Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergy Projects 1984 Appendix G-9 NapaskiakBethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment APPENDIX G-9 NAPASKTIAK COMMUNITY REPORT DRAFT Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority By Harza Engineering Company and Darbyshire &Associates Draft April 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Background Population Housing Current Economic Activity Subsistence Cash Economy Future Economic Activity Current Energy Consumption Total Energy Electric Generation Future Energy Demand Formulation of the Supply Plans Economic Evaluation Base Case Supply Plan Optimized Base Case Supply Plan Thermal Supply Plans Hydropower Supply Plans Fuel Cell Supply Plans Sensitivity Analysis Regional Summary Environmental Evaluation Table No. IX-1 IX-9 IX-10 LIST OF TABLES Title Napaskiak Household Size Napaskiak Employment and Income Napaskiak Projected Annual Earnings Napaskiak 1981 Fuel Prices and Consumption Existing Generating Facilities Napaskiak 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- IX-10 IX-11 IX-15 IX-18 IX-19 IX-21 Exhibit No. 1 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Community Location Map Napaskiak Population 1981 Economic and Energy Profile,Napaskiak Economic and Energy Projections,Napaskiak 1981 Primary Energy Consumption,Napaskiak 1981 Energy Balance,Napaskiak Electrical Distribution System iii- NAPASKIAK 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 Napaskiak 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 Napaskiak 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 electri- cal eneryy and space-heating needs of the region through year 2002,and those of Napaskiak in particular.These alternative plans have been analyzed from both an economic and environmental standpoint. This community report for Napaskiak is submitted as a draft for review and comment by the residents.The Alaska Power Authority welcomes your comments and questions. Background Napaskiak is located on flat,tundra-covered land on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.Six miles south of Bethel,its site is at the convergence of the Kuskokwim River and the Napaskiak Slough (Exhibit 1).The village 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 thick- ets of willow,alder,and limited birch,with the majority of the area characteristic of moist tundra.The only available firewood must be pulled from the banks of the Kuskokwim.The remaining vegetation farther inland from the river bottom is characterized as wet tundra.Standing water is present through- out the summer,which makes overland travel extremely diffi- cult. Access to Napaskiak 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 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 highway on an "as-necessary"basis to meet late-winter shortages.Snow machines provide the most competent mode of travel in winter. The Eskimo village has been known throughout the 19th and 20th Century by various names:"Napaskiak"in 1867 on a USC&GS map;"Napaskiagamute"in 1880;""Napasklagamiut"in 1890;and by its present name from 1939 to present.In 1956,a Moravian church,a school,and 30 homes were located in the community. Napaskiak was incorporated in 1971. Beside the municipal government,Napaskiak's Native popula- tion is represented by a Traditional Council which is recognized by the federal government as the offical tribal governing body of the village.This Council is eligible to participate in some state and federal programs,and has received benefits under the Indian Self Determination Act,the State and Local Fiscal Assis- tance Act,the Housing and Community Development Act,the Com- prehensive Employment Training Act (CETA),and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Another local oryanization,the village corporation,al- though not a government entity,exercises a variety of functions generally exercised by governments.The local village corpora- tion,Napaskiak,Inc.,was created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive and manage lands conveyed to it under the act.It is entitled to receive title to the surface estate of 115,200 acres of land.To date,no lands have been transferred to the corporation by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment. In conjunction with this study,a public meeting was held in Napakiak in April 1982.Residents of Napaskiak were invited to attend. Population The population of Napaskiak has fluctuated significantly during the last 100 years.Exhibit 2 presents the historical population data.The population decreased from 196 in 1880 to 67 in 1939,then increased to 259 in 1970.Between 1970 and 1980,the population decreased at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent.The racial composition is about 98 percent Alaskan Native.In 1980,the average age was about 19, IX-2 Three scenarios of population projections are also pre- sented on Exhibit 2.These projections were developed in conjunction 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.Department of Commerce,In year 2002,the Napaskiak population is expected to be between 271 and 298 persons. Housing The 1980 Census reported that Napaskiak had 49 dwelling units.An average of 5 persons lived in each home.Since the census,a few new homes have been privately financed and built. HUD plans to advertise for bids for the construction of 20 addi- tional homes in 1982-83.There is no piped water system in the village;residents haul their water from a central watering point.Houses have seepage pits and privies. 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.In 1980,the average number of persons per housing unit was about 5.Because of the reductions in subsidized programs,the household size is not expected to decrease rapidly.As shown in Table IxX-l,the average household size is expected to be between 3.5 and 4.5 by 2002. Table Ix-l NAPASKIAK HOUSEHOLD SIZE Energy Demand Projections Year Low Most-Likely High 1980 (U.S.Census)N/A 5.0 N/A 1987 4.7 4.7 4.6 1992 4.7 4.5 4.3 2002 4.5 4.0 3.5 IX-3 Current Economic Activity This section describes the current village economy,in both its subsistence and cash forms.This assessment will serve as a basis for the economic projections. Subsistence Residents of Napaskiak 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 fishing,berrypicking,and collecting gamebirds along the sloughs and on the swampy tundra.It is also estimated that the remaining two-thirds of the residents collect 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 Napaskiak.Residents also hunt moose,bear,beaver, mink,rabbit,ptarmigan,duck,and geese, An estimate of the equivalent income obtained from subsis- tence activities can be regarded as that portion of the typical household budget that is replaced by these subsistence items. Using the figures developed for the Bethel region and assuming a typical annual household budget of about $10,000,then the total cash value of these activities can be estimated at about $165,000 annually. Cash Economy Unemployment is prevalent in this delta community.Those with wage employment have jobs with the city,health clinic, post office,National Guard,and _school.Other income is derived from seasonal construction,fishing,cannery work,trap- ping,and government assistance, Exhibit 3 shows the 1981 economic and eneryy profile for Napaskiak.Exhibit 3 corresponds to the forecasting model out- put for Napaskiak as analyzed in this study.The forecasting model is described in Appendix A.In Exhibit 3,total annual IxX-4 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, averaye energy consumption per household,and end-use demand. The last line summarizes the total demand from the commercial, government and residential sectors, Table IX-2 below summarizes the 1981 average monthly employment and annual income by sector that are typically found in a village the size of Napaskiak.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. IX-5 Table Ix-2 NAPASKIAK EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ;Average Monthly Annual'Economic Activity |Employment Earnings (1981 $) Renewable Resource Harvesting 4 $50,000 Mining and Exploration 0 -0- Construction 22 268,000 Household Manufacturing 1 9,000 Transportation 1 14,000 Wholesale,Dist.0.5 4,000 Comm.and Utilities 2 29,000 Trade and Private Services 7 84,000 Finance and Real Estate 2 31,000 Non-Profit Organization 1 16,000 Local and Regional Government 32 530,000 State Agencies/Services 1 9,000 Federal Agencies/Services 3 35,000 Transfer Payments N/A 507,000 TOTAL $1,581,000 As shown in Table IxX-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 Napaskiak residents.Two separate systems currently exist.The state-run Lower Kuskokwim School District provides a village high school,The elementary yrades 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 main- tenance 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 direc- tor,village public safety officer,and village patrolman. IX-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 yoods.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 Napaskiak and throughout the region provide employment opportunities that typically represent the largest private cash-earning potential locally.The upcoming housing project in 1982-83 will provide temporary jobs for village residents. Trade and Private Services.Retail trade activities pro- vide full-time managerial,clerical,and stock room positions. A village corporation owned and operated store exists with other privately owned village stores,Private services are provided as well as small variety and novelty shops and small engine dealers and service, Renewable Resource Harvesting.Positions under this category 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 IX-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 in the economy and the purchasing ability of the households.To reflect the potential chanyes 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 IX-3 summarizes the expected range of future economic activity.Total annual earnings,in constant 1981 dollars,are given under the three scenarios.The difference between the low and high projections represents the degree of confidence in projecting the future economic course of Napaskiak. IX-7 Table Ix-3 NAPASKIAK PROJECTED ANNUAL EARNINGS (Constant 1981 Dollars) a ProjectionsYearLowMost-Likely High 1981 (Surveyed)N/A $1,581,000 N/A 1987 $1,378,000 1,415,000 $1,786,000 1992 1,444,000 1,656,000 2,056,000 2002 1,560,000 1,965,000 2,332,000 By the year 1992,under the "Most-Likely"set of circum- stances,the total village cash economy is expected to have completed its recovery from the 1980's slump.The remainder of the forecast to the year 2002 is characterized by a period of Slow and continual expansion at a rate of about 2 percent. The "High"forecast assumptions differ from the "Most- Likely"primarily in the severity of the anticipated slump dur- ing the early 1980's,The effect of these less severe 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 assumed to be slower and to begin at a much lower point than the most-likely and high projections.By 1992,the total cash earned in the economy is expected to be only 91 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 detailed listing of the 1981 energy consumption by end uses and by fuel type. IX-8 Total Energy Space and water heating was the major energy end use,with a total consumption of about 10,000 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 89 percent of the total heating needs,followed by wood (10 percent),and electricity (1 percent).Residential cooking consumed about 1,000 million Btu,provided by fuel oil (75 percent),propane/blazo (15 percent),and electricity (10 percent).Lights and electric appliances consumed an equilvalent of about 700 million Btu. One kilowatt-hour of electricity is equal to 3,413 Btu. Table IX-4 summarizes the total consumption by fuel types. It also shows the average unit price of each fuel.The esti- mated total cost to Napaskiak for their 1981 energy demand was about $200,000.Some 26 percent was spent on diesel fuel for generating electricity. Table Ix-4 NAPASKIAK 1981 FUEL PRICES AND CONSUMPTION Unit Annual _Price |Consumption Fuel Oil $1.79/gal.70,000 gallons Diesel $1.79/gal.30,000 gallons Propane $100/100 1b bottle 10-100 1b bottles Blazo $3.50/gal.1,500 gallons Wood $150/cord 75 cords Because of the large quantities needed annually to meet year-round energy demands,the only economical supply method is by water barge.A regional lighterage service is operated out of Bethel which uses the vast network of rivers and sloughs to deliver the fuels during the 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.Bulk fuel storage facilities in the village of Napaskiak are limited to those maintained by the BIA elementary school.Plans are underway to provide storage facilities for the village bulk fuel distributor,Napaskiak, Inc. IX-9 Exhibit 6 presents the village energy balance for 1981. Due to conversion factors and electric distribution losses,the "useful"energy was about 7,000 million Btu or 46 percent of the total consumption. Electric Generation Present Demand.In 1981,the total electric demand of the village was about 260 megawatt-hours.The 1981 peak demand was 75 kW. Existing Facilities.As shown in Table Ix-5,the village of Napaskiak owns two diesel generator sets with a combined capacity of 260 kW.In addition,the Lower Kuskokwim School District (LKSD)and BIA schools have their own standby generat- ing capability totaling 145 kW.The existing distribution (Exhibit 7)is a sub-standard overhead system built on local Spruce poles. Both village generators were installed in 1976.The 155 kW set is not in working order,and the village is operating on the 105 kW set alone. Table Ix-5 EXISTING GENERATING FACILITIES Co Operating |Owner/Operator Status Capacit (kW) Napaskiak,Inc.Primary 155 Napaskiak,Inc,Primary 105 BIA Standby 35 BIA Standby 35 LKSD Standby 75 Total Capacity 405 kw Future Energy Demand Three projections of future energy demand (low,most likely,and high)were developed,based on current use,socio- economic projections,and assumptions regarding future end use demand.The most likely scenario is based on the most likely projections of economic activities,population,and household Size described earlier,It also reflects a mid-ranye forecast ot energy price trends.The low scenario reflects a more con- servative growth derived from the low projections of economic IX-10 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 and at the economic levels, 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 IX-6 summarizes the results.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 350 and 525 MWh in 2002,with a most likely energy demand of 440 MWh.The most- likely 2002 peak demand is 125 kw. Table IxX-6 NAPASKITAK ENERGY DEMAND FORECAST Most Low Likely High Total Energy Demand (Btu x 108) 1981 Demand N/A 13,174 N/A 1987 Demand 14,067 14,516 15,910 1992 Demand 15,337 17,077 19,400 2002 Demand 17,128 21,590 25,781 Electric Energy Demand (MWh) 1981 Demand 260 260 260 1987 Demand 285 290 320 1992 Demand 310 345 390 2002 Demand 350 440 525 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 eneryy 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. IX-11 The four alternatives to the base case include coal direct combustion for meeting all the heating demand.A general des- Ccription 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 Napaskiak is presented in the following section. Supply Plan IIIA would consist of a 4-MW base load plant supplemented by diesel generators to meet the peak demand. The heating demand in Bethel and the villages would be met by fuel oil until 1988 then coal direct combustion as de- scribed in the Base Case Alternatives, Supply Plan IIIB would consist of the same 4-MW base load plant with waste heat recovery that would supply about 25 percent of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. Supply Plan IIIC would consist of a l0-MW cycling plant that would generate the electric energy demand.The heat- ing demand would be met as in Plan IIIA. IX-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.MThis 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 Napaskiak 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 Bethel.The difference between the alternatives is that one plant (Plan VB)is designed for waste heat recovery, which could provide an estimated 12%of the heating demand in Bethel.The remaining heating demand would be met by coal direct combustion.As with the other plans,transmis- sion interties to Napaskiak were considered, The basic assumptions and cost estimates underlying each supply plan are given in the Regional Report. IX-13 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 IX-7 summarizes the present worth of each supply plan for Napaskiak.The present worth computation was done separately for the heating demand and elec- tric demand.Electric demand includes the costs associated with generation facilities and transmission interties. IxX-14 Table IxX-7 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO PRESENT WORTH AND BENEFIT-COST RATIO OF THE SUPPLY PLANS Total DemandBenefit-Cost Ratio Present Worth (1982 $x103)_With With ee Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase Base Case Plan I 7,483 3,863 11,346 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 5,470 3,863 9,333 1.22 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 5,470 3,863 9,333 1.22 1.00 Plan IIIB 5,470 3,863 9,333 1,22 1.00 Plan IIIC 5,470 3,863 9,333 1,22 1.00 Plan IIID 5,470 3,863 9,333 1.22 1.00 Plan IIIE 5,470 3,863 9,333 1,22 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 5,470 3,563 9,033 1.26 1.03 Plan IVB 5,470 3,563 9,033 1.26 1.03 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 5,470 3,863 9,333 1.22 1.00 Plan VB 5,470 3,863 9,333 1.22 1.00 The following paragraphs describe the results for Napaskiak 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. IX-15 As shown on Table IX-7,the total present worth of the Base Case is $7,691,000 of which $3,183,000 is for electric energy demand. Optimized Base Case Supply Plan The Base Case Alternatives were optimized based on an eval- uation of coal direct combustion,wind generation,waste heat recovery and transmission intertie.As described in the Re- gional Report,the analysis shows that conversion to coal direct combustion for heating would provide significant economic bene- fit.Under the Most Likely Scenario,assuming a complete con- version to coal direct combustion by 1988,the present worth of the heating costs would be reduced by about $2,013,000 (in 1982 dollars)over the period 1988-2039,Wind generation was only found to be economically feasible in the villages of Eek and Tuntutuliak,.Diesel waste heat recovery was not found to be economically attractive in Napaskiak when it is compared to coal heating.Transmission intertie to Bethel was not found to be economically feasible. As shown on Table IX-7,the total'present worth of the Optimized Base Case is $9,333,000.The benefit-cost ratio is 1.22 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 $7,483,000 to $5,470,000, Thermal Supply Plans As for the Optimized Base Case,an economic evaluation was performed to decide whether or not Napaskiak 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,with an intertie to Bethel,is equal to $4,942,000 for Plans IIIA and IIIB,and $5,119,000 for Plans IIIC,D,and E.These present worth values are much greater than the Base Case present worth.As a result, it is not economically feasible to intertie Napaskiak to a coal- fired plant in Bethel.The present worth is then equal to the present worth of the Optimized Base Case. IX-16 Hydropower Supply Plans The economic evaluation was done using an _incrementalhydroelectricconstructioncostof$3,000 per kilowatt.As shown on Table IxX-7,the present worth of the electric demand 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 1.03 when compared to the Optimized Base Case. An incremental construction cost of $1,000 per kilowatt was used for the economic evaluation of village interties.As shown in Exhibit 38 of the Regional Report,the present worth of the electric energy demand,with an intertie to Bethel,is equal to $4,491,000 for both Fuel Cell Plans.This present worth value is much greater than the Base Case present worth.As a result, it is not economically feasible to intertie Napaskiak 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 aiternative 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 IxX-8, IX-17 Table IxX-8 MOST LIKELY SCENARIO SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS USING 0%REAL FUEL ESCALATION _Total DemandBenefit-Cost Ratio Present Worth (1982 $xi03)_With With _.,.......Heating Electric Total Base OptimizedSupplyPlanDemandDemandDemandCaseBaseCase Base Case Plan I 5,163 3,028 8,191 1.00 - Optimized Base Case Plan II 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Plan IIIB 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Plan IIIC 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Plan IIID 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Plan IIIE 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 4,270 3,355 7,625 1.07 0.96 Plan IVB 4,270 3,355 7,625 1.07 0.96 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Plan VB 4,270 3,028 7,298 1.12 1.00 Table IX-8 shows that the hydroelectric plans have now a benefit-cost ratio smaller 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 Ix-9. IX-18 e 61T-XITable IxX-9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS PRESENT WORTH OF SUPPLY PLANS Low Scenario (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 6,286 3,267 9,553 7,483 3,863 11,346 8,666 4,446 13,112 Optimized Base Case Plan II 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Plan IIIB 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Plan IIIC 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Plan IIID 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Plan IIIE 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Hydroelectric Plans Plan IVA 4,740 3,427 8,167 5,470 3,563 9,033 6,208 3,723 9,931 Plan IVB 4,740 3,427 8,167 5,470 3,563 9,033 6,208 3,723 9,931 Fuel Cell Plans Plan VA 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 Plan VB 4,740 3,267 8,007 5,470 3,863 9,333 6,208 4,446 10,654 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 1.32 when compared to the Base Case,and 1.07 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 IX-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. IX-20 T@-XITable IxX-10 RANKING OF ENERGY SUPPLY PLANS Total Demand Electric Demand With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E.With Fuel Escalation*Without F.E.Low Most Likely High Most Likely Low Most Likely High Most LikelySupplyPlansScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenarioScenario Base Case Plan I 11 11 11 10 1 3 4 1 Optimized Base Case Plan II 3 5 6 :1 2 2 3 2 Thermal Plans Plan IIIA 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 Plan IIIB 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 Plan IIIc 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 Plan IIID 8 7 8 8 6 6 6 6 Plan IIIE 10 10 10 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 areassumedafter2001. Environmentally,the Base Case is probably the most desi- reable of all the selected supply plans.No transmission lines would be used.The small separate generating systems located throughout the region would not create any large impact.En- vironmental drawbacks to the Base Case are the potentials for Spill and fire hazard involved in fuel handling and storage. Due to the use of coal for space heating,the supply plan alternatives would be less desireable than the Base Case.Run- off and dust from storage piles,combustion emissions,and ash disposal will all impact the environment to a certain degree, and the public acceptance to coal for space heating is yet to be determined. Other key environmental constraints involve impacts of the hydroelectric project operation on aquatic and _terrestrial resources,and impacts of the transmission lines on birds and access to subsistence. IX-22 EXHIBIT 1"fyake 7S \\:in .':|on Oy%A -G ;So %,&>oy \one38PernrnnyaS&\cl wlnN300RYaljev2,awe”7°oN a .ne ayrag Oo.\;x wn Ko, "we vn cyet"8 A;Ke xo \ O°ow °"y °\\won Ok 8keaLo6'SN ave)}on 80&,'/°'Le Aw®Lf 3 oO v ©.°O °g s ne : % 3.¢ i ent cSTuluksakNS, )ay ore,e a le;Pa oe 3 °S,@ {>arte,G %296 on BD asighluk @ :Nunap g 2 war we 88 soe Pee wa y ¢v AkiakPS-°ER»,o WIS 'oS '¥ye Oe ES S.yo , yoaN )a tesOscarville;°°NeesNapaskiak™apakiak a) ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLANMILESFEASIBILITYASSESSMENTNFAIRBANKS\0 4 8 12 16 20 ot Lut 1 5 J BETHEL ancionace |SCALE 11,000,000 COMMUNITY LOCATION MAP Se JUNEAUg HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANYLSKEYMAP December 1982 HISTORICAL DATA, NAPASKIAK POPULATION Exhibit 2 PROJECTIONS,AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES HISTORICAL DATA Annual Year Population Growth Rate (%) 1950 121 2.4 1960 154 5.3 1970 259 -0.6 1980 244 PROJECTIONS Most Year Low Likely 1980 244 244 Annual Growth Rates:0.53%0.5% 1987 251 251 Annual Growth Rate:0.5%0.5% 1992 259 259 Annual Growth Rate:0.5%0.5% 2002 271 271 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST 1981 PROFILE,Napaskiak.Alaska Elect- SECTOR Income Emplymt ricityeemmennerrerennn($000)---(No.)enn e nnn nnn COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 50 4 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 Construction 268 22 0 Household Mfq.4 1 0 Transportation 14 1 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 29 2 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 84 7 15 Finance &Real Est.31 2 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Protrit Org.16 1 11 Local &Reg.Govt.530 32 402 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 3 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 35 3 3 **kkTransfer Payments 507 TOTAL 1581 76 435 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)244 Household Size 5 Total Households 49 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)117 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)461 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)896 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 0.42 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 0 15 0 71 0 1 0 136 82 ll 0 4162 660 402 0 67 0 3 0 82 0 3 0 4961 742 435 1082 3985 342 285 1082 8946 1084 720 €LIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST<LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Income ($000)-- (No.) 1987 FORECAST,Napaskiak.Alaska Emplymt Space ricity Cooking Heating Renew.Res.Harvest 51 4 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 Construction 271 23 0 Household Mfq.4 1 0 Transportation 14 1 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 30 2 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 79 7 14 Finance &Real Est.29 2 l GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.15 1 ll Local &Reg.Govt.504 30 382 State Agencies/Svcs 11 1 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 22 2 2 ***Transfer Payments 431 TOTAL 1465 74 414 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)251 Household Size 4.7 Total Households 53 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)136 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)586 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1000 (Million Btu)- Water Light & Heating Applian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 354 0 14 0 68 0 a 0 130 78 ll 0 3955 627 382 0 75 0 4 0 50 0 2 0 4697 705 414 1375 5065 434 362 1375 9762 1139 776 630|obegbpLIGIHX3 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 **keTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1992 FORECAST,Napaskiak.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)---- 56 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 25 0 0 0 0 0 5 l 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0 47 0 0 4 0 0 0 25 0 0 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 88 8 16 0 394 0 16 33 2 1 0 76 0 1 16 1 11 0 138 83 11 614 37 465 0 4817 764 465 11 1 4 0 80 0 4 22 2 2 0 50 0 2 457 1656 84 499 0 5627 847 499 259 4.5 58 146 679 1592 5866 503 419 1178 1592 11493 1350 918TOTALENERGY(M.Btu)610ZabegvyLIGIHX3S BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST MOST-LIKELY Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian -aaah tent erteteteateatanteatad ($000)---(No.)eweernnn nnn (Million Btu)--- COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 63 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 336 28 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 18 1 0 0 54 0 0 Whoi1esale,Dist.5 1 0 0 28 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 100 9 18 0 448 0 18 Finance &Real Est.39 3 1 0 90 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non Protrit Org.22 2 15 0 183 111 15 Local &Reg.Govt.695 42 527 0 5457 866 527 State Agencies/Svcs 14 1 5 0 96 0 5 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 30 2 3 0 69 0 3 **ekTransfer Payments 599 TOTAL 1965 98 569 0 6425 977 569 RESIDENTIAL - Population (No.persons)271 Household Size 4 Total Households 68 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)170 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)928 2176 8017 687 573 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1497 2176 14442 1664 1142 640©ofegpyLISIHXS 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 *kkeTyransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1987 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Space Cooking Heating Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Elect - Income Emplymt ricity ($000)---(No.)comm 49 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 22 0 0 4 1 0 0 13 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 26 2 0 0 75 7 13 0 27 2 1 0 13 1 9 oO 491 30 372 0 8 1 3 0 22 2 2 0 380 1378 73 400 0 251 4.7 53 132 571 1339 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)971 1339 (Million Btu) 4934 9459 Water Heating hNoO-,>eoooooo0cneo423 1098 Light & Applian iWwW JNWN©MmMWwWoOooOoeoeceooce352 752 640»ebeg-yLIGIHXS BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORFCAST LOW Projection 10/15/82 1992 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Space Cooking Heating (Million Btu) Water Heating Light & Applian MWreroaoaooono°ne=)oO406 Elect - SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity mere mn nnn nn nnn ($000)---(No.)= COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 53 4 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 Construction 273 23 0 0 Household Mfg.4 1 0 0 Transportation 14 1 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 31 2 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 81 7 14 0 Finance &Real Est.29 2 1 0 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.14 1 10 0 Local &Reg.Govt.536 32 406 0 State Agencies/Svcs 9 1 3 0 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 16 1 1 0 ***Transfer Payments 380 TOTAL 1444 75 435 0 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)259 Household Size 4.7 Total Households 55 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)140 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)624 1464 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1059 1464 5392 10308 462 1199 385 820 640GabegvLIGIHX3 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 **k*Transfer Payments TOTAL RESIDENTIAL. 2002 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) Space Cooking Heating ooooooooo°c;*ooo°c”co1721 Elect- Income Emplymt ricity($000)---(No.)ene en nn ----= 60 5 0 0 0 0 347 29 0 4 1 0 16 1 0 5 0 0 34 2 0 87 8 15 31 2 1 15 1 11 556 34 421 9 1 3 16 1 1 380 1560 85 452 271 4.5 60 151 734 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1186 1721 (Million Btu) 6340 11469 Water Heating 543 1313 Light & Applian raHMmOoOnaoaoooora453 905 6499abegvyLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 1987 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Elect-Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian ---- - =($000)==(No.)ene een nner (Million Btu)-coccmn COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 56 5 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 324 27 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.7 1 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 16 1 0 0 48 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.4 0 0 0 25 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 93 8 16 0 417 0 16 Finance &Real Est.35 3 1 0 82 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Protit Org.18 1 12 0 150 91 12 Local &Reg.Govt.563 34 426 0 4415 700 426 State Agencies/Svcs 11 1 4 0 77 0 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 41 3 4 0 94 0 4 ***Transfer Payments 583 TOTAL 1786 86 463 0 5308 791 463 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)259 Household Size 4.6 Total Households 56 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)138 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)627 1470 5418 464 387 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1090 1470 10726 1255 850 630ZabegbvLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 SECTOR COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest Mining &Exploration Construction Household Mfq. Transportation Wholesale,Dist. Comm.and Utilities Trade &Pvt.Service Finance &Real Est. GOVERNMENT Non-Prorit Org. Local &Reg.Govt. State Agencies/Svcs Fed.Agencies/Svcs ***eTransfer Payments RESIDENTIAL 1992 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Space Water Light & ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian Population (No.persons) Household Size Total Households Usage Rate (M.Btu/household) Total Res.Demand (M.Btu) TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu) Elect- Income Emplymt 67 5 0 0 0 0 388 32 0 10 2 0 18 1 0 5 1 0 43 3 0 108 9 19 40 3 1 19 1 13 691 42 523 12 1 4 46 3 4 609 2056 103 564 273 4.3 63 150 769 1333 -(Million Btu)--= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 483 0 19 0 94 0 1 0 158 95 13 0 5421 860 523 0 85 0 4 0 106 0 4 0 6432 955 564 1803 6642 569 474 1803 13074 1524 1038 630gobegvLIGIHX3 BETHEL AREA POWER STUDY FORECAST HIGH Projection 10/15/82 2002 FORECAST,Napaskiak,Alaska Elect -Space Water Light & SECTOR Income Emplymt ricity Cooking Heating Heating Applian -"=($000)--=(No.)eon n nnn nee==(Million Btu)COMMERCIAL Renew.Res.Harvest 79 6 0 0 0 0 0 Mining &Exploration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction 502 42 0 0 0 0 0 Household Mfq.11 2 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 21 1 0 0 64 0 0 Wholesale,Dist.6 1 0 0 35 0 0 Comm.and Utilities 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 Trade &Pvt.Service 121 10 21 0 540 0 21 Finance &Real Est.45 3 1 0 106 0 1 GOVERNMENT Non-Profit Org.20 2 14 0 166 100 14 Local &Reg.Govt.726 44 550 0 5697 904 550 State Agencies/Svcs 13 1 4 0 93 0 4 Fed.Agencies/Svcs 53 4 5 0 122 0 5 ***Transfer Payments 685 TOTAL 2332 119 595 0 6823 1004 595 RESIDENTIAL Population (No.persons)298 Household Size 3.5 Total Households 85 Usage Rate (M.Btu/household)174 Total Res.Demand (M.Btu)1197 2809 10348 887 739 TOTAL ENERGY (M.Btu)1792 2809 17171 1891 1334 630&dfegyLISIHXS Exhibit 5 1981 PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION,NAPASKIAK Residential Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space Heating Electricity Fuel Oil Wood Water Heating Electricity Fuel oil Wood Cooking Electricity Fuel oil Propane/Blazo Total Commercial Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil Total Government Sector Lights &Appliances Electricity Space &Water Heating Fuel Oil Total Equivalent Btu:1 l gallon of fuel oil 1 gallon of blazo 1 100-1lb bottle of propane = 1 cord of wood =13,000,000 Btu Million Btu kilowatt-hour = 285 31 2,989 965 23 287 32 122 812 148 5,694 419 5,608 3,413,Btu =136,000 Btu 136,000 Btu 2,500,000 Btu EXHIBIT 6 REJECTED ENERGY > S|ELECTRICIESEL3°=|GENERATION PROPANE/BLAZO wooD SPACE SS AND FUEL OIL a WATER 5 2 HEATING 3 Oo 2 USEFUL ENERGY > ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (UNITS:MILLION Btu)1981 ENERGY BALANCE NAPASKIAK HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982 PROPOSED LOCATION OF SWITCH GEAR/GROUND oe PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY TO EEK JUNCTION NAPASKING =ELECTRICAL DsSTRIeaToOU EXHIBIT 7 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY BETHEL AREA POWER PLAN FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT P.E.COMPANY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS Phone (907)276-3442 0.0.Box 4-2545 Anchorage,Alaska 'ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY December 1982