-• -•

• -..

r .. .-

.-..

.. , .. .-

.-I

-!

VIL-A 002

Shageluk _______________________ --,

RECONNAISSANCE STUDY OF ENERGY

REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES

" •• ~. I '.,~. :

, ....

Prepared by:

[iii]

APPENDIX M: SHAGELUK

MAY 1982

O~y

PROPEATY-'OF:­Alaska POwt.'r Authority

r,,, J! '" "'~'-""t .:V. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501

I I

~ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY---,

VILLAGE SPECIFIC REPORT M. SHAGELUK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Page

M-1

A.1 - General ............................................... M-1 A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions ......................... M-1

B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ......................... M-S

B.1 - Location .............................................. M-S B.2 - Popul ation ............................................ M-S B.3 - Economy ............................................... M-S B .4 - Government ............................................ M- 6 B.S - Transportation........................................ M-6

C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT .................................... M-7

D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES ....................... M-8

E - ENERGY BALANCE .............................................. M-9

F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST ................................ M-11

F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast ............................. M-11 F.2 - Population Forecast ................................... M-l1 F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast ............................ M-12 F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast ............................... M-12

G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ............................... M-17

H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS .................... M-20

H.1 - Base Case ............................................. M-20 H.2 - A lternat ive Pl an II A" .................................. M-21

I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS ..................................... M-23

1.1 - Base Case ............................................. M-26 1.2 - Alternative Plan "A" .................................. M-30

J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION M-31

J.1 - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration ........................................ M-32

J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game ........................... M-37

J.3 - Comments Received From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce in Anchorage .................................. M-40

J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management ............................................ M-4S

LI ST OF TABLES

No. Title

1 Comparative Estimated Electrical Energy Prices

2

3

4

5

6

7

For Base Case and Alternatives ....................... M-3 Energy Use Profile For Shageluk - 1981 ................. . Village Electric Energy Use Forecast ................... . Net Thermal Requirements ............................... . Village Technology Assessment .......................... . Est imated Costs of Shagel uk Base Pl an .................. . Estimated Costs of Shageluk Alternative

Plan II A If ..... " •• " ••••• "."."""" .. """""""""""" .. .,,, .... ,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,

M-9 M-14 M-16 M-19 M-24-25

M-27-28

8 Estimated Non-Electrical Benefits of Alternative

Plan II A II ."" •• """""" •• "."""." •• """" ... " .. ".,,"",, •• ,,.,,""",, •• ,," M- 29

No.

1

2

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Title

Energy Cost Summary Energy Ba 1 ance "" ............................................ ..

Electric Energy Use Forecast ........................... .

M-4 M-IO M-15

SHAGELUK M-1

A - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A.1 - General

After an analysis of the information gathered on the village of Shageluk the recommendations most appropriate to the existing village conditions and the wishes of village residents are as follows:

1. With respect to the electrical energy needs of Shageluk, the most significant step which can be taken to reduce the cost of electricity in the village is the installation of a water jacket waste heat recovery system on the AVEC generators. Heat energy recovered by this equipment would then be piped to nearby public buildings such as the washeteria, post office and community buildings. It is likely that such a waste heat system would produce more energy than would be needed to heat all of these buildings. If this is the case, the waste heat recovery system could be extended to provide heat to the school. Preliminary estimates show that such a system could deliver the heat equivalent of nearly 12,000 gallons of fuel oil in 1982, with deliverable heat rising annually as village electrical production rises.

2. Some Shageluk residents expressed interest in the development of some small streams south and east of the village. An examination of the hydroelectric potential of the streams revealed that available drainage basins were too small to produce any appreciable water.flow. The suitability of this technology was not examined further.

3. Although the original intent of this study was to examine the practicality of at least two energy alternatives for Shageluk, it was determined that resources are not available to propose the examination of other than the waste heat system.

A.2 - Alternative Plan Descriptions

A.2.1 - Base Case

For the village of Shageluk, the base case is a continuation of AVEC service to the village with no changes in its operation except as required to serve additional load caused by village growth. For purposes of this study it will be assumed that the AVEC units are

SHAGELUK M-2

equipped with synchronization equipment which will permit the operation of two of the plant's generators at anyone time. It is not expected with the present configuration that the AVEC plant will be adequate to serve the Shageluk load by 1982. This plan has a net present worth of $2,374,000 for the period 1982 through 2001.

A.2.2 - Alternative Plan "A"

In addition to providing electricity to the village, the AVEC generators will be fitted with water jacket waste heat recovery equipment. The heat captured this way will be piped in utilidors to the village washeteria, post office building, and the new and old community halls to supplement the heating fuel requirements. It is anticipated that the heating needs of these buildings would not require all of the available waste heat produced by the AVEC generators. Therefore, the heating system will be extended to the boiler room in the BIA school. In this way, the costs of purchasing the oil for the AVEC diesels can be shared by a larger group of users, which should help to keep down the price of electricity. This plan has a net present worth of $1,989,000 for the period 1982 through 2001.

A comparison of estimated costs of electricity produced by the AVEC generators in their present configuration and those generators outfitted with waste heat systems is shown on Table 1. Similarly, the costs of fuel and electric energy resources available to Shageluk are shown on Figure 1. It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available.

Year

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

TABLE 1

COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRICES FOR BASE CASE PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES

Energy Base Case Plan Alternative "A" Production Energy Price Energy Price {MrJh} ( ~LkWh} {$/kWh}

214 0.53 0.51 233 0.52 0.49 253 0.50 0.45 273 0.48 0.43 282 0.48 0.43

289 0.48 0.42 298 0.49 0.42 305 0.49 0.41 313 0.50 0.43 322 0.51 0.42

325 0.52 0.43 332 0.52 0.43 336 0.53 0.43 343 0.53 0.43 351 0.54 0.43

358 0.54 0.43 362 0.55 0.43 370 0.55 0.43 374 0.56 0.44 384 0.57 0.44 Vl

::c ;po Cj) IT1 .-c: ;;><;

~ w

t~O

f-

170

160

ISO f--

140 ~

130

120 I--

110

a :) 100 1-.

~. - - --- -

41

\.Do " 90 ~

I- .- - -- .- --

I- 80 1./1

1-------

0 u

~ 70 I--~ t.aJ Z 60 w ---

50

-- - -40

30

20 ----

10

i -- - -

_\ I ~

--\~ - .- -- ~ ~ " ....

~ f---- - -- - --, ~

--------- -- - --- - -

--

- - .-. - - f--

---- - - .- -

--- --- - ----

--- -.

------

~ ~

- - --- -- -

-------

-- -WOOD AS DELIVERED

SHAGELUK r>\- 4

-- 0.60 I ----1-- --- ---

BASE CASE

L .,

0.55

V ---

--

ALTI~II

.

----

-- --

----- - -

---

/ ~

~

~

.--,

f--_ 0.50

.- 0.45

---- 0.40

- 0.35

--r- --

- .-1./1 0 -- 0.25 u

I-'0L AS AT '1=

> USED '" 0.3!S ex.

w - z -- 0.20 w .

- J)J5

~alL AS USED AT 'I'" 0.65

0.10

~OIL AS DELIVERED

-4 ~WooD

I

0.05 AS 1JSED AT 'I =0. 3!S

1985 1990 1995 2000

SHAGELUK - FIGURE I

SHAGELUK M-5

B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

B.1 - Location

Shageluk is located on the east bank of the Innoko River, 20 miles east of Anvik and 34 miles northwest of Holy Cross in the Innoko Lowlands. In 1968, severe flooding forced relocation of the village to a new site 2-1/2 miles from the air strip.

B.2 - Population

Date:

Population:

1970

167

1980

131

19821

140

Of the 131 residents in Shageluk counted in the 1980 census, 91 percent are A1habascan Indian. There are 48 housing units, most of them log cabins, and a household size of 2.7 residents per house. There are currently 16 high school students and 19 elementary students.

B.3 - Economy

The Shageluk economy is based on subsistence food harvest with some trapping and wage earning providing additional income.

The city of Shageluk employs a clerk, police officer, AVEC plant operator, combined water plant operator/washeteria operator/maintenance man, alternate health aide and two pre-school teachers. The State of Alaska employs a food stamp agent, airport maintenance man and public safety officer. The U.S. Postal Service employs a postmaster. The BIA grade school hires one te~cher, one aide, one cook and one maintenance man. The REAA high school employs two teachers, one aide, one cook and one maintenance man. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Board employs one health ai de.

The Zho-Tse Native Corporation has one employee. The Native Store, which is run by the IRA council, employs two clerks. There is a Wien agent in Shageluk.

1 local census

SHAGELUK M-6

Native residents of Shageluk are shareholders in the Zho-Tse Native Corporation. This organization was incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).

B.4 - Government

Shageluk was incorporated in 1971 as a second class city. The city government functions under the authority of a mayor and seven-member city council. Elections are held annually.

For nonmunicipal programs and services, Shageluk's native population is also represented by a seven-member IRA council. The council administers a variety of federal programs, including local health care, employment assistance, college assistance, social services and tribal operations. In Shageluk, many of these services are provided by regional organizations such as the Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Board.

B.5 - Transportation

Shageluk is accessible only by air and by river-going vessels. Yutana Barge Lines delivers fuel in July, and Walker Barge Service makes two visits to Shageluk each summer to deliver supplies.

Other cargo, passengers and mail arrive by air. A 2,200 foot airstrip accommodates scheduled flights by Wien Air Alaska through its contractor, Harold's Air Service from Aniak. There are plans to lengthen the runway to 2,500 feet in the summer of 1982. There are also local air charter services from Bethel and Aniak.

In winter, inter-village transportation is mostly by snowmachine. There are several miles of local roads joining the old and new townsites and the airstrip.

SHAGELUK M-7

C - COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT

Field reconnaissance personnel arrived in Shageluk in the afternoon of January 28, 1982. The city clerk advised that they could hold a meeting that evening at the community center.

The meeting was well attended with an audience of about 20 people who stayed for most of the short program.

Field personnel described the reconnaissance study and asked meeting attendees to describe their ideas on the energy needs and resources of Shageluk. The village of Shageluk is presently served by the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). Most of the residents in the new section of Shageluk and all of the commercial and government buildings in the village are served by AVEC.

Meeting attendees advised field staff that AVEC service had been less reliable and more expensive than they thought it should be. Of all the villages visited, more dissatisfaction with AVEC service was voiced in Shageluk than in any other. Those at the meeting seemed to feel that AVEC had been unresponsive to the needs of the village.

There was some interest shown in discussion of small-scale hydroelectric power near the village. The high school had installed an anemometer on the hill in Shageluk and some interest was expressed in the development of wind power. Field personnel described wood gasification equipment which would take some of the local wood resources and produce a burnable gas which could be used in diesel generators. There was interest in this technology although there was some concern that a wood gasifier system would compete with the villagers for local birch trees used for home heating use.

Since some other business was to take place at that meeting and the villagers seem anxious to proceed with other issues, the meeting ended after about 20 minutes.

SHAGELUK M-8

D - EXISTING POWER AND HEATING FACILITIES

The AVEC generators presently installed are:

o One 50 kW diesel set o Two 75 kW diesel sets

The BIA school has its own back-up generator. All of the residential buildings are heated with wood since Shageluk is a well forested area. Most of the public buildings in the village are heated with pot type oil burners. The schools are heated with gun-fired burners.

SHAGELUK M-9

E - ENERGY BALANCE

In Shageluk, as in other villages studied, most of the energy consumed was put to use heating homes and schools. Data gathered by field staff show the following energy uses.

TABLE 2

ENERGY USE PROFILE FOR SHAGELUK - 1981

Total Heat

Content Type of Fuel Cost End Uses Quantity (109 Btu)

Wood $100/cord Residential Space 600 cords 10.2 & Water Heat i ng

Fuel Oil $1. 97/gal Residential Space 10,000 gal 1.4 & Water Heating

Schoo 1 Space & 38,000 gal S.2 Water Heat i ng

Electric Power 24,600 gal 3.4 Generation

Gasoline $2.0S/gal Transportat i on 12,000 gal loS

Propane $1.0S/lb Cooking 7,SOO lb 0.1

ENERGY RESOURCE ~ END USE

RESIDENTIAL SPACE AND

WOOD WATER HEATING 110.21 110.21 111.61

11.41

SCHOOL SPACE AND WATER

FUEL OIL I !s.21 HEATING

110.01 15.21

13.41 ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 13.41

GASOLI NE 11.51 11.51 TRANSPORTATIO N

PROPANE 10.11 10.11 COOK I NG 10.11

NOTES: ---ALL UNITS IN 109 BTU/YR.

FIGURE 2

SYSTEM LOSSES 17.541

USEABLE HEAT 14.061

SYSTEM LOSSES 11.821

USEABLE HEAT 13.381

,

SYSTEM LOSSES 12.721

~

ELECTRICITY 10.681 > ~

11.51

"-7

BlRl SHAGELUK

BALANCE

7c ... iii •• ,ea.o'iiCOiipOoM,d

ENERGY (1981)

I

Vl :r: )::0 Cil !'T1 r c: 7"

3: I

o

F - ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FORECAST

F.1 - Capital Projects Forecast

F.1.1 - Scheduled Capital Projects

(a) 1982 Community building completion (b) 1982 Upgrade road to airstrip (c) 1982 Lengthen runway (d) 1982 Head Start building

F.1.2 - Potential Developments

None

F.1.3 - Economic Forecast

SHAGELUK M-11

Shageluk has a subsistence economy with a few wage earners. No resource development, tourism, or industry is anticipated in Shageluk.

F.2 - Population Forecast

Shageluk had a negative annual growth rate between 1970 and 1980 of -2.2 percent. There is no economic growth expected. There is some speculation in Shageluk that the village might experience some in-migration as economic conditions deteriorate in the cities, but this is uncertain. Growth, therefore, is expected to occur orily from the natural birth and death rate. The population table below is calculated on the basis of 1.0 percent annually.

Population: #Residences #Commercial #Gov't/Other

1960 1970 1980 1986 1991 1996 2001

155 N/A N/A N/A

167 37

N/A N/A

131 48

1 8

139 51 1 8

146 53 1 o

153 56 2 9

160 58 2

10

SHAGELUK M-12

F.3 - Electrical Energy Forecast

Shageluk has been served by AVEC since the 1960 l s and has evolved into what might be considered a "saturated" condition with regard to residential electricity consumption. It is estimated that the Itypica1" Shageluk home uses about 2,000 kWh of electrical energy each year. The projections of this study show that per residence use may double to about 4,000/kWh per year by the year 2001.

The consumption patterns of non-residential users will not be expected to change with time as will those of the residential users. The annual usage of the schools, stores and other public buildings will likely not vary with time. The expected electrical energy uses of non-residential customers are shown in the table below:

Load kWh Per Year kW Demand

BIA School 100,000 22 REAA School 27,000 12 Public Buildings 16,000 each x 6 2 each x 6 Other Gov1t &

Commercial B1dgs. 13,000 (estimated) 20

In those cases where electricity can be produced at a cost significantly less than that of heat delivered by fuel oil or wood, it can be expected that there will be some conversion to electric space heating, driving electric demand up. No source of electric energy was discovered for Shageluk which could provide such cheap electricity, however.

Energy consumption and power demand by various sectors in Shage1 uk are shown in Table 3 and the total electric energy use for the village is shown on Figure 3.

F.4 - Thermal Energy Forecast

In the village of Shageluk the largest single user of heating energy is the school system. It is estimated that the schools consume about 24,000/gal fuel oil each year.

Of the total residential thermal energy use, virtually all goes towards space heating with only very small amounts used for water heating. It is estimated that the typical Shageluk home will use about 12 cords of wood per year for its heating use. For purposes of this study it was assumed

SHAGELUK M-13

that any homes built after 1982 would be 20 percent more efficient in their use of heating energy than those presently existing. The remainder of village space heating requirements are taken up by the various small commercial and public buildings. The summary of heat use projections is given in Table 4. The figures given in the table are expressed in terms of net thermal energy. Net thermal energy is the energy actually delivered to an end use, such as building heating, after all conversion losses have occurred.

TABLE 3

VILLAGE ELECTRIC ENERGV USE FORECAST

Other lata' .. Res1aenth' Schooh. ~g m~ ~g ~h ~ K1H· Year i&l m~

1982 24 64 34 128 30 22 88 214 1983 30 83 34 128 30 22 94 233 1984 40 103 34 128 30 22 104 253 1985 45 123 34 128 30 22 109 273 1986 51 132 34 128 30 22 115 282

1987 51 139 34 128 30 22 115 289 1988 57 148 34 128 30 22 121 298 1989 57 155 34 128 30 22 . 121 305 1990 62 163 34 128 30 22 126 313 1991 64 170 34 128 32 24 130 322

1992 64 173 34 128 32 24 . 130 325 1993 70 180 34 128 32 24 136 332 1994 70 184 34 128 32 24 136 336 1995 72 191 34 128 32 24 138 343 1996 72 195 34 128 34 28 140 351

1997 78 202 34 128 34 28 146 358 1998 78 206 34 128 34 28 146 362 1999 80 214 34 128 34 28 148 370 2000 86 218 34 128 34 28 154 374 2001 87 226 34 128 36 30 157 389

Vl :::r:: ):0 G> IT1 r-c A

3: I

~

zoo

-~ ~ -o z ct 2 w o

'00

o

SHAGELUK r·1-1S --- ----- - ------------~..;.-----...;..;...-

1000

900

- 800

-700

oJ:

~ 2 -,- 600 z 0

I -.---'.

~ ~ -~- - -- .

VILLAGE POWER DEMAND (KW) ~

~ -V ~

I-~

SOO ~ ~ U)

z 0

400 0

>-(!) II:

~ ~ """'" - V" ~

W 300 z

UI

~ I-VI LLAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MWh) - 200

100

o 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

/

SHAGELUK - FIGURE 3

SHAGELUK M-16

TABLE 4

NET THERHAL REQUI REMENTS

Electricity Residential Schools Other Total Year (109Stu ) (109Btu) (109Btu ) (109Btu) (109Stu)

1982 .73 3.41 3.32 .81 8.27 1983 .79 3.48 3.32 .81 8.40 1984 .86 3.55 3.32 .81 8.54 1985 .93 3.55 3.32 .81 8.61

1986 .95 3.62 3.32 .81 8.70

1987 .97 3.62 3",32 .81 8.72

1988 1.01 3.68 3.32 .81 8.82 1989 1.04 3.68 3.32 .81 8.85 1990 1.07 3.68 3.32 .81 8.88

1991 1.09 3.74 3.32 .94 9.09

1992 1.10 3.74 3.32 .94 9.10

1993 1.12 3.80 3.32 .94 9.18

1994 1.14 3.80 3.32 .94' 9.20

1995 1.16 3.86 3.32 .94 9.28

1996 1.18 3.86 3.32 1.08 9.44

. 1997 1.20 3.92 3.32 1.08 9.52 1998 1.21 3~92 3.32 1.08 9.53 1999 1.24 3.98 3.32 1.08 9.62

2000 1.25 3.98 3.32 1.08 9.63

2001 1.28 4.04 3.32 1.20 9.84

SHAGELUK M-17

G - VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

1. Coal. It is presently possible to barge Healy coal from Nenana to Shageluk. Shipping charges would be approximately $160 per ton. At this rate, coal delivered to Shageluk would be about as expensive as fuel oil on a $/Btu basis. There are not adequate numbers of skilled workers in the village to staff a coal-fired power plant. Additionally, the Healy coal which would be used is susceptable to spontaneous combustion problems. Stockpiled coal must be continuously turned over with bulldozers to prevent this from occurring. No further consideration of this alternative is warranted.

2. Wood. Shageluk is located in a forested area and all the village residences are wood heated. However, due to the slow growth of the area's trees, the needs of a wood-fired power plant would require the clearing of large areas of land. The staffing of such a power plant by village residents would also present problems. No further consideration of this resource is necessary.

3. Geothermal. There are no known geothermal resources in the Shageluk area. No further consideration of the geothermal alternative is warranted.

4. Hydroelectric. There are a number of small drainages located within about 10-15 miles from Shageluk. Study of the stream flow data available from the U.S. Geological Survey shows that none of these streams could sustain power production throughout the year without building dams and reservoirs. With the high expense associated with hydro projects and the expenses involved in constructing transmission lines in remote areas, it was not felt that a detailed study of this alternative was warranted.

5. Photovoltaic. This technology is presently too expensive to consider for Alaska utility use.

6. Wind. There is virtually no potential wind energy at Shageluk, which is typical of many interior villages. An anemometer installed atop a hill overlooking the village is operated by the high school teachers. During the period of late September 1981 to late January 1982, anemometer data taken showed an average wind speed of about 12 mph. On only two days in that time were recordings made of wind speeds of 25 mph or above, where wind turbines reach their rated power output. While the high school's equipment lacked the sophistication to provide the level of detailed wind speed data needed for highly accurate studies, it provided some "ballpark" estimates. No further consideration of this resource is warranted.

SHAGELUK M-18

7. Fuel Oil. This resource is available by barge and is the primary fuel used in the village. Fuel oil is used for diesel generation and heating of public buildings.

Table 5 presents the results of the preliminary evaluation of resources and technologies as applied to the community. Methods and criteria used in developing this table are covered in Section C of the main report.

The results of this preliminary assessment were used as guidance in development of plans evaluated in the final stages of the study.

1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

NOTE:

TABLE 5

VILLAGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT FOR

SHAGELUK

TECHNOLOGY

Electric Coal Fi red Steam * 4 1 a a Wood Fired Steam * 4 1 a a Geothenna 1 * 1 1 1 a Diesel (base) * 4 2 2 3

Gas Turbine * 4 2 2 1

Hydroelectric * 5 1 1 a Wind * 3 1 1 a Photovoltaic * 3 2 2 a

Heating Diesel Waste Heat Recovery * 4 2 2 a Electric Resistance * 5 2 2 4 Passive Solar * 5 2 2 2

Wood * 4 2 1 4 Coal * 4 2 1 3

Oil (base) * 4 2 1 4

Other Coal Gasification * * 3 1 a a Wood Gasification - Di es~l * 1 1 1 3

Biogas * * 3 2 2 a Waste Fired Boi 1 er * * 4 1 a 0

Peat * * 4 1 a 0

Binary Cycle Generator * 1 2 2 0

Conservation * * 5 2 2 4

Higher numbers are more favorab1 e.

SHAGELUK M-·19

a a a a a 1 1 5 1 19 a a a a a 1 a 7 2 49 1 1 a 7 1 36 2 3 1 11

1 3 a a a a 3 2 2 18

3 3 8 2 64 2 4 a 3 2 39 4 3 2 2 33

3 2 7 2 65 1 3 a 5 1 35 4 a 7 2 61 3

a a a a a a 2 7 a 25 2 a a 1 4

a a a a a a a a a 0

3 3 7 2 45 4 3 9 2 100

SHAGELUK M-20

H - ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

H.l - Base Case

The base case plan which uses the AVEC diesel system only to produce electricity, will be able to use the existing machine capacities until the year 1989, at which time an additional 50 kW generators would have to be added to meet the total demand through the end of the study period. It is assumed that synchronization equipment will be added in 1982 so that two or more of the system units will be able to be run at the same time making early system expansion unnecessary. Assumptions made when calculating future electricity costs and present value figures for the base case are as fo 11 ows :

- The generators have the following capacities:

o One 50 kW machine o Two 75 kW machi nes o One additional 50 kW machine added in 1990

- The diesel sets will be valued at a purchase price of $300/kW plus $500/kW for installation for a total of $800/kW installed.

- The AVEC diesel sets are assumed to operate at a fuel consumption rate of 8 kWh/gal.

- Annual costs of the diesel sets are calculated as follows:

1. Intia1 cost of the diesel sets is amortized over 20 years. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annua 11 y.

2. The annual costs of the overhaul work are the result of the establishment of a sinking fund designed to provide $100 per installed kW every seven years.

3. General operation and maintenance performed by on-site AVEC operators adds $44,000 to the annual expenses.

- Annual variable costs associated with diesel set operation are calculated as fo 11ows:

1. Fuel in 1982 is assumed to cost $2.02/ga1 with its real (1981) price rising 2.60 percent annually to $3.29/ga1 by the year 2001 and remaining constant thereafter.

The tab1u1ation of the results of these calculations ;s shown in Section I.

SHAGELUK M-21

It should be noted that the energy cost figure in $/kWh is not necessarily the cost which would be billed to the ultimate customer. This figure, expressed in terms of 1981 dollars, does not take into account costs associated with distribution of energy within the village, which can add about $0.10/kWh to the customer's cost. The costs shown also do not indicate the effects of various government subsidy and grant programs which may be available.

H.2 - Alternative Plan "A"

Alternative "A" uses the diesel sets as described in the base case except that equipment is installed to recover otherwise wasted water jacket heat. This heat will be distributed through pipes installed in utilidors to the village washeteria, post office building, community buildings and the BIA school.

With the energy production forecast as shown in Section F, the heat which will be available from such a waste heat system will be the equivalent of about 12,000 gallons of fuel oil in 1982. As generator production increases, waste heat system output also increases. By the year 2001, the deliverable waste heat will be the equivalent of about 22,000/gal/kWh. Although it is doubtful that such a system could entirely eliminate the fuel needs of all buildings that are served, it would reduce the total village oil consumption by the amounts noted above.

Assumptions made in calculating future costs of the diesel/waste heat system are as follows:

- Beginning in 1982 and continuing for the term of the study, a waste heat recovery system will be installed in conjunction with the AVEC generators. The heat will be piped to those buildings mentioned above. It is estimated that about 520 feet of piping will be required costing $200/ft installed in utilidors.

- Additionally the four buildings described will require the installation of baseboard heating systems. It is estimated that these will cost $5,000 per building to install for a total of $20,000.

- There will be a heat exchanger required at the power plant which will cost $25,000 and another heat exchanger in the washeteria hot water system that would cost $25,000.

- From the above, the total cost of the system would be $174,000.

SHAGELUK M-22

- The waste heat system cost of $174,000 will be amortized over a 10-year period. The real discount rate (net from inflation) is assumed to be 3 percent annually. At the end of this first 10-year period, the system will be replaced in its entirety.

The existence of waste heat equipment is not expected to affect the annual costs associated with AVEC operation and maintenance or overhaul expenses.

A tabulation showing the costs associated with this system's operation is given in Section I.

SHAGELUK M-23

I - ENERGY PLAN EVALUATIONS

TABLE 6 ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHAGELUK BASE CASE

FUEL COSTS SYSTEr~ ADD I T IONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Cap i ta I Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs

Year (MWh) (1 000 al) ($/ al) ($1,000) Com onent ($1 000) ($1 000) ($1 000) ($1,000) ($1,000)

1962 214 27 2.02 55 o Existing AVEC system 160 11 3 44 56 us I ng one 50 kW and

1963 233 30 2.07 62 two 75 kW diesel 11 3 44 56 generators

1964 253 32 2.12 68 11 3 44 58

1985 273 34 2.18 74 11 3 44 58

1966 282 35 2.24 78 11 3 44 58

1987 269 36 2.29 82 11 3 44 58

1988 296 37 2.35 87 11 3 44 58

1989 305 36 2.42 92 11 3 44 58

1990 313 39 2.46 97 o One more 50 kW generator 40 14 3 44 61 added in 1990

1991 322 40 2.54 102 14 3 44 61

1992 325 41 2.61 107 14 3 44 61

1993 332 42 2.68 113 14 3 44 61

1994 336 42 2.75 116 14 3 44 61

1995 343 43 2.62 121 14 3 44 61

1996 351 44 2.69 127 14 3 44 61

1997 356 45 2.97 134 14 3 44 61

1998 362 45 3.04 137 14 3 44 61

1999 370 46 3.12 144 14 3 44 61 Vl

2000 374 47 3.20 150 14 3 44 :::I:

61 )::0 G)

2001 364 46 3.29 158 14 3 44 61 ITl r c: 7"

3: I

N ~

TABLE 6 (Cont'd)

Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annual Energy Costs + Costs Costs Costs Costs

Year ($1 000) ($1 000) ($1 000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)

1982 55 58 113 109 0.53 1983 62 58 120 113 0.52 1984 66 58 126 115 0.50 1985 74 58 132 117 0.48 1986 78 58 136 117 0.48

1987 82 58 140 117 0.48 1986 87 58 145 118 0.49 1989 92 58 150 118 0.49 1990 97 61 158 121 0.50 1991 102 61 163 121 0.51

1992 107 61 168 121 0.52 1993 113 61 174 122 0.52 1994 116 61 177 121 0.53 1995 121 61 182 120 0.53 1996 127 61 188 121 0.54

1997 134 61 195 122 0.54 1998 137 61 198 120 0.55 1999 144 61 205 120 0.55 2000 150 61 211 120 0.56 2001 158 61 219 121 0.57

Total net present worth $2,374

A II costs shown In thousands of dol lars

Note 1: Note 2: Note 3:

Diesel fuel use Is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gal Ion of fuel used. Diesel fuel price Is expressed In terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general inflation. Total annual fixed costs Include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work.

SHAGELUK M-26

1.1 - Base Case

1.1.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation

Because the AVEC generation equipment is already in place, there is no possibility of local employment for plant construction work. However, there is the potential for one or more Shageluk residents to be employed as maintenance personnel. AVEC personnel generally perform routine day-to-day maintenance on the diesel equipment.

Diesel plant equipment is relatively benign environmentally. Diesel engines emit small quantities of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and unburned hydrocarbons. With the installation at Shageluk, there will not likely be any noticeable buildup of any of these pollutants. The engine lubricating oil must be changed periodically and the waste oil must be disposed of properly. In remote villages such as Shageluk this can be a significant problem. Diesel engines are also significant sources of noise. With proper siting and with adequate muffler distance this problem can be minimized.

I.l.2 - Technical Evaluation

Diesel systems are typically the best understood means of producing electricity available to most villages today. Nevertheless, diesel engines require frequent attention and regular maintenance which requires highly skilled personnel. Of the AVEC villages studied, Shageluk seems to have the greatest problem in this regard. The quality of service that is provided by AVEC suffers as a result.

TABLE 7 ESTIMATED COSTS OF SHAGELLK ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"

FUEL COSTS SYSTEt~ ADD IT IONS FIXED COSTS Energy Diesel Fuel Fuel Capital Annual Overhaul Total Fixed Production Fuel Used x Price = Costs Costs Costs + Fund + O&M = Costs

Year (MWh) (1,000 al) ($/ a I) ($1 000) Com onent ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000 ) ($1,000) ($1 000)

1982 214 27 2.02 55 o Existing AVEC system 160 31 3 44 78 using one 50 kW and

1983 233 30 2.07 62 two 75 kW diesel 31 3 44 78 generators

1984 253 32 2.12 68 31 3 44 78

1985 273 34 2.18 74 31 3 44 78

1986 282 35 2.24 78 31 3 44 78

1987 289 36 2.29 82 31 3 44 78

1988 298 37 2.35 87 31 3 44 78

1989 305 38 2.42 92 31 3 44 78

1990 313 39 2.48 97 o One rrore 50 kW generator 40 34 3 44 81 added in 1990

1991 322 40 2.54 102 34 3 44 81

1992 325 41 2.61 107 o 1982 waste heat system 174 34 3 44 81 replaced

1993 332 42 2.68 113 34 3 44 81

1994 336 42 2.75 116 34 3 44 81

1995 343 43 2.82 121 34 3 44 81

1996 351 44 2.89 127 34 3 44 81

1997 358 45 2.97 134 34 3 44 81

1998 362 45 3.04 137 34 3 44 81

1999 370 46 3.12 144 34 3 44 81

2000 374 47 3.20 150 34 3 44 81 VI :r ;x:.

2001 384 48 3.29 158 34 3 44 81 Ci1 rn .-c A

3: I

N ......

TABLE 7 (Cont'd)

Total Discounted Fuel Fixed Annual Annua I Energy Costs + Costs Costs Costs Costs

Year ($1,000) ($1 000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($/kWh)

1982 55 78 133 129 0.51 1983 62 78 140 132 0.49 1984 68 78 146 134 0.45 1985 74 78 152 135 0.43 1986 78 78 156 134 0.43

1987 82 78 160 134 0.42 1988 87 78 165 134 0.42 1989 92 78 170 134 0.41 1990 97 81 178 136 0.43 1991 102 81 183 136 0.42

1992 107 81 188 136 0.43 1993 113 81 194 136 0.43 1994 116 81 197 134 0.43 1995 121 81 202 134 0.43 1996 127 81 208 134 0.43

1997 134 81 215 134 0.43 1998 137 81 218 132 0.43 1999 144 81 225 132 0.43 2000 150 81 231 132 0.44 2001 158 81 239 132 0.44

TOTAL $2,675 Total present worth of non-el ectr Ical benefits $ (686)

Net present worth $1,989

AI I costs shown I n thousands of do I lars

Note 1 Note 2 Note 3

Diesel fuel use is calculated at a consumption rate of 8 kWh produced per gal Ion of fuel used. Diesel fuel price Is expressed In terms of 1981 dollars, with prices escalated at 2.6 percent above general Inflation. Total annual fixed costs include funds for equipment amortization (calculated at 3%), a sinking fund for equipment overhaul and replacement, and general O&M work.

SHAGELUK M-29

TABLE e

ESTH1ATED NON-ELECTRICAL BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PLAN "A"

Total Annual Benefits Discounted Year 'S~ace Heating Fuel Saving} Benefits

1982 24 23.3 1983 27 25.5 1984 32 29.3 1985 35 31.1 1986 36 31.1

1987 39 32.7 1988 40 32.5 1989 44 34.7 1990 45 34.5 1991 48 35.7

1992 50 36.1 1993 51 35.8 1994 52 35.4 1995 56 37.0 1996 58 37.2

1997 62 38.6 1998 64 38.7 1999 66 38.8 2000 67 38.2 2001 72 39.9

TOTAL: $ 686

All cost figures shown are in thousands of dollars.

SHAGELUK M-30

1.2 - Alternative Plan "A"

1.2.1 - Social and Environmental Evaluation

If this alternative were to be implemented, there would be the oppor­tunity for some local construction employment. The installation of a waste heat system would require skilled workers such as plumbers and carpenters, as well as general laborers.

The operation of the waste heat system would have no environmental consequences other than those noted for the operation of the diesel systems in the base case plan.

1.2.2 - Technical Evaluation

This installation is of one of the simplest programs which can be undertaken in Shageluk to provide less expensive energy. The design of waste heat systems is well understood, construction is uncomplicated; and, once installed and properly working, there is little to go wrong.

SHAGELUK M- 31

J - COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION

SHAGE LUK M- 32

J.l - Comments Received From The Alaska Power Administration

[Original Letter Retyped Here For Clarity]

Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99802

Dear Mr. Yould:

SHAGELUK M-33

April 12, 1982

We have reviewed the two draft sets of reconnaissance reports of energy requirements and alternatives for numerous small Alaskan villages, transmitted to us by your March 3 letter. One was prepared by Acres American, Inc. and one by Northern Technical Services (NORTEC).

We agree with the recommendations in the Acres summary report (pp. 0-6 and 0-7), and the individual village NORTEC reports. However, there appears to be a discrepancy in that the recommendations of the NORTEC summary report are not presented in the same priority as some of the individual reports. Specifically the individual reports recommend investigation before specific action is taken on new projects, while the summary report recommends immediate·installation of central diesel generators in eight villages.

We offer a few general comments for consideration.

There appears to be a disparity between the two reports in that Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration while NORTEC did. Neither put a "value" on conservation in terms of energy reduction.

A summary comparison of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report. Presentation of costs in terms of kWh units and a summary by technologies would also enhance the NORTEC report.

Neither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162.

Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local condi ti ons.

SHAGELUK M-34

2

The description of each technology in each report is a good approach to inform lay consumers of the basic parameters. It is good to see a description of the state-of-the art of technologies that are not yet practical for power generation in remote locations such as wind, biomass, and geothenna 1 .

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Si ncere ly,

Robert J. Cross Admi ni strator

FSUMMERS:gs:sr 3/18/82 Yould Letter FLOYD4

SHAGELUK M-35

ACRES' RESPONSE

1. Comment: II Acres assumed that conservation was not within the scope of consideration."

Response: No such assumption was ever made either explicitly or implicitly. In a number of village reports, the primary recommendation was that aggressive energy audit programs be undertaken forthwith. It was repeatedly noted that vi 11 age residents were more concerned about the costs of home heating and the inefficiencies of their homes than they were about the supply of electricity within their village. While the study of the means necessary to achieve any meaningful savings of space heating energy was beyond the scope of the study, the effects of such savings were incorporated where appropriate. It was assumed that new housing designs which would be implemented in the villages after 1985 would be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than existing units. No I va1ue" was placed on such improvements for the reason noted above.

It is the opinion of Acres' staff that electrical energy conservation is a function of electric energy cost and is inversely related to disposable income: consumers will purchase and use those electricity-consuming devices for which they feel a need or desire. As the real cost of using these items increases, their use will likely (but not necessarily) decrease. The incorporation of so-called energy efficient lights or motors is not expected to have perceptible impact on any village's energy or demand forecast.

No comment or change in report text is needed.

2. Comment: "A surrmary compari son of energy cost per kWh for each generation technology would enhance the Acres report."

Response: Without site-specific parameters such as fuels costs, construction costs, and annual O&M charges, such a summary would be meaningless. Not all technologies are appropriate or available to all villages. Even where two villages may share access to a particular technology, such as diesel generation, local conditions including fuel costs, fuel consumption rates, and O&M considerations may make comparisons invalid.

The comment is noted to be contradictory to the later comment that "Extending a single energy cost for a given technology to several communities leads to risk of invalid comparison based on local conditions."

No comment or change in report text is needed.

SHAGELUK M-36

3. Comment: IINeither report addresses actual present and projected electric power costs with or without consideration of the residential subsidy under AS 44.83.162.11

Response: This omission is deliberate at the direction of the Alaska Power Authority. Study costs given are busbar costs calculated without governmental subsidy. The availability of a subsidy does not affect the economics of a power production facility; it merely shifts the burden of paying the operation costs to the government. It is also worth noting that the subs i dy programs are cont i nued from year to year at the pleasure of the legislature.

No comment or change in report text is needed.

J.2 - Comments Received From The State of Alaska Department of flSh and Game

SHAGELUK M-37

()E'-.\HT'U-:YfOF FISII :\'1) (;.\.UI-:

April 8, 1982

Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIO!JER

Attention: Eric P. Yould, Executive Director

Gentlemen:

SHAGELUK M-38 JA r s. HA!.:1.IONO. COVERt/OR

P.o. BOX 3·2000 JUNEA U. ALASKA 99B02 PHONE: 465-4100

RECEIVED

t.:'JR 1 2 1982

ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Power Authority·s Draft FY 82 Energy Requirement Reconnaissance Reports for several Alaska communities.

\~e have no cormnents to offer at this time. \~e wish, however, to review subsequent studies as they become available.

Sincerely,

Ronald O. Skoog Commissioner

SHAGELUK M-39

ACRES' RESPONSE

No comment or change in report text is needed.

J.3 - Comments Received From U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servlce In Anchorage

SHAGELUK M-40

SHAGELUK M-41

United States Depanment of the Interior

IN REPL Y R~;::R TO:

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Alaska Ecological Services

733 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501

(907) 271-4575 I·r AES

Mr. Eric P. Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Ave~ue Anchorage, Alaska 99501

BEC~IVEQ

APR - 91982

~KA POWER AUDWRJtr

Q APR 1982

Dear Hr. Yould:

We have reviewed the Alaska Power Authority's CAPA) Draft FY 1982 Energy Reconnaissance Reports. If the conclusions and recommendations stated in the individual'reports becone those of the APA, and if the APA undertakes feasi­bility studies in fulfillment of the recommended alternatives, then the U.S. Fish and rlildlife Service (FWS) requests that the infonnation and studies outlined below be made a part of the feasibility studies.

vii thout current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of tbe proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of tbe study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources.

Specific information to be collected and studies to be conducted which the FWS feels are necessary to adequately assess potential impacts include the following:

1. Plans for construction activities and project features to m~n~m~ze damage to fish, wildlife, and their habitats should be devised, e.g., erosion control, revegetation, transmission line siting, construction timing, siting the powerhouse, diversion weir, and penstock above salmon spawning habitat, etc.

2. Losses of fish and wildlife habitat should be held to a m~n~mum, and measures to mitigate unavoidable losses and enhance resources should be devised.

3. If there is to be a diversion of water or if substantial water temperature fluctutations are imminent, then these factors should be addressed because of their possible influence on water quality and fish habitat. Aquatic data collection should at least include the following:

;

/.

: ~ /

SHAGELUK M-42 Page 2

(a) Identification of species composition and distribution of resident and anadromous fish within and downstream of the pro­ject area. Standard sampling methods such as fyke netting and minnow trapping, as well as visual observation of spawning and/or redds, should be used.

(b) Surveying and mapping of fish spawning, rearing, and over­wintering habitat as defined in the FWS Instream Flow Techniques or similar guidelines.

(c) Harvest levels and sUbsistence use data, if applicable.

It should be incumbent upon the APA to document animal species within the project boundary. If it is determined that impacts to terrestrial mammals or bird habitat is iw~inent, the APA should gather habitat and population infor­~ation in a manner consistent with the FWS' Habitat Evaluation Procedures.

4. Terrestrial data collection should include the following:

(a) Verification of game and non-game species use and occurrence within the project area.

1. Mammals.

a. Historical and current harvest levels and subsistence use data.

b. Site-specific wildlife observations, including wild­life sign, denning sites, feeding sites, migration routes, winter use areas, and calving areas.

2. Birds. Raptor nesting surveys within the project area.

(b) Description of vegetation, cover typing, and areal extent of each type.

The FWS requests that bald eagle surveys be undertaken. If nest sites are encountered, the APA should notify the FWS. The FWS seeks to maintain a 330-foot protective zone around all active and inactive nests. Compliance with provisions of the Bald Eagle Protecton Act is mandatory.

We request that the following be accomplished during the course of the st~dies:

1. During the period of project planning, the APA should consult with federal, state, and local agencies having an interest in the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, prior to preparing any envirop~ental reports.

2. The APA shall investigate and document the possible presence of any endangered or threatened species in the project area. If endangered of threatened species are determined to be present, the FWS should be notified.

._-/. '"

'V SHAGELUK M-43

Page 3

3. The APA shall design and conduct at project cost, as soon as prac­ticable, preparatory studies in cooperatio~ with the ~iS and the Alaska Depar~ent of Fish and Game. These studies shall include, but not be limited to, the above aquatic and terrestrial data. The studies shall also identify and evaluate general measures to avoid, offset, and/or reduce adverse project-caused impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Information from these fish and wildlife related studies shall be provided to the concerned state and federal resource agencies.

Future correspondence on this, or other projects proposed by the APA should include a clear map, in sufficient detail to show the exact locatio~ of the project. This will enable the FWS to accurately determine whether or not Interior managed lands are involved.

It is the desire of the FWS to work with the APA to resolve any concerns relating to fish, wildlife, and other resources. If it is determined that the project will result in resource impacts, the ~iS will assist the APA in attempting'to modify the project to alleviate or mitigate any adverse effects.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our suggested feasibility studies.

Sincerely,

;f)-W~ Field Supervisor

SHAGELUK M- 44

ACRES' RESPONSE

1. Comment: "Without current site-specific resource information and a more complete description of the proposed project, it is difficult to assess what impacts, if any, will occur to fish and wildlife resources and associated habitat. Information should be acquired and studies conducted to identify the fish and wildlife resources of the study area, identify adverse project impacts to those resources, assess alternatives to the proposed action and devise a mitigation plan that would prevent a net loss to fish and wildlife resources."

Response: The reconnaissance study scope does not provide for any but the most general identification of sites, definition of project design characteristics, and assessment of environmental consequences. The level of study effort suggested in the USF&WS letter is appropriate to a feasibility-level study of a project. No change in report text is required.

SHAGELUK M-45

J.4 - Comments Received From U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

SHAGELUK M-46

United States Deoartment of the Interior £

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Anchorage District Office 4700 East 72nd Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99507

Mr. Eric P. Yould Alaska Power Authority 334 West 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501

Dear Mr. Yould;

BECE1'lEO

APR - 81982

'ArJSI.A POWER AUTHORITY

.~. r:E.PL 'I REF"(R TO

APR 6 1982

Reference your letter dated 3 March 1982 in which you requested comments concerning your draft FY1982 energy reconnaissance reports.

This agency agrees with the contractors basic conclusions that further feasibility studies of hydro power potential should be evalu­ated at applicable locations.

Generally there is little or no BLM land involved at any sites. Most locations are native selected or other non-BLM land. \·.'hen actual construction plans formulate land use and ownership will be determined on a case by case basis.

The opportunity to comment on this report is appreciated. Should you have further questions feel free to contact me.

SHAGELUK M-47

ACRES' RESPONSE

No comment or change in report text is needed.