considering the size of the project,It has been recommended that the future Vee reservoir should not be any higher than conceived in the overall development plan lest it affect the sport fishing resource in the Tyone Basin. B.CANYON SECTION OF THE RIVER None of the available reports raise any serious questions on the en- vironmental impact of lands to be flooded within the confines of the canyon stretch of the river which extends approximately to the mouth of the Oshetna River.The steep canyon walls encountered in much of this stretch of the river are not conducive to significant wildlife habitation and the loss of wildlife habitat in the canyon would be ex- pected to be small.There is no evidence of anadromous fish in the canyon,due presumably to high water velocities,and at present sport fishing is virtually nonexistent.Improved accessibility with roads and reservoirs will result in increased hunting and fishing, but both will be mitigated to some extent by the fluctuation of reser- voir levels.While reservoirs in the canyon will flood some forest lands,these areas are generally inaccessible without project devel- opment.There are no known mineral resources within the canyon section of the river. XI-l - C.DENALI AND VEE The Denali reservoir.as projected in the Devil Canyon Status Re- port of 1974,would inundate an area of 54,000 acres and Vee,with a reservoir elevation of 2,355 feet would inundate an area of 17.000 acres,Inundation of these areas is not expected to adversely affect fishing. The most significant im.pact of inundation of these areas would be the destruction of the moose habitat,largely in the Denali area,and the loss of rangelands for caribou,It is anticipated that the moose popu- lation of flooded areas must be relocated,as it is considered unlikely that the surrounding area can support the displaced animals.The loss of caribou rangeland is not considered significant;inundation of the land would not seriou sly affect rnovement of caribou to other areas.The effect of inundation on the habitat of certain other wild- life requires more investigation;however,waterfowl would appear to be little affected.Of the two areas.Denali and Vee,the most ex- treme impacts of inundation are at Denali,the necessity of which is largely eliminated by the alternate development scheme presented herein.Improved ace es sibility would increase game take in both areas.Mineral and forest resources in the area have not been fully evaluated,although it would appear that the loss of marketable timber through inundation would not be significant. D.THE TRANSMISSION SYS TEMS The mo st significant impact of the transmis sian system would be the appearance of towers and lines which would intrude on the natural scene.Wildlife would be little affected,However,detailed line routing studies win have to be made to minimize the impact of the transmission systems on both natural scenic beauty and wildlife. E.SUMMARY It is apparent that inundation of the canyon section of the river would have little effect upon the environment.The inundation of areas up- stream of Vee and Denali would have greater but still moderate im- pacts.Any development which includes Denali will have to ju stify in- creased environmental impacts over development restricted to the canyon section,and development which can economically exclude Denali would be pr eferable. XI-2 l i I Development of the river upstream of Susitna I would provide for a re servoir inundating approximately the same area a s would the Ve.e Canyon project proposed by the U.S.B.R.As noted,the impact on the environment by the Vee project reservoir would appear to be considerably less than the impact created by the Denali reservoir. While detailed studies would be required fo~the lands to be inundated by the reservoir in or near Vee Canyon,the overall impact of the Kaiser concept would be reduced to the extent that Denali reservoir. is eliminated. The Kaiser concept of initial development of the hyd",oelectric poten- tial of the upper Susitna River,first-stage project,designated as Susitna I,proposes a project which l.imits the inundation of land to' about 24,000 acres in the canyon section of the river.By eliminating ~, the Denali dam and reservoir,which alone would inundate 54,000 acres (61,550 acres with Devil Cany<:m),the impact upon the environment for first-stage development of the riv~~r resource is considerably re- duced.The depth and cost of further detailed envirdnmental studie s for initial development would be reduced;approval for implementation of the project with due consideration for environmental impact would be more easily attained. ..- - - To accurately assess environmental impacts from development.of the hydrbelectric potential of the uppe:r Susitna River,it will be nec- essary'not only to review all presently available data,but also to complete such studies as may significantly influence final im.pact evaluations.Such studies would include benefits to recreation and asseSiSffient of impact on the environment of alternative m.eans of generating electric power. Full and open evaluation of the environmental impact of Susitna River development must be made in the earliest stages of pl:oject planning so that once committed,hydroelectric development can proceed without delay due to environmental problems. XI-3 L,--'--'-_-'--.,.._.............._". - - - - - - - - - - - XII.FUTURE DEVELOPMENT A.INTRODUCTION The Susitna I hydroelectric project recommended by the Henry J. Kaiser Company as the initial step in development of the upper Susitna River also allows for two future projects which may be de- signed to utilize the river's full hydroelectric potential.These proj- ects are located both downstream and upstream of Susitna I,as out- lined in this section. B,DOWNSTREAM DEVELOPMENT:SUSITNA II The degree of river regulation resulting from Susitna I would facil- itate the economical construction of a run-of-the-river hydroelec- tric plant downstream.Approximately 110 feet of head could be de- veloped by the construction of a low dam at the Devil Canyon site. Downstream of Portage Creek,three miles below Devil Canyon,ap- proximately 155 feet of head can be developed,and the inflow from Portage Creek can be captured,adding approximately 4%to total runoff. Either the Devil Canyon or Po:rtage Creek site is technically suit- able for hydroelectric project construction.The Portage Creek site would require a longer dam than the Devil Canyon site,but it en- ables construction of a more economical surface powerhouse and an easier overall construction program than would be possible within the narrow confines of Devil Canyon.The Portage Creek site is well ~suited for a rockfill dam,and the native greywacke would be an excellent construction material. Construction of Susitna II would be simplified by the river control af- forded by Susitna 1 9 the primary site access road would have been built for Su sitna I.and the proj ect"s power output could be carried by the Susitna I transmis sion system.If constructed on the Portage Creek site,Susitna II could generate an estimated 785 million kilo- watt-hours of energy,and would have an installed capacity of 163,000 kilowatts,at a 55%plant factor.It is estimated that Susitna II would cost on the order of $500 to $600 per installed kilowatt.two-thirds or less the cost of Susitna I.including transmission.Additiona.l studies are required to determine the general characteristics of Susitna 11 and its impact on overall system operation and cost of power. I-~__,_------------_._----XII~~J Susitna III could be located near the upstream end of the reservoir formed by Susitna I,in the canyon section between theWatana and Vee sites proposed by U.S.B.R.Detailed studies would be required to finalize location of Susitna III and to establish its most economical project size. - - ..... ,.------------------------------'---- C.UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT:SUSITNA III I , - - .- - - In concept,Susitna III would impound a reservoir somewhat larger than that visualized at Vee by U.S.B.R.;however,its maximum normal reservoir elevation would be 2,355 feet,the same level in- dicated for the Vee project.The Susitna III dam would be approxi- mately 600 feet high over the riverbed. Assuming that the Susitna III would be operated in the same manner proposed for Susitna I,but as an independent facility,its installed capacity would be about 380,000 kilowatts on an annual plant fador of 55%.Under these conditions,the annual energy output of Susitna III would be approximately 1,840 million kilowatt-hours.However,pre- liminary study indicates that river regulation provided by Susitna III would increase the annual energy generated by Susitna I'approxi- mately 9%,~from 3,372 million kilowatt-hours to 3;679 million kilo- watt-hours;therefore the combined annual generation of Susitna I and Susitna III would total 5,519 million kilowatt-hours. It is expected that in practice,operation of theSusitna I and Susitna III reservoirs and power plants would be integrated for greater effi- ciency.Under such an integrated operation,with an overall annual load factor of 550/0,the total installed capacity of the two sites would be 1,145,000 kilowatts.With 700,000 kilowatts installed at Susitna I,the installed capacity at Susitna III would be 445,000 kilowatts, and the annual plant factor at Susitna.III would be 47.2%.Further detailed studies would be necessary to determine the most efficient means of integrated operation,as well as the optimum installed ca- pacity for Susitna Ill. D.THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Ultimate development of the three projects,Susitna I,II,and III, would provide total installed capacity of about 1,308,000 kilowatts, with annual energy generation of about 6,309 million kilowatt-hours. Fully integrated operation-of the three facilities could result in a still higher total capability;however,this requires further detailed study. XII-l l"'!'f- - /~.E.COMPARISON WITH THE U.S.B.R.SCHEME - - - - - - - .,... ~.... The U.S.B.R.scheme for ultimate development of the upper Susitna River includes dams at Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee,and Denali, with power plants at the first three sites.Installed capacity under this scheme would be 1,372,000 kilowatts,and annual energy gen- eration would be 7,000 million kilowaU-hours. Both the U.S.B.R.scheme and Kaiser r s alternate concept would re- quire detailed study to justify subsequent stages of development and to establish the economic size of future projects.It is considered, however,that the Susitna I,II,and III projects,as proposed by Kaiser,are potentially more econox::nical than the major projects at Devil Canyon,Watana,Vee,and Denali sites proposed by U.S.B.R. The total installed capacity outlined by U.S.B.R.is approximately 5%greater than projected by Kaiser,while annual energy generation indicated by U.S.B.R.is 11%greater than Kaiser's.This is be- cause the ultimate development outlined by Kaiser excludes Denali dam and reservoir for economic,and environmental reasons. If Denali were added to Kaiser 1 s alternate concept,a rela.tively small dam and reservoir on that site could provide a sufficient increase in river regulation to raise the combined outputs of Susitna I,II,and III to equaLthe capability oJ the U.S.B.R.scheme.Alternatively,due to the storage provided by Susitna I,Kaiser I s concept would allow the Denali project to be designed to release its stored water on a year-round basis,and a power plant could be installed at Denali, further increasing total energy generated by the alternate system. This is not possible under the U.S.B.R.scheme,in which the Denali reservoir provides most storage for the system as a whole;because of this,it must in most years be fully drawn down in an eight-month annual period of operation,and would not furnish sufficient average head to justify a power plant. Although Kaiser's alternate concept tentatively excludes Denali,it would still be possible to develop thi.s project following Susitna I,II, and III,pending more favorable conclusions on its technical and eco- nomic feasibility,and especially its environmental impacts. XU-3 ._~--------.~~,.,-------------_._---I------ ~))') f APPENDIX TABLE I RECORDS AND FORECASTS OF ANCHORAGE-COOK INLET AND FP.IRBANKS AREA UTILITIES 1968-1990 AML&P Total GVEA FMUS Peak Load (thousand kw) Total Net Energy (million kwh) Peak Load (thousand kw) Net Energy (million kwh) Peak Load (thousand kw) Net Energy (million kwh) Peak Load (thousand kw) Net Energy (million kwh) Peak Load l (thousand kw) Net Energy (million kwh) CEA,HEA,MEA Net Peak Energy Load (million kwh)(thousand kw)Year 1968 1969 1970 1971 1912 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 IlJ85 1986 Il~87 1988 1989 1'90 674.0 152.0 789.7 175.I n5.3 201.8 1,084.I 232.4 1,270.4 267.9 1,488.6 308.8 1,662.0 344.8 1,865.5 385.0 2,073.4 429.0 2,316.3 479.9 2,587.7 536.0 425 455 495 545 600 655 725 800 875 965 1,050 1,175 43 48 56 64 68 73 81 91 101 113 125 138 1,350 1,539 1,765 2,034 2,262 2,521 2,798 3,116 3,463 UO 248 221 49.4 95 20.3 316 69.7 283 258 57.I 103 21.9 361 79.0 323 302 66.2 110 23.7 412 89.9 369 352 76.6 119 25.5 471 102.I 422 41Z 88.7 128 27.6 540 116.3 470 476 100.5 138 29.8 614 130.3 523 527 111.8 149 32.I 676 143.9 583 124.3 160 34.6 743 158.9 646 138.2 173 37.2 819 175.4 714 153.7 187 40.0 901 193.7 793 170.9 199 43.1 992 214.0 877 190.1 216 "':to."t 1,093 236.5 970 211.4 233 49.9 1,203 261.3 1,076 235.I 249 53.8 1,325 288.9 1,ln 261.4 267 57.8 1,459 319.2 I Adjusted !rom fiscal to calendar years Source:Chugach Electric Assn.,Inc.(CEA),includes Homer Electric Aun.,Inc.(HEA),and Matsnuska Electric Assn.,Inc.(MEA), Anchorage Municipal Light l.Power Dept.(AML&.P),Golden Valley Electric As sn.•Inc.(GVEA),Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS). - - APPENDIX TABLE ;: ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION "UTILITY LOAD ESTIMATE EXTENDED TO 1990" I I Generation 1972 1980 Projected Requirements 1990 71.9 310.I 123.0 658.0 314.0 1,680.0 123.5 600.0 360.0 1,800.0 1,065.0 5,370.0 (16.5)(85.I)(36.5)(190.01 (90.0)(490.0) (4.7)(22.I)(7.9)(37.6)(14.9)(71.I) 0.8)(3.4)1.6)6.8)3.5)16.I) Not Available 5.2)27.9)8.0)45,0) Not Available (2.I)(8.7)(3.0)(12.3) ~73.9 ~-225.0 181.0 850.0 211.3 984.0 537.0 2,683.0 1,560.0 7,900.0 1.3 5.8 2.3 10.I 4,6 20.2 1.2 5.4 3.2 14.0 5,2 22,8 7.6 33.4 13.4 61.9 22.I 102.9 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.4 1,6 1.5 6.4 4.2 18.3 6.9 30.0 0.5 1.2 ~-1.8 I.I 2.9 223.6 1,037.0 561.I 2,790.3 1,600.3 8,080.4Total,Southcentral Region - ..... - - - Location and Utility Symbol Southcentral l City of Anchorage (AML&P) Chugach (CEA) Include: Homer (HEA) Kenai (HEA) Seldovia-Port Grah...m (HEA) Seward (SL&P) Tyonek Palmer-Talkeetna (MEA) Subtotal,Anchorage-Cook Inlet Area Cordova (CPU)2 Glennallen Kodiak and Port Lions (KdEA) Old Harbor (AVEC)2 Valdez Other Communities Peak Demand (thousand kw) Annual Generation (million kwh) Peak Deman.d (thousand kw) Annual Generation (million kwh) Peak Demand (thousand kw) Annual Generation (million kwh) - - Interior I Fairbanks Area City of Fairbanks (FMU) Golden Valley (GVEA) Subtotal,Fairbanks Area Fort Yukon (FYU) Tok (AP&T) Other Communities Total,Interior Region 21.0 90.0 51.8 .-!2.:..L 211.0 --!l.h..Q- 66.9 301.0 182.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.9 1.2 __1._2_2.I 2.I 69.3 306.7 186.8 221.0 161.I 687.3 610.0 379.0 1,790.0 831.0 540.I 2,477.3 1.8 1.2 2.9 4.3 2.0 7.0 5.4 3.6 B.7 842.5 546.9 2,495.q IUtility estimates from REA power requirements studies,and consultant's studies,generally through 1982,and extended to 1990 by APA at same growth rate. 2APA estimate based on 1972 generation and various growth assumptions. Source:Alaska Power Administration,Alaska Power Survey,1974. l--.__"'".__..__.... 1 t 1 'I 1 1 1 '1 1 1 J \ 1 _J --_._._-~--'._'--~-'_. p Source:Alaska Power Administration,Alaska Power Survey,1974. APPENDIX TABLE 3 ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION "STATEWIDE AND REGIONAL UTILITY LOAD ESTIMATES,1972-2000" Actual Requirements Estimated Future Requirements 1972 1980 1990 2000 Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Demand Energy Demand Energy Demand Energy Demand Energy Region (thousand kw)(million kwh)(thousand kw)(million kwh)(thousand kw)(million kwh)(thousand kw)(million kwh Hil!her Rate of Growth Southeast 52 229 140 600 310 1,360 640 2,820 Southcentral 224 1,037 680 2,990 1,640 7,190 3,590 15,740 Interior 69 307 200 870 460 2,020 970 4,230 Southwest,Northwest, Arctic,Combined 10 47 30 140 80 330 160 710 Total 355 1,620 1,050 4,600 2,490 10,900 5,360 23,500 Likelv Mid-Range Rate of Growth Southeast 120 530 230 1,010 400 1,740 Southcentral 610 2,670 1,220 5,350 2,220 9,710IInterior1807803401,500 600 2,610 Southwest,Northwest, Arctic,Combined 30 120 60 240 100 440 Total 940 4,100 1,850 8,100 3,320 14,500 Lower Rate of Growth Southeast 110 470 180 810 260 1,150 Southcentral 530 2,340 980 4,290 1,470 6,430 Interior 160 680 270 1,200 390 1,730ISouthwest,Northwest, I Arctic,Combined 30 110 50 200 7f>290 Total 830 3,600 1,480 6,500 2,190 9,600 I 120/0 Growth Assumption!i Statewide Total 4,020 12,450 38,800 II,---~--