HomeMy WebLinkAboutKodiak Island Borough Electrificaiton Planning Assessment Volume 1 1983..
-
,.1iII
••
AI
AI
..
..
•
AI
.-
HD
9685
.U6
A444
1983
v.1
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 1: SUMMARY
Prepared by
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
&
FRYER PRESSLEY ENGINEERING
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MAY 1983
c c (
~'-LASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ~
..
-
•
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
41
•
•
•
-c:o
LO
LO .. c.\I ....
0 ....
0
0 .-LO
LO
~
C") -
L
r:
ARLIS
Alaska RellOun:es Library & Infonnation Services
Library Building, Suite 111
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, AK 99508-4614
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Anchorage, Alaska
Volume 1: SUMMARY
prepared by
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
Anchorage, Alaska
and
FRYER PRESSLEY ENGINEERING
Anchorage, Alaska
May, 1983
jI/)
9IP'i3 S
,u~
/1 L/t/tl
/9 D
v, /
..
-
-
•
•
•
..
..
•
•
•
..
..
-
..
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND . • • 1 - 1
2.0 AKHIOK ..••.................. 2-1
2.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . .. 2-1
2.2 Forecasts .• . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 2-1
2.2.1 Capital Projects .•.•.. 2-3
2.2.2 Population Projections ........ 2-3
2.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections .. 2-3
2.3 Energy Plans. . . . . . . . . • . . .. . 2-5
2.4 Cost of Energy Analysis ........... 2-8
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ••.••.• 2-10
2.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations. 2-10
2.5.2 Regional Recommendations ....... 2-11
3.0 KARLUK • • . • • • • . • . • • •. . ••• 3-1
3.1 Existing Conditions . • . . • . . •. .. 3-1
3.2 Forecasts . . • . . . . . . . • . • • •. 3-1
3.2.1 Capital Projects ...•...•• 3-3
3.2.2 Population Projections .•...... 3-3
3.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections •• 3-3
3.3 Energy Plans . .• • ••..•••••••• 3-5
3.4 Cost of Energy Analysis ••..•••.••• 3-7
3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ......• 3-8
3.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations. 3-8
3.5.2 Regional Recommendsations . . • •• 3-10
4.0 LARSEN BAY .....•.•.......••••. 4-1
4.1 Existing Conditions . . . . • 4-1
4.2 Forecasts . . . . .. ... . 4-3
4.2.1 Capital Projects ..... 4-3
4.2.2 Population Projections .. 4-3
4.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections 4-3
4.3 Energy Plans. • • • • • . . .. ••. 4-5
4.4 Cost of Energy Analysis •......••.• 4-7
4.5 Concl us ions and Recommendat ions . . . • . . . 4-11
4.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations. 4-11
4.5.2 Sub-Regional Recommendations ..•.. 4-12
4.5.3 Regional Recommendations . •. 4-12
5.0 OLD HARBOR .•......•....•••.... 5-1
5.1 Existing Conditions . . .. . .•.... 5-1
5.2 Forecasts . . . . .. ...••. .. 5-1
5.2.1 Capital Projects . • .. . .... 5-3
5.2.2 Populations Projections •.••.... 5-3
5.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections 5-5
i
6.0
7.0
8.0
5.3
5.4
5.5
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
Energy plans • • • . .. ...
Cost of Energy Analysis • • .
Recommendations • • . . . • • •
5.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
5.5.2 Regional Recommendations •••••
· 5-5
• 5-7
• 5-11
· 5-11
5-12
OUZINKIE • • . • • . . . . . . . . • • . . 6-1
6.1 Existing Conditions . • . • . . • 6-1
6.2 Forecasts ...............•.. 6-2
6.2.1 Capital Projects ..•.. 6-2
6.2.2 Population Projections .•.•••.• 6-4
6.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections .• 6-4
6.3 Energy Plans . • • • • • . • . . •• • •• 6-4
6.4 Cost of Energy Analysis • • • • . • •• • 6-9
6.5 Recommendations . • . . • •• . ..•.• 6-11
6.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations. 6-11
6.5.2 Regional Recommendations ..... 6-12
PORT LIONS . • . . . •• ..•.•• . 7-1
7.1 Existing Conditions • •. . ..•••.. 7-1
7.2 Forecasts •• . . • • •••••.•• 7-1
7.3
7.4
7.5
CITY
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
7.2.1 Capital projects .••• ••• 7-3
7.2.2 Population Projections ••.••••. 7-3
7.2.3 Electrical and Thermal projections •• 7-3
Energy Plans • • • . . . • .• ••. • 7-5
Cost of Energy Analysis • • • • . 7-7
Summary and Recommendations ••••••• 7-11
7.5.1 Community Conclusions and
Recommendations • • • 7-11
7.5.2 Regional Recommendations •••• • 7-11
OF KODIAK •••••.••••...••••• 8-1
Existing Energy Use Patterns • • • . • 8-2
8.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities •••• 8-2
8.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. • . • 8-3
Forecasts •• • • . . • • • • • . 8-3
8.2.1 Capital projects •• .. • ••.• 8-3
8.2.2 population Projections .••.•••• 8-4
8.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections 8-6
Resource Assessment . •• .•• • 8-6
Plan Descriptions • • • • . . . • • . • . 8-9
8.4.1 Base Case Plan . • • .••. • 8-9
8.4.2 Alternative 1 . • • . . .• 8-9
Cost Comparison of Plans. . • .. . ••• 8-10
8.5.1 Base Case Plan •••••..• 8-10
8.5.2 Alternative 1 • • • • • •••• 8-10
ii
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
-
-
-
--
fill
8.6
8.7
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
Cost of Energy Analysis • • • •
Summary and Recommendations . • •
8.7.1 Community Recommendations
8.7.2 Regional Recommendations
• • • • • 8 -1 1
• • •• 8-1 3
• • • . • 8-13
• • • • • 8-1 4
9.0 REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • • • • 9-1
9.1 Regional Education Program •••••••••• 9-1
9.1.1 Weatherizations and Energy Conservation 9-1
9.1.2 Basic Principles of Wiring, Design, and
Implementation for Upgrading Local
Distribution Systems •• • • • • • • 9-2
9.1.3 Generator Operation and Maintenance •• 9-2
9.2 Service and Parts Network ••• • •••• 9-3
9.3 Fuel Purchasing Cooperative • • • • • 9-4
9.4 Sub-Regional Interties • • • • • • • • 9-4
9.5 Regional Electric Cooperative • • • • •• 9-6
9.6 Implementation Strategy ••••••••• 9-9
REVIEW DOCUMENTS • • • • . . . . . . • RV-1
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page
2.1 Energy Balance For Akhiok ••..•......•....•... 2-2
2.2 Projected population increases for Akhiok .... 2-4
2.3 Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Akhiok ...•.....•..........•.... 2-4
2.4 Total projected space heating demands
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.B
3. 1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4. 1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
for Akhiok ................................. 2-6
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Akhiok •..•••••.••••.•••••.•..•.. 2-6
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heati~g demand •••••• 2-9
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting cooking
and hot water demand •••••.•••.••••.•.•.•.•• 2-9
Results of cost of energy analysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance
demand ...................................... 2-11
Energy balance for Karluk .•••..••••••••••.••. 3-2
Projected population increases for Karluk ...• 3-4
Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Karluk •.••.••••••••.••••.•••... 3-4
Total projected space heating demands
for Karluk ..•••.••..••...•..•....•••..••... 3-6
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Karluk ..•...............•...•.•• 3-6
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand ...••• 3-9
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand •••..•••.•••••.•••.•••••..••.•...••.• 3-9
Results of cost of energy analysis on
plans to meet lights and appliance demand •• 3-10
Energy balance for Larsen Bay ...•...••.•.•••. 4-2
Projected population increases for
Larsen Bay .•..••..•............••..•.•.••.. 4-4
Total projected lights and appliances
demands for Larsen Bay ..••.••..•••••..••••• 4-4
Total projected space heating demands
for Larsen Bay .•...•................••...•• 4-6
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Larsen Bay ....••••.......••.•..• 4-6
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand .•..•• 4-9
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ••••.••••..•..•.••.•.•..••.•••.•••... 4-9
iv
•
-
-
•
..
•
•
..
..
•
..
•
-
•
-
-
•
Figure Number
4.8
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6 • 1
6.2
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Results of cost of energy analysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance
demand •••••••••••••.•••...•..•••••••..•..•.. 4-10
Energy balance for Old Harbor .•••..••••.••...• 5-2
Projected population increases for
Old Harbor .................................. 5-4
Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Old Harbor ....................... 5-4
Total projected space heating demands
for Old Harbor.............................. 6
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Old Harbor •..••......•••••••••••• 6
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting space heating
demand .••••••.........•.••.•.••••....••••••• 5-9
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting cooking and
hot water demand ............................ 5-9
Results of cost of energy analysis on
plans to meet lights and appliance demand ••• 5-10
Energy balance for Ouzinkie .....•.•••••••••••• 6-3
Projected population increases
for Ouzinkie ................................ 6-5
6.3 Total projected lights and appliances
demands for Ouzinkie .........•••••.••••••••• 6-5
6.4 Total projected space heating demands
for Ouzinkie ................................ 6-6
6.5 ~otal projected cooking and hot water
demand for Ouzinkie ••.•••..•.....•.•••••..•• 6-6
6.6 Relative cost of energy curve for
6.7
6.8
7 • 1
7.2
7.3
7.4
various means of meeting space heating
demand •••.••••.•••••••••.•.•••.•••.•.•..•••• 6-9
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand •••..•.••••••••..•.••••..••..••••••••• 6-9
Results of cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand ••.•••••• 6-10
Energy balance for Port Lions •••••.•.•.•.••.•• 7-2
projected population increases for Port
Lions ....................................... 7-4
Total projected space lights and appliance
demands for Port Lions
Total projected space heating demands for
Port Lions
v
7-4
7-6
Figure Number
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
8. 1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
LIST FIGURES continued
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Port Lions ..................... 7-6
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand 7-9
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ....••....•••••...•..•.•..•....•••.. 7-9
Results of cost of energy analysis on
plans to meet lights and appliance
demand .•......•....••.•.....••....•......• 7-10
Energy balance for Kodiak (1982) ......•••... 8-4
Projected population increase for the
greater Kodiak area •••....•....•••.•.••••. 8-6
Total projected lights and appliance
demand for Kodiak ......................... 8-6
Tot projected space heating demand
for Kodi ak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8-8
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Kodiak ..••.......•.•........... 8-8
Projected industrial electricity demand
for Kodiak ................................. 8-9
Projected industrial heat demand for
Kodiak •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8-9
Relative cost of energy curves for various
means of meeting space heating demand ••••• 8-13
Relative cost of energy cvurves for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand. . • • . . . • • • . • • . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . • • • • . . .. 8-13
Results of the cost of energy analysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance
demand ..................................... 8-15
vi
-
-LIST OF TABLES
-Table Number
9. 1 Cost summary for a regional electrical
• energy cooperative..................... 9-8
9.2 Kodiak Island Borough electrification
• projects............................... 9-10
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
----
vii ..
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
•
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
What is the Kodiak Island Borough Electrification Plannins
Assessment Project?
This project was conducted by NORTEC under contract to the
Alaska Power Authority for the people of Kodiak. The purpose
of the project was to outline the present and future energy
demands of each community and find the best way to meet them.
The results of this study are presented in two volumes. The
first is a Summary Report containing simplified descriptions of
the existing conditions, feasible alternatives, and the
recommended plan for each community. The second is a Technical
Report which includes detailed tests, charts and graphs and the
results of the computer analyses.
This chapter describes the project and explains many of the
phrases used in the report. Some of these phrases are:
Energy Demands
End Uses
Future Needs
Forecasts
Sectors
What are enersy demands?
Base Case Plan
Alternative Plans
Economic Analysis
Cost of Energy Analysis
Energy demand is the amount of each type of energy used in a
community to operate lights and appliances, keep warm, and cook.
There are two types of energy which have been looked into in
1-1
this project:
1) Electrical energy
2) Non-electrical or thermal energy
Electrical energy in the communities of Kodiak is presently
provided through diesel generators. Thermal energy is enerqy
used to heat or warm. Thermal energy is presently supplied by
burning fuel oil, wood and some propane.
What are "End Uses"?
Energy "end uses" are what enerqy is used for or where it
"ends up". Electrical energy is use~ for lights and appliances
including electric cook stoves. Lights and aopliances are,
therefore, an end use. Thermal energy, energy used to warm
something, is used for space heating, hot water heating, and
. 00king. Space heatinq is, therefore, an end use as are cookinq
and hot water heating.
How was enerqy use determined?
In order to determine energy use in the communities, each
community was divided into four sectors. The sectors are:
1. Residential buildings
2. Public buildings and facilities
3. Commercial buildings and facilities
4. School buildings and facilities
In communities on Kodiak Island, facilities are usually diesel
generators and water supply systems. In the City of Kodiak an
industrial sector was added. The industrial sector represents
1-2
..
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
•
..
•
..
large power consumers such as fish processing plants, whereas
the commercial sector cosists of stores and businesses that do
not have extremely high power demands •
NORTEC visited the communities in September of 1982 and
conducted end use surveys on the buildings and generators of
each sector. Surveys were done on households, school facilities
and other buildings in each community.
These surveys provided detailed information on how much fuel
each building (house) used, the type of heating system present,
the kinds of appliances in the building (house), and electrical
use. Fuel and electricity sales records, where available, were
reviewed as were studies previously completed on energy use and
energy projects for the communities. The 1982 energy use of each
community was summarized in an Energy Balance. The energy
balance shows the amount of fuel used in the community, the
amount of fuel and electricity used by each sector, and the end
uses.
How was future energy demand determined?
For this project both electrical and thermal energy demand of
each community were estimated to the year 2003. This is called
"forecasting". These demands were forecast by "end use", that
is, lights and appliances electrical needs, space heating needs,
and cooking and hot water needs. The future needs were based on
the expected growth of the community and planned community
projects that will require energy.
For example, a new clinic being built in a community will have
to be heated when it is finished. The expected heating
requirements (based on building size and design) are added to
the present total community heating requirements. Expected
1-3
population growth in the community is also considered every
year. For example, if a new family moves to a community and
occupies a house, that house will have a heating requirement.
The forecasting equation looks like this:
Total 1982 +
community heat-
ing demands
Heating demand +
for new people
corning in 1983
Heating demand =
for new build-
ings completed
in 1983 (clinic)
Total
1983
heating
demanded
This equation was used to forecast space heating needs, lights
and appliance needs, and cooking and hot water needs of each
sector. Each community summary report presents tables showing
the future end use demands of each sector and a graph showing the
future end use demand of the entire community. After the future
demands were determined, NORTEC looked into different ways to
meet the demands and developed several plans for each community.
What is a "base case" plan?
A base case plan is a plan in which all energy demands continue
to be satisfied by the methods presently used in the community.
For example, lights and appliance demand continues to be met with
electricity from diesel generators; space heating demand contin-
ues to be met with fuel oil and wood; and cooking and hot water
heating continues to be done with oil, wood and propane. The
base case plan is compared to alternative plans.
What are alternative plans?
An alternative plan is a way to generate power and satisfy the
end use needs of a community using something different than just
diesel generators. Alternative plans include wind power, hydro-
electric power and systems that use heat from generators to warm
1-4
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
..
..
..
..
..
buildings. Energy alternatives were selected based on community
interest, known wind and hydro potential, and the recommendations
of previous studies done on each community. Alternative plans
were compared to a "base case" plan •
How was the best plan selected?
The Alaska Power Authority requires each plan be evaluated four
ways:
1} Economic Analysis
2) Cost of Energy Analysis
3) Environmental Impact Analysis
4} Social Acceptability
Each analysis compares the plans for a set number of years. The
results of these analyses are used to select the best plan.
What is the Economic Analysis?
The economic analysis is a way to compare the total costs of
each plan relative to the alternatives, including the base case
plan. Total cost includes operation and maintenance costs,
costs for installation and replacement of the system and costs
for fuel. This analysis calculates, using standard engineering
economic methods and Alaska Power Authority guidelines, the "net
discounted costs " of each plan. The net discounted costs of
each plan are compared to see which plan has the lowest cost
over the lifetime of the plan •
What is the Cost of Energy Analysis?
The cost of energy analysis compares the cost of plans
1-5
differently than the economic analysis. Instead of calculating
the "net discounted cost" of a plan, this analysis calculates
the cost of generating kWh's and supplying BTU's to satisfy end
uses. Cost in this analysis is based on equipment costs,
operation and maintenance, and fuel. The amount spent on
equipment, operation and maintenance, and fuel in a year is
divided by the energy output in that year yielding the cost/unit
of energy. This cost is not the cost billed to the consumer.
The cost billed to the consumer for electricity will be this
cost plus the local utility companies costs per kWh to run the
utility and distribute the power.
The yearly costs of each plan are based on the plan having to
provide enough energy to meet the entire demand of an end use.
The cost of meeting the demand by a new plan is compared to the
cost of meeting them by existing methods. For example, most
residents meet their heating requirement with oil and/or wood.
The cost of heating with oil and wood is compared to the cost of
residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying heating
needs with electricity.
Because of electricity is shown in kWh's and heat is shown in
BTU's all kWh's were converted into BTU's so that an easy
comparison could be made. The most common unit used is mmBTU.
mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU's = 293 kWh
BTU = heat of 1 match
Detailed descriptions of the economic and cost of energy analyses
are included in volume 2, Section 2.4.
Based on results of the above analyses a recommended plan was
selected. In addition to specific community plans, regionwide
recommendations were made. These are summarized in Chapter 9.0.
1-6
..
..
...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
2.0 AKHIOK
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Akhiok is a community of 103 residents located on Alitak Bay on
the southwest portion of Kodiak Island. There are 26 homes in
Akhiok, a community hall/clinic building, and a part-time store
operated out of an older house. A trailer type school facility
operated until fall of 1982 when a new larger school facility
opened. with the exception of the school, which runs. its own
generators, there is no 24 hour central generation system in
Akhiok. The city does operate a generator during evening hours
and two mornings a week for washing. Not all homes are
connected. Some residents operate their own small generators in
order to have electricity when they want it. Two homes have no
electricity.
Most residents heat their homes and cook with diesel fuel. Some
residents use wood and oil for heating. Small amounts of
kerosene and blazo are used for lighting and cooking. Figure
2.1 shows the 1982 Energy Balance for Akhiok. This Figure shows
fuels used in the community; if the fuel is used by public,
school, or residential buildings (or vehicles), and if the fuel
is used for heating, lights and appliances, or cooking and hot
water heating •
2.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of Akhiok's growth and electrical and thermal needs
were based on historical growth and planned community projects •
2-1
USER
FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
GASOLINE TFtANSPORTATIO~ .
~,COO GAL R(SID£NT1AL I SkiFfS. PUBLIC Au lOS.
639 MM8TU 3-WH[ELERS
RESIDENTIAL
247 l"tNH LIGHTING,
.4 J vM8ru APPLIANCE'S
DIESEL PuBLIC
FUEL ~3 ~"'H LIGHTING
for 180 M.,HHU
ELECTRICAL
GENERATION
SCHOOL
682 ~" .. LIGHTING
212 ","STU EOU1PW;ENT
17,7!19 GAL.
NON -RECOVERABLE"
2~460 M~8TU 'NASi€, kEAT NIA
1,180 MuaTu
RECOvERABLE
WASTE "'(AT NIA
078 .. MBTU t<
SCHOOL
SPACE HEAT 1,"331 GAL
1.48~ GAL
HOT WATER. 74 GAL
COOI(IN<;; 74 GAL
HEATiNG
FUEL RESIOENTIAL SPACE HEAT 20,640 GAL
HOT WATER 3,670 GAL.
37,270 GAl. 28,600 GAL
COOKING" 4,290 GAL.
4,480 MM8TU
SPACE HEAT: 2.161 GAL.
PUBLIC
2,275 GAL. HOT wAtER' ". GAL
COOKING: 0 GAL.
PROPANE RESIDENTIAL 4-100 1# TJ(S
8 -100" TKS. COOKING,
16.6 MM8TU SCHOOL 4·100;; TKS
ORYERS
WOOD
356 CORDS RESIOENTIAL SPACE HEAT
680 ~MBTU
8LAZO
443 GAL RESIOENTIAl COOKING
~S 1 "AMBlU
KEROS£~JE
577 ~AL R[SIO(NTlAL LIGHTING
78 Z ""M8rU
*-f"RO'" CuRR(Nr puauc C(NERATlOIi ONLY
Figure 2.1 The 1982 energy balance for Akhiok.
2-2
..
..
...
•
•
..
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
2.2.1 Capital Projects
The most significant capital project in Akhiok is the new
school. This 8500 ft2 building was opened in late 1982. For
planning purposes it was evaluated as corning on-line in 1983 as
this will be its first full year of operation. A second capital
project in Akhiok is a floating mooring facility which was to be
completed in 1983. If the city can obtain funding, a third
capital project will be conversion of a large vacant building to
a recreation center.
2.2.2 Population projections
Akhiok's population has been variable over the past 30 years.
Most recently it has been declining. The new school facility is
expected to increase the population slightly. Other projects
that improve the quality of life such as the new dock facility
and the recreation center will also help increase the popula-
tion. The most likely growth rate for Akhiok is 1.5%/year. Low
growth is 1.0%/year and high growth 2.0%/year. Population
projections for these rates are shown in Figure 2.2. A
population projections table is included in Volume 2, Section
3.2 •
2.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections
Electrical and thermal demands were divided into end uses for
purposes of forecasting. Electrical demands include lights and
appliances. Thermal demands are space heating, cooking and hot
water heating. Each end use was forecasted by user sector
(residential, public, commerical and school). Forecasts of
these end use demands are based on the demand of new capital
2-3
Z a
H
I-< .-J
:J
0.. a
0..
POPULATION PROJECTION
AKHIOK
175~------------------------------------------~
159
125
19"
75~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
1982 1984 1986 1988 199" 1992 1994 1996 1998 2111111111 21111112
YEAR
Figure 2.2 The projected population increases for Akhiok.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
AKHIOK
69111.-------------------------------------------~
'" :J 559 I-
CD
E
E v
w
(J)
59111
:J 459
>-(:J
ct:
W 4B9 Z
W
35"~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~--~
1983 1985 1987 19a9 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BB1
YEAR
Figure 2.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands
for Akhiok.
2-4
..
..
..
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
projects, population increases, and the demand of new houses for
the increasing population. The same growth rates used in the
population projections were used in the end use forecasts. The
lights and appliance forecasts are presented in Figure 2.3,
while space heating forecasts in Figure 2.4, and cooking and hot
water forecasts in Figure 2.5 .
2.3 Energy Plans
Energy plans were developed in order to look at meeting the
energy needs of Akhiok by methods different than those used now.
Based on residents' interests during the NORTEC community
meeting, and evaluation of previous studies done on Akhiok,
several alternatives were selected. These alternatives are a
central generation system with waste heat to the new school, a
central generation system supplemented with a 25 kW wind
generator, and a 137 kW hydro plant on Kempff Bay Creek with
full centralized diesel backup power. These alternatives were
all compared to the Base Case Plan which is simply the
continuation of the existing generation and heating methods.
start-up costs for these plans are as follows:
Base Case
Central Generation
w/waste heat
Central Generation
w/Wind
Central Generation
w/Hydro
$ 91,000 for new 55 kW generation
system in 1984.
$ 430,000 for start-up in 1984.
$ 870,000 for start-up in 1984.
$2,246,000 for start-up in 1985.
An economic analysis was completed to compare the costs of these
plans over a 53 year period. (The 53 year period was selected
because a hydro plant has a useful life of 50 years and it was
planned to start 3 years after 1982). The economic analysis
compares the "net present worth" of each plan. A detailed
methodology of this analysis is given in Volume 2.
2-5
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
AKHIOK
7~0~~------------------------------------------~
~6~~0
:J
>-
l!) ffi 55~~
Z
W
50~~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~01
YEAR
Figure 2.4 The total projected space heating demands r Akhiok.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
AKHIOK
22~~.-------------------------------------------~
~ 18~~
:J
>-
l!) ffi 16~~
Z
W
14~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~01
YEAR
Figure 2.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demand
for Akhiok.
2-6
-
-
-
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
Net present worth results are summarized below.
Base Case
Discounted Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits
Net Discounted Cost
Central Generation w/Waste Heat
Discounted Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits (School)
Net Discounted Cost
Central Generation w/Wind
Discounted Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits
Net Discounted Cost
Central Generation w/Hydro
Discounted Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits (Electric)
Net Discounted Cost
$2,900,000
-0-
$2,900,000
$2,788,000
110 000
$2,678,000
$3,058,000
-0-
$3,058,000
$3,016,000
-$ -0-
$3,016,000
Yearly present worth calculations are included in Volume 2,
Appendix A.
As shown, the waste heat plan subtracts a space heat benefit
from the accumulated cost. This benefit represents the fuel oil
saved by heating the school with waste heat. Other plans show
no space heat benefits. The hydro plan was originally evaluated
with a fuel savings from residents converting to electric
heating. Residents stated that they would not install electric
heaters unless electricity costs were much lower than oil and
wood. The cost of energy analysis showed that this is not
2-7
the case. Therefore, the plan was re-evaluated without space
heat benefits.
As shown above the most economically feasible plan is central
generation with waste heat to the school.
2.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
A cost of energy analysis was done on the base case and each
alternative. This analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the requirements for all space heating,
cooking and hot water heating, and all lights and appliances.
The cost of meeting these needs by a new plan is compared to the
cost of meeting them by existing methods. For example, most
residents in Akhiok heat their homes with oil and/or wood. The
cost, in $/mmBTU*, of heating with oil and wood is compared to
the cost of residents converting to electric heaters and
satisfying heating needs with electricity supplied by a central
generation system. KWhs were converted to BTUs for this
comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remains over the planning period, lower than the
cost of meeting these end use demands with electricity. The
relative cost for each energy source is shown in Figures 2.6 and
2.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water, respectively.
*mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
2-8
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
•
•
•
..
' ..
..
..
--
•
•
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
AKHIOK
------8ASE CASE"", ---WASTE· HEAT--..
\ '--WIND
r-
,-HYDRO r
,,----WOOD
'-OIL
J I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 2.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY COOKING & HOT WATER
AKHIOK
8ASE CASE -----
WASTE HEAT -
r-~ WIND
r-,--HYDRO
PROPANE,
"-OIL
I 1 I I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
I
Figure 2.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means of
meeting cooking and hot water demand.
2-9
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
certain alternative plans had the potential to provide less
costly electricity than the base case system. Therefore, a
detailed cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use
to identify the year in which the alternative plan provides less
expensive energy_ The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 2.8. As shown in this figure the
central generation/waste heat system is the least costly plan
until 2000 when the hydro cost drops below the waste heat plan
cost. It is important to note that the cost is not the actual
cost billed to the consumer but rather is based on equipment,
fuel and operation and maintenance costs.
2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
Review of the economic analyses show that waste heat recovery
is the most economically attractive plan. wind shows some
potential but due to the poor success rate of wind generation
demonstration projects, this system is not recommended for
further study.
The hydroelectric project requires a high initial investment.
Similar to the waste heat scenario, the city could sell hydro
power to the school. However, because the initial investment
for the hydro plant is much higher than that of the waste heat
project, a greater portion of the cost would be reflected in the
individual homeowners' electric rates. Because of the strong
probability of disruption of the salmon populations and the high
plan cost if electric space heat is not utilized, the
recommended plan is relocation of the city system near the
school and construction of a waste heat system to attach to the
existing school system.
2-10
•
-
-
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
4111
-
-
•
•
•
:J
I-ro
E
E
"-~
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
AKHIOK
35Br-----------------------------------------------~
3eB
25B
Wind
2aa Wind--'
159 Waste Heat Hydro/
leel
Sel
B~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--L-~~ __ L_~_L __ ~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 22191
YEAR
Figure 2.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans to
meet lights and appliance demand.
A central generation system with waste heat to the new school
requires a relatively low initial investment. The city of
Akhiok could under this system, sell both heat and electricity
to the school district. As the school is the largest single
consumer of electricity these sales will help pay for the
system.
The city of Akhiok should present this plan to the Kodiak Island
Borough School Qistrict for review. The school district has
stated they would support such a plan provided the school could
return to using their own heating and generation systems if the
community utility rates became too high or if service was
unreliable.
2.5.2 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional education program,
a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing cooperative.
These programs are described in Chapter 9.0.
2-11
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
..
•
-
--
•
•
3.0 KARLUK
3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Karluk, a community of 102 residents, is located on the south
side of Karluk Lagoon near the mouth of the Karluk River. There
are 22 HUD houses each served by individual generators and two
older homes served by a single generator. Public buildings
consist of a school, preschool, teacherage, generator building
which houses two 12 kW units, water treatment building, church,
shop, and a building containing the Tribal Council offices, and
a clinic.
The majority of homes satisfy heating, cooking, and hot water
heating requirements with oil stoves. Wood stoves are used for
space heating but are not the primary source of heat in most
houses. In addition to fuel oil small quantities of blazo and
propane are used. The community also consumes approximately
2500 gallons of gasoline, primarily in outboard engines for the
skiffs. The 1982 energy use patterns for Karluk are depicted in
Figure 3.1, the 1982 Energy Balance. This figure shows the
incoming fuel, consuming sector (residential, pUblic, school or
commercial) and which end use the fuel is used for.
3.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal require-
ments were based on the combination of historical growth and the
requirements of planned community projects.
3-1
FUEL +
GASOLINE
2,500 GAL.
319 MMBTU
DIESEL
FUEL
for
ELECTRICAL
GENERATION
29,450 GAL
4,080 MMBTU
HEATING
FUEL
23,100 GAL
3,200 MMBTU
PROPANE
10 -100# TKS.
0.21 MMBTU
WOOD
2.4 CORDS
46.7 MMBTU
BLAZO
340 GAL.
43,5 MMBTU
KEROSENE
440 GAL.
59.6 MMBTU
USER + SECTOR END USE
RESIDENTiAL f TRANSPORTATION:
PUBLIC SKIFFS, AUTOS,
3-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 11.0 MWH EQUIPMENT 37.5 MMBTU
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, 85.7 MWH APPL lANCES 292 MMBTU
PUBLIC
0.2 MWH LIGHTING
0.68 MM8TU
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, 0.6 MWH FREEZERS
205 MMBTU
NON RECOVERA8LE
WASTE HEAT N fA
3,750 MMBTU
RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N fA
-0 *
SCHOOL SPC HEAT: 2,200 GAL
HOT WTR: -0-2,200 GAL COOKING: -0-
RESIDENT IAL SPC, HEAT: 12,630 GAL,
HOT WTW 3,450 GAL.
18,920 GAL. COOKING: 2,840 GAL
SPC HEAT: 660 GAL. PUBLIC HOT WTR: -0-
660 GAL COOKING: -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC HEAT: 1,056 GAL.
HOT WTR· 264 GAL.
1,320 GAL. COOK ING: -0-
SCHOOL 45-100# TKS.
RES, 3 -100# TKS. COOKING
COMM. 2,5 -100# TKS,
RES. 1.8 CORDS
SPACE HEAT
COMM. 0.6 CORDS
RESIDENTIAL COOKING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
* WASTE HEAT CAPTURE NOT APPLICABLE
TO DECENTRALI ZED GENERATiON
Figure 3.1 The 1982 energy balance for Karluk.
3-2
..
-
-
•
-
•
..
..
..
..
-
--
-
•
•
3.2.1 Capital Projects
The new school will be completed in 1983 along with the Tribal
Council office/clinic building. A Department of Community and
Regional Affairs grant for a 50,000 gallon bulk fuel storage
tank has been approved but the tank is not yet in place. The
community expressed a firm need for a centralized electricity
generation and distribution facility. Two 55 kW generators have
been donated to Karluk by the KIB1 a distribution system is
presently being designed.
3.2.2 Population Projections
Karluk's population declined between 1960 and 1970 but has
remained relatively stable since then, around 100 residents •
Based on the historical data, the most likely growth rate for
Karluk is expected to be 0.5 %/year. The low growth rate
(O%/year) and the high growth rate (l%/year) represent the
extremes of the range of growth. The range of projected growth
is depicted in Figure 3.2 •
3.2.3 Electrical and Thermal projections
Electrical and thermal demands were separated into end uses
for purposes of forecasting. Electrical demands are those from
lights and appliances. Space heating, cooking, and hot water
heating constitute thermal end uses. Each end use was forecast
by user sector (residential, public, commercial and school).
Forecasts are based on capital projects, the resulting popula-
tion increases, and the demand of those facilities necessary to
accommodate the population. Thus, for these projections, the
population growth rates used in population projections were
used. The range of likely lights and appliance requirements is
3-3
Z a
H
t-<
..J
::J a.. a a..
POPULATION PROJECTION
KARLUK
15a~------------------------------------------~
125
(Most Likely
r LOw
lea
~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
1982 1984 1986 1988 199a 1992 1994 1996 1998 200111 2r.:m2
YEAR
Figure 3.2 The projected population increases for Karluk.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
KARLUK
55e~------------------------------------------~
" ::J
t-sal:1l CD
E
E v
W 45111 (J)
::J
>-~ cr: 4al:1l w z w
35e~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2aal
YEAR
Figure 3.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand
for Karluk.
3-4
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
•
..
•
..
..
presented in Figure 3.3. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 present the ranges
of space heating and cooking and hot water requirements •
3.3 ENERGY PLANS
Energy plans were developed in order to evaluate new ways of
meeting the energy demands of Karluk. Based on previous studies
and residents' interest, three plans were developed.
The base case assumes a continuation of the present decentral-
ized system. Thermal requirements continue to be met through
the existing mix of oil and wood.
The first alternative plan for Karluk is the installation of a
central generation and distribution system with a waste heat
capture and distribution system. This plan calls for the
installation of the two 55 kW diesel generators. Heat
exchangers would capture heat from the jacket water and
circulate it to the nearby school building.
The second alternative plan for Karluk is construction of a
hydroelectric plant on Mary's Creek. A centralized distribution
system would be in place and full diesel back-up maintained •
This plan calls for diesel back-up to be provided by the 55 kW
units and not through the individual small generators.
An economic analysis was completed to compare the costs of the
three plans. The economic analysis calculates the "net present
worth" of each plan. Results of the economic analysis are
summarized below •
Base Case
Net Cost
3-5
$3,621,000
w
(f)
:J
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
KARLUK
5000~------------------------------------------~
,High
,-Likely
~4000~ __________________________________ ~,_L_O_W ____ -4
a:::
W
Z
W
3500L-~-L~~--~~-L~--L-~-L~~--~~-L~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 3.4 The total projected space heating demand for Karluk.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
KARLUK
""' :J
I-rn
E
E v
W
(f)
:J
>-
l:)
a:::
W
Z
W
650~------------------------------------------~
600
550
500
45~L-~-L~~ __ ~~-L~--~J--L~~L-~-L~~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 3.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demand
for Karluk.
3-6
..
•
..
...
..
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
..
•
Central Generation w/Waste Heat
Accumulated Cost
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
Mary's Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost
Electric Space Heat Benefits
Net Cost
$2,570,000
200,000
$2,370,000
$3,638,000
-0-
$3,638,000
As shown the waste heat plan shows benefits. These represent
the fuel savings due to the use of waste heat. The hydro plan
was originally evaluated with a space heat benefit from
residents converting to electric heating. Residents stated that
this is highly unlikely unless electric heat becomes much
cheaper than heating with oil and wood. The hydro plan was,
therefore, reevaluated without the electric space heat benefit.
Based on the results of the economic analysis the best plan for
Karluk is the central generation system with waste heat.
3.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the energy needed for all space heating,
lights and appliances, and cooking and hot water heating. For
example, most residents in Karluk heat with oil and wood •
The cost, in mmBTU*, of heating with oil is compared to the
*mmBTU = 1,000;000 BTU's
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
3-7
cost of residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying
heating needs with electricity generated by diesels or by a
hydroelectric plant. KWhs of electricity were converted to
BTU's for comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remains, over the planning period, lower than the
cost of meeting these end use demands with electricity. The
relative cost for each energy source are shown in Figures 3.6
and 3.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water,
respectively.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use potential
to provide less costly electricity than the base case system.
Therefore, a detailed cost of energy analysis was completed on
this end use to identify the year in which the alternative plans
provide less expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for
lights and appliances is shown in Figure 3.8. This figure shows
that the waste heat plan provides a lower unit cost of
electricity than does the base case or the hydro plan. The unit
cost for hydroelectricity does drop below the base case cost in
1999, but does not drop below the waste heat cost during the
planning period.
It is important to note that the unit cost of energy reflects
the analysis completed and is not the cost that would be charged
to the consumer if these plans are developed.
3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.5.1 Community Recommendations
Based on the results of the economic and cost of energy
3-8
-
-
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
..
•
•
-
-
-
•
-
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
KARLUK
WASTE HEAT
HYDRO
OIL~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 3.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
KARLUK
WASTE
,--HEAT
'--HYDRO
,-HYDRO
""'--WASTE HEAT
OIL 8 PROPANE~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 3.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means of
meeting cooking and hot water demand.
3-9
:::J
I-rn
E
E
""-.fh
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
KARLUK
35~r-----~==~=-----------------------__________ ~
3~a
25~
2~9
"--Waste Heat
159
1~~
5a
a~~~~~--~~~~~~~~-L~ __ L-~-L~~~
1983 1985 1981 1989 1991 1993 1995 1991 1999 2~91
YEAR
Figure 3.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans to
meet lights and appliance demand.
analyses, the recommended plan for Karluk is the installation of
a central generation and waste heat capture and distribution
system, and that sources of funding should be sought which will
enable the system to come on-line in 1984.
3.5.2 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional educational
program, a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing
cooperative. These programs are described in Chapter 9.0.
3-10
..
...
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
4.0 LARSEN BAY
4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Larsen Bay is a community of 180 located about 60 miles west
southwest of Kodiak. There are 37 homes and a 265,000 ft2
cannery complex owned by Larsen Bay Seafoods, Inc. During the
1981 season, the cannery was not opened, however, it reopened in
1982 and is planning to install cold storage facilities and
develop year-round operations. The village store is located in
the cannery complex. There are two school buildings. The older
building occupies 1800 ft2 and the newer building, constructed
in 1980 is 10,092 ft2 .
Larsen Bay does not have a centralized system for the genera-
tion and distribution of electricity. The school has two 60 kW
diesels, KISI operates a 7.5 kW Lister and 30 kW caterpiller
diesel engine generator during the winter and two 75 kW and
three 200 kW Caterpiller diesels during the canning season.
There are approximately twenty (4.5 kW) generators providing
electricity for the households. The small generators used in
the residential sector use approximately 2 barrels of fuel per
month in the summer and 3 barrels per month in the winter.
The most common method of satisfying heating, cooking, and hot
water requirements is diesel fuel. Most homes have traditional
oilstoves that provide space heat, a cooking surface, and hot
water coils. Some residents supplemented fuel oil with wood for
space heat and two homes use wood as the primary source of heat.
Other supplemental fuels used in small quantitites include blazo
and propane for cooking and kerosene for kerosene lanterns.
Figure 4.1 summarizes the 1982 energy use in Larsen Bay. This
figure shows incoming fuel, the consuming sector (residential,
public, school or commercial) and the end use •
4-1
FUEL +
GASOLINE
5,730 GAL
732 MMBTU
GASOLINE GEN.
4,950 GAL
632 MMBTU
DIESEL
FUEL
for
ELECTRICAL
GENERATION
64,505 GAL
8,930 MMBTU
HEATING
FUEL
89,250 GAL
12,400 MMBTU
PROPANE
126 100# TKS.
262 MMBTU
~
10 CORDS
191 MMBTU
BLAZO
275 GAL.
352 MMBru
KEROSENE
B70 GAL.
118 MMBTU
USER
SECTOR + END USE
TRANSPORTAT ION:
RESIDENTIAL /
PuBLIC SKIFFS, AUTOS,
3 -WHEELERS
RESIDENTIAL
124 MWH UGHT:NG.
423 MMBTU ... APPLIANCES
SCHOOL
7L2 MWH LIGHTING.
243 MMBTU EQUIPMENT
PUBLIC
2B.1 MWH LIGHTING
78.8 MMBTU
COMMERCIAL
933 MWH LIGHTING.
318 MMBTU
FREEZERS
fJON -RECaVE R AB LE
WASTE HEAT N/A
7,870 MMBTU
RECOVERABLE
wASTE HEAT N/A
0-'"
SCHOOL SPC. HEAT 17,955 GAL
HOT WTR 945 GAL
18,900 GAL. COOKING -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC. HEAT 46,646 GAL.
HOT WTR: 3,260 GAL
55,340 GAL. COOKING' 5,434 GAL.
PUBLIC SPC. HEAT: 3,435 GAL.
HOT WTR' 85 GAL
3520 GAL. COOKING -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC. HEAT'. 10,500 GAL
HOT WTR: 370 GAL
11,490 GAL. COOKING: 620 GAL.
SCHOOL 12 -100# TKS.
RES. 114 100# TKS COOKING
RESIDENTIAL
10 CORDS SPACE HEAT
RESIDENTIAL COOKING
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
* WASTE HEAT CAPTURE NOT APPLI CABLE
TO DECENTRALIZED GENERATION
* * PROVIDED BY BOTH GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL
Figure 4.1 The 1982 energy balance for Larsen Bay.
4-2
..
..
•
•
..
...
...
..
•
..
...
..
..
4.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of the electrical and thermal requirements were
based on historical growth and planned community projects •
4.2.1 Capital Projects
During the public meeting held in September, a number of
capital projects were discussed. The community has received
funding for a new housing project, and construction is planned
to begin during summer of 1983. Additional funding is being
sought for a four-plex and a duplex for senior citizens. This
additional housing accounts for the rise in space heating demand
found in Figure 4.4. The major capital project sought for a
number of years has been the development of a centralized
distribution system for electricity or a hydro project on Humpy
Creek .
4.2.2 Population Projections
The population of Larsen Bay has increased steadily since
first recorded bi a census in 1890. The historical growth rate
has been 2.5%/year. For this study, the high growth rate was
assumed to be 3%, most likely 2.5% and low growth rate 2%. The
range of projected growth is illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Population projection tables are included in volume 2, Section
5.2 •
4.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections
Electrical and thermal demands were divided into end uses for
purposes of forecasting. Electrical demands include lights and
appliances. Thermal demands are space heating, cooking and hot
4-3
Z
0
H
I-<
--1
::J n..
0 n..
POPULATION PROJECTION
LARSEN BAY
35111~--------------------------------------------~
3111111
251a
2111111
15111~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~~
1982 1984 1986 1988 1991i! 1992 1994 1996 1998 2111111111 21111112
YEAR
Figure 4.2 The projected population increases for Larsen Bay.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
LARSEN BAY
25111111~--------------------------------------------~
~ 175111
::J
[; 15111111
a:::
W
Z 125111
W
1111111111~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21111111
YEAR
Figure 4.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand
for Larsen Ifty.
4-4
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
-
II
•
•
•
II
-
-
-
•
water heating. Each end use was forecasted by user sector
(residential, public, commercial and school). Forecasts of
these end use demands are based on the demand of new capital
projects, population increases, and the demand of new houses for
the increasing population. The same growth rates used in the
population projections were used in the end use forecasts. The
lights and appliance forecasts are presented in Figure 4.3.
Space heating and cooking and hot water forecasts are presented
in Figures 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.
4.3 ENERGY PLANS
Energy plans were developed in order to evaluate new ways of
meeting the energy needs of Larsen Bay. Based on residents'
interests and previous studies, three plans were developed. The
base case plan assumes all end uses are satisfied by the
presently used methods. Generation remains decentralized.
Space heating requirements continue to be satisfied by fuel oil
with residents supplementing with wood. Cooking and hot water
requirements continue to be met with fuel oil and some propane.
The first alternative plan is the installation of a central
generation and-distribution system with waste heat capture
equipment installed in the generators. The new school, old
school, community hall and clinic would be recipients of the
waste heat.
Alternative 2 for Larsen Bay is development of a 270 kW
hydroelectric project on Humpy Creek located one mile south of
the village.
Cost comparisons of the plans were based on an economic analysis
that calculated the "net present worth" of each plan. Plans
were analyzed over a 52 year period because of the 50 year
expected life of the hydroelectric facility. Methodology of
this analysis is detailed in Section 2.4.1 of Volume 2.
4-5
EN RGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
LARSEN BAY
~ 25.-------------------------------------________ -,
::J
I-m
Z o
t--t
22.5
-1 20
-1
t--t
m v 17.5
w
(j) 15
::J
>-
LJ 12.5 cr:
W z W 10~~-L~--L-~_L~ __ ~J_~~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 4.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Larsen Bay.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
LARSEN BAY
2250~--------------------------------------------_,
~
~ 21300
m
E
E
v 1750
W
(f)
::J 151313
>-
LJ cr:
~ 1250
W
10QJ0L-~-L~--~~-L~--L-J-~~--~~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 4.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demand
for Larsen Bay.
4-6
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
•
The results of the present worth analysis are summarized
below:
Base Case
Accumulated Cost
Benefits
Net Cost
Central Generation w/Waste Heat
Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits
Net Cost
Humpy Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits
Net Cost
$8,605,000
-0-
$8,605,000
$6,102,000
___ 497,000
$5,605,000
$5,546,000
-0-
$5,546,000
As shown, the waste heat plan shows a space heat benefit. The
benefit represents the fuel savings by using waste heat. The
hydro project was originally evaluated with an electric space
heat benefit resulting from residents converting to electric
heaters. Residents stated that they would not install electric
heaters unless electricity was considerably cheaper than oil and
wood. This is not the case (see Cost of Energy Analysis) so the
plan was re-evaluated without the space heat benefit.
4.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the energy needed for all space heating,
lights and appliances, and cooking and hot water heating. For
example, most residents in Larsen Bay heat with oil and wood •
4-7
The cost in mmBTU*, of heating with oil is compared to the
cost of residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying
heating needs with electricity generated by diesel or by a
hydroelectric plant. KWhs of electricity were converted to
BTU's for comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remain, over the planning period, lower than
the cost of meeting these end use demands with electricity. The
relative cost for each energy source is shown in Figures 4.6 and
4.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water, respectively.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
the alternative plans had the potential to provide less costly
electricity than the base case system. Therefore, a detailed
cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use to
identify the year in which the alternative plan provides less
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 4.8. This figure shows that the
cost of energy for the lights and appliances is lowest when this
end use is satisfied by diesel power with waste heat until 1997.
In this year, the cost of electricity by hydropower becomes less
than the cost by diesel power. Because the lights and appliance
demand is presently satisfied with electricity, meeting this end
use with hydropower would not require any system conversions and
would not increase the electrical load forecast from 1995 to
2002.
*mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
4-8
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
-
-
-
•
..
•
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
LARSEN BAY
WASTE HEAT
,..-HYDRO
WOOD """"
'-OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 4.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
LARSEN BAY
WASTE HEAT
HYDRO
PROPANE ~
'--OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 4.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand •
4-9
:J
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
LARSEN BAY
35e~--------------------------------------------~
3BB
25e
I-2BB m
Base Case"
E
-!: 15B
(It
5B
Waste Heat Hydro.-J
B~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BB1
YEAR
Figure 4.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans to
meet lights and appliance demand.
4-10
..
..
•
•
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
..
...
..
..
•
It is important to note that the cost of energy curves reflect
only the analysis completed and not the actual cost that will be
billed to customers if these projects are built .
4.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
As the report is entering the final draft stage we have
learned that a 300 kW generator has been located and will in all
likelihood be made available to Larsen Bay. This is not yet
firm and has not been taken into consideration in the economic
analyses or the cost of energy calculations. If it is to be the
case, according to the APA Guidelines, costs now entered as part
of the analyses will become sunk costs and are not to be taken
into consideration. This will af ct costs for the central
generation with waste heat and hydroelectricity estimates.
In the economic analysis it is apparent that the hydroproject is
marginally cheaper (on a total project cost basis) than central
generation with waste heat. However, the cost of energy curves
show central generation with waste heat providing the cheapest
electricity for the first 15 years of the plan. During the
community meetings those present were insistent that the cost of
electricity is the critical determining factor •
Therefore, it is recommended that central diesel with waste heat
capture be installed and as the end of the generator's economic
life is neared, that the hydroelectric development be given
further consideration in light of costs prevailing at that time.
Included in re-evaluation should be a detailed rate and tariff
analysis which would calculate the actual costs to be billed to
4-11
the consumer. If the community still supports the project after
evaluating the rates, then the project should proceed.
4.5.2 Subregional Recommendations
A separate plan was developed which considers an intertie
between Larsen Bay and Karluk associated with construction of
the Humpy Creek hydro project. The plan is detailed in Chapter
9.0.
In summary, the present worth of the intertie project is
estimated to be $10,352,000. This cost is considerably higher
than combined net present worth for the Humpy Creek hydro
project that would be necessary in Larsen Bay and the central
generation and waste heat system for Karluk. The net present
worth is $5,546,000 for Humpy Creek and $2,370,000 for Karluk,
with a combined net present worth of $7,916,000.
4.5.3 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional educational
program, a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing
cooperative. These programs are described in Chapter 9.0.
4-1~
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
III
•
•
-
--
•
•
5 • 0 OLD HARBOR
5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Old Harbor is a community of 355 residents located on Three
Saints Bay, 54 miles southwest of Kodiak. There are 91 homes
located in two areas, "uptown" and "downtown" of the community.
School facilities in Old Harbor consist of three buildings; a
junior high, elementary, and a high school as well as six
residences used as teacherages. Two stores comprise the
commerical sector and a community hall/clinic, post office,
preschool, and activity center comprise the public sector.
AVEC operates a central generation and distribution system
consisting of two 155 kW generators. Most residents heat their
homes and cook with diesel fuel. Some residents use wood and
oil for heating. Small amounts of kerosene and blazo are used
for lighting and cooking. Figure 5.1 shows the 1982 Energy
Balance for Old Harbor. This figure shows fuels used in the
community; the amount of fuel used by the residential, public,
commercial, and school buildings (or vehicles): and if the fuel
is used for heating, lights and appliances, or cooking and hot
water heating.
5.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of Old Harbor's growth and electrical and thermal
needs were based on historical growth and planned community
projects.
5-1
.. USER .. FUEL SECTOR END USE
GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION·
17,000 GAL. RESIDENTIAL / SKIFFS, AUTOS, PUBLIC 2,170 MMBTU 3 -WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 82.5 MWH
282 MMBTU EOUIPl,IENT
RESIDENTIAL
DIESEL 230 MWH LIGHTING.
A PP L: A.', C E S
FUEL 783 MMBTU
for PUBLIC
ElECTR ICAl
72.2 MWH LIGHTING
246 MMBTU
GENERATION
COMMERCIAL
S8.4 MWH LIGHTING.
47,538 GAL. 199 MMBTU FREEZERS
6,580 MMBTU NON -RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
3,800 MM8TU
RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
1,270 MMBTU"
SCHOOL SPC. HEAT. 14,900 GAL.
HOT WTR 1,350 GAL.
16,250 GAL COOKING' 0-
HEATING RESIDENTIAL SPC. HEAT: 97,460 GAL.
HOT WTR: 12,000 GAL.
FUEL 128,760 GAL. COOKING: 19,300 GAL.
159,055 GAL.
22,000 MMBTU SPC. HEAT: 8,330 GAL. PUBLIC HOT WTR: 170 GAL.
8,500 GAL COOKING: -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC. HEAT: 5,268 GAL.
HOT WTR: 277 GAL.
5,545 GAL. COOKING -0-
PROPANE SCHOOL 4.5 -100# TKS.
69-100# TKS
144 MMBTU RES. 64.5 -100# TKS COOKING
WOOD
21.6 CORDS RES. 21.6 CORDS SPACE HEAT
413 MMBTU
BLAZO
N/A N/A N/A
KEROSENE
N/A N/A N/A
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATION ONLY
Figure 5.1 The 1982 energy balance for Old Harbor.
5-2
-
-
-
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
-
-..
-
5.2.1 Capital Projects
Several capital projects are planned for Old Harbor. In 1983,
a new firehouse will be completed. An addition to the community
hall will be completed in 1983/84. A new activity center is
planned for 1987 and 20 new HUD homes are to be built in 1988.
Other possible projects include a National Guard Armory building
and a fish processing co-op.
5.2.2 Population Projections
The population of Old Harbor is steadily increasing. Since
1920, the average annual growth rate is over 2.0%/year. Planned
capital projects are expected to continue to improve the quality
of life in Old Harbor and the population is expected to continue
growing. The most likely growth rate for Old Harbor is 2.5%/
year. Low growth is 2.0%/year and high growth is 3.0%/year.
Population projections for these rates are given in Figure 5.2.
Population projections presented in tabular form are included in
Volume 2, Section 6.2.
5.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections
Electrical and thermal demands were divided into end uses for
purposes of forecasting. Electrical demands include lights
and appliances. Thermal demands are space heating, cooking and
hot water heating. Each end use was forecasted by user sector
(residential, public, commercial and school). Forecasts of
electrical and thermal demands are based on the demand of new
capital projects, population increases, and the demand of new
houses for the increasing population. The same growth rates
used in the population projection were used in the end use
forecasts. The lights and appliance forecasts are presented in
5-3
6sa
eaa
Z sse a
H
I-< sat:! .J
=:l
D.. a 4sa D..
4aa
ast:!
1982
POPULATION PROJECTION
OLD HARBOR
1984 1986 19BB 199a 1992 1994 1996 199B 2aaa 2WJ2
YEAR
Figure 5.2 The total projected population increases for
Old Harbor.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OLD HARBOR
~ s~------------------------------------------~
=:l
I-m
z a 4
H
.J
.J
H
m v
w
(J)
=:l
>-
~
0::
W
Z
W
3
2
1L-~~~~L-L-J--L~ __ ~~~~~L-L-J-~~--~
19S3 19S5 19S7 19S9 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 5.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands
for Old Harbor.
5-4
..
...
..
..
•
•
•
•
...
..
•
Figure 5.3, space heating forecasts in Figure 5.4, and cooking
and hot water forecasts are presented in Figure 5.5. Tabular
forecasts are presented in Volume 2, Section 6.2 .
5.3 ENERGY PLANS
Energy plans were developed in order to evaluate new methods of
meeting the energy needs of Old Harbor. Based on residents
interests during the NORTEC community meeting, and evaluation of
previous studies, two plans were developed. The base case plan
is continuation of centralized diesel generation and present
heating methods. The base case was compared to development of a
340 kW capacity hydroplant on Midway Creek. The hydroplant
would require full back-up and standby diesel generation •
The hydro electricity plan requires construction of a diversion
dam, powerhouse, transmission line from Midway Creek to the AVEC
generator powerhouse, and an access road to the powerhouse from
Midway Bay. The estimated project costs to bring the plant
on-line in 1986 equal $3,082,300. Other capital costs of this
plan are replacement of the transmission line in year 36 and
replacement costs for generators needed for back-up. The base
case plan does not have any capital costs until 1985 when the
generating capacity is increased to meet the demand. Additional
costs for this plan occur as generators reach their expected
life and when capacity must be increased to meet demand •
An economic analysis was completed to compare the costs of the
two plans over a 54 year period. (The 54 year period was
selected because a hydro plant has a useful life of 50 years and
it is planned to be in operation 4 years from 1982.) The
economic analysis compares the "net present worth" of each plan.
A detailed methodology of this analysis is given in Volume 2 •
5-5
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
OLD HARBOR
A 4~~--------------------------------------------~
:=J
I-m
z 35
a
..J
..J 3121
1-1
m
'J
W 25
(j)
:=J
>-2121 t:)
a::: w z W 15L-~-L~--~~-L~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21211211
YEAR
Figure 5.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Old Harbor.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
OLD HARBOR
A 6r----------------------------------------------,
:=J
I-
m
~ 5
1-1
..J
..J
1-1 m v
w
(f)
:=J
>-
t:)
a::: w z w
4
3
2~. ~~~L_~~~~L_~~~~ __ ~~_L~~ __ ~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21211211
YEAR
Figure 5.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Old Harbor.
5-6
-
-
-..
..
..
•
•
..
..
..
-
.11
-
-
..
..
..
The net present worth of each plan is listed below:
Base Case
Net Cost $8,327,000
Midway Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost $7,227,000
Electric Space Heating Benefits -0-
Net Cost $7,227,000
The hydroelectric project was initially evaluated with a fuel
savings benefit from conversion to electric heating. Residents
expressed that such conversion is highly unlikely and that an
assumption that excess power would be used for electric heating
is not valid. The project was re-evaluated without the electric
heating benefit •
As shown above, the most economically feasible plan is the
Midway Creek hydro plan. A cost of energy analyis was run on
each plan to determine their worth on a "cost per unit of
energy" basis.
5.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the energy needed for all space heating,
lights and appliances, and cooking and hot water heating. For
example, most residents in Old Harbor heat with oil and wood.
5-7
The cost, in mmBTU*, of heating with oil is compared to the
cost of residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying
heating needs with electricity generated by diesels or by a
hydroelectric plant. KWhs of electricity were converted to
BTU's for comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remains, lower than the cost of meeting these end
use demands with electricity. The relative costs, over the
planning period, for each energy source are shown in Figures 5.6
and 5.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water,
respectively. As shown in Figure 5.6, the existing methods of
heating with oil and wood are much less expensive than
converting to electric heaters. Fiqure 5.7 shows that
continued use of oil and/or propane for cooking and hot water
needs is less expensive than satisfying these end uses by
electric methods.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
the alternative plan had the potential to provide less costly
electricity than the base case system. Therefore, a detailed
cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use to
identify the year in which the alternative plan provides less
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 5.8. This figure illustrates that
the electric demand of lights and appliances is best met with
the existing system until 1990. In 1990, the cost of
electricity supplied by the hydro plant permanently drops below
*mmSTU = 1,000,000 BTU
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
5-8
-
-
-
..
..
II
II
..
II
..
-
-
-
-
II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
COST OF ENERGY -SPAC
OLD HARBOR
r WOOD
'-OIL
I
HEATING
BASE CASE '" --
HYDRO.,;'
OIL"
WOOD./
I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 5.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand •
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
OLD HARBOR
-
BASE CASE" /
-HYDRO.../'
PROPANE"
OIL.../'
I I I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 5.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means of
meeting cooking and hot water demand.
5-9
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OLD HARBOR
3SIa
r
31a1a I-
250
:J
I-201a I-m
E l-
E
"-lSIa I-rBase Case
~ Hydro, "'"
llaa -Hydro'/
sa '---Base Case
I-
a I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2aal
YEAR
Figure 5.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans to
meet lights and appliance demand.
5-10
..
..
•
•
..
•
•
..
..
..
..
that of the base case plan. This curve shows that in the long
term, hydro power is the most economical method of meeting
electric demand. This cost does not represent the actual cost
billed to the consumer but rather the cost of generating
electricity by the two plans based on the total cost of
equipment, fuel, and maintenance •
5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.5.1 Community Recommendations
Based on results of economic and cost of energy analyses, the
Midway Creek hydro project is an economically feasible project.
The 1982 feasihility study of this project (Dowl, 1982)
concluded that the stream flow of Midway Creek is sufficient
from April to December to meet the demand of the community. The
study also concluded that construction and operation will not
affect Pink Salmon spawning areas and that if mitigating
measures are used during construction, no long term effects to
the Dolly varden population will occur (Dowl, 1982).
Because of recent developments with large energy projects and
the resulting costs to consumers, it is recommended that a
financial analysis be completed on the Midway Cree]c project.
The Alaska Power Authority intends to complete such an analysis
prior to proceeding with design of the hydroelectric project at
Midway Creek and would not proceed if financial alternatives
could not lead to a competitive cost of power. The results
should contain estimates of actual electric rates to be paid by
Old Harbor residents if the hydro plant is built. If results of
this analysis are favorable the project should be developed as
soon as legislative funding can be obtained. Permitting,
facility prefabbing and delivery, and equipment delivery will be
accomplished during the first 1 1/2 years after the project is
5-11
funded. If the project is funded in 1983, construction can be
completed by 1986.
5.5.2 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional educational
program, a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing
cooperative. These programs are described in Chapter 9.0
5-12
..
..
..
•
•
..
..
...
...
..
..
..
..
..
..
•
6.0 OUZINKIE
6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Ouzinkie is a community of 233 residents located on Spruce
Island 8 miles northwest of the City of Kodiak. There are 60
occupied residences. Public facilities are a city
office/community hall, senior citizens center, post office,
clinic, water purnphouse and public dock. One large school
building (grades 1-10) is operated by the KIBSD. KANA operates
a preschool. the commercial sector of Ouzinkie consists of a
Mark-It Foods store and the Ouzinkie Native Corporation fuel
distributorship.
The city operates a central generation system consisting of two
125 kW generators. The system is equiped with waste heat
capture equipment which provides space heat to the school. The
school and the store both have standby generators. The school's
generator is a60 kW and the store's generator is a 20 kW unit .
In recent months, the city generators have had many maintenance
problems. The generators themselves are very old. One
generator had to be rebuilt in September. Problems in the
design of the waste heat capture system resulted in additional
down time. Another contributing factor, as stated by KIB School
District maintenance personnel, is that the load is not balanced
between the 3-phases causing overloading, and thus, the
shut-down of the generator. Additionally, although originally
designed for syncronous operation, the generators cannot
presently be run in parallel. As a result, during late
afternoon, the system peaks out and the school has to switch to
its own system.
Primary heating fuels used in Ouzinkie are diesel fuel and wood .
6-1
Cooking needs are met with diesel fuel, propane and small
amounts of blazo. Small amounts of kerosene are used for
lighting. Figure 6.1 shows the 1982 Energy Balance for
Ouzinkie. This Figure shows fuels used in the communitYi the
amount of fuel used by the residential, public, commercial and
school buildings and vehicles: and if the fuel is used for
heating, lights and appliances, or cooking and hot water
heating.
6.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of Ouzinkie's growth and electrical and thermal needs
were based on historical growth and planned community projects.
6.2.1 Capital Projects
Planned capital projects are listed below:
1) Fire station/maintenance shed for public equipment
in 1983.
2) Remodeling of the city tribal office to include a
library.
Desired but unfunded capital projects are:
1) Breakwater and small boat harbor
2) Sawmi 11
3) Lodge
4) Housing Project
6-2
..
USER -FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
GASOLINE TRANSPORTAT ION'
10,000 GAL RESIDENTIAL/ SKIFFS, AUTOS, PUBLIC 1,2BO MMBTu 3-WHEELERS -
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 89.6 MWH EOUIPMENT 306 MMBTU
RES I DENTIAL LIGHTING,
DIESEL 16B MWH APPLIANCES
FUEL 573 MMBTU
for PuBLIC
37.7 MWH LIGHTING ELECTRICAL 129 MMBTU
GENERATION
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, 96.5 MWH FREEZERS 41,000 GAL. 329 MMBTU ..
NON-RECOVERABLE
5,6BO MMBTU WASTE HEAT N/A
1,620 MMBTU
• RECOVERED
WASTE HEAT N/A
2,730 MMBTU*
SCHOOL SPC. HEAT: 2,000 GAL.
HOT WTR: 520 GAL.
2520 GAL. COOKING: -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC, HEAT: 49,020 GAL.
HEATING HOT WTR: 1,470 GAL. •
FUEL 59,400 GAL, COOKING: B,910 GAL,
• 74,590 GAL.
PUBLIC SPC. HEAT: 3,940 GAL.
10,300 MMBTU HOT WTR: 550 GAL.
5,040 GAL, COOKING: 550 GAL,
COMMERCIAL SPC, HEAT: 7,250 GAL.
HOT WTR' 3BO GAL.
II
7,630 GAL, COOKING: -0-
PROPANE
237-100# TKS, RESIDENTIAL COOKING •
493 MMBTU
WOOD
• 29,3 CORDS RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEAT
560 MMBTU
BLAZO
375 GAL RESIDENTIAL COOKING .. 4B,0 MMBTU
KEROSENE
600 GAL. RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
BI3 MMBTU ..
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATION ONLY -..
Figure 6.1 The 1982 energy balance for Ouzinkie.
6-3
•
6.2.2 Population Pro ections
The population of Ouzinkie is expected to continue to increase
at a rate of 1.0%/year. Low growth projections are based on
0.5% growth per year while the high growth estimate assumes
1.5%/year. Population projections for these rates are given in
Figure 6.2. Population projections are presented in tabular
form in Volume 2, Section 7.2.
6.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Pro ections
Electrical and thermal demands were divided into end uses for
purposes of forcasting. Electrical demands include lights and
appliances. Thermal demands are space heating, cooking and hot
water heating. Each end use was forecasted by user sector
(residential, public, commercial and school). The same growth
rates used in the population projections were used in the end
use forecasts. The lights and appliance forecasts are presented
in Figure 6.3, space heating forecasts in Figure 6.4 and cooking
and hot water forecasts in Figure 6.5. Tabular forecasts are
presented in Volume 2, Section 7.2.
Forecasts of these end uses are based on the demand of new
capital projects, population increases, and the demand of new
houses for the increasing population.
6.3 ENERGY PLANS
Energy plans were developed in order to evaluate new methods
of meeting the energy needs of Ouzinkie. Based on residents'
interests during the NORTEC community meeting, and evaluation of
previously studied plans, three plans were developed. The Base
Case Plan is simply the continuation of the existing generation
6-4
-
-
-
..
•
..
..
..
II
•
..
-..
-..
..
POPULATION PROJECTION
OUZINKIE
325
32121
Z
Q
H 275 r-< .J fLOW ::J 2521 n.
Q a..
225
2BB~~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2212121 221212
YEAR
Figure 6.2 The projected population increases for Ouzinkie.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OUZINKIE
22521~--------------------------------------------~
~ 17521
::J
>-
t!)
ffi 15210
Z
W
12521~~~~--L-~~~--L-~~~--L-~~~--L-~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 221211
YEAR
Figure 6.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand
for Ouzinkie.
6-5
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
OUZINKIE
14~~3.---------------------------------------------,
t#-2333
::J
>-
t:)
ffit1333
Z
W
13333~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~e1
YEAR
Figure 6.4 The total projected space heating demand for
Ouzinkie.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
OUZINKIE
275e.-------------------------------------------~
A
~ 2533
CD
E
E
v 2253
W
(J)
::J 2BBB
>-
t:)
fr.:
~ 1753
W
1533~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2331
YEAR
Figure 6.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demand
for Ouzinkie.
6-6
-
-
-
-
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
II
-
-
-..
..
•
and heating methods. This plan assumes that the demand of each
end use (space heating; lights and appliances; cooking and hot
water heating) is met using existing methods.
Alternative 1 is development of a 78 kW hydroelectric plant on
Katmai Creek, 1/2 mile east of Ouzinkie, in 1986. This plan
requires full backup and standby diesel capacity. Alternative 2
is development of a 25 kW wind generation system to supplement
the existing diesel system. Tidal power was investigated
briefly, but it is yet an unproven technology and initial start-
up costs would be prohibitive. Start-up costs for the studied
plans are as follows:
Base Case
Katmai Creek
Hydro Plant
Wind Generator
$116,000 for replacement of existing
city generators.
$1,880,000 for start-up in 1986.
$435,600 for start-up in 1985.
An economic analysis was completed to compare the costs of these
plans over a 54 year period. (The 54 year period was selected
because a hydro plant has a useful life of 50 years and it was
planned to start 4 years after 1982). The economic analysis
compares the "net present worth" of each plan. A detailed
methodology of this analysis is given in Volume 2. The net
present worth of each plan is as listed below.
Base Case
Accumulated Cost
waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
6-7
$4,696,000
159,000
$4,537,000
Katmai Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost
Electric Space Heat Benefits
Net Cost
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
Wind Generation
Accumulated Cost
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
$3,957,000
-0-
$3,957,000
76,000
$3,882,000
$5,124,000
151,000
$4,975,000
As shown, the base case system subtracts the heating fuel saved
by the waste heat system. The hydroelectric project was
initially evaluated with a fuel savings from electric space
heating. Residents expresed, however, that electric space heat
is not a realistic assumption and thought it highly unlikely that
they would ever convert to electric heat. The space heat benefit
was therefore, not included. Waste heat benefits on the hydro
and wind plans represent the heat from diesels when they are run
for back-up.
As shown above, the most feasible plan based on the economic
analysis is the Katmai Creek hydro project. A cost of energy
analysis was run on each plan to determine their worth on a "cost
per unit of energy" basis.
6-8
•
-
-
-
•
-
•
..
•
•
IIII
•
-..
•
•
6.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
A cost of energy analysis was done on the base case and each
alternative. These analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the requirements for all space heating,
cooking and hot water heating, and all lights and appliances.
The cost of meeting these needs by a new plan is compared to the
cost of meeting them by existing methods. For example, most
residents in Ouzinkie heat their homes with oil and/or wood.
The cost of heating with oil and wood is compared to the cost of
residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying heating
needs with electricity supplied by either the central generation
system, the hydro plant or the wind system. KWhs were converted
to mmBTUs* for this comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remains over the planning period, lower than the
cost of meeting these end use demands with electricity. The
relative cost for each energy source is shown in Figures 6.6 and
6.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water, respectively.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
certain alternative plans had the potential to provide less
costly electricity than the base case system. Therfore, a
detailed cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use
to identify the year in which the alternative plans provide less
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 6.8. As shown in this figure, the
cost of energy by the wind system is higher than the cost of
either the base case or the hydro plan. The hydro plant cost of
energy is higher than the base case until 1989 when it becomes
lower than the base case for the term of the planning period .
*mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
6-9
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
OUZINKIE
BAS E CAS E ,,'--_ _::::::::=:::::=:::::=::::::::.----
L....-:::::::::==:;:========::::::::=-'-WIND
HYDRO
Oil
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 6.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
OUZINKIE
BASE CASE '\ -:=.
~ \ ======-----WIND:/
,-HYDRO
PROPANE "'-
Oil/
I I I I I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 6.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
6-9
-
-COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OUZINKIE
35121 -
3121121
I--25121
::J l-
• r-2121121 I-m
E l-
E 15121 Wlnd--......
"'-Bose Cose-" • ffi
1121121 '-... Base Case
Hydro-""
• 5121
121 I I I I I I I I I I I I I • 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21211211
YEAR
• Figure 6.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans to
meet the lights and appliance demand.
•
•
-
-
-
-
•
6-10
It is important to note that the cost per mmBTU or per kWh
reflects only the analysis completed and not the cost per kWh
that would be charged to customers if a hydro plant was built.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.5.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
Based on the economic analyses alone, the best energy plan for
Ouzinkie is development of the Katmai Creek hydro project. The
cost of energy analysis illustrates the potential lower cost of
electricity provided by this project.
The eonomic analysis of the wind system is unfavorable. The
cost of energy analysis shows that the unit cost per kwh
generated is always higher than the base case. Additionally,
wind systems used in demonstration projects throughout Alaska
have not proved to be reliable and have high operation and
maintenance costs. Maintenance personnel skilled in wind system
repair are often unavailable in small communities and have to be
flown in to make repairs, thus increasing down time and
maintenance costs.
The cost of hydroelectricity for lights and appliances becomes
ss than diesel electricity in 1993 (seven years into the
project life). Therefore, for forty-three years hydroelectric
power will be a less expensive method of meeting lights and
appliance demand.
It is important to note that the cost per mmBTU or per kWh
reflects only the analysis completed and not the cost per kWh
that would be charged to comsumers if a hydro plant was built.
Under the hydro plan the diesel generating system must run
6-11
-
-
III
III
III
•
..
•
•
•
..
-
-
-
•
-
•
during low stream flow periods in order to meet peak demand.
However, because low flow occurs during winter months, the waste
heat from the diesel system can still be used to heat the
school.
The cost of energy analysis for space heating shows that oil and
wood are less expensive than hydroelectricity for space heating.
The most immediate need in Ouzinkie is for a reliable generating
system as full diesel back-up power is needed under any plan.
The recommended immediate action is to replace the existing
generators. If the generators cannot be replaced, the
recommended action is that the system be rewired so that the
generators can be run in parallel •
The next recommended action for Ouzinkie is that a detailed
feasibility study be completed on development of the Katmai
Creek hydro potential. Included in this study would be a
rate structure and tariff analysis which would include estimates
of the actual price per kWh to be charged to the consumers of
Ouzinkie over the term of project. Upon completion of the
feasibility study, the community should have opportunity to
review the estimated costs and decide if they will pay for the
project. If accepted, the project should be constructed as soon
as given legislative approval.
6.5.2 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional education program,
a service and parts network and a fuel purchasing cooperative.
These programs are described in Chapter 9.0.
6-12
..
..
..
..
•
•
•
•
..
..
7.0 PORT LIONS
7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Port Lions is a community of 291 residents located on Settler
Cove 20 miles west of the city of Kodiak. There are 102 homes,
35 of which are recently completed HUD homes. There is also one
4-plex. School facilities include one elementary school,
(grades K-8) a high school (grades 9-12) and a utility/lab
building. The public sector consists of a community hall/city
office building, post office, clinic, library, water building
and two fire buildings. Additional public facilities include a
large dock and large storage building. The commercial sector
includes a lodge, marine supply store, grocery store, and a fuel
distributorship.
KEA operates a central generation and distribution system
consisting of two 200 kW units and two 350 kW units used when
maintenance on the 200 kW units is required. The 1982 peak
demand was 185 kW. Most residents heat their homes with diesel
fuel or diesel supplemented with wood. Cooking needs are
satisfied with oil cook stoves, electric ranges and a few
propane stoves. In addition to oil and wood, small amounts of
kerosene and blazo are used for lighting and cooking. Figure
7.1 shows the 1982 Energy Balance for Port Lions. This figure
shows fuels used in the community; the amount of fuel used by
the residential, public, commercial, and school buildings (or
vehicles), and if the fuel is used for heating, lights and
appliances, or cooking and hot water heating.
7.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of Port Lions' growth and electrical and thermal needs
were based on historical growth and planned community projects.
7-1
USER + FUEL + SECTOR END USE
GASOLINE TRANSPORT AT I ON .
32,:50 GAL RESIDENTIAL /
SKIFFS, AUTOS, PuBLIC 4,110 MMBTU :I-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 665 MWH EQuIPMENT 227 MMBTU
RES I DENT IAL
LIGHTING,
DIESEL 351 MWH APPLIANCES 1,200 MMBTu FUEL
for PUBLIC
ELECTRICAL 27.9 MWH LIGHTING
952 MMBTU
GENERATION
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, 71.8 MWH FREEZERS 67,:110 GAL. 245 MMBTU
9,:120 MMBTU NON-RECOVERABLE
WASTE !-tEAT N/A
5,220 MMBTU
RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
2,330 MMBTU *
SCHOOL SPC HEAT. 10,570 GAL.
HOT WTR' 980 GAL.
11,550 GAL COOKING· -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC HEAr: 100,190 GAL.
HEATING HOT WTR; 14,760 GAL
FuEL 121,000 GAL, COOKING 6,050 GAL.
210,320 GAL.
PUBLIC SPC HEAT 6,890 GAL, 29,200 MMBTU HOT WTR 70 GAL. 6,960 GAL. COOKING' -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC. HEAT: 70,570 GAL.
HOT WTR, 240 GAL.
70,810 GAL. COOKING: -0-
PROPANE RES. 100-100 # TKS.
105 -100 # TKS COOKING
218 MMBTU SCHOOL 5 100# TKS.
WOOD RES. 58 CORDS
99.0 CORDS SPACE HEAT
1,890 MMBTU COMM. 41 CORDS
BLAZO
75 GAL. RESIDENTiAL COOKING
9.60 MMBTU
KEROSENE
75 GAL. RESIDENTiAL LIGHTiNG
10.2 MMBTU
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATION ONLY
Figure 7.1 The 1982 energy balance for Port Lions.
7-2
..
..
•
•
..
•
•
..
•
..
•
•
7.2.1 Capital Projects
Planned capital projects are primarily public buildings or
facilities and are listed below •
°Completion of new dock facility with electric
hook-ups -1983
°Opening of a small harbormaster building -1983
°Remodeling of the library -1984
Other projects discussed were a small National Guard facility
and a new fish processing plant. As these projects did not have
definite dates for construction, they were not included in the
demand forecast .
7.2.2 Population Projections
In recent years, Port Lions' population has been steadily
increasing. Planned projects are expected to improve the
quality of life in Port Lions and the population is expected to
continue growing. The most likely growth rate for Port Lions is
expected to be 3.0%/year. Low growth is 2.0%/year and high
growth is 4.0%/year. Population projections for these rates are
given in Figure 7.2. Population projections are presented in
tabular form in Volume 2, Section 8.2.
7.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections
Electrical and thermal demands were divided into end uses for
purposes of forecasting. Electrical demands include lights and
appliances. Thermal demands are space heating, cooking, and hot
water heating. Each end use was forecast by user sector
{residential, public, commerical and school}. Forecasts of
demands are based on the demand of new capital projects,
7-3
Z
0
~ r < ~
~
~
0
~
~5
5~
525
4~
425
375
~5
POPULATION PROJECTION
PORT LIONS
2~~~J-~-L~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ ~ ~
YEAR
Figure 7.2 The projected population increases for Port Lions.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
PORT LIONS
4~--------------------------------------------.
3
w
W 2 ~
r
~
~
W
Z W 1~~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 7.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand
for Port Lions.
7-4
..
..
..
•
..
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
population increases, and the demand of new houses for the
increasing population. The same growth rates used in the
population projection were used in the electrical and thermal
forecasts. The lights and appliance forecasts presented in
Figure 7.3, space heating forecasts in Figure 7.4, and cooking
and heating water forecasts in Figure 7.5. Section 8.2 in
Volume 2 contains forecasts in tabular form .
7.3 ENERGY PLANS
Port Lions presented a special case in the development of energy
plans. Because the Port Lions/Terror Lake Intertie Project has
already gone to construction bid, it was not necessary to
develop additional alternative plans. Therefore, for purposes
of this plan, the cost of energy analysis, as well as an
economic analysis, was performed on both the base case and the
intertie. Brief descriptions of the two plans are presented
below and results of analyses follow in subsequent sections.
The first plan is called the base case. In this plan, the
present system of KEA diesel generation would continue, as would
the current heating methods. The base case served as a basis
for comparison of the Port Lions/Terror Lake Intertie project.
The intertie would require full back-up and standby diesel
generation.
The intertie plan involves the construction of a 14 mile
transmission line to connect POrt Lions to the Terror Lake
powerhouse. The estimated capital costs to bring the intertie
"on-line" in 1984 is $1,400,000. Other capital costs for the
intertie plan include replacement costs of back-up diesel
generators. The base case has no capital expenditures until
7-5
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
PORT LIONS
/"\ 6'" :J r-m 55
z
0 50 1-1
..J
..J
1-1 45 m v
40
W
(f)
:J 35
>-
l:)
3'" 0:::
W
Z
W 25
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 201111
YEAR
Figure 7.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Port Lions.
ENERGY PROJECTION COOKING & HOT WATER
PORT LIONS
/"\
:J 1.4 r-m
z 1.2
0
1-1
..J 1
..J
1-1
m .8
v
W .6
(f)
:J
.4
>-
l:)
0::: .2
W
Z
W 111
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2"'1111
YEAR
Figure 7.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Port Lions.
7-6
-
-
•
-
...
•
•
..
-
-
-..
..
..
1993 when a larger diesel generator is brought on-line. Both
plans also have operation and maintenance costs and the base
case has a substantial fuel cost.
An economic analysis was completed to compare the costs of the
two plans over the 32 year life of the transmission intertie.
The economic analysis compares the "net present worth" of each
plan. A detailed methodology of this analysis is given in
Volume 2. The net present worth of each plan is listed below.
Base Case
Net Cost $6,242,000
Intertie
Net Cost $2,834,000
7.4 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis evaluates each plan on the basis
that the plan supplies the energy needed for all space heating,
lights and appliances, and cooking and hot water heating. For
example, most residents in Port Lions heat with oil and wood.
The cost, in mmBTU*, of heating with oil is compared to the cost
of residents converting to electric heaters and satisfying
heating needs with electricity generated by diesels or by a
hydroelectric plant with an intertie to Port Lions. KWhs of
electricity were converted to BTU's for comparison.
*mmBTU =-1 ,OOO;OOOBTU
1 BTU = heat ot 1 match
7-7
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost (S/mmBTU)
of satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with
oil and wood remains lower than the cost of meeting these end
use demands with electricity. The relative costs, over the
planning period, for each energy source are shown in Figures 7.6
and 7.7 for space heating, cooking and hot water, respectively.
As shown in Figure 7.6, the existing methods of heating with oil
and wood are much less expensive than converting to electric
heaters. Figure 7.7 shows that continued use of oil and/or
propane for cooking and hot water needs is less expensive than
satisfying these end uses by electric methods.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
the intertie plan has the potential to provide less costly
electricity than the base case system. Therefore, a detailed
cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use to
identify the year in which the intertie plan provides less
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 7.8. This figure illustrates that
the electric demand of lights and appliances is best met with an
intertie with the Terror Lake Hydro project as the intertie has
a lower cost of energy from the year in which it is completed.
These costs do not represent the actual cost billed to the
consumer but rather the cost of generating electricity by the
two plans based on the total cost of equipment, fuel, and
maintenance.
7-8
-
-
-
-
-
•
,.
•
..
..
I.
•
-
-
-
l-
I-
I--
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
PORT LIONS
INTERTlE,
~ '-BASE CASE
WOOD,
'-OIL
I I I I I I
--
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 7.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
PORT LIONS
--::::::;:::::
INTERTIE,
=; --BASE CASE--.,.
r
PROPANE,
'-OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
I
Figure 7.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
,. 7-9
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
PORT LIONS
35e
-
3ee
2513
:::>
I-2ee rn
E
E 15e r-""-~ I--
Hie Base Case"
50 / clntertie
I-
0 I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 7.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis
meet lights and appliance demand.
on plans to
7-10
..
...
...
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
..
..
..
..
7.5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.5.1 Community Conclusions and Recommendations
The economic analysis, as expected, supports the intertie of
Port Lions to the Terror Lake hydroelectric project. The cost
of energy analysis illustrates that the cost/mmBTU (or cost/kWh
generated) is lower by the intertie plan than by the base case.
It is important to note that the cost of energy presented is
calculated on the basis of equipment costs and operation and
maintenance costs and does not reflect the actual charge to the
customer. A grant for construction of the intertie has been
received from the State of Alaska. The rate for electricity for
the consumers in Port Lions will be the wholesale rate, in
accordance with the Power Sales Agreement between Kodiak
Electric Association (KEA) and the Alaska Power Authority, plus
KEAts administrative and distribution costs.
7.5.2 Regional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional education program,
a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing cooperative.
These programs are described in Chapter 9.0. As Port Lions is
presently part of a regulated utility, servicing and fuel
purchasing are completed more economically than in the other
outlying communities. The most applicable program to Port Lions
is the educational program as this program includes energy
conservation and weatherization workshops for individual
residents •
7-11
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
•
,.
-
-
-
-
-
-..
..
8.0 KODIAK
The city of Kodiak bears no similarity to the other communities
on the island in relation to the diversity of its economy,
population, electrical demand, end use and thermal energy use
patterns. The city is served by an established utility, Kodiak
Electric Association, one of the largest in southwestern Alaska.
To date electricity has been generated using diesel but this will
be replaced by hydroelectricity from the Terror Lake project.
Existing diesels will be retained as backup and incremented as
the load increases •
The Terror Lake project is under construction, therefore, there
is little that can be added on behalf of energy planning for
generation during the twenty year planning period.
However, existing reports and data from KEA were compiled and
additional data collected during two weeks of field work.
Information was also gathered during discussions with utility
officials, local government representatives, members of the
industrial, commercial, and school sectors as well as many
residential consumers.
Two public meetings were held in Kodiak, one in September of
1982, the second in February 1983. Neither meeting was well
attended although those present provided a considerable amount of
information and insights vaulable to the project. During the
second meeting comments from the community were especially
useful in determining an energy planning strategy for the
communities. A dominant topic was the tariff structures for
Terror Lake which have as yet not been determined. Many
questions related to the current situation in Petersburg, Alaska
and the Tyee Lake project. The project team limited itself to a
8-1
discussion of the input variables for the computer model and
deferred questions about tariffs.
8.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
These patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as well as
electrical requirements. Electrical end uses include lights and
electric appliances and in Kodiak include hot water heating and
cooking. Some households use portable electric heaters for
supplemental heat but these were not taken into consideration
because of their limited and sporadic use. Thermal end uses
include space heating but may include water heating and cooking
when oil drip stoves are being used. Energy use patterns were
determined from end use surveys and interviews with many people
at the different offices visited during the project, KEA utility
records, fuel sales estimates from a number of local garages and
suppliers, and from previous studies.
The market for fuels, as in any large city is highly competitive,
therefore, major distributors were understandably unwilling to
discuss pricing structures or details of their clients. However,
all were most helpful in discussing the overall fuel supply
situation and use patterns. Several companies were also most
helpful in reviewing some of the input figures for the energy
modelling.
8.1.1 Existing Generating Facilities
The installed capacity of KEA is 28,775 kW with a firm capacity
of 20,110 kW. Within the next two years the Coast Guard Station
will be served by KEA but will retain its own generators, diesel
and steam driven units, for backup.
8-2
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
•
...
...
au
..
..
..
..
..
8.1.2 Thermal Ene Patterns
Kodiak's residential sector is as diverse as any larger city,
however, central heating exists in all homes. The systems are
primarily oil fired forced air or circulating hot water although
an increasing number of homes are using wood for supplemental
heating. The majority of homes have electric ranges for cooking
although some oil stoves are still in use in a number of the
older homes •
The community uses over 2,500,000 gallons of gasoline for trans-
portation and in excess of 5,500,000 gallons of diesel fuel which
is used primarily by fishing and processing boats .
The energy use patterns for Kodiak are depicted in Figure 8.1,
the 1983 Energy Balance. This figure shows incoming fuel, the
consuming sector (residential, public, school, commercial or
industrial) and the end use in which the fuel is consumed •
8.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal requirements
were based on the combination of historical trends and the pre-
dicted requirements of capital projects with known on-line
dates.
8.2.1 ects
Unlike rural communities on Kodiak Island the majority of
construction which takes place in the city of Kodiak is privately
funded. Although members of the project team attempted to assess
likely development projects in the industrial and commercial
sectors, many potential projects were described but few firm
scheduled plans were identified. Residential housing is
8-3
USER
FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
GASOL INE TRANSPORTATION'
2,864,000 901. ALL LAND, AVIATION, MARINE
365,730 mmBTU
DIESEL FUEL
5,500,000 901. ALL TRANSPORTAT ION,
761,750 mmBTU EQUIPMENT
RES IDENT! AL
14,482 MWh LIGHTING, APPLIANCES
49,430 mm8TU HOT WATER, COOKING
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING,
14,820 MWh APPLIANCES,
DIESEL FUEL
50,580 mm8TU EQUIPMENT
for PU8L1C
7,690 MWh
L1GHTlr,G,
ELECTRICAL 26,250 mm8TU EQUIPMENT
GENERATION SCHOOL LIGHTING,
4,396,000 90t. 1,482 MWh EOUIPMENT,
608,850 mm8TU 5,060 mmBTU COOKING
INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING, VARIOUS 10,780 MWh
36,790 mmBTU INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
NON-RECOVERABLE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY WASTE HEAT
440,740 mm8TU IS NOT APPLICABLE
RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEATING,
814,000 901. COOKING, HOT WATER
COMMERCIAL SPACE HEATING,
184,000 gol. HOT WATER
HEATING FUEL
1,259,000 901 PU8LIC SPACE HEATING,
174,:370 mmBTU
1t5,000 901. HOT WATER
SCHOOL SPACE HEATING,
35,000 901. HOT WATER
INDUSTRIAL SPACE HEATING, VARIOUS
110,000 gol. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
WOOD
RES IDENTIAL 200 CORDS SPACE HEATING
:3,820 mmBTU 200 CORDS
Figure 8.1 The 1982 energy balance for Kodiak.
8-4
..
..
...
•
..
..
•
..
..
•
•
•
-
..
..
..
..
privately funded and it was not possible to estimate the number
and size of new dwellings or the time frame, because although
building permits and subdivision applications are made,
construction is not assured.
Therefore, increases in square footage in the different sectors
are modelled in the computer and are driven by population
projections •
KEA will be serving the U.S. Coast Guard Station within the next
year and the increased load is analogous to a major capital
project and is included.
8.2.2 Population Projections
The 1977 Power Requirements Study suggested that the population
growth rate would be 6.6% until 1986 and 6.7% thereafter. The
historical population trend is 6.9%. Miner and Miner's 1981
study suggested a growth of 16.2% until 1986 and 6.2% thereafter.
The rapid initial growth is due primarily to inclusion of the
u.S. Coast Guard Station. However, a number of agency personnel
think that the population of Kodiak is stabilizing and that
unless the fishing improves there might be a short period of
total population decline. The school district is not planning
for expansion of local facilities and will be concerned primarily
with upgrading and increasing the energy efficiency of selected
buildings over the next few years.
During the planning stages for Terror Lake growth rates as high
as 9.6% have been reported. However, after discussions with the
agencies and many individuals in Kodiak, a 4% growth rate has
been assumed for this project. The low growth rate was set at
2.0% with a high rate of 6.0%. Projections for these rates are
shown in Figure 8.2
8-5
z o
H
I-
«16030
-.I
::J
0... o
0...
11003
POPULATION PROJECTION
GREATER KODIAK AREA
6000L-~-L~--L-~-L~--L-~~~--L-~~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.2 The projected population increases for the
Greater Kodiak Area.
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
GREATER KODIAK AREA
r..
::J 311m I-m
z
0
H
-.I 200
-.I
H
m v
>-am ~
0:::
W
Z
W
0
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand
for Kodiak.
8-6
-
-
-
•
..
-
•
•
•
•
I.
-
-
-
•
8.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections
Electrical and thermal demands were separated into end uses for
the purpose of forecasting. Electric demands are from the use of
lights and appliances, cooking, hot water heating, and various
commercial and industrial processes. Space heating, cooking, and
hot water heating constitute thermal end uses. Each end use was
forecast by user sector (residential, public, commerical,
industrial and school) •
Forecasts are based on capital projects demand, population
increases, and the demand of facilities necessary to accommodate
the population. Thus, for these forecasts the growth rates used
in the population projections were used. The range of lights and
appliance requirements is presented in Figure 8.3. Figure 8.4
presents the space heating requirements and Figure 8.5 presents
the expected cooking and hot water requirements. Figures 8.6 and
8.7 show the projections for industrial electricity and
industrial heat, respectively.
8.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Based on previous studies and events surrounding selection of
alternative projects for Kodiak, a ranking factor system was not
employed to select alternative plans for this community.
Previous studies on Kodiak have evaluated the Terror Lake
hydroelectric project and construction is proceeding. For
purposes of this study the base case and the hydroelectric
project were evaluated in order to prepare comparative cost of
energy curves. The standard economic analysis was performed as a
suplement to the cost of energy analysis. Plan descriptions are
presented below and results of analyses follow in Sections 8.5
and 8.6.
8-7
A
::J
~ 25~~
Z o
H 200~
..J
..J
H
m
V 15~0
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
GREATER KODIAK AREA
500~~-L~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~--~~-L~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.4 The total projected space heating demand for Kodiak.
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
GREATER KODIAK AREA
350
H 2~~
CD v
>-150
C)
0:::
W 100
Z
W
5~~~-L~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~--~~-L~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~01
YEAR
Figure 8.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demand
for Kodiak.
8-8
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
•
..
•
•
••
-
-
ENERGY PROJECTION -INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY
GREATER KODIAK AREA
m : 6~~~~~~==========~ ____ ------~~~------~
t:) 4e
ffi ~ Z 2~
W e~~~~~--~~~~--L-~-L-L~ __ L-~
19E3 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.6 The projected industrial electricity demand for Kodiak .
A
:J
ENERGY PROJECTION -INDUSTRIAL HEAT
GREATER KODIAK AREA
le~e~-----------------------~----------------------.
t-8~~ m
z a
H 6e~
..J
..J
H m
\J 4~0
~L-~~~~ __ ~~~~~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 8.7 The projected industrial heat demand for Kodiak.
8-9
8.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
The base case plan assumes the continuation of the current
electrical generation facilities. Under this plan, all of the
electrical demand of the community is supplied by KEA diesel
generators and thermal requirements continue to be met through
existing means. All resources used in the base case are
presently available in the vicinity of Kodiak. The current
systems of meeting electrical and thermal needs are generally
highly reliable, and there are no adverse environmental impacts
resulting from continued use of these systems. The base case
scheme provides a basis for comparison with the alternative
plan.
8.4.2 Alternative 1
Construction of Terror Lake is proceeding. The natural storage
of Terror Lake will be increased by 78,000 acre feet by building
a dam across the lake's natural outlet and raising the water
level from 1250 feet a.m.s.1. to 1383 et. The dam has a
structural height of 156 feet, a side-channel spillway and a
concrete reinforced outlet conduit in the base of the dam for
water release to maintain of salmon spawning habitat downstream.
The power tunnel will extend from a lake trap in the eastern
shore and extend 26,300 feet to the northeast to an outlet on the
slopes of the Kizhuyak Valley. A 3400 foot long penstock will
take water to the power house located on the valley floor. The
power house will contain three horizontal-axis 13,800 hp
Pelton-type impulse turbines, each connected to a 10 Mw
generator.
8-10
-
-
-
•
..
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
1111
-
-
-
-..
•
Transmission to Kodiak will be via a 138-Kv line which is 18
miles long.
In 1979 project costs were estimated to be $65.3 million with a
total capital investment of $81 million. However, for the
purposes of this study the more recently published figure of
$189,300,000 has been used •
8.5 COST COMPARISON OF PLANS
Cost comparisons of the two plans were based on an economic
analysis which calculates the net present worth of each plan.
These plans were analyzed over a 52 year period. Methodology of
this analysis is detailed in Section 2.4.1 of Volume 2.
8.5.1 Base Case Plan
In the base case plan expenditures are only for fuel and opera-
tion and mainteinance for the first ten years. In year 11 (1993)
the existing primary generator is upgraded to meet demand. As the
system is upgraded or replaced, the total capital expenditures
for the 52 year analyses period is $15 million. The accumulated
net present cost of the base case plan is $528 million. Yearly
costs for this plan are detailed in Appendix G.l of Volume 2.
8.5.2 Alternative 1
The actual construction cost of the Terror Lake project is
estimated to be $189.3 million. Diesel generators are retained
for backup and replaced at the end of their expected life.
Similarly, new generators are added as dictated by increasing
demand. The total cost of the plan, i.e., the accumulated dis-
count cost, is $367 million •
8-11
Yearly costs of this plan are included in Appendix G.2 of
Volume 2.
8.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
A secondary method of determining the worth of a project is a
cost of energy analysis, as described in Section 2.4.2 of
Volume 2. This analysis evaluates each plan on the basis that it
satisfies the requirements of each of the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
v space heating
o industrial heating
o industrial electricity
o industrial processes
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compared to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost (~/mmBTU) ot
satisfying space heating, cook1ng and hot water needs with Oil
and wood is lower than the cost at meet1ng these end use demanas
with electricity. The relat1ve cost for each energy source 1S
shown in Figures 8.8 and 8.9 for space heating and cooking and
hot water, respectively.
Initial analyses of the llghts and appl1ance end use showed that
the alternative plan had the potent1al to prov1de less costly
electricity than the base case system after 1987. Theretore, a
detailed cost ot energy analys1s was completed on this end use to
identify the year in which the alternatlve plan prov1des less
8-12
..
..
..
..
•
•
..
•
•
•
..
..
•
..
..
..
•
•
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
GREATER KODIAK AREA
Wood '"""
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.8 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
GREATER KODIAK AREA
~B~cose ________
,-Hydro --
,-propone
Oil
I I I I I I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 8.9 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand •
8-13
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 8.10.
The cost of energy analyses show an obvious advantage for the
Terror Lake Plan. However, it must be recognized that these are
estimates of bus bar costs and do not include costs of
distribution and administration of the utility.
8.7 SUMMARY AND RECOm1ENDATIONS
8.7.1 community Recommendations
The economic analysis supports the construction of Terror Lake
despite the higher costs. The cost of energy analysis, not
previously performed using the Alaska Power Authority's 1982-3
revised criteria, illustrates that the costs/mmBTU is lower than
the base case after 1987.
It is important to note that the cost of energy presented is
calculated on the basis of equipment costs and operation and
maintenance costs and does not reflect the actual charge to the
customer. The rate of electricity for the consumers in Kodiak
will be the wholesale rate, in accordance with the Power Sales
Agreement between Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) and the
Alaska Power Authority, plus KEA's administrative and
distribution costs.
8-14
-
-
-
-
•
•
•
•
-
'.
-
-
•
•
:)
I-
CD
E
E
"-~
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
GREATER KODIAK AREA
35~r-------------------'--------_________________ ~
3~~
25~
2~e
15e -
lee
Bose Case"
5e~-=---=~========~~======J
HydroJ
e t
1983 1985 1987 1989
I I I I
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2eel
YEAR
Figure 8.10 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
8.7.2 ional Recommendations
Regional recommendations include a regional education program,
a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing cooperative.
These programs are described in Chapter 9.0. As Kodiak is
presently part of a regulated utility, servicing and fuel
purchasing are more economically than in the other outlying
communities. The most applicable program to Kodiak is the
educational program as this program includes energy conservation
and weatherization workshops for individual residents.
8-15
..
..
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
...
..
..
..
•
9.0 REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended energy projects for each community were
detailed by community in Chapters 2.0 through 8.0. In addition
to development of specific projects in communities, regional
programs to reduce energy costs were investigated. Feasible
regional programs are described below.
9.1 REGIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
A regional energy education program would teach aspects of
energy management that can be implemented by individuals in
their homes or in operating their utilities. The benefits of
this approach are that thermal and electrical energy costs can
be reduced in the short term irregardless of development of new
energy generation projects. The program would consist of
several components (detailed below) and would be organized in
such a way that technical information would be presented in an
easily understandable form. Specific subjects that could be
taught through this program are presented below.
9.1.1 Weatherization and Energy Conservation
Each of these two aspects have received considerable attention
through different federal, state, and local government programs.
Unfortunately, the majority of conservation programs are generic
and are not specific to regions of Alaska. These regions (i.e.,
those covered by the ANCSA designated Regional Corporations)
retain a strong identity through geography, economy, resources
9-1
and culture. Although programs do operate on a statewide basis,
local coordination of weatherization and energy conservation
programs will probably reach more people. It is recommended
that information available from present federal and state
programs be reduced into a program that addresses the specific
needs of the communities of Kodiak. After dovetailing
information on methods of weatherization and conserving energy,
workshops would be held in each community. A widely accepted
medium for the transfer of information is videotape and a
do-it-yourself type approach to the content of such tapes is an
idea which has received wide support in the communities.
KANA in conjunction with KIB, have jurisdiction in the entire
Kodiak Island Borough. KANA has hired an energy coordinator and
it is recommended that work by these two groups be expanded and
coordinated to provide a regional program addressing specific
weatherization requirements of Kodiak.
9.1.2 Basic Principles of Wiring, Design, and Implementa
tion for Upgrading Local Distribution Systems
This program would be advantageous to reduce not only
hazardous conditions which occur in some communities but also
act as an invaluable basis for planning future growth and load
management. An educational series with hands-on training as well
as video programs would be most ef ctive. Development of these
series could also be implemented through KANA and KIB.
9.1.3 Generator Operation and Maintenance
Generator operation and maintenance are basic to reliable
economical service. Those communities not under an electric
9-2
-
-
-
-
..
,.
•
..
•
iI~1
-
-
,.
,.
..
cooperative, would benefit from opportunities to increase the
reliability and economic viability of the local utility. This
extends from servicing equipment to tariff rates and an ability
to develop local funds for the upgraded and/or replacement of
systems. Such funds would enable communities to implement their
own plans and reduce their reliance on outside support. The
establishment of standard recording and reporting features would
assist in planning as well and permit developments to be
instigated in a time frame which will ensure continuity and
reliability of service.
All educational programs should stress coordination in the
purchase and installation of materials where communities are
served by a common barge service. Increased purchasing power
leads to discounted prices •
9.2 SERVICE AND PARTS NETWORK
During community meetings several individuals raised the point
that a regional parts and service system would prevent delays
and permit a systematic preventative maintenance program to be
set up. This program is specifically applicable to those com-
munities serviced by, or as, unregulated utilities. This
network calls for the establishment of a regular maintenance
schedule for Akhiok, Ouzinkie, Karluk, Larsen Bay and Old
Harbor. The schedule would operate such that every other month
a certified mechanic would travel between those communities and
perform system inspection and routine maintenance. Any parts
necessary for repair would be obtained from a central parts
storehouse and/or ordering office established in Kodiak. During
alternate months the mechanic would be available for emergency
repairs and could also be shared on a part-time basis with
another sector, for example, the school district. This program
would assist in protecting considerable investments in
generation and distribution equipment and assist in ensuring
optimal service to consumers .
9-3
9.3 FUEL PURCHASING COOPERATIVE
Again for the communities with unregulated utilities,
coordination of fuel purchases and the opportunity to release
requests for bids on fuel and bulk purchasing and payment
schemes would help assure that the best prices are obtained for
the fuel and that delivery schedules are coordinated with the
storage capacity and fuel use scenarios for each communities.
The size of the City of Kodiak, with its strong commercial base,
and peak demand characteristics means that regional
recommendations for the smaller communities do not apply
equally. However, the energy conservation and weatherization
recommendation is applicable to the entire region.
9.4 SUBREGIONAL INTERTIES
Apart from the Port Lions/Kodiak intertie which is already
scheduled for construction, the only other subregion would be
composed of Karluk and Larsen Bay. Here, the only economically
and locally acceptable situation would be if the Larsen Bay
hydroelectric project were built. Power from the hydro facility
would be sufficient to satisfy 80 percent of the annual demand
of both communities. Diesel generators would have to be
retained to meet peak demand during low flow periods and to
provide back-up in the event of a system failure. Power from
the Larsen Bay hydroelectric project would be supplied to Karluk
via an intertie approximately 20 miles in length. There are
considerable environmental concerns associated with construction
of an intertie through this region. The Karluk River is a wild
9-4
-
-
-
..
..
..
..
•
•
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
and scenic river and is a popular recreational area; the area is
also a bear refuge.
The present value analyses for several options in the two
communities are compared below:
Larsen Bay
1) Base Case
Discounted Cost
2) Waste Heat System
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
3) Hydroelectric
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
Karluk
1 ) Base Case
Discounted Cost
2) Waste Heat System
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
3) .Hydroelectric
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
Larsen Bay/Karluk Intertie
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
$8,605,000
$6,102,000
$ 497,000
$5,605,000
$5,546,000
$ 0
$5,546,000
$3,621,000
$2,570,000
$ 200,000
$2,370,000
$3,638,000
$ 0
$3,638,000
$10,352,000
$ 0
$10,352,000
As can be seen, the cost of the intertie is higher than the
combined cost of any alternatives in the two communities, except
the base cases.
9-5
9.5 REGIONAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
A logical program would be the integration of 9.2 Service and
Parts Network and 9.3 Fuel purchasing Cooperative into a
Regional Electric Cooperative. There are two scenarios, one of
which would include all cities and communities and be basically
an expansion of KEA, the second would be to integrate all
communities except Kodiak, Port Lions and Chiniak.
Only the second approach has been considered. The communities
to be served would include Ouzinkie, Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay
and possibly Old Harbor.
If the recommendations of this report are implemented:
Ouzinkie, Akhiok, Karluk and Larsen Bay will be operating diesel
generator systems with waste heat capture equipment. Old Harbor
will have hydropower with full diesel back up. Each of the
communities have bulk fuel storage facilities available but each
will require more than one fuel shipment per year. Ouzinkie has
a central generation system installed but requires additional
generator capacity or an upgrade of the generator unit to permit
paralleling. Old Harbor is currently a member of AVEC but what
its utility status would be if the hydroelectric project is
built is not known.
Problems
The problems of power supply in the villages can be
generalized as being coordinating fuel supply, fuel payments,
fuel quality at the generator engine, engine maintenance and
repair, maintenance of power supply lines and administration of
the utilities to optimize service and cash flow. These
situations are rooted in the paucity of trained personnel and
the importance of seasonal employment and subsistence
activities.
9-6
..
..
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
•
..
..
..
•
..
Communi standards
Each of the villages want to see reliable and economical power
to accomodate what have become basic, for example,
refrigerators, television, electric lights, telephone and water
supply. Also each community has one or more school building
which must have full time electricity. The residents are not
interested in seeing the schools having the only electricity in
the village.
Plans
A Regional Electrical Cooperative could operate with two
levels of involvement. The first is in a coordination role for
application for grants and to coordinate training, fuel supply
and be a referral center when system problems occur which cannot
be accomodated by the local maintenance personnel. Under this
system each of the villages would retain local autonomy for
operation, maintenance, billing and collection. The cooperative
might collectively employ a part time clerk and a part time
diesel machanic and electrician. It is likely that Kodiak will
be the location of the office because of the presence of state
and local public agency offices and the Regional Corporation
(KONIAG) and its sister organization KANA.
The second level of activity for a Regional Electrical Co-op is
as a Regional utility which would handle all aspects of the
supply of electricity in the way that for example AVEC does now
in other regiona. The only local involvement would be a person
responsible for the maintenance of the generators and meter
reading. Fuel supply, billing, scheduled maintenance, repair
and general operations would all be coordinated from a central
location, probably Kodiak. The communities would be responsible
for paying for their own power plus a component required to
support the cooperative. If a region wide pricing structure was
adopted then it is most likely that the communities with the
9-7
highest electrical demands would carry a proportionately larqer
part of the overhead for the central orgainization. It is
likely that the staffing requirements would include an office
manager, clerk/bookkeeper, storesman/~echanic, and electrician/
lineman, with a part time employee in each of the communities.
If it is assumed that the cooperative would operate under KANA
then an approximate annual cost would be $282,000 (see table
9.1) which would translate to a cost of about 17 cents per kWh
for operation and maintenance instead of 8-10¢ which is the norm
for small local utilities generating approximately 200 -250
M~Vh/annum.
If the cooperative is brought into existance before the major
electrification projects at Akhiok, Karluk, and Larsen Bay then
the staffing requirements would be greater initially but these
positions would be budgeted for in the capital projects and not
result in a pass on cost to the consumer once the systems are
installed.
Organization
One way in which the Co-operative could be organized is through
the Kodiak Island Housing Authority. The Authority is
recognized as the Kodiak Island Electrical Authority and has
received Federal funds to develop electrification projects for
and on behalf of the village of Akhiok, Old Harbor, Karluk and
Oizinkie. It is recommended that the Co-operative have a board
of advisors which would include, but not be limited to, the
conference of Mayors.
9.6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Table 9.2 illustrates the requirements for each community. It
is apparent that the recommendations are least complex for
Ouzinke, Port Lions, Old Harbor and Kodiak.
9-8
-
-
-
-
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
10
-
-
-
-
•
•
Table 9.1 Cost summary for a Regional Electrical Energy
Cooperative.
Operating Costs
Office Manager
Part time Clerk/bookkeeper
Benefits for full time person
Mechanic/Storeman
Electrician/Lineman
Village maintenance (Part time)
(5 x 10,000)
Personal Insurance
Office space, supplies
communications
Travel
Initial estimate for
operating cost
Start up costs
Vehicle 1 @
Tools
Supplies
Line and engine
monitoring equipment
Computer system hardward,
software IBM/PC or Apple lIe
Miscellaneous including
office equipment
Initial estimate for start
up cost
9-9
50,000
12,000
2,000
40,000
40,000
50,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
282,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
50,000
12,000
18,000
100,000
9.2 Kodiak Island Borough Electrificatior ~ojects
-"-------~ -------~ ____ • _______ ~_4 ___ --.-.. ---~---------,_.-----.-~---------------------~---.----Commun
Ac~i~it~ ______ Akhiok Karluk Lars~~~~y_ Ouzinkie Old Harbor Port Lions Kodiak
-------------
Generator Purchase X X X
Installation X X X X
General Building
Construction X X X
Waste Heat
Installation X X X
Distribution System
Design X IP* X
Installation X X X
Bulkfuel Storage X X X
1.0 Feeder Line
I Installation X X X I-' Pump/Storage 0 X X X
Establish Utility X X X
Establish Tarrif X X X
Accounting and
Recording X X X
Hi ain Mainten-
ance Personnel X X X
Hydro Electric Plant
Design X
Construction X IP*
Intertie Construction IP*
* IP = In Progress
..
..
..
•
..
However, Karluk, Larsen Bay and Akhiok require the establishment
of fully centralized systems .
The suggested implementation strategy is:
1. Establish Regional Electric Co-op to coordinate all
activities below •
2. Submit grant requests to preselected state and federal
.. agencies.
•
•
•
...
..
..
..
..
..
3. Release a request for bids to design and spec central diesel
generation and distribution systems for Akhiok and Larsen
Bay.
4. Integrate results with study in place at Karluk.
5. Release requests for bids for construction management,
quality assurance and testing of Karluk, Akhiok and Larsen
Bay systems.
6. Release a request for bids for 5 generators driven by water
cooled engines all equipped with waste heat hardware
including necessary panels and gauges •
7. Release requests for bids for purchasing and installation of
all distribution equipment for electrical and waste heat
systems. Require that bids address each village separately
and as a block with crews moving between villages .
8. Build all systems in the summer of 1984 •
9-11
Total estimated cost of above projects
Akhiok 56,000
Karluk 91,000
Larsen Bay 143,000
Ouzinkie gen.
kWh
kWh
kwh
374,000
581,720 *
763,159 **
116,000
Total $1,834,879
* Karluk costs will be lower because a contract for
system design has already been let.
** Larsen Bay estimate will be high due to the proposed
acquisition of a 300 kW generator prior to the start
of the above plan.
In light of the two conditions expressed above for Karluk and
Larsen Bay and likely savings due to bulk purchase and lighter
controlled concurrent installation of facilities the sum of
$1,834,879 will be conservative.
An additional $100,000 will be required to establish the
Regional Electric Cooperative exclusive of legal fees.
With respect to the other communities, Terror Lake and the Port
Lions interie have been funded and are under construction. The
Old Harbor hydroproject needs to progress through design to
construction but the city is served by a reliable system at
present.
9-12
-
-
-
-REVIEW DOCUMENTS
•
•
•
•
-
-
••
-
-
-
•
•
RV-l
•
-
-
-
•
•
•
•
til
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Robert Starling
Northern Technical Services
750 West 2nd Avenue, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Bob:
May 13, 1983
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(90n 276-0001
I would like to thank you, Patty Bielawski and Dean Ca.rson for
meeting with Larry Wolf, Merlyn Paine and myself on r·1ay 6, 1983, to
discuss comments on the Kodiak Island Borough Electrification Planning
Assessment draft reports. The purpose of this letter is to formalize
the Power Authority's comments which are summarized below:
Vo 1 ume 1: Sm·1MARY
Page 1-1, first paragraph -Change the first sentence to read IIThis
project was conducted by NORTEC under contract to the Alaska Power
Authority for the people of Kodiak. II
Page 1-2, last paragraph -Change the first sentence to read IIIn
communities on Kodiak Island, facilities usually are diesel generators
and water supply systems.1I
Page 1-5, second paragraph -Change the first sentence to read "The
Alaska Power Authority requires each plan to be evaluated four ways:"
"I) Economic Analysis, 2) Cost of Energy Analysis, 3) Environmental
Impact Analysis and 4) Social Acceptability.1I
Change the third paragraph to read liThe Economic Analysis is a way
to compare the total cost of each plan to other alternatives, including
the base case plan. Total cost includes operation and maintenance
costs, costs for installation and replacement of the system, and costs
for fuel. This analysis calculates, using standard engineering economic
methods and Alaska Power Authority guidel~nes, the "net discounted
costs" of each plan. The net discounted cost of each plan are compared
to see which plan has the lowest cost over the lifetime of the plan."
Page 1-6, end of first paragraph -add the following sentence liThe
cost billed to the consumer for electricity will be this cost plus the
local utility company's cost to run the utility company and to distri-
bute the power."
In the third paragraph, add the factor to convert mmBTU to KWH.
Page 2-11, second paragraph -Change KIBSD to "Kodiak Island
Borough School District".
Page 3-1 -Be sure to include the population numbers for the
Village of Karluk somewhere in the write-up.
RV-2
-
-
-
-
..
-
•
•
•
..
•
..
-
-
-
...
•
•
Ltr to Mr. Starling
May 13, 1983
Page 2, 8733
On Page 5-10, on the Cost of Energy Draft for Lights & Appliances
for Old Harbor, the Base Case line tends to flatten out. Please verify
that this ;s indeed correct.
Page 5-11, 1 ast paragraph, fi rst sentence -Change "tariff" to
"financial", also after the first sentence add the following sentence
liThe Alaska Power Authority intends to complete such an analysis prior
to proceeding with design of the hydroelectric project at Midway Creek
and would not proceed if financial alternatives could not lead to a
competitive cost of power."
Page 7-5, last paragraph, rewrite paragraph to reflect that the
intertie is approximately 14 miles long, that it connects Port Lions
with the Terror Lake powerhouse (it does not tap the Terror Lake -
Kodiak Transmission line) and the estimated capital cost to bring the
intertie "on-line" in 1984 is $1,1l00,000. The economic analysis and
energy analysis will have to be revised to reflect the lower capital
cost.
Page 7-11, second paragraph -Rewrite the paragraph to reflect that
the Port Lions/ Terror Lake Intertie is already under construction, that
it is financed with a grant from the State of Alaska, and the rate
charged consumers in Port Lions will be the wholesale rate, in accord-
ance with the Power Sales Agreement between Kodiak Electric Association
and the Alaska Power
Authority, plus KEA's administration and distribution costs.
Page 9-8 -Revise the Operating Cost Table to reflect a full-time
office manager at a salary of $50,000 per year. Also, combine the
storemen and mechanic positions into one full-time position and the
part-time electrician and linemen positions into one full-time position
at about a salary of $40,000 for each position.
Volume 2: TECHNICAL
Page 2-1 -Under the methodology write-up, be sure to include some
discussion about energy conservation measures including waste heat.
This would also be a good place to discuss the assumed value of the
displaced fuel.
Page 2-5 -Change the word "save" in the first line to IIserve".
Page 3-9 -Modify the Projection Table to reflect that the growth
rate is the IIPopulation Growth Rate ll and not the "Energy Demand Growth
Rate". This comment applies to all the projection tables throughout the
report.
Page 3-13 -The term "Generation via synchronous induction ll appears
in the Resource Ranking Table. Please use a footnote to define this
term or you may want to delete all reference of that term from the
table. This comment also applies to the other resource ranking tables
throughout the report.
RV-3
-
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
..
..
..
..
-
..
Ltr to Mr. Starling
May 13, 1983
Page 3, 8733
Page 5-20 -Under the conclusions and recommendations write-up,
please explain that your findings are somewhat different from those in
the DOWL Report; explain the differences.
Page 7-11 -Delete the UCost of Energy Table" and substitute the
UEnergy Projection Table" for cooking and hot water.
Page 8-11, second paragraph -The description of the Port Lions
Transmission Line is not quite correct. The line that has been designed
and is presently under construction is a 14 mile transmission line and
it connects Port Lions with the Terror Lake Powerhouse. It does not tap
the 138 KV Terror Lake/Kodiak Transmission Line.
Page 10-9 -Revise Table 10.1 to agree with revised Table 9.1 in
Vol ume 1.
Appendix A. State your parameters for your economic analysis,
i.e., discount rate, length of economic life, fuel cost, base year,
etc •. Explain that mmBTU from the Forecast Tables has been converted
to KWH for economic analysis.
Table C.4 -Verify Capital Cost for Larson Bay Hydroelectric
Project.
Table F.2 -O&M costs for the Port Lions Intertie plan should be
increased to about $18,000 per year after the first year.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Repl ace the APA with "Power Authorityll or uA 1 aska Power Authority"
wherever it appears throughout the report .
The letter from KANA along with your response should be included in
the final report •
Also, please let me review the final report before the final the
copies are printed.
If you have any questions concerning this material or would like to
discuss any of these matters further, please do not hesitate to give me
a ca 11 •
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RGW:cb
RV-4
Sincerely, -f1)jOJfJL~
Remy G. Hill i ams
Proj ect Manager
..
..
..
•
..
•
•
•
..
•
Response to Alaska Power Authority Review Letter, dated May 13,
1983 •
Volume 1: SUMMARY
(Draft page numbers)
page 1-1 Change made •
Page 1-2 Change made.
page 1-5 Change made in both paragraphs.
page 1-6 Change made and mmBTU to kWh conversion given.
page 2-11 Change made.
Page 3-1 Karluk's population given in first paragraph.
page 5-10 The Base Case line in Figure 5-8 should indeed flatten
as annual amortized costs continue to rise, however,
load growth causes the unit cost of energy to escalate
only slightly.
Page 5-11 Change made.
page 7-5 Paragraph rewritten to include revised information.
Economic analysis and Cost of Energy analysis have
been revised to reflect the lower capital cost, as
well as the increased O&M costs. The combination of
lower capital cost and higher O&M costs make the
results of the analyses nearly the same as before •
page 7-11 Paragraph rewritten.
Page 9-8 Table revised as comments indicated •
RV-5
..
-
-
..
•
•
•
•
..
•
•
..
-
-
..
..
•
Volume 2: TECHNICAL
(Draft page numbers)
Page 2-1 A new section entitled "Conversation Measures" has
been added beginning on Page 2-13; it includes the
value of waste heat as it displaces fuel.
Page 2-5 Correction made.
page 3-9 All energy projection tables now read "Population
Growth Rate" in the left-hand column.
Page 3-13 The term "Generation via Sychronous Induction" has
been deleted from all Resource Ranking Tables.
Page 5-20 Differences from DOWL report pointed out and
explained •
Page 7-11 Correction made.
Page 8-11 Paragraph rewritten.
Page 10-9 Table 10.1 revised •
Appendix A -Parameters now given in APPENDIX PREFACE, page
AP-2.
Table C.4 Capital cost for Hydroelectric project at Larsen Bay
reduced to agree with DOWL report. Costs which
should have been included under Diesel capital costs
were inadvertently added to the Hydro costs in the
draft.
Table F.2 O&M costs have been increased to $18,OOO/yr; the
capital cost of the intertie has been reduced to
$1,400,000 •
RV-6
-
--
•
•
•
•
•
-..
-
-
•
..
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
Post Office Box 1277 . Kodiak. Alaska 99615·1277 -Phone (907) 486.5725
Mr. Rimy Williams
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
April 8, 1983
HEcelV20
RE: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ELECTRIFICATION PLANNING ASSESSEMENT REVIEW DRAFT
Mr. Williams,
I have just recently reviewed the above referenced subject and prepared to submit
comments on behalf of the Kodiak Area Native Association.
First of all, I would like to commend the NORTEC staff for preparing a well laid
out and easy to understand planning guide. The assessment provides a sound prac-
tical approach to electrification and energy development planning and implementa-
tion strategy for the villages in the Kodiak Island area.
In reference to KANA as identified and described in the Organization paragraph
of Section 9.5 of Volume I and Section 10.5 of Vou.:ume.rII:, I wish to point out
that a regional electrical authority does, in fact, exist in Kodiak besides
KEA. The Kodiak Island Housing Authority is recognized as the Kodiak Island
Electrical Authority. In the past, they have received Federal funds to develop
electrification projects for and on the behalf of the villages of Akhiok, Old
Harbor, Karluk and Ouzinkie. It is the appropriate entity to undertake the
organization of an electric cCIPoration •
I suggest that the Kodiak Island Housing Authority replace the KANA Energy
Coordinat~ls office wording in both of the paragraphs mentioned. KANA does not
presently have a energy coordinator's office or the position due to the current
availability of Federal and State funds.
Overall, the assessment plan is concise in respect to the village energy profile
and identification of alternatives to energy development. I still believe, however,
that the villages must look to other forms of fuel or means to generate electricity
than diesel fuel oil. Ultimately, fuel oil will again escalate and, therefore,
place these communities in the same financial predicament that is being experienced
RV-7
-
-
-
-
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
-
-
•
Letter
4.8.83
Page 2
at this time to provide an economical way to provide heat and electricity.
Despite the extreme delay by both the APA and NORTEC to develop the plan, I
wish to express my gratitude to both for allotving KANA to participate in the
plan's development and review.
THP:cW
RV-8
Sincerely,
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
DOLORES L. PADIL.~, PRESIDENT
/ ;' ~ ,,; '/ ,./.~-
._ /".,.-..··;..-'r<4i-·":..l-/"'Jl't~t"·# ,_,.-' ~ " " r, .,/ .....
Thomas H. Peterson
Director, Community and
Economic Development
..
..
..
...
•
•
•
•
.*
..
..
Reply to Kodiak Area Native Association, dated April 8, 1983 •
The organization sections of 9.5 in Vol. 1 and 10.5 in Vol. 2
has been revised to suggest that the Kodiak Island Housing
Authority would be the appropriate entity to organize the
electric co-operative •
RV-9