Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlaska Power Authority King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study 1988A~skaPowerAu~ority . . King .Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study July 1988 8231/880/1 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY July 1988 PROJECT TEAM David Denig-Chakroff Project Manager Roy Taylor Project Engineer Remy Wi 11 i ams Cost Estimator Afzal Khan Electrical Engineer Don Shira, Director Program Development Robert E. LeResche Executive Director © 1988 Alaska Power Authority List of Plates List of Tables List of Figures Table of Contents INTRODUCTION • . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings and Recommendations ...•• Project History and Previous Studies .••• DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT . . .. General Description .•.....•• Weirs and Intake Structures . . .• Penstocks and Sediment Trap . . . • Powerhouse and Generating Equipment • Transmission System . . . . ..•. 400 kW Alternative •. Project Costs . . • . . . . . . . • . . • • • . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--1,000 KW PROPOSAL Economic Mode 1 . . . . Base Case Analysis ..•.• Hydroproject Analysis •..•. Sensitivity Analyses ...• ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--400 KW PROPOSAL . COST OF POWER ANALYSIS . References • APPENDIX A: Response to Comments on Draft Report APPENDIX B: Electrical System Details APPENDIX C: Detailed Cost Estimates APPENDIX D: Fish and Game Correspondence APPENDIX E: 400 kW Economic Analysis Spreadsheets APPENDIX F: Response to City of King Cove Requests 8231/880/2 ii . . ; ; i . iii . iii 1 1 2 3 7 7 .10 • 15 • 18 • 20 • 22 . 22 . 25 • 27 • 27 • 41 . . . 44 • . • 47 . 51 • 51 • • 62 Plate I. Plate II. Plate II I. Plate IV. Plate V. Plate VI. Table 1-A. !able 1-B. Table 2-A. Table 2-B. Table 3. lable 4-A. Table 4-B. List of Plates Project Location Map . . . . Weir Design ....... . Intake Structure Design . . Pressure Settling Tank Design Penstock Configuration .••. Powerhouse Design .•...•. List of Tables 8 . 12 • 13 • 16 . 17 19 . . 23 . 24 • • • 29 Summary of Estimated Construction Costs •• Annual O&M Cost Estimates • . . . • • • . Economic Analysis--Low Diesel Fuel Price . Economic Analysis--High Diesel Fuel Price Load Distribution and Hydropower Potential Cost of Power Analysis--Low Fuel Price .• Cost of Power Analysis--High Fuel Price • • 31 • 36 • 55 • 57 List of Figures Figure 1. Monthly Energy Distribution • . • 35 Figure 2. Monthly Hydropower Potential • • 35 Figure 3. 1989 Monthly Power Distribution ..••.•.• 38 Figure 4. 2007 Monthly Power Distribution ••.•.••• 38 Figure 5. Load and Hydropower Forecast--2% Load Growth •• 39 Figure 6. Load and Hydropower Forecast--0% Load Growth .. 39 Figure 7~ Load and Hydropower Forecast--4% Load Growth .. 40 Figure 8. King Cove Oil Price Forecast .•••.••••• 42 Figure 9. Sensitivity Analysis--Economic/Hydroproject 48 Figure 10. Sensitivity Analysis--Diesel System •.•... 49 Figure 11. Load Factor Sensitivity . . . • • • • . . 50 Figure 12. Distribution of Costs--Base Case . . . . • 52 Figure 13. Distribution of Costs--Hydroproject . . . . 52 Figure 14. Projected Cost of Power--Low Fuel Price .•.. 59 Figure 15. Projected Cost of Power--High Fuel Price . . 59 8231/880/3 iii INTRODUCTION Summary In 1982 the Alaska Power Authority initiated a feasibility and streamflow monitoring program for Delta Creek near King Cove, Alaska. Based on the technical and environmental investigations conducted since that time and based on five full years of hydrolog- ic monitoring, this report compiles and summarizes the data ac- quired through the feasibility program. It presents the conceptual design for a recommended hydroelectric project on Delta Creek and an electrical system to transmit power to the King Cove distribu- tion system. In addition, this feasibility report presents economic analyses of both a 1,000 kW and a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. The analysis indicates that both the 1,000 kW and 400 kW hydro- electric projects are economically feasible when compared to the alternative of meeting the community's power demand solely with a diesel generator system. The net present values of the life-cycle costs of each proposed hydroelectric project and of a base case of continued use of diesel generation were determined for both low and high diesel fuel price forecasts. The net present value (NPV) of each hydroproject proposal was compared to the net present value of the base case in a cost-to-cost ratio (i.e., NPV of base case t NPV of hydroproject). The cost-to-cost ratios are between 1.56 and 1.69 8231/880/4 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 for the 1,000 kW hydroproject proposa 1 and between 1. 44 and 1. 71 for the 400 kW project over the diesel fuel price forecast range. Findings and Recommendations 1. Both a 1 ,000 kW and a 400 kW hydroe 1 ectri c power system utilizing flow in Delta Creek and including a transmission 1 ine to King Cove are technically and economically feasible, assuming the power produced from the projects can be sold. 2. Load growth is not a prerequisite for project feasibility since nearly the full output of either system would be uti- lized in the first year of operation. 3. Either system would create minimal environmental impact, which could be offset by appropriate mitigation measures; however, construction techniques and timing should be planned to mini- mize the construction impact on fisheries resources. 4. The project design should, to the extent possible, reflect construction techniques and operation and maintenance proce- dures that will facilitate employment of local labor. 5. Equipment procurement documents should be sufficiently flexi- ble to allow suppliers to provide the most efficient system for the resource and power demands of the community. 8231/880/5 2 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 6. The project design should accommodate high sediment load transport conditions through appropriate weir design and by locating roads and penstock outside the Delta Creek canyon. 7. The Power Authority should assist the City of King Cove in pursuing financing options for development of a hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. Project History and Previous Studies ·Two potentia 1 hydropower sites near King Cove were eva 1 uated in 1980 by EBASCO Services, Inc. for the Alaska District Corps of ~ngineers (EBASCO, 1980}. A site on Delta Creek was identified as the most economic with a benefit-cost ratio between 3.6 and 5.8, depending on the plant utilization factor used. In July 1981, CH2M Hill, under contract to the Alaska Power Author- ity, completed a Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for King Cove. The reconnaissance study eva 1 uated alternative sources for meeting the future electricity requirements of King Cove, including wind, peat and coal combustion, small hydropower, tidal and solar power, and continued use of centralized or decentralized diesel-powered generation. The report also ana- lyzed the potential for waste heat recovery from diesel generators and for conservation of building heat. The reconnaissance study 8231/880/6 3 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 rejected wind, peat, coal~ tidal and solar power options based on economic, environmental and technical grounds. It dismissed waste heat recovery due to a lack of buildings with significant heating requirements in the vicinity of the power plant. The reconnais- sance study recommended a more detailed investigation to determine the feasibility of a hydroproject on Delta Creek, including a streamflow measurement program. The Power Authority initiated the King Cove hydroproject feasibili- ty program in September 1981 and a streamflow monitoring program on Delta Creek in January 1982. An initial feasibility report, completed by DOWL Engineers in June 1982, evaluated four potential hydropower sites in addition to the Delta Creek site and concluded that upper Delta Creek was the best available hydroproject site in the vicinity of King Cove. Based on limited hydrologic data, the report recommended a 575 kW hydroelectric project consisting of a diversion weir, hinged for sediment clean-out; a 5,300 foot penstock and access road within the Delta Creek canyon (including one stream crossing); a powerhouse located on Delta Creek about i mile north of the airstrip; and a 5! mile transmission line to King Cove. The total construction cost of the proposed project was estimated to be $3.7 million in 1982 dollars. When annual infla- "' tion is taRen into account, this equates to $4.4 million in 1987 dollars. The net present value of the life-cycle costs of a base case diesel generator system ranged from $9.3 million to $14.2 8231/880/7 4 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 million in 1982 dollars, depending on assumptions. These net present values were compared to a 1982 net present value of the costs of the proposed hydroelectric project of $7.1 million, yielding a cost-to-cost ratio between 1.32 and 2.01. Based on the preliminary results of the 1982 study, the Power Authority continued its streamflow monitoring program and initiated a number of environmental, geotechnical, and hydrologic investiga- tions to answer questions raised by the study. Field surveys were conducted in late 1982 and early 1983 to conduct fish counts, to update hydrologic data, and to determine the proposed project's impact on fisheries {DOWL, 1984). A geotechnical study conducted in 1984 concluded that adverse sediment transport conditions in Delta Creek must be addressed in the design of the hydroelectric system (Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, 1984}. In 1985 Power Authority engineers conducted a detailed assessment of the existing electrical generation and distribution systems of both the City and Peter Pan Seafoods to determine control and interface requirements for integrating the proposed hydroe 1 ectri c system with the existing diesel systems. Power Authority staff also collected load data from both the City and Peter Pan to use in sizing the hydroelectric project and in updating and completing the feasibility study. Design modifications were initiated in 1986 to address sediment transport conditions, to meet existing control and 8231/880/8 5 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 interface requirements, and to size the project based on updated hydrologic and load projections. By January 1987, five full years of streamflow data had been collected for Delta Creek, yielding sufficient hydrologic data to make project design and development decisions with a better degree of certainty. The Power Authority issued a Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasi- bility Study in March 1987, recommending development of a 1,000 kW hydroproject on Delta Creek. The City of King Cove made comments on the draft and raised questions about the analysis in a letter to the Power Authority dated April 29, 1987. These questions and comments resulted in a number of changes to the assumptions made in the draft report and in a re-analysis of the economic feasibility of the project. Response to those questions and comments were addressed by the Power Authority in a 1 etter to the City of King Cove dated August 5, 1987 and were incorporated into this final feasibility report. The April 29, 1987, letter from the City and the Power Authority•s response are contained in Appendix A of this report. The findings of the King Cove hydroelectric feasibility analysis were presented to the Alaska Power Authority Board of Directors on December 11, 1987. At that time the City indicated that it was pursuing various options for financing and constructing the project and asked the Power Authority's assistance in identifying and analyzing those options. One option the City wished to investigate 8231/880/9 6 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 was the feasibility of devefoping a 400 kW hydroelectric project on the assumption that the City would not provide power to Peter Pan Seafoods. The City asked the Power Authority to develop cost estimates and economic analyses for this alternative, and those analyses have been incorporated into this report. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT General Description The 1,000 kW hydroelectric project proposed for Delta Creek would consist of two weirs, one on each tributary of the creek, at an elevation of approximately 530 feet above sea level. (See Plate I.) The two weirs would be linked to a common sediment settling tank by 24-inch and 30-inch feeder lines. A 6,300 foot, 36-inch penstock would transport water from the settling tank to a power- house located on the east bank of the creek, ! mile north of the airstrip, at an elevation of about 215 feet. The 313-foot head of water would drive one or two turbines capable of producing up to 1,000 kW of electricity, and a tailrace would return the water to the creek. A 3.7 mile, 12.47 kV underground transmission line would connect the powerhouse to the King Cove distribution system at Deer Island Subdivision. A junction would be installed in King Cove and distribution lines would be installed to interconnect the junction with both the City of King Cove powerplant and the power- plant at Peter Pan Seafoods. 8231/880/10 7 . ,t --------/ ~ I '~~~ •i! \ ~ ~><I ~,~-,( ~ r------------------------- ~~~:~-::.£··~>~· '--F'ROPOSEO ACCE"SS-F!()AD '• . AND TRANSMISSION_ LINE -; -·•, / . -~~ .. .., :: ·:.; 0 I I' I~ 2 zt 3 MILES ~~ 8 BRISTOL BAY ·' <l) ~ .: .. ~·e ... .,.. 0 :t.?! "' VICINITY MAP NTS .-;;/' . '~ ... '.i·\"•' ~----------------------------~ ~ AIIIS#cll Power Authority King Cove Hydroelectric Project PROJECT LOCATION MAP Plate I (Revised from DOWL, 1982) King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 A major difference between this recommended hydroproject design and that proposed in the 1982 feasibility report is that the majority of the penstock route in this design would be located off the floodplain and outside the Delta Creek canyon on the bench east of the creek. This design change was deemed necessary, based on the results of the 1984 geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical study found that, during frequent storms, sediment transport is significant, including movement of cobbles and boulders in the stream bed, and that the stream channel can significantly and randomly change its course within the 100-foot wide floodplain. In addition, the canyon walls were found to be extremely unstable, making areas within the Delta Creek canyon unsuitable as a penstock route. The hydroelectric project proposed in this report is intended to illustrate a typical configuration and not necessarily the final configuration of the project. Minor modifications are likely, and a more detailed specification will be required for final design prior to construction. Any additional costs due to required modifications are accounted for as contingency costs in the cost estimates for the proposed project. Speci a 1 effort has been made to conceptua 1 i ze and recommend a project that could be easily constructed using local labor and minimizing the need for expensive and specialized equipment and materials. Equipment procurement documents should be sufficiently 8231/880/12 9 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 flexible to permit the equipment supplier to provide the most efficient system, given the available resource and electrical demands of the community. Weirs and Intake Structures In order to route the penstock out of the canyon and still maintain a positive slope, it is necessary to locate intake structures at a higher elevation than previously proposed, above the confluence of the Clear Water (east) Tributary and the Glacial (west) Tributary of Delta Creek. Two weirs would therefore be required to take advantage of the flow from both tributaries. The weirs are designed to withstand the high sediment loads and storm flows of the tributaries with minimal maintenance. The 1984 geotechnical report estimated that a reservoir formed by placing a weir on either tributary could fill with sediments in less than a month. The design proposed in 1982 addressed anticipated sediment load problems by providing a hinged weir that could be lowered to remove accumulated sediments. Given the rate of sediment transport in Delta Creek, however, the cost of maintaining such a system would be extremely high. In addition, the hydroelectric system would have to be shut down during storms in anticipation of flows that could overload sediment traps, allowing sediment to enter and damage the turbines. 8231/880/13 10 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The recommended weirs are each designed with an intake structure attached to the downstream side of the weir (Plate II). The intake structure would consist of a Johnson or wedge wire screen supported on a box-1 ike enclosure to which the penstock waul d be connected (Plate III). Sediment would be allowed to settle out behind each weir, after which both water and sediment would be transported over the crest of the weir and over the intake structure. All but the finest sediments would pass over the screen and would be transport- ed downstream. Water would be drawn through the screen into the enclosure, which would act as a reservoir to funnel water into the penstock. The Johnson screen has been used effectively in hydro- project applications where its primary function has been to allow passage of fish and floating debris. The original use of the screen, however, was to separate rock from slurry in mining opera- tions, and it is specifically designed to rapidly accept water while rejecting aggregates. In order to protect the screen from large rocks and boulders that may migrate down the stream during storm flow, the proposed design includes a heavy duty screen installed above the Johnson screen. The weir itself would be constructed of 6X8 (six-inch by eight- inch) treated timber laid between and supported by 6X6 H-beam steel posts. The H-beams could be cemented in place with premixed, bagged concrete that need not be prepared at the site, but simply poured into the post holes, allowing ground water to perform the necessary hydration. Wood would be used to the maximum extent 8231/880/14 11 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 z w w a: 0 <0 > a: c 2 a: A. j: z 0 j: c > IU -' IU -0 c 2•---0 u_ <DU. .!:: 0 )( c 0 ID = .. w -• ~ a c .... • ! • <0 ~I ~: CLEAR WATER TRIBUTARY WEIR IS SIMILAR TO GLACIAL TRIBUTARY WEIR 8231/880/15 12 z 0 .... 0 w (I) I l: -0 g. -0---.... Oii: • .!:: a II) .... II) 0 A. ..I w w .... (I) .... • .! ... • > ..c:: -0 c: • ..I 10 10 .. 1.1- ~ II) ..... ~ 0 0 .... <0 z w A. a co • w a: 1101-w " C 1D • w :IE .,a:_ ........ c -' -c ... IU Q King Co'<le Hydroelectric Pro iect GLACIAL TRIBUTARY WEIR Plate II co N w t-' .......... co co 0 .......... t-' 0'\ ....... w WOOD WALLS (Vertical 3'"xe• TIG) Direc tlon of Flow A~~ TOP VIEW (Primary and Intake acreena not ahown) PARTIAL PLAN OF INTAKE I ;II( ::1 C) :t. 0 I 0 c • .. z J: lf3 "0 .... "' -> Q. ~ "' .. • m 0 • : ID • :. -0 (\ c: )( -.. i 0 , .... ~ 0 <I> ~ WOOD FLOOR <a•xe• T&G) ... 0 • I NOTE: Primary Screen not ahown INTAKE SCREEN 2 / e•xa• Direction of Flow ,. • • TREATED~ • -"d~l~tb 1~IDt WOOD FLOOR • e• T&G) (3 X TIMBER WOOD WA~~ST&~ (Vo<tlcol 3"•/ e•o• •• • -,:A ro -'· OJ ::::I Vl<.Q ...... o-("") -'•0 __. < -'•rD M-~:::r: .. ~ 0.. -s c....o s::ro __._ ~ro ('") t-' M- 1.0-s co -'• con King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 possible for construction of the weirs and intake structures to minimize icing problems. The 1982 proposal required a road from the powerhouse to the weir site to provide access for maintenance operations. The weir/intake structure recommended in this report is designed to minimize maintenance at the intake structure and, consequently, a road to the weir sites should not be necessary. Placing the intake struc- ture on the downstream side of the weir would eliminate the need to clean out a forebay. During large storms, rock will be swept over the intake structure by the force of heavy storm flows and pass downstream. During normal flows, sediments will easily be rejected by the Johnson screen. Some combination of flows could result in a buildup of heavier rock just below the weir, which would require removal with a bulldozer. This appears unlikely; although, if it does occur, an annual cleaning would resolve the problem. The Clear Water Tributary weir should require no more maintenance than an annual inspection of the screens. The wood stave tank should not require an inspection more frequently than once a month, except during periods of high water, and then experience will dictate the schedule. The construction contractor will have to build a con- struction road to move materials to the site, and this road should be adequate for access to the tank. The weirs can easily be reached by foot from the tank for inspection purposes. Even if a bulldozer is required at the Glacial Tributary weir occasionally, road construction beyond the tank would not be necessary. 8231/880/17 14 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Penstocks and Sediment Trap Feeder lines would transport water from each intake structure to a common sediment trap, consisting of an 8-foot diameter, 15-foot high, pressurized, wood stave tank {Plate IV}. The pressure tank would be equipped with a 12-inch sluice line for cleaning out accumulated sediments. The feeder line between the Clear Water Tributary and the settling tank would consist of 580 feet of 24-inch pipe, while the feeder line from the Glacial Tributary would be composed of 780 feet of 30-inch pipe. (See Plate V.) A 36-inch penstock would be installed between the settling tank and the powerhouse, a distance of 6,300 feet. All penstock could be constructed from 10-gauge steel with gasketed bell and spigot joints to allow installation by unskilled labor. The majority of the 36-inch penstock could be laid directly on the ground surface and secured with bands and earth anchors. This would greatly reduce the need for support structures and concrete foundations. A 350-foot section of the penstock near the powerhouse would be constructed on an approximate 25 percent slope and would be sup- ported on timber cribbing. The final 400 feet of penstock would be 8231/880/18 15 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 -c I -c z 0 i= u w Cl) A ~ L D. <II c ..I 8231/880/19 <II > • -• I "0 0 0 3: • 0 C') ai Q ~ . co ., .... co 0 • N - 16 .. .. Z0 ow -z 1--u-' w: zco ZC') Oa Uz t-oC oC: ~0 ZC') -c • M 1-. ... WN a:z ;:,w «~»w ~~ a:t-a.w ID King Cove Hydroelectric Project PRESSURE TANK Plate IV King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Glacial Tributary Weir Feeder Line -'" 0:30. 8231/880/20 Clear Water Tributary Weir I Feeder Line ---tl 0:24. ~==================~~~----Pressure 17 Tank Penstock ---lt::\ 0:38. \ To Powerhouse King Cove Hydroelectric Project PENSTOCK CONFIGURATION Plate V King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 located on the floodplain and could be buried to minimize support structures and to protect the pipe from vehicular traffic. Powerhouse and Generating Equipment The power generating equipment would be housed in a 35X35 or 30X50 foot (depending on whether one or two turbine-generators are in- stalled), prefabricated metal building with a concrete foundation (Plate VI) •. The building and tailrace would be designed to mini- mize erosion and sedimentation that could have a long-term environ- mental impact on the creek. The large flow range of Delta Creek and the variation in demand suggests that two units or a single turbine capable of operating over a wide range of flows is necessary for this project. A preliminary recommendation for turbine/generator design is two Francis type units rated for 600 kW and 400 kW respectively. This combination would allow power to be generated efficiently with as little as 15 cfs {cubic feet per second} flow from the creek~ which would produce approximately 335 kW. Other systems, however, such as a single 1,000 kW Pelton unit with two or more jets, may be equally as efficient and less expensive. Consequently, the tur- bine/generator equipment recommended in this report should be considered a tentative selection for the purpose of making a cost estimate. Bid documents for this equipment should allow contrac- 8231/880/21 18 CXl N w 1-' -CXl CXl 0 -N N 1-' \0 Gf.NERATOII l~..l CJ_f-1 +,1 ?Jt -;.;.;.:._-=! PROFILE-SECTKlN A SCALE .! • 1'·0 .. ----..,..--I \ -COOOST~ROAD TRANSMISSOt LIN£ £j l PERSONNEL DOOR ELECTRICAL. S*IT1:11G£AR IE.AIIIHG W8fi1CATION S[T S6-DIA P(HSTI)CI( TURIII\11[ SHUTOFF \f.t.l.V( I" OIA Pl:NSfOCA DRAIN --- PARKING Af:f.A ---"!' POW~~N SCALE l •1'-0 ,. PRIEFAIIJtiCATfD ME TAL a!ILDING ~·-r:l'.~'-o"! 0' 10 1'52:Q2:'5l0 L-____r------.__ ______r--L~_____r---·-, SCALE _!" • I .• 0 20 40 60 JO 100 120 '--------.r---~-~_r--------:.____~ SCALE 1•• 2:0 r-A +----/~ EQUIPMENT lHTRAMCE DOOR (Q, .. IIPM£1H WOUNTING $1<.10 --GENERATOR -----FLYWH[[L SP£t0 INCREAStH B J TAILiiAC( NOTE: If two turbine generator• are to be Ina tailed. a :SO'al50' powerhouae would be reQuired. ~ AIIIM• ~Authority I( ing Cove Hydroelectric POWERHOUSE Plate VI (lrom DOWL, 1982) Pro1ect "'Tl ;><:: ro ...... PJ ::::::1 Vl r.O ...... cr n -'·0 ---'< -'•It> c+ '<:r: ~ '< 0.. -; c.... a c ro ................ '<ro () 1-' c+ \0-; CXl ...... (p() King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 tors to propose the least costly units that meet project specifica- tions. The generator and switchgear would operate at 480 volts and provide for remote operation from the City of King Cove. The hydroelectric powerplant control panels would include switches allowing an operator to lock out the remote circuit and use "local manual 11 while in the plant, but the system would normally function in the remote mode. The powerplant main transformer would step up the 480 generation voltage to 12.47 kV for transmission to King Cove. The electrical equipment recommended for the hydroelectric power station (including generators, auxiliary equipment, control and protection, grounding system, lighting, and switchyard equipment) is described in further detail in Appendix B. Transmission System A 12.47 kV, 3-phase, underground transmission line would be in- stalled to connect the hydroelectric power station with the King Cove distribution system at Deer Island Subdivision, a distance of about 3.7 miles. The transmission line would generally follow along the side of the road between the airstrip and Deer Island Subdivision. The transmission line would not be buried in the road bed since this would be counter to regulations of the state Depart- ment of Transportation and Public Facilities and since depth requirements would necessitate blasting below the road bed to lay 8231/880/23 20 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 the cable. The transmission line design would provide for instal- lation of sectionalizing cabinets spaced approximately 2~500 feet apart along the length of the transmission line route. These cabinets would provide easy access to splice points for mainte- nance~ repairs, and future service tie-ins. The junction at King Cove would contain three disconnects allowing power from the hydroelectric project to supply the City of King Cove powerplant, the powerplant at Peter Pan Seafoods, or both. Distribution lines would be installed between the junction and each of the powerplants. A computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system would be installed at the City of King Cove powerplant to provide centralized remote control and monitoring of the hydroelec- tric power station and the entire electrical system. The SCADA system is relatively simple to operate and maintain. A maintenance contract could be executed with the manufacturer, and this cost has been included in the cost estimate for the proposed project. Training would also be provided so that operation and routine maintenance could be handled locally. Appendix B describes in greater detail the electrical components of the recommended transmission and distribution systems, including single line diagrams. It also gives detailed descriptions of equipment required and recommended at the City of King Cove and 8231/880/24 21 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Peter Pan Seafoods powerplants (including the SCADA system) and provides single-1 ine and control panel diagrams of those faci 1- ities. 400 kW Alternative This report also addresses the feasibility of developing a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek. The 400 kW project would not require a diversion and intake structure on the Clear Water Tribu- tary nor the feeder line from the Clear Water Tributary weir to the settling tank. The feeder from the Glacial Tributary to the settling tank would be reduced from 30-inch pipe to 24-inch pipe, and the penstock from the settling tank to the powerhouse would be reduced from 36-inch pipe to 24-inch pipe. The powerhouse would be reduced from 1,500 square feet to 800 square feet, and only one 400 kW turbine/generator set would be installed. Switchgear would not be provided at the Peter Pan Seafoods powerhouse under the 400 kW alternative. All other aspects of the system would be the same as the 1,000 kW system described above. Project Costs The entire 1,000 kW hydroelectric project, including transmission lines and associated equipment, is estimated to cost $3,740,000 in 1987 dollars. The 400 kW alternative is estimated to cost $2,650,000 in 1987 dollars. These costs include a contingency 8231/880/25 22 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 allowance of 20 percent. Table 1-A provides a summary of the estimated project construction costs. Table 1-B provides annual operation and maintenance cost estimates. Table 1-A Summary of Estimated Construction Costs for 1,000 kW and 400 kW Hydroprojects on Delta Creek King Cove, Alaska Description 1,000 kW 400 kW Diversion Structure-- Glacial Tributary $ 41,780 $ 41,780 Diversion Structure-- Clear Water Tributary 27,850 Penstock 505,240 402,000 Tank 17,750 17,750 Powerhouse and Tailrace 243,000 143,800 Mechanical and Electrical 1,164,000 723,000 Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) 206,000 206,000 Misc. Construction Items 335,500 265,000 SUBTOTAL $2,541,220 $1,799,430 Administration (10%) 254,100 179,900 Engineering & Construction Management (12.5%) 317!700 224,900 SUBTOTAL $3 '113 ,020 $2,204,230 Contingency (20%) 622,600 440,800 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $3,735,620 $2,645,030 USE $3,740,000 $2,650,000 Deta i 1 ed construction cost estimates are provided in Appendix C. The cost estimates were originally developed in 1987 and are, therefore, expressed in 1987 dollars. All costs can be converted to 1988 dollars by applying a four percent inflation factor. Since 8231/880/26 23 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Table 1-B Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates King Cove Hydroelectric Project DescriQtion 1,000 kW Personnel Costs Operator ($50,000/yr X .33 or .25) $16,700 Temporary Hires 5,000 Equipment Pickup 7,100 Miscellaneous Rental 5,500 Supplies Lubricants and Cleaners 600 Spare parts, bulbs, charts, etc. 1,300 Janitorial Supplies 200 SUBTOTAL $36,400 Administration (10%) 3,600 TOTAL $40,000 Annua 1 Energy (kWh) 5,200,000 O&M COST PER KWH 0. 77¢ 400 kW $12,500 5,000 7,100 5,000 500 1,000 200 $31,300 3,100 $34,400 2,200,000 1.56¢ the economic analyses are conducted in real terms, however, conver- sion to other-year dollars will have no effect on the cost-to-cost ratios or the economics of the projects. Neither the cost esti- mates in Table 1-A nor those in Appendix B include financing costs, although an estimate of financing costs has been added to the construction costs to determine the total project cost estimate for the purpose of running the economic analyses. 8231/880/27 24 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 All construction cost estimates assume the use of force account labor, except for mechanical and electrical work which would be carried out under contract and which were priced at Title 36 (Alaska mini Davis-Bacon) wage rates. Prices for spiral rolled steel pipe for the penstock are based on a firm price quote from a supplier. (Use of polyethylene pipe was considered but was deter- mined to be more expensive for this application.) Turbine/genera- tor prices were derived by extrapolating and escalating earlier price quotes. Remaining material costs and production rates were based on Power Authority staff experience. No camp costs were included, on the assumption that workers will be local hire or will be housed and fed in existing facilities. A subsistence allowance of $80 per man-day was included. The anticipated construction period is six months. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Environmental and fisheries impact investigations were conducted on Delta Creek as part of the initial 1982 feasibility report and as a supplemental study completed in May 1984 (OOWL, 1984). The inves- tigations and subsequent discussions with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game concluded that environmental and fisheries impacts from the project would be minimal and could be mitigated to meet the requirements of state statutes. 8231/880/28 25 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Construction activities may' have a temporary impact on fisheries due to increased erosion and sedimentation in Delta Creek during the construction period. Proper construction techniques and timing, however, should minimize this impact. The hydropower system design recommended in this report will have less construc- tion impact than that proposed in 1982, since the current design does not include placement of a road and penstock within the Delta Creek canyon between the powerhouse and the weir sites. The design currently recommended also has an advantage over the 1982 proposal with respect to long-term impacts during operation of the project in that the weir and intake design will not require periodic flushing of sediments from behind the weir, which would have increased sedimentation in the stream during and after this mainte- nance procedure. The stretch of Delta Creek between the powerhouse and the weir sites may be dewatered during periods of low flow and will experi- ence a significant reduction in flow during plant operations. This may have a direct effect on Dolly Varden char which presently use this section of the stream, although several small tributaries entering the creek between the weir sites and the powerhouse site may partially offset this impact. A limited number of anadromous fish have been observed between the proposed powerhouse site and a point several hundred feet upstream. The point upstream represents a velocity barrier beyond which the 8231/880/29 26 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 anadromous fish do not venture. Mitigation measures would be required to compensate for the project•s effect on this limited anadromous fish resource. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has agreed that such mitigation would be appropriate and has suggested that the road which follows Delta Creek and Airstrip Creek to Leonard Harbor be rerouted beside the creek, eliminating some existing stream fords in the road (see Appendix D). This mitigation, in a section of Delta Creek below the powerhouse site which supports an important anadromous fish resource, waul d out- weigh the detrimental impacts of the hydroproject to the stretch of stream between the powerhouse and the velocity barrier. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--1,000 KW PROPOSAL Economic Model This economic analysis examines and compares the costs of a base case power system, which assumes the continued use of diesel generators to meet the power requirements of King Cove, with the costs of the 1,000 kW proposed hydroproject on Delta Creek, using diesel generators for backup and peaking. The costs of the base case and the hydroproject are examined by discounting and adding the life-cycle costs of each to obtain a net present value (NPV) in 1987 dollars. The costs are compared by calculating a cost-to-cost ratio of the net present value of the base case to the net present value of the hydroproject (i.e., NPV of base case + NPV of hydro- 8231/880/30 27 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 project = cost-to-cost ratio). The economic feasibility of the hydroproject is established when its net present value is less than the net present value of the base case, that is, when the cost-to- cost ratio is greater than 1.0. This indicates that it is more expensive~ in the long-run, to continue using diesel generators than it is to build and operate the hydroelectric project. Tables 2-A and 2-B present the economic model for the analysis of the 1 ,000 kW proposa 1. At the top of each tab 1 e is a 1 i st of 11 Assumptions" and 11 Economic Parameters .. that were used in the analysis. Table 2-A provides the economic analysis for a low diesel fuel price forecast, while Table 2-B reflects a high fuel price forecast. Load forecast assumptions and economic parameters are discussed in this section as they apply to each component of the economic model. Diesel system and hydroproject assumptions are discussed in detail in the Base Case Analysis and Hydroproject Analysis sections below. Assumptions outlined in Table 2-A were varied to determine their effects on the economic feasibility of the project, and the results of those sensitivity analyses are also discussed below. The economic ana 1 ys is is carried out for a period of 30 years, which is assumed to be the economic life of the hydroproject. Load and fuel price forecasts, however, are projected for a planning period of only 20 years, after which loads and fuel prices remain constant in real terms for the purpose of the economic analysis. 8231/880/31 28 Table 2-A {page 1 of 2) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY 00 Economic Analysis N w ........ ....... 00 low Diesel FU!l Price Fore-c:e•t Load Forecast An~t ions Diesel Syat• As•U~~~Ptiona Mydr-oject AsoUIIIptlono 00 0 ~-----~ -~-~-.. ·---~-----... ~~----....... --· -----·-............................ ---------.. --------------------------------------....... Ct ty loed Fee: tor • 50.0'1 Fuel £ocoletlon late: LOll Ccnstructiott Coet • S3, 740,000 w Peter p.,_ Loed F~~etor • 70.0'1 1988 Avg. Fuel Price • $.0.110 /pl Firwnc:;tng CO.t • S£10,000 N C_,lty Loecl Gr-h • 2.0'1 City Efflci011Cy • 12 kloih/pl Totat Coat • 13,..950,000 Peter Pill\ Efflcloncy • 15 I<WII/uot Anr"f.Ml Debt Service • $163,000 fc~fc: Par-t•r• E-lc Life • 20yeort lktit 1 • 600 kll ...................................................................... Roploc_,t Coot • S700 /kWh ...,,t 2 • 400 kW _,.,.l lntereot loto • 1.0'1 City 0 & II Coot • $.0.03 /kWh lnotolled C-Ity • 1,000 kll -l lnflotlcn Rote • 4.5ll Peter Pill\ 0 & II Coot • ..0.02 /kWh Meed• 313 ft leal Ol......,t Rote • 3.51 Effleloncy • 851 ECOIOIIC ANALYSIS 0 & II Coot • ..o. ooa /kWh 19117 1988 1-1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199'.i 1996 1997 19911 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REIIUIREM£NTS (kWh! 1 City Load 2,107,4llll 2,149,638 2, 111Z,631 2,256,40 2,281,213 2,326,07 2,373,374 2,420,141 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,111K 2,726.~ 2. 7110. 786 2 Peter p.., Load 4,075,148 4,157,365 4,240,512 4,32'5,323 4,411,829 4.500,066 4,590,067 4,681,8611 4,775,506 4,871,016 4,9611,436 5,067,1105 5,169,161 5,272,544 5,377,99'.i 3 Totel c_.,ity Load 6,183,336 6,307,003 6,433,143 6,561,106 6,693,042 6,126,903 6,1163,441 7,102, 7119 7,244,764 7,339,659 7,537,452 7,688,Z01 7,141,1165 7,9911,!11K 8,158, 781 DIESEl FUEl RATES 4 Arn.JI:l Escalation late 2.01 2.0'1 2.0'1 2.0'1 2.0'1 2.0'1 2.01 2.0'1 2.0ll 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 5 Fuel Price (1987 Sigal l 0.54 0.110 0.12 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.116 0.116 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE ANAlYSIS City Syst~ N \.0 6 Fi1111 C8f>Ocity Hll) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 7 Copoeity Additions (kU) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 topoeity Replse.....,ts (kUJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 112,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 Z01,737 205,772 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 capital Costs (1987 l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,000 0 11 Fuel Costs (1987 l) 94,837 143,309 149,099 155,122 161,389 167,910 174,693 181,751 189,093 196,733 204,681 208,774 212,950 217,209 221,553 12 0 & M CosiO (1987 &l 63,225 64,489 65,719 67,094 68,436 69,1105 71,201 72,625 74,0711 75,559 17,070 711,612 80,184 81,788 83,424 13 Totel City Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 214,878 222,217 229,826 237,715 245,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,366 293,134 718,997 304,917 Peter Pan Syste1111 14 Fire Copoeity (l<'oj) 2,450 2,450 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 15 Capecity Additions (kW) 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 C"fllCI ty Rephc-.,ts (kl/) 0 1,950 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Dleoel Fuel U.e (gallons) 271,723 277,158 212,701 288,355 294,122 300,004 306,004 312,125 318,367 324,734 331,229 337,854 344,611 351,503 358,533 18 Capital Costs (1987 $) 0 1,645,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 146,731 221,726 230,-240,003 249,700 259,788 270,283 281,202 292,563 304,382 316,6110 323,013 329,473 336,063 342,784 20 0 & M Cost• <1987 S) 81,517 83,147 84,810 86,506 88,237 90,001 91,801 93,637 95,510 97,420 99,569 101,356 103,383 105,451 107,560 21 rota! Peter Pon COots !1987 $) 228,247 1,949,873 1,365,494 326,510 337,936 349,7119 362,084 374,840 388,073 401,803 416,04& 424,369 432,857 441,514 450,344 22 Total Annuel CosU (1987 $) 366,309 2,157,672 t,5110,3n 541,727 567,762 587,503 607,979 629,216 651,244 674,095 697,1100 7111,756 725,991 1,160,510 755,321 HYDROPilOJECT ANALYSI $ 23 fire Capo<:lty (kill 3,550 3,550 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 3,850 24 Olnel Copscity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 C-ity Roplee.....,ts (kWl 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric G..,.rotlon (kWh> 5,1511,317 5,192,815 5,228,003 5,263,1194 5,300,504 5,337,1146 5,375,934 5,414,785 5,454,412 5,494,376 5,524,947 5,556,130 5,587,937 27 Oiooel Generation <kWh) 6,10,336 6,307,003 1,274,126 1,168,991 1,465,0]9 1,563,001 1,662,937 1,764,1164 1,868,1529 1,974,874 2,011l,040 2, 193,12'.1 2,317,018 2,442,674 2,570,144 28 Dlooel Fuel Use (gallonol 412,222 420,467 14,91111 91,266 97,669 104,201 110,1162 117,Me 124,5119 131,Me 1!11,1169 146,255 154,468 162,845 171,390 29 Coptlel COOtl (1987 I) 0 5,000,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Cats (19117 S) 222,600 336,373 69,351 75,1163 12,918 90,232 97,11Z1 106,001 114,491 123,407 132,769 139,01 147,683 155,692 163,861 31 0 & II Coot• (19117 I) 123,667 126,140 65,216 67,364 69,556 71,792 74,073 76,399 711,771 81,191 83,660 86,183 lla,lll2 91,636 94,444 32 Total Atn>OI COOts (19117 ll 346,267 5,462,514 1, 114,!166 143,327 152,474 162,024 171,993 112,400 193,262 204,5911 216,429 226,014 256,565 247,328 2511,305 Table 2-A (page 2 of 2) ()j N w ....... ECOIIC»>!C ANALYSIS .......... ~~·--~--~M····-·- ()j 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20011 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ()j ENERGY REQUIREMENTS lk\ol>) 0 1 City LOI<I 2,836,401 2,1193,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 l, 131,616 l, 131,616 3,131,616 .......... 2 Peter Pan loed 5,4115,555 5,595,.266 5, 707,171 5,8<!1,315 5,'137,741 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 w 3 Totll C_.,l ty LOI<I 8,321,956 8,488,395 8,658,163 8,831,326 9,007,953 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 9,188,112 w DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 ArY'tuttl iscat•tion R•te 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0'1 0.0 5 Fuel Price (19117 steal) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 SASE CASE AIIALYSIS City Syoto• 6 Fira Copaclty <kWI 700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 7 Copacity Addltl..,. (kW) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Copaclty Replec-to (kW) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use <eall..,.) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,851 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 10 Copi tel Costs (1987 Sl 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Fuel Coste (1987 S) 225,984 230,504 235,114 239,816 244,613 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 12 o & " Costs (1987 &) 85,092 86,194 88,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 '13,948 '13,948 93,948 '13,948 93,948 93,948 '13,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total City Costs (1987 S) 311,076 317,298 323,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 Peter Pan Sys:teta w 14 F I tm Capacity I kWI 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15 Capacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity Rept ecewnts ( kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 4oU: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Oiestl Fuet Use (gallons) 365,704 373,018 300,478 388,088 395,849 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,166 403,766 403,766 403,766 18 Cepit&l Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fuel Costs (1987 S) 349,640 356,633 363,765 371,041 378,461 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 386,031 20 0 & M Co&U (1987 $) 109,711 111,905 114,143 116,426. 118,755 121 '130 121 '130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121' 130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 21 Total Peter Pen Costs <1987 S) 459,351 468,538 477,909 487,467 497,216 507,160 1,207,160 1,557,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 22 Total AnnUal Costs (1987 S) 770,427 785,836 801,552 887,583 I, 103,935 850,614 1,550,614 1,900,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 850,614 MYOROPROJECI ANALYSIS 23 Fir• Capacity (tW) 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,350 3,350 2,350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 24 Diesel Capacity Additi""" (kill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capac! ty Aeploc.....,ts (tW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric Generation (kWh) 5,620,300 5,645,334 5,655,929 5,666,737 5,677,761 5,68<!,700 5,682,100 5,68<!, 700 5,68<!,700 5,68<!, 700 5,68<!,700 5,68<!, 700 5,68<!, 700 5,682,700 5,68<!, 700 5,68<!, 700 27 Diesel Generettan <tWh) 2,701,577 2,843,062 3,002,234 3,164,590 3,330,192 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,5ll'.i,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,5ll'.i,412 28 Diesel Fuel Use (!!"lions) 180,105 189,537 200,149 210,973 222,013 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 29 Ceptial Costs 11987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 172,194 181,212 191,357 201,705 212,261 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 223,429 31 0 & M Costs ( 1987 $) 97,308 100.330 103,595 106,926 110,323 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 32 Total Mn.Jal Costs {1987 S) 269,502 281,542 294,953 308,631 322,503 337,294 3!7,294 827,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 337,294 Table 2-B (page 1 of 2) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY co Economic Analysis N w ...... .......... co Migh Dinel Fuel Price Forecatt loec::l ForKast A&&t.llllpt ions Dle .. l Syat110 Ao.....,tl""" Nydrcproj.et Aaat.~~~~pt ions co -~---~-------4------.-.----.-------_______ ., ........ ·----____ .,_ ___ -----------------------------.-------------~--- 0 City load Factor :: 50.M Fuel Escalation R•te: MlGN Conttructtcn Cost • S3#740,000 .......... Peter PM Load fiiCtor • 70.DI: 19el Ava. Fuel Price • 10.80 /gel FI~W>Cine Coot • $210,000 w C~ity load Grelofth :: 2.DI: . City Efflci...,y • 12 twh/gel Total Coot • $3,950,000 .j:::. Peter p.., Efflci"""Y • 15 twh/gel Arn.Jal Debt Service • $363,000 Ec~1c ParMeters EcOf'IIDia\C l He • 20 years Unit 1 • 600 kll ..... -------------.. ----.. -----Replac_,.t Coet • $700 /kloll Unit 2 • 400 kll Jfoetinel Interest late • a.DI: City 0 & M Coot • 10.03 /twh lnatallad ~ity • 1,000 kll Amuet lnfl•tion Rate " 4.5X Peter Pen o & Jl Coat • 10.02 /twh Head • 313 ft Reel Di&C::OU'lt Rate • 3.5X Efflcl...,y • 85:1: ECONONI C AIIAl YSIS 0 & II Coot • 10.008 /kloll ---.... -............. 1987 191111 19119 1990 1991 1992 1993 1~ 1995 19911 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UEl!IOY R£QUIREIIEMTS (klolll 1 City Load 2,107,488 2,149,634 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,2111,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,~111,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,6n,804 2,726,260 2, 71!0,786 2 Peter Pon Loe<l 4,075,848 4,157,365 4,240,512 4,325,323 4,411,829 4,500,066 4,590,067 4,6111,8611 4, 775,506 4,1171,016 4)968,436 5,067,805 5, 169,161 5,272,544 5,3n,995 3 Toto! c_.-.!ty Load 6,183,336 6,307,003 6,433,143 6,561,806 6,693,042 6,826,903 6,963,441 7,102,109 7,244,764 7,389,659 7,537,452 7,61111,201 7,841,965 7,998,804 II, 158,781 DIESH FUEL RATES 4 Arl'lt.Mil Escalation Rete 3.SX 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.~x 3.5X 3.5X 3.51 5 Fuel Prlee (1987 S/gol) 0.54 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.911 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21 1.25 BASE CASE J.IIALYSIS City System w 6 FIMII Capacity (k~) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 ...... 7 Capacity Additions (k~l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1DO 0 0 0 8 Capecity Replec-nts <k~l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231' 732 10 Capital Costa (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,000 0 II Fuel Costs (1987 S) 94,837 143,309 151,292 159,718 1611,615 178,007 187,922 1911,389 209,459 2ZI,I05 233,420 246,422 260,148 274,6311 289,935 12 0 & M Costs (1!187 l) 63,225 64,419 65, 71'9 67,094 611,436 69,805 ?1 ,201 n,625 74,078 75,559 n,o70 78,612 80,184 81,71111 83,424 13 Total City Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 217,070 226,813 237,051 247,812 259,123 271,014 283,517 296,664 310,491 395,034 340,332 n6,426 373,359 Pe:ttr Pan Systea 14 f[NII Capacity (k~) 2,450 2,450 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,330 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 15 Copoclty Additfona (k\1) 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capocity R<!>la<ONOts (kUl 0 1,950 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 DieHl Fuel Use (gallons) 271,723 2n,158 282,701 288,355 294,122 300,004 306,004 312,125 318,367 324,734 331,229 337,854 344,611 351,503 358,533 18 Capital Costs (1987 S) 0 1,645,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel coou (1987 S) 146,731 221,726 234,076 247,114 260,879 275,410 290,750 306,945 324,041 342,091 !61, 145 381,261 402,497 424,916 448,584 20 0 & M Costs (1!187 I) 81,517 83,147 84,810 86,506 88,237 90,001 91,801 93,637 95,510 97,420 99,369 101,356 103,383 105,451 107,560 21 Totel Peter Pan Costs (1987 S) 228,247 1,949,873 1,368,887 333,621 349,115 365,411 382,551 400,582 419,552 439,511 460,514 482,617 505,880 530,367 556,144 22 Total A,.,.....t Coots (1!187 Sl 386,309 2,157,6n 1,585,957 560,434 586,166 613,223 641,674 671,596 703,0611 736,11'5 n1,005 an,651 846,212 1,306,793 929,502 MYDROPttOJECT ANAL YSI $ 23 Fl1"11 Capacity (til) 3,550 3,550 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,4!MI 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,450 4,4~0 4,450 3,850 24 Dl ... l ~ity Addltfona Ckll) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ll 0 0 25 ~ity Roplac-to Ckll) 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ll'fdroelectrlc Gona1"1t fon (twh) 5,158,311 5,11'2,815 5,220,003 5,263,89111 5,300,504 5,337,846 5,375,1154 5,414,785 5,454,412 5,494,376 5,524,947 5,556,130 5,587,937 27 OiHOI GeMratlon (twh) 6,183,336 6,307,003 1,274,826 1,368,991 1,465,039 1,563,001 1,662,937 1,764,1164 1,168,829 1,!174,874 2,083.~ 2,193,1125 2,317,018 2,442,674 2,570,844 28 Ol""l F .. l Use (gellona) 412,222 420,467 84,91111 91,266 97,669 104,201 110,662 111,658 124,51111 131,658 138,869 146,255 154,4611 162,84~ 171,390 29 Coptlal Coots (1987 Sl 0 5,000,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Futl Coeto (1!187 S) 222,600 336,373 70,370 78,213 86,630 95,651 105,336 115,705 126,1109 138,695 151,412 165,046 180,415 196,1156 214,437 31 0 & M Coati (1987 S) 123,667 126,140 65,216 67,364 69,556 71,792 74,073 76,399 78,n1 81,191 83,660 86,183 88,1182 91,636 94,444 32 Totol -~ COIU (19117 S) 346,267 5,462,514 1,185,586 145,5711 156,187 167,450 17'9,408 192,104 205,581 219,8116 235,012 251,229 269,291' 288,492 308,881 Table 2-B (page 2 of 2) co N w 1-' ECOIICI!IC AUUSI$ ........ .. ...... -* ........... ., .... co 2002 2003 Z004 2005 2006 2!107 2001 2001> 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 co EM£RGV IEQUJR(IIEWTS (kiotl) 0 I CltyLa.d 2,136,401 2,1193,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,010,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 ........ 2 Pet ... p., La.d 5,415,SS5 5,595,266 5,707,171 5,RI,:S15 5,937,741 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6.056,4916 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6_,056,496 6,056,496 w 3 Total c-lty La.d a,S21,956 1,488,395 1,651,165 1 1,131,326 9,007,953 9,111,112 9,1U,112 9,1U,112 9,1U,112 9,1U,112 9,1U,I12 9,1118,112 9,1118,112 9,1118,112 9,1118,112 9,118,112 U"' OlfSU fUEl lATE$ 4 -1 focalatim Rate 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0 5 f .. l Price !1917 S/ .. ll 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 lASE CASE MAL YSIS City Syet• 6 Fl.-. c_,try Cklll 700 700 700 700 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 800 800 800 7 tapoc;lty Adell time lkW) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a C-Ity ReplK-..ta lkWl 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 o1-1 f .. l uu l~~&llcnol 236,367 241,1194 245,916 250,654 255,151 260,968 260,9611 260,968 260,968 260,9611 260,968 260,9611 260,9611 260,9611 260,968 260,9611 10 Capit•l Coati (19117 S) 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 f .. l Costa (19117 Sl 306,084 323,133 341,132 360,133 3110,192 ,401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 12 0 & M Coots (1987 &l 15,092 116,194 18,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 93,9411 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,9411 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total Cily Coati (1987 f>) 391,1n 409,927 429,662 520,433 822,299 495,3111 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 Pttar Pan S)'StM w 14 Fi r11 Capecity (kill 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 N 15 Copocity Adell tiona (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 C-Ity Reploc:_,tl (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Di01!al fuel Ute 111&11""") 365,704 373,0111 380,478 318,088 395,849 403,166 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403.766 18 Capital CooU ( 1987 Sl 0 0 0 0 0 0 700,000 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 f .. l Coats (19117 $) 473,570 499,948 527,795 557,193 588,229 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 620,993 20 o l M Costa (19117 $) 109,111 111,905 114,143 116,426 118,155 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,130 21 Total Peter PWI Costa (1987 I) 513,281 611,853 641,938 673,619 706,9114 742,123 1,442,123 1,792,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 742,123 Z2 Total Amual Costa (1917 S) 974,458 1,021,710 1,071,600 1,194,053 1,529,2R 1,237,441 1,937,441 2,287,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 1,237,441 Kf0R(l4>110JECT WLYSI$ 23 Fir• Capecity (kill 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,350 3,350 2,350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 24 Di01!al Copocity Mditi-(kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 tapoc;ity Replac:--.to (kWl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 K'l(lroelectric Generatim (kiotll 5,620,380 5,645,334 5,655,929 5,666,737 5,6n,761 5,682, 700 5,682,700 5.682,100 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682, 700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 5,682,700 27 DieHl Generatim (kl.l!) 2,101,5n 2,843,062 3,002,234 3,164,590 3,330,192 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 28 DieHl fuel Ute (gallons) 180,105 189,537 200,149 210,973 222,013 233,694 m,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 233,694 29 Captial Costs (19117 Sl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 fuel Costs (1987 $) 233,228 254,033 2n,644 302,902 329,909 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 359,422 31 0 l M Costa (19117 $) 97,308 100,330 103,595 106,926 110,323 113,1165 113,1165 113,1165 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,865 113,1165 113,1165 113,865 32 Total AIYMJOI Costs (1987 $) 330,537 354,363 381,240 409,828 440,212 473,287 473,287 963,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 473,287 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Although this may be a conservative assumption, forecasters do not believe they have sufficient data to make such projections for more than 20 years. A two percent annual growth in the community's electric load is assumed for the purpose of the economic analysis (see Table 2, line 3 and Figure 5}. This load growth is considered to be a somewhat conservative estimation as a long-range load forecast for King Cove. Higher load growth scenarios, however, were determined to have little effect on the overall economics of the project since the hydroelectric system would be almost fully utilized in the first year it comes online. The community load is proportionately divided between the Peter Pan Seafood facility and all other consumers (Table 2, lines 1 and 2) based on actual 1985 demand data obtained from both the City utility and from Peter Pan. These data provided daily peak demands for each powerplant. In order to convert the peak demands to hourly loads, a load factor of 50 percent was assumed for the City load. A 70 percent load factor was used for Peter Pan since it has a significantly greater load and a more efficient power system. Load factor is the ratio of average demand to peak demand (average demand + peak demand = load factor}. Figure 1 and Table 3 (lines 3, 7 and 11} show the monthly peak and energy requirements based on the 1985 data and load factor assump- 8231/880/36 33 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 tions. This distribution was assumed to remain constant and was applied to the long-range annual community load forecast to deter- mine, for any given month in any year, the energy requirements of the Peter Pan facility (Table 2, line 2) and of consumers on the City power system (Table 2, line 1). Table 3 was also used to calculate the monthly hydropower potential of a 1,000 kW project on Delta Creek. Line 17 indicates the potential power output of the project based on the average monthly stream flow of the dry year of record (line 13). For each month of the dry year of record, the power production from a 1,000 kW hydroproject would be limited by the available streamflow from Delta Creek. In most years, greater stream flows will be avail- able, and more power could be produced. Power production would be limited, however, by the installed capacity of the project, to 744,000 kWh/month (1,000 kW X 31 days X 24 hours) less down-time for maintenance and forced outages. The power production potential based on the dry year of record is used in this analysis as a conservative assumption, with the expectation that monthly produc- tion will exceed these amounts in most years. Figure 2 portrays the monthly power production potential from the proposed project for the dry year of record. The forecast monthly community 1 oad was matched with the monthly hydropower potential to determine the amount of load that could be provided by the hydroproject in any given month throughout the 8231/880/37 34 Figure 1 Monthly Energy Distribution KING COVE. ALASKA 15.0% 14.0% 13 0% C:l 12.0% ..::: 0 _j f~~ 11.0% 2=: 10.0% =) ::re 9.0% ::~ 0 u _J 8.0% <;( :J 7.0% ;;:: 2! ·;( 6.0% ...... C> 5.0% f-:z: Lu 4.0% (.) 11:: I..J 3.0% ll. 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Jon Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec r:zz:.:l CITY LOAD ( 34. 1 %) ~ DETER DAN "-OAD (65.9%) Figure 2 Monthly Hydropower Potential 1.300 DELTA CREEK, KING COVE, ALASKA 1.200 1 100 1.000 I ;- 2 0.900 0 :::;; a:: 0.800 w 0.. (f) 0.700 a:: :J 0 0.600 I I ~ 0.500 3: <( 0.400 <::) w :::;; 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 8231/880/38 35 OJ Table 3 N w KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY ..... .......... OJ Load Distribution and Hydropower Potential OJ 0 .......... w \.0 ~lNG COVE HYllR!I'OWER FEASIBILITY -THLY LOAD OISTRIIWTIOII AIID HYDR!I'OWER POTENTIAL EN£RGT REQUIREMENTS ~-~-~ ~ w~•~*~•• •• -~• YHr J.,·87 Feb·87 llar·87 Apr-87 May· !IT Jun-!17 Jul·ll7 Aug·ll7 Sep-!17 O.:t-!17 Nov-87 Oec·87 Total CITY P<lloER PLANT 1 Awr-D-(l<WI 241 zso 232 240 241 229 2211 235 241 247 256 256 241 2 Pnk ~(leW) 4112 500 464 480 4112 4511 440 470 4112 494 512 512 3 Total load (kWh) 179,304 168,000 1n,6011 1n,eoo 179,304 164,!1!10 163,680 174,!140 173,5211 1!13, 768 1!14,3211 190,464 2,107,4!1!1 4 Percent of T ou l 2.9'1\ 2.n. z.ax z.ax 2.9'1\ 2.71 2.6X z.ax 2.11X 3.0X 3.0X 3.1ll 34.11 P£1£1 PAN SEAfOOOS 5 Awr-~(lcW) 3711 371 lOll 357 4411 735 1175 1133 420 329 210 23!1 464 6 Peak~ (leW) 540 530 440 510 640 1,050 l,i!SO 1,190 600 470 400 340 7 Total Load (kWh) 2!11,232 249,312 229,152 i!S7,040 333,312 529,200 651,000 619,752 302,400 244,n6 201,600 1n,on 4,075,!148 a Percent of Total 4.5X 4.0X 3.71 4.2ll 5.4ll. 8.6ll 10.5ll 10.0X 4.9'1\ 4.0X 3.3ll 2.9'1\ 65.9'1\ C<IIUUTY TOTAL 9 AWr.l9e 0-(k\1) 619 621 540 597 6119 964 1,095 1,0611 661 576 536 494 705 10 hak D-(k\1) 540 530 464 510 640 1,050 1,250 1,190 600 494 512 512 w 11 Total load <kWh) 460,536 417,312 401,760 429,840 512,616 694,080 814,680 794,592 475,920 428,544 385,928 367,536 6,183.336 0"1 12 Percent ot Total 7.4ll 6.71 6.51 7.0X 8.3X 11.2ll 13.2ll 12.9'1\ 7.71 6.9'& 6.2ll 5.9'1\ 100.0X DELTA CREEK HYDROPWER POTENTIAL (ORr TEAll --~ --·-· --·---•*•• -------~-----. ---~-----~--Year Jan Feb Mar Apr Mav Jun Jul Aug $ep oct Nov Dec Tout DISCHARGE ~RY 13 Koon Flow (Cfs) 22.70 17.10 111.50 23.20 22.50 36.90 41.50 32.40 42.50 32.90 36.50 30.70 30 14 Mini,... Flooo (cfs) 19.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 26.00 31.00 25.00 27.00 20.00 26.00 21.00 15 15 t~exliiiUI Flow (cfs) 30.00 23.00 32.00 40.00 37.00 61.00 64.00 75.00 89.00 131.00 82.00 55.00 131 ENERGY POTENTIAL 16 Average Capacity (leW) 503 381 412 513 498 796 885 705 904 716 788 671 648 17 Hydrcproioct Potential (kWh) 374,013 256,359 306,551 369,645 370,826 572,845 658,347 524,830 650,775 532,385 567,152 498,972 5,682,700 HYDlOPROJECT ENERGY DISTRIBUTION -~~-~--------~-----~·----.. -----Year Jan Fob Kar Apr KaV Jun Jul AUII $ep OCt Nov Dec total HYOIICELECTRIC GENERATION (kWhl 18 Citv Load 179,304 168,000 172,608 172,800 179,304 164,880 163,680 174,840 173,5211 1113,768 184,320 190,464 2, 107,4!1!1 19 Peter Pen toad 194,709 88,359 133,943 196,845 191,522 407,965 494,667 349,990 302,400 244,776 201,600 177,072 2,9!13,849 20 Total 374,013 256,359 306,551 369,645 370,826 5n,845 658,347 524,!130 475,920 4211,544 385,920 367,536 5,091,337 DIESEL GENERATION (kWh) 21 City Load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Peter PM Load 86,523 160,953 95,209 60,195 141,790 121,235 156,333 269,762 0 0 0 0 1,091,999 23 Totai 86,523 160,953 95,209 60,195 141,790 121,235 156,333 269,762 0 0 0 0 1,091,999 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 30-year period of economic analysis. Figures 3 and 4 show the monthly power distribution during two sample years (1989 and 2007) from that period. Figure 3 models the projected power distribution in 1989. In that year the hydroproject could be fully absorbed for eight months out of the year. From September through December, there would be excess hydropower potential. The entire annual City load could be provided by hydropower, and Peter Pan's load could be entirely met by hydropower for the four months indicated above. From January ·through August, Peter Pan would have to provide supplementary power with its diesel generators. By the end of the 20-year planning period in 2007, the hydroproject would be fully absorbed (Figure 4). Peter Pan would be supplement- ing its load with some level of diesel generation for the entire year. Monthly power distribution was converted to annual production to determine annual hydropower generation (line 26, Table 2) and to produce Figure 5, showing the projected hydropower production in relation to the community load forecast. Figures 6 and 7 show this relationship under two alternative load growth scenarios. These figures better illustrate the fact that the hydroproject would be almost fully absorbed upon coming online. Even with a 4 percent rate of annual load growth {Figure 7), there is little potential 8231/880/40 37 Figure 3 1989 Monthly Power Distribution 1.300 HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP 1.200 1.100 1.000 I f-z 0.900 0 ::< 0::: 0.800 w a... (/) 0.700 0::: ::::> 0 0.600 I I f-0.500 f- <( 3 <( 0.400 c:; w ::< 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CITY HYDRO PETER PAN HYDRO PETER PAN DIESEL EXCESS HYDRO Figure 4 2007 Monthly Power Distribution 1.300 HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP 1.200 1.100 1.000 I f-z 0.900 0 ::< 0::: w 0.800 a... (/) 0.700 0::: ::::> 0 0.600 I I f-0.500 f- <( 3 <( 0.400 c:; w ::< 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CZJ CITY HYDRO PETER PAN HYDRO PETER PAN DIESEL EXCESS HYDRO 8231/880/41 38 Figure 5 Load and Hydropower Forecast 14.000 MEDIUM (2%) LOAD GROWTH SCENARIO 13.000 12.000 11.000 a:: 10.000 <( w >- a:: 9.000 w o_ Vl 8.000 a:: ::::> 7.000 0 I I 6.000 f- f- <( 3: 5.000 <( 0 w 4.000 :::; PETER PAN LOAD 3.000 2.000 1.000 CITY LOAD 0.000 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 + COMMUNITY LOAD 0 HYDRO GENERATION Figure 6 Load and Hydropower Forecast 12.000 LOW (0%) LOAD GROWTH SCENARIO 11.000 - 10.000 - 9.000 -a:: <( w >-8.000 - a:: w Q_ 7.000 - Vl a:: ::::> 6.000 0 - I I 5.000 f- f--~ <( 3: <( 4.000 0 -PETER PAN LOAD w :::; 3.000 2.000 1.000 -CITY LOAD 0.000 I 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 + COMMUNITY LOAD 0 HYDRO GENERATION 8231/880/42 39 ~ <( w >- ~ LLI D.. (f) ~ ::> 0 :I: I I= <( :;: <( 0 w :::. Figure 7 Load and Hydropower Forecast 14.000 HIGH ( 4%) LOAD Gi'<OWTH SCENAR:O 13.000 12.000 11.000 10.000 9.000 8.000 PETEr< PAN LOAD 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 CITY LOAD 1.000 0.000 ' 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 + COMMUNITY LOAD o HYDRO GENERATION for additional hydropower production. The additional load would be provided by diesel generators whether or not the hydroproject is built. Consequently, changes in load growth forecasts have little effect on the economics of the project. The annual energy requirements and hydropower potential are used in Table 2 to calculate the 30-year life-cycle costs of the base case diesel system and the hydroelectric project (see discussions below). These life-cycle costs are discounted using a 3! percent real annual discount rate, and then totalled to calculate the net present value of each case. The real discount rate represents the time value of money without considering the effects of inflation 8231/880/43 40 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 and can be thought of as the difference between the nominal inter- est rate (8 percent) and the inflation rate (4~ percent). The economic model need not account for the effects of inflation since, presumably, inflation would have the same effect on all costs in the analysis. Consequently, all costs in the economic analysis are presented in real (inflation-free) 1987 dollars. Base Case Analysis The base case assumes that energy requirements for the community of King Cove wi 11 continue to be met by two independent diesel sys- terns, one for the City and one for Peter Pan. Capital costs in Table 2 (lines 10 and 18) reflect the costs of replacing and adding diesel generator capacity. The firm capacities of the City and Peter Pan systems (lines 6 and 14 respectively) represent the installed capacity less the capacity of the largest unit in the system. This allows for the energy demand being met even when the largest unit in the system is down for repairs. As load grows, capacity is assumed to be added to each diesel system such that the firm capacity is sufficient to meet the the peak demand for that system (lines 7 and 15). Diesel generators are assumed to have a life of 20 years, and capacity additions and replacements are assumed to cost $700 per installed kW in 1987 dollars. The base case assumes that Peter Pan will follow through with its plan to replace existing diesels with two 1,500 kW machines and one 850 kW 8231/880/44 41 ~ c g 0 C) ......... .... I' OCl {fl "--' w ~ c.: 0.. -' 0 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 unit for a total installed capacity of 3,850 kW in 1989 and a firm capacity of 2,350 kW. The most unpredictable element in the economic model is the future price of diesel fuel. Consequently, an economic analysis was conducted for both the upper and lower bounds of an oil price forecast range. (See Figure 8.) Table 2-A presents the economic analysis for the low diesel price trend and Table 2-8 presents the analysis for the high fuel price trend. Figure 8 King Cove Oil Price Forecast KING COVE PRICE 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 3.5% 1.10 1.00 0% 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 YEAR • UPPER TREND 0 LOWER TREND 8231/880/45 42 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The fuel price of 54 cents/gallon used for 1987 is the average price for that year as calculated from data provided by the City of King Cove. The 1988 price of 80 cents per gallon is a delivered price quoted to the City in January 1988. The lower trend of the forecast range assumes that the price of fuel oil. will increase by 2 percent annually in real terms (above the rate of inflation) through 1996 when it will stabilize at 96 cents/gallon. The price is held at this level for the remainder of the study period. The high trend for the forecast range assumes that the price of oil will increase at an annual rate of 31 percent (real) through 2006. Fuel use is calculated on the basis of a diesel generator efficien- cy of 12 kWh per gallon of fuel for the City system and 15 kWh per gallon for the Peter Pan system. It is assumed that the Peter Pan system will have a higher efficiency because it will consist of newer units. Annual fuel use (Table 2, lines 9 and 17) is calcu- lated by dividing the required energy production from lines 1 and 2, respectively, by the appropriate generator efficiency. Annual fuel costs (lines 11 and 19) are the product of fuel use and the fuel price in line 5. Operation and maintenance costs for the City diesel system is assumed to be 3 cents/kWh. S i nee the Peter Pan system will be newer, larger and more efficient, 2 cents/kWh is assumed for operation and maintenance. The annual operation and maintenance costs in lines 12 and 20 are determined by multiplying the required 8231/880/46 43 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 energy production from lines 1 and 2 times 3 cents/kWh and 2 cents/kWh, respectively. The 30-year life-cycle costs of the City system (line 13) and the Peter Pan system (line 21) were added to determine the total annual costs of the base case (line 22). This cost stream was then used to calculate the net present value of the total life-cycle costs using a 3! percent real discount rate. The total net present value of the costs of the base case is $16.8 million for the low fuel price forecast (Table 2-A, Summary) and $19.9 million for the high diesel price forecast (Table 2-B, Summary). Hydroproject Analysis The hydroproject analysis assumes that the City of King Cove and the Peter Pan power systems will be interconnected with and served by the 1,000 kW hydroelectric power project proposed for Delta Creek. Under the hydropower case, it is assumed that diesel units would still be maintained by both the City and Peter Pan for backup and for meeting peak demand. With a proper maintenance schedule and program, however, there should be little need for the City to supplement power available from the hydroproject. Assuming instal- lation of two turbine/generator units (one 400 kW and one 600 kW), maintenance could be scheduled during periods of low demand so that the City load could be met even with one hydroelectric unit down for maintenance. It would be necessary, however, for the City to 8231/880/47 44 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 maintain some diesel capacity (or to arrange to purchase power from Peter Pan) in the event of an unexpected shutdown of the hydroelec- tric system or a break in the transmission line between the hydro- electric power plant and the City. The construction cost of the 1,000 kW hydroelectric project is estimated to be $3.74 million (see Table 1-A). A bond sizing analysis conducted for the project indicated that $210,000 would be required in financing costs, for a total capital cost of $3.95 million to develop the project. For economic comparison, this figure is represented in the economic analysis as a single dis- bursement in 1988 (Table 2, line 29). In the economic analysis, it is assumed that the hydroproject would begin providing power to King Cove consumers in 1989, after which diesel generators would be used to supply energy requirements that could not be met by the hydroelectric plant or during forced or planned outages. Since Peter Pan would be the major user of diesel power under the hydropower case, diesel efficiency and operation and maintenance assumptions for backup diesel power are the same as those used for the Peter Pan system under the base case. The capital costs in line 29 of Table 2 represent the cost of adding and replacing diesel units, with the exception of 1988, which includes the cost of financing and constructing the hydro- project. The hydroproject analysis includes the cost of replacing 8231/880/48 45 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 1,500 kW of installed diesel capacity in both 1988 and 1989. Peter Pan has already committed to this investment and would carry through with the purchase even if the hydroproject is built. The analysis does not include an investment for an additional 850 kW capacity planned by Peter Pan, since the company has not yet committed to this purchase, and the additional capacity would not be necessary, under the 2 percent load growth assumption, if the hydroproject were built. Fuel costs in line 30 represent the cost of diesel fuel required to meet power needs that cannot be met by the hydroelectric plant. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (line 31) are for both the hydroelectric equipment and the diesel generators, using the hydroproject O&M cost estimate from Table 1-B and the Peter Pan diesel system O&M cost assumption. The 30-year 1 ife-cycle costs for the hydroelectric project with diesel backup (line 32) is used to determine the net present value using a 3! percent real discount rate. The present value of the costs for the hydroproject is $10.75 million for the low diesel price forecast (Table 2-A, Summary) and $11.74 million for the high fuel price forecast (Table 2-B, Summary). When compared to the base case net present values, these figures yield cost-to-cost ratios of 1.56 and 1.69, respectively, for the low and high fuel price trends. 8231/880/49 46 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Sensitivity Analyses Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the effect on the economic analysis of changing the values of various assumptions, using the low fuel price trend to provide the most conservative test of the economic analysis. Figure 9 illustrates the sensitivi- ty of hydroproject assumptions and economic parameters, and Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of diesel system assumptions. Each of the eight assumptions shown in both graphs was tested by deviating their values in plus and minus 10 percent increments, up to plus and minus 50 percent of their original estimated value, and record- i ng the effect of these changes on the cost-to-cost ratio. For example, in Figure 9, line C represents the cost of financing and constructing the hydroproject. At the estimated value of $3.95 million (zero percent deviation), the cost-to-cost ratio is 1.56. If, however, the project costs are underestimated by 30 percent, or if there is a 30 percent cost overrun on the project, then the cost-to-cost ratio would be 1.42. If, on the other hand, the project were to come in under budget by 30 percent, then the cost-to-cost ratio would be 1.74. None of the eight assumptions, varied independently by plus or minus 50 percent, causes the cost-to-cost ratio to drop below 1.0, the measure of economic feasibility. A combination of factors, however, such as a large cost overrun accompanied by a drop in oil prices, could conceivably cause the project to become uneconomic. 8231/880/50 47 0 i= ~ a:: 1- (/) 0 u " 1- (/) 0 u King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Figure 9 Sensitivity Analysis ECONOMIC AND HYDROPOWER ASSUMPTIONS 2.00 1.90 c 1.80 1. 70 B A 1.60 1.50 B c 1.30 -t----.---,----,---,------,,-----,---,..------,---~--l -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% PERCENT DEVIATION FROM ESTIMATED VALUE LEGEND DEVIATION LETTER ESTIMATED RANGE SYMBOL EXPLANATION VALUE (-50% -+50%) A Hydroproject Operation and Maintenance Costs 0.33 ¢/kWh 0.39 ¢/kWh -1.16 ¢/kWh B Discount Rate 3.5% 1. 75% -5.25% c Hydroproject Construction and Financing Costs $3,950,000 $1,975,000 -$5,925,000 8231/880/51 48 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 1.30 -f----r----.-----,---,-----,--,------.------,---,-----l -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0 +10% +20% +30% +40% +50% PERCENT DEVIATiON FROM ESTIMATED VALUE LEGEND DEVIATION LETTER ESTIMATED RANGE SYMBOL EXPLANATION VALUE (-50% -+50%) A 1988 Average Fuel Price $0.80 $0.40 -$1.20 B King Cove Operation and Maintenance Costs 3.0 ¢/kWh 1.5 ¢/kWh -4.5 ¢/kWh c Peter Pan Operation and Maintenance Costs 2.0 ¢/kWh 1.0 ¢/kWh -3.0 ¢/kWh D Peter Pan Diesel Generator Efficiency 15.0 kWh/gal 7.5 kWh/gal -22.5 kWh/gal E King Cove Diesel Generator Efficiency 12.0 kWh/gal 6.0 kWh/gal -18.0 kWh/gal 8231/880/52 49 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility. July 1988 In order to determine the effect of load factor assumptions on the outcome of the economic analysis, a separate load factor sensitivi- ty analysis was conducted. Each combination of a City and Peter Pan load factor of 30 percent to 80 percent, in 10 percent incre- ments, was tested. The results, shown in Figure 11, indicate that no combination of load factor assumptions would change the conclu- sion of the feasibility analysis. 1.70 1.68 1.66 1.64 0 1.62 i= <( 0:: f-1.60 (f) 0 0 1.58 '-. f- (f) 0 0 1.56 1.54 1.52 1.50 1.48 30'7. 8231/880/53 Figure 11 Load Factor Sensitivity KING COVE HYDROPROJECT FEASIBILITY 40'7. 50'7. 60'7. CITY LOAD FACTOR 50 PETER PAN LOAD FACTOR • 30% + 40% <> 50% c. 60% X 70% 'V 80% 70% 80% King Cave Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS--400 KW PROPOSAL An identical economic analysis to the one described for the 1,000 kW proposal was conducted for an alternative proposal to construct a 400 kW hydroelectric project on Delta Creek to serve the City load only. The economic analysis for the 400 kW project is pre- sented in Appendix E, Table 2-A (low fuel price forecast) and Table 2-B (high fuel price forecast). The analysis shows that the cost-to-cost ratio for the 400 kW project is 1.44 under the low fuel price forecast and 1.71 under the high fuel price forecast. Sensitivity analyses were not conducted for the 400 kW alternative, however, these ratios clearly indicate economic feasibility. Financial questions related to the 400 kW alternative were evaluat- ed at the request of the City and are discussed in response to Request #7 and Request #8 contained in Appendix F. COST OF POWER ANALYSIS The hydroelectric proposal is a capital-intensive project; over fifty percent of the life-cycle costs of the project are capital costs. (See Figures 12 and 13.) Less than one quarter of the life-cycle costs of the base case diesel alternative are capital costs, nearly 60 percent being fuel costs. While fuel costs are likely to vary widely from year to year and to rise with inflation, capital costs are usually paid in the form of annual debt service payments which are constant from year to year and are not affected 8231/880/54 51 O&M COSTS (20.3%) Figure 12 Distribution of Costs BASE CASE DIESEL SYSTEM ....... . . . . . . . . . FUEL COSTS (57.0%) Figure 13 Distribution of Costs CAP!TAL COSTS (22.6%) 1,000 KW HYDROPROJECT WITH DIESEL BACKUP O&M COSTS ( 16.6%) .. ' .... .. . . . . . . . CAPITAL COSTS (54.3%) FUEL COSTS (29.1 %) 8231/880/55 52 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 by inflation. This relationship has a significant effect on the year-to-year cost of a project and, consequently, on the cost of power that would be produced from that project. The economic and sensitivity analyses discussed above indicate that the 1,000 kW hydroe 1 ectri c proposa 1 waul d be 1 ess expensive than the base case over the life of the project; that is, they show 11 economic feasibility ... They do not, however, show how the costs of the hydroelectric project and the diesel base case would compare on a year-to-year basis if the capital costs were spread out over annual debt service payments. Usually, capital-intensive power projects will cost more than the diesel case alternative during the early years of the project, even though they are more economical over the life of the project. This is because the capital debt service is a significant new expense when it first comes due, but it remains constant over the life of the project. The annual costs of the diesel alternative, on the other hand, may be relatively low in the near future (because existing equipment is paid for, fuel is being purchased at at a reasonable price, etc.), but they increase significantly from year to year as new equipment is needed and as fuel prices and inflation rise. In order to get an idea of how the cost of the 1,000 kW hydroelec- tric project would compare with the cost of the diesel base case on a year-to-year, cost per kilowatt-hour basis (assuming capital costs would be paid in annual debt service payments), a cost of 8231/880/56 53 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility~ July 1988 power analysis was conducted. This is a preliminary analysis and should not be used as a detailed financial feasibility study. It is useful~ however~ in illustrating the difference in annual costs between the two cases and in determining whether the capital- intensive hydroproject would cost more annually in the early years and, if so, for how long. To determine the annual cost of power, in cents per kilowatt-hour, the capita 1 costs of the base case and the hydro project were converted to annual debt service, and an inflation factor of 4! percent was applied to the life-cycle costs to convert them to nominal dollars. {See Tables 4-A and 4-B and Figures 14 and 15.) This "cost of power" represents only the production costs that vary between the base case and the hydroproject case. Because it does not include costs that are assumed to be common to both cases {such as genera 1 and administrative costs, customer service costs~ and distribution costs), this comparison does not represent the true cost of power production for each case. The analysis also assumes, for the sake of convenience, that 100 percent of the power avail- able from the hydroproject would be sold. This may not be a valid assumption since periods of high flow, when large amounts of power can be produced, may not always correspond to periods of high demand for electricity. The effects of costs common to both cases and of the percentage of hydroelectric power that is useable should be addressed in more detailed rate and financial analyses which are beyond the scope of this study. 8231/880/57 54 0:: N w 1-' Table 4-A (page 1 of 2) ......._ 00 00 0 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY ......._ 0'1 Cost of Power Analysis 00 COST Of PCIER AIIALYIIS 9<0'W.,,.., __ ,..,,. .... -~.,.,..,..,.,. 19117 ~-191W 19'110 1991 1992 1993 1~ 1995 1996 1997 19911 1999 2000 2001 -CASf AIIALYSIS ctty s.,..t .. 1 -~ htvl>o (NOIIIMl I) 35,041 15,041 35,648 35,041 15,041 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 47,219 47,219 123,030 \23,030 2 f .. l Coato (M,.IMl I) 94,137 149,751 \62,1120 177,021 192,4168 209,246 227,496 247,3311 2611,910 292,364 317,863 3311,810 361,138 384,937 410,304 3 0 & M Coato (I .. IMI S) 6:5,2~ 67,391 71,132 76,W 11,612 16,9'110 92,1'23 911,131 105,346 112,2U 119,6118 127,576 135,913 144,944 154.4116 4 Totol City Coati (-IMI I) 19'5,710 l$2,1'911 270,500 2.119,235 l09,721l 331,1114 ]55,167 381,819 409,904 440,500 475,199 513,604 544,339 652,910 6117,129 Potor Pon S.,..t• 5 Debt Servic« (Nainal I) 0 175,016 291,875 291,875 291,875 291,175 291,875 291,875 291,875 291,875 291,873 291,875 291,873 291,873 ' 291,875 6 fuel toata (N,.IMl I) 146,751 231,704 ~1,911 275,1114 297,771 323,742 351,91'1i> 382,678 416,054 452,341 491,704 524,203 558,748 595,569 634,817 1 0 & M toata (1,.11111 I) 81,517 86,889 92,615 911,718 105,224 112,158 119,549 127,428 135,~ 144,776 154,317 164,486 175,326 186,880 199,195 a Toto! Peter Pon toot (I•IMH 228,247 49l,61'1i> 636,400 664,4l'S ~.168 m,m 76:5,401 801,978 841,752 -·-937,913 980,562 1,025,946 1,074,322 1,1~,US 0'1 9 Totol Anruol Coota (l,.lnal Sl 421,957 746,477 906,701 953,710 1,004,588 1,059,657 1,119,267 1,113,797 1,253,656 1,329,290 1,411,113 1,494,166 1,570,286 1,127,232 1,813,715 0'1 10 M .. lrool t011t of P-(t/kllll 6.8 11.8 14.1 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.1 16.7 17.3 18.0 18.7 19.4 20.0 21.6 22.2 11 Toto! Anruol CooU (Reel 19117 $) 421,957 714,332 830,293 e:ss,m 842,409 850,323 859,481 869,6118 881,552 894,485 906,699 920,703 925,941 974,628 979,357 12 leal Coot of P-r (19117 t/kllll 6.11 11.3 12.9 12.7 12.6 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.0 11.8 12.2 12.0 MYOROPIID.IEtl AIIALYSIS Mydroproie<:t·Dieool Sy&t• n Pobt Service (N.,.Inol I) 35,648 152,435 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 14 Fuel Coots (N.,.illll $) 222,600 351,510 75,733 86,686 98,U1 112,446 127,518 144,253 162,817 183,394 206,187 226,925 250,452 275,916 303,462 15 o & M C...ta !N.,.Inoi I) 123,667 131,816 71,217 76,874 82,947 89,466 116,462 103,968 112,021 120,658 129,921 139,863 150,734 162,3116 174,905 16 Total Anruol C...ta (M,.Inol I) 381,915 6:55,761 816,171 8J2,781 851,050 871,133 893,201 917,442 944,059 973,274 1,005~32'9 1,036,008 1.070~408 1,107,534 1,147,588 11 M.,.irool coot of Power (t/klll) 6.2 111.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.8 14.1 28 total Annual toata (Real 1987 I) 381,915 608",384 747,392 729,763 713,657 699,041 685,886 674,163 663,848 654,920 647,359 638,387 631,181 624,950 619,666 19 Rool Coat of p_,-(1987 c/kWh) 6.2 9.6 11.6 11. I 10.7 10.2 9.8 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.8 7.6 HydroprojK.t Portion 20 Debt Ser~ice (NOIIinat S) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 Fuel costa (111<.-.inei i) n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o & M Costs (N.,.inol $) 43,374 45,629 48,006 50,510 53,150 55,933 )ts,BOf oi,90i 05,CZ3 Ga,f,~~ 12~ 146 ?S,8!! !9,M4 23 Total Alnlal CO$tS CN0111inal $) 443,374 445,629 448,006 450,510 453,150 455,933 458,867 461,961 465,223 468,658 472,146 475,818 479,684 24 N011lnol Cost of Power (t/kWh) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 a.s 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 25 Total Alnlal Costs (Real 1987 S) 406,011 390,503 375,680 :161,512 347,972 335,033 322,669 310,856 299,570 2811,786 278,408 268,491 259,016 26 Real Coot of P""er (1987 C/klll) 7.9 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5. 7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 co N w I-' .......... co co 0 (page .......... Table 4-A 2 of 2) 01 1.0 COST Of I'Oo£R A11A1. Y$1$ .. ~~--................. _ ........ 2002 2003 2004 Z005 l!ll06 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 USE CASf AIIALYSIS City Sywt• 1 Oobt s.rvtce (-1 .. 1 Sl 123,030 123,030 123,030 1311,175 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,0<06 221,046 2 futl c .... (10.011'011 $) 437,343 466,164 496,1114 529,Q9 564,551 601,734 628,812 657,109 6116,679 717,579 749,870 78],614 818,8n 855,726 1194,234 934,475 3 0 I N C..to (-tnol S) 164,6n 175,529 187,097 199,42.6 212,569 226,5n 236,m 247,428 258,562 270,197 282,356 295,062 308,340 322,215 336,715 351,867 4 Total City C..ta (-tr.l S) 725,050 764,723 107,011 167,101 9911,147 1,049,557 1,016,651 1,125,58J 1,166,287 1,208,823 1,253,273 1,299,723 1,348,265 1,398,918 1,451,995 1,507,JM Patar PWI Sywt• 5 Oabt Sarvtce (loair.l Sl 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,815 471,557 153,213 153,213 753,213 153,213 153,213 753,213 753,211 153,213 753,213 6 fuel c .. to IM•ii'MII S) 676,652 n1,2u 768,m 819,435 873,4311 930,995 9n,890 1,016,670 1,062,420 1,110,229 1,160,190 1,212,398 1,266,956 1,323,1169 1,~:~ 1,445,107 7 0 & N c..u (loaii'MII $) 212,322 226,314 241,228 257,125 274,070 292,131 JOS,2n 319,014 333,370 348,371 364,048 380,430 397,550 415,439 453,670 a Toto! Poter PWI Coot Ua.inal) 1,110,847 1,239,430 1,361,874 1,368,433 1,439,371 1,514,999 1,749,n4 2,088,897 2,149,003 2,211,813 2,2n,450 2,346,041 2,417,718 2,492,621 2,570,1194 2,652,690 9 Total Alwull Cootl (Na.lnal S) 1,905,896 2,00<0,153 2,108,105 2,236,264 2,437,525 2;564,356 2,836,356 3,214,410 3,315,290 3,420,636 3,530,n3 3,645, 764 3,765,982 3,891,609 4,022,890 4,160,078 01 10 la.inol Coot of P._r U/kllll 22,9 23.6 24.4 25.3 27.1 27.9 30.9 35.0 36.1 37.2 38.4 39.7 41.0 42.4 43.8 45.3 0"1 11 Total Arn.ool CooU !Real 1987 $) 984,816 990,992 997,874 1,012,581 1,056, 1&4 1,063,292 1,125,430 1,220,541 1,204,611 1,189,367 ,_ 174t 780 1,160,820 1,147,462 1,134,679 1,122,447 1,110, 741 12 a .. l c .. t of p._r (1987 otkl.l!l 11.8 11.7 11.5 11.5 11.7 11.6 12.2 13.3 13.1 12.9 12.8 12.6 12.5 12.3 12.2 12.1 HYDROPilO.JECT ANALYSIS Kydroproject·Oiesel Syat• 13 Debt service (Na.inol $) 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 600,660 600,660 600,660 600,660 600,660 600,660 800,660 600,660 800,660 14 fuel c .. ca 1-inol $) 333,244 366,477 404,410 445,462 489,868 5311,847 563,095 588,434 614,913 642,585 671,501 701,718 733,296 766,294 600,m 836,812 15 o & N Coeto u .. inal $) 188,319 202,905 218,936 236,143 254,609 274,610 286,967 299,881 313,376 327,4n 342,214 357,614 373,706 390,523 408,096 426,461 16 Total Arn.ool Cooto (Na.lnal S) 1_,190,784 1,238,60<0 1,292,567 1,350,826 1,413,698 1,482,671 1,519,283 1,688,915 1, 728,949 1,no,n2 1,814,315 1,859,992 1,907,662 1,957,4n 2,009,534 2,063,933 17 Na.lnal c .. t of '"""' (O/kllll 14.3 14.6 14.9 15.3 15.7 16.1 16.5 18.4 111.8 19.3 19.7 20.2 20.8 21.3 21.9 22.5 28 Total Arn.ool Coat• <Reel 1987 Sl 615,302 612,451 611,612 611,655 612,558 614,782 602,832 641,305 628,214 615,686 603,698 592,226 581,248 570,743 560,690 551,070 19 Real Coat of p....,, (1987 0/kl.l!) 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8 6.1 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 Hydroproject Portion 20 D<bt SOI'vice (Morainal $) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 Fuel Costa (Na.lnal S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 & M Costa (-IMI $) 83,~3 87,911 92,039 96,364 100,897 105,529 110,278 115,240 120,426 125,845 131,508 137,426 143,610 150,073 156,826 163,883 23 total .Annual Costs UfOOJtnal $) 410,~3 487,911 492,039 496,364 500,897 505,529 510,278 515,240 520,426 525,845 531,508 537,426 543,610 550,073 556,8<6 ~o.},UO.l 24 NomInal Co•t of p....,r (C/kl.l!l 8.6 8.6 6.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 25 Total A,.......l Costs (Real 1987 S) 249,965 241,257. 232,821 224,754 217,039 209,614 202,472 195,637 169,097 182,838 176,849 171,118 165,633 160,385 155,363 150,557 26 Real Cost of P"""r <1987 </kWh) 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.8 3. 7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.11 2.7 2.6 (X) Table 4-B (page 1 of 2} N w ...... KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY .......... (X) Cost of Power Analysis (X) 0 .......... 0'1 0 COS! Of POWER AMI.YSIS ..... ~~-.. ---·-................... 1987 111111 19111 1990 1991 1\192 19!13 1994 1995 1996 1997 1991 1999 2000 2001 lASE CASE AMI. VIIS CllySyst• I u.bt Jervl .. <-lnal $) 15,641 35,641 15,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 15,641 47,219 47,219 123,030 123,030 2 f,.l coou <-INil Sl ~.as1 149,751 165,214 18Z,265 201,076 221,8Z9 244,723 2611,980 297,843 324,583 l6l,495 399,906 441,179 486,712 536,944 3 0 & fl COOt& {I .. IMl $) 65,225 67,591 71,832 76,566 11,612 16,990 92,723 98,W 105,346 112,21111 119,688 127,576 135,983 144,944 154,496 4 lotol City c .. ta <-INI S> 193,710 2'52,:7911 zn,695 ~.41111 318,:136 344,467 373,094 404,461 431,as& 476,519 517,1B1 574,1111 624,311 754,686 814,469 hter Pon Syst• 5 Debt sorviu <-inol Sl 0 175,016 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,1)73 291,1)73 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 6 F .. l coou <-lnol S) 146,731 231,1114 255,617 2!1,991 111,101 341,210 378,632 417,709 460,820 5011,379 560,1147 618,730 682,587 753,035 1)30, 753 7 0 & II COOtl (l .. inol $) 81,517 16,1111 92,615 98,118 105,224 112,158 119,549 127,428 135,825 144,n6 154,317 164,486 175,326 186,880 199,195 a Iota I Pater Pon COOt (I .. ! Nil) 228,247 493,679 640,105 6n,590 7011,199 747,241 790,054 IB7,010 U8,517 ~5.028 1,007,037 1,075,089 1,149,716 1,231, 787 'l,l21,8Z1 9 lotol Amuol coau <M .. INil Sl 421,957 746,4n 912,800 967,069 1,026,535 1,091, 708 1,163,148 1,241,471 1,327,355 1,421,547 1,524,868 1,649,790 1,n4,167 1,986,473 2,136,290 10 -lnal Coat of P-r U/kllll 6.8 11.8 14.2 14.7 15.3 16.0 16.7 17.5 18.3 19.2 20.2 21.5 22.6 24.8 26.2 <..n 11 lotal Amuol Coetl <•eel 1987 S) 421,957 714,332 135,878 1147,439 860,813 876,042 893,176 912,268 933,376 956,565 981,904 1,016,598 1,0<16,162 1, 120,910 1,153,539 ....... 12 1 .. 1 coat of P-• (1987 t/klll) 6.8 11.1 13.0 12.9 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.9 12.9 13.0 13.2 13.3 14.0 14.1 MYOIIOPROJECT AMI.YSIS K)'droproject·Diuel Syst• 13 Debt Service Ufic:.inal t) 35,648 152,435 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 14 tuol Coato <M,.Inal SJ 222,600 351,510 76,846 119,254 103,308 119,207 137,175 157,458 180,335 206,114 235,158 267,845 305,962 348,867 397,125 15 o & M coou <-inol S! 123,667 131,816 71,217 76,1174 az,~T 119,466 96,462 101,968 112,021 120,658 129,921 139,863 150,734 162,396 174,905 16 lotal Amuol Costa {M,.Inol Sl 311,915 635,761 817,2114 835,349 155,476 8n,ll94 902,858 930,641 961,5" 995,993 1,034,280 1,076,929 1,125,917 1,180,485 1,241,251 17 -INII Coot of -· (f!kll\1 6.2 10.1 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.5 13.7 14.0 14.4 14.8 15.2 za Tout Amuol Coau (Real 1987 Sl 581,915 601t,lll4 748,412 732,014 717,169 704,467 693,300 683,866 676,167 670,208 666,001 663,602 663,913 666,114 670,242 19 a .. l Coat of p_. (1987 C/kllll 6.2 9.6 11.6 11.2 10.7 10.3 10.0 9,6 9.3 9.1 a.a 8.6 8.5 8.3 8.2 H)'droproject Portion 20 Debt Service (M.,.inol S) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 21 fuel c.,.ts 1-lnal S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 0 22 0 I M Coat& (M .. inal S) 43,374 45,629 48,006 50,510 53,150 55,933 58,867 61,961 65,223 68,658 n,146 75,818 79,684 23 lotol Annual CO$tS (MOO!Inal $J ~~lf~74 4~5,6...719 ~!;!,~ ~esn.sH~ '-~1.150 455,933 458.867 461.961 465,223 468,658 472,146 475,818 479,684 24 N'""inol Cost of P-r U/klll) 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 a.5 a.5 8.5 8.5 a.5 8.5 8.~ C.o 0.0 25 Total Amuol Costs (Reo! 1987 S) 406,011 390,503 375,680 361,512 347,972 335,033 322,669 310,856 299,570 288,786 278,408 268,491 259,016 26 Reel C0<1t of P-r (1987 t/kloll) 1.9 7.5 7'.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 00 N w ...... ......... 00 00 0 Table (page 2) ......... 4-B 2 of 0'\ ...... COST OF PllWEI AIIAI.YSIS ~~ ...... ~ ......... -~ ... -.... ·~·~ 2002 20(15 Z004 l005 2006 2007 2001 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 M5l CA5l AliA!. YSIS CltySyat• 1 D<lll< service (M.-111111 $) 123,030 123,030 123,030 1!1,775 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 221,046 2 fuel eo.u (-tnol ll 592,360 6!13,495 720,0.0 795,346 177,431 967,987 1,011,547 1,057,067 1,104,635 1,154,343 1.206,289 1,260,572 1,317,297 1,376,576 1,4311,521 1,503,255 3 o & " eo.u c-tnol 'Ill 164,677 173,529 117,097 199,W 212,569 226,577 216,m 247,421 251,562 270,197 212,356 295,062 301,340 322,215 336,715 351,1167 4 Total City Coolta (-tnol $) 110,067 952,054 1,031,067 1,1Jl,WI 1,311,046 1,415,611 1,469_366 1,525,541 1,514,243 1,645,517 1,709,691 1,776,610 1,146,614 1,919,137 1,996,213 2,076,161 Peter P.n lya tw 5 -• service <-Ina! $) 291,173 291,173 291,873 291,873 291,873 291,873 471,557 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 753,213 6 Fuel eo.u (-111111 $) 916,492 1,011,080 1,115,430 1,230,549 1,357,550 1,497,651 1,565,052 1,635,4110 1,709,076 1,715,985 1,666~354 1,950,340 2,0311,105 2,129,120 2,225,662 2,325,817 7 o & " Coata (-Ina! $) 212,322 226,314 241,228 257,125 274,070 292,131 305,277 319,014 333,370 341,371 364,048 310,430 397,550 415,439 434,134 453,670 a Total Peter ,., Coat (-!noll 1,420,617 1,529,266 1,641,531 1,779,547 1,923,492 2,081,661 2,341,116 2,707, 707 2,795,659 2,aa7,569 2,983,615 3,083,913 3,1&8,861 3,298,472 3,413,009 3,532,700 (J1 9 Total ~~ coau (-!nat $) 2,300,753 2,481,321 2,679,597 2,913,095 3,234,538 h497,272 3,811,253 4,233-247 4,379,902 4,533,156 4,693,306 4,1160,663 5,035,551 5,218,309 5,409,292 5,608,868 00 10 M.-tnal Coat of -(t/1.1111 27.6 29.2 30.9 33.0 35.9 311.1 41.5 46.1 47.7 49.3 51.1 52.9 54.8 56.8 5&.9 61.0 II Total ~I C"'U (Rnl 1987 Sl I,IU,I46 1,226,937 1,267,922 1,319,050 1,401,531 1,450,119 1,512,257 1,607,361 1. 591,4311 1,576,194 1,561,606 1,547,647 1,554,289 1,521,506 1,509,274 1,497,568 12 Real coat of ,_ 11987 t/1.1111 14.3 14.5 14.6 14.9 15.6 15.8 16.5 17.5 17.3 17.2 17.0 16.8 16.7 16.6 16.4 16.3 HYOIIllPROJECT AliA!. Y$1$ Kydropro)act·Oi-1 Syat• 13 Oebt Serviu (Mooilllll S) 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 669,221 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 800,660 14 fuel Coats (-h-.1 Sl 451,362 513,749 516,767 861,953 761,3114 866,823 905,130 946,592 989,189 1,033,702 1,080,219 1,128,829 1,179,626 1,232, 709 1,288,161 1,546,149 IS o & " coau Cbl1111l Sl 1&8,319 202,905 218,936 216,143 254,609 274,610 2116,967 299,&81 313,376 327,477 342,214 357,614 373,706 390,523 408,096 426,461 16 Total ~I coon (loolnal $) 1,308,903 1,3115,875 1,474,924 1,574,317 1,615,214 1,810,654 1,862,011 2,047,133 2,103,224 2,161,840 2,223,093 2,217,102 2,353,992 2,423,892 2,496,938 2,573,270 17 -inol coat of P-r (t/1.111) 15.7 16.3 17.0 17.8 18.7 19.7 20.3 22.3 22.9 23.5 24.2 24.9 25.6 26.4 27.2 28.0 28 Total ~I C..ta (Rul 1987 S) 676,337 685,273 697,199 712,151 730,206 750,775 7311,825 m,298 764,207 751,679 739,691 720,219 717,241 706,736 696,683 607,063 19 Real COOt of p_,. (1987 C/I<Wh) a. I 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 a.o a.s 1.3 a.2 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.7 1.6 7.5 Kydroproject Portion 20 Oebt Service (Mooinal $) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Z1 r~t cc:te !!!!.!!!!!;~~ •) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 o & K Coats (1.-inal Sl 83,753 87,911 92,039 W.*ic54 iUV,OYi' .O.i'o'l! .,..,.. ~~C.27B ~1~~2~!! ~21J:.42h .,~,845 131.508 137,426 143,610 150,073 156,626 163,883 Jlll..r, ... t:.7 23 Total AmU&l c ... u (IClllinal $) 483,753 487,911 492,059 496,364 500,897 505,529 510,271 515,240 520,426 525,845 531,508 537,426 543,610 550,073 556,826 563,883 24 -il\81 Coot of Power (t/klltl) 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 25 Tot•l Arnlll costs (Reol 1987 S) 249,965 241,257 232,121 224,754 217,039 209,614 202,472 195,637 189,097 182,1138 176,849 171,118 165,633 160,385 155,363 150,557 26 Real Cost of P-r <1987 </kllh) 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 l.l 3.2 1.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 70 60 ~ .r: ?: -"" "'-. 50 2 c: Q) ~ n:: w 40 ?: 0 a_ LL. 0 30 1- (/) 0 (.) ...J G:: 20 z ~ 0 z 10 0 1987 • ALL-D!ESEL 70 60 ~ .r: ?: -"" "'-. 50 2 c Q) ~ n:: 40 w ?: 0 a_ LL. 0 30 f-- (/) 0 (.) ...J G:: 20 z ~ Q z 10 0 1987 • ALL-DIESEL 8231/880/62 1992 1992 Figure 14 Projected Cost of Power LOW FuEL PRICE ESCALATION 1997 2002 2007 HYDRO-DIESEL Figure 15 Projected Cost of Power HIGH FUEL PRICE ESCALATION 1997 2002 + HYDRO-DIESEL 59 2007 2012 2017 <> HYDRO PORTION ;Q12 2017 <> HYDRO PORTION King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 Under the low fuel escalation rate (Table 4-A, line 17 and Figure 14), the projected cost of power with the hydroproject would be 12.7 cents/kWh in 1989, the year the hydroproject was ,assumed to begin producing electricity, and gradually increase to 22.5 cents/kWh over the 1 ife of the project. The projected cost of power with the hydroproject is lower in the first year of hydro- electric production than the projected cost of power from the base case alternative (Table 4-A, line 10). Under the base case, with low fuel escalation, the projected cost of power in 1989 would be 14.1 cents/kWh and would steadily rise with inflation and fuel escalation to 45.3 cents/kWh in 2017. Assuming the high fuel escalation rate (Table 4-B, 1 ine 17 and Figure 15), projected costs with the hydroproject would again start at 12.7 cents/kWh in 1989 and rise to 28.0 cents/kWh over the life of the project. Under the base case, high fuel escalation rate, projected costs would start at 14.2 cents/kWh in 1989 and rise to 60.1 cents/kWh in 2017. The lower line graphed in Figures 14 and 15 represents the hydro- electric portion of the hydroproject case, exclusive of the cost of using diesel generators for backup and peaking. Since there is no fuel cost associated with the hydroelectric project itself and since it has low operation and maintenance costs, the cost of power from the hydroproject is represented almost entirely by the level- ized debt service payments for the project. 8231/880/63 60 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 The projected cost of power and other financial questions for the 400 kW hydroelectric proposal were addressed in a March 24, 1988 letter to the City of King Cove. {See Appendix F). Figure 2 in Appendix F shows that the projected cost of power from the 400 kW project would be higher than the base case for the first five years of project operation assuming 100 percent usability. If only 60 percent of the power from the hydroproject could be sold, it would take 10 years for the cost of power from the hydroproject to cross over and become less expensive than the base case alternative. 8231/880/64 61 King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility, July 1988 References Alaska Department of Natural Resources, A Geotechnical Investiga- tion of the Proposed King Cove Hydroelectric Weir" Site on Delta Creek, Alaska; 1984. CH2M Hill, Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements & Alterna- tives for King Cove; 1981. DOWL Engineers, Feasibility Study for King Cove Hydroelectric Project; 1982. DOWL Engineers, King Cove Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study, Continued Field Investigations of Delta Creek Aquatic Biology and Hydrology, 1984. EBASCO Services, Inc., Regional Inventory and Reconnaissance Study for Small Hydropower Proiects: Aleutian Islands, Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island,laska; U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, Alaska D1str1ct, 1980. 8231/880/65 62 APPENDIX A ... Response to. Comments on Draft Report CITY OF KING COVE P.O. Box 37 • King Cove, Alaska 99612 • (907) 497-2340 April 29, 1987 David Denig-Chakroff Project Manager Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 REct::'tEJ pv . \I. A SY :~ :: "c•: .. •• • · RE: King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study 8/ l1AY -4 A11 :~:.3 Dear Mr. Chakroff: The City of King Cove wants to continue working with the Alaska Power Authority to pursue developing the King Cove hydroelectric project. The proposed project appears to provide a dependable source of power and long-term cost savings, both of which are of interest to the City. The City has also prepared comments on the draft feasibility study, (attached) and would like these addressed in the final study. I am available to work with APA to pursue the project and ask that you keep the City apprised of action it should take to keep the project moving forward. I also understand that Peter Pan Seafoods plans to submit a letter stating their interest in the project. Please call i~ you have any questions. Si~ce;ely,'''~~/' (J(/ [1'/c~y:~L/~ /f"./4-j;J Wayne ~ars all l City r}anager 1689 'C' Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 276-2700 attachment cc: Alex Samuelson, Mayor Cindi Samuelson, City Clerk Lloyd Guffey, Superintendent, Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Glenn Guffey, Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Gene Holland, City Engineer, City of King Cove CITY OF KI~G COVE C0t1~1ENTS ON DRAFT KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY The City of King Cove submits the following comments on the Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. The City would like APA to address these comments in the final report. 1. Page 8, second para, first sentence. "The hydroelectric project recommended in this report is not intended to be a final design und 1r1i ll require n1ouif ica Lion c. :1d more lie tailed specification prior to construction." Are any of the potential modifications or more detailed specifications so extensive th~t the proiect would become unfeasible? · Also, could these potent1a1 modlt 1cat1ons -qrt:atl.-y affect the cost estimates? ln partlCuldL, cou1a c-oB"t :i.flt:..Cee:d:ii:=s E,e large enougn to significantly effect the cost-to-cost ratio? 2. Is the design proposed for this project "proven"? In particular, will the proposed intake screen effectively mitigate problems posed by the sediment loads in Delta Creek? 3. Page 9, first para, last sentence. "Since minimal maintenance would be required with the design recommended in this report, a road to the weir sites would not be necessary." The City would like "minimAl maintenance" quantified ... clean intake screens once per week? clean wood stave tanks once per month? etc. In short, what does minimal maintenance mean? Also, how will maintenance personnel access the dam site and int_ake sCP"en if -"\ ro;;,rl iP not constructed to these areas? Another question is who will be responslble for proJect maintenance .•. the City, Peter Pan Se:J.foods, or ot!:er party? 4. Page 15. Powerhouse and Generating Equipment. The City would like additional discussion on the advantages/ disadvantages on the one or two turbine-generator approach. Also, are there other configurations than the 400 KW and 600 KW generators that would allow the City to efficiently produce the most power possible from the stream flow available? The intent would be to enable the project to produce the most power possible for consumption by Peter Pan Seafoods. 5. Page 17. Transmission and Distribution System. The City is concerned about the proposed use of an overhead transmission line from the power house to downtown King Cove. The City presently uses underground lines for all transmission lines because of problems with maintaining overhead lines. The City requests APA address the following: o ~o~t nf initially installing underground vs. overhead 1 ine, and how t.n1s atfect:s proJeCt:: cust::,--fe-astbi-1-±ty and t1nancinq, Also, when computL-<:,. unaeLgrount1 li."l'lt -..;osts-, .1roviue e~timates for ducted cable that comes on spools of no larger than 2,000'. The City understands that special installation equipment is needed for larger than 2,000' rolls and this would increase project costs. o Pot .:ntia 1 of doing iiil})rovemf' t~.9 ~.,_r.t r-oar1 i.E- underground lines are used. .t:xamine long-term ma1ntt11ance co;:;Es to tne Cl. Ey for cut uverhead vs. underground transmission line. For example, consider equipment the City would need to purchase to serve overhead rather than underground lines. At present, the City only has equipment to serve underground line. o Cost of installing break points (junction points) in the transmission line about every 2,000 feet so the City can more easily repair the system. o Cost of installing step-downs of voltage on the line so the City can service other power users. In particular, ability to step-down voltage at the air~ort and the Mallard Lake Subdivision area. ' o Also, how difficult and time-consuming is the SCADA system to maintain and operate? How frequently do problems occur with this system? The City wants to ensure that it has the technical ability and funds to operate and maintain this system. 6. Project Costs. The City would like APA to prepare a cost estimate for the project that involves the City using the force account system to manage the project. The City believes that this system would eliminate the 10% profit included in the estimate, may decrease the 15% General Overhead expenses, and would significantly affect labor costs. The City's current rate of pay for construction equipment operators is $13.49/hour to start, with some operators (those who have previously worked with the City) earning about $15.00/hour. The fringe benefit rate for the above positions would be about 20%. This revised cost estimate would best be included as an alternative in the project costs section. Also, identify how force accounting the project through the City may affect project financing. 7. Economic Analysis. APA should be aware that the City projects that the price of #2 diesel will increase to 5.56 to $.58/gallon with the next fuel delivery. Chevron has . discontinued service to King Cove and this will result in a price increase. This increase in cost should only improve the cost-to-cost ratio. Delta Western will begin delivering fuel to King Cove in mid-May. APA may want to prepare a revised cost analysis using new fuel prices. 8. Hydroproject Analysis, Page 39, first para .. " diesel units would still be maintained by both the City and Peter Pan for backup and for meeting peak demand." Will the City need to supplement the power available from the hydroelectric plant at any time with diesel generator power, or will only Peter Pan Seafoods need to supplement the hydropower? The City's concern centers on the size of its existing generators for providing supplemental power. The City's generators can independently meet the City's present electric load. Also, the report should provide greater details on the amount of power that would be available for sale to Peter Pan Seafoods, assuming that the City's need for power will be completely met by hydropower. 9. Page 40, third para. Correction. Peter Pan Seafoods has committed to the purchase of a 1,500 KW and 850 KW generator, and plans to purchase a second 1,500 KW generator in several years. 10. Cost of Power Analysis. The City would like APA to prepare estimates for the amount the City would need to charge electric consumers to "break-even" on operating the electric system. The City's present rate is $.20/KWH. The City needs this information to help ~ake infor~ed decisions on pursuing hydropower construction. 11. Cost of Power Analysis, page 47, second para, last sentence. The City would like APA to further explore methods of financing the prevent "rate shock", with the intent being to initially make the hydropower no more expensive than diesel generated power. 12. March 25, 1986 Memorandum from Afzal H. Kahn, Page 6. ·rhe Deer Island Subdivision referenced in the discussion on present and future load has been built and the City is providing power to about 30 homes in this area. The addition of this subdivision has affected the City's total power use reflected in the table on page seven of this memorandum. Also, this one time large increase in level of local use may significantly affect the base estimate used for the 2% annual rate of growth in City power consumption. APA should reexamine the City's total use of electric power for the last six months (since Deer Island has been occupied) to determine if this affects the power estimates and growth projections. 13. Power Sales Agreement. The Feasibility Study minimally addresses the need and nature of the required power sales agreements between the City and APA and Peter Pan Seafoods and APA. However, these agreements will be a major factor for the City and Peter Pan Seafoods to decide if they will participate in the hydropower project. The City requests additional information be provided in the report or in supplemental information on the proposed power sales agreement. Information that needs to be addressed includes, but is not limited to: o What is the length of the power sales agreement? o Is it possible to amend power sales agreements to reflect potential new major users (commercial/industrial users) of the power? o How will the ratio of City vs. Peter Pan Seafoods use of the hydropower project's power be determined, and what occurs if there is significant growth in'either party's desired amount of use? o What occurs if either party reneges after agreements are in place? For example, the Peter Pan Seafoods complex is destroyed by fire and the company decides not to rebuild. 14~ The re~ort is based on a 30 year projectec life and financing of the hydropower project. However, the City assumes that the dam and penstock system will have a greater life than 30 years. The report should also address the impact this project will have on electric production costs when the project is completely paid for after 30 years. ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska August 5, 1987 Mr. Wayne Marshall, City Manager City of King Cove 1689 •c• Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Marshall: Steve Cowper. Governor This letter summarizes the results of recent analysis of the proposed King Cove Hydroelectric Project based on comments received on the March 1987 Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. Attached are responses to the specific comments prepared by the City and forwarded with your letter of April 29, 1987. I will incorporate these comments, changes, and analyses into a final report upon my return from vacation on August 24, 1987. Enclosed you will find revised tables and graphs from the feasibility study which reflect the revised economic analysis. This analysis is the result of the following changes made from the draft report: 1. The hydroelectric cost estimate is based on the availability of force-account labor at rates the City has provided for this analysis. (See enclosed cost estimate.) 2. The transmission line cost estimate is based on an underground rather than an overhead line as requested by the City. (See enclosed cost estimate.) 3. The diesel fuel price forecast has been revised in accordance with comments from the City. -4. The City load reflects the addition of the Deer Island Subdivision. 5. The hydropower potential of Delta Creek is based on the dry year of record, rather than the average year, in response to a comment by the Mayor of King Cove at the public hearing on the draft report. 6. Financing costs have been revised as a result of an internal review. The overall result of these changes is quite significant with respect to the feasibility of the proposed hydroelectric project. Under the revised analysis, the cost-to-cost ratio of the continued use of diesel systems over the hydroproject is 1.55 for the high fuel price forecast and 1.36 for the low fuel price forecast. A cost/cost ratio of 1.0 would mean the two options have the same long-term cost; thus a ratio 9848/752/1 c PO Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 ~PO Box 190869 701 EastTudor Road Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 Mr. Wayne Marshall August 5, 1987 Page 2 greater than this indicates economic feasibility. Sensitivity analyses show that, even under the low fuel price forecast, none of the assumptions varied independently up to plus or minus 50 percent of their estimated value would cause the cost/cost ratio to fall below 1.0. If you have any questions or further comments concerning these analyses, please let me know upon my return so that I can incorporate them into the final report. S'/.:)ely, /./ )(/~//~ L David De.n1g-Chakroff " r-Project Manager Enclosures as stated. DDC:nc cc: Brent N. Petrie, Alaska Power Authority Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Michael D. Hubbard, Alaska Power Authority E. Roy Taylor, Alaska Power Authority Remy Williams, Alaska Power Authority 9848/752/2 RESPONSE TO CITY OF KING COVE COMMENTS ON DRAFT KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC FEASIBILITY STUDY The following responds to the numbered comments (attached) provided by the City of King Cove on the March 1987 Draft King Cove Hydroelectric Feasibility Study. 1. The concept shown in the feasibility study is intended to illustrate the typic a 1 configuration and not necessarily the fi na 1 configuration of the proposed project. Experience has shown that proposed projects invariably require modification during design no matter how simple the concept. Any anticipated modifications are not expected to add significantly to the estimated cost and may even reduce the estimated cost of the project. Possible changes might include rotation of the powerhouse due to the type of units selected or realignment of the penstock as a result of the fi na 1 route survey. The cost of such changes has been provided for in the cost estimate and resulting economic analysis in the form of contingency costs equal to 20 percent of the base cost of construction. The sensitivity analyses show the effect on the cost/cost ratio of increases (or decreases) in the estimated cost of the project. They indicate that, all else being equal, the estimated cost of the hydroproject could be increased by 50 percent (to $6.5 million), and the project would still be economically feasible. 2. The Johnson screen, or wedge wire screen as it is sometimes called, has been used effectively in hydroelectric applications where its primary function has been to pass fish and floating debris. The original use of the screen, however, was to separate rock from a slurry in mining operations, and it is still used extensively for that purpose. It is designed specifically to rapidly accept water while rejecting aggregates. While we are unaware of another hydroproject where the exact configuration proposed for Delta Creek has been used, we have discussed the concept with engineers who have used it in similar applications, and all agree it will work. In order to protect the screen from large rocks and boulders that may migrate down the stream during storm flow, we are proposing to install a heavy duty screen above the Johnson screen. 3. The intent of the weir/intake structure design is to minimize if not eliminate maintenance at the intake structure. Placing the intake structure on the downstream side of the weir will eliminate 9848/752/3 the need to clean out a forebay. During large storms, rock will be swept over the intake structure by the force of heavy storm flows and pass downstream. During normal flows, sediments will easily be rejected by the Johnson screen. Some combination of flows could result in a buildup of heavier rock just below the weir, which would require it to be removed with a Cat. This appears to be unlikely, and if it does occur, an annual cleaning will resolve the problem. The Clear Fork weir should never require maintenance except for an annual inspection of the screens. The wood stave tank should not require an inspection more frequently than once a month, except during periods of high water, and then experience will dictate the schedule. The construction contractor will have to build a construction road to move materials to the site. This road would be adequate for access to the tank, but access need not be extended to the weirs because it is not necessary. The weirs are easily reached by foot from the tank for inspection and, even if a Cat is required at the one weir occasionally, a road beyond the tank would not be necessary. Project maintenance responsibilities are yet to be determineq, although such costs will be part of the annual project costs. A decision as to who will maintain a project is often made as part of the overall power sales agreement for the project. 4. The large flow range of Delta Creek and the variation in demand suggests that two units or a turbine with the capability to operate over a wide range of flows is necessary for this project. There is nothing magic about the 400-600 combination used for the proposed concept. This combination would allow power to be generated efficiently from as little as 15 cfs which will produce approxi- mately 335 kW. If the capability to operate efficiently at even lower flows is desired, then a smaller unit can be utilized, but one must be careful to ensure that the efficiency ranges of the two units overlap sufficiently to avoid wasting energy in the middle ranges. The type and manufacturer of the units will also influence this question; therefore, the selection should be fine-tuned when the equipment selection is made based on manufacturer's submittals. By giving bidders more than one option to bid on, a selection of a combination can be made that best meets the needs of the project. 5. The cost of installing an underground transmission line rather than an overhead line has been estimated and included in the economic analysis. (See cost estimate dated 7/31/87.} The design provides for installation of sectionalizer cabinets spaced approximately 2500 feet apart along the length of transmission route. These cabinets will provide easy access to splice points for maintenance, repairs, and future service tie-ins: The route would. g:nera~ly follow along side the ~oad from the a1rport. The tran.sm1.ss1on l1ne would not be buried 1n the road bed due to restr1ctwe DOT&PF 9848/752/4 regulations and the need to blast below the road bed to lay the cable. The SCADA system is relatively simple to operate and maintain. A maintenance contract would be executed with the manufacturer, and its cost has been provided for in this analysis. Training would also be provided so that operation and minor mainte- nance could be handled locally. 6. The cost estimate has been revised to reflect the use of force- account labor for project construction. Use of force-account labor would significantly reduce project costs, yielding beneficial results to the economics and eventual financing of the project. The benefits reflected in this analysis are dependent on the availability of a labor force during construction at the rates provided by the City for the analysis. 7. The diesel fuel price forecast has been revised based on price quotes provided by the City in August 1987. The average 1987 fuel price (54 cents/gallon), which is the base price used in the economic analysis, was determined by assumin~ that the fuel used by King Cove from January through August {8 months) cost 46.4 cents/9allon, and the fuel to be used from September to December (4· months) will cost 70 cents/gallon. Under the high fuel price scenario, it was assumed that the average 1987 price will increase by 28.6 percent for a 1988 average price of 70 cents/gallon and then increase at a rate of 3.5 percent annually in real terms for 19 years. The 28.6 percent increase corresponds to a 28.6 percent increase projected in the world price of oil between 1986 and 1987 under the 11 high 11 oil forecast used by the Power Authority. The low fuel price scenario assumes that the 70 cent/gallon price will not be rna i nta i ned through 1988 but that the 1987 average price wi 11 only increase by 7.1 percent to 58 cents/gallon in 1988 and then increase at a rate of 2 percent annually in real terms for nine years. Although fuel price forecasting is tenuous at best, it would appear reasonable for prices to fall somewhere within these two parameters. 8. The hydroproject appears to be economically feasible, even under the low fuel price scenario. Further variation in the fuel price was analyzed in the sensitivity analyses. Even using a base 1987 average fuel price of only 27 cents/gallon (escalating at the 11 10W 11 forecast rates) and holding all other parameters and assumptions constant. the hydroproject appears economically feasible. If the base average 1987 fuel price is raised to 81 cents/gallon, the cost/cost ratio becomes 1.52 under the low fuel price forecast and 1.75 under the high fuel price forecast. With a proper rna i ntenance schedu 1 e and program, the City s hou 1 d need to supplement power available from the hydroproject minimally if at all. Assuming there are two hydroelectric units installed, 9848/752/5 maintenance could be scheduled during periods of low demand so that the City load can be met even with one unit down for maintenance. Of course the City should maintain some diesel capacity (or arrange to purchase power from Peter Pan) in the event of an emergency or a break in the transmission line to the hydroelectric plant. Line 18 of Table 3 in the feasibility report shows the amount of energy that would be available from the hydroproject in any given month. Line 19 shows the monthly City load for the base year (1987), and line 20 shows the amount of hydroelectric energy available to meet Peter Pan•s needs on a monthly basis. Notice that from September to December there is excess hydropower over and above what could be used by the City and Peter Pan. Tables 2-A and 2-B show the same information on an annual basis. Line 26 of the tables show the annual energy available from the hydroelectric project. Line 1 shows the City requirement. By subtracting Line 1 from Line 26, one can obtain the energy available for sale to Peter Pan. 9. This correction will be made in the final feasibility report. 10. The feasibility study, in Tables 4-A and 4-B, estimates the cost of power for the base case and hydroproject based on debt service, fuel and O&M cost estimates. The City could add its overhead and administrative costs to the other costs in the tables to estimate the rate needed to charge consumers. Rate analysis, however, is beyond the scope of the feasibi 1 i ty study, and an accurate rate could not be determined until a financial analysis is complete. 11. Financing options will be explored as part of the plan of finance and financial analysis that will be conducted if the Power Authori- ty proceeds beyond the feasibility stage for the project. It is beyond the scope of the feasibility study. 12. The additional load required by the Deer Creek Subdivision has been incorporated into the final feasibility analysis. 13. If the Power Authority proceeds with this project beyond the feasibility phase, a financial analysis will address the needs of any future power sales agreements. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the feasibility study. 14. Certainly if the project lasts longer than 30 years (and there is no reason it should not with proper maintenance) and outlives debt obligations, there will be significant benefit in reduced power production costs. To give some idea of the savings, one can look in the last column of line 17 on Table 4-B and find that the projected cost of power in 2017 with the hydroproject is 23.0 cents/kWh. If we then subtract the hydroproject debt service ($409,000 from line 20) from the total annual costs ($2,109,063 from line 16) and divide by the total community load (9,188,112 kWh 9848/752/6 from line 3, Table 2-A), we get a cost of 18.5 cents/kWh for a savings of 4.5 cents/kWh when the debt service on the hydroproject runs out after 30 years. 9848/752/7 APPENDIX B Electrical System Details MEMORANDUM State of Alaska TO: FILES DATE:March 25, 1986 THRU: FROM: FILE NO.: TELEPHONE NO.: Afzal H. Khan ~/-~ Director/Systems Operations SUBJECT: King Cove Hydroe 1 ectri c Project (Proposed} and Engineering 1. EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM A. City of King Cove Powerhouse The City Powerhouse consists of two diesel generator units (2-300 kW caterpillar units -See Table 2). A new 500 kW diesel generator unit will be installed in the near future to meet the growing demand for the power. The voltage generated is 480 V, 3-phase, 60Hz. A step-up transformer, 750 kVA, 480V-7.2/12.47 kV, 3-phase, 60Hz. located outside, is used to serve the city load. The control panels are located in a control room adjacent to the generator room. The control panels are equipped with circuit breakers, controls, indicat- ing and metering devices. The primary distribution is 7.2/12.47 kV, 3-phase, 60Hz. The secondary distribution is 120/240 V, single phase, 60Hz. All distribution is under- ground. See Figures KC-E2 and KC-E3, attached. B. Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. Powerhouse The powerhouse consists of five diesel generator units (for generator data see Table 3). The voltage generated is 480 V, 3-phase, 60 Hz. A step-up transformer, 750 kVA, 3-phase, 60Hz, 480 V-7.2/12.47 kV is used to provide emergency power to the city of King Cove. The control panels are located in a control room adjacent to the generator room. The control panels are equipped with unit breakers, controls, indicating and metering devices. The cannery distribution is 480 V, 3-phase, 60Hz. See Figures PP-E1, PP-E2, and PP-E3, attached. 2. PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM A. GeAeral 3511/573/1 Figure KC-E1 shows the proposed interconnected system. A 12 •. 47 kV transmission line would be built between proposed HydroeTectric plant and King Cove junction (to be located in the City). The King Cove junction consists of three discon- nects. Normal operating configuration would be with'all switches closed. A distribution line would be built between King Cove junction and city of King Cove powerplant. A second King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 2 line wou1d be built between King Cove junction and powerplant at Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. B. King Cove Hydroelectric Project Generators: The powerhouse will have one or two turbine generators. Each turbine generator would be provided with a static excitation system, governor system (speed measuring and control section and hydraulic control section), and miscella- neous controls located near the units. The 480 V switchgear assembly consists of generator breakers, surge protection equipment, generator neutral grounding system, voltage and current transformers for metering, relaying and synchronizing. The generator line terminals will be connected to the circuit breaker and the surge protection equipment. The connections to the main power transformer, station service transformers will be made from the switchgear assembly. The neutral terminal from the generator housing will be connected to the grounding transformer, rated 480-120/240 v. Station Auxiliary Equipment: The station auxiliary power for the powerplant would be supplied by either of the main genera- tors or by the diesel generator. Main generator power will be fed to the station service bus through fuse-disconnect switch and 480-120/240 V, 50 kVA dry type transformer. A 120/240 V panel in the powerplant will be provided. This 120/240 V panel will provide protection and disconnection means for the various loads including motors, power outlets, lighting and battery chargers. Controls for all major electrical devices would be done by 125 V de circuits. The 125 V de circuits will be fed from a distribution panel which will be supplied from the station battery and two battery chargers. Ground and undervoltage protection will be provided. Control and Protection: Control of the generators is switch selectable for local manual, local auto or remote mode. The control panels will contain the local control switches, indicating and recording meters, control wiring, synchronizing equipment, and protective relaying devices. The operators · will be given all pertinent generator data on the front of the panels and may choose control actions as required. 3511/573/2 Grounding System: A complete grounding system for the powerplant and switchyard will be provided. The neutra! . terminals and housing of the generators, transformer, c1rcu1t breakers, and all electrical equipment frame and enclosures will be connected to the ground system. lighting: lighting will be provided in the powerplant and switchyard. King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 3 Switchyard: The main transformer will be used to step-up the 480 V generated voltage to the transmission voltage level of 12.47 kV. The transformer will be a two-winding, 3-phase, 60 Hz, outdoor, oil cooled type and is equipped with no-lead tap changers with bracket mounted lightning arresters adjacent to the high voltage bushings. The low voltage windings will be connected in delta and will be connected to the generator terminals by 600 V cable. The high voltage windings will be connected in grounded wye and the line terminals will be connected to the circuit breaker. The circuit breaker will be used to connect the high voltage terminals of the main power transformer to the 12.47 kV transmission line. C. King Cove Switchyard {At Diesel Powerplant) The incoming line from King Cove Junction would be designed to operate at 12.47 kV~ The switchyard consists of one 750 kVA step-down transformer {existing) and one 12.5 kV metalclad switchgear. The 12.5 kV switchgear will be a metal enclosed building consisting of three breakers and control cubicles. Instrument transformers will be provided for relaying, metering and synchronizing. The current transformers for metering will have a metering accuracy of ANSI class 0.38-2.0. The current transformers for relaying will have a relaying accuracy of ANSI class T400 or better. Potential transformers will have an ANSI accuracy of 0.3W, X, M, andY. All air circuit breakers would have provisions for local and remote control. A ·control panel will be provided in the control room next to the existing control panels. The main incoming line and all feeder lines will have indicating ampere, watt, var, and watthour meters, as well as test switches at the bottom of the front swing panel for current/voltage testing. The circuit breaker control switches with indicating lights will be prov.ided. The protective devices included are phase and ground overcurrent relays. See Figures KC-E2 and KC-E3 attached. D. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Power Plant The incoming line from King Cove Junction would connect the e~isting 750 kVA transformer at the powerplant. A circuit breaker would be provided to connect transformer to 480 V Bus. A circuit breaker and control cubicle would be provided. The control cubicle will have indicating ampere, volts, watt, var and watthour meters. The control switches will be provided. The instrument transformers will be provided for metering, relaying, and synchronizing. The current transformers for metering will have a metering accuracy of ANSI class 0.38-2.0. 3511/573/3 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 4 Potential transformers will have an ANSI accuracy class of 0.3W, X,-M, andY. See Figures PP-El and PP-E2 attached. 3. SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM A computer-based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system will provide centralized remote control and monitoring of the King Cove Hydroelectric Power plant, and City of King Cove Powerplant. The SCADA system would consist of a Central Processing Unit and Master Station at the Control Center and Remote Terminal Units at the power plants. The SCADA system will be designed to provide highly reliable and secure operation. Functions that would be provided by SCADA system include control, status indication, alarm reporting, data logging and strip chart recording from King Cove Hydroelectric palnt. The Communication system will provide voice and data circuits between control center and remote locations through a combination of cable and leased telephone faciltiies. Basic System: The basic software consists of the following: 1. Real-time Disc Operating System 2. System/Operator Interface 3. Data Base Design Techniques 4. User Design Task 5. Monitoring and Control Functions a. Digital Input Capabilities b. Analog Input Capabilities c. Alarm Messages d. Manual Control Functions e. Reports and Profiles f. Totalized Data g. Analog Totalization h. Historic Capabilities i. Logs, Summaries and Reports Master Telemetry Unit (MTU): The MTU will serve primarily as a data concentrator and communications controller, acquiring data in a multiplex form from the Remote Terminal Units (RTU). This data is then buffered in local memory processed to determine change-of- state and formatted for subsequent processing by the CPU. In addition, the MTU receives commands from the CPU, and routes these commands to the appropriate RTU. The MTU operates independently of the Central Processing Unit once it has received the schedule of points to be scanned. This table is down~oaded fr~m ~h: CPU upon starting, and need only be downloaded aga1n when s1gn1f1cant changes have been made to the CPU data base. The following describes the functions of MTU: 3511/573/4 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 5 a. Data Concentration b. Data Communication c. Distributed Control d. System Self Supervision e. Back-up Operation Remote Terminal Unit (RTU): This will be located in close proximity to the field monitoring and control points, the RTU interface directly to each point via hardware connections. During normal system operation, the RTU's communicate with and are supervised by the Master Telemetry Unit (MTU). In the event of a loss of communications with the RTU, the RTU's fall back to a stand-alone mode of operation and continue to perform their designated control function. To facilitate commu- nications with the Master Telemetry Unit (MTU), each RTU will be equipped with a communication module. SCADA Input/Output (I/0) Points: DIGITAL INPUT King Cove Hydro RTU King Cove Power Plant RTU TOTAL 4. COST ESTIMATE 30 20 50 A. City of King Cove Power Plant: a. New Control Panel b. Metalclad Switchgear c. Installation (a and b) B. King.Cove Junction: a. Metalclad Switchgear b. Installation C. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. Power Plant: a,. New Control Panel b. Installation D. SCADA .. (Complete) E. King Cove Hydro: 3511/573/5 a. Turbine/generator with accessories DIGITAL OUTPUT 12 8 20 ANALOG INPUT 12 12 24 $21,000 45,000 13,000 $15,000 $ 3,000 $15,000 $ 3,000 $75,000 $340,000 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25, 1986 Page 6 b. Station auxiliary, control and protection, switchyard equipment and Grounding system. c. Installation (a and b) F. Contingency Total $ 70,000 80,000 $102,000 $782,000 NOTE: Estimates are preliminary and it will be verified later. Transmission line cost is not included. Also, not included are Engineering services and civil work costs. 5. PRESENT AND FUTURE LOAD AK/tg The present load is tabulated in Table 1. The hydroelectric potential and demand is plotted on Figure KC-E4. The city's planned expansion includes a new 30-home subdivision. The estimated load for the subdivision is 100 KW. The School District has a 100 KW standby diesel generator unit, which they use for an emergency. The cannery would be expanding the operations with additonal freezing facilities that would utilize diesel fueled compressors. The cannery's future peak load would be 1,450 KW. The Hydroelectric potential plotted on Figure KC-E4 indicates that it would not support hydroelectric power for the City and the Cannery combined. The propos~ hydroelectric project would support only the city load and probably the Cannery's off-season load. cc: E. L. Morris, Associate Executive Director, Planning/Operations R. E. Etheridge, Associate Executive Director, Projects D. Denig-Chakroff, Project Manager E. Roy Taylor, Deputy Project Manager, Construction 3511/573/6 King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 25! 1986 Page 7 Month King Cove MuniciEal Power Plant KW KW (Average) (Peak) January 259 282 February 258 300 March 248 264 April 246 280 May 251 282 June 237 258 July 219 240 August 227 270. September 245 282 October 266 294 November 279 312 December 288 312 3511/573/7 1985 Load Table 1 Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. Combined Power P1ant KW KW KW KW (Average) (Peak) {Average) (Peak) 430 540 689 822 375 530 633 830 345 440 593 704 390 510 636 790 463 640 714 922 809 1050 1046 1308 1007 1250 1226 . 1490 704 1190 931 1460 456 600 701 882 424 470 690 764 355 400 634 712 319 340 607 652 CITY OF KING COVE POWER PLANT TABLE 2 GENERATOR DATA: Quantity: MFR: Model: KW: KVA: Phase: Hertz(HZ): Power Factor: Voltage: Current: RPM: 2 Caterpillar SRCR (Frame No. 250TH3792) 300 375 3 60 0.8 230/460V 941/471A 1200 587, Part No. 8L32, Serial No. GENERATOR DATA: MFR I UNIT MODEL KW 1 MARATHON 400 2 DELCO 1000 E6724 3 DELCO 700 E6710 4 DELCO 600 E7363 5 BELOIT 750 PETER PAN SEAFOODS INC. KVA 500 1250 875 750 937.5 POWER PLANT TABLE 3 I I PF PHASE HZI 0.8 3 60 0.8 3 60 ----- 0.8 3 60 0.8 3 60 - - - 0.8 3 60 VOLTAGE AMPS SPEED 277/480 601 1800 277/480 1504 1800 -- 277/480 1052 1800 240/480 902 1800 - 480 1127 1800 .. ll.') IC." \.IN&: ( ... PI'IlO ... l) Mi<.£!.) ;--+-~~r=-~+---1 ("004 I <.PA.oPo~£.0) • ) 5 l.-1.. • rl ' I ~IOb~LY~ : ("ooA l" ... oo. ,.., i ~r~:~-' 1 1 i 'l.t/•1.41 &ov ) 'o )St-C..I )~ H H I I ) SZ.·t ')Sl-3 (PROPOSED) • A A I :,wiTCt4Sf;AII.. ' j • . 'ao" ~OOAJ' L~ ~ "" "A T .. N .. t, ----· ---· L ---f--. 4iO'I-1·2/12.4lkVsl: L KING, COVE {EJ,o)TtN') • • C.l1'f ~~~l'tt-1<;. H&W (Pit.OPQ!>ED) -- 3'-loO>Il ~ l:!l't>A.OEL£CTRIC. POWUPL"I·H 4-llO'I ~ OU~TII..FDA.. -·-----750K\IA. TRA>I:>F, ~ll.. ')t-1 'l( .. ~TINO) r T .aov_ ... _.., •• ~h l T ~~o:~,·;~•ZA1r.V ) •zoo" ' I I I I I • • (t:~•~Tiw(.) 1 .. ,ov I . . . T•too;.;.e..,s I} ) I) l t~b.~JJ C.IT'I' OF Kl~(; CoVE.. POWE.2.PL.ANT (t:~I$TIN(\} ttiC. PRELIMINARY PROPO~ED EL,~S·T R.ICAL ~'(STEM CIT'( OF I<IN(1 COVE FtGIJRE KC-El L r t200A,480V: 3¢_ 4W.~V f\1.1.5 r x .. P, r r 1 ) 4.00 ""f L.:.} ) bOO .... ~ ) 1200AF )I ZOO AI' 5001\1'. : $'(>.!<:. ~OJ>.T 8ooAT 12001'1 1--t:>--H' ' r: ' ' 1--1 ~~ I 3oott..w o.& PF. !If>. 480'1 I !,I~II.Ait.. To OHIT I SIMI~,_._ TO OHI't I ~oc::. IC.W 0.9Pf,3c;j,4e.llv SOOKW O.ef'F,3p;+&ot . lSOKVA TltAW)f' I ~&0'1-1-2/!l.•<nKII 1 M~CT 3jiiQOtll. ~'i:JI.I~TIWI; I II t.oel: 'i • " I L~ !~ou:S TO l(IN(.(CW[ JuriC'.TIOt>l I·P't t -';f--~'tWC. !>1\C T 100:5' HETAI.C\.A.D S..CI\ IZ..j KV &II) ~ .. >1.110'1 ),ooA n loiRC.l foc.o:or; lb. s-.eT 1oo:s C.ITY I>ISTIL l'frlit>et. E...~<I$TI~~ ----------------1~ ... 44 --· He~ £4t\JIPME.IIIT (PROPO~IiO) •I PRELl MINAR'( POWERPLANJ CITY OF KING C.OYE SIHGl.l: UNE DIA,RA"-1 ,.IGIJRS. KC-6 l. ~ :1 II.J<ISTIWC c:.owTILO\. ,....._~£.\..-.. + Pllt,GUOS£0 C.O"'TilD'-PA.wli.'-_,1 0 G0 B EJ Sl'iEt> 11:1 0· 1&5 1 v•u. "".l. 0 '63"'5"1 0 00000 ~0~ <. lit 0 0 WJ .s au; -. ..:. e. "' '-OO"""F 500A.1' l.£,t:NI;> 1 • o,&,.. c ,.,.. .. ~<- Z.. 1..0"1 Ool.. Plte;.-...,ae- ~. H•C.ti 'i'/AT't"ll. TEMf" • .... 0-'Eit... ~"""l:b ,:S-LDY>I OIL l.li:\IEI. "' • Low wJI'Tf:lll. o..r;,J(,I. 1. C•IILw•f ~1\Ji ... I<.Git l.U. .. GJ G0 B :>P£Eb EJ~ lbl.l §] !oW. 0 \iiiU.T "'"'~ I t ) ""') 0, 0 00000 0 IVoliO & 0 F]'0~· [ill ~ IULIJAK.£a. f.oo ,.,F 50 oAT , 0 ~0 ! El 0 El BGEJ $t'fi.f.L jvARI BB ~[@ IOU EJ sw. 0 0 0 V0\.1 f>Y"'·'-•C..,.Tioo 0 0 ~ "''l. 0000000 0 ~ ~ @) b ~ ~am IJo.l UOI.IN( PAtl !>To•kT 0 ... < 1\. c. 2. [ill 0 00000 !>01"' EJ~ ~[fEE] ~ (.J. ,... c.. ~8§ l>lt.£A.I(.f:ll.. 81Lii"""IC.1:11. WIIM ~~M WIIM Wllll4 IZ.oo"""F 12.00 .... , ,.. OUT I!IOCAT 11.00 "T (.~oUo.\w) ~. lF!Il) (!'DR) EJt]EJEJ i EJ~[JLJ I C.oNrRoL PANGL~ p (ONn{(J\., PANEL':> CITY Of 1..::..1 t-..1C. <.avE. 1=1<;\JP..E. KC-E3 I HYDROPOWER P01'ENTIAL AND DEMAND KING COVE -DELTA CREEK 1.300 /\ 1.200 _j / 1.100 _, 1.000 ' 0.900 "' fllD 1-'II 0.800 __/ ~ : 0.700 ]---. o:l ------~ ~ 0.600 biE-t """' 0.500 0.400 Hl~ROPOWBR POTENTUL 0.300t 0 ~ 4'<:;/ .. ' 1 <::::::::!?' 0 0 """> • !;:? 0.200 Minimum .. 0.100 -1---r---r--.,...----r---r----,---r----r-----,r----r----f JAN FEB MAR .APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Average Power Demand c. City A City and Cannery FICIURE KC-E4 3. CT'~ ) SZ-1 480 V, 3.;6, CoO ~t f.U5o PTS 'L}~v»c. 1- 2 , 0 .... ~ ... ,. ~ !:: 2 ::1 0 ... ~ ~ 1 r -~. _ __J;_NEW e_41.11P. (PADPO'.>I!.b) I ---- I )'H.-" I I IZOOA. I l:>RC.T I 11oo;') I L-_J_ ~:_.T_·~-~-"--- l ~0 ICV4 Tlii.I.I~F 460V-l.Z/11.41 kV 1 39,t~OHl lli 10 !lo T\Hc:.) _j 4 SOV .~OOtc.W IOOO~W 100kW '-OOKW l50lf.W } CITYOF IC.II.Ict toY£ OUS.TR.. PAM&L 480'1, ~¢,Eio ~~ bl $T IUWiiOU FIUaD&.a.., o.&PF I -I 4-60 v. Eu~TtN<; L--+----+-·-, rr-""""1 rr·• rr--, ~--, ~-J rt-1 rr-·1 n:-·1 IT--, 1 )C.:o: , )5_201 iJ5.2ol j 1 )_e:o• ' )e:o• , )s~, 1 )s~o' l1_ • I ) j' j j) j' Lf·2.J lf·.:.J ~ _ _J T-~ lf-~.lf-:.Jl~~ --~--·_j lf· ~- FOIL~ FDR..'Z FOI\.1/ ,HO.tP/t.WE'l. N/l.t.PANEL. tR~e r I IOHP \ ...,. 1 PU.t-ll I FII>.M SALMoN c"'wwu.y c.o~Pklf.!>OR. r::-: • ..:...J I IS HP ·~.:.-~ PRE ll ._1\ I N A R Y I l')OI'.V,.._4 e-<, !> T •o-JS. j 4&01-1·o/'l·S kll ' H:e "'f."' &'i'ut P.--=--1 ~s'. '-o ttl. L_ Pli..QP011£b. TO I' II.1C.trr • CITY Of tc.IN(i C.OVE I I ---::: Pt$Ip, I I>IJTIQt.& ; I!•O!:>T 1~(0 L__ --·-·__J POWE RPI..AHT PfTI!:~ PAH ~EA FoClp) INC:, ~IH(LE LU-tE DIA.~'RAM fi(\URE PP-E 1 I' 'i I hOST"'". ..l • .., •••• b ~., .. , • p ... ""'.l.. :.l TO T"LiliKG _5§:(.1'10N (ili,WE'Q.}loo."1'<::>~ Colo.!Tit.OL ~'c.lltu.lS CIT'( f'.I:P£R. I'.U· EJDo~d~ r.:l§J~ w~ 0' L.:J oz E]l!>sJI~ro-~: . -EJBG EJ r;:;ll~~~~ .. o, EJ'4 1~~11~16~o, EJI<4 l~~u~~ro-o, 0 oz. Oz. Oz. LJ E)IA~I g: ~ 'r'Al. r;:J·M.· ~®®QS ~ L__J w:JAW o• kJ, . . . ®®o, t?l ·f!B tfLJ 7 ~ ~IDr®:~·o~ I ~s I E]l~l ~: Br:J®<D~! . . ·<3®o, I tflt!it~~-~~ EJ r::l 03 r::l 0 Ol ElM r;:;1 OJ 0 0 r..:-:1 t:J O'\ ~~ o.., t::J o<\ 15s] E) ~ EJ 05 EJ OS r=l r.\ r.:\ Os ~®6:>0" FfiC ~@6)0" LJ~~~o, a 0 · · ·· ··®® Q,. . ® 11 Ol ® II Q, Wll Wlol l.iiiJm_ . P.S-~Rt. -··. r:!iilm t:;o,. ~ ~~ ljl\ ~a· .. ! . :lfl" r 1 :-o,u, ~ljil) \!.:}: 't' OM SliD & 9 014 ~I.!!:LI \:.:1 ~. II\ • • ' :j . I . DI~TR.tlllmOW~OI:&. T:r TSJ ·..a!.liNil& ·s<-J\9!1 . &....--..,~~~. ;fiEtll:.» t'. ' l!f'Ji.S:..: '!lee. T\Q " ~-:-!' ~~·<-119&1 c.g~R-~IIC.'T1oo.! @>UAW:.I!J, 11£<-'T~Uo.l .. t ,. ~ ~ I • ' ~....; ............ ~ " ...... ~. , ... -...... .-,, ... O'"!f.., .. t -•t._.....,.~~,..,.....,..,.r•-r~ .. Wir. !·•~•.1'0"111l·l.-,. . .,_...,... I..) to. z. ... o. 3 ~o.+ ... 't h ... \·f"'t·. ~o.s 'J-,. ....... .-r-.-:r.. .. .-.. ~ .. , . ., ........ . ,..,.-:r-· J•t"". _, .... ·~·w • \ , ... L...- LE'E."--.P : L.O•..l <>oL PII..S.S'!>..Jil£. Z. IH I'(A."A'-il ft:J.\P. ~ ..,~E.RSI'£.ED 4 ~<.Eo vE A.~£. Poww.Jt. 5 Fll.t. 0.0111< Oil... P!le.!>SI!a.C:: <0 P"-E. Ml V<l""'lER. lliiMP. 1 PIJ~biJHb~ -I.-Iii 1\1\P Tello T ~ . 6 11. P'II..E S '!>yll.J! "' w"'1ea. 't£.t.'IP tC. FUfil.. t'~S\...,.II..E:. 1\ <>II.. nl. h\f't:lji.A1:UII.l l1 Tt>T"'-'· "ouR.,. \) e;,..,, •ui! "'otle: lA tON TR.QL Pe-!:iEL~ PRELIMINARY F RoN I EL.It VAT 10"-l PO~ER.PLANT PETER PAlo.! SEA Fooo S \I..JC. CONJ'ROL. PAI4e:.LC:, Flt;URE PP. E?. I I" . ~Rl ; ~::! /'\ -D.-a ! ..J w "" 0 U1 -J a 8. w .... z ~a .<( c:J a. L 11------1 Q... -· ..J .J a :t \J "2 w dl 0 ci. t---0 .; %1~1 0, O! et::i _. a cl. 1- 2 0 v .. .. ·,.- )-. .... Qt -.::::1 C) u.. ... "2 s VI O.cl~ dl o N & $ =# v•~\ ~ -0 ~ <::,; ~· ':# r 7.~ tJ omr S:::z ~"2 • VI~ ,·PowER --pc~N T __ NOT T"O Sc.AI...E. 1- -U"' z~ ~ !::~ z-:14 :::l t:-tO Zl* :;, 1- -c-...~ ~~ 1-_ -::z~ .:::l PE: 1"E.R. PI)..~ l / APPENDIX C Detailed Cost Estimates COST ESTIMATE 1,000 KW HYDROPROJECT KING COVE, ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fork Diversion Structure--Clear Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) Misc. Construction Items Subtotal Administration (10%) Eng. & Constr. Management (12.5%) Subtotal Contingency (20%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. Units Unit ___ , .... ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 560 6,950 300 6,900 2,600 18,150 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 27,850 505,240 17,750 243,000 1,164,000 206,100 335,500 2,541,220 254,100 317,700 3,113,020 622,600 3,735,620 USE 3,740,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 206 4,382 54 11700 422 2,344 9,416. ALASKA POYER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ............ ---------............................. -------------------·-·-------·--................... __ ., .. No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt _ .................. DETAIL --......... DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5@12'+7@7'=109') 130 LF 7.50 980 15.5 20 6"x8 11 x10' Treat. Tini:>er 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3"x611 T&G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sack rete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25 Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30 11 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20.00 16,800 Equir;xnent D6 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pump & Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- CLEAR FORK (allow 2/3 cost of Glacial Creek structure> 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ------------------·-----------------------------------------------------No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ........................... DETAIL (cont'd) --------------- PENSTOCK Materials Clear Creek Weir to Tank: 24 11 t! x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 580 LF 20.45 11,860 35.1 204 Glacial Fork Weir to Tank: 30 11 t! x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 780 LF 25.11 19,590 46.0 359 Tank to Top of Hill: 36"t! X 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 5,550 LF 29.80 165,390 55.0 3,053 Top of Hill to Powerhouse: 36 11 t! x 10 GA.*, Weld Bell 750 LF 28.80 21,600 55.0 413 *All pipe coated w/alkyd enamel outside & coal tar enamel lining. Drive Anchors & s.s. Bands 230 EA 75.00 17,250 50 115 4't! Culverts i Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 Timber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 4,382 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5-man crew) 350 20.00 7,000 Equipnent D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (90 10-hr days i 90'/day) Labor (7-man crew) 6,300 20.00 126,000 Equipnent Pipelayer, 561D 800 HR 35.00 28,000 350 966 FE Loader 800 HR 60.00 48,000 420 Tractor Trailer 800 HR 50.00 40,000 250 Equip. Install Cone. Deadman & Subtotal 1,020 Timber Cribs Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipnent LS 1, 000 SUBTOTAL 366,240 6,950 139,000 505,240 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt .......................... DETAIL (cont'd) --------------- TANK--8'~ x 15 1 HIGH WD. STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12" Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire #14 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 28 Installation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 11,750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 200 CY 200.00 40,000 23 4,600 20.00 92,000 700 1,400 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (1500 Sf) 1 EA 30,000 2,300 20.00 46,000 300 HVAC LS 25,000 Lighting LS 10,000 Subtotal 1, 700 SUBTOTAL 105,000 6,900 138,000 243,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ---·--·····-· ............................... -··-----·----------------------- _______ .,.,.. ____ No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate cost & Labor Unit CWt ................. DETAIL (cont'd) -------·-------MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator wtaccessories (1-400 KW & 1·600 KW) LS 450,000 900 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipment, and Grounding System LS 80,000 Installation of Above 2,500 38.00 95,000 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel 1 EA 21,000 21 Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38.00 13,680 King Cove Junction Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 SCAOA (COIJ1:)lete) 75,000 Subtotal 701,000 3,040 115,520 816,520 996 Job Supervision 2.0 MOS 6,000 12,000 Air Fare 12 RT 700 8,400 Rm. & Board 400 MO 80 32,000 Flatbed Truck. 2.0 MOS 1,600 3,200 Pickup 2.0 MOS 1,200 2,400 Freight 996 CWT 15 14,900 Small Tools (5% of Labor Cost) 5,800 Mob/Demob 25,000 Subtotal 920,220 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5%) 243,900 Total Contract Cost 1, 164,120 USE 1,164,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE < 1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy ~illiams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT _ ............................. -------·--···---····--··---·-------·------------------·-.--·-No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit C~t • • •I• • ----------............. --------..... -...... --.... ---____ .. ,.. ___ DETAIL (cont'd) --------------.. UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE·-12.47 KV, 3~, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single~ cables plus a neutral, buried w/30 11 cover. Splices will be in sectionalizer cabinets spaced a 2500'. 3.7 miles x 5280'/mile = 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 KV Cable--#2 Copper (20 X 3~ X 1.15 = 69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral #2 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 . Trench Excavation & Backfill--Excavate, haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 = 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equipment CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) W/ 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY Dump Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Labor 1 Foreman 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equipment Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. Equipment Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) QUANTITY No. Units DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTI<>N ITEMS surveying & Staking Job Supervision 6 Freight 9,416 Air Fare 10 Flatbed Truck 6 Pickups (2 ea.) 12 Purchaser/Timekeeper 6 Small Tools & Supplies (5% on Labor) Mob/Demob SUBTOTAL Unit LS MOS Cloll RT MOS MOS MOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 36,000 141,200 7,000 9,600 14,400 24,000 18,300 75,000 335,500 FREIGHT lolt/ Unit Total Clolt COST ESTIMATE 400 KW HYDROPROJECT KING COVE, ALASKA KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account labor) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Transmission Line (3.7 mi.) Misc. Construction Items Subtotal Administration (10%) Eng. & Constr. Management (12.5X) Subtotal Contingency (20%) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. Units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 6,250 300 4,140 2,600 14,130 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 402,000 17,750 143,800 723,000 206,100 265,000 1, 799,430 179,900 224,900 2,204,230 440,800 2,645,030 USE 2,650,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 2,837 54 1,000 422 2,344 6,965 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT --------.. ------------------~~--~------·-···-A·-------·--·-· ................. _____ No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials 'Jt/ Total units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit C'Jt ___ .............. DETAIL .... -...... DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE·· GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5Q12'+ni7'=109') 130 LF 7.50 980 15.5 20 611 x8 11 x10' Treat. Tintler 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 311 x6" T&G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sack rete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trash rack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25' Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30" 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 Laborers-·12 10-hr days> 840 20 16,800 Equipment 06 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pump & Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ........................... -------·····------------~·--------------··----... ... -..................... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ••• 1... -.... --... ... ---............. -----..... -... -........ --............. --------- DETAIL (cont'd) ............................. _ ........... PENSTOCK··GLACIAL CREEK WEIR TO TANK TO POWERHOUSE Materials 24 11 -)( 10 GA. '0' Ring w/Alkyd outside & coal tar enamel lining 7,100 LF 20.45 145,200 35.1 2,492 Drive Anchors & s.s. Bands 210 EA 75.00 15,750 50 105 4'-Culverts a Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 . Timber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 2,837 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor C5·man crew) 350 20 7,000 Equipment D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (80 10-hr days a 90 1 /day) Labor (7-man crew) 5,600 20 112,000 Equipment Pipelayer, 561D 700 HR 35.00 24,500 350 966 FE Loader 700 HR 60.00 42,000 420 Tractor Trailer 700 HR 50.00 35,000 250 Equip. Install Cone. Deadnan & Subtotal 1,020 Timber Cribs Labor 300 20 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 277,000 6,250 125,000 402,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ........................... _____ ................ ____ --------------------····--··----..... -........................ No. unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ...................... DETAIL (cont'd) ...................................... TANK·-8 1 -X 15 1 HIGH WD. STAVE Materials Tank. 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12 11 Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire 114 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 28 Installation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 111750 300 6,000 171750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 120 CY 200 24,000 23 2,760 20 55,200 700 840 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (800 SF) 1 EA 16,000 1,380 20 27,600 160 HVAC LS 15,000 Lighting LS 6,000 Subtotal 1,000 SUBTOTAL 61,000 4,140 82,800 143,800 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy WiLLiams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT -----·-----------------------------------------------------.............................. No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt ---------DETAIL (cont'd) ------·-------- MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/accessories LS 190,000 360 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipment, and Grounding System LS 70,000 Installation of Above 1,600 38 60,800 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel 1 EA 21,000 21 Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38 13,680 King Cove Junction Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38 3,420 SCADA (Celq)lete) 75,000 Subtotal 416,000 2,050 n,9oo 493,900 441 Job Supervision 1.5 MOS 6,000 9,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 Rm. & Board 270 MD 80 21,600 Flatbed Truck 1.5 MOS 1,600 2,400 Pickup 1.5 MOS 1,200 1,800 Freight 441 CWT 15 6,600 Small Tools (5% of Labor Cost) 3,900 Mob/Demob 25,000 Subtotal 571,200 Contract O.H. & Profit <26.5%) 151,400 Total Contract Cost 722,600 USE 723,000 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Force Account labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT -----------------------------···------------------------------··--·-........ No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & labor Unit CWt ........................ DETAIL (cont 1 d) ---·---·-----..... UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE·-12.47 KV, 31, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single I cables plus a neutral, buried w/30 11 cover. Splices will be in sectionalizer cabinets spaced i 2500'. 3.7 miles x 5280 1 /mile = 19,536 1 USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 KV Cable--#2 Copper (20 X 31 X 1.15 • 69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral #2 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 Trench Excavation & Backfill--Excavate, haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 = 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equipment CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) with 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 75.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY Dump Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 labor 1 Foreman 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equipment Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. Equif:lllent Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account Labor) QUANTITY No. Units DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job Supervision 5 Freight 6,965 Air Fare 9 Flatbed Truck 5 Pickups (2 ea.) 10 Purchaser/Timekeeper 5 Small Tools & Supplies (5X on Labor) Mob/Demob SUBTOTAL Unit LS MOS CWT RT MOS MOS MOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 30,000 104,500 6,300 8,000 12,000 20,000 14,200 60,000 265,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit Total CWt APPENDIX D Fish and Game Correspondence ,, (·, ('~ ALASKA POWER AIJTHORITY 334 WEST 5th AVENUE· ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 July 20, 1984 Denby Lloyd, Habitat Biologist Department of Fish and Game 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Phone: (90n 2n · 7641 (90n 21s.ooo1 Subject: Mitigation for the Proposed Small Hydro Project near King Cove Dear Mr. Lloyd: This letter is written to confirm the important points from our conversation of July 17. They are listed below. 1. From Bill Britt's memory and his conversation with Laurel Bennett, it seems that the velocity barrier on Delta Creek is several hundred feet above the ?rop~sed power- house location. The 19 pink salmon in Table 4 of DOWL's May 1984 environmental report were within that stretch. Therefore, the Alaska Power Authority's nomination of the entire stretch above the powerhouse for deletion from the Anadromous Fish Catalog is in error. 2. The limited anadromous fish resource between the power- house and the velocity barrier requires protection or mitigation appropriate to its value. 3. The road which follows Delta Creek and its tributary, Airport Creek, down to Leonard Harbor apparently crosses the creeks a number of times. Those portions of the creeks (below the powerhouse) are important anadromous resource for pink salmon. Rerouting portions of the road to go along side the creek--eliminating some stream fords--should provide inexpensive mitigation which outweighs the damage done to the area between the power- house and the velocity barrier. 4. The mitigation described above, along with appropriate design of the powerhouse and tailrace (i.e., design to minimize erosion, etc.) should provide mitigation that meets the requirements of AS16.05.870. · 3072/251/d2/fl Page 2 (. The four paragraphs above are the salient points of our conversa- tion as I remember it. If your recollection is any different, please let me know. Sincerely, ,....... .' ,1 . /'· Boh;1 Loeffle.r ;:' Jj/; :~::~70v cc: Lamarr Cotton, City Manager, King Cove f·1e 1 Ni cho 1 s, OOWL Bill Britt, OOWL Lance Trasky, Dept. of Fish and Game 3072/251/d2/fl APPENDIX E 400 kW Economic Analysis Spreadsheets Table 2·A KING COllE HYOROPOIIER FEASIBILITY Low Diesel Fuel Price Forecast Load Forecast Assll11't ions Diesel Systeft'l Asslflt)tions Hydroproject As~tlons ...................................... ! ~ ~ -------~-~~ ~-~------. -~----.. -·----------.... ---__________ ,. -~--.----------------------~---.---~ ~ ~-----------.. ,. City Load Factor = 50.0% Fvel Escalation Rate: LOW Construction Cost *' S2,650f000 Pett:f' Pan Load Factor = ro.ox 1988 Avg. Fuel Price • 10.80 /gal Financing cost x S15Z,OOO Cormu"li ty Load Growth z 2.0% City Efficiency • 12 kWh/gal Total Cost = S2,802,000 Peter Pon Efficiency • 15 kllh/gol Annual Oebt Service • 11263,000 EcOI"!!ff'ic Parameters EcOI"'CCfttie life • 20 years Unit 1 = 400 kll ---------____ ,._ --_____ ,. ------------Repl ac:ement Cost • sroo tkllh unit 2 • 0 kll Nominal Interest Rate = 8.0% City 0 & M Cost = $0.03 /kWh Installed Cope<:ity • 400 leW Annual lnflati on Rete ::: 4.5!1: Peter Pan 0 & M Cost = 10.02 /kWh Head • 313 ft Reat DiSCOll"'t Rate = 3.5X Efficiency = 85l ECONON!C ANALYSIS 0 & II Cost • 10.016 /kWh ~ ~ w------------·~ 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ZOO I ENERGY REQUIREMENTS <kWh) I City load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326.837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,1.69,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,3% z.6n,804 2,126,260 2, reo, 786 2 Pet~r Pan lo&d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total COIIYIU1ity load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,373,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,672,804 2,126,260 2,780, 786 DIESEL fl!fl RATES 4 Annual Escalation Rate 2.0X 2.01 2.0% 2.0% 2.0!!: 2.0% 2.0% 2.0!!: 2.0% o.ox o.ox o.ox o.os o.ox 5 Fuel Price (1987 Sigal) 0.54 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 BASE CASE ANALYSIS city system 6 Firm CapacitY (k'W) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 roo roo roo 7 Capacity Addlt ions (k'W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 Capital Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro,ooo 0 420,000 0 11 Fuel costs (1987 $) 94,837 143,309 149,099 155,122 161,389 167,910 174,693 181,751 189,093 196,733 204,681 2oo,n4 Z12,950 217,Z09 221,553 12 0 & M Costs (1987 $) 63,225 64,469 65,779 67,094 68,436 69,805 71,201 72,625 74,078 75,559 n,o7o 78,612 80,184 81,788 83,424 13 Total City Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 214,878 222,217 229,826 237,715 245,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,386 293,134 718,997 304,9n Peter Pan System 14 Firm Capacity (k'W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel use (gatlons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 tapi tal Costs (1967 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 & M Costs (1987 Sl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 $) 158,062 207,798 214,878 222,217 229,826 237,715 2,5,894 254,376 263,171 272,292 281,751 357,386 293,134 718,997 304,977 HYDROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Firm Capecity (kW) 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 24 Diesel Capecfty Additions (k\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Cape<:ity Replac"""'"ts (leW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 Mydroelectric Generation (k\lh) 2, 168,n4 2,205,772 2,243,273 2,Z81,523 2,320,539 2,360,335 2,400,927 2,442,330 2,479,936 2,513,699 2,544,422 2,575,760 2,607,724 27 Oiesel Generation (kWh) 2,107,488 2,149,638 Z3,907 30,711 37,940 45,314 52,835 60,506 68,331. 76,313 89,081 106,697 128,382 150,501 173,062 28 Diesel Fuel Use (gollonol 140,499 143,309 1,594 2,047 2,529 3,021 3,5Z2 4,034 4,555 5,088 5,939 7,113 8,559 10,033 11,537 29 Captial Costs (1987 $) 0 2,802,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro,ooo 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 75,aro 114,647 1,301 1,704 2,147 2,616 3,111 3,634 4,186 4,769 5,678 6,801 8,183 9,593 11,031 31 o & M Costs (1987 $) 42,150 42,993 34,310 35,024 35,754 36,498 37,257 38,031 38,821 39,6Z7 40,469 41,348 42,261 43,192 44,142 32 Total A,...l Coots (1987 S) 118,019 2,959,640 35,611 36,728 37,901 39,114 40,368 41,665 43,007 44,395 46,11,6 48,148 50,443 122,785 55,172 • Tabte 2·A (cont'd) ECOIIOMIC ANALYSIS --------.. ~-----.. - 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ENE~GY REQUIREMENTS (klit>) 1 City lOad 2,836,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131.616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 2 Peu~r Pan Load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total C"""'-"lty Load 2,836,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,0'70,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 DIESEL FUEL RATE$ 4 Anrx.H!il Esca\ation Rate o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox o.ox 0.0 5 fuel Price ( 1987 Sigal) 0.96 0.96 0.96 ~.96 0.96 0.96 0.~ 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0,96 BASE CASE ANALYSIS City System 6 Finn capacity (101) 700 700 700 '700 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 7 Cepocity A<:fdltlons (k~) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacoments {k~) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 DiHei fuel use (gallons) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,851 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 10 Capital Costs !1987 S) 0 0 0 '70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Fuel Costs ( 1987 $) 225,984 230,504 235,114 239,816 244,613 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 ~49,505 12 o & M Costs (1987 $) 85,092 86,794 88,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total City Costs (1967 $) 311,076 317,298 323,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 Peter Pen System 14 Firm capacity (k\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Cap I tal Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & M costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pan Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total Annual Costs (1987 S) 311,076 317,298 323,644 400,117 686,719 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 343,453 KYDROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Firm Capacity (k~) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 24 Diesel Capacity Additions (k~> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity Rl!1'la<:ements (k~l 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric G~retion (k~) 2,640,328 2,673,583 2,707,504 2, 742,103 2,m,394 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,612,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 27 Diesel Generation (k\lt) 196,074 219,546 243,488 267,909 292,818 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 28 Diesel Fuel Use (gatlons) 13,072 14,636 16,233 17,861 19,521 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 29 Captial Costs (1967 S) 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 12,497 13,993 15,520 17,076 18,664 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 20,338 31 o & M costs ( 1987 S) 45,111 46,099 47,107 48,135' 49,184 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 32 Total Annual Costs (1987 S) 57,608 60,092 62,626 65,211 417,847 TO, 595 70,595 70,595 70,595 i'll.595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 70,595 Table 2·8 KIWG COVE HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY Migh Diesel Fuel Price Forecast load Forecast A$S.LJI1)tions Oiesel System Asslfi'Ptions Hydroprojoct At'"""'tiQnll ---~------~ ----·-----~-~~ ~ ---........ -----............ -.. ----.... ---...... --...... --..... ---.---...... ---......... --.. --------.. -...... ----.... -- City load Factor = 50.0% fuel Escalation Rate; HIGH Construction Cost = $2,650,000 Peter Pan Load Factor • 70.01: 1988 Avg. Fuel Price • $0.80 /!I'll Financing Cost • $152,000 COIMUli ty Load Growth :c 2.01: City Efficiency = 12 klll/pl Total Coat • $2_,802,000 Peter Pen Efficteney • 15 klll/pl Arnuet Oebt Service • $263,000 Econo~~ie Parameters EcOf"'CCIfC Ufe s 20 years Unit 1 = 400 kll ----...... -.... ----.... --.... ---------............ Replacement Cost c $700 /kill Unit 2 • Okll Ncnfnel Interest Rate 'S 8.01: City o & M Cost • $0.03 /kill Installed Capacity • 400 kW Arnue:l Inflation Rate • 4.5% Peter Pan o & M Cost • $0.02 /kill Heed • 313 ft Real Oisc<M.r~t Rate = 3.5% Efftcienc:y • 8511 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 0 & " Cost • $0.016 /kill ---~~ ---------~-- 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (kll!) 1 City Load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,313,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,6n,804 z,n6,260 2, 7110,786 2 Peter Pan load 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total COOIIniM'Ilty Load 2,107,488 2,149,638 2,192,631 2,236,483 2,281,213 2,326,837 2,313,374 2,420,841 2,469,258 2,518,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 z,6n,804 2,n6,Z60 2,780,786 DIESEL FUEL RATES 4 Annual Escalation bte 3.5% 3.5% 3.5ll 3.5" 3.5ll 3.511 3.511 3.5'1: 3.511 3.5% 3.5" 3.511 3.5% 3.5% 5 Fuel Price (1987 Sigal) 0.54 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21 1.25 BASE CASE ANALYSIS City Syste1D 6 Firm Capacity (kWl 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 7 Capacity Ad::Utions (k\J) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacements (k:\J) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,o 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 9 Diesel Fuel use (gttllons) 175,624 179,136 182,719 186,374 190,101 193,903 197,781 201,737 205,m 209,887 214,085 218,366 222,734 227,188 231,732 10 Capital Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,000 0 11 Fuel Costs ( 1987 $) 94,837 143,309 151,292 159,718 168,615 178,007 187,922 198,389 209,439 221,105 233,420 246,422 260,148 274,638 289,935 12 0 & M Costs (1987 $) 63.225 64,489 65,779 67,094 68,436 69,805 71,201 72,625 74,078 75,559 77,070 78,612 80,1114 81,788 83,424 13 Total City Costs !1987 S) 158,062 207,798 217,070 226,813 237,051 247,812 259,123 271,014 283,517 296,664 310,491 395,034 340,332 776,426 373,359 Peter Pan System 14 firm Capacity CkU) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (k\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacl ty Replacements CkW> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capita\ Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Costs ( 1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o & M Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Total Peter Pen Costs ( 1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Toto( Annua( Costs (1987 S) 158,062 207,798 217,070 226,813 237,051 247,812 259,123 271,014 283,517 296,664 310,491 395,034 340,332 776,426 373,359 MYDROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Firm Capa<:ity (kW) 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 24 D1esel Capecity Additions (leW) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Copocity Replac""""'ts (kWJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 26 Hydroelectric Generation (k:Wh) 2" 168~n4 2,2os,m 2,243,213 2,281,523 2,320,539 2,360,335 2,400,927 2,442,330 2,47'9,936 2,513,699 2,544,422 2,575,760 2,607,n4 27 Diesel Generation (kWh) 2,107,488 2,149,638 23,907 30,711 37,940 45,314 52,835 60,506 68,331 76,313 89,081 106,697 128,382 150,501 113,062 28 Diesel Fuel Use (goltonsl 140,499 143,309 1,594 2,047 2,529 3,021 3,522 4,034 4,555 5,088 5,939 7,113 8,559 10,033 11,537 29 Coptlol Costo <1987 I) 0 2,802,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 SJ 75,870 114,647 1,320 1,755 2,243 2,m 3,347 3,967 4,637 5,359 6,475 11,027 9,996 12,129 14,435 31 0 & M Costs ( 1987 S) 42,150 42,993 34,310 35,024 35,754 36,498 37,257 38,031 38,821 39,6<!7 40,469 41,348 42,261 43,192 44,142 32 Total Annual Costs (1987 Sl 118,019 2,959,640 35,630 36, 77'9 37,997 39,271 40,604 41,998 43,458 44,986 46,944 49,375 52,257 125,321 58,577 Table 2-B (cont'd) ECOIO!IC ANAlYSIS ~-~ ----------w.-- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ENERGY REQUIREMENT$ (kWh) 1 City Load 2,1!36,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 2 Peter Pan Loed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 To tnt Camu'li ty load 2,1!36,401 2,893,129 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,070,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 OIESEl fU£l RATES 4 Annual Escalation Rate 3.5X 3.51 3.511: 3.5X 3.511: O.Oll: O.Oll: o.ox O.Oll: O.Oll: O.Oll: O.Oll: O.Oll: O.Oll: O,Oll: o.o 5 Fuel Price (1967 S/gal) 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 BASE CASE ANAlYSIS City System 6 firm Capecity (kill roo 700 700 roo 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 800 1100 1100 1100 800 7 Capacity Addition& (kli) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Capacity Replacements (k:W) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 236,367 241,094 245,916 250,834 255,1!51 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 260,968 10 Copitel Costs (1967 S) 0 0 0 70,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 306,084 323,133 341 '132 360,133 380,192 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 401,369 12 0 & M Costs (1987 S) 85,092 86,794 08,530 90,300 92,106 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 93,948 13 Total City Costs (1987 S) 391,177 409,927 429,662 520,433 822,299 495,318 495,318 ,95,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 PPter Pan System 14 Firm Capacity (k\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Capacity Additions (k\1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Capacity ~eplocements (k:\4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Capital Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 & M Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Totat Peter Pan Costs (1987 S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 rout Annual Costs (1987 S) 391,177 409,927 429,662 520,433 822,299 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 495,318 HYOROPROJECT ANALYSIS 23 Firm CapacitY (kW) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 24 Diesel Capacity Additions (k.W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Capacity Replacements (kW) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Hydroelectric Generation (k.\olh) 2,640,328 2,673,583 2,707,504 2,742,103 2,m,394 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812, 532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 2,812,532 27 Diesel G~raHon (kWh) 196,074 219,546 243,408 267,909 292,818 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 319,084 28 Diesel fuel Use (gallons) 13,072 14,636 16,233 17,861 19,521 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 21,272 . 29 Ceptlal Costs (1987 $) 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Fuel Costs (1987 $) 16,927 19,617 22,518 25,643 29,008 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717· 32,717 32,717 32.717 32,717 32,717 32,717 32,717 31 0 & H Costs (1987 S) 45,111 46,099 47,107 48,135 49,184 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 32 Total Anrv..ml Costs (1987 S) 62,038 65,716 69,624 73,778 428,192 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 82,974 APPENDIX F Response to City of King Cove Re_quests· • CITY OF KING COVE P.O. Box 37 • King Cove, Alaska 99612 • (907) 497-2340 January 20, 1988 Dave Denning-Chakroff Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Dave: At our January 14 meeting, I outlined several requests the City has for technical assistance from the Alaska Power Authority (APA) on the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and also some general technical questions that we would like answered. Attached is a list of the technical assistance requests and a separate attachment identifying questions on technical development of the project. I request APA provide me a written response to the requests for assistance and the technical concerns by February 3. Please contact me to let me know if you have questions on our requests. sfrJ;l~ Wayr1e r-1arsha ll City f-lanager 1007 w. 3rd., Suite 201 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 274-7555 attachments ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF KI~G COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTA~CE FROM APA The City, in its efforts to accomplish development of the King Cove hydroelectric project, requests the following technical assistance from APA staff. Reauest #1. Identify the cost to construct a hydroelectric project that meets the City's existing need and projected future demand for electric power. In short, to downsize the proposed 1,000 KW hydroelectric project to one which serves only King Cove needs. The City's intent is to determine if it is feasible for the community to proceed with constructing a project if Peter Pan Seafoods does agree to be a significant purchaser of hydropower. The City requests APA prepare a detailed cost estimate to construct a downsized project, using the cost estimate format that is included in the March and August feasibility report on the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. In preparing a cost estimate to construct a downsized project, the City would also like an estimate on the cost that may be incurred to expand this project in the future to provide for additional power generation. The intent is to demonstrate to Peter Pan, the City Council and other parties the cost that would be incurred if the City builds the downsized project and later finds it to its advantage to construct a larger project. All construction cost estimates should be expressed in January 1, 1988 dollars. Request #2. Perform an electric utility rate analysis of the present King Cove electric utility. The intent is to clearly identify the amount of monies the City will need to recover above and beyond the cost to generate power from the hydroelectric project to pay all cost the City incurs to provide electric service. In short, what are the costs involved to provide electric service and what KW rate will the City need to charge to pay these costs and build an operating reserve. For example, the present feasibility report estimates construction of a 1,000 KW plant at a cost of $3.9 million will involve an electric KW cost of 8.3 cents to pay for the power generated. If it costs 8.3 cents to pay for power generated, how much higher rate does the City need to charge to pay operational costs. This analysis is of key importance to the Council in determining if the City has the financial resources available to pursue construction of the hydroelectric project, particularly if a downsized project built. The City wants to avoid an increase in utility consumer rates by constructing the project. Request #3. The City is concerned that the operation and maintenance cost identified by APA, approximately 1/3 cent/ KW, may be unrealistic for the long term operation and maintenance of the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. The City would like APA to reexamine the projected O&M cost, and clearly identify all costs involved with performing future O&M, and how these costs affect the cost of power generated from the hydropower project. The City, as the proposed owner of the facility, will be responsibile for all future O&M costs, and needs as clear of direction as possible on these costs. The magnitude of future O&M costs will also greatly affect the Council's decision as to if the City can afford to proceed with construction of the project. Request #4. Identify possible methods and provide examples of potential power sales agreements the City could enter with Peter Pan Seafoods to obtain their commitment to participate in the project. The intent is to clearly identify all options available to the City in trying to attract private industry participation in the project and guarantee private industry purchase of power generated from the hydroelectric facility. Request #5. To date, APA has prepared the March feasibility report for the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and followed that with an August letter to the City identifying APA's response to questions the City raised. The City requests APA prepare a composite report that pulls information from both of these reports and all appropriate other data needed to prepare a final feasibility report on the King Cove Project. This report is of critical importance to the City so it can pursue financing sources to construct the project other than those that may be available through the APA. Information on project cost, financial analysis, and project benefit to the City are critical. In preparing this composite report, the City requests APA use a base fuel cost of $0.80 per gallon. In a January 18 conversation I had with Delta Western, the primary fuel carrier to King Cove, the company stated that $0.80 is the most accurate price that should be used for delivery of fuel to King Cove in January of 1988. Delta Western also stated that the potential ranges that had been experienced over the last two month to three months for the delivery cost to King Cove have been within $0.·75-.85 per gallon. The City believes the $0.80 figure is the most appropriate, and should supplant the $0.54 per gallon cost that has been used in recent cost projections. Request #6. Provide descriptive information on how a turnkey project would work for the community. At present the City Council is looking at a turnkey operation as a potential way to allow private construction of the project and fix or minimize any construction cost overruns which would be the City's responsibility. The City would like any available information on using this methodology to construct a hydroelectric project, and preferably examples of communities which have used this method. Request #7. Provide a detailed financial analysis on construction of the project using the City as the owner/builder. Some financing questions we request APA respond to are: 1) If State bond monies are used, is there any potential to ramp a payment schedule to minimize or decrease initial costs on repayment of the annual debt service? 2) Does the City have the option to do an early repayment of the bonds which would be issued for this project? The City believes that Peter Pan Seafood's participation in the project may enable it to more rapidly repay the bonded indebtness. Are there any penalities or prohibitions normally associated with early repayment. 3) The State presently uses the Power Cost Equalization Program to subsidize the City's cost to generate power. If the hydroelectric project is constructed what, if any, guarantee can be used from the Power Cost Equalization Program payments to assist in securing the issuance of bonds? 4) The City, if it assumes the responsibility to be the project builder/owner, will need to assume the risk of cost overruns on project construction. The City requests APA explore methods of using APA's self-insurance arrangement to protect the City against construction cost overruns. 5) Prepare and provide to the City, a list of tables identifying variable interest rates to finance project construction. I would like these tables to start at a 6% rate of interest and increase to 9 1/2%, using variations of l/2% of interest. Request #8. Provide an analysis of the amount of PCE benefit to King Cove consumers if it costs the City 8.34/KW to generate power from the hydropower project. The City needs to know the amount of decrease in PCE subsidy it may experience from converting to hydropower. Request #9. The City is strongly considering trying to establish a working group to address construction of the King Cove Hydroelectric Project and would like APA to consider being a member of this working group. The group would most likely involve the City Attorney, APA, potentially the Farmers Home Administration, City Bond Counsel and also Peter Pan Seafoods. The working group may involve travel to Seattle and I would like APA to insure it has the ability to expend State monies to travel to Seattle if necessary. 0119.1 ATTACHMENT 2 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROJECT AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1. Some concern has been raised with the ability of the hydroelectric project to provide good quality power for the City of King Cove, particularly if the City goes with a downsized project. The City would like to know if any of the existing demands and loads of its residential, commercial and municipal consumers would have an adverse impact on the power generated from the hydroproject. For example, it has been rumored that the start of some generators/engine motors could have the affect of causing the power generated from the hydroproject to "brown-out" for brief periods of time. It has also been stated that the City may need to use diesel power to supplement the hydropower to prevent this "brown- out" condition. In short, the City needs to know if the power from the hyde- project will be of such a quality that it can continuously meet the demand from residential, commercial, and municipal utilities in the community. In addition, if the project constructed involves Peter Pan Seafoods which has motors, generators, etc. that require large surges of power, in the 50-100 KW range, can the hydroelectric project meet this demand without causing adverse impacts to the quality of power to other consumers in the communities? 2. If the 1,000 KW plant is constructed, the City needs direction from APA on how the power that would be used by the City of ~ing Cove can be separated from the power used by Peter Pan Seafoods. In short, if the City agrees to sell Peter Pan Seafoods a block of 200 or 400 KW power for X number of months how does the City insure it is delivering that block of power? The City needs a response to help it in its power sales negotiations with Peter Pan Seafoods and to alleviate concerns that it will be difficult if not impractical to guarantee a specific block of power to a consumer, such as Peter Pan, through using the City's utility system. 3. What is the life expectancy of using an underground transmission system for the main cable to distribute power from the hydroplant to the City of King Cove verses the life expectancy of an overhead cable system? In addition, what are projected annual operating and maintenance costs on an underground verses an overhead system? The City would like this analysis completed so it can determine if an overhead line may have some advantages to the underground system and if it using an overhead line would assist in accomplishing project construction. 4. Some individuals in King Cove have questioned if it is feasible and practical to run individual service connections from the main distribution cable that is transmitting power from the hydroelectric project to King Cove. It is my understanding that this can be done with no problems to the main transmission cable. I request APA concur with this analysis or identify potential problems with doing individual service connections to the main transmission cable. 5. To what extent, if any, will the City need to supplement the hydropower with diesel power? Also, will the City need to purchase a smaller diesel generator to efficiently provide this supplemental power? If so, what are the estimated cost and sizing of the diesel generator recommended? 0119.1 March 24, 1988 Mr. Wayne Marshall City Manager City of King Cove 1007 West Third Suite 201 ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear.Mrw~: Steve Cowper. Governor Enclosed are responses to the questions you submitted to us under Attachment 1 of your letter dated January 20, 1988. Afzal Khan has discussed with you by telephone the questions contained in Attachment 2. He intends to respond to these questions in writing next week. have any questions regarding the enclosed material, feel free to or Mike Hubbard. id Denig-Chakroff Project Manager DDC:tg Enclosures as stated cc: Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Afzal Khan, Alaska Power Authority Michael Hubbard, Alaska Power Authority 2166/0034/1 2 PO. Box AM Juneau. Alaska 99811 (907) 465-3575 K PO Box 190869 701 East Tudor Road Anchorage Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 A~skaPowerAu~orl~ Response to City of King Cove Requests Regarding the King Cove Hydroelectric Project March 24, 1988 Request #1: Construction ~ost Enclosed are revised cost estimates for the King Cove Hydroelectric Project. The estimates assume the use of force account labor except for mechanical and electrical engineering work that would be carried out under contract. Estimates for the 400-kW and 1,000-kW project proposals also reflect the reduced cost of transmission line construction since one-third of the required line will be constructed using funds acquired, in the Governor's Jobs 8ill. None of the cost estimates include financ- ing costs. ) Exhibit A estimates the construction cost of a 400-kW hydroelectric project to be $2.65 million. The cost of a 1,000-kW project, shown in Exhibit 8, is estimated at $3.74 million. Exhibit C estimates the cost (in 1987 dollars) of upgrading a 400-kW project to a 1,000-kW at some later date to be $1.95 million. Consequently, a "staged'1 1,000-kW project would cost $4.60 million in 1987 dollars. The revised 400-kW and 1,000-kW project cost estimates have been incorporat- ed into the revised economic analyses enclosed. All cost estimates can be converted to January 1988 dollars by applying a four percent infla- tion factor. Request #2: Rate Analysis As stated in my letter of February 2, 1988, we are unable to respond to this request due to our present staffing level and workloads. Request 13: OIM Costs Table 1 shows estimated operation and maintenance costs for the 400-kW and 1,000-kW project proposals. These O&M costs have been included in the revised economic analyses. 2097/0033(1} ... "'" Table 1 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs 400 kW 1 2000 kW Personnel Costs Operator ($50,000/yr) $12,500 $16,700 Temporary Hires 5,000 5,000 Equipment Pickup 7,100 7,100 Miscellaneous Rental 5,000 5,500 Supplies Lubricants and Cleaners 500 600 Spare parts, bulbs, charts, etc. 1,000 1,300 Janitorial Supplies 200 200 Subtotal 31,300 36,400 Admin. and Overhead (10%) 3 1100 31 600 TOTAL $ 34,400 $ 40,000 Annual Energy (kWh) 2,200,000 5,200,000 O&M COST PER KWH 1.56¢ 0. 77¢ Request #4: Power Sales Agreements Power sales agreements between the City and Peter Pan Seafoods (PPS) could range from single as-required/as-available transfers to actual ownership shares. The type of arrangement best suited for the City will be a function of the size of project installed and its operating charac- teristics, the load growth experienced in the community, the willingness to accept risk, the financial and economic trade-offs from one option to the next, and security requested by the lending institution. One important factor to consider when negotiating long-term layoff agreements is how the resource fits with the load requirements. In the case of run-of-river hydro, water cannot be stored to generate power as it is needed. Thus, at times there may be excess generation that cannot be used by the City. At other times, there may be inadequate hydro generation, and diesels must be used as a supplement. Cost obligations in the agreements should take into account whether or not the power is "firm." If the power is firm, than a customer such as PPS can count on it to be there under all but extraordinary circum- 2097/0033(2) . stances. This reduces the need for additional capacity, and fixed costs should be included in the price. If the power is non-firm, then addi- tional capacity must be maintained in the event that the power is unavailable. In this case, the price may contain only variable costs of production, but split-the-savings concepts are common. Split-the- savings sets prices at a rate midway between the variable cost of production and the variable cost of the alternative power. The following arrangements that the City might consider each offer their own advantages and disadvantages. Selection should take into account those factors outlined above; and all parties, including lending insti- tutions, should be included to some extent in drafting such agreements. As-available/As-required: If the City had excess power available, a transfer would occur if PPS required it. Requirements would be based on a specified priority, such as hydro first or diesel first. In the first case, excess hydro generation would be sold if PPS was operating. In the second case, sales would occur only if PPS was operating and their_ own diesel generation could not meet their load. The maximum price for this type of transfer would be the variable cost of pps•s alternative cost of production, which will be significantly higher than the variable cost of hydro generation. Pricing strategies that the City might want to consider include a percentaqe of the alter- native cost or a split-the-savings rate. Declining-Block Layoff: In this scenario, the City would provide PPS with a percentage share of the project with its respective benefits and obligations. In anticipation of an increasing City load, the percentage share transfer to PPS would decline each year. The amount the share declines can be at a specified amount or based on a formula. Pricing would include both fixed and variable costs since the power would be firm. PPS may be reluctant to pay all the costs assochted with their share as they would not incur all the long-term benefits due to their declining share. Fixed Layoff: This would be the same as the declining-block layoff, but the percentage share would remain the same over time. Other: Even with a declining-block or fixed layoff, there may be need for supplemental non-firm transfers in the event a portion of one party•s energy is unusable. These transfers can be accompanied by money or can be 11 banked 11 for the right of similar energy in the future. In all of the above cases, it is assumed that the City would be owner of the project. Even with long-term layoffs to PPS, the City would be obligated to the creditors for the entire amount borrowed in the event PPS defaulted. An alternative would he for PPS to be partial owner, although this may reduce some of the control that the City has over the project. 2097/0033(3} Request #5: Feasibility The revised cost estimates (Request #1), O&M costs (Request #2), base fuel cost (Request #5), and financing costs have been incorporated into the economic ana lyses spreadsheets from the Draft feasi bi 1 i tv report (Tables 2 and 3). The result shows that, under the low fuel-price esc a 1 at ion forecast, the 400-kW project propos a 1 has a cost-to-cost ratio of 1.44 as compared to the continued use of diesel generation under the base case. The 1,000-kW proposal has a cost-to-cost ratio of 1.56. Once the assumptions in these economic analyses have been reviewed and approved by the City of King Cove, the Power Authority will finalize the feasibility report. Request #6: Turnkey Contracts If the City is concerned about the accurateness of the construction cost estimates, a turnkey contract may be able to "lock in" a particular. construction cost. Such a contract would set the price for which the· project would be built, with penalty clauses in the event the project does not operate according to specifications. Provisions for change-. orders due to unforeseen events are typically included in the contract. While a turnkey contract appears to eliminate certain risks, the City must also consider: 1. The bidded cost may be higher than under a non-turnkey con- tract to compensate the bidder's additional risk. 2. Cost underruns do not accrue to the City. Reguest #7: Financial Analysis 1. Rate Stabilization: It is possible to decrease debt service in the initial years through several different strategies. One possibility would be to pay interest only during the initial years, although this may not reduce debt service that much. ·Another possibility would be to issue zero-coupon bonds. In this case, levelized principal and interest pay- ments are typically deposited into escrow over the bond's life, with a lump-sum payment of principal plus accrued interest made at the bond's maturity date. It may be possible to defer part of the escrow payments for a period of time. Zero-coupon bonds can have 25-to 30-year maturities, but 15- to 20-year maturities are more common. In either case (interest only or zero-coupon bonds), the effective interest rate and debt payments in later years will increase as compared to paying level ized payments for the entire period. Additionally, deferring payments sends a 2097/0033(4) Table 2 li!IG aM M'IOI:CII'GIIIEI f!EASIIILITT 401 Idol Project LOIId f..-.c.t MIIUiptl-.,_, S,.t• MIIUiptl-llydraprojec:t AaiUIIPtlorw I--················-;···················· I ........... -......... _ ................................................. -..................................... "' ............................................. "',.",."'"a ....... .,. • ••• ,..,. ... .,.,.,. "',..,"' • "',. ... ~- c lty LOIId fec:tor • 50.01 fwl EIC:alattan late: LOW torwtructlon C:O.t • $2,650,000 ..... ·--· ............................................................................... ,.ter PM LCIIIIi fec:tor • 70.01 1W A'fll. fwl Prlc:e • tO.IO / .. l fiNnCI"' Coat • 11!2,000 ... c.. .. t ,,_tv ..... 15,774,1. c-.t\lty LOIId Grwlll • 2.01 City lfflc:l_,-• ll ., .. , lotal C..t • Sl,IIOZ,OOO .,...,...ojec:t .. , Pr...C vaba • Q,99t,JS2 .. tor PM Ef.flc:t_,-• 15 IIWIII .. l Arnal IHIIIt Servlc:e • 126J,OOO toet/C:O.t 1at lo • 1.44 E~chr..t_.. 1-'c: Llf•. 20 ...... l.ftlt 1 • 400 w ................. -.............. ,. .... _ ........................................... .. ....................... -................................... ltpl.ac-.c Coat • 1710 /IIWII l.ftlt 2 • ow ...... , anc-t lata • 8.01 City 0 & II C.t • tO.ID /IIIII INtalled Cepeclty • 400 w .,..., lnfl•tl• lat• • 4.SI Peter PM o & 11 C..t • ..• ,.... ..... 315ft ... ,.,_ lat•• J.SI Utlcl_,-• •• ECIIIIIIUC MAUSll 0 & II C:O.t • 10.016 /IIWII ..................................... 1917 1-1tiP 19110 1991 1992 19Q 19M 1995 1996 1997 19911 1999 ZOllO 2001 E•IGT IECIJIIEIIEilS (Iiiii) 2,'ZJ6,41J 1 City LOIId 2,107,411 2, t49,6JI 2,1Jl,6J1 Z,ai1,21J 2,JZ6,117 2,J7J,J74 2,420,M1 2. Will, Z!i8 2,S11,6" 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,612,104 2,l26,l60 2,710,1116 z ,.t.,.·PM lOIId 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' totet c:-~ntty LOIId 2,107,411 2,149,6JI Z,IR,6J1 2,ZJ6,41J 2,ai1,21J 2,JZ6,117 2,37J,374 2,420,M1 ·2,4641,Z!i8 2,511,643 2,569,016 2,620,396 2,612,11114 2,l26,l60 2,710,1116 DIESEL FUEL IIATfl 4 Arnal IIC:alltiCWI l•te 2 •• 2.• Z.OI 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.• 2.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 s Fwl Price (19171/ .. l) o.S4 ••• 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.81 0 •• 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 11A1iE CASE MAUSII CttyS,at• 6 ..... c.pectty (Idol) 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 1 C.,ec:lty Addttt-lWJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1011 0 0 0 a Cepeclty ••-=-*• (Idol) 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6011 0 9 Dl-1 f .. l UN ( .. ll-) 115,6M 119,156 112,719 186,J74 190,101 193,91d 197,711 201,7J7 zos,m 2'0P,II7 214,.S 2111,)66 222,734 221,111 Zlt, 1Jl 10 c.pitel toeta (1917 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 420,0110 0 t1 fwl Coati (1917 I) 94,157 143,J0t. 149,099 155,122 161,Jif 167,910 174,693 181, '1'51 11W,9Q 196,m 204,681 Zflll,n4 2tl,950 217,209 l21,55l 12 0 & II C:O.tl (1917 I) 61,225 .... 16,119 "·"' 68,456 .... 71,201 12,62!1 74,071 'I'S,S$9 77,070 111,612 10,1114 11,7111 83,424 1l lotel City coat• C1917 I) 158,061 207,191 214,871 ZZZ,217 229,8 87,715 HS,M ZS4,J76 Z61,171 212,il92 281,151 JS7,.516 293,1:54 71a,991 304,911 P•ter Plft S,at• 14 fine c.peclty (W) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 c.peclty Addltl-(Idol) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 c.pecity ltpl.-=-tl (Idol) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 ••-• , .. , UN c .. u-, 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Cllpitll toetl (1917 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel toete (1917 I) • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 & II C:O.tl (1917 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Tot•l .. tar PM toetl C1917 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 zz tot•l ..... , Coati (1917 I) 158,061 207,N 214,171 ZZZ,217 m,a 87,715 HS,M ZS4,W Mtl,171 212,m al1,151 JS7,:ll6 293,1:54 711,997 304,9n l~lMAUIII a ,.,.. c.peclty (Idol) .. .. 1,-1,-1,000 1,-1,-1,. 1,-1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5410 24 11-' c.peclty AddU!-(Idol) • • • • • • 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z5 Cepec:lty ltpl.-=-tl (Idol) • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1011 0 Z6 .,.....tctrlc: ....-.tim (Iiiii) 2,168,124 2,zos,m 2,20,27J 2,ai1,5D 2,J2D,Ut 2,J68,D5 2,400,927 2,44Z,.JJD 2,419,956 2,S1J,699 2,544,422 2,515,760 2,607,124 Z1 Ill..& -•tl• (IIIII) 2,107,411 2,149,611 8,917 J0,71t Jl,N 4S,J14 52,1135 .... 68,.Ut M,J13 IW,II1 106,697 128,3112 150,501 111,062 • .,_. ,_, UN c .. u-• 140,499 1U,JOt 1,!194 2,M7 2.sa J,G21 J,SZZ 4,1D4 4,, 5,-S,9J9 7,113 I,SS9 10,0U 11,531 29 ~··· toetl (1917 I) 0 2,aoz,ooo 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 78,000 0 ,. fwl toete (1917 IJ 15,a70 114,667 1,J01 1,704 2,147 2,616 J,111 3,614 4,186 4,769 5,6111 6,101 1,183 9,59J 11,0]1 31 0 & II Coati (1917 I) 42,150 42,9Q J4,J10 J5,024 JS,754 36,491 J7,257 •• 111 .,121 J9,6Z7 40,4641 41,J48 42,261 41,192 44,14l 32 T ot•l Arnal C..tt C 1917 I) 111,019 2,959,640 J5,611 36,728 37,901 J9,114 40,3611 41,665 .,,0111 44,395 46,146 411,1411 50,443 122,1115 55,112 .. -~.-" Tlbl• 2 (c:ont'd) ECOIOIII C UAI.TS IS a.,.~,..,,..,. .. ,.., .. .,._ •• ,..., 200l 200] 2110' zoos 2006 lOOT .. 2009 zo1o lOU lOll 2013 2014 Z015 Z0\6 2011 E•IGJ IEGUIISIEifS ("") 1 CitY l-2,136,401 I,IPJ,U9 2,950,992 3,010,012 3,018,111 3,131,616 3,151,611• 3,151,616 3, tJ1,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 ],131,616 1,111,616 2 Pete,. P.nL-jj ii c c 0 • 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 total ~tty l.,.. 2,1S6,401 2,1P3, 129 Z,950,992 3,010,012 3,018,212 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3, "'·"' 3,131,616 '· 131,616 3,131,616 .S,1J1,616 J, i.ii,olo l, 1J1,,16 l-r~; .. r,l6 DIESEL f\EL PIES 4 ANualiE-latlon Iota 1.01 O.Gil O.Gil I.Gil 0.01 o.a O.Gil O.Gil 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 o.os 1.01 o.os 0.0 5 fuel Price I 19117 ., .. ., 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 lASE CAllE UIILJIII City SY8t• ' fl,.. c:.p.cl ty CillO ---------------1100 1 CII)IICity Addltl-(1110 I I 0 ... 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:.p.clty ... _ •• (ldl) 0 I 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ••-• fwt ..., c .. u-• 256,367 ......... 145,916 zso,a as.•• ..... ..... 2110,911 2110,9111 2110,9111 l60,9111 260,9111 260,9111 260,9111 l60,96a 260,\163 to C.ltol C.ta (19171) 0 • 0 li,D -·-0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Fuel C.ta (1917 I) m.• a.• •• 114 Dlt,l16 IM,613 249,501 149,501 249,501 149,5415 249,5415 249,5415 149,5415 249,505 249,505 149,505 249,50S 12 o I 11 C.ta (191171) ··-lfo,J'M ··-··-..... "·"' "·"' 9J,MI "·"' "·"' 91, .. 91, .. "·"' 91,N 9J,91W1 93,944 " total City C.ta (1967 I) 311,.,. 317,. 111,41114 -.117 •.m :SU,4U :SU,4U :SU,45J :SU,W 343,453 :SU,45J :SU,45J :SU,45J 343,453 343,453 343,451 Peter P.n IY'8t• 14 f1,.. c:.p.c tty (UI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 c:.p.c I ty Add it 1-(lkU) 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Clpllelty ltiptac-c:a (UI) 0 0 0 • 0 I • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 ot-t fuel ..., , .. u-• 0 I 0 • I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 c.ttat• Coeta (1917 I) 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 fuel toeta 119117 I) I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 o I " toeta (1917 I) 0 • • I • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 21 fotol Petor P.n toita (1917 I) • 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 22 fotal ANual toeta (1917 I) 311,076 317,291 JZJ,M4 400,117 616,719 343,453 :SU,45J 343,453 :SU,453 343,453 :SU,45J 343,453 143,453 343,453 143,453 1U,45S l'fDIOPIOJEC1 AIIIIL Ill I 23 f 1,.. CII)IICity llkU) -------------500 soo 500 14 ··-· Clpllelty Addltl-(lkU) 0 0 0 • 0 • I • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 c:.p.clty ltipt._.l ClkU) 0 0 • • -0 • I • • • • 0 0 0 0 26 ~lactrlc ...,..u .. (IIIII) 2,640,Ril 2,673,513 2,187,!1M 2,742,103 z.m.-. .1,112,532 2,112,532 2,012,532 2,112,532 2,012,532 2,112,532 1,112,532 2,112,532 2,112,532 2,112,532 2,111Z,51l 27 01-1 ...,.etl• (IIIII) 196,074 219,546 243, .. ··-..... 319, .. 319,-319, .. 319,. "··-319,. 319,014 319,014 319,014 319,014 319,1184 21 "-' "-' ..., , .. u-, 13,172 14,636 M,m 17,1fol 19,R1 zt,m 21.m zt,m zt,m zt,m 21,m 21,m 21,272 21,1n zt,zn 21,ZTl 29 ~lal C.ta (1917 I) 0 0 • • -·-• 0 • • 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 ,. Fuel toeta (1967 I) 12,497 13,991 15,5a 17,076 11,664 ZO,JJI 21,JJI ZO,JJI 21,JJI 21,JJI ZO,JJI zo,ne 20,3311 20,3311 20,531 zo.na Jt 0 I II C.to (1967 I) 45,111 46,1119 47,107 41,1JS "·* 50,257 !11,257 !11,257 51,257 51,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 50,257 S0.~7 32 lotel ANual C.ta (1917 I) S7,MI .... 62,626 65,211 417,M7 ll,lit$ ll,lit$ ll,lit$ 70,t9$ ll,lit$ ll,lit$ 70,t9$ 10,595 10,595 18,595 70,595 .. Jtobl• 3 IlliG a:Mi IYOIIOPClloEI FWIIILI n 1,1100 kU Project L..t•-• .... ,.u-Dl-1 S,.t• A.uulptl-ll)idroprojec:t AaiMIIIJIIll- I·.-----·----···--·;.:;.;;;······--·------------~ ............................ -................................... .. ....................................................................................... .. ................................................................... Cltr LOlli fator • 50 •• ,,., EHat•tlon ••••= lCII c-ti'UI:tlon coat • 13,740,1100 _ .................. ,.. .............................. -................................. ,. • .,. ,..,. i...t fator " n~ .• ~-A .... ,,., Price • ..• , .. , f llw..:l1111 Coat • 1210,1100 1Me C.. .. t PretNnt V8lue • $16,8,545 c-1 Cy LOlli ilnllltll • 2 •• cltr lfflcltnCY • 12 .... , ... fot•t Coat • U, 950,1100 ll)ldroproJec:t ... ,~ v.tue • tt8,745,691 P8ter ,_ lfftcltnCY • 15 .... , .. , Alnal o.bt s.rvlce • U63,1100 Coat/Coat let to • I .56 E-'c:Per_t.,.. l-Ie Life • 20,..,.. unu 1. 600 kU " .. ---·· ...... ,.. ........................................................................ .. .......... -................ ··-· .............. ··---..... ... ~Coat• tJII,.... untt 2 • 4GO kU .... ,., lnt-t .... • 1 •• Cley 0 & It Coat • to.U/IMI lnet•lled tllpM: I tr • 1,1100 kU ....._, lnft•tlon let• • 4.K ,. .... ,_ 0 & " Coat • . .. , .... .... us ft .. , ··-.. t·· 3.51 Efflc:ltnCY • I 151 Ea.IOMIC MAUSIS 0 & II Coat • 10.001/IMI ................ ~-··-----,,., ,. ·-19111 1991 1992 199J 19M 1915 1996 1997 19111 1999 21100 2001 EIIEIGY HGUIIIEIIEIJI (1<111) 1 cltrLoed 2,107,41t 2,141',611 2,192,611 Z,Z56,4U 2,211,21J 2,526,1117 2,31J,J14 2,420,141 2,..-.m 2,511,4143 2,569,016 2. 620. Jlli6 z,6n,• 2,726,260 2,7110,716 2 ,., .. "" Loed 4,075,141 4,151,38 4,MI,!J1Z 4,R!J,JZJ 4,411,129 4,500 ... 4,591,061 4,M1,111 4,17!J,5M 4,t71,014 4,11161,436 5,067,105 5,164', "' s,2n,544 5,317,995 J lot•l ~ltr LOlli 6,1111,316 ····-6,411,KJ 6,161,-,,.,142 6,116,tQ 6,111S,441 7,1t2,,.., 7,:84,7414 '·-·"' 7,97,452 7,616,201 7,141,965 7,9111,801o 8,151,781 DIESEl RIEL IIAfEI 4 Arnal E-l•t I on ••t• z.• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• 2 •• o.• 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 5 ,,., price (1917 t/ .. 1) 0.54 o.• ... 0.111 ••• 0.17 ••• 0.91 0.92 O.M o.w. o.w. o.w. o.w. 0.96 lASE CMI MALYSII cttrsret• 6 FIN Cliplc I tr C 1111) 4GO 600 4GO ---600 600 -600 600 600 700 700 100 1 c::.palty llddltl-(ld.l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 8 C~PKttr -....~ .. Cllll) 0 I I 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 600 0 9 ••-• fuel UN c .. u_, 17'!1,62!4 1l9,1J6 1t2,719 116,114 191,101 19J,tQ 197,1111 201,1J7 •.m M,lll7 214,1115 218,366 222,734 '227, •• 231,132 10 c.pltal Coate (1987 t) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711,000 0 420,000 0 11 flllll Coat• (1987 ., M,l37 14J,JOP 149,019 155,122 161,-161,911 174,61B 111,751 ,.,,., 1w.,m 204,611 201,174 212,950 217,ZIW 221,SS:S 12 0 & II Coat• (1987 I) 6J,m 64,41t a.m 67,0114 M,4J6 ··-71,201 n.e 74,171 7'!1,559 17,1711 71,612 80,114 81,1811 83,424 tJ Tot•l Cltr Coat• CM7 t) I!JI,062 207,l91 214,1111 222,217 ··-m,n5 245,8M 254,116 ii6J, 171 2n,m zat,751 JS7,JI6 293,1:54 718,997 504,917 Pater .... S,.t• 14 ,.,. c::.pa ttr c klo 2,450 2,450 2,J50 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 15 tllpM:Itr llddttl-Cllll) 0 4GO 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 c::.paltr 1.,.aa-.nt• Cld.l) 0 1,950 1,500 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 OI-l futl UN c .. U-) 271,7ZJ 217,151 2112,1111 -·· 214,122 ..... 506,11114 312,125 J18,J67 324,734 531,Z29 537,154 :544,611 351,503 351,Sl3 11 c.plt•l Coate C19W t) 0 1,645,1100 ····-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 19 ,,., Coati (19W ., 146,1J1 U1,7H .... -·-IM9,JII ZM,lll 211,211 201,211 Z92,SU ··-316, .. m,ou 329,411 536,063 :542,184 20 0 & .. Coat• (19W ., 11,517 111,147 14,110 16,5M a,m 91,011 91 ••• 9J,617 9J,!J10 97,420 99,J69 101,JS6 IU,JIS 10'5,451 107,560 21 lot•l P8ter ,_ Coat• C19W t) za,247 1,Mf,I1J ....... 526,511 D7,116 J4f,Jif ··-114,111 •. ., 411,., 416,061 424,369 412,157 441,514 450,344 u ........... Coat• (1tl7 t) -·-Z,1!J7,671 ,, •. m MI,'IIT W,JII -·-..,,.,., Ut,l16 .S1,M4 ..,..,.., -·-1111,756 115,9P1 '· 1 .. ,510 7'!15,]21 ~MIII.YIII D flra tllpM: I ey (1111) J,!J!JI J,!J!JI 4,4M 4,451 4,451 4,4M 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,450 4,450 4,450 3,150 M 01-' t::llpM:IC\1' Adllltl-Cld.l) 0 I • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 2S CipKI«y ltpla-e (ld.l) 0 1,500 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 l6 .,._latrlc ...,...,_. (lillll) 5, t!JI,J17 5,191,115 5,za.-5,ii6J,IM 5.-.-5,537,146 5,375,9'.14 5,414,715 5,454,412 5,4M,J16 5,524,M7 5,556,130 S,Sl7,957 27 .,_, ........ (1111111) 6,113,316 6,J07,. 1,174,116 1,JII,IPt 1, ...... '·""·-t,MZ,m 1,76l,M4 ...... 129 1,974,174 2 ...... 2,195,125 2,311,111 2,442,674 2,5711,144 a Dl-l fwl UN Cl8l~-) 412,222 420,467 14.-91,3116 ,, ... 'IM,201 110,162 117,651 '"·-111,651 , ..... 146,255 154,461 162,145 171,590 29 c.pctet Coate (t9W t) • 5,1100,1100 1,050,11110 • • 0 • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 ]0 fuel eoat• et987 t) m,a 316,J1J 6t,J!J1 75,111S t2,911 91,ZJ2 97,911 106,.1 114,491 18,417 132,764' 1:19,131 147,aJ 155,692 163,1161 J1 o & 11 Coate (1987 t) 18,.,.7 1l6,141 .S,216 61,:164 64',556 11,m 74,01J 16,Jif 111,m 11,191 13,660 16,113 .... 91,616 94,444 J2 Total Arnat Coata (1987 t) 346,267 5,462,514 1,114,566 IU,J27 152,414 162,024 171,995 112,408 195,262 204,591 216,429 226,014 216,565 247,328 lSI,:SOS .t>l• 3 (cont'd) ciXJIIOIII C AIIAI. YSI $ ......... ,.,_ .............. --... 21102 2003 2004 200S l006 2007 2001 lOOP 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201S 2016 2011 :IIUGT lfCIIIIWiiiiTS (kWh) 1 Clt1 LOIId 2,11J6,401 2,19J,1l9 2,950,99'2 ],010,112 3,0711,212 3,131,616 ],131,616 3,1]1,616 3,111,616 ],131,616 :s, 131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,131,616 3,1]1,616 1,1}1,616 l i'et..-,.,.L-a !,~.s" s.~.* '1.,1'07' 171 5,121,115 5,957,741 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 6,056,496 :s Total e-lt'l' lood 1,:121,95.6 I, .... ,J95 0,651,163 1,&11,526 9,007,95] 9,111,112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112 9,1.,112: ,;, ,., ill 9,iM,ii2 Y,ii1.1li i., iii. Hl llfS(L FUEL UTES 4 ""'-l E-latlan late 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 O.ft 0.0 5 fuel Prlca U911 l/ .. 1) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 lASE CAst AIIAUIIS CltySyst• 6 ft,.. e.p.c It)' (ldO 1'00 ,.. 1'00 1'00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 800 7 c.-It'll Addltl-<Idol) 0 • 0 100 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • c.-u, lhpt•-• Ckll) 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ••-• fwt u.. c .. u-• 236,367 261,1M 265,916 2!0,&14 255,151 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,961 260,9611 10 C4!pltal Coate (11111 I) 0 0 0 JI,IIIO JSO,OOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 fuel Coate ( 1917 I) 225,914 DI,SCM 2D,114 ZJf,l16 264,61] 269,505 249,505 269,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 249,505 24\I,SOS 12 0 I II Colte (1917 I) ts,OPZ "·"' ···-.... 92,116 9S,N8 ,,. 9S,N8 "·· 9S,N8 tJ,N 9S,N 9S,N 9J,N tl,N 9], 9411 11 lot•l Cl t't' Colte (1917 S) 111,1J76 117,191 JZI,M4 ... 117 ··"' KJ,4SJ 14],49 KJ,4SJ JQ,451 141,45] J4J,4Sl 143,453 143,453 143,453 143,453 141,451 Peter P.-. Syst• 14 ,, ... Clf*lt'l' (ldl) 2,350 2,JSO 2,JSO 2,150 2,JSO 2,150 2,350 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 IS CiPKitY Addltl-(ldl) 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 c.-u1 lhpt.-t• (ldl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 01-1 fuel u.. c .. u-) J65,JI4 J13,011 JI0,4JI -·-J95,1149 483,766 483,766 403,166 403,766 403,766 483,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 403,766 401,766 Ul c.pltal Coati (1917 I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 M,OOO 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Fuel Coate ( 1911 S) 149,640 156,6U 363,765 371,141 3JI,461 316,011 Jl6,011 Jl6,011 316,011 316,011 316,031 316,031 316,031 316,031 316,011 336,011 20 0 & II Coate (1917 S) 109,711 111,905 114,143 116,426 111,755 121,110 121,110 121,110 121,110 121,110 121,110 121,110 121,130 121,130 121,130 121,1]0 21 Totel Pater P.-. Coate (1917 S) 459,351 461,531 471,98f 411,467 4t7,216 507,160 1,217,160 1,557,160 507,160 501,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 507,160 S07, 160 22 Total ""'-' coeu (1917 t) nl,427 11S,IIJ6 101,5!12 .7,5&1 1,1&1,935 150,614 1,550,614 1,900,614 150,614 150,614 150,614 1!10,614 1150,614 1150,614 1150,614 8~0.614 IIYl)IOPIO.IECT AIJAUSIS 23 ,,,.. c.-tt, (ldl) 3,150 1,150 :S,I50 1,150 1,150 :S,UO 1,»0 2,350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,SSO 1,550 I, ~~0 24 ··-· Clf*lty Addltl-(ldl) 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 c.-tty bpl-tl (bl) 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 ,.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 .,...._lKtrlc lit!Wratlon (ldjh) 5,620,110 5,645,3J4 5,.,5,ta 5,M6,1J7 5,617,761 5,6U,J'IIO 5,6U,M 5,4112,M S,4112,J'IIO 5,6U,M 5,612,1'00 5,61Z,1'00 5,61Z,M S,61Z,M S,61Z,M S,68l,100 27 ••-• ...,.uon , ...... , 2,181,571 2,1143,1162 I,OOZ,ZS4 I,U4,S91 J,JJ0,192 1,5e,412 1,515,412 1,5e,412 1,515,412 :S,515,412 1,505,412 1,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 3,505,412 J,SOS,412 21 .. _, fwl ..... , .... -) 111,115 ••.m .,149 :ne,m m,11J m,iliN Dl,MI' m.• Dl,MI' DS,MI' m,61M m,.,.. 233,6911. m,.,.. m,.,.. 2}3,694 l9 C4!pt lei Coate (1917 S) 0 I • • 0 I 0 ..... 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 10 fuel Colts (1917 S) 11Z,IM 101,212 191,B7 201,JIS 212,261 223,419 m,4Zt m,4Zt m,4Zt m,4Zt 223,429 223,429 223,4l9 223,429 223,429 221,429 31 0 & • Colle (1911 S) "·-100,JJO 1U,HS , ... 111,JZJ 111,1115 113,1115 113,1115 111,1115 111,1115 111,165 113,165 113,165 113,165 113,165 1U,II6S 32 Total ""'-l Colt• (19171) 26!1,502 201,142 ZM,tS:S .,651 m,su D1,ZM JS7,ZM 127,294 JS7,ZM JS7,l!M JS7,ZM U7,ZM U7,294 ]37,294 ]37,294 137,294 warning signa 1 to bondho 1 ders, and they may be re 1 uctant to enter into such a transaction. Increased risk premiums through higher interest rates may be required. Another option would be to secure funds from another source to use as rate stabilization in the early years. 2. Early Debt Retirement: Typically, bonds are issued such that once construction is completed, they cannot be called (retired early} for approximately ten years. After that period, they can be called early but at a premium of around 3 percent declining over a period of time to no premium. If the City were to receive excess monies through supplemental power sales, those proceeds could be placed in escrow with the interest earnings paying the interest payments on a like amount of debt until the principal can be retired. Under most circumstances, the yield on the escrow would be restricted and interest earnings could not be higher than the interest' payment on the bonds. 3. PCE Security: Because Power Cost Equalization (PCE) is funded on an annual basis by the Legislature, PCE payments would not be a strong security for bonds. Pledges that as long as the program continues, such payments wi 11 be first used to pay debt service may provide some security to the bondholders. The legality of such a covenant must be investigated, however. 4. Cost Overrun Insurance: Currently, the Power Authority is not aware of any cost-effective means in providing cost-overrun insurance separate from turnkey construction. 5. Bond sizes and corresponding debt service for various interest rates are shown in Table 4 and Figure 1. Annual debt payments do not take into account potential interest earnings on the debt service reserve fund. 2097/0033(5} · Table 4 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Bond Size/Debt Service Summary . (Dollars in Thousands) Bond Size Annual Interest Construction Financing 1 Net 2 DSR 3 Bond Debt Rate Cost Expenses IDC Rounding Size Service4 ---- 1,000 -Kilowatt Unit 6.0% $3,750 $152 $124 $316 $8 $4,350 $316 6.5 3,750 153 132 335 0 4,370 335 7.0 3,750 154 141 355 0 4,400 355 7.5 3,750 155 150 375 0 4,430 375 8.0 3,750 156 159 397 8 4,470 397 8.5 3,750 158 168 419 5 4,500 419 9.0 3,750 159 177 441 3 4,530 441 9.5 3,750 160 186 464 0 4,560 464 400 -Kilowatt Unit 6.0% $2,700 $118 $ 89 $228 $5 $3,140 $228 6. 5 2,700 119 96 242 3 3,160 242 7.0 2,700 119 102 256 3 3,180 256 7.5 2,700 120 109 271 0 3,200 271 8.0 2,700 121 115 287 7 3,230 287 8. :. 2,700 122 122 302 4 3,250 302 9.0 2,700 123 128 318 1 3,270 318 9.5 2,700 124 135 336 5 3,300 336 1Assumed to be 3.5% of the total bond issue for the 1,000-kilowatt unit and 3.75% for the 400-kilowatt unit. 2 Interest costs offset by interest earnings during construction. Earnings are bas1!d on an assumed reinvestment rate 1% less than the interest rate. 3Debt service reserve fund equal to one year's debt service. 4Annua1 debt service based on a 30-year amortization. Does not include any reductions from potential interest earnings on reserve funds. 2097/DD33(6) Q) 0 ·~ CD en -+J .0 Q) 0 460 420 380 340 300 260 -- ... --....... ---- Figure 1 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Annual Debt Service .... ------------ (Thousands of Dollars) ----- ----- --- 2 2 0 t -------. l B.OX 6.0~ 6.5~ 7.0% 7.5" Bond Interest Rate ........ ........ 1.000-kilowatt unit 400-kilowatt unit I I 8.5% 9.0% 9.5% Request #8: PCE Savinqs Estimated PCE savings for the 400-kW project are shown on Tables 5-7. Please note that these are based on the continuation of the PCE program as it is present- ly established. No assurances can be given that such levels of subsidies will continue in the future. 2097/0033(7) Jllbte 5 Major AU<IIIPtiona: tnfletlan late 4.51 ICifll c-M)droelec:trlc: ProJec:t lnter .. t late 8.ox Coet of ,_r Anelyal• C-tructlon Coet 12. 7110. 000 400 kV Projec:t land Slle SJ,2l0,000 Debt lervh:e (Mydro) 1286,91J .,..0 UHblllty ( 1) 1001 1.7 1918 '"' 1990 1991 1992 1993 1M 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 lltSi CASI AIIAUSIS tity srar• Debt Servl c:e (2) J5,648 J5,648 J5,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 35,648 JS,648 35,648 J5,648 35,648 47,219 47,219 12l,OJO 12J,OJO fwl Coet• (3) 9',137 14t,r.sa 1112,a 177,0l1 192,468 M,246 227,4,. 247,JJa 2118,911 292,364 317,1165 ]38,110 361,138 3114, '1)7 410,304 o & 11 Coeta (41 61,225 67,J91 71,112 76,166 11,6t2 16,990 92,m •.m 115,146 112,. 119,611 127,576 us.~ 144,9'4 154,496 .. -~ .......... . .......... ................ .................. .. .............. .................. .. ........... ... ............... .. ................ .. ............. .. .... --.... -.. .... -...... .... ~-.. --.. .......... ---.. --" ..... + Jotat C.tty Coeta 193,710 252,M 218,)01 •.m JOP,no D1,-355,867 381,119 409,. 440,)01 473,199 50P,164 539,899 615,417 650,156 City Loed (llll) (5) 2,107 2,150 2,195 2,236 2,ZI1 2,R7 2,J73 2,421 2,469 2,519 2,561P 2,620 2,673 2,726 2,181 Coet of ~ (/btl) 9.2 11.1 ,12.1 12.9 1).6 14.J 15.0 15.1 16.6 17.5 11.4 19.4 20.2 22.6 2l.4 M'fOIKIIIIOJECJ AIW. TSIS Mydroprojec:t-lli .. el Syat• 011bt Servlu (Di-U (6) 35,648 )5,648 35,648 J5,648 J5,648 J5,641 J5,648 J5,648 J5,648 J5,648 J5,648 ]5,648 JS,648 48,213 48,213 Dtlbt lervlc:e (Mydro) ( 7) 0 0 216,913 216,913 216,913 ZI6,91J 216,913 216,913 216,913 ZI6,91J ZI6,91J ZI6,91J ZI6,91J 286,913 286,911 , ... , Coeta (J) 75,1711 119,1116 1,420 1,M5 2,561 3,llllll 4,152 4,946 5,953 7,087 1,111 11,037 13,177 17,000 20,428 0 ' " Colt• (4) 42,150 44,927 37,461 ..... 42,617 45,41S 41,S11 51,755 55,287 sa.• 62,147 67,101 71,669 --~~:~ 81,748 ................. ~ ............ --"' ............... ............. ............ .. ~ .......... .............. .. ............. . ............. . ........ -... ,._ .......... .. ................ . "' .. ---.... . ~--~ Jotal Arnal Coeta 153,661 200,512 361,449 364,474 167,759 371,304 375,111 379,J62 JIJ,7U .,5J7 JM,US 400,699 408,107 428,741 4l1,Jn City L...t (llll) (5) 2,107 2,150 2,1'1) 2,236 2,ZI1 2,R7 2,J7J 2,421 2,4M' 2,519 2,561P 2,628 2,673 2,726 2,181 coat of ,_r (11<111) 7.J 9.3 16.5 16.3 16.1 16.0 1S.8 15.7 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.7 15.7 Projec:t levi-: ._lnat Oottan (75,ZJ9) CSI,OJ9) (J9,420) (19,264) 2,557 26,110 51,764 71,975 101,465 1]1,791 Arnat . . .. (91,149) 1116,696 212,904 Oa!tatlva .. .. (91,149) ,,..,., (224,427) (ll6J,I47) (2111, 111) (280,554) (254,J71) (282,601) (12J,6D) (15,161) 116,623 303,519 516,303 Pr-t Worth levlfliS Cl) (14,J97) (64,506) (46,073) (28,915) (IJ, uu 1,611 15,277 21,966 19,501 50,240 56,52] ..... l .. .. 74,140 71,314 a..tlatlva . -.. CI4,J97) (141,912) , .. ,.,, (22S,958) (2J7,061) C2J5,450) (228,173) (192,286) (152,699) C10l,459) (45,936) 28,204 106,511 . PCt: levlflla: (9) llaalnat Dollars (71,477) (55,1J7) (37,449) (11,)11) 2,429 24,173 49,176 75,026 103,042 125,20l 177,361 20l,ll4 .,..., .. --(16,591) a..ttatlva .. .. (16,591) (151,161) C21J,a5) Cl!II,Mo\) u •• ,, U!II6,!UI6) (141,653) (192,477) (117,452) (14,410) 110,792 211,153 490,4111 p,._r Worth SavlfliS (I) ...... . . .. , •• 117) ,.,,., (45,718) (27,5Z6) (12,455) 1,531 14,S1J J6,S61 J7,SR 47,721 SJ,697 711,4JJ 74,)98 a.utetlva .. .. ,.,177) (141,457) c1•,m, (212,751) em •• , cm,67tU ,.,, .. , (112,5N) (145,1611) C91,D6) (4J,6J9) 16,795 101,191 r.toLe 5 (eant'd) 2002 Z003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2.01111 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 -CA$1' MM.flll CltyiY~~t• llebt lef'Ylee CZ> 1D,QO 1D,QO tn,QO 1:sa,m 115,JIII 115,JIII 115,JIII 115,JIII 115,JIII 115,JIII 115,JIII 11S,JIII 115,JIII 111S,JINI 11S,JIII 111S,l911 fUll C.ta CJ) 4J1,J4J 466,164 '"·* 5Z9,629 564,531 1101,lJ4 6ZI,I1Z 657,109 616,619 717,519 749,118 1111,614 111,1171 IS5,726 8M,2J4 9J4,H5 o I • C.ta (4) 164,671 1J5,5Z9 117,897 199,4216 212,!169 226,571 &,m 247,421 251,!162 210,197 28Z,JS6 Z95,062 J08,540 322,215 336,715 351,1161 ............... ... .......... _ .. ............. ................... .......... --------... ............... .. ............ __ ................... ... ........... .. ....... ,. ...... --------............... -................ ................. ~ w-~---~ totel City C.ta 617,576 727,249 769,"7 121,741 905,434 9'56,645 993,919 1,GJZ,Il'O 1,01J,S74 1,116,110 1, 1110. SilO 1,207,010 1,255,SS1 1,306,Z75 1,159,283 1,414,675 City Load (IIWII) (5) 2,aJ6 2,en Z,951 J,010 J,Ol'O 3,132 J,1JZ J,1JZ J,1JZ J,1JZ J,152 J,152 :s, 132 J,152 J,IJZ 3,132 C.t of,_ C/ldlh) 24.2 25.1 16.1 Z7.J Z9.5 J0.5 J1.7 D.O J4.J 55.6 J7.1 :sa.s 40.1 41.7 4J.4 45.2 lll'llllCli'IIOCT MM. fill llr*aflroJ.:t·DI-1 IY~~t• 011bt ....VIm (DI-U (6) .... .... .... .. .. 911,9116 911,9116 911,9116 911,to6 911,9116 911,906 911,906 911,906 911,906 911,906 911,906 94,906 Ollbt ........ ,.,.., (7) 216,913 216,911 216,913 216,913 216,911 216,913 216,911 216,913 216,913 216,913 286,913 216,91J Z86,91J 216,915 216,91J 2116,911 fUll C.ta (J) 24,116 21.-II,JW S7,711 4J,01J 49,049 st,B6 "·· ss,m 51,492 61,124 65,175 66,749 69,7SJ 12,en 16,m 0 I • Coata (4) 17,JGZ "·-"·"" ...... us,,. 121,216 116,6111 1JZ,S60 1.,316 144,540 151,M5 1S1,1U 164,9U 172,367 110,1Z4 11111,22'9 ............... ····-·-· ................ .......... .. .............. .. ........... .. ................ _ ........... . ............. ............... -----....... .. ............ . ............... .. ~ ...... -~- Tot•t Annlal C.ta ....... .,.,m 467,'"' 4J'9,11J 111,401 552,074 559,116 J67,742 576,1. 514,151 -·-60J,5JS 61J,51J 68,959 654,1134 646,220 City Load (IIWII) (S) Z,aJ6 z,en 2,951 s,oto J,Ol'O J,1JZ 3,152 J, 152 J,1JZ J,152 J,152 3,152 J,IJZ J,132 J,132 l,lll C.t of,.._. (fldlh) 15.7 15.1 15.1 "·' 11.5 17.6 17.9 11.1 11.4 11.7 19.0 19.3 19.6 19.9 20.J 20.6 Pro)Kt Sevlnea: ._lnal Oottut Annlal 240,119Z 210,524 JOt.-342,521 J67,0JJ 4M,5n 434,18 465,121 497,466 "'·259 J66,572 60J,47'S 642,031 612,JJ6 724,448 7611,455 aa.letlw 7'S7,19S 1,027,720 1,J.il9,lllll 1,672,2J5 2.•.• 2,44J,., z,m,m J,J4J,1!JI 3,160,616 4,371,115 4,931,447 5,541,922 6,113,959 6,1166,Z96 7,590,744 11,159,200 Pr-t IIIN'tll Sllvllllfll (II) 8,281 .,147 92,57'S 91,150 9'S,744 "·'" 92,410 91,SM 110,481 .. ,.. 1111,111 86,105 --· 12,014 15,420 113,974 112,476 a.etatlw 1•.m 211,112 J61,M 454,534 "'·· 648,121 7D,211 RS,.., 917,'18 1,..,,667 1,897,015 1,115,1D 1,Z71,9ll 1,JS7,J57 1,441,D1 1,SZ:S,801 Pa s.vinea: c9) .. ,,., .. u .... Annlat Z21,148 256,991 -·-325,401 348,611 JM,J42 412,474 441,112 47Z,M ..... 5:58,244 51J,J01 609,936 6411,220 61111,226 7JO,OU aa.letlw 719,SJ6 976,354 1,MJ,m •••• 68 1,ft7,JIM 2,521,667 2,734,111 J,tJ5,M 1,641,511 4, 1SJ,211 4,691,524 5,264,1125 5,174,761 6,522,1181 7,211,207 7,941,240 Pr-' IIIN'tll s.vtnea Cl> 11,011 U,740 17,9116 17,257 ••• 7 ··-17,. .. .. 8,957 •••• a,11z 12,464 81,149 79,715 18,351 AriiUit 77,914 aa.tetlw 119,1t5 lll0,122 J4J,IQ 4J1,W 519,1115 -.121 ,.,617 114,JII7 ln,JM 957,. t,MI,tM 1,125,116 1,.,341 1,Z89,4119 1,369,264 1,447,611 ,.,. 6 lllljor A•IUIIPtl-: lnflatiGn .. ta 4.51 Kine c-llyldrMl.ctrlc ProJ«t lnt..-ftt lata .... C•t of ,_ Anatyela c-truc:t IGn C•t 12,700,000 4GO ldl ProJact land Sba IJ,2l0,000 Dille Service (II)Odro) 1216,913 .... 0 u.8blllty (I) -1917 1911 191P 1990 1991 199l 1995 19116 1995 19911 1991 19\111 1999 2000 2001 lASE CASE MALYSII Chylyet• Dille wvtc:e (2) 55,641 :11,641 15,641 15,641 :11,641 55,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 47,219 47,219 123,0J0 IU,OJO F&al CO.U (3) 94.,137 149,151 MZ,Izt 117,1l1 191,460 101P,:M6 227,4116 :M7,DI 261,N 291,364 317,16J JJa,l10 361,131 314,937 410,J04 o & 11 CO.te (4) 6S,U!I 6l',JPt 1t,ISZ 76,M6 11,612 .... 91,m 91,1D 105,JWo 112,-119,6M 127,516 135,913 144,94.4 154,496 ............. ................. .. .............. ................. .. .............. ................. .. ............... .. .............. .. ............. .. ............... .. .............. .. .... --....... .. .... ,. ........ -.............. .. ...... ---.. Total ,city co.t• 193,710 m,M "'·--.ZJ5 •.ne UI,IM :115,161 311,119 -·-448,:!01 413,199 50!t,164 539,., 615,431 650,156 City LOIId (1111) (5) 2,107 2,150 l,lfJ 1,m 1,281 1,m 2,313 2,421 2,469 2,519 2,569 2,6ZO 2,613 2,126 2,781 CO.t of ,_ (IIIYI) 9.1 11.1 IZ.J 11.9 13.6 14.3 15.0 15.1 16.6 11.5 1t.4 19.4 20.2 2.2.6 23.4 IIYDIOf'IO,IICT MALYIII .... ~~~pn~cjac:t·DI-1 l)l'et• Dille Sarvlc:• (01-l) (6) 55,641 35,641 55,641 15,641 35,641 15,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 35,641 44,211 44,211 Dille Sarvlc:a (~) (1) 0 0 216,913 216,913 216,t1J 216,t1J 216,t13 216,t1J 216,t1J 216,915 216,913 216,913 216,915 216,911 2116,911 f&al CO.ta C3) 75,111 119,106 27,117 Zf,l19 JZ,IU ,.,., JP,641 U,DI 47,JII 52,441 57,911 6S,D39 61,114 75,190 11,991 0 & "C.ta (4) 41,150 44,917 JP,552 42,114 44,991 41,-51,171 54,Sil 51,111 62,0U 66,136 11,691 75,466 10,561 15,9911 -.................. ................. .. .. "'-......... ................ ............... ........ .., ..... . ............... .. ............ ................. .. ................ .. .............. .. ................ • a•• -••• .. .. .... .. .. ~-~ .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. Total ~~ c.t• 155,661 ··--·-JM,6ZJ -·-406,6JJ 413,519 420,613 428,561 437,091 446,7VP 456,291 466,911 490,94,7 501,115 City LOIId (lUI) (5) 1,107 1,150 2,195 z.m 1,281 l,JZ1 z,s13 2,421 1,469 1,519 Z,569 2,6ZO 2,673 2,n6 2,1111 C.t of ,_ C/bll) 7.5 9.5 17.1 17.6 17.6 11.5 17.4 11.4 11.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 t1.5 18.0 11.1 Projact s...tnea: .._lnal Dollan (105,.) (90,674) (14,749) (57,515) (31,.,) (11,87) 3,., 26,491 52,173 ~· .. .. (119,000) n.• 124,489 147,171 ~latlw .. .. (119,-) ,,.,., CJ1S,I61) cs•,l11> (447,JZJ) (416,1.) C51f.,IJ7) (501,621) (475,137) C4ll,264> (349,276) (224,1117) (77,616) Pr~ Wlll'th SIIVInea (I) C110,tl!) (90,154) en.•• C54,td) cJP,142» CM,4e) n•.•• 1,134 1J,252 14,490 J1,JOJ 49,436 54,114 ~~ .. .. ~lattw .. .. , ..... , , ..• , cm.slf> CJU,W) ,,.., .. , ''"·-· C401,9PS) (4GG,:MI) (JI6,990) (362,499) CJ11,196) (211,760) (227,645) Pa S.WI11111: (9) *-lnal DoUan ens,.,., (110,119) (16,141) C1t,l11) C54,87) (J6,t11) C17,7M) J, .. 8,166 ··-... DI 111,U5 119,112 .,_. .. .. a..tatlw .. .. ens.•• CZ1J,..., CM,Jtl) CJJ'I,JII) C"'tl,llt) c.at,IIU ""·"'· (48,,..) "''·-· '"'· .,, CJ51,111) (J1S,S41) (13,135) ,.._ .... til ...,,,.. ,., .... ,, ....... .. .. CW,616) , ... , (IZ,t'M) CJf,W) CII,MU , ..• , t,Mr "·-D,liM Zf,,. ..... 51,409 o..tac1w .. .. CW,616) , .. ,liZ) ..... , CJ11,_, CMI,IIIf.> em.•• , .. ,., , •.. , CW,MI> (J44,1R) CI14,6J6) (267,611) (2 .. ,26'1) .. l.t>t• 6 (cont'd) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2Qll liAR CAR UAUIIS Cltv svat• o.tlt .......... (2) 123,0JO 123,030 123,030 tlol,m IIS,Jte IIS,Jte 11S,Jte 11S,Jte 11S,Jte 11S,Jte 1115,J91 11S,J91 115,398 1115,398 IIIS,31i18 IllS ,l9tl hwl C:.tt (J) 457,343 466,164 496,114 S29,6Z9 564,531 601,7J4 628,112 657,1119 616,61'9 717,S1'9 749,11111 71S3,614 1111,1177 sss,n6 11114,234 934,41'i 0 I K C:.tl (4) 164,677 115,529 1117,01»' 199,426 212,569 226,577 m,m H7,4a 251,562 270,197 282,»6 295,062 JOII,J40 322,215 336,115 351,1167 ................ .. ............. ... .............. .. ............... .. ..... -...... . ............... _ ................ .. ........... .. ................ .. ............... . ........... _ '"' .............. ___ ,.., ........ .. .............. .. ................ .. ~ .. ~ . --- Total C lty C:.ta 6117,516 R7,H9 769,557 R1,741 905,434 956,645 ,,919 1,03Z,I70 1,075,574 1, 116, no 1,160,560 1,207,010 1,255,551 1,J06,21'5 1,359,28J 1,414,61'i City lOIId (lUI) (5) 2,106 2,11') 2,951 J,010 J,070 3,1JZ J,1JZ 3,152 J,1JZ 3,152 3,132 3,132 3,132 3,132 3,1J2 J,U2 Coat of,_ C/t.ill) 24.2 25.1 26.1 27.3 29.5 30.5 51.7 JJ.O 34.3 55.6 37.1 11.5 40.1 41.7 43.4 45.2 IIYOICI'IIOJECT UAl\'111 lwdraprolect·DI-t svat• o.t1t s.rvtca CDI-1) (6) 4&,28J "·-"·-"·-1U,361 IU,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 111,361 1U,J61 111,361 o.t1t s.rvlce (11\*o) (7) 286,911 ZI6,91J ZI6,91J 286,91J ZI6,91J 286,913 286,913 286,915 ZI6,91J 286,913 216,913 2116,913 Zl6,913 286,913 2116,913 2116,9U , .... , C:.t• (]) IP,JH 91,Z16 ttS,J'lWI 114,911 1M,N6 115,517 141,615 147,. 134,647 161,1106 1611,11'9 176,471 114,420 192,719 201,391 210,455 o I • C:.ta (4) 9t,i"'l 91,., "'·"' 111,614 11t,151 127,115 1JZ,IPI 131,171 145,121 151,659 158,443 165,615 173,1168 110,156 1111,99(. 197,499 .. . .............. ...................... ................ ............ .. ............... .. ........... ... ........... .. .............. .. ................. ... ............... .. .... -........ . ............... .. ............. ·---....... .. .... --.. --... -.. ----- Jotal .,_, C:.tl S16,JII 530,41t "'·"' 161,741 642,217 661,91115 6R,716 61S,1J9 ....... 711,531 725,655 740,366 1'55,760 771,1147 7111,6SI 1106,224 City LOIId (lUI) (5) 2,136 2,11') 2,951 J,IIO J,ON 3,132 3,1:12 3,1JZ 3,112 3,112 3,132 3,132 3,132 3,tJ2 3,132 l,1S2 C:.t of ,_ (lt.ill) 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.7 20.9 Z1.1 21.5 21.9 22.3 22.7 n.2 23.6 24.1 24.6 25.2 2S.7 Project levi,..: llelal,.l oollan .,.., 171,251 196,140 224,011 -·-JP,2Z7 295,610 321,1D 347,731 31S,SZ6 406,5n 434,925 466,644 499,7'90 534,421 510,625 6011,450 c:-latlwa 93,642 298,412 S14,49Z 174,495 1,117,720 1,SD,401 1,654,5JZ z.•.• 2,J77,JWJ 2,712,361 ),211,216 3,6113,9JO 4,11J,no 4,7111,141 5,2111,m 5,1197,ZZJ Pr-t Uortll levi,.. (II) 7D,m 115,172 611,513 611,R 6t,019 6t,074 611,905 .,.., 58,307 62,052 115,317 611,SI7 611,1311 67,57J 66,903 66,143 65,303 C...latlwa U6t,D9) (101,217) (4t,tll0) 21,Jll 14,Hl 16Z,7H lJ1,65J -.7JZ ••• 1 431,711 507,299 515,437 643,010 7119,91J 776,056 1141,360 PCf .......... (9) llelaflwl Dollar• .,.., 16Z,6t5 116,9111 212,810 247.-251,166 -·-305,0.,. 330,344 156,751 JM,JO 4U,11'9 443,512 474,101 S07,7D7 542,093 5711,027 a.ulatlwa ..... m,,. 411,7611 l'JS,Nol -·-1,1M,lJI 1,571,-1,M,1!11 2,a,• Z,MJ,IU ),056,422 3,499,734 3,974,534 4,412,241 5,024,334 5,602,361 P~ Uorth levi,.. (I) !11,951 62,117 d6,157 12,5J9 115,G87 115,454 115,625 115,121 115,4tl 115,158 64,731 64,194 6J,5SI 62,106 62,018 .,.., "·'" a.utatlwa (160,112) (11t,Ril:> ,,,., 26,152 ··-154,617 a,a11 .... Dt,Jt6 4t6,m 411,tJ4 "'·"' 610,159 674,411' 737,253 799,292 .. Tllbta 1 ""ior Aa~Mol~!Pti-: lnflatiGI'I lata 4.5l 111111 Cow llydroetec:trlc Project lnt-t lata ••• r:c.t of ,_ Anatr-1• c:-tructlon r:c.t 12,100,000 480 kV Project lond she I:S,2:SO,OOO hbt Service (llydro) 1286,91:S ..... 0 UHblttty (1) .. 1987 1981 1-,,. 1991 199Z 199J 19M 1995 '"' 1991 1991 1999 2000 2001 lASE CAlf AIIAU$1$ CltySr-t• hbt krvlce (2) :SS,64a J5,64a J5,64a J5,64a :SS,64a J5,64a J5,64a :S5,64a J5,64a :SS,64a :SS,648 47,Z19 47,219 1D,030 1ZJ,030 F~al r:c.te (J) 94,Q7 149,151 162, .. 177,121 191,4611 209,:M6 227,41116 Z47,DI ..... o m,w 317,163 531,110 161,131 314,957 410,304 o 1 • r:c.u (4) 63,2'25 "·"' n,az 76,566 .. ~~=~~~ ..... w,m ··-115,346 n2.• 119,681 127,576 115,985 144,'1144 154,496 ................ ................. .. ............. ................ ...... ..... .. ... ... .............. . ................. .. .............. .. .............. .. ............... .. ................. .. .. -.. --.... . .............. ... .. -· ··-- lotal J:lty CC.ta 195,710 252,1'91 m,• 289,DS JOP,no :S:S1.-355,.7 311,119 409.-440,-473,199 509,164 5]9,899 615,437 650,:S56 City lOIId ( ... ) (5) 2,107 2,150 2,195 2,ZJ6 2,211 2,521 2,373 2,421 2,469 2,5t9 2,569 2,610 2,673 2,126 Z,1111 CC.t of ,_ (/ldih) 9.2 n.1 11.3 12.9 13.6 14.J 15.0 15.1 16.6 17.5 11.4 19.4 20.2 22.6 U.4 IC'fiiiiOI'IO.IfCT AMI. 'lSI S llydrcproject-ol-t sr-t• Debt Servin (Di-1) (6) 35,64a 35,648 J5,64a J5,64a J5,64a J5,64a 35,64a :S5,64a J5,64a J5,64a J5,648 :SS,648 :S5,648 411,ZIJ 61,4117 Debt s.rvlu (llydro) ( 7) 0 0 216,913 216,913 216,913 216,91:S 216,913 216,913 216,913 216,913 216,915 216,913 216,915 ZI6,91S 216,915 F~al r:c.u UJ 15,170 119,106 51,954 57,113 63,11' 61,915 15,230 12,tlt •• 6ZJ "·-107,007 tiS,Oo\1 123,110 1J:S,ll0 141,554 o I M CC.t• (4) 42,150 44,927 41,636 44,199 47,545 50,4117 "·m 57,409 61,217 65,277 69,625 74,211 79,263 14,5111 90,2411 ------·· ........... .... ...... -......... .................. ............... .. ................ .............. .. ............. .. ............. "' . .. ................ .. ............... .. .......... _ .. -.. ~ ........ ~--... --.. r otal .,.,.,., r:c.u 153,668 200,312 417,151 toM,m 4»,030 441, tii6J 451,6ZI ..a.• 473,401 415,646 499,192 511,113 525,715 ss:s, 154 S82,i!02 Cl ty LOIId ( ... ) (5) 2,107 1,150 2,195 2,236 2,211 Z,J27 2,373 2,421 2,469 Z,519 2,569 2,610 2,673 2,726 2,1111 Co.t of P-r C/kliiU 7.3 9.:S 19.0 19.0 t9.0 t9.0 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.7 20.3 20.9 Project llwi11118: ._,,., Dollar• .,..I .. .. (146,151) (155,531) (12J,310) (110,019) (15,761) , ..... , (63,497) (45,346) (25,99:5) (2, 719) 14,114 62,212 68,154 ~atlw ·--· (146,151) , •.. , , ....... , CSt5,Fll) (6t1,1Jt) ,.,,., ClH,:SOZ) ca,Me» (126,640) (129,560) (815,116) (752,893) (614,739) Preaant Wllrtll savilll!* Cl) .. .. (1JS,973) (116,201) C97,W) ,.,911) (8,173) (50, Sit) (31,050) (24,499) (I:S,OOJ) (1,261)) 6,0Q Z4,73:S 25,060 .,.,.,., ~aclw .. .. (155,973) (252,175) (350,0111) ,..,.,,,, C4M,147) CM6,7a) ,.,,., ,,.,m, (621,210) (622,540) (616,456) <591,123) (566,663) PC£ Savlnp: (9) IGmMlDoll .... ,,,,., (121,761) (1t7,14t) ua,t75) , .. ,,, (76,BJ) (61,111) CU,m) '"·"'· (1,-) 1J,415 59,161 64,746 ...... , .. .. c...teclw --.. (t,,,., CIM,Zl8) ,.,,,., c•.-• ,,., .. , (87,115) cn7,116) (761,6tt) ,,.,., (7117.-) '"4,417) (115,24f) (650,502) PIWMl Wllrth $avlnp (I) ..._a .. -· (tlf,114) (tti,Wl) (tii,M) (76,a6) (61,ftt) , ..... , (ft,1fl') CD,I74) CII,JSJ) C1,1W) 5,m ZJ,4W ZJ,I07 c...&ettw .. ·-C11f,174) CZJf,W) , ... , ,.,..a, c•n,,.., ""·-· ,.,., ""·-· ,,..,116) (5t1,41J) C!le,654) (SQ,1J7) (5JI,lJI) reble 7 (cont'd) 2802 200J 2004 2005 20116 2007 21108 lOOP 2010 2011 2012 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 IASl CASE MAI.TIIS City Syat• Otlbt hrolh:e fZ) 123,11!0 123,11!0 12J,CBO 131,175 115,391 115,,. 115,,. 115,,. 115,,. ···-185,,. 185,)98 185,,. 1115,)98 185,391 UIS,J'lll , .. t COlt• (J) 4J7,J4S "'·* ··-529,629 564,5JI 6GI,1J4 6211,112 6S1,10f 6116,619 117,579 749,87'0 713,614 818,817 ass,m 111114,2)4 914,4~ 0 & R COIU (4) 164,617 U'S,S29 tl7,0f1 199,4llo 212,W 226,517 2J6,m 2'7,4ZI 251,!162 27'0,197 212,356 Z9S,062 !01,340 J22,21S 116,715 351,167 ..... ............ ................ .. ........... .............. .. ............... .. .............. .. .............. .. ............. -.............. ... ............ .. ............... .. .............. .. ............... ........ -· .. -.,._ ............. -" --M-0- tot•l City COlt• .. 7,576 121,24'1 769,557 121,741 M,4J4 956,645 995,919 t,OS2,1111 1,073,514 1,116,110 1,1.0,560 1,207,010 1,255,551 1,J06,2l5 1,359,2115 1,414,6~ City loed (lUI) (5) 2,156 2,1f'J 2,951 J,OIO 1,010 J,1JZ 1,112 1,112 J,IJZ 1, liZ 1,112 J, 112 3,112 3,132 ],112 1,112 Con of ,_. (/IIIII) 24.2 25.1 16.1 21.J 29.5 l8.5 31.1 D.O J4.1 J5.6 31.1 38.5 40.1 41.1 4].4 45.2 H1111101'110.1Etf AMI. Yilt llydraproj..:t·OI-1 Sy.r• INIIC s.nic:. COI-l) (6) 61,lo81 "·"' "·"' "·"' 1a,no 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 101,110 108,110 INIIC s.nta (llydro) (1) Zl6,911 ZI6,91J .,91J Z16,91S 216,91J .,91J 216,91J 216,91) 216,911 216,913 Zl6,913 Zl6,913 Zl6,913 Zl6,913 216,913 286,91) f .. l COIU CJ) 154,461 lt6,1U n•.• 1fl,101 216,"' 121,014 81,974 2'2,41S 251,121 264,121 276,.U •• 011 !02,0110 115,684 329,890 344,135 0 & .. toltl (4) 96,295 112,745 -.fl'J "'·-ta,JIO IJJ,144 1Jf,1J6 145,JN' 15t,twt ISI,m 165,9l2 113,301 111,191 119,344 191,865 206,769 .............. ............. .............. ···-···· ................. ............... ............... ... ............. .. ............... ............... .. ........... __ .. ............... .._ .......... .. ............... .. ............... --... ~ . -. total ar-t tolta 599,156 617,297 ....... 157,471 1'liii,JI1 .,., 151 H6,1JZ 112,112 -·-t11,520 81,517 851,492 8111,l84 900,051 m,m 9olo6,526 City LOIIIII (lUI) (5) 2,156 a.• 2,9!11 J,OII J,0111 3,112 3,112 1,132 J,1JZ 3,132 3,112 :S, 112 3,112 ],112 ],132 3,112 C•t of ,_,. (/IIIII) 21.1 21.1 21.6 21.1 ZJ.7 a.l a.s 25.1 25.6 16.1 16.1 27.4 28.0 28.1 29.5 30.2 Proj..:t SMtl'*': -•nat Oollen .,_, a,4zo 109,952 112,1.10 164,269 11'9, 111 -·'"' 121,711 ao,a m,m 297,591 322,t8J J49,51t 117,247 406,224 436,505 461,149 c:.-~..u ... (596,)19) Clo86,161) CJ5J,538) (11t,JM) C11,1U) 196,JH U4,1Jt 614,117 M7,W 1,2'5,051 1,561,040 1,917,55t 2,2M,805 2,101,030 J, 137,555 3,605,6114 ,._. llordt SMtl"" (8) 44,126 41,147 41,111 49,612 50,269 50,684 50,9:54 51,036 .,_, »,104 J4,661 :Y,m 44,Jf1 51,004 SO,IS4 50,597 S0,24S o...tetlw (5:16,559) (511,-) (461,116) (411,129) em.•, (Sl6,816) cm,1as, C211,51S) (117,1144) (116,560) (75,626) (24,591) 26,415 17,261 127,1165 1711,111 Pa _,,.., (9) -lnal Ooll•n '"· 1111 216,397 87,516 212,n1 :sot.,W JJZ,042 444,742 .,_, 15,999 104,454 126,101 156,816, 196 .... 259,611 3SII,Jas 385,913 414,6110 a-t•tlw C!W6,50S) cW,Mfl (JJ5,161) (11'9,., Cf,6JS) "'·"' 412,911 ........ ...... 1,112,-....... 1,121.-2,1.,065 2,565,911 2,910,6S8 3,425,400 P..-t IIOrtll SMtlnp (8) JZ.-J6,W U,117 U,!IIS 45,455 ...... 47,101 47,756 41,150 lo8,JI1 lo8,lo84 lo8,454 lo8,:S11 lo8,061 47,1JJ a.-1 ··-o...tatlw cw,nn (48,.) (Of,9111) (J97,79J) , ..• , ,.,J'JJ) (l6S,Sl6) Cl16,1ll) (Mil,.) (12li,ZS2) cn,IM, '(2J,J60) Z5,01111t 73,405 121,412 169,205 .. F 0 0 T N 0 T E S . For Tables 5 - 7 (1) Usability of project output after takinq into account monthly flows. (2) Debt service on installed diesel generators using the assumed interest rate and an amortization period of 20 years. (3) Fuel costs of diesel generation based on $0.80/qallon diesel price in 1988 with 2 percent real escalation through 1996. A 12kWh/gallon fuel efficiency for City generation was assumed. (4) Estimated. (5) Based on an assumed 2 percent load growth. (6) Debt service of backup diesel generators based on the same assumptions used in the Base Case Analysis. (See footnote 2.) (7) Debt service on the estimated bond size. Does not take into account potential interest earnings on the debt service reserve fund. (8) Discounted to 1988 using the assumed cost of money. (9) Based on the current program remaining in effect. No assurances can be given that this will occur. 2097/DD33(8) Figure 2 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Usability Analysis ( 1) ( 400-kilowott unit) 36 ~------------------~--------~--------------------~ ..c 34 -t 1----100X usable (2) SOX usable 32 ~ I - -&OX usable 30 28 26 Diesel Case ~ 24 .......... ., ---,...- / t: 22 3 20 18 ------- --,_.. ~ ----------. ,---. , : , -. _/ ------- 16 14 -----------------_____ ...... --------- ... __________ _ 1990 1995 Year 2000 (1) Coat of power production with an auumed Inflation rote of 4.5" and an Jntereat rate of IS. Doea not Include City admlnl•trotlve and other coat•. (2) UaabiUty of project output after monthly load/reeource fit. 2005 ,---------- 2010 ..!:: ~ ' !1 c ., 0 Figure 3 King Cove Hydroelectric Project Cost of Capital Analysis (1) ( 400-kllowatt unit) 36~~------------------~--------~--------------------~ J~ I ----9X cost of capital (2) 1 1 8X cost of capital (2) Diesel Case ,-----------.. _____________ _ / . -------" --. -----~ -------------" ,---------__ :....__ .// . _____ .,.,.----------------~- 10 t I t I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1988 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year ( 1) Co•t of power production with an Q88Umed Inflation rate of 4.5X. Doe• not Include City admlnl.tratlve and other collb. (2) BaNd on 1 OOX u•ablllty after monthly load/raource fit. .. EXHIBIT. A KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account Labor) stltMARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fork Penstock Tank Powerhouse' Tailrace Mechanical ' Electrical Contract Tr~ission Line (3.7 •i.) Misc. Construction lt1118 Subtotal Administration (10X) Eng. ' Conatr. Meneg..ent (12.5X) Subtotal Contingency ( 20X) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QUANTITY No. units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 6,250 300 4,140 2,600 14,130 Rate Date: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Remy Williams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost ' Labor 41,780 402,000 17,750 143,800 n3,000 206,100 265,000 1,799,430 179,900 224,900 2,204,230 440,800 2,645,030 USE 2,650,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 2,837 54 1,000 422 2,344 6,965 EXHIBIT A ALASKA Pa.IER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti•ted by: Remy Williams (400 KW, Foree Account Labor) Sheet 2 of 7 QI.WITJTY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ···----.............. -----······---······--------------------------............ --.--......... No. unit Hra/ Total Materials Wt/ Total units unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & labor Unit CWt --------- DETAIL ............ - DIVERSIOII AND INTAKE STRUCTURE·· GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5i12'+7i7'•109') 130 lF 7.50 980 15.5 20 6•x8•x10' Treat. Tf.O.r 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3•x6• T&G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Saekrete 50 SACKS 5.00 250 100.0 50 Trash rack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25 Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 lS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30 11 1 EA 500 200.0 2 labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Subtotal 308 4 laborera-·12 10·hr days) 840 20 16,800 Equipment D6 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pulp & Misc. Equip. 1 lS 2,500 100 Equip. Subtotal 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars> Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Reay Williams (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ......................... ------------·-----------------------·--------- _______ ..,. ___ ...... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials t.lt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit Ct.lt --------· DETAIL (cont'd) ............. ., ____ ...... _ PENSTOCK--GLACIAL CREEK WEIR TO TANK TO POWERHOUSE Materials 24u-X 10 GA. '01 Ring W/Alkyd outside & coal tar .,_.l l infng 7,100 LF 20.45 145,200 35.1 2,492 Drive Anchors & s.s. Bands 210 EA 75.00 15,750 50 105 4'-Culverts a Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70' Tilllber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 2,837 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5-man crew) 350 20 7,000 Equipment D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (80 10-hr days a 90' /day) Labor (7-an crew) 5,600 20 112,000 Equipment Pipelayer, 5610 700 HR 35.00 24,500 350 966 FE Loader 700 HR 60.00 42,000 420 Tractor Trailer 700 HR 50.00 35,000 250 Equip. Install Cone. Deacinan & Subtotal 1,020 Timer cribs Labor 300 20 6,000 Misc. Equipment lS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 2n,ooo 6,250 125,000 402,000 ~ EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE <1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Eati•ted by: Re~~y Willilllll& (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 7 QIJAIITITY MATERIAL LAIIOit TOTAL FREIGHT ··------·---· ............................. ------------------------·--·--·-................ _ ... _____ No. unit Hra/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Unfta Unit Price Cost Unit Hra Rate Coat & Labor unit CWt --'·-------____ .. -----·------------·------........... ---- DETAIL (cont'd) -------·-------TANK··8'f X 15 1 HIGH WD. STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 1211 Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transducer 1 EA 1,300 Wire 114 6,300 Lf 0.10 600 C~rete 4 CY 150.00 600 700 2~ Installation Subtotal 54 Labor 300 20 6,000 Miac. Equipaent LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 111750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Coat) 120 CY 200 24,000 23 2,760 20 55,200 700 840 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (800 SF) 1 EA 16,000 1,380 20 27,600 160 HVAC LS 15,000 Lighting LS 6,000 Subtotal 1,000 SUBTOTAL 61,000 4,140 82,800 143,800 ,.- EXHIBIT A ALASKA PO.IER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EstiMted by: R.y "ill iams (400 KY, Force Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QIJMTJTY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT -------·----------------·-------------------------------·--........................... _ No. Unit Hra/ Total Materials "tl Total Unit& Unit Price Coat Unit Hra Rate Coat & Labor Unit CYt ---------DETAIL (cont'd) ........... ---------· MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator w/ecceaaortel LS 190,000 360 Station Auxil tary, Control & Protection, SWitchyard Equt~t, Wid Gr~n:Ung Syat• LS 10,000 Installation of Above 1,600 38 60,800 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel 1 EA 21,000 21 Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38 13,680 King Cove JI.I'ICt ion Metalclad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38 3,420 SCADA (~leta) 75,000 SUbtotal 416,000 2,050 77,900 493,900 441 Job Supervt a ion 1.5 NOS 6,000 9,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 1111. & Board 270 MD 80 21,600 Flatbed Truck 1.5 NOS 1,600 2,400 Pickup 1.5 NOS 1,200 1,800 Freight 441 CWT 15 6,600 Slllall Tools C5X of Labor Cost) 3,900 Mob/D.ab 25,000 S~total 571,200 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5X) 151,400 Total Contract Cost 722,600 USE 723,000 EXHIBIT A ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EstfMted by: Remy "ill iama (400 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QLIAiniTY MATERIAL LA80R TOTAL FREIGHT ................. ----·· --···-------·--------------·-----------------· .., ______ ................. llo. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials "t/ Total Units Unit Price COiat Unit Mrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CVt ---------DETAIL (cont'd) ................................ __ uti)ERGR(UI) TRANSMISSION LIIE··12.471CY, ]jl, 3.7 MILES use 3 single 1 cebles ph• a neutral, buried w/30 11 cover. Splices will be In actiOMllzar cllblnets spaced I 2500'. 3.7 •ilea x 5210'/•lle • 19,536' USE 20,000 LF Materials 15 ICY Ceble··t2 Capper (20 X 3f X 1.15 • 69 USE 70) 70 1000 FT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral 12 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44. Sectionalfzer cabinet (ccaplete) 10 EA 150 7,500 100 10 Trench Excavation & Backfill--Excavate, haul and place St.*ltotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10·hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 • 20 days 20 dllye x 10 hrs • 200 hrs Equi~t CAT 225 Backhoe (125 HP) with 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 15.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loeder 200 HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY Oulp Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Wecker Ccapector 200 HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. St.*ltotal 504 Llbor 1 For-.n 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equf~t Operators 200 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 12,000 Installation of Cable and Sectfonalizer Cabinets . at rate of 1000' per 10-hr. shift. EquipMt Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) 200 HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 EXHIBIT A KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (400 KW, Force Account Labor) DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLAIIEOOS CONSTRUCTIOI ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job S.rvfaion Freight Air Fare Flatbed Truck Ptckupa (2 ea.) Purchaaer/Tt .. keeper Slllll Toola & Supplies (51 on Labor) Mob/D.-Db UTOTAL QUAMTITY No. unita 5 6,965 9 5 10 5 untt LS MDS CWT RT MDS MDS MDS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hra/ Unit LABOR Total Hra Rate Date: Rev. Mar·88 Esti1111ted by: Real)' Yi ll i alliS Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 30,000 104,500 6,300 8,000 12,000 20,000 14,200 60,000 265,000 FREIGHT Yt/ Unit Total CYt EXHIBIT B KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) SlJ4MARY Diversion Structure--Glacial Fort Diversion Structure--Clear Fort Penstock Tank Powerhouse & Tailrace Mechanical & Electrical Contract Tr~fssion Line (3.7 Mi.) Misc. Construction Ita. Sl.btotal Adllinistration (10X) Eng. & Constr. Manage.ent (12.51) St.btotal Contingency <20X> TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST CIUAJITITY No. Units unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE <1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Cost Hrs/ unit LABOR Total Hrs 840 560 6,950 300 6,900 2,600 18,150 '"' Rate Date; Rev. Mar-88 Esti•ted by: Remy Williams Sheet 1 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 41,780 27,850 505,240 17,750 243,000 1,164,000 206,100 335,500 2,541,220 254,100 317,700 3,113,020 622,600 3,735,620 USE 3, 740,000 FREIGHT Wt/ unit (Equip.) Total CWt 308 206 4,382 54 1, 700 422 2,344 9,416• EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Est i•ted by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet Z of 7 QIJANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT .............................. --··-----------------------·------------------......................... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt --"1·· .... ---------.. -..... ----.. -----........... _ -----___ ............ DETAIL .................. DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE·· GLACIAL FORK Materials 6x6 WF 15.5 (5112'+717'•109') 130 LF 7.50 980 15.5 20 6•xa•x10' Treat. Timber 100 EA 35.00 3,500 150.0 150 3•x611 TI.G Treat. 750 BF 1.00 750 3.5 26 Sackrete 50 SACKS 5.00 Z50 100.0 50 Trashrack 1 EA 2,500 25 Intake Screen 1 EA 4,000 25. Misc. Bolts, Anchors, etc. 1 LS 1,000 10 Sluice Gate 30" 1 EA 500 200.0 2 Labor (1 Fore., 2 Equip. Oper., Slbtotal 308 4 Laborers--12 10-hr days) 840 20.00 16,800 Equipment D6 Dozer 100 HR 60.00 6,000 330 Backhoe 3/4 CY 100 HR 30.00 3,000 390 Pu.p & Misc. Equip. 1 LS 2,500 100 Equip. Slbtotat 820 SUBTOTAL 24,980 840 16,800 41,780 DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-· CLEAR FORK (allow 2/3 cost of Glacial Creek structure) 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 ~ EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT E s ti 1118t ed by: Remy Willi 8lliS (1,000 KW, Foree Account Labor) Sheet 3 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ---··-----........ ____ .................... -----------·-·--------------·-----·---·------llo. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hra Rate Cost & Labor Unit C\lt -----.......... DETAIL (eont'd) ...... _ ........ -................. PENSTOCK Materials Clear Creek Weir to Tank: 24-, X 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 580 LF 20.45 11,860 35.1 204 Glacial Fork Weir to Tank: 30•-x 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 780 LF 25.11 19,590 46.0 359 Tank to Top of Hill; 36•-X 10 GA.*, '0' Ring 5,550 LF 29.80 165,390 55.0 3,053 Top of HIll to Powerhouse: 36•-x 10 GA.*, Weld Bell 750 LF 28.80 21,600 55.0 413 * All pipe coated w/alkyd enamel outside & coal tar .,.....l lining. Drive Anchors & s.s. Bands 230 EA 75.00 17,250 50 115 4'-Culverts a Clear Fork Xing 120 LF 30.00 3,600 100 120 Concrete 10 CY 150.00 1,500 700 70 Tilllber Cribs 10 EA 125.00 1,250 500 50 Installation Subtotal 4,382 Bench, install culverts across Clear Fork Labor (5·1118n crew) 350 20.00 7,000 Equi,-nt D6 Dozer 60 HR 60.00 3,600 966 FE Loader 60 HR 60.00 3,600 Haul Bed & Set (90 10-hr days a 90' /day) Labor (7·1118n crew) 6,300 20.00 126,000 Equi pllll!l'lt Pipelayer, 561D 800 HR 35.00 28,000 350 966 FE Loader 800 HR 60.00 48,000 420 Tractor Trailer 800 HR 50.00 40,000 250 Equip. Install Cone. Deacillln & Subtotal 1,020 Tiniler Cribs Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equipment LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL 366,240 6,950 139,000 505,240 EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date; Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estiated by: Rany ~illi111111 (1,000 KU, Force Account Labor) Sheet 4 of 1 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ------------· ·--------·------------------------------------ ............. ________ No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials ~tl Total Units Unit Price Cost Unit Hra Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt --------· DETAIL (cont'd) ....................... ----· TAIK-·8'' K 15' HIGH WD. STAVE Materials Tank 1 EA 7,500 2,000 20 12• Flush Line & Valve 1 EA 300 300 3 Pipe to Tank Fittings 3 EA 150.00 450 100 3 Level Transdueer 1 EA 1,300 ~ire 114 6,300 LF 0.10 600 Concrete 4 C'f 150.00 600 100 28 Installation Sl.btotal 54 Labor 300 20.00 6,000 Misc. Equiplllel'lt LS 1,000 SUBTOTAL ,, , 750 300 6,000 17,750 POWERHOOSE & TAILRACE Concrete (Incl. Earthwork Cost) 200 CY 200.00 40,000 23 4,600 20.00 92,000 700 1,400 Prefab. Metal Bldg. (1500 SF) 1 EA 30,000 2,300 20.00 46,000 300 HVAC LS 25,000 Lighting LS 10,000 Sl.btotal 1,100 SUBTOTAL 105,000 6,900 138,000 243,000 " EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar-88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Esti111ated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Foree Account Labor) Sheet 5 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ···-·--·--·--..................................... -----·---·········----·---------............ _ ................... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials t.lt/ Total units Unit Pdee cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & labor Unit CWt ---------DETAIL (cont'd) ---·---····----MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT Turbine-Generator wtaeee~sortes (1·400 KW & 1·600 KW) lS 450,000 900 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Swltehyard Equi~t, and GrOU'lding Syst• LS 80,000 Installation of Above 2,500 38.00 95,000 City of King Cove Power Plant New Control Panel 1 EA 21,000 21 Metalelad Switchgear 1 EA 45,000 45 Installation of Above 360 38.00 13,680 King Cove JU1Ction Metalelad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalelad Switchgear 1 EA 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 SCADA (C~lete) 75,000 Stbtotal 701,000 3,040 115,520 816,520 996 Job Supervision 2.0 MOS 6,000 12,000 Air Fare 12 RT 700 8,400 Rll. & Board 400 MD 80 32,000 Flatbed Truck 2.0 MOS 1,600 3,200 Piek!4) 2.0 MOS 1,200 2,400 Freight 996 CWT 15 14,900 small Tools (5X of labor Cost) 5,800 Mob/Demob 25,000 Sl.btotal 920,220 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.5X) 243,900 Total Contract Cost 1,164,120 USE 1,164,000 EXHIBIT B ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) Date: Rev. Mar·88 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Estimated by: Remy Williams (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) Sheet 6 of 7 QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ___ .,.. .................... ---·-··------- ........................ ___ ... ______________ .................... ,.. .... No. Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Units unit Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor Unit CWt .................... DETAIL (cont'd) ---· .. -------·--UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION LINE-·12.47 KV, 3f, 3.7 MILES Use 3 single I cables plua a neutral, buried w/30" cover. Splices will be in sectional izer cabinets spaced a 2500'. USE 20,000 LF 3.7 •ilea x 5280'/•ile • 19,536' Materials 15 KV Cable··l2 Copper (20 X 3f X 1.15 • 69 USE 70) 70 1000 fT 1,300 91,000 525 368 Neutral 12 Copper 22 1000 FT 300 6,600 200 44 Sectionalizer Cabinet (complete) 10 EA 750 7,500 100 10 Trench Excavation & Backfill--Excavate, haul and place Subtotal 422 bedding and backfill at rate of 1000' per 10·hr. shift. 20,000 -1000 ., 20 days 20 days x 10 hrs = 200 hrs Equipnent CAT 225 Backhoe ( 125 HP) W/ 3/4 CY Rock Bucket 200 HR 15.00 15,000 504 F.E. Loader zoo HR 30.00 6,000 10 CY DI.IIIP Truck 200 HR 30.00 6,000 J.D. 350 Dozer zoo HR 30.00 6,000 Wacker Compactor zoo HR 5.00 1,000 Equip. Subtotal 504 Labor 1 Foreman 200 200 30.00 6,000 3 Equipment Operators zoo 600 23.00 13,800 1 Truck Driver zoo 200 Z3.00 4,600 4 Laborers 200 800 15.00 1Z,OOO Installation of Cable and Sectionalizer Cabinets at rate of 1000' per 10·hr. shift. Equipment Truck & Trlr. w/cable reel racks 200 HR 35.00 7,000 J.D.350 Backhoe (to hoist reels) zoo HR 30.00 6,000 Labor 1 Electrician 200 200 35.00 7,000 1 Truck Driver 200. 200 23.00 4,600 2 Laborers 200 400 15.00 6,000 SUBTOTAL 152,100 2,600 54,000 206,100 EXHIBIT 8 KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1,000 KW, Force Account Labor) CIUAJITITY No. Units __ ........ DETAIL (cont'd) MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job S~rviaton 6 Freight 9,416 Air Fare 10 Flatbed Truck 6 Pickups (2 ea.) 12 Purchaser/Ti .. keeper 6 Sllllll Tools & Supplies (51 on Labor) Mob/Delllllb SUBTOTAL Unit LS MOS CVT RT MOS MOS MOS LS ALASKA POioER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE ( 1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price 6,000 15 700 1,600 1,200 4,000 Cost Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs Rate ~ Date: Rev. Mar-88 Esttll8ted by: Remy Will iiiiiiS Sheet 7 of 7 TOTAL Materials Cost & Labor 10,000 36,000 141 ,ZOO 7,000 9,600 14,400 24,000 18,300 75,000 335,500 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit Total CWt EXHIBIT C KING COVE HYDROE~ECTRIC PROJECT (Marginal coat of '-'"'9rading 400 KW project to 1,000 KW) SUMMARY Diversion Structure--Clear Fork Penstock Powerhouse & Tailrace Misc. Construction u .. Mechanical & Electrical Contract SU:lltotal Adainiatration (10X) Eng. & Constr. Manageaent (12.5X> Sl.btotal Contingency (20X) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST QOAJITITY No. Units Unit ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL Unit Price Coat Hrs/ Unit LABOR Total Hrs 560 6,250 3,620 10,430 Rate Oilte: Rev. Mar-88 Estimated by: Resny Willi IIIIlS Sheet 1 of 3 TOTAL Materials Coat & Labor 27,850 402,000 125,400 248,000 521,000 1,324,250 132,400 165,500 1,622,150 324,400 1,946,550 USE 1,950,000 FREIGHT Wt/ Unit (Equip.) Total CWt 206 2,837 700 2,344 6,087 EXHIBIT C KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (Marglnet cost of 1..1p9rading 400 K\1 project to 1,000 K\1) DETAIL ·------ DIVERSION AND INTAKE STRUCTURE-- CLEAR FORK PENSTOCK POWERHOUSE & TAILRACE MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION ITEMS Surveying & Staking Job Supervision Freight Air Fare Flatbed Truck Pickups (2 ea.) Purcbaser/Ti.e«eeper Slllalt Toots & SUflPl ies (5l on Labor) Mob/Dellob SUbtotal QUANTITY ......................... - No. Units Unit LS 5 MOS 6,087 CWT 9 RT 5 MOS 10 MOS 5 MOS LS ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) MATERIAL LABOR Date: Rev. Mar"88 Estilllated by: Remy Wil Iiams Sheet 2 of 3 TOTAL FREIGHT ··-----·--·-·-------·--------------·-------·----------···--Unit Hrs/ Total Materials Wt/ Total Price Cost Unit Hrs Rate cost & Labor Unit CWt ·---··--- 16,650 560 20.00 11,200 27,850 206 2n,ooo 6,250 20.00 125,000 402,000 2,837 53,000 3,620 20.00 72,400 125,400 700 (Equip.) 2,344 10,000 6,000 30,000 15 91,300 700 6,300 1,600 8,000 1,200 12,000 4,000 20,000 10,400 60,000 248,000 EXHIBIT C ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY COST ESTIMATE (1987 Dollars) KING COVE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Date: Rev. Mar-88 (Marginal cost of upgrading Estill8ted by: Reray Williams 400 KW project to 1,000 KW) Sheet 3 of 3 QUAJITJTY MATERIAL LABOR TOTAL FREIGHT ........................ ..--------------------····-·------···--·---·--· ....................... ____ No. Unit Hra/ Total Materials Wt/ Total units unit Price Cost unit Hrs Rate Cost & Labor unit CWt ..... _ ... , ____ DETAIL (cont'd) ................. ------- MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL CONTRACT 600 KW Turbine-Generator w/acceaaories 260,000 540 Station Auxiliary, Control & Protection, Switchyard Equipaent, and Grounding system 10,000 lnatallation of Above 1,600 38.00 60,800 Peter Pan Seafoods Power Plant Metalclad Switchgear 15,000 15 Installation 90 38.00 3,420 St.btotal 285,000 1,690 64,220 349,220 555 Job SUpervision 1.0 NOS 6,000 6,000 Air Fare 10 RT 700 7,000 Rln. & Board 125 tl) 80 10,000 Flatbed Truck 1.0 NOS 1,600 1,600 Pickup 1.0 NOS 1,200 1,200 Freight 555 CWT 15 8,300 small Tools (51 of Labor Cost) 3,200 Mob/Deaob 25,000 St.btotal 411,520 Contract O.H. & Profit (26.51) 109,100 Total Contract Cost 520,620 USE 521,000 ~ Alaska Power Authority State of Alaska April 7, 1988 Mr. Wayne Marshall, City Manager City of King Cove 1007 W. 3rd, Suite 201 Anchorage,, AK }9501 Dear~a~Tf- Steve Cowper. Governor The attached memo contains Afzal Khan•s comments on the questions posed in Attachment 2 of your letter dated January 20, 1988. With the mater- ial I sent you on March 24, 1988, these comments complete our response to your January 20, 1988 request. W/~ avid Denig-Chakroff Manager of Project Evaluation DDC:dw Attachment as stated cc: Donald L. Shira, Alaska Power Authority Afzal H. Khan, Alaska Power Authority 2308/846(1) c:= PO Box AM X PO Box 190869 Juneau. Alaska 99811 701 East Tudor Rood (907) 465-3575 Anchorage. Alaska 99519-0869 (907) 561-7877 ., MEMORANDUM State of Alaska ro: David Denig-Chakroff DATE: April 6, 1988 Manager of Project Evaluation FILE NO.: THRU: TELEPHONE NO.: FROM: Afza 1 H. Khan fr.,/1/f:_ Manager/Engineer1ng Support SUBJECT: King Cove Hydroelectric Project Per your request, the comments on Attachment 2 of the City of King Cove's 'letter dated January 20, 1988, are as follows: :t. When the operating utility is delivering electric power {hydro or any other) to the City of King Cove, the consumers' generators/en- gines should not be connected to the system. It is the responsi- bility of the operating utility to set rules and regulations regarding individuals trying to operate their generators in paral- lel with the hydro. Individuals owning generators for emergency purposes should have provisions to start only when disconnected from the utility. As long as they follow prudent utility prac- tices, there will be no problem. The hydro plant will deliver an electric power at a voltage and frequency that are both, within narrow limits, constant. This is essential for the residential and commercial customers. Peter Pan Seafoods has some large motors {50 -100 hp). When connected to the utility system, the operation of large motors will cause the system voltage and frequency to fluctuate. Excessive fluctuation in voltage and frequency is not tolerable. Peter Pan Seafoods would need to install devices to start the large motors in steps and to be timed so that they are not started simultaneously. 2. It is not difficult to deliver a block {200 or 400 KW) of power to Peter Pan Seafoods. The operators at Peter Pan Seafoods can control the power delivered to Peter Pan. The power delivered will be measured by a meter at Peter Pan. 3. The life expectancy of an underground transmission system, depend- ing on the type of cable used and the type of protection applied, is from fifteen to twenty years. The life expectancy of an over- head transmission system is about thirty years, not considering natural disasters. 4. It is practical to run individual service connection from the main transmission cable as long as the individual service connections are properly fused to protect the system. 5. It is important to provide a stand-by system {diesel power) to deal with those times when the hydro plant may be out of service. The City should keep the existing diesel generator units in operating condition. The City does not need to purchase a small diesel generating unit. AHK:tg 2286/0034/1