HomeMy WebLinkAboutHaines-Skagway Region Feasibility Study Volume 3 - Addendum 1982HAINES-SKAGWA Y REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Volume 3 -Addendum
COPYRIGHT, 1983
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF THE ALASKA POWER
AUTHORITY AND IS TO BE RETURNED UPON REQUEST. ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT
BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES, OR USED FOR OTHER THAN THE
EXPRESS PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
CONSENT OF THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY.
R. W. BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
December 1982
'------AL1\.SK..L\. 1·()\VEll AUTHOllI'I'¥ __ ---'
R. W BECK AND AsSOCIATES, INC
P.O. BOX 2400
SITKA, ALASKA
9983S
FILENO. HH-1559-HG3-BC
3110
Mr. Robert A. Mohn
Director of Engineering
Alaska Power Authority
334 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
Dear Mr. Mohn:
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
Subject:
TOWER BUILDING
7TH AVENUE AT OLIVE WAY
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101
206-622-5000
Addendum to the
Haines-Skagway Region
Feasibility Study
P.O. BOX 6818
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
99901
December 22, 1982
We herewith submit our Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the
Haines-Skagway Region.
Our principal findings and conclusions are set forth in the Summary
and Conclusions of the report. Details of the engineering studies and economic
eva1utions conducted for the Addendum are described in the subsequent sections
of the report.
JHC/JVW/v1a
enclosure
Respectfully submitted,
R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
James V. Williamson
Vice President and Manager
Hydro-Water Resources Design Office
Registered Professional Engineer
in Alaska
CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
DECEMBER 1982
The technical material and data contained in this study were pre-
pared by David E. Westfall, P.E., Executive Engineer, and James H. Cars cadden
Supervising Engineer.
The engineering material and data contained in this report were
prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned whose seal as
professional engineer is affixed below.
_,,-'''t_-.. \ \. _--(! Of 4L \\ -~'\ v •••••••••. A S -' ., .--.-.. -'~ ..•.. 'L, ,,~..... -.;:.-, I
til' ' •• 49 TH \*11, ~ ... 1 ...... =-;:;; ..... _:.: .. ~
••••• •••••••• • ~/.-~.DONAlD R. MElNICK: ~ ~.. ..~, #a~ ••• No. CE4934 .o·§' n~·. ..~,
.. C"~ -. ..-~, \\~b •••••••••• ~ ~.,:'
\\!IOnSS\\\'\: _-,,-,-,-,,,,-Date:
Donald R. Melnick
Executive Engineer
Ro W. Beck and Associates, Inc.
December 22, 1982
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
GENERAL OUTLINE OF REPORT
VOLUME I -REPORT -June 1982
SUMMARY
PART A -SELECTION OF GENERATION PLAN
PART B -FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATIONS OF WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PART C -COMMENTS FROM REVIEWING AGENCIES
PART D -SUMMARY OF GENERATION ALTERNATIVES
VOLUME II -APPENDICES -June 1982
APPENDIX A -PHASE II -FEASIBILITY STUDY INTERIM REPORT
APPENDIX B -GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
APPENDIX C -ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
VOLUME III -ADDENDUM -December 1982
ADDENDUM REPORT
APPENDIX -SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
Section
Number
I
II
III
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
VOLUME III -ADDENDUM
(December 1982)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Certificate of Engineer
General Outline of Report
Table of Contents: Addendum
List of Tables: Addendum
List of Figures: Addendum
SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL STATISTICS OF RECOMMENDED
GENERATION PLAN: WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
1 • General
2. Authorization
3. Scope of Feasibility Addendum Work
FORECASTS OF COMMUNITY POWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR HAINES AND SKAGWAY, ALASKA
1. Background
2. Economic Changes
a. Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline
b. White Pass and Yukon Railroad
c. Klondike Hotel
3. Major Elements of New Scenarios
a. Scenario AA
b. Scenario BB
c. Scenario CC
4. Canp3.rison of Load Growth Scenarios
PROJECT OPERATION STUDIES
1 • General
2. Project Sizing
3. Power Operation Studies
a. Method of Project Operation
b. Operation Study Results
Page
Number
1-1
1-2
1-2
II-1
II-1
II-1
II-l
II-2
II-2
II-2
II-2
II-3
II-3
1II-1
1II-1
1II-1
III-l
III-1
Section
Number
IV
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
1 •
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Overview
Dam and Spillway
a. General
b. Comparison of Dam Alternatives
Power Conduit
a. General
b. Tunnel Alternative
c. Pipeline Al ternati ve
d. Comp3rison of Power Conduit Al ternati ves
Powerhouse
Switchyard and Transmission Line
SUl1ID.ary
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
1 • General
VI ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Method of Analysis
Annual Costs
Costs of Alternative Plans
Cost Canparisons
VII CDNCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
2.
Conclusions
Recommendations
APPENDIX -Summary of Public Meetings
Page
Number
IV-l
IV-l
IV-l
IV-l
IV-2
IV-2
IV-3
IV-3
IV-4
IV-4
IV-5
IV-5
V-l
VI-l
VI-2
VI-2
VI-3
VII-l
VII-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No. Title
11-1 Community and Regional Power Requirements -Scenario AA
11-2 Community and Regional Power Requirements -Scenario BB
11-3 Community and Regional Power Requirements -Scenario CC
III-1
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-B
III-9
IV-1
V-1
V-2
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-B
VI-9
VI-10
VI-11
VI-12
VI-13
West Creek Project -Summary of Basic Input Data
West Creek Project -Reservoir Inflow (acre-feet)
West Creek Project -Total Energy Required (MWh)
West Creek Project -Total Energy Generated (MWh)
West Creek Project -End-of-Month Reservoir Storage (acre-feet)
West Creek Project -Average Reservoir Elevation (feet)
West Creek Project -Discharge Through Units (cfs)
West Creek Project -Spill (cfs)
Comparison of Project Statistics
West Creek Project -Summary Comparison of Project Major Features
West Creek Project -Construction Cost Estimate Summary
West Creek Project -Project Construction Cost Estimate
Summary of Economic Analysis
Economic Analysis -Scenario AA Loads -Base Case -Di esel
Generation
Economic Analysis -Scenario AA Loads -West Creek
Economic Analysis -Scenario AA Loads -Wood Waste, 11~/kWh,
20,000 MWh
Economic AnalysiS -Scenario AA Loads -Wood Waste, 13.5~/kWh,
20,000 MWh
Economic Analysis -Scenario AA Loads -Wood Waste, 11~/kWh,
12,000 MWh
Economi c Analysis -Scenario AA Loads -Wood Waste, 13. 5~/kWh,
12,000 MWh
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -Base Case -Diesel
Generation
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -West Creek
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -Wood Waste, 11~/kWh,
20,000 MWh
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -Wood Waste, 13.5~/kWh,
20,000 MWh
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -Wood Waste, 11~/kWh,
12,000 MWh
Economic Analysis -Scenario BB Loads -Wood Waste, 13.5~/kWh,
12,000 MWh
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table
No. Title
VI-14 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -Base Case -Diesel
Generation
VI-15 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -West Creek
VI-16 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -Wood Waste, 11¢/kWh ,
20,000 MWh
VI-17 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -Wood Waste, 13.5¢/kWh,
20,000 MWh
VI-18 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -Wood Waste, 11¢/kWh,
12,000 MWh
VI-19 Economic Analysis -Scenario CC Loads -Wood Waste, 13.5¢/kWh,
12,000 MWh
VI-20 West Creek Project -Present Worth Costs for Various On-Line Dates
Figure
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Location Map
Energy Requirements of Haines-Skagway
Scenario CC Energy Requirements and Resources
Concrete-Gravity Dam Plan and Section
Alternative Power Conduit Arrangements
Powerhouse Plan and Section
Selected Transmission Corridor
SUMMARY
Three previous studies have been made of energy requirements of
Haines and Skagway and the means of meeting those requirements. The latest of
these studies was completed in June 1982 and concluded that the West Creek
Project was the most economical means of meeting the projected power require-
ments of the Haines-Skagway Region. This basic conclusion and its supporting
technical and economic data were based on forecasts of the area power require-
ments prepared in the fall of 1981. Recently, there have been some changes
within the local economic conditions which have raised questions regarding the
electric load growth previously forecast. The most notable of these changes
are the recent closure of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad in Skagway and the
decreasing likelihood of trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline project construc-
tion.
As a result of these changes the Alaska Power Authority (APA) was
interested in determining what effects lower load forecasts might have on the
selection of the most economical means of providing future power requirements
to the cities of Haines and Skagway.
Additionally, the APA was interested in examining means of reducing
the cost of the West Creek Project in general. Specific Project features
identified for reevaluation were the dam, power conduit and power plant. The
APA was interested in determining what effect recent data on roller-compacted
concrete dam construction techniques and new developments in tunnel-boring
machines would have on the cost of the concrete-gravity dam al ternati ve and
the power conduit respectively.
R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. was authori zed by the APA to per-
form these supplemental investigations and to prepare an addendum to the June
1982 Feasibility Report. The work was to include preparation of new load
growth forecasts, reevaluation of the Project size, to meet the future energy
requirements of the Haines-Skagway Region, a review of Project features and an
analysis of Project economics.
Three new alternative growth scenarios were developed for the
region analyzing each city independently. The low-growth scenario (Sce-
nario AA) represents essentially the status quo condition. The mid-range pro-
jection, Scenario BB, is a combination of the status quo condition in Skagway
and slightly improving conditions in Haines. Scenario CC is a more optimistic
projection incorporating increasing economic activity of varying degrees in
both Haines and Skagway. The three new scenarios compound annual load growth
rates are compared to those of the previous forecasts developed during the
fall of 1981 as follows:
Fall 1981
Forecast Scenarios
Compound Annual
Scenario Growth Rate
A
B
C
2.4%
3.7%
6.3%
November 1982
Forecast Scenarios
Compound Annual
Scenario Growth Rate
AA
BB
CC
1.4%
3.0%
3.3%
Page 2
Three alternative generation plans were developed in the July 1982
st udy and were also used for the present economic analysis. The generation
plans assume that either diesel, hydroelectric (West Creek), or wood waste
generation respectively would be developed to meet future energy require-
ments. Each plan also assumes the continued use of the existing hydroelectric
uni ts in Skagway and reserve usage of existing diesel units. The wood waste
plan included two assumed levels of generation and two assumed purchase costs
per kWh.
The three generation plans were economically compared by calculat-
ing the present worth cost of each plan for the three new load growth sce-
narios (AA, BB and CC) over a 55-year period of analysis using APA' s pre-
scribed procedure. The criteria used in the economic analyses were the same
as those used for the June 1982 study except that fuel oil was assumed to es-
cal ate for the first 20 years only, at a rate of 2.5% per year; and an i nfla-
tion-free discount rate of 3.5% was used. The present-worth costs of each
generation plan for each of the load growth forecasts are shown below.
Total Present Worth Cost ($000)
Scenario AA Scenario BB Scenario CC
Base Case -Diesel Generation 57,784 82,349 90,944
West Creek .................. 73,501 74,553 78,630
Schnabel Mill Wood Waste:
20,000 MWh, 11 ¢/kWh ••••••• 47,183 68,741 76,593
20,000 MWh, 13.5¢/kWh ..... 51,917 74,869 82,968
12,000 MWh, 11¢/kWh ••••••• 48,922 75,499 86,561
12,000 MWh, 13.5¢/kWh ..... 52,499 79,078 90,141
The most economical ineans of meeting future load and energy re-
quirements in the Haines-Skagway Region under the Scenario AA conditions
(least optimistic) would be the wood waste alternative. However, if load
growth exceeds that shown in Scenario AA, the wood waste al ternati ve would be
the most economical alternative only if there is sufficient wood waste avail-
able to generate at least 20,000 MWh annually and only if it can be generated
at a cost of 11¢/kWh or less.
Page 3
In light of the uncertainties regarding the long-tenn availability
of wood waste fuel for generation and cost of producing power by this method,
the West Creek Project is considered the most reliable generation al ternati ve
to meet the future load and energy requirements of the Haines-Skagway Region.
Based on construction cost and constructi bility data that have be-
come available since completion of the June 1982 studies:
1. Construction of a concrete-gravity dam using roller-compacted con-
crete placement techniques is now considered less costly than an equivalent
size concrete-faced rockfill dam.
2. It is feasible to construct a 6.5-foot-diameter machine-bored tun-
nel in lieu of the 9.5-foot-diameter machine-bored tunnel previously pro-
posed. A power conduit consisting of 8,470 feet of 6.5-foot-diameter machine-
bored tunnel and 1,450 feet of above-ground steel penstock is still preferred
over an all-penstock arrangement including a buried pipeline.
It has also been detennined that development of a powerhouse util-
izing a double nozzle Pelton-type turbine instead of two Francis-type turbines
will provide generally comparable operating characteristics at significantly
reduced cos t •
Load growth Scenario CC was selected as a reasonable basis for
evaluation of Project sizing and it was determined that the installed capacity
for the Proj ect could be reduced from 6,000 kW to 4,500 kW and still meet the
forecasted 1996 finn energy requirements of the Region. Under these condi-
tions, the West Creek Project would consist of a 116-foot-high concrete-grav-
ity dam, power conduit consisting of 8,470 feet of 6-1/2-foot-diameter tunnel
and 1,450 feet of 3-foot-diameter steel penstock, a powerhouse containing a
single 4,500-kW Pelton-type turbine-generator unit, and a 34.5-kV transmission
system consisting of 6.2 miles of overhead lines and 16.6 miles of submarine
cable to connect the Project with Haines and Skagway. This Project configura-
tion would have a Total Investment Cost (inflation-free on 1/82) of
$50,440,000 which results in a savings of $5,468,000 when compared to the
$55,908,000 shown in the June 1982 study.
The results of the studies discussed herein have been presented in
public meetings held separately in the cities of Haines and Skagway early in
December 1982.
Based on the findings described above it is recommended that the
APA resolve the issue of the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park boun-
dary, complete and file the application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
mission for a license to construct, operate and maintain the Project, and pro-
ceed with the final design activities during the summer of 1983.
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL STATISTICS
OF RECOMMENDED GENERATION PLAN:
WEST CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
BASIN HYDROLOGY
Drainage area above dam (sq. mi.)
Average annual runoff at dam site
Average annual runoff per sq. mi.
(ac-ft) ............... .
(cfsm) •.•..•••••••••••.
PROJECT POWER DATA
Annual firm energy generated (MWh) •••••••••••••••••••••••
Installed capacity (kW) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Average annual gross head (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESERVOIR
Normal maximum power pool elevation (ft) •••••••••••••••••
Minimum power pool elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Reservoir area at normal maximum pool (ac) •••••••••••••••
Active storage capacity (ac-ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
DIVERSION
DAM
Type -Embankment Cofferdam and Concrete Diversion Pipes
Maximum cofferdam height (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Diversion Pipes(2):
Inside diameter Cft) .•••..••••••..••.•.•••••••••••.••..
Length (ft) ........................................... .
Maximum discharge (efs) ............................... .
Type -Concrete-Gravity
Crest elevation Cft) .••....••.••••••.••.••..•..•••••••.••
Crest length Cft) .......................•...........•....
Maximum height above foundation (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••
Total vo llDIle ( cy ) .......... " ............................. .
37.2
208,500
7.75
20,209
4,500
655
700
646
580
17,347
22
11
765
5,500
716.0
650
116
48,700
SPILLWAY
Type -Ungated Ogee
Crest length (ft) ........................................ 200
Crest elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 700
PMF surcharge elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 716
POWER INTAKE
Type -Inclined Intake Structure With Fixed Wheel Gate
and Steel Trashrack
Intake invert elevation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 630
POWER CONDUIT
Type -Tunnel and Steel Penstock
Unlined Tunnel Section
Length (ft)
Inside diameter (ft) .................................. .
Maximum velocity (fps) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Manning's "n" (no supports) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Lined Tunnel Section
Length of concrete-lined (ft) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Length of steel-lined (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
IJ'lSide diameter (ft) .................................. .
MaximlDD. velocity (fps) ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Penstock
Length (ft) ............................................
Maximum inside diameter
Maximum velocity (fps)
POWERHOUSE
(ft) ........................... .................................
Type -Indoor With Pre-cast Concrete Superstructure
Width (ft)
Length (ft)
Height (ft)
Centerline generator shaft elevation (ft) ••••••••••••••••
Generator floor elevation (ft) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
TAILRACE CHANNEL
Length (ft)
Bottom width (ft)
Side slopes (H:V)
8,420
6.5
3
0.017
160
70
5.5
4.2
1,450
3
14.2
48
50
20
50
42
1,200
5
1. 5: 1
Page 2
Page 3
POWERHOUSE EQUIPMENT
Number of generating units ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
Inlet valve diameter, (inches) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 36
Turbines, Type -Pelton:
Net rated head (ft) .................................... .
Rated capacity, best gate (hp) •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Speed (rpm.) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Discharge at full-gate and rated head (cfs) ••••••••••••
Maximum. gross head (ft) ............................... .
Minimum gross head (ft) ............................... .
Generator, Type -Horizontal Shaft Synchronous
With Enclosed Cooling
Generator rating at 0.9 pf, 60 0 c temperature rise (kVA)
SWITCHYARD
No. of transformers (three-phase) ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Transfomer voltage (kV) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•
Transform.er 'ba.nk (kVA) ••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
TRANSMISSION LINE
Type -Wood Pole Construction With Single Crossarm
Overhead
Voltage (kV) •..•••••••••••••••••..•.••••••••••••.••••••
Cond uctOI" s1 ze ........................................ .
Swttchyard to Skagway switch (mi) ••••••••••••••••••••••
Submarine
Type -Oil Impregnated Paper Insulated
Single Conductor, 4 cables (1 spare)
Voltage (kV) .••..•••......••.••••...••••••.••...••.••..••
Cond uctor si ze .......................................... .
Length (mi) .......•..............................•••.....
ACCESS ROAD
Length (mi) ..............................................
635
6,032
300
100
660
608
5,000
1
13.8-34.5
5,400
34.5
2/0 ACSR
6.2
34.5
1/0 Copper
16.6
3.2
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1. GENERAL
In the last three years, there have been three studies undertaken
to determine the energy requirements of Haines and Skagway and the means of
meeting these requirements. The most recent study was completed in June 1982
and concluded that the West Creek Project was the most economical means of
meeting the projected power requirements for the Haines-Skagway Region.
Part A of the report (Volume I) completed in June 1982 described the peak and
energy forecasts prepared for the two communities, the alternative means of
meeting these forecasts, and the economic and environmental evaluations of the
various means. Part B des cri bed the res ul ts of engineering and environmental
studies of the West Creek Project conducted during the latter part of 1981 and
the early part of 1982. The study included investigations of geology and
hydrology, environmental studies, power studies, layouts, cost estimates, and
initial optimization of project features.
The West Creek Project would consist of a 117-foot-high concrete-
faced rockfill dam creating a 635-acre reservoir with a normal maximum level
at EI 705; a power intake; a power conduit consisting of 8,470 feet of essen-
tially unlined rock tunnel with a surge shaft and 1,450 feet of 3-foot-diam-
eter steel penstock; an indoor-type powerhouse containing two 3,000-kW,
Francis-type tur bine generat ors; a 1, 200-foot-Iong tailrace channel from the
powerhouse to West Creek; and a combination of overhead, underground and sub-
marine transmission lines connecting with Haines and Skagway. A general
location map is shown in Fig. 1. The Project was estimated to have a Total
Investment Cost of $55,908,000 for an assumed on-line date of January 1982
(current cost level).
The basic conclusions and supporting technical and economic data
contained in Volumes I and II of the Haines-Skagway Region Feasibility Report
are based on forecasts of Haines-Skagway energy requirements prepared in the
fall of 1981. In the past year changes wi thin the local economic conditions
have resulted in questions regarding the electric load growth previously fore-
cast. The most notable of these changes are the recent closure of the White
Pass and Yukon Railroad in Skagway and the decreasing likelihood of trans-
Alaska natural gas pipeline project construction.
As a result of these changes the Alaska Power Authority (APA) was
interested in determining what effects lower load forecasts might have on the
selection of the most economical means of providing future power requirements
to the cities of Haines and Skagway. Additionally the APA was interested in
examining means of reducing the cost of the West Creek Project in general.
Specific Project features identified for reevaluation were the dam, power con-
duit and power plant. The APA was interested in determining what effect re-
cent data on roller-compacted concrete dam construction techniques and new
1-2
developments in tunnel-boring machines would have on the cost of the concrete-
gravity dam alternative and the power conduit respectively.
2. AUTHORIZATION
R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. (Beck) was authorized by the APA to
perform these supplemental investigations and to prepare an addendum to the
June 1982 Feasibility Report under Amendment No. 3 of Contract CC 08-2034 be-
tween the APA and Beck by a notice to proceed letter dated November 24, 1982.
3. SCOPE OF FEASIBILITY ADDENDUM WORK
The investigations described in this Addendum to the Feasibility
Report include the following tasks:
a. Prepare three possible electric load forecasts which:
(1) exclude the Yukon-White Pass Railroad and its associated
loads after 1982 (Scenario AA).
(2) provide for summer operation only of the Yukon-White Pass
Railroad (Scenario BB).
(3) include year-round operation of the Yukon-White Pass Railroad
(Scenario CC).
Review the status of the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline and input possible
load changes into each scenario as appropriate. In addition, other modifica-
tions to local energy requirements as could be made by telephone consultation
were made. Scenario A of the June 1982 report was used as a base in all new
scenarios for Skagway and for Scenario AA for Haines. Scenario B of the June
1982 report was used as a base for Scenarios BB and CC for Haines.
b. Prepare revised Project concepts and cost estimates which evaluate
the suitability of a concrete-gravity dam constructed by roller-compacted
placement methods, minimal diameter tunnel size based upon constructibility
and hydraulics, and a surface or buried penstock to a powerhouse that will use
a single turbine/generator unit. For Project sizing the June 1982 Scenario B
requirements for Haines combined with Scenario A requirements for Skagway plus
increased loadings due to a new hotel restaurant were used (Scenario CC).
c. Perform a revised present worth analysis of the base-case, wood
waste case, and West Creek hydro case based upon the forecasts given in
Task a. above and the Project configuration given in Task b. The analysis
used a 3.5% discount rate and a 2.5% fuel escalation rate.
d. Attend public meetings in the cities of Haines and Skagway to pres-
ent the results of the studies discussed above.
1. BACKGROUND
SECTION II
FORECASTS OF COMMUNITY POWER REQUIREMENTS
FOR HAINES AND SKAGWAY, ALASKA
Three forecasts of electric requirements were prepared for the com-
muni ties of Haines and Skagway in the fall of 1981 as part of the Haines-Skag-
way Region Feasibility Study which was published in June 1982. A number of
changes have occurred in those communities' economies over the past year which
have raised questions about the previous forecasts for future electric re-
quirements. In response to these questions, three new forecast scenarios have
been prepared which include a reevaluation of economic activity and review of
growth assumptions used in the previous forecasts. Two of the forecasts in
the June 1982 report (Scenarios A and B) provided the basis for preparing the
new forecasts (AA, BB and CC). Certain loads were added to or subtracted from
the original scenarios to reflect pertinent information obtained in the fall
of 1982. A summary of regional power requirements under the new growth sce-
narios is shown in Fig. 2.
2. ECONOMIC CHANGES
a. Trans-Alaska Gas Pipeline
Local businesses in both Haines and Skagway, including the White
Pass and Yukon Railroad, have been contacted in recent years regarding the
potential for transporting materials to the Yukon during construction of the
proposed trans-Alaska gas pipeline project. When loads were being evaluated
in the fall of 1981, that Project's construction was tentatively scheduled for
the 1986-1988 time period and provisions were made in the June 1982 Scenario B
for pipeline-related employment and loads in both communi ties. Since that
time the pipeline project has been plagued with delays and various problems
and al ternati ve plans for a smaller project are being considered. As a
resul t, people in Haines and Skagway are no longer depending on that project
to affect their communi ties. Therefore, pipeline-induced loads have been ex-
cluded in each new scenario except CC, where growth related to the pipeline is
included for Haines only.
b. White Pass and Yukon Railroad
Ore mines in the Yukon Territory, which have historically relied on
the White Pass and Yukon Railroad for freight transportation, closed during
1982 due to decreasing world market demand. Because the railroad relies on
freight transportation from these mines for the bulk of its operation, the
railroad also closed in the fall of 1982, laying off about 150 employees in
II-2
Skagway. Historically, the remaining railroad activity has been associated
wi th tourist trans portation during the summer months; however, this acti vi ty
alone does not presently generate enough revenue to justif'y continued opera-
tion. While future world ore markets cannot be predicted, each of the three
new scenarios presents a different future for railroad activity to evaluate
the effects of various levels of railroad operation on load growth.
c. Klondike Hotel
The original load growth scenarios did not include the Klondike
Hotel's new seasonally-operating restaurant now under construction in Skag-
way. In all three of the new scenarios, this load was included beginning in
1983.
3. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF NEW SCENARIOS
Following is a description of the major elements of the new load
forecast scenarios.
a. Scenario AA
Scenario AA is the least optimistic load growth projection consid-
ered in the Feasibility Addendum and essentially represents the status quo
condition. This scenario includes the follOwing major asstUnptions for the
Haines forecast: population growth at 1.2% compounded annually, no conver-
sions to electric space heating; no loads from trans-Alaska natural gas pipe-
line-related trucking activity; and sane expansion in employment and power
usage at the Schnabel Lumber Company.
For Skagway the following major assumptions were made: a load
growth based on a population increase of 1% compounded annually was reduced by
varying percentages in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 through 2000 based on the
assumption that the White Pass and Yukon Railroad is partially closed in 1982
and permanently closed starting in 1983; no conversions to electric space
heating; no loads from trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline-related activity; and
increased loads resulting from the seasonal operation of the new Klondike
Hotel restaurant beginning in 1983. A summary of the Scenario AA forecast is
presented in Table II-1 and is also shown in Fig. 2.
b. Scenario BB
Scenario BB is the mid-range load growth projection considered in
the Feasibility Addendum and essentially represents a combination of status
quo conditions in Skagway and slightly improving conditions in Haines. This
scenario includes the following major assumptions for the Haines forecast: a
load growth tased on a population increase of 3.2% compounded annually was
reduced by the exclusion of any potential loads for the trans-Alaska natural
gas pipeline; no conversions to electric space heating were considered; some
expansion in employment and power usage at the Schnabel LtUnber Company; addi-
tional residential loads were assumed to commence in the late 1980' s due to
II-3
barite mining; additional new industrial loads were assumed to begin in 1991;
and additional load growth was assumed to commence in the mid-1980's due to
winter carnival expansion.
For Skagway the following major assumptions were made: a load
growth based on population increase of 1% compounded annually was reduced by
varying percentages in the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 through 2000 based on the
assumption that the White Pass and Yukon Railroad closed for part of 1982 and
all of 1983 and 1984 but will reopen for summer tourism only for the years
1985 through 2000; no conversions to electric space heating; no loads from
trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline-related activity; and increased loads re-
suI ting fram the seasonal operation of the new Klondike Hotel restaurant
beginning in 1983. A summary of the Scenario BB forecast is presented in
Table 11-2 and is also shown in Fig. 2.
c. Scenario CC
Scenario CC is a more optimistic load growth projection and incor-
porates increasing economic activity of varying degrees in both Haines and
Skagway. This scenario contains the following major assumptions for the
Haines forecast: a load growth based on a population increase of 3.2% com-
pounded annually; additional power requirements associated with increased
trucking activity due to the construction of the trans-Alaska natural gas
pipeline or similar economic activity; no conversions to electric space heat-
ing were considered; same expansion in employment and power usage at the
Schnabel Lumber Company; additional residential and commercial loads were
assumed to increase in the late 1980's due to barite mining activity; new in-
dustrial customer's requirements were assumed to begin in 1991; and additional
load growth was assumed to commence in the mid-1980's due to winter carnival
expansion.
For Skagway the following major assumptions were made: a load
growth based on a population increase of 1% compounded annually; the White
Pass and Yukon Railroad was assumed to remain fully operational all year round
through the year 2000; no conversions to electric space heating; no loads from
trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline-related activity; and increased loads re-
suI ting from the seasonal operation of the new Klondike Hotel restaurant
beginning in 1983. A summary of the Scenario CC forecast is presented in
Table 11-3 and is also shown in Fig. 2.
4. COMPARISON OF LOAD GROWTH SCENARIOS
The three new scenarios (AA, BB and CC) are compared to the sce-
narios developed in the fall of 1981 by examination of their respective com-
pound annual growth rates as shown below.
Fall 1981
Forecast Scenarios
Compound Annual
Scenario Growth Rate
A
B
C
2.4%
3.7%
6.3%
Fall 1982
Forecast Scenarios
Compound Annual
Scenario Growth Rate
AA
BB
CC
1.4%
3.0%
3.3%
II-4
If the current slowdown in the economy, particularly the shutdown
of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, continues, the energy requirements par-
ticularly in Skagway will be significantly reduced over those shown in the
prior studies. If this is the case, the Project should be reduced in size
from that recommended in the June 1982 report.
lIIIugy I .... '.
Bal .... Light • PD_r S.l ••
.nd IP ................... . 7,Oll 7,on 7,161 7,328
Schn.be1 Lum.r 00. Own
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMMUNITY AND REGION POWER REQUIREMENTS
SCENARIO AA
7,515 7,6112 7,889 8,073 8,286 8,473 8,696 8,925 9,219 9,406 9,569 9,764 9,963 10,138 10,343
Ga,,",ntion ................ 3,663 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 ...2Llli 7,037 7,037 ...2Llli ...2Llli 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 ...1....ill
tot.1 Oo..unlty an.rgy ••• 10,676 14,058 14,198 14,365 14,552 14,729 14,926 15,110 15,323 15,510 15,733 15,962 16,256 16,443 16,606 16,801 17,000 17,175 17,380
Pe.k o.und Ikll,.
Bal .... Llght • PD_r S.l ••
• nd IP.... ................ 1,334 1,336 1,362 1,394 1,430 1,463 1,501 1,536 1,576 1,612 1,654 1,698 1,754 1,790 1,821 1,858 1,895 1,928 1,968
Schn.be1 Lum.r 00. Own
Ga ... r.tion ................ 1,107 2,123 2,123 2,123 2,123 2,133 -1.L!ll 2,123 2,133 2,123 2,123 2,123 2,123 2,123 2,133 -1.L!ll ...b..ill 2,123 ...l.till
tot.1 Oo..unlty Pe.k 3,459 3,485 3,517 3,553 3,586 3,624 3,659 3,699 3,735 3,777 3,821 3,877 3,913 3,944 3,981 4,018 4,051 4,091
lIII.rgy I .... '.
Al •• k. PD_r • '!'a1.pho ...
Sa1 ••• nd IP ............. . 4,573 3,465 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,Oll 3,Oll 3,011 3,011
IIhlt. Pa ... YUkon RAilroad
Own Gan.r.tion •••••••••••• ---2!i ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0
total Oo-unlty an.rgy 5,079 3,465 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,011 3,Oll
Pe.k Deund Ikll,.
Al •• k. PD_r • '!'a1.pho ...
S.le •• nd IP ............. . 1,036 809 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711
lIhit. Pa ••• Yukon RAUroad
Own Gan.r.tion •••••••••••• ---.!!! ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0 ___ 0
total Oo-unlty Pe.k •••••
81'1" AND BJtAGIIAT CXlIIBIIIIID.
an.rgy I .... ' •••••••••••••••
Pa.k o.und IkW, •••••••••••
1,152
15,755
3,593
809 711 711 711 711 711
17,523 17,209 17,376 17,563 17,740 17,937
4,268 4,196 4,228 4,264 4,297 4,335
711
18,121
4,370
711
18,334
4,410
711 711
18,521 18,744
4,446 4,488
711
18,973
4,532
711 711 711 711 711 711 711
19,267 19,454 19,617 19,812 20,011 20,186 20,391
4,588 4,624 4,655 4,692 4,729 4,762 4,802
lI1er9Y (-I.
&01 .... L19ht , PO ... r Sal ••
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMMUNITY AND REGION POWER REQUIREMENTS
SCENARIO BB
and Lo.... •••••••••••••••• 7,070 7,203 7,400 7,680 7,825 7,982 8,336 8,565 9,948 10,624 11,017 11,427 11,848 12,197 12,588 12,841 13,388 13,815 14,238
Schnabel Wilber 0>. OWn
Gen.ration ................ 3,663 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 7,037 ....!J.lli 7,037 ....!J.lli 7,037....!J.lli 7,037 7,037 7,037 ....!J.lli ....!J.lli
'I'Otal O> .. unlty 1I1"9Y •••
Peak De_nd (kill.
&oln •• L19ht , PO ... r Sal ••
and L«:J ••••••••••••••••••••
Schnabel W_ber 0>. OWn
Gen.ration ••••••••••••••••
'I'Otal o>.aunlty Peak •••••
lI1.r9Y (-I.
Alaaka PO ... r , ftl.phone
Sal •• and Lo ••••••••••••••
Whlt. Pa •• , YUkon Ral1road
Peak Deaond (kill.
Ala.ka PO_r , ftlephone
sale. and Lo ............. .
Whlte Pa •• , YUkon Ral1road
OWn Generation ••••••••••••
'I'Otal O> .. unlty Peak •••••
BAlNBS AND SIItAGIIAY COMBINBD.
8I'I"9Y (-I .............. .
Peak Deaond (kill •••••••••••
10,733
1,345
5,567
1,252
l,UO
17,082
3,892
1,370 1,408 1,461
3,U3
1,137
1,137
19,179
4,630
3,531
5,000
5,000
1,154
1,154
19,437
4,685
3,584
5,152
5,675
1,188
1,314
20,392
4,898
14,862 15,019
1,489 1,519
3,612
5,287
5,813
1,219
1,345
20,675
4,957
3,642
5,430
5,959
1,251
1,378
20,978
5,020
15,373 15,602 16,985
1,586 1,630 1,893
3,709
5,546
6,078
1,278
1,406
21,451
5,115
3,753
5,727
6,262
1,319
l,U7
21,864
5,200
4,016
5,849
6,387
1,346
1,475
23,372
5,491
17,661 18,054 18,464 18,885 19,234 19,625
2,021 2,096 2,174 2,254 2,321 2,395
4,lU
6,003
6,5U
1,380
1,510
24,205
5,654
4,219
6,162
6,706
1,417
1,548
24,760
5,767
4,297
6,329
6,876
1,454
1,586
25,340
5,883
4,377 4,U4 4,518
6,495 6,633 6,766
7,046 7,187 7,323
1,492 1,522 1,552
1,625
25,931
6,002
1,656
26,421
6,100
1,686
26,948
6,204
19,878 20,425 20,852 21,275
2,443 2,547 2,628 2,709
4,566
6,904
1,583
1,718
27,343
6,284
4,670
7,050
7,614
1,616
1,752
28,039
6,422
4,751
7,199
7,766
1,649
1,786
28,618
6,537
4,832
7,346
7,917
1,682
1,820
29,192
6,652
>-:l
III
0-
f-'
It>
H
H
I
N
lIn.rgy (1Mb).
Bai .... Light • PO_r Sal ••
and ID ••••••••••••••••••••
Schnabel "".toer Co. Own
Generation ••••••••••••••••
'l\:)tal CO .... nity lIn.rgy •••
Peak De_nd (kW).
Baine. Light • PO_r Sal ••
and ID .................... .
Schnabel "".toer Co. Own
Generation ••••••••••••••••
'l\:)tal Co ... nity Peak •••••
lInergy (1Mb).
Ala.k. PO_r • ftl.phone
Sal •• and ID .............. .
Whit. Pa ••• YUkon Railroad
Own Gen.ration ••••••••••••
'l\:)tal Co .. unity lIn.rgy '"
peak De_nd (kW).
Ala.ka PO_r • ftl.phOne
Sal •• and ID .............. .
White ..... YUkon Railroad
'l\:)tal Co .. unity Peak •••••
BAIIIBIl AMP SlAGIIIIY COMBIHBD.
lIn.rgy (1Mb) •••••••••••••••
Peak De_nd (kW) •••••••••••
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
COMMUNITY AND REGION POWER REQUIREMENTS
SCENARIO CC
7,070 7,203 7,400 7,680 8,190 8,553 9,017 9,340 10,405 11,100 11,505 11,922 12,354 12,693 13,107 13,498 13,902 14,351 14,780
10,733 14,240 14,437 14,717 15,227 15,590 16,054 16,377 17,U2 18,137 18,542 18,959 19,391 19,730 20,144
1,345 1,370 1,408 1,461 1,558 1,627 1,716 1,777 1,980 2,112 2,188 2,268 2,ll4 2,415 2,494
2,452 3,493 3,5ll 3,584 3,681 3,750 3,839 3,900 4,103 4,235 4,311 4,391 4,437 4,538 4,617
5,612 5,765 5,848 6,012 6,160 6,316 6,446 6,640 6,776 6,944 7,117 7,298 7,479 7,6ll 7,779
7,131
1,281
1,628
17,864
4,080
7,284
1,354
1,701
21,524
5,194
7,367
1,375
1,722
21,804
5,253
7,531
1,412
1,759
22,248
5,343
7,679
1,793
22,906
5,474
7,835
1,829
23,425
5,579
7,965
1,512
1,859
24,019
5,698
8,159
1,556
1,903
24,536
5,803
8,295
1,587
1,934
25,737
6,037
8,463
1,625
1,972
26,600
6,207
8,636
1,665
2,012
27,178
6,323
8,817
1,706
2,053
27,776
6,444
8,998 9,150 9,298
1,748 1,782 1,816
2,095 2,129 2,163
28,389 28,880 29,442
6,532 6,667 6,780
20,535 20,939 21,388 21,817
2,568 2,645
4,691 4,768
7,933 8,094
9,452
1,851
2,198
29,987
6,889
9,613
1,888
2,235
30,552
7,003
2,730 2,812
4,853 4,935
8,259 8,421
9,778
1,925
2,272
ll,166
7,125
9,940
1,962
2,309
31,757
7,244
H
H
I
\..oJ
SECTION III
PROJECT OPERATION STUDIES
1. GENERAL
Studies were performed to determine the power plant and reservoir
size required to meet projected loads and energy requirements under the new
Scenario CC. A computer model was used to simulate monthly reservoir opera-
tion. This procedure was similar to st udies performed in the June 1982
Study. Input data to this study, including monthly reservoir inflows, system
load characteristics, reservoir data, and approximate turbine, generator,
transformer and hydraulic losses, were similar to those used in Volume I with
the exception that a single Pel ton turbine was selected rather than the two
Francis units proposed in Volume I. It is recognized that the Pelton turbine
efficiency would be slightly less than that of the Francis units proposed in
Volume I but for the purposes of this study was assumed to be the same.
2. PROJECT SIZING
As in the prior studies, the size of the Project is limited by the
forecasted loads and energy reqUirements rather than the hydrologic, topo-
graphic and geologic condition of the site. The West Creek Project was sized
to meet the 1996 energy requirements forecasted in Scenario CC less 2,900 MWh
available from existing hydroelectric generation in Skagway and 90% of the
Schnabel Mill energy requirements in Haines which was assumed to be met by the
Mill. (See Fig. 3.) The resulting 1996 firm energy requirement is
20,209 MWh. Based on a system load factor of 50% a power plant capacity of
4,500 kW was selected.
3. POWER OPERATION STUDIES
a. Method of Project Operation
The reservoir operation was modeled on a monthly basis using the
same criteria and methods as described in the June 1982 study (Volume I, Sec-
tion XI). One difference pertaining to this Feasibility Addendum is the pro-
vision of approximately 2 cfs extra flow on a continuous basis to accommodate
load swings up to 100 kW. A description of the turbine operation including
load acceptance/rejection is given in Section IV.
b. Operation Study Results
Results of the analysis are shown in Tables III-1 through III-8.
These tables contain a summary of input data as well as output. Tables 111-1
III-2
through III-3 represent basic input data and correspond to Tables XI-1 through
XI-3 of Volume I. Tables III-4 through III-8 represent the results of the
monthly reservoir operation and correspond to Tables XI-4 through XI-8 of Vol-
ume I.
For the Scenario CC load and energy requirements, the operation
studies showed that a reservoir with active storage volume of 17,347 acre-feet
would be required to provide sufficient storage to meet the estimated 1996
energy requirements during the driest year of record. This would require a
reservoir with a normal maximum level of EI 700 and a minimum operating level
of EI 646.
The operation study indicates that secondary energy could be gener-
ated during the dry months when the inflows are higher than those occurring in
the driest year of record. This secondary energy would only have an economic
val ue after 1996 when the load is there. In order to provide a conservati ve
analysis, no credit has been taken for secondary energy during the dry months.
The operation studies also show that during months of high flow,
June-October, there is sufficient excess water to generate up to the installed
capacity of the plant. This would be a total energy of 26,500 MWh as compared
with the 8,022 MWh required during those months in the 1996 Scenario CC fore-
cast. The only limitation on use of this energy is the availability of a load
which can make use of the energy. Thus, as the load grows after 1996 the
energy usage fran the Project will increase during the high flow months.
Since this energy is available in all years, credit is taken as discussed in
Section VI.
A comparison of Project statistics for the June 1982 operation
study and the Feasibility Addendum operation study is shown in Table III-9.
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
SUMMARY OF BASIC INPUT DATA
Rule Curve Required
TABLE III-1
Total Generation
Month Elev. (ft) Store (ac-ft) (PCT of Annual)
Oct. 700.00 18,347 8.7
Nov. 700.00 18,347 8.8
Dec. 700.00 18,347 9.0
Jan. 700.00 18,347 8.8
Feb. 700.00 18,347 9.5
Mar'. 700.00 18,347 8.3
Apr. 700.00 18,347 8.1
May. 700.00 18,347 7.8
Jun. 700.00 18,347 7.7
Jul. 700.00 18,347 7.3
Aug. 700.00 18,347 7.8
Sep. 700.00 18,347 8.2
Annual Required Energy, including 100-kW continuous
overflow available (MWh) = 21,085.
Annual Required Energy without 100-kW overflow allowance
(MWh) = 20,209.
Starting Month and Year of Data = October 1963.
Overall Efficiency = 85%.
Hydraulic Capacity at Maximum Head
Beginning Storage in Reservoir
Maximum Reservoir Capacity
Tailwater Elevation
Installed Capacity
= 100 cfs
= 1 8,347 ac-ft
= 18,347 ac-ft
= 38.0 ft
= 4,500 kW
Year ~ Nov. ~
1963-64 15,310 10,056 1,845
1964-65 14,880 3,273 3,505
1965-66 14,019 4,701 861
1966-67 19,061 5,355 1,599
1967-68 14,327 3,213 738
1968-69 10,084 4,998 2,214
1969-70 7,624 3,511 1,968
1970-71 16,233 11,306 5,472
1971-72 16,786 9,818 2,398
1972-73 6,087 1,666 1,660
1973-74 10,268 4,820 1,906
1974-75 9,162 2,023 984
1975-76 20,598 13,507 3,935
1976-77 9,961 1,666 1,168
1977-78 17,278 12,139 6,210
Average 13,445 6,137 2,431
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
RESERVOIR INFLOW (ACRE-FEET)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ June
430 666 3,074 4,403 16,356 24,218
2,337 1,666 1,353 2,083 9,039 51,352
922 833 799 2,737 10,945 25,051
615 666 1,230 3,630 8,670 35,048
492 722 676 952 8,793 44,926
1,414 2,221 3,874 2,440 20,229 32,787
1,045 1,000 1,722 3,213 12,605 40,820
2,091 2,055 2,091 2,618 11,806 30,347
1,537 1,055 1,107 2,261 7,563 33,977
1.107 666 1,045 1,012 10,022 26,955
492 833 922 3,035 11,068 23,623
492 666 430 1,071 9,654 24,635
2,152 1,277 1,230 2,797 10,514 28,086
1,291 833 799 2,975 8,424 27,015
4,120 4,554 3,074 5,474 12,666 34,215
1,369 1,314 1,562 2,713 11,224 32,204
~ ~
61,918 69,604
57,614 41,074
51,957 49,559
50,727 44,640
45,132 63,640
55,031 39,598
43,964 32,465
38,737 42,365
56,876 52,449
62,348 63,271
42,119 51,096
44,394 51,834
61,488 40,213
47,530 43,226
60,565 69,481
52,027 50,301
~
47,068
18,327
33,441
31,537
65,812
29,812
22,731
29,395
20,231
24,932
19,160
44,093
47,603
43,140
30,883
33,878
Total
254,948
206,503
195,825
202,778
249,423
204,702
172,668
194,516
206,058
200,771
169,342
189,438
233,400
188,028
260,659
208,605
H
H
H
I
N
Year ~ ~ ~
1963-64 1,758 1,778 1,819
1964-65 1,758 1,778 1,819
1965-66 1,758 1,778 1,819
1966-67 1,758 1,778 1,819
1967-68 1,758 1,778 1,819
1968-69 1,758 1,778 1,819
1969-70 1,758 1,778 1,819
1970-71 1,758 1,778 1,819
1971-72 1,758 1,778 1,819
1972-73 1,758 1,778 1,819
1973-74 1,758 1,778 1,819
1974-75 1,758 1,778 1,819
1975-76 1,758 1,778 1,819
1976-77 1,758 1,778 1,819
1977-78 1,758 1,778 1,819
Average 1,758 1,778 1,819
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIRED (1) (MWh)
!!!.!!.:...-~ ~ ~ ..1!!L June
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
(1) -Energy requirements for Haines and Skagway
in 1996 under the Scenario CC forecast.
~ ~-
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
1,475 1,576
~
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
1,657
Total
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
20,209
H
III r::r
I-"
(l)
H
H
H
I w
Year ~ ~ ~
, 1963-64 1,758 1,778 1,819
1964-65 1,758 1,778 1,819
1965-66 1,758 1,778 1,819
1966-67 1,758 1,778 1,819
1967-68 1,758 1,778 1,819
1968-69 1,758 1,778 1,819
1969-70 1,758 1,778 1,819
1970-71 1,758 1,778 1,819
1971-72 1,758 1,778 1,819
1972-73 1,758 1,778 1,819
1973-74 1,758 1,778 1,819
1974-75 1,758 1,778 1,819
1975-76 1,758 1,778 1,819
1976-77 1,758 1,778 1,819
1977-78 1,758 1,778 1,819
Average 1,758 1,778 1,819
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
TOTAL ENERGY GENERATED (MWh)
!!!!l!...-~ !!!!..:..-~ ....!!!l.... June
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,279 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,617 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,637 1,576 1,556
1,778 1,920 1,677 1,613 1,576 1,556
!!!!!L ~ ~ Total
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 19,851
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,209
1,475 1,576 1,657 20,185
Year Oct. Nov. ~
1963-64 18,347 18,347 16,190
1964-65 18,347 17,776 17,277
1965-66 18,347 18,347 15,212
1966-67 18,347 18,347 15,967
1967-68 18,347 17,668 14,445
1968-69 18,347 18,347 16,611
1969-70 18,347 17,971 15,959
1970-71 18,347 18,347 18,347
1971-72 18,347 18,347 16,786
1972-73 18,347 16,114 13,789
1973-74 18,347 18,347 16,260
1974-75 18,347 16,510 13,509
1975-76 18,347 18,347 18,323
1976-77 18,347 16,155 13,347
1977-78 18,347 18,347 18,347
Average 18,347 17,821 16,025
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
END-OF-MONTH RESERVOIR STORAGE (ACRE-FEET)
...!!!lli-. ~ ~ ~ ~ June
12,683 9,161 8,445 9,144 18,347 18,347
15,715 13,245 10,849 9,248 14,707 18,347
12,202 8,863 5,817 4,795 12,123 18,347
12,641 9,101 6,529 6,389 11,447 18,347
10,956 7,473 4,287 1,423 6,503 18,347
14,116 12,160 12,246 10,978 18,347 18,347
13,096 9,926 7,863 7,366 16,366 18,347
16,509 14 ,423 12,768 11,743 18,347 18,347
14,421 11,344 8,641 7,167 11,117 18,347
10,928 7,367 4,532 1,750 8,063 18,347
12,806 9,435 6,538 5,805 13,249 18,347
10,058 6,517 3,097 1,000 6,979 18,347
16,553 13,746 11,212 10,294 17,250 18,347
10,694 7,331 4,293 3,470 8,213 18,347
18,347 18,347 17,721 18,347 18,347 18,347
13,448 10,563 8,323 7,261 13,294 18,347
~ ~
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
18,347 18,347
~
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
18,347
Average
15,338
15,879
14,091
14,346
12,874
16,212
15,024
16,852
14,963
12,857
14,515
12,450
16,455
12,937
18,295
14,873
~
III
0" ......
(1)
H
H
H
I
V1
Year Oct. ~ ~
1963-64 700.00 700.00 697.81
1964-65 700.00 699.42 698.33
1965-66 700.00 700.00 696.81
1966-67 700.00 700.00 697.58
1967-68 700.00 699.31 695.34
1968-69 700.00 700.00 698.24
1969-70 700.00 699.62 697.19
1970-71 700.00 700.00 700.00
1971-72 700.00 700.00 698.41
1972-73 700.00 697.73 693.10
1973-74 700.00 700.00 697.88
1974-75 700.00 698.13 693.22
1975-76 700.00 700.00 699.97
1976-77 700.00 697.77 692.69
1977-78 700.00 700.00 700.00
Average 700.00 699.47 697.10
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
AVERAGE RESERVOIR ELEVATION (FEET)
~ ~ ~ ~ ....!!!L-June
692.05 684.91 680.60 680.58 690.65 700.00
696.24 692.14 687.20 683.13 687.05 696.30
690.57 684.12 675.88 668.69 679.83 693.67
691. 78 684.81 677.55 672.76 680.84 692.99
688.52 681.44 670.72 660.04 663.95 687.96
693.94 689.41 687.51 686.31 692.51 700.00
692.24 686.11 680.79 676.85 686.83 697.99
698.13 694.14 690.34 687.62 693.29 700.00
694.42 688.89 683.02 677.87 681.29 692.65
687.83 681.30 670.97 661.04 667.28 689.55
692.25 685.31 678.16 671.75 682.07 694.82
686.66 679.22 666.93 653.95 664.04 688.45
698.15 693.50 688.07 684.56 690.70 698.89
687.14 681.03 670.48 663.66 670.58 689.70
700.00 700.00 699.36 699.36 700.00 700.00
692.66 687.09 680.37 675.21 682.06 694.86
~ ~ ~ Averase
700.00 700.00 700.00 693.88
700.00 700.00 700.00 694.98
700.00 700.00 700.00 690.80
700.00 700.00 700.00 69l. 53
700.00 700.00 700.00 687.27
700.00 700.00 700.00 695.66
700.00 700.00 700.00 693.14
700.00 700.00 700.00 696.96
700.00 700.00 700.00 693.05
700.00 700.00 700.00 687.40
700.00 700.00 700.00 691.85
700.00 700.00 700.00 685.88
700.00 700.00 700.00 696.15
700.00 700.00 700.00 687.75
700.00 700.00 700.00 699.89
700.00 700.00 700.00 692.41
Year Oct. Nov. DeC.
1963-64 53 55 55
1964-65 53 55 55
1965-66 53 55 55
.1966-61 53 55 55
1961-68 53 55 55
1968-69 53 55 55
1969-10 53 55 55
1910-11 53 55 54
1911-12 53 55 55
1912-13 53 55 55
1913-14 53 55 55
1914-15 53 55 55
1915-16 53 55 54
1916-11 53 55 55
1911-18 53 55 54
Average 53 55 54.80
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
DISCHARGE THROUGH UNITS (CFS)
Jan. Peb. Mar. ~ ..l!!L June
54 63 52 52 48 48
54 64 51 52 48 49
54 65 52 53 49 49
54 65 52 53 49 49
54 63 53 54 50 49
54 65 51 52 48 48
54 65 52 53 48 48
53 64 51 52 48 48
54 63 52 53 49 49
54 66 53 54 50 49
54 65 52 53 49 49
54 66 53 43 50 49
53 62 51 52 48 48
54 66 53 54 50 49
53 64 50 51 41 48
53.80 64.4 51.81 52.01 48.13 48.60
July Aug.
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
U 41
41
.Sep.
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
Average
51.83
51.92
52.25
52.25
52.33
51.92
52.08
51.66
52.08
52.58
52.25
51.61
51.50
52.58
51.42
52.02
H
III
0"
I-' ro
H
H
H
I
-....J
Year Oct. Nov. Dec.
1963-64 187 104 0
1964-65 179 0 0
1965-66 165 14 0
1966-67 247 25 0
1967-68 170 0 0
1968-69 102 19 0
1969-70 61 0 0
1970-71 201 125 24
1971-72 210 100 0
1972-73 36 0 0
1973-74 104 16 0
1974-75 86 0 0
1975-76 273 162 0
1976-77 99 0 0
1977-78 219 139 37
Average 155.93 46.93 4.07
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
SPILL (CFS)
Jan. Feb. Mar. ~ ~ June
0 0 0 0 58 349
0 0 0 0 0 744
0 0 0 0 0 258
0 0 0 0 0 414
0 0 0 0 0 497
0 0 0 0 151 493
0 0 0 0 0 595
0 0 0 0 27 452
0 0 0 0 0 391
0 0 0 0 0 221
0 0 0 0 0 253
0 0 0 0 0 164
0 0 0 0 0 395
0 0 0 0 0 225
4 9 0 21 149 517
0.27 0.60 o 1.40 25.67 397.87
~ Aug.
953 1,074
882 611
791 749
770 669
680 977
841 587
660 471
575 632
871 796
960 971
631 773
668 785
946 597
719 645
930 1,073
791.80 760.67
SeE·
730
247
501
468
1045
439
321
432
278
358
260
680
739
664
457
507.93
Average
287.92
221.92
206.50
216.08
280.75
219.33
175.67
205.67
220.50
212.17
169.75
198.58
259.33
196.00
296.25
224.43
>-3
III
0-'
I-' ro
H
H
H
I
00
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
COMPARISON OF PROJECT STATISTICS
Installed Capacity •••••••••••••••••••••
Annual Firm Energy Generated •••••••••••
Required Active Storage ••••••••••••••••
Normal Maximum Power Pool Elevation ••••
Average Annual Gross Head ••••••••••••••
Average Annual Flow Instream •••••••••••
Maximum Flow Through Units •••••••••••••
Selected Project
June 1982
6,000kW
23,630 MWh
18,130 acre-feet
705 ft.
660 ft.
288 efs
130 efs
TABLE III-9
Revised Project
December 1982
4,500 kW
20,209 MWh
17,347 acre-feet
700 ft.
655 ft.
288 efs
100 efs
SECTION IV
PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
1. OVERVIEW
To reflect the reduced Project requirements as described in Sec-
tions II and III, alternatives to the dam and power conduit described in Vol-
ume I, Section XIII were reevaluated to arrive at a layout which is referred
to herein as the Revised Project Arrangement (RPA). In the time available for
the reevaluation, optimization of the alternative concepts was not possible.
Minor changes should therefore be expected to occur in subsequent phases of
work.
The Project and its major features were sized to meet the Sce-
nario CC load forecast for 1996. As des cri bed in Section III, this resulted
in an installed capacity of 4,500 kW and a reservoir capable of storing suf-
ficient water to produce 20,209 MWh of generation during the driest year of
record. The general arrangement of the Proj ect is not significantly changed
from that described in Volume I, Section XIII.
2. DAM AND SPll..LWAY
a. General
Two al ternati ve dam types are considered sui table for the site,
concrete-faced rockfill and concrete-gravity. Both were evaluated from a
technical and economic viewpoint during the prior studies. Both were found
technically feasible; however, the rockfill dam was selected as the most eco-
nomic.
In the present study both al ternati ves were reevaluated, and the
concrete-gravity dam by itself is still more costly than the rockfill dam.
However, elimination of the open channel spillway required for the rockfill
dam makes the total cost of the dam and spillway approximately $600,000 less
costly for the concrete-gravity alternative.
b. Comparison of Dam Alternatives
A concrete-gravity dam constructed using roller-compacted concrete
was evaluated during the feasibility studies. At that time a conservative
cost estimate, reflecting the relative new method of concrete construction was
made which showed that roller-compacted concrete was not as economic as the
selected concrete-faced rockfill dam. With Willow Creek Dam in Heppner, Ore-
gon (essentially completed with no significant cost increases over the bid
cost) and in light of the reduced size of the West Creek Project, it was con-
sidered appropriate to reevaluate a concrete-gravity dam.
IV-2
A preliminary cost estimate was prepared for the concrete-gravity
dam with spillway crest at EI 705 and compared with the cost estimate devel-
oped during the prior studies for the selected rockfill dam. The costs shown
below are the direct construction costs on a January 1982 bid level for the
dam and spillway only.
Dam Type
Concrete-Gravity
Concrete-faced Rockfill
Comparati ve
Direct Construction Cost
$7,100,000
7,700,000
It was assumed that the economic advantage shown by the concrete-
gravity dam in this case would remain valid for a smaller dam. Therefore, the
gravity dam was selected as the preferred al ternati ve for the Revised Project
Arrangement. A preliminary layout and construction cost estimate was prepared
for the concrete-gravity dam with spillway crest at EI 700 to reflect the
reduced size of the Project. A description of the dam is given below and the
detailed construction cost estimate is contained in Section V.
As shown in Fig. 4, the concrete-gravity dam would be located along
the same dam axis as presented in Section XIII, Volume I. The gravity non-
overflow section would have a crest elevation of 716 and a crest length of
approximately 650 feet. The dam would have a vertical upstream face and a
downstream slope of 0.6:1. The dam, including the spillway, would have a
total volume of 48,700 cubic yards of concrete including the roller-compacted,
facing and other concrete elements. An ungated, ogee-type spillway would be
centrally located in the dam with a chute extending to a flip bucket midway
down the spillway slope. The spillway would have a crest elevation of EI 700
and a crest length of 200 feet.
The spillway bridge included in the original design for Volume I
has been eliminated in favor of a realignment of the intake tower access road
as described in Section IV-3.
3. POWER CONDUIT
a. General
The power conduit described in Volume I, Section XIII, Selected
Project Arrangement, consisted of 8,470 feet of unlined 9.5-foot-diameter tun-
nel constructed by a tunnel-boring machine, 1,450 feet of 3-foot-diameter sur-
face penstock and a 9.5-foot-diameter surge shaft.
cessful
in hard
tained.
Project
Since the studies in early 1982 were completed, details on the suc-
completion of over three miles of 6.5-foot-diameter tunnel constructed
rock by a tunnel boring machine near Chicago, Illinois have been ob-
I t is now concl uded that the t mmel si ze which can be used on this
can be economically reduced from 9.5 feet to 6.5 feet in diameter with
IV-3
no appreciable loss in operating characteristics. In addition, the use of a
Pel ton turbine with continuous discharge through the power conduit as dis-
cussed in subsection 4, can eliminate the need for the surge shaft.
The alternative to the 6.5-foot-diameter tunnel consisted predomi-
nantly of a 4-foot-diameter buried pipeline extending from a power intake
located on the left abutment to a powerhouse located on the north bank of West
Creek. The locations of the intake and powerhouse for each al ternati ve are
considered equally viable and were investigated as part of the prior studies.
b. Tunnel Alternative
The 6.5-foot-diameter tunnel and 3-foot-diameter surface penstock
al ternati ve would follow the same alignment (horizontally and vertically) as
the tunnel described in the June 1982 studies as shown in Fig. 5.
The access road for the tunnel alternative would utilize the exist-
ing logging road to the extent possible; however, new road construction would
be required fran the end of the logging road to the intake tower. The new
access would follow the left bank of West Creek to a point midway between the
dam and the end of the logging road. At this point a timber bridge would be
provided and the access road would follow the right bank for the remaining
distance. Access is provided to the intake tower and left abutment only.
c. Pipeline Alternative
With the exception of a short initial length of tunnel the pipeline
al ternati ve would consist of buried conduit. A drill and blast tunnel, 8 feet
in diameter, would extend approximately 1,200 feet from a power intake located
on the left abutment to the downstream portal. A buried conduit, 4 feet in
diameter, will extend approximately 11,700 feet from the downstream portal to
a powerhouse located on the north bank of West Creek. Over most of its length
the pipeline will parallel the existing access road as shown in Fig. 5. Im-
provements to the access road, over and above that required to support con-
struction traffic will be required to provide an economic alignment for the
pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed using concrete cylinder pipe with
a minimum cover of three feet. The average cover has been estimated at four
and one-half feet. Blow-off val ves would be provided for dewatering the pipe-
line at low points along the line and air relief valves would be provided at
the high points to relieve excess pressure when the line is filled and to pre-
vent pipe collapse due to vacuum formation during dewatering.
A new access road will be required fran the end of the logging road
to the intake on the left abutment. The alignment of the new road is shown in
Fig. 5. Again, access is provided only to the intake side of the dam which in
this case is on the left abutment. Due to the limited width of the existing
logging road (even with improvements) it is unlikely that construction traffic
to the dam site could use the access road concurrently with construction of
the pipeline.
IV-4
d. Comparison of Power Conduit Alternatives
A preliminary cost estimate was prepared for both al ternati ves.
Included in the costs shown below are the intake structure and power conduit.
Conduit Type
Pipeline -4' diameter
Tunnel -6.5' diameter
Comparative
Direct Construction Cost
$10,614,000
11,234,000
The direct construction cost of the buried pipeline is approxi-
mately $500,000 less than the tunnel alternative. Since the pipeline estimate
was prepared with limited topographic and geologic data it was concluded that
the cost difference was not sufficient to alter the prior selection (June
1982) of the tunnel alternative.
4. POWERHOUSE
The powerhouse type and location is similar to that described in
Volume I, Section XIII. A plan and section of the powerhouse is shown in
Fig. 6. With the reduction in required capacity, it was possible to use one
turbine-generator rather than the two-unit arrangement selected in the June
1982 studies. The powerhouse will contain a single, horizontal-shaft impulse-
type (Pelton) turbine-generator unit. A turbine governing system will be pro-
vided for speed and frequency control of the unit. The turbine will be equip-
ped with two nozzles. Deflectors on the nozzles will control the flow of
water to the turbine such that a relatively constant water velocity is main-
tained in the penstock during rapid load changes. This will minimize unfavor-
able hydraulic transients and allow elimination of the surge tank. In addi-
tion, by providing approximately 2 cfs through the turbine over and above the
generation requirements at the time, load acceptance of up to 100 kW can be
made in approximately 3 seconds. Full load rejection without penstock pres-
sure surges will be possi ble by complete deflection of the jets. The turbine
will deliver approximately 6,000 hp at a net head of 600 feet at best gate.
The corresponding discharge through the turbine will be 100 cfs. The turbine
will drive a synchronous, three-phase alternating current generator rated at
5,000 kVA, at 0.9 pf, 12.47 kV and 300 rpn with a 60 0 c temperature rise.
The plant installed capacity will be 4,500 kW. The generator will be enclosed
with surface air coolers and will be provided with a solid state exciter,
voltage regulator and all necessary auxiliary features.
A 36-inch spherical valve will be provided upstream of the turbine
to serve as a guard val ve for the unit. In addition, a bypass line and valve
to drain the power conduit would be provided. A tailrace channel, similar to
that described in Volume I, Section XIII, will be constructed to divert plant
discharges back into the existing West Creek channel. Plant accessory and
control equipment will be essentially unchanged fran that described in Vol-
ume I excepting the reduction in equipnent made possible in going from two
generating units to one.
IV-5
5. SWITCHYARD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
The changes to the switchyard from that described in Volume I, Sec-
tion XIII reflect only the change fran two generating units to one and the
consequent reduction in switching and accessory equipment. The reduction in
plant capacity, however, is not sufficient to warrant a reduction in transmis-
sion requirements. Therefore, the transmission line is unchanged from the
Project arrangement described in Volume I and is shown in Fig. 7.
6. SUMMARY
The revised Project arrangement will consist of a concrete-gravity
dam constructed by the use of roller-canpacted concrete; an ogee-type spillway
located in the central portion of the dam, a power conduit consisting of a
6.5-foot-diameter, machine-bored tunnel and a 3-foot-diameter surface pen-
stock; a surface powerhouse located 1,200 feet south of West Creek and con-
taining a single 6,000 hp Pelton turbine-generator and transmission facilities
as des cri bed in Volume I, Section XIII. A comparison of the revised Proj ect
features versus the selected Project described in Volume I is shown in
Table IV-1.
TABLE IV-1
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF MAJOR PROJECT FEATURES
Feature
Reservoir Elevation
Dam:
Type •••••••••••••
Crest Elevation ••
Crest Length •••••
V ol1.lID.e •••••••••••
Spillway:
Type ••••••.••••••
Crest Length •••••
Power Conduit:
Tunnel-Diameter ••
Length ••..•...•••
Penstock-Diameter
Length ..•....•.•.
Powerhouse:
Capaci ty •••••••••
Number of Units ••
Type of Units •••.
Selected Project
June 1982
705
Rockfill
729
1,000 ft
254,000 cy
Open Channel
75 ft
9.5 ft
8,470 ft
3 ft
1,450 ft
6,000 kW
2
Horizontal Francis
Revised Project
December 1982
700
Roller-Ccmpacted
Concrete-Gravity
716
650 ft
48,700 cy
Flip Bucket
On Dam Face
200 ft
6.5 ft
8,470 ft
3 ft
1,450 ft
4,500 kW
1
Pelton
SECTION V
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
1. GENERAL
Project capital and annual costs were estimated for input to the
economic analysis discussed in Section VI. Direct Construction Cost estimates
for the Project were prepared for the Revised Project Arrangement based on the
preliminary layouts and details discussed in the previous section. The proce-
dure and criteria used to develop the Project capital cost is similar to those
used in Volume I. The Total Investment Cost was arrived at by summing the
Direct Construction Costs of each major Project component and adding Indirect
Costs and Interest During Construction. The effect of escalation was consid-
ered and the Total Investment Cost adjusted to reflect a project on-line date
in January 1982. A summary of the Project capital costs as compared to the
estimated June 1982 costs is shown in Table V-1. The detailed construction
cost estimate for the Revised Project is shown in Table V-2 (9 sheets).
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
1. Preparatory Work ••••••••••••••••••
2. Dam and Reservoir •••.••••••••••••
3. Power Conduit .................... .
4. Powerhouse ....................... .
5. Switchyard and Transmission Line ••
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COST
(Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84)
Conti ngencies ........................ .
Subtotal ............................. .
Engineering and Owner Administration ••
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84)
Interest During Construction
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST •••••••..••••••••
(Bid 1/82, On-Line 6/84)
Escalation During Construction
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST ..••••••.••••••••
(Inflation-free on 1/82)
Selected Project
June 1982
Estimated Cost
$ 2,786,000
11,571,000
12,348,000
5,382,000
13,273,000
$45,360,000
8,139,000
$53,499,000
7,825,000
$61,324,000
2,208,000
$63~532,000
(7,624,000)
$55,908,000
TABLE V-1
Revised Project
December 1982
Estimated Cost
$ 3,036,000
10,434,000
11,234,000
3,011,000
13,056!000
$40,771,000
7,339,000
$48,110,000
7 l 216,000
$55,326,000
1,992,000
$57,318,000
(6,878,000)
$50,440,000
RWB
50-41
e.-.-
1
1 . 1
/--_.
1.2
1.3
1 4
R. W. Beck and A8sociate,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTI MATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Project FEATURE Preparatory Work LOCATION _A_l_a_s_k_a ______ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BC
TYPE EST:_PLANNIN8-~~ --TAKE-OFF ARN/NCD PRICED JAS CALC CHKD JHC/WVB/~IL~PPROVEDG _G_G_ DATE December 1982
Ri it Pri C'P T.P"lTpl -.T;:ml1"lr 1982
ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUAHTITY \.tilT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST SITRl'Ol' AT TOTAL
/--.
Prenaratorv Work 1 0ifi onn
Imnrovin~ Existing Road 2.2, MI 150 000 110,000 330.000
West Creek Bridges 500.000
121 Downstream LS 250,000
1. 2. 2 Unstream LS 250.000
New Access Road 1.0 MI 875.000 875,000
Mnhili7..<It:inn LS 1,331,000 1,331,000
,
.
$3.036.000
Sheet . .lof....2...
RWB R. W. Beck and Aaaociatea S0-41
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
"Ro.IICT West Creek Hydroelectric Project 'UTURt: Dam and Reservoir lOCATIOII---..,;Al=a:..:s:,:;k;,::a;,......... ____ .. o. HH-1559-HG3-BC
TY"1 lI1:_ .. LA .... I ... T E MI' ARN/BZ "'''CID JAS __ AI(-CALC. CHICD. WVB/HLS A ",""OYID GGG MTI December 1982
Rid Price I.e-el -.T;mll:lTV 1 QR?
ITEM AND DESCRIPTION Ql.WITITY ""IT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL
2 Dam and Reservoir $10.434.000
2.1 Reservoir Clearing 330 AC 4 000.00 S 1.320,000 1.320 000
2.2 Diversion S 2 'l6QOOO
2.2.1 Diversion Conduits
a. Select Gravel Backfill 8,000 CY 10.00 80.000
h --,--, '1.4 C.onC'ret"e Pi De 1,530 LF 1.360.00 2.081.000
2 2.2 Coffl'>rrlRm~
R Fill 6,320 CY 5.00 32.000
b Pl :I~t"i,. 1.inpT 6,620 SF 1.60 11.000
12.2 1 ('nn,.,.pt-p ('"t-nf"f" ('nl1", ...
:I ~t-TI1,.t"IITR1 ('nn,.TPt"p 100 CY 500,00 50 000
h ('pmpnt" 580 CWT 12 20 7.000
,. RpinfnT,.ina C:::t-pp1 10,300 LBS 1 25 13 000
i? ? t.. ni "p'red nn ('nnA"i t-Pl "DC>
:I M",c>c> rnn ...... ""t-"" 140 CY 250.00 35.000
h ('pmpnt" 800 CWT 12 ,20 10.000
,. r.T:lVP 1 Fi 11 2,710 CY 11.00 30 000
I? ? 'io To ... .,"' ... "' ... " ".r .r"" ..... .r ",n LS 20.000
2.2.6 Dewaterin2 and Care of Water LS 200.000
2 1 Dam I) 6,545,000
2,1.1 1O' ........... "lt:ion
a. Connnon lli300 CY QOO 12~009--
b. Rock 6 700 CY 20 00 134. 000
~4 152 000
SheetLofi..
RWB
50-41
2 3
--
R. W. Beck and Associates
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect FEATURE Dam and Reservoir LOCATION Alaska w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BC ~~==~---------
TYPE EST:_PLANNING-aa~ __ TAKE-OFF----=:B~Z ___ PRICED JAS CALC. CHKD. JHC/MLS APPROVED -'G=G=G"--_____ DATE December 1 982
Riel Prirp T. \1pl .T«nl1«rv QR?
ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST TOTAL
Dam (Cont )
232 Foundation Treatment
_____ --..-a.... r.llrr;'lin r:rOl1r;ncr 2 000 LF 110 00 220,000
b. Consolidation Grouting 6 000 LF qO 00 540,000
c. Foundation Drains 1 500 LF 110.00 165 000
L.J.J Concrete
a. Roller Compacted Concret e 40 000 CY 35 00 1 400 000
b. Facing Concrete 8 000 CY 190.000 1 520 000
c. Structural Concrete 670 CY 550.00 369 000
2.3.4 Cement 77 300 CWT 120Q 928000
2.3.5 Flyash 125,000 CWT 8.65 i.081 .000'--
12.3.6 Reinforcing Steel 46,900 LBS 1. 25 ')q non ,
-
--
---f-----------
~.-....
--_.
--
._----
-
$6 282 000
Sheet..loL9 ...
I
RWB
S0-41
3
3 1
R. W. Beck and Alsociate.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
'''O.IECT West Creek Hydroelectric project FUTIJII[ Power Conduit-Tunnel LOCATION _...t:Au.].da..l:l.sk.a...atl...-____ -O. IDJ-l SSg-HG3-BG
TY'E ES-r. 'LA ........ IID~ TAICE OFF ARN '''.CED JAS CALC CHICD WVB /MLS A""OVED GGG DATE December 1982 . -----.
lH n Pri ('e T. uel -T<>n"<lT' lqR2
IT£.. AND DE!lCIIIPTIOIII QUMTITY ~IT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST Suhtnt::l] TOTAL
Power r.nnnttit S11_~234 J>OO
Intake ~ 1. 757 000
3.1.1 Excavation
a. Common 5 920 CY 9.00 47.000
b. Rock 9 820 CY 11.25 110.000
c. Trim 1.090 CY 45.00 49,000
" 3.1. 2 Backfill 160 CY 10.00 2.000
3.1.3 Rockbolts 2.680 LF 50.00 134,000
3.1. 4 Structural Concrete
a. Concrete 880 CY 650.00 572 000
b Cement 4 970 CWT_ 12.20 61.000
c. Reinfor_cin2 Steel 88 210 LBS 1 25 110 000
3.1 5 Gate and Hoist LS 200.000
316 TrashraC'ks ILS 90 000
'--
317 Ice 0_ ttion & Reservoir ILS 15,000
Monitorin2
3 t R AC'C'f'.sS to Intake
a Backfill 540 CY 8 00 4~OOO
b r.onC'rete 260 CY 240 00 62 000
c r.ement 1 .400 CWT 12 20 17 000
rl Reinfnr('ina ~tppl 25 500 T.R~ 1 25 32.000
p Rn::ln 120 LF 130.00 42.000
3 1 q Powerline to Intake LS 210,000
~t-r"I('~l1rp
~J.,/)/,UUU
Sheet .1..of!L
RWB
50-41
3
3 2
3.3
R. W. Beck and Associate,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect FEATURE Power Conduit-Tunnel LOCATION _A_1_a_s_k_a ______ w.o. HH-1559-HG3-BC
TYPE EST:_PLANNINe-"IQHIXIBIX~ __ TAKE-OFF_=D=EW:.!...-_ PRICED _....:J::..:A.:::S=----CALC. CHKD. WVB!DEW APPROVED GGG DATE December 1982
Bid P i:---L::------=-l---:J 1982 r ce eve anuar
ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL
Power Conduit (Cont.)
I
Tunnel S8 71)0000 i 3.~.1 Excavation in DIS Portal
a. Rock 3 290 CY 20.00 66 000
I b. Trim 370 CY 45.00 17.000
i
[
3.2.2 Excavat10n -ALl, Classes 10 660 CY 764.00 8,144,000
'l'l1nnf>1
3.2.3 Excavation -Rock Trap 180 CY 4UU.UU 72.000
1 ? lJ. Steel Sets (materials only) 39,180 LBS 1.35 53,000
1 2.2 Rock Bolts (materials only) 21,540 LF 7.45 160,000
1.2.6 LininQ:
a. Concrete 230 CY 520.00 120.000
h (;f>mf>nt 1 300 CWT 12.20 16.000
c. Reinforcing Steel 18,860 LBS l.l::> 24.000
d. Steel 7.5' 0 31,040 LBS 2.50 78.000
Penstock $727,000
1 .1 1 FYr::lv::Ition
::I (;1 200 CY 7.50 2,000
bRock 200 CY 26.50 5,000
I
112 ~tf>f>1 Pf>n!'ltork -l' ~ 1188.000 LBS 2.50 471,000
111 nrp!'l!'lpr (;011n1 inO'!'I - 7 5' 0 2 EA 10.000.00 20,000
59 248.000
Sheet2of~
RWB
50-41
3 3
I
I
R. W. Beck and A8sociate,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Project FEATURE: Power Conduit-TunnetocATION _...JAo...] ..... a"-'sUkI.C:BL..-____ W.O. HH-1559-HG3-BC
TY~E U"r._PLANNIN8-tallltPlJRXat¥lHI __ TAICE-OFF ARN PRICED JAS CALC. CHICD._..;.;WV...;..=.B __ APPROVED ,.......:G:....:G:....:G_--:-_-.., DAuDecember 1982
1 82 Bid Price Level -Januar 9
ITE... AN[) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY lNlT .... U'L LABOR UNIT COST Subtotal TOTAL
Pf'n!'ltock (Cont )
314 r.oncrete 250 CY 700.00 175,000
3 3 'i r.f'mf'nt 1410 CWT 12.20 17.000
336 Reinforcin2 Steel 20 000 LBS 1. 25 25,000
337 r.learinl! 2 AC 6.000.00 12! ogQ_
... is _2~_!yy(J_
Sheel~of.!L
RWB
50-41
4
4 1
4.2
4.3
!til
4.5
4.6
R. W. Beck and Associate,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Project FEATURE Powerhouse LOCATION _A_l_a_s_k_a ______ w. o. _H_H_-_1_5_5_9_-_H_G_3_-_B_C_
TYPE EST: PLANNI N8-P.IIEDEIIJQ1I}Q)ISJaI .---TAKE-OFF MLS/ROE PRICED JAS/PTC CALC CHKD WVB/MLS APPROVEDGGG/PTC/PC DAUDecember 1982
WLS WLS Bid Price Level Januarv 1982
ITEM AND DESCRIPTION QIWlTITY LfiIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
I Powerhouse $3 OIl. 000
Civil Works 642,000
4 1. 1 Powerhouse Excavation
a Connnon 1. 760 CY 7.50 13,000
b. Rock 2.645 CY 35.00 93,~000-
4.1. 2 Fill 4,100 CY ).uu 21,000
413 Substructure
a Concrete 400 CY 740.00 296 000
b Cement 2 260 CWT 12.20 28 000
c Reinforcin~ Steel 48.000 LBS 1. 25 60 000
4.1. 4 Substructure
a. Precast Roof Panels 2,352 SF 21.00 4q 000
h Precast Wall Panf'ls 4 617 SF 15.00 flQOOO
C' PrpC';tl'lr Rp;tml'l 48 LF 270.00 13 .000
Mechanical Equipment 80~6 ,000
4.2.1 Turbines. Valves & Governo s 1 EA 658,000.00 658.000
422 Mil'lC' Mechanical EQuipment LS 148,000
Electrical Equipment 1.008 000
4.3.1 Generator 1 EA 345 000.00 345 000
412 AC'C'Pl'll'lorv FlpC'rr;C';tl EQuiD 1.5 flfl1 000
20 Ton Mohilp Crane L5 l"iOOOO l"iO.OOO
Miscellaneous L5 100000 100.000
Architectural 1.5 flO.OOO flO.OOO
82 766 000
SheetLoL9.
RWB
50-41
4
4.7
R. W. Beck and Associates
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT West Creek Hydroelectric Proj ect FEATURE Powerhouse LOCATION _Al_a_s_k_a _____ w.o._H_H_-_1_5_5_9-_H_G_3_-_B_C_
.---TAKE-OFF MLS/ROE PItICIED lAS /PTC CALC CHKD WVB/MLS APPItOVIED GGG/PTC/PC DATE December 1982 ,
T.JT .~ YC: Bid Price Le"el .lanuan 1q82
ITEM AND OESCRIPTIOH QUANTITY IMIT MAT'L LABOR UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
Powerhouse (Cont.)
Tailrace $ 245.000
4.7. 1 Common Excavation 5 290 CY 9.00 4R 000
4.7.2 Embankment 2 790 CY qoo 25 000
4.7.3 Channel Linim1:
a. Plastic Liner 42.000 SF 1. 60 67 000
b. Gravel 2 100 CY 50.00 105.000
\
S 245.000
SheeLJ!of....2..
RWB
50-41
.~
') 1
') 2
5.3
5.4
5 5
R. W. Beck and Alsociate,
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT_~W~e=.!s~t~C~r:...::e:..::e:..:.:k:........:..:H:.l..y.::.d=-ro:::..;e::..:l::..::e::..:c::..:t::..::r::..::i::..::c--=-P=-ro=..jo&...;e;;..;c;;..;t~ FEATURE _S_w_i_t_c_h..,:.y_a_r_d_an_d ___ LOCATION Alaska
TYP'E UT. _PLANNI N.~lCDIlIJfM __ TAKE-OFF wr.5
ITEM AND OESCRIPTIOIII QUANTITY
~lJi t"C"hvarci F. Tran~mi~::.!::ion Line 1 ')
Swit.~hvard
') 1 1 Tran~fnrmpr
'i 1 ') A,.,..,.",,,,nr,, <:;t.7it",.hine>
Ruried Tran~mi~~ion l.inf". 1.1. c; t...u
Overhead Transmission Cable 5.0
Submarine Transmission Cable 16.7
Substations
551 Haines Terminal
5 5.2 Switchin2 Stations
553 Ska2Wav Substation
Transmission
PRICED WLS /FEB CALC. CHKD.WLS /:tU.S
\.tilT MAT\. LABOR UNIT COST
LS
T.~
T.~
MT t.()7 ()()() 00
MI 203.000.00
MI 648.070.00
LS
LS
LS
APPROVED
Bid P i r ce
.0. HH-1559-HG3-BC
_PC ___ DAn December 1932
L 1 J 1982 eve -anuarv
Suht.ot.al TOTAL
Is 13 ,Q.~6., 000
Is 22i,_ogo
116,QillL
10~,000
Is l..t.P.. O()O 448.000
$ 1.016.000 1.016.000
i$10.759.000 10,759.000
$ 609,000
231.000
231,000
147,000
S 13 .o')/) 000 .
5heetLofJL
SECTION VI
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1 • METHOD OF ANAL YS IS
The method of analysis used for this study computed the total pres-
ent worth cost of each plan over a period from the present through the 50-year
economic life of the West Creek Project. It is the same method used for the
economic analysis prepared for the Feasi bility Report except that real escala-
tion of oil fuel costs was assumed to be 2.5% per year and the discount rate
was assumed to be 3.5%. These two parameters had been assumed to be 2.6% and
3.0%, respectively, for the June 1982 Report.
Criteria used for conducting Project economic analysis as estab-
lished by the APA, were as follows:
a. Constant dollars assumed (zero inflation).
b. Inflation-free present worth discount rate of 3.5%.
c. Petroleum fuel cost escalated at 2.5% per year for 20 years and
then held constant.
d. Electrical energy demand is forecasted according to Load Growth
Scenarios described in Section II and then held constant after 2001.
e. Interest During Construction is calculated using a 3.5% interest
rate.
f. No financing expenses are included.
g. No debt service on existing diesel or hydroelectric generation is
included.
h. Period of economic analysis is 55 years (1982 through 2036).
i. Economic life of hydroelectric plant is 50 years.
j. Economic life of diesel generation facility is 20 years.
k. Economic life of wood waste generation facility is 20 years.
VI-2
2. ANNUAL COSTS
The annual cost for each plan except the wood waste generation plan
is the sum of the plan's Total Investment Cost amortized at a 3.5% interest
rate over the economic life of the generating unit, operation and maintenance
costs, and fuel costs. For the base case plan a credit is also given for the
estimated value of waste heat recovered from diesel generators. For all
cases, the annual costs from 2001 to 2036 do not change from the level shown
for 2001.
Annual costs for the wood waste generation plan are based on an
assumed purchase agreement between HLP and the Schnabel Mill. During an on-
site visit to the Schnabel Mill in early December 1982 it was learned that the
costs for completing construction of the wood waste generation plant would be
significantly greater than that estimated for the June 1982 study. These in-
creased construction costs may result in higher purchase rates to HLP from
those assumed in the earlier study. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of
the wood waste plan to changes in purchase price, two separate cost al terna-
ti yeS were assumed for the wood waste plan, 11 ¢/kWh and 13. 5¢/kWh. These
costs will include all expenses expected to be seen by HLP associated with the
purchase of this power. Since there are also questions regarding the availa-
bility of sufficient wood waste fuel, two al ternati ve generation levels,
20,000 MWh and 12,000 MWh, were analyzed as in the July 1982 study. It has
been assumed that the wood waste plant will be available to supply power to
HLP throughout the entire evaluation period beginning in 1983 (1983-2036).
This assumption has no contractual basis at the present time. A complete
description of the wood waste plan is contained in Volume I, Section IV.
The annual costs for each year from 1982-2001 based on each of the
three scenarios described in Section II for the base case, West Creek plan,
and the wood waste generation plan at 20,000 MWh and 12,000 MWh and at the two
cost levels were computed.
3. COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The total cost of each plan is the sum of the present worth of each
year's cost discounted at 3.5% to 1982. Table VI-1 is a summary of the total
present worth cost for the generation plans for each of the three load sce-
narios. Tables VI-2 through VI-19 show the details on how the total cost for
each respective plan and load scenario were obtained.
Table VI-20 presents the total present worth costs for the West
Creek plan under Scenarios BB and CC assuming the on-line date is delayed by
as much as 8 years.
VI-3
4. COST COMPARISONS
The comparison of total present worth cos ts (Table VI-1) of the
alternative plans shows that the wood waste plan with Schnabel providing up to
20,000 MWh at 11 ¢/kWh is the least expensive al ternati ve. If the mill could
only produce 12,000 MWh annually or the cost was 13.5¢/kWh the wood waste plan
is no longer the least expensive. Additionally, the question of availability
of long-term energy from the mill has not been addressed in the economic anal-
ysis.
For load scenarios BB and CC, the West Creek Project is less expen-
sive than the base case and except for the 20,000 MWh, 11¢/kWh wood waste case
is the least expensive al ternati ve. The West Creek plan has total present-
worth costs of $74,553, 000 for Scenario BB and $78,630, 000 for Scenario CC.
For these two load scenarios, BE and CC, the base case to West Creek alternate
pI an benefi t-cost ratio is 1.10 and 1.16, res pecti vely.
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ALTERNATIVE GENERATION PLANS
COMPARISON OF TOTAL PRESENT-WORTH COSTS
Total Present Worth Cost
Scenario AA Scenario BB
Base Case -Diesel Generation 57,784 82,349
West Creek •••••••••••••••••• 73,501 74,553
Schnabel Mill Wood Waste:
20,000 MWh, 11 ¢/kWh ••••••• 47, 183 68,741
20,000 MWh, 13.5¢/kWh ..... 51,917 74,869
12,000 MWh, 11 ¢/kWh ••••••• 48,922 75,499
12,000 MWh, 13.5¢/kWh ••••• 52,499 79,078
TABLE VI-1
($000)
Scenario CC
90,944
78,630
76,593
82,968
86,561
90,141
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
BASE CASE -DIESEL GENERATION
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'H Cost Cost O'H Cost Cost Cost
Year (HWh) (1) (KW)(2) (HWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (1) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
-------------------------------------------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 8,290 0 0 0 864 821 1,685
1984 1,916 0 1,916 0 0 0 860 810 1,610
1985 8,143 0 8,143 0 0 0 856 848 1,104
1986 8,330 0 8,330 0 0 0 852 889 1,141
1981 8,501 0 8,501 0 0 0 841 930 1,111
1988 8,104 0 8,104 0 0 0 842 916 1,818
1989 8,888 0 8,888 0 0 0 838 1,021 1,859
1990 9,101 0 9,101 0 0 0 832 1,012 1,904
1991 9,288 0 9,288 0 0 0 821 1,121 1,948
1992 9,511 0 9,511 0 0 0 821 1,111 1,998
1993 9,140 0 9,140 0 0 111 815 1,235 2,161
1994 10,034 0 10,034 0 0 111 801 1,304 2,228
1995 10,221 0 10,221 0 0 111 801 1,362 2,280
1996 10,384 0 10,384 0 0 111 795 1,418 2,330
1991 10,519 0 10,519 0 0 111 188 1,481 2,386
1998 10,118 0 10,118 0 0 258 181 1,541 2,586
1999 10,953 0 10,953 0 0 258 115 1,611 2,644
2000 11 ,158 0 11,158 0 0 258 161 1,682 2,101
2001 11 ,366 0 11,366 0 0 258 159 1,156 2,173
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Yeara Cuaulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Coats
(1)-Scenario AA loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10, of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 1510 KW for both systems.
(3)-
(4)-
(5)-
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000)(10) ----------
1,194
1,600
1,532
1,511
1,491
1,411
1,454
1,436
1,421
1,405
1,392
1,459
1,449
1,433
1,415
1,400
1,466
1,448
1,432
1,418
28,351
51,184
----------
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(1)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovered in Haines.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATBSAA
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
WEST CREEK
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 8,290 0 0 0 901 821 1,722
1984 7,976 0 7,976 0 0 0 901 810 1,711
1985 8,143 0 8,143 0 0 0 901 848 1,749
1986 8,330 0 8,330 0 0 0 901 889 1,790
1987 8,507 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1988 8,704 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1989 8,888 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1990 9,101 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1991 9,288 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1992 9,511 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1993 9,740 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1994 10,034 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1995 10,221 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1996 10,384 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1997 10,579 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1998 10,778 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1999 10,953 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
2000 11,158 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
2001 11,366 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario AA loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10\ of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000)(10)
----------
1,794
1,635
1,570
1,551
1,533
2,695
2,604
2,516
2,430
2,348
2,269
2,192
2,118
2,046
1,977
1,910
1,846
1,783
1,723
1,665
33,296
73,501
----------
(3)-Assumes 20,209 MWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1987 plus 40\ of load requirements above 20,209 MWh.
(4)-Assumed level debt service at 3.5\ over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $50,440,000 including IDC at 3.5\.
(5)-Based on 1.3\ of total investment cost.
(6)-
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. Approximately 50\ of existing capacity is mothballed in 1987.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWCAA
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 11 cents/kWh, 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Die8el Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 2,322 0 656 0 654 230 1,540
1984 7,976 0 1,889 0 670 0 654 192 1,516
1985 8,143 0 1,914 0 685 0 654 199 1,538
1986 8,330 0 1,942 0 703 0 654 207 1,564
1987 8,507 0 1,969 0 719 0 654 215 1,588
1988 8,704 0 1,998 0 738 0 654 224 1,616
1989 8,888 0 2,026 0 755 0 654 233 1,642
1990 9,101 0 2,058 0 775 0 654 242 1,671
1991 9,288 0 2,086 0 792 0 654 252 1,698
1992 9,511 0 2,119 0 813 0 654 262 1,729
1993 9,740 0 2,154 0 834 0 654 273 1,761
1994 10,034 0 2,198 0 862 0 654 286 1,802
1995 10,221 0 2,226 0 879 0 654 297 1,830
1996 10,384 0 2,250 0 895 0 654 307 1,856
1997 10,579 0 2,280 0 913 0 654 319 1,886
1998 10,778 0 2,309 0 932 141 654 331 2,058
1999 10,953 0 2,336 0 948 141 654 344 2,087
2000 11 ,158 0 2,366 0 967 141 654 357 2,119
2001 11 ,366 0 2,397 0 987 141 654 370 2,152
2002-2036 ( A8suming no additional growth or e8calation 35 Years CUmulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual C08tS
(1)-Scenario AA loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10) ----------
1,794
1,463
1,391
1,364
1,340
1,314
1,292
1,269
1,247
1,225
1,205
1,186
1,172
1,150
1,127
1,107
1,167
1,143
1,121
1,100
22,006
47,183 ----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 11.0 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWAl
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000)(9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 2,322 0 806 0 654 230 1,690
1984 7,976 0 1,889 0 822 0 654 192 1,668
1985 8,143 0 1,914 0 841 0 654 199 1,694
1986 8,330 0 1,942 0 862 0 654 207 1,723
1987 8,507 0 1,969 0 883 0 654 215 1,752
1988 8,704 0 1,998 0 905 0 654 224 1,783
1989 8,888 0 2,026 0 926 0 654 233 1,813
1990 9,101 0 2,058 0 951 0 654 242 1,847
1991 9,288 0 2,086 0 972 0 654 252 1,878
1992 9,511 0 2,119 0 998 0 654 262 1,914
1993 9,740 0 2,154 0 1,024 0 654 273 1,951
1994 10,034 0 2,198 0 1,058 0 654 286 1,998
1995 10,221 0 2,226 0 1,079 0 654 297 2,030
1996 10,384 0 2,250 0 1,098 0 654 307 2,059
1997 10,579 0 2,280 0 1,120 0 654 319 2,093
1998 10,778 0 2,309 0 1,143 141 654 331 2,269
1999 10,953 0 2,336 0 1,163 141 654 344 2,302
2000 11 ,158 0 2,366 0 1,187 141 654 357 2,339
2001 11 ,366 0 2,397 0 1,211 141 654 370 2,376
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth Or escalation ) 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario AA loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10\ of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000)(10)
----------
1,794
1,605
1,531
1,502
1,476
1,450
1,426
1,401
1,379
1,354
1,334
1,314
1,300
1,276
1,250
1,228
1,286
1,261
1,238
1,215
24,297
51,917
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85\ of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50\ of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga11on in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWWA2
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 11 cents/kWh, 12,000
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'N Cost Cost O,N Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (IW) (2) (NWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 2,322 0 656 0 654 230 1,540
1984 7,976 0 1,957 0 662 0 654 199 1,515
1985 8,143 0 2,124 0 662 0 654 221 1,537
1986 8,330 0 2,311 0 662 0 654 247 1,563
1987 8,507 0 2,488 0 662 0 654 272 1,588
1988 8,704 0 2,685 0 662 0 654 301 1,617
1989 8,888 0 2,869 0 662 0 654 330 1,646
1990 9,101 0 3,082 0 662 0 654 363 1,679
1991 9,288 0 3,269 0 662 0 654 395 1,711
1992 9,511 0 3,492 0 662 0 654 432 1,748
1993 9,740 0 3,721 0 662 0 654 472 1,788
1994 10,034 0 4,015 0 662 0 654 522 1,838
1995 10,221 0 4,202 0 662 0 654 560 1,876
1996 10,384 0 4,365 0 662 0 654 596 1,912
1997 10,579 0 4,560 0 662 0 654 638 1,954
1998 10,778 0 4,759 0 662 141 654 683 2,140
1999 10,953 0 4,934 0 662 141 654 726 2,183
2000 11,158 0 5,139 0 662 141 654 775 2,232
2001 11,366 0 5,347 0 662 141 654 826 2,283
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario AA loads less 2900 KWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10) ----------
1,794
1,463
1,390
1,363
1,339
1,314
1,293
1,272
1,253
1,234
1,218
1,204
1,196
1,179
1,161
1,146
1,213
1,196
1,181
1,167
23,346
48,922 ----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'N cost.
(5)-Based on 11.0 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.l6/ga1lon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWA3
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO AA LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 12,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 9,558 0 9,558 0 0 0 901 924 1,825
1983 8,290 0 2,322 0 806 0 654 230 1,690
1984 7,976 0 1,957 0 813 0 654 199 1,666
1985 8,143 0 2,124 0 813 0 654 221 1,688
1986 8,330 0 2,311 0 813 0 654 247 1,714
1987 8,507 0 2,488 0 813 0 654 272 1,739
1988 8,704 0 2,685 0 813 0 654 301 1,768
1989 8,888 0 2,869 0 813 0 654 330 1,797
1990 9,101 0 3,082 0 813 0 654 363 1,830
1991 9,288 0 3,269 0 813 0 654 395 1,862
1992 9,511 0 3,492 0 813 0 654 432 1,899
1993 9,740 0 3,721 0 813 0 654 472 1,939
1994 10,034 0 4,015 0 813 0 654 522 1,989
1995 10,221 0 4,202 0 813 0 654 560 2,027
1996 10,384 0 4,365 0 813 0 654 596 2,063
1997 10,579 0 4,560 0 813 0 654 638 2,105
1998 10,718 0 4,759 0 813 141 654 683 2,291
1999 10,953 0 4,934 0 813 141 654 726 2,334
2000 11 ,158 0 5,139 0 813 141 654 715 2,383
2001 11 ,366 0 5,347 0 813 141 654 826 2,434
2002-2036 ( AssuminCJ no additional CJrowth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario AA loads 1e&s 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of SChnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,794
1,605
1,529
1,497
1,468
1,439
1,414
1,388
1,366
1,343
1,323
1,305
1,294
1,274
1,253
1,235
1,299
1,278
1,261
1,244
24,890
52,499
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of BL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 KWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWA4
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
BASE CASE -DIESEL GENERATION
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost 0," Cost Cost 0," Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000)(6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,946 0 9,946 0 0 0 862 985 1,847
1984 10,204 0 10,204 0 0 0 857 1,036 1,893
1985 11,159 0 11,159 0 0 0 852 1,162 2,014
1986 11,442 0 11,442 0 0 0 848 1,221 2,069
1987 11,745 0 11,745 0 0 0 844 1,285 2,129
1988 12,218 0 12,218 0 0 0 837 1,370 2,207
1989 12,631 0 12,631 0 0 0 831 1,451 2,282
1990 14,139 0 14,139 0 0 0 810 1,665 2,475
1991 14 ,972 0 14 ,972 0 0 0 798 1,807 2,605
1992 15,527 400 15,527 0 0 22 837 1,921 2,780
1993 16,107 0 16,107 0 0 139 827 2,043 3,009
1994 16,698 0 16,698 0 0 139 817 2,171 3,127
1995 17,188 0 17,188 0 0 139 808 2,290 3,237
1996 17,715 0 17,715 0 0 139 797 2,420 3,356
1997 18,110 0 18,110 0 0 139 788 2,535 3,462
1998 18,806 400 18,806 0 0 302 822 2,699 3,823
1999 19,385 0 19,385 0 0 302 810 2,851 3,963
2000 19,959 0 19,959 0 0 302 797 3,009 4,108
2001 20,548 0 20,548 0 0 302 784 3,175 4,261
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cuaulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario 88 loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-8ased on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
(3)-
(4) -
(5)-
(6)-Replacement of existing base load and addition of new diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of $800/IW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovered in Haines.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000)(10) ----------
1,920
1,754
1,737
1,786
1,772
1,762
1,765
1,763
1,847
1,879
1,937
2,026
2,034
2,034
2,038
2,031
2,167
2,171
2,174
2,179
43,573
82,349 ----------
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDAT8S88
I-i
Ql
0"
I-'
ID
<:
H
I
00
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
WEST CREEK
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O.M Cost Cost O.M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (IW) (2) (KWh) (3) ($000) (.) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000)(8) ($000)(9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,9.6 0 9,9U 0 0 0 901 985 1,886
198. 10,20. 0 10,20. 0 0 0 901 1,036 1,931
1985 11,159 0 11 ,159 0 0 0 901 1,162 2,063
1986 11,"2 0 11,"2 0 0 0 901 1,221 2,122
1981 11,H5 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1988 12,218 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1989 12,631 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1990 U,139 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1991 U,912 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1992 15,521 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1993 16,101 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
199. 16,698 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1995 11,188 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1996 11,115 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1991 18,110 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1998 18,806 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
1999 19 ,385 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
2000 19,959 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
2001 20,5U 0 0 2,150 656 0 .50 0 3,256
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cuaulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario BB loads less 2900 KWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10, of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 1510 IN for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,920
1,191
1,111
1,829
1,818
2,695
2,60.
2,516
2,.30
2,H8
2,269
2,192
2,118
2,0.6
1,911
1,910
1,8U
1,183
1,123
1,665
33,296
H,553
----------
(3)-Assumes 20,209 MWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1981 plus .0' of load requirements above 20,209 KWh.
(.)-Assumed level debt service at 3.5' over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $50, •• 0,000 including IDC at 3.5'.
(5)-Based on 1.3' of total investment cost.
(6) -
(1)-Assumes $120 per IW-YR. Approximately 50' of existing capacity is mothballed in 1981.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 IWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWCBB
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
WOOD WASTE. 11 cents/kWh. 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost 0'" Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000)(9)
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,946 0 3,823 0 673 0 654 379 1,706
1984 10,204 0 3,914 0 692 0 654 398 1,744
1985 11 ,159 0 4,631 0 718 0 654 482 1,854
1986 11,442 0 4,791 0 732 0 654 511 1,897
1987 11,745 0 4,960 0 746 0 654 542 1,942
1988 12,218 0 5,132 0 779 0 654 575 2,008
1989 12,631 0 5,351 0 801 0 654 615 2,070
1990 14,139 0 5,683 0 930 0 654 669 2,253
1991 14,972 0 5,942 0 993 0 654 717 2,364
1992 15,527 0 6,163 0 1,030 0 654 763 2,447
1993 16,107 0 6,394 0 1,068 0 654 811 2,533
1994 16,698 0 6,627 0 1,108 0 654 862 2,624
1995 17,188 0 6,821 0 1,140 0 654 909 2,703
1996 17;715 0 7,015 0 1,177 0 654 958 2,789
1997 18,110 0 7,195 0 1,201 0 654 1,007 2,862
1998 18,806 0 7,426 0 1,252 141 654 1,066 3,113
1999 19 ,385 0 7,642 0 1,292 141 654 1,124 3,211
2000 19,959 0 7,857 0 1,331 141 654 1,185 3,311
2001 20,548 0 8,075 0 1,372 141 654 1,248 3,415
2002-2036 ( Assu.ing no additional growth or escalation ) 35 Years Cuaulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario BB loads less 2900 KWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth 'of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10) ----------
1,920
1,620
1,600
1,644
1,625
1,607
1,606
1,599
1,682
1,705
1,705
1,705
1,707
1,699
1,694
1,679
1,765
1,759
1,752
1,746
34,922
68,741 ----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 KWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 11.0 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/1W.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5, per year. EDATWWBl
I-i
III
0-.....
CD
<:
H
I ..... o
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost 0'" Cost Cost 0'" Cost Cost Cost
Year ("Wh) (1) (KW) (2) ("Wh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ----------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,946 0 3,823 0 821 0 654 319 1,860
1984 10,204 0 3,914 0 849 0 654 398 1,901
1985 11 ,159 0 4,631 0 881 0 654 482 2,011
1986 11,442 0 4,191 0 898 0 654 511 2,063
1981 11,145 0 4,960 0 916 0 654 542 2,112
1988 12,218 0 5,132 0 951 0 654 515 2,186
1989 12,631 0 5,351 0 983 0 654 615 2,252
1990 14,139 0 5,683 0 1,142 0 654 669 2,465
1991 14 ,912 0 5,942 0 1,219 0 654 111 2,590
1992 15,521 0 6,163 0 1,264 0 654 163 2,681
1993 16,101 0 6,394 0 1,311 0 654 811 2,716
1994 16,698 0 6,621 0 1,360 0 654 862 2,816
1995 11 ,188 0 6,821 0 1,400 0 654 909 2,963
1996 11,115 0 1,015 0 1,444 0 654 958 3,056
1991 18,110 0 1,195 0 1,414 0 654 1,001 3,135
1998 18,806 0 1,426 0 1,536 141 654 1,066 3,391
1999 19 ,385 0 1,642 0 1,585 141 654 1,124 3,504
2000 19,959 0 1,851 0 1,634 141 654 1,185 3,614
2001 20,548 0 8,075 0 1,684 141 654 1,248 3,121
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation ) 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario BB loads less 2900 "Wh annually of eXisting hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 1510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,920
1,166
1,144
1,188
1,161
1,148
1,148
1,140
1,840
1,868
1,868
1,869
1,811
1,862
1,856
1,839
1,926
1,919
1,912
1,906
38,112
14 ,869
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 "Wh annually.
(4)-Included in 0'" cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(1)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50\ of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gallon in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWWB2
H
III
0'" ......
It!
<:
H
I ...... ......
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 11 cents/kWh, 12,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O&M Cost Cost O&M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) (SOOO)(8) (SOOO)(9)
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,946 0 3,927 0 662 0 718 389 1,829
1984 10,204 0 4,185 0 662 0 718 425 1,865
1985 11 ,159 0 5,140 0 662 0 718 535 1,975
1986 11,442 0 5,423 0 662 0 718 579 2,019
1987 11,745 0 5,726 0 662 0 718 626 2,066
1988 12,218 0 6,199 0 662 0 718 695 2,135
1989 12,631 0 6,612 0 662 0 718 760 2,200
1990 14,139 0 8,120 0 662 0 718 956 2,396
1991 14,972 0 8,953 0 662 0 718 1,081 2,521
1992 15,527 0 9,508 0 662 0 718 1,171 2,617
1993 16,107 0 10,088 0 662 0 718 1,280 2,720
1994 16,698 0 10,679 0 662 0 718 1,388 2,828
1995 17,188 0 11 ,169 0 662 0 718 1,488 2,928
1996 17,715 0 11 ,696 0 662 0 778 1,598 3,038
1997 18,110 0 12,091 0 662 0 718 1,693 3,133
1998 18,806 0 12,787 0 662 141 718 1,835 3,416
1999 19,385 0 13 ,366 0 662 141 718 1,966 3,547
2000 19,959 0 13 ,940 0 662 141 718 2,102 3,683
2001 20,548 0 14,529 0 662 141 718 2,245 3,826
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario BB loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
(SOOO) (10)
----------
1,920
1,737
1,711
1,751
1,729
1,710
1,707
1,700
1,789
1,818
1,824
1,831
1,840
1,840
1,845
1,838
1,936
1,943
1,949
1,956
39,125
75,499
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL&P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O&M cost.
(5)-Based on 11.0 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of S800/KW.
(7)-Assumes S120 per KW-YR. 25' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of Sl.16/ga110n in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWB3
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO BB LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 12,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000)(8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 10,885 0 10,885 0 0 0 901 1,052 1,953
1983 9,946 0 3,927 0 813 0 778 389 1,980
1984 10,204 0 4,185 0 813 0 778 425 2,016
1985 11,159 0 5,140 0 813 0 778 535 2,126
1986 11,442 0 5,423 0 813 0 778 579 2,170
1987 11,745 0 5,726 0 813 0 778 626 2,217
1988 12,218 0 6,199 0 813 0 778 695 2,286
1989 12,631 0 6,612 0 813 0 778 760 2,351
1990 14,139 0 8,120 0 813 0 778 956 2,547
1991 14 ,972 0 8,953 0 813 0 778 1,081 2,672
1992 15,527 0 9,508 0 813 0 778 1,177 2,768
1993 16,107 0 10,088 0 813 0 778 1,280 2,871
1994 16,698 0 10,679 0 813 0 778 1,388 2,979
1995 17,188 0 11 ,169 0 813 0 778 1,488 3,079
1996 17,715 0 11 ,696 0 813 0 778 1,598 3,189
1997 18,110 0 12,091 0 813 0 778 1,693 3,284
1998 18,806 0 12,787 0 813 141 778 1,835 3,567
1999 19 ,385 0 13 ,366 0 813 141 778 1,966 3,698
2000 19,959 0 13,940 0 813 141 778 2,102 3,834
2001 20,548 0 14 ,529 0 813 141 778 2,245 3,977
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario BB loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes lOt of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,920
1,880
1,850
1,885
1,859
1,835
1,828
1,816
1,901
1,927
1,929
1,933
1,938
1,935
1,937
1,927
2,022
2,025
2,029
2,033
40,669
79,078
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85t of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 25t of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5t per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWWB4
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
BASE CASE -DIESEL GENERATION
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (IW)(2) (KWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 11 ,667 0 11,667 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 12,291 0 0 0 862 1,218 2,080
1984 12 ,571 0 12,571 0 0 0 857 1,277 2,134
1985 13,015 0 13 ,015 0 0 0 852 1,355 2,207
1986 13,673 0 13,673 0 0 0 844 1,459 2,303
1987 14,192 0 14,192 0 0 0 837 1,552 2,389
1988 14,786 0 14,786 0 0 0 828 1,658 2,486
1989 15,303 0 15,303 0 0 0 821 1,758 2,579
1990 16,504 0 16,504 0 0 0 804 1,944 2,748
1991 17,367 500 17,367 0 0 28 851 2,097 2,976
1992 17,945 0 17 ,945 0 0 28 842 2,221 3,091
1993 18,543 0 18,543 0 0 145 832 2,352 3,329
1994 19 ,156 0 19,156 0 0 145 822 2,490 3,457
1995 19,647 0 19,647 0 0 145 812 2,618 3,575
1996 20,209 0 20,209 0 0 145 801 2,760 3,706
1997 20,754 500 20,754 0 0 173 850 2,906 3,929
1998 21,319 0 21,319 0 0 314 838 3,059 4,211
1999 21,933 0 21,933 0 0 314 825 3,226 4,365
2000 22,524 0 22,524 0 0 314 812 3,396 4,522
2001 23,129 0 23,129 0 0 314 798 3,574 4,686
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Yean CUllu1ative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 KWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10\ of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
(3)-
(4)-
(5)-
(6)-Replacement of existing base load and addition of new diesel generators. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR less net credit for waste heat recovered in Haines.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,994
1,975
1,958
1,957
1,973
1,977
1,988
1,993
2,051
2,146
2,154
2,241
2,249
2,247
2,250
2,305
2,387
2,391
2,393
2,396
47,919
90,944
----------
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga110n in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATBSCC
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
WEST CREEK
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (KWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (1) ($000)(8) ($000)(9)
---------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------------
1982 11 ,667 0 11 ,667 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 12,291 0 0 0 901 1,218 2,119
1984 12,571 0 12,571 0 0 0 901 1,277 2,178
1985 13,015 0 13,015 0 0 0 901 1,355 2,256
1986 13 ,673 0 13,673 0 0 0 901 1,459 2,360
1987 14,192 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1988 14,786 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1989 15,303 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1990 16,504 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1991 17,367 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1992 17,945 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1993 18,543 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1994 19,156 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1995 19,647 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1996 20,209 0 0 2,150 656 0 450 0 3,256
1997 20,754 0 327 2,150 656 0 450 46 3,302
1998 21,319 0 666 2,150 656 0 450 96 3,352
1999 21,933 0 1,034 2,150 656 0 450 152 3,408
2000 22,524 0 1,389 2,150 656 0 450 209 3,465
2001 23,129 0 1,752 2,150 656 0 450 271 3,527
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10) ----------
1,994
2,012
1,999
2,000
2,022
2,695
2,604
2,516
2,430
2,348
2,269
2,192
2,118
2,046
1,977
1,937
1,900
1,867
1,834
1,803
36,067
78,630
----------
(3)-Assumes 20,209 MWh annually of West Creek generation to begin in 1987 plus 40' of load requirements above 20,209 KWh.
(4)-Assumed level debt service at 3.5' over 50 years. Total investment cost assumed to be $50,440,000 including IDC at 3.5'.
(5)-Based on 1.3\ of total investment cost.
(6)-
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. Approximately 50\ of existing capacity is mothballed in 1987.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWCCC
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 11 eents/kWh, 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh)(l) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000)(8) ($000) (9)
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1982 11,661 0 11 ,661 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 6,168 0 613 0 654 611 1,938
1984 12,511 0 6,281 0 692 0 654 638 1,984
1985 13,015 0 6,481 0 118 0 654 615 2,041
1986 13 ,613 0 6,111 0 166 0 654 116 2,136
1981 14,192 0 6,922 0 800 0 654 151 2,211
1988 14,186 0 1,122 0 843 0 654 198 2,295
1989 15,303 0 1,364 0 813 0 654 846 2,313
1990 16,504 0 1,660 0 913 0 654 902 2,529
1991 11,361 0 1,932 0 1,038 0 654 958 2,650
1992 11,945 0 8,166 0 1,016 0 654 1,010 2,140
1993 18,543 0 8,409 0 1,115 0 654 1,067 2,836
1994 19,156 0 8,655 0 1,155 0 654 1,125 2,934
1995 19,641 0 8,858 0 1,181 0 654 1,180 3,021
1996 20,209 0 9,068 0 1,226 0 654 1,239 3,119
1991 20,154 0 9,281 0 1,262 0 654 1,299 3,215
1998 21,319 0 9,502 0 1,300 141 654 1,364 3,459
1999 21,933 0 9,135 0 1,342 141 654 1,432 3,569
2000 22,524 0 9,961 0 1,382 141 654 1,502 3,619
2001 23,129 0 10,190 0 1,423 141 654 1,515 3,193
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation ) 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 MWh annually of eXisting hydro generation. Includes 10' of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 1510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,994
1,841
1,821
1,815
1,830
1,830
1,835
1,833
1,888
1,911
1,909
1,909
1,909
1,899
1,894
1,886
1,961
1,955
1,941
1,939
38,187
76,593
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on' 11.0 centS/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga11on in 1982 escalated at 2.5' per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWC1
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBLITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 20,000 MWh
Total
Annual Mew Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Al tern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost 0&" Cost Cost 0&" Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (KW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000) (5) (SOOO) (6) ($000) (7) (SOOO)(8) (SOOO) (9)
---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
1982 11 ,661 0 11 ,661 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 6,168 0 821 0 654 611 2,092
1984 12,571 0 6,281 0 849 0 654 638 2,141
1985 13,015 0 6,481 0 881 0 654 615 2,210
1986 13,673 0 6,711 0 940 0 654 716 2,310
1981 14,192 0 6,922 0 981 0 654 151 2,392
1988 14,186 0 1,122 0 1,035 0 654 198 2,481
1989 15,303 0 1,364 0 1,012 0 654 846 2,512
1990 16,504 0 1,660 0 1,194 0 654 902 2,150
1991 11,361 0 1,932 0 1,214 0 654 958 2,886
1992 11,945 0 8,166 0 1,320 0 654 1,010 2,984
1993 18,543 0 8,409 0 1,368 0 654 1,061 3,089
1994 19,156 0 8,655 0 1,418 0 654 1,125 3,191
1995 19,641 0 8,858 0 1,451 0 654 1,180 3,291
1996 20,209 0 9,068 0 1,504 0 654 1,239 3,391
1991 20,154 0 9,281 0 1,549 0 654 1,299 3,502
1998 21,319 0 9,502 0 1,595 141 654 1,364 3,154
1999 21,933 0 9,135 0 1,641 141 654 1,432 3,814
2000 22,524 0 9,961 0 1,696 141 654 1,502 3,993
2001 23,129 0 10,190 0 1,141 141 654 1,515 4,111
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional growth or escalation ) 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10\ of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 1510 KW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
(SOOO) (10)
----------
1,994
1,981
1,965
1,959
1,919
1,980
1,989
1,981
2,053
2,081
2,019
2,080
2,080
2,068
2,063
2,055
2,128
2,122
2,113
2,105
42,101
82,968
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85\ of HL&P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 20,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O&M cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(1)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 50\ of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/ga110n in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWWC2
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 11 cents/kWh, 12,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Diesel Diesel Altern. New Diesel Diesel Total
Generation Capacity Generation Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost O'M Cost Cost O'M Cost Cost Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (IW) (2) (MWh) (3) ($000)(4) ($000) (5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8) ($000) (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
1982 11 ,667 0 11 ,667 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 6,272 0 662 0 901 621 2,184
1984 12,571 0 6,552 0 662 0 901 665 2,228
1985 13 ,015 0 6,996 0 662 0 901 728 2,291
1986 13,673 0 7,654 0 662 0 901 817 2,380
1987 14,192 0 8,173 0 662 0 901 894 2,457
1988 14,786 0 8,767 0 662 0 901 983 2,546
1989 15,303 0 9,284 0 662 0 901 1,067 2,630
1990 16 ,504 0 10,485 0 662 0 901 1,235 2,798
1991 17,367 0 11,348 0 662 0 901 1,370 2,933
1992 17,945 0 11 ,926 0 662 0 901 1,476 3,039
1993 18,543 0 12,524 0 662 0 901 1,588 3,151
1994 19,156 0 13,137 0 662 0 901 1,708 3,271
1995 19,647 0 13 ,628 0 662 0 901 1,816 3,379
1996 20,209 0 14,190 0 662 0 901 1,938 3,501
1997 20,754 0 14,735 0 662 0 901 2,063 3,626
1998 21,319 0 15,300 0 662 141 901 2,196 3,900
1999 21,933 0 15,914 0 662 141 901 2,341 4,045
2000 22,524 0 16,505 0 662 141 901 2,488 4,192
2001 23,129 0 17,110 0 662 141 901 2,644 4,348
2002-2036 ( Assuming no additional grovth or escalation 35 Years Cumulative
Cumulative Present Worth
of Project Annual Costs
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10, of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 RW for both systems.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Cost
($000) (10)
----------
1,994
2,074
2,044
2,031
2,039
2,033
2,036
2,032
2,089
2,115
2,118
2,121
2,128
2,124
2,126
2,127
2,211
2,215
2,218
2,223
44,463
86,561
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator vill supply 85' of HL'P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in O'M cost.
(5)-Based on 11.0 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing base load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 0' of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5% per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5' per year. EDATWWC3
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION FEASIBILITY STUDY
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS -SCENARIO CC LOADS
WOOD WASTE, 13.5 cents/kWh, 12,000 MWh
Total
Annual New Dieae1 Diesel Altern. New Dieae1 Die8e1 Total
Generation Capacity Gene r:a ti on Capital Altern. Capital Diesel Fuel Annual
Required Required Required Cost 0... Cost Coat 0... Coat Coat Cost
Year (MWh) (1) (IW) (2) ("Wh) (3) ($000) (4) ($000)(5) ($000) (6) ($000) (7) ($000) (8' ($000)(9)
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
-~------------------ ----------
1982 11 ,667 0 11 ,667 0 0 0 901 1,128 2,029
1983 12,291 0 6,272 0 813 0 901 621 2,335
1984 12,571 0 6,552 0 813 0 901 665 2,379
1985 13,015 0 6,996 0 813 0 901 728 2,442
1986 13 ,673 0 7,654 0 813 0 901 817 2,531
1987 14,192 0 8,173 0 813 0 901 894 2,608
1988 14,786 0 8,767 0 813 0 901 983 2,697
1989 15,303 0 9,284 0 813 0 901 1,067 2,781
1990 16,504 0 10,485 0 813 0 901 1,235 2,949
1991 17,367 0 11 ,348 0 813 0 901 1,370 3,084
1992 17,945 0 11 ,926 0 813 0 901 1,476 3,190
1993 18,543 0 12,524 0 813 0 901 1,588 3,302
1994 19,156 0 13,137 0 813 0 901 1,708 3,422
1995 19,647 0 13,628 0 813 0 901 1,816 3,530
1996 20,209 0 14,190 0 813 0 901 1,938 3,652
1997 20,754 0 14,735 0 813 0 901 2,063 3,777
1998 21,319 0 15,300 0 813 141 901 2,196 4,051
1999 21,933 0 15,914 0 813 141 901 2,341 4,196
2000 22,524 0 16,505 0 813 141 901 2,488 4,343
2001 23,129 0 17,110 0 813 141 901 2,644 4,499
2002-2036 ( Aaauming no additional growth or escalation 35 Year:a Cumulative
Cumulative Preaent Worth
of Project Annual Costa
(1)-Scenario CC loads less 2900 MWh annually of existing hydro generation. Includes 10\ of Schnabel load.
(2)-Based on existing capacity of 7510 KW for both aystema.
Present
Worth of
Annual
Coat
($000) (10,
----------
1,994
2,218
2,183
2,165
2,168
2,158
2,157
2,149
2,201
2,224
2,223
2,223
2,226
2,219
2,218
2,216
2,296
2,298
2,298
2,300
46,007
90,141
----------
(3)-Assumes wood waste generator will supply 85\ of HL.P and mill load beginning in 1983 up to 12,000 MWh annually.
(4)-Included in 0 ... cost.
(5)-Based on 13.5 cents/KWh total purchase cost.
(6)-Replacement of existing baae load diesel generator in Skagway in 1998. Assumes capital cost of $800/KW.
(7)-Assumes $120 per KW-YR. 0\ of Haines diesel capacity mothballed in 1983 when wood waste generator begins operation.
(8)-Assumes diesel fuel cost of $1.16/gal10n in 1982 escalated at 2.5\ per year. Fuel usage assumed to be 12 KWh/gallon.
(9)-
(10)-Discounted to January 1982 at 3.5\ per year. EDATWWC4
ADDENDUM TO
HAINES-SKAGWAY REGIOO' FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR VARIOUS ON-LINE DATES
On-Line Date
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Total Present Worth Cost
Scenario BB Scenario CC
($1,000) ($1,000)
74,553
72,879
71,665
70,967
70,637
78,630
77,407
76,639
76,359
76,445
TABLE VI-20
SECTION VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONCLUSIONS
From the studies discussed in this Addendum to the Haines-Skagway
Region Feasibility Report, the following conclusions have been reached.
a. Based on construction cost and constructibility data that have be-
come available since completion of the June 1982 studies:
(1) Construction of a concrete-gravity dam using roller-compacted
concrete placement techniques is now considered less costly than an equivalent
si ze concrete-faced rockfill dam. The cost savings realized are estimated at
approximately $600,000. Additional savings in the dam. cost are realized when
the Project is down-sized as discussed below.
(2) A power conduit consisting of 8,470 feet of machine-bored
ttmnel and 1,450 feet of above-ground steel penstock is still preferred over
an all-penstock arrangement including a buried pipeline. It is feasible to
construct a 6.5-foot-diameter machine-bored tunnel in lieu of the 9.5-foot-
diameter machine-bored tunnel previously proposed. This results in an esti-
mated cost savings of $1.1 million.
b. Development of a powerhouse utilizing a double nozzle Pel ton-type
turbine instead of two Francis-type turbines will provide generally comparable
operating characteristics at significantly reduced cost.
c. New Scenarios li, BB and CC were prepared in these Addendum studies
to reflect assessments of future conditions ranging from no railroad operation
and no gas pipeline (Scenario AA) to a reopening of the railroad and the
effect of some new economic incenti ve, such as the gas pipeline in Haines
(Scenario CC).
If the current shutdown of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad in
Skagway, delays in the trans-Alaska pipeline construction and the general
slOlidown in the economy continue indefinitely, energy requirements of the
Haines-Skagway Region will be reduced significantly over those shown in prior
studies. Clearly the economy of the area is very sensi ti ve to these factors,
es pecially to the railroad in Skagway.
d. Based on load growth Scenario CC the installed capaCity for the
West Creek Project could be reduced frcm 6,000 kW to 4,500 kW and still meet
the forecasted 1996 firm energy requirements of the region. Under these con-
di tions, the West Creek Project would consist of a 116-foot-high concrete-
gravity dam, power conduit consisting of 8,470 feet of 6-1/2-foot-diameter
VII-2
tunnel and 1,450 feet of 3-foot-diameter steel penstock, a powerhouse contain-
ing a single 4,500-kW Pelton-type turbine-generator unit, and a 34.5-kV trans-
mission system consisting of 6.2 miles of overhead lines and 16.6 miles of
submarine cable to connect the Project with Haines and Skagway. This Project
configuration would have a Total Investment Cost (inflation-free on 1/82) of
$50,440,000 compared to the $55,908,000 shown in the June 1982 study.
e. The cost of constructing the wood waste power plant at Schnabel
Mill has significantly increased over that originally estimated. This cost
increase makes the 8¢/kWh purchase cost used in the July 1982 studies ques-
tionable. For that reason, two purchase cost alternatives, 11¢/kWh and
13.5¢/kWh, were utilized in this study.
f. The most economic means of meeting future load and energy require-
ments in the Haines-Skagway Region under the Scenario AA conditions (least
optimistic) would be the wood waste alternative. However, if load growth ex-
ceeds that shown in Scenario !A, the wood waste alternative would be the most
economic alternative only if there is sufficient wood waste available to gen-
erate at least 20,000 MWh annually and only if it can be generated at a cost
of 11¢/kWh or less. If either of these conditions is not met, the West Creek
Project is the most economic alternative.
g. Continued operation of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad makes the
West Creek Project the most preferable long-tenn power source for the Haines-
Skagway Region especially in view of the uncertainties associated with the
economics of wood waste generation.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Presuming that the White Pass and Yukon Railroad will continue to
operate, it is recommended that the Alaska Power Authority proceed with devel-
opment of the West Creek Project to meet future load and energy requirements
of the Haines-Skagway Region. To implement such developnent it is further
recommended that the Authority undertake the following actions:
a. Proceed immediately with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
licensing of the Project b,y:
(1) Proceeding with arrangements for property ownership and boun-
dary adjustments within the Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park so
that the powerhouse site will be located outside of the park. This will
facilitate filing and PERC acceptance of the license application.
(2) Canplete preparation of the application for a license to con-
struct, operate and maintain the Project.
(3) Obtain legislative author! ty to file the license application
and file with the FERC.
VII-3
b. Proceed immediately with final design activity including:
(1) Commencing in the summer of 1983 with additional geotechnical
field investigations, field surveys and necessary concrete mix design activi-
ties associated with designing the dam for roller-compacted concrete construc-
tion.
(2) Preparation of final design for all Project features.
(3) Preparation of bid and contract documents for all Project
features.
ALASKA
Fairbanks •
KEY MAP
LEGEND
\
\
\
\ CANADA
o Gaging station location
NOTE:
Topography from U .S.G. S. I; 250,000
Skagway, Alaska -Canada, 1961.
4 Miles o 4 Miles
Scale
R W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
fIINIINHItS AND COHIUl rANTS
s.am.. w..tIingIon Denwr, CoIorodo
AL ASKA POWE R AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DAT£:
DEC 1982
WEST CREEK PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
"'1
70
60
.c:
~ 50
~
z
0
...J
...J
~
40
(J)
t-
Z
UJ
~
UJ
Ll::
:::> 30 0
W
Ll::
>-19
Ll::
W
Z w 20
10
o
I
r
I 1
I
I I ------t--,
I
I
i ! I
I
I
I
I :
---------
i
_"",. .. u" ",
Scenario CC-""~ ~"""""
"l" k:::: "" ~ Scenario SS ", ....... ' ~ ...... '. ~ ......................
•• .. ............. " . ............
# ..........
• #4! --Scenario AA ...
Historic
1975 1980
Projected
I I I I
1985 1990 1995 2000
YEARS
DATE:
R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
fH&lNffRS AND CONSUL rANTS
Selttle. Washington Denver, Colorado
Go .... , otIIceI: T_ Bulldl .... SeotIIe, Wuhlllllan 98101
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF
HAINES -SKAGWAY
FI6:
DEC.1982 2
..c
3:
~
z
0 -..J
..J
::E
(j)
I-
Z w
::E w a:: -:::>
0 w a::
>-(!)
a:: w z w
7°~------~1------~------~------1~----~
60~---------+~~------~---------4~--------~------~~
50~--------~---------+----------+--------~--------~
40
30
20
".~"" .... .,.,
~
""
",,,
"",1""· ~""'" ~~~
WEST CREE K
.. ,t ...... " .... '
10t-------t---~==4=±=====~======4=====~
S CHNA~EL MI LL
EXI STING HYDR D
O~-r-'-r-r~-r-r-r-r~-.-r-r-r~'--r-r-r~~~'-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I
5750
4600
3450
2300
1150
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEARS
R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
EPHIINEEIS IINP CONSUlT IINT$
Seeltle. Wnhington Oen_. Colorado
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
u « a. «
u
LIJ
(!) « a::
LIJ
> «
ADDENDUM TO HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCENARIO CC
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES
PATE: IDllAWN: I~ 1M: DEC. 1982 E.M. tt1 3
PLAN
-/ 'J 00
Dam -to
---750
650 "--'
_____ 7 00 }
-----Power tunnel--
400' 0 400'
1~~ __ ~-L~1 ________ ~1
Scale
Parapet wall 10'
Crest EI. 716 EI.712
--Spillway crest EI. 700
Flip bucket EI. 650
Gallery
Estimated rock surface
Grout curtain
SPILL WAY SECTION
100' o 100'
I~!~I~!~ILI~!~'~I~,~I ________ ~I
Scale
R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
f .... NIEIS AND CONSUlTANTS
Denver, Colorado
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION
FEAS'B'I_'TY STUDY
DAl'!:
WEST CREEK PRO .. IECT
CONCRETE GRAVITY DAM
PLAN AND SECTION
DEC 1982
. c o .. o > • LtJ o
Access road
buried pipeline '
alternative
(New construction)
.,<i'
~ ... J~-~:...:;;.-.-----
0+00 10+00
'---M'l.il.i'==~~ road
tunnel alternative
(New construction)
600
Existing Ii)~ing~oad
Both alternatives
(To be improved)
'.'
~~::~~~~~?i~O~oo
600
700
Power tunnel 600
(Preferred alternative) 90Q
~ ~ 10
00 70+00 ---'. , 60+00 --------+------
50+00 _------+-----. 40 +00 . __ -----+----~ " .... . lJao ..
'30+00 ------+-------~ .----
20+00 ----~------------,+---------
Original ground
20 ... 00
1200
raoo
PLAN
sod 0 sod
I .......... , ............................. '''-::-' -11-:-_____ ----1'1 ..
STATIONS
Scale
C"r~r.t. lined section
("Illrti.lil ,till lining)
70+00 80+00
POWER TUNNEL PROFILE
(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
80+00
Power conduit portal
Powerhouse
'.
Log bridge,
(Replace exi.t
DYEA
. COMMUNITY
;
(Tunnel alternative)
Acces. road
(New construction)
NOTES:
I. TopoQraphy il baled on mappinQ of aerial
photooraphl conducted by Tryck, Nyman 8
Hayel, June 1981
2. Vertical control baled on U.S.G.S. datum
(mean sea level) and tied into 8ench Mark
.. Shcwp" at Yakutania Point.
3. Horizontal control grid baled on the Alalka
State Grid Coordinate System, Zone I.
It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
Saatlle. Washington
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES-SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE:
WEST CREEK PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE POWER CONDUIT
ARRANGEMENTS
DEC. 1982
SWithgear ---__ _
Exciter ----
Parking area
Tailrace channel
Concrete
encasement
Inlet valve
PLAN
Tailrace
channel
A ir compressor
_---1,--Station service
TRANSVERSE SECTION
30'
I
o
I
Scale
It W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
IMi8&IS ANI) COHSIILTANTS
SnttIe, WlIIhingIun o.n_. Colorado
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES -SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
POWERHOUSE PLAN AND SECTION
DATE:
DEC,1982 6
,"'~; i':: .~~ .~}
. ' •. ~~ 'fD
....... _ ... ..,;-., .,. "f~~f-_'-~ ~~'c F' \-~,c;--·':"''t·''''',·c~-:!:!·--~.-~-:..··''''--+~-:;;t'-·-~.:·
TYPICAL OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION
STRUCTURE
NOTES:
I. Topography is based on US.6.S.
15 minute quadrangles at a scale of
I: 63,360. Skagway A-I, A-2, 8-1,8-2.
C-I and C-2.
2. Vertical and horizontal control based
on USG.S, USc. and G.S. and LaC.
datum (mean sea level).
I::'
LEGEND
Power conduit alignment
Existing transmission tie line
Praposed overland transmission line
----Proposed submarine transmission line
6. Proposed switching station
o Proposed power plant
• Existing power plant
) ,
I 0 I mile
I I I I I , It, " I
Scale
R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES
ENG/NEfllS AND CONSULTANTS
Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ADDENDUM TO HAINES ·SKAGWAY REGION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
WEST CREEK PROJECT
SELECTED TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR
OAT£::
DEC 1982 F&. 7
APPENDIX
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
ON HAINES-SKAGWAY
ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
December 8 and 9, 1982
As the result of the closure of the White Pass and Yukon Railroad
in October 1982, and uncerta i nty over its future and the resulti ng
effects on the Skagway economy, the Alaska Power Authority deci ded it
would be prudent to reevaluate the Haines-Skagway power market to
determine the effects of the railroad closure. As part of this process
the Power Authority required its consultant, R.W. Beck and Associates,
to revise the power market forecasts and consider modifications to the
proposed West Creek Hydroelectric Project to reduce production capacity
and construction cost. Since the results of these analyses caused some
significant changes from reports that had been prepared earlier, the
Power Authority felt it necessary to meet with the public in Haines and
Skagway to present and discuss the changed conditions. Notices of
meetings were given over local television and radio stations and were
held on December 8 and 9, 1982.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Public Meeting on
HAINES -SKAGWAY ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
December 8, 1982
7:00 p.m. , Fire Hall, Haines, Alaska
Name
Brent Petrie
Thomas R. Quinlan
Roy C. Clayton
Jon D. Halliwill
George S. Schnabel
Bi 11 Corbus
Rick Shabo
Archie Hinman
Raymond R. Menaker
Dave Westfa 11
Don Melnick
Attendence list
Address
Alaska Power Authority, 334 W. 5th, Anch., AK
Haines Res., Haines, Alaska
Box 164, Haines, Alaska
Box 179, Haines, Alaska
Box 303, Haines, Alaska
AELP, 134 Franklin St., Juneau, Alaska
Haines Light & Power, Box 125, Haines, Alaska,
Haines Light & Power, Box 1, Haines, Alaska
Box 118, Haines, Alaska, Lynn Canal News
R.W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA
R.W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA
Haines, Alaska
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, December 8,1982
The Haines public meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. at the Haines City
Hall. A total of eleven (11) people were in attendance including
utility and city officials, Alaska Power Authority staff and consulting
engineers.
Mr. Petrie, of the Power Authority, introduced the consulting staff
from R.W. Beck and Associates and explained the reasons for the meeting.
Three load forecasts had been prepared which cons idered the Hai nes-
Skagway power market without the rail road, with seasonal operation of
the railroad for tourist use only, and year round operation of the
railroad.
Mr. Melnick and Mr. Westfall, of R.W. Beck and Associates, reviewed
the history of project studies and presented new information on the load
forecasts. If the railroad does not open again, then the Skagway power
market could decrease to about 50 percent of what it is today. This
affects the overall economics of the West Creek Project as earl ier
conceived. Mr. Westfall presented changes that they had considered in
the West Creek Project. These changes consist of reducing the installed
capacity at the powerhouse from 6.0 MW to 4.5 MW and substituting one
Pelton turbine instead of two Francis turbines, a smaller diameter
tunnel would be constructed and rather than building a rockfill dam on
West Creek, a concrete dam using roller compacted concrete would be
substituted. These changes would reduce the cost of the earlier project
by about $6,000,000. However, without the load utilized by the railroad
and its employees, it appears that the existing diesel and existing
small hydro generation would continue to be the most economical
generation option. A possible exception to this might be woodwaste
generation at Haines, although there were several uncertainties with
fuel supply and power costs with that option.
Until the situation with the railroad is resolved, Mr. Petrie said
the Power Authority would not proceed with any significant engineering
work on West Creek. However, the Power Authority did feel it would be
prudent to resolve some land ownership concerns in the vicinity of the
proposed project powerhouse. This could be resolved with an exchange of
twenty-two (22) acres of land now in National Park Service ownership
through a swap with the State of Alaska.
The meeting was opened to discussion.
Mr. Menaker asked if the load forecast included generation from the
existing hydro in Skagway and woodwaste generation if the Schnabel
powerplant operates. Mr. Melnick replied it did.
Mayor Halliwill asked if the woodwaste alternative considered that
the Schnabel woodwaste plant might not be replaced when it was \'lOrn out.
- 2 -
~lr. Petrie said, "No, the forecast assumed the existing used unit would
last 15 years and then be replaced by a new unit that would last 20
years.1I
Tom Quinlan asked if the possibility of interconnections to Canada
had been considered. Mr. Petrie said, IINo, the Power Authority had only
examined an interconnection of only Haines and Skagway." Mayor
Halliwill pointed out that he was aware of a concern over energy in the
Yukon Territory and wondered if it would be possible to consider
development of ~!est Creek to its full capacity and share energy with the
Yukon. Mr. Petrie said that had not been considered and he thought the
transmission costs might be excessive.
Archie Hinman then pointed out that just this past year the
Canadians had completed a 34.5 kv powerline extending about twenty miles
south of Carcross which ran next to the Skagway-Carcross highway. This
would place the line about 40-45 miles from Skagway. Mr. Petrie said
this was new information to the Power Authority and the Power Authority
would try to get more information on it.
May Ha 11 iwi 11 encouraged the Power Authori ty to try to have the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proceed with the land exchange at
the West Creek powerhouse site and requested that we contact the
Northern Canada Power Commission to find out the status of the
transmi ss i on 1 i ne and exactly what thei r energy concerns were. Mr.
Petrie said the Power Authority would try to find out more about the
situation.
The meeting adjourned about 9:15 P.M.
- 3 -
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Name
Brent Petrie
Don Melnick
Dave Westfa 11
Roger Speel
Vernon Neitzer
Bill Corbus
Ski P Ell i ott
Ba rba ra Ka 1 en
Bob Ward
Rand Snure
J. M. Frey
Gil Acker
Ken Naland
Gene P. Strong
Jeff Brady
Terry Huntley
Chris Rohlf
Jim Jewell
Charlotte Jewell
Jim Richards
Public Meeting on
HAINES -SKAGWAY ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
December 9, 1982
7:00 p.m., City Hall, Skagway, Alaska
Attendence Li st
Address
Alaska Power Authority, 334 W 5th Ave., Anch., AK
R.~r. Beck and Assoc., Tower Bldg, 7th Ave.
at Olive Way, Seattle, WA
R.W. Beck and Assoc., Tower Bldg, 7th Ave.
at Olive Way, Seattle, WA
Alaska Power & Telephone, Box 1, Skagway,
Alaska
Alaska Power & Telephone, Box 1,
Skagway, Alaska
Haines Light and Power, 134 Franklin St.,
Juneau, Alaska
City of Skagway, Box 415, Skagway, Alaska
Box 417, Skagway, Alaska
Box 503, Skagway, Alaska
Box 213, Skagway, Alaska
Box 206, Skagway, Alaska
Box 504, Skagway, Alaska
P.O. Box 138, Skagway, Alaska
Box 149, Skagway,Alaska
Box 1898, Skagway, Alaska
Box 131, Skagway Alaska
Box 372 Skagway, Alaska
Box 106, Skagway, Alaska
Box 106, Skagway, Alaska
Box 415, Skagway Alaska
* Note: All attendees did not sign in.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
Skagway Public Meeting
7:00 P.M., Thursday, December 9,1982
The Skagway Public Meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. at Skagway City
Hall. City Manager, Skip Elliott, introduced the Alaska Power Authority
Staff and study team. Twenty people signed the attendance sheet, and
several others came in during the meeting.
Mr. Petrie, of the Power Authority, and Messrs. Melnick and
Westfall of R.W. Beck, presented the same introduction as the night
before in Haines and the meeting opened to discussion.
Mr. Petrie was asked why the seasonal railroad operational forecast
included a complete closure of the railroad in 1983 and 1984. He
replied that they were trying to come up with their best estimate of the
situation and hoped that really would not be the situation for Skagway·s
sake. Several citizens expressed optimism that the railroad will be
open in 1983 for summer operation and cautioned the Power Authority not
to be too pessimistic.
A gentleman asked about the status of Goat Lake as another
hydroelectric option. Mr. Petrie and Mr. Melnick described several
geo 1 og1 c problems at the site that woul d be very costly to overcome.
Therefore, they still considered the West Creek project as a more
reliable alternative. Barbara Kalen stated that water seeps out of
fractured rock below the lake all year long. Mr. Melnick mentioned that
faults and joints in the rock in the area were the major concern and
such seepage may be related to those faults.
Mr. Petrie mentioned that additional archaeological work conducted
this past summer in the area confirmed that a deposit of shells along
the proposed transmission route was of human origin and of historical
significance. Mrs. Kalen suggested the Power Authority should be
careful about the interpretation of that deposit since naturally
occurring marine shell deposits are scattered throughout the area.
(Mrs. Kalen later provided photos and descriptions of shell deposits on
her property which are of natural origin. Those deposits are
significantly different from the deposit the archaeologists investigated
which contains small mammal and bird bone fragments, charcoal, and
charred rock.)
Mr. Gene Strong asked how the project energy costs would look at
3 percent financing. Mr. Petrie provided an estimate of energy costs
based on 60 percent State equity, and 40 percent bond fi nanc i ng, but
said that they had not considered a 3 percent financing scheme. In any
event he said the Power Authority would like to be assured that there
was a greater load available before they would recommend proceeding with
the project. In the short term this means some more certainty is needed
about the railroad1s future.
- 1 -
..
Mr. Snure wondered if power was available if some other employers
might be enticed to locate in the area. Mr. Petrie said he thought
something other than power would have to be available locally, such as
fish for processing, timber, etc., that would require power for
processing.
Skip Elliott, Mayor Snure, and several others also mentioned the
transmission 1 ine that ran south of Carcross and suggested that the
Power Authority should find out more about the possibility of an
interconnection. A gentleman also mentioned that a new hydro generating
plant was being installed on the Yukon River near Whitehorse.
Mr. Petrie relayed similar observations from the people at the Haines
meeting and said some inquiries would be made to determine the situation
with the transmission line.
Several citizens recommended that the land exchange for the
powerhouse site should not be dropped, as it may take some time to
resolve the issue and the area may need the project by then. Mr. Petrie
said this would be considered when the Power Authority concluded the
report and submitted their findings and recommendations.
The meeting adjourned about 9:30 P.M .
- 2 -
.. DEPARTMENT 0 .. ' ~ATURAI .. Rt:SOUR(;ES
December 9, 1982
Mr. Eric P. You1d
Executive Director
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Eric:
IIFF/tl OF Till CIHIIIISSIIIIIlI
BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR
POUCHM
JUNEAU,ALASKA 99S11
PHONE:
Thank you for your letter in support of a state land exchange
for the purpose of acquiring the powerhouse site and associated
access needed for development of the West Creek hydroelectric
project near Skagway. I am aware of the importance of this
22-acre site to the Authority, particularly given its location
within the Klondike-Go1drush National Historical Park.
At the present time, the department has decided to postpone
the public meetings associated with the McCarthy land exchange
proposal, which includes the parcel near Skagway. We will
discuss the McCarthy exchange with Esther Wunnicke, the new
Commissioner. If the new administration decides not to
pursue the exchange, the department will seek acquisition of
the West Creek parcel through other means.
Please continue to keep the department apprised of the
status of the West Creek project. You can be assured that
we will continue our efforts to acquire the neccessary lands
involved.
Sincerely,
cc: Honorable Rand Snure, Mayor, Skagway
Honorable Jon Halliwell, Mayor, Haines
William Corbus, Alaska Electric Light & Power
Ralph Wilson, Alaska Power & Telephone Company
Archie Hinman, Haines Light & Power
Jim Wickes, DRD
George Hollett, DLWM
Esther Wunnike
~ ~ & f!JJ0UH!It ~o.~ dnc.
P.O. BOX 40
HAINES. ALASKA 99827
Mr. Brent Petrie
Alaska Power Authority
334 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Petrie:
December 16, 1982
BECEIVEQ
[l:C 2 71982
At:ASKA POWER AUTHoIUJY
This is a follow up to the comments made by the Haines
Light & Power Co., Inc. (HLP) at the public hearings on the
proposed West Creek Hydroelectric Project in Haines on
December 8, 1982 and Skagway on December 9, 1982. HLP
concludes that it would not be prudent at this juncture to
proceed with the construction of West Creek in view of the
economic uncertainties caused by the shutdown of the White
Pass & Yukon Railroad. However, HLP believes the Alaska
Power Authority should continue to resolve the land status
problem at the proposed site of the powerhouse as well as
continue to seek the West Creek water rights. HLP also
believes study should be directed towards the possibility of
selling energy from that Project to the Canadians.
In the long run HLP has confidence in the future of the
Haines-Skagway area and concludes that it would be wise to
have all of the background work complete on West Creek so
that the FERC license application, final design and construction
could begin after an economic recovery.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Very truly yours,
" " ,
'" . ' .. '-__ '·:(:._L
\vAC/ak
William A. Corbus
President
THE CITY OF HAINES, ALASKA
P.O. BOX 576
HAINES, ALASKA 99827
(907) 766-2231
In Reply
Refer To: January 6. 1983
Eric Yould
334 W. 5th Avenue (2nd. floor)
Anchorage. Alaska 99501
Dear Eric:
At our last meeting in Haines with Brent Petrie and members of R.W.
Beck Company. I suggested we contact the Yukon Territorial Power
Authority to see if there was a way to sell Canada excess power from
West Creek.
My ~ain concern was that the West Creek project was coming on with
such a high capital cost. it was doubtful if the project would provide
lower cost power then we now enjoy. It appears if we built west creek
to it's full potential rather then scaling it down to meet the present
needs the project would be more cost effective. By working with Canada.
it appears we could find a market for the excess power generated by the
Project.
Since that meeting. I have held discussion with Yukon Commissioner
Doug Bell, who agree's that there is a need, at times, for additional
power in the Yukon. At present the mines in Canada are shut down and
the Yukon has excess power which could now be sold to Haines and Skagway
if an interie was developed.
When mining again returns to the Yukon or other industrial develop-
ment occurs the Yukon would have need for any excess power West Creek
may be producing.
I feel that all type of alternatives must be researched to provide
lower cost stable power for the small communities in Southeast Alaska
and this may be a realistic alternate for our region.
I urge your consideration.
JDH/ktg
s;z~ .. ~/ a~-:. Hall iwill
~1ayor