Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-11 OscarvilleBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G-l1l OSCARVILLE COMMUNITY REPORT DRAFT Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company and Darbyshire &Associates Draft April 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Background Population Housing Current Economic Activity Subsistence Cash Economy Future Economic Activity Current Energy Consumption Total Energy Electric Generation Future Energy Demand Formulation of the Supply Plans Economic Evaluation Base Case Supply Plan Optimized Base Case Supply Plan Thermal Supply Plans Hydropower Supply Plans Fuel Cell Supply Plans Sensitivity Analysis Regional Summary Environmental Evaluation XI-3 XI-4 XI-8 XI-9 XI-10 XI-12 XI-14 XI-15 XI-15 XI-16 XI-16 XI-16 XI-19 XI-19 Table No. XI-1 XI-2 XI-3 XI-8 LIST OF TABLES Title Oscarville Household Size Oscarville Employment and Income Oscarville Projected Annual Earnings Oscarville 1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption Existing Generating Facilities Oscarville Energy Demand Forecast Most Likely Scenario,Present Worth and Benefit-Cost Ratio of the Supply Plans Most Likely Scenario,Sensitivity Analysis Using 0%Real Fuel Escalation Sensitivity Analysis,Present Worth of Supply Plans Ranking of Energy Supply Plans ii- Page XI-3 XI-5 XI-7 XI-8 XI-9 XI-10 XI-14 XI-17 XI-18 XI-20 Exhibit No. 1 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Community Location Map Oscarville Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Oscarville Economic and Energy Projections,Oscarville 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Oscarville 1981 Energy Balance,Oscarville Electrical Distribution System -iii- OSCARVILLE COMMUNITY REPORT Introduction The Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment has been performed by Harza Enyineering Company under contract to the Alaska Power Authority.The assessment was done to determine the best alternative(s)to meet the future electric generation and space heating needs of the Bethel region.The community of Oscarville is within the study area,and is the subject of this Appendix.Detailed information on the overall regional assess- ment is contained in the Regional Report. The community report for Oscarville is intended to be an informational and working document for the residents of the community.Much data has been collected on the community's background,population,housing,and its current economic and energy profiles.Existing electrical generation and transmission facilities,as well as residential and commercial Space heating needs,are documented in this report.Projections of future energy needs,based on future population,housing,and economic conditions,have been made.These projections have been used to develop alternative plans for meeting the electrical energy and space-heating needs of the region through year 2002,and those of Oscarville in particular.These alternative plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint, This community report for Oscarville is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Backyround Oscarville is situated in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta,five miles south of Bethel (Exhibit 1).The village is located well within the vast silt plain that characterizes the lower drainage area of the Kuskokwim River.The predominant vegetation sur- rounding the village is sparse thickets of willow,alder,and some birch,with the majority of the area characteristic of moist tundra.The only available firewood must be pulled from the banks of the Kuskokwim.The remaining vegetation farther inland from the river bottom is characterized as wet tundra. Standing water is present throughout the summer,which makes overland travel extremely difficult. Access to Oscarville is principally by year-round charter air service and limited summer lighterage service from Bethel. There is no road system in the area.Overland movement is lim- XI-1 ited primarily to the winter season,The river is used as a roadway for taxis and truck freight during the winter season after the ice has thickened.Fuel oil and other freight items are trucked over this ice highway on an "as-necessary"basis to meet late-winter shortages.Snow machines provide the most competent mode of travel in winter, Oscarville was established in the early part of the 20th Century when Oscar Samuelson moved across the river from Napaskiak and built a store.The trading post attracted several Native families,and Samuelson remained in the community until his death in 1953.Oscarville is not a city,but an unincorporated community. Oscarville's Native population is represented by a Traditional Council which is recoynized by the federal government as the offical tribal governing body of the village. This Council is eligible to participate in some state and federal programs,and has received benefits under the Indian Self Determination Act,the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act,the Housing and Community Development Act,the Comprehensive Employment Traininy Act (CETA),and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Another local organization,the village corporation,al- though not a government entity,exercises a variety of functions generally exercised by governments.The local village corpora- tion,Oscarville Native Corporation,was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.It is entitled to receive title to the surface estate of 69,120 acres of land.To date,no lands have been transferred to the corporation by the Bureau of Land Management. In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Napakiak in April 1982.Residents of Oscarville were invited to attend. Population Exhibit 2 presents the population data for Oscarville.The Census of 1939 counted 11 residents.This figure grew to 51 in 1960.Between 1960 and 1970,the population decreased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent.Between 1970 and 1980,the population grew at an averaye annual rate of 3.2 percent.In 1980 the Census counted a population of 56,all Alaskan Native, with an average age of 18. Three scenarios of population projections are also pre- sented on Exhibit 2.These projections were developed in con- XI-2 junction with the three scenarios of economic projections which are presented in the following pages.The projected annual growth rates are a combined product of historical trends,actual rate of natural increase,potential economic growth,and immi- gration or emigration,The projections also reflect a general decline of state population yrowth rates predicted by the U.S. Department of Commerce,In year 2002,the Oscarville population is expected to be between 69 and 85 persons. Housing The community has 12 homes and a central watering point. The number of persons per housing unit is 4.7. The future housing stock will play an important role in determining future residential energy demands.Although the average number of persons per housing unit increased from about 3.7 in 1970 to 4.7 in 1980,this trend is not expected to continue.As shown in Table XI-1l,the average household size is expected to be between 3.5 and 4.5 by 2002. Table XI-1 OSCARVILLE HOUSEHOLD SIZE Energy Demand Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 4.7 N/A 1987 4.4 4.4 4.3 1992 4.3 4.3 4.0 2002 4.5 4.0 3.5 Current Economic Activity This section describes the current village economy,in both its subsistence and cash forms.This assessment will serve as a basis for the economic projections. Subsistence Residents of Oscarville depend on the environment in large part for subsistence,Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food,fiber,and shelter from the surrounding environment. Subsistence activities are pursued by a majority of the communi- ty's residents.A recent survey done in the Bethel region esti- mates that approximately one-third of the residents surveyed obtained one-half or more of their foodstuffs by engaging in such subsistence activities as fishing,berrypicking,and col- lecting gamebirds along the sloughs and on the swampy tundra. XI-3 It is also estimated that the remaining two-thirds collect about one-fourth of their needs. Residents rely on subsistence activities for a number of reasons:it is the traditional method of provision passed to the present generation by its forefathers;in time of high ship- ping and transportation costs,it offers savings over the pur- chase of costly foodstuffs;and it provides a fruitful form of recreation.Dog,king,and silver salmon,as well as ling cod, shellfish,whitefish,and blackfish,provide food for many resi- dents of Oscarville.Residents also hunt moose,bear,beaver, mink,rabbit,ptarmigan,duck,and geese. An estimate of the equivalent income obtained from subsis- tence activities can be regarded as that portion of the typical household budget that is replaced by these subsistence items. Using the figures developed for the Bethel region and assuming a typical annual household budget of about $10,000,then the total cash value of these activities can be estimated at about $40,000 annually. Cash Economy There are a few paid positions in Oscarville (with the school,trading post,and clinic),however,more job opportuni- ties are to be found in nearby Bethel;which can be reached by riverboat in summer and snowmachine in winter. Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and energy profile for Oscarville.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model output for Oscarville as analyzed in this study.The fore- casting model is described in Appendix A.In Exhibit 3,total annual income or earnings,in 1981 dollars,are first presented for each economic activity,followed by the corresponding number of average annual employment.The remaining columns present the end-use energy consumption for each activity.The column entitled "Electricity"corresponds to the total electricity demand,which is the sum of last column "Light and Electric Appliances"consumption and the electricity consumption used in "Cooking,Space Heating,and Water Heating".For convenience, all consumption data are in Million Btu.The electric energy demand can be translated into kilowatt-hours by dividing the consumption in Btu by 3,413 (Btu per kilowatt-hour).The lower section of Exhibit 3 presents the residential sector with popu- lation,average household size,total number of households, average energy consumption per household,and end-use demand. The last line summarizes the total demand from the commercial, government and residential sectors. Table XI-2 below summarizes the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector that are typically found in a village the size of Oscarville.It should be noted that the numbers listed for each sector do not necessarily indicate full-time employment.More than one of these positions may be held by one person simultaneously or by the same person at dif- ferent times of the year. Table XI-2 OSCARVILLE EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Average Monthly Annual Economic Activity Employment Earnings (1981 $) Renewable Resource Harvesting 1 $11,000 Mining and Exploration 0 -0- Construction 11 135,000 Household Manufacturing 0.5 1,000 Transportation 0.5 5,000 Wholesale,Dist.0.5 1,000 Comm.and Utilities 0 -0- Trade and Private Services 2 21,000 Finance and Real Estate 1 7,000 Non-Profit Organization 0.5 3,000 Local and Regional Government 7 119,000 State Agencies/Services 0.5 2,900 Federal Agencies/Services 1 8,000 Transfer Payments N/A 117,000 TOTAL $430,000 As shown in Table XI-2,the primary sources of income to the village are construction,local and regional government, transfer payments,and trade and private services.These and other income sources are described below. Construction.Construction projects both in Oscarville and throughout the region provide employment opportunities that typically represent the largest private cash-earning potential locally. Local and Regional Government.The village school system provides a large number of cash-earning positions to Oscarvilleresidents.The elementary grades are provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs School System.Positions associated with the systems are:principal teacher,certified teachers,substitute teachers,bilingual teachers,instructional aides,clerk/typist XI-5 community educational coordinators,librarians,pre-school teachers,and athletic directors.Support positions that exist in the school are cooks,cook's helper,school maintenance and school custodian. Positions with the village government take the followingforms:fee agents,bookkeepers,city administrators,city clerks,city maintenance,city custodian,city recreation director,village public safety officer,village patrolman, Transfer Payments.Non-employment forms of cash flow exist as transfer payments.Transfer payments are made directly to a household in two forms --cash and/or goods.Cash payments are made thorough social security,general welfare (SSI,Old Age, Blind,AFCD,VA,food stamps,etc.),home mortgage subsidies, rental subsidies,and home energy and fuel purchase subsidies. A major subsidy is the state's Power Cost Assistance Program, Trade and Private Services.Retail trade activities pro- vide managerial,clerical,and stock room positions. Other Sources.The remaining income sources listed in Table XI-2 make up only a minor part of the total village income.Federal agency services,finance and real estate,and transportation services represent the largest income sources of this group. Future Economic Activity Future energy demand will depend upon the changes in the economy and the purchasing ability of the households.To reflect the potential changes over the next twenty years,three levels of expected change (most likely,low and high)were developed. The results of the economic projections for the years 1987, 1992,and 2002 are presented on Exhibit 4.Exhibit 4 is organized as described earlier for Exhibit 3.Table XI-3 summa- rizes the expected range of future economic activity.Total annual earnings,in constant 1981 dollars,are shown for the three scenarios.The difference between the low and high pro- jections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the future economic course of Oscarville. XI-6 Table XI-3 OSCARVILLE PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS (Constant 1981 Dollars) 'Projections"Year Low Most--Likely High 1981 (Surveyed)N/A $430,000 N/A 1987 $383,000 404,000 $490,000 1992 400,000 455,000 568,000 2002 446,000 533,000 662,000 By the year 1992,under the "Most-Likely"set of circum- stances,the total village cash economy is expected to have completed its recovery from the 1980's slump.The remainder of the forecast to the year 2002 is characterized by a period of Slow and continual expansion at a rate of about 2 percent. The "High"forecast assumptions differ from the "Most- Likely"primarily in the severity of the anticipated slump during the early 1980's.The effect of these less severe reduc- tions is measured in the forecast as a slowly expanding economy of about 2 percent annual growth rate until 2002. On the other side,the "Low"forecast assumptions represent a much more sudden and severe slump in the total income earnings potential of the village during the remainder of the 1980's. Recovery is expected from this "slump"period,caused by govern- mental cutbacks,due primarily to a shift in the regional econo- mic base toward decentralization,Still,this recovery is as- sumed to be slower and to begin at a much lower point than the most likely and high projections.By 1992,the total cash earn- ed in the economy is expected to be only 91 percent of the amount earned 10 years earlier.By the year 2002,the total cash earning potential of the village economy is expected to have recovered to the 1981 level. Current Energy Consumption An energy use inventory was conducted in order to gain an understanding of the total village energy consumption,and the relative importance of electricity.However,the results are limited because the community's diesel generators were not func- tioning.Exhibit 5 presents a detailed listing of the 1981 energy consumption by end uses and by fuel type,estimated as if the diesel generators were operable. XI-7 Total Eneryy Space and water heating was the major energy end use with a total consumption of about 3,000 million Btu.A Btu (British Thermal Unit)is a measure of the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.Fuel oil provided about 80 percent of the total heating needs,and the remaining was provided by wood.Residen- tial cooking consumed about 550 million Btu.No electric con- sumption data was actually obtained,however. Table XI-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types. It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The esti- mated total cost to Oscarville for their 1981 energy demand was about $50,000. Table XI-4 OSCARVILLE 1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION a Unit -Annual Price Consumption Fuel oil $1.79/gal.16,500 gallons Diesel $1.79/gal.5,000 yallonst Propane $118/100 lb bottle -trace only - Blazo $3.50/gal.-trace only - Wood $150/cord 50 cords l/Includes only diesel for the school electric generators. Because of the large quantities of fuel needed to meet year-round energy demands,the only economical supply method is by water barge.A regional lighterage service is operated out of Bethel which uses the vast network of rivers and sloughs to deliver the fuels during the relatively short ice-free period of late summer and fall.However,due to the close proximity of Oscarville to Bethel,most villagers travel overland by snow- machine or trucks on the ice road during the winter or by boat during the summer to obtain their fuel oil needs.This has reduced the need of the community to maintain bulk fuel storage facilities within their village.The only bulk storage facili- ties located within the community are for the BIA elementary school. Exhibit 6 presents the village energy balance for 1981; estimated as if the diesel generators had been operating. XI-8 Electric Generation Two separate electrical generating systems exist:one to provide power to the village and a primary power site for the BIA elementary school.Neither is currently operable.Table XI-6 below describes these systems.The village has been wait- ing for an intertie to Bethel Utilities Corp.for three years, but a right of way problem has prevented the line from being installed. Table XI-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES Operating Owner/Operator Status.Capacity (kW) Oscarville Corp.-not running-(100) Oscarville Corp.-not running-(30) BIA Primary 35 BIA Primary 30 The existing distribution system (Exhibit 7)is adequate considering the small size of the village. Future Energy Demand Three projections of future energy demand (low,most like- ly,and high)were developed,based on current use,socio-econo- mic projections,and assumptions regarding future end use de- mand.The most likely scenario is based on the most likely projections of economic activities,population,and household size described earlier.It also reflects a mid-range forecast of energy price trends,The low scenario reflects a more con- servative yrowth derived from the low projections of economic activities,population,and household size,as well as a real energy annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.The high scenario assumes a continuation of the subsidized present situation,both at the energy level and at the economic level. The forecasts are based on estimated growth in each econo- mic activity described earlier,and in the residential sector. Pages 1 through 3 of Exhibit 4 present the end use projections for 1987,1992 and 2002 under the most likely scenario.Pages 4 through 6,and 7 through 9 present the projections for the low and high scenario,respectively.Table XI-6 summarizes the re- sults.Space heating demand was increased by about 15 percent to reflect average annual heating needs of the region,since 1981,the base year,was warmer than average.The total elec- tric energy demand is expected to vary between 90 and 145 MWh in xXI-9 2002,with a most likely energy demand of 120 MWh.The most likely 2002 peak demand is 35 kW. Table XI-6 OSCARVILLE ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 106) 1981 Demand N/A 4,090 N/A 1987 Demand 4,415 4,624 5,080 1992 Demand 4,913 5,423 6,320 2002 Demand 5,230 6,711 8,430 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 70 70 70 1987 Demand 75 80 85 1992 Demand 85 95 110 2002 Demand 90 120 145 Formulation of the Supply Plans To meet the projected energy demand,a base case and four alternative supply plans were formulated to examine the relative energy costs and environmental and socioeconomic impacts.With- in each alternative,subplans are also formulated to meet the combinations of electrical and total energy demand.The plans are representative of mixes of supply modes for meeting end-use demands. The four alternatives to the base case include coal direct combustion for meeting all the heating demand.A general description of each supply plan is given in the following para- graphs, I.Base Case.The base case plan represents a continu- ation of the present practices of diesel generation for electricity.The base case plan also assumes the continued use of fuel oil for residential and non-residential heatingneeds.No new transmission interties are included in the Base Case, II.Base Case Alternatives.The base case alternatives will utilize the diesel units as described in the base case,with inclusion of wind electric generation,waste XI-10 heat recovery,and coal direct combustion for heating de- mand,A regional and sub-regional transmission interties were also evaluated.The optimization of the base case alternatives is given in the next section. For consistency between all alternative supply plans,it was assumed that the conversion to coal direct combustion would be in 1988,the same year as the coal fired plant would be in operation,All existing residential and non- residential systems would be converted to burn coal for heating. III.Thermal Alternatives.Five sub-plans were formu- lated,including a 4-MW or a 10-MW coal-fired plant, located in Bethel.Transmission interties to the outlying villayes were also considered for each of the five plans. The results of the economic feasibility to intertie Oscarville is presented in the following section, Supply Plan IIIA would consist of a 4-MW base load plant supplemented by diesel generators to meet the peak demand. The heating demand in Bethel and the villages would be met by fuel oil until 1988 then coal direct combustion as de- scribed in the Base Case Alternatives. Supply Plan IIIB would consist of the same 4-MW base load plant with waste heat recovery that would supply about 25 percent of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heatiny demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. Supply Plan IIIC would consist of a 10-MW cycling plant that would generate the electric energy demand.The heat- ing demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. Supply Plan IIID would consist of the same 10-MW plant with waste heat recovery that would supply 62 percent of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. Supply Plan IIIE would also consist of a 1lO-MW plant with a supplemental boiler to supply about 80 percent of the total heating demand of Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. IV.Hydroelectric Alternatives.Two sub-plans were formu- lated trom the Chikuminuk Lake development,as described in Chapter IV.The 9.5-MW project (Plan IVA)was sized to meet the monthly electric energy requirements of the Bethel region through year 2002.The average annual eneryy pro- duction would be 60 GWh,or about 21 GWh more than the XI-11 projected electric energy demand in 2002,under the most likely projections,That average surplus of eneryy would meet about 7%of the total heating requirements of Bethel, in year 2002.The second plan (Plan IV8)consists of a development that approaches the topoyraphic limits of the site.The 24-MW project would produce an average annual energy of 120 GWh,This development would meet the proj- ected electric eneryy demand and about 27%of the heatiny requirements of Bethel,in year 2002.In both plans,the remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct com- bustion,as in Plan IIIA, Both supply plans include a high voltage transmission line from Chikuminuk Lake to Bethel via Akiak and Akiachak. Additional transmission interties to the other village were also considered.The economic feasibility of interconnect- ing Oscarville is presented in the following section. Vv.Fuel Cell Alternatives.Two fuel cell alternative plans were formulated.Both plans include a centralized 9-MW fuel cell electric generation plant,located in Bethel.The difference between the alternatives is that one plant (Plan VB)is designed for waste heat recovery, which could provide an estimated 12%of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion.As with the other plans,transmis- sion interties to Oscarville were considered. The basic assumptions and cost estimates underlying each supply plan are given in the Regional Report. Economic Evaluation The economic parameters and assumptions used in the evalua- tion are based on the Power Authority yuidelines (Economic Para- meters for the 1983 Fiscal Year).The economic anaysis is done for the period starting in 1982 and ending in 2039,the last year of the 50-year economic life of the hydro project which would come on line in 1990.All costs are in terms of 1982 dollars.Petroleum fuels and coal are escalated at a real rate of 2.5 and 2.0 percent respectively,over the next twenty years. After year 2002,real escalation rates and load yrowths are assumed to be zero,A discount rate of 3.5 percent is used to calculate the present worth of costs occurring in different years on an equivalent basis. The present worth calculations were done according to the Power Authority evaluation procedure.The costs are busbar costs and do not include cost allowances for distribution,ad- XI-12 ministration,taxes,etc.The present worth of consumer costs would be signticantly higher than the present worth of busbar costs developed in this evaluation.However,since these addi- tional costs are the same for all alternatives,the relative ranking of the alternatives would not be affected. Using the timiny of capacity additions and costs presented in the Regional Report,the present worth of costs for each supply plan was computed.Table XI-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Oscarville.The present worth computation was done separately for the heating demand and electric demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with generation facilities and transmission interties. XI-13 Table XI-7 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF THE SUPPLY PLANS Total Demand Benefit-Cost Ratio Present Worth (1982 $x103)With With Heating Electric Total Base Optimized Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Case Base Case Base Case Plan I 2,173 1,443 3,616 1,00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 1,782 1,443 3,225 1,12 1,00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 1,782 1,443 3,225 1.12 1.00 Plan IIIB 1,782 1,443 3,225 1,12 1,00 Plan IIIC 1,782 1,443 3,225 1,12 1.00 Plan IIID 1,782 1,443 3,225 1,12 1.00 Plan IIIE 1,782 1,443 3,225 1.12 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 1,782 1,153 2,935 1.23 1,10 Plan IVB 1,782 1,153 2,935 1,23 1.10 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 1,782 1,426 3,208 1.13 1.01 Plan VB 1,782 1,426 3,208 1.13 1.01 The following paragraphs describe the results'for Oscarville under each supply plan.A regional summary is pre- sented at the end of this section. Base Case Supply Plan The present worth of the Base Case using diesel plants for electric generation and fuel oil for heating was first computed to serve as a reference.As shown on Table XI-7,the total XI-14 present worth of the Base Case is $3,616,000,of which $1,443,000 is for electric energy demand.- Optimized Base Case Supply Plan The Base Case Alternatives were optimized based on an eval- uation of coal direct combustion,wind generation,waste heat recovery,and transmission intertie.As described in the Re- gional Report,the analysis shows that conversion to coal direct combustion for heating would provide significant economic bene- fit.Under the Most Likely Scenario,assuming a complete con- version to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth of the heating costs would be reduced by about $391,000 (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039.Wind generation was only found to be economically feasible in the villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak.Diesel waste heat recovery was not found to be economically attractive in Oscarville when it is compared to coal or fuel heating.Transmission intertie to Bethel was not found to be economically feasible. As shown on Table XI-7,the total present worth of the Optimized Base Case is $3,225,000,The benefit-cost ratio is 1.12 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the electric energy demand is identical to the Base Case.The pre- sent worth of the heating demand was reduced from $2,173,000 to $1,782,000, Thermal Supply Plans As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was performed to decide whether or not Oscarville should be inter- tied to Bethel,site of the coal-fired plant.To reflect the share of construction cost for the central coal-fired plant in the present worth computation of each village,an incremental unit cost of $1,500 per kilowatt was used.This unit increment- al cost was multiplied by the projected village peak demand in year 2002 to estimate the construction cost associated with that village.As shown in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report,the present worth of the electric energy demand,with an intertie to Bethel,is equal to $1,524,000 for Plans IIIA and IIIB,and $1,572,000 for Plans IIIC,D,and E.These present worth values are greater than the Base Case present worth.As a result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Oscarville to a coal- fired plant in Bethel.The present worth is then equal to the present worth of the Optimized Base Case. XI-15 Hydropower Supply Plans An economic evaluation of the intertie to Akiak was done, usiny an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000 per kilowatt.As shown on Table XI-7,the present worth of the electric demand which includes the intertie is lower than the present worth of the Base Case,The hydropower supply plans have the lowest present worth of all supply plans.Both plans have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.10 when compared to the Optimized Base Case, Fuel Cell Supply Plans An incremental construction cost of $1,000 per kilowatt was used for the economic evaluation of villaye interties.As shown on Table XI-7,the present worth of the electric demand which includes the intertie is about the same as the present worth of the Base Case,The fuel cell alternatives have an overall benefit-cost ratio of 1.01 when compared to the Optimized Base Case. Sensitivity Analysis The timing and rate of conversion from fuel oil to coal or electric heat to meet the heating demand would directly affect the value of all supply plans,except the Base Case.For the purpose of the economic analysis,we assumed a 100 percent con- version in 1988 to coal direct combustion for space heating. But,actually,the conversion would be more proyressive.As a result,the present worth of all alternative supply plans to the Base Case would increase,thereby reducing the difference with the Base Case. A sensitivity analysis was first performed to analyze the impacts of fuel escalation rates.The same supply plans were reevaluated using 0%real fuel escalation for fuel oil and coal. The results are summarized in Table XI-8,. XI-16 Table XI-8 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS USING 0%REAL FUEL ESCALATION Total Demand Benefit-Cost RatioPresentWorth(1982 $x103)With With Heating Electric Total Base Optimized Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Case Base Case Base Case Plan I 1,502 1,216 2,718 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 1,435 1,216 2,651 1,03 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 1,435 1,216 2,651 1.03 1.00 Plan IIIB 1,435 1,216 2,651 1.03 1.00 Plan IIIC 1,435 1,216 2,651 1,03 1.00 Plan IIID 1,435 1,216 2,651 1.03 1.00 Plan IIIE 1,435 1,216 2,651 1.03 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 1,435 1,124 2,559 1,06 1.04 Plan IVB 1,435 1,124 2,559 1.06 1.04 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 1,435 1,216 2,651 1,03 1.00 Plan VB 1,435 1,216 2,651 1.03 1.00 Table XI-8 shows that the hydroelectric plans still have a benefit-cost ratio greater than the Optimized Base Case,if there is no real escalation in fuel cost. Another sensitivity analysis was performed to analyze the impacts of the low and high projections of energy demand.Simi- lar supply plans using a 4-MW and 10-MW coal-fired plant,a 9-MW hydroelectric plant,and a 9-MW fuel cell plant were analyzed. The analysis was done using a 2.5%real escalation for fuel oil, and 2.0%for coal until year 2002.The results are presented in Table XI-9, XI-17 8I-IXTable XI-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS (1982 $x103) Low Scenario Most Likely Scenario High Scenario Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Base Case Plan I 1,810 1,168 2,978 2,173 1,443 3,616 2,598 1,647 4,245 Optimized Base Case Plan II 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Plan IIIB 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Plan IIIC 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Plan IIID 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Plan IIIE 1,560 1,168 2,978 1,782 1,443 3,225 2,047 1,647 3,694 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 1,560 1,088 2,648 1,782 1,153 2,935 2,047 1,190 3,237 Plan IVB 1,560 1,088 2,648 1,782 1,153 2,935 2,047 1,190 3,237 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 1,560 1,728 2,648 1,782 1,426 3,208 2,047 1,410 3,458 Plan VB 1,560 1,728 2,648 1,782 1,426 3,208 2,047 1,410 3,458 Under the Low Scenario,the conversion to coal-direct combustion for heating demand would still provide substantial savings,assuming a 100%percent conversion in 1988.Under the High Scenario,the hydroelectric plans have the lowest present worth,with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.31 when compared to the Base Case,and 1.14 when compared to the Optimized Base Case. Regional Summary The regional analysis for Bethel and the twelve surrounding villages shows that conversion to coal direct combustion for heating would provide significant economic benefit.Under the Most Likely Scenario,assuming a complete conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth of the heating costs would be reduced by about 30%or $169 million (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039,Wind generation was only found to be economically feasible in the villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak.Diesel waste heat recovery was not found to be economically attractive in the villages when it is compared to coal heating.Transmission interties to the outlying villages are only economically attractive under the Hydroelectric Supply Plans where the cost of electric generation (fuel and operation and maintenance costs)are negligible. Table XI-10 shows the ranking of the energy supply plans under the Low,Most Likely,and High Scenarios.The first part of the table shows the ranking under the total demand,including both the heating and electric demand.Under the Low Scenario, only the Fuel Cell Supply Plan with waste heat recovery (Plan VB)is more attractive than the Optimized Base Case.Under the Most Likely and High Scenarios,the Hydroelectric Supply Plans are the most attractive.Assuming no real fuel escalation over the period 1982-2039,the Optimized Base Case is the best plan. The second part of the table shows the ranking under the electric demand.Under the Most Likely Scenario,with real fuel escalation during the period 1982-2001,the Hydroelectric Supply Plans are the only plans which have a present worth lower than the Optimized Base Case.Under the Most Likely Scenario with no real fuel escalation,the Base Case Supply Plan has the lowest present worth. Environmental Evaluation A detailed description of the environmental impact,cost, or risk that may occur with each of the technologies associated with the selected energy supply plans is given in the Regional Report. XI-19 O¢c-IXTable XI-10 RANKING OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Total Demand Electric Demand With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E.With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E.Low Most Likely High Most Likely Low Most Likely High Most LikelySupplyPlansScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenario Base Case Plan I 11 11 ll 10 1 3 4 1 Optimized Base Case Plan II 3 5 6 1 2 2 3 2 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 Plan IIIB 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 Plan IIIC 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 Plan IIID 8 7 . 8 8 6 6 6 6 Plan IIIE 10 10 10 1l 6 ;6 6 6 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 2 2 2 3 4 l 1 5 Plan IVB 3 1 1 7 4 1 ) 1 5 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6 6 5 5 3 4 2 3 Plan VB 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 Assumes 2.5%real escalation rate for fuel oil and 2.0%for coal during the period 1982-2001.No escalation rates are assumed after 2001. Environmentally,the Base Case is probably the most desi- reable of all the selected supply plans.No transmission lines would be used.The small separate generating systems located throughout the region would not create any large impact.En- vironmental drawbacks to the Base Case are the potentials for spill and fire hazard involved in fuel handling and storage. Due to the use of coal for space heating,the supply plan alternatives would be less desireable than the Base Case.Run- off and dust from storage piles,combustion emissions,and ash disposal will all impact the environment to a certain degree, and the public acceptance to coal for space heating is yet to be determined. Other key environmental constraints involve impacts of the hydroelectric project operation on aquatic and _terrestrial resources,and impacts of the transmission lines on birds and access to subsistence. XI-21 pa exvorr 1Cin”o,:Loke ,::OF oo 8 8=fi OP"Sakiachakchuk=}no px ©tmautluak |ay Kwethluk cy Oscarville Le Napaskiak °al Napakiak -s.n7 SS =D eR al E S "es Q 5a|Tuntutuliak ae Be-ee ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY \MILES BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENTNFAIRBANKS\0 4 8 12 16 20 -Loa 1 4 J BETHEL ancnorace |SCALE 11,000,000 COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP ee PAS JUNEAU HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY oly KEY MAPaoa December 1982 Exhibit 2 OSCARVILLE POPULATION HISTORICAL DATA,PROJECTIONS,ANNUAL GROWTH RATES HISTORICAL DATA Annual Year Population Growth Rate (%) 1950 27 6.6 1960 51 -2.2 1970 4l 3.2 1980 56 PROJECTIONS Most Year Low Likely High 1980 56 56 56 Annual Growth Rate:1.73%2.25%2.5% 1987 63 65 66 Annual Growth Rates:1%1.5%2% 1992 66 69 73 Annual Growth Rate:0.53%1%1.5% 2002 69 76 85 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST 1981 PROFILE,Oscarville,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light &SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianooaononanweamomoraom($000)---(No.)-=--(Million Btu)alae COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 135 11 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 5 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.1 0 0 0 25 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 21 2 4 0 438 0 4 Finance &Real Est.7 1 1 0 87 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.3 0 2 0 94 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.119 7 118 0 949 130 118 State Agencies/Svcs 2 0 1 0 47 0 1 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 8 1 1 0 45 0 1 **eTransfer Payments 117 TOTAL 430 23 127 0 1705 130 127 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)56 Household Size 4.7 Total Households 12 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)148 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)113 550 1030 69 69 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)240 550 2735 199 196 €LIGNHHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST=LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfg. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm.and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect-Space Water Light & Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian($000)---(No,.)eee enn (Million Btu)---- 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2 4 0 410 0 4 7 1 1 0 83 0 1 3 0 2 0 89 0 2 113 7 112 0 901 124 112 3 0 1 0 53 0 1 5 0 1 0 27 0 1 99 404 22 121 0 1609 124 121 65 4.4 15 161 152 743 1391 93 93 273 743 3000 217 214TOTALENERGY(M,.Btu)6JOLoabegbvLISIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianodentastaahateniaennateanenatenateteteteteintates($000)---(No.)emer nnn nnn nn-=(Million Btu)-----<-------------COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 152 13 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.1 0 0 0 28 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 22 2 4 0 457 0 4 Finance &Real Est.8 1 1 0 92 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.3 0 2 0 95 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.138 8 137 0 1098 151 137 State Agencies/Svcs 3 0 1 0 56 0 1 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 5 0 1 0 27 0 1 **eTransfer Payments 105 TOTAL 455 25 146 0 1875 151 146 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)69 Household Size 4.3 Total Households 16 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)175 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)179 873 1634 109 109 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)325 873 3509 260 255 640ZofegbvLIGIHX43 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska SECTOR Income Emplymt SS mee ee ee ($000)---(No.)= COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 14 Mining &Exploration 0 Construction 169 1 Household Mfq.1 Transportation 6 Wholesale,Dist,1 Comm.and Utilities 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 25 Finance &Real Est.9 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.4 Local &Reg.Govt.156 State Agencies/Svcs 3 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 7 *k*eTransfer Payments 138 oowoKMNnNOCOOChOfFElect- ricity Space Cooking Heating to,]muonsKePMmMooonoeooooeoooooooocoo0oc;c”[eTOTAL 533 27 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)76 Household Size 4 Total Households 19 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)192 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)oryatn234 400 of1143 1143 (Million Btu)- 2140 Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 171 155 0 2 0 1 171 166 142 142 313 3084302 630&obegvLISIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfg. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm,and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***ePransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) Light & Applian 89 Elect-Space WaterIncomeEmplymtricityCookingHeatingHeating($000)-- (No.)---(Million Btu)----<<-------------- 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 19 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 2 4 0 389 0 6 0 1 0 76 0 2 0 1 0 73 0 110 7 110 0 878 121 2 0 1 0 40 0 5 0 1 0 27 0 88 383 21 118 0 1527 121 63 4.4 14 158 145 711 1331 89 263 711 2858 210 207 630»abeyyLISIHXA BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Oscarville.Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianteetaeatecteataaaheteetenetee($000)---(No.)ewe nmm nnn nnn (Million Btu)-ce seer e nner n----- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 138 12 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 5 0 0 0 20 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.1 0 0 0 27 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pyt.Service 20 2 4 0 420 0 4 Finance &Real Est.7 1 1 0 81 0 l GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.2 0 2 0 80 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.120 7 120 0 958 132 120 State Agencies/Svcs 2 0 1 0 45 0 1 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 4 0 0 0 21 0 0 **k*keTransfer Payments 88 TOTAL 400 23 128 0 1652 132 128 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)66 Household Size 4.3 Total Households 15 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)169 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)165 809 1515 101 101 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)293 809 3167 233 229 6409GabegvLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Appliansoshestanlanhentannietanenhetenheahenaehetetenate($000)----(No.)ern ewnnnnnnnn=(Million Btu)----9-<<nnen----== COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 175 15 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.1 0 0 0 31 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 22 2 4 0 452 0 4 Finance &Real Est.7 1 1 0 88 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.3 0 2 0 89 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.125 8 124 0 994 137 124 State Agencies/Svcs 2 0 1 0 45 0 1 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 4 0 0 0 21 0 0 ***Transfer Payments 88 TOTAL 446 27 132 0 1742 137 132 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)69 Household Size 4.5 Total Households 15 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)181 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)178 869 1628 108 108 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)310 869 3370 245 240 6499oabegbvLISIHX43 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfq. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm.and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. 'State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) Elect-Space Water Light & Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian($000)-- (No.)(Million Btu)---- 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 2 4 0 483 0 4 8 1 1 0 100 0 1 3 0 2 0 104 0 2 126 8 126 0 1006 138 126 3 0 1 0 54 0 1 9 1 1 0 52 0 1 134 490 27 135 0 1849 138 135 66 4.3 15 164 161 788 1475 98 98 296 788 3324 236 233 63°ZabevyLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian---- ---=-=-($000)---(No.)(Million Btu)- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 Construction 196 16 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.2 0 0 0 0.0 0 Transportation 6 0 0 0 26 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.1 0 0 0 33 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pyt.Service 27 2 5 0 560 0 5 Finance &Real Est.9 1 1 0 114 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.3 0 2 0 109 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.155 9 154 0 1236 170 154 State Agencies/Svcs 3 0 1 0 60 0 1 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 11 1 1 0 58 0 1 ***Transfer Payments 140 TOTAL 568 30 164 0 2196 (170 164 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)73 Household Size 4 Total Households 18 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)179 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)208 1017 1904 127 127 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)372 1017 4100 297 291 630gebegyLIIHXa BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Oscarville,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian ----------($000)---(No.)-(Million Btu)--- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 253 21 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 7 0 0 0 30 0 0 WholeSale,Dist.1 0 0 0 39 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 30 3 6 0 626 0 6 Finance &Real Est.11 1 2 0 128 0 2 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.3 0 2 0 114 0 2 Local &Reg.Govt.163 10 162 0 1298 178 162 State Agencies/Svcs 3 0 2 0 66 0 2 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 12 1 2 0 67 0 2 *kkeTransfer Payments 158 TOTAL 662 37 176 0 2368 178 176 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)85 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 24 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)209 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)322 1573 2946 196 196 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)498 1573 5314 374 372 6306d6egyLISIHX3 Exhibit 5 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION,OSCARVILLE Residential Sector Million Btu Lights &Appliances Electricity 69 Space Heating Electricity 17 Fuel Oil 443 Wood 570 Water Heating Fuel Oil 33 Wood 36 Cooking Electricity 27 Fuel Oil 433 Propane/Blazo 90 614 Total 1,718 Commercial Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity 5 Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil 570 Total 575 Government Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity 122 Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil 1,265 Total 1,387 Equivalent Btu 3:kilowatt-hour =3,413,Btu gallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu gallon of blazo =136,000 Btu 100-1b bottle of propane =2,500,000 Btu cord of wood =13,000,000 Btueee DIESEL (1200)ELECTRIC GENERATION PROPANE /BLAZO woopD FUEL OIL EXHIBIT 6 REJECTED ENERGY eo © Q o © 2(19g)|LIGHTS ANDAPPLIANCES Ry = eo(90)= =<COOKINGoO o = >> o So 2 %5©24 SPACE LOY AND WATER =HEATING 3=Bba]=USEFUL ENERGY ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS;MILLION Btu) 1981 ENERGY BALANCE OSCARVILLE HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 7 SUBSTI SITE Oe eeCehe/asrERALLARBOWOded! HELEN ATEN®RESID.: : GEERT Cuncit,ae ge2i° _/\ne (mndedl|Y GENERATOR SHacd.Tae).=a]/RuddioauimTaeLex=9 tL a * APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF \/7pzEXISTINGRIGHT-OF-WAY TO BETHEL \.--{]i A ' ©4149,oT? of Xs w/@ af ”* /\re &9 a rs)a NetTeE* 2 VLA TE TRACED FM EULARGEDAERIALPHOTOGRAPHSDATED©1272 a A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN a ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION -OSCARVILLE See FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM P.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY 0.0.Box 4-2545 Anchorage,AlaskaPhone(907)276-5442 99509 December 1982