Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-13 TuntutuliakBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G-13 TUNTUTULIAK 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 Page XIII-1 XIII-1 XIII-2 XIII-3 XIII-3 XIII-4 XIII-4 AIITI-7 XIII-8 XIII-8 XIII-9 XIII-10 XIII-11 XIII-13 XITI-14 XIII-14 XIII-16 XIITI-16 XIII-16 XIII-16 XIII-18 XII1I-21 Table No. XIII-1 XIII-2 XIII-3 XIII-4 XIII-5 XIII-6 XITI-7 XIITI-8 XIII-9 XIII-10 LIST OF TABLES Tuntutuliak Household Size Tuntutuliak Employment and Income Tuntutuliak Projected Annual Earnings Tuntutuliak 1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption Existing Generating Facilities Tuntutuliak 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 XIII-3 XIII-5 XIII-7 XIII-9 XIII-10 XIII-11 XIITI-15 XIII-17 XIII-19 XIITI-20 Exhibit No. 1 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Title Community Location Map Tuntutuliak Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Tuntutuliak Economic and Energy Projections,Tuntutuliak 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Tuntutuliak 1981 Energy Balance,Tuntutuliak Electrical Distribution System -iii- TUNTUTULIAK 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 Tuntutuliak 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 Tuntutuliak 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 elec- trical energy and space-heating needs of the region through year 2002,and those of Tuntutuliak in particular.These alternative plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint. This community report for Tuntutuliak is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Background Tuntutuliak is situated in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Low- land,45 miles southwest of Bethel (Exhibit 1).The village is located near the coastal edge of the vast silt plain that char- acterizes the lower drainage area of the Kuskokwim River.The vegetation surrounding the village site consists of wet tundra. Standing water is almost always present during the summer due to the lack of topographic relief,and it makes overland travel ex- tremely difficult. Vegetation is limited to grasses and sedges rooted in mosses and lichens with a few dwarf shrubs existing on slightly raised ridges.The only available firewood is driftwood blown up on the nearby shores of Kuskokwim Bay by storms.The salt content of this firewood is therefore high which causes damage to many wood buring stoves and limits their use.Consequently, XIII-1 firewood usage is primarily limited to heating steam houses which provide a form of bathing. Access to Tuntutuliak is principally by year-round charter air service and limited summer lighterage service from Bethel. There are no road systems in the area.Overland movement is limited primarily to the winter season.Snow machines provide the most competent mode of travel in winter. Tuntutuliak's history is a recent one;the U.S.Census first lists the community in 1950.The town's name means "many caribou".Tuntutuliak is an unincorporated community. Tuntutuliak's Native population is represented by a Tradi- tional Council which is recognized by the federal government as the offical tribal governing body of the village.It is eli- gible 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 Communi- ty 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,Tuntutuliak Land,Ltd.,was created under the Alaska Na- tive Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.It received title to the surface estate of 95,976 acres of land in February,1982.Additional lands will be transferred at a later date. Population As shown on Exhibit 2,the population of Tuntutuliak in- creased steadily from 68 in 1950 to 216 in 1980.Between 1970 and 1980,the population grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent.The racial composition has not changed significantly since 1970 and is about 97 percent Alaskan Native.The age characteristics of the population have changed,however.In 1970,the number of young people was high,and the average age was about 17.Since then,a significant number of young people apparently left the region in order to find jobs or to pursue their education.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 XIII-2 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 Tuntutuliak population is expected to be between 313 and 352. In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Tuntutuliak in April,1982.Village leaders and residents were invited to attend. Housing In 1980 the community had 50 dwelling units of which 8 were vacant.Only 2 homes had complete plumbing facilities. The AVCP Housing Authority reports that a few houses have been built since the 1980 housing count.HUD plans to install 25 additional homes in the community in 1982-83.Village resi- dents haul their water from a central watering point. The future housing stock will play an important role in de- termining future residential energy demands.The average number of persons per housing unit decreased from about 5.6 in 1970 to 5.1 in 1980.The improved household income and the supply of subsidized housing units were the major factors for this de- cline.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 decrease at a lower rate.As shown in Table XIII-l,the average house- hold size is expected to be between 4.0 and 4.8 by 2002, Table XIII-1 TUNTUTULIAK HOUSEHOLD SIZE Energy Demand Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 5.1 N/A 1987 4.8 4.8 4.6 1992 4.8 4.5 4.3 2002 4.5 4.0 4.5 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. XIII-3 Subsistence Residents of Tuntutuliak depend on the environment in large part for subsistence.Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food,fiber,and shelter from the surrounding environment.Sub- sistence activities are pursued by a majority of the community's residents.A recent survey done in the Bethel region estimates that approximately one-third of the residents surveyed obtained one-half of their foodstuffs by engaging in such subsistence activities as fishing,berrypicking,and collecting gamebirds along the sloughs and on the swampy tundra.It is also esti- mated that the remaining two-thirds collect 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 shipping and transportation costs,it offers savings over the purchase 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 residents of Tuntutuliak.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 household budget of about $10,000,then the total cash value of these activities can be estimated at about $140,000 annually. Cash Economy Cash employment in Tuntutuliak exists in forms which are similar to other outlying village economies in Alaska.Typic- ally most jobs exist with the city government,school,store, health clinic,and the post office.Summer 1982 should provide some local construction work for the HUD housing project,the building of a washeteria by PHS,and the building of a shop by the Lower Kuskokwim School District. Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and energy profile for Tuntutuliak.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model output for Tuntutuliak as analyzed in this study.The forecast- ing model is described in Appendix A.In Exhibit 3,total an- nual 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 de- mand,which is the sum of last column "Light and Electric Ap- XIII-4 pliances"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 XIII-2 below summarizes the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector that are typically found in a village the size of Tuntutuliak.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 XIII-2 TUNTUTULIAK EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Average Monthly Annual Economic Activity Employment Earnings (1981 S$) Renewable Resource Harvesting 4 S 44,000 Mining and Exploration 0 -0- Construction 20 237,000 Household Manufacturing 1 4,000 Transportation l 9,000 Wholesale,Dist.0.5 4,000 Comm.and Utilities 2 29,000 Trade and Private Services 7 77,000 Finance and Real Estate 2 27,000 Non-Profit Organization 1 16,000 Local and Regional Government 28 466,000 State Agencies/Services 1 8,000 Federal Agencies/Services 2 33,000 Transfer Payments N/A 449,000 TOTAL $1,403,000 As shown in Table XIII-2,the primary sources of income to the village are local and regional government,transfer pay- ments,construction,trade and private services,and renewable XITI-5 resource harvesting.These and other income sources are de- scribed below. Local and Regional Government.The village school system provides the largest number of cash-earning positions to Tuntu- tuliak residents.Two separate systems currently exist.The state-run Lower Kuskokwim School District provides a village high school.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/typ- ists,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 following form:fee agents,bookkeepers,city administrators,city clerks,city maintenance,city custodian,city recreation di- rector,village public safety officer,and 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. Construction.Construction projects both in Tuntutuliak and throughout the region provide employment opportunities that typically represent the largest private cash-earning potentiallocally.The upcoming housing project and the building of a shop and washeteria in summer 1982 will provide temporary jobs for village residents. Trade and Private Services.Retail trade activities pro- vide full-time managerial,clerical,and stock room positions. A village corporation owned and operated store exists with other privately owned village stores.Private services are provided as well as small variety and novelty shops and small engine dealers and service, Renewable Resource Harvesting.Positions under this cate- gory include trapping,firewood gathering,fishing,and serving as guides in fishing,hunting,and excursion trips.The most cash-rewarding activity in this industry is commercial fishing. Other Sources.The remaining income sources listed in Table XIII-2 make up only a minor part of the total village in- XIII-6 come.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 re- flect the potential changes over the next twenty years,three levels of expected change (most likely,low and high)were de- veloped. The results of the economic projections for the years 1987, 1992,and 2002 are presented on Exhibit 4.Exhibit 4 is organ- ized as described earlier for Exhibit 3.Table XIII-3 summar- izes the expected range of future economic activity.Total an- nual earnings,in constant 1981 dollars,are shown for the three scenarios.The difference between the low and high projections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the future economic course of Tuntutuliak. Table XIII-3 TUNTUTULIAK PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS (Constant 1981 Dollars) Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1981 (Surveyed)N/A $1,403,000 N/A 1987 $1,224,000 1,299,000 $1,584,000 1992 1,281,000 1,467,000 1,826,000 2002 1,386,000 1,743,000 2,069,000 By the year 1992,under the "Most-Likely"set of circum- stances,the total village cash economy is expected to have com- pleted 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 dur- ing 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 repre- sent a much more sudden and severe slump in the total income earnings potential of the village during the remainder of the XIII-7 1980's.Recovery is expected from this "slump"period,caused by governmental cutbacks,due primarily to a shift in the re- gional economic base toward decentralization.Still,this re- covery is assumed to be slower and to begin at a much lower point than the most likely and high projections.By 1992,the total cash earned in the economy is expected to be only 91 per- cent of the amount earned 10 years earlier.By the year 2002, the total cash earning potential of the village economy is ex- pected 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 energy consumption,and the relative importance of electricity.Exhibit 5 presents a detailed list- ing of the energy consumption by end uses and by fuel type. Total Energy Space and water heating was the major energy end use with a total consumption of about 11,000 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 Fah- renheit.Fuel oil provided about 75 percent of the total heat- ing needs,followed by wood (20 percent),and propane (5 per- cent).Residential cooking consumed about 1,100 million Btu, from propane (55 percent),fuel oil (40 percent),and electri- city (5 percent).Lights and electric appliances consumed about 525 million Btu.One kilowatt-hour of electricity is equal to 3,413 Btu. Table XIII-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types.It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The estimated total cost to Tuntutuliak for their 1981 energy demand was about $250,000.Some 16 percent was spent on diesel fuel for generating electricity. XIII-8 Table XIII-4 TUNTUTULIAK 1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION Unit Annual Price Consumption Fuel Oil $1.95/gal.65,000 gal. Diesel $1.95/gal.20,000 gal. Propane $118/100 lb bottle 300-100 lb bottles Blazo $3.50/gal.2,700 gal. Wood $150/cord 160 cords Because of the large quantities 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.Consequently,the vast majority of the annual fuel supply of the village must be delivered and stored on site dur- ing this portion of the year.Bulk fuel storage facilities are therefore a critical component of the present village energy system. Bulk fuel storage facilities in the village of Tuntutuliak are maintained by a few principal fuel handlers:the village corporation bulk fuel distributorship,Tuntutuliak Land,Ltd., the LKSD high school,and the BIA elementary school.The com- bined total storage capacity in this village is approximately 200,000 gallons,which is sufficient to store the total annual fuel demand. Exhibit 6 presents the village energy balance for 1981. Due to conversion factors and electric distribution losses,the "useful"energy was about 7,500 million Btu,or 50 percent of the total consumption. Electric Generation Present Demand.In 1981,the total electric demand of the village was about 165 megawatt-hours (MWh).The 1981 peak de- mand was 50 kW. Existing Facilities.A central generation and distribution system is in the process of being installed.The new system (Exhibit 7)will include three new diesel generator sets,new wires,and poles.Both the BIA and the LKSD schools have ex- XIII-9 pressed an interest in hooking in to this system.Table XIII-5 summarizes the generating facilities. Table XIII-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES Owner/Operator Operating Status Capacity (kW) Tuntutuliak Under Construction 125 Tuntutuliak Under Construction 125 Tuntutuliak Under Construction 75 BIA Primary 35 BIA Primary 40 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 75 LKSD Primary 25 Future Energy Demand Three projections of future energy demand (low,most likely,and 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 con- servative 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 and high scenario,respectively.Table XIII-6 summarizes the results.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 235 and 365 MWh in year 2002,with a most likely energy demand of 310 MWh.The most likely 2002 peak demand is 90 kW. XIII-10 Table XIII-6 TUNTUTULIAK ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 106) 1981 Demand 14,029 14,029 14,029 1987 Demand 15,698 16,323 17,793 1992 Demand 17,495 20,294 22,667 2002 Demand 20,576 27,132 32,712 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 165 165 165 1987 Demand 180 190 205 1992 Demand 200 235 260 2002 Demand 235 315 365 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 de- scription of each supply plan is given in the following para- graphs. I.Base Case.The base case plan represents a continua- tion of the present practices of diesel generation for electricity.The base case plan also assumes the conti- nued 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 XIII-11 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 formulat- ed,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 re- sults of the economic feasibility to intertie Tuntutuliak 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 de- mand 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 XIII-12 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 GWh.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 interconnect- ing Tuntutuliak 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 Be- thel.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,transmission interties to Tuntutuliak 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 eval- uation are based on the Power Authority guidelines (Economic Parameters 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 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- XIII-13 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 sup- ply plan was computed.Table XIII-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Tuntutuliak.The present worth computation was done separately for the heating demand and elec- tric demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with generation facilities and transmission interties. The following paragraphs describe the results for Tuntutu- liak 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 XIII-7,the total present worth of the Base Case is $12,276,000 of which $2,970,000 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 $2,755,000 (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 Akiachak when it is compared to coal or fuel oil heating.Transmission intertie to Bethel was not found to be economically feasible. As shown on Table XIII-7,the total present worth of the Optimized Base Case is $9,094,000.The benefit-cost ratio is 1.35 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the heating demand was reduced by $427,000 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the heating demand was reduced from $9,306,000 to $6,551,000. XIII-14 Table XIII-7 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF THE SUPPLY PLANS Total Demand Benefit-Cost RatioPresentWorth(1982 $xl03)With With Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase Base CaSe Plan I 9,306 2,970 12,276 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 6,551 2,543 9,094 1,35 1,00 Plan IIIB 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Plan IIIc 6,551 2,543 9,094 1,35 1,00 Plan IIID 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Plan IIIE 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Plan IVB 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6,551 2,543 9,094 1,35 1.00 Plan VB 6,551 2,543 9,094 1.35 1.00 XIII-15 Thermal Supply Plans As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was performed to decide whether or not Tuntutuliak 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 $6,992,000 for Plans IIIA and IIIB,and $7,115,000 for Plans IIIC,D,and E.These present worth values are much greater than the Base Case present worth. As a result,it not economically feasible to intertie Tuntutuliak 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 Akiachak was done,uSing an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000 per kilowatt.As shown in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Re- port,the present worth of the electric energy demand,with an intertie to Bethel,is equal to $5,766,000 for both hydropower plans.This present worth value is much greater than the pre- sent worth of the Base Case.As a result,it would not he eco- nomically feasible to inertie Tuntutuliak. 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,with an intertie to Bethel,is equal to $6,412,000 for both Fuel Cell Plans.This present worth value is much greater than the Base Case present worth.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 XIII-16 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 XIII-8. Table XIII-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 6,376 2,319 8,695 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIB 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIc 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1,00 Plan IIID 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIE 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Plan IVB 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1,00 Plan VB 5,040 2,319 7,359 1.18 1.00 XITI-17 Table XIII-8 shows that the benefit-cost ratio of the Optimized Base Case has decreased from 1.35 to 1.18,if there is no real escalation in fuel cost.The reduction in heating cost,assum- ing a complete conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,has decreased from $2,755,000 to $1,336,000. 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 XIII-9, Under the Low Scenario,the conversion to coal-direct com- bustion for heating demand would still provide substantial sav- ings,assuming a 100%percent conversion in 1988.Under the High Scenario,it would still not be economically feasible to intertie Tuntutuliak under any regional plan. Regional Summary The regional analysis for Bethel and the twelve surround- ing 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 di- rect 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 at- tractive in the villages when it is compared to coal heating. Transmission interties to the outlying villages are only econo- mically attractive under the Hydroelectric Supply Plans where the cost of electric generation (fuel and operation and mainte- nance costs)are negligible. Table XIII-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. XIII-18 6T-IIIXTable XIII-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS Low Scenario (1982 $x103) Most Likely Scenario High Scenario Heating Flectric Total Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Base Case Plan I 7,525 2,416 9,941 9,306 2,970 12,276 10,848 3,410 14,258 Optimized Base Case Plan ITI 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Thermal Plans Plan ITIA 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan IIIB 5,465 27,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan IIIC 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan IIID 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan IIIE 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan IVB 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 Plan VB 5,465 2,416 7,881 6,551 2,543 9,094 7,507 3,410 10,917 O@-IITIXTable XIII-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 l 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 11 6 6 6 6 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA )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 200]. 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. 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 re- sources,and impacts of the transmission lines on birds and ac- cess to subsistence, XIII-21 yc.ke 3¢ Yo»u 55°Ooi ci yee NunapitchukLYPETC ee ° mt Oscarville } i,s Napaskiak °G NapakiakQS Sejak]0 2BETHEL LS FAIRBANKS \e g \ KEY MAP ANCHORAGE -_- JUNEAU MILES 0 4 8 12 16 20 {¢4 1 y J SCALE 1:1,000,000 Sey Akiak cd exearr 1i,: ae ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 Ex TUNTUTULIAK POPULATION HISTORICAL DATA, Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year 1980 Annual Growth Rate: 1987 Annual Growth Rate: 1992 Annual Growth Rate: 2002 PROJECTIONS,ANNUAL GROWTH RATES HISTORICAL DATA Annual Population Growth Rate (%) 68 7.8 144 0.9 158 3.2 216 PROJECTIONS Most Low Likely 216 216 2.2%2.5% 251 257 2.0%2.5% 276 292 1.3%1,8% 313 348 hibit 2 High 216 2.5% 257 2.5% 292 1.9% 352 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST 1981 PROFILE,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianhatte($000)---(No.)(Million Btu)--- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 237 20 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation -9 1 0 0 11 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 2 0 41 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 77 7 15 0 729 0 15 Finance &Real Est.27 2 5 0 135 0 5 GOVERNMENT Non Protit Org.16 1 ll 0 32 18 ll Local &Reg.Govt.466 28 300 0 4477 769 300 State Agencies/Svcs 8 1 2 0 16 0 2 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 33 2 2 0 20 0 2 ***eTransfer Payments 449 TOTAL 1403 69 337 0 5461 787 337 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)216 Household Size 5.1 Total Households 42 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)161 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)-231 1074 4201 530 190 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)568 1074 9662 1317 527 €LIG!IHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 1987 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianedatnianatenahedninatatetatadetetetetaieten($000)---(No.)= ----(Million Btu)---<- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 240 20 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 9 1 0 0 11 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 2 0 42 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 72 6 14 0 683 0 14 Finance &Real Est.26 2 5 0 129 0 5 GOVERNMENT Non Protit Org.15 1 11 0 30 17 11 Local &Reg.Govt.443 27 285 0 4254 731 285 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 2 0 18 0 2 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 20 1 1 0 12 0 1 *k*eTransfer Payments 382 TOTAL 1299 66 320 0 5179 748 320 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)257 Household Size 4.8 Total Households 54 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)179 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)324 1508 5896 744 267 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)644 1508 11075 1492 587 6}0LobegvyLIGDIHX4S BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST=-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating ApplianSemennnnnmeennnnnnn($000)---(No.)=--(Million Btu)------------------- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 49 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 267 22 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.4 l 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 10 1 0 0 13 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 2 0 46 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 81 7 16 0 760 0 16 Finance &Real Est.29 2 5 0 143 0 5 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.16 1 ll 0 32 19 ll Local &Reg.Govt.540 33 348 0 5181 890 348 State Agencies/Svcs 10 1 2 0 20 0 2 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 20 1 1 0 12 0 1 ***Transfer Payments 404 TOTAL 1467 75 385 0 6207 909 385 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)292 Household Size 4.5 Total Households 65 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)188 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)414 1923 7521 949 341 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)799 1923 13728 1858 726 6$0Z@obeyyLIGDIHX3S BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian iahatatenetenates ($000)--=(No.)=(Million Btu)-<= COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 55 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction ,298 25 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 12 1 0 0 15 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 2 0 52 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 92 8 18 0 864 0 18 Finance &Real Est.34 3 6 0 171 0 6 GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org.22 2 15 0 42 25 15 Local &Reg.Govt.611 37 394 0 5869 1009 394 State Agencies/Svcs 12 1 3 0 24 0 3 .Fed.Agencies/Svcs 28 2 2 0 17 0 2 ***Transfer Payments 530 TOTAL 1743 88 440 0 7054 1034 440 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)348 Household Size 4 Total Households 87 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)208 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)612 2844 11125 1404 504 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1052 2844 18179 2438 944 639€abevLIGIHXS 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 ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL Income ($000) --(No.)=== 43 1987 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Emplymt iJKPOArNANOMFOCWElect- ricity Space Cooking Heating NO JMHOwBWONnOGoOOCOoOPopulation (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) 309 311 620 eooeoooooocoo°c”e(Million Btu) Water Light & Heating Applian beteCONBG2QQDDTDCDCOO0OtS ]eh©m@WONODOOCOO1443 1443 5644 10654 712 1438 256 965 640»abevyLIGIHX3 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 Income 1992 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Emplymt ($000)---(No.)= 47 NOHoeNANO!FHOObbiS)Elect-Space ricity Cooking Heating =OFONOOOCCSOwoFwoPopulation (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)anLoe]TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) -(Million Btu)-ooooooaoooo0o°oeWater Light & Heating Applian oonnooooc*”ooooUhPONOCCOQ0a)So1636 1636 6400 11853 808 1601 290 627 630gobeyvyLISIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian Semen ewe mn mr ee enn sana ($000)---(No.)-=--(Million Btu)------------------- COMMERCIAL , Renew.Res.Harvest 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 308 26 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 1l 1 0 0 13 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.5 0 2 0 51 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 80 7 15 0 753 0 15 Finance &Real Est.27 2 5 0 136 0 5 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.15 1 11 0 30 17 11 Local &Reg.Govt.489 30 315 0 4690 806 315 State Agencies/Svcs 8 1 2 0 16 0 2 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 15 1 1 0 9 0 1 ***Transfer Payments 337 TOTAL 1386 76 351 0 5698 823 351 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)313 Household Size 4.5 Total Households 70 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)190 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)448 2083 8147 1028 369 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)799 2083 13845 1851 720 6309obeyvLISIHX3 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 **x*Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity($000)---(No.)enn n enn nnn 50 4 0 0 0 0 287 24 0 6 1 0 11 1 0 4 0 2 35 2 0 85 7 16 31 2 6 18 1 12 495 30 319 9 1 2 37 3 2 516 1584 76 359 257 4.6 56 182 345 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)704 Space Water Light & Cooking Heating Heating Applian (Million Btu)--<---------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 46 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 804 0 16 0 154 0 6 0 35 20 12 0 4748 816 319 0 19 0 2 0 23 0 2 0 5842 836 359 1601 6264 791 284 1601 12106 1627 643 '6$0ZafegvyLISIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian -----<--($000)=---(No.)(Million Btu)-"-----<<-<<<------- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 59 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 344 29 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.9 2 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 12 1 0 0 15 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 2 0 54 0 2 Comm.and Utilities 43 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 99 9 19 0 932 0 19 Finance &Real Est.36 3 7 0 177 0 7 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.19 1 13 0 37 21 13 Local &Reg.Govt.608 37 391 0 5831 1002 391 State Agencies/Svcs 11 1 3 0 21 0 3 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 42 3 3 0 26 0 3 *kkeTransfer Payments 539 TOTAL 1826 95 438 0 7093 1023 438. RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)292 Household Size 4.3 Total Households 68 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)198 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)455 2115 8274 1044 375 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)893 2115 15367 2067 813 1992 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska 6408begvLIGIHXA BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Tuntutuliak,Alaska Elect Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian "=-($000)---(No.)-(Million Btu)---23-<<<----------- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 70 6 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 445 37 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.10 2 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 14 1 0 0 17 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 3 0 64 0 3 Comm.and Utilities 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 110 10 21 0 1040 0 21 Finance &Real Est.40 3 7 0 199 0 7 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.20 2 14 0 38 22 14 Local &Reg.Govt.638 39 411 0 6127 1053 411 State Agencies/Svcs 11 1 3 0 23 0 3 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 49 3 3 0 30 0 3 **kkTransfer Payments 606 TOTAL 2069 108 462 0 7538 1075 462 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)352 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 101 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)230 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)785 3648 14270 1801 647 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1247 3648 21808 2876 1109 6$06ofegbpLIGIHX3 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION, Residential Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space Heating Fuel Oil Wood Propane/Blazo Water Heating Fuel oil Wood Propane/Blazo Cooking Electricity Fuel Oil Propane/Blazo Total Commercial Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel oil Total Government Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil Total Equivalent Btu kilowatt-hour gallon of blazo bobetetcord of wood gallon of fuel oil 100-1lb bottle of propane = Exhibit 5 TUNTUTULIAK Million Btu 3,413,Btu 136,000 Btu 136,000 Btu 2,500,000 Btu 13,000,000 Btu DIESEL (2800)ELECTRIC GENERATION PROPANE/ BLAZO FUEL OIL } EXHIBIT 6 REJECTED ENERGY z= N g Cs 25,1 TIGHTS AND APPLIANCES S zt COOKING he%)SPACE (C)y AND WATER Et z _ 2}HEATING = w wo USEFUL ENERGY> ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS:MILLION Btu)1981 ENERGY BALANCE TUNTUTULIAK HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 7 N NN save \pyre Rat_NN KIND RVR (nurse GARAGE NN CNM RIVER,16\ 8 }m 4 louse eo(RES DEACES)3 aM wiiLee--[] ea PROPOSED LOCATION OF GENERATOR BUILDING AND SWITCH GEAR NoTES* 1.THERE |@ NO EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THIS ULLAGE.THIS DRAWING >COMETH ONL, 2,THERE ARE HO PLANS pvAlLArelLE AA THE Mel SOTSTentLUNECONSTRNCTION, &NEw Uso scHoolavo Li PPINe4,HOUSING,6 UPPER VILLAGE "to LEST RIGHT-OF-WAY TO TUNTUTULIAK JUNCTION TUNTUTULING®.=ELECTRICAL.DesrRiaiumoU ---- ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM P.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY P.O.Box 4-2343 Anchorage,Alaska Phone (907)276-3442 99509 December 1982