Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Energy Projects 1984 Appendix G-8 Napakiak
Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G-8 NAPAKIAK 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 Plan Hydropower Supply Plans Fuel Cell Supply Plans Sensitivity Analysis Regional Summary Environmental Evaluation Page VIII-1 VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-3 VIII-4 VIII-4 VIII-5 VIII-7 VITI-8 VIII-8 VIII-10 VIII-10 VIII-11 VIII-13 VITI-15 VIII-16 VIII-16 VIII-16 VIII-17 VIII-17 VIII-20 VIII-20 LIST OF TABLES Table No.Title Page VIII-1l Napakiak Household Size VIII-4 VIII-2 Napakiak Employment and Income VIII-6 VIII-3 Napakiak Projected Annual Earnings VIII-8 VIII-4 Napakiak1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption VIII-9 VIII-5 Existing Generating Facilities VIII-10 VIII-6 Napakiak Energy Demand Forecast VIII-11 VIII-7 Most Likely Scenario,Present Worth and Benefit-Cost Ratio of the Supply Plans VIII-15 VIII-8 Most Likely Scenario,Sensitivity Analysis Using 0%Real Fuel Escalation VIII-18 VIII-9 Sensitivity Analysis,Present Worth of Supply Plans VIII-19 VIII-10 Ranking of Energy Supply Plans VIII -21 ii- Exhibit No. LIST OF EXHIBITS Community Location Map Napakiak Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Napakiak Economic and Energy Projections,Napakiak 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Napakiak 1981 Energy Balance,Napakiak Electrical Distribution System -iii- NAPAKIAK 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 Napakiak 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 Napakiak is intended to be an informational and working document for the residents of the community.Much data has been collected on the community's background,population,housing,and its current economic and energy profiles,Existing electrical generation and transmission facilities,as well as residential and commercial space heating needs,are documented in this report.Projections of future eneryy 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 Napakiak in particular,These alternative plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint. This community report for Napakiak is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Background Napakiak is located on the Kuskokwim Delta 10 miles south- west of Bethel (Exhibit 1).The village site is located well below the lower end of the bottomland spruce-poplar forest belt that follows the course of the Kuskokwim River and its main tributaries.The predominant vegetation surrounding the village is sparse thickets of willow,alder,and some birch,with the INMajority of the area characteristic of moist tundra.MThe only available firewood must be pulled from the banks of the Kuskok- wim.The remaining vegetation farther inland from the river bottom is characterized as wet tundra.Standing water is pres- ent throughout the summer,which makes overland travel extremely difficult. Access to Napakiak is principally by year-round charter air service and limited summer lighterage service from Bethel. The village is served by two bush air carriers three times a VIII-1 week from Bethel,Hovercraft,initiating in Bethel,makes two stops weekly at the village.There is no road system in the area,Overland movement is limited primarily to the winter season.The river is used as a roadway for taxis and truck freight during the winter season after the ice has thickened. Fuel oil and other freight items are trucked over this ice high- way on a fairly regular basis to meet winter demands.Snow machines provide the most competent mode of travel in winter. Napakiak has been known by various names;notably "Napahaiagamute,"as reported by E.W.Nelson of the U.S.Signal Service in 1878;"Napahayagamuit"in the 1890 Census;and "Napachiakachagamut™by a Moravian missionary.Napakiak's post office commenced operations in 1951.The city was incorporated in 1970. Beside the municipal government,Napakiak's Native popula- tion is represented by an IRA Council which is recognized by the federal government as the offical tribal governing body of the village.The IRA Council form of government was established under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.It 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 Develop- ment 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,Napakiak Corporation,was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.It is entitled to received title to the surface estate of 115,200 acres of land.To date,no lands have been transferred to the corporation by the Bureau of Land Management. In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Napakiak in April 1982.Villaye leaders and residents were invited to attend. Population As shown on Exhibit 2,the population of Napakiak increased from 139 in 1950 to 262 in 1980.Between 1960 and 1970,the population grew at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent.Be- tween 1970 and 1980,the population grew at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent.The racial composition has not changed since 1970,when it was about 98 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 VIII-2 was about 18.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 aye was about 23, 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 population is expected to be between 322 and 383 persons. Housing In 1981,there were about 60 occupied housing units in the community.Of these,20 were built in 1971 by ASHA.HUD plans to build 27 additional houses in the community in 1982-83. Current population per dwelling unit is 4.4.Residents haul their water from a central watering point. The averaye floor space of the most recently built homes (HUD)are approximately 1200 square feet,while the older struc- tures contain roughly half of this floor area,Whereas'the older built 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 5.9 in 1970 to 4.4 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 averaye household size.However,because of the reductions in subsidized programs,the household size is expected to de- crease at a lower rate.As shown in Table VIII-l,the average household size is expected to be between 3.5 and 4.5 by 2002. VIII-3 Table VIII-1 NAPAKIAK HOUSEHOLD SIZE Energy Demand ProjectionsYear|Low Most-Likely High 1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 4.4 N/A 1987 4.1 4.1 4.3 1992 4.1 4.1 4.0 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 Napakiak depend on the environment in large part for subsistence.Subsistence can be defined as obtaining food,fiber,and shelter from the surrounding environment. Subsistence activities are pursued by a majority of the communi- ty's residents.A recent survey done in the Bethel region esti- mates that approximately one-third of the residents surveyed obtained one-half of their foodstuffs by engaging in such sub- sistence activities as fishiny,berrypicking,and collecting gamebirds along the sloughs and on the swampy tundra.It is also estimated that the remaining two-third of the residents collects one-fourth of their needs. Residents rely on subsistence activities for a number of reasons:it is the traditional method of provision passed to the present generation by its forefathers;in time of high ship- ping and transportation costs,it offers savings over the pur- chase of costly foodstuffs;and it provides a fruitful form of recreation.Dog,king,and silver salmon,as well as ling cod, shellfish,whitefish,and blackfish,provide food for many resi- dents of Napakiak.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 to about $200,000 annually. VIII-4 Cash Economy Cash employment in Napakiak exists in forms which are simi- lar to other outlying village economies in Alaska.Typically most jobs exist with the city government,school,store,health clinic,and the post office.Occasionally a construction pro- ject,such as the addition of a high school to the elementary school as well as the building of homes,will provide temporary jobs for village residents. Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and energy profile for Napakiak.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model output for Napakiak 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 eco- nomic activity,followed by the corresponding number of average annual employment.The remaining columns present the end-use eneryy 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"con- sumption 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 population,aver- age household size,total number of households,average house- hold size,total number of households,averaye energy consump- tion per household,and end-use demand.The last line summar- izes the total demand from the commercial,government and resi- dential sectors. Table VIII-2 below summarizes the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector that are typically found in a village the size of Napakiak.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. VIII-5 Table VIII-2 NAPAKIAK EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME Average Monthly Annual"Economic Activity Employment -Earnings (1981 $) Renewable Resource Harvesting 4 $53,000 Mining and Exploration 0 -0- Construction 24 287,000 Household Manufacturing 1 5,000 Transportation 1 14,000 Wholesale,Dist.1 5,000 Comm.and Utilities 3 44,000 Trade and Private Services 8 91,000 Finance and Real Estate 2 33,000 Non-Profit Organization 1 19,000 Local and Regional Government 34 567,000 State Agencies/Services 1 11,000 Federal Agencies/Services 3 38,000 Transfer Payments N/A 543,000 TOTAL $1,710,000 As shown in Table VIII-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 described below. Local and Regional Government.The village school system provides the largest number of cash-earning positions'to Napakiak 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,and IRA Council administrator, VIII-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 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 Napakiak and throughout the region provide employment opportunities that typically represent the largest private cash-earning potential locally.The upcoming housing project 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 VIII-2 make up only a minor part of the total village income.Federal agency services,finance and real estate,and transportation services represent the largest income sources of this group. Future Economic Activity Future energy demand will depend upon the changes of the various economic sectors and the purchasing ability of the households,It is therefore important to measure the future To reflect the potential changes over the next twenty years, three levels of expected change (most likely,low and high)were developed. The results of the economic projections for the years 1987, 1992,and 2002 are presented on Exhibit 4.Exhibit 4 is organ- ized as described earlier for Exhibit 3.Table VIII-3 summar- izes 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 proj- ections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the future economic course of Napakiak,. VIII-7 Table VIII-3 NAPAKIAK PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS (Constant 1981 Dollars) __Projections-Year Low Most-Likely High 1981 (Surveyed)N/A $1,710,000 N/A 1987 $1,489,000 1,584,000 $1,932,000 1992 1,561,000 1,788,000 2,226,000 2002 1,690,000 2,124,000 2,523,000 By the year 1992,under the "Most-Likely"set of circum- stances,the total village cash economy is expected to have completed its recovery from the 1980's slump.The remainder of the forecast to the year 2002 is characterized by a period of slow and continual expansion at a rate of about 2 percent. The "High"forecast assumptions differ from the "Most- Likely"primarily in the severity of the anticipated slump during the early 1980's.The effect of these less severe reductions is measured in the forecast as a slowly expanding economy Of about 2.0 percent annual growth rate, 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 earned in the economy is expected to be only 92 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 the 1981 energy consumption by end uses and by fuel type. Total Energy Space and water heatiny was the major energy end use with a total consumption of about 12,500 million Btu.A Btu (British VIII-8 Thermal Unit)is a measure of the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a pound of water by one degree Fah- renheit.Fuel oil provided about 92 percent of the total heat- ing needs,followed by wood (7 percent),and electricity (1 percent).Lights and electric appliances consumed an equivalent of about 820 million Btu.One kilowatt-hour is equal to 3,413 Btu. Table VIII-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types.It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The estimated total cost to Napakiak for their 1981 energy demand was about $225,000 million,of which 28 percent was spent on diesel fuel for generating electricity. Table VIII-4 NAPAKIAK 1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION Unit Annual Price _Consumption Fuel oil $1.79/gal.85,000 gallons Diesel $1.79/gal.35,000 gallons Propane $100/100 lb bottle 10-100 lb bottles Wood $150/cord 60 cords Because of the large quantities needed annually to meet year-round eneryy demands,the only economical supply method is by water barge.A regional lighterage service is operated out of Bethel which uses the vast network of rivers and sloughs to deliver the fuels during the relatively short ice-free period of late summer and fall.Consequently,the vast majority of the annual fuel supply of the village must be delivered and stored on site during this portion of the year.Bulk fuel storage facilities are therefore a critical component of the present village energy system.Separate bulk fuel storage facilities are maintained in the village of Napakiak for the BIA elementary school and the village bulk fuel distributor,Napakiak Corpora- tion.The combined total storage capacity is approximately 56,000 gallons,which is not 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"eneryy was about 8,500 million Btu or 48 percent of the total consumption. VIII-9 Electric Generation Present Demand.In 1981,the total electric demand of the village was about 380 megawatt-hours.The 1981 peak demand was 110 kw. Existing Facilities.Primary electrical power is supplied to the village by a Single Wire Ground Return (SWGR)system, which is a 3-year experiment by the Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development,Department.This SWGR system is composed of a single wire stretched over the 12-mile distance between Bethel and Napakiak and is supported by an A-frame system.The line is electrically charged at the Bethel end by Bethel Utili- ties Corporation.The village native corporation,Napakiak Corporation,distributes the power at the village end and bills its electric customers.The supplier,Bethel Utilities Corpora- tion,bills Napakiak Corporation at a bulk rate through a meter on the Bethel end.Ownership and liability of the SWGR present- ly resides with the Division of Energy and Power Development. In addition to the SWGR,the BIA school has two standby diesel generator sets.Table VIII-5 below describes this sys- tem. The distribution system (Exhibit 7)distributes only single phase power.It is badly in need of replacement. Table VIII-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES ee Operating oo.Owner/Operator Status Capacit (kW) Bethel Utilities Corp.Primary - BIA Standby 150 BIA Standby 150 Total Standby Capacity 150 kw Future Energy Demand Three projections of energy demand (low,most likely,high) were developed,based on current use,socio-economic projec- tions,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 VIII-10 derived from the projections of economic activities,population, and household size,as well as a real energy annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.The high scenario assumes a continuation of the subsidized present situation,both at the energy level and at the economic level. The forecasts are based on estimated growth in each econo- mic activity described earlier,and in the residential sector. Pages 1 through 3 of Exhibit 4 present the end use projections for 1987,1992 and 2002 under the most likely scenario.Pages 4 through 6,and 7 through 9 present the projections for the low and high scenario,respectively.Table VIII-6 summarizes the results.Space heating demand was increased by about 15 percent to reflect average annual heating needs of the region,since 1981,the base year,was warmer than average.The total electric energy demand is expectd to vary between 505 and 835 MWh in year 2002,with a most likely energy demand of 660 MWh. The most likely 2002 peak demand is 190 kW. Table VIII-6 NAPAKIAK ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 106) 1981 Demand N/A 15,137 N/A 1987 Demand 16,122 16,971 17,822 1992 Demand 17,872 20,054 22,295 2002 Demand 19,016 24,720 29,891 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 380 380 380 1987 Demand 420 450 465 1992 Demand 470 520 580 2002 Demand 505 660 835 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.All supply plans assume the continuation of the VIII-11 existing intertie between Bethel and Napakiak,with the electric demand for Napakiak generated in Bethel, 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-reyional 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. 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. VIII-12 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 villages were also considered. v.Fuel Cell Alternatives.Two fuel cell alternative plans were formulated.Both plans include a centralized 9-MW fuel cell electric generation plant,located in Bethel.The difference between the alternatives is that one plant (Plan VB)is designed for waste heat recovery, which could provide an estimated 12%of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion, 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 VIII-13 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 VIII-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Napakiak.The present worth computation was done separately for the heating demand and electric demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with generation facilities and transmission interties. VIII-14 Table VIII-7 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF THE SUPPLY PLANS _Total DemandBenefit-Cost RatioPresentWorth(1982 $x103)_ With With oe,Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase Base Case Plan I 9,468 3,520 12,988 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 6,672 3,520 10,192 1.27 1,00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 6,672 3,712 10,384 1.25 0.98 Plan IIIB 6,672 3,712 10,384 1.25 0.98 Plan ILIC 6,672 3,978 10,650 1.22 0.96 Plan IIID 6,672 3,978 10,650 1.22 0.96 Plan IIIE 6,672 3,978 10,650 1.22 0.96 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 6,672 1,768 8,440 1.54 1.21 Plan IVB 6,672 1,768 8,440 1.54 1.21 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 6,672 3,163 9,835 1.32 1,04 Plan VB 6,672 3,163 9,835 1.32 1,04 The following paragraphs describe the results for Napakiak 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, VIII-15 As shown on Table VIII-7,the total present worth of the Base Case is $12,988,000,of which $3,520,000 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,and waste heat recovery.As described in the Regional Report,the analy- sis 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 $2,796,000 (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039.Wind generation was only found to be economically feasible in the villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak.Diesel waste heat recovery was not feasible since electricity is generated in Bethel, As shown on Table VIII-7,the total present worth of the Optimized Base Case is $10,192,000.The benefit-cost ratio is 1.27 when compared to the Base Case.The present worth of the electric energy demand is identical to the Base Case.The pre- sent worth of the heating demand was reduced from $9,468,000 to $6,672,000. Thermal Supply Plans 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 project- ed village peak demand in year 2002 to estimate the construction cost associated with that village.As shown on Table VIII-7, all thermal plans have a benefit-cost ratio lower than one when compared to the Optimized Base Case.In all thermal supply plans,the present worth of the electric demand,alone,is greater than the present worth of the Optimized Base Case elec- tric demand,The benefit-cost ratio is 0.98 for Plans IIIA and IIIB,and 0.96 for Plans IIIC,I1LID,and IITIE. Hydropower Supply Plans The economic evaluation was done using an incremental hydroelectric construction cost of $3,000 per kilowatt.As shown on Table VIII-7,the present worth of the electric demand is lower than the present worth of the Base Case,The hydro- power supply plans have the lowest present worth of all supply plans.Both plans have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.21 when com- pared to the Optimized Base Case. VITI-16 Fuel Cell Supply Plans An incremental construction cost of $1,000 per kilowatt was used for the economic evaluation.As shown on Table VIII-7,the present worth of the electric demand which includes the intertie is lower than the present worth of the Base Case.The fuel cell alternatives have an overall benefit-cost ratio of 1.04 when compared to the Optimized Base Case, Sensitivity Analysis The timing and rate of conversion from fuel oil to coal or electric heat to meet the heating demand would directly affect the value of all supply plans,except the Base Case,For the purpose of the economic analysis,we assumed a 100 percent con- version in 1988 to coal direct combustion for space heating. But,actually,the conversion would be more 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 VIII-8. VIII-17 Table VIII-8 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS USING 0%REAL FUEL ESCALATION _Total DemandBenefit-Cost RatioPresentWorth(1982 $x103)_With With ooo...Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase Base Case Plan I 6,536 2,708 9,244 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 5,156 2,708 7,864 1.18 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 5,156 3,064 8,220 1.13 0.96 Plan IIIB 5,156 3,064 8,220 1.13 0.96 Plan IIIc 5,156 3,269 8,425 1.10 0.93 Plan IIID 5,156 3,269 8,425 1.10 0.93 Plan IIIE 5,156 3,269 8,425 1.10 0.93 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,156 1,649 6,805 1.36 1.16 Plan IVB 5,156 1,649 6,805 1.36 1.16 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,156 2,600 7,756 1.19 1.01 Plan VB 5,156 2,600 7,756 1.19 1.01 Table VIII-8 shows that the hydroelectric and fuel cell 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 VIII-9. VIII-18 T@-IIIATable VIII-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.assumed after 2001. No escalation rates are 6T-IIIAPRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS Low Scenario Table VIII-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (1982 $x10 ) Most Likely Scenario High Scenario Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Heating Electric Total Supply Plan Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Base Case Plan I 7,771 2,972 10,743 9,468 3,520 12,988 11,010 4,122 15,132 Optimized Base Case Plan II 5,632 2,972 8,604 6,672 3,520 10,192 7,618 4,122 11,740 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 5,632 3,124 8,756 6,672 3,712 10,384 7,618 4,381 11,999 Plan IIIB 5,632 3,124 8,756 6,672 3,712 10,384 7,618 4,381 11,999 Plan IIIC 5,632 3,337 8,969 6,672 3,978 10,650 7,618 4,706 12,324 Plan IIID 5,632 3,337 8,969 6,672 3,978 10,650 7,618 4,706 12,324 Plan IIIE 5,632 3,337 8,969 6,672 3,978 10,650 7,618 4,706 12,324 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,632 1,574 7,206 6,672 1,768 8,440 7,618 1,998 9,616 Plan IVB 5,632 1,574 7,206 .6,672 1,768 8,440 7,618 1,998 9,616 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,632 2,675 8,307 6,672 3,163 9,835 7,618 3,710 11,328 Plan VB 5,632 2,675 8,307 6,672 3,163 9,835 7,618 3,710 11,328 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,the hydroelectric plans have the lowest present worth,with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.57 when compared to the Base Case,and 1.22 when compared to the Optimized Base Case. Regional Summary The regional analysis for Bethel and the twelve surrounding villages shows that conversion to coal direct combustion for heating would provide significant economic benefit.Under the Most Likely Scenario,assuming a complete conversion to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth of the heating costs would be reduced by about 30%or $169 million (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039.Wind generation was only found to be economically fesible 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 VIII- 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. VIII-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 handliny 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. VIII-22 x.@ Tuntutuliak ,*© 'aoe 8£2 BveSe 2sJjOO"Akiachak "\G Atmautluak |Ss )Us BETHEL w(véaneA,,g Oscarville } Z Napaskiak° 1 Napakiak St 282Sy,2BETHEL LS FAIRBANKS \e g ' \ ANCHO - KEY MAP JUNEAU MILES 0 4 8 12 16 20 [4 yp ty J SCALE 1:1,000,000 RAGE eres Ssv£28 Akiak ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 NAPAKIAK POPULATION HISTORICAL DATA,PROJECTIONS, Exhibit 2 AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES HISTORICAL DATA __Annual_Growth RateYearPopulation 1950 139 1960 190 1970 259 1980 262 PROJECTIONS oo.a.Most.Year Low Likely 1980 262 262 Annual Growth Rate:1.0%1.53% 1987 278 286 Annual Growth Rate:1.0%1.5% 1992 293 309 Annual Growth Rates:1.03%1.53% 2002 322 359 (%) 4.4 3.1 0.1 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST 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 ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1981 PROFILE,Napakiak,Alaska Space Water Light & Cooking Heating Heating Applian Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt ricity ($000)---(No.)emer nnn nnn 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 24 0 0 5 1 0 0 14 1 2 0 5 1 3 0 44 3 0 0 91 8 249 0 33 2 3 0 19 1 8 0 567 34 169 0 11 1 3 0 38 3 2 0 543 1710 83 439 0 262 4.4 60 111 850 191 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1289 191 (Million Btu)--=- 5417 11191 orooowooooocooo442 1255 NO&fea)NWw©WWOWNKNDOOO0382 821 ©LIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 1987 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Space Water Light & Cooking Heating Heating Applian Elect=- SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity oe rere neem meen ($000)---(No.) COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 54 4 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 Construction 290 24 0 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 0 Transportation 14 1 2 0 Who1esale,Dist.5 1 3 0 Comm.and Utilities 45 3 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 86 7 234 0 Finance &Real Est.31 2 3 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org.18 1 8 0 Local &Reg.Govt.539 33 160 0 State Agencies/Svcs 12 1 3 0 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 23 2 1 0 ***Transfer Payments 462 TOTAL 1584 80 414 0 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)286 Household Size 4.1 Total Households 70 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)124 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1114 250 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1528 250 (Million Btu)--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 2 49 0 3 0 0 0 575 0 234 149 0 3 94 12 8 4525 760 160 35 0 3 26 0 1 5473 772 414 7097 578 501 12570 1350 915 6JO|abegyLIDIHXS 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-Profit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***eTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1992 FORECAST,Napakiak,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,)ereenernnnnnnn (Million Btu)--<------ 59 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 27 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 2 0 22 0 2 5 1 3 0 54 0 3 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 95 8 260 0 640 0 260 35 3 3 0 165 0 3 19 1 8 0 100 13 8 656 40 195 0 5511 926 195 13 1 3 0 38 0 3 23 2 1 0 26 0 1 489 1788 93 475 0 6556 939 475 309 4.1 75 134 1303 293 8300 677 586 1778 293 14856 1616 1061TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)630ZefegyLISIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfq. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm.and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 2002 FORECAST,Napakiak,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)--- 67 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 361 30 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 3 0 26 0 3 6 1 4 0 60 0 4 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 108 9 296 0 727 0 296 41 3 4 0 197 0 4 26 2 11 0 133 17 11 743 45 221 0 6243 1049 221 15 1 4 0 46 0 4 32 2 2 0 37 0 2 641 2124 104 545 0 7469 1066 545 359 4 90 148 1704 383 10857 885 766 2249 383 18326 1951 1311TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)630©ofegyLISIHXS 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 **e*Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Cooking ooooecooo0ooo°ce235 Elect- Income Emplymt ricity ($000)---(No.)ener nner nnn 52 4 0 0 0 0 286 24 0 4 1 0 13 1 2 5 0 3 40 3 0 81 7 221 29 2 3 15 1 6 525 32 156 9 1 2 23 2 1 407 1489 78 394 278 4.1 68 120 1044 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1438 235 Space Water Light & Heating Heating Applian (Million Btu)--- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 2 47 0 3 0 0 0 545 0 221 137 0 3 77 10 6 4407 740 156 27 0 2 26 0 1 5285 750 394 6655 (542 470 11940 1292 864 6J0pboafegvLISIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Space Cooking Heating Elect- SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity mer nnn rrr nnn ($000)---(No.)= COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 57 5 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 Construction 293 25 0 0 Household Mfg.4 1 0 0 Transportation 14 1 2 0 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 3 0 Comm.and Utilities 47 3 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 88 8 239 0 Finance &Real Est.30 2 3 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.16 1 7 0 Local &Reg.Govt.573 35 170 0 State Agencies/Svcs 10 1 3 0 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 17 1 1 0 ***eTransfer Payments 407 TOTAL 1561 84 428 0 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)293 Household Size 4.1 Total Households 71 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)128 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1175 264 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1603 264 -(Million Btu) 7487 13237 Water Heating 610 1429 Light & Applian Ndwa JHWo )WWOWNDOOOO528 956 6430GebegyLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR Income Emplymt ricitywToreveneeeaoe($000)-=-=-(No.) COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 65 5 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 ©0 Construction 373 31 0 Household Mfg.5 1 0 Transportation 16 1 2 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 4 Comm.and Utilities 52 4 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 94 8 258 Finance &Real Est.33 2 3 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.18 1 8 Local &Reg.Govt.594 36 177 State Agencies/Svcs 10 1 3 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 17 1 1 ***Transfer Payments 407 TOTAL 1690 92 456 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)322 Household Size 4.5 Total Households 72 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)138 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1268 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1724 2002 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Elect 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 23 0 2 0 59 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 634 0 258 0 157 0 3 0 94 12 8 0 4989 838 177 0 30 0 3 0 20 0 "id 0 6006 850 456 285 8078 658 570 285 14084 1508 1026 6499obegvyLIGIHXA BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity mente meer errr er corrn ($000)---(No.)---- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 60 5 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 Construction 348 29 0 0 Household Mfq.8 1 0 0 Transportation 16 1 2 0 Wholesale,Dist.5 1 3 0 Comm.and Utilities 54 4 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 101 9 275 0 Finance &Real Est.37 3 3 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org.21 2 9 0 Local &Reg.Govt.601 36 179 0 State Agencies/Svcs 12 l 3 0 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 44 3 2 0 ***Transfer Payments 625 TOTAL 1932 95 476 0 RESID"£NTIAL Population (No.persons)291 Household Size 4.3 Total Households 68 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)127 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1101 247 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1577 247 1987 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Elect-Space Cooking Heating (Million Btu)- Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 2 53 0 3 0 0 0 677 0 275 179 0 3 109 14 9 5051 848 179 36 0 3 49 0 2 6177 862 476 7014 572 495 13191 1434 971 640£ebegyLISIHX] 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 ***Transfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1992 FORECAST,Napakiak,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)-----<-------------- 72 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 35 0 0 0 0 0 ll 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 1 3 0 26 0 3 6 1 4 0 .63 0 4 66 5 0 0 0 0 0 117 10 319 0 785 0 319 43 3 4 0 204 0 4 22 2 9 0 115 15 9 7139 45 220 0 6203 1042 220 14 1 4 0 41 0 4 49 4 3 0 56 0 3 652 2226 115 566 0 7493 1057 566 322 4 81 137 1415 318 9014 735 636 1981 318 16507 1792 1202TOTALENERGY(M,.Btu)640gabegvLIGIHX4 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Napakiak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian woeororene ($000)- -(No.)(Million Btu)---- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 84 7 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 539 45 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.12 2 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 21 l 3 0 31 0 3 Who1esale,Dist.7 1 4 0 74 0 4 Comm,and Utilities 77 5 0 0 0.0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 131 ll 356 0 876 0 356 Finance &Real Est.48 4 4 0 230 0 4 GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org.23 2 10 0 120 16 10 Local &Reg.Govt.776 47 231 0 6518 1095 231 State Agencies/Svcs 15 1 4 0 44 0 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 57 4 3 0 65 0 3 ***Transfer Payments 733 TOTAL 2523 130 615 0 7958 1111 615 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)383 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 109 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)159 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)2231 502 14217 1159 1003 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)2846 502 22175 2270 1618 6$06oabegvLISIHXS Exhibit 5 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION,NAPAKIAK Residential Sector Million Btu Lights &Appliances Electricity 382 Space Heating Electricity 304 Fuel Oil 4,353 Wood 760 Water Heating Electricity 124 Fuel Oil 277 Wood 41 Cooking Electricity 40 Fuel Oil 151 Total 6,430 Commercial Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity 257 Space &Water Heating ; Fuel oil 838 Total 1,095 Government Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity 182 Space &Water Heating aFueloil5,749 Total 5,931 Equivalent Btu:Kilowatt-hour =3,413,Btu yallon of fuel oil =136,000 Btu gallon of blazo =136,000 Btu 100-1lb bottle of propane =2,500,00 Btu cord of wood =13,000,000 Btuee S EXHIBIT 6 DIESEL S|ELECTRIC 8¢|GENERATION REJECTED ENERGY LIGHTS AND >APPLIANCES fo, ae COOKING woop <37 (801) @.<7) SPACE AND NFUELOILin WATER=S ]HEATING < ©USEFUL ENERGY > ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS;MILLION Btu)1981 ENERGY BALANCE NAPAKIAK HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 EXHIBIT 7 GENERATOR BUILDINGa EXISTING SWGR RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BETHEL aa ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLANoSFEASIBILITYASSESSMENT NAPAKINE -ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM P.E.COMPANY C3 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY 0.0.Box 4.25435 _Anchorage,AiaskaPhone(907)276-3442 99509 December 1982