HomeMy WebLinkAboutKodiak Island Borough Electrification Planning Assessment Volume 2 1983#
i -~.
I~
,
~~
~ ,-;~
j~
j~
I~
!~
r
~~
i~
~Q
,
'0
\
: Q .-
!
,~
I~
!
i~
i~
i~' .
~~ ,
HD
9685
.U6
A444
1983
v.2
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL
Prepared by
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
&
FRYER PRESSLEY ENGINEERING
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MAY 1983
,~l.LASKA POWER AUT HORITY __ . .
, -~
( I
I
I~
I u
u
u
fl ..
'~
U
, n
~
,...
0> q-
C\I ,...
0
, ,...
0
0
LO
LO ......
('t')
('t')
ARLIS
Alaska Resources Libra & Infonnation Servklea
lJorary Dui 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 2: TECHNICAL
prepared by
NORTHERN TECHNICAL SERVICES
Anchorage, Ala~ka
and
FRYER PRESSLEY ENGINEERING
Anchorage, Alaska
May, 1983
If])
9~g~
.U~
/iW~
/9i3
V, 2.,
u
W
D
IU
ID
~l ~
u
;u
I ,
:U
I
U
r .
W
f I ~
w
U
\
U
1.0
2.0
3.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 1-1
1.1 Project Background ••••••• 1-1
1.2 Recommendations •••••• . . . . . 1-2
METHODOLOGY • • . •. •••.• • • • ••• 2-1
2.1 Literature Review • • • • 2-1
2.2 Community Visits... • • • • • • • •• •• 2-1
2.3 Resource Assessment •••..•••••• 2-2
2.3.1 Alternative Fuels ••••••••••• 2-3
2.3.2 Renewable Energy Resources •••• 2-6
2.3.3 Costing and Volume for Viable Fuels •• 2-9
2.3.4 Resource Ranking Procedures •••••• 2-10
2.3.5 Conservation Measures. • • • •• • 2-13
2.4 Cost Comparison Analyses ••••••••••• 2-14
2.4.1 Economic Analysis • • • • • • . •• 2-15
2.4.2 Cost of Energy Analysis ••• • 2-16
2~5 Subregional Plans and Regional strategies •• 2-17
2.5.1 Subregional Plans. • • • • • • 2-17
2.5.2 Regional Strategies •••••••••• 2-19
AKHIOK •••••• '. • • • • . • • • • 3-1
3.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns • • • • • • • • • 3-3
3.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities •••• 3-3
3.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. • •••• 3-4
3.2 Forecasts • • • • • • • • . • • • • • 3-5
3.2.1 Capital projects ••••••••••• 3-5
3.2.2 Population Projections • • 3-7
3.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections •• 3-7
3.3 Resource Assessment •••• . •• 3-12
3.3.1 Resource Alternatives • • • • • •• 3-12
3.4 Plan Descriptions • • • • 3-12
3.4.1 Base Case Plan • • . • •• 3-12
3.4.2 Alternative 1 • • •.• 3-14
3.4.3 Alternative 2 • • • • • •••• 3-15
3.4.4 Alternative 3 • • • • • • • • . 3-15
3.5 Cost Comparison of Plans ••••••••• 3-16
3.5.1 Base Case Plan •••••••••••• 3-16
3.5.2 Alternative 1 ••••.•••••••• 3-17
3.5.3 Alternative 2 ••••••••••••• 3-17
3.5.4 Alternative 3 • • • • • •••• 3-18
3.6 Cost of Energy Analysis • • • •• • • 3-19
3.7 Recommendations •••••.•• • •••• 3-20
3.7.1 Community Recommendations ••••••• 3-20
3.7.2 Regional Recommendations ••• 3-23
i
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
4.0 KARLUK. • • . • • . • • • • . • • • • . • • .4-1
4.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns •••.••••• 4-3
4.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities .•.• 4-4
4.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. • •• • • 4-4
4.2 Forecasts •••••..•••••• -.. .4-5
4.2.1 Capital projects •••••••.••• 4-5
4.2.2 Population projections •..•••.•• 4-7
4.2.3 Electrical and Thermal projections 4-7
4.3 Resource Assessment • • . • . . • • . 4-12
4.3.1 Resource Alternatives ••.•••••• 4-12
4.4 Plan Descriptions ••••.•.•.••••• 4-14
4.4.1 Base Case plan • • • • ••• . 4-14
4.4.2 Alternative 1 • . • • . ••.• 4-14
4.4.3 Alternative 2 • . • • • • • 4-14
4.5 Cost Comparison of Plans . • • • 4-15
4.5.1 Base Case Plan • • • • • • •••• 4-15
4.5.2 Alternative 1 • • . • •. • ••.• 4-15
4.5.3 Alternative 2 •. ••• • • • • 4-16
4.6 Cost of Energy Analysis . • •• • 4-17
4.7 Conclusions and Recommendations ••• 4-19
4.7.1 Community Recommendations. • ••. 4-19
4.7.2 Regional Recommendations ••••••• 4-20
5.0 LARSEN BAY • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • ••• 5-1
5.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns . • • •• •• 5-3
5.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities •••• 5-3
5.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. • • • •. 5-3
5.2 Forecasts ••••••••••••••••.• 5-4
5.2.1 Capital Projects •.•••••••.• 5-4
5.2.2 population Projections ••.••••• 5-6
5.2.3 Electrical and Thermal projections .• 5-8
5.3 Resource Assessment ••••••••••••• 5-8
5.3.1 Resource Alternatives • • • •• 5-8
5.4 plan Descriptions •••• • • • • • ••• 5-12
5.4.1 Base Case plan . • •. • ••• 5-12
5.4.2 Alternative 1 . • • • • . . •.•• 5-12
5.4.3 Alternative 2 • . • • • • • • ••• 5-14
5.5 Cost Comparison of Plans. • ••••••• 5-14
5.5.1 Base Case plan •. • • • • . • •• 5-15
5.5.2 Alternative 1 •••••••••.••• 5-15
5.5.3 Alternative 2 • . • . •• . .••. 5-16
5.6 Cost of Energy Analysis. . •.• 5~17
5.7 Conclusions and Recommendations • •• • • 5-20
5.7~1 Community Recommendations. • • •• 5-20
5.7.2 Subregional Recommendations 5-21
5.7.3 Regional Recommendations • • • • • • • 5-21
ii
r '
W
~
I i ~
L
I U
I r 1
IW
U
I
6.0
7.0
OLD
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
-: ' ~
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
HARBOR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · • 6-1
Existing Energy Use Patterns • • • . • .
6.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities .•.
6.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. . ••
Forecasts . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • •
6.2.1 Capital projects ••••••••••
6.2.2 Population projections •.•••.
6.2.3 Electrical and Thermal projections
Resource Assessment •. . . • .
• 6-2
• 6-2
6-3
• 6-5
• 6-5
6-5
6-6
• 6-6
6.3.1 Resource Alternatives •.•.•
Plan Descriptions • • • . . • • .
6.4.1 Base Case Plan ..•
· . 6-11
6.4.2 Alternative 1 ..
Cost Comparison of Plans • . . • •
6.5.1 Base Case Plan
6.5.2 Alternative 1 ••
Cost of Energy Analysis . • •
Conclusions and Recommendations
. • . • 6-11
• . • • • 6-11
• • • • 6-11
• • 6-13
• 6-14
· 6-14
· 6-15
• 6-17
6.7.1 Community Recommendations ••..•.
6.7.2 Regional Recommendations .••••
· 6-17
6-18
OUZINKIE 7-1
7.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns. . • •. .• 7-2
7.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities •• 7-3
7.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns. • . . 7-4
7.2 Forecasts . • • • • . . • • . • • • .• . 7-4
7.2.1 Capital Projects •••••.••••• 7-6
7.2.2 Population Projections •.•.•••• 7-6
7.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections 7-6
7.3 Resource Assessment • • • • . •••• 7-8
7.3.1 Resource Alternatives ..•.•.. 7-8
7.4 Plan Descriptions •••• 7-13
7.4.1 Base Case plan ••. • 7-13
7.4.2 Alternative 1 • • • • • • . . •• • 7-13
7.4.3 Alternative 2 .•.•••••.•••• 7-14
7.5 Cost Comparison of Plans. • • 7-14
7.5.1 Base Case Plan •. . • .• • .•• 7-14
7.5.2 Alternative 1 . • . •. .• 7-15
7.5.3 Alternative 2 • .• .• • . 7-15
7.6 Cost of Energy Analysis • •• . •.• 7-16
7.7 Recommendations •• • • • •. • • 7-17
7.7.1 Community Summary and Recommendations 7-17
7.7.2 Regional Recommendations •••.•.• 7-20
iii
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
8.0 PORT LIONS . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns · · · · · · · · 8.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities · 8.1. 2 Thermal Energy Patterns · · · · · 8.2 Forecasts · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 8.2.1 Capital Projects · · · · · · 8.2.2 Population Projections · · · · · · · 8 . .2 .3 Electrical and Thermal Projections · 8.3 Resource Assessment · · · · · · · · · · 8.4 plan Descriptions · · · · · · · 8.4.1 Base Case Plan, · · · · · · · · · · · 8.4.2 Alternative 1 · · · · · · · · 8.5 Cost Comparison of Plans · · · · · · 8.5.1 Base Case Plan · · · · · · · · · 8.5.2 Alternative 1 · · · .. · · · · 8.6 Cost of Energy Analysis · · · · · · 8.7 Summary and Recommendations · · · · · · · · 8.7.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
8.7.2 Regional Recommendations · · · ·
9.0 CITY OF KODIAK · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9.1 Existing Energy Use Patterns · · · · 9.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities · · · 9.1. 2 Thermal Energy Patterns · · · · · 9.2 Forecasts · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9.2.1 Capital Projects · · · · · · · · 9.2.2 Population Projections · · · · · 9.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projections . .
9.3 Resource Assessment · · · · · · · · 9.4 Plan Descriptions · · · · · · · 9.4.1 Base Case Plan · · · · · · · · · · · 9.4.2 Alternative 1 · · · · · · · · · · 9.5 Cost Comparison of Plans · · · · · · · · 9.5.1 Base Case Plan · · · · · · · · · · · 9.5.2 Alternative 1 · · · · · · · · 9.6 Cost of Energy Analysis · · · · · · · · 9.7 Recommendations · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9.7.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
9.7.2 Regional Recommendations · · · · · ·
iv
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Page
8-1
8-2
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-5
8-5
8-5
8-7
8-7
8-7
8-11
8-12
8-12
8-12
8-13
8-16
8-16
8-16
9-1
9-2
9-2
9-3
9-3
9-3
9-5
9-7
9-7
9-12
9-12
9-12
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-14
9-16
9-16
9-17
w
w
I~
o
I W
W
:Q
I
U
r' IU
r I , I
~
f I U
I
U
u
10.0
Table of Contents (Cont'd.)
REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS • • • . • • •
10.1 Regional Education Program •••••
10.1.1 Weatherization and Energy
Conservation •. • . • • • • • • • •
10.1.2 Basic principle of Wiring, Design,
and Upgrading Local Distribution
· 10-1
• 10-1
· 10-1
Systems •••••••••••••••. 10-2
10.1.3 Generator operation and Maintenance •• 10-2
10.2 Service and parts Network •••••••• 10-3
10.3 Fuel purchasing Cooperative ••••••••• 10-4
10.4 Subregional Interties • •• • ••.••• 10-4
10.5 Regional Electric Cooperative •••• 10-6
10.6 Implementation Strategies ••••. • 10-8
11.0 REFERENCES . · · · · · · · · · · · · · 11-1
APPENDIX PREFACE · ~ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · AP-2
APPENDIX A Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
Akhiok · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · A-1
APPENDIX B Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
Karluk · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · B-1
APPENDIX C Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
Larsen Bay · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · C-1
APPENDIX D Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
old Harbor · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · D-1
APPENDIX E Economic Analysis of Energy plans for
Ouzinkie · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · E-1
APPENDIX F Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
Port Lrons · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · F-1
APPENDIX G Economic Analysis of Energy Plans for
City of-Kodiak · · · · · · · · · · · G-1
REVIEW DOCUMENTS . · · · · · · · · · · · · · RV-1
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number page -,-
2.1 Equivalent energy values •••.•••.••.•••.•.•• 2-4
2.2 Air miles between the communities in
the Kodiak Island Borough ••••••••.•••.•.. 2-16
3.1 The range of projected population
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5,
4. 1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6. 1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
for Akhiok .................... " ........... 3-8
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Akhiok ••••. ~ .-•.•..• 3-9
The range of projected space heating
demands for Akhiok •••••.•••..•.•••.••.••• 3-10
The range of projected cooking and
hot water demands for Akhiok ••••.•••.•..• 3-11
Resource ranking factors for alternative
evaluation for Akhiok ••.••••••.•••••••••• 3-13
The range of projected population
increases for Karluk .••••••••••.••.•••.•• 4-8
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Karluk •.•••.••.•.•. 4-9
The range of projected space heating
demands for Karluk .•..••..•.••••••••.•.•• 4-10
The range of projected cooking and hot
water demands for Karluk •••.•.••••••.•••• 4-11
Resource ranking factors for alternative
evaluation for Karluk ••••••••••••••.••.•• 4-13
The range of projected population
increases for Larsen Bay •.••••••.•••••••• 5-7
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Larsen Bay •••••.••• 5-9
The range of projected space heating
demands for Larsen Bay •••••••••••••.••.•. 5-10
The range of projected cooking and
hot water demands for Larsen Bay •••••.••• 5-11
Resource ranking factors for alternative
evaluation for Larsen Bay •••..•••••.••••• 5-13
The range of projected population
increases for Old Harbor •••••.••••••.•••• 6-7
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Old Harbor .•.•••.•• 6-8
The range of projected space heating
demands for Old Harbor •.••••••••••••••.•• 6-9
The range of projected cooking and
hot water demands for Old Harbor ••••.•••• 6-10
Resource ranking factors for alternative
evaluation for Old Harbor •••••••••••••••. 6-12
vi
[ ;
~
I
U
U
U
lU
I
D
r-]
~
W
:W
I
U
( 1
, lJ
U
I
j
U
W
I ~
I W
W
I
D
'U
I
Table Number
7. 1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8. 1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9. 1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.1
10.2
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
The range of projected population
increases for Ouzinkie ••........••.•••••• 7-7
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Ouzinkie •••.•••.... 7-9
The range of projected space heating
demands for Ouzinkie •.••••••••.••••••..•• 7-10
The range of projected cooking and
and hot water demands for Ouzinkie •.••••• 7-11
Resource ranking factors for alternative
,evaluation for Ouzinkie •.•••.•••.••••• ~ •• 7-12
The range of projected population
increases for Port Lions ..••••••••••••..• 8-6
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Port Lions ••••••.•• 8-8
The range of projected space heating
demands for Port Lions •••.....•••..••.••. 8-9
The range of projected cooking and
hot water demands for Port Lions ••••••••• 8-10
The range of projected population
increases for Kodiak •••••.•••••••••••••.• 9-6
The range of projected lights and
appliance demands for Kodiak •.••••••••.•• 9-8
The range of projected space heating
demands for Kodiak ••••.••••.••••••••••••• 9-9
The range of projected cooking and
hot water demands for Kodiak ••••••••••••• 9-10
Cost summary for a Regional Electrical
Ene-rgy Cooperative •••••••••••••••.•.••••• 10-9
Kodiak Island Borough Electrification
Pro j e c t s ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 0 -1 0
vii
Fi ure Number
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
4.S
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
LIST OF FIGURES
Energy Balance For Akhiok •..••••.•••••••••••• 3-6
Projected population increases for Akhiok •••• 3-S
Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Akh iok ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3-9
Total projected space heating demands
for Akhiok ...................... e.a ••••••••• 3-10
Total projected cooking and hot water.
demand for Akhiok ••••••••••••••••••• ; •.•••• 3-11
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand •.•••• 3-21
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting cooking
and hot water demand ••••••••••••.••••.••••. 3-21
Results of cost of energy analysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance
demand ••••••••••••••••••••••.•••..•••..•••• 3-2 2
Energy balance for Karluk •••••••••••••••••••• 4-6
Projected population increases for Karluk •••• 4-8
Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Kar luk ••.••••.••••••••••••••••• 4-9
Total projected space heating demands
for Karluk ................................. 4-10
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Karluk .••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 4-11
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand •••.•• 4-18
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••• 4-18
Results of cost of energy analysis on
plans to meet lights and appliance demand .• 4-20
Energy balance for Larsen Bay •.••••..•••.•••• 5-5
projected population increases for
Larsen Bay ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••••• 5-7
Total projected lights and appliances
demands for Larsen Bay .•••••••••• ~ ••••••••• 5-9
Total projected space heating demands
for Larsen Bay .••...•....•••...••..•....••. 5-10
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Larsen Bay ..••••••••.••••••••.•• 5-11
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand ••••.• 5-18
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••• 5-18
viii
r '
~
,
~
w
w
D
i U
I
I I I~
I , u
f ,
,
w
r ,
I !
W
u
Figure Number.
5.8
6 • 1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
7 . 1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
8. 1
8.2
8.3
8.4
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Results of cost of energy analysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance
demand .......................................... 5-19
Energy balance for Old Harbor ••••••.•.••••.••• 6-4
Projected population increases for
Old Harbor .........•.............. ~ ......... 6-7
Total projected lights and appliance
demands for Old Harbor ••••••.••••••••••••••• 6-8
Total projected space heating demands
for Old Harbor ..•••••••••.••••.••••••••••••• 6-9
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Old Harbor ••.••••.••••.•••••••••. 6-10
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting space heating
demand ....................................... 6-16
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting cooking and
hot water demand •..•••••••••••••••••••.••••• 6-16
Results of cost of energy analysis on
plans to meet lights and appliance demand .•• 6-18
Energy balance for Ouzinkie ••••••••••.•••••••• 7-5
Projected population increases
for Ouzinkie •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 7-7
Total projected lights and appliances
dentands for Ouzinkie ••••••••••••••••.••••••• 7-9
Total projected space heating demands
for Ouzinkie •••••.•••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 6-10
Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Ouzinkie ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7-11
Relative cost of energy curve for
various means of meeting space heating
demand •••••••••••.••••.•••..••••••.••••••••. 7-18
Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ...................................... 7-18
Results of cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights a~d applianc~ demand •••• ~ ..•• 7-19
Energy balance for Port Lions •••••••••.••••••• 8-4
Projected population increases for Port
Lions ........................................ 8-6
Total projected space lights and appliance
demands for Port Lions 8-8
Total projected space heating demands' for
Port Lions 8-9
ix
r i ~
r
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) ~
j 'I
~
Figure Number Page
8.5 Total projected cooking and hot water ~
demand for Port Lions ..•..••• ~ .....•••••.. 8-10
8.6 Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting space heating demand 8-14 ~
8.7 Relative cost of energy curve for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
demand ....•••••.•••.•••.•••••.•••.• -•..•.•••
8.8 Results of cost of energy analysis on
8-14 r 1
~
plans to meet lights and appliance
demand ••••••••.••••••••.•••..••••••••..••• 8-15 W
9.1 Energy balance for Kodiak (1982) •..•••.•••.. 9-4
9.2 Projected population increase for the
greater Kodi ak area •.•..•..•••.....•.••••• 9-6 -.J
9.3 Total projected lights and appliance
demand for Kod i ak .•.•.•..••••.....•••...•. 9-8
9.4 Total projected space heating demand
for Kodi ak ............................... . 9-9 ~
9.5 Total projected cooking and hot water
demand for Kodiak ••••••.•..••••••....•••••
9.6 projected industrial electricity demand
9-10 ~
for Kodiak ................................ . 9-11
9.7 Projected industrial heat demand for
Kodiak ........ , ........................... .
9.8 Relative cost of e~ergy curves for various
9-11 LJ
means of meeting space heating demand •••••
9.9 Relative cost of energy cvurves for various
means of meeting cooking and hot water
9-15 L
demand •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9-15
9.10 Resul ts of the cost of energy· ana.lysis
on plans to meet lights and appliance W
demand •.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••• 9-17
W
U
U
U
,
~
x U
r~l
I~
U I
I
W
:w
I
t
W
; 1
I~ ,
I~
W
o
o
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Kodiak Island Borough Electrification Planning Assessment
Project is "to conduct a comprehensive study of the immediate
and long term generation and transmission needs of the Kodiak
Island Borough. It The study is based on "the actual review and
standardization" of some 40 previous studies, with "the result
being the identification of key issues facing the residents of
Kodiak Island Borough in providing heat and electrical energy
over the next 20 years and a recommended plan for anticipating
and alleviating future energy problems". The study was also to
emphasize public participation through two public meetings, one
at the beginning of the study and the second to review the
information and preliminary plans.
Although the request for proposals was released in early March,
1982, authorization to proceed was not granted until August.
During this time the Power Authority developed procedures to
supplement their economic analysis with a "Cost of Energy"
analysis. Because the previously published studies on the com-
munities of Kodiak did not include this analysis, -the emphasis
of the project shifted from review and standardization of
previous work to reevaluation of all studied projects using both
analyses. This required the development of new computer soft-
ware and the collection of new and detailed information from the
communities of Kodiak. This additional information has been
collected with the complete cooperation of the communities of
Kodiak, Kodiak Electric Association (KEA), Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative (AVEC), Kodiak Area Native Association
(KANA), Kodiak Island Borough (KIB), Kodiak Island Borough
School District (KIBSD) and the City of Kodiak. Northern
1-1
Technical Services (NORTEC) has appreciated such cooperation in
this study.
The information, analyses, and results' are presented in two
volumes. The first is a Summary Report ','containing a brief
description of existing conditions and problems, a simplified
description and explanation of feasible alternatives, and the
recommended planning strategy that the communities should
follow".
The second is a Techni6al Report which includes "detailed
technical tests, charts, graphs, tables" and the results of the
computer analyses.
1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended energy projects for the communities of the KIB
are listed below.
Akhiok -Relocation of central generation plant adjacent to the
school generating plant: waste heat capture system on the new
generating facility which ties into the existing school system:
upgrade of the distribution system and continuous power to the
community.
Karluk -Installation of central generation system adjacent to
the school, install distribution system, install waste heat
capture to tie in with the exsisting school system.
Larsen Bay -Install central generation, distribution and waste
heat system. Install heat exchangers in school, preschool and
city office building.
1-2
r
W
( ,
1 ' ~
I~
o
I :u
I
D I .
w
I
:U
I :u
I
I ,
U
u
I I • i W I
Old Harbor -Completion of a rate and tarriff analysis for the
Midway Creek hydroelectric project. If results of analyses are
acceptable to Old Harbor consumers, construction of the project
to begin as soon as funding is obtained.
Ouzinkie -Continuation of the present diesel and waste heat
.system with replacement of the existing diesels in 1983 or
upgrade governors or generators to permit paralleling. Initia-
tion of a feasibility study on the potential of a Katmai Creek
hydroelectric plant.
Port Lions -Completion of the Port Lions/Terror Lake Intertie
project.
City of Kodiak -Completion of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric
Project.
Regionwide recommendations include weatherization, a generator
maintenance program, a service and parts network, a bulk fuel
purchasing cooperative, and a regional electric cooperative.
These recommendations are detailed in Chapter 10.0.
1-3
W
I
f~ W
I
I U
U
f :
. \
J
,U
I
W
I
I~
i~
I
~
I ,
:D
I
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
The objectives of the literature review were to compile poten-
tial resource and costing information, to develop a uniform
basis for evaluating each community, and to define sub-regions
for energy planning within the Kodiak Island Borough. In excess
of 40 studies have been conducted on the energy potential and
requirements for electricity and heating on Kodiak Island.
Early studies were consulted for potential resources and those
since 1978 for cost information.
Where there were ambiguities or questions, these were pursued
through the agency sponsoring the original study or utility.
Data was drawn together before the first field visits and
checked in the communities. Where there were discrepancies, the
field data was used.
Apart from published source information, the utilities, namely
KEA and AVEC, were consulted and provided historical as well as
up to date information~ Where there are non-regulated utilities
such records as are available were collected.
2.2 COMMUNITY VISITS
Data sheets were prepared at the start of the project, and
blanks filled out from existing information. Conflicts in data
or data gaps were flagged and where possible, completed in the
community. The village .visits included detailed discussions
with those operating the generators as well as the tribal and
city councils and community members. Fuel use, electrical
2-1
production, and operation and maintenance records were not
always complete. Similarly, there were no detailed records on
end uses. Therefore, many individual households, the schools,
public facilities and businesses (in Kodiak) were visited to
sample the number and types of equipment and appliances used and
obtain estimates of their requirements.
Public meetings were held in all communities d~ring which the
project objectives were outlined and the peoples assistance
sought to provide the basic information. During the public
meetings and discussions with the village councils, Borough and
City officials, summary profiles of the local labor forces were
determined. The majority of the discussions focused on
alternative sources of electricity and thermal energy and many
communities expressed distinct preferences. The information
was recorded and transferred to data disks on an Osborne
microcomputer during the community visits. Where information
gaps existed, these were filled in by recontacting the
communities.
The second village visits were designed to verify the basic data
and analyses and ensure that the energy balances and basic and
derived information is correct and that the plans are as
detailed as possible. The public meetings provided a forum for
discussion of the plans and an opportunity to raise new issues
which arose from formulating, costing and analysis of the plans.
The community meetings focused on public comment and the
people's perception of the role of energy planning in reducing
their dependance on State programs which are liable to change.
2.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Potential resources and technologies available for use in the
2-2
r
~
[
~
w
w
U
I
I
rl
i ~
I
'0
I
U
\
U I
U
I
I 1
W
! ' u
f \ U
production of electrical and thermal energy on Kodiak Island
were investigated. The resulting list was compiled from pre-
vious studies, journals addressing Alternative Energy Technolog-
ies and Engineering, and comments by residents during the
village visits. The initial list was screened and those techno-
logies, namely fuel cells, large scale use of photovoltaic
cells, and wood gasification were eliminated from consideration.
These technologies are unproven, too expensive and/or require
too much maintenance for use in areas which are distant from
manufacturing and service facilities. Reliabilityis.a prereq-
uisite within all communities on Kodiak. There is interest in
individual applications of new equipment for households or
schools but until they have proven to be reliable on a small
scale, there is no interest in system wide installations.
This section is divided into three succinct parts:
1) Alternative fuels. Namely, coal, peat, nuclear and
natural gas.
2) Renewable energy sources. Namely, hydro, wind,
geothermal, wood, methane/alcohol, solar, and tidal.
3) Costing those alternative energy sources which are
viable for use on Kodiak.
The energy value of various fuels can be found in Table 2.1.
The mmBTU to kWh conversion is a footnote in that table.
2.3.1 Alternative Fuels
Coal
There are no known coal resources on the island although the
Beluga Coal Fields are in close proximity. The future develop-
ment of coal resources in the Cook Inlet region has suffered
severe setbacks recently associated with worldwide drop in de-
2-3
Table 2.1 Equivalent Energy Values.
ENERGY FORM
·Electricity
-Capacity
-Generation
·Oil
-Crude oil
-Diesel
-Distillate fuel oil
-Motor gasoline
-Aviation gasoline
-Jet fuel
-Kerosene
-LPG (liquified
petroleum gas)
-Lubricants
·Coal
-Alaskan coal
-Domestic anthracite
-Domestic
bituminous
STANDARD UNITS
KW (Kilowatt)
MW (Megawatt)
KWH (Kilowatt hour)
MWH (Megawatt hour)
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
Short ton (2000 lbs)
lb
Short ton
lb
Short ton
lb
BTU· EQUIVALENT
3,412
3,412,000
138,095
·138,690
138,690
127,700
120,190
127,500
135,500
95,500
144,400
16,440,000
8,220
23,250,000
·11,760
22,430,000
11,215
·Natural gas SCF (Standard cubic foot)
MCF (Thousand cubic feet)
1,020
1,020,000
·Peat
-Alaskan Peat lb 6,000 -9,000
• wood
-Sitka Spruce cord 19,100,000
Source: The Energy Factbook, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress.
* 1 mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU = 293 KWH.
1 BTU = heat from 1 match.
2-4
I \ I .
~
r 1
W
U
I 1 ~
r 1
~i
u
r 1
U
i 1
I I I~
w
W I
I~
W
o I
mand and it is unlikely that it will proceed in the foreseeable
future. All aspects of the use of coal are expensive for small
scale installations (less than 100 kW) when the source is not
local. Transportation, especially on the low grade lignite
coals, covered storage facilities, initial plant costs and air
quality considerations all contribute to coal not being a
feasible alternative source of fuel for the generation of
electricity on Kodiak. The costs of transportation, storage and
distribution also mitigate against its use for space heating.
Peat
The steep terrain of Kodiak has an extensive organic mat over
the bedrock but it is unsuitable for development because of high
mineral content. Much of the mineral component is volcanic ash
that has been deposited from eruptions of Katmai and other
volcanoes on the Alaska Peninsula. The environmental conse-
quences of stripping the organic materials is unlikely to meet
with agency approval in the National Wildlife Refuge, especially
where there are gradients. Sloping peat deposits are
particularly vulnerable to severe slumping and erosion once the
surface is disturbed especially in areas of high rainfall.
Therefore, peat has not been considered as a potential source of
energy for generation of electricity or the provision 'of space
heat.
Natural Gas
A number of exploratory wells have been drilled in the
Shelikof Straits area and in lower Cook Inlet. Several
producing wells are located in lower Cook Inlet. However, all
the gas is then brought ashore at the mainland and is being
pumped back into the reservoir or transported to Anchorage. In
2-5
light of construction of Terror Lake Hydro project to serve
Kodiak/P rt Lions and the relatively small and fragmented
demand in other communities, it is unlikely that natural gas
will attain prominance as a fuel for the generation of
electricity or meeting thermal requirements of the communities.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power is not considered because of Alaska's policy not
to use nuclear fuels or become a repository for spent fuel.
2.3.2 Renewable Energy Resources
Hydropower
The mountainous terrain of Kodiak rises to over 2400 feet
above sea level, steep gradients, heavy rainfall (in excess
of 60 inches per year), and prolonged cloudiness with little
evapotranspiration indicate the abundant hydropower potential.
The very steepness of the terrain limits access to the majority
of pote~tial sites and designation of much of the island as
either National Wildlife Refuge or State Forest places con-
straints upon development. Each of the communities has a poten-
tial hydro site but the majority of streams have inadequate flow
to fulfill the total electrical demand of the community.
Additionally, construction costs are often prohibitive. Hydro
plans were developed when. a site had received a favorable review
in a previous study or when a community had a specific interest
in the site.
2-6
L
L
, 1
I i
~
r
\J I
U
I
I~
U
I
Wind
The stormy climate of Kodiak along with the mountainous ter-
rain provide average windspeeds of approximately 10 mph at 30
feet above the ground on the exposed Pacific Ocean Shores but
lesser speeds are characteristic of the Shelikof Strait Shore.
Terrain conditions are limiting to wind power development
because of turbulence and gustiness. Wind powered generators
are suitable for individual uses but are not sufficiently relia-
ble to serve as the primary power source. Recent advances in
the technology of wind powered generators, especially in rela-
tion to gearing and feathering have not been proven in Alaska.
The environmental impacts associated with wind turbine installa-
tions are primarily aesthetic. If, however, turbines are
constructed at a distance from the community for aesthetic
reasons, they require an access road and transmission line with
their associated environmental impacts.
Wind scenarios have been developed as potential plans for Akhiok
and Ouzinkie.
Geothermal
There are no known geothermal resources near the surface on
Kodiak Island.
Wood
Wood along with hydropower is one of Kodiak Islands most
extensive renewable resources. However, the limited areas in
private lands, costs of transportation, and costs of drying and
handling facilities mitigate against its use for the generation
2-7
of electricty. However, wood, including drift wood, is used and
will be used increasingly for space heating, especially in the
residential sector.
The environmental consequences of local small-scale wood
harvesting are not significant. However, the use of skidders
and other heavy equipment could initiate excessive erosion on
steep slopes unless strict soil and forestry management
practices are used. Wood for local domestic consumption is
primarily transported by skiff and three-wheeled cycle. Slabs
from commercial sawmills are sold for domestic wood heat but as
far as known, the saw dust is not used either on or off site.
Methane/Alcohol
Methane from municipal waste is being produced to supplement
transportaion fuels and domestic heating on a small scale in a
number of European countries and in the midwest. Production of
alcohol from forestry wastes, municipal waste, and industrial
fish processing wastes have been considered. However, at
present, Alaskan research in the field of industrial waste
utilization have been directed at the conversion of fish waste
into a protein supplement for animal feed and fertilizers.
Despite the potential for methane/alcohol production to
supplement transportation fuels, it is unlikely that the demand
on Kodiak would be sufficient for the development of a viable
processing plant.
Solar
Passive solar heating is usually a bi-product of houses
r : •
designed to accommodate views. Kodiak's weather is dominated by ~
heavy cloud cover with measurable precipation on over 100 days a
~
2-8 ~
u
u
U
U
W
I
W
W
I
J
year. The marked lack-of sunshine also p~ecludes the use of
active solar devices for water heating although some individuals
in the City of Kodiak are considering installing experimental
systems in their homes.
Tidal Power
This form of energy has been investigated f6r use in Cook
Inlet. There was strong interest in tidal power in both
Ouzinkie and Karluk. Preliminary investigations of tidal
potential revealed that the lower tidal range and configuration
of the coastline in the vicinity of the communities precluded
proper siting for a tidal generation plant. Additionally,
presently available tidal systems are designed for much larger
loads than present on Kodiak.
Summary of Fuel Resources
1) Alternative and renewable fuels for generation of
electricity available in reliable and economic
quantities include: hydro and wind.
2) Alternative and renewable fuels for space heating
include wood and to a limited extent, passive solar.
2.3.3 Costing and Volumes for Viable Fuels
Costs for the development of the hydroelectric potential at
Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie and Kodiak were
all taken from existing reports published in 1981 or 1982. The
1981 figures were escalated to 1982 dollars.
2-9
wind energy costs for Akhiok and Ouzinkie were taken from 1981
data and escalated to 1982 prices.
Costs for wood use were based on figures derived in the
communities and based on estimates provided by various indiv-
iduals at the public meetings.
The volumes of fuel required were based on the projections for
electrical and thermal load growth generated in the computer
models.
2.3.4 Resource Ranking Procedures
Energy production technologies were reviewed to evaluate their
potential on a community specific basis. Technologies
evaluated were placed into ,two categories; electrical generation
and energy conservation. The electrical generation techniques
which were evaluated are: diesel, hydroelectric, wind energy
conversion systems, geothermal, steam power, and gasification
systems. Energy conservation measures analyzed included:
weatherization, waste heat recovery, and electrical load
management. Individual technologies were evaluated using six
criteria: current state of technology, cost, reliability,
availability of resources, labor requirements, and environmental
impacts. The evaluation consisted of assigning a value of zero
to five (five indicates the best case) ,to each previously
mentioned variable. Criteria utilized in assigning these
ratings are outlined in the following subsections.
State of Technology
State of technology was rated on the availability of system
2-10
I !
~
I ; w
r
W
I
W
W
;w
I
W
U
U
U
!u
. i
'U
I
r , L
components and their demonstrated application as an energy
alternative. In general, this rating was relatively consistent
between villages since the level of deve19ped technology is an
independent variable. However, economies or dis-economies of
scale associated with a technology sometimes rendered the
technology more applicable to certain communities.
Cost
Typical system costs were rated on a per installed kilowatt
rate. For technologies included under energy conservation,
system costs were based on a per energy savings basis.
Technologies were evaluated relative to each other for purposes
of this assessment.
Reliability
The reliability rating indicates the reliability or
sensitivity to energy supply interruption associated with the
respective energy technology. Again, technologies were
evaluated relative to each other in assigning reliability
ratings.
Resource Availability
Resource availability ratings were based upon the quality,
quantity, and availability of resources for the appropriate
techologies to meet a village's energy requirements. Resource
availability varied considerably between villages and was a
major factor in determining future energy plans.
2-11
Labor
The labor rating was primarily based upon the amount of
skilled labor available in a village for long-term operation and
maintenance of an energy system. Lower ratings were assigned
when technologies required a high level of technical expertise
which was not available in the village.
Environmental Impact
Environmental impact ratings were obtained by evaluating, on a
village specific basis, anticipated effects of the technology
and its associated resource use on the natural environment.
Ranking of Energy Sources
The ratings (scores) of the six criteria were in turn used in
ranking formula to determine quantitatively the optimum energy
alternatives for each village. Rankings were obtained by
averaging all six scores and, in addition, weighting the state
of technology and resource availability variables. These
variables were given additional weight since the feasibility of
the energy alternative is heavily dependent on these two
factors. The ranking formula follows:
RANKING FACTOR = (A/30 + B/10)/2
Where A =
the sum of the scores for the six variables
(state of the technology + cost + reliability + resource +
labor + environmental)
AND B =
the sum of the state ,of technology + resource scores
An exception to the ranking procedure occurs when resource
availability is determined to be zero. Under this circumstance,
2-12 \
u
I W
U
w
W
u
u
U
I
IW
I
W
iQ
,W
I
the ranking factor is also assigned a zero value since energy
technologies are totally dependent on resource availability.
For example, geothermal energy is not an alternative as no '
geothermal resources are present in the Kodiak Island Borough.
2.3.5 Conservation Measures
Weatherization
Homes can be made more energy efficient by reducing heat loss
through poorly insulated surfaces and by reducing the air
infiltration into the buildings. Methods include improved
construction to reduce air infiltration through standard walls,
increased insulation thickness, double or triple pane windows
and storm windows, reduced window area and improved seals on
doors and windows.
Waste Heat Recovery
The typical diesel generator converts less than 30% of the input
fuel energy into electricity. Approximately 35% is removed in
the exhaust g,ases, 30% in the cooling jacket/radiator and 5%
from radiation. Approximately 50% of the heat energy input to a
diesel engine is recoverable. The basic method available for
recovering this heat is to transfer the heat through heat
exchangers to a circulating water or glycol system for use in
heating buildings, schools or hot water.
The two forms of heat (jacket water and exhaust) rejected from
the diesel engine can be recovered in heat exchangers which
transfer the heat energy into a fluid such as glycol. The
glycol can then be circulated to the schools, to the public
health service for water heating or to buildings within
economical distances to the generating plant. The system would
2-13
require recovery heatexahangers and a c~rculating system. The
primary heat exchanger for the engine jacket coolant would be a
liquid to liquid type. An optional gas to l~quid type heat
exchanger could be added to recover engine exhaust heat.
The output of a waste heat recovery system would be a tunction
of the electrical. energy demand on the system. Heat generated
in the summer may have to be rejected because ot a ~ower level
need for heat at this time. A fan cooled radiator would be
connected to the heat recovery system for this purpose.
In communities where waste heat recovery was considered, except
for Ouzinkie, only jacket heat recovery was studied (in Ouzinkie
the combination jacket and exhaust heat recovery was
considered). These systems recover approximately 4000 BTU/kWh
produced.
In order to determine the dollar value of displaced heat, the
heating requirements at public buildings near the generating
facility were calculated. The available recovered waste heat
was then used to displace the oil-fired heat. Using a 60%
conversion efficiency for the furnace, it was possible to
determine the amount of fuel displaced and a dollar value was
assigned to it.
2.4 COST COMPARISON ANALYSES
For a generation system to serve a community well, it should
be both reliable and economical. Ideally, a system which will
meet the needs of a community should do so at the least cost.
In order to rank various generation scenarios on economic bases,
two types of economic analyses were completed. The first was a
net present value of each project, and the second was a
comparative cost of energy productiori per unit.
2-14
, , ,
r I W
~
W
W
I
I
U
o
I
. U
I
U
I
Q
I
,0
I
U
I
U
r 1 . U
I
I ,
2.4.1 Economic Analysis
In the net present value analysis, costs of various generation
schemes were compared over a period equal to the life of the
longest lived project. Using a discount rate of 3.5 percent,
project related costs were discounted back to the base year.
Lives of components were tracked and replacement occurred at
appropriate periods. Demand for energy was also evaluated and
the system upgraded; the cost of this upgrade was also calcula-
ted and discounted. Apart from the capital expenditures for
replacement and upgrade, operating and maintenance costs and
fuel costs were also calculated.
In brief, the assumptions used in the economic analysis were:
o
o
o
o
The inflation rate is zero percent to avoid having to
forecast a long term inflation rate and to ease
calculation difficulties.
Fuel costs are escalated at 2.5 percent for the first 20
years of the evaluation period.
The discount rate for present worth calculations is 3.5
percent.
When the economic life of equipment is less than the
evaluation period, the equipment is assumed to be replaced
by like equipment at the same cost.
Demand increase ceases after 20 years and remains at the
level of demand in the twentieth year.
In those plans which involved hydroelectric projects with excess
capacity, 25 percent of this energy was applied to space heating
during winter months. In order to give a dollar figure to this
benefit, the energy was used to displace other forms of space
heating, beginning with the most expensive. The cost of this
displaced heat was then calculated and discounted to give an
2-15
annual discounted benefit. However in light of comments during
the second series of village meetings, the use of excess hydro
generated electricity for space heating was reduced to zero.
The people are, in general, not interested in incurring
additional costs for the installation of resistance heaters and
upgrading the electrical services to the residences. This has
affected the net benefits and project economics.
Salvage values were used to provide uniform comparison periods
for the various projects. That is, if the evaluatiOn-period
ended before a component reached the end of its economic life,
its cost divided by its economic life was multiplied by the
number of years remaining of its life. This value was also then
r ' ~
: I
~
w
w
discounted to the base year. U
Finally, costs were totalled and the benefits and salvage values
subtracted from this value. This yielded a net present cost for
the system, which was the basis for ranking the projects.
2.4.2 Cost of Energy Analysis
The unit cost of energy for various end uses' was calculated.
For this analysis, capital expenditures were annualized over
their economic life using an interest rate of 3.5 percent. The
yearly operating and maintenance costs and fuel costs were added
to the annualized costs. These were then divided by the total
load on the system to give a cost for each unit of energy
delivered. The same basic assumptions as in the economic
analysis were used.
The total load on the system was calculated by including all
components of an end use and assuming that they were satisfied
using electricity. For example, the total space heat
requirement for a community was calculated and the amount not
2-16
o
D
W
:~
, 1
'U I
iU
I
U
U
iD
I
o
U
currently met by electrical resistance heating was converted to
electrical~ this load was then added to the existing load on the
system. The system was then upgraded to meet this demand and
the resulting costs divided by the load. This procedure was
followed separately for each end use.
The resulting annual unit costs were graphed and compared to the
costs of other methods and fuels for meeting a specific end use.
Thus it is possible to compare the cost of meeting a community's
needs with various electrical generation systems and by other
means as well.
2.5 SUBREGIONAL PLANS AND REGIONAL STRATEGIES
2.5.1 Subregional Plans
Subregions within the KIB were defined based on geographic
distances between communities and the potential for meeting the
projected demand of two (or three) communities through a single
generation system and an intertie. Table 2.2 illustrates the
distances between communities.
Distances are in airline miles and ignore topography. However,
from these, it is apparent that apart from the work in progress
on the Terror Lake hydro project which will intertie Kodiak and
Port Lions, the only other potential interties are Kodiak/Port
Lions/ouzinkie and Karluk/Larsen Bay. Ouzinkie is located on
Spruce Island and presently has a new demonstration project for
wasteheat capture. Therefore, Ouzinkie has not been considerea
as a viable intertie option. Karluk and Larsen Bay have been
considered for an intertie, especially if the local hydro
potential of Larsen Bay is exploited. This plan is detailed in
Section 10.4, Subregional Plans.
2-17
Table 2.2 Air miles between the communities in the Kodiak
Island Borough.
Communities
Kodiak Old Harbor
Old Harbor Akhiok
Akhiok Karluk
Karluk Larsen Bay
Larsen Bay Old Harbor
Kodiak Ouzinkie
Kodiak Port Lions,
port Lions Ouzinkie
2-18
Distance-:Between
(Miles)
54
35
41
15
32
8
17
12
~
W
W
W
,,-~
W
~
U
,
~
W
W
r-'
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
u
J
J
u
r 1
W
I:
,~
I
W
I
U
The remaining three communities each have unique conditions and
alternatives. Old Harbor is distinct from Akhiok and Ouzinkie
in that it is a member of AVEC.
Based on these conditions, it is apparent that with regard to
specific project construction Larsen Bay/Karluk and Kodiak/Port
Lions are the only communities that can be regarded as
sub-regions.
2.5.2 Regional Strategies
One of the original intents of this project was to investigate
potential economies of regional coordination of construction and
equipment purchase. This strategy, however, is less than
meaningful considering recent decisions to proceed with local
projects and the diverse requirements of each of the
communities. However, several sub-regional and regional
strategies were enumerated and are discussed in section 10.0 of
this report. These strategies are:
1} A regional educational program to include:
a} Weatherization and energy conservation.
b} Basic ~rinciples of wiring, and design
implementation for upgrading local
distribution systems.
c} Generator operation and maintenance
including service, generator efficiency,
load management, night switching, and
record keeping.
2} A service and parts network coordinated by KANA
for the maintenance of generating and distribution
equipment.
2-19
3) A KANA coordinated cooperative for coordinating the
purchase and delivery of fuel.
4) Development of a regional electricity cooperative.
The above regional strategies were developed on the basis of
discussions with KANA and KIB which outlined deficiencies in the
present operation and maintenance programs, fuel purchasing and
payments, and record keeping.
2-20
r 1 W
,
U
: 1
r '
I ' W
W I
W
,W
I
IW
!W
:W
3.0 AKHIOK
Akhiok is located on Alitak Bay 85 miles southwest of Kodiak
and 41 miles south of Larsen Bay. The community population
fluctuates seasonally and is generally higher during the summer
fishing season. The 1982 KIB census denoted 103 residents. The
occupied residences in Akhiok consist of 15 HUD homes built in
1978 and 11 traditional homes.
Commercial fishing dominates the community economy. While some
fishermen join vessels based in Kodiak for the season, other
residents fish for the Alitak cannery located 5 miles south of
Akhiok or work on floating processors in the area. Many
residents of Akhiok travel to the cannery at Alitak by skiff to
purchase fuel and groceries.
Although there is a small store in Akhiok, it operates
sporadically and employs only the owner/operator. A commercial
sector in Akhiok is virtually non-existent. Other than fishing,
employment opportunities are limited to the school and public
sectors. Available jobs are as follows:
o Three federal health program positions
o One city government position
o Two KANA positions, and
o Several part-time teacher aide positions
Akhiok's school facilities expanded greatly in 1982 with the
completion of a 8500 ft 2 school. The new school is equipped
with two 30 kW generators and a waste heat capture system to
heat the school. Former school facilities consisted of a 3500
ft2 trailer type school, generator shed and a teacherage.
3-1
The field team visited Akhiok in September 1982. The team took
door-to-door end use surveys, inspected generating facilities,
and talked with the school principal. An informal afternoon
meeting was held in the newly remodeled community hall. The
meeting turnout in Akhiok was one of the highest in all
communities. Residents provided information on their cooking
and water systems, fuel use, and methods of using or not using
electricity. This information and data from the end use surveys
and utility use records were used to establish the energy use
patterns for Akhiok.
During the second village visit, a report was given to a meeting
of the city council at which 26 residents were present. After
outlining the plans and local, as well as regional
recommendations, discussion focused on four principal topics,
these were 1) problems with maintenance and the reliability of
the present city generator 2) running a village utility 3)
problems of fuel supply and financing 4) location of the
generator for a central system and the installation of an
underground distribution system.
The village was in favor of a regional service parts and
maintenance systemj coordinated fuel deliveries and a training
course on how to set up a utility, determine costs, billing
rates, record keeping and accounting.
Previous attempts to get everyone to connect to a city power
source have not been successful and underloading the generator
along with irregualr servicing has resulted in undependable
service.
Several participants are very interested in small 2-SkW wind
generators and are hoping to establish an experimental wind
generator installation in the next couple of years.
3-2
, i
I
~
, 1
U
W
I
3.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
Energy use patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as
well as electrical requirements. Thermal requirements include
space heating, hot water heating and cooking while electrical
requirements include lighting and electric appliances. In some
instances thermal requirements are satisf.ied through electrical
means but this is not common in Akhiok.
3.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities
Generators in Akhiok ranged in size from 4.5 kW units
supplying individual homes to the city's 55 kW unit. Two 25 kW
units supplied the old school and the teacherage: a 10 kW unit
was installed at the water pump house, and 2 30kW units with
waste heat capture equipment have been installed at the new
school.
The Akhiok city generator runs on a shortened operation schedule
in order to decrease fuel use in the short term. In 1982 the
city generator operated during designated evening hours (7 p.m.
-12 a.m.) and during 3 morning hours of certain days to allow
for washing. During months of increased darkness, evening hours
were lengthened by 1 hour per month with the maximum in January
with hours from 3 p.m. -12 a.m. After January, hours were
decreased by 1 hour per month until May when the regular evening
hours were again instituted. In 1982 the public generator ran
approximately 2252 hours, used approximately 4900 gallons of
fuel, and produced about 24,000 kWh. It operated with 12%
efficiency which is considerably lower than the 20% efficiency
of most 55 kW units.
The city of Akhiok sells power to consumers at a rate of
0.45/kWh. Sixteen homes in Akhiok used city power in 1982
3-3
although most are now using their own generators because of
problems with the village's generator. Eight homes ran small
generators, while two homes used no electricity. The residents
shared mixed views of the city system. Most who utilized city
power said that the shortened hours were not a problem because
they felt that decreasing the generator fuel use lowered their
electric bill. In September, the city was trying to obtain
community approval for continuous power and distribution to all
residences. The idea of improved efficiency due to continuous
operation and increasing the load was, however,'not popular with
most residents. Some residents preferred to maintain their own
small generators rather than be susceptible to city hours and
maintenance problems. Also there is a very limited cash economy
in the village and residents are concerned that increased power
availability would mean increased use and cause problems when
the bills came due.
In recent months, maintenance and repair problems have plagued
the city generator. Down time has been increased due to the
absence of a trained generator mechanic in the community.
The school operated one of its 25 kW units all the time
switching from one unit to the next when maintenance was
required. The water plant generator operated once a week for
three hours.
3.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
The most common method of satisfying heating, cooking, and hot
water requirements is with diesel fuel. Most homes have
traditional oil stoves that provide space heat, a cooking
surface, and hot water coils. Average fuel oil use per home was
one half 55 gallon barrel during 4 summer months, and 3 barrels
during the 8 winter months. Some residents supplemented fuel
3-4
r '
~
r :
r :
~
I
I~~
J I
I~
J
!
J
I
J
I
J
w
J
oil with wood for space heat. Other supplemental fuels used in
small quantities include blazo and propane for cooking and
kerosene for kerosene lanterns.
The community consumes approximately 5000 gallons of gasoline/
year. Most of this is used by the 14 skiffs owned by residents
while the rest is used by cycles and a few autos.
The energy use patterns for Akhiok are presented in Figure 3.1,
Akhiok's Energy Balance. The figure depicts incoming fuel, the
consuming sector (residential, public, school or commercial)
and what the fuel is used for.
3.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of the electrical and thermal requirements were
based on the combination of historical trends and the
requirements of capital projects with known on-line dates.
3.2.1 Capital Projects
The most significant capital ,project in Akhiok is the new
school. This faci!ity, although completed and operating by late
1982, was evaluated as coming on-line in 1983 as this is the
first complete plan year of its operation. Another planned
project discussed was a floating mooring facility. Materials
for this facility were enroute to Akhiok during the field visit
and it is expected to be completed in 1983. This facility will
have no thermal or electrical demand. Conversion of a vacant
building to a community recreation center is a planned project
that the residents support. If funded, this conversion would be
completed in 1984.
3-5
USER
FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
GASOl.INE TRANSPOR TAT ION:
~,OOO GAL. RESIOENT IAL I SKIFF'S. Auros. PUBliC I
639 MM8HJ 3-WH££,ERS
RESIOENTlAl
241 MWH liGHTING.
84.3 ~M8TU APPLIANCES
DIESEL PU8UC
FUEL '5,) MWH LIGHTING
ror 18.0 M..,STU
ELECTRICAl. SCHOOL
GENERATION 68,2 "WH LIGHTING,
232 ",,..STU EOulPMENT
17, 7~9 GA\..
NON -REcovER'a,E
2.460 MM8TU WAST( HEAT "/A
1.180 MMOhJ
REcovERAaLE
WASTE HEAT HIA 178 MUSTU·"
SCHOOL
SPACE HEAT: 1,337 GAt.
1,48$ GAL. HOT WATER: 7. GAL.
COOKING' 74 GAL I
~
[
HEATING
FUEl. RESIOENTIAL SPACE HEAT' 20,640 GAL. I.J
HOT WATER: 3,670 GAl..
37,270 GAL. 28,600 GAL, COOKING: 4,2:90 GAl..
4,480 MM8TU
SPACE HEAT: 2,161 GAL.
PUBLIC HOT WATER: 114 GAL. 2,27~ GAL,
COOKING' 0 GAL.
PROPANE RESIDENTIAL 4 ~ 100'" 1MS.
8 -100'" fKS. COOKING,
16,6 .... BTU SCHOOL 4 .. 100 # TKS DRYERS
WOOD
35.6 CORDS RESIOENTIAL SPACE HEAT
680 MMBTU
BLAZO
443 GAL RESIOENTiAL COOKING
S,6.1 MMSTlJ
KEROSENE
577 GAL, RES.DENTtAL UGHTING
78,2 .... STU
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATtOfrf ONLY
Figure 3.1 The 1982 energy balance for Akhiok.
3-6
~
I
:~
I
J
I
, 1
I~
U
W I
u
u
u
~
IU
I
U
I
U
3.2.2 Population Projections
Historical population data for Akhiok show a steady decrease
until the mid-1950's. During the 1950's and 60's the population
increased while in the 70's it began to decline. Rural
population fluctuations are extremely dependent on the quality
of life in the community. New school facilities have
traditionally increased community population by preventing
families from moving to communities with schools and by drawing
back families who may have moved. The floating mooring facility
will improve the community services and thus also the quality of
life. If funded, the Rec Center would also improve the quality
of life.
Based on the variable historical data and the expected increases
from the capital projects, the most likely growth rate for
Akhiok is expected to be 1.5%/year. The low growth rate
(l.O%/year) and the high growth rate (2.0%/year) represent the
extremes of the range of growth. The range of projected growth
is detailed in Table 3.1 and illustrated 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
forecasted 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
3-7
Table 3.1 The range of projected population increases
for Akhiok.
Population
Year Low Growth (1.0%) Likely Growth (1.5%) High Growth (2.0%)
1983 104 105 105
1988 109 113 116
1993 115 121 128
1998 121 131 141
2002 126 139 153
z a
. H
I-< .J
::l
D.. a
D..
POPULATION PROJECTION
AKHIOK
115~------------------------------------~-------'
IsB
125
IBB
1s~~~~~--L-~~~~--~~~~~--~~--~~--
1982 1984 1988 1988 199B 1992 1994 1998 1998 2BBB 2BB2
YEAR
Figure 3.2 The total projected population increase~ for Akhiok. r
II.
3-8
r -,
~
I
U
I
U
u
w
IU
U
I
~
W
I
W
U
U
Table 3.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands
Akhiok.
popuIation
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 86 120 150 170
Low Public 18 19 20 21
1. 0% School 280 280 290 290
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 384 419 460 481
Residential 86 130 160 180
Likely public 18 20 21 23
1. 5% School 280 290 290 300
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 384 440 471 503
Residential 87 130 170 200
_ High Public 18 20 22 25
2.0% School 280 290 300 310
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 385 440 492 535
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
AKHIOK
6aar---------------------------------------------~
A
:::l ssa I-m
E
E v
L1J
(f)
:::l 4sa
>-
(!)
0:::
W 4aa z
L1J
3sa~~~~--L-~~~--~~~~~~~~--L-~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2aal
YEAR
for
2002
180
22
300
0
502
200
24
310
0
534
220
26
320
0
566
Figure 3.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands for
Akhiok.
3-9
Table 3.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Akhiok.
----POpulation
Growth
Rate
Low
1.0%
Likely
1. 5%
. High
2.0%
User Demand mmBTU
Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 2900 3000 3200 3300
Public 270 280 290 310
School 1900 1900 2000 2000
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 5070 5180 5490 5610
Residential 2900 3100 3400 3600
Public 270 290 310 330
School 1900 2000 2000 2100
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 5070 5390 5710 6030
Residential 2900 3200 3500 3900
Public 270 300 330 360
School 1900 2000 2100 2100
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 5070 5500 5930 6360
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
AKHIOK 7BBBr---------------------------__________________ ~
" ::J
h; 65BB
E
E v
tM 6BBB
::J
>-
t!) ffi 55BB
Z
L1J
Figure 3.4
LOW
1995 1997 1999 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BBI
YEAR
The total projected space heating demands for
Akhiok.
3..;.10
2002
3400
320
2000
0
5720
3800
350
2100
0
6250
4200
380
2200
0
6780
1-1 . I ~
I i
W
u
w
w
r i
~
W
W
[
rW
'w
IW
I
U
u
u
r I
U
,w
r 1
W
I
W
w
I
Q
I
U
1° ,
Table 3.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demanas
Akhiok.
population -----
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,600
Low Public 0 0 0 0
1. 0% School 36 37 38 39
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 1,436 1,437 1,538 1,639
Residential 1 ,400 1 ,500 1 ,600 1,700
Likely Public 0 0 0 0
1. 5% School 36 37 39 41
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 1 ,436 1 ,537 1,639 1 ,741
Residential 1,400 1,500 1,700 1 ,900
High Public u U U 0
2.0% School 36 38 40 43
Commercial 0 0 0 0
Total 1,436 1,538 1,740 1,943
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
-AKHIOK
2200~----------------------------------------------~
m lS00
::J
>-
C) ffi lS00
Z
W
1400~~~~~~~~--~~~--L-~~--~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 3.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Akhiok.
3-11
tor
2002
1,600
0
40
0
1,640
1,tiOO
0
42
0
1 ,842
2,000
0
44
0
2,044
presented in Table 3.2. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the ranges
of space heating and cooking and hot water requirements. The
total projected demands for each end use are presented in
Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.
3.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
A general description of resource assessment is given in
Chapter 2.0 Methodology. Resources specifically applicable to
Akhiok are detailed below.
3.3.1 Resource Alternatives
Ranking factors, as described in Section 2.3.4, were used to
select appropriate alternatives for Akhiok. Recommendations
of previous studies were evaluated and incorporated into the
ranking as were community preferences. The most popular
alternatives to the residents were a hydro project and a wind
generator.
The resources evaluated and these ranking factors are presented
in Table 3.5. As illustrated, diesel power, waste heat, wind
generation, and hydroelectric power had the highest ranking
factors. Plans for the implementation of these alternatives
were developed and compared on the basis of economic and end use
analyses.
3.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
3.4.1 Base Case Plan
The base case plan assumes all end uses are satisfied by the
3-12
w
w
w
w
w
W
I
W
Table 3.5 Resource Ranking Factors for Alternative Evaluated for Akhiok.
Technology Rel1a-Environ-
State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental
Impact
Weatherization'" 5 5 5 5 5 5
Diesel Power 5 4 i 4 4 4 4
Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 I 4 4 4 4
Hydroelectric Power 5 1 I 4 3 3 1
Wind Energy Conversion
Systems 3 3 2 5 2 5
Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Steam Power from local
fuel, wood, coal, etc ••• N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Gas'ification of wood, coal
or peat N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Electrial Load Management'" 5 3 3 2 1 4
'" Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
R
Factor
1.00
0.87
0.87
0.68
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.00 -
0.66
presently used methods. Generation remains decentralized
although the city generator is replaced in two years. Space
heating requirements continue to be satisfied by fuel oil with
residents supplementing with wood. Cooking and hot water re-
quirements continue to be met with fuel oil and some propane.
All base case technologies are presently available in Akhiok.
There are no adverse environmental impacts from continuation of
diesel generation or diesel fuel use for heating. All technol-
ogies employed are normally highly reliable. Often, however,
when trained generator operators and repair personnel are not
available in a community, reliability of generation systems
decreases drastically. The base case scenario provides a basis
for comparison to alternative plans.
3.4.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for Akhiok is development of a central genera-
tion system located next to the new school and supplying power
to all buildings and homes. The generator would be equipped
with a waste heat system compatible with the waste heat piping
built in the school and would supply the school heat.
Upgrades required for the system include a new generator build-
ing next to the school, two new generators -both 75 kW, waste
heat piping to attach to the existing school system, and a new
distribution system. Central generation and waste heat systems
are both proven technologies and are readily available.
A centralized system with both backup and peaking power would
provide more reliable power than the existing system. Although
the actual generator fuel consumption would increase, the school
could buy heat as well as power from the city thereby offsetting
3-14
L
L
I .
I ~
J
J
1 U
1
U
U
some fuel costs. Additionally, there are no adverse
environmental impacts from waste heat systems.
3.4.3 Al ive 2 ~~~~~~--
A wind generation system tied into a centralized generation
system is Alternative 2 for Akhiok. This plan includes a 25 kW
wind generator, and two diesel generators, a 90 and 55 kw. The
plan would require a new generator building and a distribution
system upgrade.
Wind generation is a very popular idea in Akhiok as the wind
nearly always blows. The average annual wind speed is 17 mph
(CH2M Hill, 1981) while the minimum practical constant wind
speed for operation of a wind generator is 10 mph. Wind
generators have become available in recent years and in fact
have been installed as demonstration projects in many rural
communities. Unfortunately, the present state-of-the-art of
wind systems is not highly compatible with Alaskan wind
conditions or rural maintenance technology. Past demonstration
projects have shown wind systems to be very unreliable and to
have high operati~n and maintenance costs. It is expected that
a wind system would meet only 25% of the community energy
demand.
There are no adverse environmental impacts associated with wind
turbines. However, a transmission line and/or access road to
the turbine would result in some disturbance of the vegetation
and terrain.
3.4.4 Alternative 3
Plan 3 is the development of a run-of-the-river hydroelectric
3-15
plant on Kempff Bay Creek and a centralized diesel generation
system for peaking and backup. Kempff Bay Creek is located
approximately 2 miles east of Akhiok. This plan calls for
installation of the central generation and distribution systems
in 1983 with construction of the hydro project beginning in 1983
and on-line in 1985.
Previous studies note that Kempff Bay Creek has an average
annual flow of 10.9 cfs and a net head of 127 ft. The installed
capacity of the plant is 137 kW although, because it is
dependent on stream runoff, dependable capacity can be as low as
20 kW during winter low flow periods. During low flow periods,
community demand will be met with diesel power. During high
flow periods some of the excess power generated is assumed to be ~
used for electric space heating. Hydroelectric plants are a
proven method of generation, have low operation and maintenance
costs, and have an expected useful life of 50 years.
There are potential adverse environmental effects to the pink
and chum salmon population in Kempff Bay Creek. Both species
ascend the entire length of Kempff Bay Creek to a lake.
Community residents expressed concern over the harmful effects
of hydro development to the salmon.
3.5 COST COMPARISON OF PLANS
Cost comparison of plans was based on an economic analysis
that calculates the net present worth of each plan. Methodology
of this analysis was detailed in Section 2.4.1.
3.5.1 Base Case Plan
The base case plan does not require any capital expenditures
3-16
L
w
u
w
u
, I
I '
I
U
; I
W
ID
~
U
W
'W
lu
I
in the base year. The first capital expenditure is in 1984 when
the existing generator is replaced. Additional diesels are
replaced at the end of a 10 year life or when the community
demand exceeds the system capacity. The net present worth of
the base case is $2,900,000 over the 53 year period for
comparison to hydroelectric power. Yearly present worth is
presented in APPENDIX A.
3.5.2 Al ive 1 =..;;;,..:=..;..;;..;;.;..;;...;;;...;...;;;..~
The central generation and waste heat scheme would be on line
in 1984. Capital expenditures for the central system scheme
include $354,000 for two new 75 kW generators, a new generator
building next to the school, a day fuel tank with diking, and a
new distribution system. The waste heat system costs are
$56,000. Generators would be replaced in 1994 and at 10 year
intervals thereafter unless demand exceeds their capacity before
10 years. The accumulated cost of this plan is $2,788,000.
Benefits for the amount of oil saved by using waste heat equal
$110,000. The net present worth of this plan therefore is
$2,678,000.
3.5.3 Alternative 2
With the exception of waste heat equipment and generator
relocation, the wind generation plan requires many of the same
costs as Alternative 1. Central generation and system upgrade
costs total $374,000. The wind system costs total $496,000
including transimission lines. The total project start-up cost
is $870,000. The wind generator is replaced every 15 years and
backup diesel is replaced as demand rises and expected life
expires. The accumulated cost of the plan is $3,058,000.
3-17
3.5.4 Alternative 3
A hydroelectric plant on Kempff Bay Creek requires a central
generation distribution system with full backup capacity.
Total costs to bring hydro power on line in 1985 with full
backup power are $2,246,000. The hydro facility has an expected
life of 50 years. The transmission line is replaced after a
life of 30 years and the diesel generators at the end of 10
years or when demand requires increased capacity. The net
present worth of the hydro plan over 53 years is $3,016,000.
Residents stated that they would be unwilling to install
electric resistance heaters to use the excess electricity
produced, therefore, there would be no benefits and the net
.present worth of the plan is $3,016,000.
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 (Electric)
Net Discounted Cost
3-18
$2,900,000
-0-
$2,900,000
$2,788,000
-$ 110,000
$2,678,000
$3,058,000
-0-
$3,058,000
r
~
I 1
~
. I ~
~
u
I
D
'0
J
U
~U
I
ID
U
I
I U
I
IU
r 1 u
U
U
U
U
U
W
D
Central Generation w/Hydro
Discounted Accumulated Cost
Space Heat Benefits (Electric)
Net Discounted Costs
$3,016,000
-0-
$3,016,000
As shown the waste heat plan subtracts a fuel savings from use
of waste heat, from the accumulated plan cost. The
hydroelectric plan was initially evaluated with a fuel savings
from conversion to electric space heaters. Residents stated
that they would not install electric resistance heaters unless
electricity costs were -significantly less than those for oil and
wood. As this is not the case, no space heating benefits have
been calculated or subtracted from the accumulated discounted
costs.
Based on the economic analysis the central generation/waste heat
plan is the best plan for Akhiok.
3.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis is a secondary method of
determining the worth of a plan. This analysis evaluates each
plan on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of each of
the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
o space heating
o industrial heating
o industrial electricity
The cost of meeting each end use demand by existing methods is
compared to that of meeting it by an alternative plan.
3-19
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/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 3.6 and
3.7 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 electrici ty than the base case system. ' Therefore, a
detailed cost of energi 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 3.8. As shown in this figure,
althought the base case is initially the least costly plan, all
alternatives eventually become less costly than the base case.
The unit energy cost by wind system is higher than that of the
central generation system and the hydro plan. In fact, central
generation with waste heat shows the lowest cost until the year
2000 when the hydro cost drops below the waste heat cost.
3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.7.1 Community Recommendations
Review of the economic analyses show that waste heat recovery
plan is the most economically attractive. Although wind shows
some potential, however, based on the poor success rate of wind
generation demonstration projects, in Alaska this system is not
recommended for further study.
3-20
I '
W
r I
lJ
u
t-
I-:-
1983
COST [IF ENERGY SPACE HEATING
AKHIOK
----BASE CASE",
--WASTE, HEAT,
WIND \ ,-HYDRO
~WOOD
'--OIL
--L
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 3.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY ~ COOKING & HOT WATER
AKHIOK
t-
-
----BASE CASE
WASTE HEAT -
I-~ '--WIND
t-,HYDRO
I-PROPANE,
F
'-OIL
I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 3.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
3-21
:J
I-m
E
E
" (It
COST OF ENERGY ~ LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
AKHIOK
35121~--------------------------------------------------~
3121121
25121
Wind
2121121 Wind----'
Hydro"-/ Woste Heot 15121
1121121
5121
121
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21211211
YEAR
Figure 3.8 Results of the cost of energy analysi~ on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
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. The net present worth of
the hydro plan is considerably. higher than the waste heat plan.
There is a strong probability of disruption of the salmon
populations in Kempff Bay Creek and residents were particularly
concerned with the salmon resources. 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.
3-22
u
II ~
u
u
u
o
.~
I
W
U
W
D
U
:U
I 'u
r 1
J
I
r 1 U
u
u
l~
D
'D
W
U
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 KIB School District has stated that they are
supportive of such systems if the school can revert to its own
heating system if waste heat becomes more costly.
The city of Akhiok should present this plan to the KIBSD for
review.
3.7.2 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 10.0.
3-23
'W I
I
W
J
J
J
U
U
U
, 1
, i u
w
U
u
u
u
u
u
U
D
I
4.0 KARLUK
Karluk is located on the south side of Karluk Lagoon near the
mouth of the Karluk River. The settlement occupied both sides
of Karluk Lagoon until 1978, when the sandspit and footbridge
which joined them were washed away in a storm. Karluk Tribal
Council decided to establish a new village site exclusively on
the south side about 3/4 mile upstream.
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 population of Karluk has remained stable for the last 15
years, near 100 residents. Fishing is the mainstay of the local
economy. Silver salmon are caught in the lagoon and hauled in
skiffs to floating processors which operate offshore. Approxi-
mately 10 percent of the work force leaves the village to work
on larger boats during the summer. Employment opportunities are
limited and out of the total work force, 64 percent held only
summer employment, 19 percent were employed for a nine month
period, and 16 percent were employed year round. The year round
jobs tend to be part time. The longer term positions in the
village include two adult basic,education instructors, the
school employs six people, KANA employs a preschool teacher and
an environmental health specialist. The clinic employs three
people and the Tribal Council employs a clerk, community aide
and heavy equipment maintenance person. Subsistence fishing and
hunting activities supplement the limited cash economy_
4-1
The NORTEC field team and the KANA energy planner visited Karluk
in September, 1982. A well attended community meeting was held
in the village. In addition to detailing present methods of
heating and cooking, residents talked candidly about their
future hopes for development in Karluk. Residents also
expressed strong support for hydropower development to reduce
their dependency on imported oil. Residents completed end use
surveys and talked with team members about their fuel and
electricity use. Using data from the community visit, previous
studies and historical trends, NORTEC establishedlhe .existing
energy use patterns and bases for projections.
The second visit occurred in Feburary 1983 during which a report
on progress in the project and a synopsis on the local,
subregional and regional plans was presented to the \council.
The Mayor (Larry Shugak) mentioned that two 55 kW generators
have been prbvided to the council by Kodiak Island Borough.
KANA and the Karluk Trible Council have funded a project to
design the power plant and distribution system. The generators
are not in the village yet. The proposed site for the
generators is the village work shop that is adjacent to the
water treatment plant. The site is in proximity to the new
school. The village has also recently taken delivery of a
50,000 gallon tank which is currently near the airstrip. The
village plans to move the tank onto its own land above the old
northside village site. The tank will then be accessible to be
filled directly from the barge. Diesel fuel would than be
transported in a fuel truck (the village is applying for funding
for a truck) to a holding tank next to the generators. Concern
was expressed over setting the tank near the old village because
the road to the present village is suffering from slumping and
may not be passable by a ladened fuel truck. An alternative
plan suggested by one of the council members was to put the
storage tank above the present village site and pump the fuel
directly into the tank and from there use gravity feed to the
4-2
i ~
; ,
r 1 ..
w
w
w
, ,
I I ,W
f I
U
r 1
i I I.J
I :u
I
D
W
I
I W
I
U
t~ ,~ . .!;
generators. The problems with this plan are containment around
the tank in the event of a fuel leak or spill, also Karluk
Lagoon is silting very rapidly and barge access to the village
site may be affected in the next 10 years. Setup of the tank
will be addressed during design of the village system.
Members of the council were very interested in a regional
coordination of fuel purchases and generator service and
maintenance. Similarly the council requested that a training
session be held to assist them to establish the utility and
implement a training, billing and record keeping system.
Two of the houses at the old north site are occupied, but the
distance 1.2 miles to supply the power is considerable, and a
suggestion was made by the residents that a small 10 kW hydro be
installed on a creek that runs through the site. Preliminary
reconnaissance of the stream indicates that the flow
approximates one cfs with a head of 50 to 70 feet and a penstock
length of 300 ft.
The remaining houses on the south side of the Lagoon and Karluk
Lodge will not be served by the Village system.
The question of hydro power was also raised and a creek to the
east of the Village and tributary to the Karluk River was
suggested as having more water than Mary's Creek. However,
reservations were expressed over whether development could
proceed in the National Wildlife Refuge and whether a
transmission line could follow the scenic Karluk River.
4.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
Energy use patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as
4-3
well as electrical end use requirements. Electrical end uses
always include lights and electric appliances and may include
hot water heating and cooking end uses. Thermal end uses
include space heating and may also include hot water heating and
cooking.
4.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities
The twenty two newer homes, the water treatment building, and
television receiver are each powered by 3.5 kW air cooled Lister
diesels. Two of the older homes share a 4 kW unit. The church
has its own generator. The school and teacherage share two 12
kW air cooled Lister diesels, only one of which operates at any
point in time. A 17.6 kW, White-Hercules diesel generator set,
skid mounted, is adjacent to the water treatment building but
not connected to any load.
Two 55 kW generators have been donated to Karluk by Kodiak
Island Borough and the design of a powerplant and distribution
system is in progress.
Two 30 kW John Deere generators with a waste heat capture system
are being installed at the school.
4.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
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.
4-4
: . i ~
w
u
w
w
u
u
I
I
U
w
u
u
, I
W
u
u
U
W I
Q
I
U
( I
W
Based on the end use survey, homes each use about 1/2 barrel of
oil per month in the summer and up to 2 barrels per month in the
winter for space heating, water heating, and cooking.
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
4.1, 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.
4.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal
requirements were based on the combination of historical trends
and the requirements of capital projects with known on-line
dates.
4.2.1 Capital Projects
The new school will be completed in 1983 along with the Tribal
Council office/clinic building. A Department of Commuity and
Regional Affairs grant for a 50,000 gallon bulk fuel storage
tank has been approved and the tank has been delivered but is
not yet in place. Although the community is considering
applying for a separate Post Office, a docking facility, new
store, and fuel delivery truck, these projects do not have
funding or an established start date. Therefore, they have not
been included in the model. The community expressed a firm need
for a centralized electricity generation and distribution
4-5
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 MMBru
BLAZO
340 GAL.
43,5 MMBTU
KEROSENE
440 GAL.
59,6 MMBTU
USER + SECTOR END USE
TRANSPORTATION: RESIDENTIAL / SKIFFS, AUTOS, PUBLIC
3-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTI NG, 11.0 MWH EQUIPMENT 37,5 MMBTU
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING. 65,7 MWH APPLIANCES 292 MMBTU
PUBLIC
0,2 MWH LIGHTING
0,68 MMBTU
COMMERCIAL LIGHTiNG, 0,6 MWH FREEZERS 2,05 MMBTU
NON -RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
3,750 MMBTU
RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
-0 -*
SCHOOL SPC, HEAT: 2,200 GAL,
HOT WTR: -0-2,200 GAL, COOKING' -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC, HEAT' 12,630 GAL,
HOT WTR: 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, COOKING: -0-
SCHOOL 4,5-100# 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 APPL ICABLE
TO DECENTRALIZED GENERATION
Figure 4.1 The 1982 energy balance for Karluk.
4-6
r I
~
i I
~
r ;
W
I~
U
W I
J
W
I
U
I r 1 I~
U
I
r 1
: I I~
I
u
r )
W
jU
i
IQ
~
iU
I
ID
facility and this is included in Alternative Plan 1 in the
Energy Plans (Section 4.4.2).
4.2.2 Population Projections
Karluk's population declined between 1960 and 1970 but has
remained relatively stable since then. 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 (1%/year) represent the extremes of the range of growth.
The range of projected growth is depicted in Table 4.1 and
Figure 4.2.
4.2.3 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). Forecas~s are based on capital projects, the resulting
population 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 presented in Table 4.2. Tables 4.3 and 4.4
present the ranges of space heating and cooking and
hot water requirements. The total projected demands for each
end use are presented in Figures 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.
4-7
Table 4.1 The range of projected population increases for
Karluk.
Year
1983
1988
1993
1998
2002
---'
Z
0
H
I-< ...J
::J a..
0 a..
Low Growth
102
102
102
102
102
Population
(0.0%) Likely Growth (0.5%) High
103
105
108
110
113
POPULATION PROJECTION
KARLUK
Growth
103
108
114
120
124
15B~---------------------------------------------.
125
f Most Likely
,Low
lBB
~~--~~~--~--~~~--~--~~~--~--~~~~
1982 1984 1986 1988 199B 1992 1994 1996 1998 2BIi!B 2BB2
YEAR
(1.0%)
Figure 4.2 The total projected population increases, for Karluk.
4-8
(I
~
r ]
I .
~
[ :
~
w
w
r 1 ~
w
w
w
w
r :
~
~
u
u
u
u
u
U
'D
!
ILl
1
:u
I
I U
U
U
U
~
iD
I
U
I
iD
I
IW
Table 4.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands
Karluk.
PopuIa t fOil----------·
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 140 140 140 140
Low Public 1.3 1.3 1 .3 1.3
0.0% School 240 240 240 240
Commercial 2 2 2 2
Total 383.3 383.3 383.3 383.3
Residential 140 170 190 . 210
Likely Public 1.3 1.4 1.4 1 .4
0.5% School 240 240 240 240
Commercial 2.0 2.0 2. 1 2.1
Total 383.3 413.4 433.5 453.5
Residential 140 180 200 230
. High Public 1.3 1.4 1 .5 1.6
1. 0% School 240 240 250 250
Commercial 2.0 2. 1 2.2 2.3
Total 383.3 423.5 453.7 483.9
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
KARLUK
55Br----------------------------------------------.
~
::J
I-5BB CD
E
E
'--'
UJ 45B (J)
::J
>-
t:)
~ 4BB UJ
Z
UJ
35B~~-L~--~~~~--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 4.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands
for Karluk.
4-9
for
2002
140
1 .3
240
2
383.3
220
1.5
250
2.2
473.7
240
1.6
260
2.4
504
Table 4.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Karluk.
population
Growth
Rate
Low
0.0%
Likely
0.5%
High
1.0%
User Demand mmBTU
Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 1800 1800 1800 1800
Public 93 93 93 93
School 1900 1900 1900 1900
Commercial 150 150 150 150
Total 3943 3943 3943 3943
Residential 1800 2000 2100 2100
Public 93 96 98 100
School 1900 1900 1900 2000
Commercial 150 150 160 160
Total 3943 4146 4258 4360
Residential 1800 2100 2200 2300
Public 94 98 100 110
School 1900 1900 2000 2000
Commercial 150 160 170 170
Total 3944 4258 4470 4580
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
KARLUK
5~~~r-----------------------------------------------,
" :::l Iii ,High
~ 45~~
_ ~L~~
w
(f)
,:::l ,
35~a~~~~--L-~~~--~~~~~~-L~--L-~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2a~1
YEAR
Figure 4.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Karluk.
4-10
2002
1800
93
1900
150
3943
2100
100
2000
160
4360
2300
110
2000
180
4590
f "i
W
U
U
U
W
U
U
w
U
I W
U I
U
I
U
. I
U
U
U
W
U
U
" w'-r i
I
D
I U
Table 4.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Karluk.
population
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998 2002
Residential 450 450 450 450 450
Low Public 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% School 51 51 51 51 51
Commercial 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2
Total 506.2 506.2 506.2 506.2 506.2
Residential 450 480 490 500 510
Likely Public 0 0 0 0 0
0.5% School 51 51 51 52 52
Commercial 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
Total 506.2 536.4 546.5 557.6 567.7
Residential 450 490 520 540 560
High Public 0 0 0 0 0
1.0% School 51 51 52 52 53
Commercial 5.3 5.5 5.8 6. 1 6.3
Total 506.3 546.5 577.8 598.1 619.3
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
KARLUK
A
::J
I-
CD
E
E v
W
-(I)
::J
>-
t-'
0:::
W
Z
W
e5~r------------------------------------------------'
ess
55S
5~S
45S~~-L~~~~~--~~~--~~~--L-~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2SS1
YEAR
Figure 4.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands for
Karluk.
4-11
4.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
A general description of resources assessment is given in
Chapter 2.0, Methodology. Resources specifically applicable to
Karluk are detailed below.
(
4.3.1 Resource Alternatives
Energy resources applicable to Karluk were evaluated and
ranked according to the methods detailed in Section 2.3.4.
Recomendations of previous studies and community preferences
were incorporated into the ranking. The most widely supported
project in Karluk was development of a hydroelectric plant on
Mary's Creek.
Resources evaluated and their ranking factors are presented in
Table 4.5. As illustrated, diesel generation and hydroelectric
power had the highest ranking factors. Energy plans utilizing
these generation alternatives were developed and compared on the
basis of economic and cost of energy analyses.
4-12
i !
U
""" I
Table 4.5 Resource Ranking Factors for Alternative Evaluated for Karluk.
Technology Rella-• EnVlron-
State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental
Impact
Weatherization· 5 5 5 5 5 5
Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4
Waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 4 4
Hydroelectric Power 5 1 4 3 3 4
Wind Energy Conversion
Systems 3 2 2 2 2 5
Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Steam Power from local
fuel, wood, coal, etc ... N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Gasification of wood, coal
or peat N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Electrial Load Management* .5 .l 3 2 1 4
* Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
Ranking
Factor
1.00
0.87
0.87
0.73
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.65
4.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
4.4.1 Base Case
The base case assumes a continuation of the present
decentralized system. Few of the generators serve more than one
building and electricity generation is primarily on a per
residence basis, and this pattern is assumed to continue.
Thermal requirements continue to be met through the existing mix
of oil and wood. All resources utilized in the base case are
presently available in Karluk. There are no adverse
environmental impacts from continued use of present systems.
The base case scenario provides a basis for comparison to
alternative plans.
4.4.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for Karluk is the installation of a central
generation and distribution system with a waste heat capture and
distribution system. The plan calls for the installation of two
55 kW water cooled units. Heat exchangers would capture heat
from the jacket water and circulate it to the nearby school
building.
4.4.3 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 involves construction of a hydroelectric plant
on Mary's Creek. The estimated plan cost from Acres (1982)
Reconnaissance Study is $1,935,000 with an additional $500,000
required for the transmission lines. A centralized distribution
system would be in place and full diesel back-up maintained.
4-14
u
11
I ' ~
~
W
~
'w I
IW
,
~
u
'u
~
U
I
, 1
:u
I
U
'W
W
U
W
I~
,U
I
This plan calls for central diesel back-up and not through a
large number of smaller units.
From an environmental perspective, Mary's Creek is not known to
be a fish spawning area (Acres, 1982), and as the Acres report
(ibid) states "net environmental impact would involve
significant reduction in diesel emissions".
4.5 COST COMPARISONS OF PLANS
Cost comparisons of plans were based on an economic analysis
that calculates the net present worth of each plan. Plans were
analyzed over a 54 year period. Methodology of this analysis is
detailed in Section 2.4.1.
4.5.1 Base Plan ---------------
Expenditures for the base case plan are fuel, operation and
maintenance and costs incurred to install additional generators
as the demand grows. APA uses an expected life of 10 years for
generators under 350 kW and that is the case in the analyses,
however, this is too long for small generators and residents of
Karluk estimate the useful life to be closer to 5 years.
Therefore, the costs represented on the base case will be
slightly lower than they should be. The ~ccumulated net present
worth of the plan is $3,621,000. Yearly costs for this plan are
detailed in APPENDIX B.
4.5.2 Alternative 1
This plan calls for the installation of a central generation
4-15
system with a waste heat capture and distribution system. The
capital cost to bring the system on-line is estimated to be
$91,000. The diesel generators are replaced after each 10 year
period and additional capacity is installed as required by the
growing demand. The accumulated present worth of the plan is
$2,570,000. Benefits from the displacement of oil for space
heating are estimated to be $200,000 thus lowering the total
net present worth to $2,370,000. Yearly costs of this plan are
included in APPENDIX B.
4.5.3 Altern 2 ::..:;..:;;.~;",;:..:.~::..:;:..~-.::::...
The hydroelectric generation plan with transmission line
requires capital expenditures which are estimated to be
$2,435,000. The transmission line is replaced after 30 years
for $50Q,000. Diesel generators for back-up power are replaced
at the end of their expected lives and new generation capacity
added as demand exceeds the installed system capacity.
The accumulated present worth of the system is $3,638,000.
Although it is to be expected that there would be benefits from
the use of excess electricity to displace oil for use in space
heating, the cost of energy analysis has shown that the least
expensive way to produce space heat is under the current method
of using oil and wood. The villagers also indicated that they
would not install resistance heaters unless the electricity was
significantly cheaper than the cost of oil and wood. Therefore,
no net benefits have been subtracted from the present worth.
Results of the economic analysis are summarized below.
Base Case
Net Cost $3,621,000
4-16
u
w
w
D
r \
W
r 1 ~
w
w
w
I
u
~
w
U
D
I
I
U
U
n U
u
u
i 1
U
r 1
I
U
i :U
I ID
U
~
U
D
U
Central Generation W/Waste Heat
Accumulated Cost
Waste Heat Benefits Net Cost
Net Cost
Mary's Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost
Electric Space Heat Benefits
Net Cost
4.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
$2,570,000
-$ 200,000
$2,370,000
$3,638,000
-0-
$3,638,000
The cost of energy analysis is a secondary method of
determining the worth of a plan. This analysis evaluates each
plan on the basis that it satisfied the requirements of each of
the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
o space heating
o industrial heating
o industrial electricity
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compared to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
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 4.6 and
4.7 for space heating and cooking and hot water, respectively.
4-17
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
KARLUK
WASTE HEAT
HYDRO
,WOOD OIL --.....
OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 4.6 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 4.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
4-18
[
~
f 1
~
I :
W
U
i
~
i~
I
'W
I U
w
I~
D
U I
IJ
U
I
;U
I ,
I 1 U
I 1
'U I
U
r 1
W
As shown in Figure 4.6, the presently used methods of heating,
fuel oil and wood, remain much less expensive than electric
heating by either diesel or hydroelectric generation. As
illustrated in Figure 4.7, the presently used propane and oil
systems are less expensive than electric power by either diesel
or hydro generation.
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 4.8. This figure shows that the
central generation/waste heat plan provides a lower unit cost of
electricity than does the base case or the dydro plan. The
hydro cost does drop below the base case cost in 1999 but does
not drop below the waste heat system cost during the planning
period.
4.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.7.1 Community Recommendations
Based on the results of the economic and cost of energy
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.
4-19
4.7.2 ional Recommendation
Regional recommendations include a regional educational program,
a service and parts network, and a fuel purchasing cooperative.
These programs are described in Chapter 10.0.
:J
I-m
E
E
"-iB'
COST OF ENERGY ~ LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
KARLUK
35er-----~~~=-------------------------------~~
25B
2BB waste Heat
15e
lee
5e
e~~~--~~~--~~~~~~--~~~--L-~~--~~~
1993 1995 1997 1999 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BBl
YEAR
Figure 4.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand;
4-20
I ,
1.1
w
u
W
ID
r I
I W
I
r I U
u
w
5.0 LARSEN BAY
Larsen Bay is a community of 180 located on the south shore of
Larsen Bay which is an embayment on the west shore of Uyak Bay.
Uyak Bay is about 60 miles west southwest of Kodiak. There are
37 homes, of which 15 were built in 1978 with "HUD Mutual Housing
Program funds. Several of the frame houses that were built in
the late 1930's and early 1940's are now abandoned.
Commercial fishing is the principal cash basis for the economy.
The 265,000 ft2 cannery complex is owned by Larsen Bay
Seafoods, Inc. and hires at least 5% of its employees locally.
During the 1981 season, the cannery was not opened and floating
tenders plied the waters buying fish from the commercial
fishermen. The cannery reopened in 1982 and is planning to
install cold storage facilities and to develop year-round
operations.
The village store is located in the cannery complex and employs
2 clerks. Other positions in the village include 4 teachers, 2
school aides, 2 school custodians, 2 health aides, 1 postmaster
and a winter watchman at the cannery. During\the fishing season
there is 100% employment although only 11% were employed in any
position for more than 9 months.
There are 2 school buildings. The older building occupies 1800
ft 2 and the newer building, constructed in 1980 is 10,092
ft2 in extent. A new preschool building was constructed in
1982.
The field team visited Larsen Bay in September, 1982, and
February 1983. During the first visit, a door-to-door end use
survey was conducted, along with a review of all the local
5-1
generators and discussions with the principal of the school. A
village meeting was held at which the primary focus was on
proposed capital projects which would see an expansion in the
economic base of Larsen Bay. Residents also provided
information on their cooking and domestic water systems, fuel
use and their use of electricity. This information and data
from the end use surveys formed the basis of the energy use
patterns established for Larsen Bay.
During the second visit a public meeting was convened at which
the local and regional plans were discussed. The city is most
concerned about acquiring a reliable and economical supply of
electricity. The cost of power is of overriding importance.
Local preference for the development of Humpy Creek was
expressed but that the central diesels and distribution system
be implemented as soon as possible. However, if power from
Humpy Creek is too expensive it would not be used. The city is
leveling a piece of ground on the opposite side of the road to
the high school as a location for the generator and switch gear.
The site would be adequate to serve the school, preschool and
community offices/clinic building with waste heat.
The city government was most interested in a program which would
provide assistance in setting up a local utility and a region
wide center for parts and service. However the system would
have to be responsive to the community·s needs.
Larsen Bay is planning to become the focus for growth along the
northwest coast of the island. The city is most involved with
the island's conference of mayors and sees the group as an
important group to advocate increased development in Kodiak
Island Borough.
The meeting was attended by a quorum of the council, members of
5-2
! 1
W
i I ~
r i ~
w
w
u
w
u
u
w
r 1
~
~
W
D
U
D
, 1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
W
w
W
o
the tribal coucil and members of public; sixteen residents
attended the meeting over which Frank Carlson (mayor) presided.
5.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
These patterns include methods to supply thermal and
electrical requirements. Thermal requirements include space
heating, hot water heating, and cooking while those for
electricity include lighting and electric appliances. None of
the thermal requirements are satisified by electricity at Larsen
Bay.
5.1.1 Existing Generation Facilities
Larsen Bay does not have a centralized system for the
generation and distribution of electricity. The school has two
60 kW diesels, Larsen Bay Seafoods 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 20 (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.
5.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
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. Average fuel use per home was 1/2 55 gallon barrel
5-3
per month during 4 summer months, and 3 barrels per month during
the 8 winter months. Some residents supplemented fuel oil with
wood for space heat and 2 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.
The community consumes approximately 5,700 gallons of gasolinej
year. Most of this is used by the skiffs owned by residents
while the rest is used by cycles and a few autos.
The energy use patterns for Larsen Bay are presented in Figure
5.1, which depicts incoming fuel, the consuming sector
(residential, public, school or commercial) and fuel use.
5.2 FORECASTS
Forcasts of the electrical and thermal requirements were based
on the combination of historical trends and the requirements of
capital projects with known on-line dates.
5.2.1 Capital Projects
During the public meeting held in September, a number of
capital projects were discussed. A new telephone system has
been requested and a ruling from the Alaska Public utilities
Commission is expected to be handed down in 1983. However, this
will have minimum impact at the peak demand. The community has
received funding for a new housing project and construction is
planned to begin during the 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 5.4. However, the major
capital project sought for a number of years has been the
development of the hydro potential of Humpy Creek and the ins-
5-4
w
w
w
u
u
w
w
w
w
u
u
w
u
w
w
J
I
.J
I
U
u
( I
~
! I
W
n !~ ,
I
W
I
U
I
U
FUEL +
GASOLINE
5,730 GAL.
732 MMBTU
GASOLINE GEN.
4,950 GAL.
632 MMBTu
DIESEL
FUEL
for
ELECTRICAL
GENERATION
64,505 GAL.
S,930 MMBTU
HEATING
FUEL
S9,250 GAL.
12,400 MMBTU
PROPANE
126 -100 #' TKS.
262 MMBTU
WOOD
10 CORDS
191 MMBTU
~
275 GAL.
35.2 MMBTU
KEROSENE
B70 GAL.
liB MMBTU
USER + SECTOR END USE
TRANSPORTAT ION:
RESIDENTIAL/ SKIFFS, AuTOS, PUBLIC
3-WHEELERS
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, 124 MWH
423 MMBTU·· APPLIANCES
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 71.2 MWH EOUIPMENT 243 MMBTU
PUBLIC
2B.1 MWH LIGHTING
7S.S MMBTU
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, 93.3 MWH FREEZERS
31S MMBTU
NON -RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
7,S70 MMBTU
RECOvERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
0-*
SCHOOL SPC.HEAT: 17,955 GAL.
HOT WTR: 945 GAL.
IS,900 GAL. COOKING -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC. HEAT: 46,646 GAL.
HOT WTR: 3,260 GAL.
55,340 GAL. COOKING: 5,434 GAL.
SPC. HEAT: 3,435 GAL. PUBLIC HOT WTR B5 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 APPLICABLE
TO DECENTRALIZED GENERATION
* * PROVIDED BY BOTH GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL
Figure 5.1 The 1982 energy balance for Larsen Bay.
5-5
tallation of a centralized distribution system for electricity.
The majority of other projects discussed would be sponsored by
private capital and there was no solid indication given of
potential, short of dates for new businesses •. Therefore, these
were not included in the model.
5.2.2 Population Projections
Larsen Bay has been an Aleut village site for 2000 years. Its
local name is UYAK. I~ the early 1800's there was a cannery on
Uyak Bay. The cannery, constructed in 1911 by Alaska Packers
Association, is now owned by Kodiak Island Seafoods, Inc.
The population of Larsen Bay has increased steadily since first
recorded by 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 detailed in Table 5.1 and
illustrated in Figure 5.2.
The village economy is largely dependent on the fishing indus-
try. If the growth in the cash economy continues and a reliable
source of electricity is available, Larsen Bay will continue to
grow and develop. The local government is very progressive and
wishes to see the cash economy expanded. The school system in
Larsen Bay has been very good. As a result of the construction
of the new school building in 1980, Larsen Bay did not suffer
from out migration in the 1970's as many people remained in
Larsen Bay for the betterment of their children's education.
5-6
r
I
~
u
u
~
w
~
w
-W
U
iW
;D
I
, :
~
I~
I
IU ,
I
r 1
LJ
: I
~
r 1
:w
I
W
U
~
U
J
lU
Table 5.1 The range of projected population increases for
Larsen Bay.
Year Low
1983
1988
1993
1998
2002
Population
Growth (2.0%) Likely Growth (2.5%) High
184
203
224
247
267
185
209
236
267
295
POPULATION PROJECTION
LARSEN BAY
Growth
185
215
249
289
325
95B~--------------------------------------------~
gsS
z a
H
I-< 25B ...J
::J a.. a a..
2BS
15B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~
(3.0%)
1982 1984 1986 1988 199B 1992 1994 1996 1998 2BBB alB2
YEAR
Figure 5.2 The projected population increases for Larsen Bay.
5-7
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
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 Table 5.2.
Space heating, cooking and hot water forecasts are presented in
Tables 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. The range of total demands of
each end use are presented in Figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5.
5.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
A general description of re~ource assessment is given in
Chapter 2.0 Methodology. Resources specifically applicable to
Larsen Bay are detailed below.
5.3.1 Resource Alternatives
Ranking factors, as described in Section 2.3.4, were used to
select appropriate alternatives for Larsen Bay. Recommendations
of previous studies were evaluated and incorporated into the
ranking as were community preferences. The most popular
alternatives to the residents were a hydro project and a
centralized diesel generator and distribution system. An
alternative to the hydro is centralized diesel generation with
waste heat capture.
5-8
\ W
11
~
u
w
w
w
r '
~
w
u
w
w
I I
~
I
~
U
D
D
o
D
U
U
U
U
I U
IU
i
I
U
D
I~
W
o
r 1 :~
I
Table 5.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands for
Larsen Bay.
Population
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998 2002
Residential 420 590 730 850 920
Low Public 80 88 97 110 110
2.0% School 250 270 300 330 350
Commercial 320 360 400 440 460
Total 1 ,070 1,308 1 ,527 1,730 1,840
Residential 420 610 770 920 1 ,000
Likely Public 80 91 100 120 120
2.5% School 250 280 320 360 390
Commercial 330 370 420 470 510
Total 1,080 1,351 1,610 1,870 2,020
Residential 420 620 810 990 1 ,100
High Public 80 93 110 130 140
3.0% School 250 290 340 390 420
Commercial 330 380 440 510 560
Total 1,080 1,383 1,700 2,020 2,220
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
LARSEN BAY
25~~~-----------------------------------------------.
3225~
I-
ID
~ 2m~~
v
~ 175121
::J
t; 15ml2l
0:::'
W
~ 125m
l~ml2l~~-L~--~~~--~-L~--~~~--~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2ml2l1
YEAR
Figure 5.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands for
Larsen Bay.
5-9
Table 5.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Larsen Bay.
population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
2.5%
High
3.0%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
1983
6,400
500
1,900
1,500
10,300
6,500
500
2,000
1 ,500
10,500
6,500
500
2,000
1,500
10,500
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998
11,000 12,000 12,000
550 610 670
2,100 2,400 2,600
1,600 1,800 2,000
15,250 16,810 17,270
11,000 12,000 13,000
570 640 730
2,200 2,500 2,800
1 ,700 1,900 2,200
15,470 17,040 18,730
11,000 13,000 14,000
580 680 780
2,300 2,600 3,100
1,700 2,000 2,300
15,580 18,280 20,180
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
LARSEN BAY
A 25~------------------------------------------------~
:J
I-m
Z o
1-1
22.5
..J 2~
..J
1-1
e3 17.5
w
(J) 15
:J
>-~ 12.5
W
Z W lac-~~--~~~--L-~~--~~~--~~~L-~~ __ L-~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2a~1
YEAR
Figure 5.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Larsen Bay.
5-10
2002
13,000
710
2,800
2,100
18,610
14,000
780
3,000
2,300
20,080
15,000
860
3,300
2,500
21,660
r I ~
W
W
U
I I
~
W
r 1
[ i
I.j
f 1 ~
r '
~
l
l
~
Q
U
J
:W
I
U
I
:U
I
u
r 1 : I W
U
. -
Table 5.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Larsen Bay.
population
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998 2002
Residential 1 ,100 1,200 1,300 1 ,500 1 ,600
Low Public 0 0 0 0 0
2.0% School 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.9 4 • 1
Commercial 86 95 110 120 120
Total 1,188.9 1,298.2 1,413.5 1,623.9 1,724.1
Residential 1 ,100 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,700
Likely Public 0 0 0 0 0
2.5% School 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.5
Commercial 87 98 110 130 140
Total 1,189.9 1,301.3 1,513.7 1,734.2 1,844.5
Residential 1 ,100 1,300 1,500 1 ,700
High Public 0 0 0 0
3.0% School 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.5
Commercial 87 100 120 140
Total 1,189.9 1,403.4 1,623.9 1,844.5
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
LARSEN BAY
2259~---------------------------------------------'
A
22BBB
m
E
E
'J 1759
l1J
(J)
:J 15BB
>-D
0:::
~ 1259
l1J
1B99L-~-L~L-~~~--~-L~--L-~~--L-~~~--~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BB1
YEAR
1,900
0
5.0
150
2,055
Figure 5.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands for
Larsen Bay.
5-11
The resources evaluated and these ranking factors are presented
in Table 5.5. As illustrated, diesel power, waste heat, and
hydroelectric power had the highest ranking factors. Plans for
the implementation of these alternatives were developed and
compared on the basis of economic and end use analyses.
5.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
5.4.1 Base Case Plan
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.
All base case technologies are presently available in Larsen
Bay. There are no adverse environmental impacts from continua-
tion of diesel generation or diesel fuel use for heating. All
technologies employed are normally highly reliable. Often,
however, when trained generator operators and repair personnel
are not available in a community, reliability of generation
systems decrease drastically. The base case scenario provides a
basis for comparison to alternative plans.
5.4.2 Alternative 1
Plan 1 is the installation of a central generation and
distribution.system with waste heat capture equipment installed
in the generators. The reconnaissance study by CH2M Hill
(June, 1981) recommended the installation of two 120 kW units
and a distribution system. However, waste heat was included in
the Dowl/Tudor Plan (June 1982), and is used here. The new
5-12
[,
I
~
u
w
u
u
r I
~
r 1 •
U1
I
I-'
W
L--
Table 5.5 Resource Ranking Factors for Alternative Evaluation for Larsen Bay.
Technology Rella-EnVlron-Ranking
State-of-the-Art Cost bil i ty Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
Weatherization* 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.00
Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87
waste Heat Recovery* 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87
Hydroelectric Power 5 1 4 5 3 1 0.81
Wind Energy Conversion
Systems 3 2 2 3 2 5 0.58
Geothermal Enerqy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Steam Power from local
fuel, wood, coal, etc ••• 3 2 2 3 3 3 0.57
Gasification of wood, coal
or peat 2 1 1 3 2 3 0.45
Electrial Load Manaqement* 5 3 3 2 1 4 0.65
* Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
school, old school, community hall and clinic would be
recipients of the waste heat. Only the waste heat from the
jacket of the engine would be used. It was assumed that about
60% of the available jacket heat would be used but that as
generation increases, greater use of the heat can be expected to
further reduce the amount of oil required to heat public and
school buildings.
Humpy Creek located one mile south of the village has been the
focus of an APA sponsored hydrofeasibility study (Dowl/Tudor
1982). The plan calls for the construction of a low wier to
divert water from Humpy Creek through an inlet into a 27 inch
diameter penstock which would be routed along the east side of
the creek for 2700 feet to the powerhouse. The powerhouse would
contain a single impulse turbine with a capacity to produce 270
kW accomodating flows corresponding to the 35 percent and 15
percent range of exceedance values on the flow duration curve.
The hydraulic head is 180 feet.
Costs are based on maximizing prefabrication to minimize field
construction time and the need for large numbers of highly
skilled field construction personnel. The diversion wier would
be prefabricated and bolted to a concrete apron, the penstock
would be of steel or fiberglass depending on the geologic and
topoghraphic condition and the powerhouse would be a
prefabricated building to be erected on a concrete slab. The
turbine, speed increaser and flywheel would be shipped mounted
on skids, fully assembled and interconnected on site.
5.5 COST COMPARISONS OF PLANS
Cost comparisons of the plans were based on an economic
5-14
r '
~
u
u
~
'~
U
ID
U
'U
I
ID
'U
I
U
'U
I
I
U
U
D
, 0
I
U
';l '~
I
'~
I
analysis that calculated the net present worth of each plan.
Plans were analysed over a 52 year period because of the 50 year
expected life of the hydroelectric facility. Methodology of
; '0 .'
this analysis is detailed in section 2.4.1.
5.5.1 Base Case plan
Expenditures for the base case plan are fuel, operation and
maintenance and costs incurred to install additional generators
as the demand grows. The operation, maintenance and fuel costs
for the small generators (around 4.5 kW) are high compared to
the larger (50 kW) units. APA uses an expected life of 10 years
for generators and that is the case in the analyses, however,
this is too long for small generators and the residents of
Larsen Bay estimate the useful life to be closer to 5 years.
Therefore, the costs represented on the base case will be
slightly lower than they should be. The accumulated net present
worth of the plan is $8,605,000. Yearly costs for this plan are
detailed in APPENDIX C.
5.5.2 Alternative 1
This plan calls for the installation of a central generation
system with a waste heat capture and distribution system. The
capital cost is estimated to be $906,159 to bring the system
on-line. The diesel generators are replaced after each 10 year
period and additional capacity is installed as required by the
growing demand. The accumulated present worth of the plan is
$6,102,000. Benefits from the displacement of oil for space
heating are estimated to be $497,000 and lower the total net
present worth to $5,605,000. Yearly costs of this plan are
included in APPENDIX C.
5-15
5.5.3 Alternative 2
The hydroelectric generation plan with transmission line
requires capital expenditures which are estimated to be
$2,849,400. The transmission line is replaced after 30 years
for $208,980. Diesel generators for back-up power are replaced
at the end of their expected lives and new generation capacity
added as demand exceeds the installed system capacity. The
accumulated present worth of the plan is $5,546)000.
The villagers stated that they would not install resistance
heating unless electricity costs were significantly less than
those for oil and wood. This is not the case, therefore no
space heating benefits have been calculated or subtracted from
the accumulated discounted cost. Yearly costs of this plan are
included in APPENDIX C.
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
5-16
$8,605,000
-0-
$8,605,000
$6,102,000
497,000
$5,605,000
$5,546,000
-0-
$5,546,000
w
w
r 1
W
I 1
U
I '
I I
~
[ i
W
r \
~
W
W
, ,
~
w
o
, 1
w I u
i : :U I
, 1
I W
U I ,
, 1
U
u
5.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
The cost of energy analysis is a secondary method of
determining the worth of a plan. This analysis evaluates each
plan on the basis that it satisfied the requirements of each of
the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
o space heating
o industrial heatirig
o industrial electricity
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compared to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU)
of satisyfing 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 cost, over the
planning period, for each energy source are shown in Figures 5.6
and 5.7 for space heating, 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. 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 nergy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 5.8. 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
5-17
i-
i-
-
-
~
I-
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
LARSEN BAY
-
~
WASTE HEAT '""'"
,.-HYDRO
WOOD ""--
'-OIL
I I I -.J I -.J i ..l i ..l
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
LARSEN BAY
WASTE HEAT
HYDRO
PROPANE ~
'-OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 5.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
5-18
r 1
'..I
I ;
~
, I
I W
:U
I
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
LARSEN BAY
ase
aee
2se
::l ..... 2ee Base Case '"'
m
E
E ISe ,Hydro
"-~
lee Waste Heot Hydro'/
e~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--L-~~~~--~~
198a 1985 1987 1989 1991 199a 1995 1997 1999 2881
YEAR
Figure 5.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
5-19
demand is presently satisfied with electricity, meeting this end
use with hydropower rather than diesel power would not require
any system conversions and would not increase the electrical
load forecast from 1995 to 2002.
It is important to note that the cost of energy reflects only
the cost of equipment, fuel, operation and maintenance and not
the cost charged to the consumer.
5.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.7.1 Community 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 likelihod, 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 affect 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 diesels with waste heat
capture be installed and as the end of the generators' economic
5-20
I '
W
r i
~
I
U
Q
U
U
'U
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 detailed rate and tariff
analsis which would calculate the actual costs to be billed to
the consumer. If the community still supports the project after
evaluating the rates then the project should proceed.
It should be noted that these recommendations.differ from the
DOWL, 1981 report. This is primarily due to dropping the space
heating benefits from the hydro project, as described in Section
5.5.3.
5.7.2 Subregional Recommendation
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
10.0.
In summary, the present worth of the intertie project is
estimated to be $10,352,000. This cost is considerably higher
than the combined net present worth for the Humpy Creek hydro
that would be nec~ssary 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.
5.7.3 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 10.0.
5-21
.~
L o
D
D
U
W
I
I
U
I
U
( ,
u
6.0 OLD HARBOR
Old Harbor is located on the shore of Three Saints Bay, 54
miles southwest of Kodiak. One of the larger outlying
communities of Kodiak Island, Old Harbor supports a population
of 355. The residential housing sector consists of 91 homes.
The original townsite or "downtown" of Old Harbor is located to
the west of Old Harbor Estuary. Downtown consists of 46
traditional and Bureau ~f Indian Affairs (BIA) homes, the school
facilities, public buildings, and two commercial buildings. A
large residential "uptown" section of Old Harbor was developed
in 1978 and 1979 with the construction of 42 HUD homes. There
are now three non-HUD homes in uptown also.
School facilities in Old Harbor consist of a grade school,
junior high building and high school. The school district also
maintains six residences in downtown as teacherages. The school
enploys several local employees as teacher's aides, custodians,
and maintenance personnel.
Public facilities in Old Harbor consist of the community
hall/clinic, post office, pre-school, activity center, water
pumphouse (uptown)-, city shop and an old water flow facility in
a downtown house. There is a large dock near downtown and a
small boat harbor between downtown and uptown. Additional
public buidings are several large gear sheds for storage of
fishing gear and boat repair. Old Harbor has a resident fishing
fleet of approximately 35 vessels. This fleet increases to over
100 vessels during the summer months as floating prrocessing
barges often dock in Old Harbor to buy fish and/or crab.
In addition to commercial fishing, commercial enterprise in Old
Harbor includes two stores, a privately owned theater/recreation
hall, a fuel distributorship, and the AVEC utility.'
6-1
The NORTEC field team and the KANA energy planner visited Old
Harbor in September, 1982. A well attended evening community
meeting was held in the community hall. In addition to
detailing present methods of heating and cooking, residents
talked candidly about their future hopes for development in Old
Harbor. Residents strongly support development of a community
fish processing cooperative. Residents also expressed strong
support for hydropower development for Old Harbor. Residents
feel that excess power during high summer water flows could be
sold to floating processors and thereby offset the co~t to local
residents. Residents completed end-use surveys and talked with
team members about their fuel and electricity use. Using data
from the community visit, AVEC utility records, previous
studies, and historical trends, NORTEC established the existing
energy use patterns and bases for projections.
6.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
Energy use patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as
well as electrical end use requirements. Electrical end uses
always include lights and electric appliances and may include
hot water heating and cooking end uses. Thermal end uses
include space heating and may also include hot water heating and
cooking.
6.1.1 Existing Generating Facilities
AVEC operates a central generation system in Old Harbor and
\
supplies electricity to all the consumers •. Two 155 kW
generators are available. Generally, one of the units operates
24 hours a day. The operating units are switched for main-
tenance purposes. The average peak demand in Old Harbor is
105 kW and one unit can easily meet this demand. In 1982, AVEC
6-2
.' \
! 1 W
r 1 ~
W
u
u
u
j 1
W
I :
: I ~
: I ~
w
W
IW
r 1
:~
I
U i
IU
I
U
W
w
w
U
I
W
I 1
~
r 1
'W
" . {'
generated 490,549 kWh, sold 442,682 kWh, and operated with a
system efficiency of 25%.
The residential sector was the largest electrical consumer with
the school being the largest single consumer. Although there is
a high level of appliance saturation in Old Harbor, many
residences do not have electric ranges and only some have
electric dryers. Most cooking is done on oil 'stoves and many
people use propane dryers rather than electric.
6.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
The majority of homes satisfy heating, cooking, and hot water
heating requirements with oil stoves and oil hot water heaters.
These stoves provide space heat, a cooking surface and hot water
coils. Some homes also have airtight wood stoves and supplement
their oil heating with wood. A few homes have oil furnaces for
heating. Many people are switching to oil hot water heaters
that are separate from their stoves. The community average fuel
consumption per home was 180 gallons/ month for 8 winter months
and 19 gallons/month for 4 summer months.
There are approximately 5 propane ranges and 15 propane dryers
in the community.-In addition to fuel oil and propane, small
quantities of blazo and
lighting, respectively.
mately 17,000 gallons of
kerosene were used for cooking and
The community also consumes approxi-
gasoline/year. This fuel is used for
land transportation in the 25 cars and 50 3-wheelers in the
community and for skiff travel.
The 1982 energy use patterns for Old Harbor are depicted in
Figure 6.1, the 1982 Energy Balance. This Figure shows incoming
fuel, the consuming sector (residential, public, school or
6-3
+ USER + FUEL SECTOR END USE
GASOLINE
RESIDENTIAL I TRANSPORTATION·
17,000 GAL. PUBLIC SKIFFS, AUTOS,
2,170 MMBTU 3-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 82.~ MWH EQUIPMENT 282 MM8TU
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING,
DIESEL 230 MWH APPLIANCES
FUEL 783 MM8TU
for PUBLIC
ELECTRICAL
72.2 MWH ~-~ --LIGHTING
246 MMBTU
GENERATION
COMMERCIAL UGHTlNG, 58.4 MWH
47,538 GAL. 199 MM8TU FREEZERS
6,~80 MMBTU NON RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
3,800 MMBTU
RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT
1,270 MM8TU"
N/A
SCHOOL SPC. HEAT: 14,900 GAL.
HOT WTR: 1,3~0 GAL. 16,250 GAL. COOKING: -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC. HEAT: 97,460 GAL.
HEATING HOT WTR: 12,000 GAL.
FUEL 128,760 GAL. COOKING: 19,300 GAL.
1~9,055 GAL.
22,000 MMBTU SPC. HEAT: 8,330 GAL.
I PUBLIC HOT WTR: 170 GAL.
8,500 GAL. COOKING: -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC. HEAT: 5,26B GAL.
HOT WTR: 277 GAL.
5,545 GAL. COOKING: -0-
PROPANE SCHOOL 4.5 100# TKS. 69-100# TKS. COOKING
144 MMBTU RES. 64.5 -100# TKS.
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 6.1 The 1982 energy balance for Old Harbor.
6-4 r 1
~
I~
o
I
u
, 1 u
IU
D
I
u
commercial) and which end use the fuel is used for.
6.2 FORECASTS
_Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal requirements
were based on the combination of historical trends and the
requirements of capital projects with known on-line dates.
6.2.1 Capital Projects
Old Harbor has many capital projects that residents would like
.to see developed. Several public projects are imminent in the
next several years. In 1983,'a new 865 ft 2 firehouse will be
built. In 1983/84, a 700 ft 2 addition to the existing
Community Hall/Clinic will be made. A new activities center is
planned in 1987. Residential capital projects include 20 new
Hun homes to be built in 1988. Other possible capital im-
provements include a small National Guard Armory facility, and
expansion of the school facilities. These projects are not
presently funded and no dates for construction are available.
The commercial fishermen of Old Harbor would like to build a
Fish Processing Facility run as a Co-op. Local fishermen stated
that this development would depend on the availability of
electricity at a lower cost than now available. They also
stated that if a hydropower project developed and lower cost
electricity were available, it would be be at least one year
after the hydroplant was on-line before the processing plant
would be operating. A funding source for this plant has not
been defined.
6.2.2 Population Projections
Old Harbor's population has steadily increased since 1920 with
6-5
growth at over 2%/year since 1950. Based on funded capital
public and residential developments, it is expected that this
trend will continue. If planned but not yet funded projects
become realities, they will also support this trend.
Based on the historical data and the expected increases from the
capital projects, the most likely growth rate for Old Harbor is
expected to be 2.5%/year. The low growth rate (2%/year) and the
high growth rate (3%/year) represent the extremes of the range
of growth. The range of projected growth is depicted in Table
6.1 and Figure 6.2.
6.2.3 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-
ed by user sector (residential, public, commercial and school).
Forecasts are based on capital preojects, 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
presented in Table 6.2. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 present the ranges
of space heating and cooking and hot water requirements. The
total projected demands for each end use are presented in
Figures 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5.
6.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
A general description of resource assessment is given in Chapter
2.0 Methodology. Resources specifically applicable to Old
Harbor are detailed below.
6-6
I I
.~
r i
W
I ' I
W
I :
~
r 1
~
I \ U
u
w
~
.J
I
( 1 I .
'~
J
U
, 1
, ,
Table 6.1 The range of projected population increases for Old
Harbor.
Year Low Growth
1983 362
1988 400
1993 441
1998 487
2002 528
Population
(2.0%) Likely Growth (2.5%)
364
412
466
527
582
POPULATION PROJECTION
OLD HARBOR
High Growth
366
424
491
570
641
85Br---------------------------------------------~
6BB
a 55B
H
I-< .J
:::l a.. a a..
5BB
45B
4BB
Figure 6.2
1984 1986 1988 J99B 1992 1994 1996 1999 2BBB 21m2
YEAR
The total projected population increases for
Old Harbor.
6-7
(3.0%)
Table 6.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands for
Old Harbor.
Population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
2.5%
High
3.0%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
1983
790
250
290
120
1,450
790
250
290
120
1,450
790
250
290
120
1,450
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998 2002
1 ,100 1 ,400 1 ,700 1,800
280 310 340 360
320 350 390 410
140 150 170 180
1 ,840 2,210 2,600 2,750
1,200 1,500 1,800 2,000
290 320 370 400
330 370 420 450
140 160 180 190
1 ,960 2,350 2,770 3,040
1 ,200 1 ,600 1,900 2,200
300 340 390 430
340 390 450 490
150 170 200 210
1 ,990 2,500 2,940 3,330
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OLD HARBOR
A
::J
I-en
z o
1-1
..J
..J
1-1
en v
w
(f)
::J
>-
C..:l
0::
W
Z
W
5.------------------------------------------------.
4
2
1~~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~--~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 6.3 The total projected lights and appliance demands for
Old Harbor.
6-8
I
~
I
IW
D
I
I~
:~
I ;U
I
U
U
( ,
W
u
u
Table 6.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Old Harbor.
Population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
2.5%
High
3.0%
User Demand mmBTU
Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 14,000 19,000 21,000 22,000
Public 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,600
School 2,100 2,300 2,600 2,800
Commercial 740 820 900 1,000
Total 18,040 23,420 25,900 27,400
Residential 14,000 20,000 22,000 24,000
Public 1 ,200 1 ,300 1 ,500 1 ,700
School 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,100
Commercial 750 840 950 1 ,100
Total 18,050 24,540 27,150 29,900
Residential 14,000 20,000 23,000 26,000
Public 1,200 1,400 1,600 1 ,900
School 2,100 2,500 2,900 3,300
Commercial 750 870 1,000 1,200
Total 18,050 24,770 28,500 32,400
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
OLD HARBOR
~ 4Br-----------------------------------------------~
::J
I-m
I-t
m v
w
(J)
::J
>-
t:)
a::: w z w
35
25
2B
15~~~--~~~~~~~~--~~~--~~~--L-~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 6.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Old Harbor.
6-9
2002
24,000
1,700
3,000
1 ,100
29,800
25,000
1 ,800
3,300
1,200
31,300
28,000
2,000
3,600
1 ,300 .
34,900
Table 6.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Old Harbor.
Population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
2.5%
High
3.0%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
1983
2,800
0
9.9
0
2,809.9
2,800
0
9.9
0
2,809.9
2,800
0
10
0
2,810
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998
3,100 3,500 3,900
0 0 0
1 1 12 13
0 0 0
3, 111 3,512 3,913
3,200 3,700 4,200
0 0 0
11 13 14
0 0 0
3,211 3,713 4,214
3,300 3,900 4,500
0 0 0
12 1 3 16
0 0 0
3,312 3,913 4,516
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
OLD HARBOR
~ 6~-----------------------------------------------,
:J
~
CD
a 5
H
-.J
-.J
H
CD
V
1LI
(f)
:J
>-
t-' a:::
1LI
Z
1LI
4
2~~~~~~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 6.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Old Harbor.
6-10
2002
4,100
0
14
0
4 , 114
4,500
0
15
0
4,515
4,900
0
17
0
4,917
r I
~
1
U
W
r 1
11M
r 1
~
i 1
J
i i ~
u
\
!O
I
I~
I
D
D
U
U
U
U
u
W
U
iW
I
U
U
I
W
I
6.3.1 Resource Alternatives
Energy resources applicable to Old Harbor were evaluated and
ranked according to the methods detailed in Section 2.3.4.
Recommendations of previous studies and community preferences
were incorporated into the ranking. The most widely supported
project in Old Harbor was development of a hydroelectric plant
on Midway Creek.
Resources evaluated and their ranking factors are presented in
Table 6.5. As illustrated, diesel generation and hydroelectric
power had the highest ranking factors. Energy plans utilizing
these generation alternatives were developed and compared on the
basis of economic and end use analyses.
6.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
6.4.1 Base Case Plan
The base case plan assumes continuation of the existing
generation methoQs. In this plan, all the electrical
requirements are satisfied by the AVEC system. Thermal
requirements continue to be met through existing practices.
All resources utilized in the base case are presently available
in Old Harbor. Generation and thermal systems presently used
are generally highly reliable and there are no adverse
environmental impacts from continued use of these systems. The
base case scenario provides a basis for comparison to
alternative plans.
6.4.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for Old Harbor is the development of a hydro-
6-11
Table 6.5 Resource Ranking Factors for Alternative Evaluation for Old Harbor.
Technology Rella-Environ-Ranking
State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor
Impact
Weatherization* 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.00
Diesel Power 5 5 4 4 4 4 0.95
waste Heat Recoverv* N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A
Hydroelectric Power 5 1 4 5 3 1 0.81
wind Energy Conversion
Systems 3 3 2 3 2 5 0.61
Geothermal Enerqv N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Steam Power from local
fuel, wood, coal, etc ... 3 2 2 2 3 1 0.00
Gasification of wood, coal
or peat 2 1 1 2 2 1 0.00
Electrial Load Management* 5 3 3 3 1 4 0.71
* Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
U
I~
I~
I
o
'J
I :0
I
D
;w
I
U
I
U
U
electric plant on Midway Creek, approximately three miles from
the community. A three mile transmission line to the community
would connect the powerhouse to the existing AVEC powerhouse.
This project was evaluated extensively in a 1982 feasibility
study (Dowl, 1982) and was strongly recommended for development.
The proposed plant has a 340 kW capacity and will meet peak
demand during the months from April through November. The
primary use for energy generated will be for lights and
appliances. During high flow months, excess electricity will be
available. It is expected that some residents may convert to
electric resistance space heaters. Diesel generation is
required to meet the demand from December to March. The hydro
plant was evaluated as being completed and on-line in 1986. The
expected life of the system is 50 years from 1986.
Hydroelectric generation is a proven technology and, although it
requires high initial capital costs, has low operation and
maintenance costs.
Both Dolly Varden and Pink Salmon utilize Midway Creek. Project
construction may result in minor short term adverse environ-
mental impacts to these resources. Stream flow reduction during
plant operation_may restrict Dolly Varden from utilizing the
creek from the diversion weir to the powerhouse (Dowl, 1982).
Construction durtng a single season with instream work during
low flow periods will minimize erosion and sedimentation. Pink
Salmon spawning areas do not occur in the areas of project
operation and thus, will not be disturbed (Dowl, 1982).
6.5 COST COMPARISONS OF PLANS
Cost comparisons of plans were based on an economic analysis
that calculates the net present worth of each plan. Plans were
analyzed over a 54 year period. Methodology of this analysis is
detailed in Section 2.4.1.
6-13
6.5.1 Base Case Plan
Expenditures for the base case plan are only fuel and
operation and maintenance until year 4 (1986). In 1986, the
existing diesel system capacity is increased in order to meet
the demand and a capital expense is incurred. Capital
expenditures occur thereafter as systems exceed their expected
life and as demand requires. The accumulated net present worth
of the plan is $8,327,000. Yearly costs for this plan are
detailed in APPENDIX D.
6.5.2 Alternative 1
The hydroelectric generation plan and transmission lines
require capital expenditures of $3,082,300 to bring the system
on-line in 1986. The transmission line is replaced after 30
years for $980,000. Diesel generators for back-up power are
replaced at the end of their expected lives or when demand
exceeds system capacity. The accumulated present worth of the
plan is $7,227,000. Yearly costs of this plan are included in
APPENDIX D.
The hydroelectric plan was initially evaluated with a fuel
savings benefit resulting from excess power being used for
electric heating. Residents expressed that conversion to
electric heating is highly unlikely and that an assumption that
excess power would be used for electric heating is not valid.
The project was; therefore, reevaluated without the electric
heating benefit.
Net present worth of both plans are summarized below.
Base Case
Accumulated Costs
Space heating benefits
Net Costs
6-14
$8,327,000
-0-
$8,327,000
r )
~
u
~l U
i~
D
U
I
r1 I I ~
; 1
'~
I
U
D
D
I
W
:U
I
Midway Creek Hydro
Accumulated Discounted Cost
Space heating benefits
Net Discounted Cost
6.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
$7,227,000
-0-
$7,227,000
The cost of energy analysis is a secondary method of
determining the worth of a plan. This analysis evaluates each
plan on the basis that it satisfied the requirements of each of
the following end uses:
o
o
o
o
o
lights and appliances
cooking and hot water heating
space heating
industrial heating
industrial electricity
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compared to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source. KWh's were converted to mm BTUs for
comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/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 from
either diesel or hydroelectric generation. 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
the hydroelectric plan has the potential to provide less costly
electricity than the base case system. Therefore, a detailed
6-15
f-
l-
f-
f-
f-
f-
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
OLD HARBOR
BASE CASE"", --
HYORO'/
,..-WOOO OIL~
OIL WOOO?
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BBl
YEAR
Figure 6.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY
f-
""
"" ,.....
I
COOKING & HOT WATER
OLD HARBOR
BASE CASE '"' /'"
HYORO'/
PROPANE~
OIL.../
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 6.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
6-16
, 1
W
r 1 W
W
W
w
u
u
r : ,
~
( 1
r ,
! i W
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 6.8.
This figure shows that the cost of energy for the lights and
appliances is lowest when this end use is satisified by diesel
power until 1990. In this year, the cost of electrici ty by
hydropower becomes less than the cost by diesel power. The unit
cost of hydro power remains lower than the unit cost of diesel
power over the term of the planning period. It is important to
note that the unit cost is calculated from the equipment, fuel,
operation, and maintenance costs and does not reflect the cost
billed to the customers. 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 forecasted from 1995 to
2002.
6.7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7.1 Community Recommendations
Based on results of the economic and cost of energy analyses,
the recommended plan for Old Harbor is development of the
Midway Creek hydro project. Prior to project construction, it
is recommended that a financial analysis be completed on the Old
Harbor project. The Alaska Power Authority intends to complete
such an analysis prior to proceeding with design of the hydro-
electric project at Midway Creek and would not proceed if
financial alternatives could not lead to a competitive cost of
power. If results of this analysis are favorable the project
should be developed as soon as legislative funding can be
obtained. scheduling for this project should follow that
detailed in the project feasibility study (Dowl, 1982) wherein
legislative funding is obtained in 1983. Following funding,
6-17
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OLD HARBOR
350
300
I-
250 I-
:::J
I-2"" CD
E -
E 150 I-"-,Base Case
0 I-Hydro, --100 I-Hydro....-A'
I-
50 I-'--Base Case
I-
0 I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
YEAR
Figure 6.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
permitting and equipment procurement and delivery would be
accomplished in 1984 and 1985. Construction would be completed
in 1985 with the project on-line in 1986.
6.7.2 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 10.0.
6-18
; 1 U
w
u
r ...
U
I
L
u
u
u
, 1
u
w
~
u
U
:, r 1
. ~
I
7.0 OUZINKIE
Ouzinkie is a community on Spruce Island 8 miles northwest of
the City of Kodiak. A 1982 KIB census showed the present
population of Ouzinkie is 233. The 60 occupied residential
units consists of four types of homes; Alaska ,State Housing
Authority homes, 1979 HUD homes, 1981/82 HUD homes, and
traditional homes built by individuals. In September 1982,
there were 9 abondoned "dwell ings in Ouzinkie.
Public facilities in Ouzinkie consist of a city office/community
hall, senior citizens center, post office, generator building, a
water pumphouse and a new clinic opened in 1982. Other public
facilities include a large dock and gear shed.
The KIB School District operates a 9800 ft2 school in
Ouzinkie. The school presently serves grades 1-10. Students in
eleventh and twelfth grades generally complete school in Kodiak.
Ouzinkie preschoolers attend a KANA funded preschool operated
out of a large home.
The commercial sector in Ouzinkie consists of a grocery/supply
store and a fuel distributorship. Mark-It Foods of Kodiak
operates the 8000 ft 2 store while Ouzinkie Native Corporation
oper-ates the fuel distributorship from a large trailer facility.
Commercial fishing is the basis of the cash economy in Ouzinkie.
In 1976 the cannery in Ouzinkie burned and as a result many
fishermen fish for processors located in Kodiak. Other
7-1
employment opportunities in Ouzinkie are as listed:
°teacher's aide and custodial positions at the school
°two health aide positions at the clinic
°two grocery store positions
°one KANA preschool position
°two positions at Native Corporation fuel office
In September 1982 the NORTEC field team and KANA energy planner
visited Ouzinkie. The team met with residents and conducted end
use surveys in most homes.
held at the community hall.
An evening community neeting was
In addition to detailing their
energy use, residents outlined the community needs and goals.
Of the needs detailed, 3 out of 4 were directly related to
energy needs. These were:
1) Trustworthy generating system
2) Local bulk storage of gasoline and propane
3) Increased diesel fuel storage to at least
50,000 gallons
The fourth goal listed was increased employment.
Using data from the end-use surveys, city utility records and
previous studies, NORTEC established the present energy use
patterns and bases for projections.
7.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
Energy use patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as
well as electrical end use requirements. Electrical end uses
always include lights and electric appliances and may include
hot water heating and cooking end uses. Thermal end uses
7-2
'I
W
W
D
W
W
W
W
U
I~
U
I
n ~
U
I
o
u
D
U
IU
I
w
U
I
L
'U
include space heating and may also iclu~elhot water heating and
cooking.
7.1.1 Existing Generating Facilities
Ouzinkie has a central generation and distribution system
operated by the city. The generating facility is a modular van
located next to the school~ The van houses two 125 kW three
phase generators. The school has a 60 kW standby unit and the
store has a 20 kW standby unit. An Alaska Power Authority (APA)
demonstration waste heat capture module is located adjacent to
the generator van. This system collects heat from the
generators and sends the excess heat to the school facility via
an above ground hot water utilidor. Maintenance problems have
plagued the city generator system since it was installed. The
generators are very old and are down often. with the addition
of the school load and loads of the new HUD houses the peak
demand has increased substantially. Additionally, the load
is not balanced between the three phases. As a result the
generator is often down and the school has to run its own
generator to meet its peak demand. This problem could be
alleviated if the load were balanced and if the two generators
were run in parall~l.
utility records, in Ouzinkie were very complete. For each type
of horne, records of three months of summer electricity
comsumption and a three months of winter electricity comsumption
were reviewed. Comsumption of public buildings was also
reviewed. No records of school electricity consumption have
been taken since the installation of the waste heat system as
the school is simply charged a flat rate for both electricity
and heat. The city generators produced approximately 432,000
kwh in 1982. There is no bulk fuel storage near the generator
plant and the generator operator fills the day tank by hauling
7-3
individual 55 gallon drums to the generator van. No fuel use
records are available for the generators but based on the
operator's estimates the generator used 40,150 gallons in 1982.
7.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
The majority of homes satisfy heating, cooking and hot water
heating requirements with oil stoves and oil hot water heaters.
These stoves provide space heat, a cooking surface and hot water
coils. Many homes also have airtight wood stoves and supplement
their oil heating with wood. Several residents have switched to
heating entirely with wood. The community average fuel
consumption per home was 120 gallon/month for 8 winter months
and 19 gallons/month for 4 summer months.
In addition to diesel fuel, small quantities of blazo and
kerosene are used in each home for cooking and kerosene lamps.
In addition to oil cook stoves, many residents have propane
ranges. The community also consumes approximately 10,000
gallons of gasoline annually. Gasoline is used for three-
wheelers, skiffs and a few autos.
The 1982 energy use patterns for Ouzinkie are depicted in Figure
7.1, the 1982 Energy Balance. This figure _shows incoming fuel,
the consuming sector (residential, public, school or commercial)
and which end use the fuel is used for.
7.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal
requirements were based on the combination of historical trends
and the requirements of capital projects with known on-line
dates.
7-4
[ i
~
w
w
u
w
w
w
u
c 1
I · ill!
u
r •
J I
i
i 1
u
U
I
USER
FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
GASOLINE TRANSPORTAT ION:
10,000 GAL. RESIDENTIAL/
SKIFFS, AUTOS, PUBLIC 1,280 MMBTu 3-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 89.6 MWH EQUIPMENT 306 MMBTU
RESI DENTlAL LIGHTING, DIESEL 168 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
5,680 NON-RECOVERABLE 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: 8,910 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: 380 GAL. 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
48.0 MMBTU
KEROSENE
600 GAL. RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING
813 MMBTU
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATION ONLY
Figure 7.1 The 1982 energy balance for Ouzinkie.
7-5
7.2.1 Capital Projects
Residents of Ouzinkie discussed numerous capital projects that
they would like to see developed. Most of these were desired as
they would generate local employment. These projects included a
saw mill, a lodge, and a housing project with local hire of
laborers. Residents would also like to see a new breakwater and
boat harbor built. The only funded capital projects are a fire
station/maintenance shed for public equipment and remodeling of
the city/tribal office building.
7.2.2 population projections
Ouzinkie's population has fluctuated since 1940. The KIB 1982
census figure of 233 is the highest recorded population in
Ouzinkie since 1940. The overall growth rate from 1880 to 1980
was less than l%/year. Population increased dramatically
between 1980 and '82 and is expected to continue to increase but
not at an extremely fast rate. Known capital projects for
Ouzinkie are not in themselves expected to bring large increases
in population. The most likely growth rate for Ouzinkie is
expected to be 1.0%/year. Low growth is 0.5%/year and high
growth 1.5%/year. The range of projected growth is depicted in
Table 7.1 and Figure 7.2.
7.2.3 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
forecasted by user sector {residential, public, commercial and
population increases and the demand of those facilities
7-6
r ; u
{ 1 ~
[ 1
~
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
L
~ i
I • ..
: I
W
J
! 1 U
U
r I U
u
~
W
o
U
Table 7.1 The range of projected population increases for
Ouzinkie.
Population
Year Low Growth (0.5%) Likely Growth (1.0%) High Growth (1.5%)
1983 234
1988 240
1993 246
1998 252
2002 257
235 236
247 255
260 274
273 296
284 314
POPULATION PROJECTION
OUZINKIE
a25~----------------------------------------------~
z a
..... 275
I-<
..J
""'"' fLOW cL 25B a a..
225
2BB~~~~~~~~~--~~~~----~~~~--~~~~
1982 1984 19S6 1988 199B 1992 1994 1996 1998 2BR1B 2BB2
YEAR
Figure 7.2 The projected population increases for Ouzinkie~
7-7
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 presented in Table 7.2. Tables 7.3 and 7.4
present the ranges of space heating and cooking and hot water
requirements. The total projected demands for each end use are
presented in Figures 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5.
7.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
A general description of resource assessment is given in
Chapter 2.0 Methodology. Resources specifically applicable to
Ouzinkie are detailed below.
7.3.1 Resource Alternatives
Ranking factors, as described in Section 2.3.4, were used to
select appropriate alternatives for Ouzinkie. Recommendations
of previous studies were evaluated and incorporated into the
ranking as were community preferences. The most popular
alternatives to the residents were a hydro project and a wind
generator. Several'residents expressed interest in tidal power
development in Ouzinkie. Investigations of tidal systems
revealed that they are presently unproven at the small scale and
that they require prohibitively high initial investment. Tidal
power therefore was not evaluated further.
The resources evaluated and their ranking factors are presented
in Table 7.5. As illustrated, diesel power, hydroelectric
power and wind genration had the highest ranking factors. Plans
for the implementation of these alternatives were developed and
compared on the basis of economic and end use analyses.
7-8
I i
~
u
w
w
u
u
[1 •
u
f \ ~
W
U
MISSING PAGE FROM BOOK . . .
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION PLANNING ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MAY 1983
TABLE 7.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands for
Ouzinkie Page 7-9
FIGURE NUMBER 7.3 Total projected lights and appliances demands for
Ouzinkie Page 7-9
MISSING PAGE FROM BOOK . . .
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
ELECTRIFICATION PLANNING ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
MAY 1983
TABLE 7.3 The range of projected space heating demands for Ouzinkie
Page 7-10
FIGURE NUMBER 7.4 Total projected space heating demands for Ouzinkie
Page 7-10
" 1 : I ~
u
u
, \
U
. ,
U
I
u
r ' u
[ 1 : !
~
w
u
U
D
U
Table 7.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Ouzinkie.
population
Growth
Rate
Low
0.5%
Likely
1.0%
High
1. 5%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
school
Commercial
Total
1983
1,700
78
a
a
1 ,778
1,700
78
o
o
1 ,778
1 ,800
79
o
a
1,879
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998
1,800
80
a
a
1,880
1,900
82
a
a
1,982
1,900
85
o
o
1,985
1 ,900
82
a
a
1 ,982
2,000
86
a
a
2,086
2,100
91
o
a
2,191
1,900
84
a
a
1,984
2,100
91
a
o
2,191
2,300
98
o
a
2,398
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT WATER
OUZINKIE
275B~----------------------------------------------~
A
~25BB
m
E
E
v 225B
lJ.J
Ul
:::J 2B0B
>-
Cl
Il::
~ 1750
lJ.J
15B"~~-L~--~~~--~~~--L-~~--L-~-L--~~-L~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 20Bl
YEAR
Figure 7.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Ouzinkie.
7-11
2002
2,000
85
a
a
2,085
2,200
94
o
a
2,294
2,400
100
o
a
2,500
Table 7.5 Resource Ranking Factors for Alternative Evaluation for Ouzinkie.
Technology Rel1a-EnV1ron-Rank1ng
State-of-the-Art Cost bility Resource Labor mental Factor
ImJ=lact
Weatherization* 5 5 5 5 5 I 5 1.00
Diesel Power 5 4 4 4 4 4 0.87
waste Heat Recovery* N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Hydroelectric Power 5 1 4 3 3 3 0.72
Wind Energy Conversion
Systems 3 3 2 4 2 5 0.66 -
Geothermal Energy N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 0.00
Steam Power from local
fuel, wood, coal, etc ... 3 2 2 I 3 3 3 0.57
Gasification of wood, coal
or peat 2 1 1 3 2 3 0.45
Electrial Load Management* 5 3 3 2 1 4 0.65
* Energy Conservation Measures N/A Not Applicable
Note: 0 = worst case, 5 = best case
I~
,
W
D
u
o
i 1
I~
( )
~
U
W
!
U
I \
W
U
I
'W
I o
I
,W
I
U
I
W
I
7.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
7.4.1 Base Case Plan
The base case plan assumes the continuation of the existing
central generation facility with waste heat recapture. Thermal
requirements continue to be met with existing system. All
resources utilized in the base case are presently available in
Ouzinkie. There are no adverse environmental impacts from
continued use of these systems. The base case scheme provides a
basis for comparison to alternative plans.
7.4.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for Ouzinkie is the development of a
hydroelectric plant at Katmai Creek, approximately one-half mile
east of Ouzinkie. The proposed plant would have an installed
capacity of 78 kW. Due to higher peak demand and seasonal flow
on the creek, full backup diesel in the form of the existing
system, is required. During periods of high flow, the hydro
plant may have excess electricity which could be used to operate
electrical resist~nce space heating. The hydro plant was
evaluated as being completed and on-line by 1986. The expected
life of the system is 50 years from 1986.
Hydroelectric generation is proven technology, and although it
requires high initial capital costs, has low operation and
maintenance costs.
Installation of a hydro project at Katmai Creek would have no
identified adverse effects on salmon species. (CH2M Hill,
1981) However, the reservoir may affect feeding areas of deer.
7-13
7.4.3 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 involves installing a 25 kW peak wind turbine in
Ouzinkie. Since the system is small and its output unreliable,
it would be used to augment the current diesel generation
system. While the system has a 25 kW peak, it would have an
overage output of 10 kW and be able to provide 87,000 kWh/yr,
less than one quarter of the community demand. Down time for
the system, due to lack of wind, is estimated at 20 to 25
percent and maintenance down time would account for another 5
percent (CH2M-Hill, 1981). The approximate useful life of the
system is 15 years. The wind generation facility was evaluated
as being completed and on-line by 1984.
While wind generation is a proven technology, reliability
problems have plagued several systems. Some noise will be
emitted during operation, but this impact can be mitigated by
strategic and remote location siting.
7.5 COST COMPARISONS OF PLANS
Cost comparisons of plans were based on an economic analysis
that calculates the net present worth of each plan. Plans were
analyzed over a 54 year period. Metholology of this analysis is
detailed in Section 2.4.1.
7.5.1 Base Case Plan
Capital expenditures for the base case plan begin in year
(1983) as the system is upgraded to meet demand. Capital
expenditures are incurred thereafter as systems reach their
expected lives and as demand requires upgrading the system.
The accumulated discounted cost_ is $4,696,000. Fuel savings
7-14
u
u
u
u
w
w
u
w
u
w
w
w
~
D
U
'w
I ; D
, D
I u
u
u
u
· U
I
r 1 U
U
I
'U
I iU
D
D
~
U
I
benefits due to waste heat benefits total $159,000. Yearly
costs for this plan are detailed in APPENDIX E.
7.5.2 Alternative 1
The hydroelectric generation plant and transmission lines
require capital expenditures of $1,880,000 to bring the system
on-line in 1986. The transmission line is replaced after 30
years. Diesel generators for backup power are replaced at the
end of their expected lives or when demand exceeds system
capacity. Since the diesels will not be required to operate as
often, the waste heat available to the school will be less than
in the base case. The hydro plan initially included a fuel
savings benefit based on residents conversion to electric
resistance space heaters. During the second village meeting
residents stated that it was highly unlikely that they would
convert to electric heat from wood and oil. Thus the hydro plan
was reevaluated without the fuel savings benefit. The
accumulated cost of this plan is $3,957,000. Waste heat
benefits are $75,000.
7.5.3 Alternative 2
A capital expenditure of $435,600 would be required to put the
wind generator system on line. The wind turbine is replaced
every 15 years as it reaches the end of its life, and the diesel
generators are replaced as their life is reached or as demand
warrants. Again, the use of an alternative energy source would
result in the diesel generators being used less and therefore,
produce less waste heat. The accumulated cost of this plan are
$5,124,000. Waste heat benefits total $151,000.
Cost of all plans are summarized below.
7-15
Base Case
Accumulated Cost
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
Katmai Creek Hydro
Accumulated Cost
Electric Space Heat Benefits
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
ation
Accumulated Cost
Waste Heat Benefits
Net Cost
7.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
$4,696,000
159,000
$4,537,000
$3,957,000
-0-
$3,957,000
75,000
$3,882,000
$5,124,000
151,000
$4,973,000
A cost of energy analysis was done on the base case and each
alternative. These analyses evaluate 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 in $/mmBTU*, of heating with oil and wood is compared
*mmBTU = 1,000,000 BTU
1 BTU = heat of 1 match
7-16
I ' ~
u
w
w
r
~
u
u
f . ~
u
I 1
~
u
~
J
,J
!
J
1
J
I U
I
IJ
I U
J
IW
I
to the cost of residents converting to electric heaters and
satisfying heating needs with electricity supplied by either the
centeral generation system, the hydro plant or the wind system.
Kwhs were converted to BTUs for this comparison.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/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 are shown in figures 7.6
and 7.7 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. 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 7.8. This figure shows that the
cost by either the base case or hydro plans. The hydro plan
cost is higher than the base case until 1989 when it becomes
lower for the ter~ of the planning period.
Because the light~ and appliance demand is presently satisfied
with electricity, conversion to electric systems will not be
required to utilize lower cost power provided by a wind or hydro
system. Therefore, increases in the projected electrical load
due to conversions will not occur.
7.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.7.1 Community Summary and Recommendations
Based on the economic analyses alone, the best energy plan for
7-17
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
OUZINKIE
~----------------~--------------------------'----
BASE CASE '"
L--~==~==========~~--=~-"-WIND --\
F'HYDRO
I-'-WOOD
'-OIL
I I I I 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
OUZINKIE
BASE CASE" --'
~ '\ ~ WIND7
,.-HYDRO
PROPANE ""
OIL/
I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 7.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
7-18
[
~
[
~
[ I
~
W I
U
J
,J
I
U
J
I
r~l
I~
!
COST OF ENERGY LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
OUZINKIE
35121
31219 I-
259
::J
I-299 (l)
E
E 159 Wind,
" Base Case-...
~ r-
1121121 I-'-Base Case
Hydro'/
I-
59 l-
I-
9 I I I
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 21211211
YEAR
Figure 7.8 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
Ouzinkie is development of the Katmai Creek hydro project. The
cost of energy analysis illustrates the potential lower cost of
electricity provided by this plan.
The wind system has the highest net present worth and does not
provide lower cost electricity 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 Katmai Creek hydro project does have potential excess energy
during high flow periods. This energy could be used for space
heating although high flows generally occur during the summer.
The cost of energy analysis shows that hydroelectricity used for
lights and appliances becomes less than diesel electricity in
1989 (three years into the project life). Therefore, for
forty-seven 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 consumers if a hydroplant was built. The diesel
generating system must run 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 recommended plan for Ouzinkie is that a detailed feasibility
study be competed 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 the 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 and funding.
7.7.2 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 10.0.
7-20
I
~
r I
U
r ,
~. ~ ~ & ,. 8.0 PORT LIONS" . \
Port Lions is located on Settler Cove approximately 20 miles
west of the City of Kodiak. The 1982 KIB summer census recorded
a population of i91 residents. The residential sector is
comprised of 102 single family dwellings and one 4-plex.
Thirty-five of the homes are new HUD homes that were completed
in 1982. The city occupies both the north and south side of
Settler Cove.
Public facilities in Port Lions consist ofa city office/commun-
ity hall, clinic, post office, library, water building, and new
and old fire buildings. Additional public facilities include a
large dock and dock storage building. The KIB School District
operates a 4800 ft2 elementary school, a utility/lab building
and a 8000 ft 2 high school built in 1979.
Port Lions has a relatively large commercial sector. A fishing
fleet of approximately 15 vessels is based in Port Lions.
Locally owned businesses include a lodge, grocery store, marine
supply store, a fuel distributorship, and a cable T.V. sales
business. Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) owns the generating
plant and office.-In addition to employment available through
these businesses, KANA employs several employees as do the city
and school.
The NORTEC field team and the KANA energy planner visited Port
Lions in September 1982. Team members surveyed generating faci-
lities and public buildings and conducted door-to-door end use
surveys. During surveys of homes, many residents expressed dis-
satisfaction with earlier energy plans for Port Lions. Resi-
dents detailed the controversy over the proposed hydro project
for Port Lions and said that they strongly supported being
intertied to the Kodiak Terror Lake hydroelectric project.
8-1
I
~
Most residents felt that, as they are members of an electric ~
utility, they should have electric power as dependable and
inexpensive as the rest of the utility. Some residents said ~
that they supported the intertie project provided the cost of
the line was passed on to all members of KEA rather than just to W
Port Lions.
An evening meeting was held at the community hall but was very
poorly attended. Team members met with city officials to
determine planned capital projects.
8.1 EXISTING ENERGY USE PATTERNS
Energy use patterns include methods of satisfying thermal as
well as electrical end use requirements. Electrical end uses
always include lights and electric appliances and may include
hot water heating and cooking end uses. Thermal end uses·
include space heating and may also include hot water heating and
cooking. Energy patterns were determined from end use surveys,
KEA utility records, fuel sales estimates and previous studies.
8.1.1 Existing Generating Facilities
KEA operates the generation and distribution system in Port
Lions. Two 200 kW units and two 350 kW units are installed at
the plant. Presently, the 350 kW units are used for standby and
maintenence purposes only. The peak demand in Port Lions in
1982 was 185 kW and this was easily met with one 200 kW unit on
line. The two 200 kW units are run alternately. In 1982 REA
generated approximately 636,600 kWh. The distribution system
has a relatively high line loss of approximately 15%.
The residential sector was the largest electrical consumer.
There is a high level of residential appliance satu·ration in
8-2
r !
~
'-1
W
u
w
I ) •
, i
\.j
, 1
,
, I
~ I
J I
,J
I
W
I
:J-; i
I
\
I
J
I
U
I
Port Lions. In contrast to other small communities, many
residences had electric ranges and electric washers and dryers.
8.1.2 Thermal Energy Patterns
The majority of homes satisfy space heating and hot water
requirements with oil systems. Some homes used oil stoves which
supplied space heat, hot water coils and a cooking surface.
Many residents have electric ranges to satisfy cooking require-
ments. Space heating requirements are also met partially with
wood. Two homes are heated solely with wood. The community
average fuel consumption per home was 175 gallons/month during 8
winter months and 27 gallons/month during 4 summer months.
The school and several residences used propane for cooking and
some residents used propane for dryers. In addition to fuel oil
and propane, small quantities of blazo and kerosene were used
for cooking and lighting, respectively. The community also
consumes approximately 32,000 gallons of gasoline/year.
Gasoline is used for automobiles, 3-wheelers and skiffs.
The energy use patterns for Port Lions are depicted in Figure
8.1 the 1982 Energy Balance. This figure shows incoming fuel,
the consuming sector (residential, public, school or commercial)
and which end use the fuel is used for.
8.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal require-
ments were based on the conbination of historical trends and the
requirements of capital projects with known on-line dates.
8-3
USER + FUEL + SECTOR END USE
GASOLINE
RESIDENTIAL / TRANSPORTATION
32,150 GAL. PUBLIC SKIFFS, AUTOS,
4,110 MMBTU 3-WHEELERS
SCHOOL LIGHTING, 66.5 MWH EOUIPMENT 227 MMBTU
RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING.
DIESEL 351 MWH APPLIANCES
FUEL 1,200 MMBTU
for PUBLIC
27.9 MWH LIGHTING ELECTRICAL 95.2 MMBTU
GENERATION
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, 71.8 MWH FREEZERS 67,310 GAL. 245 MMBTU
9,320 MM8TU NON -RECOVERABLE
WASTE HEAT N/A
5,220 MMBTU
RECOVERA8LE
WASTE HEAT
2.330 MMBTu * N/A
SCHOOL SPC. HEAT: 10,570 GAL.
HOT WTR: 980 GAL.
11,550 GAL. COOKING: -0-
RESIDENTIAL SPC. HEAT: 100,190 GAL.
HEATING HOT WTR: 14,760 GAL.
FUEL 121,000 GAL. COOKING: 6,050 GAL.
210,320 GAL.
PUBLIC SPCHEAT: 6,890 GAL. 29,200 MMBTU HOT WTR: 70 GAL. 6,960 GAL. COOKING: -0-
COMMERCIAL SPC. HEAr: 70,570 GAL.
HOT WTR·· 240 GAL.
70,B10 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
I,B90 MMBTU COMM. 41 CORDS
~
75 GAL. RESIDENTIAL COOKING
9.60 MMBTU
KEROSENE
75 GAL. RESIDENTI AL LIGHTING
10.2 MMBTU
* FROM CURRENT PUBLIC GENERATION ONLY
Figure 8.1 The 1982 energy balance for Port Lions. L
8-4
I W
J
I
,J
I
J I
J
J
I I ...
, 1
8.2.1 Capital Projects
There are no planned school or residential projects that will
create a large increase in electrical and thermal demand.
Public projects include the 1983 completion of a dock facility
with electrical hook-ups for 33 large vessels, a small
harbormaster building in 1983, and remodeling of the library in
1984. The National Guard may build a small facility in Port
Lions but a definite construction date has not been set.
A new fish processing plant is presently in the planning stages
but final design is not complete and a definite on-line date was
not available. The plant was not, therefore, included in the
load model.
8.2.2 Population Projections
The population of Port Lions fluctuated greatly between 1970
and 1980. Between 1980 and 82 however, the population increased
from 215 to 291. The Port Lions comprehensive plan states that
the preferred growth rate of the community is 4.5%. It is
expected that the population will continue to increase but that
the growth rate will more closely approximate 3.0%/year. The
low growth rate, 2.0%/year, and the high rate, 4.0%/year,
represent the range of projected growth. Projections for these
rates are presented in Table 8.1 and Figure 8.2.
8.2.3 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
8-5
Table 8.1 The range of projected population increases for Port
Lions.
Year Low
1983
1988
1993
1998
2002
625
575
a 525
H
~ 475
.J ir 425 o a...
375
325
Growth
297
328
362
399
432
Population
(2.0%) Likely Growth (3.0%) High
300
347
403
467
526
POPULATION PROJECTION
PORT LIONS
Growth
303
368
448
545
638
275~~~~~--~~~~~--~~--~~--~~--~~~
1982 1994 1996 1999 1999 1992 1994 1996 1999 2QJQJa 2QJ92
YEAR
(4~0%)
Figure 8.2 The projected population increases for Port Lions.
8-6
! '
~
r .
~
I '
~
I
~
!~
I
I~
U
J
I
U
I
'D
I
U
U
I
,w
I
U
U
11.1
IW
,W
I
U
1°
iU
I
'U
I
forecasted by user sector (residential,' public, commercial, and
school). Forecasts are based on capital projects demand,
population increases, and the demand of facilities necessary to
accommodate the population. Thus, for these projections the
growth rates used in the population projections were used. The
range of lights and appliance requirements is presented in Table
8.2 and Figure 8.3. Table 8.3 and Figure 8.4 present the space
heating requirements and Table 8.4 and Figure 8.5 present the
expected cooking and hot water requirements.
8.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Based on previous studies and events surrounding selection of
alternative projects for Port Lions , a ranking factor system
was not employed to select alternative plans for this community.
Previous studies on Port Lions have evaluated both an intertie
to the Terror Lake hydroelectric project and development of a
hydro project on Port Lions River. After much controversy, the
residents of Port Lions and REA agreed to accept the recommen-
dation of the Alaska Power Authority (APA) as to which project
should be implemented. The 1982 APA study recommended construc-
tion of the Port Lions/Terror Lake Intertie. This project has
recently gone to bid for final design and construction and a
state grant for $1.4 million has been obtained for funding. For
purposes of this study the base case and the intertie plan were
evaluated in order to prepare comparative cost of energy curves.
While various economic analyses have been conducted to evaluate
the intertie, this study was done to update the cost of energy
analysis to current Alaska Power Authority guidelines. plan
descriptions are presented below and results of analyses follow
in Sections 8.5 and 8.6.
8.4 PLAN DESCRIPTIONS
The base case plan assumes the continuation of the current
8-7
r I
~
Table 8.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands for ~
Population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
3.0%
High
4.0%
Port Lions.
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
1983
990
97
230
250
1,567
1,000
98
230
250
1,578
1 ,000
99
240
250
1,589
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998
1 ,200 1,300 1 ,500
110 120 130
260 280 310
280 300 340
1,850 2,000 2,280
1,200 1,500 1,700
110 130 150
270 320 370
290 340 390
1,870 2,290 2,610
1 ,300 1,600 2,000
120 150 180
290 350 430
310 380 460
2,020 2,480 3,070
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
PORT LIONS
r. ::>
I-m
z o
H
..J
..J
H m v
w
4~-----------------------------------------------'
3
(f) 2 ::>
>-~
0::
W
Z W 1L-~-L~ __ ~J--L~ __ L-~-L~~~-L~--~~~~~
1983 1985 1981 1989 1991 1993 1995 1991 1999 2331
YEAR
2002
1,600
140
330
360
2,430
1,900
170
400
430
2,900
2,300
200
480
510
3,490
Figure 8.3 The total projected lights and appliances demands for <
Port Lions.
8-8
I :
W
f '
W
U
w
U
W
W
W
W
W
W
I
W
I
W
1
J
, i
U
J
W
I
J
U
I
:;,:'
Table 8.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Port Lions.
population
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 14,000 16,000 17,000 19,000
Low Public 970 1,100 1,200 1,300
2.0% School 1 ,500 1,600 .1,800 2,000
Commercial 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000
Total ·26,470 29,700 32,000 35,300
Residential 14,000 17,000 19,000 22,000
Likely Public 980 1 ,100 1,300 1,500
3.0% School 1 ,500 1,700 2,000 2,300
Commercial 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000
Total 26,480 31,800 36,300 41,800
Residential 14,000 18,000 21,000 26,000
High Public 990 1 ,200 1,500 ' 1,800
4.0% School 1,500 1,900 2,300 2,700
Commercial 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,000
Total 26,490 33,100 39,800· 48,500
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
PORT LIONS
~ 6~~-------------------------------------------------,
:J
I-m 55
z a
H
...J
...J
H
00
V
w
(f)
::J
>-
(j
0::
50
45
40
35
30
W
Z
W 25~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~~~
. 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993
YEAR
1995 1997 1999 2001
Figure 8.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Port Lions.
8-9
2002
20,000
1,400
2,100
14,000
37,500
24,000
1,700
2,600
17,000
45,300
29,000
2,000
3,100
21,000
55,100
Table 8.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Port Lions.
Population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
3.0%
High
4.0%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Demand mmBTU
1983 1988 1993
450 710 790
0 0 0
10 1 1 12
0 0 0
460 721 802
460 750 880
0 0 0
10 12 14
0 0 0
470 762 894
460 790 980
0 0 0
10 12 15
0 0 0
470 802 995
ENERGY PROJECTION -COOKING & HOT
PORT LIONS
'" :::J 1.4 .... m
z 1.2
0 .....
-1 1
-1 .....
m .S
v
IJJ .6
(f)
:::J .4
>-
t:)
a::: .2
IJJ
Z
IJJ B
19S3 1985 19S7 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
YEAR
1998
880
0
13
0
893
1,000
0
16
0
1 ,016
1 ,200
0
18
0
1 ,218
WATER
2BB1
Figure 8.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Port Lions.
8-10
2002
940
0
14
0
954
1,100
0
17
0
1 , 11 7
1,300
0
21
0
1 ,321
i
I
~
~
.~
~
~
~
. ,
U
,
U
u
U
I U
I
I~
, ~
I
U
D
U
electrical generation facilities~ Under this plan, all of the
electrical demand of the community is supplied by KEA diesel
generators in Port Lions, and thermal requirements continue to
be met through existing means. All resources used in the base
case are presently available in Port Lions. 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 alternative plans.
8.4.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 for Port Lions is the construction of a trans-
mission line intertie to the Terror Lake hydro project. This
would involve installing an 14 mile transmission line to connect
Port Lions to the Terror Lake Powerhouse and constructing
substations at both ends of the line. The proposed transmission
line would have a rating of 740 kVA, thus allowing it to meet a
peak demand of 592 kW, at an 0.8 power factor. This project was
evaluated in a report for KEA (Retherford, 1981) and received
favorable recommendation. The transmission line will provide
all the electrical needs for the community, athough a diesel
generation system will be provided for back-up. Since the
intertie will be able to provide more electricity than will be
needed by the community, some of this excess can go to providing
electric resistance space heating and reducing the demand for
heating oil. The intertie was evaluated as being complete and
on-line in 1984. The expected life of the system is 30 years
from 1984.
Although the intertie has high initial capital costs, it has low
operating and maintenance costs. It would also help to lessen
the community's reliance on fossil fuels.
8-11
The transmission line will be routed through a 30' wide corridor
along its 14 mile length. Apart from the clearing of this
corridor there should be little or no adverse environmental
impacts upon the area.
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 32 year period. Methodology of
this analysis is detailed in Section 2.4.1.
8.5.1 Base Case Plan
In the base case plan expenditures are only for fuel and
operation and maintenance for the first ten years. In year 11
(1993) the existing primary generator is upgraded to meet
demand. The accumulated net present cost of the base case plan
is $6,242,000. Yearly costs for this plan are detailed in
APPENDIX F.
8.5.2 Alternative 1
The transmission line intertie and related substations are
planned to come on-line in 1984 at a capital cost of $1,400,000.
Diesel generators for back-up electricity are replaced at the
end of their economic life. With fuel and operation and
maintenance costs, the accumulated net cost of the project is
$2,834,000. Yearly costs of this plan are included in APPENDIX
F.
8-12
r ,
IU
I
I U
D
D
U
,U
I
Accumulated net discounted costs of both plans are shown below.
Base Case
Accumulated Net Discounted Cost $6,242,000
Intertie
Accumulated Net Discounted Cost $2,834,000
8.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
A secondary method of determining the worth of a project is a
cost of energy analysis, as described in Section 2.4.2. This
analysis evaluates each plan on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of each of the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
o space heating
o industrial heating
o industrial electricity
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compar.:ed to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source. Initial cost of energy analyses showed that
the cost ($/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 8.6 and 8.7 for space heating and cooking and
hot water, respectively. As shown in Figure 8.7, the presently
used methods of heating, fuel oil and wood, remain much less
expensive than electric heating by either diesel generation or
electricity received from the intertie. Figure 8.7 illustrates
8-13
r
r
I-
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE HEATING
PORT LIONS
INTERTIE,
/ eASE CASE
I--
WOOD,
'-OIL
I I I
--
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995. 1997 1999 2991
YEAR
Figure 8.6 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF ENERGY -COOKING & HOT WATER
PORT LIONS
"--:;:::
INTERTIE,
Y ----eASE CASE,
r
r PROPANE,
l-
I-
I-'--OIL
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2991
YEAR
Figure 8.7 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
8-14
,J
I
J
I
I ~
,
iU
I
J
I
J
1
W
, I
r ,
o
'U I
that the presently used propane and oil systems are less
expensive than electric power by either diesel generation or
intertie.
Initial analyses of the lights and appliance end use showed that
the intertie 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 ~igure 8.8. This figure shows that the
intertie provides the lowest cost of energy for lights and
appliances from the year it comes on-line.
COST OF ENERGY -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
PORT LIONS
359.-~----------------------------------------------~
-
25B -
::J-
~ 29Bf-m
E
~ 159 f-
iI). f-
19B
5B
I-
Base Case,
,Intertie
B~~~--~~--~~~'~~~--~~---I~~~--~~~'~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 29Bl
YEAR
Figure 8.8 Results of the cost of energy analusis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
8-15
8.7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.7.1 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 costjrnmBTU (or cost/kt'ih
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 and the Alaska Power Authority, plus KEA's
administrative and distribution costs.
8.7.2 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 10.0. 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.
8-16
( 1
W
U
U
r '
~
W
i ,
1.1
w
u
u
~
w
iW
I
w
. ~
I
~
I
U
U
W
I
I W
,
W
:U
I
1
U
U
i .
9.0 KODIAK
The city of Kodiak bears no similarity to the other communities
on the island because of the diversity of its economy,
population, electrical demand and use, and thermal energy use
patterns. The city is served by an established utility, Kodiak
Electri~ 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, commer~ial, 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
9-1
discussion of the input variables for the computer model and
deferred questions about tariffs.
9.1 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.
9.1.1 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.
9-2
w
w
~
~
W
W
W
'W
U
W
W
W
W
W
u
u
u
w
w
w
o
I u
9.1.2 Thermal Energy 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 9.1,
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.
9.2 FORECASTS
Forecasts of population and electrical and thermal requirements
were based on the combination of historical trends and the pre-
dicted requiremen~s of capital projects with known on-line
dates.
9.2.1 Capital Projects
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 housfng is
9-3
I ~
USER
FUEL + SECTOR + END USE
L
GASOLINE TRANSPORTATION:
2,864,000 \101. ALL LAND, AVIATION, MARINE
365,730 mmBTU
DIESEL FUEL
5,500,000 \101. ALL TRANSPORTAT ION,
761,750 mmBTU EQUIPMENT
RESIDENTIAL
LIGHTING, APPLIANCES 14,482 MWh
49,430 mmSTU HOT WATER, COOKING
COMMERCIAL LIGHTING,
14,820 MWh APPLIANCES,
DIESEL FUEL
50,SSO mmSTU EQUIPMENT
for PUBLIC LIGHTING, 7,690 MWh EQUIPMENT
ELECTRICAL 26,250 mmBTU
GENERATION SCHOOL LIGHTING,
4,396,000 gol. 1,4S2 MWh EOUIPMENT,
608,B50 mmBTU 5,060 mmBTU COOKING
INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING, VAR 10US IO,7BO MWh
36,790 mmBTU INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
NON-RECOVERABLE WASTE ;lEAT RECOVERY WASTE HEAT IS NOT APPLICABLE 440,740 mmSTU
RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEATING,
BI4,OOO 1101. COOKING, HOT WATER
COMMERCIA\. SPACE ;lEATlNG,
IB4,OOO gal. HOT WATER
HEATING FUEL
1,259,000 \101. PUSLIC SPACE HEATING,
174,370 ... mBTU
115,000 qol. HOT WATER
J SCHOOL SPACE HEATING,
u
35,000 1101. HOT WATER
INDUSTRIAL SPACE HEATING, VARIOUS
110,000 gal. INDUSTRIA\. PROCESSES
~ RESIDENTIAL
200 CORDS 200 CORDS
SPACE HEATING
3,820 ... mBTU
Figure 9.1 The 1982 energy balance for Kodiak~
9-4
I
J
IJ
I
J
I
J
I
J
J
I
J
I
U
r 1 ,
W
u
u
u
u
u
w
u
w
D
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.
9.2.2 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
presented in Table 9.1 and Figure 9.2
9-5
/
Table 9_.1 The range of projected population increases for
Kodiak.
Year
1983
1988
1993
1998
2002
z o
H
Low
I-
<l6~~~
-1 ::>
0... o
0...
11~~~
Growth
6,630
7,320
8,082
8,923
9,659
Population
(2.0%) Likely Growth (4.0%) High
6,760
8,225
10,006
12,174
14,242
POPULATION PROJECTION
GREATER KODIAK AREA
Growth
6,890
9,233
12,372
16,578
20,929
6~~~~~-L~L-~-L~--~-L~--~~~--~~~--~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
(6.0%)
Figure 9.2 The projected population increases for the Greater
Kodiak Area.
9-6
I
~
I
~
~
~
C
C
o
D
D
D
D
C
D
~
W
D
IJ
iJ
I
iD
U
U
U I
, '
, :
, !
w
W
U
iW
I
U
I
D
J
U
9.2.3 Electrical and Thermal Projec~ions
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 Table 9.2 and Figure 9.3.
Table 9.3 and Figure 9.4 present the space heating requirements
and Table 9.4 and Figure 9.5 present the expected cooking and hot
water requirements. Figures 9.6 and 9.7 show the projections for
industrial electricity and industrial heat, respectively.
9.3 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 9.5
and 9.6.
9-7
Table 9.2 The range of projected lights and appliance demands for
Kodiak.
population
Growth User Demand mmBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998 2002
Residential 38,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 59,000
Low public 23,000 27,000 30,000 32,000 34,000
2.0% School 4,100 4,900 5,400 5,900 6,200
Commercial 44,000 52,000 57,000 63,000 66,000
Industrial 41,000 48,000 53,000 58,000 61,000
Total 150,100 176,900 195·,400 213,900 226,200
Residential 39,000 51,000 61,000 74,000 83,000
Likely Public 23,000 30,000 36,000 44,000 49,000
4.0% School 4,200 5,400 6,600 7,900 8,900
Commercial 45,000 58,000 70,000 . 84,000 94,000
Industrial 42,000 54,000 65,000 78,000 87,000
Total 153,200 198,400 238,600 287,900 321,900
Residential 39,000 57,000 75,000 100,000 120,000
High Public 24,000 33,000 44,000 59,000 69,000
6.0% School 4,300 6,100 8,000 11,000 13,000
Commercial 46,000 64,000 85,000 110,000 130,000
Industrial 42,000 60,000 79,000 100,000 120,000
Total 155,300 220,100 291,000 380,000 452,000
ENERGY PROJECTION -LIGHTS & APPLIANCES
GREATER KODIAK AREA
,..."
:::l 3ee r-
CD
Z
0
I-t
--1 2ee
--1
I-t
CD
V
>-lee t:)
0:::
W
Z
W
lIS
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2eB1
YEAR
Figure 9.3 The total projected lights and appliance demand for
Kodiak.
9-8
u
u
w
U
J
,~ .'!'
Table 9.3 The range of projected space heating demands for
Kodiak.
population
Growth User Demand rnrnBTU
Rate Sector 1983 1988 1993 1998
Residential 650,000 770,000 840,000 930,000
Low Public 92,000 110,000 120,000 130,000
2.0% School 28,000 33,000 36,000 39,000
Commercial 150,000 170,000 190,000 210,000
Industrial 98,000 130,000 160,000 190,000
Total 1,018,000 1,213,000 1,346,000 1,499,000
Residential 660,000 860,000 1000,000 1200,000
Likely Public 94,000 120,000 150,000 180,000
4.0% School 28,000 36,000 44,000 53,000
Commercial 150,000 190,000 230,000 280,000
Industrial 100,000 160,000 240,000 350,000
Total 1,032,000 1,366,000 1,664,000 2,063,000
Residential 680,000 960,000 1300,000 1700,000
High Public 95,000 140,000 180,000 240,000
6.0% School 29,000 41,000 53,000 71,000
Commercial 150,000 220,000 290,000 380,000
Industrial 110,000 200,000 360,000 630,000
Total 1,919,000 1,561,000 2,660,000 3,021,000
ENERGY PROJECTION -SPACE HEATING
GREATER KODIAK AREA
3e~~~--------------------------
'" ::J
b) 25~~
Z o :J 2~~~
..J
H
CD
v 15~~
5~~~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~~~~--~~~--~~~
19931995 1997 1999 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 9.4 The total projected space heating demands for
Kodiak.
9-9
2002
980,000
140,000
42,000
220,000
210,000
1,592,000
1400,000
200,000
59,000
320,000
440,000
2,419,000
2000,000
280,000
84,000
450,000
890,000
3,704,000
Table 9.4 The range of projected cooking and hotwater demands for
Kodiak.
population
Growth
Rate
Low
2.0%
Likely
4.0%
High
6.0%
User
Sector
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
Residential
Public
School
Commercial
Total
1983
65,000
9,200
2,800
15,000
92,000
66,000
9,400
2,800
15,000
93,200
68,000
9,500
2,900
15,000
95,400
Demand mmBTU
1988 1993 1998
89,000 98,000 110,000
14,000 15,000 17,000
3,900 4,200 4,600
23,000 26,000 28,000
106,900 143,200 49,710
99,000 120,000 140,000
16,000 19,000 23,000
4,300 5,200 6,200
26,000 31,000 38,000
145,300 175,200 207,200
110,000 150,000 190,000
17,000 23,000 30,000
4,800 6,300 8,300
29,000 38,000 50,000
160,800 217,300 278,300
ENERGY PROJECTION~ COOKING & HOT WATER
GREATER KODIAK AREA
Z
0
1-1
..J
..J
1-1
m v
>-
'-' (t:
W
Z
W
35~~----------------'--------------------------------~
25~
2~~
15~
1~~
5~~~-L~~~~~--~~~--L-~~--~~~~~~~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991· 1993 1995 1997 1999 2~~1
YEAR
Figure 9.5 The total projected cooking and hot water demands
for Kodiak.
9-10
2002
110,000
18,000
4,900
30,000
162,900
160,000
25,000
7,000
42,000
234,000
230,000
36,000
9,900
60,000
335,900
~
W
~
U
r 1
U
U
W
W
n ~
W
W
U
U
W
W
W
r ,
U
u
( ,
, :
u
u
w
, D
ENERGY PROJECTION INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY
GREATER KODIAK AREA
14~
A
::J r-121Zl CD
Z 10~ a
I-t
-l 81ll -l
I-t
CD
'-' 6fZl
>-
t:) 413
0::
l1J
Z 21ll
l1J
fZl
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 213131
YEAR
Figure 9.6 The projected industrial electricity demand for Kodiak.
ENERGY PROJECTION -INDUSTRIAL HEAT
GREATER KODIAK AREA
l~lZlfZl~------------------------------------------~
A
::J
r-81Zl1Zl CD
Z a
I-t 61313
-l
-l
I-t ro '-' 41Zl1Zl
1ZlL-L-J--L~~ __ L-~~~~--L-~~~~~~L-~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 213131
YEAR
Figure 9.7 The projected industrial heat demand for Kodiak.
9-11
9.4 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.
9.4.2 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.l. to 1383 feet. 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 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.
9-12
r .
~
~
D
;0
I
D
U
U
: 1
I~
U
,U
I
i 1 W
i U
r ,
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.
9.5 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.
9.5.1 Base Case Plan
In the base case plan expenditures are only for fuel and
operation and mainteinance for the first ten years. In year 11
(1993) the existing primary generators are upgraded to meet
demand. As the system is upgraded or replaced, the total capital
expenditures for fhe 52 year analyses period is $15 million. The
accumulated net pr~sent cost of the base case plan is
$528 million. Yearly costs for this plan are detailed in
APPENDIX G.
9.5.2 Alternative 1
The cost of the Terror Lake project was 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
9-13
plan, i.e., the accumulated discount cost, is $367 million.
yearly costs of this plan are included in APPENDIX G.
9.6 COST OF ENERGY ANALYSIS
A secondary method of determining the worth of a project is a
cost of energy analysis, as describ~d in Section -2.4.2. This
analysis evaluates each plan on the basis that it satisfies the
requirements of each of the following end uses:
o lights and appliances
o cooking and hot water heating
o space heating
o industrial heating
o industrial electricity
o industrial processes
The cost of meeting each end use demand by the presently used
method is compared to the cost of meeting the demand with an
alternative source.
Initial cost of energy analyses showed that the cost ($/mmBTU) of
satisfying space heating, cooking and hot water needs with oil
and wood is lower than the cost of meeting these end use demands
with electricity. The relative cost for each energy source is
shown in Figures 9.8 and 9.9 for space heating and cooking and
hot water, respectively.
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 after 1987. Therefore, a
detailed cost of energy analysis was completed on this end use to
identify the year in which the alternative plan provides less
9-14
I
W
-,
I
W
COST OF ENERGY -SPACE "HEATING
GREATER KODIAK AREA
Base Case~
__ ----Hydro
Wood"",,-
Oil J
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2aa1
YEAR
Figure 9.8 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting space heating demand.
COST OF-ENERGY ~ CODKING & HOT WATER
GREATER KODIAK AREA
,,--Base Case -------
-
,-Hydro ---
,Propane
Oil
\
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2aa1
YEAR
Figure 9.9 Relative cost of energy curves for various means
of meeting cooking and hot water demand.
9-15
expensive energy. The cost of energy analysis for lights and
appliances is shown in Figure 9.10.
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.
9.7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.7.1 Community Recommendations
The economic analysis supports the construction of Terror Lake
despite the higher costs. The cost of energy analysis, not
previously performed using 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.
9-16
[ ,
~
r '
W
w
w
I
J
I
W
W I
J
J I
,J
I U
,
r 1
I l..
r 1
, I
U
w
i '
u
W
i
W
B~~~~~~~--L-~~-L~~ __ L-L-~-L-L~~
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2BB1
YEAR
Figure 9.10 Results of the cost of energy analysis on plans
to meet lights and appliance demand.
9.7.2 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 10.0. As Kodiak is
presently part of a regulated utility, servicing and fuel
purchasing are more economical 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.
9-17
I J
I
J
J
, 1
iU I
r ,
I i
~
10.0 REGIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended energy projects for each community were
summarized in Chapter 1.0 and detailed by community in Chapters
3.0 through 9.0. In addition to development of specific
projects in communities,
costs were investigated.
described below.
regional programs to reduce energy
Feasible regional programs are
10.1 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.
10.1.1 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
10-1
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.
10.1.2 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 effective. Development of these
series could also be implemented 'through KANA and KIB.
10.1.3 Generator Operation and Maintenance
Generator operation and maintenance are basic to reliable and
economical service. Those communities not under not presently
10-2
I : ~
u
w
w
w
'W I
i
I
Q
J
J
U
I
U
I u
; :
(
I I ...
L.J
, I
W
members of an electric cooperative, would benefit from
opportunities to increase the reliabilIt'y 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.
10.2 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 pro9ra~ 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 and Larsen Bay. 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.
10-3
10.3 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.
10.4 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
r i , I ~
f 1
i.J
I :
hydroelectric project were built. Power from the hydro facility W
would be sufficient to satisfy 80 percent. of the annual demand
of both communities. Diesel genexators 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
10-4
I
:~
I
w
Ie
w
I
I
J
U
I
U
I
U
u
r 1
LJ
r 1
u
a wild 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
Karluk
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
1) Base Case
Discounted Cost
2) Waste Heat System
Discounted Cost
Discounted Benefits
Net Cost
3) Hydroelectric
Discounted Cost
Discount~d 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. Yearly costs of the intertie plan ate
summarized in Appendices Band C.
10-5
10.5 REGIONAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
A logical program would be the integration of 10.2 Service and
Parts Network and 10.3 Fuel Purchasing Cooperative into a
Regional Electric Cooperative. There are two scenario, 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 to 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.
10-6
u
c 1
: 1
W
i '
~
lJ
U
U
u
w
u
w
w
W
D
u
U
U
U
:U
I
: r 1 :U
I
r 1
U
I
f I U
U
U
U
D
Community 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 it's 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
10-7
highest electrical demands would carry a proportionately larger
part of the overhead for the central orgainization. It is
likely that the staffing requirements would include an office
manager, clerk/bookkeeper, storesman/mechanic 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
10.1) 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
MWh/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
Ouzinkie. It is recommended that the Co-operative have a board
of advisors which would include, but not be limited to, the
conference of Mayors.
10.6 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Table 10.2 illustrates the requirements for each community.
It is apparent that the recommendations are least complex for
Ouzinke, Port Lions, Old Harbor and Kodiak.
10-8
u
w
w
w
11 U
I i
J
w
w
u
I
lU
I
I
U
D
D
U
D
U
u
I
,w
I
u
u
r )
D
I
:u
I
Table 10.1 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
10-9
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
10.2 Kodiak Island Borough Electrification Projects
---_._-_. Community
Activity:. Akhiok Karluk Larsen Bay 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
I-' Feeder Line
0 Installation X I X X
I-' Pump/Storage X X X 0
Establish Utility X X X
Establish Tarrif X X X
Accounting and
Recording X X X
Hire/Train Mainten-
ance Personnel X X X
Hydro Electric Plant
Design X
Construction X IP*
Intertie Construction IP*
* IP = In Progress
~
~
'U
I
U
D
U
!U
I
iW
I
IU
i '
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.
10-11
Total estimated cost of above projects
Akhiok
Karluk
~6,000 kWh
91,000 kWh
Larsen Bay 143,000 kWh
Ouzinkie gen.
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.
10-12
w
u
D
D
u
'U
11.0 REFERENCE&
lUaska Cent. of Ccr.rnunitv ar:d Develo'ClTe!1t, Deot. cf Pewer and Enerav, February
1980: 1980 Alaska fewer DeveloPr.e.T'1t Plan, Volurre II, IndividlEl Electric
Utility Asses~nts (Draft).
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), 1977, 1979, & 1980 Annual Reports,
on file at the Alaska Public Utilities Cornnission, Anchorage, Alaska.
lo.pplied Econanics Associates, April 1981. State of Alaska Long Term Energy-
Plan, State of Alaska, Dept. of Cammerce ard Econcmic Development.
Beal.c Consultants, Inc., May 1980. Port Lions Hydroelectric Project.
Q12J.\1 Hill, 1981. "Reconnaissance Study of Energy Altematives, Alaska Paver
Authority.
IX:,WL Engineers, August 1981. Kodiak Island Borough Villages Comnunitv
Profiles-lUI, State of Alaska, Dept. of Ccnrnunity and P.egional Affairs.
\\1CX:X::::-...;ard-Clyc.e Consultants, June 1981. Kodiak Island Borough Coastal
rvt.anage.'Tent Prcgrarn Progress Report, Kodiak Island Borough.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Decerrber 1977. Oil Terminal and Marine Service
Base Sites in the Kadial( Island Borough, Alaska Dept. of Corrmunit"l] and
Recrional Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska.
Alaska Departrrent of Fish and Garre (ADF&G), 1977. A Ccrr.oilation of Fish and
Wildlife P.esource Information for the State of Alaska, Vol1JI'1E 2, Sport
Fisheries.
Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office, 1980 Western Gulf of Alaska-Kodiak
Draft Environmental Impact State.rrent, Oil and Gas Lea.se Sale No. 46.
Arctic EnviroI"lr.l2ntal Information and Data Center, 1975. Kadyak, A Background
for Living, Anchorage, Alaska.
Arnold R. D. et. al., 1976. Alaska Native Land Claims, Alaska Native
Fcundation, Anchorage, Ala.ska.
Capps, S. R., 1937. "Kadiak and Adjacent Islands, Alaskan. U. S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 880-C, USDOI.
CH2H Hill, 1981. Reconnaissance Study of Energy Alternatives, Alaska Pcwer
Aut. "'lori ty .
Herren Associates, 1975. Alaska Coastal Community Policies, Karluk Communitv
Profile ;iS7, Jur:.eau, Alaska .•
Karlst=Cr:1, T. N. V., 1969. The F:cdiak Island Pefugium: Its Geology, Flora.,
Fat.:."1a ar.c! Histery, Reverson Press, '.'!:'oronto canacR.
11-1
Kodia.l.: .;rea N?tive Asscciation, 1980 Kedial( Area Native Association Overall
EconCITlic Deve]oprre.'1t PrcgrC'Jn ReFQrt, 1979-1980, Kcdiak, Alaska.
Kedial.: Area Native Associatio~, 1981 ProceedL'1qs of the 1981 Coastal Zone
~.anaqe.-rrent Conference, including an Attitudkal Sw:vey, Kodiak, Alaska.
Kedia_l( Electric Association, Inc., 1967. Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project,
Kediak, Alaska.
Kodiak Island Eorcugh, 1977. Kodiak Island Borough Corrrm.mity Attitude Sw:vey,
t..te Joint Forum.
~.ac-nonalc, K. B'., 1976. Kadial( Island: Physical EnviroI"'.rrx:mt and
Potential Proble.~ Related to Oil Exploration, Draft, Science
Applications, Boulder, -Colorado.
NBBJ, 1978. K.?.rluk Village Relocation Plan, Seattle, ~'1ashington.
Office of Economic Adjustma'1t, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence
(Installations and Logistics), 1976 Defence Impact on Kodiak Island,
Alaska. The Pentagon, Washington, D. C.
Orth, Donald, J., 1967. "Dictionary of Alaska Place Narres". U. S. Geolc<.#cal
Surley Professional Paper 567, USDDI.
Science Applications, Inc., 1980. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan
Contine..'1tal Shelf, Kodiak Interim Synthesis Rer::ort, Prepared under the
guidar.ce of t.."1e OUter Continental Shelf Envirornrental Assessnent Prcgrarn.
Selkregg, L. L., ed., 1974. Alaska Hegional Profiles -Sout.."1central Region,
Arctic Environmental Infonretion and Data Center, University of p.~aska,
Anchorage, Alaska.
S.i.mpson Usher Jones, Inc., 1977. Kodiak Island Borough OUter Continental
Shelf Irr.pact Study, Anchorage, Alaska.
Troll, K. A., 1979. P.ecreation, Scenic and Heritage Areas of Particular
Concern, Kediak Archipelago, Alaska Division of Parks, Depart:rrent of
Natural Resources.
Tryck, 'Nyrran and Hayes, 1968. Kedial( Island Eorough Comprehensive Plan,
1968-1999, Kediak Island Eorough.
U. S. Bureau of Land r1anagerrent, 1979. "ANCSA U¢ate" and Alaska Claims Land
Conveyance Process", ANCSA Netlls, 1 (1) •
1979 "Ease.rr.e.'1t Confomance". At-.1CSA News, 1 (4) •
1979 "Notes on Reccnveyance II • ANCSA t-1ews, 2 (9) •
Alaska Dept. of Ccmrerce and Economic Develocrr.ent. 1978 Port Lions -Ail.
Alaskan Ccr:-rr.uni ty Profile, Juneau, Alaska.
11-2
u
w
u
u
r : ..
D
U
I
U
;w
IW
I
U
r ,
, 1
J
U
u
'J
I
:W
I
i~
I o
I
:J
I
J
Eea~ Consultants, Inc., 1980. Port Lions Hydrcelectric Project, Enviro~~ntal
Feccrt. Portland, Oregon. PreFared for Kodiak Electric Association,
Inc.
,Boughton, L. A., 1974. Preli.:."ninar'17 VieNs and Biolcgical Data on Proposed
Earoor Sites, Port Liens, Alaska, USCOI, Fish and vJildlife Service.
De9artr;e.!1t of the Ar:rr.;, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1977. Final
Envirornrental Inpact State.'Tent, Port Lions, Alaska. Washington, D. C.
Galliett and Silides Consulting Engineers, 1975. Port Lions Corrpre.~e.",sive
Developrrent Plan. Ar..chorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.
Haran .u.s.sociates, 1975. ;'_laska COIIImlIliv-, Profiles, Port Lions Cormrunity
Profile #106, Juneau, Alaska.
KcC~ak Electric Association, 1891. Application for Port Lions Hydroelectric
Project.
Retherford Associ.2.tes, R. W., 1981. Transmission Line Intertie &tr.·1ee.'1
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project and City of Port Lions, Anchorage,
Alaska, Prepared for KFA.
Troll, K. A., 1979. Recreational, Sce.'1ic, and Heritage Areas of Particular
Concern. Kediak, Archipelago, Alaska Division of Parks, Depart:rrent of
Natural Resources.
u. S. Co~s of Er.gineers, 1976, Proposed Port Lions Harbor Projects, Port
Lions, Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska .
Haran As~ociates, 1975. Alaska Coastal Community Profiles, Old Harbor
Ccrrr:nmity File #92, ,1uneau, Alaska.
Kodiak Islar.d Corrmunity Profiles, A Backqrcund for Planning, Dowl Engineers,
Depa.rtrrent of Ccrnrunity and Regional Affairs, Division of Cornmmivj
P12r~ing, August,-1981.
Kcdiak Electric Association, Inc., Lonq Range Planning Study, 1979. Mirrer &
t'!iner.
11-3
RF.FEFE7CE [Xx:crJ\.DITS
Terror La..1(e Hydroelectric Project, DPR, Vol. 1 & 2. Feb:rua.r.! 1967. Rol:€rt w.
Retherford ~"TB, Electro-4-latt Engineer, Fred o. Jones.
Terror La..1(e Hydrcelectric Project, DPR, Dece.rrber 1978. Rol:€rt \'1. Retherford,
International EngineerL~g Company.
Te:r:!:'or Lake Hydrcelectric Project, Application for License, Volurre 1 & 2,
Dece.rrber, 1978. Rcl:€rt W. Retherford, International Engineering Ccmpany.
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Surrmary Project Description, March 1981.
Robert v7. Ret.~erford, International Engir.eed_l1g Ccmpany_
Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, Draft Envirornental Impact Statement, March
1981. Federal Energy Regulatory Corrmission.
An Assessment of Envirorurental Effects of Construction and Operation of the
Prc;::osed Terror La..1(e Hydroelectric Facility, October 1980. Arctic
Environment and Information Data Center.
Com:.ract for' Tral1smi~sion Line Tcw~r5, October 1981. Fobert w. Retherford,
International Engineering Company_
Terror Lake Hydrcelectric Project Final Envirorurental Impact Staterrent,
August, 1981, Federal Energy Regulatory Commmission.
Basic Design l'Enual, Terror Lake 138 kv Transmission Line, Harch 1981. P.cbert
~V. Retherford.
An Assessment of Envirornental Effects of Construction and Operation of the
Prq:osed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility, November 1979, Arctic
Environment and Information Data Center.
An Assessment of Environ~ntal Effects of Construction and Operation of the
Proposed Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility Report or Studies Intergravel
"'later Te.1"f'IF€rature Studies, September 1980, Arctic Environrrent and
Information Data Center.
An Assessment of Environrrental Effects of Construction and Operation of the
Prcposed Terror La..1(e Hydroelectric Facility Instream Flow Studies, rvt.arch
1981, Arctic Environment and Information Data Center.
Supple.~tal Ctotecb~ical Re;::ort Field Investigations-1979, January 1980.
International Engineering Company.
Terror r~ke Eydrcelectric Project Application for License Sup?lemental
Information RePJrt No.2, Februar'l 1980. Robert ~'1. Rether:ord,
International F.ngL~eering Ccmpanv.
11-4
u
w
( :
W
: I
W
w
w
w
u
u
u
u
u
u
, 1
J I
J
W I
J I
I J
i
&~ Asses~~t of Environmental Effects of Construction and Operation of the
Prcr:::csed Terror LaJ:e Hvdrcelectric Faci.litv Brcwn Bear Studies, t!ountain
Geat Studies, Nove.'1'b~r-.1980, Arctic EnvirorJ1'ent and Information Data
Center.
Terro Lake Hydroelectric Project ~~plication for License Supple.~t to Exhibit
tv', Chapter W-4, Hay 1980, Fobert W. Retherford, International Engineering
COl1'pany.
Const.."l.lction Work Plan Kodiak-Port Lions 1982-1983, Kcdial< Elec+--ric
Association.
Basic Design Data Swampy Acres to Bell Flats 138 Transmission Line, ~~ril
1980, Dryden and LaRue.
Sit.e 'fTork, Airport and Swampy Acres Substation, Rolland A. Jones.
Port Liens
Port Liens Dam Stability Letter, t-1ay 7, 1981, Hovard Grey
Port Lions Forebay Dam, t-1ay 29, 1981.
Pert Lions Dam Stability & Seepage Analysis, April 13, 1981.
Arcb..aeological Survey Port Lions Hydroelectric Project, ... Tune 29, 1981. Linda
Finn Yarborough.
Port Liens Hydrcelectric Project Enviror'.lrental RepJrt, September 1980, Beak
Consultants.
Port Lions Hydroelectric Project Enviro~r.ental Supple.~ntal, June 1981.
Soils Fcundations Investiaation for Port Lions Hydrcelectric Project, October
1980. Heward Grey. -
Tran~ission Line Intertie Between Terror Lake Hydrcelectric Project and Citv
of Port Liens, April 1981. Robert tv. P.et-J1erford.
Port Lions Hydroelectric Project Project Repcrt, Novernber 1980, Kodiak
Electric Association.
/'
Prelininary Feasibili~! Designs and Cost Est~ates for a Hydroelectric Project
on the Port Lions River, January 1980. Robert W. Retherford.
Crescerlt Lake Bathyrretry, Auaust 1981. Roy A, Ecklund.
Port Liens Hydrcelectric Project Technical Specificatiens. International
t:',-,. . C -.... 'qu:eennq crrpany.
11-5
Po.;er pec:uire.rrent Stuc.y, Octcl:::er 1981, Kodiak. Electric Association.
11 C:"vil Plans for Port Lions Hydroelectric Project, February 19, 1981. Rolland ~
';ones.
. He.."":.cni te C=eek Hydro Potential, Port Lions, Alaska. Kcdi21.k Electric
Associat::'on?
11-6
: !
III
w
w
u
u
u
~
~
w
u
U
iD I
U APPENDICES
D
r'l .U ,
,U
U
U
U
U
~
~
U
~ AP-l
f 1 u
w
u
U
I
, 1
U
, J
: I
~
APPENDIX PREFACE
The following assumptions were used while making the economic
analyses found in the appendices:
o The inflation rate is zero percent to avoid having to
forecast a long term inflation rate and to ease calculation
difficulties. As a result, all costs are in the base year,
1982, dollars.
o Fuel costs are escalated at 2.5 percent for the first 20
years of the evaluation period. Base case unit fuel costs
were found during community visits.
o The discount rate for present worth calculations is 3.5
percent.
o When the economic life of equipment is less than the
evaluation period, the equipment is assumed to be replaced by
like equipment .at the same cost.
o Demand increase ceases after 20 years and remains at the level
of demand in the twentieth year. The demand listed as kWh in
the tables was converted from the mmBTU demand forecasts for
appropriate segments of the end use categories.
o Salvage values, using straight line depreciation, are used to
provide uniform comparison periods. It is important to note
that although hydroelectric plants have a life of 50 years,
transmission lines have a life of 30 years and are included
under hydroelectric capital and salvage values.
For a more detailed explanation, see Section 2.4.1 Economic
Analysis.
AP-2
U
i D
, ; I
I~
IW
f
il.l
I
i I i"
i
U
U
1
iU
I
,. : , ,
,W
u
( 1
I
J
~
I
iU
'1 w
,W
I
:U
I
APPENDIX A
r
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Akhiok
A-I
Table A.l Present worth analysis of the base case plan
for Akhiok -School costs excluded.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 35 37 39 40 42 43 45 46 48 49
Electrical Consumption 40 43 45 46 48 49 51 53 55 56
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 90 90 100 100 100 110 110 110 120 120
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 40 43 45 46 48 49 51 53 55 56
Capital ($1000's) 0 91 17 0 0 17 0 0 17 0
o & M ($1000's) 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 1
~ Fuel ($1000's) 16 18 20 21 22 23 25 26 28 29
I
I\J
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 21 114 42 27 28 46 31 32 52 36
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 20 127 165 188 212 249 273 298 336 361
Net Annual Cost
(w/school costs
Table A.2) 33 150 79 65 67 86 72 158 91 80
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 32 172 244 300 357 426 482 603 673 729
----~------.-.----~-------------_.------_.
Akhiok
Base Case
(School system costs excluded)
Year 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 70
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 58 60 63 65 67 69 72 74 77 80
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 120 150 150 150 150 150 150 160 160 160
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 58 60 63 65 67 69 72 74 77 80
::t:>' Capital ($1000'5) 0 136 0 0 15 0 0 25 0 0
I o & M ($1000'5) 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 w
Fuel ($1000'5) 31 33 35 37 39 41 44 47 50 53
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost 38 176 43 45 62 49 53 81 59 63
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 387 504 531 559 596 625 654 698 728 760
Net Annual Cost
(w/schoo1 costs
Table A.2) 84 223 92 95 113 102 107 219 116 121
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 787 935 993 1042 1120 1179 1238 1357 1416 1477
--------------------
Akhiok
Base Case
(School system costs excluded)
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
21-52
70
80
160
80
201
96
508
Annual Cost (21-52) (Base Year) 805
Accumulated Discount
Cost 1565
Net Cost (w/schoo1 costs Table A.2) 1423
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 2900
:J:>I
I
U1
Table A.2 Present worth analysis of the base case plan
for Akhiok -School system onlyo
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)
o & M ($1000's)
Fuel ($1000's)
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
Net Annual Cost
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost
12
27
50
27
0
3
9
12
12
33
32
2 3 4 5
20 20 20 20
80 80 82 83
50 50 50 50
80 80 82 82
0 0 0 0
8 8 8 8
28 29 30 31
36 37 38 39
45 79 112 145
150 79 65 67
172 244 300 357
6 7 8 9 10
20 22 22 22 22
83 83 84 84 84
50 50 50 50 50
83 83 84 84 84
0 0 83 0 0
8 8 8 8 8
32 33 35 36 36
40 41 126 44 44
177 209 305 337 368
86 72 158 96 80
426 482 603 673 729
£~-
----'
Akhiok
Base Case
(School Only)
---Year 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 86 86 87 87 88 88 88 88 89 89
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 86 86 87 87 87 88 88 88 89 89
~ Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0
I o & M ($1000's) 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0"1 Fuel ($1000's) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 48 49
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 138 57 58
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 400 431 462 493 524 554 584 659 688 717
Net Annual Cost 84 223 92 95 113 102 107 219 116 121
Accumulated Discou'nted
Net Cost 787 935 993 1042 1120 1179 1238 1357 1516 1477
j J. .•
"'-;, .. J
)I
I
-...J
Akhiok
Base Case
(School Only)
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
21-52
23
89
50
89
62
86
470
Annual Cost (21-52) (Base Year) 618
Accumulated Discount
Cost 1335
Net Cost with Community (21-52) 1423
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 2900
Table A.3 Present worth
for Akhiok.
analysis of the central generation/waste heat plan
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 35 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 56 58
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 40 130 140 150 150 160 160 170 170 180
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 90 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 40 130 140 150 150 160 160 170 170 180
Capital ($1000's) 0 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 9 10 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14
Fuel ($1000's) 38 31 34 36 38 41 43 46 48 51
;x:. Waste Heat Recovery I
00 Displaced Heat
($1000's) 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Capital ($1000's) 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 47 472 46 50 52 56 58 62 64 67
Annual Benefits 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Net Annual Cost 47 469 43 47 49 53 55 58 60 63
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 45 486 528 571 615 660 706 753 800 848
Accummulated Discounted
Benefits 0 3 6 8 11 13 15 18 21 25
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 45 483 522 563 604 647 691 735 779 823
~~~~---~
Akhiok
Waste Heat
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70
Electrical Comsumption
(MWh) 180 180 190 190 -200 200 200 210 210 220
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 180 180 190 190 200 200 200 210 210 220
Capital ($1000's) 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18
Fuel ($1000's) 53 56 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79
~
I Waste Heat Recovery \.0
Displaced Heat
($1000's) 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6
Capital ($1000's) 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 71 376 75 78 82 85 88 92 95 99
Annual Benefits 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6
Net Annual Cost 67 372 71 74 77 80 83 87 90 93
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 896 1145 1193 1241 1290 1339 1388 1438 1487 1537
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 27 30 32 35 38 40 43 46 49 52
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 869 1115 11 6 1 1206 1252 1299 1345 1392 1438 1485
Akhiok
waste Heat
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000' s) (Base Year)
waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat ($1000's)
(Base Year)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-52) (Base Year $)
Benefits (21-52) (Base Year $)
Net Cost (21-52) (Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost
21 -52
70
220
150
220
244
173
757
58
58
19
1251 .
58
1193
2788
110
2678
Table A.4 Present worth analysis of the wind generation
system plan for Akhiok.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 35 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 56 58
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 40 130 140 150 150 160 160 170 170 180
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 90 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 40 130 60 70 70 80 80 90 90 100
Capital ($1000's) 0 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 9 10 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7
Fuel ($1000's) 38 31 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
~
I Wind Generation I-'
I-' Max Capacity (kW) 0 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 0 0 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 47 15 531 38 40 42 44 47 49 52
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 45 433 912 945 979 1013 1047 1083 1119 1156
Akhiok
Wind
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 180 180 190 190 200 200 210 210 210 220
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 100 100 110 110 120 120 130 130 130 140
Capital ($1000's) 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11
Fuel ($1000'5) 28 30 32 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
~
I Wind Generators f-'
I\.) Max Capacity (kW) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 396 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 53 303 58 61 64 66 68 466 72 75
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1192 1393 1430 1467 1506 1544 1582 1832 1870 1908
:x>o
I
I-'
W
Akhiok
Wind
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)(Base Yr)
o & M ($1000's)(Base Yr)
Fuel ($1000's)(Base Yr)
Wind Generators
Max Capacity (kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)(Base Yr)
o & M ($1000's)(Base Yr)
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost (Base Yr $)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
21 -52
70
220
150
220
244
77
450
25
84
214
165
1150
3053
Table A.5 Present worth analysis of the Kempff Bay Creek
hydroelectric plan for Akhiok.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 35 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 56 58
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 40 130 140 150 150 160 160 170 170 180
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 90 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 40 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Capital ($1000's) 0 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 9 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fuel ($1000's) 38 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
::t::'
I Hydroelectric I-'
,j::. Max Capacity (kW) 0 0 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137
Hydro production (MWh) 0 0 140 150 150 160 160 170 170 190
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 47 415 1882 11 11 11 12 12 12 13
Accumulated Discount
Cost 45 433 2130 2140 2149 2158 2168 2177 2185 2195
Akhiok
Hydroelectric
Year 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 67 67 70
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 180 180 190 190 260 200 200 200 210 220
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital ($1000's) 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fuel ($1000's) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
:t>'
I Hydroelectric I-'
U1 Max Capacity (kW) 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137
Hydro Production (MWh) 180 180 190 190 200 200 210 210 210 220
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 13 261 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 2204 2376 2385 2393 2402 2410 2417 2425 2432 2440
Akhiok
Hydroelectric
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000's) (Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW)
Hydro Production (MWh)
Capital ($1000's) (Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
21 -52
70
220
150
o
224
19
o
137
220
64
249
Annual Cost (21-52) (Base Year $'s) 576
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 2016
I 'u
I
!~
,
: o
U
I
'U
;U
I
U
U
I
( 1
iLJ i
I
r ,
, I iU !
r 1
U
f i
U
r 1
,W
W
APPENDIX B
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Karluk
B-1
Table B. 1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Karluk.
Year 1 2 3 II 5 6 7 B 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 33 36 36 36 36 39 39 39 39 39
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 110 120 120 120 120 130 130 130 130 130
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 122 133 133 133 133 147 147 147 147 147
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 110 120 120 120 120 130 130 130 130 130
Capital ($1000's) 0 9 32 0 0 46 0 0 39 0
o & M ($1000's) 13 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 16 16
Fuel ($1000's) 65 68 71 74 77 81 84 87 90 93
tJj
I
N
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 78 91 117 88 91 143 100 103 145 109
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 75 160 266 343 419 535 614 692 799 876
Karluk
Base Case
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 39 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 130 140 140 140 140 140 1400 140 140 140
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 147 158 158 158 158 160 160 160 160 160
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 130 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140
Capital ($1000's) 0 48 0 0 39 2 0 42 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Fuel ($1000's) 97 100 100 110 110 110 120 120 120 130
tx:I
I w
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 113 165 117 127 166 139 137 179 137 147
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 253 1063 1137 1216 1315 1395 1471 1568 1639 1713
Karluk
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
Discounted Cost (21-53)
Accumulated Discount
Cost
21-53
42
140
160
140
139
163
1246
1548
3261
:1.
-----------------------------------------------
Table B.2 Present worth analysis of the central generation and waste heat plan
for Karluk.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 40 42 42 42 42 46 46 46 46 46
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 120 130 130 130 130 140 140 140 140 140
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Capital ($1000's) 582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 1 1 11 11
Fuel ($1000's) 28 29 31 32 33 35 36 37 39 40
ttl
I waste Heat Recovery U1
Displaced Heat
($1000's) 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8
Capital ($1000's) 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 712 40 42 43 44 47 48 49 51 52
Annual Benefits 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8
Net Annual Cost 705 33 35 36 37 39 40 41 43 44
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 688 725 763 801 838 876 914 951 988 1025
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 7 13 19 26 32 38 45 51 56 63
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 681 712 744 775 806 838 869 900 932 963
Karluk
Central Generation with
waste Heat Recovery
.
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Capital ($1000's) 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o & M ($1000's) 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Fuel ($1000's) 42 43 44 46 47 49 50 52 54 55
tI1
I m
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat
($1000's) 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 "'.
Capital ($1000's) 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 343 57 58 60 61 63 64 66 68 69
Annual Benefits 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Net Annual Cost 335 48 49 51 52 54 55 57 59 60
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1260 1298 1335 1372 1408 1445 1480 1516 1557 1586
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 67 74 79 85 90 96 100 105 110 114
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 1193 1224 1256 1287 1318 1349 1380 1411 1441 1472
i ~.;. '.
-----------~-------------.----
Karluk
Central Generation with
Waste Heat Recovery
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Waste Heat Recovery
2r=53
50
150
120
150
221
115
527
Displaced Heat ($1000's) (Base Year) 86
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year) 102
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year) 19
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-53) (Base Year $) 984
Benefits (21-53) -(Base Year $) 86
Net Cost (21-53) (Base Year $) 898
Accumulated Discounted Cost 2570
Accumulated Discounted Benefits 200
Accumulated Discounted Net Cost 2370
Table B.3 Present worth analysis of the Mary's Creek
hydroelectric plan for Karluk.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ---'1-:0-
Peak Demand (kW) 40 42 42 42 42 46 46 46 46 46
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 120 130 130 130 130 140 140 140 140 140
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 11 0\ 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 120 130 130 130 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital ($1000's) 582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 10 109 102 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fuel ($1000's) 28 29 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tJj
I
00 Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW) 0 0 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
Hydro Production (MWh) 0 0 0 130 130 140 140 140 140 140
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 2435 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 712 40 42 2435 10 10 10 10 11 11
Accumulated Dis-
counted Cost 688 725 763 2885 2894 2902 2910 2917 2925 2933
Karluk
Hydroel~ctric
Year 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Capital ($1000's) 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fuel ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ttl
I
\.0 Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW) 190 190 190 . 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
Hydro Production (MWh) 140 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 209 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 3076 3083 3090 3097 3104 3110 3116 3122 3128 3133
IJ:I
I
I-' o
Karluk
Hydroelectric
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000'5) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000'5) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
50
150
120
150
221
20
o
Max Capacity (kW) 190
Hydro Production 150
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5) (Base Year) 178
o & M ($1000'5) (Base Year) 86
Totals ($1000'5)
Discounted Cost (21-53)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
505
3638
Table B.4 Present worth analysis of the Karluk/Larsen Bay
Intertie
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 130 150 150 160 160 170 170 180 180 190
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 570 600 620 640 660 680 690 710 730 740
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 350 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 570 600 68 76 84 92 100 110 110 120
Capital ($1000's) 582 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 46 48 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10
Fuel ($1000's) 110 120 13 16 18 20 22 24 26 29
t:x:l
I
I-' Hydroelectric I-'
Max. Capacity (kW) 0 0 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Hydro production (MWh) 0 0 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 5099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 37
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 738 663 5150 56 59 64 66 69 72 76
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 713 1332 5977 6026 6075 6128 6179 6232 6285 6338
--~~ ~~~~,~--~--~-~-----
Karluk/Larsen Bay
Intertie
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 190 200 200 210 215 215 220 230 230 235
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 760 780 790 810 820 840 850 870 880 900
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW) 420 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 520
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 130 130 140 150 160 170 170 180 190 200
Capital ($1000's) 198 660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 14 15 16
Fuel ($1000's) 31 33 36 39 42 46 49 53 56 60
t:l:J
I ..... Hydroelectric N Max. Capacity (kW) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Hydro Production (MWh) 630 650 650 660 660 670 680 690 690 700
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 277 742 86 90 95 100 104 108 112 118
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 6528 7019 7074 7130 7187 7244 7302 7360 7419 7478
tl:l
I
.......
w
Karluk/Larsen Bay
Intertie
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
( MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh/Yr.)
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000'5) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (kW)
Hydro Production (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's)(Base Year)
Totals ($1000·5)
Cost (21-52}(Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
21 -52
235
900
520
200
871
153
575
300
700
653
402
2654
10132
~
U
IL
I U
!U
I
U
:U
I
I~
i
L
:u
I
, I
I
U
'U
I
IW
u
u
W
I[
'U
I , u
APPENDIX C
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Larsen Bay
C-l
()
I
IV
--~ ---~-
Table C.1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Larsen Bay -School
system costs excluded.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Peak Demand (kW) 70 73 77 82 84 90 93 96 100
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 243 255 271 286 293 314 326 338 351
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 153 153 180 190 190 200 200 210 210
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 243 255 271 286 293 314 326 338 351
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 62 8 0 50 0 8 41
O&M ($1000's) 29 31 33 34 35 38 39 41 42
Fuel ($1000's) 96 103 112 122 128 140 149 159 169
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 125 134 207 164 163 228 188 208 252
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 121 246 433. 575 713 898 1046 1204 1389
Net Annual Cost
(with school) 150 160 234 192 192 259 303 243 287
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 145 294 503 672 835 1045 1283 1468 1678
10
105
366
220
366
8
44
180
232
1553
269
1822
Larsen Bay
Base Case (No School)
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 108 112 115 119 122 126 130 134 136 140
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 378 393 404 416 428 442 454 469 478 487
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 230 235 240 245 250 260 270 280 290 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 378 393 404 416 428 442 454 469 478 487
Capital ($1000's) 8 52 4 4 55 8 8 69 8 8
o & M ($1000's) 45 47 48 50 51 53 54 56 57 58
Fuel ($1000's) 191 204 214 226 239 253 266 282 294 307
()
I
w
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 244 303 266 280 345 315 328 407 359 373
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1720 1921 2091 2264 2470 2652 2834 3053 3240 3428
Net Annual Cost
(with school) 367 344 308 222 391 363 462 460 415 431
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 2120 2348 2545 2745 2979 3188 3445 3692 3909 4126
()
I
"'"
Larsen Bay
Base Case (No School)
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-52) (Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
Net Cost with School {21-52}
(Base Year)
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost
21 -52
140
487
300
487
269
556
2942
3767
7195
4479
8605
()
I
VI
Table C.2 Present worth analysis of the base case plan
for Larsen Bay -School system costs only.
Year 1 2 3 4 5
Peak Demand (kW) 28 28 29 30 30
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 73 73 76 79 79
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 90 90 90 90 90
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 73 73 76 79 79
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 6 6 6 6 6
Fuel ($1000's) 19 20 21 22 23
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 25 26 27 28 29
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 24 48 73 97 122
Net Annual Cost
(with community) 150 160 234 192 192
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 145 294 506 672 835
6 7 8 9 "fo--
31 32 33 33 35
82 85 88 88 91
90 110 110 110 110
82 85 88 88 91
0 83 0 0 0
7 7 7 7 7
24 25 28 28 30
31 115 35 35 37
147 237 264 289 316
259 303 243 287 269
1045 1283 1468 1678 1822
--~----~-----~---~---~~-~~
Larsen Bay
Base Case (School Only)
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 36 37 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 94 97 97 100 103 105 108 111 114 117
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 94 97 97 100 103 105 108 11 1 114 117
Capital ($1000'5) 83 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0
o & M ($1000'5) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9
Fuel ($1000'5) 32 33 34 36 38 40 42 44 47 49
(')
I
0)
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost 123 41 42 44 46 48 134 53 56 58
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 400 427 454 481 509 536 611 639 669 698
Net Annual Cost
(with community) 367 344 308 222 391 363 462 460 415 431
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 2120 2348 2545 2745 2979 3188 3445 3692 3909 4126
n
I
-..J
Larsen Bay
Base Case (School Only)
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
45
117
100
117
162
81
469
Cost (21 2) (Base Year $) 712
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1410
Net Cost with Community (21-52)
(Base Year) 4479
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 8605
, , ,
21-52
-_._---.... ---~.----
Table C.3 Present worth analysis of the oentral generation
and waste heat plan for Larsen Bay_
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 90 105 110 120 120 125 125 130 134 140
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 320 360 380 400 410 430 440 460 470 490
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 243 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 320 360 380 400 410 430 440 460 470 490
Capital ($1000's) 0 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 35 29 30 32 33 34 35 37 38 39
Fuel ($1000's) 115 59 63 67 72 76 81 86 91 96
()
I Waste Heat Recovery co
Displaced
Heat ($1000's) 0 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17
Capital ($1000's) 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 150 730 97 103 109 114 120 1,28 134 140
Annual Benefits 0 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17
Net Annual Cost 150 720 86 91 97 101 106 113 118 123
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 145 826 914 1004 1095 1188 1282 1380 1478 1577
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 0 9 19 30 39 50 61 73 85 96
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 145 817 895 974 1056 1138 1221 1307 1393 1481
Larsen Bay
Central Generation With
Waste Heat Recovery
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 145 150 150 160 165 165 170 180 180 185
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 500 520 530 550 570 580 600 620 630 650
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 500 520 530 550 570 580 600 620 630 650
Capital ($1000's) 0 660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 40 42 42 44 46 46 48 50 50 52
Fuel ($1000's) 100 110 110 120 130 130 140 150 160 160
()
I
1..0 Waste Heat ~ecovery
Displaced
Heat ($1000's) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28
Capital ($1000's) 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost 145 960 157 170 182 182 194 206 216 219
Annual Benefits 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28
Net Annual Cost 127 941 137 149 160 159 170 180 189 191
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1677 2312 2412 2517 2626 2731 2839 2950 3062 3172
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 109 122 134 147 160 174 187 201 215 229
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 1568 2190 2278 2370 2466 2557 2652 2749 2847 2943
n
I
I-' o
Larsen Bay
Central Generation with
Waste Heat Recovery
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's) (Base Year)
F u e 1 ($ 1 000 ' s ) ( Ba s eYe a r )
Waste Heat Recovery
21 -52
185
650
400
650
685
498
1532
Displaced Heat ($1000's) (Base Year) 268
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year) 148
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year) 67
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-52) (Base Year $) 2930
Benefits (21-52) (Base Year $) 268
Net Cost (21-52) (Base Year $) 2662
Accumulated Discount
Cost 6102
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 497
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 5605
Table C.4 Present worth analysis of the Humpy Creek
hydroelectric plan for Larsen Bay.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 90 105 110 120 120 125 125 130 134 140
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) . 320 360 380 400 410 430 440 460 470 490
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW) 243 30U 300 300 300 300 300 3UO 300 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 320 360 0 0 0 2 5 8 14 21
Capital ($1000's) 0 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 o & M ($1000's) 35 29 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4
() Fuel ($1000's)
I
115 59 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4
-"
Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW) 0 0 300 300 300 300 300 300 500 500
Hydro Production (MWh) 0 0 380 400 410 430 435 450 460 470
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 2821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o & M ($1000's) 0 0 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 150 583 2846 26 27 29 29 32 34 36
Accumulated Dis-
counted Cost 145 689 3256 3279 3301 3325 3348 3372 3397 3423
Larsen Bay
Hydroelectric
Year 11 12 13 . 14 15 Hl -17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 145 150 150 160 165 165 170 180 180 185
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 500 520 530 550 570 580 600 620 630 650
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 4()0
Electrical Genera-,;,'
tion (MWh) 29 37 45 53 62 70 79 88 97 110
Capital ($1000's) 0 660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11
() Fuel ($1000's) 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 21 24 27
I
tv
Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Hydro Production (MWh) 470 480 485 500 510 510 520 530 530 540
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 28 29 29 30 31 31 31 32 32 32
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 38 702 45 48 52 55 58 62 66 70
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 3449 3913 3942 3972 4003 4034 4067 4100 4134 4170
()
I
w
Larsen Bay
Hydroelectric
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000'5) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000'5) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
21 -52
185
650
400
110
650
105
259
Max Capacity (kW) 300
Hydro Production 45U
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5) (Base Year) 55
o & M ($1000'5) (Base Year) 307
Totals ($1000'5)
Cost (21 52)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
~I
1376
5546
r:.:-
---------------
Table C.5 Present worth analysis of the Larsen Bay/Karluk
Intertie.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 130 150 150 160 160 170 170 180 180 190
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 570 600 620 640 660 680 690 710 730 740
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 350 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 570 600 68 76 84 92 100 110 110 120
Capital ($1000' s) 582 495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 46 48 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10
Fuel ($1000'5) 110 120 13 16 18 20 22 24 26 29
()
I Hydroelectric f-'
,j:::. Max Capacity (kW) 0 0 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Hydro Production (MWh) 0 0 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 5099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 37
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 738 663 5150 56 59 64 66 69 72 77
Accumulated Dis-
counted Cost 713 1332 5977 6026 6075 6128 6179 6232 6285 6338
Karluk/Larsen Bay
Intertie
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20-
Peak Demand (kW) 190 200 200 210 215 215 220 230 230 235
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 760 780 790 810 820 840 850 870 880 900
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 420 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 520 520
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 130 130 140 150 160 170 170 180 190 200
Capital ($1000's) 198 660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 10 10 11 12 13 14 14 14 15 16
Fuel ($1000's) 31 33 36 39 42 46 49 53 56 60
(J
I Hydroelectric I-'
lJl Max Capacity (kW) 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Hydro Production (MWh) 630 650 650 660 660 670 680 690 690 700
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 38 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 277 742 86 90 95 100 104 108 112 118
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 6528 7019 7074 7130 7187 7244 7302 7360 7419 7478
Karluk/Larsen Bay
Intertie
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (kW)
Hydro Production
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Totals ($1000' s)
Cost (21-52)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
21 -52
235
900
520
200
871
153
575
300
700
653
402
2654
10132
iU I
iW I
, 1
'W
, 1
d..J
!
APPENDIX D
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Old Harbor
D-1
Table D. 1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Old Harbor.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 130 140 145 155 165 171 180 190 195 200
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 680 710
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 310 310 310 310 400 400 400 400 400 400
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 450 480 510 540 600 600 630 660 680 710
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 660 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 36 38 41 43 46 48 50 53 54 57
Fuel ($1000's) 73 80 87 95 100 110 120 130 130 140
I::'
I
IV
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 109 118 128 138 806 158 170 183 184 197
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 105 215 331 451 1130 1258 1392 1531 1666 1806
Old Harbor
Base Case
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 210 220 225 235 240 250 255 265 270 280
Electrical Consumption
(MWh ) 740 760 790 820 840 870 900 920 950 980
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 650 650 650 650 550 550 550 550 550 550
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 740 760 790 820 840 870 900 920 950 980
Capital ($1000's) 413 0 0 0 495 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 59 61 63 66 67 70 72 74 76 78
Fuel ($1000's) 150 160 170 180 190 200 220 230 240 250
0
I w
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 622 221 233 246 752 270 292 304 316 328
Accumulated Discount
Cost 2232 2378 2572 2679 3128 3283 3446 3610 3774 3939
Old Harbor
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's}(Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's)(Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
21 -53
280
980
600
980
1245
747
2396
Annual Cost (21-53)(Base Year) 4388
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 8327
Table D.2 Present worth analysis of the Midway Creek hydroelectric plan for
Old Harbor.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 130 140 145 155 165 170 180 190 195 200
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 680 710
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( kW) 310 310 310 310 310 400 400 400 400 400
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 450 480 510 0 0 0 5 9 14 20
Capital ($1000's) 0 a a 0 a 660 a a 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 36 38 41 2 2 2 2 3 3 4
Fuel ($1000's) 73 80 87 0 0 a 1 2 3 4
0
I Hydroelectric Ul Max. Capacity (kW) 0 a 0 340 340 340 340 340 340 340
Hydro Production (MWh) 0 a 0 540 570 600 630 660 670 690
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 a 3082 0 0 a 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 a 0 33 34 36 37 39 40 41
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 109 118 128 3117 36 698 40 44 46 49
Accumulated Discount
Cost 105 215 331 3047 3078 3645 3677 3710 3744 3779
" -"--------_ ... _--------"
Old Harbor
Hydroelectric
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 210 220 225 235 240 250 255 265 270 280
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 740 760 790 820 940 870 900 920 950 980
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 650 650 650 650 550 550 550 550 550 550
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 29 39 48 58 67 77 86 96 110 120
Capital ($1000's) 413 a a a 495 0 0 a a 0
O&M ($1000's) 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 1 1 12
Fuel ($1000's) 6 8 10 13 15 18 21 24 27 30
0
I
0"1
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (kW) 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340
Hydro Production (MWh) 710 720 740 760 780 790 810 830 850 860
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 465 56 60 65 564 74 79 84 89 94
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 4097 4134 4173 4213 4549 4592 4636 4681 4728 4775
: t " ,. ~ ,;
o
I
~
Old Harbor
Hydroelectric
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's)(Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's)(Base Year)
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (kW)
Hydro Production (MWh)
Capital ($1000's)(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's)Base Year)
Totals ($1000'5) .
21 -53
280
980
600
20
1245
117
287
340
860
304
499
Annual Cost (21-53)(Base YearS) 2452
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 7227
:~
!
U
Q
I J
I
U
,w
I
( 1
W
I
lW
I
:W
!
I 1
:w
I
I
!
APPENDIX E
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Ouzinkie
E-l
Table E. 1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Ouzinkie.
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 120 120 125 125 130 130 135 135 140 145
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 270 270 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Capital ($1000's) 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 33 34 34 35 36 37 38 38 39 40
Fuel ($1000's) 66 70 74 78 82 85 89 93 98 100
t>1
I Waste Heat Recovery tv Displaced Heat
($1000's) 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
o & M ($1000's) 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 219 108 112 117 123 127 132 146 152 205
Annual Benefits 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
Net Annual Cost 215 104 108 113 118 122 127 141 147 199
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 212 312 413 515 619 722 826 936 1048 1194
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 4 8 12 15 19 23 27 31 35 39
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 218 304 401 500 600 699 799 905 1013 1155
I:lj
I w
Ouzinkie
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital ($1000'5)
O&M ($1000'5)
Fuel ($1000'5)
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat
($1000'5)
Capital ($1000'5)
o & M ($1000'5)
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost
Annual Benefits
Net Annual Cost
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost
11 ----12----13-
145
510
300
510
249
41
110
6
o
5
150
520
300
520
o
42
110
6
o
5
405 157
6 6
399 151
1471 1573
43 47
1428 1528
150
520
400
520
o
42
110
6
o
5
158
6
152
1676
51
1625
14--15
150
530
400
530
o
42
120
7
o
5
167
7
160
1779
55
1724
155
540
400
540
o
43
120
7
o
5
168
7
161
1880
59
1821
16
160
550
400
550
o
44
130
7
o
6
170
7
163
1978
63
1915
17
160
550
400
550
o
44
130
7
o
6
180
7
.173
2078
67
2011
--18---19--20--
165 165
560 570
400 400
560 570
o 0
45 46
140 140
8
o
6
191
8
183
2181
71
2110
8
o
6
192
8
184
2281
75
2206
170
580
400
580
o
46
150
8
60
6
262
8
254
2412
81
2331
Ouzinkie
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Waste Heat Recovery
170
580
400
580
267
448
1462
Displaced Heat ($1000's) (Base Year) 78
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year) 49
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year) 58
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-53) (Base Year $) 2284
Benefits (21-53) (Base Year $) 78
Net Cost (21-53) (Base Year $) 2206
Accumulated Discounted Cost 4696
Accumulated Discounted Benefits 159
Accumulated Discounted Net Cost 4537
Table E.2 Present worth analysis of the Katmai Creek hydroelectric plan for
Ouzinkie.
Year 1 2 '-3---4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 120 120 125 125 130 130 135 135 140 145
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 270 270 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 410 420 430 66 70 75 79 83 87 90
Capital ($1000's) 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 33 34 34 7 8 8 8 9 9 9
Fuel ($1000's) 66 70 74 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat
tr:! ($1000's) 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
I Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
U1 o & M ($1000's) 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (kW) 0 0 0 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Hydro Production (MWh) 0 0 0 380 380 390 390 400 400 410
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 0 0 23 23 23 24 24 24 25
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 219 108 112 1923 45 46 48 50 51 113
Annual Benefits 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Net Annual Cost 215 104 108 1922 44 45 46 48 49 111
Accumulated Dis-
counted Cost 212 312 413 2089 2127 2165 2202 2240 2278 2358
Accumulated Dis-
counted Benefits 4 8 12 12 13 14 15 16 18 20
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 208 304 401 2077 2113 2151 2187 2224 2260 2338
Ouzinkie
Hydroelectric
----Year rl 12 1 :r----14--'-15 16 17 18 19 ---20-
Peak Demand (kW) 145 150 150 150 155 160 160 165 165 170
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 510 520 520 530 540 550 550 560 570 580 •
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 300 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 94 97 100 100 110 110 11 0 120 120 125
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 10 10 10 10 1 1 11 1 1 12 12 12
Fuel ($1000's) 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 31 32
Waste Heat Recovery
t<:l Displaced Heat ($1000's) 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 I
0'1 Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
o & M ($1000's) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (kW) 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Hydro Production (MWh) 410 420 420 430 430 440 440 440 450 450
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'0 & M ($1000's) 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 56 57 307 60 63 64 65 69 71 131
Annual Benefits 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
Net Annual Cost 54 55 305 57 60 61 62 66 68 127
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 2396 2434 2630 2667 2705 2742 2778 2815 2852 2918
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 21 22 24 25 28 29 30 32 34 36
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 2375 2412 2606 2642 2677 2693 2748 2783 2818 2882
Ouzinkie
Hydroelectric
-_._._._---
Year ~--.---------
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat ($1000's) (Base Year)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
170
580
400
125
267
117
312
39
49
10
Max. Capacity (kW) 78
Hydro Production (MWh) 450
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year) 31
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year) 263
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-53) (Base Year $)
Benefits (21-53) (Base Year $)
Net Cost (21-53) (Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
Accumulated Discounted Benefits
Accumulated Discounted Net Cost
1039
39
1000
3957
75
3882
.-~--~---
Table E.3 Present worth analysis of the wind system generation plan for Ouzinkie
ar I 1 2 3 4 5----6--7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 120 120 125 125 130 130 135 135 140 145
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 270 270 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 410 420 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420
Capital ($1000'5) 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000'5) 33 34 28 29 30 30 31 32 33 34
Fuel ($1000'5) 66 70 59 63 66 70 74 77 81 85
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat ($1000'5) 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
t:lj Capital ($1000'5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
I o & M ($1000'5) 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 co
Wind Generator
Max. Capacity (kW) 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Electric Generation
(MWh) 0 0 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Capital ($1000'5) 0 0 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000'5) 0 0 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost 219 108 543 113 117 121 126 130 135 200
Annual Benefits 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5
Net Annual Cost 215 104 539 109 113 117 121 125 130 195
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 212 312 802 901 999 1098 1197 1295 1394 1536
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 4 7 11 15 18 22 25 30 33 36
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 208 305 791 886 981 1076 1172 1265 1361 1500
--~ ~-~------~-.---
Ouzinkie
Wind
ar 11 12 13 14 "15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 145 150 150 150 155 160 160 165 165 170
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 510 520 520 530 540 550 550 560 570 580
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 300 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 420 430 440 450 460 460 470 480 480 490
Capital ($1000's) 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M {$1000's} 34 34 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 39
Fuel {$1000's} 89 92 97 100 100 110 110 120 120 130
Waste Heat Recovery
I;1j Displaced Heat {$1000's} 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8
I Capi tal ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
4£l o & M ($1000's) 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Wind Generator
Max. Capacity (kW) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Electric Generation
{MWh} 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Capi tal ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 393 147 149 158 159 159 160 516 180 251
Annual Benefits 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8
Net Annual Cost 388 141 143 152 153 152 153 509 173 243
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1805 1903 1998 2096 2190 2282 2371 2649 2743 2869
Accumulated Discounted
Benefits 40 43 48 51 55 59 63 67 70 73
Accumulated Discounted
Net Cost 1765 1850 1950 2045 2135 2223 2308 2582 2673 2796
-~ ----~ --------.--.--.-.--.-.--.---... -... -~ --_. --~ .. ---.. --------
tr;j
I
...... o
Ouzinkie
Wind
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's) (Base Year)
Waste Heat Recovery
Displaced Heat ($1000's) (Base Year)
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year)
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year)
Hydroelectric
21-53
170
580
400
490
267
380
1266
78
49
49
Max. Capacity (kW) 25
Electric Generation (MWh) 84
Capital & Salvage ($1000's) (Base Year) 78
o & M ($1000's) (Base Year) 166
Totals ($1000's)
Cost (21-53) (Base Year $)
Benefits (21-53) (Base Year $)
Net Cost (21-53) (Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
Accumulated Discounted Benefits
Accumulated Discounted Net Cost
2255
78
2177
5124
151
4973
APPENDIX F
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Port Lions
F-l
--------------~-----------
Table F. 1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Port Lions.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 215 220 230 235 245 250 255 265 275 280
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 680 700 720 740 770 790 810 840 860 890
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 680 700 720 740 770 790 810 840 860 890
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 54 56 58 59 62 63 65 67 69 71
Fuel ($1000's) 120 130 130 140 150 160 170 170 180 190
I-rj
I
N
Totals ($100U's)
Annual Cost 174 186 188 199 212 223 235 237 249 261
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 168 342 511 685 863 1045 1229 1409 1592 1777
Port Lions
Base Case
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (kW) 290 300 305 315 320 330 335 340 350 365
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 910 940 960 990 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 1100 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 910 940 960 990 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200
Capital ($1000's) 0 1320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 73 75 77 79 80 88 88 88 88 96
Fuel ($1000's) 200 220 230 240 250 270 280 290 310 330
I'Ij
I
w
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 273 1615 307 319 330 358 368 378 398 426
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1964 2834 3031 3228 3425 3631 3836 4040 4247 4461
------------------------
Port Lions
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($lOOO's)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's)(Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's)(Base Year)
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost (Base Year $)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
21 -31
365
1200
800
1200
o
401
1380
1781
6242
---------------------------------------------
Table F.2 Present worth analysis of the intertie plan for Port Lions.
Year-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (kW) 215 220 230 235 245 250 255 265 275 280
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 680 700 720 740 770 790 810 840 860 890
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 680 0 0 U U U U U 0 U
Capital ($lUOO's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 54 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Fuel ($1000's) 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'""1
I
Ul
Intertie
Intertie Capacity (KVA) 0 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740
Intertie Supplied MWh 0 700 720 740 770 790 810 840 860 890
Capital ($1000's) 0 '1400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($1000's) 0 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9
Totals ($1000' s)
Annual Cost 174 1425 25 25 26 2& 26 26 27 27
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 168 1498 1521 1543 1565 1586 1606 1626 1646 1665
Port Lions
Intertie
Year 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~
Peak Demand (kW) 290 300 305 315 320 330 335 340 350 365
Electrical Consumption
(MWh) 910 940 960 990 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW) 1100 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital ($1000's) 0 1320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($1000's) 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
IT! Fuel ($1000's)
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
Intertie
Intertie Capacity (KVA) 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740 740
Intertie Supplied MWh 910 940 960 990 1000 1100 1100 1100 1100 1200
Capital ($1000's) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M (:'$IUOU'S) ~ 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 1 1 12'"
Totals ($1000's)
Annual Cost 27 1347 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 1683 2575 2593 2610 2627 2643 2660 2675 2690 2705
Port Lions
Intertie
Year
Peak Demand (kW)
Electrical Consumption
(MWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(kW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (MWh)
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5)
(Base Year)
O&M ($1000's)(Base Year)
Fuel ($1000's)(Base Year)
Intertie
Intertie Capacity (KVA)
Intertie Supplied MWh
Capital & Salvage ($1000'5)
(Base Year)
o & M ($1000's)(Base Year)
Totals ($1000'5)
Annual Cost (Base Year)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
365
1200
800
a
a
75
o
740
120U
o
54
129
2834
( 1
:W
I
D
,D
I ,
U
U
: 1
W
r 1
U
I ,
U
I U
W
!~
IW
,U
APPENDIX G
Economic Analysis of Energy Plans
for
Greater Kodiak Area
G-l
Table G. 1 Present worth analysis of the base case plan for Kodiak.
Year 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand ( MW) 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18
Electrical Consumption
(10 6 kWh) 57 59 60 62 63 65 67 70 73 76
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity (MW) 29 29 29 29 29 29 45 45 45 45
Electrica1 6 Genera-
tion (10 kWh) 57 59 60 62 63 65 67 70 75 76
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
O&M ($ millions) 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
Fuel ($ millions) 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 10 10 11
GJ
I
N
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost 11 11 11 12 12 13 19 15 15 16
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 11 21 31 41 51 62 77 88 99 III
---~------------------------------------~-----------------
Kodiak
Base Case
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (MW) 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 24 26 26
Electrical Consumption
(106 kWh) 79 82 85 89 92 96 100 100 110 110
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(MW) 45 45 45 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Electrical Genera-
tion (1 06 kWh) 79 82 85 89 92 96 100 100 110 110
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 a 0 0
O&M ($ millions) 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8
Fuel ($ millions) 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21
G)
I
w
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost 18 19 19 26 31 23 24 25 28 29
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 123 136 148 164 176 190 203 216 251 246
Kodiak
Base Case
Year
Peak Demand (MW)
Electrical Consumption
(10 6 kWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(MW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (10 6 kWh)
Capital & Salvage ($ millions)
(Base Year)
O&M ($ millions) (Base Year)
Fuel ($ millions) (Base Year)
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost (Base Year $'s)
Accumulated Discounted
Cost
26
110
55
110
4
77
201
282
528
~-----~ --~--------
Table G.2 Present worth analysis of the Terror Lake hydro
electric project for Kodiak.
ar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Demand (MW) 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 17 17 18
Electrical Consumption
(l06 kWh) 57 59 60 62 63 65 67 70 73 76
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(MW) 29 29 29 29 29 29 45 45 45 45
Electrical Genera-
tion (l06 kWh) 57 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
O&M ($ millions) 4 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Fuel ($ millions) 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G:l
I
V1 Hydroelectric
Intertie Capacity (MW) 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 . 20 20 20
Hydro Production 0 0 60 62 63 65 67 70 73 76
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o & M ($ millions) 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost 11 11 193 4 4 4 9 4 4 4
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 11 21 195 198 202 205 212 215 218 221
Kodiak
Hydro
I
Year 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Peak Demand (MW) 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 24 26 26
Electrical Consumption
(10 6 kWh) 79 82 85 89 92 96 100 100 110 100
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
(MW) 45 45 45 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Electrical Genera-
tion (106 kWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&M ($ millions) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fuel ($ millions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Gl
I
"" Hydroelectric
Max Capacity (MW) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Hydro Production
(106 kWh) 49 82 85 89 92 96 99 99 109 109
Capital ($ millions) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o & M ($ millions) 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost 6 6 6 12 7 7 8 8 9 9
Accumulated Discounted
Cost 225 229 233 240 244 249 253 257 262 266
Kodiak
Hydro
Year
Peak Demand (MW)
Electrical Consumption
(10 6 kWh)
Diesel Generators
Installed Capacity
( MW)
Electrical Genera-
tion (l0 6 kWh)
Capital ($ millions)
O&M ($ millions)
Fuel ($ millions)
Hydroelectric
Max. Capacity (MW)
Hydro Production (10 6 kWh)
Capital ($ millions)
o & M ($ millions)
Totals ($ millions)
Annual Cost (Base Year $IS)
Accumulated Discounted Cost
21-52
26
110
55
1
4
19
10
20
109
1
67
101
367
REVIEW DOCUMENTS
RV-l
J
I~
i~
J
J
J
'W
U
,W
I 'U
U
U
r : u
U
W
W
D
U
D
D
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
(907) 276-0001
I would like to thank you, Patty Bielawski and Dean Carson 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:
Volume 1: SUMMARY
Page 1-1, first paragraph -Change the first sentence to read "This
project was conducted by NORTEC under contract to the Alaska Power
Authority for the people of Kodiak.1I
Page 1-2, last paragraph -Change the first sentence to read "In
communities on Kodiak Island, facilities usually are diesel generators
and water supply systems."
Page 1-5, second paragraph -Change the first sentenc~ to read "The
Alaska Power Authority requires each plan to be evaluated four ways:"
"1) Economic Analysis, 2) Cost of Energy Analysis, 3) Environmental
Impact Analysis and 4) Social Acceptability."
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 guideline?, 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.1I
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 is indeed correct.
Page 5-11, last paragraph, first 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 lion-line" in 1984 is $1,400,000. 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 1 ine. to IIserve".
Page 3-9 -Modify the Projection Table to reflect that the growth
rate is the "Population Growth Rate" 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" 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
: 1
U
W
r ' , I u
U
-w
U
W
W
U
U
W
W
W
U
r------------------------------------~~··~·"-·~,~"'~,~'"--·~"·~,~,~" 1
Q
I
I~
I
W
I
I
J
J
W
:J
I
I
U
U
J
'W
I r 1
IU
!
r '
U I
I
W
U
W
w
o
Ltr to Mr. Starling
May 13, 1983
Page 3, 8733
Page 5-20 -Und~r the conclusions andl " r:~"commendations write-up,
please explain that your findings are som~~h~t different from those in
the DOWL Report; explain the differences.
Page 7-11 -Delete the "Cest of Energy Table" and substitute the
IIEnergy 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
Volume 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
Rep 1 ace the APA with "Power Authori ty" or II Alas ka Power Authori tyll
wherever it appears throughout the report.
The letter from KANA along with your response should be included in
the final r~port.
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 no~ hesitate to give me
a ca 11 •
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RGW:cb
RV-4
Sincerely, . rF4)jv;f~
Remy G. vii 11 ; ams
Project 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
i ~
u
'W
U
U
;J
I ;0
I
( .
I ..
( ,
I '
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
HECErV20
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 VouiUmeIII:, 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 cQJrpo.ra't:ion.
I suggest that the Kodiak Island Housing Authority replace the KANA Energy
CoordinataF's 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
o
o
w
u
Letter
4.8.83
Page 2
at this time to provide an economical way to provide heat and electrici ty.
Despite the extreme delay by both the AFA and NORTEC to develop the plan, I
wish to express my gratitude to both for allowing KANA to participate in the
plan's development and review.
THP:cw
RV-8
Sincerely,
KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION
DOLORES L. PADIL~, PRESIDENT
/ // ./ ,I' /l~ ...
":;j(C·r-:fI/:' /{ ;-;!.Itt9--1':'
.-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
w
u
w
u
r 1
~
I U
r 1 ~
u
w
w
w
u
u
w
u