THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OFTHE POWER COST … · 2011. 9. 15. · THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE PROGRAM? In FY 1996

, ,

l

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OFTHE

POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

by Scott Goldsmith

Professor of Economics

prepared for

The Power Cost Equalization Blue Ribbon Panel

November 16, 1998

Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage

3211 Providence Drive Anchorage Alaska 99508

907-786-7710

I I I

I

J

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WHAT IS THE PROGRAM?

In FY 1996 the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program provided $19.202 million of financial assistance to electric utilities in 190 rural Alaska communities where the cost of electric power is greater than urban Alaska because of small market size, dependence on expensive fuel oil for generation, and the high cost of doing business in remote areas.

The PCE program is designed to pay a portion, currently 95 percent, of the legitimate electric generation costs between a floor and a ceiling, for a basic level of electric service for residential and commercial customers (including public schools) and community facilities. The floor is set at a level equal to the cost for electricity generation in urban areas, 9.5 cents in 1996, and the ceiling is set at the level of reasonable maximum cost for a small utility, 52.5 cents. In recent years PCE budget restrictions have kept payments to eligible utilities below 95 percent of legitimate costs.

Thus rural utility customers pay at least as much as urban consumers for their electricity, but a portion of the extra cost of generation is covered by the PCE program. Furthermore only the first 700 kwh per month of use by each residential or commercial customer is eligible for the program, and only 70 kwh per month for each community member for community facilities is eligible. As a result, only 38 percent of all electricity sold in PCE communities in 1996 qualified for assistance. In addition only legitimate costs are covered, as determined by Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC).

\VHO DOES IT SERVE?

The typical (median) community served by PCE has a popUlation of264. Bethel, with a popUlation of 5,195, is the largest, and only 8 other conmmnities (Unalaska, Nome, Kotzebue, Cordova, Dillingham, Craig, Naknek, and Haines) have a popUlation greater than 1,000. The total popUlation served is 75,767.

The assistance provided to the utilities is primarily targeted toward residential customers in the PCE communities. The average income ofPCE households is $49,825 compared to $65,054 for non PCE conununities. (Although the average income in the typical PCE

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 i

community is considerably less, $35,203, because average incomes are higher in the larger PCE communities.) The unemployment rate among PCE households is 15 percent compared to 8 percent for non PCE communities. 18 percent of families in PCE communities have incomes below the poverty level compared to 6 percent in non PCE communities.

The typical PCE utility generates about 652,000 kwh alUlUally, about the amount that Chugach Electric Association, the largest electric utility in the state, sells in a typical 6 hour period. The 9 largest utilities that serve the communities of greater than 1,000 population account for just over 50 percent of the generation of all the PCE utilities which in 1996 totaled 369 million kwh. The cost of electricity provided by the typical PCE utility is $.42 per kwh. This is the amount per kwh the residential customer would need to pay to cover all costs of production. Because of differences in size and location, some utilities have a lower cost, although none are as low as Anchorage where the average cost is about $.10 per kwh. At the other extreme some utilities report an average cost in excess of $.60 per kwh.

WHAT BENEFIT DOES IT PROVIDE?

The typical community gets $71 thousand per year in financial assistance through the PCE program, and this covers about 31 percent of the total costs of providing electricity.

About 68 percent of the total, $13.092 million, in FY 1996 supported sales to residential customers. Financial assistance under the PCE program reduces each eligible kwh of electricity to residential customers by an average of $.22. (87 percent of residential sales are eligible for PCE.) Residential customers in PCE communities still pay twice the urban average for electricity after the PCE assistance--$.20 for the average kwh. This is because not all consumption is eligible, not all reported costs are approved by the APUC, the program pays only 95% of legitimate costs between the floor and the ceiling, some utilities have costs above the ceiling, and the program has not been fully funded in recent years. The range of residential rates after application of the PCE assistance is from $.10 to $.35 per kwh.

Because of the high cost of electricity, even with PCE assistance, and the low household income, the average residential customer in the PCE communities uses 4,933 kwh of electricity in a year, about 65 percent as much as the typical customer in Anchorage, who uses 7,619. (The average in the typical PCE community is less, 3,921 kwh per year, because average consumption is higher in the larger PCE communities.)

In spite of lower consumption, residential monthly bills are higher in PCE communities, even with PCE. The average residential customer of a PCE utility has a monthly bill of $75, after receiving assistance, compared to $61 for Anchorage. (The average in the typical PCE community is less, $66, because average consumption is higher in the laTger PCE communities.) Without PCE the monthly bill would have been $121.

If the PCE residential customer used as much electricity as the average household in Anchorage, the typical utility average monthly residential bill would be $125 with PCE. In the

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 ii

absence ofPCE the monthly bill at the Anchorage rate of use with all utility costs paid by the customer would be $264, 433 percent of the Anchorage bill.

About 19 percent ofPCE assistance, $3.683 million in FY 1996, went to support electricity use in community facilities in PCE communities--an average of$2,537 per facility per year. This assistance reduced the cost of 98 percent of the electticity used for this purpose. Since local residents bear the cost of electricity used by these facilities, the savings for the average PCE household from this assistance was $158 per year.

The remaining 13 percent of PCE assistance, $2.407 million in FY 1996, helped pay for about 10 percent of the electricity used by the commercial sector, including the public schools.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF peE DISAPPEARED?

The typical PCE utility receives about $71 thousand ofPCE financial assistance annually which accounts for about 31 percent of the total cost of the providing electricity to the community. Elimination of that assistance would put many small utilities at financial risk and require electricity users to pay substantially higher electricity bills at the same time that it reduced the amount of electricity they used.

Without PCE the utilities would be forced to raise their rates substantially, and the resulting drop in sales would require further rate increases to generate sufficient revenues to cover all costs. Although reduced sales would lower costs because less fuel would be needed, a large share of utility costs are fixed. This results in the potential for a utility to fall into a "death spiral", in which continuously rising rates are never able to generate enough revenue to cover costs. A utility caught in a death spiral cannot survive without an extemal source of financial assistance.

The likelihood that a utility would fall into a death spiral is a function of how sensitive electricity sales are to the higher electricity prices necessitated by the elimination ofPCE. If a doubling of the price paid by customers reduced sales by 20 percent, death spirals would be unlikely. But if a doubling ofthe price reduce sales by 30 percent, utilities in half the conmmnities served by PCE would be unable to cover their costs through higher rates.

The burden of the loss ofPCE financial assistance to utilities would fall primarily on the residents ofthe communities cun-ently served by PCE. This burden would be a combination of higher electricity bills and less electricity use. Customers would be spending more for less electricity and have less income available for other needs. For a representative community like Elim, the residential price of electricity would increase 190 percent--from $.19 to $.55. Average annual consumption would fall by 38 percent--from 4,202 to 2,608 kwh. The average monthly residential bill would increase by 80 percent--from $66 to $119. Without PCE the average residential customer would be devoting 4.4 percent of household income directly to paying for electricity. Including payments in support of community facility electricity use, 6. I percent of household income would be devoted to payments for electricity.

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 iii

Most of the remaining financial burden ofthe loss ofPCE would fall on commercial users of electricity, and the higher costs imposed on them would be passed on to customers as higher prices and back onto workers as lower wages. Some of the burden would thns fall on local residents and some would be shifted outside the PCE communities. Since the public schools are included in this category for purposes ofPCE, some of the burden, estimated at abont $1.406 million would fall on the state treasury.

The remainder ofthe financial burden would fall on state and federal government agencies operating in PCE communities. These government agencies do not qualify for PCE assistance so the rate they are charged covers the full cost of providing their electricity. However since elimination ofPCE combined with reduced sales would drive up the average cost of electricity for the PCE utilities, the rates charged to all customer classes would rise. State government agencies would pay about $.290 million in additional charges for electricity.

In addition to the quantifiable direct financial burden on local residents, utilities, and state government from the elimination ofthe PCE program, there are indirect burdens both for the PCE communities and for the state.

The public and private physical infrastructure necessary to deliver the educational, sanitation, health, transportation, and communication services to sustain rural Alaska communities, and enhance their opportunities for economic development, depends directly on the availability of a reliable and affordable source of electricity. Furthermore there are some special uses of electricity in rural areas that enhance the quality of life in ways urban residents often overlook, such as refrigeration for preserving subsistence harvested food and streetlights for additional safety during the long hours without sunlight in the winter.

The state which has paid for much ofthe investment in the public infrastructure in rural Alaska also has an interest in its continued ability to provide the services to sustain rural communities. Loss or deterioration of these services would be detrimental to the physical and psychological well being ofrural Alaskans and responding to the problems this would create would put an additional burden on state financial resources.

\VHAT IS THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF PCE ?

Elimination ofPCE assistance would draw $19.202 million out of the rural Alaska economy. This loss of purchasing power translates into a loss of $4.908 million in wages and 210 jobs (annual average) throughout Alaska. Because most of the PCE communities are too small to support much business activity locally, a large share of this loss would occur in urban Alaska.

(pcerep2. wpd) November 16, 1998 iv

Power Cost Equalization Economic Significance

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE


I. DESCRIPTION OF THE POVVER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRA1V1 . . . . . . . .. 1.1

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF PCE COMMUNITIES AND UTILITIES ............. 2.1

3. PCE PROGRAlvI EFFECTS ............................................. 3.1

4. ELIMINATION OF PCE -- OVERVIEW ................................... 4.1

Utility Mechanism for Absorbing Loss ............................... 4.1 Death Spiral .................................................... 4.2 Sensitivity of Sales to Electricity Rates ............................... 4.3 Self Generation of Electricity ...................................... 4.5 Sensitivity of Utility Expenses to Sales ............................... 4.6 Impacts on Customers ............................................ 4.7

5. ELIMINATION OF PCE -- EFFECTS ON SOME REPRESENTATIVE COMlYfUNITIES ...................................................... 5.1

Elim--An Average Size PCE Dependent Utility ........................ 5.2 Nome--A Large PCE Utility ....................................... 5.3 Shageluk--A Small PCE Dependent Utility ............................ 5.4

6. ELIMINATION OF PCE - AGGREGATE EFFECTS ON UTILITIES AND CUSTOMERS ........................................................ 6.1

All PCE Utilities ................................................ 6.1 Overview Excluding the Largest PCE Utilities ......................... 6.2 Distribution of Effects ............................................ 6.2 Financially Vnlnerable Utilities ..................................... 6.3

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998


7. ELIMINATION OF PCE -- ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE ........ , ........... 7.1

Overall Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 Urban Concentration ofJob and Wage Loss ........................... 7.2 Increase in Direct Costs to State Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.2 Increase in Indirect Costs to State Government ......................... 7.3

8. THE VALUE OF ELECTRICITY TO RURAL ALASKA ..................... 8.1

Special Uses of Electricity in Rural Alaska ............................ 8.1 Protecting the Public and Private Investment in Rural Alaska ............. 8.2

APPENDICES

A. PCE UTILITY AND COMMUNITY DATA .......................... A.1 B. DATA ON PCE PROGRAM EFFECTS .............................. B.1 C. COMMUNITY IMP ACTS OF ELIMINATION OF PCE--

SELECTED CASES ............................................. C.1



1. DESCRIPTION OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM

The Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) was established in 1985 to help electric utility customers by paying a portion of the cost of electricity in high cost areas of the state where rates are often three to five times that of urban areas. Prior to 1985 assistance to rural customers was provided by the Power Cost Assistance Program and before that (1980) by the Power Production Assistance Program.

The program is based on the recognition that affordable electricity is clitical to the viability of rural Alaska. This idea is reflected in the PCE Program Manual which states:

PCE is a core element to insure the financial viability of centralized power generation in rural communities, and therefore increase the standards ofliving through the availability of communications, lighting, and the operation of a variety of infrastructures, including water and sewer systems, incinerators, etc.

According to the Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program for Fiscal Year 1996 $19.2 million in assistance was provided to 190 communities through 96 separate utilities (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). This represents a population of about 76 thousand and includes most of the electric utilities within the state. Almost all the electric utilities that do not participate in the program are located in the Railbelt or in maritime locations. These non PCE utilities have access either to low cost natural gas or to hydroelectric power (primarily from the Four Dam Pool facility) which allows their customers to enjoy low electricity rates. In contrast, almost all of the PCE utilities rely entirely on fuel oil for generation which must be transported to rural communities at great expense. (One of the requirements of program eligibility is that participating ntilities must produce more than 75 percent of their electrical consumption from diesel-fired generation.)

The PCE is administered by the Division of Energy within the Department of Community and Regional Affairs which also detennines the eligibility of customers, including community facilities. The Alaska Public Utilities Commission detem1ines if a utility is eligible to be in the program as well as the amount of assistance that will be provided to each utility for each eligible kwh.

The PCE payment is made to the utility based upon the allowable costs of providing electric power to residential, community facility, and commercial customers over and above the costs faced by urban utilities. The price of progam eligible electricity to PCE customers in these classes is higher than the price faced by customers of non PCE utilities, but lower than the published rates of the PCE utility.

Five classes of customer are recognized by the PCE program. These classes and the

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 1.1


eligible level of consumption for each are as follows:

Residential-- up to 700 kwh per customer per month eligible for PCE. This eligibility level exceeds the typical monthly usage of most residential customers, so most residential sales are eligible for the PCE payment.

Commercial- up to 700 kwh per customer per month eligible for PCE. Only the smallest commercial customers use less than 700 kwh per month so a large share of commercial sales are not eligible. The commercial class is defined to include the public schools.

Community Facilities - as a group can receive up to 70 kwh per month multiplied by the population. This limit is high enough so that in most communities all use by community facilities is PCE eligible. Examples of customers in this category include water and sewer facilities, charitable educational facilities, public outdoor lighting, and other community buildings whose operation is not paid for by the state or federal government or by a private commercial organization (not operated for profit and open to the public).

Government - state and federal offices and facilities, with the exception of schools, are ineligible to receive PCE

Other -- a category for miscellaneous sales in a few of the PCE communities. These sales are not eligible for PCE.

Because electricity use per month only up to a limit is eligible for PCE, the average price of electricity for each customer is the weighted average of the pricc for PCE eligible sales and the "fuJI published rate" for non eligible sales. The "full published rate" includes all utility costs without taking the PCE payment into account. For example Figure 1.3 shows the rate faced by a residential customer served by a hypothetical PCE utility. The charge for PCE eligible electricity each month is $.13 which the customer would pay for monthly use up to 700 kwh. Use above that amount would be at the "full published rate" of$.50. The average price of electricity for the cllstomer would be $.13 up to 700 kwh and gradually rise if monthly use exceeded 700 kwh.

The size of the PCE payment to the utility is based on a percentage (95 percent) of the eligible costs between a floor ($.095 per kwh) and a ceiling ($.525 per kwh) level (See Figure 1.4). Costs below the floor and above the ceiling are not eligible for the PCE payment. The maximum payment is $.4085 per kwh (95percent of the difference between $.525 and $.095). The floor is set at a level that reflects the cost of generation in urban Alaska (As such it may vary slightly from year to year.), and the ceiling is set at a level that reflects the maximum reasonable cost per kwh that a rural utility might face. Thus alJ customers ofPCE utilities will pay at least the amount, currently $.095, equal to the average cost of electricity in urban Alaska. The size of the PCE payment per kwh to the utility will in general vary with the cost of generation for the utility.

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16,1998 1.2


Not all costs associated with providing electricity for eligible sales are eligible costs. The utility must meet efficiency standards and must submit its costs for review by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC). The APUC determines which costs are reasonable and the Division of Energy administers the payments based upon that determination.

A limit has been established on eligible fuel expenses based upon a minimum kwh generated per gallon of fuel use standard. This means that fuel use above the standard is not included in PCE eligible costs. This standard increases with the size ofthe utility and is higher for those utilities that have some hydroelectric generation. For example the standard for all diesel utilities which have annual sales between 500 thousand and I million kwh (the size of the typical PCE utility) is 10 kwh per gallon, or .1 gallon per kwh. If a utility ofthis size is only able to generate 8 kwh per gallon, .125 gallon per kwh, the expenses associated with the .025 gallon per kwh above the standard would not be an allowable cost in the formula for the determination of the PCE payment. (Efficiency improvement assistance such as general engineering and teclmical support for system upgrades, including the analysis of systems to determine appropriate efficiency improvements, is available thmugh the Division of Energy.)

In addition to efficiency standards only reasonable costs of operation and maintenance are eligible. These consist primarily of fuel expenses, salaries, insurance, taxes, maintenance supplies, and interest. Specifically excluded are profits as well as depreciation expenses for facilities of regulated utilities obtained by grants. The APUC reviews the costs for each utility and excludes duplicate and unnecessary costs.

Finally the size of the PCE payment is calculated based upon the lessor of utility costs or its full published rates. For many smaller utilities all customers pay the same rate, reflecting the fact that the cost of providing electricity to each class of cllstomer is about the same. Some utilities however have different rates for different classes of customers in recognition of the fact that costs of providing electricity vary by the type of customer. For these utilities the PCE payment is based on the rates for eligible customers if those rates are less than the average cost. Thus the PCE payment will reflect the costs to serve those customers as long as they are equal to or below the average cost of all customers. However the payment will not be based on rates that are above the average for all customers.

If there is not enough money to fully fund the PCE pmgram in a given fiscal year, all payments are reduced by the same percentage. Fiscal year 1996 was the fifth consecutive year in which there was a shortfall.

In summary there are several reasons why the electricity rates for the PCE communities will vary and will not all be at the floor established by the average cost of electricity in urban Alaska. First, all costs above the ceiling are disallowed. Second, some costs are disallowed because of efficiency standards. Third, some costs are disallowed because they are found to be unnecessaJY or duplicative. Fourth, only 95 percent of allowable costs are paid under PCE. Finally, the pmgram may not receive full funding for thc year, in which case the payment is prorated on a percentage basis across utilities.


Power Cost Equalization

(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 1.1 peE UTILITIES

November 16, 1998

Economic Significance

.,

.... f'

.I \I J

1.4


FIGURE 1.2 peE UTILITIES

FY96 peE Program Participating Utilities/Communities

Akhiok, City of Akiachak Ltd. Akiak City Council Akutan Electric Utili!y Alaska Power & T d.:phone

Alalna Healy Lake" Allakaket Hollis Beuks Hydaburg Eyansville Mentasta Chislochina Skagway Craig Tetlin Doluh Tak Haines Tanacross

Alaska Village Electric Coop. Alakanuk New Stuyahok Ambler Noatak Andreafsky Noor .... ik Anvik Nulato Brevig Mission Nunapitchuk Chevak Old Harbor Eek Pilot Station Elim pitkas Point Emmonak Quinhagak Gambell RUSS1'an Mission Goodnews Bay Sa~'oong3

Grayling Scammon Bay Holy Cross Selawik Hooper Bay Shageluk Huslia Shaktoolik Kaltag Shishmaref Kasigluk Shungn3k Kiana St. Mary"s Kivalina St. Michad Koyuk Stebbins Lower Kalskag Togi~k

Ma.rsh~lI Toksook Bay Mekoryuk Tununak Minto Upptr Kalskag Mouniain ViII>!gG Waks

Alutiiq Power Company Kat/uk

AndreanofEkclric Atka

Aniak. Light & Powcr Compan)' Atmautluak Tribal Utilities Beaver Jail'll Utilities Bethel Ulilities Corrorntion. Inc.

Belhe! Oscarville

Buckland, City of Chenega Bay IRA Village Council City of Chignik Chignik Lake EleClric Chitina Electric,lnc Cirde Electric, Inc. CoOiuan Cove Utility ,\ssn.

Coffmall Cove Whale Pass

Prior progr.,l.JlI panicip2111S not currently active:

Cordova Elewic Coop., Inc, Cordova Eyak

Diomede Joint Utilities Eagle POWer Company

Eagk Eagle Village

Egegik Light & Power Co. Ekwok Ekctric Elfin Cove Electric Utility

false Pass Electric Assn. Far North Utilities

Central Cirde Hot Springs

G& K,lnc. Cold Day

Ga!cn.l, City of Golovin Power Utilities Gustavus Ekclric Company Gwilchyaa Zhee Ulilities

Ft. Yukon Hughes Power & Light Igiugig Electric Company I-N·N Eketric Coopnative

Jliamna Nondalton Newhalcn

Ipnatchiaq Electric Company Deering

King Cove. City of Kipnuk Light Plant Kobuk VaHe)' Electric Coop. Kokhanok Village Council Koliganek Village Counci! Kotlik Electric Service Kot2.Cbue EleelTic Assn., Inc. Koyukuk, City of Kuiggluum KalJugvi~

Kwethluk Kwig Power Company

Kwigi!ingok Lar!;cn Bay Utilit), Comp~n)' Leyelock Electric Cooper.ni\·e Manley Utility Company Manokotak Power Com pan)' McGrath Light & Powa Middle Kuskokwim Electric Coop.

Chaulhbaluk Sleetmute Crooked Creek' Ston)' RiVer Red Deyil

Naknek Electric Association, Inc. King Salmon South N<lknek Naknek

Napakiak Ireinraq Powa Co. Napaskiak Electric Utility Natcrkaq Light Plant

Chefornak Nelson Lagoon Ekctric Coop., Inc.

Nightmute Powa Plant Nikolai Light & Powa Utility Nome Joint Utilit), System Northway POwer & Light Co.

North ..... :lY Northway Junction Northway ViUage

North Slope Borough Power & Light Anakutuvuk Pass Point Hope Atqasuk Point Lay Kaktovik Wainwright Nuiqsut

Nushagak Ekctric Coop .• Inc. Aleknagik Dillingham

Ouzinkie. City of Pedro Bay Village Council Pciican Utility Company Perryville. Native ViIIllge of Pilot Pilint Village Council Platinum, City of Port Heiden, City of Puvurnaq Power Campen)'

Kongiganak Ruby, City of Sand Point Electric, Inc. Shc/don Point Electric, Inc. Stevens Village Encrgy System St Gcorge Municipal Elewic Utility St, Paul Municipal Eketrle Ulility Takotna Community Association Tanalian Eleclric Cooperativc, Inc.

Port Alsworth Tanana Power CompJny Tatitlek Elewic Utilit)' Tc/id~ Village Utility Tella Power Company Tenakee Springs Ekclric Utility Thorne Ba)' Public Utility Tlingit-Haida Regiono! Eketric

Authority Angoon Chilbt Valley Covenant Life Hoonah Kake

Kesa~n

Klawock Klukwan Mosquito ukc Whitestone Logging

Camp Tuluksak TraditiOnlll Council Power

Utility Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn. Umnak. Power Company

Nikolski Unalakleet Valle), E!cclric Cooperative Unalaska Electric Utility Ungusraq POwer Company

Newtok Venetic Village Ekctric White /I.·fountein, City or . Yakutat, City of

An:tic Vii/age Electnc Company, Birch Creek Village Electric Utility, Chalkyitsik Villagc Energy System, Clarks Pail'll, City of and Rampart Vii/age Energy Systems.

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16,]998 1.5


(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 1.3

RESIDENTIAL CHARGE PER KWH AS MONTHLY USAGE INCREASES

I ~ $0.60 ,..----,--~---------, cr w n.

.-g-g .......... -,

~ $0.40 ... --..... --.. ~~-....... . ..... -----... -.---............ . cr :f o ~ ~ $0.20 f----. ----... . ... - .... -~--- --

~ D-a-D-a-D-a-D-D-O-D-D-a-D-D-D~ w o ~ $0.00 L...L.~-'--'-'-'~' -',--'--, -',-'-, -'-, --"-,--'-, -" . ..L' -,'c......L' --'-, _'-.L.....-'C-'

cr o 200 400 600 800 100 300 500 700

KWH PER MONTH

I_ MARGINAL <> AVERAGE I

1000 900

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BILL AS MONTHLY USAGE INCREASES

..J $600 ,--.--------.----------,

..J co ..J « ~ $400 w o U5 w cr >- $200 - ... ..J I rz o 2 $0

o 100

200 400 600 800 300 500 700

KWH PER MONTH

III WITHOUT PCE <> WITH PCC]

November 16, 1998

1000 900

1.6


(pcerep2.wpd)


FIGURE 1.4 THE peE FORMULA

Cos!s NOT covered

by PCE

Cos!s NOT covered

by PCE

UTILITY COSTS

/

Costs above

52.5¢/kwh

Cos!s PCE pays 95% between of the verifiable

*9.5¢/kwh I+-- and reasonable and 52.5¢fkwh cos!s in !his

Costs up to

*9.5¢fkwh

bracket

November 16, 1998 1.7


(p cerep2. wp d) November 16, 1998 1.8


2. CHARACTERISTICS OF POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM COMMUNITIES AND UTILlTIES l

In FY 1996 the Power eost Equalization (peE) Program provided assistance through 96 electric utilities to 190 cOllllllunities in Alaska with a combined population of75,767. This represents 12 percent ofthe population of the state and the vast majority of electric utilities.

The commnnities served by peE are the smallest communities in the state and located in the most mral parts of Alaska (Figure 2.1)'. Populations vary from a high of 5,195 in Bethel to a low of 11 in Telida. The population of the median community (half the communities have more population and half the communities have less) is 264, and all but 9 have a population of less than 1,000. About one third of the population served by peE resides in the 9 largest peE cOlllllllmities, one third are in commlll1ities of 500 to 1000, and the remainder are in cOllllllunities of less than 500 (Figure 2.2).

The income in households in peE communities is less than the state average and less than that of communities not receiving peE (Figure 2.3Y. The annual income for the typical (average) household in all peE communities in 1989 (converted to 1996 $) was $49,825, and $40,540 excluding the largest peE communities". This was 77 percent of the average household income in non-peE communities ($65,054).

The average annual household income in the median peE community was $35,203 in 1996 dollars (Figure 2.4). This means that the annual average household income was higher than

, The infonnation for this and subsequent Sections of this report comes primarily from the Statistical RepOIi of the Power Cost Equalization Program for the fiscal year 1996. Complete infonnation was not reported for all participating utilities and some of the infonnation was judged to be inaccurate. However the Statistical Report does provide a reasonable description of the program and basis for the analysis of its effects. Complete infonnation was available for 134 communities, incomplete infonnation for 26, and less than a full year of infonnation for 10. This database of 170 communities was used for the descriptions and analysis. The descriptive infonnation presented in this report is based on the communities for which data was reported and thus the number of communities included in different figures will vary. The analysis of the community and aggregate effects in Sections 5. and 6. is based upon the communities for which complete infonnation was available.

, The data from which the graphs in this and subsequent Sections are derived is included as an appendix at the end of the report.

3 This economic information is from the US Census, 1990.

4 The typical household or customer described in this section resides in one of the larger PCE utilities and should be distinguished from a household or customer residing in the median PCE community.

(peerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 2.1


that amount in half the communities and lower than that amount in half the communities. Average household income was highest in Akhiok at $84,964 and lowest in Stony River at $9,141.

Other economic indicators show that the community average household income figure masks considerable variation in household circumstances within communities and the fact that a substantial share of the households in the PCE communities are economically disadvantaged. The unemployment rate in 1990 for the PCE communities in the aggregate was 15 percent, and excluding the largest of the PCE communities it was over 20 percent. In contrast the unemployment rate in the non-PCE communities was 8 percent. This suggests that a large share of income in PCE communities comes from public sources and this is supported by the fact that in 19902 percent of household income in PCE communities was from public assistance. Outside the largest PCE communities the share was over 3 percent compared to less than I percent in non-PCE communities.

In addition, as of 1990 nearly 18 percent of families in PCE communities were identified as having income levels below the poverty threshold as defined by the federal government. Excluding the largest PCE utilities the figure was 24 percent. This compares to less than 6 percent for the non-PCE communities. (The poverty thresholds for 1989 as determined by the Bureau of the Census varied by family size and number of related children but were not adjusted for differences in the cost ofliving among places. For example the threshold was $5,947 for a single adnlt over 65 living alone and $12,575 for a family of four with 2 children.) The percent of families below the poveriy threshold varied from 0 percent for some communities up to a high of 100 percent in Stony River (Figure 2.5).

PCE communities are scattered throughout rural Alaska, with the largest numbers in the interior and western parts of the state (Figure 2.6). About 35 percent ofPCE utility sales were in Southwest Alaska followed by 26 percent in ArcticlNorthwest Alaska and 20 perccnt in Southeast Alaska. Interior Alaska accounted for 13 percent of PCE sales and South Central Alaska accounted for the remaining 6 percent. In contrast 68 percent of non PCE sales took place in South Central Alaska with 16 percent in Southeast and Interior respectively. There was virtually no non-PCE activity in either ArcticlNorthwest or Southwest Alaska.

Because ofthe broad geographic distribution of the PCE communities throughout rural Alaska and their large number, it is easier to describe the PCE communities by saying that virtually every community in Alaska is a PCE served community except those served by the largest utilities in the state, or the few smaller utilities fortunate enough to have access to a relatively inexpensive source of fuel for electricity generation. Thus the utilities serving the Railbelt communities and the larger maritime communities, mostly in Southeast Alaska, are the main non-PCE utilities in the state.

In addition to small community size and marginal economics, the high cost offuel oil is another distinguishing feature of peE communities (Figure 2.7). The median repolied cost of fuel oil in FY 1996 among PCE utilities was $1.14. The range was from a low of$.71 fOT communities such as Tok and Naknek with relatively good transportation access, to a high of



$2.26 for Chignik Lake in Southwest Alaska. With the exception of a few utilities where a portion of electricity is generated by hydro power, all PCE electl~city comes from diesel generation.

Small community size, remoteness, and the high cost of fuel combine to result in high costs of electricity in the PCE communities. The full published residential rate faced by the average PCE utility customer was $.28 in 1996 compared to $.10 for the non-PCE utilities.5

Figure 2.8 shows that the full published residential rate for PCE utilities in 1996 varied from a low of about $.15 in several communities on the North Slope to a high of$.625 for several communities in the Interior of the state. The rate for the median PCE utility was $.42.

The higher revenue requirement per kwh sold for the PCE utilities was only partially offset by the PCE assistance so that eleclIic rates for the PCE utilities remained above non-PCE utilities after the PCE adjustment. The average PCE utility residential customer paid $.18 per kwh compared to $.10 for the customer in Anchorage or Fairbanks, and $.09 for the customer in Juneau. The range was from $.09 to $.41. The average PCE utility commercial customer paid $.26 per kwh compared to between $.07 and $.09 per kwh in the urban centers. Excluding the largest PCE utilities·the average commercial customer paid $.31 per kwh for electricity.

The result of higher electricity costs, combined with lower average household incomes, is that households in PCE communities spend a larger share of their income on electricity and use less than households in urban Alaska even with the PCE adjustment. The monthly electric bill for the average residential PCE customer was $75 (after of the PCE adjustment) compared to $61 in Anchorage and $71 in Fairbanks. The average residential bill in Juneau--$84-- is higher because of some residential electric space heating in that community.

The annual residential electricity bill for the average residential PCE customer was $896, varying ii-om a low of $188 to a high of $2,831. If we add to the average residential bill the cost that the average household pays for electricity indirectly to support the electricity consumption of local community facilities, the annual bill for the typical household increases to $1,088. The average annual residential bill is 1.9 percent of the average household income in PCE communities compared to between 1.1 and 1.5 percent of household income in non-PCE communities.

The monthly residential use for the average residential PCE customer is 411 kwh, ranging from a low of 115 to a high of 850 kwh. Electricity use in urban Alaska is considerably higher. In Anchorage the average monthly use is 635 kwh. In Fairbanks, where the climate is more similar to that o[most ofrural Alaska, the average monthly use is 722 kwh. In Juneau it is 960 kwh.

An impression ofthe cost of electricity in PCE communities can be derived from a calculation of the monthly bill for the typical residential PCE customer at the fully published

5 Alaska Electric Power Statistics, 1995.



rate, based on the cost of generation, and the urban consumption level. If the typical PCE customer used 635 kwh in a month (the amount used by the average Chugach Electric Utility customer), his bill would be $178 compared to $61 for the urban consumer.

We have not surveyed rural residents to detennine electricity use patterns, but a typical monthly consumption of 411 kwh could consist of some combination of the following major appliances, based on standard consumption ratings:6

Kitchen Range Freezer Refrigerator Oil Fired Space Heater Lighting Television

Total

100 kwh 100 kwh 100 kwh 60 kwh 60 kwh 40 kwh

460 kwh

There has been a slight upward trend in electricity use per customer over time based on historical data from a sample of utilities (Figure 2.9). It may be that some of the increase is the result of more electIicity intensive new residential construction, however we were unable to verifY whether, for example, the appliances in new mID housing require more electricity than those in older residences. In any event the PCE sales per customer are still generally much below the levels of urban utilities in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

There is a definite seasonality associated with electricity use in the PCE utilities as reflected by the monthly pattern of sales in two typical communities (Figure 2.10). Sales in the summer months may be less than half the level of sales in the winter. This conesponds to the coldest and darkest time of the year when people are spending the most time inside.

There is great variation in the size of the PCE utilities measured by annual sales (Figure 2.11). Utility sales in half the communities exceed 651,507 kwh and are less in half. The largest utility, Bethel Utilities, had sales in 1996 of32,564,724 while the smallest, Telida, had sales of only 21,452. Cumulatively the 9 largest utilities accounted for more than half of the total sales of all the PCE utilities (Figure 2.12).7

A final distinguishing feature of the PCE utilities is the large share of total sales to residential customers, particularly if we exclude the largest PCE utilities (Figure 2.13). The

6 Provided by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative.

7 With the exception ofthc largest PCE utilities we found that many variables such as PCE per customer, share of revenues from PCE, residential share of total sales, and cost of generation were not conelated with size of utility.

(pccrep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 2.4


small share of sales to commercial customers reflects the fact that the economic base in many of these PCE communities small and underdeveloped. As a consequence there is little commercial activity to help support the costs of electricity generation and other infi'astructure needs in these communities. In the typical (median) PCE community 41 percent of kwh of sales go to residential customers. This percentage varies from a low of 11 percent for Bettles to a high of 85 percent for Tuluksak.



f(f) W ....l ....l « 2 (f)

o ff(f) W (') rr: « ....l

~ Z => 2 2 a o w o n.

PCE COMMUNITIES POPULATION (PART 1.)

Bethel UU1itics Corp Inc. Unaraska Eteclric Uti~ty

NomeJolotUUlitySystem Kotzebue Electrle Association

Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc. Nvshagak electric Coope!ative, Inc. (o~r:nghaml

Craig Nalu1el; Electric Association, Inc.

Haines Ughl& Power HoopetSay

Sand f:'J;~?J~ ~~~ H_h

S!<agNay King Co,~. City of

Yakutat Power 51. Paul MunlOpal Electrq1c Ubl,ty

Una'alJeel Va:I;;e'1 Electric CooperiJtNe Emmonak

Kla",'Ock Mountain V.Oage

109ial,; Point Hope

Kake

o

Kwethtuk, Inc. ;:;:;:;1 C",,"k Gwitc.hyaa Zhee U~Hes (fort Yukon)

Tt'(lme 6ay PubSc U~1ity Sela .... "\ Gom","

S"""'" AlaftarnA

""'''"'" NOONi$

An;a~ light [. Power C<m~~~

KoC",k Ele<:tric Services Wahw.-righl SNsrrwel

Galena, Cilyo/ PdotSt.ation

Tooksook Bay AAiachal; Native Communit{ Electric CO.

McGr3:h light & Powe<' 5l Mary's

Stebbins Kip'l<.<k Ugh\ Plant

NlJO."lpiIChulr. Ka.sigluk

A~uta.n Elecliic U~l'ty Scammon Bay Ne-NStuyal1Qk

Kiana

j.N.N Ele~~kl~,J."C~~~ M"I'\O~o\;;lk Po .... er Company

Nuiqsut Hydablll9

Napasklak Ele<:tric UtJlity Tu!"tsa"; Trao.:ional Power U~1ity Na~erkaq light Plan! (CtJeiWnal;)

NuJa~ Tanana Power COmp;!r$'

Kiva.'ina Sl Michael

Noatal: Nap3'Jak Irciruaq Power Company

ANa>; Power U~fi~es Tuauna\;;

OidHarbor Ambler

lo .... er Kalskag Tuntutll,ak O:lmmunity Service Assn.

Marsha'! Russian Misslon

Puvurnaq Power Company (Kongiganak) E<k

ArnMuvuk Pass HolyCross

EEm Koyuk

Kwig Power Company (Kwig;U;ngok) T e~er Power Company

Afm3l1'Jua\;; Joint UUb~es

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

Thousands

1 2 3



4 5

2.6


Bre,is MissiOn UnqUSlaq Power Company (Ne-HIOk)

Ouzinl<ie·~Zf~ Hu!ofia

GoodneN$ Bay Coffman Ctlve

Shungna'lt Atqasult

G&K, Inc. (Cold Ba-i) MifI:O

MekOl}lJII Gr~yrmg

Rllb~a~~\1~ White MQuot;Jjn Ub1ities

Fefican Ub1itiy Company Shal-.lOO!i~

Sl GeorgeMuotdpal Electric Ub~ty Nightmule Power Plant

Upper Kalskag Venetie Vdlage Electm:

Koliganek V~Jage Counc;il Wa!es

Chignik Electric Shetdon Polnt. City of

Far North Ublibties (Centtal) Allal:a~el Energy Systems (Ala:na)

Golovin Power U~"~e5 Diomede Jo'nt Ubh~es

tpr>at~3Q E1eetrleCompany {Deering} Kokhanok WJage Couo'~

Gustaws Electric Company HoI~s

Eag~e Power ~;J

Ch;grJ(~~ k:~~~ ~~~~:~: Poinllay

p,tkas Po,nt larsen Bay Utr.ty Compa!1Y

CtJ,l~at V~ley Port Helden, C,tyo!

1:,~oIai Ughll. Po.-'er KOi'U~U~. C,lyo!

Chuathha!l11( Tatitlek Electric Ub~ty

Nortll-.... Jy Power I'. Ught Ter>3~ee Springs Pell)l'll1!e. CltyO!

eilclt:: Ublltie~ $leeetmute

Crooked Creer.;

SteL,~~~~~!'~r~~~~ H ... -or.; Electric

Beaver Joint U~Mes Andrearwf ElectriC Corporation (At~a)

Manley U(rl'~ty Company Mentasta

An,,<-

Pilot Point v£~~u~ Wha'ePass

f~se Pass Electric Assodation Tellin

Nelson l~~ ~~CE~tk/~-;:;~~Cy AAhiol:, City of

(pcerep2.wpd)

Hughes Power & light AJutiiq P,y"'erComp<my {K"'lu~l

Tanar,an ~:~~~C~'Vi~t;~~ Ta~olna Community A5s06ation

ChiS!O(t.:na Red Devil

StonyRNCf Chitina Erettric rnc.

Hearyla~e Platinum Power Pianl

Pedro Bay Vo!Iage Councij Kasaan

Umnal( Power Company (NE~QlsrjJ Settles

!g'uglg Electric Company Ter.da V,tlage UMity

PCE COMMUNITIES POPULATION (PART 2.)

o

------------------------.. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. -.. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. II .. .. .. .. .. " " .. .. .. .. .. • • O· o· O· J. J. J. J. J. I· I· 1-

Thousands

1 2 3

t __ Novem bel' 16, 1998


4 5

2.7


l(/) w -' -' <{ :2: (/)

~ l(/) W (9 a: ::; ~ Z ::J :2: :2: o U w u [L

CUMULATIVE SHARE OF PCE POPULATION BY UTILITY (PART 1.)

~en~~$~~~r:c~1J~~~ Nome JOint Utility System

Kollebue EtectricAssOCiatlon Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Nushagal: Electric Cooperative, tne. ({);lSngham)

""'" Naknek Electric Association,tnc. Haines U>lht &. Power

Hooper Bay Sand Pomt Electric Company

TOI: (includes DOl lake) Hoonah

Skagway King Cove, Oly 0/

Yakutat Power 51. Paul Mun:dpat Etectrq1c Utility

Unalakleet Va1lkey Electric Cooperative Emmonak

Kla",'Ock Mountain Village

Togiak Po;nt Hope

Kake KW1llhtuk, fnc.

Chevak G· ... ·itchyaa Zllee Utilities (Fort Yukon)

Thome Bay Puoflc UtMy Sela,,;].;

Gambell Savoonga Ala~.anlJk

Angoon NOONik

Aniak Light.& PQ",',er ComcFu:~~.a~naCk

Kot11<. Electric Ser.OCes Wainwright ShiSrnaref

Galena. City 01 P~olSlation

T(){Iksook Bay AI,Jachal: Native Community Electrk: Co.

McGrath light & Power SI. Mar{s

Stebt)ins Kipnuk Ught Plant

Nunapitchuk Kasigluk

Akutall Electrlc U:~,ty Scammon Bay New Stuyahok

Ki<Jna I·N.N EJectric Cooperative

Bucl;t;;nd. City 01 ManokoT.3k Power Company

Nuiqsut Hyrlaburg

Napasl;lak Electric Ut,fl!y Tuluksak Traditional Po ..... er Ublity Nateri<aq Ught Plant (Chefornak)

Nulato Tanana P(I',I.-erCornpany

Kiva~na SI. Michael

Noatak Napakiak Irclnraq Power Company

Akiak Power UL~lies Tununak

Old Harbor AmOler

lo· .... er Kalskag Tuntutuliak Community Servke Assn.

Marshall Russian Mission

Puvumaq Power Company (Kongiganak) Eek

Ana~tuvuk Pass HolyCross

Er.m Koyuk

Kwig pO',·,er Company (K""ig~Sngok) Tel!er PONer Company

Atmautluak Jolnt Utilities Brevig Mission

UnqusraQ Power Olmpany (Ne ... 1ok)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

(pcerep2. wp d) November 16, 1998 2.8


r-------------------~·TG~~~iTIpmaJTt~2)r-------------------~

I

I i

I

I(f) w --' --' <t: 2 (f)

o lI(f) W (') n:: :)

~ Z :::l 2 2 o o w o [L

L_

CUMULATIVE SHARE OF PCE POPULATION BY UTILITY (PART 2.)

Ouzinkie, City of K81lag Husr ....

Goodney,-s Bay COffman Cove

Shull{lnak Atqasuk

G&K, !nc. (CQld Bay) Minto

MekOl)'Uk Grayrmg

Ruby, City of Kaktovik

""'hila MountaIn Utilities Pefic<J1l UtflitiyCompany

Shaktoolik Sl George I.\unlcip;:l! EtectrK: Uuljty

Nightmute Po-Net Plant Upper Kalskag

Venetie Vi!lage Electric KOliganek ViUag6 CQunol

Wales Chignik Electric

Sheldon POint, City of Far North Utmtities (Cen\l<ll)

All.3ka~el Energy Systems (Alatna) Golovin Po-.... er Utdlties Diomede Joint U~~ities

Ipnatchiaq Electric COmpany (Deering) Kokhanok Village COunCil

Gustavus Electric Company He'tis

Eagle Power Company Shageluk

Egegik lish! (. Power CO. Ch;grli\; lake Electric U~1ity, Inc.

Po-:nllay Pilkas Point

larsen Bay Ulmty COmpany Chi!l<al VaUey

Port HeIden, City of Mkol.a.i light & Power

KOj'Ul.uk. DIy of Chuathbaluk

Tatitlek Electric Utrlity Northway Po-.... er & light

Tenakee Springs PenyviUe. Dt)' of

Orc1eUtilities Sleeetmute

Crooked Creek

s!e:~~~~~1~t;~~~~Ot:s~~~ Hwok E1Cl:lIiC

Bea~er Joint Ulffities Andreanof Electric Corporation (Atka)

Mantey U~1itity Company Mentasta

Anvik Chenega Bay

P~ol PQinl VIllage Council Whale Pass

False Pass Electric Association Tellin

Ne:Son lagoon Electric Cooperative. tnc. Kobuk V3!1ey Electric Company

Akhiok. Diy of Hughes Power & light

Alu!i'q Power Company (KarM,) Tanarian Electric cooperative, Inc.

Elfin Cove Electric U(1~ty Takotna Communi!y Association

ChistQChina Red DevIl

Stony River Chitina Electric Inc.

HC<.Ilylake Platinum Po· ... ·er Plant

Pedro 6ayViIlage Couno1 Kasaan

Umnak Power CompaflY (Nikolski) Bettles

tgiuglg ElectriC Company TeEda Village Uti!1ly

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Power Cost Equalization Economic Significauce



FIGURE 2.3

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TYPICAL PCE HOUSEHOLD AND COMPARISON TO NON-PCE COMMUNITIES

peE COMMUNITIES

SUM/AVG

ALL EXCLUDING LARGEST

MIN MAX ALL

NON·PCE COMMUNITIES

ANCH FAlRBKS JUNEAU

................................ _--_ ............. -...................

Households (90) 18,737 11,593

Average Income Per HH (89) $39,001 S31,733 Average Income Per HH (96) $49,825 S40,540

Families (90) 13,827 B.9J8

Below Poverty with Children (90) 2,130 1,864 Below Poverty without Children (gO) 313 254

% Below Poverty (gO) with Chifdreo 15.4% 20.9%

vlilhoul Children 2.3% 2.8%

Unemployment Rate (90) 14.6% 20.2%

% of HH Income from PubticAssistance (SO) 2.0% 3.3%

Annual Eleclric Bill I Res Cust (96) sa96 SS50 Monthly Electric Bill! Res Cust (96) $75 $71

T ola! Electric Costj Res Cust (96) 51,088 $1,050

Electric Bill Share of HH Income (96) 1.9% 2.1% Electric Cost Share of HH Income (96) 2.4% 2.6%

Annual Use Per HH (96) 4,933 4,378

Monthly Use Per HH (96) 411 365

Residential Avg Rate $/kwh (96) SO.18 SO.19

Commercial Avg Rate $/kwh (9S) SO.26 SO.31

Fuel Price (96) SI.14

Residential Share of Sales (96) 42.0%

LARGEST PCE UTILITIES EXCLUDED TOK KOTZE8UE NAKNEK

9

$7,155

$9,141

0.0%

0.00/.

0.00/.

0.0%

$188

$'6

"' 0.6%

"' 1.379

115

$0.09

50,14

SO.71

10.9%

NUSHAGAK {DltllNGHAM} CRAIG

SKAGWAY

8ETHEL CORDOVA

HAINES

W:ALASKA

AVERAGE FOR DEMOGRAPHIC DATA IS ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS

1,437

$66,507

$84,965

100.0%

30.0%

69.00/.

22.00/.

S2,831

$236

"' 8.3%

"' 10.201

850

SO.41

SO.53

S2.26

84.9%

145,305

$50,922

$65,054

102,052

5,092

662

5.0%

0.6%

7.9%

0.7%

83,043

$52,809

$67,465

S728

$6.

"' 1.1%

"' 7,619

635

SO.10

$0.08

eEM AMLP

AVERAGE FOR ElECTRIC!lY USE OAT A IS ACROSS RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS (NOT THE AVERAGE UTILITY)

ElECTRIC COST PER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL, COMMUNllY FACILITIES, AND OTHER

ELECTRIC BILL AND USE DATA BASED ON 134 PCE COMMUNrTlES WITH COMPLETE RECORDS FOR 1996.

SOURCE: 1990 CENSUS ALASKA ElECTRIC POWER STATISTICS, 1960 ·1995. PCE RECORDS FOR UTILITIES WITH COMPLETE REPORTS FOR FY 1996.


26,831

544,593

$56,969

S652

". "'

1.5%

"' 8,670

722

50.10

$0.09

GVEA+ FMUS

9,958

S53,161

S67,915

SI,004

$64

"' 1.5%

"' 11,518

960

50.09

$Om

AEl&P

2.11


PCE COMMUNITIES AVERAGE HH INCOME IN 1989 (PART 1.)

[(fJ ill 5: o ---' o [-[OJ ill I (')

Akhiok Nelson Lagooo

Port Alsworth Sand Poinl larsen Bay

tt~d~J Unalaska Klukwan

King Co"e o,lli?Jl~aaa~

Ouzinkie Poinllay

SeUles Naknek Alqasuk

Sail'll Paul Craig

Kotzebue Nome

Poinl Hope

COffma~eg~ Bethel

Klawock Hoonah Haines

Skagway Per~~lle

Thorne Bay Gustavus

Galena Wainv,right

KaktoVIK Chignik Yakutat

Kake McGrath

P,lol Point

I.N.N-1g~NN~h~~~11

I N~f~~ >-1 Unalakleet L _ PO/I Heiden r- r.\ountain Village

Z ::J :'" :'" o o w o Q

Anaktuvuk Pass Noorvik

To' Marsha~1 Tatitlek Noatak

Kiana Atka

Crooked Creek

EI~~~~~ Egegik

Shungnak Central Pelican

Dot lako

S~:i~J~'ipin~ Akutan

Akiachak Red Devi! Emmonak

Pilka's Point KoU,k

Ambler Saink~b~~;

Fori Yukon Napaskiak

tJ~~~~~Y~R Karluk

Manley ~~Wt~~~~ Ho:lis

Chistochina

(pcerep2.wpd)

$0 $20

1996 $

Thousands

$40 $60

November 16, 1998

$80 $100

2.12


I-(f) W

3 0 ---' 0 I-I-(f) W I (')

I , >-I-Z ::J 2 2 0 0 W

Ii 0 (L ,

I I I I i

I

PCE COMMUNITIES AVERAGE HH INCOME IN 1989 (PART 2.)

1996 $

Thousands $0 $20 $40 $60 $80

Chis!ochina Sleetmute

SelaWIK

Saini t.lp~g~~~ s~~~~i~~~

Nunapitchuk Chignik lake

~~~~~~~ Kokhanok

Grayling Pedro Bay

Telter TunlutuGak

Koyuk Platinum

Efim E,' 01dfa~ffZ

Telr.n Alakanuk

Russian Mission

C~u~r~~age~ Chevak Nutato

Tununak Kivalina Hughes Togiak

KI'r.?ailf''13~~ CheFornak

Pilot Station Toksook Bay Hooper6ay

Wales While Mountain

Husr.a

W:~~l~~~~ Mentasta la!<;e

Kwethluk

False~~~~ SC~:!~~

Kobuk Circle

Buckland Oiomede

Akiak Golovin

Ke~lake Shis ref Upper ~a~

Atrnautlua Venetie

KO~&~?i~ Tenakee Springs

chene~a~~r

Tafo~~ Gambell

Eag~~l~~~~ Menlo

Scammon Bay

~~Py'ht~~~~ Chitina

GoodnR';;'u~~k A1!a~akel

Mekoryuk Ekwok

lower~~~~ Stevens I:lage

Am~k

S10n~~~~~

L (pcerep2.wpd) November 16, 1998

$100

2.13


PCE COMMUNITIES IN 1989 % HH BELOW POVERTY INCOME (PART 1.)

I-if) W I Cl I o I-I-if) W S o --'

~ Z ;::)

:2 :2 o o w o (L

0%

Whale Pass Golovin Nikolski

1~~;~ Akutan

T enakee ~~?gJ!~ Takotna Central

POlnllay BeWes

Emn Cove

Klwu~e~~ Akhiok

Chignik lake Nels0~~1::P~

Kasaan Port Alsworth

Naknek Gustavus

Hoonah Craig

Unalaska Larsen Bay

Ouzinkie Haines

Saint Pdu! Thome Bay

Skagway Shungnak

Cordova Wainv.Tighl

Coffman Cove Oot lake "", Circle

Point Hope

PII~r~~~~ Pelican

Nome Tok

O:tr.ngham Klawock

Belhel McGralh Yakutat Tanana

Kotzebue Unalakleet Sand Poinl

Chenega Bay Holhs

Anaktuvuk Pass

A~~~~~ At'"

Galena Noatak

Marshall Saint Mary's

NoOfVlJ.; Nuiqsut

~t~~~~ I-N.N(lI.Newh.~ondl Ania%

Shaktoolik False Pass

Kotlik The Northwa~'

Kaktovik Selawik Angoon

KaSigluk Tununak

Manley Hot Springs Emmonak

Brevig Mission Ruby

(pcerep2.wpd)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

/a WITH CHILDREN o WITHOUT CHILDREN I

November 16, 1998 2.14


PCE COMMUNITIES IN 1989 % HH BELOW POVERTY INCOME (PART 2.)

I--(fJ W I <.9 I o I--I--(fJ W S o -'

~ Z :J 2 2 o o w o D-

0%

Ruby SaInt Michael

ChefofOpk Pjtka'ih'acr~J Old Harbor

Perryville HSdabur~

1fa~m~k Port Heiden

Mounlai~eViYl* El,m

Ch~~ra~I~~ Teller

P§~~~~~k Saini §fi~~~

KOlf!.!k Temo

Chitina Alakanuk

Kiana FjlJ Yukon

uckJand Eag e+EaqVl

E" Manokotak Shishmaref QuinhagClk

Met'~~ Tl?ts~b~a~~~

Russian MIssion Beaver Ambler

'.1,nlo Kwethluk

Kivahna Nunapotchuk

Akiak Crooked Creek

Menlasli'l~'t~ Napaskiak

NIkolai Kallag Nulato

H'1foVu~k VVhite Mountain

Togiak Kokhanok

Goodnews Bay upper~~~~~

Kwigil5ngok Red Devor

scamru1~k~~k Sheldon Point

ChUathbaluk

P{r~~n~t~ p~~r~I~lig~

Allakaket An~' Gambell

HofvCros5 Newtok

Stevens Village Ekwok

$;1\'oonga New Stuyahok

Slee mule At!Jl.?utluak

N~~~J~ lower Ka!skag

Hea!~l~t~ Stony ~iver

(pcerep2.wpd)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

10 WITH CHILDREN o WITHOUT CHILDREN I

November 16, 1998 2.15




REGION /I

SOUTH EAST PGE 12 NO 6

SOUTH CENTRAL peE 5 NO 9

YUKON PGE 37 NO 2

ARCTIC I NORTHWES PGE 31 NO 2

SOUTHWEST PGE 44 NO 0

STATE peE 129 NO 19

NON-PCE COMMUNITIES

JUNEAU KETCHIKAN METLAKATLA PETERSBURG SITKA WRANGELL

FIGURE 2.6

ALASKA ELECTRIC UTILITIES REGIONAL ANALYSIS

RESIDENTIAL

AVERAGE REVENUE

SALES REVENUES GUST PER KWH ............ ---- --.. _--_ ..... ----- -------"--------- -----..... _.----

274,742 S27,790 26,849 SO.10 22,868 S5,251 4,055 SO.23

251,874 S22,539 22,794 SO.09

1,091.922 5114,647 137,429 SO.10 6,659 S1,754 1,207 SO.26

1,085,263 5112,893 136,222 SO.10

266.755 S30,341 32,998 SO.11 15,023 S5,605 3,962 SO.37

251,732 $24,736 29,036 $0.10

38,260 $8.636 6.229 $0.23 29,453 S7,896 4,972 $0.27

8,807 S740 1.257 $0.08

40,091 S11,619 7,365 $0.29 40,091 S11,619 7.365 $0.29

0 SO 0 ERR

1,711,770 S193,033 210,870 $0.11 114,094 $32,125 21,561 $0.28

1,597,676 5160,908 189,309 $0.10

FAIRBANKS GVEA

RESIDENTIAL PCE SHARES

SALES REV GUST

RESIDENTIAL NON·PCE SHARES

SALES REV GUST -----_ ...... _ .... -------_ ...... _------ .-.------------------------

20.0% 16.3% 18.8% 15.8% 14.0% 12.0%

5.8% 5.5% 5.6% 67.9% 70.2% 72.0%

13.2% 17.4% 18.4% 15.8% 15.4% 15.3%

25.8% 24.6% 23.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.7%

35.1% 36.2% 34.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

ANCHORAGE CEA ANCHORAGE AMLP GLENNALLEN HOMER/SELDOVIA KODIAKJPORTUONS PALMER

FAIRBANKS FMUS (NOW COMBINED WITH GVEA)

BARROW DEADHORSE

PAXSON SEWARD VALDEZ

SOURCE; ALASKA ELECTRIC POWER STATISTICS, 1960·1995. ALASKA SYSTEMS COORDINATING COUNCIL AND STATE OF ALASKA. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, SEPTEMBER 1996.

REVENUES ARE BASED ON FULL PUBLISHED RATES



I PCE COMMUNITIES It\VERAGE PRICE OF DIESEL (PART 1.)

ti w I (')

I

f? I-(f) W S o --' >t: z ::J 2 2 o o w o (L

Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. {Dimnghamj Tok {includes Dot lake

Naknek Electric Association. Inc. Nome Joinl Utility System

Far NOI1h UtilitiUes (Central) Craig

Haines light & Power Unalaska Electric Utility

Kasaan King Cove, City of

Mentasta Skagway

Minto Chislochina

Northway Power & Ugh! Hollis

False Pass Electric Association Chignik Electric

Eagle Power Company Kako

Thorne Bay Pub~c U\Jlily Angoon

Healy lake Ch~kat Valley

Kotzebue Electric Association Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Hoonah Alu\J1q PO'o'ler Company (Karluk)

Unalakleet Vallkey Electric Cooperative Coffman Cove Circle Utilities

Akutan Electric Utility

ManIChYti~~I~t~6~grn~ Hyrlaburg

Yakutat Power Bettles

Sand Point Electric Company Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn.

Tetlin Kwig Power Company (Kwigillingok)

SI. Michael Siebbins

White Mounlain U~li!ies Kaltag

Grayling Mountain Village

Anvik Scammon Bay

Hooper Bay Shaktoolik

Elim Tununak

Emmonak Russian Mission

Holy Cross Marshall

Alakanuk Mekoryuk

Pilol Station Nulato

St. Mary's Nunapitchuk

Tooksook Bay Ouzinkie. City of

Koyuk Chevak Togiak

Whale Pass lower Kalskag

Tenakee Springs

g;~~~~-Jsit~f New Stuyahok

Quinhagak E,k

Shageluk Umnak Power Company (NikOlSki)

Perryville, City of Gustavus Electric Company

Anclreanof Electric Corpornlion (Atka) !·N·N Electric Cooperative

Tuluksak TracliUonat Power Ut~j\y



I PCE COMMUNITIES [AVERAGE PRICE OF DIESEL (PART 2.)

I(J) W I (9

I o lI(J) W ;5 o ..J

t z :J 2: 2: o o w o (L

Brevig Mission Savoonga

AkIak Power Utilities Tatitlek Electric Utility

Wares Unqusraq Power Company (Newtok)

Naterkaq Ught Plant (Chefornak) Pelican Utifitiy Company

Huslia G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay)

Golovin Power Utilities Stevens Village Energy Systems

levelock Electn'c Cooperative Diomede Joint Utilities

AtmauUuak Joint Utilities Old Harbor

Kivalina Aniak Ught & Power Compilny, Inc.

Kollik Electric Services Igiugig Electric Company

Shismaref Gwilchyaa Zhee UI'lities (FOlt Yukon)

51. Paul Municipal Eleclrqic Ut~ily Puvumaq Power Company(Kongiganak)

Gambell Kaktovik

Nightmute Power Plant Sheldon Poi~~~itor

Atqasuk Wainwright Point Hope

Port Heiden, City of larsen 6<1y U~lily Company

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. P,lot Point Village Councit

Koyukuk, City of Beaver Joint Ul~lties

Napaskiak Electric Utility SI. Georf;e Municipal Electric Utility

Hughes Power & Ught Tanalian Electric cooperative. Inc •

Chenega Bay Bethel Utilities Corp Inc.

Nuiqsut Kiana

KwethlUk. Inc. McGrath Ught & Power

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc. Takotna Community Association

Allakaket Energy Systems (Alatna) Red Devil

Sleeetmu!e Crooked Creek

Chuathbaluk Stony River

KipnUk Ught Plant Elfin Cove Electric Ulifity

Tanana Power Company Tener Power Company

Akhiok, City of Pedro Bay Village CounCil

Manokotak Power Company Venetie Village Electric

Egegik Ught & Power Co. Ekv.·ok Electric

Noorvik Selawik

Koflganek Village Council Ruby, City of

Anaktuvuk Pass Ipnatchlaq Electric Company (Deering)

Shungnak Platinum Power Plant NikolaI Ught & Power

Noalak Kokhanok Village Council

Ambler Buckland, City of

Telida Village Utility Chignik lEke Electric UWily. Inc.

(pcercp2.wpd)

2.00

November 16, 1998 2.19


tJi w I (9

I

~ I-if) W S o .-J

~ Z ::::J :2 :2 o U W U 0..

PUBLISHED RESIDENTIAL RATE BEFORE peE (PART 1.)

Nuiqsut Atqasuk Kaktovik

Wainl'rlight POint lay

PolItI Hope Anaktuvuk Pass

Pescan Utilltiy COmpany $ka\rMlY

Haines Ught & Power Hydaburg

"''' Ho:lis

Noma J~~~ ~"e.sBt~e~ Unata ska Electric Utility

Naknek Elec1Jic Association, Inc. COldova Electric COOperative. tnc.

Nushagak Eleclrlc Cooperative, Inc. (DElling ham) Kotzebue E!ectric Association

Tok (includes Dot lake) Yakutat Permr

Whale Pass Coffman Cove

Sethel Utilities C'Q(p Inc. Urlalakleel Var.key Electric Cooperative

Thome Say Pubf:c Ubllty Elfin COve EleclriC Ubhly Northway Power & light

Kipnuk light Plant Chignik ElectriC

TeUin Mentasta

Sheldon ~~~<;'t~~: Sand Poml Electric COmpany

Ouzinkie, CIty 01 Port Heiden, Dty 01

Perryville, OIy of KoUil> electric Services

r<>\lh!mu?ea~g;e?p%~: Gwitchyaa Zhee UtMes (Fori Yukon)

Sl Georg$.t~\U~~~la~;~~!'I~~!~~~ Akutan Electric Utir.ty

Ch~!rnc;~~~S~7n~~ Tanaroan Electric cooperative, Inc,

I<la ... mk Kake

Chilkat Vaney Hoonah Angoon Kasaan

Naterl<2q light Piant (Chefornak) Tenakee Springs

Sl Pr.f~~'b~~~k1!:!~~tr~~~~~ Tutuksak Traditional Power Utility

Kaltag Chlstoch,na

Shageluk McGrath light & PO' .... er

G&K, lAihf~t~:&1 Andreano! Electric Corporation (Atka)

GOlovin Power Utilities IpnatChiJq Electric Company (Deering)

Akiak Power Utilities Tatitlek Eleclllc Utility

Al!ataket E;:rg~ ;;tee~f~~~ Minlo

Sea\'cr Joint umWes EkwQk ElectriC

larsen Say u!J1ity Company GOodnege~k

GT~~~ Tununak

£Om Sl~~~

Russian Mission

CENTS PER KWH

o 20 40


60

2.20

Power Cost Eqnalization

I-if) W I o I o I-I-if) W S o ---"

~ z :::> 2: 2: o o w o D-

Marshall Pitkas Point Sl Michael

Nulato pr.ot Station

Stebbins Qulllhagak

False Pass EreclllcAssoCiation Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, tne.

Alakanuk. Koyuk

ScaFllffiO(l Say

~~~~~:a~~k Upper Kalsl<ag lower Kalskag

Old Harbor Brevig Mis.siOO

An'" Nunapitchuk

Tanana Power Company Kasigluk.

E,k Diomede Joint Utilities

Aniak lJQht t.. Power Company,lnc. F3( North Ut)l;tilies (Central)

Shaktoolik

H°t.~~~~k HolyCross Gambe~

Kwethluk, Inc. Emmonak

levelock Eleclrlc Cooperative Mounlain V.:Iage

SaVOOflga Wales

Puvumaq Power Company (KOI'lgiganak) Napaskiak Electric Utif.ty

KO\l.IkUk, ely of Umnak Po-.... et Company (Niko/sll.i)

Shismaref Chignik lake Electric UWity, Inc.

Tuntutuliak Community Sel\'ice Assn. Noatak

'·N·N Electric Cooperative Gusta,'Us Electric Company

5el<l"'-1; Atmautluak JOint Utilities

Kivalill3 N_'" Kiall3

White MOUnlako Ulllities Ciltle Utilities

Takotna Community Association Healy la~e

Platinum PO'f.er Pl<lnt N,kola! l!ght& Power

Akiachak Native Community Electric CO. K()!;ganek Vdlage Coone>1

K .... ig Power Company(Kwignlingok) Egegik Ught & Power CO.

Venetie Village Electric Hughes Pov.'er & Ught

Ambler ShUflgnak

Bettles Kobuk Valley Electric Company Aluwq Po .... er Company (Karluk)

Tener Power Company Ruby, City of

UnquSr.lq Power Company (Newtok)

S!evel\~~~~~~~~JeS&~~~ Napakiak Ircinraq PowerCompaflY

Igiugig Etettri(; Company

p~r~:/0!'ffifil~o7n~;-~ Sleeetmule

Chuathbaluk. Red Devil

Stony River Crooked Creek

Tellda Vollalle Uti\:ty

(pccrep2.wpd)


.8 (pal t-t)

~ =P~U~B~LI~S~H=E~D~R~E~S~ID~E~N~T~IA~L~R~A~TE

BEFORE peE (PART 2.) CENTS PER){IM-!

o 20 40 60

November 16, 1998 2.21


~ " u c

j!. m " ~ " ~ 0 ~ I-

" ~ u c ~ m

I ~

" ~ " I ~ 0 ~ I-

I , I I

(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 2.9

l RESIDENTIAL SALES PER CUSTOMER J ANNUAL KWH

10

~ --4-'--~--'-'-----'" 8 -1---=H' -:' --~~ ~ -~ ~ 6

r-------.-------~::3 ~ -::--~-4

2 r-;c Tn-,~--/~ ---.-- ... -- ---_. ---- .-._---- .---

,-,-,-,-, 0

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 ~

r:=:'" .AN~ -.4 BEAVER a CO[Dti

'J FORT YUKON -tr GALENA • FAIR8ANKS • GREATER ANCHORAGE

I RESIDENTIAL SALES PER CUSTOMER I ANNUAL KWH

10

~ .----- ~-~---------. '-... ----=t~ ------.----11 8 ----.- ._.'----'-_ ... - _.-- -. ....':: .... ~o...---- .-.- ___ 'd' ____ ., _____ ~.-

.~ ........ ........ ..------------.--0--' 6 - -- - - -- ----/-* -- - -

.~~---.-- ~·"X-----O_"...---"-~ ......... -.-. ~ __ ~- c----« -. 4 ~" _.~o ._._. ; __ .-.. -~

2 -- . -_.. - ,,-*----*~-*-~.

0 '----'--------'_-----'--------- t , , - , , ----'----------' ,

80 82 B4 86 88 90 92 94 • GIUG1G"G------:*CKK'OTZEBO',.E---~ •• K'lVlGJ[(1NGDK--_,Q",MCGRAiW---, * NEWTOK y PEOROBAY .. fAlR8At.'KS • GREATERANCHQRAGE I

RESIDENTIAL SALES PER CUSTOMER

8 -,-------

6

4

2

I I

I , I ! ;

! , ! ,

I ,

o w~~_~_~_~_~~_~~~~, _~_" __ ~~~ M U B4 H H 00 U B4

• 0l'l)l1lT -----;.;-.S"C1I1JIJO}fBAVV----;; •• I'eITErr- * lRORNes""'---' + TUlUKSAK • FAIRBANKS • GREATER ANCHORAGE

November 16, 1998

I , I I I , i , I

2.22


30

25

20 '" u

I c

S ro 15 '" ;:J

~ 0 .r: f-

10

5

(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 2.10

!MONTHLY ELECTRICITY SALES I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MONTH

[ m KOBUK ~ IGIUGIG I

November 16, 1998 2.23


r-~~~~~~~~~J?flettRE 2.11 (parn)'~~~~~~~~~,

IANNUAL KWH SALES (PART 1.)1

I-(f) w S o -' o I-I-(f) W I (9

I ,

~ Z :::l 2 2 o o w o (L

ten~~s~gf:ct~t~~ Nome Jotnl Utility System

Cordova Electric Coopetative. Inc. Kotzebue Electric Associ<ltion

Nakoek ElectricAssociation, Inc.

"". Nushagak Electric Cooperativa, Inc. (DIllingham) Hames light (. Power

Tol< {includes Oot l<lke} Skagmy

Galena, City of Yakutat Power

Klawock

"''' Hoonah Sl Paul Municipal Etectrqic Utility

Unalal;leet ValrKey Electric Cooperative Point Hope Wainwright

San.d Point Electric Company G&K, Inc. (Cord Bay)

MCGfdth light & Power King Cove, 011' of

PeEcan UtffitiyCompany SL Mary's

Thome Bay Puhtic Utility Anaktuvuk Pass

GI'.i!chyaa Zheo UWitles (Fort Yukoo) Aniak light & POWN Company, Inc.

Mountain Village Nuiqsut AAg~

Emmonak Atqasuk

'·N.N Electric Cooperative Nunapitchuk

Togiak Northway Power & Ught

Kaklovilt Hooper Bay

Poinllay Hydaburg Gamben

Tarlan;;. Power Company Gustavus Elel;lric Compaoy

Selawik NooNik CIIe\lak

Klpouk Ughl Plaol Coffrrt<Jn Cove

Shismaref Kiana

Noatak Alakanuk Sa~"OOnga

Stebbins SI. George 1.1uniOpal Electric Utility

Shungnak Pto! Station Quinhagak

Amite! TooksookBay

Nulato Kwethluk, Inc . New Slu,-ahok

KiI.-a!ina Te~er Power Compaoy

Scammon Bay lower Kalskag

Maookolak Power Company Bettles

MarshaH Sl Michael

Kotlik Electric Services Egegik light & PO-Ncr Co .

Koyuk Port Heiden, City of

OUl.inkie, City of E'm

Tunuoak Old Harbor Mekoryuk

Eagle Power Col11par"IY

(pcerep2.wpd)

o

.. ---... ... -.. .. ... .. -.. .. ... I: .. .. .. ..

KWH SOLD

Millions

10 20 30

November 16, 1998 2.24


\-(f) w 5: o ---.l

~ \-(f) W I (')

I

~ Z ::J :2 :2 o o w o [L

Shaktoolik AkIak Power Utilities

Chignik Electric HolyCross

Kaltag Tuntutuliak Community Ser,i(:e Assn.

Akiachak Native Community Electric CO. Minto

White Mountain UWities Husr.a

Buckland, Oli' 01 Russian Miss!o.n

Napakiak lrcinraq Pow~~~p~~~ E,k

Allakaket Energy Systems (Alalna) Goodnews Bay

Tanarl,lll Electric coop.eratlve. Inc . Nalerkaq Light Plant (Chefornak)

Grayling larsen 8ay Utility Company

o-:omede JOInt Ubli~·es Wales

Atmautluak Joint Ubli!ies levetocll Electric Cooperntlve

!pnatchiaq Ete<;\rlc Company (Deering) Venetie Wlage Electric

Far North UMtities (Cenlr.ll) NapaSkiak Electric Ut·1ity

Brevi{} Mission Puvumaq Po .... ef Company (Koogtgarl3k)

Go!O'M Power Ulrnties Ch~l:.at VaUey

Ky,ig Power Company (Kv.igm,'ngok) TatitJelo; Electric UMly

Ho..1'$ p(:Ot PO;,,1 Village Council

Sheldon Point, City of Tena~ee Springs

Ne:son lagoon Electric Cooper.llive, Inc • N,Mlal light & Power

Anvil!;

Elnn C::We:;cC~%,f; Akutan Electric UtJlty

Mantey U!,h~ly Company Ko~ganek Wl.3ge CounCil

N'ghtmute Power Plant Unqusr<lq Power Company (NcY>1ok)

Chlgn,l; lake Electric UttMy, Inc. Mentasta

TeWn Andreanof Eleclnc COrpol<ltion (Atka)

Orde Ulol1ties ChiMa Electric fnc.

Shageluk Beaver Joint Ut'"ties

Akhiok, Cityol Whale Pass

Crooked Creek Chenega Bay

Takotna Community ASSOciation Stevens V,IIage Eneryy Systems

EkWok Elettric Tuluksak Tr<ldltional Po .... er UUllty

KokhanOk W1age Counca Chislod\ina

~~,~~\~~:;e~I;~~~rit~~~~ S!eeelmule

Hughes Poy .... er & light Chuathbaluk

Igiugig Electric Company Kasaan

Pedro Bay Wlage Couno! Alutiiq Power Company (Karluk)

Red DeVIl Stony River

Koyukuk, Cily of Umnak po-,,',er Company (Nikolski)

Platinum Power Plant Healy lake

Te~da Vl'Jage Ut<lily

(pcerep2.wpd)

o

6 • • • • :: • • • .. .. .. .. • .. .. .. II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .~ .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .~

.~

.~ u~

.~ . -,JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,,-1= ,-


!ANNUAL KWH SALES (PART 2.)1

KWH SOLD

Millions

10 20 30

t~_.~_ I j

November 16,1998 2.25


CUMULATIVE SHARE OF PCE UTILITY SALES BY UTILITY (PART 1.)

J--(J) ill ..J ..J «: 2: (J)

o J--J--(J) ill (9 0:: 5 ~ z ::> 2: 2: o o ill o ll.

Bethel Ub"lWes Corp Inc. Unalaska Electric Ullloty

Nome Joint Ut?ity System Cordova Electric Cooperative,lnc.

Kotlebue Electric Association Naknek Electric AssoCiatiml,lnc.

Oalg Nushagak Electric Coopcr.ltive,lnc. (Dillingham)

Haines Ugh! & Power Tok (illclu(les Oot lake)

Skagway Galena, City of Yakutat Power

KIaI'.1;lck Kake

Hoonah Sl Paul Mun!cipal ElectrQic Ublity

Unalakleet Valikey Electric COoperative POint Hope Wah .... ngh!

Sand Point Electric Company G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay)

McGratlllighl & Power KIng Cove, City of

Per:ca.n Utllitiy Cornp,HlY SlMary's

Tl10me 6ay Pubr:c UMty Anaktuvuk Pass

G .... itchyaa Zhee Utilities (Fort Yukon) Aniak Ughl & Pow~~~n~~~~~

Nuklsut

"""""" Emmonak Atqasuk

'·N-N Electric Coopera~ve NUrlapitchuk

Togiak Northway Power [. light

Kaktovik Hooper Bay

Point lay Hrdaburg

Gambell T3nana PO'n'erCompany

Gl.lstal'US EleClric COmpany Selav.ik Noorvik Chevak

Kipnuk light Plan! COffman COve

Shisrnaref Ki<lna

Noatak Alakanuk

S'1\'00n9a Stebbins

Sl George Municipa! Electric Utimy Shungnak

Pliot Station Quinhagak

Ambier TooksookBay

Nulato Kwethluk. Inc. NewStuY<lhOk

Kivalina Teller Power Company

Scammon Bay lo· .... er Kalskag

Manokotak Power Company Bettles

Marshall SI. Michael

Kol~k Electric Services Egegik Ught & Power Co.

Koyuk Port Heiden. City of

Ouzinkie. Cityn! Him

Tununak Old Harbor Mekoryuk

Eagle Power COmpany

(pcerep2.wpd)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November 16, 1998 2.26


,------------FlretfRi~. -2,-(lTITTTfI-----------------,

I-If! W --' --' <{ 2 If! o I-I-If! W (9 0:: ::5

~ Z ::::J 2 2 o o w o (L

CUMULATIVE SHARE OF PCE UTILITY SALES BY UTILITY (PART 2.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

ShilklOOt.l(.liiiiiiii~ii~iiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiii~ AkIak Power Utilities Chignik Eleclric

HolyCross K3lLag

T untu\urt<!k Community Service Assn. Akiachak Native Community Electric CO.

Minto \lJhite Mountalrl Utilities

Husr.a Bucld3nd, City of Russ;an MissiOn

Ruby. City of Napakiak lrcinraq Power Comp<lflY E,' Allakaket Energy Systems (Alatna)

Goodnelo\-"S Bay Tanahan Electric cooperative, Inc. Naterkaq Ught Plant (Chefornak)

Grayr.ng larsen Bay U!ility Company

o;omede Jolnl Utilities Wates

AlmautluakJoint U~ties levetock Electric Cooperative

tpnalchiaQ Eleclilc Company (Deering) Venetie Village Electric

Far North Utilitities (Centra!) Napaskiak Electrlc Utlfity

Brevig MiSsion Puvumaq Power COmpa fly (Koog,ganak)

Golovin Power l/'J1ities Chi!l<.at VaHey

K .... 'ig Power Company (Kwigtll<ogok) TaUt/ek Electric UtiT:ty

Hollis P,~OI Po;nl V~lage CounCil

Sheldon Point, Oty of Tenakee Springs

Nikolai light (. Po-'<"er Anvik

Penyville, City of Elf,n COve Electric Ut,/,ty

Akutan Electrk U\11,ly Manley Util"itity COmpany KO~'\lanek Village Council

Nightmute Power Plant Unqusraq Power COmpany (Ne"lo~)

ChignL" laka Electric Uu1,ty. Inc. Mentasta

TelflO Andreanol Electric Corporatioll (Atka)

Circla Ut>llties Chitina Electric Inc.

Shageluk Beaver Joint Utilities

Akhiok. Cily of Whale Pass

Crooked Cleek Chenega Bay

Ta~o!na Communi!)' Association Stevens Village Energy Systems

Ekwok Electric Tululsak Traditional Power Utility

KokhanOk WLlga Council Chlstochlna

Kotluk Valley Elecllic COmpany False Pass Electric Association

Sleeetrnulo Hughes PO-Net & Ught

Chuathbaluk Igiugig EleclricCompany

Kasaan Pedro 8ayVillage CounDl

A1uttiq PO'<"ef COmpany (Karluk) Red Oevil

Stony RiVer Koyukuk, City of

Unmak PO"...ar COmpany (NMlsf;l) Platinum Power Ptanl

Heatylake TeMa Vdlage Utility

100%



PCE COMMUNITIES RESIDENTIAL SHARE OF SALES (PART 1.)

I-(f) W I (9

I o I-I-(f) w 5: o ..J

~ Z ::; :2' :2' o o w o (L

0%

Bettles G('Ilena, City of

G&K. [nc. (COld Bay) Unalaska Electric utility

P2~~~;~~ Naknek electric Association, Inc.

Sheldon Poinl, Clly of Tanana ~~[u~ra~~

CraIg

~~~aU~~t~rOf~~~~ Cordova Electric ~ooperative. Inc.

WaInwright Yakutat Power

Red Devi! Mentasta

Slevens Village Energy Systems SKagway

Venetie Vi!lars1~~e~~~ Telida Village ~ti!ity

Igiugig Eleclfic Company Hughes Power & liQhl

51. George Municipal Electric UtlT,Iy Kaktovik

Platinum pow~,u~~~~i Egi~m:~~~~~tt:~~nOy

Belhel UltMieSs9.0lPa'rVCs McGrath Ught 8. Power

Far North UtilWtles {Central) Kobuk Valley Electric Company'

Koyukuk, Clly of Chignik Electric

Nome Joint Utility System ToK (includes Dollak.e)

51. Paul MuniCIpal Eleclrqic Utility Akiak Power Ut,lities

Brevig Mission Diomede Joint U~1Ities

Point Hope Nushagak. Electric Coooerative,_ Inc. fOFlfingha.ml

Gwilchy:<!a Zhee Ullh~es (Fort Yukon Kotzebue Electric Associallon

Beaver Joint Utilities Stebbins

Nikolai Ught & Power Gambe!!

Healy lake Tilkotna Community Association

Noatak Chevak.

Port Heiden, City of larsen Bay Ut'h~ Com~any

\°'Mva\rne~ Ipnatchiaq Electric Company (Deering)

Ambler Umnak Power Company (N,kolski)

Mekoryuk

levelock Etectn~~~~kPe~~fiv~ SI. Mich<!et ""k,

Thorne Bay Pubftc Uli1itX Ruby, City or

Akutan Electnc Ufolity Klawock

sav~~\~~ Anvik

Tununak Chitina Electric Inc •

.8;~~'g~~ Allakaket Energy Syslems (Nama)

Nulato Elfin Cove Electric Utility

Golovin Power Utilities Unalakleet Vallkey Electric Cooperative

A!ul~q Power Company (Karluk) ~Vhite Mountain UI,\,ties

Klfl!1 Cove, City of" Manley Ut'.j!ily coro;~

(pcerep2.wpd)

25% 50% 75% 100%

November 16, 1998 2.28


,-------------------FIGURE~2~.1~3~(TIpaml~t~2)~------------------~

f(f) W I (?

I o ff(f) w 5: o -'

~ Z ~ 2: 2: o o w o (L

PCE COMMUNITIES RESIDENTIAL SHARE OF SALES (PART 2.)

0%

Haines Ught & Power Aniak light & Power Company. Inc,

Russian Mission Kaltag

Sleeetmule SelaWiK

U8fri{t~:~~~ Sand Point Electric c~~~~

Kasigluk Chenega Bar.

Emmona;.; Marshall

Kwethluk, Inc. Ouzinkie, City of Mounta:n Vitlage

Crooked Creek Tanalian Electric cooperative, Inc.

Manokolak Power Company Andreano! ElectriC Corporation (Atka)

Whale Pass Perryville, City of

Kiana Hooper Bay

I-N·N Electric Cooperative Pitkas Point

Wales Ellm

Nunapitchuk Shakloolik

Hus~a Tooksook Bay

Eagle Power Company Shageluk

Chuathbaluk Noorvl); Togiak

Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn, Pedro Bay Village Council

Goodnews Bay False P<lSS Electric Association

Holy Cross Sh!smaref

Quinhagak Coffman Cove

Pilol Station Old Harbor

Atmautluak Joint Ut,lilies N,ghtmule Power Plant

New Stuyahok Scammon Bay

Tatitlek Electric Ut~lly

Ki!e~~~~~g~~~~~ E,k

Chistochina Pilol Point Village Council

Buckland, City of Hydaburg

Kokhanok Village CounCIl Minto

Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company Angoon

Gustavus Electric Company Hollis

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. Kotlik Electric Services

lower Kalskag Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative. Inc. Puvufnaq Power Company {Kongiganak)

Unqusraq Power Company (Newtok) Napaskiak Electric Utility

Koliganek Village CounCIl Chignik lake Electric Utirily, Inc.

Naterkaq Ught Plan! (Chefornak) Kwig Power Company (K ..... ig:lIingok)

EkwOk Electric Kasaan

Chilkat Vatley Tuluksak Traditional Power Utltity

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



3. POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM EFFECTS

In FY 1996 $19,201,515 was disbursed under the Power eost Equalization Program (peE) to the 96 electric utilities serving 190 small rural Alaska communities. The amount received by each utility varied greatly, dependent upon a large number of factors including the level of sales of the utility and the cost of generation. Bethel Utilities received the largest distribution of $813,312 while the smallest went to Telida Village Utility, $5,467 (Figure 3.1).

The typical or median community disbursement (defined as the one for which half the communities served received larger and half received smaller amounts) was $71,363. The largest utilities received a large portion of the total disbursements. 15 ntilities received one-third of the total amount disbursed.

The disbursement to the ntility in the median community in 1996 was $1,059 per residential customer (Figure 3.2). This is the total disbursement to the utility in the community divided by the number of residential customers, but it exceeds the amount used to offset residential electricity costs by the portion of the peE disbursement that was nsed to offset the costs of providing electricity to commercial and community facility customers. The annual disbursement ranged from a low of$63 per household for the Pelican Utility to a high of$2,733 for the Telida Village Utility.

The size ofthe payment depended upon the share of total utility sales that were eligible for the peE disbursement. Eligible sales consist of portions of residential, community, and commercial sales, but exclude sales to government and any other entities (negligible). Residential and commercial sales are eligible up to 700 per month per customer so almost all residential sales are eligible and as well as a share of commercial sales determined by the average size of commercial customers. For large commercial customers such as the schools (included in the commercial class for purposes of peE rather than in the government class which consists of state and federal customers) only a portion of monthly sales are eligible in most places because of their large monthly use. Most sales to comIllunity facilities are also eligible since they are eligible up to 70 kwh per month per person in the community.

The share of sales eligible for peE is 57 percent for the typical utility and ranges from a low of II percent to a high of95 percent (Figure 3.3). Generally the utilities in communities with larger amounts of commercial activity, or state and federal government offices, have lower eligibility percentages.

The disbursement per eligible kwh for the typical utility was $.22 in 1996 (Figure 3.4). This was the amount actually paid rather than the higher amount requested by the utility based on their reported costs. The difference between the amount requested and the amount actually paid was the combined result of slight under funding of the program and the disallowal of some utility costs used in the fommla to estimate the disbursement per kwh. The disbursement ranged from a



low of$.02 per eligible kwh for Pelican to a high of$.40 in Sleetemute, Stony River, Red Devil, Crooked Creek, and Chuathbaluk.

The financial dependence of each PCE utility on PCE disbursements is measured by the share of total utility revenues contributed by the disbursement (Figure 3.5). The typical utility received 31 percent of its revenues from the PCE disbursement. The range of financial dependence using this measure was from a low of 5 percent for the city of Galena to a high of 60 percent for Akutan.

Most of the PCE eligible kwh sales go to households (Figure 3.6). For the typical utility 67 percent ofPCE eligible sales are residential sales. The range is from a low of33 percent for Telida to a high of 94 percent for Buckland. Furthennore the share of residential sales that is PCE eligible is 90 percent for the typical utility, ranging fi'om a high of 100 percent in several smaller communities to a low of 40 percent in Tatitlek (Figure 3.7).

The disbursement for each eligible residential kwh sold was $.22 for the typical utility ranging from a low of $.02 in Pelican to a high of $.41 in Crooked Creek, Stony River, Red Devil, Chuathbaluk, and Manley (Figure 3.8). The result of this disbursement was to reduce the residential rate on eligible kwh for the typical PCE utility from $.41 down to $.17. The rate adjustment varied by utility (Figure 3.9). The lowest average residential costs per kwh reported after the PCE adjustment were close to the $.095 floor established for the PCE program, but nearly half of all communities continued to report average costs for residential kwh of over $.20 after the adjustment, and several had average costs in excess of $.30.

As a result of the PCE disbursements and residential rate adjustments, annual average residential electricity sales were higher than they othenvise would have been (Figure 3.10). The average residential customer ofthe typical PCE utility had annual purchases of3,921 kwh. The range among the utilities was from a high of 10,20 I in Cold Bay down to a low of 644 for Koyukuk.

Because of the PCE disbursements the monthly residential bill was lower than it otherwise would have been for the level of bvh purchased by the average household (Figure 3.11). With the PCE adjustment the average monthly residential bill for the typical PCE utility was $66. The average monthly residential bill for the typical PCE utility in the absence ofthe PCE adjustment, for the same number of kwh, would have been $121. The range of typical monthly residential bills for the PCE utilities was from a low of $16 for Beaver to a high of $236 for Cold Bay.

Monthly bills would be much higher at urban consumption rates. If average monthly residential consumption were 635 kwh (the average for Chugach Electric Association in Anchorage) the typical residential customer bill for the median PCE community would be $125 rather than $66. Furthennore if that typical customer were paying the full published rate that covered all costs, and were consuming 635 bvh, his monthly bill would have been $264 (Figure 3.12). This monthly bill, representing an urban level of consumption combined with a rural cost of electricity, ranges from a low of $95 to a high of $635 per month. In contrast the monthly bill



for the average residential Chugach Electric Association customer was $61.

The resulting annual PCE disbursement for the average residential customer in the typical PCE utility was $696 (Figure 3.13). The range was from a low of $41 per residential customer in Pelican to a high of $1,725 in Chignik Lake. The PCE disbursement for the average community facility customer in the typical PCE community was $1,892. The PCE disbursement for the average commercial customer was $804. As one would expect there was considerable variation in these amounts by utility.

Most ofthe PCE disbursement directly benefits residential customers and community facilities. For the typical utility 87 percent ofPCE eligible kwh were paid to those two types of customers (Figure 3.14). The range was from a low of33 percent for Telida to a high of99 percent for Pitkas Point.



FIGURE 3.1 (!Tart 1)

IPeE DISBURSEMENT BY UTILITY (PART 1·)1

Thousands

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

Bethel UWities Corp Inc. COfdova EleclriC Cooperative, Inc.

Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (O'ffiogham) Kotzebue Electric Association

Hoonah Nome JOint Utility System

Sand Po,nt Electric Company CraIg

Gustavus Elect~ ~~~

Naknek Electric AsSOciation, Inc. Kake

'·N·N Electric Cooperative Emmonak

McGrath Ught to Power Tok [Includes Dol lake)

MOlinlain VIllage Aniak Ught &. POWN Comp<lny, Inc.

StMary's Noo.vilt Togiak

HaInes Ught & Power Unalaska Er~eV~:~~

r- Angoon

if) HeaperSa\,

W Noatak

Shtsmaref

S KIana Gambe~

0 Ambler

--' Un{ltalJeet Vallkey Electric Cooperative

0 G .... itchyaa Zllcc UI-Mies (Fort Yukon)

Nutato

r- Quinhagak Chevak

r- Tool;sook Bay if) Savoonga

W p,'ot Station

Yakutat PONer I Shungnak (!) Old Hartxlt

Alakanuk

I Kipnuk light Planl , New Stuyahok , Nunapitchuk

>- Stebbins

!::: Kasigluk I.larsha~

Z Sk,;3gway

~ 51. Pilui MuniCipal Eleclrqic Ul,llIy

Scammon Bay 2' NapalJak Ircinl'<lq Po-... ·er Company

2' Ktvafina Eagle Power Company

0 HolyCross

0 Galena, Ci~;~~

W Tetler Power Companl' AJ-Jachal\ Native Community Electric Co.

0 Minto

0.. Sl Michael Koyuk

Kotl.k Electnc Servlces Tununak

Shakloof.!<. Kaltag

lower Kalskag Husr<a

TaMfla PONerCompany N'orthway Po· .... er & light

Kwethluk, Inc. Grayling

Mekoryuk Chign<k.lako Electric Utility. Inc.

Eok K .... ig Power com~nl~~~i,~~~O:~

W.'lles Coffman Cove

King Cove. City of G&K, tnc. {Cold Bay} -AJ!a~a~et Energy Systems (Alalna:) -Tunluluvak Community Sej"l,';ce AssrI . .........

I Unqusr.!Q Power Company {Ne+tlok) -ManleyU!tlitil\,Company -I I

I

L (pccrep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 3.4


,-----------FIGURE 3.1 (part-.;fr----------------.

IPeE DISBURSEMENT BY UTILITY (PART 2.)1

Thousands

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800

$1. Gwge Municipal Electric UMty Thome Bay Public Utility -OUtinkle, City of -Mano~olak Power Comp<lny -HytlatJurg -Ruby, City of

Puvumaq Po-,,"'er Comp<lny (Kong19anak) Far North UMititios (Central)

Russian Missloo Koliganek Village Counca

!pna!chlaq Elecltlc Company (Oeering) \Vhite Mountain Utir.ties

Diomede JOint UtllitTes Egegik light & PO' .... erCQ.

levelock Electric Coope/CIWe Upper Kalskag

Napaskiak Electric Ut>~t:r' Brev~ Mission

Poml Hope Crooked Creek

ShagebJk Nikolai Ugh! & PO"Ner

Ko~-hanok V,:lage Councij

I- BeWes Chilkat Valley

(j) Nelson lagoon €Jeclric Cooper.l~ve, Inc. W AtmauUuak Jllinl Utilities

S Circle Utr~ties larsen Bay Utility Compafly

0 Gotovlo Poy>-cr UMlies

---' Tenakee SpJings AmiX

0 Wauwmght

I- Natel1<aq li{lht Plant {Chefornak} Chuathbaluk

I- P,tk<lS PO:nt (j) Chignik Electric

W Beaver Jotnt UhliGes

Kobuk Valley Electric Company I Tananan Electric coopeldGve, Inc. I

I (') Sleeetmute I

Nuiqsut

I I Akutan Electric UI",!y , AAal..tuvuk P .. ss , , Takotna Community Assod .. Gon - I

I

>- P,"(}t Po;;,t Vi~age Coono1 - I

!:: Pedlo Bay ViUage O,!uncTI - I Sheldon Point. Cory of ... I

z VeneGe ViUage Electric - I ~ Alqasuk -2: !(;akle.,).; ...

Bucl.tand. Cily of -2: Ch[s!ochina -I

Elflll CQve Electric Utilily -0 Nightmute Po-,o;er Plant ..... 0 Tell;" ...

ChiMa Electric tnc. -W Stony River -0 EI..""o)o; Electric ... Aldak Po,.,er U!~i!ies "" (L Hughes Po,o;er & light "'" Andreano! Electric CorpOIdWn (All<a) ...

tgiugig Electric Company .... Point lay ....

False Pass Electric AsSOO<llion ... Red DevJ ...

Kas.aan 1ft Alut;;q Power Company (Karluk) ..

Mentasta ... Stevens V~lJge Enelgy Systems ...

Umllak Power Compafly {N,koiSki) In INhale Pass ..

Ho':is '" Tutuksak Tlddi!ionat Power Utir.ry .. Ta~~ek Elf .. 'Ctric U:;oJly ..

Healy lake .. Chenega Bay ..

Port Helden, Colyof " Al;htok, Oty 01 .. Pef:cafl UGhtiy Comp,my ..

Pell)'\'i!le, C;I~' of ~~

KO\'1.lkuk. Cow of .-Platinum Po ... w Plant 1-TeMa Wlage UI;:;'y [-



r-----------][i'ffffiItE-3.2 (pal t 1)----------,

fif) w I (')

I o ffif) w S o -l , >t: z ~ 2' 2' o o w o (L

PCE PAYMENT DIVIDED BY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS (PART 1.)

so

Per>Can u~"tiy COmpany Koyukuk, City of

Port Heiden, City of Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility

Skagway Nome Joint Utili!;, System

Platinum P& ... -erPtanl

Haines Light & Power !~~~~ Holrl$ PeO)V\lle, Cityof

Akiak Power UWities Thome Bay PubS, Ub!ity

SuclUand, CIty of Po,n! Hope

Akhiok. Cityof Tatitlek Electtlc Utlfity

Wa1n;o,Tight Kaklovilo;

King Cove, Ory of Nuiqsut

porntlay Chenega 8ay

Arlaktuwk Pass EkY.X1k Electric

Stevens Village Energy Systems Hydaburg

Bethel Utilities O:IIP tne. Venetie Vaage Electric

Tok (indudes Dot lake) Namek Electric AssOCiation, Inc.

Unalaska Electric U~lity Yakutat Power

Atqasuk ~rena. Oly of

Nushagak Electric Cooperative, rne, (DIllingham) ern. Chigwk Electric

Ten<lkee Spfings Chi!\<;al Vaffey

Kotzebue ereclliC Assodab'on Nate~aq Ught Plan! {Ct1efomak)

Kwethluk,lnc. Beaver Joint Ut,hties

Gwitchyaa Zhee Utilities (fort Yukon) l~apas1<jak Electri<: Uti:;ty

Manokotak Power Company Tetfin

t,lentasta UnalaUeel Vallkej' Electric Cooperative

T3nar,an Electric cO(lperative, tnc. Ruby. City of

PI:ol Point Vi!tage COll<lOl Nightmule PO' .... er Plarli

CoffrTl<ln Cove Aki3chak Native Commun1\y Electric Co.

Cordova Electric Cooperative, tnc. Sheldon Point, City of

False Pass ElectriC Association SI. Paul Municipal Ete(:lrq,c Utiflly

Whale Pass Kott,k Electric SelVices

Northway Power & light Akutan ElectriC Uta,ty

Tanana Power Company Chitina Electric Inc.

Andreano! Eleclri<: Corporation (Atka) Eaglo Power Company

Atmautluak Jo'nl Uhlities Elfin Cove Electric Uti1jty \Vhile MountaIn Utd,ties

Far North Ut"'~ties (Central) Egegil\ Ught [. Po-.... er Co.

KaS<.lan Ouzinkie. City of

PuvumaQ Power Company(Kongiganak} . Hooper Bay

$500 Sl.000

E,k Koliganek Viltage Counol

Tuntutu~ak Community Service Assn'l~~~~~~~~~§~~~L Allakaket Energy Systems (AJatna) Go!ovin Power UtHities

Alakanuk KlaWOCk

Manley Ut<itlty Company

Sl.500 $2.000 $2.500

~----------'J (JlcereJl2.WJlrl) November 16, 1998 3.6


I-if) W I (9

I

o I-I-if) w 5: o -' ,

~ Z ::J 2' 2' o o w o (L

PCE PAYMENT DIVIDED BY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS (PART 2.)

so S500 SI,OOO S1,500 52,000 S2,500

Manley UUfitity ~~k

Kipnuk light Plant

Takotll3 Commun<tyAssociation ~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Chistochina ! GOodne~e~k Brevi\) MiSsion

Kwig POV,-ef Compafly ~i'tlt~o'l~l Anvik. Huslia

larsen Bay WOoly Company Stebbins

Savoonga Quinhagak

Pedro Bay Village Counc~ Sleeetmute

Urnna;; Power Company /Nil;olskl) Kobuk Va~ey Electric Company

Russ;an Mission Hughes Power & Ughl

l!~~1fa1~~~ NewStll}-ahok

Angoon SI. Michael

Tununak ScamffiO(l Bay

Heal/Lake

Nelson lagoon ElectriC Cooperativ~'~; Kokhanok V~l<!ge Coune,\

Kasigluk PdotSlation

Se!a .... ik Old Harbof

KOike Sano Point Electric COmpany

Shisrnalef Kallag

Upper Kalsk3g Gusla.'tlS Electri;:: Company

Igiugig Electric COmpany 51. George MuniCIpal Electric Utility

levelock Electric Cooperative N,kOlalllght & PoYNer

Hoonah Koyuk

Diomede Joint U!i11ties Chuathbaluk

Teaer Power ~~~~YE

Napa!UaJ.; Irc,'nraq P(M'er d;;~~~;., 1.I'nlo

Wales Unqusraq Po',o.'er Company (Ne-,o.1ok)

El,m Sl Mary's

H;~a&~~~ TooJ.;sookBay

Mountain V.uage Nulato

Circle Utilities I·N·N Electric Coo~~:~~

A!utoiq Power CQmpany (Karluk) \pnalch'aQ Electric Company (Deering)

Emmonak. Aniak Ught e. PowerCompaoy, Inc.

SlonyRiver Kiana

McGr.>th light & P(M'er Kr-"iltina

Shaktootk Crooked Creek

Noorvik G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay)

Ambler Chignik lake Electric Uti5tY,/nc.

Noatak Shungnak

Bettles Red Dew

Ter,da Village Utility

I

J (pcerep2,wpd) November 16, 1998 3.7


IPeE ELIGIBLE SHARE OF SALES (PART 1·)1

f(f) W I CJ I

o ff(f) w 5 o -'

~ Z :::l 2: 2: o o w o (L

G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay) Gatena. City of

Unalaska Electric Utllily BetUcs

Poinllay Anaktuvuk Pass

PeEcan U~1itiy Company Atqasuk

Port Heiden, Cfty of Wainwright

Naknek Eleclric As$oc1a~on. tnc. Yakutat Pc". .. ef

POint Hope NuIQsut

Kaktovik Bethel Uti:itics CO!p Inc.

ernlg Tatitlek Electric Utility

KOl2ebue Electric MSoCiatioo Northway Power 2. Ught

Nome Jolnt UtiMy System Tol: [Illdudes Oolla~e)

Skal}V>'3y Cordova Elettrlc Cooperative, Inc.

Akiak Power Utilities Tanana Per'>""r Company

PeIlYI/me, CIty of Nushagak Electric Cooperativo, Inc. {Dillingham)

Sl Paul Munh;ipal E/ecuqlc U~lity Te!ter PO)'I.-er Company

Platinum Power Plant SL George MuniCipal Electric UMty

UnalalJeet Valikey Electric Cooperative Shungnak

KlaWOCk

"", King Cove, Oty of I>.lcGrath light & Power

E9C9ik ligh! & Power Co. Kasigluk

Tulul.sak Trad,tional Pov.'er Ulllity StMary'S

Andreanof Electric COrpor.ltion (Atka) RUSSl,afl Mission

Aniak Ugh! to Power Company, InC. Haines light & Power

Kivalina Tana:lan Electric COOpcr.:llive, Inc.

Alakanuk Chenega Bay

Venetie V,:lage Electric GamoeU Chevak

Sheldon PO:nt. aty or G .... itch,<la Zhee Util,ties (Fort Yukon)

Koyukuk, aly or Stehbins

Red Del'll Chignik Electric

Diomede Joint u~mies Mekoryuk

Nightmute Power Plant Coffman Cove

Stevens V,:!age Energy Systems Mountain V{.Iage

White Mountain U~")jties Sleeetmute

Thorne Bay PlIh~c Ul,loty sucJ..1and, Coly or

Bre..;g Mission Mentasta

Hooper Say P,lot Point Village Council

Kwethluk,lnc. larsen Bay UW,!y Company

Tuntutuliak CommuMy Service Assn. Upper Katskag

Savoonga Togiak

lpnatchiaq Electric Comp;1ny (Deering) Manokotak Po ... er Comp;1ny

Hoonah Tethn

Beaver JOint Utilities

(pcerep2.wpd)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November 16,1998 3.8


r------------F:I:etffl:l1<;-:3.3 (pal t 2+----------,

f-(f) W I (9

I

~ f-(f) W S o ..J I

>t::: z => 2: 2: o o w o 0..

IPeE ELIGIBLE SHARE OF SALES (PART 2.)1

Beaver JOint Utilities Ambler

\\'hale Pass SL Michael

Koyo1o; New Stuyah01o;

Pitkas Point I·N·N Electric COoperative

Selawi1o; Noata1o;

Golovin Power Ublities

0% 20% 40% 60%

Scammon Bay An., Kiana

Stony River Tununa1o;

Igiug;g E1C(:tric Company levetock EIC(:lric Cooperative

pact Station Nunapltchuk

Alutiiq PONer Cornpany {l<arluk) illlllllllllllllllllll~ Atmautluak JOint U~lities

Shaktoolik Allakaket Energy Systems (Alalna)

Shismarel HUSrid

Angoon Far North Utilitities (Central)

"orr" Eagle Power Company Took5ook Bay

Quinhagak NelSon lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

E,k Manley U:ilitity Company

Ouzinkie, aty or Hydaburg

Wales Noorvik

Emmonak Crooked Creek

Sand Point ElectriC Company Akhiok, City of

Goodnews Bay Aldachak Native Community Electric Co.

Kipnuk Ught Plant Marsha!!

Ertm Nuiato

N'kolai Ught & Power Kaltag

Hughes Power & Ught Chu<lthbaluk

Napasl;iak Electric Utility Kobuk Valley ElectriC Company

Rub~Dtyor I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! HolyCross

T<lkotna Community Association Nap<lk;a~ Ircinraq Power Company

Ch~kat Valley Akutan Electric Utinty

Kot/i1o; Electric Services PUl'Umaq PONer CompanJ' (Koogiganak)

Umnak Power CompanJ' (Ni~o1skl) Gra)'ling

Chistocllina Gustavus Electric Company

Hea~lake Etfin Cove Electric Utility

Old Harbor False Pass Electric Associatioo

Circle U:,Mies Kotigane:.; \li!lage Counc<l

Chitina Electric Inc. Nalerkaq ligllt Plaot (Chefornak)

Shagelu1o; Tenakee Springs

Minto UnqusraQ Po ..... er CompaflY (Nc-NlOk)

Kokhaflok Wlage Council Lower Kalskag

Kasaan TeEda Village U\J"lity

Pedro Bay ViUage Council K .... .;g Power Company (Kwig"~ngok)

Chignik laJ..e Elecllic UtlEty,lnc. E!.-wok E1C(:triC

80% 100%



IPeE PAYMENT PER ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 1.)/

f-(fJ W I (9

I o f-f-(fJ w 5: o --' ,

~ Z ::J ::;: ::;: o o w o (L

Pelican Utifltly Company Skagway

H<lifles LIght 8. PU ... -ef Unalaska Electric U~~tj

Nome Joint Utffity System Thome Say Public Uhllty

Point Hope Wainwrfghl

Kaklovi'k King Cove, City of

Nuiqsut 0.. Atqasuk

H1'{jaburg HoIlls

POint lay Anaktuvuk Pass

Naknek Electric Association, !nc. Yakutat Power Akhiok, City O'f

Port Heiden, Cily O'f Kotzebue Electric Association

Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (o,inngham) SI. Paul Municipal Elecuqlc Utility

Tok {includes Dol Lake) Bethel Utilities Corp Inc.

Perryville, City of Cordova ElectriC Coopeta~ve, Inc.

Galena, City of Buckland, City of

Akiak Power UW,ties Chenega Say

Una!aHeet Valikey Electric Cooper-Hive ElM Cove Electric UMty

"''hale Pass Nalerkaq light Pl;!nl (Ctlelomak)

CoffJTl.ln GolfO ChignIk Electri<;

Tali:lek Eh~ctri<; U~"lity Ekv.'Ok Electric

Chitina Electric Inc. Koyukuk, City of

Venetie V,l!.:lge Electrtc ';\entasta

ManOkOtak Power Company Akutan ElectIic Utility

Northway PO",.,'er & Ught KipnlJk light Plant Ou~inkie, aty of

G"",tchj"<la Zhee UI,lilies (Fort YuI..OI'l) False Pass Electric Association

T;3naoan Electric coopel<itive, Inc. P,tOt Pj);nt v.~ge Council

Tuluksak Tt;:!di('onal Po,,~r UI,My Sheldoll Polnl, CIty of

SI. George Muniop;31 Electlic UtlMy Tanana Power Company

RlJby, City of Stevens I/i!!;Jge Eneryy Systems

Tenakee Springs Kwethluk, tnc,

Sand Polnt Electric Company K __

Kake Hoonah Kasaan

Chilltal Valley Angoon

Tetlin KOthk Electric Services

Napaskiak Electric VI"'ty Nightmute Power Plant

Egegik light (. Power Co.

o 10 20

Chistochina AtmauHuak Jo,nt Utifi~es

Andleanof Electric Corporaltoll (Atka)

Puvumaq p,y .... erCompany (Kong

1

ganak) I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l \'./hite Mountairl Ulittties larsen Bay UlIlityCompany

Golovin Power l}t,Mies Takotna Community Association

I.iinlo Kaltag

Kwig PO''''er Company (K .... ,S,rtflgok)


30 40

3.10

Power Cost Eqnalization Economic Significance

.------------------FJfG~U~RE~3~.4iv.rr~~'------------------~

IPeE PAYMENT PER ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 2.)/

L

f(f) W I CCJ I o ff(f) w 5 o ---'

~ Z :J :2 :2 o o w o (L

Kwlg Power Company (Kl'rignJingok) levelock Electric COOperative

T\lfltutuliak Community Service Assn. McGtalh light & Power Hughes Pov.'t:( & light

G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay) Far North Utilitities (Central)

N<kotallighl & Power Grayling

Urnnak Po· ... -er Company (JI.'ikoiskl) MarsllaU

Allakaket Energy Systems (Alalna) Nulato

SLMict1ael Nelson lagoon £tecLrlc COOpef1lwe, Inc.

New Stuyahok Toglc!k

Stebbins GOodnews Bay

Elim P~ot Statioo

SL Mary's Pitk.as Poinl

EmmonaJ.; Mekoryuk Tununak

Shaktoollk A1aJo:anuk

Koyuk Scammon 8ay

Pedro 8ayVillage Council Quinhagak HoliCross

Chevak Gam!.>e~

Hooper8ay TooksookSay

Russian Mission Platinum PO' ... ~r Plant

E<k Okl Harbor

AA"' Ipnalch;aq Electn'c Compa Ily {Deeringl An'ak light & Power Comparly.ln(;.

Mounlatn Village Wales

Lower Kalsl;ag Brevig Mission

Savoonga D:omede Joint UllF1ties

KasigluJ.; HusfI;J

Nunapitchuk Orde Ullli~·<!s

Upper Kalskag Igiugig El<!ctric Company

Akiachak Nati"e Community Electric Co. Shageluk Shlsrnaref

Kiana KoFganek Village CounClt

Eagle Power Company Kiv.3.~na

Atut"q Power Company {Karluk} Te~da Wlage Ullf:ty

Setav .. ik Noorvik

Kobuk Valley Electric Company Beaver Joint Ul<lities

!·N·N Electric Coope~tive UnqusraQ Power Company {Ne;o.10k}

Noat.3k Napakiak trcinraQ PONer Company

Shungnak Ambler

Ko~.hanok Village CounCil Betues

Gustavus Electric Company Teller PO>'ler Company

Chignik la~e Electric UtUily. Inc. Heatylake

Mantey U:.:itity Company Steeetmute Stony River

Red Dew Croo~ed Creek

ChuathbatuJ.;

(pcerep2.wpd)

o 10 20 30 40

November 16, 1998 3.11


SHARE OF UTILITY REVENUES FROM peE DISBURSEMENT (PART 1.)

Iif) W I C9 I o l-

t/) W S o -.J ,

~ Z =:> :2 :2 o o w o 0..

0%

Galena, City of Port Helden, City of

G&K, Inc. (OM Bay) Nome Jolnt Utillty System

Sl Paul MUnicipal Elecllqlc U~llty Yakutat Power

Naknek Electric AssOCia~on. fnc Wa!flwright

Point lay Tatit!ek EleclIk: U~1ity Al<.iak POI'I"{!( Utilities

Anakluwk Pass Atqasuk

Point Hope Thome Bay Pu!)!ic Utility

Kaktovik Perryvi11e, City of

Koll.ebue EleGlric Association Nuiqsut

TOk (includes Dot lake) A!<h;ok, City of

Bettles Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (O:'lingham)

Tanana PO' .... cr Company Ste~ens V'b'lage Energy Systems

Egegik light & PO"""er Co. Northway Power & light

I\'urlapitchuk Unalal<!ect Valtkey Electric CQoperatlve

Chenega Bay Bucldand,Otyof

K~lhruk, Inc. Platinum Power Plant

Tutuksak T!'3d,tionat PO"''C( Utll'ity SI. George Municipal Elecllic U~lity

White Mountain U\dities Kalle

Ruby, Olyof ChigniT< Electric

I.lanokotak Po-.· .. er Company Tanahan Electric cooperative, Inc.

H,.daburg Andreanof Electric Corpol'a!iOfl (Atka)

Te~er Po',.,-er Company Atmautluak J6nt Utilities

G"itchy;.a lhee Utilities (fort YU~Orl) HOllis

Venetie Vill<lge Electric T untutu~,ak Communi~{ SelVite Assn.

Mentasta Shur.gr.ak

McGrath Ught & Po-wet 19rugig Etectric Company

Koyukuk, ety of P~ot Po!r.t Viltage Counol

Gambell False Pass Electric Assod<l!ion

Sheldon POint, City of Ania\.; Ughl & Power Company, tnc.

SL Mary's Russ;a.n Misston

Mekoryuk Alakanuk

Hoonah Natert.aq light Pl.ant (Cheroma~)

Stebbins Kivar.na

Mountain Wlage levelock Electric Coop<!rative

Napaskiak Electric Utility Hoop<!rBay

Chevak ChWna Electric Inc.

lower Kalskag

(pcerep2.wpd)

20% 40% 60%

I I I I I

November 16, 1998 3.12

•


r------------I'lGURE-J~:Part 2)

SHARE OF UTILITY REVENUES FROM peE DISBURSEMENT (PART 2.)

I-(/) W I o I o I-I-(/) w 5: o -'

~ Z :::J :2' :2' o o w o 0..

, ,

,

Diomede JOint UtQties Telic/a VIllage U~My

Nightmute Power Plan Savoonga

Hughes Power & Ugh Red Devil

Bre'lig M,$S;on Togiak

Golovin Power Ut<lities Angoon

Takotna Community AssoCiation N",ko!<li light & PO-Net

Sleeetmule Sl Michae

NewStuy;;hok Far North Utlliti~es (Central)

Koyuk Scammon Say

Kiana Elfin Cove Electric Ut<l1ty

Shaktoo1ik PlotSlatmn

Anv"" Tununak

Tetlin AmOler

Selawik Ipnatchiaq Electric Comp;lrly (Deering)

Nelson lagoon Etec.:tric Cooperative. Inc. Emmonak

Pedro 8ayVJlage CourlC~ Akiachak Nawe Community Ell':ctric Co.

ShisfTl3ref 1001o.sool; Bay

Allakaket Energy Systems (Aratna) Wales

Quinhagak Eek

Stony Rivet I·N·N Electric Coopel<ltive

Sand Point E1ecln.; Comp;;!fly Kipnuk light Pion!

Marsha~ Ch,I:tat Vg1:ey

Huslia Noalak

Umnak Po;<.-er Company (N;1(otslJ) Chistochlna

Nulato K ... ,ig PO',</er Company (K"igillingo~)

Ekwok Electric Noorv:k

Manley U!,tlhty Com~ny GOodne-<'lS 6ay

E~.m

Tenal;eeSprings Kallal}

HolyCross Crooked Creek

Oeaver Joint Uti:,ties Atlltiiq Power ComparlY (Karluk)

Puvumaq Power Company (Kong;ganak) Grayling

Minto Kasaan

Chuathbaluk Eagle Power ComparlY

Ok! Harbor Kotlik Electric SeNices

Unql.lsraq Power Com~ny (Ne-mo~) Gustaws Electric ComparlY

HeatyLake ShagehJk

Akutan Electric Ub1ity

(pcerep2.wpd)

0%

I

I

20% 40% 60%

I ! I I I

:: ::

i

i

November 16, 1998 3.13


f-(f) W I (9

I o f-f-(f) W S o ---' , >-f--Z :::J :2 :2 o o w o (L

Ter«1a Voltage U@ty Mentasta

Hughes Power & light Unalaska Electric Ublity

Kobuk Val!ey Electric Company Slel'ellS Village Energy Systems

Chitina EJectric rnc.

RESIDENTIAL % OF TOTAL ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 1.)

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ShelOOlI Po'nt, City of HealylClke

MkOlallfght & Power Igiugig Electric Company

Takotna Community AssOCiation Elfin Cove Electric WIly

G&K, tnc. (Cold Bay) Umnak PO'Ner Company ~~~~!~l

King Cove, City 01 BeWes

Ruby, City of Akutan Electric Utility

V.'hite Mountain UW,tles Far North UblWties (Cen!r.ll)

Stony River Gr<iyllng

CirCle Utilities

Akh~k.Cityof I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~ Beaver JIi.n1 Utilities

Tener Power Company Andreanof Electric Co!'pO(ation (Atl<3)

Marshall Pedro Bay Village Couno1

Wales Tanana Power Comp.IIlY

Nutato SI. Paul MunlciP31 ElectrQic U~~ty

Kaltag Venetie Village Electric

Sand Point Electric Company Go~ovin PO' ... ·el U!,oties

Thome BOIl' Pu!)fic U:,My Chignik Electric

Noatak Amtller

Cordova Electric Cooperative. Inc. Emmonak Shungnak Shageluk

levelock Eletlric Cooperative Slag,,~y

Sl Gearye Municipal ElectriC Wwly Galena. Oly 01

SL Mary's Diomede Joint Utili~es

COm Sl Michael

Gambe~ Nal:.nek Electric Assoootion. Inc.

McGrath light & Power I.{;;.nley U:~ltJty Company

Egegik Ught & Po-... er Co. Unalakleet Val:I<ey Eledrtc Cooperative 0..,

Brevig Mission Anvil<.

Stebbtns NutiiQ Po,,-er Company (Karluk)

Tummak larsen Bay Utmty Company

False Pass Electric Assoootiofl I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ctool<ed Cfeek

Allakaket Enel{ly Systems (Alatna) Ipnalch1aQ Electric Company (Deering)

G .... itcnyaa Ztlee U'~1ities (Fon Yukon) Tenakee Springs Koyukuk, Olyol

Shaklool,J.; Akiak Power Utir.ties

\\fhale Pass Chi5lochina

Perean Uti~tiy Company Kipnuk Ught Plant

I·N·N Electric Cooperative Mountain Voltage

Ofd Harbor



I--(J) W I (')

I o I--I--(J) W :s o --' ,

~ Z ::J 2' 2' o o w o (L

RESIDENTIAL % OF TOTAL ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 2.)

0% 20%

O~ H,,,'" !!!!~~~~~ Koyuk. Hoonah

Kokhanok Wlage COunCil Alakanuk

Tetlin HolyCross

Minto Chuathbafl;k

Goodnews Bay Outif1k1e,otyor

SelaWl1: Noorvik

Haines Ugh! & Power MekOfYUk Sidsmaref

Nome JOint Utility System Savoonga

Atqasuk Sleeetmute

lower Kalskag Tanali,an Et~lrfc coopel<ltive, Inc.

N°ra~l~~fe'c~~ b~~ Tooksook Bay

Kiana Yakutat Power

Pitkas Point Nushagak Electric Cooperative, (ne. (Oi1lingl'lam)

KaktOVll( Kotzebue Elecllic Association

Port n~~rnKitst~ Poi~~k

Cflevak Kmtina

PUlfUmaq Power Company (1<ongiganak) Nuiqsut

Ana~tuvuk Pass P,lot Station Quinhagak Wainwright

Kake Hyd.aburg

Platinum Power Plant Eagle pO)'n'cr Company

Akiachak Nativo CQmmunity Efectm; Co. GUSIaI'lJS Elecllic Q)mpany

""''''''' Napakiak Ircinr.lq Power Company Pilot PoinlV~l<Ige Gollno!

Tunhiluti<lk Commvnity SeNice Assn. Manokotak PO\'o'er Company

Nelson lagoon Eleclric Caoperative. Inc. Belhel lJIjI,ties Corp Inc.

Kot!.k Electric Services Coffman Cave

Anlak Ught & P(rNer Compan~lI!~~

Chignik lake ElectriC UhM),.!nc.

S~~~~7J:~k Eo' Tok (indudes Dot lake)

New Sluyahok Chenega sa)'

Hooper sa)' N'ghtmuie Power Plant

Russian Mission Unqusraq P<r"..,rCompany (NC',,1ok)

Kasaan Hams

Ekwok Electrlo:; Perryville, Oty of

Klawock Kwethluk. Inc.

POint Hope Kasigluk

Kv.1g Power Company (Kwigit'in{Jok) Kollg<lnek V,I!aQe Counc~ AtmauUua~ JOint Utilities

Tutuksak Traditional Power U~Tity Naterkaq light Plant (Chefomak)

IJapaskiak Electric Uti!ity Ch~l;at Valley

BuclUand.Cltyof

40% 60% 80% 100%

(pcerep2.wJld) November 16, 1998 3.15


1% RESIDENTIAL KWH peE ELIGIBLE (PART 1·)1

Koyukuk, City of Terd .. Village Utffity

Sheldon Point, City of Healy Lake

Venetie Vrllage Electric Pedro 6ayVdlage Council

Hughes Power & light Platinum POW{)( Plan!

Kobuk Valtey Electric COmpany Ekwok electric K ..... eth!t.Jk.lnc. Brevig Mission

AtmautluakJOInt Utilities Nunapitchuk

False Pass Electric ASSOCiation K .... -ig PO' .... er Company (Kwigillingok)

Chevak Chuathbaluk

Kokhanok Wlage Council to'Ner Kalskag

Far Noxth Ublltities (Centr.Jl) Grayling

Shageluk Unqusraq Power Compafly (Newtok)

Huslia

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

fif) w 5: o ---' o ffif) W I (')

Allakaket EnergySyslems (Alalna) I~~~~~i~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~f . Ok! Harb(){

OuzinkIe. City of Nulato

Savoonga Eagle PoNer Company

TenakeeSplings Mantey Ul1fotily Company

Akutan Electric Utility Circle Utilities

Hol:r'Oo&s Kaltag

Gustal'l)S Electric Company Noatak

TeUin Tununak Kivalina

Naterkaq Ught Plant (Chefornak) I , >t: z ::J :;: :;: o o w o (L

IpnatchiaQ Electri<: Company (Deering) Chignll<.lake Electric UUlty.lnc.

leve:ock Electlic Cooperawe Crooked Creek

BeWes Akhiok, CIty of

NJPJJ.Jak IrcinraQ Power Company Takolfla Community Association A1llliiQ POWN Company (Karluk)

Selawik Ruby, Cily of

Umnak P(Y.<,er Company (I\'il(olski) Minto

I<o!_ganek Villago Council Igiugig Electric Company

Anvik larsen Bay U~lity Company

Mekol)'uk l.Ianol.olak P(YNN Company

G .... itchyaa Zhee Ut<lities (fort Yukon) SI. Michael

Koyok Tool;sook Bay

Kotlik Electric SelVices I<iana

Diomede Joint UMties Egeg<l( light & Po ... w Co.

Upperl<a1skag RUSsian Mission

Nikolai Ughl e. Power Tanana Power CompallY

Elim E,k

Chignik. Electric Stebbins

Quinhagak Red DeVIl

HooperBay GOOdne-",-s Bay

Pitkas Point NoolVik



1% RESIDENTIAL KWH peE ELIGIBLE (PART 2·)1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Sl Mary's NOOnh~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;;;; Napaskiak Electric Utility Klal'o'{lc!l:

I(f) w 5: o -' o lI(f) W I (')

I

~ Z ::J 2' 2' o u w u (L

Ambler Chitina Electric Inc.

Sand POint Electric ~~~~

Aniak Ugh! &. PO' .... erCompany. tnc. Shungnak

Chistochina Seaver Joint Utilities

Northway Power & light Chenega Bay

Kasaan McGf<lth light &. Power

Sleeelmule Elrm COve Electric Uti~ty

Kasigluk Hoonah

Buckland, City of Gambe~

Point lay Galena, City of

Marsha~ New Stuyahok Sc<lffimOn Bay

Cordova Electric COOper-Hive,lnc. Kj"d3btJtg

Ho!fis Shismaref

Go,'ovin PO' ... ·er Utir,ties P~ol Station

Kake I·N·N Electric Cooperative

Shaklool>lo; Stony River

KJpnuk Ugllt Plant Akiachak Nall'le Community Electric Co.

St GeOfgc Municipal Electric UtiC,ty Tal: {inch.rdes Dol lake)

Whale Pass Ch]kal Val!ey

Slevens Vd!age Enatgy Systems Afakanuk

Tl.lfltulur""k O)mmlmity Service Assn. Nushagak Electric Cooperative. Inc. {O:!F.ngham}

Haines Ugh! t. Power Togiak

ThOme Bay Pull!ie UOllty Cra;g

Wales Angoon

PuvumaQ PO'<'>'Cf Company (Kongiganak) Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative. Ille.

Tanalian Electric cooperatwe, tne. Atqasuk

Mountain V,!1age Q)ffrnan Cove

Nightmute Power Plant Skagwa)'

A~iak Po .... er Ut,lities Nome Joint UI~'t)' System

Bethel Utill\ies Corp tne. Pdol Point v.~!age COllnOt

Ya~ulat Power Na~nek Electric Association, Inc.

Terrer PO-Ner Compan)' Perryvij~e, City of

SL Paul Mun;opal ElectrQlc Utilit)' KaktOVik

Anak!iNuk Pass Wainwright

Nuiqsut Point Hope

Kotzebue Electric Association Mentasta

Unalakleet Val!key Electric Coopefl'ltNe \Vhite Mountain L/tJ1ities

Andreanol Electric Corpora~on (Atka) Pelican Ut~jtiy Company Unalaska Electric Ublily

King Cove, City of Tuluksak Traditionat Power Ut~ity

Port Heiden. at)' of G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay) Tatitlek Electric UWity

(pcerep2. wpd) November 16, 1998

100%

3.17


.-----------mtrltRE 3.8 (parM-'r---------------,

I-(/) W I (9

I

o I-I-(/) w 5: o --'

~ z ::::> 2' 2' o o w o (L

I~_-

RESIDENTIAL PCE DEDUCTION PER ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 1.)

o

Pefican Ublitiy Company Sk<lgway

Nome Jo1n\ Utility System !~~iii Wainwright Nuiqsut

Kaktovil<. Atqasuk

P()Inllay Point Hope

Anaktuvuk Pass Unalaska Electric UlIlity

Haines light & Power Thome Bay PuWc U!inty

King Cove, City 01 HolliS Craig

Hydaburg Yakutat P<YHer Akhiok, City of

Nushagak Electrn: Cooperative, Jnc. {Oil~nghaml Port Helden, City 0

Ko!.?:ebue Ele~1riC ASSociation Naknek EtectriG AssOCiation, fnc.

Bethel ~;k~~%~~ SL Paul Munldpal Electrq:c Ut.!ity

Cordova E~~~n~~~~e~~~~~ Galena, City of Ekwok EteclriC

Unalakleet Val;key Electric Cooperative Whale Pass

CoffmarlCove Natell<3q light Plant {Chefornak}

Kipnuk light Plant Venetie Wlage ElectriC

KOliganek V.:Iage Counol

Chi!~~i'ffi~:;:~1~~ Menl3sta

Buckland, City of Tatitlek Ete,lric Utility

Manol:.otak Power Company Al:iak Po-I<er Uhf<ties

AJ\utan Electric Utolity Elfin Cove Electric Ulility

False Pass Eleclric Association

G'Mtchl"<la Z~~;~'~;t J'j~10i;~I?;~ Tanah;H1 Electric coopelative, Inc.

NOrthwa6:z?~~~,&ch~~1 Ruby, Oty of

P.~ot Poinl \JilIage Counc,1 Kwethluk. Inc.

Slevens Vi:lage Energy Syslems T;lO~na Power Company

Tutul.:.sak Tl'dd,(ional Power UI,I.ty TeWn

Sand Poinl Electric ~~g;~~

Klawock Angoon

Chi!1<at Valley Kasaan

Kake Koyukuk, City of

larsen Bat~~~~e~~~~~r Kouiio; Electric SeNices

Chenega Bay Nightmute Power Plant

Egeg'k Ugh! & Po-",er Co. Chis tach Ina

SL George Munldp<ll Electric UWity

Sh:a~~~ Andreano! Electric Corporation (~(ka)

PuvulOaq Power C~~~~% {~:~~~~:~l Golovin Power Utilities N;kolai Ught & Power

Takotnaf~s~~t~I~~g?t~ White Mountain U!;:,\ies

Minto

CENTS PER KWH

10 20 30

(p cerep2. wpd) November 16,1998

40

3.18


I-(/) W I C9 I o I-I-(/) W S o -1 ,

~ Z :=J ::2' ::2' o o w o (L

RESIDENTIAL PCE DEDUCTION PER ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 2.)

Umnak PO'Ner Com8~J:SolJ~J Graylillg Chevak Togiak

Tuntutu~ak Community SeNlce Assn. McGrath light & Power

Tununak G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay)

",m Sl Mary's

Pitkas POint Igiugig Electric ~~:iX

Russl<ln Mission Marshag

Sav00IlG3 Sl Michael

PilolStaliOn Stebbins

Quinhagak Nulato

Far North Ublitities (Central) Alakanuk

Sca~o~k New Stuyahok

tt!~~~S~~ lcr...-erKatskag

O:d Harbor Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Brevig Mission

'""" Kasigluk Nunapitchuk E,'

Circle Util,Iles Shaktwlc:

Aniak lighl &. Power Company, Inc. Platinum Power Plant

Hm~~' HolyCross

Gambea Pedro Bay Village Counol

Kwlg Po .... cr Company (K .... ;gilfil'lgok) Diomede JOint Utiltties

Emmonak levelock Electric Cooperatwc

ipnatchlaq Electric COmpany (Oeering) MOUntaln Vdlage

Alfaka~.el Energy Systems {Alalna} Wales

Shlsrnaref Hughes Power & Ught Eagle PO-Ner Co:r~~k

Seta",lt Chigo.'k lake Electric Utit.ty,loc.

Kivalina NOONik

Kokhanok VIllage Council Seaver Joint UIl1ities

KObur:~~~e~:Z~;~~~~ AIu~:Q Po'NN Company (Karluk)

Akia~~~~s;;a~~eO-~~~~~~J~~~~~ Gustavus Eleclr1c Company

Ambter Shungnak

Bettles Kiana

Heatylake Te:ler Pov."er Company

Telida VJl!age Utility

CENTS PER KWH

o 10 20 30 40

Stony River Napakiak Irdnraq pCroe~k~~~k 1~~§§§§§§~§~~§§§§§§§~§§~§§§§§~§§§§§§§§§~ Red DeVl1

Chuathbaluk Sleeetmute

Manley Ut,litityCompany



,-------------i?fflffltE 3.9 (pal t 1--\----------~

!AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY RATE BEFORE AND AFTER PCE (PART 1.)

P.z~~;~k Anakltl~~IJ,~~~

Nuiqsut Kaktovik

wain't~%i~ Point Hope

E§~~:~w~~~~~~~ Hydaburg

Homs Kolilk Electric Services Haines U~~~t:~;~

Northway Power & Ughl Craig

Ska~y Cordova Electric cogg~~riet~nv~

Beaver J~~r~b~~~ Chignik lake EI~!ric Utifity. Inc.

PeHcan Ub1itiy Company tpnatchi3% Electric Company weering)

and Point~te~~\i ~~~rz Gustavus EreelriC ~ompany.

ToJ.; {inC?UUd~~k&8.'~\~t Nushagak Electric Cooperative, tnc. (O.Uingham)

Naknek Electric Association. Inc. A!lakake\ Energy Systems (Alalna)

Kaltag Elfin Cove EI&tric Ulrlily

Huslia Chevak

Nightmute Power Plant Gl'.itchyaa Zhee Utilities (Fort Yukon)

Nome Joint Vtilitk Sre,lem Ch~~~a E.ra,~~ lower re:!Skag

KotzebUe Electric Association Brevig Mission

Noatak

Kln~;k~~~1 ~:%g: McGrath Ught & Power

Bethel Uti[lties Corp Inc.

S!. George Munici~:ln~~~Tn~Pal~~; GravHng

Unalaska Electric Ut,!ity Tununak

Old Harbor A!(ulan Electric Utility

Unalakleet VaHkey Electric Coo~ratlVe

(pcerep2.wpd)

Upper KJa~~~ Goodnews Bay

Kasaan Nulalo

Hoonah Russian MissIon

Diomede Joint Utilities Anvik

KO}'l!k M,oto Elim

Tooksook Bay Kak,

Selawllt; Quinhagak

Mentasta 51. Michael Savoonga

Chilka\ Valley 51. Mary's

Holy Cross Pltkas Point

Chenega Bay Stebbins

~~~;1~~

CENTS PER KWH

o 20 40 60

November 16, 1998 3.20


IA VERIAGE RESIDENTIIAL ELECTRICITY RATE BEFORE AND AFTER PCE (PART 2.)

Chislochlna E,k

Aflgoon Pifot Point VI1!age CQuno1

Aniak U~~t ~~1tJMn~t(Jlnt':11i Golovin Power Utilities

Me~~~ larsen Bay Utili~ Company

OO~~~~ Thorne Bay PuMe Umity

Tanafian Electric cooperative, Inc. Manokotak Power Company

I·N·N Eleclric Cooperative Scammon Bay

Pilot Station

M~~~~ New~~~~~

Kiana Garen~~b~!

Emmonak Chitina Electric Inc.

Ambler Shismaref

Nalerkaq light Plant (Cherornak) Shaktoolik

Kokhanok Village Council Cirde Utilities

Umnak powercompanYsW~~~~~J Chuathbaluk

levetock Electric Cooperative Netson lagoon Electric CooJ)cratlve. tnc.

Mantey UliMily Company Kohganek Village Council

Unqusraq Power Company (Ne1Hlok) Kobuk Valley Electric Company

Perry .... ille. City of Wales

Buckland, City of

I·~~t~~~d '0~~~ PlatinUm Power Plant

A1ut~q Power Company {Karluk} Red DeVl1

NaPt~j;~ t~~~~~e~?ri~eAs~~~gx Port ~~~~~ju~itrn~~

Andreanof Electric Corporation (Atka) Tanana Power Company

Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility Akiachak Native Commungk!~~c~1~S~c

Steeetmule Tuntuturrak Community Service Assn.

Atmautluak Join! Utilities Takotna CommunltyAssociation

Nap~~~a~ntfe~1~cdu~,Y.) K\Vig Power Company JK\VigitiingOkJ

H~,~~~~ ucrr;f& &p~~r Puvurnaq Power Company (~Ongiganak)

Stony Rl.v.er SI. Paul Municipal Eleclr~ic U~My

TeUer Power Company'

Akiak ~~~~'U1i'l;t~~ KOJ1lkuk. City of

Egegik li~hl & Power Co.

Igi'.1~i~ekCmic?ri°cmJlTIn~ VI/hile Mountain Uti!iUes

Pedro Bay Village Council

Venetie Vi~~~e .Et'f~~1 S!e~'ens Village Energy ~ystems

T elida Vilfage Uhlity

(pcerep2.wpd)

CENTS PER KWH

o 20 40 60

November 16, 1998 3.21


.------------lFi'fIGRFUFlHR:E-3.10 (palt-l)'-----------,

ti w S o -' o I-I-(f) W I o I

t z ::::> 2 2 o o w o (L

I4VERI4GE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL SALES PER CUSTOMER (PART 1.)

Un~~~k!ntre~Cticd ~~~ Sl k~~;~~~~:~~ec~~~~

POint Hope Atqasuk

Yakutat Power Kaktovik

Walnwrlghl Nuiqsut

Ana~tuV\lk Pass

~~ra King COve, ~JJ

Naknek electric ASSociatiOn.Joe. COffman '-'lYe

UnatalJeet VaRkey EJectric Cooperative Cordova Electric COOperatlVe, fnc.

NI/shagak Electric COOperative, Inc. (O,1fingham) Hoonah

Hytlaburg

Non~i;!~'l~lylr~~ Sl George Municipal E~ectric Utility

Bethel Utmt<es Corp Inc. Sha~too/lk

Sf.;.agwal Tok Concludes Dol lake

Kipnuk light Plan Aniak Ugh! & PO"Ner Company, Inc.

Chlgnill ~~~~I:1c:1C h~~'~~.g; Tabtlek "f3eclric U~lily

Kta"'1lck Whale Pass

Shungnak Neisonl3Qoon Electric CooperatNe, fnc.

o

Mountain Vol\;lge Poinllay

Sand Point electric Company SEE NoOlVl~ Kasaan

Minto Port HejdenKl?~tn~

Kasigtuk Th!)me Bat Public UMly

O!)~~~~r; P,!!)! Po;nl V!1'..age CounCil

Kiana

NewSt~~~~ Nalerkaq Ught Pk1.nt ~{~~tokJ

Scammon Bay Ambler

Ho.:;'s Emmonak

NorVrnay PO-NCr & Light tpnatc.hiaq Electric Company (Deeringl

Pu~umaq Power Company (Kongiganak Holy Cross

Kv.ig Po .... -er CompaflY (K\\;g,llin."'l Andreanof Electric Corporation {Atka

QUlinlde, C;~~

Pell)"'J1e. City of S!. Mary's

Nightmute PO""'-er Pllnt Russian Mission

Cttistoc!lina Atn13uUuak Joint Uti!ities

'·N·N Electric Coopera~ve Tun!u!urtak COmmunity SeMco Assrl.

Tarla!ian '@rt~~t~o;~O~!~~~Ou~?~ SlIisrnarel

Koyuk Wales

Gambe~

levelOCk EIOCIYt~~;~~~

Thousands

2 4 6 8

! I I I I I I I I

55 ~ 55


10

3.22


I-(J) ill S o -' o I-I-(J) ill I (9

I

~ Z ::J 2 2 o o ill o CL

(pcerep2.wpd)

URE 3.10 (pmt-2'I-----------,

AVERAGE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL SALES PER CUSTOMER (PART 2.)

Thousands

o 2 4 6 8 10

November 16, 1998 3.23


I-if) W I (9

I o I-I-(J) W S o -' , >t::: z :::J :;:; :;:; o o w o 0..

Beaver JOInt Utilities Koyukuk, City of

P!~Snum POWel Plant HealyLa~e

Sheldon Polot.. City of E3g!e Pr:ffler Comparrf

Tetlin ShagellA

Tenakee Springs ManleyUUlitity Company

far NQrth Utilitities (Central) Alraka~et Enelgy Systems (Alalna)

Kobuk Va'Jey Elec\rk: Comparrf Bre-ig Mission

P%lLay Akvtan Electric Utility

Kotfik Electric SeNlees Gustct.us electric Company

C/llgnikElectric Mentasl3

G ... itchyaa ZIlee UHfi'es {Fort Yukon} Clleva.-k

HtJSrl3 Pe"canU~1itiy CompafTl

An'" Nort/I'H3i' PO'o'o'er & Ugh!

""''' Chuathbalulo; lO'o'<et Kalskag

UmnakPowerCompany{Nikolskij Kaltag

KolJlano\ VIllage Council T~'

sre.~ns ViUage Energy Systems Nl,II\apitchuk

Ipnatehiaq Eteetlic Company jDe-ering) Goodnews 8ay

Sa'iOOnga Sela ..... "

Grayling Old Harbor

OllzjrWe.C;~/of H<Jghes Power &. Ugh\

Chefleo;ja 8ay Elfin Cove Electric Utility

Stebbins Mekoryul; E,'

Steeetmute StMithae/

Golovin PQYo'er Utilities "/hale Pass

Olomede Jo'n\ Ublities Nightmute P<M'er Plan!

Ta\otna Community Association An;a1,.wrol; PM5

NJachak Native Comm"nity Ele<:tric Co. N"'a~

P,lkas Point Chill:atVa~ey

Hoope1' Say T"':"l.sak Trad!tionat PO"Nef Ubfity

Quinhagak Sl;ag.vay

Upper Katska9 Ala"anuJ,:

Sand Point Elec!I!c Company Atqasuk

Chitina Electric lne. Circle Ublities

NtJiqsl1l Vene~e V,i!age Electric

Koroganel; Village COunc>l Ch;g"'1<.la~e Ele<:lric UtOity. Inc.

Hytlaburg StonyRivef

Ha;nes Ught &. Power Koyu'<.

RvsslanMiss~n larsen 6ayU!lTity Company

WairMTighl Manokotak Power Company

Noatak Kipnuk light Plant

Ka~\ovLk "m

(pcerep2.wpd)


MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL WITH peE DISTRIBUTION (PART 1.)

so S50 S100 $150

November 16, 1998 3.24


~ W I C)

I o f--f--(f) W

S o ..J , >!::: z ~ 2: 2: o o w o (L

MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL WITH peE DISTRIBUTION (PART 2.)

Sk~ay Bettles

"""be' Wales Kakwvik

Tana!lan Electrlc tOOpera!ive, Inc. Shismaref

Napakiak lIcioraq Power Company Crooked Creek

Rus.sIaoMissioo Chls!ochina

McGrath light!. Power SLMary's

Atqasuk EOm

CiteleU~Toties RedOe .. ,1

Manol:.olal; Power Company HolyCross

tJaTvlek Electrlc Assoclation,lnc. AndrcanofElectri, COrp::!ration (AtIca)

Emmonak Vef1e~e Village Electric

Tanana Power Company Poin\Hope

Kiprn.ik light Plant """",, Kasaan Galena. City of

Pilot Station Scamrnoo 6ay

Togiak Ne.'{ Stuyahok

Kasigluk TooMook6ay

NO<ltaJ,; Bethel Ubb:ies Corp Inc.

Larsen Bat UnlityCompany AJu~iq Po .... er Co<r9any (Kartuk)

NapaslJal; Electric Ubuty Minto

Kwethluk, tnc.

$0 $50

KlVafin3 Ur>a!alJeet Va1lkey Ete<;tric Coopefa~ve

Kiav.-oc;;'

Nushaga'<. Etc-Otic Cooperawe. Inc. (OilGngham) I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I! ~k,Cityof Nil<1)1al Ught & Power

Ruby. Cityo! Ig-'U'J'9 Electric Company

N!.'lson lagoon EJectticCoopeta~ve.lnc. EIo. .... 'OkEtectric

King Cove, Cityof Pedro BayViUage Council

NOONi;; False Pass Electric Associ3:ion

PCI<)'\'Il'C, Cityof NomeJoint Ubfity System

Chtgniklake Electric U!i!ity, Inc. UnquS,aQ PO' .... el Company (Newtok)

Thome Bay Public U~lity Mouol.aln wrage

Tuntu!ltiak ConllllUrOty ServiceAssII. Shungrl3k

White MOl<llwn U~!ities Aniak light & P,y .... er Compa!lY, Inc.

Hoo~h 1< ... 1g Power Compa!ly (I<wig;:'~ngok)

ShaldOO1<k Naterkaq Ught Plant (Chefornak)

Egegfk lIght& Power Co.

$100 $150

Puvumaq PO'Ner Company (l<ongLgan.a~) I<ake

Port Heiden, City of A_" Ya~vlat Power

I<otlebue Electric A.$sociatoon

l<o~a~Ir.VillageCouncir I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::! la~~ek Electric Ublity Atmautluak Joint Ublitics Ullalaska Electric Ublity

G&K, Inc. (Cotd Bay) Telida Village Uti~ty

Sl Paul Ml./licIpal Elecltqic Utility



I-(f) W I C)

I o I-I-(f) w 5 o ---' ,

~ Z :::J 2' 2' o o w o (L

MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL AT ANCHORAGE USE RATE (PART 1.)

$0 $100 $200 $300

r.-AC:UJAC~-----------n-635-KWH~-MON+H----

.635 KWH I MONTH AT PUBLISHED RATE

$400

jEXCLUDES 6 UTILITIES WITH MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL USE PER CUSTOMER GREATER THAN ANCHORAGE I



1;) ill I (')

I o f-f-(f) ill S o --' , >t: z ~ 2' 2' o o ill o (L

MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL AT ANCHORAGE USE RATE (PART 2.)

so $100 $200 $300 $400

r.AC+UAC------------<U-635-KW1M-MONTH---------.

~ 635 KWH I MONTH AT PUBLISHED RATE

[CXCIUDES 6 UTILITIES WITH MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL USE PER CUSTOMER GREATER THAN ANCHORAGEI

(p cerep 2. wp d) November 16, 1998 3.27


I-(/) W I (9

I o I-I-(/) W S o -1

~ Z ::::J :2 :2 o o w o 0..

ANNUAL PCE DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER (PART 1.)

Pe~can ~~~~~~~ Skagway

Port Heiden, CIty of Thome 8a~'f: df:~

Nome J~ ~~~&~e:;} Tuluksak Tradttioo31 Power Umlty Stevens v~~n~~TV;~tk~

Haines l/flht& p()W1:!(

so

Platinum POWllf Plant '!!i!!!i!!!i!!!i!!!!!! Unalaska Electtlc UNity ~ Mentasta "offi,

Perry .... ilIe. City of Tatitlek Electric Ub1ity

Venetie Village Electric Wainwright

Kaktovik PoinlHope

Nuiqsut potntlay

AnakllJWk Pass ctIenega Bay

Naknek Electric AsSociation,lnc. Buckland, City of

Galena, City 01 Chignik Electric

Hydaburg ern. Bethel Utilities Co!}) Inc.

Beaver Joint U!>Iities Sheldon pom!. City of

Ruby. City of Ekwok Eleclrlc

Tenakee Springs TOk (includes DOl lake)

Atqasuk i~~~~~~i~~~ Chitina Electric Inc.

Akutan Elettric Utjr,ty Yakutat Power

Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (04Iingham) Elfin Cove Electric Ut,r,ry

G .... itc.hyaa Zhao VI,Wes (Fort Yukon) Kotzebue Electric AssociatiOn

Unalakleet VaUkey E!ectric Cooperative Tetful

\Vhile Mountain Ulllilies Andreanof Electric CorporatiOn (Atka)

Far North Utir.tilies (Centra!) Tanana Power Company

SL Paul Mun1cipat Efectrq,c utility Cordova Electric Coopcl<lwe, Inc.

Takotna Community Association Hughes Power & Ught

Tanali.:Jn Electric coopel<ltive, fnc. Manokotak Power Company

Kwethluk, Inc. False Pass Electric Association Kobuk Valley Ele~~~T~~~

Whale Pass Naterkaq Ught Ptant (Chefornak)

PIlOt Poinl VtIlagf) Counc~ Umnak PowcrCompany (Nikolski)

Healy lake Akiachak Native Community EtectrlcCo.

Golovin POI'I'er Ulll,ties Coffman Cove

E~~rrJ'hr&;~e~~: Nightmute PO' .... er Plant

Napaskiak Electric Util,ty Igiugig Electric Company

Kotlik Electric Services NikolalUgh\ & Power

Allakaket Energy ~~t.kf/~t~~l Pedro Say Village Counol

Manley Uti"!]!,!y Company Eagle Power ~~~k

Puvumaq Po-.... er Company (KOI1lliganak) Brevig Mission

S500 $1.000 51.500



ANNUAL PCE DISTRIBUTION FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER (PART 2.)

t;) W I (9

I o I-I-(f) w S o -' ,

~ Z => :": :": o o w o [L

Anvik KIpnuk. Light Plant

Crustoeh';na SteblYns

larseo Bay UIMI' Company

GOOd~~=, Tuntutuliak. Communtty Servke Assn.

Kasaan Eok

Tener PowerCompany KooperSay Sl Michae!

Kaltag Atmautluak Jolnt UMties

Sand Point Electric Company Pitkas Poll'll

Marsh.all Tununak Chevak.

Savoonga Gra~'fng

51. George MUII;cipat Etedric Uti!ity Cirde U!I1,ties

Steeetmute KIav.'Ock

Wa!es levelock Electric COOperative

Kot'ganek Village Counol Quinhagak

Kokhanok v.;~~~~ Diomede Joint Utilities

lQ\',~(i«Ilslo;ag Huslia

Oid Harbor GambeU Sel<lv.~k

Nutalo Tetida v.:tage Uttllty

Shage!uk Togiak

SL Maris K .... .;g Po ... er Company (Kv.-igi:lingok)

Hoonah Angooa

KW~ P~ol Station

Nunapitchuk Chuathbaluk

ShiSrndref RUS$lan MisSiOO

Emmonak Scammon 8al' New Stuyahok

Ka~e Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Minto Upper Katslcag

A/ub"iQ Power COmpanl' (Karluk) G&K, Inc. (Cord Bay)

Mountain V;:/;lge Gustaws Electric Company

Holy Cross I·N·N Etectric COoperative

Ipnatch;aq Electric Company (Oeef.ng) McGrath Lighl t Power

Kas;g~k Napakiak Ircinraq Po-..... erCOmp<!ny

Toolt.sookBay Unqusraq Power Company (Nen1ok)

Red De",i! Shaktoo'ik

Kiana Croo~ed Creek

Bettles AnIak Ugh! & Power CompanY,lnc.

Kivalina Ambler NOONil<. Noatak

Shungnak Chignik lake Electric Uli'ity, Inc.

(pcerep2.wpd)

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500

November 16, 1998 3.29


,--------~FIGURE,l:t4-(p1{rtt~---------,

tIi w I (9

I o I-I-(f) W S o ..J

~ Z ~ :2; :2; o o w o 0..

RESIDENTIAL PLUS COMMUNITY FACILITY % OF ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 1.)

Ter.da VlUaga Utility Red Devil

Far North Utifitities (Central) ChiMa El~tM Inc.

Bettles Elfin Cove Electric UMty

Heatylake Stony River

Manley Utilitity Company Cil'ctc UWities

Whale Pass Umnak PlYO'er Company (Nikolski) Tanalian Electric cooperative, Inc.

Hughes Power & light

Igiug;g EI~~k~~&:~~

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Chlstochina AJutiiQ Po-Ner Company (Karluk)

Sleeetmute KOi1,Jkuk, City of

Terrer Power Company Port Heiden, City of

Pedro Bay Village Council pact Point Vi!lage Council

Tenakee Springs Upper Kalskag

Takotna Community Associ<llion POint lay

Beaver Joinll)ti!ities

Elgie Pcw.~(Company I;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;l l:men Bay U!I!lty ComparlY GuSta~us ElectriC Company

Kobuk Vaney Electric Comp<Jny Anakluwk Pan

CtlUathooluk G&K. Inc. (CO!d Bay)

Skagway. Egegik light {. P'k";;i~£?k Tanana Power Company Tol: (includes Dot lake)

Atqasuk Kasaan

Holr1S

"""' I·N·N Electric Cooperati.·e Nightmute Power Plant

Penyvllte. Cill" of Norlhwal" PO-HerZ; light

Sand Poillt Electric C:lmpany Go!o.;n Power Ut~:ties Diomede Joint Utilities

"". Haines light Z; Power Andreano! Electric C:lrporati()n (Atka)

Mentasta Platinum Power Piant

Aniak light & PO'o'o"er Company, Inc. Gra,1iog

Galena,Otyof Nuiqsut

Cordol'<l Electric C:loperatlve,lnc. Wainwrighl Mekoryuk

Naknek Electric AsSociation, Inc. KOkh;mok. Village Counol

Shageluk False Pass Electric Association

Gwilchl-'<Ja Zhee Utilities (fort Yukon) She!don Point, at)' of

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc. Akutan Electric Utility

Chenega Bay Nushagak Electric Cooperative,lnc. (Dillingham)

McGrath light & Power Tununak

Kof;ganek Wlage CounCil ~"''hile Mountain UtJ,ties

Klawock. Ambler Wales

Yakutat PO'o'o'er Russian MisSion

Slevens Wlage Energy Systems

100%



,---------------~FlffG~U~REHr3H.lhH4(~),--------------~

f(f) W I (-')

I o ff(f) w 5: o -' , >-f-Z :=J :;: :;: o o w o 0..

IRESIDENTIAL PLUS COMMUNITY FACILITY % OF ELIGIBLE KWH (PART 2.)

Slevens VIllage Energy Systems Petcan U~1itiy Company

Tun\utuftJl: C<lmmunity Service Assn. Brevig Mission

Shak!ooIik Coffman Cove

Aklachak Native Community Electtlc Co. Ruby, City of

Unqusraq Pa .... er Compan:rt~~~~~~l HolyCross

fpnatchlaQ Electric Company (Deering) Ouzinkie, City of

Stebbins Tetrin

Sl Mary's Napakiak IrCinraq POW€r ~TI~~k

Kaltag leveklck Electric Cooperative

Chignik Electric Nikolai Ught e. Power

UnalaSka ElectriC Utility Thome Bay Putlf.c Utility

Kv.i{j Power C<lmpan~fo~~~b~~

Aliakaket Enel~r~~~/~~:~ Selawik

Savoonga Marshatt

Old Harbor Sl George MuniOpal Electric U(jIity

ClliIl<atValley King Cove, City of

Husr.a Scammoo Bay

Ka~e

Napaskiak Electric Utility Kiana

Chevak Hoonah

Atmautluak Joint U!~tties Nome Joint U4!,ly System

Bethel Ubl;~es Corp tnc. Elim

AAgOOO Shungnak

Unataf..teel Va'ikey Electric Cooperative Tooksook Bay

Quinhagak Mioto

Nulato Hwok Efel;(ric

Manokotak Power Qlmpany Nunapitchuk

G:~~~ Hydaburg

Akhiok, 01y 01 PuwmaQ PONer COmpany (Konglgaflak)

Point Hope NewSluyahok

Emmonak Venetie Vlliage Electric

KM;r.na Chignik lake Electric UWil\"lnc.

'ok Kotfil.; Electric Servi<.:es

Togiak Mountain V~ga

Natert.aq light Plant (enefomak) Hooper Say

Shismaref Tatitlek Electric U~"ty

Kipnuk light Plant Kwethluk, Inc.

Noorvik Buckland, Cily of

TUluksak Tr.ldLtional Power U:;!,ty KaMgluk

Noatak Sl Paul Muniopal Etectrqlc VbMy

Pilol Station Kotzebue £reCioe Association

la .... er Kalskag P,tkas POint

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%





4. ELIMINATION OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM --OVERVIEW

UTILITY MECHANISM FOR ABSORBING LOSS

With the elimination ofthe Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) pm1icipating electric utilities would immediately begin to charge residential, community facility, and commercial customers the full published rates for all electricity sales. The average cost of electricity to customers in the residential and community facility classes would increase dramatically because almost all residential and community class sales are presently made at much lower PCE rates. For example the typical utility residential customer Tate with PCE is about 44 percent of the full published rate which means the rate would increase 127 percent (56/44) to adjust to the full published rate. The average cost of electricity to commercial customers would typically increase by a smaller percent since only a portion of commercial class sales are made at the lower PCE rate. Shifting to fully published rates would not increase the cost of electricity to government and "other" customer classes because these customer classes are not eligible for PCE payments.

Customers would respond to the higher full published rates by cutting back on their electricity purchases. The reduction in purchases would be most pronounced for the residential and community facility classes since the average price per kwh would increase the most to these customer classes. The reduction for commercial class customers would be less pronounced since the increase from the average price with PCE to the published rates would not be as large. There would be no reduction in purchases by government and "other" class customers.

Faced with a reduction in sales the typical electric utility would reduce production and tTy to cut costs to eliminate its deficit and balance its budget. Although diesel fuel expenses vary with sales, most other utility costs such as personnel expenses, maintenance, interest on debt, and depreciation are fixed and cannot be reduced when sales decline, particularly in the short run. Because a large share of the utility costs are fixed, the average cost of producing electricity would increase when sales decrease, and as a result the utility would need to raise its rates above the full published rates in addition to cutting costs to bring revenues back into line with expenses.

The Tate increase necessitated by the reduction in sales would effect all customer classes, resulting in a further reduction in sales to all customer classes. This in tum would lead to a further rate increase, which would further reduce sales. This cycle of rate increases and sales reductions would continue until either an equilibrium level of sales had been reached where the utility was able cover all its costs at higher rates, or the utility was forced out of business because it could not cover its deficit with higher rates. If the utility were able to continue in operation, its sales would be lower, its rates higher, and its average cost of generation higher than when PCE was in force.

Figure 4.1 shows the current rates per kwh for each customer class for the PCE utilities as

(pccrep2.wpd) November 16, 1998 4.1


well as the rates that would result ifPCE were eliminated'. With PCE, the rate for PCE eligible kwh and the average kwh rate for the residential and community facility customers are almost the same. This is because almost all kwh in these customer classes are PCE eligible. In contrast, the PCE kwh rate for commercial customers is below the average rate because only a small portion of all commercial sales are PCE eligible. For the government and "other" customer categories no kwh are PCE eligible, and this is shown in the figure as a PCE eligible rate equal to the average kwh rate.

Elimination ofPCE would initially shift all rates up to the full published rates. This would be a more than doubling of the average rate for residential and cOlmnunity facility customers. The average rate for commercial customers would increase by about 6 cents and the average rate for government and "other" customers would not go up at all. The cycle of sales reductions and fmiher rate increases would result in post PCE rates coming to rest at higher levels than the published rates for all customer classes. The post PCE increases over the published rates are about the same for all customer classes. The total increase, comparing the average kwh rate with PCE and the post PCE rate, is greatest for residential customers followed by community facilities. The increase for commercial customers is not as great, and the increase for government and "other" customers is the smallest. However all customer classes share some of the burden of higher average costs of generation in the form of higher electricity rates in the post PCE environment.

DEATH SPIRAL

The cycle of higher rates leading to reductions in sales which in turn necessitate even higher rates may lead to a "death spiral" for the utility. In a "death spiral" the reduction in total costs from each unit reduction in sales is less than the reduction in total revcnues and rates can never be raised high enough to eliminate the deficit.

Whether a particular utility will fall into a "death spiral" or will be successful at finding a reduced level of sales together with higher rates that cover its costs depends primarily on three factors:

1. The more sensitive customer electricity purchases are to rate increases the more likely a utility will fall into a "death spiral". (This sensitivity is known as the price elasticity of demand, and the more negative its value the greater the sensitivity.)

2. The larger the number of customers that shift to self generation of electricity when faced with higher utility electric rates the more likely a ntility will fall into a "death spiral", and

3. The greater the share of utility costs that are fixed and thus cannot be reduced when sales decline, the more likely a utility will fall into a "death spiral".

7 These rates are averaged over all PCE utilities.


Power Cost Equalization ECOIlonlic Significance

Figure 4.2 shows how the death spiral can occur. In the figure both the cost per kwh of electricity and the revenues per kwh of electricity are shown to increase as the level of sales declines. Initially when PCE is eliminated the utility has sales of about 660 thousand kwh and faces a deficit of about $.18 per kwh. This is because the cost per kwh is about $.37 compared to rates charged that generate about $.19 per kwh for the utility. The utility will increase rates to cover the deficit, but this will contract sales to between 450 and 525 thousand kwh depending on the sensitivity of sales to the rate increase up to $.37 per kwh. At this lower level of sales the average cost also is higher. For example at 500 thousand kwh of sales the average cost has risen to about $.43 per kwh.

In Figure 4.2 we see that there is an equilibrium level of sales for this hypothetical utility at which average cost equals average revenue, if sales are not velY sensitive to price, as illustrated by point A. Here the reduction in sales moves along the line II from the initial point.

. However with slightly higher sensitivity of sales, where the reduction in sales moves along the line SS from the initial point, average cost remains above average revenue no matter how much sales are reduced. In this case the utility would be in a "death spiral".

Figure 4.3 is an altemative way to show the idea of the "death spiral" by focusing on the size ofthe utility deficit. When the PCE disbursement is withdrawn fi"om the utility a deficit opens that must be eliminated by raising rates initially to the full published level. This will reduce sales and necessitate a further increase. The deficit will fall with higher rates, at least up to a point. If the deficit is gone by that point, the utility will survive. If the deficit is not gone the utility will fall into a "death spiral" since rates above that point will only serve to increase the size of the deficit. Figure 4.3 shows the relationship between the size of the rate increase abovc the published rates and the size of the utility deficit. Each higher line is based on a successively more sensitive consumer response to higher rates. For this hypothetical utility the deficit can be eliminated if the sensitivity is less than -.25. At higher sensitivities there is no rate that will eliminate the deficit. The utility falls into a "death spiral".

SENSITIVITY OF SALES TO ELECTRlCITY RATES

A regression analysis using data for 1996 shown as Figure 4.4 suggests that the electricity purchases ofthe average resiclential customer of a PCE utility are positively l'elated to household income and negatively related to the average price of electricity. Specifically the equation shows tbat an increase in the average electricity rate by 100 percent is associated with a reduction in purchases by 21 percent. S

For example for a PCE utility with typical characteristics, such as Alakaket, the

S Tbe coefficient on the price tenn in the double log equation represents the price elasticity [percent decrease in sales / percent increase in price]. In this regression it has a value of -.207. This result is significant at the 95 percent confidence level even though the total explanatory power of the equation is relatively low as reflected by the R square value of .32.



residential rate for sales less than 700 kwh per month would increase from $.15 to a full published rate of $.39 if the PCE were eliminated. This represents a 160 percent rate increase which would, assuming a price elasticity of demand of -.2, result in a reduction in electricity use of32 percent for the typical residential customer (-20 percent multiplied by 1.6). This reduction in sales, combined with similar responses by other categories of customers, would require a further increase in the residential rate to $.47 to cover total costs at the lower level of sales. The total residential rate increase, fi-om $.15 to $.47 would be 213 percent and result in a reduction in sales to the typical residential customer of 43 percent (-20 percent multiplied by 2.13).

Rate increases of this magnitude are sure to have dramatic effects on consumption levels since they are large enough to negatively impact total household disposable income. Furthermore the statistical analysis is only suggestive since the large rate increases that would result from the elimination ofPCE are not reflected in the variation in cunent effective residential rates among the PCE utilities. The effective rates range from about $.1 0 to $.38 per kwh and do not include examples of the experience of consumers facing rates above $.40 per kwh. Consequently our estimated sensitivity of residential sales may be an underestimate.

Residential customers would respond to higher rates by reducing their use of appliances, getting rid of appliances, or terminating use of electricity altogether. We do not have any specific basis for estimating how many customers would stop using electricity altogether although utility spokesmen suggested that this would occur. Clearly the fact that a significant share of households are below the poverty level suggests that some residential customers would forgo electric service because they would be unable to pay their bill at the higher rate. This would further increase the sensitivity of utility sales to rate increases.

"Ve would not expect the response to higher rates to happen all at once. A portion would occur immediately because a higher rate effectively reduces the income of a household, but some of the effect would only show up gradually as appliances aged and were not replaced. A slightly Jlositive trend in average residential use over time from a subset of PCE utilities (described in Section 3.) suggests that the adjustment to the lower PCE rates has taken place over a period of years, and that the adjustment to higher rates would also take place over a period of years rather than immediately.

The substantial rate increase for community facilities would also result in a reduction in use, but we do not have any historical analysis of how electricity use has varied with price for this class of customer. We assume the electricity use by these facilities, as for residential customers, is not very sensitive to price, but that there would be some reduction in use if the rates increased substantially. This class of customers is more varied than residential and includes facilities such as offices, washeterias, and water and sewer facilities. Some of these require constant power, but electricity use could be reduced at some of these facilities. These facilities might also close if the price of electricity became prohibitive.

We would also expect that electricity use by commercial, govemment, and "other" customers would also be sensitive to rates, but we have not estimated the strength ofthat relationship.


. ."


SELF GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

Higher electricity rates would cause some customers to self generate their own electricity. The presence of this phenomenon increases the sensitivity of electricity sales to rate increases above the -.2 elasticity we have estimated and increases the possibility of a "death spiral".

Self generation would be a very expensive alternative for a residential customer because of the high cost of fuel, the investment required in generation equipment, a protective housing, and fuel storage facilities, the lower efficiency of operation compared to utility generation, and the time required to operate and maintain the system. In addition self generation imposes potential environmental costs on a community due to issues surrounding fuel handling and disposal of hazardous wastes.

Although the tlrreshold rate at which self generation becomes economic for a household depends not only on the costs but also on the use characteristics of the household, under almost all circumstances that threshold will be considerably above $1 per kwh and thus rule out self generation as an alternative. For example if the cost offuel to an individual is twice the bulk rate to the utility, the cost of a generator twice that of the utility per kW, and the efficiency is half that of utility generation, then the cost per kwh will easily be above $1 per kwh for self generation.

Of course if a utility were to fall into a "death spiral", some residential customers would self generate rather than do without electricity altogether, but it does not make economic sense to self generate as long as thc utility is in operation.

It is the non-residential customers that have a large electricity requirement that might self generate if electricity rates rose sufficiently. Schools, hospitals, and commercial businesses such as fish processors would be the most likely customers that might choose to self generate if the price of electricity increased, or ifthe reliability of electric service deteriorated. Some of these customers in some communities currently have backup capability in the event of a power outage by the utility, and they could self generate at the cost of running their facilities that are already in place. This could be economically advantageous to the large user at the same time that it loads higher costs onto those smaller customers left with the utility who do not have the capacity to self generate. This increases the vulnerability of small utilities to the "death spiral". In addition the combination of utility generation and self generation could raise the total cost of electricity generation within the community because ofthe loss of any economies of scale associated with a single generation source.

A strategic danger from a strategy of self generation under these circumstances would be that if the utility ceased operation because of a loss of sales and customers, there would cease to be backup generating capacity in the community.

The cost of self generation would be much higher for customers that do not cunently have installed backup capacity since they would need to purchase capacity, and it is unlikely that the full cost would be competitive with utility supplied electricity. However there would



undoubtedly be instances where the self generation threshold was low enough so that rate increase would result in some self generation. Furthennore the closure of a utility would likely force some large users to purchase equipment and generate their own power.

If a utility ceased operation some customers such as the hospitals, schools, water, and sewer facilities would self generate in order to continue operations. The cost of electricity from self generation would be higher than the price of utility electricity, and this higher cost would need to be passed on to customers or others. If there are facilities in a community that require electricity to operate, that electricity must be supplied and paid by some mechanism.

SENSITIVITY OF UTILITY EXPENSES TO SALES

Utility representatives indicated that fuel expenses are generally the only truly variable cost in their operations. The other main categories of expenses are personnel, administration including insurance, maintenance and repairs, depreciation, and interest. As long as the number of customers and the physical plant do not change, the expenses associated with operation and maintenance will not vary much with variation in the number of kwh sold. Forced reductions in these expenses would result in a deterioration in the quality of service and early retirement of facilities.

Fuel expense as a share of total costs varies across utilities. Overall it makes up a little less than 1/3 of the total, but it is less important for smaller utilities. Thus if fuel is the only variable expense, the capability ofreducing total expenses in response to a reduction in sales is limited and the average cost per kwh will be very sensitive to reductions in sales. For example for 1996 Elim reported sales of about 677 thousand kwh with expenses of $237 thousand resulting in an average cost of generation of about $.35 per kwh. Figure 4.5 shows how the average cost would rise as generation/sales declined. The higher line represents the response based on their actual cost structure where about 114 of total costs are fuel expenses. We see that the average cost increases at an increasing rate as generation/sales decline. As generation falls from 675 to 575 thousand kwh the average cost increases from $.35 to $.396 per kwh, an increase of $.046. As generation falls from 575 to 475 thousand kwh the average cost increases from $.396 to $.46, and increase of $.064.

The lower line shows the change in average cost in response to reduced generation if the fuel expense were 113 of the total rather than 1/4. This line would also represent a situation where fuel expense was 114 of the total but some other expenses could he reduced in response to a reduction in sales. We see that when a larger share of total costs are variable, the average cost of generation does not rise as fast with reductions in generation. However the difference is not very pronounced over a broad range of generation levels. At a generation level of 475 thousand kwh for example the average cost of generation in the case of more flexibility with respect to expenses (1/3 of total expenses) is $.45 compared to $.46 if only 114 of expenses are variable.

Some expenses submitted to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission by the PCE utilities are not allowed either because they are in excess of minimum efficiency standards or because

(Jlcerep2.wJld) November 16,1998 4.6


they are judged not to be necessary or reasonable. Under the pressure to reduce a deficit caused by the tennination of the PCE program some utilities might be able to reduce or eliminate some ofthese costs. Elimination of any of these costs would help to avoid a "death spiral". We did not conduct a detailed analysis to try to determine the extent of these disallowed costs or the categories of such costs. However we calculated that overall about 77 percent of submitted eligible costs were allowed and about 81 percent of eligible costs were allowed for the typical (median) utility. The range of percentages extended from a low of28 percent to a high of 100 percent. This suggests that the opportunity for cost reductions from the elimination ofthese disallowed costs is limited.

IMPACTS ON CUSTOMERS

Elimination ofPCE would force customers both to pay more for electricity and to use less. The tradeoff between the size of the increase in the bill and the size of the reduction in use depends upon how sensitive use is to the price of electricity. For the typical utility and customer we calculate that the monthly electricity bill might increase by 80 percent at the same time that use of electricity fell by 40 percent (consistent with an increase in the rate by 200 percent). If use were less sensitive to price the bill would increase by a larger percentage, but use would fall by a smaller percentage.

Figure 4.6 shows graphically how that tradeoff depends upon the sensitivity of use to the rate. Ifthere were no price sensitivity of use the entire burden would be in the foml of a monthly bill about 130 percent above the PCE level and a reduction in purchases of other goods and services to finance that higher bill. With increasing price sensitivity a portion of the burden is shifted away from a higher monthly bill toward lower monthly use. At a price elasticity of about -.35 the burden would consist entirely of a reduction in electricity use of about 65 percent with no increase in the electricity bill above the PCE level. If the price sensitivity were greater the total electricity bill would actually decline, but such a high level of price sensitivity for the typical residential customer is unlikely.

Residential customers will also indirectly pay a share of the increase in electricity rates experienced by community facility and commercial customers. These users will pass through a portion of any rate increases to their customers in the fonn of higher prices, or to their employees in the fonn of lower wages. In most cases these customers and workers are members of the households in the community.

The other customer classes of govenmlent and "other" will not experience rate increases as large as the residential, commercial, and community facility classes. Since govemment consists of state and federal govemment customers, increased electric bills will not directly effect the local economy or households. Most utilities do not have customers in the "other" category.



FIGURE 4.1

, COST OF ELECTRICITY I RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER

I SO.50 ,-----------,

I $0040

I ! SO.30 'I<

Il:' I ~ $0.20

i SO.10

!. SO.OO

"

peE KVVH AVG KWH PUBLISHED POST peE

,----------------------'

"ICOST OF ELECTRICITY . COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER

SO.50 r------------------,

, SOAO 1

! SO.30 I I< w

" '''' ~ SO.20 w o

SO.10

SO.OO peE K'.VH AVG KWH PUBl1SHEO POST peE

COST OF ELECTRICITY COMMUNITY CUSTOMER

SO.50 ,--------------,

SOAO

J:

~ SO.30 I< w

" '" ~ SO.20 w o

SO.10

SO.OO peE KWH AVG K\\'H PUBllSHED POST PCE

rC-osr6F ELECTRICITY I GOVT & OTHER CUSTOMER

SO.50 ,---.-.--.--.. ---.---------,

J:

~ SO.30

'" w

I

I I

II

I

" ~ SO.20 w o

SO.10

SO.OO'

1_. __ ._ peE KWH AVG KWH PUBLISHED POST peE



FIGURE 4.2

WHEN GENERATION DECLINES BOTH AVERAGE COST AND REVENUE INCREASE--BUT NOT EQUALLY

$1.00 ,--~-~---~------~-----~-----,

I .~ ~ $0.80 ..... ............... ~~.

w CL fif)

o o w (') $0.60

r2 w ;:;:

w

$0.40 ~ ::J Z w >

I w n::: w (')

, I

r2 ! w $0.20 I· ;:;:

I I

$0.00 I 0

.-J

100 200 300 400 500 Thousands

SALES I GENERATION IN KWH

600 700

I l~COST PER KW~-~~~~~.-D-E-M·A~ND~AT~.2~E~LA~S-T·~~~~~;;- !

1 .. _ ... _.~~~,=~=D=EM=A=N=D=AT=.2=5=E=LA=S=T=IC=IT=Y==.=D=E=M=A=N=D=A=T=.=3=EL=A=S=T:::IC=IT=Y=(=S=S:l.....~_.J



FIGURE 4.3

RAISING RATES REDUCES THE DEFICIT-UP TO A POINT

$40 ,-----~-------7

/ ~-~-------

$20 f-0 LL (f)

W -0 C

0 co $0 f-(f) ::J

W 0 (') .c 0 I-

::J CO

($20)

($40) 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%

110% 130% 150% 170% 190% PERCENT OF PUBLISHED RATE

1_ ELASTICTfY -.3 -l:1.AS-TICTrY= .25

- ELASTICITY =.2 - ELASTICITY = .15

ITHE MORE RESPONSIVE SALES ARETa RATE INCREASES-,\ELASTICITYj l THE LESS LIKELY A UTILITY CAN WIPE OUT A DEFICIT


Power Cost Equalizatiou

w

'" ~ ~ w 0 iii w ~

of ~ z z < w

~ w ~

w

'" ~ ~ z w 0 iii w « ~

~ z z < w

~ w ~

(pcerep2.wpd)


FIGURE 4.4

PRICE AND INCOME ELASTICITY OF PCE UTILITY RESIDENTIAL DEMAND

DOUBLE LOG REGRESSION

------

! "

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

.{I.207 0.089

0.445 0.065

3.254 134

0.320

[----

PRICE COEFFICIENT = PRICE ELASTICITY STANDARD ERROR OF COEFFICIENT

HOUSEHOLD INCOME COEFFICIENT = INCOME ELASTICIT STANDARD ERROR OF COEFFICIENT

CONSTANT OBSERVATIONS R2

RELATIONSHIP OF HH INCOME AND ELECTRIC SALES

.-.'

~---.---------. ---R

----.----

•

• •

,-

." " . __ • __ a ___ • • • , .. . _. -o.

•

SO S20 S40 S60 S80 Thousands

AVERAGE HH tNcm.1E

RELATIONSHIP O'F-AVG RESIDENTIAL PRICE AND ELECTRIC SALES

12,----

10 • • • 8 - --_ ..

I' • .. 6 -.--1.,..-- -• "" . • ..... • 4 -:w. rr ...

• -!Ie. ... 1b • 2

... •• 'II tt:\: ...... • . . - - . . I • •

0 SO.OO SO.10 $0.20 SO.30 SO.40 SO.50

1 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL PRICE PER KWH

November 16, 1998 4.11


(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 4.5

ICOST AS A FUNCTION OF GENERATION I $5.00

'" '" $4.00 I -.~, -- --.~- .. ~ ... --. . --- - -- --" .. _-._- ------- -_.

~ II a::

w $3.00 1--- _. -.- - - ---n. f--if) 0 0 $2.00 --- - .. .- .-- . -- - ._- -

W <.9

i2 w $1.00 -----~- -- ---- - -- -- --. -~

-'--0 __ . -

~

$0.00 ."--"-' '--h'.I',] '" . "',," .,-,-, """"",,,,,,'-"'1' '-,' , ""'''''-'," '''' -.... ".,.,,'.- ., 0 250,000 500.000 750,000 1,000,000

GENERATION (KWH)

1_ FUEL EXPENSE 1/4 OF TOTAL _ FUEL EXPENSE 1/3 OF TOTAL I [ELIMI

I !COST AS A FUNCTION OF GENERATIONll

! $0601

~ I , I I j

i ~ $0551-~ I

:!S0501" i [ III I I (L I

I l;; $0.45. I 18 -......::~ i

II ::l""""""=:"",,,,~1 375,000 475,000 575,000 675,000 I GENERATION (KWH) i

1'_--;FC;-U;;cE-;-L-"E~XP;C;;E'"'N~SC=E-:;-17;14=OFTClTAL _ FUEL EXPENSE 1/3 OF TOTA~I

[ELIMI L..-______ . ____ _

November 16, 1998 4.12


FIGURE 4.6

THE TRADEOFF OF A HIGHER ELECTRICITY BILL AND LESS ELECTRICITY USE

150% ,--~~~~~~------------~

~O.1 ...J 100% ---··---~~.16· ._ ..

~ "'.. 0.18

5 ~ ~ '"%0 ~. z .Q~ w (/) <{ w a: o z ~ o

\0.26

~ 0.28 \

0% f-I------------"\---i u 0.4

\ " 0.5

·50% L--__ ~~_L~~ __ ~~_~ ___ ~ __ J

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% % REDUCTION IN ELECTRICITY

I I WHERE THE CUSTOMER END~'-OP DEPENDS 6-1'1 -I [HIS SENSITIVITY TO PRICE INCREASE (PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND)

'----.. _... .~-~





5. ELIMINATION OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM--EFFECTS ON SOME REPRESENTATIVE COMMUNITIES

Because each community is different we cannot predict the effect of the elimination of the Power Cost Equalization Program on each one. The chati below shows the wide range of characteristics among the PCE communities and utilities. No single community or utility can be identified as the minimum, median (50 percent above and 50 percent below that level), or maximum for all these characteristics.

Community / Utility Characteristic

Population Household Income

PCE Payment to Community Total Per Eligible KWH Per Residential Customer Share of Total Revenues

Sales (kwh) Fuel Price Residential/Total Sales

Residential Rate (kwh) Published PCE Eligible

Residential Sales/Customer (kwh) Monthly Residential Bill

WithoutPCE NetofPCE

Annual Average Residential Bill Actual Bill PCE Support

Minimum

11 $9,141

$5,467 $.02 $63 5%

21,452 $.71 11%

$.15 $.10

644

$24 $16

$188 $41

Median

264 $35,203

$71,363 $.22 $1,059 31%

651,507 $1.14 41%

$.42 $.17

3,921

$121 $66

$790 $696

Maximum

5,195 $84,964

$813,312 $.40 $2,733 60%

32,564,724 $2.26 85%

$.62 $.38

10,201

$320 $236

$2,831 $1,725

Source: 1996 Statistical Report of the Power Cost Equalization Program. Data based on all 170 reporting communities.


Power Cost Equalization Economi c Significance

In this section we examine what the effect of elimination ofPCE is likely to be on three places. They have been chosen to be representative of the range of characteristics of the 190 communities served by PCE. Elim has many characteristics of the median PCE community, meaning that about half the communities are larger and half are smaller, although it is not the median in all characteristics. Shageluk is one of the smallest of the communities, and Nome is representative of the largest of the PCE communities. For comparative purposes we have included a similar analysis of several additional communities in an appendix.

The analysis in this section is based on the information for fiscal year 1996 reported by the utilities to the Division of Energy together with assumptions regarding the sensitivity of sales to rates and the sensitivity ofthe average cost of generation to the level of sales. Based on the discussion from the previous Section we make the following assumptions:

1. The price elasticity of demand for electricity among residential, community facility, and commercial customers is -.2. Elasticity is -.1 (sales are less sensitive to rates) for government and "other" customers.

2. No customers switch to self generation at higher rates. 3. Fuel expenses are the only variable cost for utilities.

ELIM--A TYPICAL PCE DEPENDENT UTILITY

Elim is representative of the typical PCE community and utility in many ways (Figure 5.1, part 4). The community has a popUlation of281, annual sales ai'e 677,326 kwh, the fuel price is $1.08 per gallon, and residential use per customer is 4,202 kwh per year. The cost of electricity generation is about 41 cents per kwh and the residential consumer, after the PCE adjustment, pays about 17 cents for an eligible kwh. The utility receives $941 annualIy on behalf of the average residential customer.

Elim differs from the average PCE utility in that it is more heavily dependent on PCE payments than most. 68 percent of its kwh are eligible for PCE and it receives 40 percent of its revenues from PCE.

With elimination of$l13 thousand ofPCE payments, rates increase and sales decline until an equilibrium is reached where revenues and expenses are balanced without PCE. The conditions under which this happens are shown in Figure 5.1, part 1.

The average residential rate increases from 19 to 55 cents, 190 percent. The impact on the typical household is a reduction in sales of 38 percent while the typical residential electric bill increases by 80 percent (Figure 5.1, part 3). The typical household is spending 4.4 percent of its income for 217 kwh per month. Including the cost of electricity for the operation of community facilities (paid by local residents), the typical household is paying 6.1 percent of its income for electricity generation. The average household cost of electricity, including community facilities is $1,954.

Total sales falls by 30 percent but expenses fall by only 7 percent because the only



variable cost is fuel. Consequently the cost of generation increases from 41 cents per kwh to 55 cents, an increase of 33 percent.

The burden on the community from the ternlination ofPCE depends upon the share ofthe added costs of electricity that can be shifted outside the community. We assume that local residents pay the entire cost of additional residential and community facility rates, 1/3 of the cost of a higher commercial rate, but none of the cost of a higher government rate (There are no sales in the "other" category.). As a result the local burden measured as the loss of household purchasing power is $73.5 thousand (Figure 5.1, part 2) which represents about 3.1 percent of the household income of the community. About $21 thousand of the burden is shifted outside the community.

Elim is able to fully recover its costs of operation at the higher rates through a combination of reduced fuel expenditures, a higher residential rate, and higher rates for other classes of cnstomers (Figure 5.1, part 3). However if the customer response to the higher rates is more pronounced (the price elasticity of demand is 30 percent rather than 20 percent), the utility would face a deficit that it could not eliminate through rate increases and it would fall into a "death spiral".

Figure 5.2 shows the outcome for Elim if customer lise is more sensitive to rates. The utility would have a deficit (negative balance) of$45 thousand out of total expenses of$254 thousand. Either raising or reducing rates would increase the size of this deficit. The deficit would need to be covered from an outside source if the utility were to remain financially viable.

Under this severe stress it is unlikely that the utility would be able to continue in operation.

NOME--A LARGE PCE UTILITY

Nome is the third largest PCE utility, after Bethel and Unalaska, in tC1111S of electricity sales and about 40 times larger than the typical (median) sized PCE utility (Figure 5.3). The community has a population of3,984, annual sales are 26,039,748 kwh, the fuel price is $.71 per gallon, and residential use per customer is 5,995 kwh per year. The cost of electricity is about 20 cents per kwh and the residential rate, after the PCE adjustment, for an eligible kwh is about 15 cents. The utility receives $200 annually on behalf of the average residential customer.

Nome is less dependent on PCE payments than all but a few PCE utilities. 33 percent of its kwh are eligible for PCE, but it receives only 8 percent of its revenues from PCE.

With elimination of$399 thousand ofPCE payments the average residential rate increases from 16 to 20 cents, 23 percent. Residential sales fall by 5 percent and the typical electric bill increases by 17 percent. The typical household is spending 1.8 percent of its income for 477 kwh per month. Including the cost of electricity for the operation of community facilities, the typical household is paying 2.1 percent of its income for electricity generation, in



spite of the fact that community facility usage falls 6 percent. The average household cost of electricity, including community facilities, is $1,373.

Total sales falls by 2 percent but expenses fall by only 1 percent because the only variable cost is fuel. Consequently the cost of generation increases 2 percent.

Because of the limited dependence of the utility on PCE, Nome is able to continue operations, but the typical residential customer experiences a 17 percent increase in his bill.

SHAGELUK--A SMALL PCE DEPENDENT UTILITY

Shageluk is one of the smallest communities served by a PCE utility. The community has a population of 144, millual sales are 254,361 kwh, the fuel price is $1.11 per gallon, and residential use per customer is 3,355 kwh per year. The cost of electricity is about 37 cents per kwh and the residential rate, after the PCE adjustment, is about 10 cents for an eligible kwh. The utility receives $915 annually on behalf of the average residential customer.

Shageluk differs from the average PCE utility in that it is more heavily dependent on PCE payments than most. About 80 percent of its kwh are eligible for PCE, and it receives 59 percent of its revenues from PCE.

With elimination of PCE the residential rate increases from 10 to 42 cents, 326 percent. Residential sales fall by 65 percent and the typical electric bill increases by 48 percent. The typical household is spending 1.4 percent of its income for 97 kwh per month. Including the cost of electricity for the operation of community facilities, the typical household is paying about 1.9 percent of its income for electricity generation, in spite of the fact that community facility usage falls 69 percent. The average household cost of electricity, including community facilities, is $663.

Total sales falls by 49 percent but expenses fall by only 15 percent because the only variable cost is fuel. Consequently the cost of generation increases from 37 cents per kwh to 62 cents, an increase of 67 percent.

At the higher rates this utility is not financially viablc. It has a deficit (negative balance) of $26 thousand out of a total budget of $80 thousand. This deficit cannot be reduced by raising or lowering rates. This utility could not survive without external financial assistance.





WITH PCE

677,325

315,144 201,650 131,178 29,354

o

$279,695

$62,350 $174,912

$42,432

$0.41

$279,695

$59,602 $73.030 $22,Q38 $12,123

SO

$112,901

SO

SALES (KWH) .

Residential Commercial

Community Facility Goyernment

Other

EXPENSES ($)

Fuel Non Fuel

()t)", Cost f Kwh

REVENUES ($)


Commllnity Facility Government

Other

peE

BALANCE

peE I REVENUES Dependency Ratio

FIGURE 5.1 (part 1)

PCE IMPACT (PART 1.)

WITHOUT PCE

.476,826

195,597 180,973 71,660 28,396

o

$261,238

$43,893 $174.912

$42,432

$0.55

$261,226

$107,157 $99,145 $39,368 $15,556

SO

SO

(SI2)

ELIM

CHANGE AMOUNT 'I.

200,500

119.547 20,677 59,318

95. o

($18.457)

($18,457) SO SO

$0.13

($18,.168)

$47,555 $26,115 $17.330

$3,433 SO

($12)

!-37.9% I Household Impact -10.3% -45.2%

-3.3% ERR

-6.6%

-29.6% 0.0% 0.0%

32.7%

6.6%

I 79.8%! Household Impact 35.8% 78.6% 28.3%

ERR


AVG PRICE I KW.c"'-____ _ Elasticity

$0.19 $0.36 $0.17 $0,41 $0,41

74 $32,242

$795 $1,069


Community Facility Government

Other

HOUSEHOLD DATA

H" IncomefHH

Electric Bill I Res Cust Electric Cost! Res Cust

2.5% Elecltic Bill Share of Income 3.4% Electric Cost Share of Income

4,202 Annual Use Per Res Cust 350 Month[y Use Per Res Cust

(pcerep2.wpd)

$0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55

74 $32,242

$1,429 $1,954

4.4% 6.1%

2,606 217

$0.36 $0.19 $0.36 $0.13 $0.13

$634 $665

2.0% 2.7%

(1,594) (133)

189.7% 51.3%

226.1% 32.7% 32.7%

1990 Census 1990 Census

20% 20% 20% 10% 10%

79.8% Includes Residential Only 79.5% Residential, Community Facilities, Other, Defi

79.8% Includes Residential Only 79.5% Residential, Community Facilities, Other, Defi

-37.9% Includes Residential Only -37.9%

November 16, 1998 5.6


(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 5.1 (part 2)

peE IMPACT (PART 2.) : COMMUNITY IMPACT

ELIM

Households

Total Household Income

Direct Financial Burden from peE Loss If All Borne by Community

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government OtM, Balance

Direct Financial Burden from peE loss If Some Shifted outside Community

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government

00", Balance

local Burdon Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

Percent Decline in HH Income from peE loss

Amount Shifted Outside Community

74

$2,385,936

$94,444

$47,555 $26,115 $11,330 $3,433

SO S12

$73,514

$47,555 $8,618

517 ,330 SO SO

S12

3.1%

$20,930

November 16, 1998


5.7


FIGURE 5.1 (part 3)

PCE IMPACT (PART 3.) : FIGURES

ELiM

ELiM

$0,60 ,---'=========~ $0.'10

$0,20

SO.OO Residential Community Other

Commercial Govt

.AVG WITH?C€ oPUBUSHEORATE .WITHOUT peE

$120

$100

$60

" ~ c n

$60 " 0 0 ~

>-$<0

$20

$0 WITH peE

!-",CE"

NOPCE

----~o=R'EDUCEtrroELE5:PENDlTORES

• RESIDENTIAl RATES aNON.RE$IOENTtAl RATES

r AVERAGE RESIDENTiAL Bill ELIM

~

"

$2,000

$1,500

-:J. $1,000 J

I~

$500

$0

I

(pcerep2.wpd)

4

o WITH PCE NO PCE WITH PCE

November 16, 1998


NOPCE

5.8


FIGURE 5.1 (part 4)

peE IMPACT (PART 4.) : COMMUNITY AND UTILITY CHARACTERISTICS

(pcerep2.wpd)

ELIM

UTILiTY

POPULATION

KWH SOLD

FUEL PRICE PER GALLON

SHARE OF KWH GENERATED THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR peE

UTILITY DEPENDENCY RATIO (peE PAYMENT fTOTAl REVENUES)

peE PAYMENT CALCULATED BY FORMULA

peE PAYMENT CALCULATED BY FORMULA PER HH

peE PAYMENT PER ELIGIBLE KWH (CENTS)

RESIDENTIAL KWH PER CUSTOMER (ANNUAL)

PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL SALES ELIGIBLE FOR peE

RESIDENTIAL SHARE OF TOTAL UTILITY KWH SALES

RESIDENTIAL RATE PER peE ELIGIBLE KWH BEFORE peE PCE

MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL

WITH peE

BEFORE peE peE WITH peE

SHARE OF peE PAID TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL

peE PAYMENT PER CUSTOMER BY CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL

November 16, 1998

Elim AVEC

281

677.326

$1.08

68.1%

40.4%

$112,901

SI,526

24.5

4,202

91.4%

46.5%

41.3 24.2 17.1.

$145 $78 $66

62% 28%

9%

$941 S4,591 SI,139


MEDIAN peE

264

651,507

$1.14

57%

31%

$71,363

$1,059

22.4

3,921

90%

41%

42 22 17

$121 $64 S66

67% 19% 13%

$696 $1,892

$804

5.9


FIGURE 5.2 (part 1)


ELiM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

WITH WITHOUT CHANGE PCE PCE AMOUNT %

...............................

677,326 SALES (KWH) 398,249 279.077 ·41.2%

315,144 ResIdential 147,489 201,650 Commercial 174,532

167.655 t53.2% I Household Impacl 27.118 ·13.4%

131,178 Community FaCi!ity 47.667 83,511 ·63.7% 29,354 Government 28,581 793 ·2.7%

° Other ° ° ERR

$279,695 EXPENSES {51 5254,005 ($25,690) ·9.2%

562,350 Fuel 536,660 (525,690) ·41.2% 5174,912 Non Fue! 5174,912 SO 0,0%

$42,432 Other $42,432 SO 0,0%

SO.41 Costl Kwh SO.M 50,22 54.5%

5279,695 REVENUES (S) ... . $208,886. (570,809) 25.3%

$59,602 Residential 577,359 $17.757 129.8% I Household Impact 573,030 Commercial $91,544 518,514 25.4% 522,038 Community Facility $25,002 $2,964 13.4% $12,123 Government $14,981 $2,858 23.6%

SO Other SO SO ERR

5112,901 PCE SO

SO BALANCE ($45,119) ($4S,11S)

: <0.4% I peE I REVENUES Dependency RatiO

AVG PRICE f KWH Elasticity

SO.19 Residential $0.52 50.34 177.3% 30% $0.36 Commercial $0.52 50.16 4·1.8% 30% $0.17 Community Facility $0.52 50.36 212,2% 30% $0.41 Government $0.52 SO.II 27.0% 10% $0.41 Other 50.52 SO.11 27.0% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

74 HH 74 1990 Census $32,242 IncomeJHH 532,242 1990 Census

5795 Electric BiUI Res Cus! 51,031 5237 29.8% Includes Residential Only 51,0$9 Ereclrlc Cost J Res Cust 51,365 5276 25.4% Residential, Community Facility, Other, and 0

2.5% Electric BiU Share of Income 3.2% 0.7% 29.8% Includes Residential Only 3.4% Electric Cosl Share of Income 4.2% 0.9% 25.4% Residential, Community Feoli\y, Other, and 0

4,202 Annual Use Per Res Cust 1,967 (2.235) ·53.2% Includes Residential Only 3S0 Monthly Use Per Res Cusl 161 (185) ·53.2%



(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 5.2 (part 2)

PCE IMPACT (PART 2.) : COMMUNITY IMPACT

ElIM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

Households

Tolal Household Income

DIrect Financial Burden from peE Loss If All Borna by CommunIty

Residential Commercia! Communily Facility Government Other Balance

DIrect Flnanc/al Burden from peE loss If Some shIfted outside CommunIty

local Burden Share

Residential Commercial Commuility Facility GO'lernment Other Balance

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

Percent Oec~ne in HH Income from peE loss


74

$87,211

$17.757 $18,514

$2,964 52.858

SO $45,119

$71,950

$17,757 $6,109 S2,964

SO SO

$45,119

3.0%

$15,262

November 16, 1998


5.11


" u g , 0 ~ ~

FIGURE 5.2 (part 3)


ElIM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

ELECTRICITY RATES EUM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

S0.40

$0.20

$0.00 Residential Community Other

Commercia! Govl

.AVOVilnlPCE oPUBU$HEORATE

.~·\,lTHOUT peE

REPLACEMENT GF PCE LOSS ELiM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

$120

S100

$SO

560

$40

$20

SO WITH peE NOPCE

~------=o REOUCWl'OELEXPE!'<OITORE uNON-RESIDEIHLl.l RATES

AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL BILL ELIM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

$1,200

AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USE EUfI,t (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

S

$1,000

I ~ $800

I ~ $400

lS2:: --------

WITHPCE NOPCE WITHPCE NOPCE

(pccrep2.wpd) November 16, 1998


5.12


(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 5.2 (part 4)

PCE IMPACT (PART 4.) : COMMUNITY AND UTILITY CHARACTERISTICS

ELIM (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

UTILITY

POPULATION

KWH SOLD


SHARE OF KWH GENERATEo THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR peE

UTILITY DEPENDENCY RATIO (peE PAYMENT fTOTAL REVENUES)




RESIDENTIAL KWH PER CUSTOMER (ANNUAl)

PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL SALES EliGIBLE FOR peE

RESIDENTIAL SHARE OF TOTAL UTllIlY KWH SALES

RESIDENTIAL RATE PER peE ELIGIBLE KWH BEFORE peE PCE WITHPCE

MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL BILL BEFORE peE PCE WITHPCE

SHARE OF PCE PAID TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL

PCE PAYMENT PER CUSTOMER BY CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL

November 16, 1998

Elim AVEC

281

677.326

$1.08

68.1%

40.4%

$112,901

$1,526

24.5

4,202

91.4%

46.5%

41.3 24.2 17.1

$145 $78 $66

62% 28%

9%

$941 $4,591 $1,139


MEDIAN PCE

264

651,507

$1.14

57%

31%

$71,363

$1,059

22.4

3,921

90%

41%

42 22 17

$121 S64 $66

67% 19% 13%

$696 S1,892

$804

5.13


FIGURE 5.3 (part 1)


NOME


.. _--. ---- ---_. 26,039,748 SALES (KWH) 25,457,496 582,252 -2.2%

8.494,837 ResIdential 8,111.512 383,325 -4.5% I Household Impact 12,822,798 Commercial 12,740.224 82.574 -0.6%

1,763,500 Community Facility 1,652,176 111,324 -6.3% 2,958,613 Government 2,953,583 5,030 -0.2%

0 Other 0 0 ERR

$5,103,798 EXPENSES ($) $5,075,494 (S28,304) -0.6%

$1,265,819 Fuel $1,237,515 ($28,304) -2.2% $2,723,202 Non Fuel $2,723,202 SO 0.0% $1,114,777 Other $1,114,777 SO 0.0%

$0.20 Cost/Kwh $0.20 SO.OO 1.7%

$5,103,798 REVENUES ($) $5,074,494 ($29,305) -0.6%

$1,381,578 Residential $1,616,884 $235,306 L:::iiriJ Household Impact $2,476,263 Commercial $2,539,534 $63,271 2.5%

$267,188 Community Facility $329,331 $62,143 23.3% $579,888 Government $588,744 $8,856 1.5%

So Other SO SO ERR

$398.880 PCE SO

So BALANCE (S1,001) ($1,001) ,~---

:-~ PCE/REVENUES Dependency Ratio

AVG PRICE I KWH Elasticity ----~~---

$0.16 Residential $0.20 $0.04 22.6% 20% $0.19 Commercial $0.20 $O.ot 3.2% 20% $0.15 Community Facility $0.20 $0.05 31.6% 20% SO.20 Government $0.20 $0.00 1.7% 10% SO.20 Other $0.20 $0.00 1.7% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

1119 HH 1119 1990 Census $63,993 Incomt1lHH $63,993 1990 Census

$975 Electric 8illl Res Cust $1,141 $166 17.0% Includes Residential Only $1,164 Electric Cost' Res Cust $1.373 $210 18.0% Residential, Community Fac~ily, Other, and Def

1.5% Electric Bill Share of Income 1.8% 0.3% 17.0% Includes Residential Only 1.8% Electric Cost Share of Income 2.1% 0.3% 18.0% Residential, Community Facility, Other, and Def

5,995 Annual Use Per Res Cust 5,724 (271) ·4.5% Includes Residential Only 500 Monthly Use Per Res Cust 477 (23) -4.5%



FIGURE 5.3 (part 2)


NOME

Households



Residential Commercial Community Facility Government Other Balance

Dlrecl Financial Burden from peE Loss If Some shifted outside Community

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government Olher Balance

local Burden Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

Percent Decline in HH Income from peE loss


1119

$71,607,826

$370,576

5235,306 $63.271 562.143 $8,856

SO $1,001

5319,329

$235,306 $20,879 562,143

SO SO

Sl,OOl

0.4%

$51,247



5.15


FIGURE 5.3 (part 3)


NOME

ELECTRICITY RATES NOME

$0.25.---'==========' $0.20

$0.15

$0.10

$0.05


Commercial Govl

.AVG WITH peE aPUBLISHEORATE

.WITHOUT peE

S~O.-----------------------------,

$400

-2 $300 c ~

~ $200

$100

I I !

m .' I WITH peE NO peE J

• "CE -------D~.RE(iOC'Et}f(JEc_EXPtr;JOm:JRrs

• RESIDENTIAL RATES oNON·RESIDENTIAL RATES


IIAVERf.:GE RESIDENTIAL BILL I NOME

$1,200

$1,000

AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL US~ NOME

• 6

:l $800 ,iii I~ $600 i~ I~ $400 .<

$200

so o WITH PCE NO PCE WITH PCE NOPCE



FIGURE 5.3 (part 4)


(pcerep2.wpd)

NOME

UTILITY

POPULATION

KWH SOLD


SHARE OF KWH GENERATED THAT ARE EliGIBLE FQRPeE

UTILITY DEPENDENCY RATIO (peE PAYMENT fTOTAl REVENUES)



peE PAYMENT PER ELIGIBLE KWH {CENTS}

RESIDENTIAL KWH PER CUSTOMER (ANNUAL)




MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL Bill

WITH peE

BEFOREPCE peE WITHPCE

SHARE OF peE PAID TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNllY COMMERCIAL


November 16, 1998

Nome Joint Ulitit

3984

26,039,748

$0.71

33.3%

7.8%

$398,880

$356

4.6

5,995

72.5%

32.6%

19.6 5.0

14.6

S9a S17 sa,

71% 20% 9%

$200 $1,825

$163

MEDIAN PCE

264

651,507

$1.14

57%

31%

$71,363

$1.059

22.4

3,921

90%

41%

42 22 17

$121 $64 S66

67% 19% 13%

$696 $1,892

$804

5.17


FIGURE 5.4 (part 1)


SHAGELUK

WITH WITHOUT CHANGE PCE PCE AMOUNT % _._-_. ---_. ----------_ ..

254,361 SAlES/KWHI 1291612 124,749 -49.0%

124,119 ResldenUal 43,149 80,910 1-65.2%1 Household Impact 80,249 Commercial 71,064 9,185 -11.4% 49,993 Community Facility 15,399 34,594 -69.2%

0 Government 0 0 ERR 0 Other 0 0 ERR

$94,290 EXPENSES IS} $aO,310 (SI3,SSO) -14.8%

$28,505 Fuel $14,525 (S13.980) -49.0% $65,686 Non Fuel $65.?86 SO 0.0%

$99 Other S99 $0 0.0%

SO.37 Cost/Kwh $0.62 $0.25 67.2%

$94,290 REVENUES I$} $54,337 (539.953) -42.4%

$12,210 Residential $18,089 $5,B80 L4§,-ZYQJ Household Impact $21,397 Commercial $29,792 $8,395 39.2% $4,699 Community Facmly $6,456 $1,756 37.4%

SO Government $0 $0 ERR $0 Other $0 $0 ERR

$55,984 PCE $0

$0 BALANCE (S25,973) ($25,973)

159.4%1 PCE I REVENUES Dependency Ratio

AVG PRICE I KWH Elasticity

$0.10 Residential $0.42 $0,32 326.2% 20% $0.27 Commercia! $0.42 $0.15 57.2% 20% $0.09 Community Facility $0.42 $0.33 346.0% 20% $0.37 Government $0.42 $0.05 13.0% 10% $0.37 Other $0.42 $0.05 13.0% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

39 HH 39 1990 Census $34,457 IncomeIHH $34,457 1990 Census

$330 Electric 8iH I Res Cust $489 $159 48.2% Includes Residential Only $457 Electric Cost I Res Cust $663 $208 45.2% Residential, Community facility, Other, and Deficit

1.0% Electric 8m Share of Income 1.4% 0.5% 48.2% Inctudes Residential Only 1.3% Electric Cost Share of Income 1.9% 0.6% 45.2% Residential, Community Facility, Other, and Deficit

3,355 Annual Use Per Res Cust 1,166 (2,188) -65.2% Includes Residential Only 280 Monthl:i Use Per Res Cust 97 (182) -65.2%



FIGURE 5.4 (part 2)


SHAGELUK

Households



Residentia! Commercial Community Facility Government Other Balance

Direct Financial Burden from peE loss If Some shifted outside Community


Local Burden Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

Percent Decline in HH Income (rom peE loss


39

$1,343,818

$42,004

$5,880 $8,395 $1,756

$0 SO

$25,973

$36,379

$5,880 $2,770 $1,756

SO $0

$25,973

2.7%

$5,625



5.19


FIGURE 5.4 (part 3)


SHAGELUK

ELECTRICITY RATES SHAGELUK

$0.50.---'==========---. $0.40 HIllllIlilIlIiIIHIIIII-

$0.30

$0.20

$0.10


Commercia! Go'll

I_AVG WITH peE ClPUBL1$HEO RATE .\'.rlTHOUT PCE

rREPlACEMENT OF PCE lOSS I SHAGELUK

SM,-----------------,

$40 .

So WITH peE . ~~~------

• RESIDENTIAL RATES

I I ! I !

NO PC""E=-'.J---~ I o REDUCEO-rOELEXPER01TORES J o NON·REStDENTIAl RATES

!AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL Bill I AVERAGE RESIDENTiAL USE SHAGELUK i SHAGELUK

S60mo~==========~ 4 ~========:

::1 $400 ,ill ; z ~ $200

so WITH PCE WITH PCE NOPCE



(pcerep2.wpd)

FIGURE 5.4 (part 4)


SHAGELUK

UTILITY

POPULATION

KWH SOLO


SHARE OF KWH GENERATED THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR peE

UTILITY DEPENDENCY RATIO (peE PAYMENT I TOTAL REVENUES)


peE PAYMENT CALCULATED BY FORfvlULA PER HH


RESIDENTIAL K\'\IH PER CUSTOMER (ANNUAL)




MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL Bill

WITH peE

BEFORE peE PCE WITH peE

SHARE OF peE PAID TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL


November 16, 1998

Shageluk AVEC

144

254,361

$1.11

79.6%

59.4%

$55,984

$1.435

27.7

3.355

98.4%

48.8%

37.1 27.0 10.0

$104 $76 $27

60% 25% 15%

$915 $2,770 $1,675


MEDIAN peE

264

651,507

51.14

57%

31%

571,363

$1,059

22.4

3.921

90%

41%

42 22 17

$121 $64 $66

67% 19% 13%

$696 51,892

$804

5.21


November 16, 1998 5.22

Power Cost Equalization Ecouomic Significance

6. ELIMINATION OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM--AGGREGATE EFFECTS ON UTILITIES AND CUSTOMERS

ALL peE UTILITIES

The effect of elimination of Power Cost Equalization (PCE) would be different for each community. We can however characterize and summarize the total effect of elimination ofPCE by aggregating all the PCE utilities together and treating them as one utility. The analysis in this section is based on information for fiscal year 1996 for utilities providing complete information and the following assumptions:

1. The price elasticity of demand for electricity among residential, community facility, and commercial customers is -.2. Elasticity is -.1 (sales are less sensitive to rates) for government and "other" customers.

2. No customers switch to self generation at higher rates. 3. Fuel expenses are the only variable cost for utilities.

Figure 6.1, part 1 shows that with the termination of $14.747 million ofPCE payments lO

the residential rate for the average household increases from 18 to 33 cents, 80 percent. Residential sales fall by 18 percent and the typical electric bill increases by 47 percent. The typical household is spending 2.9 percent of its income for 337 kwh per month. Including the cost of electricity for the operation of community facilities, the typical household is paying 3.6 percent of its income for electricity generation, in spite of the fact that community facility usage falls 25 percent. The average household cost of electricity, including community facilities, is $1,682.


i\llost of the loss of$14.747 million ofPCE payments, $9.901 million, represents a loss in purchasing power D:om the residents of the PCE communities. $7.039 million is taken from residential customers, $6.830 million directly through higher bills, and $.209 million in the recovery of deficits for utilities facing a "death spiral". $3.368 million is taken from commercial customers, of which we assume 1/3 is paid by local residents and 2/3 is shifted outside the effected communities. $1.729 million is paid by community facilities, which is passed back in higher bills and taxes to local residents. $.467 million is paid by the state and federal

10 This analysis is based on the 134 utilities for which complete infonnation is available for 1996.



government and the "other" category of customers. $2.353 million of the loss in PCE payments is absorbed through reductions in fuel purchases.

The residential impact is different for each ofthe utilities. For several the reduction in residential use is less than 20 percent while the increase in cost is less than 60 percent. At the other extreme a few have a reduction in residential use of over 60 percent with an increase in cost of nearly 60 percent. For a large share of the utilities the residential impact is a reduction in electricity use between 20 percent and 60 percent with an increase in cost of more than 60 percent (Figure 6.2).

OVERVIEW EXCLUDING THE LARGEST PCE UTILITIES

Excluding the 5 largest PCE utilities from the analysis (Nome, Kotzebue, Naknek, Nushagak, and Tok)", the impact of the termination ofPCE payments is more pronounced (Figure 6.3).

With elimination of$12.747 million ofPCE payments (excluding the 5 largest PCE utilities) the average residential rate increases from 19 to 40 cents, 107 percent. Residential sales now falJ by 24 percent and the typical electric bill increases by 57 percent. The typical household is spending 3.3 percent of its income for 277 kwh per month. Including the cost of electricity for the operation of community facilities, the typical household is paying 4.3 percent of its income for electricity generation, in spite of the fact that community facility usage falls 30 percent. The average household cost for electricity, including community facilities, is $1,745.


DISTRIBUTION OF EFFECTS

The pattern of the distribution of effects of termination ofPCE across communities can be seen from a set of graphs generated from this aggregate analysis.

Residential electricity rates rise in all communities with the termination of the PCE. The increase is modest in a few communities, but double or triple in many. For most communities the residential rate after tennination ofPCE is more than $.40. There is little relation between the rates before and after tern1ination ofPCE(Figure G.4A and G.4B).

Residential consumption per customer falls in each community with the rate increase, but

J I Data for three large utilities--Bethel, Unalaska, and Cordova--was incomplete and these were among the utilities excluded from this aggregate analysis.



the percent reductions in use are smaller than the percent rate increases. This reflects the assumption that use is relatively insensitive to the electricity price because electricity is important to the consumer, particularly at low levels of use (Figure 6.5).

In spite of reduced consumption residential electricity bills rise with the tennination of PCE. The increase is generally proportional to the size of the bill before PCE tennination but there is considerable variation across utilities (Figure 6.6).

The number of utilities the fall into a "death spiral" is small, as indicated by an operating deficit after adjusting to a lower level of operations (Figure 6.7).

One measure of loss to the community from the tennination of the PCE is the loss of purchasing power associated with higher electricity rates. Figure 6.8 shows the distribution of that loss across utilities as well as how it is distributed among the various classes of customers. For most communities the loss is less than $100 thousand, but in virtually all cases the direct burden falls mostly on households.

Another measure of the burden of the tennination of the PCE is the share of household income that is devoted to paying for electricity, including both the direct burden from a higher residential rate, and the indirect burden from a higher community facility rate. Figure 6.9 shows that this burden exceeds 15 percent in two communities and is greater than 5 percent in almost half. It is less than 2.5 percent in only about 20 percent of the communities.

FINANCIALLY VULNERABLE UTILITIES

Using the residual operating deficit after adjustment as the measure, only a handful of utilities appear to be financially vulnerable to the termination of the PCE program, if we assume that customer use of electricity is very insensitive to rates (price elasticity of -.2). As discussed in Section 4 of this report there may well be reason to believe that utility electricity demand many be more sensitive than this for several reasons.

First, the residential rate increases projected with the termination of the PCE program are outside the range of cunent rates that residential consumers face. The response to a doubling or tripling of the electricity rate could be qualitatively different from that of a smaller increase. This is particularly the case the larger the share of income that is allocated to paying for electricity. Second, some residential customers might choose to drop their utility connection altogether. Finally, some customers, most likely commercial or community facility customers, might choose to self generate. All of these factors suggest that the sensitivity of electricity sales to rate increases might be higher than -.2.

In order to investigate the sensitivity of PCE utilities in the aggregate to the assumption of the sensitivity of sales to price, we calculated the impact using -.3 as the price elasticity assumption for residential, conllmnity facility, and commercial sales. The result was a dramatic increase in the number of utilities that fell into a "death spiral" and were unable to adjust their



generation and rates to cover their costs. Figure 6.10 shows that 71 ofthe 134 utilities" were unable to avoid an aggregate deficit of $2.440 million. Figure 6.11 shows that for most of these financial vulnerable utilities the deficit represented more than 10 percent of their non-fuel expenses and consequently a significant share oftheir total expenses.

A strict interpretation of these results is that about half the PCE communities would lose utility electricity without some alternative source of external assistance. Because the analysis is aggregate, and we have been unable to review the results for each ofthe 134 individual communities, we conclude that the utilities in the aggregate are very vulnerable financially to the termination of the PCE program.

Figure 6.12 provides a summary of the aggregate effects in this case. The results net of the 5 largest utilities are reported in Figure 6.13.

12 This is all the communities for which complete information for 1996 was available.



(p cerep2. wp d) November 16, 1998 6.5


FIGURE 6.1 (part 1)


ALL peE UTILITIES


--------

227,245,209 SALES (KWH) 205,339,824 21,905,385 ·9,6%

79,417,373 ResIdential 65,030,486 14,385,687 [is.1%] household impact 95,833,605 Commercia! 92,936,685 2.896,919 -3-:0% 18,185,622 Community Facility 13,713,074 4,472,548 -24.6% 28,548,517 Government 28,407,146 141,311 -0.5%

5,260,092 Other 5,252.433 7,659 -0.1%

$56,488,447 EXPENSES ( $) $64,344.587 ($2.143,860) ·3.2%

$19,008,858 Fuel $16,864,998 ($2.143,660) -11.3% $38,452,890 Non·Fuel 538,452,890 $0 0,0%

$9,026,699 00" $9,026,699

$0.29 CostlKwh $0.31 $0.02 7.1%

$66,488,447 REVENUES (S) $64,135,393 (SZ,353,053) 3.5%

$14.424.169 Residential $21.253.829 $6.829,660 I 47.3"] household impact $25,245,023 Commercial $28,612,574 $3,367.551 13.3%

$3,094,234 Community Facifity $4,823,179 $1,728,944 55.9% $8,008,811 Government $8,453,937 $445,125 5.6%

$959,517 Other $991,875 $22,357 2.3%

$14,746.592 PCE SO (S14,537,499)

BALANCE ($209,193) ($209,193)

Lfuil PCE I REVENUES Dependency Ratio

AVG PRICE I KWH Elasticity

$0.18 Residential $0.33 $0.15 79.9% 20% $0.26 Commercial $0.31 $0.04 16.9% 20% $0.17 Community Facility $0.35 $0.18 106.7% 20% $0.28 Government $0.30 $0.02 6.1% 10% $0.18 Other $0.19 $0.00 2.5% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

13,055 HH 13,055 1990 Census $46,120 IncornefHH $46,120 1990 Census

$895 Eleclric 81111 Res Cust $1,320 $424 47.3% Includes Residential Only $1,148 Electric Cost I Ros Cust $1,682 $533 46.4% Residential, Community Facilities, Other, Dolic

1.9% Electric BiI! Share of Income 2.9% 0.9% 47.3% Includes Rosidential Only 2.5% Electric Cost Share of Income 3.6% 1.2% 46.4% Residential, Community Facilities, Other, Oelic

4,933 Annual Use Per Res Cust 4,040 (894) ·18.1% Includes Residential Only 411 Monthly Use Per Res Cust 337 (74) ·18.1%



FIGURE 6.1 (part 2)


Households




Diroct Financial Burden from peE loss If Some shifted outslda Community

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government

QIh" Balance

local Burden Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

ALL peE UTILITIES

13,055

$602,100,503

$12,393,639

$6,829,660 $3,367,551 $1,728,944

$445,125 $22,357

$209,193

$9,901,448

$6,829,660 $1,111,292 $1,728,944

SO $22,357

$209,193

Percent Decline in Household Income (rom peE loss 1,6%

(pcerep2.wpd)

Amount Shifted Out of Community

Commercial Government

$2,701,365

52.256,259 $445,125

November 16, 1998


6.7


FIGURE 6. 2

IRESIDENTIAL IMPACT OF PCE LOSS EACH DOT IS ONE UTILITY

100%

80%

r'~, >-"' 0 u 60%

" .. -,-- -

W • • I • '" I • , <

I "' OC 40% u

I " " • I 20% I • I

J 0% 0% 20% 40% 60%

60'1 % lOSS OF ElECTRICITY





FIGURE 6.3 (part 1)


ALL BUT 5 lARGEST peE UTILITIES

WITH WITHOUT CHANGE PCE PCE AMOUNT Y. ................... ................... . ................... -... __ ..........

137,422.298 SALES (KWH) 118,548,381 18,873,917 -13.7%

51,386,222 Residentia! 39,013,445 12,372,777 [24.1%1 household Impact 52,921,689 Commercial 50,484,324 2,437,365 -4,6% 12,972.746 Community FaciJily 9,024,603 3,948,143 ·30,4% 14,881.549 Government 14,773,576 107,973 -0.7% 5,260,092 Other 5,252,433 7,659 -0.1%

547,707.305 EXPENSES ( $) $45,729,387 (51,977,9\8) -4.1%

$14,166,571 Fuel $12,188,653 (SI,977,918) ·14.0% 528,114,847 Non-Fuel $28,114,847 SO 0.0%

$5,425,887 Other $5,425.887

$0.35 Cost/Kwh 50.39 $0.04 11.t%

547,707,305 REVENUES (S) $45,521,029 ($2,tS6.276) 4.6%

$9,976.987 Residentiat 515,661,976 $5,664,969 [57.0%] household impact 516.501.196 Commercial 519,497,645 $2,996,447 18.2%

52,352,954 Community Facility $3,828,399 Sl,475.445 62.1% 55,159,175 Government $5,541,135 5381,960 7.4%

5959,517 Other $991,875 $22.357 2.3%

$12,747,474 PCE SO (SI2,539,116)

BALANCE ($20S.358) ($208,358)

'-~26:7%j PCE / REVENUES Dependency Rallo

AVG PRICEI KWH E!asticity

SO.19 Residential $0.40 50.21 105.8% 20% 50.31 Commercial $0.39 SO.07 23.9% 20r. $0.18 Community Faciloty 50.42 SO.24 133.9% 20% $0.35 Government 50.36 50.03 8.2% 10% 50.18 Olher $0.19 SO.OO 2.5% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

9,912 IiH 9,912 1990 Census S40,211 IncomeJHH 540,271 1990 Census

58SO Electric Bill 1 Res Cust $1,334 S484 57.0% Includes Residential Only 51,133 Electric Cost I Res Cusl 51,745 5612 54.0% Residentlal, Community Facil,ties. Olher, Deficit

2.1% Electric B'II Share of Income 3.3% 1.2% 57.0% Includes Residential Only 2.8% Electric Cost Share of Income 4.3% 1.5% 54.0% Residential. Community Facilities, Other, De~cit

4.378 Annual Use Per Res Cust 3.324 (1,054) -24.1% Includes Residential Only 365 Monthly Use Per Res Cust 277 (88) -24.1%

(pcerep2.wJld) November 16, 1998 6.10


FIGURE 6.3 (part 2)


Households


DIrect Financial Burden from peE loss If All Borne by CommunIty

Residential Commercial Community Fadmy Government Other Balance

DIrect Financial Burden from peE Loss If Some shifted outsldo Community

Residential Commercial Community Faciflly Government Other Balance

local Burden Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100% 100%

ALL BUT 5 LARGEST peE UTILITIES

9,912

$399,164,046

S10,561,198

$5,664,969 S2,996,447 51,475,445

$381,9W 522.357

$208,358

S6.171,619

S5,684,989 $988,827

$1,475,445 SO

522,357 5208,358

Percent Decline in Household Income from peE Loss 2.0%


(pcerep2.wpd)

Commercial Go'{emmenl

$2,389,579

$2,007,619 $381,960

November 16, 1998


6.11


FIGURE 6.4A (part 1)

IRESIDENTIAL RATE WITH PCE AND AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1)1

$0.00 $0.20 $0040

P~ntlay i~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::Cl Atqasuk Shageluk

Anaktuwk Pass Nu!qsut

Kaktovik WainWTfght iiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

TeUin Point Hope

Eagle Power Company She!don Point, City of

Hydaburg KOllll< Electric SelVlces

Northway Power 8. Ught Healy lake

Beaver Joinl Utilities

Sand Point Er~tric Company Kipnuk Ught Plant

Gustavus Beclric Company Tok (includes Dot Lake)

Nushagak Electric Coopera~ve. Inc. {Dillingham} Naknek Electric Association, Inc.

Allakaket Energy Systems (A/ama) Kaltag

E1fin Cove Electric Utiflty Husr.a

Chevak Nightmute Power Plant

Gwitchyaa Zheo Utifities (Fort Yukon) Nome Jo1'o\ Utility System

Chignik Electric Kotzebue Electric Association

Brevig Mission Noatak

Yakutat Power Mc~lh Ught 8. Power

Tenakee Springs Sl George Municipal Er~tric U~llty

Grayling Tununak

Old Harbor Unalakleet Valll;ey Electric Cooper-Hive

Goodnews Bay Kasaan Nulato

HOOnah Russian MIssion

Diomede Joint Utilities Anvik

Koyuk Minro

Etim Tooksook Bay

Ka" Selawik

Quinhagak Mentasta

SL MiChael Savoonga

Chilkal Valley HolyCross

Stebbins

Kivalina j555555555 Chislochina E"

'GRAPrl SHiJ"NS ES 1i!.'.A lEO AVERAGE RIllE wI! H PCE ».-0 ,WEAAGE RIllE AFIHI AOJUSIMENT

(pcerep2.wpd) November 16,1998

SO.60 $0.80

6.12


FIGURE 6.4A (part 2)


SO.OO

Angoon Pilot PoInt Vil!age Council

Aniak light & PO'Nef Company, Inc. Far North Utifillties (Cenlr.ll)

Golovin Power Umities Mekoryuk.

Bettles Hooper Bay

Noorvik Thome say P\Jhlic Utility

Tanalian Electric cooperative. Inc. Manokotak Po ..... er Company

I-N·N Electric Cooperative ScammooBay

Pilot Station Togiak

Marshall New Stuyahok

Alakanuk Kiana

Galena, City of Gambell

Emmonak Chitina Electric Inc.

Ambler Shismaref

Nalerkaq Ught Plant (Chefomak) Sha~toolik

Umnak Power Company (Nikolski) Shungnak

Chuathbaluk levelock Electric cooperative

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooptlr.l.tive, Inc. Manley Utit;~ty Company

Unqusraq PO'Ner Company {Ne-.vtok} Perryvme. City of

Wales Mountain Village

CrookeQ Creek RedDe~il

Falso Pass Electric Association Port Heiden, City of

Kwethluk, Inc. Andceanof Electric Corporation (Alita}

Tanana Power Company Tuluksak Trad,tional Power UWity

Akiachak Native Community ElectriC Co. 5reeetmute

Tuntutuliak CommUflity 5eNice Assn. Atmautluak Joinl Utilities

Takotna Commuflity Association Gel<. Inc. (Cold Sa.y)

Napaskiak. Electric Utillly Kwig Power Company (Kwigillingok)

Hlighes power & Lighl NIkolai Ught & Power

5tonyRiver 51. Paul Municipal Eleclrqlc Utihty

Tener Pl)\o',·er Company Akhiok. elly of

Akiak Power Utilities Egegik lighl & power Co. Igiugig Electric Company

Tatitlek Electric Utitity While Mountain U~lities

Peero Bay Village Council Ruby,Cilyof

Stevens Village Energy Syslems

1"tRi'.PH SHOWS EsnMA"j'mA~'f~t>'XTTWif

~:r-.'O AVERPGE AA1E AFfER MlJUSrI,tE'iT

(pcerep2.wpd)

$0.20 $OAO SO.60 SO.80

November 16, 1998 6.13


FIGURE 6.4B (part 1)

IRESIDENTIAL RATE WITH peE AND AFTER EliMINATION OF peE (PART 1)1

i i I

I '-

$0,00

Anaktuvuk Pass Point lay

Nuiqsut Kaktovil<

Wainwright Atqasuk

Point Hope Hydaburg

Nome Joint Utility System Naknek Electric Association, Inc.

Kotzebue Electric Association Nusoagak Electric Cooperative, toe. (O!!lingham)

Yakutat Paller TOk (includes 001 lake)

Thome Bay Public Utifily Unalakleet Va1lkey Electric Cooperative

Northway Power 2. Ught Elfin Covo Eleclric Utility

Chignik Electric Port Heiden, City of

Perryvitte, City of Galena, Cily of

KipnUk Ugh! Plant Mentasta

SheldOn Point, City of G .... itchyaa Zl1ee Utitities (fort Yukon)

Nighlmule Pa .... er Plant Pilol Point Village Council

51. George Municipal Electric Utility Tetlin

SL Paul Municipal Electrqic Utility Tenatian Electric cooperati~'e, rnc Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility

Sand Point Electric Comp:aoy Kotlik Electric Services

Manokotak Power Comp:any Naterkaq light Plant (CnefOOlak)

Chitina Efecltic Inc. Ka"

Chilkat Valley G&K. Inc. (Cold Bay)

Hoonah Akhiok. City of

Angoon TaUtlek Electric Utility Akiak Power Utilities

Andreanof Electric Corpmation (Atka) Tenakee Springs

Kasaan Shageluk

McGrath light & Power Golovin Power Ut,!ities

Chistochina Tanana Power Company

False Pass Electric Association Kwethluk, Inc.

Allakaket Energy Systems (Alatna) lpnalchiaq Electric Comp:any (Oeering)

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative,lnc. Alakanuk

Russian Mission Togiak

Stebbins While Mountain UMjties

Aniak light & POwerComparly, Inc. Napaskiak Electric Utility

GRAPH S>jo,',S ES110.\,.\1£0 AVERAGE M1E l',lTli PC. AAO AVERAGE PATE AFTER AD.rvsn'£Uf

(pcerep2.wpd)

$0.20 50.40 SO.60 SO.80

November 16, 1998 6.14


FIGURE 6.4B (part 2)


SO.OO

Chevak. Levelock. Electric Cooperative

Kallag Gambell

MekOfyUk. Hooper Bay Pi!olStation

New Stuyahok Diomede Joint Utifities

SL /.1ichael Scammon Bay

Tuntutuliak. Community Service Assn. Atmautluak Joint Utilities

Mountain Village Far North UtifititieS (Central)

Umnak Power Company (Nikolski) Koyuk

Tununak Shalt/oonk

Egegik Ught & Power Co. Amik

Marshal! Eagle Po-Ner Company

Brevig Mission Quinhagak

8eaver Joint UWities Goodne-.... s Bay

savoonga Emmonak

Tooksook Bay Wales

Tai.tollla Community AssoCiatioo Eo'

BeWes Eum

Hughes power & light Nulato

Ntkolai light (I, Power Kivalina

Ruby. City of Grayling

Shismaref Ste."ens VIllage Energy Systems

SelaWIk Shungnak

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. HlJstia Minto Kiana

HolyCross I·N·N Electric cooperative

Teiter Power Company Kwig Power Company (K .... igillingok)

GusL,m.lS Elewic Company Noorvik Aml)!er

Healy lake Noatak

Igiugig Electric Company Old Harbor

Pedro Bay Village CounCil Red Devil

Sleeetmule Stony RiO/er

Unqusraq Po-..... er Company (Newtok) Crooked Creek

r.ta-nley U!ili~~~~~~~~~

(pcerep2.wpd)

SO.20 S0.40 SO.60 SO.80

November 16, 1998 6.15


FIGURE 6.S (part 1)

RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION PER CUSTOMER WITH PCE AND AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1)

0.00 2.00

Hea!ylake iii!IIIE; Beaver Joinl Utilities """"""~ Eagle Power Company ~ Man!ey UW!tlty Company

Chuathbaluk

Shageluk ~~~~~~fEi'f" Gustavus Electric company :':'.: Slevens Village Energy Systems

Far North Uli!itities (Central) Sheldon Point, City of

Tetlin Brevig Mission

Huslia Old Hamor Sleeetmute

AHakakel Energy Systems (A1alna) Crooked Creek

Tenakee Springs Hughes Power & Ughl

Stony River Unqusraq Power Company (Newtok)

Chevak Umnak Po ..... er Company (Nikolski)

Anvik Selawik

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. Grayling

Takotna Community Association Noatak

Ig:u9:9 Electric Company Tununak

Ruby. City of Goodne-.'iS Bay

Savoonga Kaltag

Pedro Bay Village Couna! Eok

Menlasta Red Devil

Nulato f.iekoryvk

Kotl,k Electric SeC\ices Jpnatchiaq Electric Company (Deering)

Stebbins St Michael

Gwi!chyaa Zhee Utilities (Fort Yukon) Oiomedo Joint UtiTlties

Chignik Electric Nikolai lighl [. Power

Quinhagak HooporBay

Tuluksak Traditional P(Y<'Ier Utility Alakanuk

HolyCross Go(o'lin P(J'n'Cf Ublities

Akiak Power U~lities I·N·N Electric Cooperative

Kwethluk, Inc. Erim

Bettles AkhiOk, City of

Tanana PowerCompallY T,II" PO"" C~P'"

'v!arshalt

Thousands

4.00

Koyuk l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:; Shlsmarel ~§~~~~~~f'C=] Minto AmOler

6.00 8.00

i I

--------------------------------------~

(pcerep2. wpd) November 16, 1998 6.16


FIGURE 6.5 (part 2)

RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION PER CUSTOMER WITH PCE AND AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2)

0.00

Russian Mission Chllina Electric Inc.

False Pass electric Association Chilkal Valley Tooksook Bay

Egegik Ugh! & Power Co. Napaskiak Electric Utility

Kivalina Gambell

Wales levelock electric Cooperative

Emmonak NoONik

Kiana Chislochina

Manokotak Power COmpany \\ihite Mountain U~lities Northway Power & light

K ... .ig Po .... er Company (Kwigillingok) ScammooBay

Nightmute Po-.... er Plant Pilot Station

New Stuyahok Tuntutu:iak Community Service Assn.

Elfin Cove Electric Utitity Almau~uak Joint Utilities

Tog;ak Sand Point Electric Company

Tanal','3n Electric cooperative, tnc. Galena, Cityor

Shungnak Kasaan

McGrath Ught &. Power Andreanof Electric COrpor.!tion (Atka)

Aniak light & Power Company, Inc. Perryville, City of Mountain Village

Pilot Point Village Council Natertaq Ught Planl (Chefornak)

Ne:son lagoon Ele<:tric Coopeldtive.loc. KipnUk Ughl PI<lnl

5h<l~loo!ik

Point lay Thome Bay Pubtic Utility

Port Heiden, City of Hoonah

51. George Mun,cipa! Eleclric Utility Tok (includes Dot lake)

Tatitlek Electric UWity Kak,

Hydaburg Angoon

Nushagak EIe<:lriC Cooperative.loc. (Dillingham) Unalakleet Yankey Electric Coopeldtivo

Nome Joint Utility Syslem Naknek Ele<:tric Association, Inc.

Ana~tuvuk Pass Nuiqsut

Wainwright Atqasuk Kaktovik

Ya~utat Power Po,nl Hope

Kotzebue Electric Associalion 51. Paul Munlcip;:rl Eleclrq1c Utility

G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay)

(pcerep2.wpd)

ThOt.lsands

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

November 16, 1998 6.17


I

FIGURE 6.6 (part 1)

RESIDENTIAL BILL WITH PCE AND AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1)

$0 '500 $1,000 $1,500

G&K. tnc. (Cold Bay) SL Paul Municipal Electrqic Utility

Tatitlek Electric Utility Kotzebue Electric Assodation

Angoon Shaktoolik

Port Heiden, City of Mountain Village

K>k. I~;;~~~~~~~~~~~~;;~!;! Yakutat Power 'Nhi!e MountaIn U61lties

Nelson lagoon Electric cooperative, Inc. Shungnak

Kwig Power Company (Kwi9~Jingok) Andreanof Eleclric Corporation (Atka)

AtmauUuak Joint Ublities TuntutuliaK Community Service Assn.

Hoonah Egegik light & Power Co.

Aniak Ught & Power Company, Inc. Unalakleet Vallkey Elecllic COOperative

Noorvik Naterkaq light Plant (Chefornak)

51. George Municipal Electric Uliflty Telfer Po-Her Company

Kiana perryville, Cily of

New Stuyahok Togiak

Napaskiak Electric Utility Nome Joint Utility System Thome Bay Public Utility

Ambler Wales

Naknek El~tric AssOCiatiOfl, Inc. P,!ot Statioo

Scammon Bay Emmonak

Kivalina P,!O! Point Village Council

Unqusraq PO-Ner Company (Newtok) McGrath Light & Power

Nushagak Electfic CoopeQtive, Inc. (Dillingham) Pedro Bay V,1!age Council

levelock ElectriC CoopeQtive Minto

$hismaref False Pass Electric Association

Po,nt Hope Tooksook Bay

Kasaan Gambell

Red Devil Ruby, City of

Akial: Power Utilities Alrniok, City of

j·N.N ElectfiCCoopeQtive lanalian Electric cooperati~e, Inc.

Nikolai Ught & Power Galena, City of

Igiugig Electric Company ,I~~i~~~~~~~~~~~i Marshal! Tok (includes Dot lake)

HolyCross Tanana PO',','erCompany

Kwethluk,lnc. ChistoCilina

BeWes

~I - __________________________________________________________ __


S2,ooo

6.18

, I


Crooked Creek 8im

Kaktovik Kipnuk light Plant

Noatak Manokotak PO'NerCompany

Wainwright RussIan Mission

Koyuk Stony River

Hydaburg Nuiqsut

Chitina Electric Inc. Atqasuk

Sand Point electric Company Alakanuk

OUinhag<lk Tuluksak TraoLtional PO' .... er UHlity

Hooper Bay Chllkar Valley

Nulato Akiachak Native Community Electric Co.

Anaktuwk Pass Takotna Community Association

Nightmute PO'Her Plant O:omede Joint Utilities Golovin Power Utilities

Sl Michael Sleeetmulo

E,' Mekol)'\Jk Srebbrns

Elfin Cove Electric Utility Hughes Power & light

Old Harbor Gra,iing Selawik

Sa~wnga Gooonews Bay

Ipnarchiaq electric Company (Deering) Slevens Wlage Eoerg,. Systems

Tum,mak Kaltag

Umnak Po',,"'er Company {N,kolski) Chuathnaluk

Northway Power 8. Ught Anvik

Huslia Chevak

G,o,ilchyaa Zhee UMities (Fort Yul(on) Mentasla

Chignik Electric Gust:I'IUS Eleclric Company

KotlIk Eleclric Services Point lay

Brelig M;S$.on Allakaket Energy Systems (Nalna)

Far North Utir.tities (Cen\J<ll) Manley Utilitity Company

Tenakee Springs Shageluk

Tetlin Eagle PO' .... 'er Company

Sheldon Point. City of Healy lake

Beaver Joint Utilities


FIGURE 6.6 (part 2)

RESIDENTIAL BILL WITH PCE AND AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2)

,0 ,soo 51,000 51,500 52,000

l ______________________________ ~ _____ __

(pcerep2.wpd) Noyember 16, 1998 6.19


FIGURE 6.7 (part 1)

IUTILITY DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1 )1

Thousands

(SIOO) ($50) so

Gustavus EleclricCompany ~~ __ .. __ ....... _ .......... __ .. _ .... _ .. -::::::~:::::= Eagle Power Company

Shageluk Old Harbor Healy lake

Unqusraq Power Company (Newtok) Chuathbaluk

Nome Joint Utility System Chignik Electric Scammon Bay

Quinhagak p~~~,

Nuiqsut New Stuyahok

HolyCross White Mountain U\J1ities

Kwethluk, Inc. Pilot Station

Russian Mission SI. Michael

Stebbins Chevak

Shungnak Grayling

Golovin Power UhhUes Wales

Hooper Bay Emmonak

Galena, City of Crooked Creek

Manokotak Power Company Tok (includes Oot lake)

Hoonah Goodnews Bay

Hughes Power & light Bellies

Marsha" Yakutat Power

Kak, Kaltag

K .... /ig Power Company (Ky,igiUingok) Brevig Mission

Eliffi She:don Poln!, CHy of

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, tnc. SI. PaUl Municipal Electrqic Ulimy

Allakaket EnergySyslems (A!alna) Perryville, City of

Aniak Ught & Power Company, Inc. Sand Point Electric Company

Tenakee Springs Minto

Pilot Point Vil!age Counc~ Chlstochina

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. Manley UWilily Company

Naknek Electric Association. loc. Wainwright

Ambler Tuluksak TradiHooal Po-Ner Utility

Nulato Anaktuvuk Pass

SI. George Municipal Electric Utility Point Hope

Chitina Electric Inc. False Pass Electric Association

Diomede Joint Utilities



FIGURE 6.7 (part 2)

IUTILITY DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2)1

(S100)

Ruby, City of TeUin

TeUer Power Company Elfin Cove Elecln'c U\Jlily

Red Devil Kasaan

Far North Utililities (Central) Mentasta

Stevens Vil1age Energy Systems Nocthway Power & light

Noatak McGrath Ught & PO'NCr

G&K, Inc. (Cold 8ay) Akhiok, City of

Takotna Community Association Savoonga

E,' I·N·N Electric Cooperative

Alakanuk Togiak

Mountain Village Umnak Power Company (Nikolski)

Andreanof Eleclric COfporation (Atka) Gambell

Igiugig Eleclric Company Beaver Joint Utilities

lpnalchiaq Electric Company (Deering) Chilkat Valley

Kotzebue Electric Association Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Oilftngham)

Sleeelmule Angooo

Kiana Tooksook Bay

Shismaref Akiak Power Uttrllics

Selawik Mekoryuk

Nikolallignt & Power AtmauUuak Joint Uti:ities

Nalerkaq light Plant (Chefornak) Stony River

H)'daburg Port Heiden, City of

Koyuk Unalakleet Vallkey Electric Cooperallve

Nightmute Power Planl Pedro Bay Village Council

Thorne Bay Public Utility Kipnuk light Plant

Gwitchyaa Znee Utilities (Fori Yukon) Tana!ian Electric cooperative, Inc.

Tununak Kaktovik

Anvik Egegik light & Power Co.

Kiva1\na Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn.

Tatitlek Electric Utility HuSlia

Kotrik Electric Services Napaskiak Electric Utilily

ShaktOOlik Tanana Power Company

AtqaSUk levefock Electric Cooper<ltive

(pcerep2.wpd)

Thousands

($50) so

November 16, 1998 6.21


FIGURE 6.8 (part 1)

ILOSS OF PURCHASING POWER WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1)1

Kotzebue EJectricAssodatlon Nushagak EfeclIic Cooperativo, Inc. (Dillingham)

Nome JoInt Uti!ily System Hoonah "'k,

Tok (includes Dot lake) Naknek Electric Association, Inc.

Sand Polnt Electric Company I·N·N Electric Cooperative

MountaIn Village Emmonak

Angoon TogiaK

Aniak Ught & po· .... er Company. Inc. McGrath Ught & Power

HO~~-r

so $100

Shismaref

Unalakleet Vililkey Electric COOperative ~~~~~~~~iiill!5~:::J Kiana Selawik Gambell

Pilot Statioo Yakutat Power

Gwilchyaa Zhee Utilities (Fort Yukon) Quinhagak

Ne-.... Stuyahok Tooksook Bay Scammon Bay

Amt>ler Akiachak Native Community Electric Co.

Gustavus Electric Company Alakanuk

Kipm;k Ught Plan! Savoonga

SL Paul Municipal Electrq'c Utihty !~~~~il~:~~:1J Kwig Po-.... er company {Kwig~lingok} Nulato

Chevak Marshall

Kwethluk, Inc. Stebbins

MnlO Galena. City or

Shungnak HolyCross

Kiv<3tioa ShaktOOlIk

Elim Telfer Power Company KotlIk Electric Services

NO<ltak Tuntutuliak Comnll/oily Servico Assn.

Koyuk Eek

SI. Michae! Napaskiak Electric U!i~ty

Hyda!)urg Old Harbor

NOrtlllvay Power & lighl Mekol)'Uk Tununak

t.1anokotak. Po· ... ·cr Company Tanana Power Company

Chilkal Valley Point Hope

AtmauUllak Joint Utilities Goodne-<'fS Bay

Thousands

$200

ERESIDENTtAl tI COMMERCIAL • COMMUNITY

$300

Q GOVERNMENT • OTl1ER

---.. _--------------------


$400

6.22


FIGURE 6.8 (part 2)

ILOSS OF PURCHASING POWER WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2)1

Wales Thome Bay Puh!ic Utimy

Na!erkaq light Plant (Chefornak) Unqusraq Power Company (Newlok)

Nelson lagoon Electric Coopeldtive. fnc. Russian Mission

Kallag 51. George MuniCipal Electric UmHy

Egegik Ught & Power Co. Huslia

G&K, Inc. (Cord Bay) Ruby, eilY of

Wairwmghl levelock E!~tric Coope/ative

Grayling AJtakaket Energy Systems (A1alna)

so 5100

Thousands

$200

Tenakee Springs White Mountain Utilities

Oiomede Joint Utilities Golovin Power Utilities

Far North Utir.tities (Central) !!~!!i?¥im[!J Tanatian Electric cooperative, tnc.

Nuiqsut Nikolai Ught & Power

Anvik t.'lanley Utilitity Company

Brevig Mission PilOt Point Village CoonciJ

Ipnalchiaq Electric C~i~~~~.!fJ

Crooked Creek Anakll.lVUk Pass

Sleeetmute Kaktovik

Nightmute Power Plan! ChislOChina

Atqasuk Kasaan

Pedro Bay Village Council Bettles

Akiak Power Ublities Takotna Community AssociatiOll false Pass Electric Association

Tuluksak TrBd,tional Per .... er Utility Andreanof Electric Corpor.Jtion (Atka)

Point lay Chitina Electric Inc.

Elfin Cove Electric Utility Eagle PerNer COmpany

Tatitlek Electric Utility TeWn

Stony River Chuathbaluk

Igiugig E!~tric Company Sheldon Poll'll, City of

Beaver Joint Utilities Perryville, City of

Hughes Per .... er & Ught Port Heiden, City of

Slevens Village Energy Systems Red Devil

Umnak Po· .... erCOmpany (Nikolski) Mentasta Shageluk

Akhiok, City of Healy lake

(pcerep2.wpd)

!_ RESIDENTIAL 'II C01.WERClAl • co~wu:mY

November 16, 1998

S300 $400

Q GOVERNMENT • OTHER

6.23


0%

FIGURE 6.9 (part 1)

SHARE OF HH INCOME DEVOTED TO ELECTRICITY AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1)

5% 10% 150/.

Nikolai light & Power

Stony River 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f55555~::======: Kipnuk light PI<lnt levelock Electric CocoolCltiVO

Stevens Village Energy Systems Minlo Anvik

HoIJa;;g:~ Scammon Bay

Ruby, City of Shaktoolik

Wales Takotna Community Association

Umnak Power Company (Nikolski) Shismaref

AtmautluakJoint UtiHtios New Stuyahok

Pilol Station Kwig Power Company(Kwig~lingok)

Kivalina Tooksook Bay

Shungnak MekOl)'Uk

Togiak

White Mountain Utilities Goodnews Bay

False Pass Electric AsSociation Nulato

Emmonak Ambler

Elim Chitina Electric Inc.

Tatitlek Electric UWity Sl George Muniopal Electric U~llty.

Pedro Bay Village Counol Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn.

IgilJg:g Electric Company Diomede Joint Utilities HlJghes PQ'Her & Ughl Tetler Power Company

G&K. fnc. (Cold Bay) Katlag Koyuk

Golovin Power UWities MountaIn Villago

Natertaq Light Plant (Chefornak) Grayling

Unqusr.oq Power Company (Newtok) Allakaket Energy Systems (Alatna)

Savoooga Noorvik

Hooper Bay Kwethluk,lnc.

Quinhagak Akiak. Po-.... er Utilities

Mentasta Kiana

Marshall Russian Mission

Alakanuk SL Michael

Tununak

""" Egegik Ught & Power Co.

(fRCTIJlJES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNllY FACRITY ElECTRlQiY"u§e:)


20%

6.24


FIGURE 6.9 (part 2)

SHARE OF HH INCOME DEVOTED TO ELECTRICITY AFTER ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2)

0%

Andreanof electric Co!por.l.tion (Atka) !iiiiiii; Chlslochina Old Haroor

E" Noatak

Napaskiak Electric Uti~ty Hw,,,' Aniak Ugh! & PowerCompall¥, Inc.

ReciOevir lpoatchlaq Electtic company (Deering)

Selawik Stebbins

$Ieeelmute

""oon Brevig Missioo

Tuluksak Traditional Power Ublity /l.1anokotak Power Company

McGlath Ught & Power Unalakleet Valikey Electric Cooperative

Huslia Chevak

I-N-N Electric Cooperative Crooked Creek

Hydaburg !~~~~~ Yakutat Power Kotzebue Electric Association

Akiachak Native Community Electric CO. Tenakee Springs

Chuathbaluk Port Heiden, City of

Toome Bay Public Utility G .... itchyaa Zhee UGJities (FOft Yukon)

Galena. Cily of Pilol Point Village CounCil

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooper..'ltiva. Inc. Kotlik Electric seNlccs

Elfin COve Electric Uti/ity Tok (includes Dot Lake)

Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Perryville, City of

Beaver Joinl Utilities Akhiok, Cily of

Sheldon Point, City of Sand Point Electric Company

Nome Joinl UGI,ly System Bettles

Nuiqsut Tetlin

Kasaan Wainwright

Northway Power & Ught Kaktovik

Mantey UIi~lity Company ~;;; ChIgnik Electric Anakluvuk Pass

Point Hope Shageluk

Nushagak Electric Coopilf<ltive, Inc. (Dillingham) fat North Uli:itities (Cen(r.>l)

Atqasuk Eagle Power Company

Tanar.an E!ecllic coopef<ltive, Inc. Chltkat Valley

Gustavus Electric Company Healy lake

Poinllay

\INCLUDES RE"SloffiTlAl AND COMMUNI I Y fACILITY E:LECTRlctTY USE!

5%


10% 15% 20%

6.25


(SlOO)

Gustavus Electric Company I-N-N Electric Cooperative

Sand Point electric eo:r~~k

NaoMk Emmonak

Eagle PO' .... et CWefi!k Nulato

Old Harbor Shismaref

Klana Tooksook Bay

Quinhagak HolyCross

Chevak Minto

Ambler Elim

Togiak Huslia

Shageluk Marshall

Ka!lag Pilot Station

-?~~0~~~ Manley Utilitity Company

Unqusraq Power Company (Newtok) Savoonga

Goodnews Bay Koyuk

New Stuyahok Kivalina

Eok Scammon Bay

Sf. Michael Crooked Creek

Shaktoolik

Ct;,~~~b~~r Kotflk Eleelnc Services

BreVoS Mission Mountain Wlage

Wales Stebbins

Kwig PO'Ner Company (Kwigillingok) Jpnalchiaq Electric Company (Deering)

Allakaket Enera~::r!j~~I(Cifr::;:l Anvik

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. Angoon

Far North Ut,fitities (Central) Diomede Joint U!i~ties

Tenakee Springs Heaty lake

Tetlin Russian Mission

Alakanuk Kipnuk UShl Plant

Chlstochina Kasaan

S!eeetmule Mekoryuk

Hoonah Stony River

Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(pcerep2.wpd)


FIGURE 6.10 (part 1)

UTILITY DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1) PRICE ELASTICITY -.3

Thousands

(SSO) so

November 16, 1998 6.26



UTILITY DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2) PRICE ELASTICITY -_3

Thousands

(S1OO) ($50) $0

urrmakPowercomY~k~&~~~~~ Akiak Power Utilities

Aniak Ught & Power Company, Jne. Stevens Village Energy Systems

Akhiok, City of Northway Power & light

Kwethluk, Inc. Igiugig Electric Company

Takotna Community Association Galena, City of

Poinllay ChIgnik Electnc

Manokotak Power Company Nuiqsut

Wainwright Tok (indudes Dot lake)

Unalakleet VaUkey Electric Cooperative Andreanof Electric Corporation (Atka)

NalerkaQ light Ptant (Chefornak) Atmautluak Joint Ut.lities

Point Hope Elfin Cove Electric UWily

Egegik Ught & Power Co. Thome Bay Public UW,ly

Pedro Bay ViUage Council False Pass Electric Assodalion

Kaktovik 6clUes

St, George Munlopal Electric Utdity Sheldon Point, Cily of

Napaskiak Eleclric U!i!ity Ruby, City of

Port Heiden, City of Mentasta

Pdot Point VIIrage Council Chitina Electric Inc.

Tuluksak Traditional PO' .... er Utitity White Mountain UtilIties

NIkolai Ught & Power Teller Power Company Hughes Power & Ught

Red Devil Gambell

Perryville. City of Chilkat Valley

Gwitchyaa Zhee UMiUes (FOfl Yukon) levelock Electric Cooperative

Nightmute Power Plant Kotzebue Etectric Association

AnaklulNk Pass Shungnak

Nome Joint Uti~ty System Tanana Power Company

Tunlulu~ak Community Service Assn. Hydaburg

Atqasuk Tanalian Eleciriccooperative.lnc.

G&K,lnc. (Cotd Bay) Golovin Power Utilities Tatitlek Electric UtIlity

Kake 51. Paul Municip<ll Elcctrqic Ulifily

McGrath Ught & Power Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Dillingham)



Shageluk Healy lake

Gustavus Electric Company Eagle Power Company

Chuathbaluk Old Haroor

Unqusraq P~ .... e( Company (Newtok) Noatak

Minto Huslia

Gravling Beaver Joint Uti1ities

Crooked Creek KaUag

Manley UWitity Com&any

HoItl~~ Efim

Nulato Goodnews Bay

Kotfik ElectriC Services Tooksool< Bay

Tetlin E,k

Ipnatchiaq Electric Company (Deering) I·N·N Electric Cooperative

QUinhagak Tununak MarshaU Selawik Kasaan

Shlsmaref Brevig Mission

Ambler Allakaket EnergySYSlems (Alalna)

Kiana KOy\lk

Emmonak Sand Point Electric ~~~~

Anvik Wales

Pdol Station SI.Michael

Tenakee Springs Chistochina

Kwig Power Company {Kst~r~7~~}~

Scammon Bay Kivalina

New Stuyahok Savoonga

T()9iak Diomede Joint Ut,llties

Far North U~1itities (Central) Stony River

Akiachak Native Community Electric Co. Stebbins

RUSSian Mission Hooper Bay Steeelmute

Kipnuk Ught PIal'll Umnak Power Company !Nikotskl)

Mountarn Village Angoon

Nakanuk Mekoryuk

Nelson lagoon Electric Cooperative, Inc. Anaktuvuk Pass

(pcerep2.wpd)

0%



UTILITY % DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 1) PRICE ELASTICITY -.3

PERCENT OF NON-FUEL EXPENSES 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

November 16, 1998 6.28



UTILITY % DEFICIT WITH ELIMINATION OF PCE (PART 2) PRICE ELASTICITY -.3

Hoonah Akhiok, City of

Po1nllay Nuiqsut

Igiugig Electric Company Slevens Village Energy Systems Takoma Community Association

Kaktovik Elfin Cove Electric Utility

Akiak Power umities Andreano! Electric Corporation (Atka)

Pedro Bay Village Council F<Jlse Pass EleclricAssodation

Yakutat Power Wainwright

Chignik Electric Manokotak Power Company

Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Nalerkaq Ught Plant (Chefornak)

Kwethluk, Inc. Northway Power & Ugh! Atmauttuak Joint U~1ities

Sheldon Point, City of Point Hope

Aniak Ught & Power Company, fnc. Egegik lIgh! & Power Co. Pilol Point Village Council

Mentasta Unalakleet Va!lkey Electric Cooperative

Napaskiak Electric Utility Thome Bay Public Utility

Ruby, City of SeUles

SI. Ge<>rge Mlmicipal Electric Utility Port Heiden, City of

Chiti~:~t~~i~dYn~~ Tok (includes Dot lake)

Nome Joint u!Jmy System Kotzebue Electric Association

Telfer Power Company V'I'hile Mountain U!J!ities

Gambe!! Ka"

Gwitchyaa Zhee Utilities (Fort Yukon) G&I<, Inc. (Cold Bay)

N(kolai Ught 8. Power Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility

Tanana Power Company Shungnak

SI. Paul Municipal Electrqlc Utility Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. {Dillingham)

McGrath Ught & Power Tuntutuliak Community Service Assn.

levelock Electric Cooperative Hydaburg

Hughes Power 8. Ught Perryville, City of

Red Devil Chilkat Valley

Tanalian Electric cooperative, Inc.

(pcerep2.wpd)

Golovin Power Utilities Tatitlek Electric Utifity

Nightmute Power Plant Atqasuk

0%

I

-

-

-

PERCENT OF NON-FUEL EXPENSES

10% 20% 40% 50%

! I I : I !

November 16, 1998 6.29


FIGURE 6,12 (part 1)


ALL peE UTILITIES (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

WITH WITHOUT CHANGE PCE PCE AMOUNT '!.

227,245,209 SALES (KWH) 188,207,252 39,037,957 -17.2%

79,417,373 Residential 54,694,494 24,722,679 1·31.1% I household impact 95,833,605 Commercial 89,461,366 6,372,239 -6.6% 18,185,622 Community Facility 10,504,852 7,660,770 -42.2% 28,548.517 Government 28,301,619 246,898 -0.9%

5,260,092 Other 5,244,920 15,172 -0.3%

$66,488.447 EXPENSES ($) S62,685.730 (S3,802,717) -5.7%

$19,008,858 Fuel $15.206.141 (S3M2,717) -20,0% $38,452,890 Non-Fuel $38,452,890 $0 0.0%

$9.026,699 Other $9.026.699

$0.29 Cost/Kwh $0.33 $0.04 13.8%

$66,488,447 REVENUES (5) $60,246,153 (S6.242,294) 9.4%

$14,424,169 Residential 517.824.219 $3,400,050 123.6% I household impacl $25,245.023 Commercia! $29,046,845 $3,801,822 15.1%

$3,094,234 Community Facility $3,597,465 $503,230 16.3% $B,OOB,Bl1 Government $B,762,050 5753,238 9.4%

$969,517 Other $1,015.575 $46,057 4.8%

$14,746,692 PCE $0 ($12,307,115)

BALANCE (S2,439,577) (S2,439,577)

122.2% I PCE/REVENUES Dependency Ratio

AVG PRICE {KWH Elasticity

$0.18 Residential $0.33 SO.14 79.4% 30% $0.26 Commercial $0.32 $0.06 23.3% 30% $0.17 Community Facility $0.34 $0.17 101.3% 30% $0.2B Government $0.31 $0.Q3 10.4% 10% $0.18 00" $0.19 $0.01 5.1% 10%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

13,055 HH 13,055 1990 Census $46,120 InwmelHH $46,120 1990 Census

$896 Electric Bill {Res Cust $1,107 $211 23.6% Includes Residential Only 51.148 Electric Cost I Res Cust $1,394 $245 21.4% Residential, Community Facility, GUIer, and Oefic

1.9% Electric Bill Share of Income 2.4% 0.5% 23.6% Includes Residential Only 2.5% Electric Cost Share of Income 3.0% 0.5% 21.4% Residential, Community FaCility, Other, and Detic

4.933 Annual Use Per Res Gust 3,398 (1,536) ·31.1% Includes Residential Only 411 Monthly Use Per Res Gust 283 (128) ·31.1%

(pcerep2. wprl) November 16, 1998 6.30




All peE UTILITIES (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

Households


Direct financial Burdon from peE loss If All Borne by Community

Residential Commercial Community FaCility Government Other. Balance

Direct Financial Burden from peE Loss If Somo shifted outside Community

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government Other

loca18urden Share

100% 33%

100% 0%

100%

Percenl Decline from peE loss

Percent Oecline in Household Income from peE loss

Commercial Government Other

13,055

$602,100,503

$8,504,398

$3,400,050 $3,801,822

$503,230 $753,236

$46,057 $2,439,577

$5,203,939

$3,400,050 $1.254,601

$503,230 SO

$46,057

0.9%

$2.547,221 $753,238

$0





ALL BUT 5 LARGEST peE UTILITIES (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

WITH WITHOUT CHANGE peE peE AMOUNT % . -_.-... -.......... ........ -.......... ...... -................ _ ............

137.422.298 SALES (KWH) 103,449,676 33,972,622 -24.70/.

51,386,222 Residential 29,902,300 21,483,922 [41.6%! 52,921,689 Commercial 47.491.716 5,429,973 ·10.3% 12,972,745 Community Facility 6,119,677 6,853,059 -52,8% 14,881,549 Government 14,691,064 19{1,485 -1.3% 5.260,092 Other 5,244,920 15,172 -0.3%

$47,707,305 EXPENSES ( S) $44,181.886 (53,525.419) ·7.4%

514.166,571 Fuel $10,641,152 (S3,525,419) -24.9% 528,114,847 Non·Fuel S28,114,847 SO 0.0% 55.425,887 Other 55.425,887

$0.35 CostJ Kwh 50.43 50.08 23.0%

547,707,305 REVENUES ($) 541,742,554 (55,964,751) 12.5%

59.976.9B7 Residentia! 512,400,631 52.423,644 I 24.3%i 516,501,19B Commercia! 519,867,690 53,3&6,692 20.4%

52,352,954 Community FaCIlity 52,652,5S4 5299.63{) 12.7% 55,159,175 Government 55.805,874 5646.700 12.5%

5969,517 Other 51,015,575 546,057 4.8%

512.747,474 PCE SO (5 10,3{)8, 142)

BALANCE (52,439.332) (S2,439,332)

!'26.7%l PCE I REVENUES Dependency Ratio

AVG PRICE I KWH

50.19 Residential 50.41 50.22 113.6% 50.31 Commercia! 50.42 50.11 34.2% 50.18 Community Facility 50.43 50.25 139.0% 50.35 Government 50040 50.05 14.00/, 50.16 Other 50.19 50.01 5.1%

HOUSEHOLD DATA

9.912 HH 9.912· 540.271 IncomeJHH 540,271

5850 Electric Biltl Res Cust 51,056 5206 24.3% 51.133 Electric Cost I Res Cust 51,369 5236 20.8%

2.1% Electric Bm Share of Income 2.6% 0.5% 24.30/, 2.8% Electric Cost Share or Income 304% 0.6% 20.8%

4.378 Annual Use Per Res Cust 2,547 (1,SlO) ·41.80/, 365 Monthly Use Per Res Cust 212 (IS3) ·41.8%

(pccrcp2.wpd) Noyembcr 16, 1998

Economic Signiticance

household impact

household impact

Etas~city

1990 Census 1990 Census

300/. 30% 30% 10r~ 10%

Includes ResidenUal Only Residential. Community Facil,ty, Olher. and Deficit

Includes Residenlial Only ResidenUal, Community FaciMy, Other. and Deficit

Includes Residential Only

6.32




Households

Tota! Household Income

Olrect FInancial Burden from peE loss If All Borne by Community

Residentia! Commercial Community Facir.ty Government Other Balance

DIrect Financial Burden from peE loss If Some shifted outside CommunIty

Residential Commercial Community Facility Government Olher

loc<il Burden Share

tOO% 33%

tOO% 0%

100%

Percent Decline from peE loss

ALL BUT 5 LARGEST peE UTILITIES (HIGH CUSTOMER RESPONSE)

9,912

$399,164,048

$6,762,723

52,423,644 $3,366,692

$299,630 $646,700 546,057

52.439,332

53,880,340

52,423,644 $1,111,008

$299,630 SO

$46,057

1.0%

Percenl Oedine in Household Income from peE loss

(pcerep2.wpd)

Commercial Government Olher

52.255.683 5646,700

SO

November 16, 1998 6.33




7. ELIMINATION OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM--THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE

For fiscal year 1996 the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) disbursed $19.202 million to utilities serving 190 communities in Alaska. We estimate that if that disbursement were eliminated there would be a loss of210 full time equivalent jobs in the state with an associated loss of payroll 0[$4.908 million (Figure 7.1). A large share of the job loss would occur in urban Alaska. These estimates include the multiplier effect of the reduction in purchasing power of users whose electricity rates increased.

The loss of revenues to the utilities from the elimination ofPCE would be recovered in two ways. A portion, estimated at $2.791 million, would be made up through a reduction in utility costs for the purchase and use of fuel oil. Since higher rates would reduce sales, less fuel oil would be required.

Most of the loss in revenues would need to be recovered from electricity users through higher rates. The m~ority, $11.446 million, would come from higher rates paid directly and indirectly by the households in the PCE communities. The largest portion is the $8.893 million paid directly through higher residential bills. Households would also bear the burden of the $2.252 million in additional electricity bills paid by community facilities. That is because these facilities must turn to community residents to pay their bills and they will pass on their higher costs in higher charges for services and higher taxes. We also assume that households will pay the deficit faced by those utilities that cannot cover their costs through higher rates, a total of S.272 million, as well as a small additional bill of $.029 million for the "other" category of user.

The remainder of the loss in revenues would become a financial burden for the other users of electricity. The state and federal governments would share a burden of $.580 million in additional expenses for electricity. Commercial users, including the public schools, would be responsible for $4.385 million of additional costs. Most of this portion of the lost PCE revenues would not be recovered fi'om local residents, but rather from state and federal government budgets and from businesses that would pass on their higher costs outside the PCE communities. However, some of the higher cost of doing business would be passed on to households in the PCE communities through lower wage rates, lower tax payments, lower rents, and higher prices for goods sold.

We estimate that the reduction in fuel oil purchases results in the loss of28 full time equivalent jobs and $.963 million in wages. These jobs are distributed among water transportation, wholesaling, petroleum refining, crude production, trade, and services.

We estimate that the loss of $11.446 million of purchasing power in PCE communities



results in a loss of 127 full time equivalent jobs and $2.752 million of wages. Each additional dollar spent on electricity is one less dollar spent for other purchases. The jobs lost from the reduction in these purchases are in transportation, trade and services.

We estimate that the increase in state and federal expenditures on electricity as well as the increase of business expenditures on electricity results in a loss of 55 full time equivalent jobs and a payroll of $1.193 million. Govemments recover the higher costs of electricity through an increase in taxes on households, or a reduction in the wages paid to govemment workers, the largest category of govemment operating cost. Private businesses pass the burden of higher electricity costs onto workers in the fom1 of lower paychecks. In both cases the purchasing power of Alaska residents is reduced by the amount of the higher electricity bills.

Sixty percent of the burden of higher electricity bills will be paid directly by the residents of the effected PCE communities. Twenty six percent will be paid by residents of the state, with the exact distribution unce11ain. The remaining fourteen percent will be absorbed by reduced fuel oil purchases made possible by reduced electricity sales.

URBAN CONCENTRATION OF JOB AND WAGE LOSS

Based on the distribution ofthe burden we estimate that a large share of the economic impact, probably more than half the loss in jobs and wages, would occur in urban Alaska. Although the largest share of the loss in purchasing power will occur in the PCE communities in rural Alaska, these small rural communities have very little economic infrastructure. Of the 58.893 million of purchasing power directly lost by households through higher electricity bills, about half would occur in 100 small communities with popUlations of less than 500 (Figure 7.2). In these small places there are few businesses and most shopping is done outside the community.

Few studies have estimated the leakage of purchasing power from small places, but a detailed household expenditure survey done in Kake, a community of700 (\990) confirms the idca that most purchasing power goes for purchases outside the local economy. That survey showed that less than one third of total household expenditures made by community residents took place in Kake and more than two thirds of purchases were made outside (Figure 7.3). Another piece of evidence of the small multiplier in rural Alaska is the low ratio of trade employment to total popUlation in the less populous census areas of Alaska. For example Anchorage has 116 trade jobs for every 1000 population while in the Lake and Peninsula Borough there are only 16 (Figure 7.4).

Some of the leakage goes to the regional centers, particularly Barrow, Nome, Kotzebue, Bethel, and Dillingham. However a large share makes its way (0 Allchorage and Fairbanks and (0 a lesser extent to the larger communities in Southeast Alaska.

INCREASE IN DIRECT COSTS TO STATE GOVERNMENT



Elimination of the PCE program would impose several types of costs on state government. These costs would partially or totaHy offset the savings that would result from program tennination. These costs include direct out of pocket costs £i'om higher electricity rates, additional costs for self generation of some state funded facilities, costs associated with reduced reliability of electricity, and additional health and social costs due to reduced availability of electricity in rural communities. The direct costs are the easiest to quantify.

Because state facilities in PCE communities would be impacted by higher rates, the elimination ofPCE would directly increase state expenditures for electricity. State government facility electricity use is not eligible for PCE, but these facilities do enjoy rates that reflect the spreading of the cost of generation among a larger number of kwh than would be the case without PCE. In the last Section we estimated that the total expenditures by government on electricity would increase by about 6 percent ifPCE were eliminated. We estimate that half of these additional expenditures, $.290 million, would be made by state government agencies.

The public schools, which are considered commercial users for the purposes ofPCE eligibility, would also find themselves facing higher rates and bills. Their bills would increase not only as a result of the increase in the average cost of electricity generation, but also because each school facility would lose the cunent PCE assistance available on the first 700 kwh per month of use (Figure 7.5). "Ve estimated that total expenditures for electricity by commercial users would increase 13 percent with the tennination ofPCE.

Based on reported expenditures on electricity by schools in PCE commnnities 12 we estimate that the additional financial burden on PCE community schools from tennination of the PCE would be $1.406 million, an increase of 13 percent in the electricity bill of the schools. Assuming this is paid out of the state education budget, the total increase in state expenses for electricity with the te11l1ination of the PCE program would be S 1.695 million (Figure 7.1).

INCREASE IN INDIRECT COSTS TO STATE GOVERNMENT

The indirect burden on state gove11lment from the elimination of PCE is more difficult to estimate but it could be considerable. There are at least three components ofthis indirect burden.

The first is the additional cost associated with providing electric power to state facilities through self generation in those cases wherc the local utility goes out of business. Were a PCE utility to cease operation because it could not cover its costs, the cost of altemative self generation for a state facility continuing to operate would be greater than that of the ntility.

The second cost wonld be the reduction in the reliability of electric power due to the erosion of the financial strength of the PCE utilities. Utilities trying to cover deficits will reduce

12 From the Alaska School Operating Cost Study, by the McDowell Group for the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, 1998.



maintenance and this will lead to an increase in power outages and the need for additional standby capacity among users for whom such outages are costly. Reliability would also be compromised where a peE utility shut down and thus eliminated one source of electricity generation within a community for users such as schools and hospitals.

A third type of cost to the state would be associated with increases in the incidence of health and social related problems attendant a reduction in the availability and use of electricity in smalJ nIral communities. We have not quantified what the size of these costs might be, but we discuss some of the special benefits of electricity for nIral Alaska in the final section of this report.



FIGURE 7.1


ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE

TOTAL PCE PAYMENT IN 1996

Reduction in Fuel Oil Purchases

Added Financial Burden on Households in PCE Communities

Residential Bills Community Facility Bills Other Bills Balance to Offset Utility Deficits

Added Financial Burden on Government and Private Business

State and Federal Government Commercial (Includes Schools)

Note: Added Direct Financial Burden on State Budget to Offset PCE Loss

Government Facilities Commercial (Includes Schools)

(FY 1996)

CHANGE TO OFFSET LOSS

$19,201,515

$2.791,498

$11,445,571

$8,892,830 $2,251,241

$29,111 $272,389

$4,964,447

S579,593 $4,384,854

$1,695,447

$289,796 $1,405,651

LOST WAGES

LOST JOBS

.~------------------- .-----------

$4,908,035 210

$963,067 28

$2,751,515 127

$2,137,836 99 $541,198 25

$6,998 0 $65,482 3

$1,193,453 55

$139,334 6 $1,054,119 49

Lost Jobs and Wages include the multiplier effect of the loss of purchasing power associated with program elimination.



i--

I

FIGURE 7.2

LOST PURCHASING POWER CONCENTRATED IN SMALL PLACES

! $8.00 1-----------------------: •• ---, 1 1

a: w 5: o

1 0.. (') Z (j)

<{ if)

I c 1 ~ g

:J 2 0.. W > ~ -' :J 2 :J o

$6.00 c---I i 1

$4.00 :.. , ,

$2.00 - .

60 $ 0 . 0 0 ----.lc.::; "ii" .1111111111111

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 PLACES ARRANGED FROM SMALLEST TO LARGEST

if\lOKifBERS ABOVE BARS INDICATE POPULATION OF PLACEq __ J -----~

(pccrcp2.wpd) November 16, 1998 7.6


FIGURE 7.3 ~ <'

KAKE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES BY LOCATION SURVEY RESULTS

WHERE $ SPENT $ %

KAI<E $381,342 31.9%

OTHER SE AK $394,814 33.0%

ELSEWHERE $420,296 35.1%

TOTAL $1,196,452 100.0%

SOURCE: KAKE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DAVID MARSHALL AND ASSOC., 1990.



FIGURE 7.4

TRADE EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION FOR ALASKA CENSUS AREAS

TRADE JOB CENSUS WHOLESALE RETAIL TOTAL POPULATION PER AREA TRADE TRADE TRADE 1000 POP

- ------- ---------- - - -- ---- --------- ---------- ------ --------- ------- --- --- -. -----------

8,796 45,802 54,598 611,300 89.3

ANCHORAGE 6,188 23,261 29,449 254,849 115.6 FAIRBANKS 753 6,056 6,809 82,278 82.8

MATSU 257 2,437 2,694 52,448 51.4 DENALI 0 105 105 1,899 55.3 BRISTOL BAY BOROU 13 106 119 1,270 93.7

KETCHIKAN 209 1,293 1,502 14,599 102.9 JUNEAU 226 2,715 2,941 29,813 98.6 SKAGWAY 5 333 338 3,753 90.1 SITKA 36 729 765 8,733 87.6 HAINES 1 196 197 2,421 81.4 ALEUTIANS WEST 45 387 432 5,366 80.5 NORTH SLOPE 0 524 524 7,263 72.1 KENAI 447 2,991 3,438 48,098 71.5 KODIAK 68 815 883 13,547 65.2 VALDEZ 93 541 634 10,431 60.8 WRANGEL-PET 14 421 435 7,189 60.5 SOUTHEAST FRBKS 9 368 377 6,354 59.3 PRINCE OF WALES 18 369 387 6,876 56.3 YAKUTAT 1 39 40 833 48.0

NOME 5 426 431 9,178 47.0 DILLINGHAM 2 207 209 4,521 46.2 NORTHWEST 0 243 243 6,701 36.3 WADE HAMPTON 1 246 247 6,910 35.7 BETHEL 16 541 557 15,597 35.7 YUKON·KOYUKUK 17 151 168 6,355 26.4 ALEUTIANS EAST 6 46 52 2,238 23.2 LAKE AND PEN 5 23 28 1,780 15.7

UNDETERMINED 361 233 --- ------." - --.-- -- ---- - --- - ------- - ----------------- .--- --- ---------- -----.- - - -------

SOURCE: EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS SUMMARY REPORT 1996. ALASKA POPULATION OVERVIEW 1997 ESTIMATES. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR



FIGURE 7.5

TYPICAL SCHOOL ELECTRICITY RATE WITH AND WITHOUT PCE

40 ~--------------------------------~

I 30

~ cr::: ~ 20 (f) fZ ill U

I +-+-+--+--+--+

10 1-,

! I

i o '- . 100 500 900 1300 1700

300 700 1100 1500 1900 MONTHLY KWH USED

I.WITH PCE rnWITHOUT PcEl

I

I I I

------'





8. THE VALUE OF ELECTRICITY TO RURAL COMMUNITIES

SPECIAL USES OF ELECTRICITY IN RURAL ALASKA

There are a number of special uses of electricity in rural areas that, while not unique, greatly enhance the quality oflife in ways that are often not obvious to urban dwellers. Among these uses are the following:

Streetlights. Streetlights are an important safety feature in communities with long winter nights. For example with streetlights children need not go to and return from school in the dark. Streetlights can also serve as a beacon to guide hunters and other travelers to the safety of the village.

Refrigeration. Refi'igerators and freezers provide a safe method of food storage in rural areas where subsistence is an important source of food, and where the supply of groceries is less than certain. The ability to refrigerate and freeze subsistence foods contributes to the general health and well being of the community by reducing the incidence of diseases associated with traditional methods of food storage.

Heat Circulation. Most space heating in rural Alaska is provided by fuel oil. However the distribution of heat is done by electric fans or circulating pumps. Without electricity the efficiency of space heating would be severely and adversely effected.

Supplementary Heat Supply. Electric space heaters and other appliances provide backup space heating capability in the event that the primary heating source breaks down.

Airport Lights. Airport lights expand the hours of operation of airports which are often the only means of transportation access in winter beyond the local community in rural Alaska.

\Vater Circulation. Water and sewer systems require continuous circulation to prevent freezing which would destroy their pipes and require costly replacement.

Hot \Vater. The availability of an ample hot water supply for washing and cleaning raises the general level of health in a community.

Interior lighting. Without interior electric lighting much winter activity takes place in semi-darkness. This reduces the productivity of work and may contribute to social problems.

Vehicle Heater Plug-In. Electric plug-in heaters keep vehicles warm enough in the winter to allow them to start in cold weather.

Compnters. Access to the outside world via the intemet provides infonnation, training,



and the potential for job creation (ex. Marketing locally produced products).

PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN RURAL ALASKA

The state has a multi-billion dollar investment in infrastructure in rural Alaska that continues to grow each year. This investment is in the fonTI of capital grants, loans, and other fonns of assistance to local governments, school districts, and other organizations from both the state and federal governments, as well as expenditures for state owned facilities. Important components ofthis investment include the rural schools, sewer and water systems, airports, and hospitals and clinics. The commitment to building infrastructure in rural Alaska is underscored by the current program to provide clean water and sewer service to all rural communities in the state over the next few years. The rural electric utilities that have been financed by state grants are another important part of that infrastructure as well as an indicator of commitment.

In addition to public infrastructure there is a large private investment in infi·astructure and in the development of the economy of rural Alaska. For example the communications systems that link all communities in the state are an important investment in rural Alaska, enhancing the economic and social well-being of residents and providing 0ppoliunities for economic development.

All of this physical infrastructure is dependent on electricity to maintain the facilities, to deliver the educational, sanitation, health, transportation, and communication services that sustain rural communities, and to enhance the economic oppOliunities in rural Alaska. For example about 5 percent of the budget for the operation of selected rural schools goes to pay for electricity, about 4 percent of the budget for the operation of selected rural ai1llorts goes to pay for electricity, and about 18 percent of the budget for the operation of selected national guard amlories goes to pay for electricity. Anything that would increase the cost of electricity to these state purchased facilities would jeopardize the quality of their maintenance and their continued operation. In addition any changes that reduced the electricity generating capabilities in the communities that these facilities serve would adversely impact their operations. This includes the closure of electric utilities that forces other public facilities to self generate for their electric power needs.


Documents

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OFTHE POWER COST … · 2011. 9. 15. · THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE PROGRAM? In FY 1996