Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-5 EekBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G-5 EEK 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. LIST OF TAKLES Title Eek Household Size Eek Employment and Income Eek Projected Annual Earnings Eek 1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption Existing Generating Facilities Bek 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 v-4 V-6 vV-8 v-9 v-10 v-11 v-15 V-18 V-20 V-21 Exhibit No. 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Community Location Map Eek Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Eek Economic and Energy Projections,Eek 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Eek 1981 Energy Balance,Eek Electrical Distribution System -iii- EEK 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 Eek is within the study area,and is the subject of this Appen- dix.Detailed information on the overall regional assessment is contained in the Regional Report. The community report for Eek is intended to be an infor- mational and working document for the residents of the commun- ity.Much data has been collected on the community's back- ground,population,housing,and its current economic and energy profiles.Existing electrical generation and transmission faci- lities,as well as residential and commercial space heating needs,are documented in this report.Projections of future energy needs,based on future population,housing,and economic conditions,have been made.These projections have been used to develop alternative plans for meeting the electrical energy and space-heating needs of the region through year 2002,and those of Eek in particular.These alternative plans have been ana- lyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint, This community report for Eek is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Background Eek is situated within the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta on the Eek River,41 miles southwest of Bethel and 12 miles east of the Kuskokwim River (Exhibit 1).The village is located near the coastal edge of the vast silt plain that characterizes the lower drainage area of the Kuskokwim River.This lowland area con- tains thousands of thaw lakes,ponds,and tundra hummocks and is continuously being transformed by the erosion and meanderings of the Kuskokwim River and its tributaries. The Kilbuck and Ahklun Mountains,a low rolling range of hills,run in a north-south direction approximately 60 miles east of Eek.These mountains contain the headwaters of three other important rivers to the area,the Kisaralik,the Eek and the Kwethluk,all which join the left bank of the Kuskokwim River above the village.These rivers and their lake systems are the nursery for the Kuskokwim River salmon runs on which many villagers depend for commercial and subsistence reasons. v-1 The vegetation surrounding the village site is characteris- tic of wet tundra.Standing water is almost always present during the summer,which makes overland travel extremely diffi- cult.Village roadways and paths are frequently muddy during the summer and difficult to travel on.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 found on the nearby shores of Kuskokwim Bay.The salt content of this firewood is high,which causes damage to many wood burning stoves and limits their use.Conse- quently,firewood usage is primarily limited to heating steam houses which provide a form of bathing. Access to Eek 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. Eek was first known as "Ahguliagamuit,"and later,""Aklut." The establishment of missions and trading posts from the 1840's by the Russians had little impact on this village.The commun- ity became known as "Eek"at the end of the 19th Century.The town post office was constructed in 1949,and Eek was incorpo- rated in 1970. Beside the municipal government,Eek's Native population is represented by a Traditional Council which is recognized by the federal government as the official tribal governing body of the village.The Council is eligible to participate in some state and federal programs,and has received benefits under the Indian Self Determination Act,the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act,the Housing and Community Development Act,the Comprehen- sive Employment Training Act (CETA),and the Indian Child Wel- fare 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,Iqfijouaq Co.,was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.It is entitled to receive title to the surface estate of 115,200 acres of land.To date,no lands have been trans- ferred to the corporation by the Bureau of Land Management, In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Tuntutuliak in April,1982,All residents of Eek were invited to attend. Population The first recorded census of Eek was in 1880 when 162 resi- dents were recorded.In 1980,the population was 228.Exhibit 2 summarizes the fluctuations between 1950 and 1980.Between 1960 and 1970,the population decreased at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent.Between 1970 and 1980,the population grew at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent.The racial composi- tion has not changed,remaining at 96 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 19,Since then,a significant number of young people apparently have left the region in order to find jobs or to pursue their education.In 1980,the average age was about 23. Three scenarios of population projections are also pre- sented on Exhibit 2.These projections were developed in con- junction with the three scenarios of economic projections which are presented in the following pages.The projected annual growth rates are a combined product of historical trends,actual rate of natural increase,potential economic growth,and immi- gration or emigration.The projections also reflect a general decline of state population growth rates predicted by the U.S. Department of Commerce,In year 2002,the Eek population is expected to be between 271 and 317. Housing In 1980 there were 56 houses in Eek;none were vacant. Nine were rental units.There were about 4 persons per housing unit.Residents obtain their water from the local washeteria facility.The average floor space of the most recently built homes (HUD)are approximately 1200 square feet,while the older built 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 5.2 in 1970 to 4.1 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 subsidy programs,the household size is expected to decrease at a lower rate.As shown in Table V-1,the average household size is expected to vary between 3.5 and 3.8 by 2002. Table V-l EEK HOUSEHOLD SIZE Energy Demand Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 4.1 N/A 1987 3.9 3.9 3.8 1992 3.8 3.8 3.5 2002 3.8 3.8 3.5 Current Economic Activity This section describes the current village economy,both in its subsistence and cash forms.This assessment will serve as a basis for the economic projections. Subsistence Residents of Eek depend on the environment in large part for subsistence,Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food, fiber,and shelter from the surrounding environment.Subsis- tence 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 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 estimated that the remaining two-thirds of the residents collect about one-fourth of their needs.Residents rely on subsistence activities for a number of reasons:it is the traditional method of provision passed to the present generation by its forefathers;in time of high 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 Eek.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 derived by assigning 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 $185,000 annually. Cash Economy Cash employment in Eek exists in forms which are similar to other outlying village economies in Alaska.Typically most jobs exist with the city government,school,store,health clinic, and the post office.Dolls,pins,and yoyos are crafted by village artisans for sale.Construction of an addition to the high school and elementary school and teacher housing units in 1982 will provide temporary employment for some villagers.Some residents relocate seasonally to work in canneries and in the Bristol Bay fisheries. Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and energy profile for Eek.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model output for Eek as analyzed in this'study.The forecasting model is described in Appendix A.In Exhibit 3,total annual income or earnings,in 1981 dollars,are first presented for each economic activity,followed by the corresponding number of average annual employment.The remaining columns present the end-use energy consumption for each activity.The column entitled "Electrici- ty"corresponds to the total electricity demand,which is the sum of last column "Light and Electric Appliances"consumption and the electricity consumption used in "Cooking,Space Heating, and Water Heating".For convenience,all consumption data are in Million Btu.The electric energy demand can be translated into kilowatt-hours by dividing the consumption in Btu by 3,413 (Btu per kilowatt-hour).The lower section of Exhibit 3 pre- sents the residential sector with population,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 V-2 below summarizes the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector that are typically found in a village the size of Eek.It should be noted that the num- bers 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 different times of the year. Table V-2 EEK EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Average Monthly AnnualEconomicActivityEmploymentEarnings (1981 $) Renewable Resource Harvesting 4 $46,000 Mining and Exploration 0 -0- Construction 21 250,000 Household Manufacturing 1 4,000 Transportation 1 9,000 Wholesale,Dist.0.5 4,000 Comm.and Utilities 2 29,000 Trade and Private Services 7 81,000 Finance and Real Estate 2 28,000 Non-Profit Organization 1 16,000 Local and Regional Government 30 494,000 State Agencies/Services 1 9,000 Federal Agencies/Services 2 33,000 Transfer Payments N/A 471,000 TOTAL $1,474,000 As shown in Table V-2,the primary sources of income to the village are local and regional government,transfer payments, construction,trade and private services,and renewable resource harvesting.These and other income sources are described below. Local and Regional Government.The village school system provides the largest number of cash-earning positions to Eek residents.The state-run Lower Kuskokwim School District pro- vides a village high school.Positions associated with the system are:principal teacher,certified teachers,substitute teachers,bilingual teachers,instructional aides,clerk/ typists,community educational coordinators,librarians,and athletic directors.Support positions that exist in the school are cooks,cook's helper,school maintenance and school custod- ian, Positions with the village government take the following form:fee agents,bookkeepers,city administrators,city clerks,city maintenance,city custodian,city recreation director,village public safety officer,village patrolman, Transfer Payments.Non-employment forms of cash flow exist as transfer payments.Transfer payments are made directly to a household in two forms --cash and/or goods.Cash payments are vV-6 made through 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 Eek and throughout the region provide employment opportunities that typically represent the largest private cash-earning potential locally.The upcoming teacher housing project and the building of additions to the school in 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,together 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 V-2 make up only a minor part of the total village income. Federal agency services,communications and utilities,and finance and real estate 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 deve- loped,. The results of the economic projections for the years 1987, 1992,and 2002 are presented on Exhibit 4.Exhibit 4 is organized as described earlier for Exhibit 3.Table V-3 sum- marizes the range of future economic activity.Total annual earnings,in constant 1981 dollars,are shown for the three scenarios.The difference between the low and high projections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the future economic course of Eek. Table V-3 EEK PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS (Constant 1981 Dollars) Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1981 (Surveyed)N/A $1,474,000 N/A 1987 $1,286,000 1,366,000 $1,665,000 1992 1,348,000 1,541,000 1,917,000 2002 1,458,000 1,832,000 2,175,000 By the year 1992,under the ""Most-Likely"set of circum- stances,the total village cash economy is expected to have completed its recovery from the 1980's slump.The remainder of the forecast to the year 2002 is characterized by a period of slow and continual expansion at a rate of about 2 percent, The "High"forecast assumptions differ from the "Most- Likely"primarily in the severity of the anticipated slump dur- ing the early 1980's,The effect of these less severe reductions is measured in the forecast as a slowly expanding economy of about 2 percent annual growth rate until 2002, On the other side,the "Low"forecast assumptions represent a much more sudden and severe slump in the total income earnings potential of the village during the remainder of the 1980's. Recovery is expected from this "slump"period,caused by govern- mental cutbacks,due primarily to a shift in the regional econo- mic base toward decentralization.Still this recovery is assumed to be slower and to begin at a much lower point than the most-likely and high projections.By 1992,the total cash earn- ed in the economy is expected to be only 91 percent of the amount earned 10 years earlier.By the year 2002,the total cash earning potential of the village economy is expected to have recovered to the 1981 level. Current Energy Consumption An energy use inventory was conducted in order to gain an understanding of the total energy consumption,and the relative importance of electricity.Exhibit 5 presents the energy con- sumption 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 16,000 million Btu.A Btu (British V-8 Thermal Unit)is a measure of the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.Fuel oil provided all of the heating needs,with only about 1 percent from propane.Residential cooking consumed about 2,200 million Btu.Propane and blazo provided about 68 percent of the total demand,followed by fuel oil (31 percent) and electricity (1 percent).Lights and electric appliances consumed an equivalent of about 1,000 million Btu.One kilowatt-hour of electricity is equal to 3,413 Btu. Table V-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types. It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The esti- mated total cost to Eek for their 1981 energy demand was about $400,000.Some 20 percent was spent on diesel fuel for generat- ing electricity. Table v-4 EEK 1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION Annual Price Consumption Fuel Oil $1.95/gal.120,000 gallons Diesel $1.95/gal.40,000 gallons Propane $120/100 1b bottle 460-100 1b bottles Blazo $3.50/gal.5,000 gallons Because of the large quantities of fuel needed annually 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 rel tively 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 during this portion of the year. Bulk fuel storage facilities are therefore a critical component of the present village energy system.The LKSD high school (old BIA facility)and the village bulk fuel distributorship maintain bulk fuel storage facilities,totalling less than 8,000 gallons of storage,which is not nearly sufficient to contain the total annual fuel needs. Exhibit 6 presents the village energy balance for 1981. Due to conversion factors and electric distribution losses,the "useful"energy was about 11,500 million Btu or 49 percent of the total consumption. Electric Generation Present Demand.In 1981,the total electric demand of the village was about 305 megawatt hours (MWh).The 1981 peak demand was 90 kW. Existing Facilities.The village of Eek is served by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC).As shown in Table V-5,AVEC operates three diesel generator sets with a combined capacity of 300 kW.These generators are less than three years old,and appear to be well maintained.In addition,the Lower Kuskokwim School District has its own standby generating capability. Table vV-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES Operating Owner/Operator Status Capacity (kW) AVEC Primary 160 AVEC Primary 90 AVEC Primary 50 LKSD Standby 75 Total Capacity 375 kW The distribution system (Exhibit 7)is in good condition. Future Energy Demand Three projections of future energy demand (low,most- likely,high)were developed,based on current use,socio-econo- mic 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 eco- nomic 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 v-10 through 6,and 7 through 9 present the projections for the low and high scenario,respectively.Table V-6 summarizes the re- sults.Space heating demand was increased by about 15 percent to reflect average annual heating needs of the region,since 1981,the base year,was warmer than average.The total elec- tric energy demand is expected to vary between 410 and 570 MWh in 2002,with a most likely electric energy demand of 490 MWh. The most likely 2002 peak demand is 140 kW. Table V-6 EEK ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 106) 1981 Demand N/A 21,718 N/A 1987 Demand 22,356 23,695 26,383 1992 Demand 24,741 27,620 32,105 2002 Demand 27,053 33,323 38,593 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 305 305 305 1987 Demand 335 345 375 1992 Demand 375 410 470 2002 Demand 410 490 570 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 v-11 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. Til.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 Eek 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. V-12 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 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 Eek 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 Eek 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 V-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 V-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Eek.The present worth computa- tion was done separately for the heating demand and electric demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with generation facilities and transmission interties. vV-14 Table V-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 11,452 4,582 16,034 1,00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 8,027 3,351 11,378 1,41 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1.00 Plan IIIB 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1.00 Plan IIIC 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1.00 Plan IIID 8,027 3,351 11,378 1,41 1.00 Plan IIIE 8,027 3,351 11,378 1,41 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1.00 Plan IVB 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1.00 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1,00 Plan VB 8,027 3,351 11,378 1.41 1,00 The following paragraphs describe the results for Eek 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. v-15 As shown on Table V-7,the total present worth of the Base Case is $16,034,000,of which $4,582,000 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 $3,425,000 (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039.Wind generation was found to be economically feasible in Eek.Diesel waste heat recovery was not found to be economically attractive in Eek when it is compared to coal heating.Transmission intertie to Bethel via Napaskiak was not found to be economically attractive. As shown on Table V-7,the total present worth of the Opti- mized Base Case is $11,378,000.The benefit-cost ratio is 1.41 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the elec- tric energy demand was reduced by $1,231,000 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the heating demand was reduced from $11,452,000 to $8,027,000. Thermal Supply Plans As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was performed to decide whether or not Eek should be intertied to Bethel,site of the coal-fired plant.To reflect the share of construction cost for the central coal-fired plant in the pre- sent worth computation of each village,an incremental unit cost of $1,500 per kilowatt was used.This unit incremental 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 $10,539,000 for Plans IIIA and IIIB,and $10,739,000 for Plans IIIC,D,and &E,These present worth values are much greater than the Base Case present worth.As a result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Eek 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 Eek was done, using an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000 v -16 per kilowatt.As shown in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report, the present worth of the electric energy demand,with an inter- tie to Bethel,is equal to $8,612,000 for both hydropower plans. As a result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Eek, and the present worth of the energy demand is the same than the present worth of 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 on Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report,it is not economically feasible to intertie Eek to Bethel,site of the fuel cell plant. 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 V-8. Table V-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 7,933 3,531 11,464 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1,00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIB 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIc 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Plan IIID 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Plan IIIE 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 6,205 3,531 9,736 1,18 1.00 Plan IVB 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1,00 Plan VB 6,205 3,531 9,736 1.18 1.00 Table V-8 shows that the benefit-cost ratio of the Optimized Base Case has decreased from 1.41 to 1.18,if there is no real escalation in fuel cost.The reduction in heating cost, assuming a complete conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,has decreased from $3,425,000 to $1,728,000. 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, V-18 and 2.0%for coal until year 2002.The results are presented in 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 Eek under any regional plan. 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 V-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. v-19 OZ-APRESENT WORTH OF Low Scenario Table v-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (1982 $x103) SUPPLY PLANS Most Likely Scenario High Scenario Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Heating Electric TotalSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandDemandDemandDemandDemandDemandDemand Base Case Plan I 9,658 4,044 13,702 11,452 4,582 16,034 13,012 5,239 18,251 Optimized Base Case Pian II 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan IIIB 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan IIIC 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan IIID 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan IIIE 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan IVB 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Plan VB 6,921 4,044 10,965 8,027 3,351 11,378 9,017 5,239 14,256 Té-ATable V-10 RANKING OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Total Demand Electric Demand With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E.With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E. Low Most Likely High Most Likely Low Most Likely High Most LikelySupplyPlansScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenario Base Case Plan I 11 11 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 1l 6 6 6 6 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 5 Plan IVB 3 1 1 7 4 1 l 5 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6 6 5 5 3 4 2 3 Plan VB 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 Assumes 2.5%real escalation rate for fuel oil and 2.0%for coal during the period 1982-2001.No escalation rates are assumed after 2001, Environmentally,the Base Case is probably the most desi- reable of all the selected supply plans.No transmission lines would be used.The small separate generating systems located throughout the region would not create any large impact.En- vironmental drawbacks to the Base Case are the potentials for spill and fire hazard involved in fuel handling and storage. Due to the use of coal for space heating,the supply plan alternatives would be less desireable than the Base Case.Run- off and dust from storage piles,combustion emissions,and ash disposal will all impact the environment to a certain degree, and the public acceptance to coal for space heating is yet to be determined. Other key environmental constraints involve impacts of the hydroelectric project operation on aquatic and terrestrial resources,and impacts of the transmission lines on birds and access to subsistence. V-22 N FAIRBANKS \° Ly \BETHEL ANCHORAGE S JUNEAU LP KEY MAP 8 Seats neeAvteae Napaskiak > 4 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY MILES BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT048121620 fouiy5p3SJ SCALE 1:1,000,000 COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EEK POPULATION Exhibit 2 HISTORICAL DATA,PROJECTIONS,AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year 1980 Annual Growth Rates: 1987 Annual Growth Rate: 1992 Annual Growth Rate: 2002 HISTORICAL DATA Population 141 200 186 228 PROJECTIONS Low 228 1.1% 246 1% 258 0.5% 271 Annual Growth Rate (3) 3.5 -0.7 2.1 Most Likely High 228 228 1.25%1.5% 249 253 1.25%1.5% 264 274 1%1.5% 294 317 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST Space Cooking Heating 1981 PROFILE,Eek,Alaska Elect- SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Pe mmm ($000)---(No.)= COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 46 4 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 Construction 250 21 0 0 Household Mfg.4 1 0 0 Transportation 9 1 2 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 1 0 Comm.and Utilities 29 2 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 81 7 15 0 Finance &Real Est.28 2 0 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org.16 1 9 0 Local &Reg.Govt.494 30 518 0 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 4 0 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 33 2 3 0 ***Transfer Payments 471 TOTAL 1474 72 552 0 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)228 Household Size 4.1 Total Households 56 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)141 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)492 2189 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1044 2189 (Million Btu)- Water Light & Heating Applian 2 113 uwWm©OUOY'-NOOOOoooorFoooooo0°c”oeoo4612 14617 wnwdNJ1151 547 469 1698 1021 €LIGiHxX4a BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfg. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm.and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***eTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Space Water Light & Cooking Heating Heating»Applian(Million Btu)--- Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity ($000)---(No.)sree nnn nn nnn 47 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 21 0 0 4 1 0 0 9 1 2 0 4 0 1 0 30 2 0 0 76 7 14 0 27 2 0 0 15 1 9 0 469 28 492 1) 1l 1 5 0 20 1 2 0 401 1366 69 525 0 249 3.9 64 164 655 2910 1180 2910 6131 15492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 20 9 1074 492 0 5 0 2 1094 525 727 623 1821 1148 630|abeg¢vLISIHX3S 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-Profit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1992 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity Cooking($000)--=(NoO.)ener enn nnn (Mill 52 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 24 0 0 4 1 0 0 10 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 33 2 0 0 84 7 15 0 30 2 0 0 16 1 10 0 572 35 599 0 11 1 5 0 20 1 2 0 424 1541 79 635 0 264 3.8 69 176 771 3424 1406 3424TOTALENERGY(M.Btu) Space Heating ion Btu)-=- 7216 17949 Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 22 10 1308 599 0 5 0 2 1330 635 856 734 2186 1369 640ZebegyLISIHXa BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating ApplianSeen($000)---(No.)=- ----(Million Btu)---- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 58 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 314 26 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 12 1 3 0 569 0 3 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 1 0 32 0 l Comm.and Utilities 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 96 8 17 0 513 0 17 Finance &Real Est.36 3 0 0 108 0 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.22 2 13 0 3136 29 13 Local &Reg.Govt.647 39 679 0 6721 1482 679 State Agencies/Svcs 14 1 6 0 1026 0 6 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 28 2 2 0 719 0 2 *kx*eTransfer Payments 556 TOTAL 1832 92 721 0 12824 1511 721 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)294 Household Size 3.8 Total Households 77 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)195 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)946 4204 8859 1051 901 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1667 4204 21683 2562 1622 6}9©aheg¢LIGIHXS 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,Eek,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect - Income Emplymt ricity Cooking ($000)---(No.)(Mill 45 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 249 21 0 0 4 1 0 0 9 1 2 0 4 0 1 0 26 2 0 0 72 6 13 0 25 2 0 0 13 1 7 0 457 28 479 0 8 1 4 0 20 1 2 0 354 1286 68 508 0 246 3.9 63 159 632 2808 1140 2808TOTALENERGY(M.Btu) Space Heating ion Btu)-- 5918 14499 Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 16 7 1046 479 0 4 0 2 1062 508 702 602 1764 1110 630pafegyLISIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian- woeernn-----=-($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 256 21 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 9 1 2 0 443 0 2 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 1 0 27 0 1 Comm,and Utilities 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 78 7 14 0 415 0 14 Finance &Real Est.26 2 0 0 79 0 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.14 1 8 0 1990 18 8 Local &Reg.Govt.499 30 523 0 5179 1142 523 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 4 0 677 0 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 15 1 1 0 389 0 1 *k*Transfer Payments 354 TOTAL 1348 71 553 0 9199 1160 553 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)258 Household Size 3.8 Total Households 68 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)169 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)721 3202 6748 801 686 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1274 3202 15947 1961 1239 6$0GabegvLIGIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light &SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianodetanieteniehatetteatetetented($000) --(No.)--2-2------===(Million Btu)-----<<-------------COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 56 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 325 27 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfg.4 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation ll 1 3 0 504 0 3 Wholesale,Dist.5 0 1 0 31 0 1 Comm.and Utilities 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 84 7 15 0 447 0 15 Finance &Real Est.29 2 0 0 86 0 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.15 1 9 0 2217 20 9 Local &Reg.Govt.517 31 542 0 5371 1184 542 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 4 0 677 0 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 15 1 1 0 389 0 1 ***Transfer Payments 354 TOTAL 1458 78 575 0 9722 1204 575 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)271 Household Size 3.8 Total Households 71 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)182 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)816 3625 7639 907 777 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1391 3625 17361 2111 1352 6J09ebegyLISIHX3 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 *kekeTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity ($000)---(No.) 52 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 303 25 0 0 7 1 0 0 11 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 35 2 0 0 89 8 16 0 32 2 0 0 18 1 10 0 524 32 549 0 11 1 5 0 37 3 3 0 542 1665 80 587 0 253 3.8 67 166 696 3093 1283 3093TOTALENERGY(M.Btu) Space Water Light & Cooking Heating Heating Applian (Million Btu)----- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 508 0 3 28 0 1 0 0 0 477 0 16 97 0 0 2571 23 10 5438 1199 549 820 0 5 973 0 3 10912 1222 587 6518 7173 663 17430 1995 1250 640ZobegyLISIHXa BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Elect - SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity -----($000)---(No.)s-on enn - COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 63 5 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 Construction 363 30 0 Household Mfq.9 2 0 Transportation 12 1 3 Wholesale,Dist.5 l 1 Comm.and Utilities 43 3 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 103 9 19 Finance &Real Est.37 3 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Ord.19 1 11 Local &Reg.Govt.643 39 674 State Agencies/Svcs 12 1 6 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 42 3 3 ***Transfer Payments 566 TOTAL 1917 98 717 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)274 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 78 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)180 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)886 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1603 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 0 586 0 3 0 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 553 0 19 0 112 0 0 0 2704 25 ll 0 6678 1472 674 0 912 0 6 0 1100 0 3 0 12678 1497 717 3938 8299 985 844 3938 20977 2482 1561 64°8abegyLIGIHX3S BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Eek,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Appliansslenteetaeenhetententaaien($000)-<--(No.)--(Million Btu)------ COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 73 6 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 470 39 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.11 2 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 14 1 3 0 678 0 3 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 1 0 39 0 1 Comm.and Utilities 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 115 10 21 0 618 0 21 Finance &Real Est.42 3 0 0 126 0 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Protrit Org.20 2 ll 0 2836 26 11 Local &Reg.Govt.676 41 709 0 7018 1547 709 State Agencies/Svcs 13 1 6 0 998 0 6 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 49 3 4 0 1269 0 4 ***eTransfer Payments 636 TOTAL 2175 112 755 0 13582 1573 755 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)317 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 91 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)210 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1195 5311 11190 1328 1138 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1950 5311 24772 2901 1893 6406abegvLIGIHX3 Exhibit 5 BETHEL 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION Residential Sector Million Btu Light and Appliances Electricity 13,678 Space Heating Electricity 2,598 Fuel Oil 149,253 Wood 7,494 Water Heating Electricity 3,171 Fuel Oil 17,065 Wood 633 Propane/Blazo 787 Cooking Electricity 5,629 Fuel Oil 18,571 Wood 620 Propane/Blazo 4,815 Total 224,314 Commercial Sector Lights and Appliances Electricity 15,574 Space &Water Heating Electricity 1,250 Fuel Oil 209,223 Propane/Blazo 7,186 Total 233,233 Government Sector Lights and Appliances Electricity 24,975 Space &Water Heating Electricity 2,179 Fuel Oil 508,069 Propane/Blazo 1,268 Total 536,491 Equivalent Btu:1 kilowatt-hour =3,413,Btu 1 gallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu 1 gallon of blazo =136,000 Btu 1 100-1b bottle of propane =2,500,000 Btu 1 cord of wood =13,000,000 Btu Exhibit 5 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION,EEK Residential Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space Heating Fuel Oil Propane/Blazo Water Heating Fuel Oil 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 and Cooling Fuel Oil Total Equivalent Btu:Pellkillowatt-hour = gallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu gallon of blazo 100-1b bottle of propane =2,500,000 Btu cord of wood =13,000,000 Btu Million Btu 469 4,483 129 547 23 677 1,489 7,817 18 986 1,004 534 10,170 10,704 3,413,Btu 136,000 Btu EXHIBIT 6 REJECTED ENERGY ©os DIESEL 3 Soe - wo |---__g oO (1 027)LIGHTS AND 7 APPLIANCES ey g S PROPANE/BLAZO (1489)COOKING (677) G£23ZF SPACE Osey AND FUEL OIL s tee] =WATER ©o = HEATING a z fos] 2 USEFUL ENERGY ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 'BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS:MILLION Btu) 1981 ENERGY BALANCE EEK HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 yeTRANSFORMER INFORMATION EE-1 TSKVA-240 TER/TEOO BR P74CI949 AB CHANCE CO. E£-1A SOKVA GROY/7200 120/240@encrQuoOsONACM EE IS SOKVA 240/76RX/7200SRW740C11950,AB CHANCE CO. HOUSE MOVED TO BLOCK-8 LOT-I E EK RIVER ow"ees\pn cs.Wwnn ste A erie Ot 5 meta csphoppac:a c ee x "12 cA |:lj REETon"|-: : ¥,-Bg TRACT "C"3 U8.SURVEY NO.2021 .,ASHE TERA PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY TO EEK JUNCTION |"!"ke.a IDE BLD|Be EMT) a U.8.SURVEY NO.4484 ALASKA EEK TOWNSITE $22°26W1082.56ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION -EEK - ( Semen nnn nnn emen nme seeenenecennecen,”*ie r 4 =m TRAGT "a".EP =: « -s - f re ” at ® ««i}sare wi .> uu wo « = E40 4s "3 [it PROPOSED LOCATION OF SWITCH GEAR/GROUND GRID TUNDRA STREET 3 2 f N 67°34'W I 2460.15 L ND AND NOTE 3|ls ------PRIMARY CABLE,IS KV NO.2 AL. Po -SECONDARY CABLE,600V NO.40-2/0-4/0 AL. ;|prorosco scwoo.fc SERVICE CABLE,600V NO.2-2-2 AL. es 3)BUILT SUMMER 1982 B te FUEL LINE,3”BLACK STEEL a >E A TRANSFORMER,I@ 12,470/7,200-240/120V PAD MOUNTED a =|st B POWER PEDESTAL,SECONDARY AND SERVICE ;oo"rk :F °SERVICE METER,CL.200 30A 1@ 120/240V 3 WIRE \.wae 2 ||oO.GRADE LEVEL ENCLOSURE FOR PRIMARY SPLICE -” . ge Tae Bre a is °DISCONNECTED SERVICE METER oy 6 To y,eo ura UTILIDOR 'saresere e781 Lo ALL WIRES ARE BURIED UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE |WHERE WIRES ARE SHOWN PARALLEL THEY OCCUPY THE ' SAME TRENCH OR UTILIDOR or QUIKPIPE EXHIBIT ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT 0.0.Box 4-2543 Phone (907)276-3442 P.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM anchorage,Alaska HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY .December 1982