HomeMy WebLinkAboutPelican Power Alternatives Phase II - Feasibility Study 1983"' :::; .. ~
..
..
..
..
..
' .
.-
"'"
•
...
,III
...
9803
TK
1425
.P45
F56
1983
Final Report
To
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
On
PELICAN POWER ALTERNATIVES
PHASE II -FEASIBILITY STUDY
JANUARY 1983
'L<H-ENGINEERING SCIENCE A.JOINTVENTURE
-",*
"A" STREET. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 • 907/276-4245
L
T"""
""" LO
C\I
T"""
0
T"""
0
0
LO
LO r--
C')
C')
~
USKH
ARLIS
Alaska Resources Lihrary & Information Servic.loa
Library Building, Suite 111
3211 Providence Drive
~chorage.AJ( 99508-4614
Final Report
to
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
on
PELICAN POWER ALTERNATIVES
PHASE II -FEASIBILITY STUDY
January 1983
Prepared by
USKH-ENGINEERING SCIENCE - A Joint Venture
Engineering-Science
600 Bancroft Way
11\
/125
,fiS
F 56
,(; c).,
f ! () .....,
2515 "A" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Berkeley, California 94710
ARtIS
Alaska Resources Library & Infonnation SeIVices
Library Building. Suit~ 111
3211 Providence Dnve
Anchorage,AK 99508-4614
USKH-ENGI"-IEERING SCIENCE A.JOINTVENTURE
2515 "A" STREET • ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99503 • 907/276-4245
Mr. Jerry Larson
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Street
Anchorage, Alaska
Dear Jerry:
January 26, 1983
RECEIVED
FE8 219B3
This letter transmits 50 copies of the Pelican Project Phase II Final Report
including reviews and comments by the Authority, the Pelican Cold Storage
Company, and jurisdictional agencies.
USKH-ES was ready with comments from reviewers to print the final draft when
we received word that the hydropower plant had burned down. It was felt that
even though the budget was spent, the report should reflect some of the
changes so that our knowledge would be available to you to help in the dec-
isions APA must make. The changes are slight, but the need is immediate.
This document should be considered Volume II of a two-volume report because it
is a continuation of the Phase I feasibility study of the Alternative No.3,
Scenario No. 2 recommended in Phase I, but modified in detail. The modifica-
tion stems from our conclusions reached upon inspection of the existing crib
dam during the low-flow period last winter. The timbers are badly crushed and
the rockfill is moss-covered which led us to the conclusion that intrusion
grouting would not be a viable option. Accordingly, we have recommended, and
you have concurred, that the existing dam be replaced by a low-arch dam in the
gorge about 80 feet downstream from the existing diversion. That dam can
raise the minimum pool by 7 feet, which will also afford economic advantages.
The section on financing alternatives was prepared in-house and is based only
on our own experience. Considering the changing market conditions, we strong-
ly suggest that your ultimate decision with respect to financing the project
be based on the recommendations of your own experts or perhaps a bond con-
sultant.
If there are areas of information where you need an expansion or explanation,
please feel free to call at anytime. We have enjoyed working with the APA and
look forward to working with you additionally on this project or on another
project.
Yours truly,
~~ ~ ;';::U-.~_. -
Harv • Hutchinson
Proj Manager
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
162/17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Background
Project Change
Project Description
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Major Permanent Impacts
Potential Improved Conditions
Construction Impacts
OVerall Conclusion
BASIS OF DESIGN
Water and Power Demands
Arch Dam Structure
Hydraulics
Inlet Structure
Power Canal and Penstock
Surge Tank
Power Station Bypass
ECONOMICS
Cost Estimate
Present Worth
Power Costs
Scheduling
MARKETING ASSESSMENT
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-7
3-7
3-7
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-12
5-1
Introduction 5-1
Power Demand 5-1
Waste Heat Recovery and Space Heating 5-2
Future Growth 5-2
Capsulization of Marketing Assessment 5-3
FINANCING
Introduction
I -Financing by the State of Alaska
II -Financing by Pelican Cold Storage
Company or the Pelican Utility Company
III -Financing by a Third Party
Impact That Financing Has on Power Costs
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
1/B3
SECTION 7
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
162/17
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Recommendations
7-1
7-1
7-1
LETTER TO ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY, 29 MAY 1982
LETTER TO MR. HARVEY HUTCHINSON, 29 JUNE 1982
COST ESTIMATE
PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY ALASKA
POWER AUTHORITY AND/OR ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
1/83
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
162/17
LIST OF FIGURES
Pelican General Plan
Plan and Profile
Powerhouse
Comparative Costs of Power
Project Scheduling
Projected Costs of Power
LIST OF TABLES
Flow Requirements for 100% Power
Generation by Hydro
Power Generated by Diesel under
Alternative #3, Scenario #2
Present Worth of "All Diesel"
Alternative #2, Scenario #2
Present Worth of "Preferred Plan"
Alternative #3, Scenario #2
Power Costs -All Diesel Production
Power Costs -Proposed Hydroelectric
Project
Sensitivity of Power Costs to Systems
of Financing
1-4
3-6
3-9
4-13
4-15
6-7
3-2
3-4
4-3
4-5
4-7
4-10
6-4
1/83
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In November 1982, the Alaska Power Authority (APA)
selected the joint venture of USKH-Engineering Science as
consulting engineers to perform a feasibility study pertain-
ing to provision of power to the community of Pelican,
Chichagof Island, Alaska. Phase I, the Reconnaissance
Study, was completed and the resulting report forwarded to
APA by letter on 16 April 1982. That report contains de-
tailed background information and alternative evaluations
which are not repeated in this Phase II report. The Phase I
and Phase II reports should be considered as two volumes of
a single report.
The Phase I study was conducted during Winter 1981-82
when access to the Pelican Creek Dam was limited and heavy
reliance was placed on past records and reports.
clusions of the study were:
The con-
162/2
1. The energy demand at Pelican is increasing.
2. The present hydropower plant does not have the
capacity of meeting present load demands and re-
quires supplemental diesel power.
3. The diversion dam is in need of immediate repair.
This would consist of replacing the lost rock mass.
4. The dam is in need of grouting, to keep the abut-
ments from eroding, save water, improve power yield
and safety, and extend the life of the facility for
50 more years.
1-1
9/20/82
5. The intake gate needs to be replaced and remotely
operated, for protection of the operator.
6. Using the full head from the dam to the forebay
would increase the hydropower production by 4 per-
cent. It is recommended that a 60-inch pipe re-
place the present flume, some of which is in need
of replacement. It would also avoid the chronic
tunnel caving problem.
7. The forebay should be improved into a surge chamber
and efficacious debris basin.
8. The penstock needs to be replaced.
9. The present control valve, turbine, governor, gen-
erator and switch gear should be replaced with a
new machinery package (one 500-kW and one 2S0-kW
turbine) .
10. The powerhouse needs to be remodeled for the new
equipment and repaired where needed.
11. Additional head should be utilized by extending the
draft tube and building a new afterbay with tailwa-
ter elevation at MHW.
The availability of additional operating head by rais-
ing the crest of the existing dam was noted within the re-
port, as was the potential for a new dam approximately 100
feet downstream which could also provide the same crest
elevation.
PROJECT CHANGE
In April 1982, as part of Phase II work, an inspection
of the existing Pelican Dam was conducted by the consultant.
This inspection revealed that the previous assumptions con-
cerning the structural integrity of the dam were optimistic,
and that rehabilitation would require extensive effort. In
particular, it was concluded that grouting of the dam as
1-2
162/2 9/20/82
originally recommended might not be effective because of
moss growth on the existing rockfill. Cost estimates indi-
cated that construction of a new dam would be less costly
than the extensive rehabilitation effort now found to be
necessary. Furthermore, the new dam afforded the opportun-
ity for seven feet more head, representing 61.5 additional
kilowatt capacity.
By letter of 29 May 1982 (Appendix A), the consultant
recommended to APA that the preferred project recommended in
Phase I be revised to include the new arch dam and replace-
ment of all conduits with 48-inch pipe (including sleeving
of the tunnel). As a result of these findings and recommen-
dations, the project was revised to that described below by
letter from APA dated 29 June 1982 (Appendix B). The base
case for economic comparisons therefore became the diesel
generator alternative.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A new concrete arch dam with crest at elevation +150
feet will be constructed approximately 100 feet downstream
of the existing rock filled crib dam. See Figure 1. The
existing dam will be inundated but not removed. The logis-
tics of construction is critical because of the problems of
stream diversion. There are four months during most winters
when the stream can be contained in the power canal.
are the months when the dam will be constructed.
Those
Existing diversion, power canal, and penstock will be
replaced. New diversion will be with a trash rack and hy-
draulically operated 48-inch sluice gate at the tunnel por-
tal; followed by a 48-inch wood stave pipe power canal
through the tunnel and along the invert of the existing
flume; a wood stave tank with by-pass capability, to serve
as surge chamber and rock box; and a new 48-inch wood stave
penstock. The new power canal and penstock will use the
existing support system, upgraded as necessary.
1-3
162/2 1/83
..i.-' ~'-"-'--. -. -.---.... --.--... --.-------, . -----.. ~ --...--.. ,'--, ... -.;-~~.--.... -.--~-. ..--. -._---..--' . ...-...... ------... ---,.--·--··--.... --·-~ ......... -·-.-.-·~._~~ _ __.,,._<P_ ..... L ... ~.c........,..' ___ ~ .... _._..: __ ___.._..._ .. _--...:-._.;~ •• ~._ .• --~
. .
1 ··~·PELICAN·
~~--~ '~cOLb"
.. -.. " . ~.. ... .
i J. ------.. ---:,. STORAGE:'
;'-CO~-· -.
,. . NEW. TRASH RACK·:.-.--
AND 'SLUiCE-HEADGATE~
j
J
J
J
J
'~
r
-. ·1'')..
.
PELiCAN 'HARBOR
. I
~y.--f~_o4S_~:r __ H ~.__ ., e 0 -:,------DA..i E'. ~A :"O'IN-r-YE-NT68~n' :',
11-,------1---=:::-.. t=t:>;;:~'~::;S1;:;-·-;;<:;·;:;B=~~~.-B;::~==-.=-. -:----:----t--..:.----..:.:..-·-if' {_USKH':ENGn\I?~RW\IGSC:lENCE;
!. r------r--t---------+--~::...!.:.~.::.-::::..~-~-:....::5~Y~: =..' ,.::.--..,:..... . .:...:.' --~.' '-' ----+---:--11 \~ ~5' ~,"A-STREET'. Af':-JCHO~A(:;E; ALASKA 995D~. CHECKI:D ~Y. ,.:·.:.c:l .. _,."_~·;>~·/··,·,···:'·· '. ,'. """ .• ~ .. ~,'-:".~" ••. ".~.,..::.,." .' ,,-'. '. ,,' ..
'----NEW. ,POWER. HOUSE·'
. -. . .. , .-" -... .'.. '. .--1. .. I:
'AF:rERB~Y ANDTAI.LRACE'·-'.
.. '.' .. ··'.'./;·~:·f~LicA·N·P·OWER-PROJE·cf->~.
1------,.'
PELICAN GENERAL PLAN
--: ........ -.. ..:.--.-.. --..
G:'O.1
" .. ~B03 .
,1 ..
j
!
! .
i
I
)
After the Phase II Draft was submitted and the comments
received, the hydroelectric station burned down on 12 Janu-
ary 12 1983. So that this report will reflect the situation
as it is, USKH-ES will, where possible, change this study to
reflect conditions and solutions as we see them now.
A new hydroelectric station, including afterbay and
tailrace, will be constructed adjacent to the existing pow-
erhouse foundations. The existing powerhouse foundations
will continue to be used to house switchgear and ancillary
equipment and the building constructed large enough to cover
critical items such as the chlorinator. The new generating
station will have installed 500-and 250-kW turbine genera-
tors with provisions for installation of a third unit (250 -
500 kW). All existing machinery and switchgear will be
salvaged. The existing tailrace will be replaced by a new
after bay and tailrace which will afford optimum draft and
thus develop maximum head for power generation.
Included will be all control, switching, and communi-
cations equipment permitting remote monitoring and control
of the hydropower station from the diesel power station and
two-way voice communications between the stations. Switch-
ing and control will be automatic with manual override pro-
vision.
1-5
162/2 1/83
SECTION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
MAJOR PERMANENT IMPACTS
Construction of a new dam will change the appearance of
the diversion facility. Raising the dam height will inun-
date more land and create a nominally larger lake. The new
dam will have little impact on downstream fisheries if oper-
ated according to the enclosed recommended procedure found
on page 3-7, Power Station Bypass. In general, this project
is merely the upgrading or replacement of existing facili-
ties and there will be minimal new and permanent impact.
The maximum flows through the existing turbine range between
60 and 70 cfs when water was available. With the increase
in head from 123 feet to 143 feet and the improved efficien-
cy of the machinery, about the same amount of water will be
sufficient to generate 50 percent more power. The addition
of a future turbine must be evaluated for its impact before
installation.
The visual impact is considered an improvement. The
Pelican Reservoir has not been extensively used for recrea-
tional activities in the past and there are no known plans
to develop facilities which would promote such uses and
attract visitors in the future. The new concrete arch dam
will differ in appearance from the rustic timber crib dam,
but all other structures will conform in appearance to the
existing structures.
Enlarging the reservoir to a surface area of approxi-
mately 160 acres will effectively remove less than 2 percent
2-1
162/3 1/S3
of the 10-1/4 square mile Pelican watershed from its current
open, undeveloped state. The new land to be inundated is
U. S. Forest Service land, primarily sparse Alaska Cedar
forest cover with considerable moss covered surface rock.
Since the lake will serve as a reservoir for domestic water,
no development is recommended along the shore.
Al though the proposed generating facilities will use
nominally higher flows than the existing works, the diver-
sions during the low flow months will be as they are now.
Thus no significant change in stream flow regime will re-
sult.
Importantly, the new dam will afford increased spillway
capacity and will replace an existing structure that is in a
state of failure.
POTENTIAL IMPROVED CONDITIONS
As opposed to an all diesel power supply, the firming
and modernization of the more economical hydroelectric power
supply stands to benefit the residents of Pelican. Accep-
tance of the project by the public, and recognition of the
potential benefits, was expressed by attendess at a public
hearing conducted at Pelican on 13 April 1982.
Air quality in the basin will be slightly improved due
to increased availability of hydroelectric power and reduced
dependence on and use of diesel generators. This may be
counteracted by expanded industrial operations and resulting
population growth. However, these are all minor impacts, as
detailed in the Phase I Report.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction entails the use of raw materials (con-
crete, wood, fossile fuels, metals, etc.). However, the
relatively small quantities of these resources expended must
2-2
162/3 1/83
be weighed against the result if the project is not accom-
plished. Without power and water as provided by the Pelican
dam and hydroelectric system, the fish processing industry
at Pelican could not operate competitively and the popula-
tion of the community may be forced to leave. The effect on
overall food supply represented by the fish processed, and
the social implications of dislocating some 200 persons,
represent far greater environmental impacts than the use of
resources to replace the hydroelectric facilities. In fact,
if this project is not accomplished with dispatch, it is
very probable that Pelican Cold Storage would be forced into
other less expensive operations which would mean the loss of
the business to the community with its associated jobs and
taxes.
During construction, there will be some noise gener-
ated, but the location of the dam is sufficiently remote
from the population center of the Pelican community that
direct impact will be minimal. Activity in Pelican Creek
itself will increase the level of suspended material carried
down the creek during this period, but will be controlled to
minimize the effect on the local fishery.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
As expressed in the 13 April 1982 public hearing, any
minor negative environmental impacts are more than offset by
the positive results of constructing a safe dam and an effi-
cient hydroelectric system which will serve the community
for many years. Thus, the overall conclusion is reached
that this project will result in overall enhancement of the
environment in and around Pelican community.
2-3
162/3 1/83
SECTION 3
BASIS OF DESIGN
WATER AND POWER DEMANDS
As shown in detail in the Phase I Report, full run-of-
the-river development of the hydroelectric potential of
Pelican Creek will not satisfy the projected maximum power
requirement (industrial and domestic) of the community dur-
ing all months of the year. Diesel power generation was
shown to be the only viable alternative source, but would
result in excessive operating costs (primarily fuel costs)
were it used as the sole power source. Thus, maximum util-
ization of hydoelectric power with supplemental power pro-
vided by diesel generators became the obvious choice.
There is potential for developing additional hydroelec-
tric power from Phonograph Creek, as discussed in Phase I.
However, Pelican Cold Storage Company has reviewed its oper-
ation and facilities and determined that it would be more
advantageous to improve the insulation of facilities, reduc-
ing the power required to support present operations. It
was also determined that the power requirements for possible
industrial expansion had been over-estimated. Thus, from an
economic standpoint, immediate development of the Phonograph
Creek potential cannot be justified. However, in recogni-
tion of the potential for growth of the Pelican community
beyond current expectations, expansion capability will be
included in the Pelican Creek hydroelectric facility to
permit use of flow diverted from Phonograph in later years.
The proposed project is designed to handle flows up to 120
cfs , although a maximum of 70 cfs will operate the two
proposed turbines under 140 feet of head.
3-1
162/4 1/83
Table 1 shows the flow requirements, where the entire
power demand would be met from hydroelectric generation at
Pelican if water were available.
TABLE 1
FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR 100%
POWER GENERATION BY HYDRO.
Year
1 a 2 3 4 5-50b
Month hp cfsc hp cfs c hp cfsc hp cfsc hp cfsc
Oct 346 28.2 390 31.8 434 35.4 477 38.9 521 42.5
Nov 346 28.2 390 31.8 434 35.4 477 38.9 521 42.5
Dec 322 26.3 342 27.9 361 29.5 381 31.1 400 32.6
Jan 322 26.3 342 27.9 361 29.5 381 31.1 400 32.6
Feb 469 38.3 492 40.2 515 42.0 537 43.8 560 45.7
Mar 469 38.3 492 40.2 515 42.0 537 43.8 560 45.7
Apr 356 29.1 379 30.9 402 32.8 424 34.6 447 36.5
May 356 29.1 379 30.9 402 32.8 424 34.6 447 36.5
Jun 348 28.4 381 31.1 414 33.8 447 36.5 480 39.2
Ju1 348 28.4 381 31.1 414 33.8 447 36.5 480 39.2
Aug 603 49.2 668 54.5 734 59.9 799 65.2 864 70.5
Sep 603 49.2 668 54.5 734 59.9 799 65.2 864 70.5
a bRef. Table 10.1 Phase I Report.
Ref. Table 10.2 Phase I Report.
cAssumes 100% of required hp is generated by hydro.
Total head = 150-9 = 141
Assumed losses 6
Net head 135'
Effluent = .8
_ 550 (hJ2) =
cfs -62.4(135)1.8) .0816 x hp
Year 1 represents the current power demand and Years 5-50
represents power demand based on the Pelican Cold Storage
growth scenario, as detailed in Section 10 and Appendix C of
3-2
162/4 1/83
the Phase I report.
to Year 5 is assumed.
Uniform growth over the period Year 1
Table 2 extracts the Pelican Creek assumed flows from
Section 4 of the Phase I report and displays the flow short-
fall that must be made up by diesel power. It is assumed in
this presentation that creek flow will be 80 percent, nor-
mal, and 120 percent on a recurring 3-year cycle.
ARCH DAM STRUCTURE
The new arch dam will be constructed in a natural con-
striction of Pelican Creek approximately 100 feet downstream
of the existing crib dam (see Figure 2). The dam will be
approximately 45 feet high with crest at elevation +150 feet
and will be built on a constant radius of approximately 25
feet. The abutments and base wi 11 be keyed into exi st i ng
rock. Spill will occur by flowing over the top of the dam
crest. Preliminary calculations are included in Appendix D.
HYDRAULICS
The lake formed by the arch dam will flood the inlet of
the existing tunnel (invert elevation +136.1 feet), and
remove the need for 100 feet of flume which currently runs
from the crib dam to the tunnel. Preliminary design of the
hyd roelectric system from the tunnel entrance to the new
turbines calls for use of 48-inch pipe for both power canal
and penstock. Calculations are included in Appendix D,
based on n = 0.012 and a future Q = 120 cfs. The n value
usually decreases to about n =. 01 with redwood stave pipe.
INLET STRUCTURE
The inlet structure will be located at the tunnel en-
trance, Sta 19+21, and should handle a flow of 13~ cfs at a
water surface elevation of +156. A t rash rack to screen
rough material from passing into the system and finer
screens to keep I eaves and small er mater ial f rom enter i ng
3-3
162/4 1/83
f-"
0'1 TABLE 2 ~
.........
4l-POWER GENERATED BY DIESEL UNDER ALTERNATIVE #3, SCENARIO #2
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju1 Aug Sep Total
Cfs flow at 80% year 135.4 79.4 45.2 26.4 38.7 31.2 53.3 133.5 105.8 47.9 30.6 69.0
Cfs flow at normal
yeara 169.3 99.3 56.5 33.0 48.4 39.0 66.6 166.9 132.3 59.9 38.3 86.2
Cfs flow at 120%
year 203.2 119.2 67.8 39.6 58.1 46.8 79.9 200.3 158.8 71.9 46.0 103.4
Cfs M&I wBter
demands 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.1
Cfs available for
power at 80% year 135.3 78.9 44.7 25.9 38.2 31.1 53.2 131. 8 104.1 46.2 28.Q 6R.9
Cfs available for
power at normal
(.oJ year 169.2 98.8 56.0 32.5 47.9 38.9 66.5 165.2 130.6 58.2 36.6 86.1
I Cfs available for 4l-power at 120%
year 203.1 118.7 67.3 39.4 57.6 46.7 7~.8 1~8.6 157.1 70.2 44.3 103.3
Year 1
Cfs "required"c 28.2 28.2 26.3 26.3 38.3 38.3 2q.1 2q.1 2A.4 28.4 49.2 4~.2
Shortfall (cfs)
at 80% yeard 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 7.2 0 0 0 0 20.3 0
KWh by diesel
at 80% year 0 0 0 2,632 658 47,386 0 0 0 0 133,602 0 184,27A
Year 2
Cfs "required"c 31. 8 31.8 27.9 27.9 40.2 40.2 30.9 30.9 31.1 31.1 54.5 54.5
Shortfall cfs
at normal ysar 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 17.9 0
KWh by diesel
at normal year 0 0 0 0 0 8,556 0 0 0 0 117,807 0 126,3*,3
\0 Year 3
......... efs "required"c 35.4 35.4 29.5 29.5 42.0 42.0 32.8 32.8 33.8 33.8 59.9 59.9
f-" Shortfall cfs
0'1 at 120% yea~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 0 .........
(l) KWh by diesel
~ at 120% year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102,670 0 102,670
.....
'" TABLE 2 Continued I\) -
-.........
~
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
Year 4
Cfs "required"c 38.9 38.9 31.1 31.1 43.8 43.8 34.6 34.6 31';.5 36.5 65.2 1';5.2
Shortfall cfs
at 80% yeard 0 0 0 5 •. 2 5.6 12.7 0 0 0 0 36.3 0
KWh by diesel
at 80% year 0 0 0 34,223 36,856 83,584 0 0 0 0 238,904 0 3~3,"67
Years 5-50
Cfs "required"c 42.5 42.5 32.6 32.6 45.7 45.7 36.5 36.5 39.2 39.2 70.5 70.5
Shortfall cfs
at 80% year 0 0 0 6.7 7.5 14.6 0 0 0 0 41.6 1.6
at normal year 0 0 0 0.1 0 6.8 0 0 0 0 33.9 0
at 120% yeaa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.2 0
w KWh by diesel
I at 80% year 0 0 0 44,095 49,360 96,088 0 0 0 0 273,785 10,530 473, fl58
V1 at normal year 0 0 0 658 0 44,753 0 0 0 0 223,109 0 26A, .<;20
at 120% year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172,432 0 172,432
a Table 4.1 Phase I Report. bRef.
Uses demands from Table 10.2 Phase I Report. c
d Ref • Table 1.
KWh by diesel = (shortfall Q) (62.4)( 13 5) ( .8) x .746 x 30 x 24 6,581 x Q 550
120
I tO
ro
--• 10 =-
.=
12-00
I"" lOAn o' I"""''':' "" DATI
~-'--.L-------------'---i IflllGl •••• ________ •• -.. ----
PLAN
1 "';:AO '
PROFIL&
HOAllON'l'Al 1~'O '
V!!ft'nCAl 1'1t:fO'
Ic;;.oo
USKH-ENGINEERING SCIENCE A.JO'NT~I!
~'!5 -A-~~ • ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 1l1i:503 • 807/27_2.:5
@
&:1 ~I
-17+-00 18+00
ALASKA
POWER
AUTHORITY
.~
I
FIGURE 2
"~
L Jl ~" '05
T,r ' ..... r·\ ','. '-.:]' ~ r
... -r .... -
5 ~,,:,~_~9 N @
150
t40
130
120
~
100
90
~ ~ 8 0
70
~ --50
40
SO
111-20
1.0.
19+00
"''''' PELICAN POWER PROJECT 1,5 SHOWN
C-O.1 ._-_ .....
DAM' FlUMe
PLAN PROFILE SECTIONS
"""" ~ ___ ._-1 ______________________ --L _________________ ~--------~~---
the town water system will be installed. A 48-inch hydrnu-
lically operated sluice gate will also be located at the
entrance to the tunnel. Preliminary details for this struc-
ture are shown in Figure 2.
POWER CANAL AND PENSTOCK
The pipeline from the inlet structure to the powerhouse
will be 48-inch redwood stave pipe. It will be laid on the
invert of the existing facilities and will line the existing
tunnel and replace both the flume and the 36-inch wood stave
pipe penstock. The sides of the flume can be salvaged and
the new pipe aligned and laid as shown in Figure 2. The
existing trestle will be refurbished and used to support the
new 48-inch pipe.
SURGE TANK
A new surge chamber is called for where the combination
rock box, screening structure, and overflow chamber is now
located. This facility would not function as a bypass or
screening structure but would still function as a "last line
of defense" rock box. Details are shown in Figure 2. The
primary function of the surge tank is to provide cushioning
action during valve closure or when turbines go to runaway
speed and flow is instantaneously reduced. Bypass would be
by overflow of the arch dam. By using this structure in
this manner, more water will be in the stream from the dam
to the powerhouse than has been since construction of the
existing facilities.
POWER STATION BYPASS
There is need for a bypass to provide water to the
Pelican community for domestic and industrial use. In addi-
tion, the 2~~+ acre-feet of storage provided by the new dam
gives the potential for a fire protection water source.
Also, there is need to ensure that a minimum of 3 cfs flow
3-7
162/4 1/83
is maintained in Pelican Creek to prevent dry-up and de-
struction of downstream fisheries.
Extreme weather dictates that exposed piping must be
protected against freeze-up, and this applies to the 48-inch
wood stave pipe between the dam the the powerhouse. This
protection can be by ensuring flow which uses natural heat
to keep the pipe from freezing or providing supplemental
(electrical) heating.
To accommodate the above needs, a take-off wi 11 be
provided inside the powerhouse. Thus, water will be avail-
able for all these uses except when the water level behind
the dam falls to below +136.1 feet or the 48-inch pipeline
must be taken out of service. See Figure 3.
3-8
162/4 1/83
---~-......... -~-~
. -..... _ ... "..... -~ -_.---_."
.. I
FIGURE 3
0"
T
!
--------~--~----~~~~--------~------~.-------
'-, . '~--'" -', -.-.-....
-~~N~W P~~~HouS~
F/~, t';L., [(:",.001
T~,L.~C.E-.S~~~~ ... ?~:rA C~:r!..:7 p~~)
/:.}. =-4c;,'" 001 00
1<...:. (2..011
,
T..:.. s" 00'
L:: ~ 148'
,POWER
SECTION 4
ECONOMICS
COST ESTIMATE
Detailed cost estimates were prepared for the base case
situation (all diesel) and the proposed project, under power
requirements detailed in Scenario #2 as outlined in detail
in Phase I, 8-1. Appendix C to this report details the in-
formation and methodology used to develop proposed project
construction costs.
PRESENT WORTH
When the total operating costs of power generation over
the SO-year life projected for the hydroelectric facility
are combined with initial construction and later replacement
or overhaul costs, and translated to present worth, the
value of hydroelectric generation becomes apparent. Table 3
presents this information for the all-diesel alternative,
now considered the base case, and Table 4 reflects present
worth for the proposed hydroelectric project.
Over the SO-year planning period, the diesel alterna-
tive represents a present worth of $20,037,151, while the
hydroelectric project represents only $7,779,388. From this
comparison, it is apparent that construction of the proposed
hydroelectric project provides the least-cost solution over
the project's life.
Tables 3 and 4 are based on the following assumptions:
1. Inflation rate is ° percent.
2. The discount interest rate is 3 percent.
4-1
162 5 1 83
3. Fuel costs are $1.18/gal in 1982, escalating at 2.6
percent for 20 years (to 1.92/gal in the year 2202)
and thereafter remaining level.
4. The economic life of hydro facilities is 50 years,
except that runners are assumed to be replaced at
20 years and wood stave pipe at 35 years.
5. The economic life of diesel generators is 20 years.
6. A 50-year economic life is assumed for the system.
7. The footnotes in the tables explain the derivation
of the other figures.
POWER COSTS
To offer a comparision as it would be seen by an elec-
tric utility customer, Tables 5 and 6 were developed to show
the actual cost of electric generation under these two al-
ternatives. Tables 5 and 6 are based on the following as-
sumptions:
162/5
1. Power required -even growth over first five years
to meet Pelican Cold Storage Requirements. Two
percent per year growth for next 15 ,years.
2. Based on 7 percent diesel in 80 percent rainfall
year: 3.4 percent in 100 percent year: 1.6 percent
in 120 percent year.
3. Based on 0.111 gallon fuel and 0.0006 gallon lubri-
cating oi 1 per kWh.
taken from Table 3.
Costs of petroleum products
4. $0.017/kWh plus $40,000 for labor. Seven percent
inflation on non-labor costs for 20 years.
5. $2,600,000 loan at 10 percent for 35 years.
6. Diesel and runner replacement per Tables 3 and 4.
Replacement costs escalated seven percent per year
for 20 years. Capital borrowed for 20 years at 10
percent as needed.
4-2
9/20/82
.....
0'\
TABLE 3
I\.) , PRESENT WORTH OF ."ALL DIESEL" U1
ALTERNATIVE 12, SCENARIO 12
Unit LubeS !nerl'" Lube OUd Mslntensn~e Costs CAPftal f
Units Fuel~ Toole, Psrts Subtotal Iep1e~_nt Total P.'If.1Il Prea .. nt
Year Fuel Costa 011 Coats Proouetlon Coat Coat .. Suppllese Peuonnel 06MCoeu Coats Annual Costs "setor Worth
Sisal $/18 1 kWh $ S S 9 9 9 S $
60,000 60,000
1 1984 1.24 4.16 2,626,000 361,768 6,554 44,642 40,000 1152,964 68,000 520,964 .9109 5OS,IIn4
2 1985 1.27 4.21 2,848,500 1101,915 1,298 48,U5 40,000 491,638 491,6311 .9426 46'1,014
3 1986 1.31 4.38 3,011,000 446,956 8,011 52,201 40,000 547,234 547,234 .9151 500,114
4 1981 1.34 4.119 3,293,500 490,317 8,813 55,990 40,000 595,1110 595,1110 .1111115 5211,1111
5 1988 1.38 4.61 3,516,000 539,066 9,125 59,712 40,000 6l!8,563 6l11,563 .8626 55",450
6 1989 l.lIt lI.n 3,516,000 550,785 9,918 59,112 40,000 660,535 660,535 .11315 553,1911
1 1990 1.115 11.85 3,516,000 566,410 10,232 59,772 40,000 616,4U 676,1114 .11131 54<11,992
8 1991 1.49 11.98 3,516,000 5112,035 10,506 59,112 40,000 6'12,'13 692,311 .111911 546,512
~ 9 1992 1.53 5.11 3,516,000 591,660 10,780 59,112 40,000 708,212 7011,212 .1664 542,114
I 10 1993 1.56 5.211 3,516,000 609,319 11,054 59,112 40,000 120,205 120,205 .1Ul 535,90~
W
11 1994 1.61 5.31 3,516,000 628,910 11,329 5'1,112 40,000 140,011 93,000 83J,Ol1 .12211 601,161
12 1995 1.65 5.51 3,516,000 6114,536 11,6210 59,111 40,000 155,932 755, <1132 .70110 5.10,211
13 1996 1.69 5.66 3,516,000 660,161 11,9110 59,172 40,000 111,813 171,1113 .61110 525,6106
14 1991 l.n 5.81 3,516,000 615,186 12,251 59,112 40,000 1117,815 1f41,1115 • ...,,11 520,1124
15 1998 1.18 5.96 3,516,000 695,317 12,573 59,112 110,000 1101,662 807,111;2 .6419 51 f4 ,4311
16 1999 1.83 6.11 3,516,000 7110 ,8119 12,890 59,112 110,000 827,5tl 827,511 .6232 515,705
11 2000 1.87 6.21 3,516,000 130,414 ll,227 59,112 110,000 1143,IIn 11113,473 .6050 510,JOI
18 2001 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,112 110,000 863,3112 863,342 .'111711 507,127
19 2002 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 U,565 59,112 110,000 1163,342 1163,342 .5103 4'12,'64
20 2003 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 863,3112 118,000 911,342 .'1531 504,610
21 2004 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 863,3l!2 68,000 931,342 .5375 500,5<116
22 2005 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 5'1,112 40,000 1163,342 863,342 .5219 450,578
23 2006 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,112 110,000 f463,3112 1163,342 .5067 437 ,455
24 2007 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 1163,3U 863,342 .4"19 424,618
25 2008 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 1163,342 863,342 .4176 412,337
26 2009 1.92 6.43 3,~16,OOO 750,OO~ 13,565 59,112 40,000 1163,342 863,342 .4631 4110,312
21 2010 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,772 40,000 861,342 861,342 .4502 3811,617
28 2011 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,172 40,000 863,342 1If.3,342 .4311 377 ,367
\0 29 2012 1.'12 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,172 40,000 1163,342 861,342 .4243 366,116 ,
30 2013 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,772 40,000 1163,342 116',142 .4120 355,697 I\.)
0 31 2014 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 1163,342 93,000 'I~Ii,342 .4000 382, ~17 ,
CD l2 2015 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,772 40,000 R63,342 R63,142 .111113 3J~.236
I\,) 3J 2016 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 1If.3,342 M3,342 .1110 125,4110
34 2017 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,112 40,000 Rf.3,342 11(.1,142 .~('60 '15,QRl
35 2018 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 150,005 0,565 59,172 40,000 1163,342 1461,342 .35~4 101i,R1:1
~
I
~
TABLE 3 Continued
Year
Unita
'uel Coste
$/gal
Unit Lube a
Oil Cosu
$/gal
!nergyb
Production
ItWh
Fuel"
Coet
$
Lube ond
Cost
Toole, Par~e
& Supplies Pereonnel
$ $ $
36 2019 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,5"5 59,772 40,000
37 2020 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
38 2021 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 11,565 59,772 40,000
39 2022 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
40 2023 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13 ,565 59,772 40,000
41 2024 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
42 2025 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
43 2026 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
44 2027 1.92 6.43 1,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
45 2028 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 11,565 59,772 40,000
46 2029 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
47 2030 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
48 2031 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
49 2032 1.92 6.43 3,516,000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
50 2033 1.92 6.43 3.516.000 750,005 13,565 59,772 40,000
Total 173,575,000
P.V./kWh -$.1156
NOTE: 1984 ie firet year of operation.
~efer to aeeuaptione in Appendix', Phase I Report.
Straight line build up in 5 years. Refer Table 10.1 and 10.2 of Phaee 1 Report.
~At .l1ll gal/ItWh.
At .0006 gal/ItWh.
:At $ .017 /ItWh •
Refer tsble at PI. '-2 i1l Appendix r of Phaae I Report.
~3% discount factor.
Salyage yalue Unit '1 $22,100. Refer table at pg. F-2, Appendix F, Phase 1 Report.
12 22,100
11 6,750
'4 7,200
'5 28.800
86,950
Subtotal
0'" Coete
$
863,342
863,342
863,342
861,342
1163,342
1163,342
1163,342
863,]42
1163,342
1163,342
863,342
1163,342
863,342
863,342
863,342
Capital f
Replac_ent
Coete
$
48,000
611,000
<->86,950h
Total
An1luel Coete
S
1163,342
1163,342
1163,342
863,342
911,342
911,342
863,342
8"1,142
1163,342
1163,342
1163,142
1161,142
11(,3,342
863,342
776,392
,.v.1I
'e"tor
.]450
.3350
.3252
.31 ~"
.3066
.2976
.21190
.21105
.2724
.2644
.2567
.2493
.2420
.2350
.22111
Pr .. ent
Worth
$
2'17,8~3
2119,220
2AO,759
272,471
279,417
277,167
249,5OIi
242,1"7
235,174
22 11 ,268
221,"20
215,231
2011,'129
20 2,11115
171.0115
20,037 ,151
.... TABLE 4 0\
IV
""-1.11 PRESENT WORTH OF "PREFERRED PLAN"
ALTERNATIVE 13, SCENARIO #2
AtI •• eda '!'otelb Enerqyc
Unttd Fuel Lube
'!bola Part.r '!'otsl
rl_ a. , l!nerqy Produced Unit Lube· Co.t Oil Coat l'I!!uonn.l Subtotsl Capital RePlac .. -OJ I\nnual P .... Pr.a.nt
Y.ar of Noraal Production by 01 .... 1 Fuel COlt Oil Co.t (Diesel) (Di ..... l) 5 Suppli •• Collt. 05" Coata Coats _nt Co.ts Co.t. ractor Worth
kWh kWh $/"al $/lJal $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
0 2,600,000 * 1.0000 2,600,000*
I 1984 eo 2,626,000 184,300 1.24 4.16 25,390 46(1 44,642 40,000 110,492 68,000 178,492 .9709 173,2911
2 1985 100 2,8"8,500 126,"00 1.27 ".27 17,1135 324 48,"25 40,000 106,58" 106,584 .9426 100,"66
3 1986 120 3,071,000 102,700 1.31 ".38 ''',947 270 52,207 40,4'100 107,42" 107,42" .9151 911,304
4 1987 80 3,293,500 393,600 1.34 ..... 9 58,597 1,060 55,990 40,000 155,6"7 155,647 .8885 1311,292
5 1988 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.38 ".61 "',166 743 59,772 "0,000 '''',681 141,681 .8626 122,214
6 1989 120 3,516,000 172,"00 1.'" 4.73 27,007 489 59,772 "0,000 127,2611 127,268 .8375 106,587
7 1990 80 3,516,000 "73,900 1."5 4.85 76,343 1,379 59,772 40,(100 177,512 177,512 .8131 , .... ,335
8 1991 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.49 4.98 4 .. , .... 7 802 59,772 "0,000 145,021 '''5,021 .1894 145,022
.J::>. 9 1992 120 3,516,000 112,400 1.53 5.11 29,305 529 59,772 40,000 129,606 129,606 .766" 99,330
I 10 1993 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.56 5.24 82,134 1,"90 59,772 "0,000 183,396 183,396 .7 .... , 136,"65 1.11
11 1994 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.61 5.37 29,830 865 59,172 "0,000 130,"67 93,000 223,467 .7224 161,43]
12 1995 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.65 5.51 31,603 570 59,712 40,000 131,945 131,945 .1014 92,546
13 1996 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.69 5.66 88,979 1,609 59,112 40,000 190,360 190,360 .6810 129,635
14 1991 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.13 5.81 51,606 936 59,772 40,000 152,314 152,314 .6611 100,695
15 1998 120 3,516,000 172,"00 1.78 5.96 34,093 617 59,172 40,000 134,482 134,482 .6419 86,324
16 1999 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.83 6.11 96,350 1,737 59,772 40,000 197,859 197,859 .6232 123,306
17 2000 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.87 6.27 55,783 1,010 59,772 40,000 156,565 156,565 .6050 94,722
18 2001 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,115 665 59,772 40,0(10 137,212 1J7,212 .51174 80,598
19 2002 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,11211 59,772 40,000 202,688 202,688 .5703 115,593
20 2003 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,214 1,036 59,112 40,000 158,082 48,000 206,082 .5537 114,108
68,000
21 2004 120 3, S16, 000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,115 665 S9,172 40,000 131,212 90,000 29S,212 .5375 158,616
22 2005 80 3,S16,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,0118 1,828 S9,172 40,4'100 202,688 202,688 .5219 105,183
23 2006 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,172 40,000 158,082 158,082 .5067 80,100
24 2001 120 3,SI6,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,175 66S 59,172 40,000 131,212 131,212 .4919 61,495
25 2008 80 3,516,000 413,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,11211 59,172 40,000 202,688 202,688 .4176 96,804
26 2009 100 3,SI6,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,772 40,0(10 158,082 158,0112 .4637 73,30)
IJ) 27 2010 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,775 665 59,772 40,04'10 137,212 131,212 .4502 61,773
""-211 2011 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,01111 1,8211 59,172 40,000 202,6811 202,688 .4371 1111,595
IV 29 2012 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,172 40,000 158,082 158,082 .4243 67,074
0 30 201l 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,775 665 59,172 40,000 137,212 137,212 .4120 56.531
.........
CD
IV
* This figure has been changed to $3,024,000 (see Appendix C and memo from APA's Remy Williams, dated
29 September 1982, in Appendix E) •
.... TABLE 4 Continued 0'1
t.J ........
U'1
AssuBeda ~talb .erqyc
Uni t d Fu .. l LuI><!
Tools part.f ~tal
rlow .... " ... rqy Produe..d Unit Lub<! e co .. t Oi 1 Cost Per.onnel Subtotal Capi tal Rl!pl .. ce-CJ ""'nual P.w. Pre.ent
'ear of Nor""l Production by Dieael Fuel Cost Oil Co .. t (Oi .... O'1' (Oie .. el) & Supplies Costa 05" Costs Costs Mnt Costs Co.ts ractor Worth
kWh kllh S/CJal S/.,al $ $ S $ , , $ , ,
31 2014 80 3,516,000 47),900 1.92 6.43 101,08B l,82B 59,172 "0,000 202,688 9),000 295,688 .4000 118,275
32 2015 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,27" 1,036 59,172 40,000 158,082 158,082 .3883 61,383
33 2016 120 3,516,000 172, .. 00 1.92 6."3 36,775 665 59,772 "0,000 137,212 137,212 .3170 51,729
3 .. 2017 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,828 59,772 "0,000 202,688 202,688 .3660 7",18"
35 2018 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,772 "0,000 158,082 158,082 .355 .. 56,182
36 2019 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,175 665 59,172 40,000 137,212 137,212 .3450 "7,338
37 2020 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 1\.43 101,088 1,828 59,772 40,000 202,688 202,688 .3350 67,900
38 2021 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,172 40,000 158,082 158,082 .3252 51,408
39 2022 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,775 665 59,772 40,000 137,212 137,212 .3156 43,304
40 2023 80 3,516,000 413,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,828 59,172 40,000 202,688 48,000 250,688 .3066 76,861
68,000
41 2024 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,0)6 59,172 40,000 158,082 90,000 316,082 .2976 94,066
42 2025 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,175 665 59,772 40,000 137,212 137,212 .2980 39,654
~ 43 2026 80 ),516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,828 59,772 40,000 202,688 202,688 .2805 56,854
I .... 2027 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59,772 40,000 158,082 158,082 .2724 "3,062
0'1 45 2028 120 3,516,000 172,"00 1.92 6.43 36,775 665 59,772 "0,000 137,212 137,212 .26 .... 36,279
46 2029 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,828 59,772 "0,000 202,688 202,688 .2567 52,030
47 2030 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,274 1,036 59.172 40,000 158,082 158,082 .2493 39,410
.. 8 2031 120 3,516,000 172,400 1.92 6.43 36,175 665 59,772 "0,000 131,212 137,212 .2 .. 20 33,205
49 2032 80 3,516,000 473,900 1.92 6.43 101,088 1,828 59,772 "0,000 202,688
<->86, 950h 202,688 .2350 "7,632
50 2033 100 3,516,000 268,500 1.92 6.43 57,214 1,036 59,172 "0,000 158,082 71,132 .2281 16,225
~tal 113,575,000 7,779,388
P.W./kWh ... 0 .. 48
P.W. Alt. 12, Scp.nario 12 20,064,532 .. 2.58 P.W. Alt. 13, Scenario .2 7,779,388
NOTE. 1983 is year of construction. 1984 is first year of operation.
~ASBUMd hydroloqic cycle. Rl!fer to Table 2.
St. line build up in 5 y ... rs. Ref .. r to Tables 10.1 and 10.2 of Phase t Report.
~Refer to Tabl. 2.
f,eRefer to aSSUMptions in Appendix F, Ph .... I Report.
At $.017/kWh.
\0 CJ Refer to table at pg. F-2, ~pendix F, Ph ..... I Report for diesel replacement and pq. F-9, Appendix F, Pha .. e t Report
........ hfor runner replace.ent •
t.J Salvage valu.. of diesel units only. Hydro plant assuMed to have run it!! life.
0 Uni t " $22,100
-...... n 22,100
(» .3 6,750
t.J 14 7,200
IS 28,flOO
S86,950
I-'
0'\ TABLE 5
I\)
-.......
V1 POWER COSTS
ALL DIESEL PRODUCTION
Power Fuel & Oil Other O&M Debt
Year Required Costs Costs Service Power Costs
1,000 kWh $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 ~1,000 mil1s7kWh
1 2,626 368 85 7 460 175.2
2 2,848 409 91 16 516 181. 2
3 3,071 455 98 16 569 185.3
4 3,293 499 109 16 624 189.5
5 3,516 549 117 16 682 194.0
~
I 6 3,586 572 126 16 714 199.1 .... 7 3,658 600 135 16 751 205.3
8 3,731 629 141 16 786 210.7
9 3,806 659 150 16 A25 216.8
10 3,882 685 160 16 861 221.8
11 3,960 721 171 16 908 229.3
12 4,039 754 185 48 977 241.9
13 4,120 788 196 38 1,022 248.0
14 4,202 822 212 38 1,072 255.1
15 4,286 863 228 38 1,12<l 263.4
16 4,372 905 245 38 1,188 271.7
17 4,459 943 263 38 1,244 27<}.0
\0 18 4,548 988 281 38 1,307 287.4
-....... 19 4,639 1,007 309 3S1 L,3~4 2°1. 9 IV
0 20 4,732 1,028 333 38 1,399 295.6
-.......
00
IV
..... TABLE 5 -Continued C\
N ,
V1
Power Fuel & Oil Other O&M Debt
Year Required Costs Costs Service Power Costs
1,000 kWh $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 m:l11s7kWh
21 4,732 1,028 333 53 1,414 298.8
22 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
23 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
24 4,732 1, 028 333 76 1,437 303.7
25 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
26 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
27 4,732 1,028 333 76 1, 437 303.7
.t:a 28 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
I 29 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7 co 30 4,732 1,028 333 76 1,437 303.7
31 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
32 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
33 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
34 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
35 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
36 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
37 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
38 4,732 1,028 333 ~5 1,456 333.0
39 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
40 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
ID 41 4,732 1,028 , 333 95 1,456 333.0
N 42 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0 0 , 43 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0 co
N 44 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
45 4,732 1,028 333 95 1, 456 333.0
TABLE 5 -Continued
Power Fuel & oil other O&M Debt
Year Required Costs Costs Service Power Costs
1,000 kWh $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 mi11s7kWh
46 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
47 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
48 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
49 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
50 4,732 1,028 333 95 1,456 333.0
TABLE 6
POWER COSTS
PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Total Diesel
Power Required Fuel &. oil Other O&M Total O&.M Debt Hydro Debt
Year Required Diesel Costs Costs Costs Service Expense Service Power Costs
1,000 kWh 1,000 kWh $ $ $1,000 $1, 000 $1,000 $1,000 U,OOO mIl 1s7kWfi
l a 2,626 IB4 25,BOB B4,642 110 270 3BO 7 3B7 147
2 2,B4B 97 13,935 91,264 105 270 375 16 3~1 137
3 3,071 49 7,260 9B,349 106 270 376 16 392 12B
4 3,293 230 34,861 109,153 144 270 414 16 430 130
5 3,516 120 1B,731 117,352 136 270 406 16 422 120.0
6 3,586 57 9,901 126,064 135 270 405 16 421 117.4 ,.. 7 3,658 256 41,985 135,10A 177 270 447 16 463 121;.6
I 8 3,731 127 21,403 140,737 162 270 432 16 448 120.1
I-' 9 3,806 61 10,556 150,432 161 270 431 16 447 117.4 0 10 3,BB2 272 47,997 160,342 20B 270 478 16 494 127.2
11 3,960 134 24,400 170,6AO 195 270 465 16 4B1 121.5
12 4,039 65 12,130 IB5,404 198 270 46B 3B 506 125.3
13 4,120 28B 55,053 196,560 21)2 270 522 38 560 135.9
14 4,202 143 27,984 212,282 240 270 510 3A 54B 130.4
15 4,286 6B 13,691 22B,584 242 270 512 38 550 12A.3
16 4,372 306 63,336 245,4B4 309 270 579 38 617 141.1
17 4,459 152 32,151 262,950 295 270 565 38 603 135.2
18 4,54B 73 15,853 280,7B6 297 270 567 4R 605 133.0
19 4.639 325 70,580 309,062 3AO 270 650 3B 6AB 148.3
20 4,732 161 34,964 333,3B4 36B 270 63B 38 676 142.B
21 4.732 75 16,2B8 333,3B4 350 311 661 53 714 150.9
22 4,732 331 71,8B3 333,3B4 405 311 716 7fl 7Q'] 167.4
23 4,732 161 34,964 333,3B4 368 311 679 76 755 159.6
\0 24 4,732 75 16,28A 333,3A4 350 311 661 76 737 1<;5.7 .........
I\.) 25 4,732 331 71,8A3 333,3B4 405 311 716 76 7Q2 167.4
0
......... 26 4,732 161 34,969 333,3A4 31lB 311 fl79 76 755 159.fl
00 27 4,732 75 16,28B 333,3A4 350 311 661 76 737 155.7 I\.)
28 4,732 331 71,883 333,3A4 405 311 71fl 76 7~2 167.4
29 4,732 161 34,964 333,384 36A 311 679 76 755 159.6
30 4,732 75 16,288 333,3B4 350 311 flf)1 76 737 155.7
.... TABLE 6 Continued 0'\ -
f>..)
........
U1
Total Diesel
Power Required Fuel & Oil Other O&M Total O&M Deht Hydro Debt
Year Required Diesel Costs Costs Costs Service Expense Service Power Costs
1,000 'kWh 1,000 'kWh $ $ $1,000 Sl,OOO $1,000 n,ooo n ,lHjlJ mIUs7'1{Wh
31 4,732 331 71,e83 333,384 405 311 716 ~5 Rll 171.4
32 4,732 161 34,964 333,384 3f.R 311 619 9'> 714 163.6
33 4,732 75 16,288 333,384 350 311 1161 Q5 756 ISct.R
34 4,732 331 71,883 333,384 405 311 7111 95 Rll 171.4
35 4,732 161 34,964 333,384 368 311 679 95 114 163.6
36 4,732 75 16,288 333,384 350 41 391 «l5 4R6 102.1
31 4,723 331 71 ,883 333,394 405 41 446 ~5 541 114.3
38 4,132 161 34,964 333,384 368 41 409 ct5 504 106.5
39 4,732 15 16,288 333,384 350 41 391 ~5 4R6 102.1
40 4,123 331 71,893 333,384 405 41 446 95 541 114.3
,r:..
I 41 4,732 161 34,964 333.384 368 41 409 95 504 106.5 I-'
I-' 42 4,732 75 16,288 333,384 350 41 391 95 486 102.1
43 4,723 331 71,883 333,384 405 41 446 ~5 541 114.3
44 4,132 161 34,964 333,384 368 41 409 95 504 106.5
45 4,132 75 16,288 333,384 350 41 391 95 486 102.7
46 4,723 331 71,883 333,384 405 41 446 95 541 114.3
41 4,732 161 34,964 333,384 368 41 409 95 504 106.5
48 4,732 15 16,288 333,384 350 41 391 95 486 102.1
49 4,123 331 71,883 333,384 405 41 446 95 541 114.3
50 4,132 161 34,964 333,384 368 41 409 95 504 106.5
a Year 1 .. 1984.
As can be seen, under the all-diesel alternative, the
cost per kilowatt-hour starts at $0.175, rising to $0.296 IT
20 years, reaching $0.333 at 31 years, and continuing at
that level. On the other hand, considering the hydraulic
alternative, using diesel only to supplement, the cost per
kilowatt-hour ranges between $0.114 and $0.147 for the first
20 years, varies between $0.151 and $0.171 the next 15
years, and then averages $0.108 for the remainder of the 50-
year project life. In every year, the customer pays less
for electric energy. For further comparison, the 1984 rate
was assumed to be $0.080 for the present system and escala-
ted 7 percent per year from 20 years and all three rate
schemes plotted at Figure 4. The importance to be long-term
customer of early implementation of the proposed hydroelec-
tric project is graphically apparent.
SCHEDULING
It would be normal practice to investigate alternative
timing techniques to optimize the phasing of construction to
obtain the best use of money. However, several vital fac-
tors rule out the potential for staging of construction.
First, the existing crib dam is in danger of failing. Such
a failure would not create any excessive threat to the com-
munity, but would place total reliance on the diesel gener-
ating system. During high electric demand periods, the
diesel capacity is not adequate without the addition of a
fifth generator, and the implications regarding cost of
diesel power production have already been detailed.
A second factor is that the existing hydroelectric
plant burned down along wi th the swi tchgear. Unless there
is a rapid action to replace the system, the town and busi-
ness of Pelican will not be able to continue operations at
the high costs the old diesel system will incur.
4-12
162/5 1/83
340
330
3'ZO
3'0
300
'290
2'80
2.70
2C;O
2S0
MILL.S 2-40
PER 2!tO
KwH 2'20
210
200
190
", 180 z
G) 170 -z I (DO
",
", 150 :::0 -140 z
G) 130 I
U) 120 n -110 ",
z 100 n
1"'1 90
z eo
n 0 5 10 IS
f:)IE~EL
A e,C;UMED INt='LATION
COMPARATIVE COST OF POWER
HYORO
YEAR
20 30 40 4S 50
.."
C')
c
:::u
fTI
A third consideration is that construction costs cannot
be expected to remain steady or deflate. Thus, as the proj-
ect is delayed, costs will increase. Further, the individu-
al parts of the project (new dam, new pipes, new hydro-
electric equipment) are so interrelated and dependent upon
each other that the total project cost will increase sub-
stantially.
The economic projections in this section assume the
proposed project's power plants will be on-line in 1983 and
the dam, new pipeline, and penstock in 1984. Attainment of
this goal is problematical, as will be shown below. The
factor which will have the greatest influence on project
completion will be the 6-to 8-month lead time on mechan-
ical/electrical equipment delivery and the constraint that
the dam must be built over the winter months. We recommend
that the machinery be purchased on an accelerated separate
contract, awarded by as soon as possible. The scheduling of
project completion as outlined on Figure 5 must be greatly
accelerated as shown below.
In order to construct the new dam during the low flow
period of Pelican Creek, a ·winter pour" will be necessary.
This requires scheduling so that the contractor can mobilize
and ini tiate work to permi t dam construction to start in
October. The critical activities are envisioned as follows:
Machinery ordered
General contractor on site
Construct dam, intake sluice,
machinery deck, and
new tailrace stream diversion
through existing flume while
completing dam. All diesel
generation during this period.
Machinery FOB
Install machinery
Complete all remaining work
4-14
Feb 1983
May 1983
May thru Sep
Dec thru May 1984
1 Aug 1983
1 Sep to Oct 1983
1 Apr to 1 Jun
FIGURE 5
PROJECT SCHEDULING
ACTION ELAPSE.D TIMe. (..-rO...,THS)
1= I NAL DES IGN
CALL. FOR ~ IDS
P.E.VIEW It AWARD
6U&M'TTA1-j APP"OVA.1..
MC&II..I%ATION
MANUP=A CTIJ~E '* S~/P
CO"-JST~UCTION
A. O"'M ~ 6TRW CTURES
8. P,P£I..INe&fJ.'lEN&TOCI<
INSi41..1-"QLJlPME~T
A.ECOMMENO!O TIMING
o 2 4 ~ e 10 12. 14 " 18 20 22 24 2~ 2e
H
~
~
t--t
. , • .
I
J
(\I fG cf) tC) ", ~ .., ... .. .. "" 't ... 1.1'1 t.ft
CD fJ C) ., to ., () CJ) CO CD C) co cO cO 0\ (b en G .,.
! Ol " ~ (J'I 8) 0' 0'\ (1\ Cfl ---------, , -, -, .... " ---, , -----------
~ . .. ti: . cr > . 0: 0: ~ Z ~ ..J 0: "> z Z ..J 0 '" 411( :::J W 0 4: .. :::J tal 0 ~ <f
-Z -, ~ ~ , U> :z , :E ~ -, III z , ~
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE. INC.
SECTION 5
MARKETING ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
The town of Pelican was originally selected as the
site for the Pelican Cold Storage operation because of the
hydroelectric potential on Pelican Creek and the companion
opportuni ty to have low cost power during many months of
each year. Considering the impact that rising oil costs
have had on the price of electric power, that original rea-
soning is even more valid today. Accordingly, it is assumed
that the processing plant will remain as long as adequate
and economical power is available. Similarly, the community
necessary to support the plant will remain. Thus, as long
as reasonably priced electric power is available, a market
is assured. Wi th the fire destroyed hydrop1ant, this as-
sumption will be tested because there may be better economic
alternatives to Pelican Cold Storage than staying in
Pelican.
POWER DEMAND
Demand figures are included in the Phase I Report. The
present hydroelectric facility is unable to supply suffi-
cient power during winter months (January, February, March)
and in the heaviest demand month (August) and the same con-
dition will exist with the new run-of-the-river facility.
Pelican Creek flows are not adequate during those months.
However, the new facility will make better use of the avail-
able runoff and use of the standby diesel plant will be
significantly reduced. On an annual basis, the new facility
5-1
162/6 1/83
will provide from 93 percent (low flow year) to 98 percent
(high flow year) of the total electric power requirements.
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY AND SPACE HEATING
There is potential to recapture heat from refrigeration
compressors (electric) used at the Pelican Cold Storage.
Similarly, heat generated by the diesel generators could be
captured. This recovered waste heat would logically be used
for space heating. But space heating is generally by oil
fired heaters at present, and so to convert to hot water
heating would have little impact on projections of electric
power consumption. This is to say that the principal effect
would be to reduce the use of heating oil rather than impact
power generation. Furthermore,
considerable magnitude would be
a capital investment of
required to convert the
plant and the community to a new system.
The issue is further complicated by the eight months of
hydroelectric power generation when the only recovered waste
heat would be off of the compressors. For these reasons, we
have assumed that present space heating practices will con-
tinue. Should conditions change and economics prove that it
will pay to abandon the oil fired heaters in favor of a
system that could use either electric power exclusively or
electric power for eight months and recovered waste heat for
four months in a year, then provision is made in the power
canal, penstock, and powerhouse for a future 250-500 kW
hydraulic turbine.
Better insulation of the refrigeration facility and
residences will reduce the total space heating/refrigeration
requirements of the community. But this is a matter of
economics. It is our understanding that Pelican Cold Stor-
age has concluded that it will pay to begin replacing their
inefficient sawdust insulation of their freezer spaces. The
building configuration to facilitate entrance and exits
seems to have a greater cold loss than the insulation.
5-2
FUTURE GROWTH
This report aSSlURes future growth in accordance with
Scenario #2, projected in Phase I by the Pelican Cold Stor-
age Company. As a result, this marketing projection and the
financing discussions following only aSSlURe a modest 2 per-
cent increase in electric power demand on an annual basis.
CAPSULIZATION OF MARKETING ASSESSMENT
It should always be kept in mind that this is a captive
market. The main load is a single industry and the ancil-
lary load is the community which that industry has fostered.
Growth projections are very modest, but do anticipate
considerable expansion of the plant both in capacity and
function. The need will continue for the cheapest energy
available, which in the future, as in the past, will be a
combination of run-of-the-river hydro, supplemented by die-
sel.
5-3
SECTION 6
FINANCING
INTRODUCTION
Table 6 in Section 4 develops figures for the cost of
power under the assumptions dictated by APA guidelines,
namely: 10 percent interest; 35-year amortization period:
fuel escalating at 2.6 percent per year for 20 years: and
the cost of equipment inflating at 7 percent per year for 20
years. The results appear quite realistic and represent the
result of financing by conventional sale of bonds. There
are other means of financing the project, however, and these
will be discussed briefly -without a recommendation. It is
felt that the ultimate recommendations which will consider
subjects such as interest rates, periods of repayment, pub-
lic versus private financing, project ownership, deprecia-
tion, and tax credits is beyond the intended scope of this
assignment. This is truly a function of the office of fi-
nance of the APA -perhaps in consultation with a financing
consultant.
The three basic groups of options seen, even after the
fire, are:
I Financing by the State of Alaska:
II Financing by the Pelican Cold Storage Company or
the Pelican Utility Company:
III Financing by a third party.
Whichever way the project is financed, the state might
assist with interim financing during the early part of
6-1
162/21 1/83
construction, since some of the financing options selected
can require a lead time, and we believe, considering the
condition of Pelican Dam and the burned down power plant,
that time is of the essence.
I -FINANCING BY THE STATE OF ALASKA
Real or ficticious, there appear to be three methods
under which the state, acting in the best interest of the
people of the state, could finance this project:
A. By an outright grant~
B. By insurance money and an interest free loan -of
duration to be determined:
C. A conventional loan and insurance money, without
subsidy, made either from the general fund or from
the sale of bonds. Table 6 is intended to be rep-
resentative of the cost of power under this option
using economic assumptions established by APA.
II -FINANCING BY PELICAN COLD STORAGE COMPANY OR THE PELI-
CAN UTILITY COMPANY
These apparent options are:
A. A loan and insurance money by the Pelican Cold
Storage Company to the Pelican Utility Company from
cash-on-hand, for a repayment period and at an
interest rate to be negotiated between the two
bodies and approved by the PUC.
B. By sale of bonds by either the Pelican Cold Storage
Company or the Pelican Utility Company, plus insur-
ance money.
C. A system under which the Pelican Cold Storage Com-
pany would own the facility and sell the power to
the Pelican Utility Company for marketing. The
Pelican Cold Storage Company would finance the
project over 10 or more years, at an interest rate
6-2
162/21 1/83
that would probably have to be approved by the PUC:
and then would take the tax credits available for
energy and renewable energy investment, and the
rapid depreciation schedule available to small
hydro projects.
III -FINANCING BY A THIRD PARTY
The Pelican Utility Company could seek financing:
A. From a lending institution, entrepreneur or equip-
ment manufacturer, at interest rates and over a
repayment period to be negotiated or based on a
bid.
B. A system similar to II C wherein ownership and in-
surance benefits would have to be transferred to
the lender with provision for reversion of owner-
ship to Pelican after the depreciation period or
when the principal is paid off.
IMPACT THAT FINANCING HAS ON POWER COSTS
Naturally, with the myriad of repayment periods, inter-
est rates and tax advantages involved in the eight systems
of financing mentioned, a meaningful comparison cannot be
made. However, Table 7 is presented to test the tlsensi ti v-
ity" of the resulting cost of power to the different systems
of finance under the following assumptions:
*
1. The O&M component of power costs will be taken from
Table 6;
2. The debt serving component of power costs will
assume equal annual payments under the following
assumptions.
* 3. Insurance benefits would improve the cost shown.
NOTE: Not included in Table 7.
6-3
162/21 1/83
.... ,.. TABLE 7
~ ......
~ SENSITIVITY OF POWER COSTS .... TO SYSTEMS OF FINANCING
Debt Retirement Costeb
O&Me Total Annual Coat l Coat of powerq
Powera Interest-State CamlerciaI Interest-State Oiiiiiercial Intereet-State Oiiiiierdal
Year Required Grant Fr ee klan. klan klans Costs Grant Free klans klan klan. Grant Free klan. klan klans
1.000 kWh $1.000 $1.000 n.OOOe $1.000d $1.000 $1.000 $1.000 $1.000 $1,000 lIIill. mill. lIIiU. mills
1 2,626 1 81 217 433 110 117 191 387 543 44.5 72.7 141.4 2Ofi.A
2 2,848 16 90 286 433 105 121 195 391 53A 42.5 68.5 137.3 188.0
3 3,011 16 90 286 433 106 122 106 392 539 3 0 .7 63.1'1 127.6 175.!'
4 3,293 16 90 286 433 144 160 234 4:10 517 48.6 71.0 130.6 175.2
5 3.516 16 90 286 433 136 152 226 422 0;60 43.2 64.3 120.0 161.A
6 3,586 16 90 286 433 135 151 225 421 568 42.1 62.7 117.4 1"i8.4
7 3,658 16 90 286 433 177 193 267 463 610 52.8 73.0 126." 166.8
8 3,131 16 90 286 433 162 178 252 441'1 5 0 5 47.7 67.S 120.1 P,CI."i
9 3,806 16 90 286 433 161 177 251 447 594 46.5 6"i.9 117.4 IS6.1
0'\ 10 3.882 16 90 286 433 208 224 298 404 641 57.7 76.8 127.2 161l.1
I
.r::o. 11 3,960 16 90 286 30 195 211 2BS 41'11 225 52.3 72.0 121.5 o;".A
12 4.039 38 112 308 30 198 236 310 506 22B 51'1.4 76.A 125.3 69.A
13 4,120 38 112 308 30 252 290 364 !'60 21'12 70.4 8R.3 13!'.0 6R.4
14 4.202 38 112 308 30 240 278 352 548 270 6".2 83.8 130.4 64.2
15 4.286 38 112 308 30 242 200 30:;4 550 212 65.3 82.6 128.~ 6~."i
16 4.372 38 112 308 30 309 347 421 617 339 79.4 %.3 141.1 17 ...
11 4.459 38 112 308 30 295 333 407 603 32"i 74.7 91.3 13"i.2 72.CI
18 4.548 38 112 308 30 2<17 335 400 605 327 73.6 89.CI 133.0 71. CI
19 4.639 38 112 308 30 300 418 492 68B 410 90.1 106.0 148.3 81'1.4
20 4.732 38 112 308 30 368 506 400 676 391'1 106.9 101.4 142.A A4.1
21 4.132 94 168 364 30 350 394 SIR 714 300 83.3 100.5 150.9 RO.3
22 4.732 117 191 387 129 405 522 0;96 792 534 110.3 126.0 167.4 112.R
23 4,732 117 191 387 129 36R 4A5 S59 7<;5 4C17 102.5 11R.l 160.0 100;.0
24 4,732 117 191 387 129 350 467 541 737 470 98.7 114.3 155.7 101.2
25 4,132 117 191 387 129 405 522 596 7<12 534 110.3 126.0 167.4 112.R
26 4,132 117 191 387 129 368 485 559 75S 40 7 102.5 11 8.1 160.0 105.0
27 4.132 117 191 387 129 350 467 541 737 47<1 98.7 114.3 ] 0;5. 7 101.2
28 4,732 117 191 387 129 405 522 506 7 0 2 534 1l0.:l 126.0 167.4 112.A
g 29 4,732 117 191 387 129 368 4A5 5S9 755 4 0 7 102.<; llA.l 160.0 101l.0
..... 30 4.732 117 191 387 129 350 467 541 737 479 <lB. "7 114.3 1';5.7 101.2
-.) ....
.....
D
-.)
....
0\ TABLE 7 -Continued
IV ........
IV ....
Debt Retirement COBtSb Total Annual costE Cost of power9
Powera IntereBt-state CooImerc1al a.Me Interest-State Cormterdal Interest-State C'iiiiiiierdal
Y_r Required Grant Free klans klan Loansd Costs Grant Free Loans Loan klans Grant Free Loan. klan klan.
1,000 kWh $1.000 $1,000 $1,OOOc $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1.000 $1,000 $1,000 mills mill. mill. milla
31 4,132 136 210 406 151 405 541 615 811 562 114.3 130.0 111.4 llf1.A
32 4,132 136 210 406 58 368 504 518 114 426 106.5 122.1 163.6 90.0
33 4,132 136 210 406 58 350 486 560 1'\6 408 102.7 118.3 1 5"". A f\6.2
34 4,132 136 210 406 58 405 541 615 811 463 114.3 131'.0 155.7 °1.9
35 4,732 136 210 406 58 36A 504 0;78 714 426 101>.5 122.1 163.6 00.0
36 4,132 136 136 136 58 350 486 486 486 40A 102.7 102.7 102.1 fH;.2
31 4,123 136 136 136 58 405 0;41 541 0;41 463 114.3 114.3 114.3 <I7.fI
38 4,132 136 136 136 58 368 504 504 504 426 106.5 106.5 10fO.5 00.0
39 4,132 136 136 136 88 350 486 486 4A6 438 102.7 102.7 102.1 .... 2.#1
40 4,123 136 136 136 129 405 541 541 441 534 114.3 114.3 114.3 112.fI
41 4,132 136 136 136 129 368 504 504 504 4 .... 7 106.5 106.5 106.5 105.0
42 4,132 136 136 136 129 350 486 486 486 41 .... 102.7 102.1 102.1 101.2
0\ 43 4,123 136 136 136 129 405 541 541 441 534 114.3 114.3 114.3 112.A
I 44 4,132 136 136 136 129 368 S04 S04 504 491 106.5 106.5 106.5 105.0
U1 45 4,132 136 136 136 129 350 486 486 486 479 102.7 102.7 102.7 101.2
46 4,123 136 136 136 129 405 541 541 441 534 114.3 114.3 114.3 112.8
41 4,732 136 136 136 129 368 504 504 504 4<'.11 101>.5 106.5 106.5 105.0
48 4,132 136 136 136 129 350 486 486 4f16 419 102.1 102.7 102.7 101.2
49 4,123 136 136 136 99 405 541 541 441 <;04 114.3 114.3 114.3 106.5
50 4,132 136 136 136 0 368 504 504 504 368 106.5 106.5 106.5 11.8
~Power requirement. from Table 6.
Grant, interest-free, and state loans refer to capital cost of initial project ($2.6 million). Replacement capital borrowed at lOt for 21'
~ears. See Table 4.
dstate loan of $2.6 million at 10' for 35 years.
replacement at lOt for 10 years. :~: t;!b~r~~ed as needed for construction or
Debt retirement plus a.M.
9Annual cost divided by power required.
System
I A
I B
I C
II A
II B
II C
III A
III B
*
Short Description
State grant
State interest free loan
State conventional financing
Pelican Cold Storage Co. loan
Pelican bond sale
Pelican Cold Storage ownership
Conventional loan
Outside ownership
Repayment
Period
N/A
35
35
35
35
10
35
10
Interest
Rate
N/A
e
10
Ie
10
10 *
10
Ie *
This assumes Ie percent as the net interest charged to the
project, with the entrepreneur taking all the advantage of
the investment credits and depreciation.
This reduces to four schedules of power cost shown in Table
7:
1. Grant condition
2. 35-year payback at e percent interest
3. 35-year payback at Ie percent interest
4. Ie-year payback at Ie percent interest
The power costs from these schedules are plotted on
Figure 6.
6-6
162/21 1/83
PROJECTED POWER COSTS
210
lOO
190
.eo
(70
I~O
150
'40
MII.I.S I~O
PE.R 120
KWH 110
100
90
", eo z
C> 70
z tOO ",
", 150 :0
Z 40
C> !O I .."
en 20 n
~ (0
z 0 n o '2. 4 ~ CO ~ 10 12 14 I~ 18 20 Z'Z. 24 '2ft> 28 ~o ~2 ~4 3" ~s 40 4Z 44 4(044 SO -
z YEAR
n
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
o
electric
Neither the existing diesel nor the proposed hydro-
systems are capable of satisfying the projected
power demands on a year-round basis.
o The potential for failure of the crib darn dictates
prompt action.
o Hydropower generating facility must be constructed
immediately.
o In comparison with the diesel generation base case,
the proposed hydroelectric project is economically advanta-
geous. Dependence on diesel, except as a supplement to hy-
droelectric power, places an undue cost burden on the con-
sumer. The proposed hydroelectric project is economically
feasible, with a benefi t/ cost ratio of 2.57 which may be
higher considering the insurance benefits.
o The destructive fire dictates an equipment contract
award by February or March of 1983 of a year to permit start
operations perhaps as soon as September or October 1983.
The darn must be built over the first dry winter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
o Initiate final design of the project, targeting
negotiation of a machinery contract in February or March
1983, with dellivery in September or October 1983.
7-1
162/8 1/83
o Apply to the U.S. Forest Service for permission to
flood to elevation +156 upstream from the proposed dam loca-
tion.
o Finalize financing methods targeting the powerhouse
contract for May 1983 and the remaining system's construc-
tion contract award for 1 September 1983 and project comple-
tion in May 1984.
7-2
162/8 1/83
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
DATED 29 MAY 1982
r
ES ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
194 E. PARADISE LANE • ALPINE, UTAH 84003 • 801nS6-9341
May 29, 1982
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attention Jerry Larson
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed are copies of the preliminary calculation on the dam 100 feet downstream
of the present Pelican Creek Dam, the preliminary Hydraulic Profile using the
arch dam concept, and pictures showing the crushed condition of the cribs which
hold the internal lateral forces. \,'hen we visited the si te in November, the
water was covering the dam and the dO'VTIstream site that is being proposed. In
April, a visit was made to the site when the water was low. At that time, the
pictures were taken, a rough topographic evaluation of the lower site was made,
and a ~areful visual evaluation of the old dam was made.
The ~ld dam has some of the cribs failing, and others in various degrees of de-
terioration. The interior rocks "ere covered with heavy deposits of moss which
would not allow a good bond when grouted and may retard the set of the grout from
the sugars and organics. These facts that were not available in Phase I have
changed what we would recommend for the repair of the crib dam. It now appears
that the old dam would have to be torn to pieces and replaced with new timbers
and cribs. The cost would be in excess of what the Phase I estimate was.
The concrete dam downstream ~f the old dam has been evaluated. It will take
around 200 cubic yards of concrete and the cost of concrete is estimated between
$1,500 per cubic yard and 52,000 per cubic yard for a total of 5400,000. This
would not be as much as the rebuild of the old dam. Since the dam is 100 feet
closer, it cuts off $100,000 of flume, and because of the increased head it would
reduce 600 feet of pipe from a 60" at a cost of $400 per foot to a 48 11 which is
$325 per foot for a total savings of $45,000. There would be 7-foot more avail-
able head which could generate $31,500 more energy per year.
For the above reasons, we recommend the best alternative of Phase II would be
the c0nstruction of the concrete dam 100 feet downstream of the existing one.
We do not feel that it would be prudent to proceed until we have your response.
Enclosures 3
cc /at Creegan
Jim Ferguson
ah
OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES
APPENDIX B
LETTER TO MR. HARVEY HUTCHINSON
DATED 29 JUNE 1982
. ; ':1
Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
Eng1ncer1ng Science
194 E; Paradise Lnne
Alpine, Utah 84003
Dear Harvey:
June 29, 1982
The staff at the Power Authority have reviewed the slides of thE
Pelican Damsite and concur with your recommendation to proc('~d \'Jith the?
feas1b1l1ty of the n?yl concrete hydro/wut~r supply dar:'1.
Having accompanied you on the detailed inspection in April. I ~G
aware of the problem.and in agreement with your appronch to the
solution. w~ fe~l that the dam is not in a hazardcus location. but is
in a state of deterioration such that it could fail. In a conversation
last ~eek with US Forest Service, Lcs Paul. we were told thry h~vc tha
Pelica~ Da~site listed a~ a ~oder3te safety hazard and do not fCPl th~t
in the event of a failure the city would be in danger.
Securing the water supply should he of utmo5t import~nce for not
only the hydroelectric plant, but also for th~ potilblc w~tcr supply. If
the existing dam should f~l1, th~ Pelic?!n cold stC'rag,"! cou1d stilrt th"ir
diesels tc provide el~ctric1ty. but there would not be ~ pot~~le w~tnr
supply for the city or the processor. This s1tu~tion cculrl be ~or~
serious, due to health problems ~nd closure of the proc~s5in9 facility
than any down strea~ dam~ge that could occur if th~ dan failed.
Please prcceed with the fe~s1bility study, basad on our current
knO\"lE'dae of the d3r.1sfte as 1t (!xists, and the I~epl~c~!il?nt \Jith a n\:\/
concret~ structure before the old da~ f~1ls.
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JL: kjs
_.
Si nc~rcly t
'.
Jerry Larson
Project r·~anager
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATE
APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATE
Description of Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost
Mobilization & Demobilization L.S. $100,000 $100,000
Concrete Arch Dam
Foundation preparation L.S. 150,000 150,000
Concrete c.y. 250 1,200 300,000
Flume
New trash racks L.S. 6,000 6,000
Replace flume w/48·~
pipe through tunnel L.F. 60 300 18,000
New 48"~ sluice L.S. 27,000 27,000
Seal tunnel portals L.S. 2,000 2,000
New 15 I ~ surge tower L.S. 40,000 40,000
New 48"~ wood stave flume
and fittings L.F. 523 260 137,000
Demolition L.S. 7,000 7,000
Penstock
New 48"~ wood stave
penstock and fittings L.F. 358 310 111,000
Demolition L.S. 5,000 5,000
Flume & Penstock Substructure
Cleanup L.S. 5,000 5,000
Miscellaneous repairs L.S. 10,000 10,000
Powerhouse
Concrete, machine room c.y. 50 700 35,000
Machinery package, 500 kW
and 250 kW hydro turbine
units, line valves L.S. 572,000 572,000
Freight & installation L.S. 250,000 250,000
Excavation c.y. 500 40 -20,000
Wood framed building S.F. 840 100 84,000
Afterbay and Tailrace
Excavation C.y. 850 40 34,000
Structure backfill C.Y. 200 60 12,000
Concrete c.y. 250 700 175,000
Reservoir
Clearing and grubbing L.S. 50,000 50,000
C-1
162/20 1/83
Description of Item
Electrical Work, Controls
Retaining Wall
Concrete
162/20
Unit Quantity Unit Price
L.S. 85,000
C.y. 80
Subtotal
Engineering @ 12%
Contingencies @ 20%
TOTAL
C-2
700
Cost
85,000
56,000
$2,291,000
275,000
458,000
$3,024,000
1/83
NATIONAL mANK, PIPE CO. Engineering in Wood I Tanks and Pipe
P.o. Box 7 • 10037 S.E. Mather Rd .• Clackamas, Oregon 97015 • Telex: 36-0665 • 5031656-1991
Mr. Ray Sonoda
Engineering Science
600 Bancroft Way
August 17, 1982
Berkeley, California 94710
Re: Wood Pipe -Pelican, Alaska
Dear Mr. Sonoda:
Thank you for asking us for information on continuous
stave wood pipe for the above project. We are pleased to
confirm our budget prices.
825 lineal feet 48" I.D. Continuous Stave Pipe.
Staves from 2" nominal thickness Clear All Heart
Redwood lumber. Staves furnished in random lengths.
Ends of staves slotted and furnished with steel
splines. Pipe banded for heads specified with
poly-coated mild steel bands and vinyl coated
shoes. Materials packed for water shipment.
Pipe banded for SO' head
Price • • • • • • • $ 93.02 lin. ft.
approx. wt. 83# lin. ft.
Pipe banded for 100' head
Price • • • • • • • $114.47 lino ft.
approx. wt. 105# lin.ft.
Pipe banded for lSO' head
Price • • • • • • • $13S.83 lin.ft.
approx. wt. 128# lin.ft.
(1) Surge Tank -lS'O" Outside Diameter
Consisting of:
Staves from 3" nominal thickness Clear
All Heart Redwood of one or multipiece
glue laminated and finger jointed con-
struction and conforming to National
Wood Tank Institute Specifications #8-7S.
Engineering Science
(1) Surge Tank -15'0" O.D. (continued)
August 17 J 1982
-2-
Hoops and hoop lugs shall be designed
for 1.0 specific gravity. Hoops shall
be poly-coated and the lugs shall be
vinyl coated.
Bottom "0" ring seal designed for seal-
ing wood staves to concrete bottom.
Concrete bottom forms.
Materials packed for water shipment.
Not included: Concrete bottom, cover,
piping, fittings, other accessories
If tank is 25 t outside height
Price • • • • • • • $14,671.00 each
approx. wt. 11,644# each
If tank is 30' outside height
Price • • .'. • • • $17,460.00 each
approx. wt. 14,089# each
Prices:
1. are for materials knocked-down f.o.b.
our plant, Clackamas, Oregon.
2. are good for 30 days. If more time
is needed, please check with us.
3. Subject to credit approval, "Terms of
Sale ll 2% discount for payment 15 days
after date of invoice, net cash 30
days after date of invoice.
4. Form 74M is made a part of this letter.
Prices donotincl ude: '
1. State or local taxes.
2. Freight.
We recommend an 8' on center maximum spacing on cradles
for the pipe quoted above.
Shipment can generally be made in approximately 30-45
days after receipt of an order or drawing approval.
Engineering Science August 17, 1982
-3-
We can to the complete installation of the materials
quoted or furnish an installation advisor to supervise your
crew. This advisory service is charged at $300.00 daily
rate which is based on an 8-hour day, standard 40-hour week
including travel time from Clackamas, Oregon, and return.
Travel and living expenses to be added.
Enclosed are copies of pages taken from our Wood Pipe
Handbook giving you some details on wood pipe fittings and
some sheets entitled "Why Modern Plants Use Wood Pipe".
If we can be of further service, please feel free to
gi ve us a call.
encl.
cc: Don Gesner
Sincerely,
NATIONAL TANK & PIPE COMPANY
Sharka Becvar
Sales
I
· . ,
Ref
RAY SONODA
EI'lG. ~'e=Nee-
Trident Engineering Company
P. O. Box 11232
Piedmont Station
Oakland, California 94611
ATTN: Mr. George Skopecek
lW8l-2865 Pelican Project
Dear George:
i D!I!:ct Diai
I
A TTE(-.iTlOr..:
NEW MAILING Au;"'. ~. ... 1\ .... ..)_
The J.met Leffer & Cc.
P. O. 60. 1607
Spring'ie!d, Ohio .cSSvi.lo"j;'
i Dc', 8/6/82
I ,
This is in reference to your phone calIon July 30, 1982 in which you requested
information on the above listed site. Attached you will find two (2) sets of
performance curves and data sheets for Francis type units.
The 10.75 inch turbine would meet the requirement for the 250 KW unit and the
15 inch unit would satisfy the 500 KW requirement. Please note that on the
smaller unit, the gear drive is being used as a reduction unit. Due to the
high head and small diameter this speed is rather high, but does not exceed in
the safe limits on rim velocity.
If you need any further information, please feel free to call.
Se;;;'~aJ'
/lit/r A. ~~"
Sales Engineer
JAJ/jau
Tile James Leffel" Co.
426 East SHeet
Phone
~13) 323·6431
Established 1862
LEFFEL T:)e James Leffel & Co. Spnngfield, Ohio
r· ;
\
"
'>>------------.---------. '_ .. ,--
I
REF. # lW8l-2865 DATE: 8/6/82 ----~~-----------
SITE NAME: ______ ~P~e~l~ic~a~n~P~r~o~j~e~c~t~ __________________________________ __
Horizontal shaft Francis
TURBINE TYPE: in a steel spiral case
RATED HEAD 138 ft. -----------------
TURBINE SPEED: 1453 (RPM)
TURBINE RUNAWAY: 2674 (RPM)
GENERATOR SPEED: 1200 (RPM)
GEAR RATIO: 1. 2: 1
TURBINE SIZE: ____ ~10~.~7~5~i~n~c~h~e~s_
MAX. FLOW 27.5 cfs
----;.......;;.......; ......... -----
TURBINE PACKAGE INCLUDES:
Synchronous Generator
Governor
Gear Drive System
Spiral Case
The current preliminary price for this equipment would be:
Approximately •••••••••• ~206,500.00 Each F.O.B. Factory*
Springfield, Ohio
* (See Terms and Conditions on the attached sheet)
, I
'1j'::, ':,
" , 'II
I ,! I!
, , ;: : ~ , j i; !'; I
I , I I l I: :: ~ i
,I ,,"
: ,I
,I ", .: I
; I • 'II i" ill':1 " ::, I 1 :, I '
, ".j I!. , .. 1
I . '".' :'
,,! I" ; : ~; , ' I : Ii ' , , 1 , :
" ,'" I'" '" , ) I, I ii' 1 .,1 I" I' 1 \' I , 'I I ' , ' II ," I' [ ,,' I I" , I , I " , 'I I""" I I ' "II' I !", I,. , " , II t II 'I, I
I l I",! I ...... ; '.1..1 .j , "I' ", "I"
I, 'I'! III' ,II: ,'1:' I, 'I I' I I '" , ., II , I! l t I I" I' I I I II
, 11" """" II I I I I' I I j:; I' I '" :.,' , I! ,! I II " 'I
I" ... ,J I "I" ,.t. . ~
: !
II: " ,; : I :1' I I,! j' ,
I I 1, II j ::, 'I ! i1 ,1'('(::: II: '
J ., ~'Ii .,., 'I " I. III ,
I I' ~!I: 11, , ;1 I' I I I' ,,, '
: M: 11'; ii'" : I " ! III , ~ ) , ,\0: ,! ':, : I ;::; :! I!: ! I
i" "" I,:, ! i, , ,
'I' ·1
" , , " ,
I ,
~ 1 !
"
I' ,.,; ,
"". I' :.I iii ,
,t' ,
,
, I
i ,\he James Leffel & Co, Springfield, Ohio
II
~---------,-----------,~ -,--,----
1-
REF. :fI 1W81-2865
SITE NAME: Pelican Project
Horizontal shaft Francis
TURBINE TYPE: in a steel spiral
RATED HEAD 138 ft.
TURBINE SPEED : __ ~1,;..20,;..O~_(RPM)
TURBINE RUNAWAY :_--..;;1;.;;.9.:;.16~_(RPM)
GENERATOR SPEED : __ 1_2_00 __ (RPM)
case
DATE: 8/6/82
TURBINE SIZE: 15 inches
MAX. FLOW 55 cfs
TURBINE PACKAGE INCLUDES:
Synchronous Generator
Governor
Spiral Case
The current preliminary price for this equipment would be:
Approximate1y •••••••••• $270,OOO.OO Each F.O.B. Factory*
Springfield, Ohio
* (See Terms and Conditions on the attached sheet)
J
l /' .'
r ~
I
"
I
"
,
I,
i ,
" "i I: I; -rUR B~J./I=,: ~()TPtl1-, ,-:: II. Pol' ill!',:, 'i':
II I, ;4S-O:', : I'~::II i ::',: 5~ :1, ' I ii, f;~,', "
q I;: I, I '" ': ; ,i:: ,i" '" , :, ' '1'1" 1 i " II 'I I 'I I,' I' , 'II I I I I ;' '. ,! I": ,. I I ' I " I" , ,
I , 'I! I' oj II j I I,' , •. 1 I !. 1 I, ' , ,
I : . , , I' j" , , " , , 'I'" " '" " " , ;" ',' , ',;: ';:' "/"; i:1 "I ': 'I:: I ' " ", 'I Ii, I" I' " , I I' .' I " ,I, I .. ! I , " I
':," ' ;,' ,i 111'1 ;:": ",:!
: i
I
I
,
, : I
,I . :: I . r ',I t i. I r i
i! i 'I:, I ! i) i ' ". 'I: 1 1 :.1: I ' '
, i . ; j i Ii : i : II ~
~ I i
I ':
) "1
I !,"
'I ,,'
, ,
,; 1 ,': ; : ,
i
,
: ! I,
! '
!: '
: -'
,i I ,
I,
: i
'I
, , II
i:' ~ I I
" " . I" :i . I
" ';:.i,;, 'I ' : :: i;
I !::: I: i: II' I ' ' I,
, j' ' Iii: I ~j J~ :' q' , i: j ii' III; ;;! I ':: :: 'I '
:':' : ~I ]1 ; ;"! :::~':;'
"I ,',,'" , , I ' " I I ' , , , ' i' . , i I : 1 : ~ : j : j ~ : "" ~
;:'I! ':~'I #'~ .,i I~ /tIFr.
il'! I [(.Il,,", i II~' I; :~I i, i III;!! i I, I; II1II i i II I,!,h,# ll.~;I"":'!)N !A, '$""~
, : i: l: I ! I' ! II Ii" I I'll ,: ,,: 'II I:' I : i I: s P ifllll.J; : i cAtS i : i 'I I I I I! I : " I " "I" I I :, I '~' '/' I', , II' I i I: : ~ :! I;;! I III : i ' :!!: " : I, 'I , ' ' ,
':'II{;HO i, ~J 1',' 'I: :
I, , , ," I' i'" "I, ,', ,,' II; ,! i! I "I I' ~Pf.!Gl>, t /2 «:l(!), I'U"', I ,
Iii I t' , " I 'I i I I ' , ; I
11
1
,:1 ii, ;,.;,,' ':1', I : I , : : : I : I I ,! ' ' ,;., , I , I ' 'I"" I I I" I', '" ' ' ' I, 1 , , ,," I I I I I -I I , I
, , lit, ,;, ' "i ,: : "
j;; I I I,
I 'i: ,
!, 1, I
!; , I I,!
'I!; I: '
!
I
I
'i:, I:i,' ,
I :", :: I;,'
!' I:'
I
:: ,,' ,,' 1,1 !!
i; I"
, 'I:
,
i
FOfr 'I'fl ~LI#+II)Y;/J 1"
I
I
,uCY'
I,
I
I,
I
!
. Ii I;
I 1';$'0
: i ' : : /1, '
, ,
, 'I
, !
': '
i , ' , ,
I: ,
i'
I' ,
I
1.1.
: i'
I ": ,.
, i ,
" , , ,
Iii' , I
" I I: t : '
'I! , 'I
I' , ,
, ,
, '
: ,I ' . '; :
, '
: !:
,I
I
I , !
!
" ' I
APPENDIX D
PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS
(
(
PtJ!f.re"Cf.3 are ,4 l/(ZN)tlJOOk 0;:' /,Iy~a~hc:r -s,lA.£e./
k';'#ltJ ,'erQ f.r,.
. 4JsC/~~lltJ".s: rzr tJ.012 ,co,. ~oor/ .r.,tll"~ p~ (1"'"4'
, q:-IZtJ en
ttl 8 • .rz> PI'p~
/. r"'~Q/q I r~""t'l (Sk l,tZ/.ro lef~O)
A.sst:./WI#. HI-~ /. o~
C'. p,,k /'';'t (~h 18110 I. /;1-/1,)
hi r.s,,(= (. 00')(52.3) ~
3. H'I'I·or loss." (..sl .. ""tiff) 1-0 13~n)
(p, '-23) h t: ~ J!:."Z V: l~5fp$
'b "z, ..
Rocftlls Curv~ '::' /~ ,
Riel-tf. :. A::, :" 0.0 i
S/A ItI--1fJ7 ~ ;-,/'
5k 1S"'l-1-8 ~:' 6'-
.$~ "., ~7
.51-14 17 f-SS ~ ~ 1,.,°
.5ro.. 16rI74=-Z"
HI.· 2
$u'B-/or"£""-' 4, '"
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94710
PROJE CT ~;; COd
II ~ ~ J_ .... _ ~ L ;. ..
-
JOB NO,
(
(
{
\
4. S'~,.'tt To"k (PI ,.,,)
E .. lq,.,~ ~ a{ v,.v~)~ = (9.5'S'-')\ 0.1" z, ' e,
RtJ"Cf! J.t.~ C.7(V,-".)'l~ 0./31 HI..· 0.137
23
5. ,4~s,toc~ ($-}It 19.Jo,,,,, gfSS)
~:' 2/", _"'''!!. I:'.J I-~. , co,23°
/'f' ':' .$ 1'1r (d.OO')(J4'.9) ..
.su'-+0-101.
Hf'Qd= IS'O-?-7#O'~ IJ5",'t1 .s~ 13"
kINe g H~ ~ .14sxe
5Sb
ENGINEERING·SCIENCE
600 BANCROFT WAY
BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94710
A.ssu~ e. ... C.,
kw f:' (/ZO](18,)(,z,l) (.74S)6 ,) :
$6t)
-
,
~a.A~ ..d .LCR) P{~)
It?' -':> c?2' 31?
las-/-!> r~
/2-S-?--f /~,o
11-5' ~s-ZI"~
/05 ¢!:" Z6:JB
:7) ~c;d,,~ 4kS4~~""~)o' ,<kA01~~ ')
;t/.,;.-50'4-5"
1.., ':: c~ C HctiZP... ..!Io I
2 '1 ~ ./S'" II *"" c: 30' )
~ . t, c, '= 22.,5 -:::!:-22' d .
i: ';!ie&2 U .~ ,
,/0 ~ CS . so
,(.2-
,?'¢
-.
Ji.ut!f::7?o,)S •
;.)r ~r
Ilr . ¢rll
I~o
IO~
tlP~~ "0
~~~'= 7C =-/'
t/P.:s't-;;Q .9'.4" Z"'~"'1f 'e 3. ~ ,
)},kJ,u~"""" 'II: 0
t/~ :: 2:Ts =-2.'S I
~
'NO 4().7 ,5,,0 /2Z./
80° ~4.Z .7.8 /30.0
77
(~/3
--,-
!
1-...
'---=--==-.1=-_-,
~--------~'-,-.. ------"," . -;-
I
~
--,
--i -"1 -
-j
-.--.-...... ~~,----~----«--.. --_._---:---
.!
I"
I
... _-( ... --.. -_. ----
----
:. ~ a!"1 ~~ ..:_-. __ .. --t -.
, --• -'1" ---. ~ ~ _... --
-I ....... II!!!!l:iiiI-
-,.---
_J
,
..
I .. -. "--'·'1
---------7-------
.1.
-C ___ ----=r RaZ.1.$'
.--------. ---rr:Z3,:r --.-.-. zIt
"-'---"---,f,t"'-.-.
, .,
. ~."
I . __ . '" -
-_ .. -.. -
t.
1 .,.140
-,
I I
t
I
-:------±.-~---' ...... -----.:...,+:.:.--...;....
--'i-;--
-~-~~ .. -. -" .... . I
~:.=-~E:~=: .
... -. -;--.. -.
-.-.. -.~-.-. -Jr-__ L,Jr.~~4h-L,-,1'7777 --_ ... __ ._-'--'------.-;--... -~-
APPENDIX E
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY AND/OR ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
Engineering Science
194 East Paradise lane
Alpine, Utah 84003
Dear Harvey:
December 27, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
Enclosed are copies of the comments received and corresponding
letters in answer to questions on the Pelican Power Alternative, Phase
II Feasibil ity Report. In general, the primary questions seem to
address fisheries habitat and construction techniques in the
construction of the new facility.
The Alaska Power Authority will try to arrange a coordination
meeting between State and Federal Fisheries departments and hopefully
arrive at an understanding prior to Phase III of the project.
Please give me a call if further clarification is necessary_
FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Sincerely. ~
~rson
Project Manager
Jl/jk/es
Enclosures as stated
DEPARTM ENT OF THE ARMY
ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOl( 7002
REPLY TO
ATT[flTION OF:
NPAEN-PL-H
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 west Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
ANCHORAGE. AL.ASKA "9510
1 U NOV 1982
The following convnents are in regard to the Pelican Power Alternative,
Phase II Feasibility Report, which was provided to the Alaska District by
the state A-95 Clearinghouse. The copy of this document lacked some
essential plates, tables, and text to permit a thorough review.
The Pelican report deals with annual energy and average flows estimated
from drainages other than the one on which the development is proposed.
Our experience suggests that this may result in an overestimation of the
actual usable energy levels available to Pelican. Perhaps an expanded
discussion of the correlation of the various stream flows would reduce the
uncertainty induced by the lack of local streamflow records.
Access during and after construction was not addressed in either volume of
the report. Phase I noted the treacherous approach to the dam along the
existing penstock. Phase II appears to suggest major reconstruction of
the facility. Such activity would seemingly require substantially
upgraded access, which might be a significant cost item.
A discrepancy appears to exist in the concrete cost estimate between
Appendixes A and C. Also it is unclear whether estimated costs included
all dam components (particularly for winter placement), mobilization and
demobilization requirements, camp costs, and diversion improvements during
construction. A cost should also be included for anchoring or removing
portions of the existing dam, which may float once the structure is
inundated and could cause maintenance and/or operation problems.
· .
NPAEN-PL-H
Mr. Eric P. Yould 1 0 NOV 19S2-
A brief discussion of pemits is suggested. Experience has shown that
more details of the project features and impacts during and after
construction are needed before filing for the pemits and that time
allowed for pemit processing needs to be extended. We feel that the
schedule shown in Figure 6 of the Phase II report cannot be met and should
be adjusted.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. If further details
are desired by your staff, contact can be made with Mr. Scott Shupe of my
Hydropower and Comprehensive Planning Section at (907) 552-3432.
2
MOORE
Engineering Division
· ..
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVEN UE • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Department of the Army
Alaska District Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 7002
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Attn: Mr. Harlan E. Moore
Chief, Engineering Division
NPAEN-A
Dear t4r. Moore:
December 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
Thank you for your comments on the Pelican Power Alternatives Phase
II.
In answer to your question concerning annual energy and average
flows, the Alaska Power Administration, in their review of the study,
provided the Alaska Power Authority with a computer printout on the
power production at Pelican from 1975 through 1981. The data includes
hydro, diesel and total generation by year and month. This information
has been forwarded to the consultant for review.
Access to the proposed new site was considered using the following
construction method. The dam will only contain approximately 200 yards
of concrete. There is no known aggregate source in the immediate area
of Pelican and it is envisioned that aggregate, cement, equipment and
materials will be brought to Pelican by barge.
If the contractor prefers. the concrete could be mixed and either
helicopter placed, or pumped, to the campsite from the barge at the
staging area, or if land base is preferred, the area would be on the
rock jetty extending from Pelican into lisianski Inlet to the ferry
dock. Access to the dam site will purposely be restricted, as this
water supply is also used for domestic use and possible contamination
would be enhanced through an easy accessible roadway or trail.
Many of the normal construction costs can be lowered through using
local harbor during "off-season" fishing oriented population. The size,
scope, and geographic closeness to the City lends itself to this con-
structed methodology. Housing for the contractor can be arranged with
Pelican Cold Storage Company, as their bunkhouses will be empty. In
addition, there are two restaurants in Pelican that can provide
accommodations. The small wooden materials for the existing dam will be
removed, i.e., the wing walls, spillway boards, and any small wooden
blocks that could float and pass the trash rack. The large logs (50)
will not be removed. If the logs float to the surface, they will be
Mr. Moore
December 21, 1982
Page 2
stopped by the trash rack and can be removed from the pond. Pelican
Utility has had several trees fall in the existing storage pond in the
past, and in some instances, have been removed or have topped over the
spillway during high water flows.
I hope this clarifies your concerns. Thank you again for your
comments, we will keep you advised of new developments as they occur.
cc: Mr. David C. Hendrickson
~Jocerely ,
)~V.\ I ~~v\
Eric P. Yould '-'\
Executive Director
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RE(;EIVEO
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
watel;' Resources Division
1515 East 13th Avenue
Ancb:>rage, Alaska 99501
Eric P. Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Parler Auth:>rity
334 West 5th Avenue
Ancb:>rage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
OCT 1 91982
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
October 14, 1982
I have reviewe:l the draft CXlpy of the Pelican Power Alternatives
Phase II -Feasibility Sttdy as xequested in your letter of
October 6, 1982.
Particular attention was oonoenq:-atEd en the c::arputation of estinated.
flcM figures, seasonal timing of flow, arrl effect on the envil:onJ:rent.
The only questions that came to mind were related to construction
and were as follows:
1. What will node of access be to the construction site? Is there I
an existing trail? Where will equiprent and na.terials storage be?
What is source of aggregate?
2. '!be con..stru::tion schedule was not spelled out in eoough detail.
For exanple , diversion and instream construction probably 'WOUld
not be possible during Ck:tober and nuch of November because of
high flows. While peak discharges occur predaninantly in October,
peak flows have occurred in Novenber basEd on nearby streamflow
records. Rare peak flows have occurred in DecaTber and JanuaI:Y.
Sincerely,
111/~/iJ
Robert D. Lamke
, '
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Robert D. Lamke
Department of Interior
Water Resources Division
1515 East 13th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dea r Mr. Lamke:
December 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1982, concerning Pelican
Power alternatives. In answer to your question concerning construction,
we envision that equipment and materials will be brought to Pelican by
barge. As the total amount of concrete to be used will be approximately
300 yards, it could be possible to bring in aggregate and cement with a
batch plant by barge, with a helicopter assist for pouring, mixing and
placing the concrete without a land base being necessary. In the event
land use is required, the staging area would be on the rock jetty
extending from Pelican into Lisianski inlet to the ferry dock. Access
to the new dam site is very restricted due to the steep rock walls along
Pelican Creek. At the present time the only access is a catwalk
adjacent to the existing penstock, suitable for foot traffic only.
Concrete form lumber, structural steel, and concrete can be placed by
helicopter without having to construct road access. Construction
personnel can travel to and from the dam site by foot, as it is only a
five minute walk from the power house to the damsite.
The construction of the dam will be dependent on stream flow and
weather. A visual inspection was performed by the consultant and the
Alaska Power Authority on April 13, 1982. At that time the pond level,
was lowered to allow visual observation of the existing dam structure.
The flume easily controlled all available flow. One week later, breakup
started causing approximately 41 of water over topping the dam. The
contractor will probably have a 3 to 4 month window to construct the
dam. As the dam is quite small, consisting of only 200 yards of
concrete, this should not be a problem.
Thank you for your interest in the project.
S}pcerelY~~ ~ S ___ \ U ,-.J-,-~
Eric P. Youl d 1\
Executive Director
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPL Y REFER TO:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
P. O. Box 1287
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Hr. Eric Yould, Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Hr. Yould:
AV-SYJ'. PO'.Tl ;.'JTHOPITY
November 8, 1982
Re: Pelican Hydro Project
Feasibility Study
~ This responds to your letter of October 6, 1982, requesting comments on the
f", Pelican Power Alternative Phase II--Feasibility study. ~/' ,...
~,~ The project originally proposed during the reconnaissance studies would have /r restored and upgraded the existing hydroelectic facility. There would have
~ been no new demands on stream flow and thus no new impacts during its
-.:{' ~ operation~_ :me project has now been revised, however, to include construction
of a ne~-150-foot dam downstream of the present dam. The existing diversion,
power ca~~-and penstock would be replaced. In addition, a new afterbay and
tail race would be constructed next to the existing powerhouse. These
facilities would be designed to handle flows of up to 120 cfs, but a maximum
flow of 82.5 cfs would operate the two proposed turbines.
To construct the dam, all flows would be diverted into the power canal.
During operation, diversions would be greater than those presently occurring,'
but flow regimes have not yet been established.
As stated in our Harch 4, 1982, letter, intertidal spawning for pink and chum
salmon has been reported at Pelican Creek. We understand that spawning
habitat includes areas above the proposed tailrace. This suggests that with
complete stream diversion, incubating eggs would be lost. There could also be
additional impacts during the operation of the project with the increased
diversions. Although flow regimes have not yet been established, we note that
for seven months of a normal year, the creek would have less water than the
maximum operating flow of 82.5 cfs. This would increase to nine months when
flows are 80% of normal. Without a detailed description of the project, a
flow regime, and more specific fishery data (previously requested), the
environmental effects of the project cannot be adequately assessed. We
"
therefore recommend that the subject feasibility report be revised to correct
these deficiencies. Possibly a meeting with resource agencies would be
desirable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, ~ Fie?s!:':~ t ~
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Mr. Waine E. Oien
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Post Office Box 1287
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Dear Mr. Oien:
December 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276·0001
Thank you for your comments on the Pelican Power Alternative,
Phase II.
The main thrust of this study was dam safety and the preferred
alternatives to correct the situation. The limited funding provided by
the Legislature necessitated a restricted scope of work on this study.
There are several areas that need additional attention in regard to this
project including: Environmental issues, detailed topographic mapping
of the storage pond, and geological samples of dam abutments.
The Alaska Power Author; ty wi 11 pu rsue these add; tiona 1 ; ssues as
the first phase of any future work. With a new dam in place and
increased storage, the fishery could be enhanced through seasonal
control of the stream. As a matter of clarification, the new dam is
expected to be 50-feet high as opposed to ISO-feet (ISO-feet ;s the
crest elevation) and only part of the existing flume will be removed and
a wood stave pipe laid inside the existing flume to carry the flow. The
old existing wood stave penstock will be removed and replaced with a new
penstock in the same location. See drawing C-O.l, Figure #3, Dam &
Flume Plan Profile Sections.
In regard to water supply during construction, it is envisioned
that construction will take place during low flow winter months and that
the normal water flow through the flume, penstock, turbine, and tail-
race will continue as it has for the last forty years. During this
seasonal period, the creek bed is virtually dry with the exception of a
small .5-1 CFS leakage in the old dam. The new dam will be built
80-feet down stream of the old dam and during construction the old dam
will act as a coffer dam structure.
Mr. Waine E. Dien
December 21, 1982
Page 2
Again, we appreciate your comments and will keep you advised of new
developments as they occur.
Sin;erely,
'L ~~ 7. l{ LJv!
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
November 12. 1982
Mr. Eric P. You1d
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
UNITEO STATES OEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atm;)spheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
.. , ,
. -~!
The Pelican Power Alternatives Phase II -Feasibility Study report that
accompanied your letter of October 6. 1982, has been revlewed and we
offer the following comments for your consideration.
We continue to be concerned that the proposed project could have an
adverse impact on spawning pink and chum salmon using the tailrace water
as spawning habitat. The data presented in the report does not justify
the " •.. little impact on downstream fisheries." statement found in
paragraph 1. page 2-1. We do not know. by reading the report. that the
fi sh resources wi 11 be retained duri ng constructipn or during operation
of the completed facility. A detailed description of the project. the
flow regime. and delineation of fish spawning and rearing areas are
needed before a determination of no impact can be made on fishery
impacts. Therefore. we recommend the report be amended to address the
previously mentioned fishery related issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
{ {~/f /?
sinceblY.
.----. -/Jct9~~ J~ber, W. McVey
~ ~tor. Alaska Region
.......
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 1668
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Attn: Mr. Robert H. ftlcVey
Dea r Mr. McVey:
December 21, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276·0001
Thank you for your comments on the Pelican Power Alternatives
Phase II.
The main thrust of this study was dam safety and the preferred
alternative to correct the situation. The limited funding provided by
the legislature necessitated a restricted scope of work. There are
several areas that need additional attention in regard to this project
including: environmental issues, detailed topographic mapping of storage
pond and geological samples of dam abutments.
The Alaska Power Authority will pursue these additional issues in
the next phase of work. It is possible that with increased storage, the
fishery could be enhanced through seasonal control of the stream. In
regard to the water supply during construction, it is envisioned that
construction will take place during low flow winter months and that the
norma.l water flO\ ... through the flume, penstock, turbine, and tailrace,
will continue as it has for the last forty years. During this seasonal
period, the creek bed is virtually dry with the exception of a small
0.5-1.0 CFS of leakage in the old dam. The new dam will be built eighty
feet below the old dam, and during construction the old dam will act as
a coffer dam structure.
Again, we appreciate your comments and will keep you advised of new
developments as they occur.
(
i ,eerel Y" 0\\ . V ~\, ~ "~,,,
Eric P. YoulCl
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF
October 19, 1982
E ri c P. You 1 d
LAND AI\V WATER MANAGEMENT
/
/
/
JAr .I: HAMMOND, 'OrcINOl
SS5 CONo,.
Pouch 7.005
Allmor.gf, AK 99501
(907, 276-2653
-'-~?"5 )582 Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Ai.A""" .... ,... •• -""" .~.-.'''' '--------F.:!!T\'
Mr. Yould:
I have reviewed a draft report on "Pelican Power Alternatives, Phase II -
Feasibility Study", September 1982 by USKH -Engineering Science. The Water
Management Section has management responsibility for water quantity and dam
safety. I offer the following comments in those areas.
Water Quantity
1. Page 2-1: Some statements are made regarding antiCipated project
impacts on the environment, but no supporting evidence is provided. The
follow;-ng statements should be justified:
a. "The new dam will have little impact on downstream fisheries."
b. liThe visual impact is considered an improvement."
2. Page 3-li ndi cates "The proposed project is desi gned to handl e flows up to
120 cfs, although a maximum of 82.5 cfs will operate the two proposed
turbi nes." The Pe 11 can Uti 1 ity Company has water ri ght certifi cate 43665
for 60 cfs associated with this facility. An "Application for Water Rightll
must be filed with this division for the water to be appropriated over 60
cfs. Please be informed that according to AS 46.15.080, the following are
among the items that must be considered prior to the issuance of a permit:
a. project effects on fish and game resources and on public recreational
opportunities,
b. the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made
within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed
appropriation,
c. project effects upon access to navigable or public waters.
Dam Safety
1. Page 1-3: The text states "The existing dam will be inundated but not
removed." Possible impacts from the inundated old dam on the safety of the
new dam should be discussed.
2. According to 11 AAC 93.160, the construction of this new dam cannot
begin until:
a. An "Application to Construct or Modify a Daml! has been filed,
b. Constrution plans and specifications, and other information as
required has been submitted,
c. The fee has been paid as specified in 11 AAC 93.200, and
d. A certificate of approval for the proposed work has been received.
2 October 19, 1982
Also, please be informed that the following information is missing from the
document that has been reviewed:
1. Figure 2, page 1-6,
2. Figure 3, page 3-6,
3. Figure 4, page 3-9, and
4. Table 3, page 4-3.
Sincerely,
{.)J
Paul Janke evil Engineer
Water Management Section
"
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Land & Water Management
555 Cordova
Pouch 7-005
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Attn: Mr. Paul Janke
Dear Mr. Janke:
December 17, 1982
Thank you for your letter of October 19, 1982, on the Pelican Power
Alternatives Phase II. In answer and clarification to your concerns,
the following information is provided.
Water Qualities
1. The new dam will be constructed during the low water period,
therefore, the existing dam, flume, penstock, and turbine, will function
as it has for the last forty years. We expect construction of the dam
to have virtually no impact. However, the changed operating conditions,
once the new turbines and penstock are in place, need to be addressed.
The contract for this feasibility study was directed to address the dam
safety question and what alternative is preferred. The detailed
analysis of environmental concerns, detailed topographic mapping of the
new storage pond, and geotechnical evaluation of the integrity of the
rock abutments are expected to be a part of the next phase of work.
2. If the Legislature concurs with the Power Authority to proceed with
construction, the Water Right Permit, Federal Energy Regulatory Commis~
sion (FERC) license, Forest Service Permit etc., will be transferred to
the Alaska Power Authority prior to construction. A new Water Right
Permit will be pursued by the Power Authority. Public recreation at the
storage reservoir is restricted by both Pelican Utility Company and the
City of Pelican. This is a water shed reserve and no public access is
allowed due to possible potable water contamination. The lower portion
of Pelican Creek is not navigable due to large boulders in the stream
bed.
Dam Safety
1. Materials that could be small enough to enter the trash rack, will
be removed from the existing dam. These would be wing walls, top
planking and any small logs or cross ties. The existing main logs will
remain in place. In the event one or more of these logs floats to the
surface, it can be removed from behind the dam. This is no greater
Mr. Janke
December 11, 1982
Page 2
hazard than the occasional tree that floats across the pond and over-
tops the existing dam.
2. The Power Authority has the appropriate form for "application to
construct or modify a dam" and will proceed with the application when
the project is authorized by the legislature
We trust the above information is adequate for your needs.
Si ncere ly,
~:.~vJv~
Executive Director
~~1Jro1J~ @~ l~~,&~~&
..... CB OF TIlE GOv.BIlNoa
DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
GOVERNMENTAL COORDINA TlON UN"
JAY S. HAMMOND. Govemot
POUCH AW (MS· 01651
JUNEAU, ALASKA 9981'
PHONE: (SOl) 465-3562
November 15, 1982
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
RECEIVED
NOV 1 91982
/\LASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Subject: APA PELICAN POWER ALTERNATIVE PHASE II FEASIBILITY STUDY
State 1.0. No. AK821011-04
Dear Mr. Youl d:
The Alaska State Clearinghouse (SCH) has completed review of the re-
ferenced study.
The foll owing comment was received from the Department of Fis hand
Game (DF&G):
"The Al as ka Department of Fis h and Game has revi ewed Phase II of the
draft Pelican Power Alternatives Feasibility Study. We have enclosed
for your information a copy of our response to the Phase I Reconnais-
ance Assessment. As stated therein our principal concerns are for the
maintenance of fisheries values associated with Pelican Creek, anadro-
mous stream number 113-95-10030. We believe that primary project im-
pacts on pink and chum salmon will be caused by construction activity
and by alteration of the stream flow during hydroelectric operation.
"Neither the Alaska Power Authority nor the Phase II Study has respond~d
to our concerns as expressed in our March 16 memo. On page 2-1 the docu-
ment states "The new dam will have little impact on downstream fisheries.1I
Also (on page 2-2) it says, although the proposed generating facilties
will use nominally higher flows than the existing works, the diversions
during low flow months will be as they are now. Thus no significant
change in stream flow regime will result. We do not believe that the
no effect analysis is accurate.
liThe proposed water transmission line is considerably larger, which means
that the volumes of water transmitted are potentially much greater for any
time frame chosen, increasing surge flow characteristics of powerhouse
water vis-a-vis instream flows. The after bay at high water would affect
the quality of upstream anadromous habitat through dewatering. We are
concerned that the problems and issues expressed 1n our earlier memo have
not been addressed, nor have we been approached by the Alaska Power
Mr. Eric Yould -2-November 15. 1982
Authority or the consultant to discuss means of minimizing or mitigating
those antic1 pated effects. We as k that we be afforded an opportunity
to do so prior to finalizing this plan."
The SCH requests that you contact Mr. Dave Hardy, Area Habitat Biologist.
Department of Fish and Game in Sitka. phone number 747-5828 in order that
F&G's ongoing concerns with this proposal can be addressed prior to final-
ization of the plan.
We have received a copy of a letter sent to you from Mr. Paul Janke.
Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Janke has described criteria which
must be met prior to issuance of a permit.
Review of consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP)
will be conducted by this office on the completed plan. We would also
like to remind you that your own consistency determination should be in-
cluded 1n the final document.
Provided there is coordination with F&G and DNR and provided their con-
cerns are addressed, the SCH has no objection to this proposal.
This letter satis fies the revi ew requi rements of OMB Ci rcul ar A-95 and
closes our review.
Thank you for your cooperation with the review process.
cc: Dave Hardy, F&G
Paul Janke, DNR
Patrick Creegan. USKH
Sincerely.
,(~-~~
,);'lW.ndy Wolf pi State-Federal Coordinator
.... ac •• TIlE tiiIOV8B.N ••
DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PlANNING
GOVERNMENTAL COORDINA TlON UNfT
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 Wes t 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
October 14, 1982
Subject: APA PELICAN POWER AlTERNATIVE PHASE 11-
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Dear Mr. Youl d:
JAY S. HAMMOND, Gowmor
I'OUCH AW (MS· Ot"1
JUNEAU, ALASKA 998"
IWONE: (11011465..:1562
The State Clearinghouse has received the subject project which you sub-
mitted for review.
Materials concerning the project have been dis tributed to the appropriate
governmental agencies for review and cOflll1ent. The review is scheduled
to close on October 12, 1982 and you should be receiving review results
soon after that date.
The State Clearinghouse has assigned State 1.0. No. AK82101104 to the
project. Please use this number in all future correspondence concerning
the project, both with this agency and with the federal agency.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Wendy Wolf
State-Federal Coord1nator
cc: Patrick Creegan
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
State Clearing House
A-95 Coordinator
Office of the Governor
Pouch AD
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Attn: Ms. Wendy Wolf
State-Federal Coordinator
December 17, 1982
Subject: Pelican Power Alternative Phase II
Feasibility Study, State I.D. AK821011-04
Dear Ms. Wolf:
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1982. Within the review
period, we received comments from:
Corps of Engineers,
Alaska Power Administration,
Department of Natural Resources,
National Marine Fisheries,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Water Resources Division Geological Survey.
The comments received by Fish and Wildlife Service were virtually
identical to the comments by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The
main thrust of this study was dam safety and the preferred alternative
to correct the problem. The limited funding provided by the legislature
necessitated a restricted scope of work. There are several areas in
question, other than just fisheries, that will need additional work
prior to construction. These areas include environmental issues,
detailed topographic mapping of the storage pond, stream flow gaging,
and geological core samples of the dam abutments.
The Power Authority will pursue these issues in the next phase of
work. Thank you for your assistance in the review process.
Sincerely,
~~.~vJrl
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT 0.· FISH A ... AME
Habitat Division
March 16, 1982
Mr. Perrick T. You1d
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. You1d:
JAY S. HAMMOND, Go.el'ft«
State Office Building
P. O. Box 499
Sitka, Alaska 99835
PHONE: 747-5828
RSCEIVED
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, as requested in your letter of
February 16, 1982, has reviewed the draft Pelican Power Alternatives
Phase I Reconnaissance Assessment. Our concerns relate primarily to the
maintenance of anadromous fisheries values in Pelican Creek, anadromous
stream #113-95-03. This systems supports primarily pink salmon and a
few chum salmon which utilize that portion of the stream from about 50
feet to the east of the boardwalk through the intertidal area to salt
water. We believe that the primary impacts of the project will be as-
sociated with construction activity and also with the alteration of flow
levels for the lower portion of the stream. Specific comments preceded
by page and paragraph number follow;
Page 3-3, Number 6: The deadlines required of the consultant are
apparently not going to be met for this document. We hope that the
deadlines noted will not interfere with the careful evaluation of
this proposal.
Page 4-4, Paragraph 1: The statement is made that climatic conditions
at Sitka are representative of those at Pelican. We do not believe
this is an accurate statement. The rainfall, the winds, solar
reception all vary tremendously in Southeast depending on slope
aspect, altitude, and other factors.
Page 4.5, Paragraph 2: Similarly it does not seem reasonable to
assume that Crook Creek would be "ideal to use for correlation
studies" to determine runoff for Pelican Creek. The U.S. Geological
Survey should be contacted and their methods used to correlate
stream flows discussed prior to making such a broad brush statement.
Page 5-5, Paragraph 2: The statement is made that several pieces
of electrical equipment are obsolete and do not perform well. It
would be appropriate to state which pieces are obsolete and why
Mr. Perrick T. You1d - 2 -
March 16, 1982
they do not perform well.
Page 9-2, Paragraph 1: The statement is made that if electricity
becomes cheaper the number of people in Pelican will change from
oil for heating and cooking to electricity. It should be pointed
out that this would increase the community dependency on electricity
and would increase the community costs should the electricity not
be reliable.
Page 9-2, Second Table: The percentage increase calculated for the
fuel bill from 1976 to 1981 is listed as 78%. The change from 700
to 1,950 represents considerably more than a 78% increase.
Page 9-2, Paragraph 3: A statement is made that power fluctuations
have destroyed many electrical items in Pelican. We hope that the
improvements under this study will reduce those impacts, as well
as, reduce fluctuations in stream flow.
Page 11-2, Paragraph 5: The statement is made that alternatives 1
and 3 will have a zero environmental impact because they represent a
continuation of the status quo. If the construction aspects of the
project and the long term results of the project are that the flow
regime down Pelican Creek is altered then this statement is inaccurate.
I
Page 11-3, Paragraph 1: A statement is made that the operation and
management costs would be comparable for all alternatives. The
evidence does not support this conclusion.
Page 11-5, Number 3: Apparently the construction of a new after
bay under this option would provide for tail water release at the
mean high water level. Obviously this option would remove anadromous
fisheries habitat that currently exist. Implimenting this option
would run counter to the statement that no environmental impacts
would occur.
In summary because the project will result in the upgrading or
modification of an existing facility, the impacts on anadromous
fisheries habitat are less than would be the case otherwise.
However, some impacts are expected to result from the project. If
the project results in the augumentation of downstream flow at
times of natural low flow, through waters that have been held up by
the dam, then the net consequence of the project may be to improve
anadromous fisheries habitat. However, if the flow regimes are
altered in any matter which might negatively effect fish spawning,
incubation, and rearing then the project may well have negative
environmental impacts.
Mr. Perrick T. You1d - 3 -
March 16, 1982
Also, the construction phase may be expected to result in altered
flows and perhaps turbidity and sedimentation in the downstream
areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
~R~
Dave Hardy
Area Habitat Biologist
Sitka ~'"
cc: Rick Reed
DH:kk
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Habitat Division
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
State Office Building
P.O. Box 499
Sitka, Alaska 99835
December 17, 1982
Phone: (907) 277·7641
(907) 276-0001
Attn: Mr. Dave Hardy, Area Habitat Biologist
Dea r Mr. Hardy:
Thank you for your comments on the Pelican Power Alternative Study.
Your concerns closely parallel those of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Juneau. The
scope of and amount of funding available for work in this study is
inadequate to address the Fisheries questions, topographical mapping of
the storage pond, or geological drilling of the dam abutments.
We intend to address these areas in the next phase of work. In the
interim, however, at your suggestion, we will try to set up a meeting in
Juneau with both State and Federal agencies to establish what, if any,
mitigating or enhancement problems need to be addressed in the next
phase of work.
The meeting will be scheduled sometime after January 4, 1983.
Thank you again for your comments.
ti. erel Y'()
-\\ ,\J~1 ---~ '\
Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
PLANTS
'''II. Ar~ '·li·<.~\IIV",l ~ IIMI'4No ''-i'' t.NAI;",".\'f.",
,.;IIJ!IiV4 \.I(!I',IIIHt.-.1 !U,·.,tl'.&r., : .... NIIPt.1'Nl A,A',.:'."."",'
f>t 'I.' All lU\fiflf H (;1)1 II ~~'I .U~I.t (<< ) •• U""J-
Mlffl AII'AfnIfH AtA~"'A'l':M:I.'"
SEAFOOD SALES OFFICE
Ptll1. A~S"lfSC(».APAr., stATllr WI\SH4NGHif."tI'!tl)'"..
FISH AND SHELLFISH PROCESSING
8AITANOICE
COLD STORAGE COMPANY OUTFITTING
GENERAL OFFICES: 653 N.E. NORTHLAKE WAY, SEAnlE, WASHINGTON 98105' PHONE (206,632·9000
GENERAL OFFICES MAILING AOORESS: P.O. BOX 5538. SEAnlE. WASHINGTON 98105
November 19, 1982
Mr. Heinz Noonan
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Re: Pelican Hydro Project
Dear Heinz,
By way of correction to an earlier letter in substantiation of the reliance
of townspeople and fishermen on the hydro-electric power generated at
pelican, I have some new figures. In my letter I stated there were 200
fishermen at Pelican. That figure is true, there are about 200 fishermen
that deliver to the Pelican dock on a regular basis. However, there are
about 7DO fishermen that deliver to Pelican operations throughout s. E.
Alaska whose fish are transported to Pelican, where it is frozen with
Pelican electrical energy_ So, although 200 fishermen were seen regularly
in Pelican during 1981, another 700 were actively fishing for the company
for a total of 900.
I hope this information will help define the dependence upon and need
for the Pelican hydro-project.
Sincerely,
/,)~ J,/Y ,..-
."...... ,/ I I, .... ~
Greg Bloom
Production Services Manager
GB/mm
cc: Jim Ferguson
Bruce Mitchell
FISH AND SHELLFISH PROCESSING
'1.".41,1''11' I,)II_A, .. I c'I"'j'4f~' 11,1I,"'f'~"'1t.· ...... 4' •• 1.'
4LII)f ... H~' 1J{!",ltlkA'~1 CCHI'At~' l~Nrd'HINI 4.\4',"1..< .. ",-
, .. 11ft AI t _AM. fH ()t 0 <';1( If~A\,l \'1 )l,Ct',.,l.
1,\;klAlfU,Nlltk A.Jl:..,Il1htl*' BAIT ANDICE
SEAFOOO SALES OFFlCE
"fllt'A,..~.Atlc;.\OWlAN'" $lAfHI WA~jt~:',1df .. QftlO', COLD STORAGE COMPANY
GENERAL OFFICES; 653 N.E. NORTHLAKE WAY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON H105' PHONE (2061 632-!IOOO
GENERAL OFFICES .. AILING AOORESS; PO. BOX SS38, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9810$
November 5, 1982
Mr. Heinz Noonen
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Re: Pelican Hydro Project
Dear Heinz,
OUTFITTING
I have assembled certain data to substantiate the dependence of the town of
Pelican and Pelican Cold Storage Co. upon the hydro-electric facility.
By way of general reference, there are 200 residents in the town of Pelican
and approximately 200 fishermen that deliver to Pelican Cold Storage at
Pelican, AK.
Economic data provided by the city of Pelican would indicate that $65,000
WnS qenerated last fiscal venT through the state sales tax. The town of
Pelican received $4::',361 i', raw fish tax from the state. Other revenues
generated are $30,000 in property taxes and $12,600 in moorage fees.
A definite case can be established for the dependence of the town of Pelican
upon the generation of power from the hydro-dam. For example, the vital
services of the clinic and particularly the fire department are directly
dependent on the dam. In the case of the fire department, water would not
be available for fire prevention without the dam since the entire city
water supply is supplied from the project. Other services affected are
the library, boat harbor anc'i all the other businesses in town.
At certain times of the year, the hydro-dam is the major producer of power.
For example, during the month of May, 1982 the hydro was responsible for
111,200 KWH of power production while the diesels accounted for 3000 KWH.
During the winter months the power production formula is reversed. Never-
theless, the hydro has been an important element in the production of
electricity for Pelican Cold Storage Co. and the town of Pelican.
Heinz, I hope this data is of some use to you. I will attempt to get
more if required.
GB/mm
cc: Jim Ferguson
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
t"Er';() TO: Jerry La rson Septemhe r 29, 1982
Project ManCl!:)f:'r
I) "V Tf-lR0UGf-f: Pa t t i Del10ng 'I(i:--\;
Assistant Director of Engineering
FRm~: Rem'y G. "}i 11 i aP.1s;t(/
Cost Est.imator
SIJB~IECT: Pelican Hydroelectric Cost Estimate
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
After r~viewing the cost estimate in the Phase II report, I am
somewhat concerned thRt the cost estimator may have been overly
optimistic. I am particularly concerned about the concrete price for
the dam. The $700/cy figure is probably low considering the small
quantity of concrete, 1 imited access and winter placement. I rec(lmmend
we use a unit price of $1200/cy for the dam concrete.
Another item of concern is the contingency allowance. The
estimator has allowed a total of 20% for engineering anrl contingencies.
Engineering will probably run at least 12% leaving only 8% for
con:ingencies. Considering t.he preliminary stege of design, the minimur:i
contingency allowance should be 20%.
Proposed revised estirni:lte:
Subtotal (fl'om Contractor's estimate)
Additional allowance for~dam concrete
250 cy x . 500=
Ne\,i Subtota 1
Engineering 12%
Contingencies 20%
TOTAL
$2,156,000
125,000
2,291,000
275,nno
458,0f)O
$3,024,000
If Alaska Power Authority is 00in9 to be involved in fi"ancin~ ~he
project, J strongly recommend we get a second opinion estimate.
• Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau. Alaska 99802
Mr. Eric P. Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
. Dear Eric:
NOV 221982
1L',SKA pm'JER hUTHORITY
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Pelican Power Alterna-
tives Study -Phase II sent with your letter of October 16.
In general, we think the report covers project feasibility very well and
we have only a few comments.
You may wish to compare flow requirements with monthly energy distribu-
tion in addtion to your table 1 power comparisons. A cursory check
using 1981 total net generation in the lIyear 1" portion of table 2
indicates no hydro shortfall until August and then it is over twice the
133.6 MWH shown. Also, the following monthly distribution comparison
between the energy average for the last 7 years and the flows derived
from horsepower indicates a few significant differences. I
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Annual
Energy (%)
8.7
6.8
7.2
5.7
6.0
5.9
6.7
9.0
11.9
13.8
10.8
7.7
100.0
Power (%)
7.1
7. 1
6.6
6.6
9.6
9.6
7.3
7.3
7.1
7. 1
12.3
12.3
100.0
Enclosed is a table of monthly energy distribution for your files.
Enclosure
Robert J. Cross
Admi n is tra tor
.. a.leNt NET 8ENE"ATION (1'tWH) PELICAN t1DNTHL.Y ENEROY DISTRIBUTIDN
I.., •. I..,. 1917 1978 1979 1980 198 1975 1.76 19" 1978 197. 19110 1 .. 1 AYERMII -'---: ..
HYDIIO CIIIN. HYDRO OEN. .......... ~ ....... .. ........
OCT .. =-134 :Nt4 106 las 52 16. n. 2.9'1 7.n. 22.0'1 6. ax •. ft lI.ft •. 4%
HOY 103· .. , 110 I .. 94 162 133 7 16.9'1 3.8'1 10.6'1 5. 7X 9.5'1 •. 2'1 0.4'1 7.6'1
DEC 146 0 136 10 126 397 0 23.9'1 0.0'1 7.n 0.6'1 7.4'1 18.5'1 0.0'1 8.2'1
,JN4 0 ·M 153 17 iiZO SO 118 O. OX' 4.5'1 8. ax 1. OX I. ax 2.D •. D :1.4'"
FE8 : 1. :17 171 48 0 39 186 2.6'1 2.8'1 •. n. 2.9'1 0.0'1 I.ft 10.0'1 4. ax
MM .,~" "" ., ..... , .. 0 .5 48 11. 40 138 0.0'1 0.0'1 S. 1'1 2.9'1 •. 11'1 I."" .. 7.4'1 :11.4'"
Nt" • ". 66 102 112 222 131 3.6'1 , 4.5'1 3.5'1 •. ax 6.61. 10.D 7.0'1 •. 01.
MAY 111M. ·ie . · •• 1 iiZ06 171 112 184 125 33.4'1 . 13.9'1 11.0'1 10.61. •. 6'1 •. 6'1 •• 7'1 1:1.0'1
.JUN 0" ZM 171 250 345 222 326 0.0'1 18.0'1 9. IX 15. 1'1 20. ax 10.n 17.5'1 12.9'1
.JUL . 0· .. ,,,·· .. 1 251 162 254 246 236 0.0'1 19.31. 13.4'1 9. ax 14.9'1 11 ..... 111.61. 11.6'1
MJO 13 ,,' ... ' 166 155 204 230 422 2. 11. 15. 71. 8.9'1 9.4'1 12.0'1 10.7'1 22.6'1 11.61. .,. .'.a-:-"._...... . 128 228 147 191 126 1.3X 14.6'1 6.ft 13.8'1 a.6X •. IX .. 71. ··· •. 7'1
ANN ..... ~ ... la71 1.53 1704 al46 1867 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100. ox 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1
"",":,.,-, "; >.;,., , ....
DI .......
~ .. ~
DIESEL OEN. ................... • ••••••••••
OCT • eo 0 43 64 11 321 O. 6'1 3.8'1 0.0'1 6.0'1 •. IX 2. IX 36. OX •• 11'1
HOY .... -.. :.:. ,. . 2 49 38 4 100 2. 1'1 14.ft o.ax 6.91. 5.4'1 0.11'1 lI.n 6.0X·
DEC 14 .. • 85 6 18 161 1. 3'1 10.61. 2.41. 11.9'1 0.9'1 3.4'1 la.OX 6.9'1
. ,JN4 :...... ., •• ..:.;;., 77· ." • 102 87 113 6 7.2'1 14.6'1 3.2X 14.3'1 12. 4'1 al.4X 0.7'1 10.'X ...
PD 7 •. ; ... 15 58 82 116 41 7.n 12. 5'1 6.n 8. IX 11.7X 22.0'1 4.61. 10.:1'1
. MM·' _.,. ';~' ,,, .. :10 73 67 86 60 7. IX 22. n 12. n 10. ax 9.61. 16.3'1 6.·7'1 .. la. OX •• -..
Nt" lOB 46 7 23 44 63 69 10. 3'1 8.7'1 2.8'1 3.2'1 6.3'1 11.9'1 7.71. 7.:1'1
MAY· . '7 . ..". .. a 16 21 44 8 2 5.4% 0.4'1 6.5'1 2.9'1 6.3'1 1.5'1 0.21. :1.3'1
.JUN 116 6 44 107 30 16 42 11. IX 1. IX 17.8'1 15.0'1 4.3'1 3.01. 4.71. II. IX
.JUL .•. 4a9 115 48 35 83 14 33 40.9'1 4.8'1 19.4'1 4.9'1 11.8'1 2.7'1 3.7'1 12.6'1
AVO 51 26 47 65 73 67 43 4.9'1 4.9'1 19.0'1 9. n 10.4'1 12.7'1 4.ft 9.4'1 ... 20 • 24 52 83 12 14 1.9'1 1.5'1 9. 7'1 7.n 11.11'1 2.n 1 •• 1. S.ax
ANN 10411 886 247 713 701 528 892 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.0'1 100.01. 100.0'1
TOTAL OliN. TOTAL OEN. .......... • •••••••••
OCT 104 • 134 407 170 199 373 6.3'1 3.2'1 6.3'1 17.2'1 7. IX 7.4% 13.5'1 a. 71.
NOV 125 128 200 143 200 137 107 7.5X 7.0'1 9.4X 6. OX 8.3'1 5. n 3.9'1 6.ft
DEC 160 56 142 95 132 415 161 9.7X 3. IX 6.7'1 4.0'1 5. 5'1 15.5'1 5.8'1 7.2'1
JAN 75 136 161 119 107 163 124 4. 5X 7.4X 7.6X '.0'1 4. 4X 6.1X 4.''1 5. 7'1
FEB 92 103 186 106 82 15' 227 5.5'1 5.6X B.BY. 4. 5'1 3. 4'1 5.8X 8.2'1 6.0'1
MAR 74 116 12' 121 183 126 198 4.5Y. 6.3X 5.9'1 5. IX 7.6'1 4.7X 7.2'1 5.9'1
APR 130 104 73 125 156 2B5 200 7. BY. 5. 7'1 3.4X 5.3X 6.5'1 10.7'1 7.2'1 6. 7'1
MAY 261 lB3 222 196 156 192 127 15.7Y. 10.0'1 10.5Y. 8. 3Y. 6. ,X 7.2Y. 4.6'1 9.0'1
.JUN 116 240 215 357 37' 23B 36B 7. OY. 13. IX 10. IX 15. 17. 15. 6'1 B.9X 13. 3'1 11.9'1
.JUL 429 276 299 197 337 260 269 25.97. 15. IX 14. IX B. 3Y. 14.0'1 9. 7Y. 9. 7'1 13.BX
AUO 64 230 213 220 277 297 465 3.9y' 12.6X 10. OX 9.3X 11.5X 11. IX 16.9'1 10.BX
BEP 2B 19B 152 2BO 230 207 140 1. 7X 10. BY. 7.2X 11. BY. 9.6'1 7. 7'1 5. 1'1 7. 7'1
ANN 1658 lB2B 2122 2366 2405 2674 2759 100. OX 100.07. 100.0'1 100.0Y. 100.0Y. 100.0'1 100.0Y. 100.0'1
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
334 WEST 5th AVENUE -ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
Department of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P. O. Box 50
Juneau~ Alaska 99802
Attn: Mr. Don Shira
Dear Don:
December 17, 1982
Phone: (907) 277-7641
(907) 276-0001
Thank you for your comments on the Pelican Power Alternatives~
Phase II.
The information you provided is being forwarded to Engineering
Science for their review. The project manager, Mr. Harvey Hutchinson
.. ..will let you know the results of their investigation.
We will keep you advised of new developments as they occur.
L'Y ~
Eric P. Yould ~
.Executive Director
ENGIN EERING·SCIENCE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jerry Larson Date: 27 January 1983
FROM: Harvey Hutchinson Ref: 9803
SUBJECT: Letter from the Dept. of Energy, dated 19 Nov. 82
This memo is in response to the above referenced letter
in which the Department had some questions regarding the
Pelican Phase II study on the total power generation in Year
1 as shown on Table 2 and some of the information on Table 1
in Chapter 3. I have taken the time to review that portion
of the study and made some corrections. Hopefully, the
corrections that have been made to introduce Table 1 will
make the explanation clearer.
In relation to the comparison between the energy break-
down and the power as shown in their letter, the information
on power was provided to us by Pelican Cold Storage Company,
and is included in Appendix C of the Phase I report. The
information provided to us was for the most likely scenario
development of the Pelican Cold Storage Company, taking into
consideration necessary changes in the fishing industry.
Therefore, the power and energy will not correlate.
If there are any further questions, please call.
HLH/mmb