Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-110 NunapitchukBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G 10 NUNAPITCHUK 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 Table No. X-1 X-10 LIST OF TABLES Title Nunapitchuk Household Size Nunapitchuk Employment and Income Nunapitchuk Projected Annual Earnings Nunapitchuk 1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption Existing Generating Facilities Nunapitchuk 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- X-15 X-18 X-19 X-21 Exhibit No. 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Community Location Map Nunapitchuk Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Nunapitchuk Economic and Energy Projections,Nunapitchuk 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Nunapitchuk 1981 Energy Balance,Nunapitchuk Electrical Distribution System -ili- NUNAPITCHUK COMMUNITY REPORT Introduction The Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment has been performed by Harza Engineering 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 Nunapitchuk 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 Nunapitchuk 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 transmis- sion 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 electric- al energy and space-heating needs of the region through year 2002,and those of Nunapitchuk in particular.These alternative plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint. This community report for Nunapitchuk is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Background Nunapitchuk is located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Low- land approximately 24 miles northwest of Bethel and two miles east of Kasigluk on the Johnson River (Exhibit 1).The village is located well within the vast silt plain that characterizes the lower drainage area of the Kuskokwim River.This delta lowland area contains thousands of thaw lakes,ponds,and tundra hummocks. Nunapitchuk and Kasigluk are located within the vast wet tundra plains region.People accordingly often refer to these communities as the "tundra villages".Standing water is almost always present during the summer due to the lack of topographic relief,which makes overland travel extremely difficult.Vege- tation is limited to grasses and sedges rooted in mosses and lichens with a few dwarf shrubs existing on slightly raised X-1 ridges.The only available firewood must be pulled from the riverbank of the Kuskokwim 25 miles away.Consequently,fire- wood usage is primarily limited to heating steam houses which provide a form of bathing. Access to Nunapitchuk 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 li- mited primarily to the winter season.Both the Johnson River and the Kuskokwim River are used as a roadway for taxis and truck freight during the winter season after the ice has thick- ened.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 oftravelinwinter. Little is known about the history of Nunapitchuk.The coming of the Russians in the first half of the 19th Century had little influence on the village.It is known that the fore- fathers of the present day inhabitants of Nunapitchuk migrated from Nanvarnarluk in the 1920's,and that many residents of Nunapitchuk have migrated to Atmautluak.When Nunapitchuk ap- plied for incorporation in 1968,it consolidated with Kasigluk. This consolidation has since been dissolved. Beside the municipal government,the Native population (predominantly Kuskwogmuit Eskimo)in Nunapitchuk is represented by an IRA Council.The IRA Council form of government was established under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.Tradi- tional councils were formed in response to contact with non- Native culture so that the Native community secured representa- tion.There is very little difference between the operation of traditional and IRA Councils.Both are eligible to participate in some state and federal programs,and have received benefits under the Indian Self Determination Act,the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act,the Housing and Community Development Act,the Comprehensive Employment Training 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,Nunapitchuk,Ltd.,was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.The corporation is entitled to received title to the surface estate of 115,200 acres of land.Nunapitchuk has received interim conveyance of about 94,000 acres. In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Nunapitchuk in April 1982.Village residents and officials were invited to attend. Population As shown on Exhibit 2,the population of Nunapitchuk increased from 217 in 1970 to 264 in 1980,at an average annual rate of 2 percent.The racial composition has not changed, remaining at about 97 percent Alaskan Native.The age charac- teristics of the population have changed,however.In 1970,the number of young people was high,and the average age was about 16.Since then,a significant number of young people apparently left the region in order to find jobs or to pursue their educa- tion.In 1980,the average age was about 20. Three scenarios of population projections are also present- ed on Exhibit 2.These projections were developed in conjunc- tion 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 immigration or emigration.The projections also reflect a general decline of state population growth rates predicted by the U.S.Depart- ment of Commerce.In year 2002,the Nunapitchuk population is expected to be between 340 and 397 persons. Housing According to the 1980 Census,there were about 50 homes in the community;most homes were owner-occupied.There is no piped water system in the community;residents obtain water at the two watering points/washeterias. The average floor space of the most recently built homes (HUD)are approximately 1200 square feet,while the older structures contain roughly half of this floor area.Whereas the older homes are less well insulated,they are often better built and better sited away from wind exposure and snow drifting than the newer homes. The future housing stock will play an important role in determining future residential energy demands.The average number of persons per housing unit decreased from about 5.5 in 1970 to 5.0 in 1980.The improved household income and the supply of subsidized housing units were the major factors for this decline.These factors are expected to continue to reduce the average household size.However,because of the reductions in subsidized programs,the household size is expected to de- crease at a lower rate after 1987.As shown in Table X-1l,the X-3 Generators are in good condition,but can only generate at 60 percent of rated capacity because of single phase operation. The distribution system (Exhibit 7)is four years old and has functioned well in Nunapitchuk,but has had some problems in Kasigluk. Table X-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES Operating |Owner/Operator Status Capacity (kW) Nunapitchuk: AVEC Primary 400 AVEC Primary 300 AVEC Primary 175 LKSD Standby 75 BIA Standby 35 BIA Standby 40 Kasigluk;: LKSD Standby 55 BIA Standby 35 BIA Standby 55 Total Capacity 1175 kw Future Energy Demand Three projections of future energy demand (low,most likely,high)were developed,based on current use,socio- economic projections,and assumptions regarding future end use demand.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 conservative growth 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 X-10 and high scenario,respectively.Table X-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 vary between 335 and 520 MWh in year 2002,with a most likely demand of 435 MWh.The most like- ly 2002 peak demand is 125 kW. Table X-6 NUNAPITCHUK ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 106) 1981 Demand N/A 19,401 N/A 1987 Demand 20,630 21,637 23,736 1992 Demand 22,877 25,853 29,327 2002 Demand 26,529 34,549 42,579 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 260 260 260 1987 Demand 270 280 310 1992 Demand 300 335 380 2002 Demand 335 435 520 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 heating needs.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 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 villages were also considered for each of the five plans. The results of the economic feasibility to intertie Nunapitchuk 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 heating 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 10-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 from 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 energy pro- duction would be 60 GWh,or about 21 GWh more than the projected electric energy demand in 2002,under the most likely projections.That average surplus of energy would meet about 7%of the total heating requirements of Bethel, in year 2002.The second plan (Plan IVB)consists of a development that approaches the topographic limits of the site.The 24-MW project would produce an average annual energy of 120 GwWh.This development would meet the proj- ected electric energy demand and about 27%of the heating 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 Kwethluk and Akiachak. Additional transmission interties to the other village were also considered,The economic feasibility of interconnecting Nunapitchuk is presented in the following section. V.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 Nunapitchuk 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 guidelines (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 growths are assumed to be zero.A discount rate of 3.5 percent is used to X-13 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- ministration,taxes,etc.The present worth of consumer costs would be signficantly 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 timing of capacity additions and costs presented in the Regional Report,the present worth of costs for each supply plan was computed.Table X-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Nunapitchuk.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. 14HadI Table X-7 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF THE SUPPLY PLANS 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 11,128 3,259 14,387 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Plan IIIB 7,738 3,259 10,997 1,31 1.00 Plan IIIc 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Plan IIID 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Plan IIIE 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 7,738 1,783 9,521 1.51 1.16 Plan IVB 7,738 1,783 9,521 1.51 1.16 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 Plan VB 7,738 3,259 10,997 1.31 1.00 The following paragraphs describe the results for Nunapitchuk under each supply plan.A regional summary is presented 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 X-7,the total present worth of the Base Case is $14,387,000 of which $3,259,000 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 conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth of the heating costs would be reduced by about $3,390,000 (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 found to be marginally attractive in Nunapitchuk when it is compared to coal heating.Transmission intertie to Bethel or a sub-regional transmission intertie between Nunapitchuk,Kasigluk,and Atmautluak was not found to be economically feasible. As shown on Table X-7,the total present worth of the Optimized Base Case is $10,997,000.The benefit-cost ratio is 1.31 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the electric energy demand is identical to the Base Case.The present worth of the heating demand was reduced from $11,128,000 to $7,738,000. Thermal Supply Plans As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was performed to decide whether or not Nunapitchuk 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 of the Nunapitchuk- Kasigluk-Atmautluak sub-regional intertie to Bethel is greater than the present worth of the Base Case.As a result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Nunapitchuk to a coal-fired plant in Bethel.The present worth is then equal to the present worth of the Optimized Base Case.% Hydropower Supply Plans An economic evaluation of the intertie to Akiak was done, using an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000 per kilowatt.As shown on Table X-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 1.16 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 village interties.As shown in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report,the present worth of the electric energy demand of the Nunapitchuk-Kasigluk-Atmautluak sub-regional intertie to Bethel is greater than he present worth of the Base Case.As a result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Nunapitchuk to a fuel cell power plant in Bethel.The present worth is then equal to the present worth of 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 progressive.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 X-8. Table X-8 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS USING 0%REAL FUEL ESCALATION 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 7,644 2,445 10,089 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 5,939 2,445 8,384 1,20 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 5,939 2,445 8,384 1.20 1.00 Plan IIIB 5,939 2,445 8,384 1,20 1.00 Plan IIIc 5,939 2,445 8,384 1,20 1,00 Plan IIID 5,939 2,445 8,384 1.20 1.00 Plan IIIE 5,939 2,445 8,384 1,20 1,00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,939 1,677 7,616 1.33 1.10 Plan IVB 5,939 1,677 7,616 1.33 1.10 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,939 2,445 8,384 1,20 1,00 Plan VB 5,939 2,445 8,384 1.20 1.00 Table X-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 X-9., X-18 TO-XTable X-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 1l 11 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 ll 6 6 6 6 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 2 2 2 3 4 1 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 areassumedafter2001. 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 1.54 when compared to the Base Case,and 1.16 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 X-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. 61-XLow Scenario Table X-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS (1982 $x10 ) 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 9,130 2,680 11,783 11,128 3,259 14,387 13,175 3,731 16,906 Optimized Base Case Plan II 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Plan IIIB 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Plan IIIC 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Plan IIID 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Plan IIIE 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 6,499 1,634 8,133 7,738 1,783 9,521 9,007 1,944 10,951 Plan IVB 6,499 1,634 8,133 7,738 1,783 9,521 9,007 1,944 10,951 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6,499 2,680 9,179 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,738 Plan VB 6,499 2,680 9,179 7,738 3,259 10,997 9,007 3,731 12,378 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.mxJ22 e n Xena o 3 é wr |T .¢ge SYfii. Nunapitchuk| WTS eryoe fs Atmautluak |y en ie&°BETHEL {3 NIN."Lg Oscarville }2BETHEL OLS FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE-.Ss . JUNEAUg KEY MAP MILES 0 4 8 12 16 20 Lo |es | SCALE 1:1,000,000 IT 1 TITTY ™ EXHIB 0 &_/Take 8ee ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 NUNAPITCHUK POPULATION AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATESHISTORICALDATA,PROJECTIONS, HISTORICAL DATA PROJECTIONS Year Population 1970 217 1980 264 Year "Low 1980 264 Annual Growth Rate:1.5% 1987 292 Annual Growth Rates:1% 1992 308 Annual Growth Rates 1% 2002 340 Exhibit 2 Annual Growth Rate (3) 2.0 Most Likely 264 1.5% 292 1.5% 316 1.5% 367 High 264 2% 303 1.8% 332 1.8% 397 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST Elect - SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity --($000)---(No.)- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 55 4 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 Construction 294 25 0 Household Mfq.5 1 0 Transportation 14 1 2 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 3 Comm.and Utilities 29 2 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 95 8 16 Finance &Real Est.34 3 2 GOVERNMENT Non=Profit Org.19 1 ll Local &Reg.Govt.585 35 446 State Agencies/Svcs ll 1 5 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 38 3 5 ***Transfer Payments 557 TOTAL 1741 85 490 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)268 Household Size 5 Total Households 54 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)197 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)400 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)890 1981 PROFILE,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Cooking Heating --(Million Btu)oooooooo0oo0o0o0°oc]e2632 2632 Space Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 2 23 0 3 0 0 0 423 0 16 79 0 2 307 38 ll 4460 854 446 97 0 5 127 0 5 5580 892 490 7159 421 316 12739 1313 806 €LISIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY 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-Protit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs *kkTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,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.)"<=-(Million Btu)--- 55 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 25 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 2 0 64 0 2 5 l 3 0 23 0 3 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 89 8 15 0 396 0 15 32 2 2 0 76 0 2 18 1 10 0 291 36 10 556 34 424 0 4238 812 424 12 1 5 0 109 0 5 23 2 3 0 77 0 3 473 1609 82 464 0 5274 848 464 292 4.7 62 209 492 3235 8799 518 388 956 3235 14073 1366 852TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)630|a6eg-yLIGIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianshetetetestententeatesteteten($000)---(No.)<=(Million Btu)-- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 61 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 330 28 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 16 1 2 0 72 0 2 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 3 0 25 0 3 Comm.and Utilities 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 99 9 16 0 441 0 16 Finance &Real Est.36 3 2 0 84 0 2 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.19 1 11 0 311 39 11 Local &Reg.Govt.677 41 516 0 5161 989 516 State Agencies/Svcs 13 1 6 0 116 0 6 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 23 2 3 0 77 0 3 ***eTransfer Payments 501 TOTAL 1818 95 559 0 6287 1028 559 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)316 Household Size>4.5 Total Households 70 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)221 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)587 3865 10512 618 464 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1146 3865 16799 1646 1023 640ZabeyLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianaleateteatasieaeetete!($000)---(No.)==--(Million Btu)- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 68 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 369 31 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.6 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 18 1 3 0 82 0 3 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 4 0 28 0 4 Comm.and Utilities 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 113 10 19 0 501 0 19 Finance &Real Est.43 3 2 0 101 0 2 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.26 2 15 0 412 51 15 Local &Reg.Govt.767 46 585 0 5847 1120 585 State Agencies/Svcs 15 1 7 0 140 0 7 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 32 2 4 0 108 0 4 ***Transfer Payments 657 TOTAL 2159 106 639 0 7219 1171 639 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)367 Household Size 4 Total Households 92 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)242 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)843 5544 15079 887 665 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1482 5544 22298 2058 1304 640©ebegvLIGIHX3 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 ***eTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity($000)--=-(No.)-_---em on on ee 53 4 0 0 0 0 292 24 0 4 1 0 13 1 2 5 0 3 26 2 0 84 7 14 30 2 2 15 1 9 542 33 413 9 1 4 23 2 3 417 1513 78 450 292 4.9 60 207 467 917TOTALENERGY(M.Btu) Space Cooking Heating ooooooooco°ooeo0oo3074 3074 (Million Btu) 8360 13412 Water Heating 492 1313 Light & Applian &WihWODOrOWNDOCO0O369 819 630»efegyLISIHX BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light &OOWbheceoocoooo°c”eeora>wnNnNMWOWNDOCOSOSECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian--"=-($000)---(No.)---(Million Btu)-- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 58 5 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 300 25 0 0 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 0 0 Transportation 14 1 2 0 64 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 3 0 24 Comm.and Utilities 31 2 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 91 8 15 0 405 Finance &Real Est.31 2 2 0 74 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.16 l 9 0 262 Local &Reg.Govt.591 36 451 0 4506 State Agencies/Svcs 10 1 5 0 92 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 17 1 2 0 58 **xkeTransfer Payments 417 TOTAL 1586 84 489 0 5485 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)308 Household Size 4.7 Total Households 66 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)211 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)524 3445 9371 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1013 3445 14856 551 1446 413 902 6$0GobeyyLISIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian "=-=($000)---(No.)(Million Btu)----o-- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 66 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 381 32 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 16 1 2 0 73 0 2 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 3 0 28 0 3 Comm.and Utilities 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 98 9 16 0 437 0 16 Finance &Real Est.34 3 2 0 80 0 2 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.18 1 10 0 292 36 10 Local &Reg.Govt.613 37 467 0 4672 895 467 State Agencies/Svcs 10 1 5 0 92 0 5 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 17 1 2 0 58 0 2 ***Transfer Payments 417 TOTAL 1715 94 507 0 5732 931 507 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)340 Household Size 4.5 Total Households 76 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)223 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)638 4197 11415 671 504 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1145 4197 17147 1602 1011 609abegvLISIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH 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 ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) Cooking Heating oooooooo°oc”coo°co3491 Elect - Income Emplymt ricity($000)---(No.)een nnn 62 5 0 0 0 0 356 30 0 8 1 0 16 1 2 5 1 3 35 2 0 105 9 17 39 3 2 21 2 12 621 38 473 12 l 5 44 3 6 640 1964 96 520 303 4.6 66 213 531 1051 3491 (Million Btu) Space Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 2 25 0 3 0 0 0 467 0 17 91 0 2 338 42 12 4730 906 473 111 0 5 146 0 6 5981 948 520 9496 559 419 15477 1507 939 6JO/abegyLISIHXa3 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-Protit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs **k*kTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households 1992 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect- ricity Space Cooking HeatingIncomeEmplymt ($000)---(No.)= 74 6 0 0 426 36 11 2 18 1 6 1 43 3 121 11 44 3 22 2 762 46 14 1 49 4 668 2258 116 332 4.3 77 227UsageRate(M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)NWoOOoORnRWwWOodo_Ww581 663 1300 ooooooooo0oceooeo4364 4364 (Million Btu) 11870 19084 Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 20 0 3 44 13 1113 581 0 6 0 7 1157 637 698 524 1855 1161 630gobeg-yLIGIHXa BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Nunapitchuk,Alaska Elect-Space Cooking HeatingSECTORIncomeEmplymtricity loa antenatal ($000)---(No.)<<< COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 86 7 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 Construction 551 46 0 Household Mfq.13 2 0 Transportation 21 1 3 Wholesale,Dist.7 1 4 Comm.and Utilities 50 3 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 136 12 23 Finance &Real Est.50 4 3 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.23 2 13 Local &Reg.Govt.801 48 610 State Agencies/Svcs 15 1 7 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 57 4 8 **eTransfer Payments 751 TOTAL 2561 131 671 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)397 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 113 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)256 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1100 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1771 ooooooooooco°oce7234 7234 (Million Btu) 19676 27334 Water Heating 116 1157 2372 Light & Applian NSWWORWOOOSra)WwW610 868 1539 6306abegyLIGIHXa 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, Residential Sector Light and Appliances Electricity Space Heating Electricity Fuel oil Wood Propane/Blazo Water Heating Fuel Oil Wood Propane/Blazo Cooking Electricity Fuel Oil Propane/Blazo Total Commercial Sector Lights and Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil Lights and Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil Total Equivalent Btus PeeeeExhibit 5 NUNAPITCHUK Million Btu kilowatt-hour = gallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu gallon of blazo 100-1b bottle of propane = cord of wood =13,000,000 Btu 1 316 55 6,177 693 234 346 31 44 51 1,750 831 0,528 3,413,Btu 136,000 Btu 2,500,000 Btu DIESEL (4,500)Le4(3,588)(80g)T LIGHTS AND _EXHIBIT 6 REJECTED ENERGY >APPLIANCES PROPANE/BLAZO COOKING '%,NeySPACE'goy AND FUEL OIL 'g]WATER a N]HEATING 3 3 2 USEFUL ENERGY ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS:MILLION Btu) 1981 ENERGY BALANCE NUNAPITCHUK HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 7 Page1 of 2 oe.Lawort'+Soe Up os./ °(SRA EOE ES 0 >vi EDU Ae iV\]ib '- \y eof ."wh "7 : /{_-( . /cyaS / mn . ”> LEGEND AND NOTES s v eeeee TIELINE \-----PRIMARY CABLE,15 KV NO.2 AL. ic ntetenteentetetand SECONDARY CABLE,600V NO.4/0-2/0-4/0AL.SERVICE CABLE,600V NO.2-2-2 AL. ee et FUEL LINE,3°BLACK STEEL TRANSFORMER,(®12,470/7,200-240/120V PAD MOUNTEDray 0 POWER PEDESTAL,SECONDARY AND SERVICE fe]SERVICE METER,@.200 30A I 120/240V 3 WIRE Oo ° o t xs ..Le N Cy Oo\ET gece or useance caneLe"ay ;CI syauey aneae '"U seronectracL).SNKafnws \vf a "3NLx\d . \Y ™ c "3ae) eee N-"EN .esad'aeon"skee@RADE LEVEL ENCLOSURE FOR PRIMARY SPLICE DISCONNECTEO SERVICE METER QUIKPIPE ALL WIRES ARE BURIED UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE WHERE WIRES ARE SHOWN PARALLEL THEY OCCUPY THE SAME TRENCH,UTILIDOR OR QUIKPIPE EXISTING AVEC TE LINETOKASIGLUK u >me ss (NAD are / ie is PD?COS ES -u UTILIDOR Dry RRO GhAnneey, ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLANAVECPROPOSEDSUBMARINECABLECROSSING FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT.:ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION -NUNAPITCHUK ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMP.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY P.O.Box 4-2543 Anchorage,Alaska -(9071276 S442 vesce December 1982 , EXHIBIT 7 Page 2 of 2 2 .ait ARLTCHU K TRVE"NORTHAKOLMIUT AIRPORT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NUNAPITCHUK -KASIGLUK INTERTIE P.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS :HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY 0.0.Bon 4-2543 Anchorage,AlaskaPhone(9071 276-5442 wesos December 1982