HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-6 KasiglukBethel Area Power Plan
Feasibility Assessment
APPENDIX G-6
KASIGLUK COMMUNITY REPORT
DRAFT
Prepared for the
Alaska Power Authority
by
Harza Engineering Company
and
Darbyshire &Associates
Draft
April 1984
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction VI-1
Background viI-1
Population VI-3
Housing viI-3
Current Economic Activity viI-4
Subsistence vI-4
Cash Economy VI-5
Future Economic Activity VI-7
Current Energy Consumption VI-8
Total Energy vVI-9
Electric Generation viI-10
Future Energy Demand ViI-1l
Formulation of the Supply Plans VI-12
Economic Evaluation vVI-14
Base Case Supply Plan VI-15
Optimized Base Case Supply Plan vVI-16
Thermal Supply Plans VI-16
Hydropower Supply Plans VI-17
Fuel Cell Supply Plans VI-17
Sensitivity Analysis vVI-17
Regional Summary VI-20
Environmental Evaluation VI-20
Table No.
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
vI-4
VI-5
VI-6
vViI-7
VI-8
VI-9
vVI-10
LIST OF TABLES
Kasigluk Household Size
Kasigluk Employment and Income
Kasigluk Projected Annual Earnings
Kasigluk 1981 Fuel Prices and
Consumption
Existing Generating Facilities
Kasigluk 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
vViI-4
VI-6
VI-8
vVI-9
viI-10
VI-11l
VI-15
VI-18
VI-19
VI-21
Exhibit No.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Community Location Map
Kasigluk Population
1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Kasigluk
Economic and Energy Projections,Kasigluk
1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Kasigluk
1981 Energy Balance,Kasigluk
Electrical Distribution System
-iii-
KASIGLUK 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
Kasigluk 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 Kasigluk is intended to be an
informational and working document for the residents of the
community.Much data has been collected on the community's
background,population,housing,and its current economic and
energy profiles.Existing electrical generation and transmis-
sion facilities,as well as residential and commercial space
heating needs,are documented in this report.Projections of
future energy needs,based on future population,housing,and
economic conditions,have been made.These projections have
been used to develop alternative plans for meeting the electric--
al energy and space-heating needs of the region through year
2002,and those of Kasigluk in particular.These alternative
plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental
standpoint.
This community report for Kasigluk is submitted as a draft
for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power
Authority welcomes your comments and questions.
Background
Kasigluk is located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Lowland
approximately 26 miles northwest of Bethel and two miles west of
Nunapitchuk on the Johnson River (Exhibit 1).The village is
located well within the vast silt plain that characterizes the
lower drainage area of the Kuskokwim River.This delta lowland
area contains thousands of thaw lakes,ponds,and tundra hum-
mocks,
Kasigluk and Nunapitchuk are located within the vast wet
tundra plains region.People accordingly often refer to these
communities as the "tundra villages".Standing water is almost
always present during the summer due to the lack of topographic
relief,which makes overland travel extremely difficult.Vege-
tation is limited to grasses and sedges rooted in mosses and
lichens with a few dwarf shrubs existing on slightly raised
ridges.The only available firewood must be pulled from the
vI-1
riverbank of the Kuskokwim 25 miles away.Consequently,fire-
wood usage is primarily limited to heating steam houses which
provide a form of bathing.
Access to Kasigluk is principally by year-round charter air
service and limited summer lighterage service from Bethel.
There is no road system in the area.Overland movement is li-
mited primarily to the winter season.Both the Johnson River
and the Kuskokwim River are used as a roadway for taxis and
truck freight during the winter season after the ice has thick-
ened.Fuel oil and other freight items are trucked over this
ice highway on an ""as-necessary"basis to meet late-wintershortages.Snow machines provide the most competent mode of
travel in winter.
Little is known about the history of Kasigluk.The coming
of the Russians in the first half of the 19th Century had little
influence on the village.When Kasigluk applied for incorpora-
tion in 1968,it consolidated with Nunapitchuk.This consolida-
tion has since been dissolved.
Beside the municipal government,Kasigluk's Native resi-
dents have elected a traditional council.The IRA Council form
of government was established under the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934.Traditional councils were formed in response to
contact with non-Native culture so that the Native community
secured representation.There is very little difference between
the operation of traditional and IRA Councils.Both are eligi-
ble to participate in some state and federal programs,and have
received benefits under the Indian Self Determination Act,the
State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act,the Housing and Community
Development Act,the Comprehensive Employment Training Act
(CETA),and the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Another local organization,the village corporation,al-
though not a government entity,exercises a variety of functions
generally exercised by governments.The local village corpora-
tion,Kasigluk,Inc.,was created under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under
the act.The corporation is entitled to received title to the
surface estate of 115,200 acres of land.Kasigluk has not yet
received title to any lands.
In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held
in Nunapitchuk in April 1982.Residents of Kasigluk were invit-
ed to attend.
VI-2
Population
As shown on Exhibit 2,the population of Kasigluk increased
from 309 in 1970 to 377 in 1980,at an average annual rate of
2 percent.The racial composition has not changed,remaining at
about 97 percent Alaskan Native.The age characteristics of the
population have changed,however.In 1970,the number of young
people was high,and the average age was about 16.Since then,
a significant number of young people apparently left the region
in order to find jobs or to pursue their 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
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 Kasigluk population is
expected to be between 474 and 552 persons.
Housing
According to the 1980 Census,there were about 80 homes in
the community;most homes were owner-occupied.There is no
piped water system in the community;residents obtain water at
the two watering points/washeterias.
The average floor space of the most recently built homes
(HUD)are approximately 1200 square feet,while the older
structures contain roughly half of this floor area.Whereas the
older homes are less well insulated,they are often better built
and better sited away from wind exposure and snow drifting than
the newer homes.
The future housing stock will play an important role in
determining future residential energy demands.The average
number of persons per housing unit decreased from about 5.5 in
1970 to 5.0 in 1980.The improved household income and the
supply of subsidized housing units were the major factors for
this decline.These factors are expected to continue to reduce
the average household size.However,because of the reductions
in subsidized programs,the household size is expected to de-
crease at a lower rate after 1987.As shown in Table VI-1,the
average household size is expected to vary between 3.5 and 4.5
by 2002.
vI-3
Table VI-1
KASIGLUK HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Energy Demand Projections
Year Low Most-Likely High
1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 5.0 N/A
1987 4.9 4.7 4.6
1992 4.7 4.5 4.3
2002 4.5 4.0 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 Kasigluk depend on the environment in large
part for subsistence.Subsistence can be defined as obtaining
food,fiber,and shelter from the surrounding environment.
Subsistence activities are pursued by a majority of the commu-
nity's residents.A recent survey done in the Bethel region
estimates that approximately one-third of the residents surveyed
obtained one-half or more of their foodstuffs by engaging in
such subsistence activities as fishing,berrypicking,and col-
lecting gamebirds along the sloughs and on the swampy tundra.
It is also estimated that the remaining two-third collects 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 Kasigluk.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 subsis--
tence items.Using the figures developed for the Bethel region
and assuming a typical household budget of about $10,000 the
total cash value of these activities can be estimated at about
$270,000 annually.
vVI-4
Cash Economy
Cash employment in Kasigluk exists in forms which are si-
milar to other outlying village economies in Alaska.Typically
most jobs exist with the city government,school,store,health
clinic,and the post office.
Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and energy profile for
Kasigluk.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model output
for Kasigluk 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 "Electricity"corresponds to the total electricity
demand,which is the sum of last column "Light and Electric
Appliances"consumption and the electricity consumption used in
"Cooking,Space Heating,and Water Heating".For convenience,
all consumption data are in Million Btu.The electric energy
demand can be translated into kilowatt-hours by dividing the
consumption in Btu by 3,413 (Btu per kilowatt-hour).The lower
section of Exhibit 3 presents the residential sector with popu-
lation,average household size,total number of households,
average energy consumption per household,and end-use demand.
The last line summarizes the total demand from the commercial,
government and residential sectors.Table VI-2 below summarizes
the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector
that are typically found in a village the size of Kasigluk.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 different times of the year.
vVI-5
Table VI-2
KASIGLUK EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
Average Monthly AnnualEconomicActivity'Employment Earnings
(1981 $)
Renewable Resource Harvesting 6 $76,000
Mining and Exploration 0 -0-
Construction 34 409,000
Household Manufacturing 1 7,000
Transportation 1 19,000
Wholesale,Dist.1 7,000
Comm.and Utilities 1 14,000
Trade and Private Services ll 130,000
Finance and Real Estate 3 46,000
Non-Profit Organization 2 27,000
Local and Regional Government 49 814,000
State Agencies/Services 1 14,000
Federal Agencies/Services 4 54,000
Transfer Payments N/A 772,000
TOTAL $2,389,000
As shown in Table VI-2,the primary sources of income to
the village are local and regional government,transfer pay-
ments,construction,trade and private services,and renewable
resource harvesting.These and other income sources are des-
cribed below.
Local and Regional Government.The village school system
provides the largest number of cash-earning positions to
Kasigluk 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/
typists,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
director,village public safety officer,village patrolman,IRA
Council administrator.
vVI-6
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 Kasigluk and
throughout the region provide employment opportunities that
typically represent the largest private cash-earning potential
locally.
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 VI-2 make up only a minor part of the total village in-
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
organized as described earlier for Exhibit 3.Table VI-3 sum-
marizes the expected range of future economic activity.Total
annual earnings,in constant 1981 dollars,are shown for the
three scenarios.The difference between the low and high pro-
jections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the
future economic course of Kasigluk.
vVI-7
Table VI-3
KASIGLUK PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS
(Constant 1981 Dollars)
___Projections
Year Low Most-Likely High
1981 (Surveyed)N/A $2,389,000 N/A
1987 $2,078,000 2,208,000 $2,693,000
1992 2,176,000 2,495,000 3,100,000
2002 2,353,000 2,961,000 3,513,000
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
s ow 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 represent
a much more sudden and severe slump in the total income earnings
potential of the village during the remainder of the 1980's,
Recovery is expected from this "slump"period,caused by govern-
mental cutbacks,due primarily to a shift in the regional econo-
mic base toward decentralization.Still,this recovery is as-
sumed to be slower and to begin at a much lower point then the
most-likely and high projections.By 1992,the total cash earn-
ed in the economy is expected to be only 91 percent of the
amount earned 10 years earlier.By the year 2002,the total
cash earning potential of the village economy is expected to
have recovered to the 1981 level.
Current Energy Consumption
An energy use inventory was conducted in order to gain an
understanding of the total village energy consumption,and the
relative importance of electricity.Exhibit 5 presents a de-
tailed listing of energy consumption by end uses and by fuel
type.
VI-8
Total Energy
Space and water heating was the major energy end use with a
total consumption of about 20,000 million Btu.A Btu (British
Thermal Unit)is a measure of the amount of heat energy required
to raise the temperature of a pound of water by one degree
Fahrenheit.Fuel oil provided about 92 percent of the total
needs,followed by wood (6 percent),propane (1.5 percent),and
electricity (1.5 percent).Residential cooking consumed about
3,400 million Btu.Lights and appliances consumed an equivalent
of 1,273 million Btu.One kilowatt-hour of electricity is equal
to 3,413 Btu.
Table VI-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types.
It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The estimat-
ed total cost to Kasigluk for their 1981 energy demand was about
$390,000.Some 18 percent was spent on diesel fuel for gener-
ating electricity.
Table VI-4
KASIGLUK
1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION
Unit Annual
Price Consumption
Fuel Oil $1.69/gal.150,000 gal.
Diesel $1.69/gal.40,000 gal.
Propane $85/100 lb bottle 115-100 lb bottle
Blazo $3.40/gal.11,450 gal.
Wood $150/cord 120 cords
Because of the large quantities of fuel needed to meet
year-round energy demands,the only economical supply method is
by water barge.A regional lighterage service is operated out
of Bethel which uses the vast network of rivers and sloughs to
deliver the fuels during the relatively short ice-free period of
late summer and fall.Consequently,the vast majority of the
annual fuel demand 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.
Bulk fuel storage facilities exist in each of the tundra
communities.In the village of Kasigluk,the BIA elementary
school and the village bulk fuel distributorship maintain bulk
fuel storage facilities,totaling approximately 8,000 gallons of
fuel oil or gasoline.The newer settlement of Kasigluk,with
vI-9
its new LKSD high school,maintains back-up bulk storage tanks
for both space heating and electric generation.
Exhibit 6 presents the village energy balance for 1981.
Due to conversion factors and electric distribution losses,the
"useful"energy was about 14,000 million Btu or 45 percent of
the total consumption,
Electric Generation
Present Demand.In 1981,the total electric demand of the
village was about 440 megawatt hours (MWh).The 1981 peak
demand was 125 kw.
Existing Facilities.The village of Kasigluk obtains its
primary electric generation from Nunapitchuk.As shown in Table
VI-5,the village of Kasigluk has no primary generating capabil-
ity.The Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD)and BIA schools
in Kasigluk maintain their own standby generating capbility,
totaling 145 kW.
The distribution system (Exhibit 7)is four years old and
has functioned well in Nunapitchuk,but has had some problems in
Kasigluk.
Table VI-5
EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES
Operating
Owner/Operator Status Capacity
(kW)
Nunapitchuk:
AVEC Primary 400
AVEC Primary 300
AVEC Primary 175
LKSD Standby 75
BIA Standby 35
BIA Standby 40
Kasigluks
LKSD Standby 55
BIA Standby 35
BIA Standby 55
Total Capacity 1175 kw
vI-10
Future Energy Demand
Three projections of future energy demand (low,most like-
ly,high)were developed,based on current use,socio-economic
projections,and assumptions regarding future end use demand.
The most likely scenario is based on the most likely projections
of economic activities,population,and household size described
earlier.It also reflects a mid-range forecast of energy price
trends.The low scenario reflects a more conservative growth
derived from the low projections of economic activities,popula-
tion,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 VI-6 summarizes the re-
sults.Space heating demand was increased by about 15 percent
to reflect the 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 545 and 820 MWh
in year 2002,with a most likely demand of 705 MWh.The most-
likely peak demand is 300 kw.
Table VI-6
KAS IGLUK
ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST
MostLowLikely High
Total Energy Demand (Btu x 10°)
1981 Demand N/A 27,767 N/A
1987 Demand 29,789 31,700 34,290
1992 Demand 33,073 37,826 42,388
2002 Demand 38,578 50,992 62,547
Electric Energy Demand (MWh)
1981 Demand 440 440 440
1987 Demand 445 465 510
1992 Demand 490 560 630
2002 Demand 545 705 820
viI-ll
Formulation of the Supply Plans
To meet the projected energy demand,a base case and four
alternative supply plans were formulated to examine the relative
energy costs and environmental and socioeconomic impacts.With-
in each alternative,subplans are also formulated to meet the
combinations of electrical and total energy demand.The plans
are representative of mixes of supply modes for meeting end-use
demands.
The four alternatives to the base case include coal direct
combustion for meeting all the heating demand.A general
description of each supply plan is given in the following para-
graphs.
I.Base Case.The base case plan represents a continu-
ation of the present practices of diesel generation for
electricity.The base case plan also assumes the continued
use of fuel oil for residential and non-residential heating
needs.No new transmission interties are included in the
Base Case.
II.Base Case Alternatives.The base case alternatives
will utilize the diesel units as described in the base
case,with inclusion of wind electric generation,waste
heat recovery,and coal direct combustion for heating de-
mand.A regional and sub-regional transmission interties
were also evaluated.The optimization of the base case
alternatives is given in the next section.
For consistency between all alternative supply plans,it
was assumed that the conversion to coal direct combustion
would be in 1988,the same year as the coal fired plant
would be in operation.All existing residential and non-
residential systems would be converted to burn coal for
heating.
III.Thermal Alternatives.Five sub-plans were formu-
lated,including a 4-MW or a 10-MW coal-fired plant,
located in Bethel.Transmission interties to the outlying
villages were also considered for each of the five plans.
The results of the economic feasibility to intertie
Kasigluk 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
VI-12
percent of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining
heating demand would be met as in Plan IIIA.
Supply Plan IIIC would consist of a 10-MW cycling plant
that would generate the electric energy demand.The heat-
ing demand would be met as in Plan IIIA.
Supply Plan IIID would consist of the same 10-MW plant with
waste heat recovery that would supply 62 percent of the
heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand
would be met as in Plan IIIA,
Supply Plan IIIE would also consist of a 10-MW plant with a
supplemental boiler to supply about 80 percent of the total
heating demand of Bethel.The remaining heating demand
would be met as in Plan IIIA.
IV.Hydroelectric Alternatives.Two sub-plans were formu-
lated from the Chikuminuk Lake development,as described in
Chapter IV.The 9.5-MW project (Plan IVA)was sized to
meet the monthly electric energy requirements of the Bethel
region through year 2002.The average annual energy pro-
duction would be 60 GWh,or about 21 GWh more than the
projected electric energy demand in 2002,under the most
likely projections.That average surplus of energy would
meet about 7%of the total heating requirements of Bethel,
in year 2002,The second plan (Plan IVB)consists of a
development that approaches the topographic limits of the
site.The 24-MW project would produce an average annual
energy of 120 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 Kasigluk 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 Kasigluk were considered.
VI-13
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
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 VI-7 summarizes the present
worth of each supply plan for Akiak.The present worth compu-
tation was done separately for the heating demand and electric
demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with
generation facilities and transmission interties.
vI-14
Table VI-7
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF
THE SUPPLY PLANS
Total Demand
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Present Worth (1982 $x103)With With
Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase
Base Case
Plan I 16,719 4,889 21,608 1.00
Optimized Base Case
Plan II 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Thermal Plans
Plan IIIA 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Plan IIIB 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Plan ITIIC 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Plan IIID 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Plan IIIE 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Hydroelectric Plans
Plan IVA 11,400 2,702 14,102 1.53 1.16
Plan IVB 11,400 2,702 14,102 1.53 1.16
Fuel Cell Plans
Plan VA 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
Plan VB 11,400 4,889 16,289 1.33 1.00
The following paragraphs describe the results for Kasigluk
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,
VI-15
As shown on Table VI-7,the total present worth of the Base Case
is $21,608,000,of which $4,889,000 is for electric eneryy
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 heatiny would provide significant economic bene-
fit.Under the Most Likely Scenario,assuming a complete
conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth
of the heatiny costs would be reduced by about $5,319,000 (in
1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039.Wind generation was
Only found to be economically feasible in the villages of Eek
and Tuntutuliak.As the generation of electricity for kasigluk
is done in Nunapitchuk,there is no potential for diesel waste
heat recovery.Transmission intertie to Bethel or a_esub-
regional transmission intertie between Nunapitchuk,Kasigluk,
and Atmautluak was not found to be economically feasible.
As shown on Table VI-7,the total present worth of the
Optimized Base Case is $16,289,000.The benefit-cost ratio is
1.33 when compared to the Base Case.AS it was not feasible to
intertie Kasigluk to Bethel or a sub-reyion,the present worth
of the electric eneryy demand is identical to the Base Case,
The present worth of the heating demand was reduced from
$16,719,000 to $11,400,000,
Thermal Supply Plans
As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was
performed to decide whether or not Kasigluk 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
present 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 of the Nunapitchuk-
Kasigluk-Atmautluak sub-regional intertie to Bethel is greater
than the present worth of the Base Case.As a result,it is not
economically feasible to intertie Kasiyluk to a coal-fired plant
in Bethel.The present worth of the energy demand is then equal
to the present worth of the Optimized Base Case.
VI-16
Hydropower Supply Plans
An economic evaluation of the intertie to Akiak was done,
using an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000
per kilowatt.As shown on Table VI-7,the present worth of the
electric demand which includes the intertie is lower than the
present worth of the Base Case.The hydropower supply plans
have the lowest present worth of all supply plans.Both plans
have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.16 when compared to the Optimized
Base Case,
Fuel Cell Supply Plans
An incremental construction cost of $1,000 per kilowatt was
used for the economic evaluation of village interties.As shown
in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report,the present worth of the
Nunapitchuk-Kasigluk-Atmautluak sub-regional intertie to Bethel
is greater than the present worth of the Base Case.As a
result,it is not economically feasible to intertie Kasigluk to
a fuel cell power plant in Bethel.The present worth is then
equal to the present worth of the Optimized Base Case.
Sensitivity Analysis
The timing and rate of conversion from fuel oil to coal or
electric heat to meet the heating demand would directly affect
the value of all supply plans,except the Base Case.For the
purpose of the economic analysis,we assumed a 100 percent con-
version in 1988 to coal direct combustion for space heating.
But,actually,the conversion would be more progressive.As a
result,the present worth of all alternative supply plans to the
Base Case would increase,thereby reducing the difference with
the Base Case.
A sensitivity analysis was first performed to analyze the
impacts of fuel escalation rates.The same supply plans were
reevaluated using 0%real fuel escalation for fuel oil and coal.
The results are summarized in Table VI-8.
VI-17
Table VI-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 11,468 3,668 15,136 1.00 -
Optimized Base Case
Plan II 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Thermal Plans
Plan IIIA 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Plan IIIB 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Plan IIIC 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Plan IIID 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Plan IIIE 8,690 3,575 12,265 1,23 1.00
Hydroelectric Plans
Plan IVA 8,690 2,542 11,232 1.35 1.09
Plan IVB 8,690 2,542 11,232 1.35 1.09
Fuel Cell Plans
Plan VA 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Plan VB 8,690 3,575 12,265 1.23 1.00
Table VI-8 shows that the hydroelectric plans still have a
benefit-cost ratio greater than the Optimized Base Case,if
there is no real escalation in fuel cost.
Another sensitivity analysis was performed to analyze the
impacts of the low and high projections of energy demand.Simi-
lar supply plans using a 4-MW and 10-MW coal-fired plant,a 9-MW
hydroelectric plant,and a 9-MW fuel cell plant were analyzed.
The analysis was done using a 2.5%real escalation for fuel oil,
and 2.0%for coal until year 2002.The results are presented in
Table VI-9.
VI-18
Tc-IATable VI-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 Likely
Supply Plans Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
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 11 6 6 6 6
Hydroelectric Plans
Plan IVA 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 5
Plan IVB 3 1 1 7 4 1 1 5
Fuel Cell Plans
Plan VA 6 6 5 5 3 4 2 3
Plan VB 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 3
*Assumes 2.5%real escalation rate for fuel oil and 2.0%for coal during the period 1982-2001.No escalation rates are
assumed after 2001.
6T-IALow Scenario
Table VI-9
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS
(1982 $x103)
Most Likely Scenario High Scenario
Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total
Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand
Base Case
Plan I 13,470 4,019 17,489 16,719 4,889 21,608 19,744 5,596 25,340
Optimized Base Case
Plan II 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Thermal Plans
Plan IIIA 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Plan IIIB 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Plan IIIC 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Plan IIID 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Plan IIIE 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Hydroelectric Plans
Plan IVA 9,409 2,451 11,860 11,400 2,702 14,102 13,268 2,911 16,179
Plan IVB 9,409 2,451 11,860 11,400 2,702 14,102 13,268 2,911 16,179
Fuel Cell Plans
Plan VA 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Plan VB 9,409 4,019 13,428 11,400 4,889 16,289 13,268 5,596 18,864
Under the Low Scenario,the conversion to coal-direct
combustion for heating demand would still provide substantial
savings,assuming a 100%percent conversion in 1988.Under the
High Scenario,it would still not be economically feasible to
intertie kasigluk to a coal-fired or fuel cell plant in Bethel.
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 VI-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.
viI-20
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 he
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.
VI-22
rN
.ty,
aa sour O OG\o
v
gs Oscarville3
;Napaskiak °<Napakiak s. 4
BR,2.@ Tuntutuliak .'eisme.
vySR 7ASS
BETHEL
ALS
FAIRBANKS \e
\
ANCHORAGE
_Sy
JUNEAUg
KEY MAP
Nes EXHIBIT 18ewer&
&
a2,Ki.Akiak
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
MILES BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT048121620
{1 p 1 yy J
SCALE 1:1,000,000 COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP
HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
December 1982
HISTORICAL DATA,
Exhibit 2
KASIGLUK POPULATION
PROJECTIONS,AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES
HISTORICAL DATA
Year Population
1970 309
1980 377
PROJECTIONS
Year Low
1980 377
Annual Growth Rate:1.1%
1987 407
Annual Growth Rate:13%
1992
,
429
Annual Growth Rates 1%
2002 474
Annual Growth
Rate
(%)
2.0
Most Likely
377
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
1981 PROFILE,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Elect Space Water Light &SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianaentaaeateataatenettnteatteteateteteaette($000)--=-(No,)ween nn nn ne ----(Million Btu)-<-=-
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest 76 6 0 0 0 0 0
Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 409 34 0 0 0 0 0
Household Mfq.7 1 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation 19 1 0 0 89 0 0
Wholesale,Dist.7 1 3 0 13 0 3
.Comm.and Utilities 14 1 0 0 0 0 0
Trade &Pvt.Service 130 11 34 0 238 0 34
Finance &Real Est.46 3 7 0 72 0 7
GOVERNMENT
Non-Protit Org.27 2 14 0 596 28 14
Local &Reg.Govt.814 49 889 0 5407 1127 889
State Agencies/Svcs 14 1 5 0 184 0 5
Fed.Agencies/Svcs 54 4 0 0 236 0 0
***eTransfer Payments 772
TOTAL 2389 114 952 0 6835 1155 952
RESIDENTIAL
Population (No.persons)373
Household Size 5
Total Households 75
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)216
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)546 3374 11567 803 321
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1498 3374 18402 1958 1273
€LIGIHX3
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
*k**Transfer Payments
RESIDENTIAL
1987 FORECAST,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Population (No.persons)
Household Size
Total Households
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
Elect-Space Water Light &Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian($000)-- (No.)(Million Btu)---
77 6 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 35 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 0 0 0 0 0
19 1 0 0 90 0 0
7 1 3 0 13 0 3
14 1 0 0 0 0 0
122 11 32 0 223 0 32
45 3 7 0 69 0 7
26 2 13 0 566 27 13
773 47 845 0 5138 1071 845
16 1 6 0 206 0 6
33 2 0 0 144 0 0
656
2208 111 906 0 6449 1098 906
414
4.7
88
229
684 4223 14478 1005 402
1590 4223 20927 2103 1308TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)639|ebegyLISIHXS
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,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Population (No.persons)
Household Size
Total Households
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
Elect-Space Water Light &
Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian
($000)-- (No.)-conm----(Million Btu)-----<<<-----------
85 7 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 °0
460 38 0 0 0 0 0
7 1 0 0 0 0 0
21 1 0 0 100 0 0
7 1 3 0 15 0 3
16 1 0 0 0 0 0
136 12 36 0 249 0 36
49 4 8 0 76 0 8
27 2 14 0 603 28 14
942 57 1029 0 6257 1305 1029
17 1 6 0 221 0 6
33 2 0 0 144 0 0
695
2495 127 1096 0 7665 1333 1096
448
4.5
100
242
816 5038 17273 1200 480
1912 5038 24938 2533 1576TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)630ZabeyyLISIHXS
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82
2002 FORECAST,KaSigiluk,Alaska
Elect-Space Water Light &
SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian
----($000)---(No.)--(Million Btu)-
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest 96 8 0 0 0 0 0
Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 513 43 0 0 0 0 0
Household Mfg.8 1 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation 24 2 0 0 115 0 0
Wholesale,Dist.8 1 4 0 17 0 4
Comm.and Utilities 19 1 0 0 0 0 0
Trade &Pvt.Service 154 13 40 0 282 0 40
Finance &Real Est.59 4 9 0 91 0 9
GOVERNMENT
Non-Profit Org.36 3 19 0 801 38 19
Local &Reg.Govt.1067 65 1166 0 7088 1478 1166
State Agencies/Svcs 20 2 7 0 265 0 7
Fed.Agencies/Svcs 46 3 0 0 201 0 0
***Transfer Payments 911
TOTAL 2961 146 1245 0 8860 1516 1245
RESIDENTIAL
Population (No.persons)518
Household Size 4
Total Households 130
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)266
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1167 7210 24720 1717 687
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)2412 7210 33580 3233 1932
6$0€abegyLISIHX3
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORFCAST
LOW Projection 10/15/82
1987 FORECAST,KaSigiluk,Alaska
Elect-Space Water Light &
SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applianennneenerenen($000)--=(No.)=----(Million Btu)------
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest 74 6 0 0 0 0 0
Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 407 34 0 0 0 0 0
Household Mfg.6 1 0 0 0 0 0
Transportation 18 1 0 0 85 0 0
Wholesale,Dist.6 1 3 0 13 0 3
Comm.and Utilities 13 1 0 0 0 0 0
Trade &Pvt.Service 115 10 30 0 211 0 30
Finance &Real Est.4l1 3 6 0 63 0 6
GOVERNMENT
Non-Profit Org.21 2 1l 0 462 22 11
Local &Reg.Govt.753 46 823 0 5004 1043 823
State Agencies/Svcs 12 1 4 0 156 0 4
Fed.Agencies/Svcs 33 2 0 0 144 0 0
**kxTransfer Payments 579
TOTAL 2078 108 877 0 6138 1065 877
RESIDENTIAL
Population (No.persons)407
Household Size 4.9
Total Households 83
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)227
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)638 3940 13509 938 375
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1515 3940 19647 2003 1252
63°pobegvLIGIHX3
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
1992 FORECAST,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Space Water
Cooking Heating Heating
Population (No.persons)
Household Size
Total Households
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
Elect-
Income Emplymt ricity($000)--=-(No.)---
81 7 0 0
0 0 0 0
418 35 0 0
6 1 0 0
19 1 0 0
7 1 3 0
15 1 0 0
125 ll 33 0
43 3 7 0
23 2 12 0
822 50 898 0
13 1 5 0
25 2 0 0
579
2176 115 958 0
429
4.7
91
231
715 4416
1673 4416TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)
(Million Btu)-
Light &
Applian
etCOOFr®wWoooce15142
21794
1052
2215 NSWOWTCTCOSo421
1379
630GobegbvLISIHX3
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
LOW Projection 10/15/82
SECTOR
COMMERCIAL
Income
($000)-- (No.)
2002 FORECAST,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Emplymt
Elect-
ricity Cooking Heating
(Million Btu)
Renew.Res.Harvest 92 7 0 0
Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0
Construction 531 44 0 0
Household Mfg.7 1 0 0
Transportation 21 1 0 0
Wholesale,Dist.8 1 3 0
Comm.and Utilities 17 1 0 0
Trade &Pvt.Service 134 12 35 0
Finance &Real Est.47 3 7 0
GOVERNMENT
Non-Profit Org.26 2 13 0
Local &Reg.Govt.853 52 932 0
State Agencies/Svcs 13 1 5 0
Fed.Agencies/Svcs 25 2 0 0
***eTransfer Payments 579
TOTAL 2353 127 995 0
RESIDENTIAL
Population (No.persons)474
Household Size 4.5
Total Households 105
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)244
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)871 5380
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1866 5380
Space Water Light &
Heating Applian
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
101 0 0
16 0 3
0 0 0
246 0 35
72 0 7
566 27 13
5664 1181 932
175 0 5
109 0 0
6949 1208 995
18444 1281 512
25393 2489 1507
6309abeg¢yLISIHX3S
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
HIGH Projection 10/15/82
1987 FORECAST,KaSigiluk,Alaska
SECTOR Income Emplymt Space Water Light &
Cooking Heating Heating Applian
oooooooo0°cn”coocoooer ee ee eo oe me er me ee eee ($000)--=(No.)ewe enn
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest 86 7
Mining &Exploration 0 0
Construction 495 41
Household Mfg.11 2
Transportation 21 1
Wholesale,Dist.7 1
Comm.and Utilities 17 1
Trade &Pvt.Service 144 12
Finance &Real Est.53 4
GOVERNMENT
Non Protit Org.30 2
Local &Reg.Govt.863 52
State Agencies/Svcs 16 1
Fed.Agencies/Svcs 62 4
***Transfer Payments 888
TOTAL 2693 128
RESIDENTIAL
Population (No.persons)421
Household Size 4.6
Total Households 92
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)233
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)
(Million Btu)---
15344
22681
1066
2293 BDaMOWOODOCCOS426
1439
6$0ZebegbLIGIHX3
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
HIGH Projection 10/15/82
SECTOR
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest
Mining &Exploration
Construction
Household Mfq.
Transportation
Wholesale,Dist.
Comm.and Utilities
Trade &Pvt.Service
Finance &Real Est.
GOVERNMENT
Non-Protit Org.
Local &Reg.Govt.
State Agencies/Svcs
Fed.Agencies/Svcs
***eTransfer Payments
RESIDENTIAL
Income
($000)---(No.)
1992 FORECAST,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Emplymt
Elect-Space
ricity Cooking Heating
Population (No.persons)
Household Size
Total Households
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)
103 8 0
0 0 0
593 50 0
15 3 0
25 2 0
9 1 4
21 1 0
166 14 44
61 és)9
31 2 16
1060 64 1158
18 1 7
71 5 0
927
3100 156 1238
463
4.3
108
248
906
2144
(Million Btu)
Water Light &
Heating Applian
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 118 0 0
0 17 0 4
0 0 0 0
0 305 0 44
0 94 0 9
0 691 33 16
0 7043 1469 1158
0 235 0 7
0 307 0 0
0 8810 1502 1238
5594 19180 1332 533
5594 27990 2834 1771
640gebegpyLISIHX3
BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST
HIGH Projection 10/15/82
SECTOR
COMMERCIAL
Renew.Res.Harvest
Mining &Exploration
Construction
Household Mfq.
'Transportation
Wholesale,Dist.
Comm.and Utilities
Trade &Pvt.Service
Finance &Real Est.
GOVERNMENT
Non-Protit Org.
Local &Reg.Govt.
State Agencies/Svcs
Fed.Agencies/Svcs
**k*eTransfer Payments
RESIDENTIAL
2002 FORECAST,Kasigiluk,Alaska
Population (No.persons)
Household Size
Total Households
Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)
Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)
Elect-Space Water Light &
Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian
($000)---(No.)-(Million Btu)--
120 10 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
768 64 0 0 0 0 0
17 3 0 0 0 0 0
29 2 0 0 137 0 0
10 1 4 0 20 0 4
24 2 0 0 0 0 0
186 16 49 0 340 0 49
69 5 10 0 106 0 10
33 3 17 0 724 34 17
1114 67 1217 0 7401 1543 1217
20 2 7 0 257 0 7
81 6 0 0 354 0 0
1042
3513 181 1304 0 9339 1577 1304
552
3.5
158
281
1501 9273 31793 2208 883
TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)2805 9273 41132 3785 2187
6306abegvyLIGIHXS
Exhibit 5
1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION,KASIGLUK
Million Btu
Residential Sector
Light and Appliances
Electricity 321
Space Heating
Electricity 159
Fuel Oi1 9,911
Wood 1,119
Propane/Blazo 378
Water Heating
Fuel Oil 660
Wood 58
Propane/Blazo 85
Cooking
Electricity 66
Fuel Oil 2,243
Propane/Blazo 1,065
Total 16,065
Commercial Sector
Lights and Appliances
Electricity 44
Space &Water Heating
Fuel Oil 412
Total 456
Government Sector
Lights and Appliances
Electricity 908
Space &Water Heating
Fuel Oil 7,578
Total 8,486
Equivalent Btu:kilowatt-hour =3,413,Btu
gallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu
gallon of blazo =136,000 Btu
100-1lb bottle of propane =2,500,000 Btu
cord of wood =13,000,000 Btullellen
(5,573)LF=REsOgDIESELSe]YeS|}"3oO
PROPANE/BLAZO
(1.273)|LIGHTSAND|REJECTED ENERGY
_EXHIBIT 6
APPLIANCES
COOKING
FUEL OIL
SPACE
AND
WATER
HEATING USEFUL ENERGY
>
>(18,630)ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
(11,500)BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
(UNITS:MILLION Btu)
1981 ENERGY BALANCE
KASIGLUK
HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
December 1982
4/ne une FROMzaNuNAPITCHUR
)ee=.{enmassaesosesELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION -KASIGLUK
XISTING_RIGHT-OF-WAY TO.NUNAPITCHUK ___-
LEGEND AND NOTES
PRIMARY CABLE,IS KV NO.2 AL.
SECONDARY CABLE,600V NO 40-2/0-4/0 AL.
SERVICE CABLE,600V NOQ.2-2-2 AL.FUEL LINE,3"BLACK STEELTRANSFORMER,{0 12,470/7,200-240/120V PAD MOUNTED
SECONDARY AND SERVICE
CL.200 SOA 1D 120/240V 3 WIRE
GRADE LEVEL ENCLOSURE FOR PRIMARY SPLICE
DISCONNECTED SERVICE METER
STREET LIGHT WITHOUT SERVICE METER
7
=x
ule
Dla
«Fl2
TE LINE
POWER PEDESTAL,
SERVICE METER,
UTILIDOR
op QUIKPIPE
ALL WIRES ARE BURIED UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN
WHERE WIRES ARE SHOWN PARALLEL THEY OCCUPY THE
SAME TRENCH,UTILIOOR OR QUIKPIPE
AVEG'S PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY __
TO AKULA HEIGHTS AND NUNAPITCHUK
"2yt EXHIBIT 7
Page 1 of 2
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
P.E.COMPANY
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
P.o.bone2543 gt Anchorage,Alaska
Phone (907)276-3442 e9s08
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
December 1982
Se PRIMARY METERING CABINET gon To"g
A
"KASIGLUK H Page 2 of 2
APPROX 1¥2 MILES a
Ons,de.i
"ee i
:
'
5
.
e
'
::AVEC'S PROPOSED INTERTIE TO
"-_KASIGLUK AND NUNAPITCHUK 3c.ae
'
'
n
'
:
:
E
\
a ccumonon ewe -|
?PROPOSED LOCATION OF SWITCH GEAR \\
H AND POSSIBLE GROUND GRID |:|ser V .3HWaTeERFRONTHORE
oy set \7 ,TWO ANCHORS »-.
H :
.
'|
cp 'J@ ee :oF UNITES 'Nope
AUTLUAKRIGHT-OF-WAY TO ATMJUNCTION(ALTERNATE)ROADcura"CACADPOND
TSoes5iel
LEGEND
--/+-PRIMARY SINGLE §OVH #2 ACSR
-/4-SECONDARY OVH BETWEEN POLES*2 TRI.
---5)TWO GUY WIRES TOA SINGLE ANCHOR
-§H--SERVICE OVH FROM POLE TO HOUSE *2TRI.
----PRIMARY ISKV ®2 AL URD
--_SINGLE DOWN GUY TO SINGLE ANCHOR
scHoor SITEUKUSKOOUIM'SCHOOL OF!:
.KASIGL x!wonver By RBM CONSULTANTSDECEMBER,i978SIN.
POND
\
AKOLMIUT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
AS APPROVED BY AKOLMIUT VELAGE COUNCIL(NATIVE ALLOTMENT F 18894)SEC.13,TON,R75W,S.M)
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
NOTE:AVEC OWNES POLES 0,IR,28,3R,4R,6R,8 7RUUtOWNESALLOTHERS
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMPE.COMPANY
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS
HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY
Anchorage,Atastavesoe December 1982
0.0.Box 4-2543
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION -AKULA HEIGHTS
Phone(907)276-3442