HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWAMC - Aleutians Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan - Phase II
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 1
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands
Regional Energy Plan
Phase II – Report Update
Prepared by
Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference
3300 Arctic Blvd., Ste. 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Information Insights
212 Front Street, Suite 100
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
December 2015
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for sharing their time, data
and expertise. Their assistance has been invaluable.
Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) Bulk Fuel Loan Program: Jane Sullivan
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA): Alan Baldivieso, Katie Conway, Josh Craft, Jedidiah Drolet, Chris Gobah, Daniel
Hertrich, Jessie Huff, Cady Lister, David Lockard, Kris Noonan, Douglas Ott, Devany Plentovich, Richard
Stromberg, Jeff Williams
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC): Jimmy Ord, Scott Waterman
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA): Mike Catsi
Agdaagux Tribal Council: Della Trumble
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC): Gavin Dixon, Eric Hanssen
Aleut Corporation: Tara Bourdukofsky, Patricia Lekanoff-Gregory, Janet Reiser
Aleutian Housing Authority: Dan Duame, Erin Wilson, Kennedy Serr, John Santos
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association: Bruce Wright
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association (APICDA): Everette Anderson, Shawn Hansen,
Angel Drobnica
Aleutian Region School District: Joseph Beckford
Aleutians East Borough: Ernest Weiss
Aleutians East Borough School District: Doug Conboy
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association (CBSFA): Jeff Kauffman
Eastern Aleutian Tribes: Jennifer Harrison, Edgar Smith
Frosty Fuels, Cold Bay: Michael Tickle
City of Adak: Layton Lockett
City of Akutan: Tuna Scanlan, Mary Tesche, Dianne Woodruff
City of Atka: Julie Dirks, Jennifer Kost
City of Cold Bay, G&K Utility: Gary Ferguson
City of False Pass: Chris Emrich
City of King Cove: Gary Hennigh, Henry Mack
City of Sand Point: Andy Varner, David Osterback
City of St. George: Patrick Pletnikoff
City of St. Paul: Linda Snow, John Melovidov, Phyllis Swetzof, Kenneth Weaver,Mike Dahl, Bill Mathews
City of Unalaska: Shirley Marquardt, Jim Fitch, Chris Hladick, Don Moore, Dan Winters
Isanotski Corporation, False Pass: Sue Parker
Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council: Paul Gunderson
Nikokski Clinic: Doris Kompkoff
Ounalashka Corporation, Unalaska: David Gregory
Peter Pan Seafoods, King Cove: Glenn Guffey
Petro Star, Inc.: Don Castle
Pribilof School District: Connie Newman
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 3
Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point: Jason Bjornstad, Tiffany Jackson
RMA Consulting Group (for City of Akutan): Raymond Mann
Shumagin Corporation, Sand Point: Glen Gardner, Charlotte Gunderson
Siemens Industry, Inc.: Amber McDonough
TDX Power: Agafon Krukoff, Kord Christianson, James Dunn, Ron Philemonoff
Trident Seafoods: Ken McHugh
UAF Interior-Aleutians Campus: Mike Hirt, Bryan Uher
US Department of Energy: Givey Kochanowski
USDA Rural Development: Jolene John
Vitus Marine: Mark Smith
Westward Seafoods / Alyeska Seafoods, Dutch Harbor: Alex Bacco, Wilt Sinclair, Chris Spengler
Cover photo: Piergiuliano Chesi [CC by 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Inset photos (clockwise from top left): INN Electric Cooperative, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Clickr Bee, Wolf Solar Electric
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 4
CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................7
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................9
1 | Regional Energy Planning ..........................................................................................15
Planning Area ...............................................................................................................16
Recommended Strategies ..............................................................................................17
2 | Energy Supply and Demand ......................................................................................21
Electric Power ...............................................................................................................21
Fuel Vendors and Prices ...............................................................................................29
Current and Projected Demand .....................................................................................32
Renewable Energy ........................................................................................................37
Energy Efficiency & Conservation ...............................................................................45
3 | Energy Resource & Savings Potential .......................................................................50
Energy Resource Potential ............................................................................................50
Savings Potential from Increased Diesel Efficiency .....................................................51
Savings Potential from Addressing Line Loss ..............................................................53
Savings Potential from Expanding Community PCE Use ............................................54
Savings Potential from Increased Energy Efficiency ...................................................55
4 | Stakeholder Outreach .................................................................................................58
Outreach Activities .......................................................................................................58
Next Steps .....................................................................................................................60
5 | Energy Projects & Priorities ......................................................................................62
6 | Community and Energy Profiles ...............................................................................70
A | Stakeholder Participation ....................................................................................... A-1
B | Analysis of Resource Potential ................................................................................B-1
C | Community Input and Priorities ........................................................................... C-1
D | Works Cited ............................................................................................................. D-1
E | Data Sources .............................................................................................................E-1
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 5
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Energy Planning timeline .................................................................................... 16
Figure 2: Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Energy Planning Region ........................................................... 16
Figure 3: Data availability by energy sector ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 4: 2014 Electrical sales by utility ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 5: Regional electrical generation by utility and resource, 2014 (MWh) ................................. 22
Figure 6: Diesel fuel used for electrical generation, 2014 ................................................................ 25
Figure 7: Diesel efficiency, 2014 ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 8: Residential electrical rates by community, 2014 ............................................................... 29
Figure 9: Average diesel price paid by utilities, 2014 ....................................................................... 29
Figure 10: Retail price of #1 fuel oil ................................................................................................. 30
Figure 11: Regional electrical sales by customer type, 2014 ............................................................ 33
Figure 12: Regional trends by utility, resource, and population, 2010-2014 .................................... 34
Figure 13: Trends in average monthly use by customer type in Unalaska, St. Paul, and King Cove .. 35
Figure 14: Population trends by community, 2000-2014 ................................................................. 36
Figure 15: Aleut region residential energy use ................................................................................ 45
Figure 16: Aleut region residential energy costs compared with other re gions ............................... 46
Figure 17: Energy efficient housing stock, as of April 2014 .............................................................. 47
Figure 18: Diesel Efficiency at Different Load Sizes, FY2013 PCE Data .............................................. 52
Figure 19: Prioritization of regional energy strategies ..................................................................... 59
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Energy resource potential and certainty for new community-scale projects ...................... 10
Table 2: Proposed Regional Energy Roadmap ................................................................................. 11
Table 3: Administrative jurisdictions within the Aleutian & Pribilof Islands energy region .............. 17
Table 4: Factors for successful energy projects ................................................................................ 20
Table 5: Powerhouse and distribution upgrades completed or in development .............................. 26
Table 6: Heat recovery systems completed or in development ....................................................... 28
Table 7: Bulk fuel storage capacity .................................................................................................. 30
Table 8: Geothermal projects in the Aleut region ............................................................................ 39
Table 9: Hydrokinetic projects in the Aleut region .......................................................................... 40
Table 10: Hydroelectric projects in the Aleut region ........................................................................ 41
Table 11: Wind power projects in the Aleut region ......................................................................... 44
Table 12: Energy characteristics of regional housing stock .............................................................. 46
Table 13: Average EE&C savings per household in the Aleut region ................................................ 47
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 6
Table 14: Estimated annual energy savings from residential EE&C, 2008 -Apr 2014 ......................... 48
Table 15: Participation in non-residential EE&C programs since 2008 ............................................. 49
Table 16: Energy resource potential and certainty for new community -scale projects .................... 50
Table 17: Projected annual savings from meeting diesel efficiency benchmarks ............................. 51
Table 18: Line loss by community, FY2014 ...................................................................................... 53
Table 19: Savings potential for community facilities through PCE ................................................... 54
Table 20: Estimated energy savings and potential energy savings from residential EE&C ............... 55
Table 21: Savings from energy efficient lighting upgrades in 3 Aleutian communities ..................... 56
Table 22: Savings from LED street lighting retrofits in 2 Aleutian communities ............................... 56
Table 23: Savings potential for public and commercial facilities ...................................................... 57
Table 24: Potential savings from sanitation system energy efficiency ............................................. 57
Table 25: Energy projects planned or in progress ............................................................................ 62
Table 26: Community/utility interviews, May -Aug 2015 ................................................................ A-1
Table 27: Aleutian Energy Summit attendance, March 2015 .......................................................... A-1
Table 28: Online survey respondents, Feb-April 2014..................................................................... A-1
Table 29: Wood biomass resource potential .................................................................................. B-1
Table 30: Geothermal resource potential ....................................................................................... B-2
Table 31: Hydropower resource potential ...................................................................................... B-2
Table 32: Wind energy resource potential ...................................................................................... B-3
Table 33: Coal resource potential ................................................................................................... B-4
Table 34: Oil and gas resource potential ........................................................................................ B-4
Table 35: Heat recovery resource (HR) potential ............................................................................ B-5
Table 36: Energy Efficiency savings potential ................................................................................. B-6
Table 37: Criteria used in resource potential analysis ..................................................................... B-7
Table 38: Data sources for community profiles .............................................................................. E-1
Table 39: Data sources for energy profiles ..................................................................................... E-2
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 7
A CRONYMS AND A BBREVIATIONS
AC Alternating Current
ACEA Alaska Commercial Energy Audit (AEA)
ACEP Alaska Center for Energy and Power (UAF)
ADOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development
AEA Alaska Energy Authority
AEDG Alaska Energy Data Gateway (ISER)
AEERLP Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Program (AHFC)
AHA Aleutian Housing Authority
AHFC Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
AkAES Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy (AEA)
ALARI Alaska Local and Regional Information (ADOLWD)
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
APIA Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
APICDA Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association
ARIS Alaska Retrofit Information System (AHFC)
AVTEC Alaska Vocational Technology Center (ADOLWD)
B/C Benefit-Cost Ratio
BEES Alaska Building Energy Efficiency Standard
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCHRC Cold Climate Housing Research Center
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
DCRA Alaska DCCED Division of Community and Regional Affairs
DMVA Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
DOE-IE United States Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy
EE or EE&C Energy Efficiency, or Energy Efficiency and Conservation
EECBG Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program
ESCO Energy Savings Company
EUI Energy Use Intensity
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HDPE Hydro Dynamic Pipe Engineering (manufacturer)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 8
ISER Institute of Social and Economic Research (UAA)
Gen-set Diesel Generator Set
HDD Heating Degree Days
HER Home Energy Rebate program (AHFC)
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
kV Kilovolt
LED Light-Emitting Diode
LMI Low and Moderate Income (HUD)
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MMBTU One million BTUs
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hour
N/A Not Applicable, or Not Available
NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (HUD)
O&M Operations and Maintenance
ORPC Ocean Renewable Power Company
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
PCE Power Cost Equalization
P/V Photovoltaic
REAP Rural Energy for America (USDA)
RE Fund Renewable Energy Fund (AEA)
RPSU Rural Power System Upgrade (AEA)
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SWAMC Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference
TDX Tanadgusix Corporation
UAA University of Alaska Anchorage
UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks
ULSD Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VEEP Village Energy Efficiency Program (AEA)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 9
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
The Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan is part of a statewide effort led by the
Alaska Energy Authority to identify energy projects that will reduce the long-term cost of energy
and dependence on fossil fuels in Alaska. The process is designed to look at the total mix of
energy needs in rural Alaska, including electricity, heating and transportation, and consider all
local and regional energy resources as well as efficiency and conservation.
This document summarizes public input received in Phase II, especially relating to energy
priorities and recommended strategies for development and cost savings. It updates information
presented in the Phase I report on energy supply and demand, and it takes a new, more
quantitative approach to assessing the potential for renewable and n on-renewable energy
resources at the community level, which is consistent with what is being done in other regions.
The goal of this phase has been to engage community and regional leaders, residents, utilities,
industry representatives, and other key stakeholders in dialog about their priorities for addressing
energy needs in the region and to develop a list of projects to be assessed for economic and
technical feasibility in the third and final phase of the planning process. The Phase III report will
identify broadly supported strategies and a list of fundable projects that can reduce energy costs
in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region while developing local and regional energy resources.
Phase I Resource Inventory and Recommendations
Phase I provided an inventory of energy-related issues and resources in the region. While this
inventory necessarily represented a snapshot in time, it identified both broad and community-
specific recommendations that have been used to focus conversations during Phase II on the most
technically feasible and economically realistic projects, given the region’s mix of resources and
the current state of technology. The Phase I regional recommendations are summarized here:
MAXIMIZE ENERGY EFFICIENCY WITH A FOCUS ON REDUCING THE HIGH COST OF SPACE HEATING
Improve residential energy efficiency and weatherization .
Improve energy efficiency in public and commercial buildings.
Improve energy efficiency of water and sewer systems.
FOCUS ON MAINTENANCE AND EFFICIENCY OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Upgrade diesel power system to reduce line losses, improve overall efficiency, and prepar e
for integration of renewables.
Implement or expand heat recovery for community buildings where economically feasible.
DEVELOPING LOCAL ENERGY GENERATION WITH A FOCUS ON PROVEN, COST-EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Pursue hydro and wind energy power where local opportunities exist.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 10
Monitor emerging opportunities in tidal and wave power.
Evaluate availability of fish waste for community energy use.
MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC IMPACT WITH A FOCUS ON COMMUNITY VIABILITY
Assess potential projects and funding options with an eye to maximizing economic impact
in communities, including job creation and economic issues caused by high energy costs.
Be realistic about growth scenarios when evaluating project economics. Be prepared to
make tough decisions about big projects in small communities and adding new
infrastructure that will need to be maintained and upgraded over time.
ADDRESS ENERGY ISSUES AND COMMON NEEDS THROUGH COLLABORATION
Identify common issues among small rural utilities that can be addressed more efficiently
through information sharing and collaboration, such as training for the current and next
generation of utility operators and managers, and technical assistance with PCE reporting,
grant writing, project planning and development.
Convene an energy committee, working group or stakeholder forum to share information
on energy projects, identify opportunities for collaboration, and help mediate community
and regional differences related to energy resource development.
Phase II Energy Resource Potential Analysis
In Phase 2 we analyzed resources by community using standardized metrics (see Chapter 3).
Potential for savings from new, community-scale projects is greatest from energy efficiency,
hydro, wind, heat recovery and geothermal energy, though differences exist across communities.
Table 1: Energy resource potential and certainty for new community-scale projects
Adak Akutan Atka Cold Bay False Pass King Cove Nelson Lagoon Nikolski Saint George Saint Paul Sand Point Unalaska Biomass L L L L L L L L L L L L
Geothermal M M M L L L L L L L L M
Hydro H H H M H H L L L L L H
Solar L L L L L L L L L L L L
Wind H L M H L H L L H H H H
Coal L L L L L L L L L L L L
Oil & Gas L L L L L L L L L L L L
Heat Recovery M M L M H L M L L L H H
Energy Efficiency H M H H H H H H H H H H
The first letter in each square
represents resource
potential. The subscript
indicates the level of
certainty in the resource
potential rating. HighHL HM HH
MedML MM MH
LowLL LM LH
Low Med High
Color Key
Potential 4Certainty 4
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 11
Phase II Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input
In Phase 2, we spoke with regional stakeholders, community leaders and residents about energy
projects and priorities with the potential to advance the broad strategies outlined in Phase I.
Outreach activities include an online survey to a broad group of stakeholders to collect input on
the Phase I resource inventory and recommendations, a half-day Energy Summit in Anchorage in
conjunction with SWAMC’s Annual Conference in March 2015, interviews with community
leaders (in-person for Aleutian cities with offices in Anchorage), and a public website with
project information and reports.
During these activities, we informed the communities of the regional energy planning effort and
listened for common themes that unite the region, as well as for instances where energy needs or
priorities differ.
Regional Energy Roadmap
Based on community/utility interest and resource potential, the planning team developed a list of
projects and activities with the potential to advance the regional strategies identified through the
energy planning process. This list provides a potential “energy roadmap” for the region.
Economic analysis in Phase III will provide additional insights on which projects have the best
chance of reducing the long-term cost of energy and dependence on fossil fuels in the region. As
this determination is based on currently available technology and community support
(demonstrated by active leadership and/or financial support of projects) this roadmap must
revisited on a regular basis to ensure emerging opportunities are not missed.
Table 2: Proposed Regional Energy Roadmap
Strategy Resource Actions
Short Term
Planning and
Collaboration
Energy Committee Establish a regional energy committee supported by regular
meetings or teleconferences to continue the work of energy
planning, support implementation of priorities, including
identification of funding sources, and to share information on
energy projects and needs.
Bulk Fuel Cooperative Assess feasibility of forming a bulk fuel cooperative in the region
among interested communities and regional organizations.
Community Facility PCE Take full advantage of the PCE subsidy available for community
facilities in communities that are not near their limit: Akutan,
Sand Point, Unalaska and Adak.
Maximize Energy
Efficiency
Energy Efficiency
Expand participation in home energy rebate and weatherization
services through education and outreach, and addressing current
barriers to participation.
Complete inventory and benchmarking of non-residential
buildings in every community in order to establish baseline data
and identify projects with the greatest savings potential.
Complete recommended commercial and public facility retrofits
with short to medium payback periods using loans if necessary.
Investigate public ESCO model to fund retrofits in large high-
energy use buildings or across multiple buildings.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 12
Strategy Resource Actions
Upgrade streetlights and public facility lighting to LEDs in all
communities.
Conduct energy audits of water and sewer systems and
implement cost-effective retrofits. Require new installations and
major upgrades to have high standard of energy efficiency.
Maintain and Improve
Efficiency of Electric
Utilities
Diesel Efficiency and
Line Loss
Right size the diesel generation system in Adak to address
inefficiencies created by over built system. Improve diesel
efficiency in other communities below AEA benchmark, including
Atka, Nelson Lagoon and Nikolski.
Replace distribution lines and transformers in Adak, False Pass
and Nelson Lagoon to reduce line loss. Assess reasons and
remedies for line loss in other communities with high (over 12%)
or moderate (over 5%) line loss.
Heat Recovery Expand heat recovery systems to all buildings close to power
plants where economically viable. Assess feasibility of using
recovered heat from power plant to heat False Pass school and
Sand Point water/wastewater facility.
Workforce
Development
Assess training needs for current and next generation of
powerhouse operators, managers and utility clerks.
Maintain and Improve
Transportation
Infrastructure to
Reduce Energy Use
and Costs
Transportation Investigate new docks for Adak and Cold Bay and other
communities that need access roads and infrastructure upgrades
to reduce costs and improve safety for bulk fuel delivery.
Develop Local Energy
Generation
Biomass Assess feasibility for Biomass projects in Nelson Lagoon, Sand
Point, and Unalaska.
Geothermal Continue geothermal exploration in coordination with Trident in
Hot Springs Bay Valley.
Hydro Assess feasibility of hydro resources in Cold Bay (Russell Creek),
Unalaska, and False Pass.
Complete Atka Hydro-to-Heat Project and move King Cove
Waterfall Creek hydro project into development.
Natural Gas Study feasibility of importing LNG by tanker to Unalaska for heat
and power generation, including testing of LNG generator by the
public utility. Conduct market analysis and potential impacts on
bulk fuel costs in the region.
Solar Assess feasibility of small-scale, community solar P/V and solar
thermal projects where there is interest (Atka, St. George, St.
Paul, and Unalaska). Encourage residential use, especially in off-
grid areas and in facilities with high summer energy use.
Space Heating Install systems using excess electricity for space heating in public
buildings, like the school in Sand Point, and residential structures
in communities with excess hydro and wind energy.
Wind Support completion of Met tower wind studies started in Cold
Bay, Nelson Lagoon, and False Pass. Initiate MET tower wind
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 13
Strategy Resource Actions
studies for Adak, Atka, St. Paul, Unalaska, and King Cove (Delta
Creek Valley).
Replace damaged wind turbine in St. George and monitor
integration into electricity grid.
Collect high-quality electrical load data in order to understand
power/energy uses and better model wind turbine options in the
future.
Medium Term Continuation of short-term activities plus…
Develop Local Energy
Generation
Geothermal Develop Akutan geothermal resource in coordination with
Trident in Hot Springs Bay Valley based on results of confirmation
wells, and business and operations plans.
Assess the economics of using heat pumps for space heating in
communities where renewable energy generation projects are
able to bring electric rates down sufficiently (below $0.23/kWh).
Hydro Move hydro projects that prove feasible into design and
permitting phase.
Space Heating Expand use of heat pumps (air, ground, or seawater) if other
renewable energy projects reduce electric rates.
Add space heating components to wind or hydro project design
to create secondary loads, reduce heating costs and improve
project economics where excess renewable capacity exists.
Wind Install wind turbines in communities where good wind resources
and sufficient loads exist. If several projects are planned in the
region, consider bundling purchase and installation of turbines to
reduce project development costs.
Natural Gas Monitor developments in Alaska natural gas pipeline planning
and global LNG markets to identify any new opportunities for
importing LNG to the region
Long Term Continuation of short and medium-term activities plus…
Develop Local Energy
Generation
Hydro Pursue construction of hydroelectric projects in Cold Bay,
Unalaska, and False Pass if shown to be economically and
technically feasible.
Wind Continue to look for opportunities to develop viable wind
projects within the region
Geothermal Continue to look at feasibility of geothermal resources in Adak,
Akutan, Atka and Unalaska. Monitor technological advances in
use of low-temp geothermal for space heating and electrical
generation.
Hydrokinetic (In River,
Tidal and Wave Power)
Monitor technological advances in use of tidal and wave energy
for electric generation in False Pass, Nelson Lagoon and any
other communities with proven resources. Conduct site -specific
feasibility studies as technologies mature and become
commercially viable.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 14
Next Steps
In Phase III, rough estimates of project costs and benefits will be developed for projects included
in the roadmap for which sufficient data exist. The Phase III report will also provide a draft
action plan with steps local communities, utility owners and regional stakeholders can take to
implement their priorities. It will be up to those in the region to decide which actions they would
like to pursue based on community/utility interest and available funding or financing options.
The cost-benefit information provided in Phase III will help with these decisions.
State support for implementing priorities will continue through AEA’s Community Assistance
program, which provides hands-on assistance in developing energy projects and addressing local
issues, and through the Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy (AkAES), which could provide a
future funding mechanism for energy infrastructure in areas of the state that do not have direct
access to a North Slope natural gas pipeline.
In regions where no regional planning group or stakeholder forum exists for working on energy
issues, AEA is recommending the creation of local or regional energy committees or working
groups to assist with implementation and continue the work of energy planning into the future.
The agency has committed to helping support the creation of these groups as part of the final
phase of the regional planning process.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 15
1 | R EGIONAL E NERGY P LANNING
The Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan is part of a statewide effort led by the
Alaska Energy Authority to identify energy projects that will reduce the long-term cost of energy
and dependence on fossil fuels in Alaska. The process is designed to look at the total mix of
energy needs in rural Alaska, including electricity, heating and transportation, and consider all
local and regional energy resources as well as efficiency and conservation.
This document summarizes public input received in Phase II, especially relating to energy
priorities and recommended strategies for development and cost savings. It updates information
presented in the Phase I report on energy supply and demand, and it takes a new, more
quantitative approach to assessing the potential for renewable and non-renewable energy
resources at the community level, which is consistent with what is being done in other regions.
The goal of this phase has been to engage community and regional leaders, residents,
utilities, industry representatives, and other key stakeholders in dialog about their priorities
for addressing energy needs in the region and to develop a list of projects to be assessed for
economic and technical feasibility in the third and final phase of the planning process.
The Phase III report will identify broadly supported strategies and a list of fundable projects that
can reduce energy costs in the Aleut region while developing local and regional energy resources.
The economic analysis will use a standard statewide methodology to provide a preliminary
evaluation of project costs and benefits. The Phase III report will also provide a draft action plan
with steps communities, utility owners and regional stakeholders can take to implement their
priorities.
Once complete, the plan is intended to serve as both a guiding document for communities and
regional stakeholders and as a practical tool with information on the steps needed to move energy
projects forward. Completed plans will also be used as an input to AEA’s own statewide energy
planning efforts, such as the Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy (AkAES) established by the
Alaska Legislature in 2014 (Senate Bill 138).
Beyond the Current Planning Process
Although the state’s Regional Energy Planning project will close in 2015, it is hoped that plans
will continue to be updated as projects are implemented and circumstances change . A goal of the
statewide project has been to develop regional capacity to continue the work of energy planning
and implementing priorities. To this end, AEA is recommending the creation of local or regional
energy committees or working groups. The agency has committed to helping support the creation
of these groups as part of the final phase of the regional planning process. At the end of the
project, energy committees or working groups will need to be self-sustaining or find support from
regional partners or entities.
State support for implementing priorities identified through Regional Energy Planning will
continue through AEA’s Community Assistance program, which provides hands-on assistance to
communities in developing projects and addressing issues, and through the Alaska Affordable
Energy Strategy (AkAES), which could provide a future funding mechanism for energy
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 16
infrastructure needed to deliver affordable energy to areas of the state that do not have direct
access to a North Slope natural gas pipeline (Figure 1).
The AkAES is a long-term, state-directed effort to help provide affordable energy to all areas of
the state if a natural gas pipeline is built from Alaska’s North Slope using revenues from a 20
percent set-aside of pipeline revenue.
In 2017, AEA will make recommendations to the Legislature on infrastructure needed to deliver
affordable energy to areas in the state that will not have direct access to a natural gas pipeline. To
assist in the identification of infrastructure projects, AEA plans to draw on the data collected and
publicly vetted through the Regional Energy Planning process.
Figure 1: Regional Energy Planning timeline
PLANNING AREA
The planning area for this project includes the 12 communities within AEA’s Aleutian & Pribilof
Islands energy region, which follows the boundaries of the Aleut Corporation established under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) as shown in the inset map in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Energy Planning Region
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 17
Table 3: Administrative jurisdictions within the Aleutian & Pribilof Islands energy region
ANCSA
Region
Tribal Health
Corporation
Borough and
Census Areas School Districts
Western Alaska
CDQ Program
Legislative
Districts
For Profit:
Aleut Corporation
Nonprofit:
Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association
(except Adak, Cold Bay)
Aleutian Housing
Authority
(except Adak, Cold Bay)
Eastern Aleutian
Tribes
(Adak, Akutan, Cold
Bay, False Pass, King
Cove, Nelson Lagoon,
Sand Point)
Aleutians East
Borough1
(Akutan, Cold
Bay, False Pass, King
Cove, Nelson Lagoon,
Sand Point)
Aleutians East
Borough School
District
Aleutian Pribilof
Island Community
Development
Association
(Akutan, Atka,
False Pass, Nelson
Lagoon, Nikolski,
St. George)
Central Bering Sea
Fisherman’s
Association
(St. Paul)
Senate
District
S
House
District
37
Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association
(Atka, Nikolski,
St. George, St. Paul,
Unalaska)
Aleutians West
Census Area
(Adak, Atka, Nikolski,
St. George, St. Paul,
Unalaska)
Aleutian Region
School District
(Adak, Atka, Nikolski)
Unalaska City
School District
Pribilof School
District
(St. George, St. Paul)
Note: 1/ Additional Census Designated Places (CDP) in the Aleutians East Borough include Belkofski Village, Pauloff
Harbor, and Unga.
RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Regional Recommendations from Phase I
While each community has its own set of challenges and opportunities presented by its
geographic, historical, and economic condition, the Phase I report concluded with a number of
broad recommendations for regional energy planning.
MAXIMIZE WEATHERIZATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, FOCUS ON SPACE HEATING
More effort needs to go into weatherization and energy efficiency. Since heating is such a high
expense for households, more impact can be made on the daily cost of living in communities if
homes are properly weatherized and made more energy efficient. The household and commercial
heating and electrical loads need to be reduced to what is economically feasible, and
communities and regional planners have a role to help households and businesses achieve this
effort. Conversion to LED lighting and energy efficient appliances will also improve efficiency
and save money over time.
FOCUS ON PROVEN, COST-EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY (ESPECIALLY HYDRO AND WIND)
As government energy funds are limited, and likely to tighten in the future, communities should
focus on proven technologies that will maximize return on local and government investment.
Hydropower has been shown to be effective in contributing a majority of a community's
electrical load.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 18
Wind can contribute cost effectively where there is a stable, reliable resource, though due
to the variable nature of wind, current technology does not allow it to be a standalone
system.
Insufficient woody biomass exists throughout the region to be a viable community-scale
energy resource. Insufficient information is available to evaluate the availability of fish
wastes for community energy use—all processors contacted reported utilizing the wastes
economically.
Tidal and wave power are still pre-commercial technologies and not appropriate
technologies for isolated communities at this point.
Geothermal is a high-risk, high-reward proposition: If a suitable reservoir can be found the
resource can provide steady, consistent power, but the exploration process is very
expensive and risky.
FOCUS ON MAINTENANCE AND EFFICIENCY OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Prior to building new energy infrastructure, communities need to ensure that the current
infrastructure operates properly through proper maintenance of the generation and distribution
systems and recovering waste heat from the diesel powerhouses.
MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC IMPACT, FOCUS ON COMMUNITY VIABILITY
Lower energy costs will not ensure the viability of communities, but high costs can make it more
difficult for a community to maintain its economic base. Funding and projects should look to
maximize economic impact in the communities. This includes ensuring jobs for the communities,
addressing economic issues caused by high energy prices and energy infrastructure , and lowering
economic risk for homes and businesses.
Communities need to be realistic about growth and economic opportunities, planning for the
most likely scenario and not the stretch goal. As the populations of several communities have
declined significantly in the past decade, the region and state need to make tough decisions on
whether new energy projects will enhance community viability.
ADDRESS ENERGY ISSUES AND COMMON NEEDS THROUGH COLLABORATION
The use of a number of potential energy resources is hamstrung by disagreements among
stakeholders. An independent regional stakeholder forum could increase dialog and help mediate
community and regional differences.
Small, independent utilities share many common needs, including training the current and next
generation of operators and managers to maximize efficiency. Some common issues may be best
addressed through information sharing and collaboration among small rural utility operators.
Strategies for Project Development in Rural Alaska
Some additional strategies for energy project development in rural Alaska have been
recommended by energy planners working in other areas of the state as part of AEA’s regional
energy planning effort.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 19
LOOK AT MANY SMALL SOLUTIONS RATHER THAN FOCUS ON ONE BIG PROJECT
AEA designed the Regional Energy Planning process to facilitate bottom-up, short- to medium-
term energy planning driven by the needs and priorities of communities and regions. That means
an emphasis on community-focused planning and solutions that can be implemented at the local
level and sustained over the long term. Large, capital-intensive projects take years in planning
and development and may leave small communities with infrastructure that is expensive to
maintain and requires outside expertise to operate.
Like other forms of community planning, the goal of energy planning should be to create
sustainable, thriving communities. Rather than focus on one big energy project (or while waiting
for it to pass through bureaucratic and funding hurdles), communities and regional stakeholders
should consider the universe of smaller projects that can be completed more quickly and cheaply,
but which cumulatively can have a big impact.
FOCUS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE SHORT TERM
Given the current Alaska state budget crisis and the relatively low price of oil, there are strong
reasons to focus on energy efficiency opportunities in the near term:
The outlook for new State investment in major infrastructure projects is poor, but the State is
still funding popular programs to help pay for energy efficiency audits and upgrades.
Comparatively few households in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region have taken
advantage of these programs to date and relatively few commercial and public facility energy
upgrades have been performed in the region. As a result, there is still a lot of opportunity in
this area.
Even without state funding, many EE&C projects pay for themselves within a few months or
years. In the long-run, it costs more to wait to do efficiency upgrades than doing them now,
even if a loan is needed to cover up-front costs.
A good time to invest in energy efficiency is when oil prices are down. By using some of the
money not being spent on fuel (due to lower prices) on energy efficiency measures, the pain
of high energy costs will be less when oil prices do go back up.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS, ESPECIALLY FOR TRIBALLY AFFILIATED GROUPS
The Department of Energy has recently increased its staffing and outreach in Alaska through the
Office of Indian Energy (DOE-IE). This is a good time to take advantage of federal energy
programs, especially for any entity with an Alaska Native affiliation (including federally
recognized tribes, ANCSA regional and village corporations, Native nonprofits, and Public Law
93-638 compactors). Utilities may be able to partner with tribally affiliated entities to leverage
these federal funds. To date, no communities in the region have participated in the DOE -IE
START program, a competitive technical assistance program that provides three to five years of
assistance in energy planning and project development. Every tribe is also eligible for 40 hours of
technical assistance per request from DOE in a non-competitive program in which each tribe or
eligible group may submit multiple requests per year.
USDA Rural Development provides a source of federal funding open to all rural communities
regardless of Native affiliation. Rural Energy for America (REAP) and Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) are two USDA programs that can be used by Alaska utilities and small businesses to fund
clean energy and energy infrastructure projects.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 20
PAY ATTENTION TO FACTORS FOR SUCCESS
Energy planning and project development are slow and iterative processes. A spirit of optimism
is useful for keeping everyone focused on the goal, but it should not prevent clear-eyed vetting of
proposed projects in which risks are analyzed as well as benefits. The following lessons learned
about developing successful energy projects came from regional energy planners and project
developers at the 2013 Alaska Rural Energy Conference (Table 4).
Table 4: Factors for successful energy projects
TO BE SUCCESSFUL…
Energy projects must be Energy projects must have Energy planners must have
Economically viable
Technologically feasible
Supported by the local
community, resource
owners, utility operators,
and state and local
governing entities
A local champion
Long-term, reliable and
sustainable fuel sources
Hope and optimism
Many conversations with
stakeholders
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 21
2 | E NERGY S UPPL Y AND D EMAND
Alaska’s Regional Energy Planning process is
intended to look at the total mix of energy needs in
rural Alaska—for electricity, heating and
transportation—and to consider all local and
regional energy resources including efficiency and
conservation. However, data issues prevent a
consistent level of detail and analysis.
Good data is available on supply and demand for
electrical power from the Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) program, the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA), and from utilities themselves.
Space heating costs account for over 80 percent of
home energy budgets in Alaska and around 55 percent of the energy costs in public and
commercial buildings. Good data on heating fuel use, including heating efficiency and types of
fuels used for heating, is increasingly available from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
through the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS). Data is better for residential buildings.
While we know that transportation costs directly affect total energy and fo od costs, especially in
rural areas, there is little data routinely or consistently collected on transportation costs and fuel
consumption. Wholesale fuel cost and sales data is largely the proprietary data of fuel vendors.
ELECTRIC POWER
Electric power in the region is primarily
produced by small, independent, often
municipally owned, utilities. The
exception is TDX power, which provides
electricity to Adak and Sand Point. Six
utilities generate and sell 96 percent of the
power (Figure 4). Small utilities in the
other five communities (False Pass, St.
George, Akutan, Atka, Nelson Lagoon,
and Nikolski) each produce less than 1,000
MWh per year. Each utility maintains its
own distribution grid. No utilities are
interconnected by transmission lines.
The vast majority (94 percent) of power in the region is produced with diesel fuel, though
development of renewable resources is growing and now accounts for a significant share of
power in a few communities. Hydroelectricity provided 79 percent of Atka’s power and 52
percent of the power generated in King Cove in 2014. While there was no hydro power produced
in Akutan last year, 25 to 44% of its electricity came from hydro in the two previous years.
Electricity
Good Data
Heating
Some Data
Many Gaps
Transportation
Significant
Data Gaps
Figure 3: Data availability by energy sector
Figure 4: 2014 Electrical sales by utility
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 22
Figure 5: Regional electrical generation by utility and resource, 2014 (MWh)
Data source: (1)
Wind energy contributed 22 percent of the municipal power in Sand Point and 13 percent in St.
Paul in 2014. In total, hydroelectric projects contributed 4.0 percent of the region’s publicly
available electricity last year, while another 2.1 percent came from wind energy (Figure 5).
Public Electric Utilities
Extensive profiles of all public electric utilities in the Aleut region are provided in the Phase I
report, with updated statistical data included in the Community and Energy Profiles, starting on
page 70, in the current report. A brief overview of the region’s six largest utilities, which together
account for over 95 percent of electric sales, is provided below.
CITY OF UNALASKA
The City of Unalaska owns and operates the electrical utility in Unalaska, which has a generating
capacity of 19 MW. In 2014, it produced over 48,000 MWh, accounting for 72 percent of
regional electric sales. Power is sold to a largely commercial customer base, as well as to over
700 homes and 50 community facilities. While all power is diesel generated, a new 200 kW
Organic Ranking Cycle generator also converts waste heat to electricity at the Dutch Harbor
powerhouse. Three seafood processors in Dutch Harbor operate their own diesel powerhouses
with a combined load larger than the city’s—approximately 62,000 MWh/year (2). Integrating
private powerhouses into the municipal grid is one of the energy priorities the city is working on.
CITY OF KING COVE
The City of King Cove owns and operates the electric utility in King Cove. Averaged year round,
60 percent of the city's power is supplied by the 800 kW capacity Delta Creek hydroelectric
plant, and the remainder by a diesel power plant with a capacity of 2,700 kW. In summer months,
hydro production typically exceeds 90 percent and occasionally approaches 100 percent of total
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 23
generation. Conversely in winter, when the electrical consumption in King Cove is greatest,
hydro generation drops below 10 percent. The switch gear to integrate the diesel and
hydroelectric plants is computer controlled and fully automatic (2).
ST. PAUL MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC
The City of Saint Paul owns and operates the electric utility in Saint Paul. Its diesel plant has a
total generating capacity of over 2.5 MW. A power purchase agreement (PPA) enables it to also
buy wind energy from TDX Power, a subsidiary of Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX), the Alaska
Native village corporation of St. Paul Island. (TDX Power also owns and operates utilities in
Adak, Sand Point, Manley Hot Springs, and on the North Slope.) TDX Power operates three 225
kW wind turbines at its POSS Camp industrial/airport complex on St. Paul Island. With the PPA,
one turbine now produces power for the city. The city’s diesel powerhouse was upgraded to
integrate wind power into the municipal grid, and it purchased its first wind power from TDX in
2014. The city recently installed a flywheel for storage of excess wind energy. The turbine can be
expected to deliver over 800 MWh/year based on performance at the POSS Camp. Trident
Seafoods runs a separate, unconnected electrical grid on St. Paul Island with a 2.2 MW capacity.
SAND POINT GENERATING / ALEUTIAN WIND ENERGY
TDX Sand Point Generating, LLC has owned and operated the electric utility in Sand Point since
2000. Its diesel plant has a total generating capacity of 2.6 MW, and the generator controls are
fully automatic synchronizing switch gear. TDX also operates two 500 kW wind turbines through
a subsidiary, Aleutian Wind Energy, LLC. The turbines have been oversized for existing
electrical load and therefore curtailed to 300 kW each. The utility is in the process of installing
battery storage and additional secondary heating loads to increase utilization of the excess wind
energy and allow it to operate in a “wind only” mode for up to 30 percent of the year (3).
G&K INCORPORATED
G&K, Inc., the electric utility in Cold Bay, was started in 1987 by owner Gary Ferguson, who
was contracted by the Department of Military Affairs to supply emergency power to the U.S. Air
Force Base in Cold Bay. The State also asked Ferguson to rebuild the electric utility for the
community. G&K continues to supply power to the critical loads of the Air Force's Long Range
Radar Site and the FAA's navigational equipment. Because of the strict operational requirements
of the U.S. Air Force, G&K has never experienced an unplanned outage. The generation system
includes older diesel engines that have been well maintained, but are in the second half of their
useful life. The switch gear is computer controlled and is fully automatic. Cold Bay has not
received funding through the Rural Power Systems Upgrade (RPSU) program (2).
TDX GENERATING ADAK
TDX Adak Generating (TAG) owns and operates the electrical utility in Adak, generating
electricity by diesel. Given the decrease in community population since the utility infrastructure
was built in the 1990s, the generation and distribution system are grossly oversized for the
community load. The powerhouse has a generating capacity of 2.24 MW and manually controlled
switch gear. Several generators are in need of a complete overhaul or replacement. Other serious
issues include roof leaks and signs of fuel leaks at the powerhouse. The distribution system is
generally in poor shape, with transformers, junction boxes, and power poles in need of repair and
replacement. A health and safety inspection showed significant problems with the potential for
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 24
loss of life. The poor efficiency of the generators, high line losses, and decreasing customer base
contribute to the highest residential rates in the region, both before and after PCE reimbursement.
A demand charge is levied against residential customers, which can range from $0.15 to $2.00
more per kWh than the commercial rate, and is charged in addition to the power costs. This
contributes to the high price volatility in Adak (2).
UTILITIES PRODUCING LESS THAN 2,000 MWH
The City of Akutan owns and operates the electric utility in Akutan. The diesel plant has a total
generating capacity of 450 kW. The City also operates the 105 kW Town Creek hydroelectric
plant. The actual production of the plant is unknown due to metering issues. The generators were
recently replaced and are in good condition. The controls are manually operated synchronizing
switch gear. Akutan also received RPSU funds to upgrade its distribution system. Trident
Seafoods runs a separate, unconnected electrical grid with a 7 MW peak load. It is estimated to
generate more than 36,000 MWh of electricity at a cost of $0.21/kWh (2).
The City of Atka owns and operates the electrical utility in Atka. Electricity is generated by the
283-kW Chuniisax hydropower plant and by diesel generation. Since the hydroelectric plant
came online in December 2012, it has supplied nearly 90 percent of the electricity in Atka. The
diesel generation system and distribution system are in good shape and are properly sized for the
community load. The switch gear is manual (2).
City of False Pass owns and operates the electric utility. The city’s diesel plant has a generating
capacity of 375 kW. The switchgear is manually synchronizing. New generators were installed in
the recent past, however the distribution system is in poor condition, with improperly installed
meters in need of replacement (2). The community is interested in renewable energy resources.
Nelson Lagoon Electric Cooperative has a total generation capacity of 220 kW from diesel gen-
sets. A new generator building was built in 1998 and is located near the community dock and
tank farm. The powerhouse has fully automatic synchronizing switchgear. Two generators are in
fair condition. A third 75-kW generator is out of service. The utility’s distribution system is in
poor condition. Nelson Lagoon is in line for a Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) grant (2).
Umnak Power Company owns and operates the electric utility in Nikolski. The diesel plant has a
total generating capacity of 196 kW. Nikolski had its diesel power infrastructure rebuilt under an
RPSU grant and its switch gear is fully automatic synchronizing. Generators are in fair condition,
and the distribution system in good condition. A refurbished 65 kW Vestas V-15 wind turbine
was integrated into the grid in 2010 with an associated heat recovery system. Currently, the
system remains inoperable, because the output is more than the diesel power system can handle
with the existing community load and the reaction speed of secondary loads. Nikolski applied for
additional REF funds in Round 5 to address the issues, but was not funded. (2) (4).
The City of Saint George owns and operates the electric utility, which produces electricity by
diesel generators. The residential electric rate is the second highest in the region, due primarily to
the high diesel costs on the island. The diesel powerhouse was recently rebuilt and a 95 kW wind
turbine installed. The wind turbine burned out and is being replaced in fall 2015 with one of
similar size. The new powerhouse includes a Web-based load control system monitored by
technicians in Anchorage who are able to adjust the load required by the generators 24/7 to
maximize fuel economy (5).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 25
Diesel Efficiency
Over 4.3 million gallons of diesel fuel
are used annually to generate
electricity in the region (Figure 6).
Diesel efficiency (measured by the
number of kWh generated from one
gallon of diesel) currently ranges from
8.8 kWh/gallon in Nelson Lagoon to
15.7 in Unalaska (Figure 7). The red
line shows AEA’s performance
benchmarks of 12.5 kWh/gallon for
small utilities (those generating under
2,000 MWh/year) and 14.5
kWh/gallon for larger utilities.
Figure 7: Diesel efficiency, 2014
Data source: (1)
While it appears that diesel efficiency in the region is in the ballpark for most utilities, there is
room for improvement that would save utilities money and fuel. If utilities below the AEA
benchmarks improved system efficiency enough to meet them, they would save anywhere from
$0.01 to $0.17/kWh in avoided fuel costs. Collectively these utilities would save 76,000 gallons
of fuel oil annually—a savings of $375,000 per year at 2014 fuel prices. See Table 17 (Chapter 3)
for an estimate of potential savings from increased diesel efficiency in the region.
Figure 6: Diesel fuel used for electrical generation, 2014
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 26
Powerhouse and Distribution System Upgrades
See Table 5 for a list of rural power system upgrade (RPSU) and distribution system projects that
have been completed or are in progress. It also lists communities with a local priority for
addressing line loss or diesel efficiency issues. AEA’s RPSU program has been limited in recent
years, meaning even priority projects may not be funded in the near future. In 2014, six
communities in the region had line loss above 12 percent, the threshold at which reductions in the
PCE subsidy take effect. In Adak, line loss was 42 percent in FY 2014. The utility has begun to
replace transformers and power lines but a critical need remains for “right-sizing” the vastly
oversized powerhouse (6). According to a 2011 renewable energy reconnaissance study, this is a
first step before any renewable resources can be integrated in the community (7). Other
communities where line loss has been high are King Cove (17%), Akutan (15%), St. Paul (14%),
and Nelson Lagoon (12%). Only Sand Point and Unalaska had a line loss of 5 percent or less in
FY 2014. The recent RPSU project may have addressed many of the issues in St. George, where
line loss had been the second highest in the region and the distribution system was in poor
condition. See Table 18 (Chapter 3) for more on line loss and an analysis of potential fuel savings
from addressing it.
Table 5: Powerhouse and distribution upgrades completed or in development
Community / Status Project Description
Completed
False Pass, King Cove,
Nikolski
RPSU
Akutan RPSU Distribution
System Upgrade
St. George RPSU & Heat Recovery
Scheduled or In Progress
TDX Adak RPSU & Distribution
System Upgrade
“Right size” diesel plant and repair distribution system to address
inefficiencies created by oversized system that is in poor condition,
and to allow integration of one or more renewable resources. TDX
Power has replaced transformers for most housing and is replacing
power lines along the waterfront (fall 2015). New lines will be
buried to increase reliability and protect from weather. There is still
a need for a smaller power house and new, smaller generators but
no funding has been allocated at this time. The project is included in
AEA future project list, but funding is not guaranteed.
Unalaska Local priority Integrate private powerhouses into city utility grid
Priority
Nelson Lagoon
Transformer/Distribution
System Upgrade
Critical need to address high line loss through upgrade of
distribution system, which is in poor condition. Transformers are
beyond their useful life, and commercial and residential meters
need replacement. The transmission system was measured to have
a greater than 25% load imbalance across the three phases. Nelson
Lagoon is in line for a RPSU grant to address these issues.
False Pass Local priority Address high line losses and improve diesel efficiency. Distribution
system is in poor condition with improperly installed meters in need
of replacement. The electricity distribution system was found to be
10-25% out of balance in the 2012 RPSU Survey.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 27
Community / Status Project Description
St. Paul Local priority Upgrade diesel power system. Determine cause of line loss.
Establish emergency generation for homes and essential services.
Data sources: (2) (7), interviews with community and utility representatives (see Appendix A).
Heat Recovery
Heat recovery lowers community energy costs by reducing the cost of heating public buildings
near the powerhouse. Even when gen-sets operate at maximum efficiency, 60 percent of the
energy in diesel fuel is released as heat. Waste jacket heat can be run through a heat exchanger
that transfers heat to a heat loop. This process can recover 10 to 20 percent of the energy in the
fuel. The heat can be measured and, if a heat sales contract is developed, can be sold to provide
another revenue source for the utility. Potential users are often schools but can be any nearby
buildings. While excess or waste heat is primarily a byproduct of diesel generation, heat can be
harnessed from hydro or wind projects when their capacity exceeds local electrical needs. The
excess power can be dispatched on an interruptible basis to secondary heating loads, such as an
electric boiler connected to a single facility’s heating system or to a district heat loop.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 28
Table 6: Heat recovery systems completed or in development
Community Buildings Heated Description
Operational
King Cove School, clinic, housing, and
community center
The powerhouse has a fairly extensive heat recovery system that
supplies nearby community buildings and includes a boiler that
converts excess hydroelectric power to heat.
False Pass The powerhouse has a heat recovery system installed. City would
like to look at feasibility of delivering waste heat to the school.
Nikolski The powerhouse has a heat recovery system installed and it is
operational.
Sand Point The powerhouse has a limited heat recovery system
St. George St. George school, city
offices and the public
safety building
The powerhouse has a waste heat recovery system installed. The
heat recovery loop was recently rebuilt as part of the RPSU project.
The new system meets most of the space heating needs of the city
and school (5).
St. Paul Public Works office,
machine shop, warehouse,
fire station, gas station,
bulk fuel office, fuel pump
building, power plant
office/storage
St. Paul uses recovered heat to heat a total area of 61,000 sq. ft.
The city is completing a project to upgrade and extend the heat
recovery loop to work with wind-diesel system.
Unalaska Power plant offices
(Significant, additional
industrial heating loads
exist.)
Unalaska uses recovered heat for hot water and space heat and to
produce electricity using a 200 kW Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)
generator at the Dutch Harbor powerhouse. The system is designed
for expansion to include excess heat from increased power
demands when a new powerhouse is constructed.
Scheduled or In Progress
Sand Point School, health clinic New REF 8 project will install electric boilers at the school and clinic
to use excess wind energy for space heating, and integrate building
energy use data into the power plant’s SCADA system.
Cold Bay Heat recovery system
installed; at present it is
not connected to other
buildings.
Cold Bay received an REF Round 6 grant to assess the feasibility of
implementing heat recovery at power plant. Expected completion
in 2016.
No Heat Recovery
Adak, Akutan, Atka, Nelson Lagoon Powerhouses do not have a heat recovery system in operation.
Data sources: (2) (7) (8)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 29
Electric Rates and Power Cost Equalization
Residential electricity rates vary widely across the region from $0.30/kWh in King Cove to
$1.44/kWh in Adak. The state’s PCE subsidy brings down the effective rate for the first 500 kWh
of monthly residential use (Figure 8). For comparison, rates were $0.15/kWh in Anchorage in
March 2015.
Figure 8: Residential electrical rates by community, 2014
Data source: (1)
FUEL VENDORS AND PRICES
Fuel Prices
Fuel prices are a large component of
electricity rates, especially in communities
producing all or most of their power
through diesel generation. Fuel prices are
set on global markets, but the delivered
price can vary widely due to transportation
costs. Factors affecting fuel price include
distance from the distributor’s linehaul
routes, volume purchased, safety and ease
of offloading at docks, contract terms, and
the competitiveness of the market. (Some
communities are served by only one
vendor.)
The retail price of fuel oil for home heating
is usually higher than the prices paid by
utilities. Figure 10 shows that prices in four
Figure 9: Average diesel price paid by utilities, 2014
Data source: (1)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 30
communities in the region are an average of $0.60 to $1.78 higher than Anchorage prices in most
years.
Fuel Vendors
Crowley, Delta Western, Vitus Marine,
Trident Seafoods and Adak Petroleum are
the primary fuel vendors in the region.
Most communities use #2 diesel or #2
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) for both
electrical generation and space heating. A
few communities have only one fuel
vendor who delivers.
Bulk Fuel Storage
Most communities in the region have
adequate bulk fuel storage. Bulk fuel
upgrade (BFU) projects have been
completed in Akutan, Atka, False Pass,
King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, and Nikolski.
Future projects are slated (but not
scheduled or funded) for Cold Bay, St.
Paul and Sand Point. Table 7 lists the
known tank capacity for diesel fuels.
Storage capacity for other transportation fuels is not included.
Table 7: Bulk fuel storage capacity
Fuel Community Past Vendors Capacity (Gals.) Owner / Uses
Jet A (High
Sulfur #1)
Cold Bay Crowley, Delta
Western
300,000 Frosty Fuels: Jet fuel and heating oil
#1 Diesel Atka 30,000 Residential & community heating
False Pass 27,000 Peter Pan: Heating oil.
Nelson Lagoon Crowley 81,000 Residential heating
#2 Diesel
(includes
ULSD)
Adak Adak
Petroleum, a
subsidiary of
the Aleut
Corporation
20,000,000 City Power Plant, community buildings,
residential heating, fishing
Akutan 80,000 City of Akutan
5,000,000 Trident Seafoods facilities, fishing boats
Atka 60,000 Heating, fishing boats
40,000 Electrical Generation
Cold Bay Crowley, Delta
Western
13,450 G&K Power Plant (Typically ULSD #2)
110,000 Frost Fuels
False Pass 65,000 City (owner). Power Generation
300,000 Fishing, etc.
Figure 10: Retail price of #1 fuel oil
Note: Prior to 2011, the month in which fuel price data was
collected varies by community. When data from the same
month was not available, the closest month (within 3 months)
was used. Data source: (13).
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015Per GallonKing Cove Sand Point St. Paul
Unalaska Anchorage
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 31
Fuel Community Past Vendors Capacity (Gals.) Owner / Uses
#2 Diesel
(includes
ULSD)
King Cove
159,500 City of King Cove: power plant, community
buildings, some residential heating
1,000,000 Peter Pan Seafoods: Peter Pan facilities,
fishing boats, residential heating,
transportation
Nelson Lagoon Crowley 54,000 Power generation
Sand Point Trident
Seafoods
41,000 TDX Power Plant
800,000 Trident Seafoods facilities, fishing boats,
residential heating, transportation
St. George 1,066,200 Saint George Delta Fuel. Electrical
generation and residential heating.
St. Paul 1,847,500 City of Saint Paul
1,500,000 TDX Corp.
300,000 Coast Guard
12,000 Trident Seafoods
Multiple
fuel types
Unalaska Multiple
vendors from
Cook Inlet and
West Coast
refineries
16,000,000 Delta Western Fuels
4,000,000 Petro Star
(Plus multiple smaller tanks for utility,
processors, etc.)
Note: Does not include storage for other transportation fuels (AV gas, unleaded gasoline, etc.). Data source: (2)
Natural Gas
Cleaner burning and lower cost than gasoline or diesel per unit of energy, natural gas could be
another energy choice for the region if a reliable, affordable supply can be imported in the forms
of LNG, CNG and propane. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is created when natural gas is
pressurized and cooled to less than -260 °F allowing it to be easily stored and transported
worldwide by tanker. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a transportation fuel that provides a
cleaner burning alternative to gasoline. Propane is primarily a space heating and cooking fuel.
Though tied to global oil markets, prices for these natural gas products have generally been
falling as production has increased (9).
The City of Unalaska continues to look at the option of importing LNG to produce electricity.
According to the Unalaska’s Director of Public Utilities, preliminary calculations justify further
testing in the form of running an LNG generator for a period of time and comparing performance
and cost to diesel generators. The city is presently considering moving to this next step (10).
If tests are favorable, a detailed feasibility study is still needed to look at costs for storage,
regasification, distribution, and the conversion of energy infrastructure for both powe r generation
and heating. The economics of a project may hinge on the amount of diesel that can be displaced.
LNG can be delivered in large bulk tankers, which hold significantly more fuel than Unalaska's
yearly consumption, or in smaller individual tanks (10,000 gallons or less).
Regional considerations include whether an Unalaska LNG import project would make LNG
more available to other communities or industrial users on the Aleutian chain, as well as the
potential impact on bulk fuel prices in the region. If natural gas displaces up to 10 million gallons
of diesel fuel used annually in Unalaska, regional prices could rise for other fuel types as the total
volume brought to the regional hub is slashed (2).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 32
CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMAND
Demand for Electricity
Nearly 69,000 MWh of electricity are produced and sold annually by public utilities in the Aleut
region. Regionwide, 75 percent of this is used by commercial and government customers and 13
percent by residential customers. Public buildings and utility use account for the remaining 12
percent. However, there is considerable variation by utility in where electricity is used, with
residential customers accounting for a high of 38 percent of use in Sand Point and public
facilities reaching 25 percent of sales in King Cove. The largest commercial use is in Unalaska,
accounting for 83 percent of all sales (Figure 11).
Mostly missing from these charts is electrical use by the region’s fish processors who maintain
their own generators. While the primary energy consumer in the region—possibly consuming
more than all residential and commercial consumers combined —there is little data available on
the fuel or electrical use of the region's seafood plants (2).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 33
Figure 11: Regional electrical sales by customer type, 2014
Data: PCE Annual Report (1)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 34
Recent Trends in Electrical Generation
Regionwide, total generation has increased 31 percent since 2010, with increases coming from
diesel (29%), hydro (32%), and wind (903%) (Figure 12, right). Growth in total generation
has primarily been at the region’s largest (Unalaska 54%) and a few of its smallest utilities.
Generation and sales at other utilities have declined, including St. Paul (14%), King Cove
(10%), and Sand Point (9%), while others have remained relatively flat (Figure 12 left),
following trends in population (Figure 14). The region’s total population grew 1.4% from 2010 to
2014.
Figure 12: Regional trends by utility, resource, and population, 2010-2014
Data sources: (1) (11)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 35
Recent Trends in Average Customer Use
Average monthly electrical use fell slightly over the past 5 years for residential and community
facility customers at the region’s three largest utilities, which may reflect the impact of higher
prices and the push for increased energy efficiency and conservation. These declines have been
more than offset by a 25 percent increase in average use among commercial and government
customers, resulting in an overall growth of 12 percent in kWh sold per customer (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Trends in average monthly use by customer type in Unalaska, St. Paul, and King Cove
Data source: (1)
Population Trends and Projections
Since 2000, population in the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands has grown nearly 8 percent
regionwide, an average of about 0.5 percent per year (Figure 14), though that growth has almost
exclusively occurred in communities with populations over 500. Unalaska and Akutan each
added 300 to 400 residents since 2000, while King Cove added over 100. In Akutan the increase
was in group housing, not in the village, which has seen its population decline in the last 5 years
from 90 to 70. The sharpest declines have been in the smallest communities, which have lost
around half their population since 2000.
Alaska’s state demographers predict the region’s population will remain relatively flat at around
9,000 people over the next several decades, possibly declining by a few hundred individuals
regionwide (12). Given the importance of the fishing industry to the region’s economy, any
population projections are highly dependent on the health and sustainability of the fish stocks.
The addition of a single, new fish processing plant in a community would increase both its
population and power needs.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 36
Figure 14: Population trends by community, 2000-2014
Data sources: (13) (11)
Load Forecasts
Looking at trends in electrical sales, population, and the overall economic outlook in the state, it
is likely that electrical loads will remain flat or grow slowly unless large industrial users enter the
market or expand operations. Royal Dutch Shell was using Unalaska as a base for offshore oil
and gas exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. With Shell’s decision in 2015 to end
offshore oil exploration in Alaska for the foreseeable future, increases in the electric and heating
loads in Unalaska, the region’s largest market, are not expected. However, future changes to
drilling operations would likely have an impact on Unalaska’s heating and electric load.
Increased use of electricity for space heating in communities with excess renewable energy will
create secondary loads for electric utilities that pursue “wind to heat” or “hydro to heat” projects.
The increased use of heat pumps could also increase loads in communities if they become more
2000 2014 Change Avg. Annual
Community Census Est.Since 2000 Growth
Over 500
Unalaska*4,283 4,689 9.5%0.6%
Akutan*713 1,052 47.5%3.2%
Sand Point*952 946 -0.6%0.0%
King Cove*792 905 14.3%1.0%
101 to 500
St. Paul 532 436 -18.0%-1.2%
Adak*316 247 -21.8%-1.5%
51 to 100
St. George 152 92 -39.5%-2.6%
Cold Bay 88 89 1.1%0.1%
Atka 92 70 -23.9%-1.6%
50 or Under
Nelson Lagoon 83 44 -47.0%-3.1%
False Pass 64 34 -46.9%-3.1%
Nikolski 39 15 -61.5%-4.1%
* Includes population in group quarters such as barracks and dorms
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 37
economic due to lower electric rates or improvements in technology. New loads may be offset to
some extent by continued investment in energy efficiency, where there is still considerable
savings opportunity.
Transportation and Heating Fuel
No public data is available on the volumes of fuels used for transportation and space heating.
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Renewable resources currently helping to meet energy needs in the region include hydropower
and wind energy for electric production, with an increasing use of excess capacity to address
space heating needs. Seafood processors in the region are using oil from fish waste as a biodiesel
fuel for their own heating and power needs or selling it to market (2). Projects using other
renewable resources are either still in development, or there are insufficient resources within the
region given the current state of technology.
The Phase I report provides an in-depth inventory of all renewable resources on a community by
community basis (2). A further analysis of resource potential is included in the current report in
Chapter 3. The section below provides a summary of only those renewable energy projects that
are operational or are in development in the Aleut region, though in some cases it mentions
projects that were previously considered but are not being pursued at the present time .
Community energy priorities that are not yet identified with a project are included in Chapter 5.
Biomass
Biomass is organic material such as wood, municipal waste or fish byproducts used to produce
energy. Most biomass is burned for heat, but some technologies convert it into electricity.
WOODY BIOMASS
Insufficient woody biomass exists throughout the region to be a viable energy source , although
local areas of driftwood can be useful for non-community use. Only one community (Nelson
Lagoon) reported interest during stakeholder discussions in a pre-feasibility assessment of wood
biomass as a community-scale resource.
SOLID WASTE
Unalaska is interested in assessing the feasibility of using solid waste incineration for energy
production.
FISH OIL
Seafood processors report using oil from fish waste economically either in boilers or power plant
generators, or selling it on the international market. It is not known whether there are sources of
fish oil from the region’s processing plants that could be available for community energy use (2).
In Akutan, Trident Seafoods uses its fish oil in boilers or sells it commercially, depending on the
international demand for fish oil. In Dutch Harbor, Alyeska Seafoods processes fish oil to be
blended with diesel—up to 800,000 gallons in a peak year. Westward Seafoods uses fish oil in its
boilers to produce steam. It has used fish oil in gen-sets since 2002 in a 50/50 ratio with diesel.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 38
Approximately 400,000 gallons of fish oil are burned annually compared with total diesel
consumption in a recent year of approximately 1.7 million gallons, two-thirds for power
production (2).
Geothermal
Geothermal energy is a high-risk, high-reward proposition: If a suitable reservoir can be found
the resource can provide steady, consistent power, but the exploration process is very expensive
and risky. While several geothermal studies have been conducted in the region, no projects have
yet been developed, though the Hot Springs Bay Valley project in Akutan is in final design.
Several other communities are known to have geothermal potential (Adak, Atka and Unalaska).
While power generation has often been the goal of geothermal development, there are cases
where using the resource to heat large building loads may be a simpler, more cost effective start
to developing promising resources. Given the high risk/high reward nature of geothermal
development (and a 90 percent average failure rate, industry-wide, of projects at the feasibility
stage), rigorous feasibility work is needed to assess economic viability of these resources (2).
AKUTAN
The Hot Springs Bay Valley geothermal resource on Akutan could potentially supply all heat and
electricity needs for the island, including the village, the new harbor, and Trident Seafoods.
However, the project is estimated to cost $65 million and given the high risk nature of
geothermal drilling, the Phase I report concluded that geothermal development should be a last
priority for renewable resource development. Trident Seafoods would be the primary beneficiary
of any development, and the power needs of the small community can be met by lower risk and
lower cost options. While there is sufficient heat in the valley to power a geothermal plant, it is
unknown if a site with sufficient permeability, porosity and fluid volume flow rate can be
discovered to build an economically viable project (2).
Preliminary technical feasibility and an economic assessment were completed in 2009-2010.
Exploratory drilling of two test wells was completed in August 2010. The project is now in final
design and permitting. As part of this phase, a Power Sales Agreement and potentially a direct
investment partnership with Trident Seafood Corporation will be enacted, and the economic and
financial analysis will be updated to include the most current information and will be developed
into a final business and operational plan (7). In January 2015, project engineers recommended
the drilling of a 1,500 foot confirmation well to more precisely locate and size the resource for a
potential 2-3 megawatt power plant. Drilling permits have been issued, and the drilling is
scheduled for summer 2016 (14).
UNALASKA
Significant exploration work has been done at the Makushin geothermal site over the past 35
years, a combination of state, regional, and private interests. The prospect remains undeveloped.
A recent study indicates geothermal resources present greater financial risk than the City of
Unalaska can take on and the landowner has presented unreasonable demands. This project has
been removed from the city’s priority list.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 39
Table 8: Geothermal projects in the Aleut region
Project Lead Entity Resource Next Steps Cost Funding
Feasibility & Design
Akutan Geothermal
Development Final
Design
City Utility Geothermally active
area on flank of
Akutan volcano with
many hot springs and
fumaroles. The valley
is about 4 mi. from
the city, but not
easily accessible.
Drilling of confirmation
well in Hot Springs Bay
Valley and completion
of final design and
permitting, power sales
agreement with Trident
Seafood, business and
operations plan.
Total project
cost $65
million
(estimated)
AEA REF 2/3/4
($5.82 million total),
US DOE ($931,000),
Local Match
Previously Considered
Makushin Site
(Unalaska)
City This project has been
removed from the city’s
priority list
Hydrokinetic (Tidal and Wave Power)
There are no operational hydrokinetic projects in the region. Tidal and wave power are still
emerging technologies that may be able to provide significan t renewable energy in the future.
Tidal power uses turbines, similar in principle to wind turbines, to convert tidal currents into
electricity. Different designs are being tested across the globe, but no commercially available
devices have been developed. More designs are being tested for wave power, which uses a
number of different mechanical means of converting ocean waves into electricity.
The benefit of hydrokinetic power is that it would represent a predictable, if inconsistent, energy
source. Significant issues still exist before it can be proven technically and economically
effective in a remote location without significant subsidy and risk. The ocean environment is
particularly challenging—the forces acting on the devices are great and the corrosive effects of
sea water are well known. In addition, there are logistical challenges in deploying devices, and
the lifespan and economics of the devices are still not known (2).
TIDAL POWER MONITORING AND DEMONSTRATION
While several communities in the region (False Pass, Nelson Lagoon) have outstanding tidal
basin flows, there still remains to be a successful and continuous demonstration of technology to
harness the tidal flows for electric power generation. If a robust and simple demonstration project
can be made sustainable by the local utility for several seasons, demonstrated outside the region
first, then the possibility for larger investment can occur (2).
The City of False Pass has done reconnaissance and feasibility work on its tidal resource, but its
current focus has shifted to conventional hydroelectric feasibility. During the summer of 2012,
Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC), a company developing a tidal energy turbine,
performed a site assessment in Isanotski Strait through a DOE Tribal Energy grant. The
completed reconnaissance showed that one site had the potential to produce approximately
600,000 kWh per year using ORPC’s prototype 150 kW TidGenTM power system. Although the
study showed that the community's total energy could be nearly covered with one tidal power
system, the tides, while highly predictable, are not constant. Without cost effective storage, diesel
would have to supply power during times the tides are not sufficiently energetic, and the excess
produced at peaks would likely need to be dumped as a heat load.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 40
Table 9: Hydrokinetic projects in the Aleut region
Project Lead Entity Resource Next Steps Cost Funding
Previously Considered
False Pass
Hydrokinetic
Feasibility and
Conceptual Design
City Isanotski Straight Measure velocities and
turbulence at 3-5 sites
in Isanotski Straight, do
circulation modeling,
environmental
assessment, conceptual
design, economic
analysis, and outreach.
$566,466 REF
7. (Total
project
estimated at
$5 million.)
AEA REF 7, APICDA,
NREL (DOE funded
reconnaissance
study)
Hydroelectric Power
Hydropower converts the potential energy of water into electricity by sending it through a turbine
connected to an electrical generator. Hydro power projects can either involve a reservoir with a
dam or be run-of-river. A dam is generally more expensive and causes greater environmental
impact, but it has the benefit of storing water that can be dispatched as power is needed. Without
the ability to store water, a run-of-river project is a more seasonal resource. It involves piping the
water through a penstock to the powerhouse (2).
There are three operational hydroelectric projects in the region (Table 10). While supplying only
4 percent of the region’s total electric power, they typically contribute a majority of their
community’s annual electric loads. Hydroelectricity provided 79 percent of Atka’s power and 52
percent of the power generated in King Cove in 2014. While there was no hydro power reported
in Akutan last year, 25 to 44% of its electricity came from hydro in the two previous years.
KING COVE
The 375 kW Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project is located approximately 5 miles north of the
City of King Cove and is within one half mile of the existing Delta Creek hydroelectric plant.
Because the two sites are relatively close to one another, the powerhouse for the Waterfall Creek
project will co-locate in an expansion of the existing Delta Creek powerhouse and use the
existing transmission line to King Cove. The project will consist of a small diversion dam and
intake, a 4,500 HDPE penstock, a 16x40 powerhouse expansion, a Pelton Impulse Turbine and
5,000 ft. of access roads. Expected completion of final design and permitting was November
2014. $3.9 million in construction funds were authorized in REF Round 6 (8).
AKUTAN
The hydroelectric plant at Town Creek was originally built in 1994. The 1.7 acre reservoir has a
20 acre watershed. A 3,300 foot pipe extends 765 vertical feet from the reservoir to the power
house. A 150 kW Pelton turbine was originally installed. In 2011, $1.1 million from AEA's
Renewable Energy Fund was used to reconstruct the infrastructure .
The hydro system has been operating routinely since 2013. Overall the project's reported capacity
factor has been 34%, which is likely higher than actual. Since the renovation and reintegration of
the Town Creek hydroelectric plant in 2012 the contribution of hydro to the total power supply is
unknown due to metering issues.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 41
ATKA
Since the Chuniisax Creek plant has come online in December 2012, hydroelectricity has
supplied up to 90 percent of Atka’s power. The hydroelectric plant consists of a 283 kW, cross-
flow turbine operating on 116 feet of head. A 13 foot high concrete dam feeds a 1,060 foot
penstock that delivers an average of 36 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water to the turbine. 39
acre-feet of storage behind the dam can help extend the yearly production. The project has the
potential of generating 1,760,000 kWh/year, well above the community’s needs.
A project to dispatch excess hydro power to secondary heat loads has not yet started, pending
upgrades at the powerhouse. The city has received $135,289 in REF Round 7 funds, following a
previous REF Round 3 grant for a total of $207,874.
Table 10: Hydroelectric projects in the Aleut region
Operational Under Construction Feasibility & Design Previously Considered
City of King Cove
Delta Creek
800 kW Run of River
completed in 1995.
Provides 50-60% of local
electricity.
Waterfall Creek
375 kW Run of River
in final design and
permitting. Will use
expanded Delta Creek
hydro powerhouse. (REF
Rounds 5, 6 funding)
Ram Creek
(Deemed infeasible)
City of Atka
Chuniisax Creek
Hydroelectric
283 kW
Began supplying power in
December 2012.
Atka Dispatchable Heat
Design & Construction
Hydro-to-Heat project on
hold pending powerhouse
upgrades (REF Rounds 3/7
funding)
City of Akutan
Town Creek
105 kW
Repair and upgrades
completed in 2014
Loud Creek
Feasibility study
complete. No further
grant funds awarded.
City funded continuation
of flow measurements.
Solar
Solar has been considered to be economically marginal in Alaska compared with other renewable
technologies. However, less expensive solar panels, federal and state tax c redits, and net metering
programs where available, have combined to shorten the payback period for solar projects,
especially in communities where electric rates are highest, customers pay non-PCE rates or utility
lines do not reach. Solar P/V technology is also relatively simple to install and maintain
compared with other renewable technologies. With an average insolation of less than
2kWh/m2/day, the Aleut region has less of a solar resource than some Interior regions. However,
several communities are interested in looking into potential solar projects (see Chapter 5).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 42
Wind
Wind energy is generating an increasing share of municipal electric power in Sand Point and St.
Paul, where it provided 22 percent and 13 percent of public generation respectively in FY 2014.
Both utilities are in the process of expanding their capacity to utilize excess wind power by
installing storage and additional secondary heat loads. A malfunctioning wind turbine is
scheduled to be replaced in St. George in fall 2015. Nikolski installed a refurbished wind turbine
in 2010, but it is not operational due to difficulties integrating into the community’s small grid
and the slow reaction speed of secondary loads (7). Most other communities in the region have
begun or completed wind feasibility studies. See Table 11 for a list of operational projects and
those in development or previously considered.
ASSESSING WIND FEASIBILITY: SITING AND SIZING ISSUES
Because the Aleutian & Pribilof Islands have characteristically strong but gusty winds, and have
significant geographic volcanic relief (steep hills, narrow valleys), locating proper sites for utility
scale wind is still an emerging practice. Turbulence can cause damage to the turbine. Buildings
and topography are the main causes of turbulence in the region. Because of the wind strength and
turbulence in the region, AEA does not recommend turbines smaller than 95 kW in capacity.
Meteorological (met) towers are used to monitor the wind in an area prior to erecting a wind
turbine in order to find an area that will maximize power production. Since the wind varies over
time, the resource should be monitored for a minimum of one year. There are several
communities in the region where comprehensive met tower monitoring has not been completed
despite good potential for utility scale turbines (Adak and Atka) (2).
INTEGRATING WIND ENERGY INTO THE POWER GRID
Because of its variable and unpredictable nature, the total capacity of a wind turbine must be
limited compared to the overall size of the grid, or it can cause frequency and voltage issues.
Wind gusts can cause power surges that damage devices, and lulls can cause brownouts or
blackouts if the diesel generators are unable to respond quickly enough. In order to safely
integrate wind power, AEA does not recommend more than 30 to 50 percent wind penetration
(the proportion of electrical power provided by wind). Even at these levels specialized controls
are needed ensure grid stability.
If a community does not have a sufficient electrical load to use all the wind power produced at
peak output, secondary or “dump” loads are required that can operate on a dispatchable, or on-
demand, basis. A dump load can be a large resistive bank that vents to the atmosphere (in which
case the wind energy is lost) or a secondary heating load, such as an electric boiler, to heat
nearby buildings. If a heat sales agreement can be made between the utility and the end user,
secondary loads can be another revenue source for the utility. New systems may allow smaller
buildings and residences to distribute the heat load throughout a community by directing excess
power to buildings via central control and Ethernet connections (2).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 43
PROJECT UPDATES
The following project updates are primarily based on AEA’s January 2015 Renewable Energy
Fund Status Report (7).
Cold Bay. A meteorological tower was installed on August 9, 2012. On March 26, 2013, AEA
was informed by Marsh Creek that data was finally collected from the met tower but was not
retrievable from the data card. The data card and logger are being sent to NRG in the event they
can retrieve the data. A new logger has been installed. AEA requires a minimum 12 months of
data to demonstrate the wind regimen. Data collection is ongoing but the project will be delayed
due to the loss of data.
False Pass received an REF Round 4 grant from AEA to do a wind feasibility assessment. Data
collected from 2004 to 2006 was used to draft a Conceptual Design Report (CDR). Based on the
amount of turbulence found and the small size of the community grid, AEA recommended that
the utility not proceed to the next phase of project development at this time.
King Cove. A 2013 feasibility report, based on 2005-2006 data, showed a Class 7 wind resource
in the Delta Creek area. Turbulence levels are too extreme for current technology; AEA does not
recommend further development.
Nelson Lagoon received an REF Round 1 grant from AEA to look at wind potential. AEA
adjusted the scope and budget to add an avian study to address the avian issues in the community.
A modified 40’ free standing monopole tower was installed in May 2012 and data collection and
the avian study are ongoing. A draft Conceptual Design Report (CDR) will close out the grant.
Nikolski. TDX Power installed a 65 kW V-15 wind turbine on behalf of the utility in 2007, using
an USDA Rural Utilities Service grant and financial support from the APICDA. Due to control
panel incompatibility, commissioning was not completed until 2010, with an AEA REF Round 1
grant. Currently the turbine is wired to the power plant but not successfully integrated into the
grid. The energy produced by the turbine is more than the power plant can handle along with the
existing community load and reaction speed of secondary loads. Nikolski requested an additional
$331,000 from Round 5 to integrate the turbine into the power system and develop a heat
recovery system and provide for electric boilers in the lodge and school to use excess wind
energy. The project was approved for funding as a smaller amount, but funding was not
allocated.
Sand Point received full funding in REF Round 8 for a Wind-to-Heat project to install electric
boiler in the school to heat the swimming pool (per original design of its wind project) to increase
wind utilization and improve performance.
St. George worked closely with AEA’s Wind and RPSU Programs to install a wind-diesel system
that integrated a 95 kW turbine purchased with an REF Round 1 grant from AEA into the new
power plant. The turbine was damaged and is scheduled to be replaced in October 2015.
St. Paul. The St. Paul wind diesel project (REF Round 3) connected one or two of TDX’s
turbines on St. Paul into the City of St. Paul’s grid and made necessary upgrades to the city’s
facilities and transmission system. Because the project was completed under budget and the size
of the secondary loads and diesel generators was limiting the amount of wind power produced,
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 44
the grant was extended to include installation of a flywheel (for energy storage), met tower, and
additional secondary loads. The city’s newest generator, along with the additional secondary
loads, should eliminate the bottle neck. The flywheel has been installed and is now being tested.
Table 11: Wind power projects in the Aleut region
Project Lead Entity Scope Cost Funding
Operational
Sand Point Wind
Construction
Aleutian Wind
Energy (IPP)
Installed 2 Vestas V-39 wind
turbines with 395 kW resistive, air
cooled load bank, new 455 kW
CAT3456 genset, at powerhouse and
dump loads in community buildings.
$1.08 million
(not including
cost to
complete
remote boiler
system)
AEA REF 2, US DOE,
Local Match
St. Paul Wind Diesel
Construction
TDX Corp. (IPP) Integrated power from one of three
TDX wind turbines to the City grid
with necessary upgrades to the
powerhouse and transmission
system.
$2.1 million
(plus $1.5
million for
turbines)
AEA REF 3, US DOE,
Local Match
In Development
Atka Wind Energy
Feasibility
Installed several met towers in 2015.
Complete one year of data
collection and draft feasibility study.
APICDA support
Cold Bay Wind Energy
Feasibility
G&K Electric
Utility (IPP)
Complete feasibility assessment
with full year of data from met
tower installed in 2012.
$104,075 AEA REF 4, Local
Match
King Cove Wind Energy
Feasibility
Identify new test sites in Delta Creek
Valley; monitor technology to find
best system for strong winds;
complete study.
Nelson Lagoon Wind
Energy Feasibility &
Conceptual Design
Utility
Cooperative
Complete avian study and draft CDR
based on data collected from
modified 40’ monopole tower.
$104,075 AEA REF 4, Local
Match
Sand Point Energy
Storage Design &
Construction
TDX Sand Point
Generating
Install an inverter and battery bank
to store excess wind energy.
$1,397,403 AEA REF 7, Local
Match
St. George Wind Farm
Construction / Wind
Turbine Replacement
City Replace 95 kW burned-out wind
turbine with one of similar size and
type. Ensure proper integration with
new power plant.
AEA REF 1
St. Paul Flywheel
(add-on to Wind-Diesel
Construction project)
TDX Corp. (IPP) Complete testing of flywheel for
storage of excess wind energy.
Install met tower and additional
secondary loads.
$2.1 million
total wind-diesel
project (plus
$1.5 million for
turbines)
AEA REF 3, US DOE,
Local Match
Previously Considered
Adak Diesel Hybrid
Reconnaissance
TDX Adak Some potential for wind energy
based on 2011 reconnaissance work
but need to gather load data and
address issues of oversized power
$82,125 AEA REF 2, Local
Match
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 45
plant and distribution system before
integrating renewables.
False Pass Wind Energy
Feasibility & Conceptual
Design
City Utility Based on wind resource study and
draft CDR, AEA concluded that False
Pass’ electrical system is not
currently capable of using wind
power.
Total $126,125 AEA REF 4 & 7, Local
Match
Nikolski Wind-Diesel
System Redesign,
Construction and
Commissioning
Native Village Complete integration and
commissioning of 65 kW Vestas V15
wind turbine, develop a heat
recovery system at powerhouse and
provide electric boilers in lodge and
school to use excess wind.
$331,240
(estimated cost
in 2012)
Previous funding:
USDA RUS, APICDA,
AEA REF 1
ENERGY EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION
Energy Characteristics of Regional Housing Stock
The 2014 Alaska Housing Assessment by the Cold
Climate Housing Research Center (15) profiled the
residential energy use and cost in the Aleut region:
Energy Use: The average home in the region
is 1,230 square feet and uses 115,000 BTUs
of energy per square foot annually (16 percent
less than the state average). Almost two-thirds
(65 percent) is used for space heating, another
18 percent for hot water, and 17 percent for
electricity.
Energy Efficiency: The average home energy rating in the region is 2-star plus, based on
data from over 200 homes. Not surprisingly, newer homes have better energy performance.
On average, homes built in the 1940s are currently rated at 1-star plus, compared to an
average rating of 4-star-plus for homes built after 2000.
Housing Quality: Within current housing stock, newer homes are tighter. On average,
homes built in the last decade exceed the 2012 BEES standard of 4 air -changes per hour at
50 Pascals. In contrast, homes built in the 1950s are 3.5 times leakier than those built since
2000. About 37 percent of occupied housing are relatively air-tight, but lack a continuous
ventilation system, putting these home at higher risk for indoor moisture- and air-quality
issues.
Energy Cost and Affordability: The average annual energy cost for homes in the Aleut
region is $6,710, which constitutes approximately one percent of median area income in
the region. Approximately 25 percent of households spend 30 percent or more of their
income on housing costs, including rent, water and sewer, and energy costs.
Regional Comparison: Energy costs per square foot are in the middle when compared with
homes in other regions of the state (Figure 16). The average annual home energy cost in
the region is approximately 2.4 times more than the cost in Anchorage, and 3.2 times more
than the national average.
Figure 15: Aleut region residential energy use
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 46
Table 12: Energy characteristics of regional housing stock
Avg. Energy
Rating
Avg. House
Size
Avg. Annual
Energy Use
Avg. Annual
Energy Cost
Avg. Energy
Use Intensity
(EUI)
Avg. Energy
Cost Index
(ECI)
Avg. Home
Heating
Index
2-star Plus 1,230
square feet
156
MMBTU
$6,710
(Jan 2013 $)
115 kBTU
per square
foot
$5.04
per square
foot
7.8
Data source: (15)
Figure 16: Aleut region residential energy costs compared with other regions
Source: (15)
Residential EE&C Program Participation
One in six (18%) occupied homes in the region have completed energy upgrades through the
Home Energy Rebate program, a low-income weatherization program, or is a newer BEES-
certified home (Figure 17). (This does not include homes weatherized with private funds.)
Participation in AHFC’s Home Energy Rebate program is open to homeowners for their primary
residence; there is no upper income limit. The HER program requires homeowners to pay for
recommended upgrades up front and reimburses them for direct labor and materials up to a
certain amount once work is performed and a “post” audit is completed. Residents in Adak, Sand
Point, and Unalaska have participated in the program (though none in Adak completed the work
in the time provided in order to receive a rebate.) In the Aleut region to date 39 percent of
homeowners receiving HER audits have completed upgrades and received rebates.
AHFC’s weatherization service provider in the region is the Aleutian Housing Authority (AHA),
which has completed weatherization projects in all communities it serves. The program spends up
to $30,000 per home in remote rural communities, including transportation, logistics, overhead and
health and safety measures (16). There is no cost to the resident or community for participation in
the program. A total of 245 homes have been weatherized since the program started in 2008.
Regional Housing Authorities may finance additional weatherization work with federal funding,
including Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) grants
through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 47
Figure 17: Energy efficient housing stock, as of April 2014
Data sources: (17) (15)
While no residents in the region have yet received AHFC’s New Home Rebate (for buying or
purchasing a 5 Star Plus or 6 Star home), 28 homes have been certified as meeting Alaska
Building Energy Efficiency Standard (BEES), which is required for AHFC financing.
Information on program participation in each community is included in Table 14.
Residential EE&C Savings
Energy efficiency and weatherization measures completed since 2008 have been saving program
participants in the region 31 to 35 percent per year on their home energy consumption, according
to AHFC data, which translates to over 340 to 460 gallons of heating oil per home (Table 13).
Most of the energy savings is in home heating, although lighting upgrades result in some
electrical savings. The difference in savings rates between the two programs is most likely due to
house size, with smaller homes primarily receiving retrofits through the low-income
weatherization program (18).
Table 13: Average EE&C savings per household in the Aleut region
EE&C Program No. of Homes
Average Energy
Savings
Annual Energy
Savings
Annual Fuel
Savings1
Savings at
$4.50/gal.
Home Energy
Rebate
12 rebates
out of 31 audits
(39% completion)
31% 64.3
MMBTU
462
gallons
$2,078
per year
Weatherization 145
homes 35% 47.4
MMBTU
341
gallons
$1,532
per year
Note: 1/ Fuel savings model assumes all heating is done with fuel oil. It does not include fuel saved in electrical
generation due to reduced kWh use. Data source: (18).
On a regional basis, residential EE measures account for over 12,000 MMBTU (1 MMBTU = 1
million British Thermal Units) annually in energy savings, which translates into nearly 89,000
gallons of heating fuel and over $450,000 in avoided fuel costs per year (Table 14). This does not
include savings from lighting or appliance upgrades or other measures that reduce electrical use
(or the diesel used to generate electricity).
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 48
See Chapter 3 for an estimate of the savings available from additional residential energy
efficiency work in the region.
Table 14: Estimated annual energy savings from residential EE&C, 2008-Apr 2014
Energy Efficient Housing Stock Estimated Annual Savings
Community
Occupied
Homes 1
(2014 est.)
New/
BEES-
Certified
Homes
AHFC
Home
Energy
Rebates
Weather-
ized
through
AHA
Percent
Energy
Efficient
Homes
Annual
Energy
Savings 2
(MMBTU)
Annual Fuel
Savings
(Gallons)
Annual Fuel
Cost Savings
from EE 3
($)
Adak 54 - 0% - $ 0
Akutan 41 26 63% 1,232 8,849 $ 35,395
Atka 24 12 50% 569 4,084 $ 31,242
Cold Bay 14 - 0% - $ 0
False Pass 8 4 50% 190 1,361 $ 5,731
King Cove 118 4 49 45% 2,323 16,676 $ 71,541
Nelson Lagoon 14 8 57% 379 2,723 $ 17,017
Nikolski 27 13 48% 616 4,424 $ 30,970
Sand Point 164 5 5 42 32% 2,312 16,602 $ 85,502
St. George 53 7 13% 332 2,382 $ 18,439
St. Paul 263 9 43 20% 2,038 14,634 $ 76,098
Unalaska 834 10 7 41 7% 2,394 17,185 $ 79,740
Total Region 1,614 28 12 245 18% 12,385 88,921 $ 451,675
Notes: 1/ Occupied housing numbers from 2014 Alaska Housing Assessment. 2/ Estimated energy savings based on
average energy savings for region achieved by HER and weatherization program participants in ARIS database, 2008-
2014. 3/ Fuel cost savings assumes all heating is with fuel oil. Assumes retail heating fuel costs for communities as of
August 2014. Data sources: (15) (18)
Non-Residential EE&C Program Participation
Since 2005, a sequence of state and federal programs have funded community-scale, energy
efficiency improvements in public facilities in rural Alaska, including indoor lighting retrofits,
LED street lighting, heating system upgrades, insulation and sealing, and installation of
programmable thermostats and other energy saving building controls. Most communities in the
Aleut region have participated in at least one iteration of the programs (Table 15).
See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the energy savings available from energy efficient lighting
retrofits and other upgrades recommended in non-residential building audits.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 49
Table 15: Participation in non-residential EE&C programs since 2008
Community Community
EE&C Grants
EE Lighting
Upgrades
Public Facility
Energy Audits2
Private
Commercial
VEEP / EECBG
VEUEM1
Interior
Lighting
LED Street
Lighting
School
Audits
Health
Clinic Audits
Sanitation
System
Building
Audits
Adak X
Akutan X X
Atka X
Cold Bay X A
False Pass X X A A 1
King Cove X X X A
Nelson Lagoon
Nikolski X X
Sand Point A
St. George X
St. Paul X A
Unalaska X X X 5
Notes: X=Completed, A=Audit, P=Planned or in Progress. 1/ Includes participation in VEUEM (2005 -2010), EECBG (2010-
2012) and VEEP (2010-2014). 2/ Information on completed retrofits not available. Data Sources: (16) (19) (20)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 50
3 | E NERGY R ESOURCE & S AVINGS P OTENTIAL
ENERGY RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Phase I of the Regional Energy Planning process included an inventory of
potential energy resources in the Aleut region. In Phase II, a preliminary
assessment of resource potential was performed. The goal was to develop
a consistent set of criteria for rating resource potential that could be
applied across communities and regions. This assessment looks at the
resource’s potential for producing energy savings from new, community-
scale project development given the best available information (i.e.
projects that are already in operation or under development are not
counted towards the resource’s potential to generate additional savings in
a community). These Potential ratings of Low (L), Medium (M), or High
(H) are accompanied by a Certainty rating (also L, M, H) which indicates
the amount of feasibility work that has been done or the availability of
other information. Low certainty generally signifies that no
reconnaissance or other resource assessment has been performed. See
Appendix B for a detailed description of the criteria used in the analysis.
Table 16 shows the results of this assessment for energy resources in Aleutian and Pribilof Island
communities, including energy efficiency. Potential for energy savings from new, community-
scale projects is generally greatest from energy efficiency, hydro, wind, heat recovery and
geothermal energy, though differences exist across communities. See Appendix B for more
details on each resource and a description of the criteria used in the analysis.
Table 16: Energy resource potential and certainty for new community-scale projects
Notes: Letters refer
to resource
potential: High (H),
Medium (M), Low
(L). Color indicates
both potential and
certainty (see color
key). See Appendix
B for an explanation
of the criteria used
in assessing
resource potential.
Adak Akutan Atka Cold Bay False Pass King Cove Nelson Lagoon Nikolski Saint George Saint Paul Sand Point Unalaska Biomass L L L L L L L L L L L L
Geothermal M M M L L L L L L L L M
Hydro H H H M H H L L L L L H
Solar L L L L L L L L L L L L
Wind H L M H L H L L H H H H
Coal L L L L L L L L L L L L
Oil & Gas L L L L L L L L L L L L
Heat Recovery M M L M H L M L L L H H
Energy Efficiency H M H H H H H H H H H H
The first letter in each square
represents resource
potential. The subscript
indicates the level of
certainty in the resource
potential rating. HighHL HM HH
MedML MM MH
LowLL LM LH
Low Med High
Color Key
Potential 4Certainty 4
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 51
SAVINGS POTENTIAL FROM INCREASED DIESEL EFFICIENCY
Figure 7 in Chapter 2 shows recent diesel efficiency performance for the region’s public utilities.
While it appears that diesel efficiency in the region is in the ballpark for most utilities, there is
room for improvement that would save utilities money and fuel. If utilities below the AEA
benchmarks improved system efficiency enough to meet them, they would save anywhere from
$0.01 to $0.17/kWh in avoided fuel costs (Table 17, top). Collectively utilities would save
76,000 gallons of fuel oil annually—or $375,000 per year at 2014 fuel prices. Additional savings
are available if all utilities improve diesel efficiency from where they are at now. A 10 percent
increase in efficiency across the region would reduce annual fuel consumption by nearly 400,000
gallons, saving nearly $1.5 million per year in avoided fuel costs (Table 17, bottom).
Table 17: Projected annual savings from meeting diesel efficiency benchmarks
FY2014 Diesel Use & Efficiency Savings from Increase to Benchmark Efficiency
Community
(Ranked by total
annual generation)
Diesel
Used for
Generation
(gals.)
Diesel
Efficiency
(kWh/gal.)
Increase to
benchmark
efficiency
(kWh/gal.)
New
Fuel Use
(gals.)
Annual
Fuel
Savings
(gals.)
Annual
Savings
($)
Savings
per KWh
Saint Paul 270,929 13.9 14.5 260,549 10,380 $49,513 $0.01
Sand Point 219,998 13.9 14.5 210,918 9,080 $42,313 $0.01
Cold Bay 198,146 13.4 14.5 183,495 14,651 $76,036 $0.03
Adak 170,110 12.8 14.5 150,225 19,885 $98,628 $0.05
King Cove 153,210 14.1 14.5 149,461 3,749 $13,757 $0.01
Nelson Lagoon 39,158 8.8 12.5 27,519 11,639 $57,379 $0.17
Nikolski 20,940 9.9 12.5 16,615 4,325 $25,904 $0.12
Atka 10,765 10.1 12.5 8,711 2,054 $11,011 $0.10
All utilities 1,083,256 13.4 998,784 73,707 $363,531 $0.03
FY2014 Diesel Use & Efficiency Savings from 10% Increase in Efficiency
Unalaska 3,068,848 15.7 17.2 2,789,862 278,986 $ 920,654 $ 0.02
Saint Paul 270,929 13.9 15.3 246,299 24,630 $ 117,485 $ 0.03
Sand Point 219,998 13.9 15.3 199,998 20,000 $ 93,199 $ 0.03
Cold Bay 198,146 13.4 14.8 180,133 18,013 $ 93,489 $ 0.04
Adak 170,110 12.8 14.1 154,645 15,465 $ 76,704 $ 0.04
King Cove 153,210 14.1 15.6 139,282 13,928 $ 51,116 $ 0.02
False Pass 60,967 12.8 14.0 55,425 5,542 $ 19,454 $ 0.02
Saint George 51,429 13.5 14.8 46,754 4,675 $ 33,756 $ 0.05
Akutan 40,944 15.5 17.1 37,222 3,722 $ 15,000 $ 0.02
Nelson Lagoon 39,158 8.8 9.7 35,598 3,560 $ 17,550 $ 0.05
Nikolski 20,940 9.9 10.9 19,036 1,904 $ 11,403 $ 0.05
Atka 10,765 10.1 11.1 9,786 979 $ 5,245 $ 0.05
All Utilities 4,305,444 15.0 16.5 3,914,040 391,404 $ 1,455,056 $ 0.02
Small Utilities 224,203 12.4 13.6 203,821 20,382 102,409 $ 0.04
Data source: (1)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 52
According to AEA program managers, even small utilities are able to achieve diesel efficiencies
of 14.0 and above. Every utility should be able to achieve the efficiency on the trend line in
Figure 18 (21).
Figure 18: Diesel Efficiency at Different Load Sizes, FY2013 PCE Data
Source: (21)
Even if a community produces most of its electricity with renewable energy—or hopes to in the
future—optimizing diesel efficiency is important since almost any renewable resource needs to
integrate with existing generators to ensure that power is available in the community when
variable energy sources like wind or run-of-river hydro are offline.
To integrate renewable energy systems, the primary powerhouse infrastructure must be in good
working order and well maintained with adequate switchgear and controls installed. This is
necessary so the integration of wind or hydro does not damage diesel equipment or lead to a
marked decrease in generator efficiency that can result from operating at low capacity when the
renewable resource is online (22).
Another reason for getting the diesel powerhouse in order before pursuing renewable energy
opportunities is that potential funders typically look at a community’s capacity for maintaining its
current infrastructure (and for record keeping and business administration) before awarding funds
for new projects.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 53
SAVINGS POTENTIAL FROM ADDRESSING LINE LOSS
Line loss refers to the percent of the electricity generated by a utility that is not sold. Line loss
may be due to physical losses in the distribution network (possibly caused by deteriorating lines
or old or poorly sized transformers) or from unmetered use. The result is a direct financial loss to
the utility and, in the case of diesel generation, a waste of thousands of gallons of fuel each year.
Line loss also affects the PCE rate available to a utility; losses above 12 percent reduce the PCE
subsidy. In 2014, six communities in the region (shaded in brown in the table below) had a line
loss above 12 percent, while four more (shaded in tan) had a line loss above 5 percent.
Measurable savings would result from addressing the causes of line loss in these systems.
Table 18: Line loss by community, FY2014
Community
Total kWh
Generated
Line
Loss
Power
Lost (kWh)
Diesel Lost
(Gallons)
Adak 2,178,268 42% 919,673 71,793
Saint George1 693,419 19% 133,920 9,935
King Cove 4,513,471 17% 749,569 52,973
Akutan 636,366 15% 93,758 6,033
Saint Paul 4,347,407 14% 597,327 42,850
Nelson Lagoon 343,990 12% 42,550 4,846
False Pass 778,559 9% 70,763 5,541
Atka 510,211 8% 38,948 3,852
Cold Bay 2,660,684 8% 210,562 15,678
Nikolski 207,693 6% 12,688 1,279
Sand Point 3,919,804 5% 212,828 15,311
Unalaska 48,097,173 4% 1,919,551 122,498
Notes: 1/ St. George recently completed an RPSU project that should result in
lower line loss for FY 2015. Data source: (1)
Legend
High Savings Potential (12%+ line loss)
Medium Savings Potential (6% to 11% loss)
Limited Savings Potential (5% or less line less)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 54
SAVINGS POTENTIAL FROM EXPANDING COMMUNITY PCE USE
The Power Cost Equalization program subsidizes electric rates of residents as well as eligible
community buildings and facilities. The PCE statute defines a community facility as a water,
sewer or charitable educational facility, public outdoor lighting, or a community buil ding that is
not operated for profit, is open to the general public, and whose operation is not paid for by the
State or Federal government or by a private commercial organization. AEA determines eligible
community facilities based on applications and information submitted by the facility owner and
utility provider. As with the residential PCE program, there are limits on the amount of PCE -
eligible electricity (kWh) that may be used by a community facility. This monthly limit is set at
70 kWh per resident. In a community with 100 residents the total community facility use eligible
for PCE cost reductions is 7,000 kWh per month, spread across all eligible community facilities.
Communities in Table 19 are ranked by PCE savings potential. This is calculated based on
average electricity use by community facilities in each community and the amount of electricity
(kWh) still eligible for PCE subsidies in each community.
Many communities are close to this limit, but a significant opportunity exists to save on public
facilities’ electric bills in communities not at or near the community limit. Reasons communities
in rural Alaska do not take full advantage of this subsidy include: turnover in utility management,
lack of training, lack of coordination between community facility owners and utilities, and
lengthy processing time of applications and rejection notices that do not provide information on
why an application was rejected. AEA reports progress on addressing these issues.
Table 19: Savings potential for community facilities through PCE
Community/
Utility
PCE kWh/person PCE Savings
Potential Eligible Used
Akutan 70 6 10+ buildings
Sand Point 70 29 10+ buildings
Unalaska 70 51 10+ buildings
Adak 70 57 1 to 5 buildings
Atka 70 57 At or near max
Cold Bay 70 70 At or near max
False Pass 70 68 At or near max
King Cove 70 68 At or near max
Nelson Lagoon 70 53 At or near max
Nikolski 70 70 At or near max
Saint Paul 70 70 At or near max
Saint George 70 64 At or near max
Data source: (1)
Legend C 70 24 10+ buildings
High Savings Potential (5+ buildings)
Medium Savings Potential (1 to 5 buildings)
Limited Savings Potential (At or near max)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 55
SAVINGS POTENTIAL FROM INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Residential Energy Efficiency
Only 18 percent of occupied homes in the region have participated in one of the state-funded
residential energy efficiency programs since 2008 or been certified as meeting the BEES energy
efficient building standard (see Table 14). If the remaining energy inefficient housing stock is
upgraded (or in some cases rebuilt), the savings from residential EE&C could save another
41,000 MMBTU per year. This would save over 295,000 additional gallons of heating oil and
nearly $1.5 million annually, at 2014 fuel prices. This does not include savings from lighting or
appliance upgrades or other measures that reduce electrical use (or the diesel used to generate
electricity).
Table 20: Estimated energy savings and potential energy savings from residential EE&C
EE&C Savings Achieved EE&C Savings Opportunity 1
Community
Annual
Energy
Savings
(MMBTU)
Annual
Diesel
Savings
(Gallons)
Annual
Fuel Cost
Savings
($)
Remaining
Residential
EE&C
Opportunity
Annual
Energy
Savings
(MMBTU)
Annual
Diesel
Savings
(Gallons)
Annual
Fuel Cost
Savings
($)
Adak 0 - $ 0 100% 1,701 12,215 $56,431
Akutan 1232 8,849 $35,395 37% 429 3,078 $12,311
Atka 569 4,084 $31,242 50% 680 4,880 $37,328
Cold Bay 0 - $ 0 100% 454 3,263 $17,586
False Pass 190 1,361 $5,731 50% 98 702 $2,954
King Cove 2323 16,676 $71,541 55% 2,244 16,110 $69,111
Nelson Lagoon 379 2,723 $17,017 43% 220 1,583 $9,893
Nikolski 616 4,424 $30,970 52% 492 3,534 $24,735
Sand Point 2312 16,602 $85,502 68% 4,171 29,948 $154,233
St. George 332 2,382 $18,439 87% 2,137 15,341 $118,740
St. Paul 2038 14,634 $76,098 80% 8,077 57,990 $301,549
Unalaska 2394 17,185 $79,740 93% 20,412 146,556 $680,018
Aleut Region 12,385 88,921 $451,675 82% 41,114 295,198 $1,484,891
1/ Model assumptions: All non-BEES-certified, income-eligible homes are weatherized and remaining owner-
occupied homes participate in Home Energy Rebate program. Based on average energy savings for region based on
2008-14 ARIS data. Assumes retail heating fuel costs for communities as of August 2014.
Energy Efficient Lighting
INDOOR LIGHTING UPGRADES
Many communities have used Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) or Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) grants to complete lighting upgrades in one or
more community buildings. VEEP is an AEA program that provides energy efficiency audit and
upgrade services to Alaska communities with populations of 8,000 or less. EECBG was a
national U.S. DOE program funded through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 56
that provided block grants to cities, communities, and Native tribes to develop, promote,
implement, and manage energy efficiency and conservation projects.
Based on statewide data for 33 small communities, annual savings from indoor lighting retrofits
can save communities over $1,300 and 3,100 kWh of electricity per building per year. Savings
achieved by three communities in the Aleut region are shown in Table 21.
Lighting upgrades generally have shorter payback periods than other building efficiency
measures making them smart investments even without the incentive of grant funding (19).
While some of these savings have already been captured, there is still opportunity for additional
savings in the region by investing in more energy efficient lighting upgrades—both in
communities that did not participate in VEEP or EECBG programs and communities in which
only some buildings (e.g. only schools or only city or tribally owned buildings) received lighting
retrofits previously.
The Community and Energy Profiles that start on page 70 include a list of non-residential
buildings in each community. A good place for communities to start is by updating this building
list with information on which buildings have received energy audits and which have had
retrofits completed.
Table 21: Savings from energy efficient lighting upgrades in 3 Aleutian communities
One-time
Investment
Annual
Savings
Annual Electricity
Saved (kWh)
Average Simple
Payback Period
Average per community $6,963 $2,341 2,938
3.0 years Average per Building $2,611 $878 3,103
Total $20,888 $7,022 23,505
Based on lighting upgrades completed with VEEP and EECGB grants in Akutan, False Pass and King Cove (19).
LED STREET LIGHTING
Rural Alaska communities that have replaced street lights with LED lighting are saving an
average of $10,000 per year each, with an average payback period of 3.7 years. In the Aleut
region, at least two communities have completed LED streetlight retrofits. Estimated savings are
shown in Table 22.
Table 22: Savings from LED street lighting retrofits in 2 Aleutian communities
Community
One-time
Investment
Annual
Savings
Annual Electricity
Saved (kWh)
Average Simple
Payback Period
King Cove $35,184 $10,532 40,506 3.3 years
Unalaska $153,500 $65,497 198,475 2.3 years
Total $188,684 $76,028 238,981 2.5 years
Based on VEEP and EECBG-funded lighting upgrades completed through 2013. Data source: (19)
Public Facility and Commercial Energy Audits
Only five of the region’s schools and a small number of other community buildings (mostly in St.
Paul) have been audited through AHFC’s Commercial Energy Audit (ACEA) program. Because
the program covers the cost of the audit but does not pay for retrofits, it is believed that most of
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 57
the potential savings identified in the commercial energy audits performed in Alaska have not
been achieved. This represents a huge missed savings opportunity. If just the most cost-effective
retrofits are completed and some behavioral changes (like setting back thermostats) public
building owners can typically save 20 percent on annual energy costs (23).
Privately-owned buildings are eligible for whole-building energy audits through AEA’s
Commercial Building Energy Audit (CBEA) program. Like the public building audits performed
by AHFC, the CBEA program covers the cost of the audit (up to a limit based upon the size and
type of building), but does not pay for retrofits. Though most private commercial building audits
are done in urban Alaska, a few have been completed in Aleutian communities (see Table 15).
As with public building audits, the lack of grant funding to pay for retrofits up front has meant
that a small minority of audits are followed by recommended upgrades. In buildings where
energy efficiency investments have been made, building owners typically cut their overall energy
use by one-third, with average simple paybacks of just over six years.
Table 23: Savings potential for public and commercial facilities
Savings from
Behavioral Changes
Only
Behavioral Changes plus
the Most Cost-Effective
Retrofits
Savings from Implementing
All Audit
Recommendations
10-15% Savings 15-25% Savings 25-35% Savings
Source: (23)
Water and Sewer
Sanitation systems are one of the single largest energy users i n rural communities, accounting for
10 to 35 percent of a community’s energy use. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
(ANTHC) estimates that for every one dollar spent on energy retrofits of rural sanitation facilities
(including the cost of audits), there will be a 50 cent return each year to communities plus a 50
cent annual return to the State’s operating budget through lower PCE payments (24). ANTHC
has performed energy audits of sanitation facilities in many small communities in Interior,
Southwest and Western Alaska, and is interested in expanding its focus to the Aleutians. Table 24
shows average cost and savings based on audits of water systems in over 50 rural communities.
Table 24: Potential savings from sanitation system energy efficiency
Number of
Water
Systems
Audited
One Time
Investment
per Facility
Electricity
Savings
(kWhs)
Diesel
Savings
(Gallons)
Cost
Savings
($)
Average
Simple
Payback
(years)
51 $107,214 22,010 2,663 $25,404 4.2
Data Source (24)
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 58
4 | S TAKEHOLDER O UTREACH
Public outreach and stakeholder engagement are major components of the second phase of
AEA’s regional energy planning process. In the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands region, these goals
were met through a variety of activities:
Community/Utility Interviews (Summer 2015)
Aleutian Energy Summit (March 2015)
Breakout Sessions at SWAMC Annual Meeting (2013- 2015)
Online Survey (Spring 2014)
Project website: www.aleutiansenergy.org (Since 2014)
Community and Utility Site Visits (2012-13)
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Community/Utility Interviews | May-August 2015
The community-level outreach for Phase II included telephone interviews with representatives
from each community in summer 2015. The purpose of the interviews was to update information
on energy projects and priorities. See Appendix A for a list of interviews.
Aleutian Regional Energy Summit | March 2015
The capstone event of Phase II was a regional energy summit held on March 3, 2015. Over 20
representatives from local and regional organizations and industry attended the summit, which
was held in conjunction with the SWAMC annual conference in Anchorage. Ten communities
were represented (all but Nikolski and False Pass). See Appendix A for a list of participants and
speakers.
Summit topics were tailored to the energy issues and priorities identified through previous
outreach and research. They included energy efficiency, powerhouse efficiency, wind integration,
and project development and financing. Additional sessions highlighted success stories from the
region with speakers from King Cove and TDX Power, and provided brief overviews of energy
programs and services available from resources agencies. Speakers included AEA technical staff,
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), Siemens, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC), UAF Interior-Aleutians Campus, USDA Rural Development, US
Department of Energy, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, and the state’s Bulk Fuel Loan
Program.
The summit concluded by polling participants on priorities for short, medium and long-term
projects at the regional level. Due to a technical failure, only partial results are available. Overall
the survey results show that among summit participants there is the greatest urgency for actions
to maximize energy efficiency, followed by maintaining and improving existing infrastructure,
and investigating and developing renewable energy generation opportunities, though there was
strong support (over 50%) for pursuing all strategies (Figure 19). Community representatives
were also asked about support for and timing of specific energy projects in their communities.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 59
This input has been used to develop the list of projects and priorities in Chapter 5 and is re flected
in the draft Energy Roadmap in the Executive Summary.
Figure 19: Prioritization of regional energy strategies
Online Survey | Feb-April 2014
An online survey of community and regional stakeholders was conducted at the end of Phase I to
identify any errors in the Phase I Resource Inventory and gather input on the most broadly
supported energy projects and priorities. SWAMC reached out to 72 stakeholders by phone and
email, contacting each up to three times, to publicize the release of the Phase I document, request
their review, and solicit input through an online survey. In all, 85 percent of the stakeholders
contacted confirmed that they had received the Phase I inventory; 40 percent took time to review
it; and 63 percent completed the online survey. Those who took the survey represented a cross-
section of the region, with at least one stakeholder from every community, except Nikolski, and
multiple respondents from larger communities. (See Appendix A for a list of survey
respondents).
Many individuals expressed enthusiasm for the project and a desire to be involved. Overall, they
emphasized the need for improved energy efficiency at all levels (residential, community, and
businesses) and expressed significant support for renewable energy projects (wind, hydro, and
tidal, etc.). Respondents emphasized that cost reduction in heating, followed by electricity, and
travel to and from communities as areas of greatest need for energy relief. Every community
ranked at least four of the specific projects identified for their community as important to
extremely important. Complete survey results are published in the May 2014 Phase II Survey
Results report available on the project website (www.aleutiansenergy.org).
Based on survey input, the following list of short term and long term strategies and priorities
emerged from the analysis of survey results.
SHORT TERM: FOCUS ON AFFORDABLE ENERGY (LOWER FUEL AND ELECTRICITY COSTS)
Complete and maintain current energy projects
Continue with weatherization and other energy efficiency and conservation efforts
Look at LNG
Improve diesel generator efficiency
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 60
LONG TERM: FOCUS ON RELIABLE, LOCAL, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Develop alternative energy sources (wind, hydro, geothermal, heat pumps, tidal)
Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation
Upgrade distribution systems
Community and Utility Site Visits | 2012-13
Phase I of the project involved in-person site visits to most of the communities in 2012 and 2013
by Andy Baker of Your Clean Energy, LLC to assess existing resources and potential for
renewable energy systems. Detailed findings from these visits are summarized in the Phase I
Resource Inventory available on the project website (www.aleutiansenergy.org).
NEXT STEPS
Create Regional Energy Committee to Advance Shared Goals
The creation of energy committees or working groups has been recommended by AEA as a way
to implement local and regional priorities and continue the work of energy planning into the
future. Broad goals and objectives include:
Bring energy champions together from across the region.
Identify similar local priorities and opportunities to create economies of scale.
Share local knowledge and capacity to create the structure and relationships needed to
carry ideas forward.
Seek broad sustainable engagement, including youth.
Keep a clear focus on regional energy goals and priorities.
Look for ways stakeholders can support the long-term sustainability of energy working
groups and regional energy planning.
Regional energy committees and stakeholder groups have been instrumental in addressing energy
issues and advancing shared goals in Southeast Alaska and the Northwest Arctic Borough, and
regional groups are now being established in the Kodiak Island Borough and Bering Straits
region. Effort is also going into the creating or reviving working groups focused on specific
resources (energy efficiency and biomass) in the Copper River region.
Despite the large distances that separate them, communities and utilities in the Aleut region share
many issues related to energy development and have similar resources. Those hoping to develop
new hydroelectric projects could learn from successful projects in Atka, Akutan, and King Cove.
Similarly, there have been successful wind projects in St. Paul and Sand Point that could be a
template for development of wind energy in other communities of the region.
The challenge of making an energy committee work in the Aleut region is the remote and
fragmented nature of the region. Most meetings could be held by teleconference with most
communication by email and telephone. An annual face-to-face meeting would be useful in
maintaining momentum and keeping an energy working group together. A pre-conference
meeting in Anchorage a day before the start of the SWAMC Economic Summit and Membership
Meeting may be the best time for such a gathering.
Steps to establish a regional energy committee in the Aleut region include:
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 61
Engage regional and subregional organizations and government entities to ensure a
regionwide perspective in energy planning and integrate work on energy priorities
into the mission and daily operations of governing bodies and service providers.
across the region.
Seek representation of all communities by soliciting resolutions from local governing
bodies appointing a local energy champion to the committee
Secure organizational support from regional entities for holding regular meetings or
teleconferences and an annual face-to-face meeting.
Based on level of interest, an Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Energy Committee presents an
opportunity to work on regional goals and shared priorities including: maximizing energy
efficiency, maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure, transitioning to locally produced
energy resources, and promoting community sustainability by looking for all opportunities to
reduce the cost of energy in the Aleut region.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 62
5 | E NERGY P ROJECT S & P RIORITIES
At least 18 energy-related projects are planned or in progress in the region. The list in Table 25 is based on information provided by
project sponsors as well as data published in the Phase I report, Renewable Energy Fund applications and status reports, and project lists
from AEA. Completed Projects are not shown. Active projects or those that have been scheduled or funded are highlighted in brown in
the table below. The list also includes community or utility energy priorities that are not yet associated with a specific project. These
have been identified through discussions with community leaders and utility managers. The timeframes shown indicate a best guess for
project timing given available resources, readiness of the technology, and competing priorities.
Short range: expected to start within 1-5 years
Medium range: expected to occur between 5-10 years
Long range: expected to occur beyond 10 years
Table 25: Energy projects planned or in progress
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
Planning and Collaboration
Regional Energy Planning
All SWAMC, AEA Active Economic and technical
analysis of projects and
startup of Energy
Committee.
Identification of viable
energy projects with
broad support.
Implementation plan that
includes regional Energy
Committee.
Ongoing AEA
Energy Committee All SWAMC, AEA Planned Appointment of
representatives by
communities. Seek
organizational support
for regular
teleconferences and
annual meet up.
Regional forum for
sharing information on
energy projects,
collaboration on common
issues and barriers,
continuation of energy
planning into the future.
2015-16
startup
ARDOR, AEA,
with Regional
Support
Bulk Fuel Purchase
Cooperative
All Priority Identify interested
communities and
review existing
Lower bulk fuel costs
through competitive
bidding on higher
Medium
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 63
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
structures and studies
to decide on path
forward.
volumes and
administrative savings.
Renewable Energy
Alternatives
Atka City Priority Assess renewable
energy options for fish
plant and/or for
residential heating
Cost savings focused on
space heating and
reduced dependence on
fossil fuels.
Short
Oil and Gas
Bulk Fuel Upgrade St. George AEA Planned Conceptual Design Conceptual Design
Report (CDR) for new
bulk fuel tank farm
infrastructure
Short AEA Partial
funding
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Cold Bay, St.
Paul, Sand
Point
AEA Planned Medium AEA 10-year
plan: funding
not
guaranteed
LNG Demonstration
Project
Unalaska City Priority Assess feasibility of
importing LNG by
tanker for use in
generating electricity,
including performance
testing of LNG
generator.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Short
Bulk Fuel Storage St. George,
St. Paul
City Priority Share fuel storage
through inter-island
ferry. Install new tanks
for aviation fuel at or
near airport (St. Paul)
Diesel Efficiency and Heat Recovery
Rural Power System
Upgrade
Adak AEA,TDX
Power
Planned Properly size diesel
plant to address
inefficiencies created by
hugely oversized system
in poor condition.
Improved efficiency and
cost savings through
right-sizing system and
ability to integrate with
local hydro resources.
Medium AEA 10-year
plan: funding
not
guaranteed
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 64
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
Rural Power System
Upgrade and Heat
Recovery
St. George AEA Active Improved diesel
efficiency and cost
savings.
Short $6,035,821 AEA Partial
funding
St. Paul Fuel Economy
Upgrade
St. Paul City Utility Active Design upgrade and
extension of heat
recovery loop to work
with wind-diesel
system.
Lower space heating
costs and reduced fossil
fuel dependence.
Short
(2014)
$114,834 AEA REF 3,
Local Match
Waste Heat Recovery
Feasibility and
Conceptual Design
Cold Bay G&K Electric
Utility /
Aleutians East
Borough
Active Assess feasibility of
implementing heat
recovery at power
plant.
Lower space heating
costs and reduced
dependence on fossil
fuels.
Short
(2016)
$35,000 AEA REF 6,
Local Match
Integrate private
powerhouses into the
city grid
Unalaska City Active
Rural Power System
Upgrade
St. Paul City Priority Upgrade diesel power
system. Determine
cause of line loss.
Establish emergency
energy generation for
homes and essential
services
Cost and fuel savings
from diesel efficiency and
lower line loss. Improved
safety and emergency
preparedness.
Rural Power System
Upgrade
False Pass City Priority Address high line losses
and diesel efficiency
Cost and fuel savings
from diesel efficiency,
lower line loss. Improved
safety.
Transformer/Distribution
System Upgrade
Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council Critical Need Address high line loss
through upgrade of
distribution system and
replacement of
transformers that are
beyond useful life.
Cost and fuel savings
from lower line loss.
Improved safety.
Waste Heat Recovery
Feasibility
False Pass City Priority Assess feasibility of
delivering waste heat to
school.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 65
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
Waste Heat Recovery
Feasibility
Unalaska City Priority Expand number of
buildings heated with
waste heat.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Medium
Successor Operator
Training
Adak, Nelson
Lagoon
Priority Look into AEA’s Utility
operator successor
training program.
Training for next
generation of operators
to ensure well-
maintained powerhouse
with good diesel
efficiency.
Short Free AVTEC
training
(excluding
travel)
Biomass
Wood Biomass Pre-
feasibility
Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council Priority Assess whether
sufficient wood biomass
exists for community-
scale project
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Waste-to-Energy
Feasibility
Unalaska City Priority Assess feasibility of
using of solid waste
incineration for biomass
energy production.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Geothermal
Akutan Geothermal
Development Final
Design
Akutan City Utility Active Drilling of confirmation
well in Hot Springs Bay
Valley and completion
of final design and
permitting, power sales
agreement with Trident
Seafood, business and
operations plan.
Establish precise location
and size of resource.
Potential for 2-3 MW
power plant.
Short $3,050,000
REF 4 ($5.82
million total
REF). Total
project cost
estimated at
$65 million.
AEA REF 2/3/4,
Local Match
(US DOE grant
will support
drilling costs)
Heat Pump Feasibility Unalaska City Priority Study costs and benefits
of heat pumps for space
heating.
Better understanding of
heat pump technologies
and at what electrical
rates they become
economic in Unalaska.
Hydro
Atka Dispatchable Heat
Design & Construction
Atka City Active /
On Hold
Start construction of
heat project once PLC
Cost savings and reduced
dependence on fossil
Short $135,289 REF
7. (Total
$207,874)
AEA REF 3/7,
Local Match
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 66
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
and controls have been
upgraded.
fuels from heating 7
community buildings
with excess hydroelectric
energy.
Waterfall Creek Hydro
Final Design &
Construction
King Cove City Active Complete construction
of 375 kW run-of-river
hydro with transmission
to existing Delta Creek
hydro powerhouse.
Displace diesel used for
electric generation at the
city utility and by selling
dispatchable power to
Peter Pan Seafoods.
$3.90 million
REF 6. ($4.50
million total)
AEA REF 5/6,
Local Match
Pyramid and Shaishnikof
Creeks Hydro Feasibility
Unalaska City Priority (Note:
City says this is
no longer a
priority.)
Feasibility assessment
of potential 260 kW
(Pyramid Creek) to 700
kW (Shaishnikof Creek)
run-of-the-river sites.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Small-scale Run-of-River
Hydro Feasibility
False Pass City, AEA Priority Feasibility assessment
of potential 140-160 kW
run-of-river hydro
resource.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
AEA REF 9
application
submitted
Hydrokinetic (Tidal)
Tidal Energy Pre-
feasibility
Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council Priority Monitor emerging tidal
power developments
with eye to potential
project under dock.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Ongoing
Solar
Solar Energy
Pre-feasibility
Unalaska City Priority Monitor success of solar
installations at other
locations to determine
efficacy of solar in
Unalaska
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Solar Streetlight
Feasibility
Atka City Priority Assess feasibility of
solar-powered
streetlights.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Solar Energy Feasibility Nelson Lagoon,
St. George
Priority Assess feasibility of
community-scale solar
Determination to
proceed or table based
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 67
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
to reduce costs and/or
diesel dependence.
on current costs and
technology.
Wind
Atka Wind Energy
Feasibility
Atka Active Installed several met
towers in 2015.
Complete one year of
data collection and draft
feasibility study.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current costs and
technology.
Short APICDA
support
Cold Bay Wind Energy
Feasibility
Cold Bay G&K Electric
Utility (IPP)
Active Complete feasibility
assessment with full
year of data from met
tower installed in 2012.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on data from met tower
site.
Short
$104,075 AEA REF 4,
Local Match
Sand Point Excess Wind
Utilization
Sand Point TDX Sand
Point
Generating
Active Install electric boilers at
the school and clinic to
use excess wind energy
for space heating, and
integrate building
energy use data into the
plant SCADA system.
Cost savings and reduced
fuel consumption from
use of wind energy now
being dumped and ability
to measure and optimize
building performance
through SCADA system.
Short $383,900 AEA REF 8,
Local Match
Sand Point Energy
Storage Design &
Construction
Sand Point TDX Sand
Point
Generating
Active Install an inverter and
battery bank to store
excess wind energy.
Cost savings and reduced
fuel use through
increased utilization of
wind energy and ability
to run at “wind only” for
up to 30% of the year.
$1,397,403 AEA REF 7,
Local Match
St. Paul Flywheel
(add-on to Wind-Diesel
Construction project)
St. Paul TDX Corp.
(IPP)
Active Complete testing of
flywheel for storage of
excess wind energy.
Install met tower and
additional secondary
loads.
Cost savings and reduced
fuel use through
increased utilization of
wind energy.
$2.1 million
total wind-
diesel project
(plus $1.5
million for
turbines)
AEA REF 3, US
DOE, Local
Match
King Cove Wind Energy
Feasibility
King Cove NA Identify new test sites in
Delta Creek Valley;
monitor technology to
find best system for
strong winds; complete
study.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on current technology for
strong/ turbulent winds.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 68
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
Nelson Lagoon Wind
Energy Feasibility &
Conceptual Design
Nelson Lagoon Utility
Cooperative
Active Complete avian study
and draft CDR based on
data collected from
modified 40’ monopole
tower.
Determination to
proceed or table based
on data from met tower
site and environmental
(avian) issues.
Short
(2015)
$104,075 AEA REF 4,
Local Match
St. George Wind Farm
Construction / Wind
Turbine Replacement
St. George City Active Replace 95 kW burned-
out wind turbine wind
turbine with one of
similar size and type.
Ensure proper
integration with new
power plant.
Lower energy costs and
reduced dependence on
fossil fuel from properly
integrated wind energy.
Short
(Oct 2015)
AEA REF 1
Nikolski Wind-Diesel
System Redesign,
Construction and
Commissioning
Nikolski Native Village Priority Complete integration
and commissioning of
65 kW Vestas V15 wind
turbine in coordination
with AEA wind program
managers.
Cost savings and reduced
diesel dependence from
having a functioning
wind-diesel power
system.
$331,240
(estimated
cost in 2012)
Transportation
UMC Dock Project Unalaska City Active Complete UMC dock
project.
Trans-load Dock and
Access Road
Akutan City Priority Add trans-load dock and
build access road
between village and
harbor.
Potential for reduced
bulk fuel transportation
costs.
Long $1.78 million
dock. $22.13
million road
Protected Marine
Infrastructure
Development
Cold Bay City Priority Develop protected
marine infrastructure.
Improved safety.
Potential for reduced
bulk fuel transportation
costs.
Harbor Reconstruction
and Dredging
St. George City Priority Improved safety.
Potential for reduced
bulk fuel transportation
costs.
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Stakeholder Engagement and Public Input | 69
Project Communities Lead Entity Status Scope / Next Steps Output Timing Cost Funding
Energy Efficiency & Conservation
Waste and Sewer Plant
Design & Construction
Unalaska ANTHC Active Finish construction and
monitor efficiency of
new water and
wastewater plants.
Reduced costs and fossil
fuel dependence through
improved energy
efficiency of sanitation
system.
Short
Improve energy
efficiency of residential,
community, and
commercial buildings
All Priority
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | 70
6 | C OMM UNITY AND E NERGY P ROFILES
This section contains profiles for communities in the Aleutian region. The first part contains
general information about the location, economy, historical and cultural resources, planning,
demographics, contacts and infrastructure in each community. It provides a broad overview of
community size, location and resources to give context to the energy profile.
The second part of each profile is the energy profile, which provides an overview of energy
production and distribution. It is intended to provide a snapshot of local energy conditions. The
energy profile also includes a partial inventory of non-residential buildings in the community and
its participation in state and federal energy efficiency programs.
The data sources used to compile the profiles are shown in Appendix E. Though based on the
latest available data from state and federal sources, we know that not all information is accurate
due to sampling and reporting errors. To try to correct these inaccuracies, we emailed draft
versions of the Community and Energy Profile to contacts in each community in the spring and
summer of 2015. The profiles in this report include the revisions we received. The summary of
community Energy Priorities and Projects on the first page of each profile has also been updated
from the Phase I report based on the public input gathered in Phase II, including interviews with
community leaders where possible.
Community Profile: Adak
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐176.6286 Latitude 51.8725
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians West Census Area
School District Aleutian Region School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
AdaQ ("Father") Sales (4%), Bed (5%), Raw Fish (2%) 2,060$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp. Climate Zone Heat. Deg. Days
41.1 7 9,046
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
Local Contacts Phone Fax
clerk@adak‐ak.gov 907‐592‐4500 907‐592‐4262
907‐277‐1440 907‐277‐1446
receptionist@aleutcorp.com 907‐561‐4300 907‐276‐3924
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 316 326 Percent of Residents Employed 65%
Median Age 36 46 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)5.52%
Median Household Income $52,727 $88,750 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)32.6%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of Adak Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 2 runways: 7,790'x200' & 7,605'x200'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?No
Notes
Adak is located on Kuluk Bay on Adak Island. It lies 1,300 miles
southwest of Anchorage and 350 miles west of Unalaska or its
port Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Island Chain. Adak is the
southern‐most community in Alaska.
Local government, trade, and transportation/warehousing are
main employers. There are four fishing permits for the village.
Fish processing/final sales.
Natural Hazard Plan
Aleut Corporation
TDX Adak Generating LLC Diesel No
The Aleutian Islands were historically occupied by the
Unangas. The Native population continued to actively hunt
and fish around the island over the years, until World War II
broke out. Adak was tje site of a Naval Air Station, which
closed on March 31, 1997. In 2001, the community formed as
a second‐class city. As of 2009, all naval installations were
closed. Ownership of the facilities passed to the Aleut
Corporation and the City of Adak.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Workforce development/utility op. training; Wind ‐ id less
turbulent sites; Investigate geothermal potential; secure
funds/continue FS for Bonnie Rose Lake Hydro; Heat recovery
for community bldgs.; Space heating strategy
Email
City of Adak
Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc
N/A
Piped
Yes
Adak
No
Publicly owned; Asphalt
Yes
Piped 220
Energy Profile: Adak
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)2,178,268 Avg. Load (kW)200
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)904
Unit 1 Caterpillar Good/375 500 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)13
Unit 2 Caterpillar Poor/33,770 1135 Total (kWh/yr)2,178,268 Diesel Used (gals/yr)170,110
Unit 3 Caterpillar Poor/Destroyed 800
Unit 4 Caterpillar Poor/35,427 800
Unit 5 Caterpillar Poor/40,155 800
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse High
RPSU Distribution High
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
1 PPO
Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Good Rate with PCE $0.63 Fuel Cost $0.67
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Residential Rate$1.44 Non‐fuel Cost $0.30
Residential 90 345,241 3,836 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.97
Community 7 319,341 45,620 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Whlsale Retail Month/Year
Commercial 105 594,013 5,657 Diesel (1 gal)$4.88 $4.62 6‐13; 8‐13
Utility Use 0 Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge Adak Petrol.
Adak Petroleum #2 ULS Diesel 20,000,000 By Air
Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
TDX Adak Generating LLC
42.2%
No
Facilities damaged in fire; Serious risks to health & safety.
Training/Certifications
Potential Status
High Feasibility Study
Projects
Adak Hydroelectric
Pending
Medium
Medium
High Preliminary Design
Low
Not Rated
Low
Low
Wind Data Collection
High CompleteEECBG
27%
25%
47%
0%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Adak
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
54 770 37%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
3.7% N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
City of Adak
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Bering Hill Chapel/Tsunami Shelter 15,000 No
City Hall 77,100 No
City Shop 8,081 No
EMS Bldg./Line Shack 16,800 No
Lift Station 12 168 No
Lift Station 13 180 No
Lift Station 7 288 No
Lift Station 9 100 No
Maintenance Shop/Aleut Corp.?/telephone 12,000 (?) Yes
Pat Kelly Airport Terminal 15,000 No
Pressure Reducing Valve 1 912 No
Sewer Treatment Plant 2,500 No
SRE Bldg. 5,000 Yes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
Low
Notes
0 3 0 110 117
503
15 0
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
0%0%
100%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Akutan
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐165.7731 Latitude 54.1356
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Achan‐ingiiga ("I made a mistake") Raw Fish (1.5%) 1,490$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp. Climate Zone Heat. Deg. Days
40.9 7 8,554
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
2005
Local Contacts Phone Fax
akutanadmin@gci.net 907‐698‐2228 907‐698‐2202
907‐277‐1440 907‐277‐1446
akutanaleuttribe@hotmail.com 907‐698‐2300 907‐698‐2301
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 713 1,027 Percent of Residents Employed 92%
Median Age 41 45 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)5%
Median Household Income $33,750 $38,333 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)63.4%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?No Location
Water/Wastewater System Aleutians East Borough Homes Served System Volume
Water 95
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 4,500' x 75'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Yes
Notes
Maintain and upgrade hydro at Town Creek; Monitor tidal and
wave power opportunties; Complete harbor projects; Build
access road between village and harbor; Improve airport runway
Piped
Piped
50,001‐100,000
gpd (water)
Yes
No
Publicly owned; asphalt
Yes
Akutan
Email
No
Akutan began in 1878 as a fur storage and trading port. The
Pacific Whaling Co. built a whale processing station across from
Akutan in 1912, which closed in 1939. After the Japanese
attacked Unalaska in 1942, the U.S. gov't evacuated the area.
The village was re‐established in 1944, though many did not
return, changing the traditional lifestyle. The majority of the
population is transient fish processing workers.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Akutan is located on Akutan Island in the eastern Aleutians,
one of the Krenitzin Islands of the Fox Island group. It is 35
miles east of Unalaska and 766 air miles southwest of
Anchorage
Manufacturing provides more than 50% of employment with
local government and trade as other top employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
City of Akutan
Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc.
Native Village of Akutan
City of Akutan Diesel; Hydro
City of Akutan Community Plan
Energy Profile: Akutan
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)636,366 Avg. Load (kW)59
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)131
Unit 1 John Deere Fair/10,342 117 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)16
Unit 2 John Deere Poor/44,980 150 Total (kWh/yr)636,366 Diesel Used (gals/yr)40,944
Unit 3 John Deere Good/6,267 140
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Med.
RPSU Distribution Low
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
8
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Acceptable Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.14 Fuel Cost $0.32
Residential 41 176,745 4,311 Residential Rate$0.32 Non‐fuel Cost $0.42
Community 14 143,868 10,276 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.74
Commercial 18 196,674 10,926 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 25,321 Diesel (1 gal)$4.03 $4.00 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge
City of Akutan #2 Diesel 72,400 Good By Air
Trident Seafood #2 Diesel 1,786,590 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
City of Akutan
14.7%
No
Training/Certifications
PPO, Hydro, BF Book, Clerk, BF
Manager
Potential Projects Status
High Town Creek Hydroelectric Plant, 105 kW Operational
Low
Low Fish byproducts used by Trident Seafood Corp.
Pending
Medium Exploration at Hot Springs Valley Reconaissance
Low
Low
Not Rated
Medium
Medium EECBG, AHFC‐R Both Complete
33%
27%
36%
5%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Akutan
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
18 4 44%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
N/A N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Akutan K‐12 School 11,425 Yes
Clinic 1,448 No
Nurse Duplex 941 No
Public Library/Museum 2,860 No
SRE/Sand Storage Bldg. (Heated) 7,150 Yes
VPSO Duplex 941 No
VPSO Office/Garage 1,021 No
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
Med.
Notes
0
4
001
16
8 9
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
144%
0%
‐44%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Atka
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐174.2006 Latitude 52.1961
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutian Region School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Atx ̂ax̂Bed (10%), Raw Fish (2%) 980$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp. Climate Zone Heating Deg. Da
38 7 9,054
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
2006
2014
Local Contacts Phone Fax
dirksjuliea@gmail.com 907‐839‐2233 907‐839‐2234
907‐839‐2229 907‐839‐2269
907‐839‐2237 907‐839‐2217
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 92 61 Percent of Residents Employed 75%
Median Age 36 36 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)95.08%
Median Household Income $30,938 $60,000 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)60.0%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of Atka Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 4,500' x 100'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?No
Notes
None
Atka Community Development Plan
Atka Comprehensive Plan
The island has been occupied by Unangas for at least 2,000
years. After the Japanese attacked Unalaska in 1942, the
U.S. gov't evacuated the area. Atka was burned to prevent
use by Japanese forces. The community was rebuilt by the
U.S. Navy, and residents were allowed to return. The St.
Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church is central to village life.
Sea lions and other sea mammals are important to
subsistence lifestyle.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Atka is located on Atka Island, 1,200 air miles southwest from
Anchorage and 350 miles west of Unalaska.
Local government, manufacturing, and professional‐business
services are the main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
Atka
Email
City of Atka
Native Village of Atka atkaira@gci.net
Atxam Corporation
City of Atka Diesel/Hydroelectric No
Continue wind reconnaissance; Maintain hydro & use
excess electricity for heating; Investigate solar powered
streetlights; Assess renewable energy options for fish plant
or for residential heat
Piped 35 N/A
Piped
Yes
No
Publicly owned; Asphalt
Yes
Energy Profile: Atka
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)108,883 Avg. Load (kW)59
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr) Peak Load (kW)111
Unit 1 John Deere Fair/28,935 110 Hydro (kWh/yr)401,328 Efficiency (kWh/gal)10
Unit 2 John Deere Poor/27,565 110 Total (kWh/yr)510,211 Diesel Used (gals/yr)10,765
Unit 3 John Deere Good/16,727 37
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Medium
RPSU Distribution High Old Vlge Distr. Complete: 2011
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
12
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Excellent Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.25 Fuel Cost $0.14
Residential 30 163,699 5,457 Residential Rate$0.73 Non‐fuel Cost $0.08
Community 2 52,928 26,464 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.22
Commercial 12 206,947 17,246 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 47,689 Diesel (1 gal)$5.29 $7.65 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 1 100,000+ Delta Western
Alaska Native Store #1 Diesel; Gas 40,000; 10,000 By Air
Atka Pride #2 Diesel 60,000 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
City of Atka #2 Diesel 40,000
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
City of Atka
7.6%
No
#2 engine failure due to oil pressure
Training/Certifications
APPO, BF Bus., BFO, Elec. Util. Bus.,
Hydro, BFO, PPO, Clerk
Potential Projects Status
High Chuniisax Hydro Plant Operational as of 2012
Medium Atka Wind Power Project Recon/Feasibility
Low
Pending
Medium
Low
Low
Not Rated
Medium (Diesel Generators) Atka Hydro Dispatched Excess Electrical Power Construction in 2015
High 1) EECBG 2) Streetlight Upgrade Complete
None
35%
11%
44%
10%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Atka
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
24 23 92%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality 5 star 1,018 73
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
12/Mer. Vapor Yes
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
ARCS Bldg. 200 No
Atxam Bldg. 2000 1,400 No
City of Atka (office) 2014 1,920
Clinic 1979 1,980 No
Post Office 2003 600 No
Public Safety Bldg. 2010 600 No
Shop/Garage 1999 2,400 No
SRE Bldg. 4,250 Yes
Water Treatment Plant 2013 900 No
Yakov E. Netsvetov School 1982 8,130 No
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
Med.
Notes
Replaced with LEDs
0 6 2 0
7
20 17
4
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
50%
0%
50%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Cold Bay
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐162.7211 Latitude 55.1858
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Udaamagax Bed (10%), Fuel Transfer ($.04/gal) 900$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp. Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
38.8 7 9,877
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
Cold Bay Economic Development Plan 2008
Local Contacts Phone Fax
coldbayak@arctic.net 907‐532‐2401 907‐532‐2671
907‐277‐1440 907‐277‐1446
907‐532‐2407 907‐532‐2513
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 88 108 Percent of Residents Employed 74%
Median Age 34 45 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)12.04%
Median Household Income $55,750 $54,688 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)24.7%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?No Location
Water/Wastewater System Aleutians East Borough Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 2 runways: 10,180' x 150' & 6,235' x 150'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Yes
Notes
Cold Bay is located in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge at
the western end of the Alaska Peninsula. It lies 634 miles
southwest of Anchorage and 180 miles northeast of Unalaska.
Trade/transportation/utilities, health services, and state
government are the main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
Yes
City of Cold Bay
Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc.
Feasibility of District Heating Loop for gov't bldgs; Electric
utility wind energy project; Feasibility of Russel Creek Hydro;
Waste heat recovery project; Monitor tidal power
opportunities; Investigate city fuel farm
Archaeological sites indicate the area around Cold Bay was
inhabited by a large Native population. During World War II,
Cold Bay was the site of Fort Randall. Cold Bay serves the
fishing industry and houses a number of federal offices.
Subsistence and recreational fishing and hunting are a part
of the local culture. Izembeck Lagoon offers the world's
largest eelgrass beds, providing feeding grounds for brant
during their migrations.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Publicly owned; Asphalt
Yes
Cold Bay
Email
No
G & K, Incorporated
G & K, Incorporated Diesel No
Piped 97 N/A
Piped
Energy Profile: Cold Bay
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)2,660,684 Avg. Load (kW)295
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)480
Unit 1 Caterpillar Good/87,188 875 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)13
Unit 2 Caterpillar Good/75,653 850 Total (kWh/yr)2,660,684 Diesel Used (gals/yr)198,146
Unit 3 Caterpillar Good/81,925 875
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Low
RPSU Distribution Low
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.20 Fuel Cost $0.45
Residential 38 177,955 4,683 Residential Rate$0.71 Non‐fuel Cost $0.28
Community 4 119,179 29,795 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.73
Commercial 75 1,966,400 26,219 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 186,588 Diesel (1 gal)$5.19 $5.39 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar Pending
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 3 to 4 Delta W./Crowley
Frosty Fuels #2 Diesel; Jet A 110,000; 300,000 By Air
G&K #2 Diesel 12,500 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
G&K Inc.
7.9%
No
Training/Certifications
Potential Projects Status
Medium
High Cold Bay Wind Energy Project Feasibility
Low
Low
Low
Low
Not Rated
Medium Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project Feasibility
High EECBG, AHFC‐C Complete
7%
5%80%
8%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Cold Bay
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
14 34 43%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
N/A N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
ARFF Bldg. 3,731 Yes
City Housing Duplex 2,400 No
Cold Bay RTH Yes
Cold Bay School 1957‐1983 11,747 Yes Yes
Living Quarters 4 1,820 Yes
Living Quarters 5 1,820 Yes
Living Quarters 6 1,820 Yes
Living Quarters 9 1,820 Yes
Maintenance Shop 5,400 Yes
Old CFR Bldg. 5,560 Yes
Sand Storage 4,200 Yes
Warm Storage 2,624 Yes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
Low
Notes
0 3 00
28
17
00
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
0%0%
100%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: False Pass
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐163.4088 Latitude 54.8539
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Isanak ("Gap, hole or tear") Sales (3%), Bed (6%), Raw Fish (2%) 3,020$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp. Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
38.5 7 9,733
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
Local Contacts
cityoffalsepass@ak.net
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 64 35 Percent of Residents Employed 78%
Median Age 32 33 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)77.14%
Median Household Income $49,375 $43,750 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)34.7%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of False Pass Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 2,150' x 60'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Yes
Notes
None
None
The area was originally settled by a homesteader in
the early 1900s and grew with the establishment of a
cannery in 1917. Natives immigrated from Morzhovoi,
Sanak Island, and Ikatan when the cannery was built.
The community is primarily Unangan. Fishing, fish
processing, and subsistence activities are mainstays of
the lifestyle.
Energy Priorities and Projects
False Pass is located on the eastern shore of Unimak Island on
a strait connecting the Pacific Gulf of Alaska to the Bering
Sea. It is 646 air miles southwest of Anchorage.
Local government, manufacturing, and financial activities are
the main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
False Pass
Email
City of False Pass
Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc.
Isanotski Corporation
City of False Pass Diesel No
Address high line loss and diesel efficiency; Assess
feasibility of expanding heat recovery to school; finish
wind feasibility study; hydro feasibility for run of river
sites
Piped 60 10,000‐50,000
gpd (water)Piped
Yes
No
Publicly owned; Gravel
Yes
Energy Profile: False Pass
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)778,559 Avg. Load (kW)69
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)190
Unit 1 John Deere Fair/4 75 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)13
Unit 2 John Deere Fair/11,483 125 Total (kWh/yr)778,559 Diesel Used (gals/yr)60,967
Unit 3 John Deere Fair/17,789 175
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Med.
RPSU Distribution Med.
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
5
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Acceptable Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.14 Fuel Cost $0.32
Residential 27 124,174 4,599 Residential Rate$0.42 Non‐fuel Cost $0.12
Community 11 66,925 6,084 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.45
Commercial 19 473,264 24,909 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 43,433 Diesel (1 gal)$3.52 $4.21 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)$286.43 8‐14
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar Pending
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 1
City of False Pass #2 Diesel 65,000 11 yrs. By Air
Peter Pan Seafood #1 Heat; #2 Diesel 27,000; 300,000 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
City of False Pass
9.1%
Yes; City Shop
Training/Certifications
BF Manager, Clerk, BF Book, BFO
Low 2.4 kW wind turbine; Utility wind project Pilot project; feasibility study
Low
Potential Projects Status
High
Low
Not Rated False Pass Hydrokinetic
High Waste Heat Recovery System to City Shop Operational/Ageing
High EECBG, ACEA, AHFC‐C Complete
on hold
Low
Low
18%
9%
67%
6%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: False Pass
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
8 45 38%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
N/A N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Bering Pacific Seafoods Bunkhouse 6,800 No
Bering Pacific Seafoods Multipurpose 4,000 No
Bering Pacific Seafoods Plant 13,200 No
City Office/Community Center 1 1986 2,448 Yes Yes; VEEP Yes
City Office/Community Center 2 2,432 Yes; VEEP Yes
City Shop 1995 6,000 Yes; VEEP Yes
Clinic/Medical Center 1998 1,280 Yes; VEEP Yes
Clinic/Public Safety Office 4,629 Yes
False Pass City Hall 1985 No
False Pass Public Safety Bldg. 1 1996 4,591 Yes
False Pass Public Safety Bldg. 2 2002 2,994 Yes
False Pass Public Safety Bldg. 3 2002 4,629 Yes
False Pass School 1 1986 9,584 Yes; VEEP Yes
False Pass School 2 1986 10,939 Yes; VEEP Yes
Grocery Store Yes; VEEP No
Isanotski Office/Triplex Yes; VEEP No
Library/Post Office Yes; VEEP No
Liquor Store Yes; VEEP No
Old Generator Bldg.Yes; VEEP No
SRE Bldg. 1,104 Yes
Tribal Office/Warehouse Yes; VEEP No
Water Treatment Plant Yes; VEEP No
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
Low
Notes
7 5
0
4 6
17 14
2
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
50%0%
50%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: King Cove
Incorporation 1st Class City
Location
Longitude ‐162.3103 Latitude 55.0617
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Agdaaĝux̂Sales (4%), Raw Fish (2%), Fisheries ($100k)1,750$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg Temp Climate Zone Heat. Deg. Days
38.3 7 9,733
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
2006
2003
Local Contacts Phone Fax
cityclerk@kingcoveak.org 907‐497‐2340 907‐497‐2594
907‐497‐2648 907‐497‐2803
907‐497‐2312 907‐497‐2444
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 792 938 Percent of Residents Employed 60%
Median Age 35 42 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)38.38%
Median Household Income $45,893 $62,917 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)46.5%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater SystemAE Borough/City of KC Homes Served System Volume
Water 972
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 3,500' x 115'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Yes
Notes
None
Comprehensive Community Plan
City of King Cove Waterfront Util. Plan
Identify funding to complete Waterfall Creek
hydro; Complete wind feasibility study; Secure a
Power Purchase Agreement with Peter Pan
King Cove was founded in 1911 when Pacific
American Fisheries built a salmon cannery. Early
settlers were Unangan, Scandinavian, and other
European fishermen. King Cove remains tied to
fishing and fish processing. Scandinavians have
historically influenced the cultural, economic,
and social structures. King Cove is a mixed non‐
Native and Unangan community.
Energy Priorities and Projects
King Cove is located on the south side of the Alaska
Peninsula, on a sand spit fronting Deer Passage and Deer
Island. It is 18 miles southeast of Cold Bay and 625 miles
southwest of Anchorage
Local government, trade, transportation/utilities, and health
services are main employers. Fishing & processing is a major
employer.
Natural Hazard Plan
No
Piped 100,001 ‐
500,000 gpd
(water)
Piped
Yes
Email
City of King Cove
The King Cove Corp.
City of King Cove Diesel, Hydropower
Agdaagux Tribe ettakuzakin@yahoo.com
No
Publicly owned; gravel
Yes
King Cove
Energy Profile: King Cove
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)2,167,190 Avg. Load (kW)486
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)904
Unit 1 Caterpillar Good/9,343 1050 Hydro (kWh/yr)2,346,281 Efficiency (kWh/gal)14
Unit 2 Caterpillar Good/4,529 650 Total (kWh/yr)4,513,471 Diesel Used (gals/yr)153,210
Unit 3 Caterpillar Good/1,450 500
Unit 4 Caterpillar Good/8,367 500
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Low
RPSU Distribution Med.
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
12
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.23 Fuel Cost $0.15
Residential 193 1,078,081 5,586 Residential Rate $0.30 Non‐fuel Cost $0.01
Community 32 954,306 29,822 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.16
Commercial 203 1,665,230 8,203 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 66,285 Diesel (1 gal)$3.75 $4.29 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 3 to 4 Delta W.; Crowley
City of King Cove #2 Diesel 159,500 Unknown By Air
Peter Pan #Diesel/Gas. 1,000,000 15 yrs.Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
Not Rated
Low Diesel Gen Heat Recovery; Hydro Electric Boiler Operational
High EECBG, AHFC‐C, VEEP, Streetlight Upgrade Complete
Low
Low
Pending
Low
High Ram Creek Wind Met Tower Installed
Low
Potential Projects Status
High Delta Creek, 800 kW; Waterfall Creek, 375 kW Operational; Construction
City of King Cove
16.6%
Yes, community buildings
No RPSU data.
Training/Certifications
APPO, BF Book, BFO, Hydro, PPO,
Clerk
29%
25%44%
2%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: King Cove
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
118 16 52%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
2.5% 13.2%Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality 4 star 864 106
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
City 68/HPS Yes 2012
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Bible Chapel Church 2,365 Yes; VEEP No
King Cove Corp. Hotel 8,768 Yes; VEEP No
King Cove K‐12 School 2 2007 43,843 Yes
King Cove K‐12 School 1 2007 43,308 Yes Yes
Public Safety Bldg. 3,180 No
SRE Bldg. (Heated) 2,200 Yes
Tribal Office 2,172 Yes; VEEP No
Med.
Notes
Replaced with LED; Est. savings of 40,506 kWh
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
0 8 7 6
46 41
24
6
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
42%
4%
54%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Nelson Lagoon
Incorporation Unincorporated
Location
Longitude ‐161.2028 Latitude 56.0019
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Niilsanam Alĝuudaa N/A
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
32 7 8,865
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
Local Contacts Phone Fax
jgunde1125@aol.com 907‐989‐2204 907‐989‐2233
907‐277‐1440 907‐277‐1446
907‐989‐2204 907‐989‐2233
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 83 52 Percent of Residents Employed 65%
Median Age 34 41 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)75%
Median Household Income $43,750 $52,708 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)48.7%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System Aleutians East Borough Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 4,003' x 75'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?No
Notes
None
Strategic Economic and Community
Development Plan
2001Biomass feasibility; Install met tower for wind study;
Interest in solar; Monitor tidal energy opps; Look into
AVTEC utility operator training; Overhaul generator &
upgrade distribution system
Nelson Lagoon has been used historically as an
Unangan summer fish camp. The resources of the
lagoon and nearby Bear River are excellent. In 1965 a
school was built, and the community began to be
occupied year‐round. The culture is focused on
commercial fishing and subsistence activities. There is a
strong community pride and loyalty among the
residentsEnergy Priorities and Projects
Nelson Lagoon is located on the northern coast of the Alaska
Peninsula, on a narrow sand spit that separates the lagoon
from the Bering Sea. It is 580 miles southwest of Anchorage.
Local government, health services, and utilities are main
employers. Fishing is a major part of the economy.
Natural Hazard Plan
Yes
NV of Nelson Lagoon
Eastern Aleutian Tribes, Inc.
Publicly owned; Gravel
Yes
Nelson Lagoon
Email
No
Nelson Lagoon Corporation
Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative Diesel No
Piped 103 10,000 ‐ 50,000
gpd (water)Piped
Energy Profile: Nelson Lagoon
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)343,990 Avg. Load (kW)46
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)96
Unit 1 Perkins Condemned 75 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)9
Unit 2 John Deere Fair/29,221 100 Total (kWh/yr)343,990 Diesel Used (gals/yr)39,158
Unit 3 John Deere Fair/25,452 150
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse High
RPSU Distribution High
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
5
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Acceptable Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.19 Fuel Cost $0.66
Residential 32 124,562 3,893 Residential Rate$0.84 Non‐fuel Cost $0.69
Community 5 33,735 6,747 Commercial Rate Total Cost $1.36
Commercial 21 132,482 6,309 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 10,661 Diesel (1 gal)$4.33 $6.25 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar Pending
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 1 Crowley
Nelson Lagoon Entps Diesel #2; Heat #1 54,000; 81,000 11 yrs. By Air
Nelson Lagoon Entps AV Gas; Gasoline 54,000; 54,000 11 yrs.Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
Not Rated
Medium
High AHFC‐R Complete
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
2.4 kW wind turbine Pilot project
Nelson Lagoon Electrical Coop
12.4%
No
Unit 1 condemned; Meters need to be replaced.
Training/Certifications
BFO, BF Book, Clerk
Potential Projects Status
Low
41%
11%
44%
4%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Nelson Lagoon
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
14 12 57%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
21.4% N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Community Bldg.No
Council Office 660 No
Health Clinic No
Nelson Lagoon School 5,776 No
Nelson Lagoon Storage Co. 6,500 No
SRE Bldg. 1,104 Yes
Village Public Safety Office No
Med.
Notes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
00
5
0
5
12
4 2
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
57%0%
43%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Nikolski
Incorporation Unincorporated
Location
Longitude ‐168.8678 Latitude 52.9381
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians West Census Area
School District Aleutian Region School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Chalukax̂N/A
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
10.8 7 9,555
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
Local Contacts Phone Fax
nvnikolski@hotmail.com 907‐576‐2225 907‐576‐2205
Chaluka Corporation 907‐576‐2215
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 39 18 Percent of Residents Employed 62%
Median Age 40 57 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 32 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)94.44%
Median Household Income $38,750 $24,375 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)77.6%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class Permitted? Location
Water/Wastewater System Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 3,512' x 135'
Dock/Port Barge Access?No Ferry Service?No
Notes
No
Native Village of Nikolski
Nikolski is located on Nikolski Bay, off the southwest end of
Umnak Island, one of the Fox Islands. It lies 116 air miles west
of Unalaska and 900 air miles from Anchorage.
Local government, health services, and leisure/hospitality are
main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
Nikolski Community and Economic
Development Plan
2006
Nikolski is reputed by some to be the oldest continuously‐
occupied community in the world. Archaeological evidence
dates back 8,500 years. In 1834, it was the site of sea otter
hunting. In 1942, when the Japanese attacked Unalaska and
seized Attu and Kiska, residents were evacuated. Locals
returned in 1944. Subsistence activities, sheep and cattle
raising, and fishing‐related employment sustain the
community.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Privately Owned; Gravel
No
Email
No
Umnak Power Company Diesel, Wind
Piped
Piped
Energy Profile: Nikolski
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)207,693 Avg. Load (kW)24
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)55
Unit 1 John Deere Fair/43,463 71 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)10
Unit 2 John Deere Fair/11,091 71 Total (kWh/yr)207,693 Diesel Used (gals/yr)20,940
Unit 3 John Deere Fair/7,830 54
Unit 4
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Med.
RPSU Distribution Low
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
5 PPO, Clerk
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Unacceptable Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.14 Fuel Cost $0.71
Residential 14 52,727 3,766 Residential Rate$0.60 Non‐fuel Cost $0.24
Community 5 33,056 6,611 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.95
Commercial 8 92,206 11,526 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 17,016 Diesel (1 gal)$6.00 $7.00 6‐13; 8‐13
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar Pending
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 1
Nikolski Tribal Counc #2 Diesel 54,000 Good By Air
Nikolski Tribal Counc Gasoline 5,000 Good Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
Not Rated
Low Heat Recovery to utility office Operational
High AHFC‐R Complete
Barge delivery in early fall.
Low
Low
Low
Low Nikolski Wind Project, 65 kW Installed; Not connected to grid
Low
Potential Projects Status
Low
Umnak Power Company
6.1%
Yes; Utility Office
Training/Certifications
27%
17%47%
9%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Nikolski
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
27 4 30%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
N/A N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Nikolski School Yes No
Teacher Housing Yes No
Tribal Office/Community Hall 2,400 Yes No
Med.
Notes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
00004
27
00
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
48%0%
52%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Sand Point
Incorporation 1st Class City
Location
Longitude ‐160.4972 Latitude 55.3397
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians East Borough
School District Aleutians East Borough School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Qagun Tayagungin Sales (4%), Bed (7%), Raw Fish (2%) 1,640$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
41.1 7 8,865
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
2003
Local Contacts Phone Fax
sptcity@arctic.net 907‐383‐2696 907‐383‐2698
907‐383‐5616 907‐383‐5814
907‐383‐3525 907‐383‐5356
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 952 976 Percent of Residents Employed 58%
Median Age 37 41 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)39.04%
Median Household Income $55,417 $70,500 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)41.7%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of Sand Point Homes Served System Volume
Water 962
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 5,213' x 150'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Yes
Notes
City of Sand Point
Qagan Tayagungin Tribe qttadmin@arctic.net
Sand Point is located on Humboldt Harbor on Popof Island, off
the Alaska Peninsula, 570 air miles from Anchorage.
Local government, manufacturing, and trade are the main
employers. Fishing is a major part of the economy.
Natural Hazard Plan
None
Harbor Land Use Plan for Sand Point
City of Sand Point Comprehensive Community
Development Plan
2004Expand wind capacity, integration into grid; Biomass
feasibility; Monitor tidal power opportunities; Install electric
boiler in school to harness excess wind energy and improve
performance; Assess feasibility of district heating with waste
heat
Sand Point was founded in 1898 by a San Francisco fishing
company as a trading post and fishing station. Aleuts from
surrounding villages and Scandinavian fishermen were the
first residents. Sand Point served as a center for gold mining
in the early 1900s, but fish processing became the dominant
activity in the 1930s. Today, it is home to the largest fishing
fleet in the Aleutian Chain. There is a large transient
population for fishing and cannery work.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Publicly Owned; Asphalt
Yes
Sand Point
Email
No
Shumagin Corporation
TDX Sand Point Diesel, Wind No
Piped 100K – 500K gpd
(water); 100K –
500K gpd (ww)Piped
Yes
Energy Profile: Sand Point
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)3,058,309 Avg. Load (kW)440
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)861,495 Peak Load (kW)992
Unit 1 Caterpillar Fair/41,053 900 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)14
Unit 2 Caterpillar Fair/65,437 875 Total (kWh/yr)3,919,804 Diesel Used (gals/yr)219,998
Unit 3 Caterpillar Fair/1,948 455
Unit 4 Caterpillar Fair/26,593 650
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse High
RPSU Distribution High
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Good Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.20 Fuel Cost $0.28
Residential 289 1,392,193 4,817 Residential Rate$0.50 Non‐fuel Cost $0.12
Community 27 467,563 17,317 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.41
Commercial 93 1,756,660 18,889 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Whlsale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 90,560 Diesel (1 gal)$4.55 $5.15 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)$187.14 8‐14
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge
Trident Seafood #2 Diesel 800,000 By Air
SPG/TDX #2 Diesel 41,000 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
Not Rated
Low Heat recovery to TDX building Operating
High EECBG, AHFC‐C, AHFC‐R
Low
Low
Pending
Low
High Sand Point Wind Operating
Low
Potential Projects Status
Low
TDX Corp.
5.4%
Yes; TDX Bldg.
Training/Certifications
38%
13%47%
2%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Sand Point
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
164 67 53%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
3.7% 8.5%Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality 3 star 1,466 122
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
95/ Incandescent Yes 2011
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
AC Store
AEB Office Building
Airport Terminal No
Aleutians East Borough District Office 1 1996 3,739 Yes
Aleutians East Borough District Office 2 1996 4,600 Yes
ARFF (Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting) Bldg. 5,369 Yes
Bozo Burgers
City Bldg.No
City Shop
Community Recreation Center No
Harbor Café
Recycling Center
Sand Point Office 2000 2,700 Yes
Sand Point School 1983 49,293 Yes Yes
Sand Point Tavern
Sand Storage (Heated) 3,378 Yes
Teen Center
Toys Plus
Trident Store/Facility
Unga Office
Water Treatment Plant
High
Notes
Replaced with LEDs
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
2 88
28
82 83
19 19
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
29%1%
70%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Saint George
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐169.5417 Latitude 56.6000
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians West Census Area
School District Pribilof School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Anĝaaxchalux̂Sales (3%), Raw Fish (3%) N/A
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
36.3 7 10,242
Year
Notes
Community Plans Year
2007
2006
Local Contacts Phone Fax
pat714swet@yahoo.com 907‐859‐2236 907‐859‐2242
907‐859‐2205 907‐859‐2242
907‐272‐9886 907‐272‐9855
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 152 102 Percent of Residents Employed 71%
Median Age 33 39 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)88.24%
Median Household Income $57,083 $44,792 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)36.4%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of St. George Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 4,982' x 150'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?No
Notes
St. George is located on the northeast shore of St. George
Island, the southern‐most of the four Pribilof Islands. It lies 47
miles south of St. Paul Island, 750 air miles west of Anchorage,
and 250 miles northwest of Unalaska.
Local government provides roughly 75% of the employment
for St. George. Fishing is a major part of the economy.
Natural Hazard Plan
None
Yes
Saint George Island chris_merculief@yahoo.com
St. George Community Strategic Plan
St. George Traditional Council Strategic Plan
Install 95 kW wind turbine, integrate into existing grid; Solar
feasibility study; Complete AEA Rural Power System Upgrade
and heat recovery; Lower bulk fuel costs by partnering with
other buyers; Harbor reconstruction and dredging
For centuries, Aleuts traveled to St. George for hunting and
fishing. The Russian American Company enslaved Aleut
hunters from Siberia, Unalaska, and Atka and relocated them
to St. George and St. Paul to harvest fur seal. During World
War II, the Pribilof Aleuts were confined at Funter Bay. In
1979, Aleut Islanders received $8.5M in compensation for
this treatment. Residents are working to develop fisheries
and tourism.
Energy Priorities and Projects
Publicly Owned; Gravel
Yes
Saint George
Email
City of St. George
No
St. George Tanaq Corp
City of St. George Diesel No
Piped 200 N/A
Piped
Energy Profile: Saint George
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)693,419 Avg. Load (kW)73
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)139
Unit 1 Detroit Diesel Fair/77,345 350 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)13
Unit 2 Caterpillar Fair/10,993 175 Total (kWh/yr)693,419 Diesel Used (gals/yr)51,429
Unit 3 Caterpillar Poor/25,000 175
Unit 4 Detroit Diesel Poor 480
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse In Progress
RPSU Distribution Low
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
5 BFO, PPO, Clerk
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Acceptable Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Rate with PCE $0.32 Fuel Cost $0.70
Residential 39 153,400 3,933 Residential Rate$1.00 Non‐fuel Cost $0.12
Community 7 106,227 15,175 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.82
Commercial 29 274,068 9,451 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Utility Use 25,804 Diesel (1 gal)$7.43 $7.74 6‐13; 8‐14
Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)$302.62 8‐14
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge 2
City of Saint George #2 Diesel 1,066,200 Unknown By Air
Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
Not Rated
Low
High EECBG Complete
Barge delivery in Spring & Fall.
Low
Low
Pending
Low
High St. George Wind Farm Construction (near operation)
Low
Potential Projects Status
Low
City of Saint George
19.3%
No; City Shop (Defective)
No coolant. Engine hours in question.
Training/Certifications
27%
19%49%
5%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Saint George
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
53 23 72%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
5.7% N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Carpentry Shop No
City Office No
Fish Plant No
Health Clinic 3,675 No
Power Plant 6,000 No
Public Works Bldg. 1,200 No
Recreation Hall/Admin Office 4,800 No
SRE Bldg. 1,104 No
SRE Bldg. 4,250 Yes
SRE Bldg. (Heated) 2007 1,104 No
St. George Hotel No
St. George Island School 14,352 No
Store No
Tanaq Corp. Office Bldg.No
Low
Notes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
41
6 5 9 3 10
0 2
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
13%0%
87%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Saint Paul
Incorporation 2nd Class City
Location
Longitude ‐170.275 Latitude 57.1222
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians West Census Area
School District Pribilof School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Tamax ̂ Amix̂Sales (3%), Raw Fish (3%) 5,400$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
35.4 7 11,178
Year
2008
Notes
Community Plans Year
Local Contacts Phone Fax
phyllis@stpaulak.com 907‐546‐3100 907‐546‐3188
907‐546‐3200 907‐546‐3253
907‐278‐2312 907‐278‐2350
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 532 479 Percent of Residents Employed 68%
Median Age 32 35 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)82.25%
Median Household Income $50,750 $38,750 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)48.2%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 3 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of St. Paul Homes Served System Volume
Water
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 6,500' x 150'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?No
Notes
Local Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan
Integrate TDX wind turbines into grid & add wind turbines;
Feasibility of heating with electric boilers/excess wind;
Emergency energy generation for essential services;
Upgrade diesel power system; Determine cause of line loss;
Shared fuel storage with St. George; Store aviation fuel near
airport
Aleuts traveled to the Pribilofs seasonally for hunting. In
1870, the US government awarded the Alaska Commercial
Company a sealing lease. Fur seals were over‐harvested,
and poverty ensued. During World War II, the Pribilof Aleuts
were confined in to Funter Bay. In 1979, Aleut Islanders
received $8.5M in compensation for this treatment.
Commercial harvesting ceased in 1985.
Energy Priorities and Projects
St. Paul lies 47 miles north of St. George Island, 240 miles north
of the Aleutian Islands, 300 miles west of the Alaska mainland,
and 750 air miles west of Anchorage.
Local government, professional/business services, and trade are
the main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
Yes
City of St. Paul
Saint Paul Island president@aleut.com
Publicly Owned; Asphalt
Yes
St. Paul
Email
No
Tanadgusix Corporation
TDX, LLC; City of St. Paul Diesel, Wind No
Piped 747 1,000,001 ‐
5,000,000 gpd
(water)
Piped
Energy Profile: Saint Paul
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)3,777,959 Avg. Load (kW)444
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)569,448 Peak Load (kW)904
Unit 1 Caterpillar Fair/66,694 855 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)14
Unit 2 Caterpillar Fair/40,804 260 Total (kWh/yr)4,347,407 Diesel Used (gals/yr)270,929
Unit 3 Caterpillar Fair/45,696 300
Unit 4 Caterpillar Fair/22,229 650
Unit 5 Caterpillar Fair/19,815 480
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse High
RPSU Distribution Med.
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators
2 APPO, BFO, PPO
Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Excellent Rate with PCE $0.17 Fuel Cost $0.36
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Residential Rate $0.52 Non‐fuel Cost $0.21
Residential 149 790,380 5,305 Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.57
Community 31 639,176 20,619 Fuel Prices ($)Utility/Wholesale Retail Month/Year
Commercial 50 2,137,559 42,751 Diesel (1 gal)$4.85 $5.20 6‐13; 8‐14
Utility Use 182,965 Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Gasoline (1 gal)
Propane (100#)
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge Petro M.; Delta W
City of St. Paul #2 Diesel 1,847,500 27 yrs. By Air
TDX #2 Diesel 1,500,000 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Trident Seafoods #2 Diesel 12,000
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
High CompleteAHFC‐C,R
Not Rated
Low Operating
Low
Low
Diesel Generator Heat Recovery
Pending
Low
High Operating/not supplied to St. Paul
Low
St. Paul Wind Diesel Project, 675 kW
Potential Status
Low
Projects
Saint Paul Municipal Electric
13.7%
Yes; Motor Pool, Public Works, Fire Station
Two outages in 2012 due to overheating and pressure loss.
Training/Certifications
21%
17%
57%
5%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (MWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Saint Paul
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
263 50 50%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
10.3% N/A Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality N/A N/A N/A
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
AC Commercial Company Store 13,896 No
ARFF Bldg. 3,200 Yes
City Hall 1940 14,000 Yes
Civic Center 1,200 Yes
Fire Station 1 2009 5,947 Yes
Fire Station 2 2009 5,970 Yes
Landfills 4,400 No
Machine Shop 2002 21,990 No
Machine Shop 1 2002 21,800 Yes
Machine Shop 2 2002 21,990 Yes
Polar Star 2002 12,000 Yes
Pribilof Island School District Office 1950 3,566 Yes
Public Works Bldg./Maintenance Bldg. 1 2002 9,600 Yes
Public Works Bldg./Maintenance Bldg. 2 2002 9,725 Yes
Recreation Center No
Saint Paul School 1973 33,050 Yes Yes
SRE Bldg. (Heated) 2006 3,500 Yes
Tanadguisiz Corporation No
Tribal Admin. Office No
Med.
Notes
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
40
22 19 14
82 78
44
14
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
16%3%
80%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Community Profile: Unalaska
Incorporation 1st Class City
Location
Longitude ‐166.5367 Latitude 53.8736
ANCSA Region Aleut Corporation
Borough/CA Aleutians West Census Area
School District Unalaska City School District
AEA Region Aleutians
Alaska Native Name (definition)Taxes Type (rate) Per‐Capita Revenue
Ounalashka ("Near the Peninsula") Property, Sales (3%), Bed (5%), Raw Fish (2%) 4,660$
Historical Setting / Cultural Resources Economy
Climate Avg. Temp Climate Zone Heating Deg. Days
40.9 7 9,014
Year
2013
Notes
Community Plans Year
Unalaska Economic Development Plan 2004
Local Contacts Phone Fax
907‐581‐1251 907‐581‐1417
907‐581‐2920 907‐581‐3644
907‐581‐1276 907‐581‐1496
Demographics 2000 2010 2013
Population 4,283 4,376 Percent of Residents Employed 83.5%
Median Age 37 41 Denali Commission Distressed Community No
Avg. Household Size 33 Percent Alaska Native/American Indian (2010)6.12%
Median Household Income $69,539 $89,706 Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Percent (2014)26.0%
Electric Utility Generation Sources Interties PCE?
Yes
Landfill Class 1 Permitted?Yes Location
Water/Wastewater System City of Unalaska Homes Served System Volume
Water 9200
Sewer Energy Audit?
Notes
Access
Road
Air Access Runway 4100'x100'
Dock/Port Barge Access?Yes Ferry Service?Seasonal
Notes
Continue wind study; biomass‐ solid waste incineration for
heat; investigate solar uses; Update Pyramid and Shaishnikof
Creeks hydro plans; heart recovery; heat pumps; integrate
private powerhouses; LNG; expand use of waste heat
Unalaska overlooks Iliuliuk Bay and Dutch Harbor on Unalaska
Island in the Aleutian Chain. It lies 800 air miles from Anchorage
and 1,700 miles northwest of Seattle. Dutch Harbor is within the
boundaries of the City of Unalaska.
Manufacturing, transportation/warehousing, and trade are the
main employers.
Natural Hazard Plan
No
Unalaska LHMP
Email
City of Unalaska
Ounalashka Corporation
City of Unalaska Diesel
Qawalangin Tribe
Piped
Piped
Yes
The native Unangan people have inhabited the island of
Unalaska for more than 3,000 years. Since Aleuts were not
forced to give up their language or culture by the Russian
Orthodox priests, the church became strong in the community.
During WWII, almost all of the Aleuts on the Island were
interned for the duration of World War II.
Energy Priorities and Projects
No
Publicly owned; Asphalt
Yes
Unalaska
5M ‐ 10M gpd
(water); 1M ‐ 5M
gpd (ww)
Energy Profile: Unalaska
Diesel Power System Power Production
Utility Diesel (kWh/yr)48,097,173 Avg. Load (kW)4,583
Engine Make/Model Condition/Hrs Gen Capacity Wind (kWh/yr)0 Peak Load (kW)8,840
Unit 1 Wartsila Good/8,831 5,400 Hydro (kWh/yr)0 Efficiency (kWh/gal)15.7
Unit 2 Wartsila Good/8,549 5,400 Total (kWh/yr)48,097,173 Diesel Used (gals/yr)3,068,848
Unit 3 Caterpillar Good/2,942 4,600
Unit 4 Caterpillar Fair/161,819 1,180
Unit 5 Caterpillar Fair/161,819 1,230
Unit 6 Caterpillar Good/29 250
Unit 7 Caterpillar Fair 1,000
Line Loss
Heat Recovery?
Upgrades Priority Projects Status
RPSU Powerhouse Med.
RPSU Distribution Low
Outage History/Known Issues
Operators No. of Operators Electric Rates ($/kWh) Cost per kWh Sold ($/kWh)
1 PPO Rate with PCE $0.23 Fuel Cost $0.22
Residential Rate $0.46 Non‐fuel Cost $0.07
Maintenance Planning (RPSU)Excellent Commercial Rate Total Cost $0.29
Electric Sales No. of Customers kWh/year kWh/Customer Fuel Prices ($)Utility Retail Month/Year
Residential 709 3,804,889 5,367 Diesel (1 gal)$3.47 $4.64 6‐13; 8‐14
Community 57 3,016,586 52,923 Other Fuel? (1 gal)
Commercial 206 38,380,755 186,314 Gasoline (1 gal)$4.59 6‐13
Utility Use 975,392 Propane (100#)$120.48 8‐14
Wood (1 cord)
Pellets
Discounts?
Alternative Energy
Hydroelectric
Wind Diesel
Biomass
Solar
Geothermal
Oil and Gas
Coal
Emerging Tech
Heat Recovery
Energy Efficiency
Bulk Fuel Purchasing Deliveries/Year Gallons/Delivery Vendor(s)
Tank Owner Fuel Type(s) Capacity Age/Condition By Barge Frequent
Delta Western Diesel/Gas. 16,000,000 By Air
Petro Star Diesel/Gas 4,000,000 Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
Bulk Fuel Upgrade Priority Project Status Notes
High CompleteEECBG, ACEA, AHFC‐R, Streetlight Upgrade
Not Rated
Low Construction
Low
Low
HR to electric, 200kW Rankine Cycle generator
Pending
Medium Not pursuing; feasibility study
High
Low
Geothermal exploration; heat pumps
Potential Status
High
Projects
Training/Certifications
City of Unalaska
4.0%
Yes; Power plant building heat
PCE reporting errors due to meter malfunctions. RPSU includes Dutch Harbor
8%7%
83%
2%
Residential Community Commercial Utility Use
Electric Sales by Customer Type
(kWh/year)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Electric Generation (GWh)Diesel Hydro Wind
Energy Profile: Unalaska
Housing Units Occupied Vacant % Owner‐Occup.Regional Housing Authority Weatherization Service Provider
834 141 31%
Housing Need Overcrowded 1‐star Energy Use Average Home Average Avg. EUI
9.5% 7.8%Energy Rating Square Feet (kBTU/sf)
Data Quality 2 star plus 1,469 123
Street Lighting Owner Number/Type Retrofitted? Year
163 /HPS Yes 2012
Non‐residential Building Inventory
Building Name or Location Year Built Square Feet Audited? Retrofits Done? In ARIS?
Aerology Museum 4,236 No
Alyeska Seafood, LLC.No
Amaknak Fire Station No
Ballyhoo Dock No
Bowling Alley No
C&M Breakwater No
Carl E. Moses Small Boar Harbor No
Carl's Bayview Inn No
Chemical Storage Bldg.No
Church of the Holy Ascension, Russian Orthodox No
Court Bldg.No
Dutch Harbor Post Office No
Eagle's View Elementary Achigaalux No
Employee Housing Yes
Father Ishmail Gromoff Senior Center No
Icicle Seafoods No
Iliuliuk Medical Center No
Museum of the Aleutians/WWII Nat'l. Park No
North Pacific Fuel No
OC Office No
Off Shore Systems Inc.No
Oonalaska Wellness Center No
Ounalashka Corporation Office No
Public Library No
Qawalangin Tribal Office No
Radiant Heating Fuel Service No
Robert Storrs Int'l. Small Boat Harbor No
Royal Aleutian Seafoods No
Seaplane Base No
State Troopers Post No
The Grand Aleutian No
Trident Bunkhouse No
High
Notes
Replaced with LEDs
Aleutian HA Aleutian HA
21
219
37 49 100
307
119
43
Earlier 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000‐11
Age of Housing Stock
6%0%
94%
Retrofitted BEES Certified Untouched
Energy Efficient Housing Stock
Appendix A
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | A-1
A | S TAKEHOLDER P ARTICIPATION
Community/Utility Interviews, Summer 2015
SWAMC staff conducted phone interviews from May to August 2015 to get updates on energy
projects and priorities from the following community and utility representatives.
Table 26: Community/utility interviews, May-Aug 2015
Community Name Position
Adak Layton Lockett City Manager
Akutan Mary Tesche Asst. City Administrator
Atka Julie Dirks City Administrator
Cold Bay Gary Ferguson Electric Utility Owner/Manager
False Pass Chris Emrich Bookkeeper/Clerk
King Cove Gary Hennigh City Administrator
Nelson Lagoon Paul Gunderson Tribe President
Sand Point Andy Varner City Administrator
St. George Patrick Pletnikoff Mayor
St. Paul Phyllis Swetzof City Clerk
Unalaska Don Moore Interim City Manager
Dan Winters Director of Public Utilities
Aleutian Energy Summit, March 2015
The following individuals and organizations participated in the regional energy summit held on
March 3, 2015 in conjunction with the SWAMC Annual Meeting.
Table 27: Aleutian Energy Summit attendance, March 2015
Organization Name Role
Local Government / Public Utilities
City of Adak (also representing SWAMC Board) Layton Lockett
City of Akutan Mary Tesche
City of Atka Julie Dirks
City of King Cove Gary Hennigh Speaker
City of St. George Pat Pletnikoff
City of St. Paul (also representing CBSFA) Jeff Kauffman
City of Unalaska Chris Hladick
Shirley Marquardt
Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council Paul Gunderson
Qagan Tayagungin Tribe (Sand Point) Tiffany Jackson
Appendix A
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | A-2
Organization Name Role
Private Industry
Private Utilities / Independent Power Producers
G&K Utility (Cold Bay) Gary Ferguson
TDX Power (Adak, Sand Point, St. Paul) Kord Christianson Speaker
James Dunn
Agafon Krukoff
Fuel Vendors
Frosty Fuels (Cold Bay) Michael Tickle
Vitus Marine Mark Smith
ESCO Services
Siemens, Inc. Amber McDonough Speaker
Other
Shumagin Corporation (Sand Point) Charlotte Gunderson
Westward Seafoods / Alyeska Seafoods (Dutch Harbor) Sinclair Wilt
Crimp & Associates Peter Crimp Planner
Information Insights Jamie Hansen Speaker, Planner
Resource Agencies
Regional
Aleutian Housing Authority Dan Duame Resource Panel
Aleutian Pribilof Island Association Bruce Wright
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association Angel Drobnica
Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference Erik O’Brien Planner
Laura Vaught Planner
State (Government, Nonprofit & Educational)
Alaska Energy Authority Katie Conway Speaker
Josh Craft Speaker
Jed Drolet Resource Panel
Chris Gobah
Jessie Huff
David Lockard Speaker
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Scott Waterman Speaker, Panel
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Mike Catsi Speaker
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Gavin Dixon Resource Panel
DCCED DCRA Bulk Fuel Loan Program Jane Sullivan Speaker
UAF Interior-Aleutians Campus Mike Hirt Resource Panel
Bryan Uher Resource Panel
Federal
U.S. Department of Energy Givey Kochanowski Resource Panel
USDA Rural Development Jolene John Resource Panel
Appendix A
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | A-1
Online Survey, Spring 2014
An online survey of community and regional stakeholders was conducted at the end of Phase I to
identify any errors in the Phase I Resource Inventory and gather input on broadly supported
energy projects and priorities. The following individuals completed the survey.
Table 28: Online survey respondents, Feb-April 2014
Community Organization Name Title
Local Government, Utility and Industry
Adak City of Adak Layton J. Lockett City Manager
Akutan City of Akutan Tuna Scanlan
Mary Tesche Asst. City Administrator
RMA Consulting Group Raymond Mann
Atka City of Atka Jennifer Kost City Clerk
Cold Bay City of Cold Bay Dawn Lyons City Clerk/Administrator
G&K, Inc. Gary Ferguson President
False Pass City of False Pass Chris Emrich
Isanotski Corporation Sue Parker Manager
King Cove Agdaagux Tribal Council Della Trumble
City of King Cove Gary Hennigh City Administrator
Peter Pan Seafoods (King Cove) Glenn Guffey Plant Manager
Nelson Lagoon Nelson Lagoon Tribal Council & Corp. Paul (Butch) Gundersen President
Nikolski Nikolski Clinic Doris Kompkoff CHP/C
Sand Point City of Sand Point Andy Varner Administrator
Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Jason Bjornstad
Tiffany Jackson Executive Director
Shumagin Corporation Glen Gardner Jr. President
St. George City of St. George Patrick Pletnikoff Mayor
St. Paul City of St. Paul Kenneth Weaver, PhD ICMA-CM
St. Paul Fishing Company, LLC Jeff Kauffman CEO
TDX Power Kord Christianson President
Ron Philemonoff Chairman
Unalaska /
Dutch Harbor
City of Unalaska Chris Hladick City Manager
Daniel Winters
Ounalashka Corporation David Gregory
UniSea, Inc. Tom Enlow Executive VP
Westward Seafoods / Alyeska Seafoods Sinclair Wilt VP, Fisheries Specialist
Regional Government, Nonprofit and Native Organizations
Regional Aleutian Housing Authority Dan Duame Executive Director
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community
Development Association
Angel Drobnica Renewable Energy and
Fisheries Liaison
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Bruce Wright
Appendix A
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | A-2
Community Organization Name Title
Aleutians East Borough Ernest Weiss Natural Resources
Director
Eastern Aleutian Tribes Edgar Smith Operations Director
Jennifer Harrison Executive Director
The Aleut Corporation Janet Reiser
Schools Aleutian Region School District Joseph Beckford
Aleutians East Borough School District Doug Conboy Superintendent
Pribilof School District Connie A. Newman Superintendent
Other
Petro Star Inc. Don Castle VP Sales & Operations
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-1
B | A NALYSIS OF R ESOURCE P OTE NTIAL
The data in the following tables has been compiled from multiple sources including the Alaska
Energy Data Gateway (25), the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska (26), the Alaska Energy
Efficiency Map (19), the Division of Geological & Geophysical Services report, Fossil Fuel and
Geothermal Energy Sources for Local Use in Alaska (27), personal communication with Alaska
Energy Authority program managers for Biomass Energy, Geothermal Energy, Heat Recovery,
Hydroelectric Power, and Wind Energy, and data shared by the region’s electric utilities.
Note that each table estimates the savings potential from new, community- or utility-scale energy
projects. The analysis does not reflect the value of infrastructure or programs already in place .
Except in the case of energy efficiency, it does not look at opportunity from residential- or
building-scale projects. This is an important caveat especially in the area of solar and biomass
technologies, where a low rating for community- or utility-scale solutions does not mean there is
not significant potential to save money from residential projects.
The rating criteria for individual resources were developed in collaboration with AEA program
managers. See Table 37 for an explanation of the criteria used in the analysis.
Table 29: Wood biomass resource potential 20-Year Average Diesel Fuel Price ($) Resource Potential Productive Forest Project in Operation Rough B/C Ratio Existing Study (R,F) or Development (D,C) Certainty Adak 5.80 L L NA NA L
Akutan 4.72 L L NA NA L
Atka 5.80 L L NA NA L
Cold Bay 5.65 L L NA NA L
False Pass 4.17 L L NA NA L
King Cove 4.19 L L NA NA L
Nelson Lagoon 5.30 L L NA NA L
Nikolski 5.80 L L NA NA L
Saint George 6.89 L L NA NA L
Saint Paul 5.15 L L NA NA L
Sand Point 5.19 L L NA NA L
Unalaska 3.99 L L NA NA L
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-2
Table 30: Geothermal resource potential Resource Potential Identified Resource within 20 Miles Significant Resource within 20 Miles Certainty Adak M Y L
Akutan M Y L
Atka M Y L
Cold Bay L L
False Pass L L
King Cove L L
Nelson Lagoon L L
Nikolski L L
Saint George L L
Saint Paul L L
Sand Point L L
Unalaska M Y L
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes
Table 31: Hydropower resource potential Resource Potential Projects in Operation Hydro Resource Identified in Pathway Existing Study (R,F) or Development (D,C) Viable Resource based on Visual Assessment Certainty Adak H Y NA NA H M
Akutan H Y Y NA NA H H
Atka H Y Y NA NA H H
Cold Bay M Y NA NA M M
False Pass H Y NA NA H M
King Cove H Y Y NA NA H H
Nelson Lagoon L Y NA NA L M
Nikolski L Y NA NA L M
Saint George L NA NA L M
Saint Paul L NA NA L M
Sand Point L Y NA NA L M
Unalaska H Y NA NA H M
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-3
Table 32: Wind energy resource potential Resource Potential Wind Resource Developability Site Accessible Permitability Site Availability Load Certainty Notes Adak H H H Y Y Y Y L Concern related to existing oversized generation system.
Akutan L H L Y Y L Load <100 kw
Atka M H M Y Y Y NA L Need load from Atka pride
Cold Bay H H H Y Y Y Y H
False Pass L H L Y Y Y H CDR by Marsh Creek. Need RPSU.
King Cove H H H Y Y Y Y L One study found turbulence; other sites likely available but not studied
Nelson Lagoon L H L Y Y M Permitting difficult because on spit. Monopole anemometer, vane onsite.
Nikolski L H L Y Y Y H Project in place but not functioning.
Saint George H H H Y Y Y Y H RPSU completed. Project to operate soon.
Saint Paul H H H Y Y Y Y H Operating
Sand Point H H H Y Y Y Y H Operating
Unalaska H H H Y Y Y Y L 1999 study indicated strong turbulence, no met tower installed.
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-4
Table 34: Oil and gas resource potential Resource Potential Source Rock, Traps and Reservoirs Present Wells Drilled, Economic Resource Identified Certainty Notes Adak L NA NA L Additional drilling may be warranted Akutan L NA NA L
Atka L NA NA L
Cold Bay L NA NA L
False Pass L NA NA L
King Cove L NA NA L
Nelson Lagoon L NA NA L
Nikolski L NA NA L
Saint George L NA NA L
Saint Paul L NA NA L
Sand Point L NA NA L
Unalaska L NA NA L
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Table 33: Coal resource potential Resource Potential Potential Deposits Identified High Quality/ Developability Project Planned or in Development Certainty Adak L NA L
Akutan L NA L
Atka L NA L
Cold Bay L Y NA L
False Pass L Y NA L
King Cove L Y NA L
Nelson Lagoon L Y NA L
Nikolski L NA L
Saint George L NA L
Saint Paul L NA L
Sand Point L Y NA L
Unalaska L NA L
Note: The Herendeen Bay Field and Unga Island Field are the two
main southern peninsula regions with coal exposures. Villages
within 100 miles include Port Heiden, Nelson Lagoon, Sand Point,
King Cove, Cold Bay, and False Pass. See Page B-7 for data sources
and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-5
Table 35: Heat recovery resource (HR) potential Resource Potential HR Equipment at Powerhouse HR in Operation Recoverable Heat Available Nearby Thermal Loads Existing Study (R,F) or Development (D,C) Certainty Notes Adak M Y Y NA L Needs RPSU first.
Akutan M NA NA NA L Possible RPSU.
Atka L NA NA H Possible hydro heat recovery after controls
upgraded.
Cold Bay M Y Y F M
False Pass H Y Y Y NA M Existing system failed; needs feasibility evaluation.
King Cove L Y Y NA NA H
Nelson Lagoon M NA NA NA NA NA L Needs RPSU, no information.
Nikolski L Y NA NA NA M Based on RPSU database.
Saint George L Y Y NA AEA CDR H
Saint Paul L Y Y NA C H Construction complete
Sand Point H Y Y Y Y NA M Information from 2012 RPSU survey.
Unalaska L Y Y NA NA H Organic Rankine Cycle system operational;
electrotherm data to be verified
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-6
Table 36: Energy Efficiency savings potential Resource Potential Residential EE Potential % of Homes without HER or AHFC/RHA Weatherization Commercial/Public Building EE Potential Water/Sewer System Audit School Audit Street Light Upgrades Community EE Program (VEEP, EECBG, etc.) or Multiple Commercial Building Audits Certainty Adak H H 100% H Y H
Akutan M L 0% H Y H
Atka H M 50% H Y Y H
Cold Bay H H 100% H Y Y H
False Pass H M 50% H Y Y H
King Cove H M 54% H Y Y Y H
Nelson Lagoon H M 43% H H
Nikolski H M 52% H H
Saint George H H 87% H Y H
Saint Paul H H 80% H Y Y H
Sand Point H H 71% H Y Y Y H
Unalaska H H 94% H Y Y H
See Page B-7 for data sources and notes.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-7
Table 37: Criteria used in resource potential analysis
Resource Potential Certainty
Resource What it Includes Low Medium High Low Medium High
Alternative Power Generation
Coal Resource development*
and power generation
Local, quality
resource absent.
Quality resource
identified; further
study needed
High quality, local
resource identified;
project in development
No information
documented.
Based on
documented
opinion of credible
source or recon
level study.
Based on
feasibility or
higher level
study .
Geothermal Resource development
and power generation
No documented
resource within 20
miles.
Significant resource
within 20 miles.
Significant resource
within economic
distance.
" " "
Hydro Resource development
and power generation
No hydro resource
present or, if present,
economic viability is
nil to highly unlikely
based on visual
inspection.
Economic viability is
unlikely to possible
based on visual
inspection.
Hydro project is present
or under construction.
Or, economic viability is
possible to highly likely
based on visual
inspection.
No information
documented.
Based on
documented
opinion of credible
source or recon
level study,
including hydro
database.
Based on
feasibility or
higher level
study .
Hydrokinetic Resource development
and power generation
No river, tidal or wave
energy potential
documented within
10 miles.
Substantial resource
documented within
10 miles.
Substantial resource
adjacent to power
system.
" " "
Oil & Natural Gas Resource development
and power generation
No source rock, traps
or reservoirs present.
Source rock, traps or
reservoirs present.
Needs investigation.
Wells drilled and
economic resource
identified.
" " "
Solar Photovoltaic Economic criteria are more important than resource data. Projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See
notes on solar technologies following table.
Wind Resource development
and power generation
Wind resource or
developability
low***.
"
Project in operation, or
wind resource and
developability high***.
" Based on recon
level study.
Resource based
on 12+ months
onsite resource
assessment,
hourly load data,
feasibility or
higher level
study.
Other Nuclear, emerging energy
technology Low (See notes on emerging technologies following table.)
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-8
Resource Potential Certainty
Resource What it Includes Low Medium High Low Medium High
Heat
Biomass Resource development
and heat generation
Low productivity of
nearby forest. And, if
study is available, B/C
ratio less than 1.0.
Medium or higher
productivity of
nearby forest; and,
B/C ratio between
1.0 and 1.5, based
on either rough
analysis**** or
existing study.
Medium or higher
productivity of nearby
forest; and B/C ratio
greater than 1.5, based
on either rough
analysis**** or existing
study.
No information
documented.
Based on
documented
opinion of credible
source or recon
level study.
Based on
feasibility or
higher level
study .
Heat Pumps Ground, sea water, and air
source heat pumps
Economic criteria are more important than resource data. Projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See
notes following table on heat pumps in communiti es with diesel electric generation.
Diesel Heat Recovery CHP from diesel, other
Thermal loads remote
from powerhouse,
minimal recoverable
heat remains.
<--->
HR equipment installed
at powerhouse, thermal
loads nearby, much
recoverable heat
remains.
No information
documented.
Based on
documented
opinion of credible
source or recon
level study (e.g.
power system
inventory).
Based on
feasibility or
higher level
study (e.g. RPSU
CDR).
End User
Efficiency - Based on
residential &
public/commercial
ratings^
Residential
More than 70% of
homes have received
recent EE upgrades
41 - 70% of homes
have NOT received
recent EE upgrades.
Less than 40% of homes
have NOT received
recent EE upgrades
Little to no
information
available on
buildings or
recent EE
upgrades.^^
Little to no
information
available on
buildings or
recent EE
upgrades.
Public &
Commercial See Note ^^
Completed all:
Water/Sewer
system audit, school
audit, streetlight
replacements,
EECBG, AHFC
Commercial or VEEP
Completed 3 to 0 of the
infrastructure
audits/upgrades/progra
ms
Little to no
information
available on
buildings or
recent EE
upgrades.^^^
Little to no
information
available on
buildings or
recent EE
upgrades.
Transmission
Interties
Power lines between
communities or to remote
generation
Gas Lines Natural gas or LNG lines
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-9
Resource Potential Certainty
Resource What it Includes Low Medium High Low Medium High
Notes
* Resource development: Activities that include energy resource assessment, infrastructure development, transportation, fuel storage and handling.
**Visual assessment by AEA hydro PM indication L=None to Highly Unlikely, M=Unlikely to Maybe, H=Maybe to Highly Likely
*** Wind potential
defined by two factors:
1. Wind resource: L=class 2 or lower, M=class 3-4, H=class 5 or higher.
2. Developability, Indicated by four factors (Y=yes, N=likely no, X=fundamental problem that indicates low wind potential)
a. Access in place: is there a road, power transmission, or other suitable access to a viable wind site?
b. Permitability: Can habitat, FAA, or other factors be resolved without significant difficulty?
c. Site availability: Is there suitable land that is available for siting wind turbines?
d. Load: Is there sufficient load such that wind can be integrated economically with the existing diesel system (X: less than 50 kW average load)?
**** Rough analysis of
biomass project
benefit/cost estimated
based on these
assumptions:
1. Fuel price estimated as simple 20-year average of ISER projections of power-sector fuel price plus an adder of $0.50 per gallon for heating fuel
(ftp://www.aidea.org/REFund/Round%208/Documents/EvaluationModel.xlsm)
2. Fuelwood with an energy content of 20 MMBtu/cord and price of $250/cord
3. Wood and oil combustion efficiency equal
4. Installed cost of system estimated at $35/gallons per year of displaced fuel
5. O&M cost of 1% installed cost
Energy Efficiency Rating^ The rating is conservative in giving a high potential for communities with any high rating whether in residential or public/commercial. Medium ratings are
used for communities with two mediums or a low and a high. No community is rated as low for overall energy efficiency potential.
Energy Efficiency Low^^ Low is not used as a resource potential for public and commercial building energy efficiency because even if all programs and audits are completed there is
substantial work left to be done on implementing retrofits. Where information on audits especially for public and commercial buildings is sufficient,
information on whether retrofits have been implemented is often lacking. To reflect that these criteria are not the full story of energy efficiency in
commercial and public infrastructure, this the low potential rating is not used.
Energy Efficiency
Certainty^^^
The assumption is audits and streetlights that have been completed are recorded by AHFC and EE programs are recorded in multiple locations - REAP, AK
Energy Efficiency, and AEA. Therefore, these ratings are based on collected data and have a high level of certainty.
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-10
Notes on Specific Technologies
SOLAR P/V AND THERMAL
In Alaska, the sun's energy is abundant in the summer when daylight hours are long. Owners and
residents of off-grid lodges, fish camps, and remote cabins may find solar photovoltaic or solar
thermal systems to be viable options. However, long, dark winters with six or more months of
snow cover in most of the state make the economics of solar energy challenging. This is
particularly true when the economics of solar energy are compared to those of energy efficiency
and conservation, which can provide similar fuel-saving benefits at a fraction of the cost of solar
energy.
The Alaska Energy Authority has funded the construction of one solar photovoltaic and one
solar thermal project through the Renewable Energy Fund in recent years. Each of these projects
was designed and constructed properly and is operating as anticipated. The Kaltag solar
photovoltaic project cost $126,000 and saved $2,600 in energy costs in FY2014. The McKinley
Village solar thermal project cost more than $190,000 and saved approximately $7,000 in
FY2014. Once operations and maintenance costs are factored in, neither of these projects is likely
to pay for itself over its expected life.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has developed a valuable tool for analyzing
solar photovoltaic performance and economics. It is called PVWatt’s Calculator and is available
at http://pvwatts.nrel.gov. Alaskans interested in learning about the potential for solar
photovoltaic development can use PVWatt’s as a preliminary analysis tool to analyze solar
potential at their site. NREL also has a tool for analyzing solar thermal projects call ed System
Advisor Model (SAM) and is available at https://sam.nrel.gov. Alaska residents can request
assistance from the Alaska Energy Authority (David Lockard at 907-771-3062) in performing
either solar P/V or solar thermal analysis.
HEAT PUMPS IN COMMUNITIES WITH DIESEL ELECTRICAL GENERATION
Given the high installation costs and efficiency limitations of current technology, heat pumps do
not appear economically competitive with fuel oil heaters in rural communities that rely on diesel
for electrical generation.
Heat pumps use a working fluid in a refrigeration cycle to move heat from a lower temperature
source to a higher temperature load, consuming electricity in the process. Heat sources can
include the ground (via glycol filled loops in vertical boreholes or horizontal trenches), air,
ground water, lakes, and seawater. Heat pump performance is expressed as a ratio of thermal
energy delivered to electrical energy consumed which is referred to as the Coefficient of
Performance (COP).
Unit oil fuel heaters typical of rural Alaska operate at approximately 90% efficiency. Diesel gen-
set conversion efficiencies typical of rural Alaska communit ies are in the range of 30-35% (in
other words, 30-35% of the energy available in diesel fuel is converted to electricity). Based on
these assumptions, a heat pump would need to operate with a minimum average COP greater
than of 2.5 in order to supply the same amount of heat from electricity generated from 1 gallon of
diesel fuel as would be supplied by burning 1 gallon of diesel fuel. While this level of
performance may be attainable in many areas of the state, the cost of installation —which Cold
Climate Housing Research Center has estimated to range from $25,000 to $35,000 for ground
Appendix B
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | B-11
source heat pump systems—almost certainly precludes the economic viability of heat pumps in
communities reliant on diesel generation. Additional factors to take into account:
Powerhouse heat recovery adds significant additional value to each gallon of diesel
consumed for electricity generation.
Transmission losses reduce the amount of electrical energy actually available per gallon of
diesel.
Maintenance requiring specially trained technicians and equipment further increase
operational costs.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
River and marine hydrokinetics, including tidal and wave power, are emerging technologies with
no commercial projects currently in operation in the United States. Considerable resources are
being invested in advancement of the technologies at the state and federal level although at this
point they are considered pre-commercial.
Appendix C
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | C-1
C | C OMMUNITY I NPUT AND P RIORITIES
Appendix D
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | D-1
D | W ORKS C ITED
1. Alaska Energy Authority. Power Cost Equalization Program Statistical Data by Community,
Reporting Period: July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014. 2015.
2. Your Clean Energy, LLC. Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Resource
Assessment. 2014.
3. TDX Power, Sand Point Generating. Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII Grant Application -
Heat Projects. Anchorage, AK : Alaska Energy Authority.
4. Alaska Energy Authority. Round 5 Evaluations. Anchorage, AK : s.n.
5. Pletnikoff, Patrick. Abundant wind, efficient diesel cuts energy costs for St. George. Alaska
Dispatch News. [Online] [Cited: September 24, 2015.]
http://www.adn.com/article/20140915/abundant-wind-efficient-diesel-cuts-energy-costs-st-
george.
6. Brister, Bill. TDX Adak Generating. [interv.] Doug Griffin. September 15, 2015.
7. Alaska Energy Authority. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Status Report. 2015.
8. —. Renewable Energy Fund: Status Report and Round VIII Recommendations. 2015.
9. Heating Oil and Propane Update. U.S. Energy Information Administration. [Online] [Cited:
September 26, 2015.] http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/heatingoilpropane/.
10. Winters, Dan. Director of Public Utilities. [interv.] Doug Griffin. September 2, 2015.
11. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Population of Alaska by Economic
Region, Borough and Census Area, 2010 to 2014. 2014.
12. —. Alaska Population Projections: 2012-2042. April 2014.
13. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section.
Population of Alaska by Economic Region, Borough and Census Area, 2000-2010. 2011.
14. Ray Mann, Program Manager, RMA Consulting. Akutan Geothermal Receives Additional
Funding, Drilling Permit. In the Loop. August 31, 2015.
15. Wiltse, N., Madden, D., Valentine, B., Stevens, V. 2013 Alaska Housing Assessment. s.l. : Cold
Climate Housing Research Center, 2014. Prepared for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.
16. Ord, Jimmy. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. April 9, 2013.
17. —. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Personal communication. January 13, 2014.
18. —. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Personal communication. January 2015.
19. Alaska Energy Authority. Alaska Energy Efficiency Map. March 26, 2013.
20. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Energy Audits. Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium. [Online] [Cited: 12 12, 2012.]
http://www.anthctoday.org/dehe/cbee/energyaudits.html.
21. Lockard, David. Alaska Energy Authority. Personal communication. July 7, 2014.
22. YourCleanEnergy. Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase I Inventory
(DRAFT). November 2013. Prepared for SWAMC.
Appendix D
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | D-2
23. Waterman, Scott. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Personal communication. May 27,
2014.
24. Dixon, Gavin. ANTHC, Water System Audits. Personal Communication. December 2014.
25. Institute of Social and Economic Research. Alaska Energy Data Gateway. [prod.] Office of
Science, Basic Energy Sciences (BES), under EPSCoR Award # DE-SC0004903 (database and
web application development), and by Alaska Energy Authority (Renewable Energy Fund data
management and reporting) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Anchorage, Alaska : s.n., 2015.
26. Geographic Information Network of Alaska. Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska. Alaska Energy
Data Inventory. [Online] 2013. [Cited: February 28, 2015.]
http://www.akenergyinventory.org/atlas.
27. Swenson, Robert F., et al., [ed.]. Fossil Fuel and Geothermal Energy Sources for Local Use in
Alaska. Special Report 66. Fairbanks, Alaska : Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Geological & Geophysical Services, 2012.
Appendix E
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | E-1
E | D ATA S OURCES
Table 38: Data sources for community profiles
Note: See page 7 for a list of acronyms.
Source Date Source Date
Alaska Native Name UAF 2014 Location DCRA 2014
Historical Setting DCRA 2014 Climate Avg. Temp ACRC; weatherbase.com
Cultural Resources DCRA 2014 Climate Zone CCHRC 2014
Energy Priorities Phase I rpt, Phase II input 2015 HDD CCHRC 2014
Contacts City DCRA 2014 Taxes Alaska Taxable 2013
Tribal DCRA 2014 Economy DCRA 2014
Village Corp DCRA 2014 Natural Hazards Plan DMVA 2014
Community Plans DCRA 2014
Demographics Demographics (cont.)
2000 Population DCRA 2000 HH Income DCRA 2010
Median Age DCRA 2000 % Employed ALARI 2013
HH Size DCRA 2000 LMI%HUD 2014
% Native DCRA 2000 Distressed Denali Commission 2013
2010 Population DCRA 2010
Median Age DCRA 2010
HH Size DCRA 2010
% Native DCRA 2010
Landfill Class DCRA 2014 Landfill Location DCRA 2014
Permitted DCRA 2014 Condition/Life DCRA 2014
W/W System Water Phase I Report 2013 W/W Sys.Audited?
Sewer Phase I Report 2013 Homes Served
Condition Phase I Report 2013 Gallons
Road Access DCRA 2014 Interties
Air Access Owner DCRA 2014 Air Access Lighted FAA 2014
Runway (lxw)FAA 2014 Flight Rules FAA 2014
Surface FAA 2014 Condition FAA 2014
Dock/Port Facilities
Ferry Service DCRA 2014 Notes Phase II public input 2015
Barge Access DCRA 2014
Appendix E
Aleutian & Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan Phase II: Report Update | E-2
Table 39: Data sources for energy profiles
Note: See page 7 for a list of acronyms.
Source Date Source Date
Utility Name DCRA 2014 Power Production
Power House Diesel PCE, Utilities 2014
Engine Make RPSU (2012), Utilities (2015)Wind PCE, Utilities 2014
Line Loss PCE 2014 Hydro PCE, Utilities 2014
Heat Recovery RPSU 2012 Avg Load Alaska Energy Pathway 2010
Upgrades RPSU (2012), Utilities (2015)Peak Load Alaska Energy Pathway 2010
Outages/Issues RPSU 2012 Diesel Eff.PCE 2014
Operators Diesel Use PCE 2014
Number 5-yr Trend AEDG 2014
Training/Certs AEA Training Database 2014
Maint. Planning RPSU 2012 Electric Rates Residential PCE, Utilities 2014
Commercial PCE 2014
Electric Sales Customers PCE, Utilities 2014 Cost per kWh All PCE 2014
kWh sold PCE, Utilities 2014
Fuel Prices Utility AEDG, PCE 2014
Resources All See Appendix B 2015 Retail AEDG 2014
Discounts
Bulk Fuel Tanks Other sources Fuel Vendor interviews 2015
Purchasing
Coop Purchase Regional Housing Authority AHFC 2014
Other Wx Service Provider AHFC 2014
Energy Use
Housing Units Occupied CCHRC 2014 Avg Star Rating CCHRC 2014
Vacant CCHRC 2014 Avg Sq Feet CCHRC 2014
Avg. EUI CCHRC 2014
Housing Need Overcrowded CCHRC 2014 EE Housing Stock
Owners/Occup CCHRC 2014 Retrofitted CCHRC, AHFC 2014
Data Quality 1-star CCHRC 2014 Retrofitted Regional Housing Auth.2014
Retrofitted Wx Service Provider 2014
Housing Age By Decade CCHRC 2014 BEES Certified CCHRC, AHFC 2014
Non-residential Bldg Inventory ARIS (2014), DCRA maps (2008)Lighting All AHFC audit reports