HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Sites in Southeast Alaska 1979~~~~~~M w W¥ ~"-~ 4'
~~onal Inventory and Reconnaissance S y for
nail Hydropower Sites in Southeast Alaska
Submitted to
Department of the Army
Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
OCTOBER 1979
. CH2tv1! ~~---.
IIHILLJ
REGIONAL INVENTORY AND RECONNAISSANCE STUDY
FOR SMALL HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES
IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA
For:
Department of the Army
Alaska District, Co~s of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
By:
CH2M HILL Engineering of Alaska, Inc.
310 "Kif Street, Suite 602
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Contract No. DACW85-79-C-0030
.ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & lflf"im~tion Services
Mel, a.aska
This was under the
direction of
a
, ;'"
K128326AO
liB .11 SUMMARY
This study was conducted to dete:nnine at the reconnaissance level the
extent to which small hydroelectric power could be developed in South-
east Alaska. The study area, wh~ch includes all of Southeast Alaska, is
a.hroad geographic area of rugged mountains along the North Pacific and
Gulf of Alaska coasts. The population of the region is clustered in
numerous cities and villages Which are generally only connected by
marine or air transport routes.
The hydroelectric resources of the region have been inventoried, studied,
and in a few cases developed. Currently, there is a resurgence of
interest in hydroelectric power as a result of the escalating cost of
diesel generation. Diesel generation is cammon throughout the region,
and most cities and villages have their own generation facilities.
The Cities of Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersblu'9J Metlakatla, Wrangell, and
Sitka, as well as their nearby villages, Which are all electrically
intertied, have established power utilities and are actively pursuing
development of their available hydroelectric resources. Haines and
Skagway also fall into the category of cities Which have established
utilities. The Alaska Power Authority is currently studying the com-
plete power resources of the Haines and Skagway market area, Which
includes the village of Klukwan.
TWenty additional Southeast Alaska communities were visited by the proj-
ect team. The main reason for visiting the communities was to determine
their current usage and mode of generation of electrical enerqyo ~ .
addition, nearby potential hydroelectric sites were visited Or at least
observed from a light aircraft. No detailed hydroelectric site inves-
tigation was performed.
Future energy requirements were projected for each community for the
. period from 1980 to 2030. The present worth of meeting the projected
load with diesel generation over the 50-year period was calculated
assuming diesel fuel would escalate 0 percent, 2 percent, and 5 percent
faster than the general inflation rate.
Reconna.issance-level cost estimates were pre;paroo for 32 hydroelectric
sites which were sized to meet the communities' future electrical needs.
Except for the unknown lake project near Haines, which was studied by
Retherford in 1977, the hydroelectric si.tes were considered as run-of-
the-river projects. This was done to keep the dam and reservoir cost
down and to minimize environmental impacts.
A comparison was made between the present worth of each hydroelectric
site and the present worth of all the communities' diesel needs for the
next 50 years. As a result of that analysis, 17 hydroelectric sites
were dropped from further consideration. The remaining 15 sites were
compared to the amounts of diesel Which they would be expected to re-
place. This too was a 50-year present worth comparison.
iii
'1'1:16 results of th.e present worth
tha,t hydroelectric sites near
E:Kcursion Inlet v Gustavus f Haines, Rowan
SI~ings be investigated in more detail.
near these communities should be visited
prepared.
lead to the recommendation
the cool.munities of Chatham p
Bayg Skagway. and Tenakee
All the potential hydro
and refined development 000-
A 1977 completed Robert W. Retherford Associates for the
A:.aska Power Authority studied 10 villages in Southeast Alaska and
prepared reconnaissance-level cost estimates for developing seven hydxo~
e:~ectrlc sites. No feasible sites were found to serve Angoon g
or Yakutat. Feasible sites were identified for ~ Hydaburg and
Haines and Klukwan e Hoonah~ Kake, and Pelican. Feasibility
studies are cur:z:ently completed by Harza Engineering Company fox
the Alaska Power at four of the sites. The Haines and D;ukwWl
s~te will be considered in the current Alaska Power
the Haines-Skagway area.
study of
Of the seven sites considered by Retherford p one was a run-of-the-
r~ver development. All the other sitee included provision for a reser-
voir or of a natural lake to provide Even the run-of-
the-riYar project included enough storage to provide for daily regulation.
conclusion of the is that unless there is a com-
with a stable year-round population and electrical demand g and
unless there is nearby natural or economically attainable man~
made storage G hydroelectric power is more than diesel genera-
tionc The basic reason is that, for the hydroelectric sites con6idered~
there was an average annual ty factor of 20 percent. Unless these
hydroelectric developments can be utilized in the 60 percent to 80 per-
cent range, will not be economica10
iv
-
CONTENTS
S UI.'I11iI.a ry
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction
Community Power Needs.
Southeast Alaska Economic Base and
Projected Development
Field Survey
Future Energy Requirement and Cost
Community Descriptions
Annette
Cape Pole
Chatham
Edna Bay
Elfin Cove
Excursion Inlet
Punter Bay
Gustavus
Haines
Hamil ton Bay
Hawk Inlet
Hyder
Kupreanof
Metlakatla
Meyers Chuck
Point Baker/Port Protection
Port Alexander
Rowan Bay
Skag\'iay
Tenakee Springs
Hydroelectric Power Site Assessment
Field Methods
Hydrology
Environmental Concerns
Development Concept
Community Hydroelectric Sites
Comparison Of Community Power Needs and Hydroelectric
Potential
Hydroelectric Site Screening
Conclusions
Recommendations
Isolated Communities Previously Studied
Introduction
Community Descriptions
Hydroelectric Power Sites
Summary
v
iii
1
5
5
7
10
16
22
26.
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
94
98
101
101
101
102
103
105
149
149
151
152
153
153
154
159
159
B:Lbilography
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Operat.ing and Economic Factors Included .in Models
of Three Electric Generating Modes in Southeast
161
Alaska 163
Cos t Es tima tea 165
vi
TABLES
1 Southeast Alaska Communities Examained
2 Utility and Mode of Generation for Larger
Southeast Alaska Communities
3 Generalized Energy Data for the 20 Communities Visited
4 Remote Small Diesel Energy Cost (1979)
5 Economic Characteristics and Population Projections
For Small Southeast Alaska Communities
6 Increase in Average Electric Use Per Residential
Customer in Alaska, 1960-1977
7 Community Characteristics and Present (1979} Power Needs
8 Community Characteristics and Future Power Needs
9 Mean Annual Precipitation and Snowfall, Southeast Alaska
10 Power Sites for Cape Pole
11 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Chatham
12 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Elfin Cove
13 Power Sites for Excursion Inlet
14 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Punter Bay
15 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Gustavus
16 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Haines
17 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Hawk Inlet
18 Power Sites for Hyder
19 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Kupreanof
20 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Meyers Chuck
21 Hydroelectric Power sites for Point Baker
22< Hydroelectric Power Sites for Port Alexander
23 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Rowan Bay
24 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Skagway
25 Hydroelectric Power Sites for Tenakee Springs
26 Present-Worth Comparison of 32 Hydroelectric Sites
and Communities' Total Diesel Needs
27 Present Wroth Comparison of 15 Hydroelectric Sites
and Alternative Diesel Generation
28 Present Power Needs of the 10 Isolated Communities
Previously Studied
29 Future Power Needs of the 10 Iso1ated Communities
Previously Studied
vii
2
2
8
9
13
15
17
19
101
106
lOa
112
114
116
118
122
126
128
130
132
136
138
140
142
146
150
151
155
156
.;ill;
-
FIGURES
1 Study Area
2 Cape Pole Hydro Site
3 Chatam Hydro Sites
4 Elfin Cover Hydro Site
5 Excursion Inlet Hydro Site
6 Funter Bay Hydro Site
7 Gustavus Hydro Site
8 Haines Hydro Site
9 Hawk Inlet Hydro Site
10 Hyder Hydro Site
11 Kupreanof Hydro Site (West Petersburg)
12. Meyers Chuck Hydro Sites
13 Point Baker Hydro Sites
14 Port Alexander Hydro Sites
15 Rowan Bay Hydro Sites
16 Skagway Hydro Sites
17 Tenakee Springs Hydro Sites
ix
3
107
109
113
115
117
119
123
127
129
131
133
137
139
141
143
147
II. Chapter 1
•• INTRODUCTION
This report is a documentation of a reconnaissance-level investigation
of small hydroelectric power sites in SOutheast Alaska. The intent of
. the investigation was to identify the current and expect.ed future IXlwer
needs of.comm.unities in Southeast Alaska and to locate nearby hydroelec-
tric.power sites which could meet the communities' needs or at least
displace a portion of the costly diesel fuel that is currently used for
generation. .
The study·area covered all of Southeast Ai~ska, as shown in figure 1.
Because of the mountainous terrain and the high levels of precipitation
and runoff, Southeast Alaska has the highest hydroelectric potential of
any area in the United States. However, the population of the region is
small and the distance between population centers great. The resultant
dispersion of electrical demand does not allow for development of large
hydroelectric projects because of the cost of extensive transmission
interties. Most communities in Southeast Alaska have developed their
own means of generating electricity. Some ·communities have hydroelec-
tric generation with diesel backup, but the majority rely exclusively on
diesel generation.
Several existing reports have identified the hydroelectric potential in
Southeast Alaska. Most of the larger communities either are served
completely by hydroelectric projects or are currently pursuing such
projects. In addition, the hydroelectric potential at ten isolated
communities was studied by Robert W. Retherford Associates for the
Alaska Power Authority in 1977. For this investigation, the larger
communities and the ten isolated communities which were the subject of
the 1977 Retherford report were not visiteds Twenty isolated commu-
nities, however, were visited by a three-man team composed of an elec-
trical engineer, a civil engineer, and an economist. Table 1 presents
the Southeast Alaska communities considered during this project, divided
into three categories.
The scope of the investigation required that only the name and mode of
generation of the utility serving the larger communities be identified.
Table 2 presents these data.
Chapter 2 and 3 contain information on the power needs and the nearby
hydroelectric sites for the 20 isolated communities visited by the proj-
ect team. The community of saint John was originally designated as one
of the isolated communities to be studied but was dropped from consider-
ationbecause, according to the U.s. Forest Service, it will be aban-
doned in 1981. The communities of Punter Bay and Rowan Bay, which are
expected to grow, have been added. Chapter'" is a comparison of the
power needs and hydroelectric resources ava.ilable for the 20 isolated
ccmmunities. Information on the ten isolated communities studied in the
1977 Retherford report is presented in Chapter 5.
1
'I'able 1. SOUTHEAST ALASKA COMMUNITIES EXAMINED
Communities
Investiga ted
.f!y Project Team
Annette
Cape Pole
Chatharr,
Ed.'1a Bay
Elfin Cove
Excursion Inlet
Funter Bay
Gustavus
Haines
Hamilton Bay
Hawk Inlet
Hyder
Kupreanof
Metlakatla
Iv'Ieyers Chuck
Point Baker
Port Alexander
Rowan Bay
Skagway
Tenakee
Communities
on by Robert W.
Retherford Asso-
Angoon
Craig
Hoonah
Hydaburg
Kake
Kasaan
Klawock
Kl uk wan
Pelican
Yakutat
Table 2. UTILITY AND MODE CF GENERATION
Communities Served
by Sinile Utility_
Juneau/
Auke
Douglas
Lemon Creek
Lena Beach
Mendenhall
North
Thane
Ketchikanl
Charcoal Point
Clover Pass
Mou.ntain Point
Mud
Pennock
Refuge Cove
Saxm.an
Ward Cove
Petersburgj
Scow
West
Wrangell
Sitka
FOR LARGER SOUTHEAST ALASKA COMMUNITIES
Juneau Alaska Electric Light Hydro and Diesel Generat.~rs
and Power Ketchikan
Ketchikan Public Utilities Hydro and GeneratQrs
Petersburg Municipal Power Hydro and Diesel Generat()rs
1 1 Electric Diesel C~nerators
ment
Sitka Sitka Electric Department Hydro and Diesel Generators
2
::;;::}
~~:j
o
I
•
.A
IJI
GULF OF ALASKA
PACIFIC OCEAN
50
Scale in Miles
COMMUNITIES VISITED
BY PROJECT TEAM
100
I
COMMUNITIES STUDIED BY
RETHERFORD, 1977
LARGER COMMUNiTiES
-\l-----+-Kupreanof
--..L-Patllfllburg
Point Bake, -.... --
Edna Bay -----'"
FIGURE 1
3 Study Area
1111 Chapter 2
.111 COMMuNITY POWER NEEDS
For the 20 Southeast Alaska communities visited by the project team, a
projection of power needs was made. These projections were made
.on the basis of recorded data for each community, data collected at each
community during the visit by the project team, and data available in
published. regional studies.
This chapter presents the methods of data collection and used
to determine the communities g power needs. The detailed results of this
analysis are presented in a community-by-cammunity description and a
summary table at the end of the chapter.
SOUTHEAST ALASKA ECONOMIC BASE AND PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
Information about the economics of Southeast Alaska was obtained for
this study from the Regional and Local Dimensions, Socioeconomic OVerview
volume of the 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan. The study area for the
included essentially all of Southeast Alaska and was designed to
management direction for the next 10 years.
The economy of Southeast Alaska is based largely on the natural resources
of the region: timber, fish, minerals, and natural beauty. Primary
industries--those which determine the health growth of the local
economy--are fishing, fish processing, logging, wood processing, mining,
some construction, and tourism. Government is also considered a primary
"industry" because of the concentration of government employees in
Juneau, the state capital. In this section, these industries
will be discussed in terms of their current and projected contribution
to the local economy.
Timber and Wood Processing
Timber and wood processing is the largest industry in Southeast Alaska,
accounting for approximately 14 percent of total The timber
industry utilizes a local softwood forest composed primarily of western
hemlock, Sitka spruce, and minor amounts of red and yellow cedar~ Over
95 percent of the total timber harvest is ma.nufactured into. sulphite
pulp or into cants. The remainder is manufactured into dimension lumber
or left in round log form. In recent years, slightly over half the pulp
and all the cants have been exported to Japan with the balance of the
pulp going to markets in the Lower 48. Forest Service policy has always
required local, primary manufacturing for TOngass Forest timber harvest
to provide stability to the local economy.
Two companies dominate the wood and wood products industry in Southeast
Alaska: Louisiana Pacific Ketchikan and Alaska Pulp America. Together,
account for approximately 87 percent of the region's prodUction
capacity and 55 percent of the timber harvest~ -They also account for
76 percent of all independent sale volumes.
5
future of the timber wil be determined primarily by two
fa·::tors: (l) the world market for pulp and the Japanese market for
cantse and (2) the availability of timber to supply the region I s mills
fol state and Native land selections and wilderness designations,.
It is not that there will be substantial in the fore=
se,~able future. Given present national interest in wilderness pre-
servatiol1.p it is more likely that tirrJ:ler harvest levels will mIt
be exceeded and be reduced. Of course, any change in the level clf
t~nber harvested will directly affect the wood-processing industry.
Salmon dominates the fish and follo~d by hall-
but~ , and shellfish. There has been an attempt to diversify the
fishing industry~ but it has been unsuccessful because of
lad¢:. of technology F organization; and capitaL Commercial fishing and
fish comprise approximately 10 percent of total employment in
the Southeast Alaska region. Fish processing is limited to canning ancl
freezing except for a small amount of expansion in frozen fish prc.-
cessing~ has remained technologically unchanged for the last 40 years.
The future of in Southeast Alaska on several factors~
the continuation and success of fish=enhancement programs and the con-
tinuation of the limited-entry program which was initiated in 1974. The
program g to ens'J.re a better livelihood for exist:~
ing fishermen and provide a resource tool, is not expected to
reduce the volume of production r but it will limit future employment ir.,
The state government and private industry are
to continue fish enhancement in the region. Recent trends in
coomercial fisheries have been G but are not expected to
of the fish and
of the economy at"e conservative and assume mdesrt
rates of increase.
Mining employment has been in the southeast
region in recent years but to become an
important source of pr employment. Modern methods have
led to the of several ne'W ore bodies which appear potentially
profitable to develop" Chief among these new discoveries are the Quartz
Hill molybden urn deposit near KetchjJcan, the Takanis
ore-body on Yakobi and the Bid Sore zinc-silver-lead-copper-gold
deposits on Greens Creek near Ha~"k Inlet on Island. A fourth
development possibility is the reopening of the Ross~Adam6 uranium de~
posit near Kendricks Bay on Prince of Wales Island.
Act:ual development of any of these deposits will on a combinatic;tn
of factors! including wilderness das in the Tongass e the success
of developing in the goverrurlent permit process g and future
we dd mark.ets fer mineral products
6
Tourism
Tourism in Southeast Alaska, accounting for approximately 3 percent of
total employment, is based primarily on cruise ship and ferry touring
and tourist-related activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, back-
packing 6 and other individual-type .outdoor activities. An increase in
tourism since 1970 is the result of expansion in the cruise ship and
ferry services. The continuation of this trend will be determined by
the demand for these activities and decisions by private industry and
state agencies to maintain or expand their facilities. It has been
largely the communities with existing infrastructures to accommodate
tourists that have benefited, and they will continue to benefit from the
ferries and cruise ships. All forms of recreational activities have
been in the upswing in the United States because of increased leisure
time and higher disc retionary income. Ind! vidual. outdoor sports especi-
ally have experienced an increasing popularity in recent years, although
this form of activity does not contribute heavily to the local economy,
being a more self-contained activity. under these conditions, it is
expected that tourism in the future will continue to grow.
Government
state government employment in Southeast Alaska accounts for 12&8 per-
cent of total employment in the region because of the location of the
state capital in Juneau. The state government has assumed an increas-
ingly important role in sustaining the basic economy because of state
revenues generated by Cook Inlet oil and gas and the North Slope lease
sale. The availability of petro-tax dollars could make it feasible to
continue or increase the 5-percent annual growth rate in state govern-
ment employment, although there is growing sentiment to check the con-
tinually expanding role of government in the stateis economy. These
projections assume that the state capital will remain in Juneau.
FIELD SURVEY
The 20 Southeast Alaska cooununities were visited by at least one member
of a three-man project team made up of an economist, an electrical engi-
neer, and a civil engineer. The primary purpose of the field survey was
to gather data related to the communities' power needs.
Methods
The project team visited all communities by float or amphibious light
aircraft. Community visits were limited,to approximately 2 to 3 hours
at each community, with a few overnight stays where logistically practical.
Power needs data were obtained using essentially the same procedure for
all communities:
1. Inquiries were made of community leaders and informed resi-
dents regarding the communities' power needs
7
2. Identification and explanation of the project team~s
3. as to electric consumption and patterns, overall
fuel , current fuel ~icing and attitude toward
electric power availability in general, and
in
4. of electric generating equipment,
future expansion through personal
of local residents
Data were
hydroelectric
previous small
relative to local knowledge of nearby streams with
This local knowledge reflected such ali
g observed flow variations, and of
salmon in the streamso
As a result of the field survey
istics have been identified
e some generalized character-
present electric ,power con sump··
data for each community are
General boundary constraints which
~~derstanding present electric energy con-
are shown in table 3.
tion in the communities.
given at the end of this
may a framework for
sumption L~ the communities
Table 3. GENERALIZED ENERGY DATA FOR THE 20 COMMUNITIES VISITED
Pe~ capita annual fuel oil consumption
(heating £;, €lIe
Per capita electric energy consumption
Per capita ar~ual demand
Diesel electric
Diesel electric heat rates
Community electric load factor
Range
500 OM liSOO gal
2 1 000 -12 g 000
2 ~ 5 kW
7 ~ 13.5 kWh/gal
light plants VS0
scale units)
10.780 -20,000
(using 140g000
fuel oil)
5% to 60% (~bush~ vs.
organized utility}
The above ranges in energy use reflect the range of differencl~
between rural southeast Alaska small town use versus ;'bush$1l commu.'1ity
use. As ava of lower cost electric power diminishes in more
remote areas p a decline in per capita consumption and annual load
factors occur.
8
When served by an organized utility at rates which are expensive, yet
endurable r per capita consumptions of 6,000 to 12,000 kWh arillually occur
in the region and community load factors approach 60 percent, which is
typical of a conventional utility. More remote bush communities, with
smaller and less organized community structures, relying on scattered,
small (5 to 10 kW) residential generators cannot approach the reduced
cost per kWh of the utilities. Consequently F annual generator running
hours are reduced to what each consumer views as the optimum or minimum
requirement. This is reflected in. extremely low annual load factors.
Additionally, there is a different pattern of living in the more remote
communities, which simply foregoes the need to consume electricity
constantly or in large quantities. In effect, while cheap electricity
makes life more comfortable, a high emphasis on comfort is incongruent
with the motivations of the bush community dweller. Power requirements
are, therefore, reduced.
The study communities of Haines, Skagway, Metlakatla, and Hyder were
inconsistent with the other 16 study communities with regard to general
demographics,. economics, and electric power consumption. Present cost
per kWh for a typical consumer in these communities iez
7.5¢/kWh Skagway
.·Haines
Metlakatla
Hyder
11¢/kWh (includes 2¢ fuel surcharge)
3 0 3¢/kVil'h
8.0¢/kWh
While these costs are high as compared to some metropolitan areas of
Alaska, and reflect rapidly escalating diesel fuel costs, they are not
as severe as many rural Alaskan communities and in no way as costly a.s
running a bush home generator. The economics of operating a small
diesel generator in Sout.heast Alaska are presented in table 4.
Table 4. REMOTE SMALL DIESEL ENERGY COST (197~J
5-kW unit capital investment
Freight to site and set-up in rain shelter
Operating life
Running hours/year
Energy produced while running (average 2-kWloadings)
Fuel oil/year (@ 7 kWh/gallon)
Fuel oil cost/year (@ OQaO¢/gallon 1979)
Amortization costs per year (IO-year unit life)
Lube oil costs/year @ 5% of fuel oil
Maintenance costs/year (distributed over life)
Total cost/year
Annual energy cost range (± 20%)
$ 4,000
$ 1,000
20,000 hou.rs
2,000 hr/year
4,000 kWh/year
571 gallons
$ 460/year
$ GOO/year
$ 20/year
2._ 100fyear
$ 1#180/year
26-34¢/kWh
From these approximate costs, the motivation for reduced consumption and
resulting annual load factors is apparent.
9
The typical Southeast Alaska bush cQl!',munity dweller, who for a
res idential di.esel f is seen to consmre approximately as much
V()lUllle of middle distillate fuel in electric power generation as an
average metropolitan Alaskan might consume in refined gasoline to ope:l:~
a:t:e one fairly economical automobile for a year {511 gallons x 20 mpg ""
11,420 miles).
The normal annual fuel oil consumption for
bush home heating is 3 times the normal 3
Annual fuel oil consumption for bush home 1
electrical needs
Due to variations .in the i size of homes, insulation qualit,yu
seasonal activities of the occupants, and orientation of homes to pre~
vail winds q the actual fuel consumption for bush home heating
ranges from about 3 to 5 gallons per day as an annual averageo
metropolitan Alaska home might the of 5 to
Ions per day for furnace thermal efficiencies. Metro-
Alaska homes are typically and have more glass exposures,
higher hot water consumptiansQ and more extravagant energy use patterns
ttan Southeast Alaska bush homes.
It should be understood that while Southeast Alaska bush community fuel
for electrical is highly inefficient compared to
metropolitan rural community} medes e the ~~~
consumption of the bush cQ~munity dweller is comw~nsurate
with the town dweller.
Further, it should be noted that the field survey revealed that indivi~
dual residential generators are used less than a majority of bush
residents f usage ranges from only 10 to 40 percent of commu-
This is in part due to af of their
and in part to value indicatL"lg electri~
power has a diminishing ratio for expendable income as
to other returns for expendable income, such as air charter
service, marine equipment§ communications equipmente and other items.
Reconnaiss~~ce~level load forecasts were made for the Southeast Alaska
communities. The cost of diesel to meet the forecast load
and the worth of 50 years of that d:Lesel generation were also
de t.ermined.
Of the 20 communities, four are served by utilities that make fonnal
load forecasts. These include Haines, served by Haines Light and Powel:
Com1?any; Metlakatla and Annette, served by Metlakatla Power and Light
10
Company. and Skagway, served Alaska Power and Telephone Company.
Each of these utilities recently made a lO-year load forecast, Which has
been directly adopted for this report for the 1980-1990 period. These
forecasts were extrapolated for the remaining years in the study perioo o
Villages
Forecasts of electrical load were not available for the remaining 16
Southeast Alaska communities, so reconnaissance-level forecasts were
prepared as part this study. These forecasts required economic and
population projections for each community and estimates of future in-
creases in average utilization of electricity. Generally, the projected
increase in power requirements for a community was based on the product
of the projected population growth rate and the expected average annual
increase in average use per capita. For example, if a community was
projected to increase population by an average of 1.5 percent per year
and average use per household was expected to increase by 2 percent
annually, the community's electric requirements were forecast to in-
crease by 3.5 percent (1.015 x 1.02). To the extent possible, projec-
tions of commercial/industrial loads were based on information provided
by representatives of the various commercial and industrial firmse
Economic and Population Forecasts" Projections of economic and popula-
. tion growth for each village were made on the basis of the following
factors in their order of importanceg
1
• Information .on potential economic development gathered during
the field study. This included interviews with representa-
tives of the existing, industrial firms and firms planning
future development? communi·ty I leaders, and members of the
general publico
Population projections made for some of the communities as
part of the ~ongass Land ~agement Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Part 1, prepared by the u.s. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service; Alaska Region, in March 1979.
Potential for economic development for each community~s basio
industry(s}. This analysis was based primarily on the exten-
sive study of Southeast Alaska's timber, fisheries, mining e
and recreation industries. This analysis was available from
the Tongass Land N.a.n~ementPlan Regional and Local Dimensions,
Socioeconomic, Overview., Findings of this analysis are sUlf.l:!Mr-
bed below (Southeast Alaska Economic Base and Projected
Development). .
Prepared by the u.s~ Department of Agriculture y Forest Service~
Alaska Region. March 1979.
11
Future state land sales plans at each community location. as~
by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Lands
Division • and our subjective judgl.).1ent clf
the attractiveness of each location as a retirement or recrea~
tion site.
Each locatior.~s land use as
@ Historical population development.
Table 5 is a matrix these factors for each of the
In addition to the above mentioned factors, a draft copy of this
was reviewed the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation Enhan.cement and
Development .RcEcD.} of the Alaska Department of Fish and Gamee
F .. R.E .D. is responsible for the design 5 construction, and operation of
f2sh hatcheries in Alaska. Several hatcheries are planned to be con-
structed near existing or planned projects. The reason
for projects is that the hydroelectric site
can flow of water where is providede
Ir, some cases water can be taken from the penstock at pressure to reduce
the need for pumping at the
Because of the desirahili ty of and sites e
F.R.E.D. has expressed an interest in being involved in hydroelectric
planning at the feasibility level. With to this reconnaissance
study, F.R.E.D. interest in the sites near Skagway and Haines
ar..d to be infonned of any hydroelectric feasibility
studies in Alaska.
The of increased electri-
consmrers in Southeast Alaska communities
included both residential and commercial/industrial loads. As mentioned
above, projections of commercial/industrial loads were based to the
extent on info:nna t.ion by of the various
commercial a..1.C industrial firms. The average annual lJ.se by individual
residential and small commercial consurners was estimated to increase by
an average of 2 percent per year over the study This growth
rate in average usage is conservative to historical increases
in average usage recorded by Alaska utilities. As shown in table
average use residential customers of Alaskan utilities is
variable from year to year f but. has a annual growth rate of
5.2 for both the 1960 's and 1970 1 13. The data also show a de~
crease in average usage per customer after the 1973~74 OPEC oil
followed by a return to the trendo The
this of average usage a.ssume that technology <:h'ld g'eneri!-
tion modes at each commun will remain during the study
period.
12
Table 5. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SMALL SOUTHEAST ALASKA COMMUNITIES
Hamil ton Bay
CHARACTERISTICS iIInnette Cape Pole Edna Bay Elfin Cove
Excursion
Inlet Funter Bay Gustavus (Kake Portage) Hawk Inlet Hyder
Historical Population
Growth
1960 337
195
195
92 na
na
1
135
112
6
na na na 32
1970 123
2c?/40s na ~/300s
na na 49
1980 estimate
Percent change
1960-70
1970-80a
125 2 75
Econanic Base
Existing
Projected
Existing Industrial
Firms
Name
Type of business
Employment
Plans for future
Planned Industrial
Finns
Name
Type of business
Employment
Plans for future
Potential State Land
Sale iIIc reage
Scenic Index (5 very
attractive, 1 a not
attractive)
Tongass Lang Use
Designation
Population Projection
1990
2000
2030
iIIverage illnnual
Percentage Change
1980-2000
2000-2030
(42')
o
Logging,
fishing
Same
None
None
o
None
230
270
440
1.6
1.6
Logging
Same
Mud Bay
Logging
~ging
35
USFS contract
8-10 years
None
o
2
IV
(28.8)
o
Destroyed
cannery
Rebuilt
cannery
None
New England
Fish Cannery
Fish process-
in~
40
Rebuild by
1981
o
4
IV
25
25
25
38.0
o
Closed
logging
camp
Same
None
None
300-500
3
IV
10
10
10
o
o
Fishing,
recreation
fuel depot
Same
None
None
o
5
III
.9
.9
Fish processing Fishing,
destroyed
cannery
Same Fishing,
Excursion Inlet
Packing Co.
Fish processing
300s
Expansion
None
300-500
4
III
176c
200
310
1.5
1.5
recreation
None
None
4
III
1.0
1.0
FishinCJ,
recreation
Same
None
None
1,030
5
None
2.3
2.3
Logging
Logging,
recreation
Soderberq
Logging Co.
Logging
50
8-10 years
None
o
3
III&IV
125
50
50
(4.5)
o
a
b
illverage annual changes for villages with pennanent and season populations given for 1980 were calculated using the average population for 1980.
Land use designations are as follows: I. Recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation Systea. Roads and .cst commercial
development would be disallowed. II. Recommended for wildlife area. Fish habitat and primitive recreational develo~nt would be allowed.
III. Lands managed for a variety of uses. Concentrated recreational and limited timber development would be allowed. IV. Opportunities for
intensive resource use.
c
d
p
s
t
iIIverage. populations.
Growth rate of about 1 percent per year and population of 100 in year 2000 projected in the Final Environmental Impact Stateaent,
Part 1, for the Tongass Land Management Plan.
permanent population.
Seasonal population.
populatioh forecast growth rate similar to that provided in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Part I, for the Tonqass Land
Management Plan.
13
Destroyed
cannery
Mining
None
Noranda
Exploration
Mining
na
Testing for
mine
feas ibil i ty
o
4
III
20
20
20
12.2
o
Logging,
mining,
recreation
Same with
expanded
mining
Glen
Willis Logging
Logging
5
na
None
o
5
III
115
140
200
3.2
1.2
26
36
50
Kupreanof
Recreation
and employment
in Petersburg
Same
None
None
200
5
I
70
100
270
3.4
3.4
Point Baker
Meyers Chuck Port Protection
27 na
37 na
60 75
Recreation,
logging
Same
None
None
o
4
IV
70
80
125
1.5
1.5
Fishing,
logging
Fishing,
logging,
recreation
None
None
100
4
III&IV
90
105
175
1.7
1.7
Port Alexander Rowan Bay
18 na
36 na
75 4oP/200s
Fishing, Logging
cold storage
Fishing, Same
fish hatchery,
cold storage
Pelican Cold
Storage
Cold Storage
3
Potential for
expansion
Mud Bay
Logging
Logging
·na
50-year
contract
Alaska Fish & u.S. Forest
Game Hatchery Service
Salmon Hatch. il\dmin. site
na 30
na Gradual shift
over next 10
years
100
5
II
90
150t
420
3.5
3.5
o
IV
150c
150
150
1.1
o
Tenakee Sprlngs
Fishing,
closed cannery
Same
l\W Log Co.
Logging
45
None
o
4
III
l80~
200
265
1.0
1.0
Silver Bay
Log. Co.
Logging
30
Table 6~ INCREASE IN AVERAGE ELECTRIC USE PER RESIDENTIAL
CUSTOMER IN ALASKA, 1960-1977
Average
Annual
Residential Use Per Averaqe
Consumption Residential Custaner Percentage Annual
Year (million kWh) Customers (kWh) Increase Change (')
1960 168 39,986 4,201 na 5~2
1970 465 66,424 7,000 na 5.2
1971 543 69,643 7,797 11.4 5.2
1972 562 72,254 7,778 (O.2) 5~2
1973 743 81,225 9,147 17 .. 6 5 .. 2
1974 765 83,805 9,128 (Oo2) 5.2
1975 834 96,186 e~671 (5.0) 5.2
1976 982 103,278 9 8 508 9.7 5.2
1977 1,113 111,582 9,975 4.9 5.2
SOURCE: Edison Electric Institute Statistical Year Book
of the Electric Utility Industry, 1960 and 1970-77e
Future Diesel Costs to Meet Projected Loads
The 50-year cost of meeting projected loads with diesel generation was
established for most of the communities studied. Exceptions were Annette,
Metlakatla, and Skagway. Annette and Metlakatla are served by Metlakatla
Power and Light Company. About 80 percent of this utilitySs generation
is from hydropower and the utility actively engaged in studying
future hydroelectric development of Triangle Lake. It was therefore
considered unnecessary to duplicate MP&L's efforts with an independent
reconnaissance-level study of its regional hydroelectric potential.
Alaska Power and Telephone Company at Skagway also generates with a mix
of hydroelectric power and diesel. Therefore, the future cost of meet-
ing Skagway's loads with diesel generation excludes electricity provided
from existing hydroelectric facilities.
There is a considerable range in the cost of electric generation between
small and large communities in Southeast Alaska. In order to approximate
the power generation economics of each community, three cost models were
developed. The small model relates to the power generation economics
of 5-to lO-kW units in the small villages Where individuals generate
their own power and there is no interconnected distribution systemo The
medium model pertains to those villaqes with SO-to 2S0-kW units serving
commercial al'ld/or residential users. The large model is for 1-to 2-*
units owned and operated by a distribution utility serving Southeast
Alaska cities and in some cases neighboring villageso Operating and
economic factors and assumptions for each of these models are described
in appendix B.
15
The annual cost of diesel ~~s estimated for each
b3.sed on t,he individual community is generation modes and the
costs associated with each. These annual costs ~rere calculated us
1979 price levels and were assumed to escalate in direct relation to i:he
p.rojected increase in each cornIDunity's kilowatt-heur consumption. No
in generation modes or technology was assumed for any of the C(~
m':1nities. The economics of po%>Jer at each location were e
therefore~ assumed to remain from their existing levels.
For each community, the worth of the diesel costs ~~s
calculated for the 50-year of 1981=2030. Average annual costs
were also estimated for the sa~e per10a. The overall diesel
costs p present values e and average annuctl costs were then recalculatect
for each community u assuming that diesel fuel and lube oil in-
crease at 2~percent and above annual inflation rates.
DESCRIP'rIONS
The following community
Alaska comm~~ities visited by the
these individual descriptions are 2
l'l'aries of these communiti.es
16
"lere for the 20 Southeast
team. Immediately preceding
matrixes that provide detailed suw.-
7 and
17
Table 7. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND PRESENT (1979) POWER NEEDS
Estimated
1979
Population
Electric Utility
Type of CanIIIl ni ty
Name Location Lat. Long. Name Ownership
a Annette
Cape Pole
Chatham
Edna Bay
Elfin Cove
Suburb of Metlakatla on south-
west 5 ide of Annette Island
Southwest coast of Kosciusko
Island
Southeast coast of Chichagof
Island
Southeast coast of Kosciusko
Island
Northwest coast of Chichagof
Island
Excursion Inlet On Excursion Inlet 40 miles
northwest of Juneau
Funter Bay
Gustavus
(Bartlett)
Haines
Hamilton 8ay
(Kake Portage)
Hawk Inlet
Hyder
Kupreanof
Metlaka tia a
West coast of Mansfield Penin-
sula, north of Admiralty Island
East of Excursion Inlet on
Glacier Bay Strait
Chilkoot Inlet, Northern
Lynn Canal
Keku Strait, Kupreanof Island
Northwest coast of Admiralty
Island
On Portland Canal across from
Stewart, B.C.
Across the Strait from
Petersburg
Southwest coast of Annette
Island
Meyers Chuck Southwest coast of Cleveland
Peninsula
Point Baker / Northern tip of Prince of Wales
Port Protection Island
Port Alexande r Southern tip of Baranof Island
Rowan Bay Northwest coast of Kuiu Island
Skagway North Talya Inlet, Northern
Lynn Canal
Tenakee Springs Tenakee Inlet, Chichagof Island
S5°SS'N
56°49'N
1340 39 'w
56°40'N 137°16'W
59°27'N 135°19'W
57°47'N 135°13'W
195 Metlakatla Power and
Light Co.
b
20P/40S Private Property
6
25P/60S
2P/300S
14P/25S
100P/250S
1,366
125
75
50
1,300
60
75
75
40P/200S
Mud Bay Logging
New England Fish Co.
None
None
XIP Excurs ion
Inlet Packing
None
State of Alaska DOT
(Nat. Park Service)
Haines Light and Power
(OWned by AEL&P/Juneau)
THREA-Kake
None
B.C. Hydro via
Stewart, B.C.
None
Metlakatla Power and
Light Co.
None
None
Pelican Cold Storage
Mud Bay Logg lng
860 Alaska Power and
Telephone Co.
130P/200S Snyder Mercantile Co.
aAnnette and Metlakatla are both served by the Metlakatla Power and Light Company, whose current and future needs
bwi11 be net by existing and planned hydropower developments.
P = pem1.anent, S = seasonal.
REA Cooperative
Private Generation
Private Generation
Private Generation
State (Federal)
Investor Owned
REA
Public
REA Cooperative
Private Generation
Private Generation
Investor Owned
Private Generation
Current
Method of
Electrical
Generation
Hydro-Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
None
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Installed
Capacity
-?-
1 -155 kW
1 -100 kW
255 kW
1 -5 kW
-0-
1 -80 kW
1 -60 kW
20 kW in
small units
2,225 kW in
small units
30 kW in
small units
1 -150 kW
3 -100 kW
1 -40 kW
490 kW
1 -2,070 kW
1 -850 kW
1 -600 kW
1 -300 kW
1 -200 kW
2 -150 kW
4,320 kW
1 -Backup
1 -6 kW
Not available
30 kW in
small units
Hydro-Diesel Not available
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Hydro-Diesel
Diesel
30 kW in
small units
60 kW in
small units
20 kW in
small units
2 -100 kW
1 -250 kW
2 -275 kW
(ordered)
3,970 kW
1 -100 kW
Peak
Demand
~
540
125
-0-
50
1,500
30
285
2,050
200
150
30
30
60
80
225
1,400
80
Annual Energy
Consumption
(MWh)
2,800
60
o
130
2,230
40
1,400
7,050
300
12
750
40
60
100
55
300
6,030
420
Consumer
Energy Cost
(¢/kWh)
3.3
18.7
11.1
32.0
Not available
7.8
29.0
11.1
7.0
26.2
27.0
5.5
29.5
3.3
Not available
27.0
18.7
31.4
7.5
11.1
I' i
'I ..
19
Table 8. CDMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND FUTURE POWER NEEDS
Community
Name
Annettea
Cape Pole
Chatham
Edna Bay
Elfin Cove
Excursion Inlet
Funter Bay
Gustavus
(Bartlett)
Haines
Hamilton Bay
(Kake Portage)
Hawk Inlet
Hyder
Kupreanof
Me tlakatlaa
Meyers Chuck
Point Baker/
Port Protection
Port Alexander
Rowan Bay
Skagway
Tenakee Springs
Future MWh
Energy Requirements
1990 2000 2030
3,840 5,260 13,500
60 o o
1,750 1,750 1,750
10 20 36
173 230 540
2,580 3,000 4,700
54 72 175
2,130 3,250 11,500
16,400 35,400 356,000
300 150 270
100 120 220
1,340 1,990 5,100
68 115 570
32,000 52,000 224,000
85 120 335
140 205 610
95 160 820
460 560 1,010
10,800 19,300 111,000
580 780 1,900
Present Worth
($1,000) of Future Diesel
Power Cost Assuming Annual
Escalation in Fuel Cost of:
0% 2% 5%
79 83 89
3,780 4,490 6,600
43 55 98
543 685 1,140
3,030 4,024 7,060
260 312 482
4,430 6,320 12,700
39,200 64,100 158,000
294 314 348
374 455 707
1,580 2,230 4,320
431 543 938
397 488 788
687 847 1,390
384 495 888
1,140 1,370 2,180
4,870 7,460 16,800
1,080 1,470 2,760
aAnnette and Metlakatla are roth served by the Metlakatla Power and Light Company, whose
current and future needs will be met by existing and planned hydropower developments.
Equivalent Average
Annual Cost ($1,000) of
Future Diesel Power
Assuming Annual Escalation
in Fuel Cost of:
0% 2% 5%
5.6 5.9 6.4
269 320 471
3.1 3.9 7.0
38.7 48.8 81.2
216 287 503
18.5 22.2 34.3
316 451 907
2,790 4,570 11,300
21.0 22.4 24.8
26.7 32.4 50.4
113 159 308
30.8 38.7 66.9
28.3 34.8 56.2
49.0 60.4 99.3
27.4 35.3 63.3
81.2 97.8 155.3
347 532 1,200
76.7 105 197
Local Attitude
Towards Electrification
Favorable; FERC license pending for Chester
Lake
Favorable
Favorable; power required by 1982; cannery
burned 1978, planned rebuilt 1982
Future state land sales; logging community
abandoned
Attitude divided but predominantly negative
for hydro and utility organization
Commercial fish freezing and packing Excursion
Inlet Packing (XIP); 300 seasonal workers June
through September
Favorable; population dispersed around bay
Favorable to hydro; National Park Service may
be willing to participate; site within national
monument
Favorable; diesel fuel rapidly escalating; 4.5-
MW wood waste generator being constructed at
Schnable Mill
Favorable; dissatisfaction with THREA diesel
service from Kake; 10-year logging projected
Caretakers only; abandoned cannery burned
1976; Noranda mining used as exploration base
B.C. Hydro may bring in transmission line to
serve Gran Duc Mining de;eloprnent allowing
conversion of Stewart/Hyder to hydro power
Undetermined
Favorable; PERC license pending for Chester Lake
Indifferent with objections to outside
crganization
Indifferent
General attitude is indifferent to electrifi-
cation; however, community is annoyed by noise
of PCS diesels
very favorable; fuel costs rapidly escalating;
life of logging operations at least 20 years
Very favorable
Favorable, existing utility interested in hydro
and/or geothermal, small voltage distribution
system along beach front
Annette
JULY 1919
21
ANNETTE
Latitude~ 55 c 04'N Longitude: 131~32eW
Suburb of Metlakatla~ on southwest side of Annette Island
Field Survey p 1979: Year~round
. f 2000 ~ Year-round
Projected" 2030: Year-round
Present~
Future:
Logging"
Logging/j
.~UL"Yf sawmill, cannery. cold storage
by new fish hatchery
Annette is a Metlakatla "suburb~
Metlakatla Power and Light, an REA
In 1978, MPL approximately 15 million kWh
(82 percent hydroelectric, 18 Based on historic load
factors of about ,10 for :e.riP&:r~, the peak demand was estimated
to be 4 MW.
Field Survey G 1979: kWh/yr 540 kW peak dema.."ld ---(MPL
Projected, 2000: 5 000 kWh/yr kW peak demand
Projected" 2030 13 000 kWh/yr kW demand
HISTORY
Until recently, Annette was a U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue base.
Itlith the advent of the 200 mile Emit enforcement by the United
States t the base was relocated to Sitka. The Annette Island air-
and
the central
R has been
Ketchikan, Wrangell g
at those communities.
Annette is now a residential suburn of Me with a
that is approximately one-sixth that of Metlakatla. Metlakatla is a
established Indian Reservation for the Tsimshian Indians~ i'L"ld
historically owned" island with an
local Power and L serves Annette over a
distribution line from Metlakatla.
ECONOMICS
Ar,nette (Metlakatla) is economical based in the and lumber
industries" Primary industria.l ee:tablishments are a lun1ber mille fish
cannery, cold plant. and a new 'l'ourism is not
22
stimulated or noticeably active. Nearby Ketchikan f with an economic
base of large docking, fishing, a pulp mill, and commercial air and
charter services, supplements the economic base of Metlakatla. The
Annette Hemlock Mill is owned by Louisiana-Pacific, the major pulp and
lumber industry of Ketchikan. Ketchikan has the potential for a major
molybdenum mine with $7.0 billion ore value on the mainland to the east.
The development of this mine is currently being slowed by environmental
obstacles.
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH POTEN'l'IAL
The rate of population growth in Annette is relatively stable. Moderate
population growth trends are expected. The 1979 population of 195 is
projected to be 270 by the year 2000. Due to the Indian Reservation
status, stimulus is minimal for migration to Annette (Metlakatla}, even
if new economic developments occur.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
MP&L is an organized REA utilitYF long aware of the economic benefits of
hydroelectric power. The Purple Lake hydroelectric plant currently gen-
erates 82 percent of MB&L's annual energy and the utility has a pending
FERC license application to reactivate Chester Lake1 it also looks for-
ward to the development of Triangle Lake. The community would be inter-
ested in Federal or state support of its hydroelectric development
efforts. (Contacts: Mayor/City Manager r Solomon Atkinson and Russ
Hayward of MP& L) •
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Annette power requirements and peak demand were determined by prorata
assignment of r~L totals on a population percentage base~ MF&L data
were supplied by Russ Hayward of MP&L and reflect energy usage and peak
demand during the previous 12 months.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
No major new industrial load is expected at Annette in the foreseeable
future. However, the population is expected to continue to grow as a
suburb of Metlakatla at a rate of about 1.6 percent per year. With
average-use-per-customer increasing by an average of 2 percent per year
over the forecast period, Metlakatla Power and Light~s load at Annette
is forecast to increase by an average of 3.6 percent per year. Peak
loads are projected to reach about 1 megawatt in 2000 and about 2.6 MW
in 2030. Annual energy requirements are forecast to increase to 5.3
million kilowatt hours in 2000 and 13.5 million kilowatt hours in 2030.
23
Cape Pole
JUt Y 1979
25
CAPE POLE
Logging
Location~ Latitude~ 55"58' ~L I.ongit.ude~ 133@41~ W
Southwest coast of Kosciusko Island
Population:
Field 1979: Year~round
Projected, 2000: Year-round
Projected, 2030g Year-round
Present~
Future~ (diminishing)
Field ~ 1979~
Projected, 2000g
Projected, 2030:
HISTORY
~.~-~
--""--'
----~
Season;;;.l
Seasonal
Seasonal
owned ~~ Mud
one lOO-kW
small generators~
125 M:vi
{) kW
~~'"':.:'O-kW
demand
demand
demand
Timber
the
and lo9gin9 road
for the last decade.
have been cond:ucted In
The logging activities hillve
diminished from previous levels and the year-round and seasonal p;:>pula~
tion has decre'3.sed.
ECONOl:UCS
Cape Pole is in the Forest SerJ'ice e s K~tchikan The
priwary and historic economic base is
fishing is possible in
services desirable to comrr~rcial
storage, and cannery, are not
established at alternative locations
deveJ.,VIVWCH
due co island
St.ate land
trary § and are not suff:u::iEmt
of Cape Pole.
26
Q cold
wi thin the sa.'Ura
and geology limit such
elections appear to have been .:u:bi~
to influence the economic gro~~h
RESIDf<:NTIAL GROWTH PO'l'ENTIAL
Most current residents are 20 to 35 years of age, employed by the U.s.
Forest Service or the·logging camp. The logging operation is antici-
pated to diminish to low levels within the next 8 to 10 years. During
this period p residential population will likely stabilize at present
levels without an apparent alternative economic baseo Since the logging
camp is projected to close in about 10 years, the residential population is expected to migrate to other areas, reducing the population to near
zero soon after 1990.
The State of Alaska has selected land on the south side of Kosciusko in
What appears to be an arbitrary evaluation of future community need.
This stimulus for potential residential growth was not considered cer-
tain enough to influence the population forecast for Cape Pole.
COMMUNITY ATTI'ruDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The attitude at Cape Pole to hydroelectric power ranges from indifferent
to positive. Since the bulk of available electric power is through Mud
Bay Logging Company diesel generators, the cost of this power is not
apparent to residents. Don Brown, the president of Mud Bay Logging, has
a favoraple attitude toward any alternative to expensive dieselgenerator
operations.
DETE~1INATION OF PRESENT POWE~REQUrREMENTS
Peak demand is about 125 kW and due to the seasonal limitations of the
logging activities a load factor of 10 percent was used to estimate
annual energy at 109,500 kWh per year. This is equivalent to about
11,000 gallons of fuel annually. Recorded data were not available and
would be difficult to extract from company expense records.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
The power requirements for the logging operations and residential uses
at Cape Pole are projected to remain at their current levels for the
duration of Mud Bay Loggingls local timber harvest. Beginning in 1991,
the community power requirements are projected to be reduced to zero as
the logging company and its workers move out.
27
:~
Chatham
JULY 1979
29
CHATHAM
£ommunity Ty~~ Fish processing. abandoned cannery burned 1978
Field Survey, 1979~
Projected p 2000:
Projectad f 2030:
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Present: None--cannery burned Februa~y 19780
-.~-~
.-.;:;.;;,-~
Future: Fish Q New Fish l:cm1=lan
semi-autorrdted cannery in 1982.
may rebuild
4.820-kWh annually.
Field f 1979~
Projected~ 2000:*
f 2030:
One on~site watchman/caretaker
and lighting~ 5~kW peak demand,
projected for NEFCO future
HIS'rORY
Chatham was a small can.nery owned by New England Fish Company. The CelJ.'1-
nary burned in 1978.
on.e caretaker, Frank Wright, is in
Ne~{ Fish Company is to be to reopen the can-
nery in 1982. Plans for send-automating the operations will
30 to 50 workers be F€riod from June
September. There are no nearby. v fish
process and nea.rby contribute to the
econolny of the area but 1f,)ould have little specific impact on
seasonal economics at Chathamo Ii in the future Chatham
contribute to the Tenakee economic base.
30
;.;.;.;.
RESID~;NTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
Lirn.it~fl residential land available. State land selections for future
sale at Tenakee Springs will likely be more attractive for year-round
residents. Some recreational cabin sites exist along Chatham inlet and
more Inay be developed. The likelihood of any community development is
SIl'.al1, other than a "company town i ! at the proposed NEFCO plant site.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
It is assumed that New England Fish Company would be in favor of any
alternative to costly diesel generation. Due to the lack of current
activity and the uncertain redevelopment at Chatham, NEFCO was not con-
tacted for this study.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
The caretaker uses a small diesel generator at 5-kW peak, and estima.ted
II-percent load factor for 4,820 kWh annually. There is subsistence
refrigeration and lighting only.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Caretaker reports NEFCO had two 250-kW diesel generators prior to the
1978 fire, and the proposed cannery would require essentially the sameo
Using a 625 .. kW installed capacity, a peak. demand of 500 kW and an esti-
mated 40-percent annual load factor, the projected energy requirements
are 1,750,000 kWh per year. This electrical output is projected to pro-
vide enough power for the cannery operations plus the needs of the small
company town that would be developed for the cannery workers. With no
state land sales planned for the surrounding a'rea, no other commercial
or residential development is expected. Therefore, the 500-kW peak de-
mand and 1.75 million kilowatt-hour annual requirements are projected to
remain unchanged throughout the study period.
31
JULY 1979
33
EDNA BAY
Community Type: u.s. Forest Service "thinners" camps related to
Cape Pole logging
Location~ Latitude~ 55°57 1 N, Longitudeg 133@40~ W.
Southeast of Y~sciusko Island
Population (Year-Round):
Field Survey. 1979~ 6
Projected y 2000~ 10
Projected s 2030: 10
Economic Base ~
Present: Logging. commercial and USl"S employment
Fub~re~ Diminishing logging activities
Existing Electric Power Equipment: None
Community Electric Power Requirements:
Field Survey, 1979~
Projected 6 2000~
Projected, 2030:
HISTORY
o
20,000
36.000
k~m/yr
klrth/yr
k~tJh/yr
Edna Bay II/as originally a "picket" camp for Cape Pole logging operationso
ECONOMICS
'1'he economy is based on Cape Pole logging operations g the USI"Se and .Mud
Bay Logging 0 COlmr,ercial fishing grounds offer another economic pot.sntial~
but it is limited. (See Econanics section for Cape Pole.)
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FDTENTIAL
There are six residents present under a special USPS youth camping
pe rmi t. 'I'hey work as thinners for the USF S. Limited economic pot.en tic.l
in the a.rea minimizes residential growth potential ® This study fore'~
casts only 20 residents for the year. ,woo f despite st.a.te land selections
for sale. (See Cape Pole.)
COHMUNITY AT'l'ITUDE Tm'll'ARD HYDROELECTRIC PO'i'<l"ER
Residents are positive and .;;mthu.siastic. despite the dearth of hydro~
electric sites n.ea.rby" Edna Bay residents are also interested in other
al ternatl.Vf~ energy systems such 8.8 v,ina or solar generation.
34
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
According to ~esident Debra Williams, there is currently no generation.
PROJECTEO POWER REQUIREMENTS
Based on the minimum population projection of 10 in the year 2000, and
consumption similar to present "bush" diesel generator consumption, the
. minimum annual energy requirement would be about· 20,000 kWh. Although
Alaska state land sales are planned for about 300 to 500 acres in the
Edna·Bay area, we do not forecast development during the study period.
This is because no evidence was seen of development plans or any unique
economic opportunities for the location. The area is not expected to
draw retirement or recreational development on its own. Therefore 6 the
load forecasts reflected a residential population of only 10 during the
study period. Increases in average usage per consumer are forecast
causing an increase in electricity consumption from 12 kW and 10,000
kilowatt-hours in 1990 to 40 kW and 36$000 kWh in 2030.
35
JULY 1979
37
ELFIN COVE
Residential, fishing and fish services.
Latitudez 58"'12~ No
Northwest coast of
Longitude~ 136e21~ w.
~ 1979: Year-round
f 2000~ Year-round -~--
Projected g 2030: Year-round ----
Island at Cross Sound.
Seasonal -~~Seasonal
Seasonal ~~~~
Present: Fishing and fishing services.
Future: Same plus retirement and recreation homes.
Exi Scattered 5 to 10 JeW residential
diesels, store/restaurant/hotel and
at lO-k'vi diesel for fuel
Field Survey, 1979: -~'"--kWh!yr 50 kW demand
----.~ . .;;;;..;:..:~..;;..;.., kWh/yr
_""""""-_ kWh/yr
k~~ peak demand
-.....,;;,.,,.;;.......-kW peak demand
i 2000:
Projected, 2030:
Established just prior to 1930 as a support harbor, Elfin Cove
is at snug and haven for of the Fairweather
Grounds and Icy Straits. Several of the residents are
and I' historically, has been at a rrodest rate. It has a stabl~::
self~reliant residents who the life of Ii
coastal fishing comw~nity.
services are the
in Elfin Cove, is seasonal beccl.Use the
close for the winter.
tional and commercial
The economy "'11.1 continue to
in the future. There
industrial in the area.
H.ESID8N'1'IAL GRO'v~"'T!i P()'l'E.:NTIAL
economic activities
services
depend on recrea'"
are no for new
'I'he current of Elfin Cove is of 25 re3i·,
dents and 60 seasonal residents. No new commercial or industrial
3..3 t.o spur economic grolPrth, but recreational and
38
fishing activity is forecast to cause the population to increase at
arout 1 percent annually over the next 50 years.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
While the community recognizes the economic merits of hydroelectric
power versus diesel generation, the emphasis in Elfin Cove has been on
avoiding the need to formally organize the community. The importance of
electricity, low co~t or otherwise f is not a high community priority.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
The present power requirements \'\Tere determined through observations and
personal contacts While in Elfin Cove during the field survey 0
PROJECTED POWER ~UIREM.ENT.§·
Increased fishing and recreational activity at Elfin Cove is projected
to increase the population gradually by about 1 percent per year over
the next 50 years. With average-usage'~per-consumer increasing at about
2 percent per year, the overall power requirements at Elfin Cove are
projected to increase by about 3 percent per year from 50 kW and 130,000
kilowatt-hours per year in 1980 to 210kW and 540,000 kilowatt-hours per
year in 2030.
39
Excursion Inlet
JULY 1919
:£
41
Cormnunity Type:
EXCURSION INLET
fish processing plant and
Excursion Inlet Packin.g Company
Location~ Latit~de 58°25~ N. Lcngitude~ 135@26' W.
On Excursion InIet 40 miles northwest of Juneau
Papulation ~ ..
Field surveYr 1979: Year=round --::---Projected p 2000~ Year-round ___ 5 __
2
Projected; 2030: Year-round 5 -,;;;,....,~
Economic Ease:
Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal
Present: Fish
Future ~ Same;: of fish
~~--
Diesel generators:
one 200 kW for 2,225 kW
burning equipmenti one
two 600 one
NP, and Ip625 kW
and one 350-hp
"cooker'; steam rJOilers.
Field Survey, 1979:
Projected$ 2000:
Projected f 2030:
HIS'f'ORY
~coo ktm/yr
kWh/yr
kv..'h/yr
The cannery and fish operatior.: at Excursion Inlet has been
growing throughout the last two decadesu It is now the in
the area and is a sel.f-contained community in the sumlller
ECONOM.ICS
Xli' appears to be very ecol'lor.;ically successfu.l despit.e
floating fish processors, The 200~mile limit extension
control should affect XIi?
A neVi diesel was noted d~ring the field surv,;;}'",
expansion construction work is in p;::ogr6iss" as "Jell as a
fish processing
GROvITt! POTEN'I'IAL
Minh~um growth of
casts for seasonal company
residents is anticipated 'rIle
~rorkers dre modest and reflect
duction increases due to increase!:! automation in the future.
42
Other ne'l;q
le",-el of
fore-
p.ro~
COMMUNITY A',{'TITUDE TOW~RD HYDROELECTRIC P\")WER
XIP would have a positive attitude tOlMard displacing expensive diesel
fuel with hydro. Present usage is valued at about $100,000/year elec-
trical and $30,OOO/year in boiler fueL
DE'l'ERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER RES<UI~EM.ENTS
. XIP superint.endent, R. Syre, was not available during the on-site visits
In a telephone contact 1 Mr. syre listed unit sizes of new and "old"
diesels ruld indicated summer peak season electric fuel consumption of
10,000 gallons per week. This corresponds t.O an average summer load of
about 770 k\y for the months of June through Sep.tember. S~mrner electric
energy would be 2 r 215,OOO kWh, diminishing to winter caretaker require-
ments of only 12,000 kWh total.
XIP uses an additional 3.000 gallons per 'Week of boiler fuel.for cooking
operations in summer. Mi:. Syre estima.ted a 1979 peak demand of 1,500
kW.
PROJEC'l.'EO POWER REQUIREMENTS
XIP is projected to continue its successful operations and gradual in-
crease in production for the foreseeable future. Although 300 to 500
acres of state land are planned to be sold over the next decade and the
area is fairly scenic, we expect only minimal growth in the number of
pennanent residents. This is because the presence of the XIP fish pro-
cessin9 plant will make the area relatively unattractive for retirement
and recreational development. Therefore, Excursion Inlet loads are pro-
jected to increase only in relation to the size of and labor require-
ments for the XIP plant. An average annual increase of 1.5 percent will
change the peak demand from 1.5 MW and 2.2 million kilowatt-hours in
1980 to 2 megawatts and 3 million kilowatt-hours in 2000 and to 3.1
megawatts and 4.7 million kilowatt-hours in 2030.
43
JULY 1979
45
FUN'l'ER BAY
Residential. Retirement and recreational cabin c:om~
with some fishing activity.
West. coast of M.ansfield Peninsula? north of
Island
Year~round Field Survey, 1979~
Projected, 2000~
ected e 2030:
Year-round -'":""::--Seasonal
Seasonal
Seasonal Year~round
Present:
Future~
retirement and recreational homeso
Fishing& retirement and recreational homes~
Pield Survey, 1979:
Projected, 2000:
~ 2030:
HIS'!'ORY
kv.b/yr
kv.'h/yr
Scattered srr.all (5 to 10 kW) rElsi-
-~--
kt'J peak demand
kW demand
kW demand
:3'unter Bay 1.8 a, harbor frequented by Chatham and
:isher:nen, It:. once had al') active cannery, it is a
:cesidential retirernent: corrnm,mity wit:h air and boat recreational traffic
from Juneau and other smaller communities.
Commercial and recreational
",t Funtsr
development.
There is no
RESIDl<~NTIAL GRO\'J'l'H PO'!'ENTIAL
runt,er currently has 14
t:hough there are no state land
and recreational is
increase at about 1 f~rcent per year.
16
limited seasonal
planned commercial 01:' industrial
and 23 seasonal residents. Al~
for the area! retirement
cause the to
Cor'lMUNITY A'I'TlTUDI!; TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC !>OWER
There is a very positive attitude. The rapidly escalating cost of
diesel fuel is an economic hardship to the fixed income retired families
that populate the area. One concern is that the population is physical-
ly disbursed around the bay and the aesthetics of any distribution
system would be a community concern.
DETERtUNATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMEN'!2
Residents Blanch and Jim Doyle at Punter Bay provided this information
during the field survey_
Typical residential generators are 10 kW or smaller. Annual diesel gen-
erator fueling indicates that energy consumption is about 4,000 kWh per
household.
PROJEC'l'EO POHERBEQUIREMENTS
As described above. Funter Bay economic development will consist of rec-
reational and retirement investments for the foreseeable future. No
major commercial or industrial activity is planned. Therefore, based on
increases in population of 1 percent per year and average usage of
2 percent per year, the overall power requirements at Funter Bay are
projected to increase by 3 percent per year from 30 kW and 40,000 kilo-
watt-hours in 1980 to 135 kW and 175,000 kWh in 2030.
47
i:@ Gustavus
JULY 1979
49
GUSTAVUS
Residential" Located adjacent to the
state and bounded by Glacier
l1onument. Growing oom~~nity with eoonomic base
related to nearby Bartlett National Park Se.'rV=
ice : and fishing.
Field Survey, 1979~ Year~round
-~~-
Seasonal
Seasonal t 2000~ Year-round
'"'""::~--Seasonal .....;.----projected, 2030:
Present: Fishing, support services to Glacier Bay Monument.
seasonal of residents away from Gustavus$
Future: Same and construction of recreational and retirement
homes and commercial establishments.
Exi Gustavus~Alaska.
At Bartlett Cove-(NPS}
and one 40~kW
diesel
Field Survey, 1979: 600,000 kW'n/yr 13 kW peak demand
Field i 1979~ SOOfOOO k\\'h/yr
PrQjected~ 2000;
f 2030: kWh/y:r kW peak demand
1y an agricultural homestead in the 1900!s~ Gustavus
has slowly evolved to a community of younger rural residents who have
settled around the Gust.avus , a rJorld War II mili=
project similar to Yakutat, nmol serves Glacier National ~ionument
wi th twice service. The is historically self-reliant
and bu'C the f}ffect of annual tourist traffic of 12 .. 000!!md
coming stat'S la.nd sales in the area is sure to bring economic and demo~
graphic changes.
-'
ECONOMICS
The economics of Gustavus are based on limited fishing and agriculture g
supp)rt services to ship and air tourist traffic, supplemental income to
residents from seasonal employment outside the communityp and support
services to retired and recreational property owners. An amphibious air
service is based at Gustavus airport and a general store is planned for
a 1979-80 opening.
RESIJ)t<~NTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
Pending state land sales f the relative lUXUry of jet air service via
Juneau and the general desirability of the Monument region for recrea-
tional and retirement residence will likely cause rapid growth of the
area. Population growth is projected to average 2.3 percent per year
throughout the study period, reaching an average population of 550 in
2030.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The State of Alaska (DOT) operates the Gustavus Airport and supplies
limited power to private consumers along a 3-mile distribution system
near the airport at a July 1979 rate of 31¢/kWh. Some commercial and
private consumers near Gustavus have a positive attitude toward cheaper
hydroelectric power, but others are opposed to "any organizing" effort.
The Falls C~eek hydroelectric site is located within Glacier Bay National
Monument and a discussion with Chief Ranger J. Chapman indicated the NPS
would consider merits of a project compatible with policies of the NPS.
m~'rERMINATION OF PRES EN'!' POWER REr,JUIREMENTS
The DOT airport has peak consumer loads from 40 kW in the summer to
85 kW in the winter. This is in addition to airport requirements such
as lights and navigation aid.s. Gustavus has an approximate annual load
factor of 50 percent and Bartlett has a 60 percent annual load factor.
PROJEC'l'EO POWER REQUIREMENTS
Gustavus is desirable as a recreational and retirement residence because
of its scenic beauty. The state of Alaska is expected to make over
1,000 acres available through its state land sales program. While no
major industrial or commercial developnent is expected, it is very
likely that tourism and residential development will continue to grow.
The population is projected to have an annual average growth rate of
2.3-percent for the foreseeable future. Assuming that the average-use-
per~consumer will increase an average of 2 percent per year, peak de-
mands should grow from 285 kW in 1980 to 660 kW in 2000 and 2,300 kW in
2030 for the combined communities of Gustavus and Bartlett. Correspond~
ingly, annual energy requirements are expected to grow from 1.4 million
kilowatt-hours in 1980 to 302 million hours in 2000 and 11.5 million
kilowatt-hours in 2030.
51
Haines
JULY 1979
53
I::~ield
HAINES
Residential" Economic base is lu~r~ fishingg and
tourism. Close economic and support service ties to
Haines highway terminus.
Latitude: 59~14! N. Longitude~ 135@26 8 w.
Chilkoot Northern L)~n Canal
, 1979:
Present: t lumber, tourism services@ shipping
Future: Same with oil-and gas-related development
Haines Light and Power Company (HEL&P).
200~kW one 300~kW FM; one 600-kW
Field I 1979:
PI'ojected, 2000:
Projected, 2030:
HISTORY
Origin<llly a coastal access and
Indians, Haines was established as a
1800' s. It was a j off point
as was The U.S.
\>Ihieh was deactivated in 1946.
and one 2070-kW FM~
2,050 kW peak demand
10,300 kW peak demand
103,000 kW peak demand
outpost for interior Alaska
Presbyterian Mission in the late
for the turn of the century gold
established Fort Seward in 1904
Haines and Port Chilkoot (Fort t-J. H. Seward) merged in 1970.
Since the establishment of the Alaska r· ... arine Highway, Haines has ser,red
Highway f ¥~hich links up with the
Baines is in a severe economic depression fiith
Until j the Schnal:Jle Mill. ',Jas a significan.t
of the economic base of Haines. E;nvJ_ronrnental conflicts over Chilkoot
eagle at:"eas and related federal legislation have caused at least
suspension of the 1 Political solutions are
at the state lev~lf vJhich may restore operations soon.,
54
Tourism contributes to the economy through the state ferry and cruiee-
ship operations and the support services to Haines Highway traffic~ L~
airlines actively serves Haines, Skagway, and Juneau, with passenger and
light freight traffico C~~rcial fishing makes an economic contribu-
tion, and mining, Which was of historic importance, may contribute to
future econo~ics. The proposed Northwest Gas Pipeline to Prudhoe Bay
via the Alcan Highway will undoubtedly impact Haines as a materials and
equipment transshipment depot in the 1980's.
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
The economic depression in Haines is assumed to be temporary. A modest~
permanent residential increase commensurate with Haines' history is
probable. The possible effect of a "roan" of temporal:Y residents and
support services on gas pipeline construction proposed along the Alcan
HighwaYf 159 miles northeast of Haines,. is difficult to assess. In any
event, community electric generating f~cilities would be constructed on
a capital investment base related to stable population. Interim demands
would likely be met with expensive diesel generation, a move that would
be inconsistent with planned community qrClWth*
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROPOt~R
The Haines community now pa.ys an average conswner rate of 1 l¢/kWh , Which
includes a fuel surcharge of 2¢/kWh (July 1979). A rate increase appli-
cation is now before the Alaska PUC.
In 1979 the price of fuel oil rapidly escalated from. 49¢ per gallon in
January to 62¢ per gallon in July, or a rate of escalation of approxi-
mately 53 percent per year for 1919. AEL&P of Juneau purchased Haines
Light and Power in September of 1978. AEI&P is a long established
Juneau electric utility with a management well aware of the economics of
hydroelectric versus diesel generation, and would view favorably eco-
nomic hydroelectric project pursuits. PresentlY8 a wood-waste steam
turbine experiment is being developed at the Schnable mill to augment
area electric generationo
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER ~UlREMENTS
The current power requirements for Haines were dete:rm.:lned from
records of the local utility.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
The current economic slow-down in Haines is assumed to be temporary 6 emd
a return to the canmunity's historical growth pattern is more
than continued economic stagnation. For the purposes of this study: the
Baines load forecast made by its utility sqpplier, Haines Light and
Power Company was adopted. This lo-year load forecast also asswued
continued growth of the Haines economy with overall electric load growth
averaging 8 percent per year. This growth rate was used for the entire
s rudy period.
55
HYDROELECTRIC
The Alaska Power Authority is currently conducting a
study of "alternative generation for Haines/Skag'lrlaylll with considerw:lle
emphasis on hyd.roelectric in the area and the merits of a
possible electric intertie of the two communities.
Hamilton Bay
JULY 1979
57
HA-MILTON BAY
Communi ty Type: residential.
Latitude: 56 Q 59 i N. ~ 1.33~57 ~ ~1.
On northwest coast of Kupreanof Island f
communit.y of Kaka.
& 1979~
p 2000z
H 2030:
Econ.omic Base ~
Year-roundg
Year-round:
Year-round~
Present~ I limited
Future: Logging e limited fishing, and recreation.
backup power.
Field SurveYf 1979:
~ 2000:
e 2030:
Hamilton is
'l'HREA CoopE:rative
cooperatives supplies H~~ilton
Harnllton Bay has one on-site diesel u.r;it for
-~,,;;..,... kW peak demand
kW demand
kW paak demand
comrm.:m:i.ty established in recent yea:i::s at.
to Kake Indian The Sodel'.:"=
8 to 10 years ~ logging in the ars.~.
in Hax"ilton lit 1?:;C0~
There is also soms vides ~~ployment
recreational act in the area.
The of HatYlil ?:.on iF;
level of 125 until when 1~he
inates. After 1990 e the
imately 50 residents.
58
at the current
contract t.erm·~
to d~crease to approx=
~:;;-.'.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The attitude is very positive toward developing hydroelectric power
sources. Soderberg logging is dissatisfied with quality and cost (27¢/
kWh) of THREA power from Kake. Soderberg expects a rate increase soon.
In addition to electric power, fuel consumption for heating at Hamilton
Bay camp is approximately 60,000 gallons/year at July 1979 prices of
70¢/gallon.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIRF.MENTS
Present power requirements were estimated on the basis of discussions
with Hazel Soderberg and Patrick Ena of Soderberg Logging at Hamilton
Bay during the field survey. Individual camp metering has not been
totaled at Hamilton Bay. Load factors have been estimated.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
While the Soderberg Logging Company continues its operations over the
next 10 years, electric loads at Hamilton are expected to remain at
about their current level of 200 kW and 300,000 kilowatt-hours per year$
With the closure of the logging camp in about 1990, population is ex-
pected to drop to about 50, and the annual energy requirements are
projected to be reduced to 80 kW and 120,000 kilowatt-hours. There-
after, the population is expected to remain essentially level at about
50 residents with their economic livelihood coming from fi.shing and
recreational services. With average use per household expected to
increase by about 2 percent per year, the electric load for these 50
residents is expected to increase from 80 kW and 120 6 000 ki.lowatt-hours
in 1991 to 180 kW and 270,000 kWh in 2030.
59
Hawk Inlet
JULY 1979
61
Community 'rYE:::
HAWK INLET
Abandoned cannery (Dillingham Native COl::poI'ation) f which
burned 1976.
Latitude~ 59°08' N
Northwest coast of
Longitude: 134@4S e W
Islande
Field SurveY6 1979g
Projected p 2000~
p 2030:
Present: None.
Future~
Year-round:
Yeax~round:
Year=round~
One 6 kW diesel
Field Survey, 1979~
Projected g 2000:
, 2030:
Hawk Inlet is an abandoned cannery which burned in 1976. There are cUr-
rently tvlO caretakers on the site. It is owned by the N,,,tive
Corporation. There are no to reopen.
Nora.nda rtining is Hawk Inlet as an base.
Noranda has no definite for publio disolosure at this time.
POTEN'I':u...L
The cuxrent population of 2
ment is
o. t that leVel
dramatical
No
is
at this time, the
2030. Howe',.rer, a
change the economic 1.1e
to increase to 20 1990 ,'is:
the future of mining develop~
is to renl.ail1
strike at Hawk Inlet ~;:;ould
of the area~
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Power requirements were dete11mined from estimates given
caretaker of Hawk Inlet.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Art Berthold,
As mentioned above f economic development at Hawk Inlet is directly
dependent on the success of Noranda Mining 8 s mineral exploration in the
area. Future energy requirements are also obviously on the
success of these exploration activities. Some limited success assumed
which will require about 20 miners at Hawk Inlet. This would increase
the current load by about tenfold and then increase by about 2 percent
thereafter to levels of 50 kW and 120,000 k~fu in year 2000 and 90 kW and
220,000 kWh in 2030.
63
Hyder
JULY 1919
65
HYDER
Residential community 0 Provides support servicel; to
and in nea my p communi ty of St,~wart 5
British Columbia.
Location: Latitude: 55°55' N " 130°C2 F W
Head of Portland Canal at the Alaska/British Colwnbia
border.
Field I 1979z
Projected, 2000:
, 2030~
Year=Round~
Year-Rou.nd:
Year-Rol.IDd~
Present~ services to B.C.f small logging, Sl:llall agri=
cultural employment y and recreation.
Future~ Same, resurgence in mining
stewart, BeC.
1ata available. B.C.
hydropower to
.In €lId e 1979 ~
~rojected~ 2000:
i?ro ! 2030:
:i IS TORY
~arly of and
gold, and silver mining. A fire
has been rebuilt as a
and logging activities g and the
75.
gCONOMICS
None. Diesel electric power is pur~
plant in Stewart, B~C. No equipwlnt
to be T-line for
B • Co; evolved around copper ~ zine:; e
destroyed most of in lS490 The
residential area with light
is :stahle at ap.prox~
is tied to ·that of BoC.
Stewart~$ has diminished in recent years but is
':0 have new from the renewed interest in Gran Due Mining
o.Perations. In addition, Stewart is the terminus of the recently COI'Ii=
pleted Cassiar Highway which t.he Alcan Highway at Watson Lake in
the YuY~n As a Stewart is to grow as a k~rt
66
for commerce between the Canadian interior and its coastal trading
. partners.
In addition to its economic ties to Stewart, Hyderls economic base also
includes retirement and recreational activities, as well as a small
logging operation, Glenn Willis Logging.
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
Hyder's present population of 75 is projected to increase to 200 in
2030. The projected increase is based on the assumption that StewartGs
economy will continue to expand as it becomes more of a trade center,
and retirement and recreational development continues in Hyder. If
state land sales were to he made available at or near Hyder, there would
probably be a faster growth in population. However, no state land sales
are planned at this time.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The attitude is positive. The Davis River hydroelectric project was
planned and seriously investigated in the early 1900's. However, the
alternative energy cost of being supplied by Stewart w as is the present
case would present a diminishing return for hydro investment on the U08.
side of the border. B.C. Hydro is rumored to be considering a transmis-
sion line to the community to provide interior Canada hydropower to dis-
place Stewart diesel generation. Hyder has no rights to this energy,
but the two cow~unities have historically had excellent cooperation, and
Hyder would likely have any power available, at a reasonable cost, that
Stewart can provide.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Estimated from information obtained at Hyder during field survey. Data
for the B.C. Hydro diesel generation at stewart are not available.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Although logging, mining, and tourism are projected to remain strong, no
new major commercial or industrial load was found to be planned for
Hyder. Loads will therefore continue to grow about in line with popula-
tion growth plus 2 percent per year for increase in average usage per
consumer. Hyder's loads are expected to grow from about 150 kW in 1980
to 385 kW in 2000 and 990 kW in 2030.
67
Kupreanof
JULY 1919
69
£9mmunity Type~
KUPREANOF
baSEr
ccmmunity of
Latitude ~ 56 G 49 iN: 133<lOl ~ W
East Island at northern end of Wrangell Nal'rowB.
Field Surveyg 1979: Year~Round: 50
0 2000~ Year-Round~
? 2030: Year-Round~
Economic Base~
Presentg Employment in Petersburg g and
Future: Employment in Petersburg g and
A few small to 10 kW}
Fteld Survey. 1979:
i 2000:
e 2030:
a residential suburb of PetersvJrg, was made an
incorporated second-class in 1975 through the efforts of its re!si-
dents. It has a for avoiding itan values and
organizatione
The economy is based or.
Petersburg or outside area
PO'I'ENrl'Ip,L
in
The aesthetic to the
population and t.he basis of th~!
3. increase. State lan.d s",les are e:ll:~"
to help facilitate this growth" About 200 acres are planned to
be sold by t.he state of JUas}'-l~. '1"'1'16 current of 50 is e~(~'
to inorease to 270 by 2030.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The community's attitude has not been determined. Options would be to
intertie by submarine cable with Petersburg, which currently has a mix
of diesel and hydro generation and is pursuing a major hydro project
(Tyee Lake).
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENT~
Power requirements were estimated by comparing Kupreanof to similar
communities. The field survey party was unable to visit this community
during the study.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Kupreanofis aesthetic qualities, as well as its proximity to employ~~nt
opportunities in neighboring Petersburg, are expected to cause Kupreanof's
population to expand at a tela.tively rapid rate. This expansion will be
contained somewhat the restrictive land use planned for this area by
the u.s. Forest Service. With no major commercial or industrial plans
for the area, future loads will be primarily for residential and small
cammercial uses. These are expected to grow at an average of 545 per-
cent per year over the study period based on a 3.4 percent population
increase and an increase in average use per household of about 2 percent
per year. Peak demands are projected to increase from 30 kW in 1980 to
90 kW in 2000 and 450 kW in 2030. Similarly, annual energy requirements
are expected to increase from 40~OOO kilowatt-hours in 1980 to 115,000
kilowatt-hours in 2000 and 570,000 kilowatt-hours in 2030.
71
JULY 1979
73
A native community comprised of over 80% Tsimshian,
? and Haida Indians. It has been a f'ar
Nativ~ peoplas to reside ever since its founding.
Metlakatla is located on Annette
16 nautical miles south of Ket.chikan.
rield SurveYe 1979:
Projected, 2000:
e 2030:
Year-round
. Year-round
Year~rou!1d
Present: fishing i and fish
E'uture: Fish and timber
Annette.
approximately 15
diesel}.
Metlakatla Power and Light serve~1 the
REA electric utility. In 1978, !.IWL
!llillion kWh (82 hydroelectr:i.ct 18
~ 2030~
15,000,000
52,000.000
224,000,000 ktih/yr
4,000,000 kW
14,000,000 leW
60,000,000 kW peak
dema.."1d
demand
demand
r.1etlakatla was established in 1887 !i'ather William Ounc&'l. He led a
reI migration of Tsimshian Indians from British Canad.a
to Annette Island as the result of a with the A.nglir.:an Church.
The new residents constructed a organized with a sa1:f1'<lill
and a cannery for salmon to e.mplo;;rment. The cannery
and sawmill continue to
In 1891, the Island became a land gzant resex:vation with the citizem; of
Metlakatla holding the title.
E(x}NOMICS
The existing economic base Metlakatla is indUl;~
tries tha.t are growo development h"Hi'
beg"un on the island is to cont:inue 0
should have an effect in the future,
74
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
The projected population increase fram 1,300 in 1980 to 3,550 in 2030 is
based on the fact that the community's economy is expected to increase
in the future. The fish hatchery that is being developed and,the pro-
posed cedar mill will have a ive effect on increasing the popula~
tion of the town.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWAIID. HYDROELECTRIC POWER
MP&L is an organ REA utility, long aware of the economic benefits of
hydroelectric power. The Purple Lake hydroelectric plant currently
generates 82 percent of MP&L's annual energy and the utility has a
pending FERC license application to reactivate Chester Lake, it also
looks forward to the development of Triangle Lake. The community would
be interested Federal or state support of its hydroelectric develop-
ment efforts. (Contacts: Mayor/City Manager, Solomon Atkinson and Russ
Hayward of MP&L).
DETERMINATION OF PRESEN~ POWER REQUIREMENTS
Metlakatla Power and Light data e supplied by Russ Hayward, provided
information on energy usage 8.nd peak demand.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
The load forecast for Metlakatla is made on the basis of the 10 year
population projection included in Metlakatla Power and Light's Powe~
Requirements studX submitted to the U.S. Rural Electrification Admin-
istration in April 1977. The projected 10 year growth rate was extra-
polated from the remaining years in the 1980-2030 forecast period.
75
Meyers Chuck
JULY 1979
77
MEYERS CHUCK
A retirement
Latitude~ 55"44 1 N ~ 132"'15&W
Southwest coast of the Cleveland PeninsuliS.
Field Q 1979: Year-round
2000~ Year~rou.nd
2030: Year~round
Presenb F'ishing a fish buying I
Fut~re~ Same p plus logging
services.
Field
HISTORY
e 1979:
2000:
G 2030:
Scattered small (6 to 12 kW) res:L~
A site of fishing supp::lrt and fish activities since 1911
Chuck has had population fluctuations from near zero to 150
the height of SUK~er activity. The present popu
tlon of about 60 residents appears to be growing at a modest rate
The economic base of fish buying " and st'.pport for i;:;hc
retired residents ,,<ill continue. There is some poterttial for
recreational home construction. The USFS activities in the area ",,,,,oH;.t;:. 0]:
Creek lTIay have an econ.omic
GRO\iTH POTENTIAL
The is forecast to increase frOlil the present level
125 in 2030. This projection was based on the assumption that fish
trade Q,nd ::ecreation&l home l:']i11 continue to caUBe t.he
1960-79 grm~th trend to Gont:irmli:; for. t.he fores\,,;eable tutu.lee.
78
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROPOWER
The community has attitudes varying from indifferent to positive regard-
ing hydroelectric generation development. There is some history of
investigating nearby sites which have been judged marginal the com-
munity. As in several of the self-reliant and independent communities,
the price of lower cost electric power, when weighed against possible
disturbances in living patterns, is viewed with questionable merit.
Meyers Chuck and Elfin Cove are very comparable in community attitude
toward hydroelectric development and potential. .
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER R~UIREMENTS
Present power requirements were estimated on the basis of contact with
R. Meyer, Sr. and and R. Meyer~ Jr., and others at Meyers Chuck during
the field survey.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
With population projected to average a 1.S-percent annual growth
coupled with an average 2·~percent annual increase in electric use per
consumer, electric power requirements at Meyers Chuck are projected to
grow by an average of 3.5 percent per year throughout the forecast
period. Under these conditions, the load will grow from 30 kW in
1980 to 170 kW in 2030. Annual power requirements will increase from
60,000 kilowatt-hours per year to 335,000 kilowatt-hours per year.
79
Point Baker
JULY 1919
81
POINT BAKER/PORT PROTECTION
::::ommunity Type: Residential. Fisheries and economic :baSE~
Nearby similar sized cOt.tumJ.nity of Port Protect.ion
has close economic tieo
Location: Latitude~ 56@21 e N longitude: 133@37 9 W
Extreme northwest coast of Prince of Wales Island.
Population:'"
Field Survey, 1979~ Year=round
Projected, 2000: Year-round
Projected, 2030: Year-round
Present: and logging.
Future: 8 logging v and recreation.
Existing Electric Power Equipmen_t:,: Scattered small residential aT . .,i
generators.
Field Survey, 1979~
Projected, 2000:
Projected, 2030:
* Includes Port Protection.
HISTORY
1"" summer base since the 1930' s and a winter residence for (!;. few
hardy fishermen.v Point Baker has grown steadily to a
of around 75. The nearby community of Port Protection
on Point Baker for support services. In recent years r Point Baker
residents have earned a reputation for opposing activities,
which some believe are not with flsheries or the rural l:Lfe
patterns of the
ECONOMICS
Point Baker and Port Protection almost on 'the
and related industries for th~ir livelihood. Lo::Jging aotiv:i.ties
for the most p h"W8 been directed to other areas. '!'here ts
tial for increased recreation in the area.
82
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
The present total population of 75 is forecast to increase to 175 by
2030. This projection is based on the assumption that the fishing
industry and the natural aesthetic quality of the communities will
continue to attract people at an annual rate of 1.5 to 2.0 percent.
About 100 acres in planned state land sales in the area should support
such a growth rate.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
Smaller projects that would displace expensive diesel fuel 'WOuld likely
be viewed favorably. Disturbance of community patterns of living and/or
a requirement to organize the community for hydroelectric power develop-
ment would likely be opposed. Point Baker residents have a reputation
for independence and objection to arbitrary outside interference.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMEN~~
Estimates were based on contacts at Point Baker during the field survey.
Community load factors are not precisely determined.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
The power requirements forecast for the Point Baker/Port Protec~ion area
assume that local residents are successful in diverting a logging com-
pany from establishing a camp at or near these communities. Future
loads at Point Baker and Port Protection will therefore continue to be
primarily residential. These loads· are projected to grow at an average
of 3.7 percent per year based on a 1.7~percent population increase and a
2.0-percent annual increase in the average usage per household. Under
these conditions, the overall load will grow from 60 kW in 1980 to
370 kW in 2030.
83
Port Alexander
JULY 1979
85
PORT ALEXANDER
Residential p and fish processing.
Latitude~ 56~15~N
Southeast Baranof Island 6 near Cape
Field Surveyv 1979: Year-round
:?rojected g 2000: Year-round
?rojected f 2030: Year-round
Present~
F'uture:
g cold
f cold
75
150 ----420
Pelican Cold diesel
# and one 30-kW ~~it for winter use~ No
}~wer is sold to Port Alexander residents from Pelican Cold Storage.
HISTORY
, 2030~
55,000 kt'Jh/yr
160 p OOO kWh/yr
820~OOO
fishing center of historical much
Port "Alex" was an established seasonal comnlul'1ity
A decline in the , for reasons not
agreed upon~ has left the a haven for a
younger with the typically self-reliant and
makeup of southeast rural residents.
l'ish buying v~'hitney of Petersburg and fish buying and cold
storage Pelican Cold Sl.liJPort services to such as
consumer air charter services e fuel, etc.
Port Alexander has the for residential
£lecent hist-:)rical growth trends have than avera,gsQ and
fish cold and a fish are considered for
t:he areao 'l'hese factors, combined with potential state land sale,s; are
t:he basis for a growth from the current number of
75 to 420 in 2030.
86 .-:-,: . .: .. ; .....
COM~ruNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
Residents are interested but not enthusiastic. Interest is primarily in
the possibility of eliminating "noise~ from the Pelican Cold Storage
diesel operations.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Pelican Cold representative Charles Donning at Port Alexander
provided present power estimates.
PROJECTED PO~~R REQUIREMENTS
Port Alexander's electrical requirements are projected to in-
crease at an average of about 5.6 percent per year. This forecast is
based on expanded and fish processing as well as the
potential for a fish hatchery at or near Port Alexander. The 5.6-per-
cent growth rate was derived from the projected population increase of
3.5 percent per year and an increase in average use per customer of
2.0 percent per year.
87
:::::-:--
Rowan Bay
JUlY 1979
89
ROWAN BAY
center for Kuiu Island.
istrative center a Stikine area&
level, or longer.
Ell:panding USFS admin=
Futur€!
Latitude~ 56°40 EN
Northwest coast of Kuiu Island
?opulation~
Field survey, 1979:
:;:>rojected, 2000:
?rojected§ 2030
Year-round 40
--~-Year-round
Year-round -~~-
:?resent: Logging and USE1S support.
Seasonal 200
Seasonal 250
Seasonal -=~2~5~0~
::ruture~ Logging? USFS adminis'crative center.
installation.
:neld SurveYa 1979~
G 2000:
I 2030,
::<owcm Bay ha.s been established as a
,::!xecuted 'itJithin the last decade, No
to this.
::::CONOblICS
one 2!50=kW
8 one 275~kw Cummiui!! on ordsr~
225 kW
415 kW
~7"""'5"""'5-kW
defllilnd
derm,and
dent~.nd
bilse through US~'S C!)ntri:tcts
settlement: e:l!:isted
:Viua Bay LO~:lging is a major Southeast Alaska 'I'he
Nud Bay Logging contract is a 50·~year contract for Kuiu Island.
<;>.ctivity on this contract vlill likely extend to 20 years or more. PJ:r~ran
will likely be the hub of activity for: logging and th~,
USPS currently that Rowan '(r-i'ill become a key administ,rative cenb,,,;t
for increasing USFS pexsonfle.l? contact;, John Buittvile,
Q Stikine area a Petersburg.}
AT'lTrctDE
The community!s attItude is very
:~ound diesel opera.tion with
90
a yea.r=-
lSni
loading of 175 kW and is currently expending about $400 per week on
diesel electric fuel (74¢/gallon at Rowan, July 1979). The Stikine
supervisor of the USFS suggested the site for investigation by the field
party based on Rowan Bay power need, contract longevityp and planned
expansion of USFS operations from the base of Rowan Bay~
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER R?QUIREMENTS
Don Brown, President of Mud Bay Logging at Rowan Bay, provided present
power requirements during the field survey.
The above-described $400/week summer fueling would reflect about 300,000
kWh/year. The annual peak is estimated to be 225 kW. If the annual
energy and demand estimates are correct, the annual load factor is only
about 14 percent.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Mud Bay Logging Company is projected to maintain its current level of
logging and timber activity at Rowan Bay throughout its 50-year USFS
contract period. In addition, some growth in loads is expected to stem
from USFS development of an operation center at Rowan Bay over the next
10 years. No state land sales are planned, and the area is relatively
unattractive for retirement and recreational development. Based on these
factors, the annual energy requirements at Rowan Bay are forecast to be
over 1 million kWh by 2030.
f:7lA-
-~-~"-~~-~""'~."
@u-k. Aho
91
Skagway
JULY ,979
93
SKP.GWAY
Residential. Economic base in fishing; and
road and railroad acce1SS to northern British Columbia
and Territoryf Canada r which lacks
seaports. Potential gas and oil rela:ted developments.
Latitude~ 59 c 27 i N g 135~19'W
North Northern L}~n Canal
Field Surveys 1979: Year~round
;WOO~
Present~ Transportation? tourism.
Future: Transportation" tourism.
diesel) •
, 2030~
HISTORY
f the oldest
lUa ska Pawe r Iii
Annual eneryj'
kv.'h (25 percent
18400 :!tW
48500 kW
25 6 000 kW
in Alaska~ is
Comp8.ny.
for 12 monthr;;
demand
demand
demand
the turn of the century
t~lite Pass-Yukon railroad.
the building and of t,he
20~COO the gold
under 900 1.n recent years.
ECONOMICS
'3 population once reached as high as
but has been relatively stable at just
and tourism form ~ s economic oase< 'I'he railrocld
hauls lead-zinc concentrate~ silver-lead~zinc concentrate 6 asbestos, and
Gopl:1er ore from the Yukon to a tide'irJa ter ore handling
~A,'hich is designed to aCCOmlt1cj\:'iate 35.000~ton ore
came from the W:'1ite Pass Railroad, which also oarries
sumrne:r traffic of tourists and autos to Cavcross and ~"-hitehorse$ Yuke'n
The Highway has been ~td opened
in 1979. the railroad and may stimulate touriSD:l.
The construction of the proposed Northwest Gas Pipeline along the Alcan
Highway will impact SkagwayOs economy. Another consideration is a
proposal for a possible tanker-pipeline oil route to interior Canada via
Skagway, an idea which has not yet been completely defined.
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH POTENTIAL
A modest growth in permanent residents is anticipated on the basis of
the present economic structure. Consideration of the impact of Alcan
gas line construction in the 1980 l s would parallel the comments for
Haines. (See Haines page 56.) The population projection shown above is
based on that provided in the Tongass Land Management_Plan Environmental
Impact Statement, Part 1.
COMMUNITY ATTI'rllDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
The community utility, AP&TCo, presently generates 75 percent of the
annual energy for Skagway by hydroelectric generation. It is safe to
assume the utility and corr~unity would prefer 100 percent hydroelectric
power, as a fuel surcharge of 1.05¢/kWh is charged for that portion now
diesel-generated. This is due to the same rapid 1979 escalation of fuel
prices cited for Haines, and is approximately equivalent to a 53 percent
,Per year rate of rise. AP& Teo has had an application before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission for a number of years to develop a second
unit at Duey Lake (Minor Application No. 1051). PERC is delaying action
for unknown reasons.
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Power requirements were determined by contacting the mayor of Skagway
during the field survey. and reviewing generation records supplied to
consumers as the July 1979 fuel surch.arge validation.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
As described above, w(~ have adopted the load forecast made for Skagway
by its utility supplier, Alaska Power and Telephone. This lO-year load
forecast assumes continued growth of the Skagway economy; with overall
electric load growth averaging 6 percent per year. This growth rate was
extrapolated for the entire study period.
95
Tenakee Springs
JULY 1979
97
1892-81
TENAKEE SPRINGS
fish processing, and retiX"ement
tourism.
Location: Latitude: 57 Q 42 1 N
'I'enakee Inlet east of
Field Survey~ 1979g Year~round
Projected c 2000~ Year~round
2030~ Year-round
Economic Base:
Seasonal 200 -'---Seasonal 240
Seasonal 320
Present ~ Fish , tourism ) G logging ~ retireruent
residents, support services.
Future~ Sarne; recreational cabins.
100-kW Caterpillar diesel genera:tor ~
company sel small power over 3~phal:ie 10'<1.1-
F'ield Survey f 1979:
Projected t 2000:
Projected f 2030:
distribution~
4201'000
780,000
1,,900,000 kWh/:rr
'renakee historic hot
Indians and established in the
area known
delml'1d
demand
de::oo.nd
and
the years.
cannery have gone over
In recent times p Tenakee has been known as a retirement
camrr~nity with a smal
in funds from
few years.
ECONmucs
amd tourism base.
!J b.av€:
Fishing and tourism have becoIr,e the ii1dustries in '!'enMee ings
since the T'otem Seafood cannery closed in 1974. Corr.murdty
services exist to serve the retired residents and the tourists. Tenakee
ha.s become a 'port for t.he Alaska Ma.rine ferry
(foot passengers 5 which \'Jil.1 increase tourist tl.'ade in the futuyso
M hl Log Company and 8i1 ver Bay do in the Tenakee Spring
area.
98
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
The population of Tenakee Springs was projected to increase at a modest
growth rate of 1 percent per year from the present levels. Although
tourism and the retirement population are expected to increase, the lack
of either a new industrial develop:ment or state land sales will tend to
limit future growth.
COM~ruNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD HYDROELECTRIC POWER
Very interested in replacing diesel with a lower-cost alternative gen=
eration source such as hydroelectricity~
DETERMINATION OF PRESENT POWER REQUIREMENTS
Dermott O'Toole, long-time resident (since 1919) of Tenakee and store
and powerplant owner, provided existing power requirements at Tenakee
during the f.ield survey.
A community load factor of 60 percent was estimated for the 80 kW peak
demand. The annual energy estimate is therefore 420,000 kWh.
PROJECTED POWER REQUIREMENTS
Electric requirements at Tenakee Springs are projected to increase by
about 3 percent per year. With no new major industrial use 8 this load
is projected to continue to be eXClusively for residential and small
canmercial uses. This growth rate is based on a I-percent annual popu~'
lation increase coupled with a projected increase of 2 percent in
average use per consumer.
99
~II Chapter 3
1111 HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITE ASSESSMENT
This chapter discusses each of the 20 isolated community's hydroelectric
sites. Also given is a general discussion of the methods used for this
reconnaissance-level screening of hydroelectric sites.
FIELD METHODS
The primary reason for the project team to visit the 20 communities was
to gather data on the community power needs. The project schedule did
not provide time to visit each potential hydroelectric site. In some
cases, the sites were close enough to the community to allow a brief
on-site inspection, but usually the only site inspections possible were
aerial observations from a light
Data collected in the field included site location, access roads, flow,
head, history of the site; and environmental concerns. Most of these
data were obtained from discussions with local individuals. In some
cases, preliminary studies on likely sites had already been completed.
These data were used directly.
HYDROLOGY
The marit~e climate of Southeast Alaska is characterized by cool summers
and mild winters. Precipitation is heavy and frequent throughout the
ye,ar I and temperature variations I both seasonally and daily g are slighte
The orographic features of Southeast Alaska cause the mean annual pre-
cipitation amounts to vary considerably. With some exceptionss the pre-
cipitation amounts are generally less in the northern part of the region
than in the south. The mean annual precipitation and snowfall for
several communities in the study area are shown in table 99
Table 9. ME&~ ANNUAL PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
Skagway
Gustavus
Juneau
Sitka
Petersburg
Annette Island
Mean Annual Precip-Mean Annual Snowfall
itation (inches) (inches)
26
54
91
86
106
118
39
71
94
35
103
43
streamflows and annual runoff are influenced by factors such as
basin elevation, melt from glaciers, natural storage of lakes along a
stream, forest cover, and basin orientation. On a regional basis, mean
101
annual runoff is about 10 cfs per square mile on the southern ,POrticln of
Baranof and Kuiu Xs.lctnds and less than 1 cfa per square mile near the
[Jni ted States-Canada bordeL 'I'he outer coastlines and.
mountains It10re than 10 cfs per square mile.
Surface water records were available for certain streams, t.he
hydroelectric power sites under were un':Jaged
other means to compute streamflows. A water resources
2.'tlas encompassing both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests waiS
OTT Water in April 1979 for the u.s. Forest S.ervice.
This atlas included 21 regression equations which were used to calculate
the following streamflow parametersg mean annual flowj mean monthly
flow, f recurrence low flow, both summer and winter, f~ve
fNints on the flow duration curve; and peak lOO-year recur~
renee interval. These were determined for all potential
pewer sites and formed the basis for estimating the
and energy at each site,
CONCERNS
The of developing a hydroelectric power is
in many instances on the environmental impacts it might cause, mitigative
measures that could be incorporated into the , and the
of the as a whole. A method of screening was
to evaluate certain reaches of streams. This approach allowed a sub~
ive evaluation of constraints to the development of small
electric power generating plants. Primary consideration was given to
land use .restrictions, wildlife considerations, and anadromous fish
concerns.
The evaluations of the sites '\.Vere made using available mapsg
aerial reconnaissance, and a limited number of site visits. Fish and
IAl'ildlife dis'c.ribution rnaps in 1978 by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, land use des value unit matrix
presented in the J!I;arch 1979 c were also
used. Conclusions were using information and
discussions with Federal and state officials"
Prior to
to
Land use
visiting the cow~unities under studYi
the teClJ."U so that a uniform evaluation
restrictions included the followingg
Wild and Scenic River des
vUlderness areas
National or state or monument
National re,::reational area
Wildlife
Historic site
guidelines were
would be aeh iE~ved.
'!i'hldlife also played an part in the selection of
sites. Although the effects on wildlife will be minimal, bald
102
inhabit all the potential sites to some extent, and special attention
was given to areas used intensively by bald eagles. Clearing and grub-
bing operations will be given special attention to avoid destruction of
existing nesting grounds and excessive disturbance to others. An attempt
was also made to identify areas of threatened or endangered species.
Among these are certain peregrine falcons known to migrate through
Southeast Alaska. Although the bald eagle is not in the threatened or
endangered category, it is Forest Service policy to protect all eagle
nesting areas.
Because of the economic importance of an ad romo us fish species, fresh-
water streams and saltwater estuaries are fully protected to promote
natural propagation. Fish distribution maps prepared by the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game in 1978 were utilized to identify major and
minor anadromous streams, and to verify types of species found during
the site visits. Principal factors limiting migratory fish production,
such as impassable cascades, falls r log jams r existing dams, and steep
gradients, were identified and used in the initial site selection pro-
cess where possible.
At new dam locations where anadromous fish are present, a fish ladder
and fish screens will be included as a mitigative measure. We envision
the ladder as being a modified aluminum steeppass, like those utilized
throughout Southeast Alaska. To ensure sufficient flow in the stream
below the diversion of water through a tunnel and/or penstock, we have
allowed a flow equal to twice that of the 7-day, 2-year low flow to pass
all darns at all times. Project schedule constraints did not allow for a
preliminary evaluation by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The
department will only comment on site-specific proposals. General fisher
ies resource information on most of the streams and lakes investigated
in this study was provided by the Department of Fish and Game.
Access road construction could damage spawning areas and lower fish-
producing capabilities by causing siltation and allowing the discharge
of toxic substances. To minimize these potential impacts, an effort was
made during the reconnaissance to locate existing forest development
roads and discuss construction of new, or extension of old, roads.
The potential environmental concerns are discussed for each hydroelec-
tric site and presented in the hydroelectric site summary for each
coolluunity.
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
with the data collected in the field and the hydrologic data calculated
in the office, the development concept for each site was completed.
Based on judgment and a knowledge of the communities' power needs, only
sites within a 3~ to 7~mile radius were considered.
103
Several earlier studh,:s identified sites which were in common with those
identified in this In addition 8 numerous sites throughout South~
east Alaska have been inventoried. For the sites oon-'
s ide red r 'Were liIrJ. ted to the energy needs of the local
cOftUl'ltlnity or the maximum of a run=of=the~river at the
site, Whichever is less.
No attempt was made to identify all potential sites that
have been studied by others .. however, every site studied in this
considered by others was identified.
where schemes \.<!Iere only run-of-the-
river hydroelectric plants were considered. This was done to minimize
the si~e of stre&m barriers s thereby reducing the adverse environmental
1'.11 conceptual
iu ture ene rgy
meet these
were sized to rreet the communities' estiK~ted
Where flow and head were insufficient to
I the installed unit was sized to
the site as a run~of-the-river development. In every case i one
turbine was oonsidered. turbines would improve annual enex'gy
Overall generation for the turbine g generator,
and transmission was assumed to be 85 peroent.
In generation occurs from f4ay through Ootober.
L01fl flows and ice problems limit generation for the remair.l.der
of the year 0 For this study, we have assumed that for small run-of~,the~
river sites there will be no winter power generation. The
average annual energy was calculated for each site using the net head
a.no flow of each site, A 50 load factor was
assumed. Fish flows, where G were assumed to be twice the
~ low flow calculated for sumner conditions. Specific
Il'.inirnum fish flmvs were unavailable from the state fisheries agency,.
:l:he 'WOuld be operated to provide that minimum flow
at all times.
cost estirr~tes were made us several available Reconna.is sance-level
sources. ~he major
released by the U,S.
draft form, is "Manual
reference was a publication soon to 1~
Corps of This rererence g now :Ln
for the Determination of the of
Power to an Existing Facility. ~ This mamlal
of Energy through the Corps S Insti-
tute for Water Resources. The ll.1a.nual has cost curves for various oom-
of hydroelectric developnents G July 1978 costs. ThesE~
costs were to October 1979 by using a 14 inflation
factor. The cost curves in the manual were further escal<itad
a L6 factor to reflect Southeast Alaska construction costs over
:<hose in the Pacific Northwest.
Careful oonsideration was to "factoring" labor cost to Alaska
conditions. Equipment cost~ for instance, should not be escalated a
104
1.6 factor. However, installation cost should be than 1.6
because of the remoteness of all sites. The 1.6 factor is for metro-
politan areas of Southeast Alaska. The net result, considering labor
mobilization, equipment shipping cost, and other factors, is an increase
in cost of 60 percent.
A lump sum mobilization cost was included for each site. This covered
getting equipment, supplies, and construction materials to the site from
one of Southeast Alaska?s major port cities. Access road construction
was estimated for each site. Where site access or construction problems
were expected to be more difficult than normally, a site difficulty
factor was added to the total construction cost.
Electrical distribution costs are based on recent experience in South~
east Alaska. The total cost includes all materials and construction
costs, including clearing costs. Operation and maintenance costs were
estimated for each site. These costs were difficult to estimate because
of lack of data for extremely small hydroelectric plants. The estimates
include labor and material costs as well as interim replacement cost.
Since most of these facilities are very small l no estimate was made for
administrative cost.
All cost estimating curves and tables are presented in appendix B.
These methods of cost estimating are consistent with common practice for
reconnaissance studies.
COMMUNITY HYDROELECTRIC SITES
A total of 32 hydroelectric sites to potentially serve 16 of the 20
communities were investigated. The development concept for each site is
presented in a table for each communi.ty (tables 10 through 25). Follow~
each community table is a map (figures 2 through 17) which is an
enlargement of the USGS l-inch-to-l-mile maps for each community.
Diversion dams, flumes, penstocks, powerhouses. access roads; and trans-
mission lines for each development concept are shown. Where access
roads have common alignment with flumes, penstocks, and transmission
lines, they are not shown. The study area map (figure 1) shows all of
the communities.
The communities of Annette and Metlakatla are intertied and served
one power generating source. Metlakatla Power and Light is an organized
REA; which is actively pursuing hydroelectric generation potential. -
Feasibility studies for additional hydro.electric power have recently
been completed by the REA, and application permits to the FERC are now
pending. There is considerable potential near these communities. Since
feasibility studies are underway or completed, a reconnaissance-level
investigation of the hydroelectric sites near these communities was not
done.
Edna Bay has only six permanent residents and is expected to have very
little growth. In addition, there are no generators currently at the
105
siteo As a resulte no sites were investigated, If~
however t the increases a t Edna i there are t\<,,'O
sites within 2 or 3 miles hhich be developed,
:rha small of Hamilton is 2 miles south of Kake. QmcH:::k
Creek and Cathedral Falls were identified by Retherford in the 1977
reconnaissance (see 5). Su)ce that report§ Harza.
Company t under contract with the Alaska Power Authorit~l i has
a reconnaissance of the Cathedral Falls site" ThE! power
needs of Hamil ton Bay wil be served by that project if developed.
Because of the current reconnaissa."1ce s rudy for the area: no hydroE~lectric
sl.te O.ssessment. was conducted for Hamilton Bay.
Table 10 0 HYDROELECTRIC POwlER SITES FOR CAPE POLE
~tar':'le
~;~t,e f';'umber
La. t itude
lnngi
!'-iean hnnu,al F:'ow (cis;
2-Y",,,.':'-, 'I-Day Low Flow (cis)
Net Effective Head (ftl
Full Flo,,' (ds)
Rated Capacity (k\\')
PNcr3qe 7ml1:.:ai Energy (MviH)
s (ftl
'f";,UmB
LSDC;':." (ft.;
.tjl a;7tEte.r
Len::;!:h (i t)
Dialll€i:er (ft)
Transmiss ion Lin~~
Len'jth (:ni)
"'lol::age
f~rtvi:corunentaL (oncerns
Cost
Capital
A.nnual ,: $ A
Unit is x
Survey Creek
55£1 57!
l.L3°43 l
31
1.9
40
50
19
Cor.crete Diversion
5' x 50'
:l,O
200
15
Creek supports pink and coho salmon
up to nat;;.::al fallso Intensive use
area for bald eagles. Watershed is
logged.
1.6
Ie
11.1
106
r-"\ . DAM FIGURE :2
o 4000 Cape Pole Hydro sii,~ -
r i
Scale in Feet 107
Table 11. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES FOR CHATlli"l.1"-
Site Na~e Sitkoh Creek
Si te Number 1
Latitude 57°31'
tude 135"02"
Drainage ,Area (sq mil
!V'J~an Annual Flow
2~Year, Low Flow (efs)
Net Effective Head (
Full Gate Flow (cfs)
Rated (kW)
Dam
Type
Annual
Size (ft)
Flume
(ft)
Diameter (
Penstock
(ft)
Diarneter (ft)
Transmission Line
Length
Environmental Concerns
Cost 6 t.al ($ x 19 )
Annual ($ x ~O )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
11.6
71
6.2
150
67
725
888
Concrete Diversion
5' x 100'
Be 000
4.0
500
3.0
0.6
15
Creek
chum, pink! and coho
salmon cutthroat
trout and steelhead,
4.5
23
6.2
108
Chatham C;ri::ek
2
57 c :n e
134 Q 57 i
2.4
12
006
200
22.5
325
236
Concrete Diversion
51 x 35 i
2;300
1.75
0.4
10
1>.nadromous; • Fish
use unkno'!>m.
1.6
11
4.9
~ DAM
•••••••• FLUME FIGURE 3
PENSTOCK 109 •...•...••. TRANSMISSION LINE o 4000 Chatham Hydro Sites • POWERHOUSE I I ----ACCESS ROAD ----Scale in Feet
.'\~.&' -
ELFIN COVE
111
Table 12. hYDRO POv~ER SITES FOR ELFIN COVE
Site Name
Site Number
Latitude
Longi.tude
Area sq mi)
~~an Annual Flow (cis)
Low Flow (cfs)
Ne Effective Head (ft)
Full Gate Flow (
Rated
Average Annual Energy
Dam
Size (it}
Flume
(ft)
Diameter (ft)
Penstock
Length
Diameter (ft)
'I'ransmission Line
{mi)
Voltage (kV)
Environmental Concerns
Cost
}'l.rmual
Unit {$
5s o 07 i
136"20 1
4.8
40
1 8
270
16
310
538
Concrete
51
6,4
15
x 80'
Creek
Diversion
2.0
Creek supports
salmon.
2.0
11
6.4
112
, chum g and cor..o
_.
TRANSMISSION LINE
POWERHOUSE
ACCESS ROAD
o
i
FIGURE 4
4000 Elfin Cove Hydro Sg~
:: J
Scale in Feet 113
Table 13. HYDROEL~;C':1:'RIC ro~'lER SITES FOR EXCURSION INLET
sit,;:; Nar"e
Site NUc"(,ner
Latitude
tude
Drainage Area (sq mi)
~~an Annual Flow (cis)
2~Year, 7~Day Low Flow (efs)
Net Effective
Full Gate Flow
Rated Capacity
Average Annual
Darn
Type
Size (ft)
Flume
Length (ft)
Diamet.er (ft)
Penstock
Length {it)
Diamet€.r (ft)
Transmission Line
Length (mi
Voltage
Environmental Concerns
Cost
Capital ($ x 126 )
Annual ($ x 30 )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
(MWH)
S. Excursion Inlet
Creek
1
58"'25~
135@24'
14.3
118
4.3
200
140
2;020
Rockfill
5 ~ x 40 f
5,300
5.0
1,650
4.5
15
Major anadromous fish-
ery stream1 creek
supports sockeye and
coho salron.
6.0
65
2.9
114
N. Excursion Inlet
Creek
:2
58"'26'
135@24 1
13.6
110
140
1,110
1,490
Concrete Diversion
5' x 70~
6,000
5.0
700
4.5
1.5
15
Major anadromous
fishery stream,
creek supports
coho? and
chum salr~n <
504
36
4.9
• ••••••• FLUME
PENSTOCK
••••••••••• TRANSMISSION LINE 0 4000
• POWERHOUSE
ACCESS ROAD I I Scale in Feet
115
FIGURE 5
Excursion Inlet
Hydro Sites
Table 14. HYDROELECTRIC PONER SITES FOR PUNTER BAY
Site Name
Site Number
Latitude
tude
Mean Annual Flow (cfs)
Low Flow (cis)
Net Effective Head (ft)
Full Gate Flo'l<l (cfs)
Rated (kW)
Average Annual Energy (MWH)
Dam
Size
Flume
Length (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Penstock
Diameter (ft)
Tra.c"lsmi ss ion Line
(rui)
Voltage.
Environmental Concerns
Cost
Annual ($
Unit ($ x
6
x 1~ )
x 30 )
10 /kW)
s. Funter Bay Creek
58"13'
134"52 1
3.4
20
0.8
300
7
150
261
Concrete Diversion
51 x 50~
4.5
15
Creek
and chum salmon, inten-
sive wildlife use area
(eagles and brown
1,6
11
10.9
116
I
I
3QS ) I
North Ledg~ *"
DAM
PENSTOCK
Naked LIght
Island A Hub 2
''.,;.0
o
••••••••••• TRANSM!SSION liNE 0 4000
• ~i ~~~~i
Scale in Feet -----........., ------
FIGURE 6
Funter Bay Hydro Sit~
117
Table 15. HYDROELECTRIC POlrJER SITES FOR GUSTAVUS
Site Narae Falls Creek
Site Number
Latitude
Area (sq
Mean Annual Flow (cfs)
2-Y'ear. Low Flow (cfs)
Net Effective Head (
Full Gate Flow )
Rated (kW)
Annual Energy (MVlli)
Dam
Type
ize (ft)
Flume
Diameter (ft)
Penstock
Length (ft)
Dia:meter (ft)
Transmission Line
Length {mi)
(kV)
Environmental Concerns
Cost
Capital
Annual
Unit (
58"25 '
135"'36 '
11.8
68
3.0
115
100
820
1;380
Concrete Diversion
5 ~ x 40 t
600
3.5
8.0
15
Creek pink salmon up
to natural falls. ±1/2 mile, SitE:
is also located in Glacier Bay
National Monument.
2.8
26
3.4
118
G L
33
A L
,------------''';.
I
i1
! 4 ••• 1
BAY
27 26
34 35
M 0 N U E N T
f~;<2i:i;·:.2:::.:J:§j/Y~\i~~~;[0·~i:f~ +---0\
3 2
-:.. ()~
:r.~ · · · i\ . . . I .....
~~!'k'}. 2...£'.". ...i~------------:-------------_______ \ ____ :--
~J ! !
/<1 9 10 I 11 12 1
. I I I I +1,
-0 o
. + i . ----t------------:------------J-------------:-; .... ,~ .. -j!lI_"'""'..;I~~~"""m'i~~~
.J I I ••.•. I I
I I 1 1
16 1 15 14 I I I '. 1 I
,1,1 i i ;;. I
IJ I ----.-------------1-------------1-------
<\ I I 23 *1 1 I " I 1 22
.. ; ,
I
I
I
I Plling
,...... DAM
•••••••• FLUME
PENSTOCK
TRANSMISSION LINE • POWERHOUSE
ACCESS ROAD
119
13
.--------I C 'i
,..-,,/
'--.... , ) '.J ._._/
26 \ I.
f I
/ ) )
./ !
.. .1 I \
I ~O (-J 'c
? ''..-;. .. <JL '~'-
@
0 4000
FIGURE 7
Gustavus Hydro Site
I I
Scale in Feet
I
(
/
/ ,
" ,
\
,/
!
'-.
; lJ
HAINES
121
Table. 16. HYDROELEC'fRIC POw'ER SITES FOR HAINES
Site. Name
Site Number
Latitude
Area (sq mi)
Mean Annual Flow (
2-Year, 7-Day Low Flow
Net Effective Head (ft)
Full Gate. Flow
Rated Capacity (kW)
fu1nual Energy (MWH)
Dam
Type
Size (ft)
Flume
Length eft)
DiamateL" (ft)
Penstock
Length (ft)
Diameter (
Transmission Line
(mi)
(kV}
Environmental Concerns
Cost 6
($ x l~ )
Annual ($ x ~O )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
* Fru'!t 197 Report .•
Lake
1
59<>25!
135"'40 c
4.6
35
1.7
2,055
34.5
5~050
44,200
Concrete Diversion
40 1 x 20QC
4,800
2.5
16
35
Anadromous fish use
unknown.
9.1
78
.8
122
Dayibas Creek
2
590:117 w
135°22~
11.4
500
250
9~OOO
8,660
Concrete Diversion
5~ x 4S i
1,300
6.0
300 2.4
25
Anadromo1.ls fish use
unknown.
609
135
0.8
"
I ,
I ,
I ,
I ~ ~O'fto.9
,
I ,
.... UlUl.U'lIL ~
~ DAM
•••••••• FLUME
PENSTOCK ........... TRANSMISSION LINE 0 • POWERHOUSE 123 I ----ACCESS ROAD ----
'¢.. Indian
~*Rodc
~ -<
Yj...
'C
~ 0
.,;\ .,;\
@
4000
:
Scale in Feet
FIGURE 8
Haines Hydro Sites
-
POWERHOUSE --_ .......... ----ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet 125
o ~ 'C"+ 14
,0 o .n
FIGURE 8 (CONT,)
Haines Hydro Sites
Table 17. HYDROELECTRIC POw'ER SrrES FOR HAWK INLET
Site NaIne
Sit e NUlX'.be r
Latitude
Longitude
Drainage Area mil
Mean Annual Flow (cfs)
2-¥ear, Low Flow (cfs)
Net Effective Head
Full Gate Flow (cfs)
Rated Capacity (kW)
Ave rage Annual
Dam
Type
Size (ft)
E'lume
Length (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Penstock
Length (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Transmission Line
(mi)
Voltage (kV)
Envirorunental Concerns
Cost
($ x 1~6)
Annual ($ x 30 )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
(MWH)
Greens Creek
1
58°04 1
134"43 i
21.2
139
7.3
140
12
120
244
Concrete Diversion
5 Q x 80'
5,000
1.5
900
1.25
3.7
15
Creek supports pink
salmon
4.0
10
33.3
126
and coho
FIGURE 9
PENSTOCK
••••• ~.... TRANSMISSION liNE
1IIiIIII POWERHOUSE
:::~:~~
o E? ;00
Scale in Feet
Hawk In~et Hydro Site
127
Table 18, HYDROELECTRIC PO~'ER SITES FOR HYDER
N<i.:r;{~
;;1 t {! N1J1flb:~r
::..a.tl
JOf:i.y l tude
rJE!iln A:jr.:;;~l '-":ow {cf£)
2-Yo U I i-Day :.c ..... E'lov:
3ff~ctive Head {f~j
F'.111 Gt. to ,'k'" (ets)
Rdte:i Capacity (kW)
at}
:.ength (ft.)
Di~meter (ft)
P~n£t{):;k:
LeHljth (ft)
Diamet<frf eft)
T;::arlsmissioi:l Lb~e
Length ~lt'i)
Vcltage (kV,i
Envi rOru'f,€::1tal Concern,;,:
Cost C<1I/it~l {$ x 1~6)
Mlp....:al ~$ x !O~}
l;n1.t ($ x 10 /kWj
131)'-'JY
S.7
1 ~ 35()
3(;
::.,8&0
Concrete Divergion
S' K SOt
2r 700
2.25
1.9
15
l .... "l,adrarIOUS fish use
unknO'A'i".l.
7.6
92
2.6
~S(l58~
130 0 C3*
4.3
23
1.7
100
3D
215
373
Concrete Diversion
5' x 50 ~
4(}0
2.0
Creek supports coho
MId ",hUll! .. "1"",,, up
to n~t~r61 falls~
128
Site Name
Si te Nl..I.Mber
La. ti tude
Longitude
[;lean Annual Flow {efa}
<-Year, 7·,Day Low Flo," (cts)
Net. Effective Head (!to)
Full Gate Flow (cfs)
Rated Cap&city (kill
Dm
Typ<;
Size (ft)
Flu,""
Lenqth (ft)
Di ..... t;er (ft)
P,,""tOCK
Length (H)
Di&:mter (!t}
Tr£ns~ission Line
Length ('Bi~
Volt6ge ("II)
EnV'ironll!ental Concerns
Coat 6
Capital. ($ " 19 )
A,mll"l (S x :Ie l
Unit ($ " Ie /l<W)
S68 0tP
130'""(;5 !
17 .8
169
11.0
250
l<iO
2*5(1)
Conc~ete Oiver~ion
5c t x 70 f
2,000
5.0
1,000
4.25
5.9
25
LINE 0 4000 ~[~~~~j.
Scale in Feet
129
FIGURE 10
1540000
FEET
• STEWART (8.C.)
Hyder Ii ro Sites
Table 19. HYDROELECTRIC POw~R SITES FOR KUPRE~~OF
Site Name
Sit e Nu."i!.be r
Latitude
Coho Creek
1
56°49 f
133"OP
Drainage Area (sq mil 6.8
t1.ean Annual Flow 60
2~Year, 7~Day Low Flow (cfs) 2.6
Net Effective Head (ft) 85
Full Gate Flow (cfs) 60
Rated (kW) 365
Annual 587
Dam
Type
Size
Concrete Diversion
51 x 50 G
Flume
(ft)
Diameter (
Penstock
(ft)
Diameter (ft)
Transmission Line
Length )
(kV)
Environmental Concerns
Cost
($ x 196)
Annual ($ x 30 )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
,700
3.0
4.0
15
2.7
12
7.4
130
cohOe , and chum
••••••••••• TRANSMISSION LINE o 4000
III POWERHOUSE rs _3
------ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet
131
120
FIGURE 11
\
\
i
\
~
,mpri'liA.~. Point\
\
\
I
\
-----------------,
Kupreanof Hydro Si~~
(West Petersburg)
Table 20. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES FOR MEYERS CHUCK
~,~,';, 1 ;':,nual £<1<:."," (cis;
2-Y,,;tr < i-:";:,y i...:;:w f:c"" ,cf!1!j
~~t ti::~ct.l\t'" ~,-<:l",::l (ft.:
?;;1 1 ~t-Q r:'Cld ;Cff.lJ
CapaClt.y I;,;W)
!..>as"
'ry;:Jt:-
':1::-&
r:",108
) ('I".ytl· ift)
[,. "l:!:«-~t<tlr if::)
!.,,-·n;1th Itt;
I,) ,"!l1lI:~t."'r :ft:)
Tr<!:,3S).S:"ilOn :,:u-.e
"(>(:'-Jt1: (m~)
'0li>'1_g~j ikVl
;:05'::"
::~pit:~l is >.:
l\r.tI';.Oo.l t$-x
tin 1 t {S Yo
rl~_ ~ 4 b'
U2"U,'
7. :;
S2
4JS
ConCl:i!t~ T)}VBtJ'!l.0T!
"it x Jet
4.0 \$ub) G.2
15
Creek pink. and
cbiJ% a%lpcrts
€ag~g h&hiUt.
8.9
S~"4.:' •
U:i:"Ot'
3.2
Concrete Diversion
S· x 45'
}.o
15
Luk« supportl$ pink,
dn.lI.!'i r coho, Md 0Od~
0'o.lmon r plUG CIJt-
trout! supports
eaglE' hiWitn ..
~.t:
1("
21.1
132
Sl.~~ t..e..'!'1!.
S.1.tc N'j1ti~r
1...atit,jG.f1
TD:'l9i ':ude
Mean i\nn...: ... l r'lo\<! (cfSo)
2-'Yecil, 7~Di.iY lDw £1'10\111 (cts)
r.)(.,t Efiectiv¢ He4tc! {ttl
FuU (,;ate Flo'" (cfs)
R?l:ted Cspoacity (k~}
(tt)
P*nst'.C!C:!::
t...mgth (ft.}
nia.t:'l2t<ar-Ch)
T:r:&r.!H'!1.£51.0''1 Lloe
{m!.}
\r.V)
Cost (~ • u/) capitd
~ . .nnual , ~C )
Un.tt )t ;'0 /ktij
W. F. 51adc BE:ar Ct''!t.\(: H,ayen Laktll • ~5(>4~' 5~"44'
2. :>
260
10
190
426
Com;a:>st. Div~uion
S· ~ 35'
2,OO(J
1.5
4.0
15
Cr0~ ~Ppot'tc
chu~ e<too,
efe~ piU$ cutttm:.>&t
trout;, a~portli 0!t9le
h...:hit.Qt.
::.0
10
15.8
2.4
!l
Ll
:.15'
I~u:t.h Oma ,t 100'
5,500
1.5
0.5
""". ChWd~ &iU.mn,
pl~ ~tthxo!i.t t.rout..
.sQP~~ Gilq l~ hebi t~ t:.
l.®
9
~:t.l
~ DAM FIGURE 12 •••••••• FLUME @ o'?-'" PENSTOCK Meyers Chuck ....•...•.. TRANSMISSION LINE 133 0 4000 • POWERHOUSE I ; Hydro Sites ----ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet ----
POINT BAKER
135
Table 21. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES FOR POINT BAKER
Site Name
Site Number
Latitude
Drainage Area (sq mi)
~~an Annual Flow (cis)
2-Year: 7-Day Low Flow (cfs)
Net Effective Head
Full Gate Flow (cfs)
Rated Capacity (kW)
Average Annual Energy (MWH)
Dam
Type
Size (ft)
Flume
Length (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Penstock
Diameter
Transmission Line
Length (mi)
Voltage (kV)
Environmental Concerns
Cost 6
($ x l~ )
Annual ($ x ~O )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
136
Flicker Creek
56c 20 t
133"32 1
6.4
36
2.4
100
26
185
259
Concrete Diversion
51 X soe
3,000
200
1.75
3.9
15
Creek supports coho and pink salmon.
2.5
10
13.5
oUsht
i-Helm Rock
30
Joe MacE!
I
6'0 ;.(
~
"'I
Twin I ~. --.... ..
~
o 4000
C._ ~~.-1
Scale in Feet
coo
FIGURE 13
Point Baker Hydro SitE
137
Table 22. HYDROELECTRIC .POWER SITES FOR PORT ,ALEXANDER
;. ~" f <",!fI-
~L~,·_· r,u1,i.5'·'
"',..,,~71 ,\;I!j>,;:.l ~~lD'"
.i_'ip-" • 7-'.Jay I ..... :;b Fl~)w (~'fs:
!Jilt £: fe::llV€ H~<sd. (itl
1':.111 no .... (cfsi
f.L.lt'lC Car'2l;::ity o:.w;
rl.t~
Lentth ;!'"t;,
nL;'::lPt,~r (ftl
:,,,·r,.,jtn (f~)
Didfll2t.er ~ft;
'[-yans:r,j.!>Sl!"Jn Lin~
J,enqt!', [ltd}
\'t,lt.v;e (kill
Cest
C"'+ltal
1.:
14
:::.4
17..:
lHO
341
ConcH;te ~·;~verslcr.
5· x .:50'
L5
2. S
Hi
Creek $~lPPU:n.S coho
salror .•
1.2
10
b.7
J" r."'" ....
2.1
52f)
l,04fJ
ConCl€:te !)iver~ion
5' >r 2ljt
1,500
L 75
4.5
15
Ana/Lrccnous fish Ilsa
unknoltffi.
1.8
16
:~. 5
138
S;.tf! t-hlli.t.t;r
1-","1 t it;lC:P
lcn';'i tode
.";ca" N;;1i;a: 1'10'" (cis.)
L~YtHr. I-Jay Low F1QW \,:fs;
~~et Effective H'£!d.d (fti
Ft.:ll Gate Plow (cfs)
P.ated C&pacity (kW:
!Jam
Type
Size (ft}
PluPle
Length (ftl
[;ialm!: tQr (It}
i?enstod:.'
LI~n9th ~ft~
:;1i&U;f;tl!:t" [ft)
'I'ransmission Linf)
Length (I'td!
Voltag.e (kV)
Cost
unit
($ x lQ6;
($ K .~oJ)
(~ x 1.0/h:W)
Jetty Lak!!
!'.i6'Hj.'
134"'4.1 '
3.2
~9
:'L1
400
16
'50
Concrete Div(irsion
5' x 40'
~cc
loS
7.0
15
l..na.cl:n::wola fish UI!e;
unblotm ..
2.1
13 '.7
B~tty/Jetty :'akr;:
4
s.t <);18'
l H'40'
l17
Concrt'lte D:iv~r!li.cn
5' It 60:'
aDO
<,2;
7.0
15
~J'H~r1.ttnoU8 fil$h une
c.nknO'ilfi~
2.3
10
1.6~4
. . .
.0'A\e~
* Brt'akfast Rock.
,.-.. DAM @ FIGURE 14 IiHIl II II Q Q SIll FLUME
.~~----.
PENSTOCK Port Alexander SI5SIiIIlilIi"iillillilllill TRANSMISSION LINE 0 4000
rill POWERHOUSE I 5 Hydro Sites
---~ ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet ---~
139
Table 23. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES FOR ROWAN BAY
Site Name
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
Area (sq mi)
f~an Annual Flow {cfs}
2-Year; 7-Day Low Flow (cis)
Net Effective Head (ft)
Full Gate Flow (cfs)
Rated (kW)
Annual Energy (MWH)
Dam
Size (ft)
Flume
Length
Diameter
Penstock
Length (ft)
Diameter (ft)
Transmission Line
Length (mi)
(kV)
Environmental Concerns
Cost
Capital ($ x 1~6)
Annual ($ x jO )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
140
Stink Creek
1
56°42'
134°16'
0.7
5.8
0.2
700
7
350
690
Concrete
5 e x 30 1
1,000
1.0
4.0
15
Diversion
Creek supports coho r
pink .. and chum salmon
up to natural falls.
Watershed being logged.
2.0
11
5.7
Small Lake
:2
56"41!
134O:>20~
200
17
1.1
600
17
700
490
Concrete
5' x 3S e
1.400
1.5
2.0
15
Diversion
Creek supports coho,
pink g and chum salxoon
up to natural falls.
Water shed being
2.0
22
2.9
FIGURE 15
•••• "..... TRANSMISSION LINE 0 4000
III POWERHOUSE ~i ~_~~~.
Rowan Bay Hydro Sites
ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet 141
Table 24. HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES FOR SKAGWAY
S:.. )".,,-, L(v':'"-'i'
si t", :·l.!Rt~l'
loa t;. t..,.;::'<:
:cnr~':;:i. t~de
r i')w le!iS]
tOIt: FlGW ((is;
r"l\;~~
L(>I,·"t~l (£t)
;;:;'·'l,fo1"t"r (ft.)
~e:,.st,:rk
Lefigtt. (f l}
Dl<:Jf~tet· ilt)
(kV;
Cost
Carntal ($ lot
Annual
UnLt (~x /'kw,
.100
14.0
285
",CO
B t 2G0
t€.: 1500
Concrete DiversIon
5' .x 70'
1,500
7.5
&.€
C"rEf:<k slippe..rts ecbo
si11~n.
9.4
! 25
1.1
Geut LakeI':
2
:'9'32)
11'5 11 11 '
4.4
22
2,200
S7
3'!1,00C
Lake supports hroo!~
tr()ut~
12. Z
4S
L3
142
Site N.::.ur.~
Sit~ N~u
tatit:ud~
Longitude
l'i:3an Annual Pl~ {cfs:
2~Yeal:" f 7-Cay Low f'10\1 ~cfjij)
Net effect.ive H(Htd (ftl
?ull Gatoe Flo\i' (eta)
~ted Ca.pacity C!tW)
Da.J'r.;
Type
Size {it}
F!-UJ\:€:
Length (it)
Di.:uti$ter {tt}
Penstock
Ll£ngth (it)
Oia:meter (ft}
transmission Line
L-er~gth (rni)
Voltage (k'if)
Enviroruv.antltl Concerns
Cost
Capital ($ x
Annual ($ )t
unit ($ x
Skagway Riviirr
l
59:~:n f
US;;l':;l
565
SS
100
1,0-00
1~200
13~ 10C
Concrete Olv(lrsiOT;
S~ n 300t
3 i ODC
12.0
5,(;>241'
1)5;~2C;
19.1
129
7. '7
6S0
:l00
14;-1CO
Concrete 1J1VGr~ioo
5' x sot
2.3 6.0
25 IS
Rival:" ooppcrt-ti d-~ a..fld M&::iE'o:rol."B fish U15>a
coho aalwn IIp to ~eX'-UUK.nO'!!.'i1.
iss of iDl.pae&\w!.e C#:ts-
ca&!a 5 &i~ up.tl'IiHUt
frora Skag-;.MiY.
,1.6
250
1.8 0.8
~ DAM FIGURE 16 •••••••• FLUME ~ ~~ ,
PENSTOCK Skagway Hydro Sites ........... TRANSMISSION LINE 0 4000 • POWERHOUSE 143 I I ----ACCESS ROAD Scale in Feet ----
TENAKEE SPRINGS
145
Table 25. HYDROELECTRIC POvmR SITES FOR TENAKEE SPRINGS
Site Name
site Nuw.ber
Latitude
tude
Area (sg mi)
Mean Annual Flow (
2-Year p 7-Day Low Flow (cfs)
Net Effective Head (ft)
Full Ga te Flow (
Rated (kW)
Average Annual
Dam
Type
Size (ft)
Fllh"'i1e
Length
Dial1'leter (ft)
Penstock
(ft)
Diameter
Transmission Line
Length {mil
Volt.age (kV}
Environmental Concerns
Cost
($ x 1~6)
Annual ($ x ~O )
Unit ($ x 10 /kW)
(MWH)
146
Indian River
1
57°47<
135°11 1
21.4
156
8.0
150
65
700
1,930
Concrete Diversion
5' x 120'
6 5 800
5.0
1,000
3.0
1.0
15
River supports coho r
pink, and chum salmon.
Wa.tershed being logged.
4.1
22
5.8
Harley Creek
2
57"47~
135e05~
4.0
29
1.2
130
35
325
800
Concrete Diversion
5~ x 45@
4.0
15
Creek pink
and chum salmon.
2.1
11
6.4
••••••••
• --------
534
DAM
FLUME
PENSTOCK
TRANSMISSION LINE
POWERHOUSE
ACCESS ROAD
T
558
~
(TENAKE
SPRINGS
252 .OOl~ ~
E N A
147
K I N L
o
I
E T
4000
--::s Scale in Feet
FIGURE 17
Tenakee Springs
Hydro Sites
I I
Ii
IJ
11111 4
1111 COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY POWER NEEDS AND HYDROELECTRIC POTENTIAL
HYDROELECTRIC SITE SCREENING
An initial screening of hydroelectric sites was made by comparing the
present worth of each hydroelectric site to the present worth of the
community's total diesel requirements for the next 50 years. The pres-
ent worth of diesel for this comparison is the present worth of all the
diesel generation needed to meet the projected community needs for the
next 50 years. The worth of the hydroelectricity is the present
worth of the particular hydroelectricity site development, which mayor
may not meet the community's need*
Table 26 shows the present worth comparison and the ratio of diesel
present worth to hydroelectric present worth. It can be seen from the
data in this table that 17 of 32 hydroelectric sites are more costly
than all the communities' expected costs for continuing the diesel mode
of generation for the next 50 yearso A sensitivity analysis was per-
formed to determine if any proposed hydroelectric sites were unfairly
eliminated by this initial screening. The analysis involved recalcula-
tion of the ratios presented in table 26 after the present worth of the
hydroelectric projects has been reduced by 25 percent. The 25 percent
reduction in the present worth of the hydroelectric sites was selected
to represent a possible reduction in capital and operation and mainte-
nance costs which might be realized if a less expensive hydroelectric
site development were constructed o Some cost reduction would occur if
timber crib dams or wooden or sheetmetal power houses were used. Other
cost reductions may be realized due to site specific advantages which
were not known because the sites were not visited. Even with the 25
percent reduction, some 17 sites still proved to be more costly than the
present worth of the communities' diesel requirements.
For the 15 hydroelectric sites which passed the initial screening, the
present worth of the diesel alternative was calculated. The' diesel
alternatiVe is defined as the amount of diesel-generated energy which is
equivalent to the energy expected to be produced at a particular hydro-
electric site. This is commonly called the fuel replacement analysis,
but the analysis for this study includes the capital equipment and
operation and maintenance costs for the diesel alternative as well.
Table 27 shows the present worth of the 15 hydroelectric sites and the
present worth of the alternative diesel generation assuming O-percent,
2-percent, and 5-percent fuel escalation above inflation. The ratio of
the present worth of the diesel to the present worth of the hydroelec-
tric site is also presented. As with the initial screening, a sensiti-
vity analysis of the present worth ratios was made by reducing the
present worth of the hydroelectric sites listed in table 27. The reduc-
tion in present worth by 25 percent was applied for the same reasons as
mentioned above.
149
PHf:5ENT-I';GP'':-'H C(;MI!ARI;jON OF
AND CmU-!UNI'rIES' '~'OTAL DIESEL NEEDS
Cape Pole
ChathCll':'l
Elf~n Cove
Excursion Inlet
Funt€ Bay
Gustavus
Haines
Hawk Inlet
r
Yieye rs Chu ck
Point Baker
Port Alexander
Tenakee Spr
Hydro Site
S,;rvey Creek
Sitkoh Creek
Chatham Creek
!-1argret Creek
South Excursion Inlet
Creek
North Excursion Inlet
Creek
South Funter Bay Creek
Falls Creek
Lake Project
Dayibas Creek
Greens Creek
West Fork Creek
Fish Creek
Thumb Creek
Coho Creek
Cannery Creek
Bear Lake
v~est Fork Bear Creek
l'1eyers Lake
F'licker Creek
Conclusion Creek
Leona Lake
Jetty Lake
Betty/Jetty Creek
Stink Creek
Small Lake
West Creek
Goat Lake
Skag'",ay River
Kasidaya Creek
India:! Hiver
Harley Creek
'Present
of
1.7
4.8
1.7
2.2
6.9
5,9
1.8
3,2
10.2
B.8
4.
8.9
2.0
6.1
2.9
1.7
4.1
3.1
1.9
2.6
1.3
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
lL2
12.8
13.S
15.0
4.4
2.3
Worth Present Worth
of Diesel'"
($Million)
0.1
5.4
5.4
1 .. 1
7.1
7.1
0.5
12$7
158.0
158.8
0.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
2.2
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
2.8
2.8
ccmm;,,;nities' total diesel needs with fuel escalated
150
Present ItJorth
0.06
1.13
3.18
0.50
1.03
1,,20
0.28
3.97
15.5
18.0
0*17
.55
2.45
0.80
0.31
0.47
0.19
0.25
0.42
0.54
0.69
0.45
0.39
0.39
1.00
0.96
5.54
4.84
4.59
4.13
0.64
1 22
::::~:;:
::@
-------."'-~.~----,~-. -~-, .. -, .. -----.,-~--.-.. _--, -_ .. ',-
Table 27. PRESE~T WORTH COMPARISON OF 15 HYDROELECTRIC SITES AND
ALTERNATIVE DIESEL GENERATION
Presen t Worth Diesel/Hydro
of Diesel Alternative Present Worth
Present Worth for k'uel Cost ($ million) Ratio for Fuel Cost
of Hydro Escalation of:
Community Name __ ~Si_te __ ($Million) ~ .E-...2.!....
Chatham Si tkoh Creek 4.B 1.4 1.7 2.8 0.29 0.35 0.58
Chatham Creek 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.18 0.24 0.47
Excursion Inlet South Excursion Inlet
Creek 6.9 2.8 3.6 5.9 0.41 0.52 0.86
North Excursion Inlet
Creek 5.9 1.6 2.1 3 •. 4 0.27 0.36 0.58
Gustavus Falls Creek 3.2 2.0 2.6 4.1 0.63 o.ell 1.28
Haines Lake Project 10.2 24.7 35.2 68.1 2.42 3.45 6.6B
Dayibas Creek 8.8 9.7 12.1 20.0 1.10 1.38 2.27
Hyder Fish Creel< 2.0 .4 .5 .8 0.20 0.25 0.40
Rowan Bay Stink Creel< 2.2 1.1 1.3 1.9 0.50 0.59 0.86
Small Lake Project 2.3 1.1 1.4 2.2 0.48 0.61 0.95
Skagway West Creek lL2 12.3 17.1 31.7 1.10 1.53 2.83
Goat Lake ·12.8 12.0 16.6 30.5 0.94 1.30 2.38
Skagway River 13.5 10.0 13.6 24.2 0.74 1.01 1.79
Kasidaya Creek 15.0 13.1 18.5 35.3 0.87 1.23 2.35
Tenakee Springs Harley Creel< 2.3 1.0 1.3 2.1 0.43 0.57 0.91
CONCLUSIONS
The screening of the potential hydroelectric sites for each community
resulted in the following general observations. The cost of hydro-
electric site development is directly linked to the installed capacity
at the site. The benefit of a site is directly linked to the energy
produced. For the run-of-the-river projects considered in this study,
either a lack of wintertime stream flow and/or a lack of electrical
demand combined to give an average 20 percent capacity factor for 29 of
the 32 sites studied. To meet the communities' projected energy needs,
eXcess capacity would need to be installed at several sites. In general,
the result would be a high-cost site Which is underused 80 percent of
the time.
storage-type developments at the same sites would cost more because of
the physical facilities required and the environmental and safety issues
associated with dams. Because of this extra cost and because for many
of the sites more than enough water is available with the run-of-the-
river mode of generation, storage type projects are not expected to
improve the situation for the majority of the sites.
151
Of t~he 32 sites chosen to meet the needs of 16 communi-
ties, only 15 sites associated with 8 of these communities the
initial sc
The final screening indicates that six communities have
sites which appear to be feasible. Chatham and
communi ties shown in table 27 which do not have at least one feasible
sitee The sites for Excursion Inlet, Rowan Bayo and Tenakee Springs are
only feasible when the 25 percent reduction in present worth of hydro=
power is applied, and only when a 5 fuel escalation is considered.
Gustavus, Haines, and have sites which are feasible at 5 percent
fuel escalation or less with no reduction in the present worth of hydropower.
It is recommended that all hydroelectric sites near Excursion
Inlet, Gustavus, Haines, Rowan Bay, SkagwaYe and Tenakee Springs be
studied in more detail. The next level of study should include specific
field inspections of the proposed hydroelectric sites and refinement of
and concepts. Cost estimates should be refined and
economic and financial analyses completed. Two of the six communities,
Haines and Skagway, are currently being investigated in a study of
energy resources for that area by the Alaska Power Authority.
152
11111 Chapter 5
111111 ISOLATED COMMUNITIES PREVIOUSLY STUDIED
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the sites studied during the field survey, the 10 villages
Which had previously been reported on by the firm of Robert W. Retherford
Associates in 1977 were examined. Retherford Associates completed a
preliminary appraisal report on hydroelectric power potential for the
villages of Angoon, Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock,
Klukwan. Pelican, and Yakutat. This preliminary report was written for
use by others in preparing more detailed studies of viable hydroelectric
development sites. The scope of work for the Retherford report included
the following:
• Survey of existing generation systems
• Data collection to calculate annual runoff
• Hydroelectric site reconnaissance
• Estimate of power requirements through 1995
• Layout of generation and transmission systems
• Preliminary cost estimates
• Identification of environmental concerns
One viable hydroelectric alternative was recommended for each village,
except for Kasaan and Yakutat, where no viable sites were found.
Present population figures and other data not presented in the Rether-
ford report were obtained from readily available regional publications
or were mathematically extrapolated in an attempt to bring the available
data for the 10 communities in the Retherford report to a comparable
level with the data developed for the 20 communities visited by our
project team.
A reconnaissance study currently being conducted for the Alaska
Power Authority by Harza Engineering Co. will be completed in September
1979. The purpose of that investigation is to review the findings of
the previous study for the villages of Kake, Klawock, Hoonah, and Angoon.
In addition to determining the capacity, configuration, output, and
costs for each project, the studies will include a review of energy
alternatives, the expected impact on other water resource needs, and an
assessment of the environmental impact of each.
The villages of Kake, Klawock, Hoonah, and Angoon are presently served
by the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority (T-HREA). All are
wholly dependent on diesel generation. Although hydroelectric power was
once rather expensive in these areas because of construction constraints,
the increasing demand for electricity, plus the escalating costs of
diesel fuel, make the availability of hydroelectric power very desirable.
Sites worth developing have been identified near each community.
153
The site at Black Bear Lake" near Klawock, is considered excellent, and
the cost ificant, The development at Gunnuk Creek~
which the potable water supply for Kake would affect
diesel fuel. A Gartina Creek could
half the energy ected for Hoonah in
of approximately 175,000 gallons of fuel. An installa-
tion on lower Thayer Creek would be capable of supplying all the power
needs of Angoon. through 1986. Supplies of excellent sand and gravel for
are readily available near the sites.
COf.1MUN I 'l"'Y DESCR!
The ten communities that were the subject of the 1977 Retherford
are described in the following paragraphs. Tables 28 and 29 have been
prep~redto summarize the community data, The summary table is similar
to tables 7 and 8 in chapter 2, which summarize the community power needs
of the 20 communities visited by our project team.
Angoon
l~goon is the only permanent community on Admiralty Island. Itspopula~
tion in 1977 was about 500. The local native corporation would like to
curtail any future development on the island and preserve things the way
they are 0 This might be the future of the island if Federal legislation
is successful in the island a National Wilderness Preserva~
tion The cow~un.ity is h dependent on fishing, although
ca~mercial activities in the area are closed or limited to a few
a year! Power needs are supplied by the Tlingit~Haida Regional
Electric Authority through diesel The existing plant con-
sists of two 300-kW units, producing a firm capacity of 300 kW. An
improperly constructed underground distribution system of 702/12.47 xV
will soon be by a new overhead system.
is located on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island 6 and boasted
a population of 500 in 1977. Starting as a temporary fishing camp, it
became a parr.anent vii in 1912. Fishing is still the primary activity
in Craig, even though it has also become an important supply for
fuel, , and other necessary commodities because of its central
west coast location. Power is by the Alaska Power and Telephone
Company through diesel generation. The system consists of two 200-kW,
one 300-kW, and one 31S-kW diesel units with a firm capacity of 700 kW.
Hoonah
Hoonah is situated on the north coast of Chichagof Island near the mouth
of Port Frederick. It is an old Tlingit village that has supplied
seiifood to many canneries which no longer exist. Since a disastrous
fire in 1944 that destroyed most of the homes in the village g the village 9 s
l54
it m I:~:~: It !ill ill; [
Table 28. PRESENT POWER NEEDS OF THE 10 ISOLATED COMMUNITIES PREVIOUSLY STUDIED
Current Annual
Estimated Method of Installed Energy Consumer
Community 1979 Electrical Capacity Consumption Energy Cost
Name Lat. Long. -----.Popu lil!..i:J2..1! Generation (MWh) ~Wh}._
Angoon Admiralty Island 57·30'N 134"3S'W 500 Tlingit-Haida Private .Diesel , 2-300 1,641 26.3
Regional Elec-300*
trieal Authority
(TH-REA)
Craig Prince of Wales S5°29'N 133"09 ·w 500 Alaska Power Private Diesel 2-200 1,819 7.5
Island and Telephone 1-300
Co. 1-315
700*
Hoonah Chichagof Island 5Bo06'N 135°26'W 1,000 TH-REA Private Diesel 2-600 3,894 26.2
1-500
1,100"
Hydaburg Prince of Wales 52·l2'N 132°49'W 400 Alaska Power Private Diesel 2-75 1,315 7,5
r Island and Telephone 1-90
U1 Co. 1-200 U1
240*
Kake Kupreanof Island 564 S9'N l33°57'W 679 TH-REA Private Diesel 2-500 4.182 26.2
2-300
1,100"
Kasaan Prince of Wales 5S"26'N 132"23'1'1 38 Til-REA PriVate Diesel 2-90 242 28.4
Island 90*
Klawock Prince of Wales S5"33'N l33"06'W 281 'rH-REA Private Diesel 2-500 2,451 26.0
Island 1-300
800"
Klukwan Mainland 59 0 24'N 135"54'1'1 2S1 Ci ty of Klukwan Municipal Diesel 210 446 Not available
40*
Pelican Chichagof 57°S8'N 136"14'1'1 140 Pelican Utility Private Hydro-500 2.699 7.5
Island Co. Electric (Hydro)
& Diesel 700
(diesel)
100*
Yakutat Mainland 59°33'1'1 l39~44'W 450 Yakutat Power. Private Diesel 1-2S0 4,914 12.0
Inc. 1-375
1-600
1-600
Table 29" FUTURr.; POWER NEBDS OF 10 tSOLZ\TED COMMUNITIES PREVIOUSJ.,Y S'IUDIED
Present WC.)l'i.:h (.$1,000) of Futur:e EquivCll')nl Avera'1c Ann1.lal Cost:
Futl.U:rc> MWh Power Assumin'J Annual ($1,000) of r'utur" Diesel Power
ion in Fuel Cost of Annual Escalation in Fuel Cost ot
Communi 2%
-.~,--.. --~-
AW100n 2,tD? 4,653 20,635 ,411 9,364 19,6nO 457 6(,8 1,4()4
Craig 3, 1 '),068 21,902 7,167 10,455 21,8f)3 511 746 1, S
Hoonah 6,220 9,522 34,159 12 998 18,561 37 ,489 927 1,324 2,074
lIydabu.rg 2,512 4,524 26,428 6,406 9,674 21,390 45-' 1 ~,
Kake 6,687 10,247 36,866 13,99U 19,987 40,390 998 1,425
Kasaan 427 714 3,354 98B 1,457 3,085 71 104 220
f-'
Ul Klawock 4,385 7,440 36,351 10,334 15,283 32,726 737 1,090 2,334
C\
Klukwan 751 1,207 5,005 1,657 2,404 4,981 118 171 3'),)
Pelican 4,155 6,150 19,948 8,394 11,888 23,456 599 848 1 .• 673
Yakutat 7,670 11,496 38, 15,671 22,200 44,310 1,118 1,583 3,160
population slowly increased to 748 in 1970 and in 1977 reached approxi-
mately 1,000. Crab processing has continued in Hoonah by Hoonah Seafoods,
and much of the fishing fleet's harvest is processed by Thompson's Cold
Storage. < Power is supplied by the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric
Authority through diesel generation. The powerhouse and distribution
system was completely rebuilt in 1977. It contains two 600-kW and one
SOQ-kW units. The firm capacity is 1,100 kW and the distribution system
is capable of supplying 7.2/12.47 kV.
HydabUrg
Hydaburg is located on Prince of Wales Island, approximately 22 miles
southeast of Craig and accessible only by float plane or private boat.
The village had a population of 400 as of 1977. Many canneries were
built after 1927, but because of light salmon runs and other financial
reasons many were closed down. The Washington Fish and Oyster Company,
the town's one major industry, is processing approximately one million
pounds of seafood per season. The City of Hydaburg is provided with
electric power by the Alaska Power and Telephone Company. Diesel gener-
ation is made up of two 7S-kW, one 90-kW, and one 200-kW units with a
fiDm capacity of 240 kW. Cooperative Cannery and Cold Storage does not
draw power from this system but provides its own generation needs by
means of two SOO-kW diesel units.
Kake
The Village of Kake, on the northwest coast of Kupreanof Island, also
depends on the sea for its livelihood. The Kake Packing Company built a
cannery in 1912 and changed owners many times until it was finally
leased by Petersburg Fisheries, Inc., providing many jobs to the people.
population in 1977 reached 679. Logging has also helped strengthen the
econany in leake. To reduce excessive environmantal damage and the cost
of building logging roads, balloon logging was utilized for the first
time in Alaska between 1972 and 1975. The Village of Kake is provided
with electric power by the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority.
Two 500-kW and two 300-kW diesel units provide a firm capacity of 1,100
kW. A new distribution system was installed in 1977 to provide a more
reliable system.
Kasaan
Located on the north shore of Skowl Arm, on the southeast coast of
Prince of Wales Island, the Village of Kasaan contained a population of
only 38 in 1977. Although copper mining led to the founding of Kasaan,
these activities ceased about 1906. Bad luck and bankruptcies closed
the canneries. stores selling supplies to fishermen are the only other
busL~ess ventures in Kasaan. There still is very little work available
and some of the villagers have to return periodically to Ketchikan to
supplement their income. The Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority
installed a new generation and distribution system in 1977.. Two 90-kW
diesel units provide a firm capacity of 90 kW. .
157
The vil of Klawock, located on the west coast of Prince of Wales
Island. was small of 281 residents as of 1977, and consists
primarily of Tlingits. , seafood processing~ logging, and tour~
ism an part in the local community. The village boasts
the airstrip on the island. It was built about 2 miles from town
in 1973. Power is supplied by the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric
Authority. Three diesel generating units, two 500~kW and one 300-kW
units f ~~ke up the total system with a firm of 800 kW. The
distribution of 7.2/12.47 kV has been to the Regional
~s standards in recent years.
Klukwan
miles due west of Skagway is the Village of Klukwan.
industry, fisheries u and tourism support the area0s
economy" At the time of the R. W. Retherford Associates S reconnaissance
study in 1977 p the powerplant and distribution system were in poor shape
and the powerhouse unattended. The municipality-owned system consisted
of a 210-kW diesel unit in operation p one 75-kW diesel that looked
as if it run! and a new 400-kW diesel unit still crated. A firm
285 kW is available assuming that the 400-kW unit is now
Pelican
Located on the northwest corner of Chichagof Island is the
vil of Pelican. onshore processing are still the major
industries. Pelican Cold is the lifeline of this vil of
apL~oximately 140 people (1977). The Pelican Utility Company
power through hydroelectric and diesel A 22-foot-high t
135-foot-timber crib dam was constructed on Pelican Creek at the
head of natural falls approximately 1,200 feet upstream from the tide~
\..;aber. The diversion structure creates a forebay area 17.5 acres in
surface area. From the intake, water is conveyed 686 feet in an open
wood flume plus 90 feet in a tunnel to an intake box. A 36~inch
diameter wood-stave penstock, 330 feet long, leads to the powerhouse
with an installed of 500 kW. Pelican Creek also
water for Pelican. Due to the many leaks in the crib structure,
insufficient water for hydroelectric production necessitates the backup
of 200 kW from the diesel at all times. Maximum of
the hydroelectric is to be about 355 kW. Diesel
generation units total 700 kW. which is the system~s firm capacity.
Yakutat
A neck of land extends the Gulf of Alaska to connect South~
east Alaska to the rest of Alaska. The protection from the ele-
ments is Yakutat ,where the village of Yakutat is located. Salmon
canneries built in the 1900 i S were abandoned soon afterwards when
158
the salmon streams were overharvested. In recent years, tourism in the
form of hunting and fishing has been increasing. A 1977 population of
about 450 people live in the Yakutat area. Yakutat Power, Inc., is the
sole supplier of power to the village and its immediate vicinity. The
powerhouse contains four diesel generator units with the following ,
capacities: 250 kW, 375 kW, 600 kW, and 800 kW& The firm capacity 'is
1,225 kW.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SITES
Sixteen potential hydroelectric sites were investigated for the ten
communities studied. Some of these sites included staged development
plans. Reconnaissance-level designs and cost estimates were carried out
for the seven most promising sites. The Retherford report contains
detailed information on the selected sites and the development concept
and cost for each. The reader is referred to that report for the details.
SUMMARY
The comparison of camn~nity power needs and hydroelectric potential for
each of the ten studied communities was presented in section VI6 Recom-
mendations, in the Retherford report. That section 1s quoted directly
as ,follows:
1. General'
" 3.
The following recommendations are the results of preliminary
findings based in some cases on rough estimates of topographic
features, incomplete water records and construction COStS3
The recommendations are intended to pin-point the most favor-
able hydroelectric sites which are worthy of more detailed
investigation consistent with the foreseeable power market.
Angoon
Preliminary economic analysis of the small hydroelectric site
on Thayer Creek indicates marginal feasibility at the best and
is not recommended for further study at this time. The citi-
zens of Angoon should attempt to have the Thayer Creek hydro
potential sites excluded fram the proposed Admiralty Island
Wilderness Area for future development should their electrical
demand greatly exceed the projection.
Craig, Hydaburg and Klawock
Two separate sites were studied as potential sources of hydro-
electric energy for these villages. It was immediately apparent
that the forecasted growth of anyone of the communities could
not justify development of either site. Craig and Klawock
combined could develop the Black Bear Lake potentialJ however,
the comparison with all three communities showed an overwhelm-
ing advantage of an intertie.
159
The first
an intertie
of the Reynolds Creek
r and Klawock shows
with
nary however. the Black Bear Lake project is
superior to the Creek project under projected loads.
It is recornmended that a Definite Project Report be
L~ediately on the Black Bear Lake project to provide electrical
energy for the I and Klawock market area.
4. Hainas and Klukwan
Although Haines was not included in the scope of serviceD the
most promising hydro site in the area required the inclusion
of Haines for consideration.
It is recommended that the Chilkoot River Tributary shown on
Plates 11 and 12 of Section IV receive high priority for
detailed
5. Hoonah
The development
was considered as
ing and economic
source of primary
questionable and later
it for recommendation.
potential of Game Creek
in terms of
to provide Hoonah with a reliable
Environmental aspects were
be the factor that rejected
on Gartina Creek is considered feas~
ible from an f economic and environmental mode to
provide secondary energy to the Hoonah areao The installation
would be classified as with the Federal Power
Commission and, I for License is
greatly simplified and issued in a shorter time frame.
I t is recommended
Lvnmediately for
Gartina Creek.
6. Kasaan
License be
potential of
Investigations and area reconnaissance did not reveal a viable
hydroelectric project for Kasaan. The projected power
menta do net justify a transmission line to the recommended
Black Bear Lake
7. Kake
Two potential s1tes were investigated for the
Kake area. The transmission distance and the lack of a suit-
able reservoir for power ruled out Cathedra.l Falls
160
lAB II1II111 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska's wildlife and Habitat,
Volume II. 1978.
Alaska's Fisheries Atlas, Volumes I and II. 1978.
Habitat Protection Section. Letter to H. A. Arnowitz. CH2M
HILL, Bellevue, Washington, 24 July 1979.
Fisheries Task Force. Commercial and Sport Fish Rating Forms.
Tongass Land Management Plan, Working Report. April 1978.
Southeast Alaska's Panhandle, Alaska Geographic, Vol. 5, No.2. Alaska
Geographic Society.
State of Alaska, Ninth Legislature, Second Session. Electric Power in
Alaska, 1976-1995. A report for the House Finance Committee. Prepared
by University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research.
August 1976.
University of Alaska, Arctic Environment Information and Data Center.
Alaska Regional Profiles, S.E. Alaska. (No date)
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. Recon-
naissance Studies for Small Hydropower Additions. Davis, California.
July 1979.
u.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 10, Juneau,
Alaska. Water Resources Atlas. Prepared by OTT Water Engineers,
Redding, California. April 1979.
Tongass Land Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact State-
ment, Parts 1 and 2 and Summary. March 1979.
Benefit/Cost, Salmon Habitat Improvement. February 1969.
u.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Federal Power Com-
mission. Water Powers, Southeast Alaska. 1947.
u.S. Department of Commerce. 1970 Census.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for the
Envirorunent, Office of Technology Impacts, Division of Regional Assess-
ments. Alaska Regional Energy Resources, Planning Project--Ph~se I.
Volume I, Alaska's Energy Resources Findings and Analysis. Prepared by
Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, Department of Commerce
and Economic Development, Anchorage, Alaska, under contract No.
EY 76 C-06-2435. October 1977.
u.s., Geological Survey. Quadrangle sheets for appropriate areas (1:63,000).
161
CrGC,c;.. An af;parent reservoir for strearn exists in
the Gunnuk Creek drainage b.asin. It has a plus factor in that
the pt')"'Jerhouse would be located near the load center and also
wo~ld enhance the potable water for Kake.
It is recommended that the Gurmuk Creek
considered for immediate detailed investigationo
9. Pelican
be
Pelican Creek lends itself very well to stage of
its hydroelectric potential. It is unfortunate that the first
of is burdened with the access and trans-
mission costs for the first three
It is recommended that stage one development! as be
considered for detailed only if 5% money is
available for construction.
10. Yakutat
There are no recommended potential hydroelectric sites within
feasible transmission distance of Yakutat for the projected
loads.
There may exist a supply of natural gas of such limited amounts
that it YJould not be feasible to market outside of the area.
If sc, it is conceivable that gas turbine generation would be
allowed.
162
Appendix A
OPERATING AND ECONOMIC FACTORS INCLUDED IN MODELS OF
THREE ELECTRIC GENERATING MJDES IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA
SMALL GENERATING UNITS (5-TO lO-kW)
A small, 5-kW diesel~fired generator was estimated to cost $5,000 installed.
At a 12-percent interest rate for 5 years the total investment was estimated
to be about $7,000. Generating 4,000 kWh per year at a 10-percent annual
load factor, the equipment was assumed to have a lO-year life and there-
fore average 18¢ per kWh. At 8,000 kWh per year and a 2o-percent load
factor, the equipment was projected to last 7 years at an average cost
of about 13¢ per kWh. Maintenance was projected at 2¢ per kWh •. Assuming
output of 7 kWh per gallon and a 1979 diesel fuel cost at 80¢ per gallon,
fuel cost was assumed to be 11.4¢ per kWh. Adding 5 percent for lube
oil brought the total oil cost to 12.0¢ per kWh. The overall average
cost per kWh was therefore estimated to be 32¢ at a 10 percent load factor
and 279 at a 20 percent load factor.
MEDIUM GENERATION (50-TO 250-kW)
The installed cost for a 50-to 250-kW diesel unit was estimated to be
$500 per kw. Adding interest brought the total cost to $700 per kW.
Based on these cost assumptions, the equipment cost per kWh were estimated
as follows:
Load Factor
10 percent
20 percent
50 percent
Li
10 years
10 years
7.S years
Cost Per kWh
Operation and maintenance costs for a 200-kW unit were assumed to include
a $5,000 overhaul every 8,000 hours of operation. At a life of about
60,QOO hours, this would allow seven major overhauls for a total cost of
$35,000 or $175 per kW. Routine maintenance was assumed to be $500 per
year or $5,000 for the life of the unit, averaging $25 per kW. ~otal
O&M cost was therefore estimated at $200 per kW. Average cost per kWh
was, therefore, as follows:
Load Factor
10 percent
20 percent
50 percent
Life
10 years
10 years
7.5 years
Cost Per kWh
2.3¢
1.1¢
0.6¢
These medium-size units were estimated to generate 10 kWh per gallon.
At 1979 fuel prices of 80¢ per gallon, this equated to 8¢ per kWh. Add-
ing 5 percent for lube oil brought the total cost per kWh to 8.4¢.
163
Based on these factors ,the average cost per k~lh for medium sized units
ranged from 11.1¢ per kWh for a 50~percent load factor to 18.7¢ per kWh
for loads at a lO~percent load factor.
LARGE GENERA'rION (1~ to 2~rvfW}
The installed cost of diesel units in the 1-to 2-MW range was estimated
at $350 per kW. Adding interest brought the total investment cost to
$485 per kW.
EquilJment cost per kWh was calculated to average Ll¢ per kWh at a 50-
percent load factor and O.9¢ per kWh at a GO-percent load factor 0
The units are expected to have a life of 90,000 hours with major main-
tenance every 30,000 hours. Each unit would. therefore g require a major
overhaul twice during its life. The overhaul cost for a 2-MW unit would
be about $70~OOO. Major maintenance would therefore total $140~OOOp or
$70 per kW for the unit's life. Routine maintenance would average $30 8 000
per year for a total $300$000 or $150 per kW for the unit life. Total
O&H would, therefore~ average $220 per k~L C&M cost per kWh was estimated
at O.Se at a 50 percent load factor and O.4¢ at a 60 percent load factor.
These units would produce about 13.5 kWh per gallon, which at 1980 prices
of 80¢ per gallon would equal 5.9¢ per kWh 0 Adding 5 percent for lube
oil would bring the total oil cost per kWh to 6.2¢.
Total cost per kw~ was therefore estirrated to be 7.8¢ at a 50 percent
load factor and 7.S¢ at a 60 percent load factor.
164
111111 Appendix B
III. COST ESTIMATES
The Capital and Operation and Maintenance costs were determined by filling
out a site development cost estimate form for each hydroelectric site,
then preparing cost curves and tables for all the esttmates. The cost
estimate form is shown in this appendix along with the cost curves and
tables for the estimates. The filled-out cost estimate forms for each
site are given in the project backup data folders.
165
SITE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE
Diversion flow -
Diversion Elev -
Total Head -
Potential power -
Item
1. Diversion Dam LF
2. Fish Ladder
3. Power turnout
headworks (in~
eludes fish
screen if
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
act requires
fish
Delivery
Canal
Lawhead
Penstock _91
Powerhouse kW
Distribution
Site Access
Mobilization
r,1isc: Bonding,
insurance,
diversion, and
care of water
SUBTOTAL
LF
LF
I.E'
LS
mi
mi
LS
LS 10% of items
1 through 8
Contingencies 15%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Indirect Costs 25%
TOTAL PROJECT COST
ANNUAL OPERATION AND ~JUNTENANCE
(l)
~ 200 (.) c
0
U -0
<It
"E ro >-
(.) 100 :.0
::J
U
600
500
400
300
200
100
a -
1. Diversion Darn Costs
Diversion Length-ft
NOTE: Cost of concrete ~ $350/CY. This includes
foundation excavation and preparation,
formwork. steel, concrete and all labor.
2. Fishladder--S' vertical lift @ $3,OOO/vf = $15,000
3. Power Turnout Headworks (no ice control)
{ Without Fishsc, •• ns
~~~~:::::===--~'" o 50 100 150 200 250 300
Penstock Q-cfs
167
4. Delivery System--Canal use 3/4 of cost for same flow
Low Heald Pipe and Penstock
200
().) 150
~ ... ro
(!)
(JJ
00
I'
U'I 100 .... ro
"0
0
~ --....
In
0 u 50
o Ib...----"T""'-~ • ll' • i '-=(l
o 50 100 150 200 250 300
Flow in
NOTE: S/lii'll!lllr Fc.ot from manual en feasibiHty
of sm2!iI hydra. Vol VI • Civil F;i!!tl.!r~ fig 3·1
5~ Powerhouse
On most sites we assumed an or cross~flow turbine that can
down to 10% of its rated capacity to take advantage of low
flow.
Cost based on Effective Head & Rated kW
Total Cost from Small Hydro Manuals Vol. I,
168
Power Features Cost -Reconnaissance (Least Cost)
5000
2000
1500 .--.......,
1000
700
f5MW
10MW
(!) z
1.SMW ~
a::
0
ti 5MW a:
lIJ
Z
I.a.I
(!)
3M'll
2MW
~~~tMW
O.SMW 3002~O~.§g~~~o~~3E~~~~~~~~~~~~~OOO.25MW ~ 40 50 GO SO 100 150 200 .01
400
NOTES: EFFECTIVE HEAD ( FT )
I. Est imated costs are based upon a typical or standardized turbine
coupled to a generator either directly or through a speed increaser,
depending on the type turbine used.
2: Cosh include turbine/generator and appurtenant equipment, station
electric equipment, miscellaneous powerplant equipment. powerhouse,
powerhouse excavation, swltchyard civil works. an upstream_slide
gate. and construction and installation. .
3. Costs not included are transmission line, penstock. tailrace con-
struction and switchyaro equipment.
~. Cost base Jul, 1978.
S. The transition zone occur ••• unit types change due to increased head.
6. For a Multiple Unit powerhouse. additional station equipment eosts
are $20,000 + $S8.000x(n-l) where n is the total number of units.
7. Data for this figure was obtained from figures and tables in
Voiumes V and VI.
169
6. Distribution
3~ph, l-kV o/R & u/G
l~php 5~ to 15~kV concentric neutral cable
with O/R & U/G routing
I-ph, lS-kV O/R
p 25-kV O/R
3-ph ~ubtransmission O/R
l-ph, is-xV concentric neutral cable used
as Hd life submarine cable
I-ph, 25-kV submarine cable
, 2S-kV submarine cable
ph ;: phase
.ltV '" voltage
O/R == overhead
U/G = underground
70 Site Access
Roads @ $100,OOO/mi
Trails @ $10 u OOO/mi
8. Mobilization
Max.
Installed
0-0.2 1 $ 20 1 000
0.2-0.5 3 35,000
0.5-2.0 10 60 8 000
2.0-5.0 10 80 6 000
5.0-10.0 10 150:000
0-0..5 2 40 e OOO
0.5-3.0 :3 130,000
3.0-10.0 5 250,000
Assume all
Juneau
will have to be mobilized from either Ketchikan or
w/tug @ $1,500/day
Move-in Load 1 day
Travel 2 days
Unload 1 day
Move-out Load ~ day
Travel
Unload ---::""";;';..;.A.
@ ,500 '" 500
If access from barge landing to site is not a road, assume
site unloading and by helicopter @ $800/hr
(1,500 ~ 2,000 Ib/lift)
2 10-hr days @ $800/hr = $16,000
170
Assume all ,above costs except for~distribution are for Seattle for July
1978, (ENR 31(1)
Escalate to October 1979 (July 1979 ENR 3506 + 3 mo @ lVmo = 3600)
Then account for difference between Seattle and SE Alaska
Juneau = 1.58 Ketchikan = 1.59 Use 1.6
SEA SEA SE AI<
7/78 x 1.14 = 7/79 x 1.6 :: 7/79
Est. Est. Est.
SEA 1.82 SE AI< or ::::
7/78 7/79
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Labor 30 days/year @ $300/day = $9,000
or $25/year/kW, whichever is largest
Materials $2/year/kW
Overhaul$5/year/kW
171