HomeMy WebLinkAboutGrant Lake Findings and Recommendations 1986SEW-G
008
Alaska Power Authority
LI BRARY CO PY
Alaska Power Authority
Findings and Recommendations
GRANT LAKE
Hydroelectric Project
and
DAVE'S CREEK -SEWARD
Transmission Line
September 1986
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
AND TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITY FEASIBILITY
September 1986
PROJECT TEAM:
Katie Eberhart, Project Economist
Remy Williams, Cost Estimator
Douglas D. MacArthur, Rural Projects Coordinator
Brent N. Petrie
Director, Project Management
Donald Shira
Director, Program Development
Robert D. Heath
Executive Director
c 1986 Alaska Power Authority
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC AND
TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITY FEASIBILITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive SuiTDlla ry ••.•......•.•................••••...•..•.......... 1
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................... 3
A. Project History ........................................... 3
B. Previous Studies ......................................... 3
II. EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM .................................... 5
I I I. ANALYSIS OF THE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT. ........................ 6
A. Description of the Hydroelectric Project ................. 6
1. Technical Description ............................... 6
2. Construction Cost Estimate .......................... ?
B. Data for the Economic Analysis ........................... ?
1. Load Forecast ....................................... 7
2. Potential Hydroelectric Energy Supply ............... 8
3. Fuel Costs .......................................... 8
4. Operation and Maintenance Costs ..................... 8
5. Capacity Costs ...................................... 9
C. Economic and Financial Feasibility ....................... 9
1. Economic Analysis ................................... 9
2. Financial Analysis .................................. 9
3. Summary ............................................ 10
D. Conclusion .............................................. 11
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE SEWARD-DAVES CREEK TRANSMISSION
LINE PROJECT ................................................. 12
A. Description of the Seward-Daves Creek Transmission
Line .................................................... 12
1. Technical Description .............................. 12
2. Construction Cost Estimate ......................... 12
B. Conclusion ...................... · ........................ 13
*Appendix A
Detailed Estimate of Construction Cost-HYDR0 .......•....... 16
4569/599/2
*Appendix B
Load Forecast-Seward .......••............••.............•.• 17
*LIST OF FIGURES
1. Alternative-D, General Project Arrangement -Grant Lake
Hydroe 1 ectri c Project ........................................ 18
2. Selected Project Arrangement Site Plan-Grant Lake Hydro ..•• 18
3. Power Conduit Plan and Profile-Grant Lake Hydro ............ 18
4. Grant Lake Channel Excavation-Grant Lake Hydro •............ 18
5. Intake and Gate Shaft-Grant Lake Hydro ....•.••............. 18
6. Powerhouse Area Plan and Profile-Grant Lake Hydro .........• 18
7. Powerhouse Plans and Sections-Grant Lake Hydro ............. 18
8. Powerhouse Main One Line Diagram-Grant Lake Hydro .......... 18
9. Access Roads Typical Sections-Grant Lake Hydro ......•...... 18
10. Seward-Daves Creek Transmission Line Routing Plan
{ Sheets 1 - 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 19
*LIST OF TABLES
1. Table of Significant Data for the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project ................•.....•.•.•............. 20
2. Summary of Economic Analyses Using 20 Year Plans ............. 21
3. Summary of Economic Analyses for Grant Lake
Equivalent Options ........................................... 22
4. Selected Project Arrangement Summary of Project
Capital Costs ................................................ 23
5. Forecasted Price of Cook Inlet Gas for Use in
Economic Analysis ...•...........••........•.................. 24
6. Seward-Daves Creek Transmission Line, Economic Analysis ...... 25
LIST OF GRAPHS
1. City of Seward Peak Energy Demand ............................ 26
2. City of Seward Energy Sales ..................•............... 26
3. Cook Inlet Gas Price Forecasts ............................... 26
4. Grant Lake Feasibility Review ................................ 26
*NOTE:
All appendices, tables and figures are taken from Ebasco 1 S Grant Lake
H droelectric Project Detailed Feasibilit Anal sis final report (Janu-
ary 198 , whic was un erta en and pai for y the Power Authority.
The original tables and figures numbering system is preserved for
cross-referencing in the original report. The numbering designation
used in this report is for clarity and continuity, all appendices,
tables and figures have cover pages with numbering and titles pertinent
to this report.
4569/599/3 i i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The transmission 1 ine between Seward and Daves Creek currently under
construction and very nearly completed, will have benefits in excess of
its costs. It will allow Seward to realize a lower cost of energy
utilizing the Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (CEA) grid system,
gas-fired turbine generators within the Chugach system, and reduce the
use of Seward 1 S own stand-by emergency system diesel generation units.
In addition to the above, the line losses will be reduced dramatically,
resulting in direct cash savings to Seward and Chugach, hence their
ratepayers.
The proposed Grant Lake hydroelectric project for Seward is, however,
not economically feasible at this time. The net present value for the
cost of electricity produced by the proposed hydroelectric project is
greater than under the current system --gas turbine operated by CEA
with Seward 1 s diesel generators as stand-by. In addition, Bradley Lake
is expected to be on-1 i ne by the early 1990s, adding 90 megawatts of
power to the southcentral Alaska power system.
Construction Costs
Construction costs for the proposed hydroelectric project at Grant Lake
are estimated to be $30.1 million (January 1986 dollars). Construction
cost for the transmission line between Seward and Daves Creek, including
the substations, is $14,195,000 (August 1984 dollars). This is an
installed price. The Alaska Power Authority 1 s participation in this
project is $5.5 million (August 1984 dollars). The City of Seward is
res pons i b 1 e for the acquisition of the ba 1 ance of the funds and con-
struction management of the project (all of which was accomplished
before the Power Authority received the grant for Seward).
Economic Analysis
The benefit/cost ratio calculated in 1984 for the proposed hydroelectric
project varies depending upon assumptions, but does not exceed 1.148
under any reasonable assumption (Tables 2 and 3). This indicates that
the Grant Lake project has a lower present value cost than the Base Case
before financing costs are considered.
The benefit/cost ratio for the Seward-Daves Creek Transmission Line was
not estimated in the Grant Lake report because all scenarios to supply
Seward with power included the cost of construction and upgrade to
Seward-Daves Creek Transmission Line. However, Power Authority staff
performed a cost savings ratio using information which indicates a
greater than 1.0 ratio of savings to cost (Table 6) over 10 years in all
cases except the 10 percent discount rate scenario (interest rate 10
percent greater than inflation). The economic life of the line is
estimated to be 30 years.
4569/599/4 1
Financial Analysis
The financial analysis shows an average cost of Grant Lake Hydroelectric
energy at $.1649/KWH during 1991, the first expected full year of
generation. This is nearly three times the cost expected to be negoti-
ated in the Bradley Lake power sales agreement. This analysis is based
upon the assumption that all of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric energy
produced would be sold.
Generation Plans
For the hydroelectric project, five generation plans were identified.
These plans included:
II. Base Case, gas-fired turbines, no new hydro
II-1. Grant Lake Hydro, gas-fired turbines
II-2. Portion of 90 megawatt Bradley Lake Hydro, gas turbines
4. Portion of 135 megawatt Bradley Lake Hydro, gas turbines
5. Portion of Susitna Project, gas-fired turbines
Construction of a 90 megawatt hydro project at Bradley Lake is proceed-
ing, and the project will be on-line by early 1990. Although Bradley
Lake may be expanded to 135 MW, this option (Plan 4) is not a signifi-
cant part of this analysis. Plan 5 is no longer relevant because the
Susitna Project as previously envisioned, will not be constructed.
As the report was being completed, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game asked the Power Authority to consider an alternative project
arrangement which would involve locating the powerhouse further upstream
and at a higher elevation in order to discharge water above an area that
was apparently used as rearing habitat for salmon. The net effect of
this proposal would have been to raise the capital cost, reduce the net
head by about one-third and reduce the energy output by about one-third.
Since this would have further reduced the benefit-cost ratio of what
appeared to be an already marginal project, this concept was not pursued
further by the Power Authority.
Implementing the Recommendations
Unless conditions change dramatically, either through extreme increases
in the price of natural gas or load growth, the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
Project as envisioned in the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis, January 1984, is not economically feasible at this
time.
The Legislature has already appropriated $5.5 million through the Alaska
Power Authority to the City of Seward for the construction and upgrade
of the transmission line facility between Daves Creek and Seward to the
City of Seward. The City of Seward, taking the initiative and pursuing
its own sources, has already funded the balance of the transmission line
project.
4569/599/5 2
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Several studies indicated that a hydroelectric project at Grant Lake
warranted further study. The most recent of these is the Ebasco Ser-
vices, Incorporated ( Ebasco) study, Grant Lake Hydroe 1 ectri c Project
Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Final Report, (January 1984). In this
report, several alternatives were presented to the Power Authority for
providing power to the City of Seward (Seward). The report also details
the necessity of construction and upgrade of the transmission 1 ine
facility between Seward and Daves Creek.
The report outlines technical and economic feasibility of the hydro-
electric project, along with several alternatives. However, the report
preceded actual approval for construction of a 90 megawatt Bradley Lake
project prior to commencement of the Grant Lake facility.
A. PROJECT HISTORY
Since the early 1950s, there has been intermittent interest in the
development of the Grant Lake project. In the late 1970s, due to
the increase in cost of fossil fuels resulting in an energy short-
age, there was greater interest in developing this project. In
1979, CH2M Hill conducted a reconnaissance study of the hydroelec-
tric power alternatives for the City of Seward and in 1980, the
same firm conducted a feasibility assessment of hydropower develop-
ment at Grant Lake. The latter report contains an assessment of
the cost of power from alternative sources, and a review of alter-
native hydroelectric projects available to meet the projected needs
of Seward.
In August 1981, Ebasco submitted a proposal to the Alaska Power
Authority (Power Authority) to perform a detailed feasibility
analysis for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric project. The result of
that proposal is the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Detailed
Feasibility Analysis, final report, issued January 1984. Based on
the findings of this report, Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project has a
benefit/cost ratio ranging from 1.012 up to 1.148 depending upon
the assumptions utilized.
B. PREVIOUS STUDIES
The titles of the various reports completed for the Grant Lake
Hydroelectric Project are listed below:
1. Geologic Report and Map of the Kenai Peninsula by Martin,
et. al ., in 1915.
2. Topographic Mapping of Grant Lake and Grant Creek by
Giles.
4569/599/6 3
3. Proposed Hydroelectric Development at Grant Lake by R.W.
Beck and Associates (Beck, 1954).
4. Geologic Investigations by the U.S. Geological Survey.
5. Filing of an Application to the Federal Power Commission
for Preliminary Permit for the Project by Chugach Elec-
tric Association in 1959.
6.
7. Feasibility Assessment of Hydropower Development at Grant
Lake (CH2M Hill, 1980).
8. Grant Lake H droelectric Project Detailed Feasibilit
Ana ysis, Final Report, Ebasco, January 1984 .
4569/599/7 4
CHAPTER II
EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Until 1985, electric power was supplied to Seward through the trans-
mission system and interconnection between Seward's electrical system
and the Chugach Electric Association power grid via a 24.9 kV
transmission line from the Daves Creek 115/24.9 kV substation. Seward
is a 1 so backed up by emergency stand-by generators (three 2500 KW and
two 1500 KW generators) at Seward. Two of the 2500 kW generators are
new; the third is an existing unit in good condition. The two 1500 kW
generators are 1942 models and only capable of 1000 kW peak power and
not the rated 1500 kW because of age and poor condition.
It was reported that occasionally Chugach went off-line and when their
power was restored, Seward had serious difficulty reclosing because
their emergency generators were inadequate to supply enough voltage.
Seward also found it necessary to run their existing generators during
peak loading of the transmission line to maintain minimum acceptable
voltage levels because of line losses on the Seward-Daves Creek Trans-
mission line (per conversations with Seward officials).
4569/599/8 5
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF THE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
A complete analysis of the hydroelectric project includes technical
feasibility as well as an economic and financial analysis. This section
provides a description of the proposed project and following sections
include an explanation of the data, benefit/cost analysis, and the
conclusions.
Data for the analysis is based on the final report by Ebasco Services
Inc., January 1984, and a review of that report by the Power Authority
in April 1986. The following tasks were completed as part of the
update: (I) comparing forecasted energy demand with actual energy
demand and (II) review of the five generation plans which were initially
identified for analysis by Ebasco, including: 1) Base Case gas-fired
turbines, no new hydro, 2) Grant Lake hydro, gas-fired turbines, 3)
portion of 90 megawatt Bradley Lake Hydro, gas-fired turbines, 4)
portion of 135 megawatt Bradley Lake Hydro, gas-fired turbines, 5)
portion of Susitna project, gas-fired turbines. The fact that plans for
constructing a 90 megawatt hydro project at Bradley Lake are proceeding
and the project will be on-line by early 1990, changes the assumptions
underlying the analysis. Neither the Base Case nor the Grant Lake
scenarios reflected proceeding with the Bradley Lake hydro project. The
fifth option, which centered around Susitna, is irrelevant since the
Susitna project will not be constructed.
If generation plans were to be identified at this point in time, only
one of these would be chosen -the 90 megawatt Bradley Lake hydroelec-
tric project and gas-fired turbines. Two other alternative plans would
probably be added: 1) Bradley Lake hydro with gas-fired turbines and
Grant Lake hydro and 2) Grant Lake hydro and diesel fired generators at
Seward. An additional unknown when speculating on future sources of
power for the City of Seward, is the question of what type of alterna-
tive (to Susitna) railbelt energy sources will be developed during the
next one or two decades. Although it is unlikely that a project of the
magnitude of Susitna will be constructed, it is likely that there will
be other significant energy projects in the Railbelt.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
1. Technical Description
The proposed layout of the Grant Lake Hydroelectric project
site is depicted in Figures 1-9. The technical data for the
hydroelectric project is shown in Table 1. The selected
project arrangement for Grant Lake consists of a lake tap
intake on the west shore of Grant Lake; an incline tunnel
leading to a powerhouse (installed capacity of 7 megawatts) on
the east shore of Upper Trail Lake; an access road and trans-
mission line extending from the powerhouse across the narrows
4569/599/9 6
between Upper and Lower Trail Lake to the Seward/Anchorage
highway; an access road to Grant Lake; and recreational
facilities at Grant Lake and salmon rearing facilities adja-
cent to the powerhouse and tail race (Ebasco Final Report,
January 1984).
The proposed generating equipment will use a vertical shaft,
Francis turbine, single unit with a rated net head of 206
feet. The rated flow will be 459 cubic feet per second at 400
rpm.
2. Construction Cost Estimate
The updated Power Authority design/construction cost estimate
i s $ 3 0 . 1 mill i on ( J a n u a r y 19 8 6 do 1 1 a r s ) . Current 1 y , the
earliest practical on-line date for the project is late 1990.
(See Appendix A.)
B. DATA FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1. Load Forecast
The City of Seward forecasts an increase of 6.05 megawatts in
peak load from 1985 (actual) to 1990. Seward 1 S projected peak
load for 1990 is slightly higher than the low Ebasco projec-
tions (see Graph 1).
Ebasco 1 s low load projections indicate loads of 32,500 MWH in
1986, increasing to 41,800 MWH in 1998 (Grant Lake Study, Page
2-5). The City of Seward 1 s 1 oad forecast prepared in
April 1986, increases from 37,500 MWH in 1986 to 45,600 MWH in
1990, and 50,300 MWH in 1998 (see Graph 2).
Railbelt energy and peak load projections were updated in
mid-1985 for the Susitna project. Seward 1 s share of railbelt
energy was calculated based on historic factors showing the
Kenai Peninsula with 16 percent of railbelt energy and Seward
with 8 percent of Kenai Peninsula area energy demand (Bradley
Lake Hydro, FERC Application, Vol. 1, 1984, TableD 3.3-5 and
D 3.3-6). Using these factors in the 1985 Railbelt energy
projections, energy demand for Seward was calculated to be
practically the same as Seward 1 S 1986 forecast.
There are significant increases in the Seward forecasts in
1988 due to the scheduled start-up of the prison facility (1.5
MW) and in 1990 due to operation of the marine industrial park
(1.0 MW). Graphs 1 and 2 compare the energy and peak load
projections. Seward 1 S projections are only about half of the
Ebasco medium load scenario (Appendix 11 B11
).
4569/599/10 7
2. Potential Hydroelectric Energy Supply
The installed capacity for the Grant Lake Hydroelectric
project is 7.0 megawatts. The average annual energy generated
at the plant is expected to be 25.40 GWH. Annual firm energy
generated at the plant is 18.82 GWH. The dependable capacity
at load center would be 6.55 megawatts. Using the annual firm
energy at load center of 18.48 GWH and looking at Graph 2
(along the Seward forecast line), if the Grant Lake Hydroelec-
tric project was on-line in 1990, the project would provide
approximately half of Seward's energy use, and by the year
1995, roughly one-third of Seward's energy needs.
3. Fuel Costs
Because Seward's diesel generators are used only in emer-
gencies, fuel costs for diesel is assumed to be irrelevant.
However, price forecasts for natural gas are critical to the
analysis because currently Seward buys power that Chugach
Electric Association generates in its gas-fired plants.
The 1984 Grant Lake Feasibility Analysis used a Sherman-Clarke
~as price forecast in calculating their primary scenarios
(Graph 3 and Table 5). Sensitivity analyses incorporated
several other forecasts. Natural gas price forecasts tend to
be tied to oil prices. In 1984 it was impossible to foresee
the radical drop in oil prices which occurred during the first
half of 1986. Thus, at this point in time, forecasts of
natural gas and oil prices are considerably lower than in
1984.
The Power Authority adopted a new range of natural gas market
price projections in 1985 as part of the Susitna studies.
These price scenarios (illustrated in Graph 3) are signifi-
cantly lower than the Sherman-Clark escalation case used in
the Grant Lake study. With 1 ower gas prices, natura 1 gas-
fired power generation becomes an even more cost-effective
alternative. It becomes more difficult for proposed new hydro
projects to be cost competitive with existing gas-fired
plants.
4. Operation and Maintenance Costs
The O&M costs for the Grant Lake project were developed based
on the experience encountered with other hydroe 1 ectri c pro-
jects in Alaska and input from the Alaska Power Authority.
The total operation and maintenance cost is estimated to be
$302,000 per year (Ebasco, page 4-8). However, a Power
Authority memo (November 1983), subsequently updated to
January 1986 dollars, estimates O&M costs at $734,000 per
year. This cost covers; operations including the recreation
4569/599/11 8
and fish facilities, plant maintenance and administration or
overhead, dispatch expenses, yearly replacements of miscella-
neous equipment and insurance.
5. Capacity Costs (Diesel Replacement Costs)
Because di ese 1 generators used by Seward are for emergency
back-up only, there is no value placed on the capacity costs
or replacement costs. If the hydroelectric project were
built, the diesels would still be used in the same manner.
C. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
1. Economic Analysis
The economic analysis of the proposed Grant Lake project done
by Ebasco in 1984 is summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (4-1 and
4-2) for 20-year and 50-year time frames, respectively.
Under a 20-year planning period, Ebasco calculated present
worth of cost at $76.3 million for the Grant Lake alternative
and $77.4 million for the Base Case, assuming a high
(Sherman-Clarke) gas price scenario and low load forecast.
Under the low gas price scenario and medium load forecast, net
benefits for the Grant Lake alternative were less than for the
Base Case.
Ebasco's analysis, assuming a 50 year time frame, is sum-
marized in Table 3. Under the high gas price forecast, the
present value of costs for the Grant Lake project is less than
the gas-fired base case. The present value of costs of
Seward's estimated share of the 90 MW Bradley Lake project is
even 1 ower than the Grant Lake figures. In other words, the
Bradley Lake project, as analyzed by Ebasco in 1984, had a
higher benefit/cost ration than the Grant Lake Project. Under
the low gas price forecast (marginal with 0% escalation), net
benefits for Grant Lake are $657,000 greater than for the
generation alternative.
Since current gas price forecasts (Graph 3) are lower than the
Sherman-Clarke forecast used in the 1984 study, all things
being equal, the Grant Lake alternative will be less competi-
tive compared to gas-fired generation.
2. Financial Analysis
As part of the 1986 Findings and Recommendations prepared by
the Power Authority, the financial costs of proceeding with
the Grant Lake project were calculated. The major difference
between the Economic and Financial Analysis is the cost of
financing the project. Assuming that the Grant Lake project
4569/599/12 9
would be financed through a bond issue, debt retirement
represents a significant cost. If the project is financed by
a bond issue in 1988, construction cost, inflated to 1988
dollars, is estimated at $33.5 million. Once cost of fees and
reserve funds related to the bond issue are included, the
bond issue would be approximately $43.9 million. Debt retire-
ment, assuming 9 percent interest and a 35 year term, would be
approximately $3.7 million per year. Interest earnings on the
reserve funds are estimated at $464,000 annually.
Based on these assumptions, the average cost/KWH of power
generated at Grant Lake has been calculated. Costs of trans-
mission or distribution are not included. Assuming that
generation of power at Grant Lake begins in late 1990, the
average cost would be $.29/KWH. In 1991, with a full year of
generation, the average cost decreases to $.1648/KWH. Average
cost is estimated at $.1882/KWH in 2000, decreasing to
$.0799/KWH after the debt is retired in 2030 (Graph 4).
Graph 4 also illustrated the expected contract price of power
from Bradley Lake (transmission, distribution, and profit are
not included) as well as a projection of current power pur-
chases by Seward from Chugach Electric, assuming an inflation
rate of 5.5 percent.
3. Summary
In summary, four conclusions can be reached:
(1) Bradley Lake Hydro Project is being constructed and
power is expected to be sold at $.055-.060 per KWH.
(2) Current load forecasts are lower than the medium
range used in the Grant Lake study (Graphs 1 and 2).
(3) Gas prices are also projected to be lower than those
used in the Grant Lake study. Lower priced gas
generation makes hydro power less competitive with
gas-fired generation.
(4) The Seward-Daves Creek 115 kV transmission line is
being constructed. Seward will be able to draw more
power from the Chugach Electric Association grid.
The summary of the Grant Lake economic analysis, Tables 2 and
3, show that Seward's estimated 4.02 MW share of the Bradley
Lake project has a lower present value cost than the 7.0 MW
Grant Lake project. Considering this along with the preceding
analysis, it is unlikely that Grant Lake would provide compet-
itive power with Bradley lake and gas-fired generation
sources. In addition, if the Grant Lake project proceeded
4569/599/13 10
now, power sales agreements would have to be competitive with
long-run power costs from Bradley Lake. Based on Power
Authority analysis, this appears unlikely.
D. CONCLUSION
The economic and financial analyses show that a hydroelectric
project at Grant Lake is not the most economical energy alternative
for the City of Seward. Bradley Lake hydropower and gas-fired
turbines are most economical assuming that equitable wholesale
power sales agreements would be negotiated between Seward and CEA.
The Power Authority, therefore, takes a position that the proposed
Grant Lake Hydropower project would not be competitive with Bradley
Lake hydropower and thus, should not be pursued as a potential
project at this time.
4569/599/14 11
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE SEWARD-DAVES CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE SEWARD-DAVES CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE
1. Technical Description
The following information is provided to describe the project
requested by the City of Seward -Construction and Upgrade of
the Transmission Line from Daves Creek to Seward.
(a) Work being accomplished:
(1) Construction of a new 115 kV line from the Daves
Creek substation to Lawing, a distance of approximately
27 miles. The line is a single pole, wood structure-type
with some double pole structures for long spans at
avalanche areas. The line also includes a 24.9 kV
underbuild for service to local Chugach Electric Asso-
ciation (CEA) customers.
(2) Improvement to the Daves Creek Substation which
provides better line security to the main CEA
transmission line.
(3) Constructing a new substation in Lawing with a
transformer to reduce voltage from 115 kV to 69 kV.
(4) Upgrade of the existing transmission line from
Lawing to Seward allowing operation at 69 kV. Replacing
defective poles and insulators as necessary, adding
special transformers for local distribution at four
locations, and clearing right-of-way for easier access
and improved security.
(5) Upgrade of the Seward substation for operation at
69/12.47 kV. Adding additional stand-by power capacity
for enlarged system.
(6) Improving line capacity and associated substation
for expansion of the Industrial park area.
2. Construction Cost Estimate
The Project Cost estimate is provided below:
4569/599/15 12
TRANSMISSION LINE SUMMARY
(costs in $1,000)
ENG P.M. LAND CONST TOTAL
115 kV Line 152 182 243 4,667 5,244
69 kV Line 40 62 232 2,014 2,348
Substations 82 135 -0-1,657 1,874
Stand-By Power 86 29 -0-1,860 1,975
MIP 55 45 -0-624 724
415 453 475 10,822 12,165
City Direct & Indirect 1,399
13,564
Contingency 631
14,195
NOTES: These costs do not include the original feasibility study and
design which was accomplished by Ebasco at a cost of approxi-
mately $690,000.
The work is being accomplished under the general superv1s1on
of the City of Seward's Manager of Engineering and Utilities.
The City's Utility Engineer is also actively involved.
Day-to-day management of the project is the responsibility of
the City's construction management firm, Acres/Hanscomb.
Engineering support services is provided by Ebasco Services,
Inc., from Bellevue, Washington. Appropriate field support
personnel is provided both from Ebasco Services, Inc., and
Acres/Hanscomb. Profession a 1 services, primarily surveying,
is provided by Alaskan firms on an 11 as required 11 basis.
Equipment and Construction contracts were awarded by
competitive bid and advertised in Alaska as well as the
11 Lower 48.11 The coordination and scheduling of each of the
contracts is being accomplished by the Project Manager. Some
upgrading and construction work on the southern section and
Industrial Park line is being accomplished by the City of
Seward electrical utility crews.
B. CONCLUSION
The Seward-Daves Creek Transmission Line is a necessary link in
Seward's energy program. Seward recognized this and pursued
various financing methods to raise the nearly $15 million for the
project.
The Seward-Daves Creek transmission line was an economically
justifiable project. It resulted in a present value of savings
resulting from the project of $21 million by 1995, assuming a
4569/599/16 13
discount rate of 3.5 percent and no inflation. At a 10 percent
discount rate, the present value of savings was about $15 million
by 1995.
Discussion
The City of Seward purchases power from Chugach Electric
Association. It is generated at other locations in southcentral
Alaska and must be shipped to Seward over transmission lines,
including the Seward-Daves Creek line. Before construction of the
new line, during the winter 1984 there was a 25 percent voltage
loss and 20 percent power loss on the old 25 KV line, according to
estimates provided by the City of Seward. These losses dropped to
about 3 percent with completion of the new line.
Estimates provided by the City of Seward compare power losses
between the old and new lines in 1984-85 and projected for 1987:
Year
1984-85
1987
Power Loss (mwh)
Old Line
3,700
14,000
New Line
160
3,700
At $.039/kwh, the estimated wholsesale value of savings due to the
new line was $138,000 in 1984-85 and is projected to be
approximately $402,000 in 1987. The City of Seward estimates that
the 14,000 mwh power loss in 1987 would have had a retail value of
over $1,000,000.
The new transmission line system is designed to meet load
requirements through 1995. It is designed to support further line
upgrades to 115 kv which. if undertaken, will provide for Seward's
power needs through 2014.
In addition to the savings due to the elimination of excessive line
losses, Seward will also achieve savings due to avoidance of using
diesel generators for power generation to meet needs that exceeded
the capacity of the old line. The City of Seward estimated that
the cost of diesel generation in 1984 was about $.15 -.16/kwh,
including labor, fuel, and miscellaneous operating supplies
(depreciation was not included). At this rate, with projections of
45,600 mwh and 12.4 mw in 1990, the cost of generating about
15,000 mwh with diesel power is estimated at about $2.3 million
(See Table 6).
Combining the estimated line loss savings and the diesel generator
savings results in a cost savings in 1990 of about $2.7 million, by
2000 this has increased to nearly $3.5 million annually.
4569/599/17 14
Construction was begun in mid-1984 and was substantially complete
in late 1985.
4569/599/18 15
4569/599/20
APPENDIX A
(Sheets 1 -7)
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
16
,_
r •
r
r •
[
•
~ ~
-----·
HRC
ACCOUNT
330.
331 .
• 1
.11
.111
.112
. 11 3
. 12
. 121
. 122
. 13
. 131
. 132
. 133
. 134
. 135
. 136
TABLE 1 B-2
SELECT[D PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMAT[ OF CONSTRUCTION COST
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY
HYDRAULIC PRODUCTION PLANT
LAND AND LAND RIGHTS
POWER PLANT STRUCTURES AND
IMPROVEMENTS
Power House
Site Preparation
Clearing AC 0.5
Excavation -Rock CY 4,870
Excavation -Common CY 310
Substructure
Concrete -Structural CY 1,150
Reinforcing Steel TN 60
Superstructure
Structural Steel LB 111.500
Aluminum Siding and Roofing Sf 10,000
Architectural Treatment LS
Plumbing, Lighting
and Electrical LS
Miscellaneous Metal LB 5,500
Heating and Ventilating LS
Subtotal Powerhouse
Sheet 1 o_LL_
UNIT IOTAL
COST COS1
----------------
$
Not l nc l udedY
3800.00 1900
25.36 123500
11 . 94 3WO
550.00 632500
2622.00 157300
2.32 258800
15.27 152700
88400
76400
3.04 16700
39900
1551800
l/ All project lands are Federal lands which are currently being transferred
to state ownership.
2620B
18-7
FERC
ACCOUNT
.2
. 21
• 211
.212
• 213
• 2131
.2132
• 2133
.2134
• 213 5
.214
. 215
.216
.217
.218
• 219
• 2191
.2192
• 2193
.• 2194
• 22
.221
.222
.223
.224
.225
.226
.23
TABLE 18-2
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
··-~ ...... ,--"""'' '-:~'"JJ""""o • -""'~ ... ~,_...._ ..
-..........
Sheet 2 of 7
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT QUANTITY COST
TOTAL
COST
Conservation of Fish and
Wildlife
Salmon Holding Facility .
Site Preparation and Grading AC
Gravel Surfacing CY
Class B Access Road
Clearing AC
Excavation -Rock CY
Excavation -Common CY
Crushed Stone CY
Random Fi 11 CY
Common Excavation CY
Concrete -Structural CY
Reinforcing Steel TN
6' Chain link Fence LF
Aluminum Pickets LF
Miscellaneous
Wood Foot Bridge LS
Emergency Water Supply LS
Misc. Plumbing and Valves LS
'Misc. Tanks and Equipment LS
Fish Bypass Facility
10 11 dia steel pipe, lfned
and coated LF
Pipe hangers EA
Bypass Screen (Incl hinges) SF
Bypass Screen HYdr. Piston LS
Bypass Screen E1 ect Controls LS
10 11 dia Butterfly valve
Off-Site Fish Hatchery Module
Subtotal Conservation of Fish and
Wildlife
. TOTAL POWER PLANT STRUCTURES
AND IMPROVEMENTS
18-8
EA
LS
0.34 7500.00 2550
215 19.07 4100
0.25 4000.00 1000
155 50.97 7900
430 9.30 4000
75 18.66 1400
1 '100 3.18 3500
1,450 9.24 13400
21 671.42 14100
0.30 2133 640
500 25.20 12600
1,700 10.35 17600
9700
33800
6000
143000
2,980 122.88 366200
20 150.00 3000
250 68.80 17200
7800
Included in Acc't 334
1 1600.00 1600
456000
1127090
2678890
L
L
L.
l
L
l-
L
L
l
r.
i
I •
r·
I
It
-
-
..
~,._. .. ..
TARLE 18-2
SELECTED PROliECT ARRANGEMENT
OfTAilfO ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Sheet 3 of I ..
FfRC UNIT TOTAL
ACffiUNT OfSCR I PTIOtJ UNIT QUANTITY COST COST .. ------33?. RESERVOIRS ANO WATERWAYS
. 1 Reservoir -.11 Channel Expansion
• 111 Excavation -Rock CY 14,500 19.00 27 5!.100
• . 11? fxcavat ion -Common CY 2,600 10.00 26000 . -. 12 Recreation Facilities LS 45000
• Subtotal Reservoir 346500
t
~ .2 Power Tunnel 9.0' Horseshoe ( 3200')
• . 21 Excavation -Rock CY 9,600 380.00 3648000
f. .22 Steel Sets LB 3,055 5.79 17700 ~ .23 Rock Ao 1 ts LF 2,300 25.78 59300
.24 Welded Wire Fabric U3 12,000 1.17 14000
• .25 Shotcret~ lining CY 720 768.65 553400 Jl .26 Concrete -~1a ss CY 675 325.31 219600
.27 lake Tap Intl. Rocktrap & Trashrack
J . 271 Excavation -Rock CY 240 380.00 91200
.272 Shot crete CY 20 765.00 15300
.273 Tremie Concrete CY 40 322.50 12900
.274 Trashrack LB • 33,000 5.80 191400
' .,. .28 Concrete Transition
• 281 Concret~ -Structural CY 110 557.27 61300
; r . 282 Reinforcing Steel TN 5.5 2127.00 11700 .. .29 Gates and Gateshaft
• I .291 Gates w • 2911 Intake Gate EA 1 65500.00 65500
.2912 Temporary Bulkhead Gate EA 1 29500.00 29500
.292 Gate Shaft Excavation CY 352 700.00 246400
~ .293 Gate Shaft Shotcrete CY 30 851.42 25500
• 294 ·Welded Wire Fabric LB 250 1.60 400
.295 Steel Sets LB 7,500 5.83 43730
.296 Rock Bo 1 ts LF 300 26.00 7800 I. .297 Concrete -Structural CY 140 650.00 91000
.298 Reinforcing Steel TN 7.5 2120.00 15900
L
l. 18-9
l..
-
' J ~-,·?-:
j r
" ... ---"-!"
TABLE 18-2 -
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST -· Sheet 4 of 7
FERC UNIT TOTAL --ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST COST
332. RESERVOIR AND WATERWAYS (Cont'd) ,..., ....
• 299 Gatehouse
• 2991 Excavation -Rock CY 2,750 16.93 46600 ...... -
.2992 Rockbolts {1-3/8") LF 2,600 25.77 67000
.2993 Drain Holes (2") LF 800 26.25 21000
.2994 Concrete -Structural CY 135 845.88 114200
.2995 Reinforcing Steel TN 7.0 2119.00 14800 ..---
.2996 Structural Steel LB 14,000 2.32 32500
.2997 Aluminum Siding and Roofing SF 2,100 15.29 32100
.2998 Misc. Metal LB 1,160 3.36 3900 ..--
.2999 ~1i scellaneous
.29991 Gate Hoist EA 1 24200.00 24200
.29992 Misc. Electrical Controls LS Incl in Ace • t 334
• 2993 Bu bb 1 er Sys tern LS 30000 .,-
.3 Penstock (75' lg)(shown as steel
tunnel liner, 3/8" thick)
• 31 Penstock Steel LB 26,200 6.30 165100 .,.........
.32 Contact Grout SF 1800 11.56 20800
.4 Tailrace {640'lg) '""-'~ • 41 Excavation -Rock CY 3,035 25.37 77000
.42 Excavation -Common CY 17,430 6.18 107700 --' .43 Rip-rap CY 2,900 54.39 157700
.44 Bedding CY 860 18.95 16300 "
-~
Su btota 1 Waterways 6352430 I
TOTAL RESERVOIRS AND WATERWAYS 6698930 ~ ~~ __..
333. WATER WHEELS, TURBINES AND GENERATORS I -...
C7MW. -INSTAllED CAPACITY} I .1 lurb1nes, GOvernors and Valves
.11 Turbine and Governor LS 1647000 ..... .,
• 12 In1 et Valve EA 1 Inc1 Above '
.13 lube Oi 1 System LS 25000 c:
.2 Generator, Exciters and Appurt. LS 1329000
~
TOTAL WATER WHEELS, TURBINES AND 3001000 l ... GENERATORS '
18-10 r
r
·-j ,. .. -~ ......
__.;;::
.. ..-
TABLE 18-2
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Sheet 5 of 7
FERC UNIT TOTAL
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTIO tl UNIT QJANTITY COST COST
334. ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT LS 1428000
TOTAL ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 1428000
335. MISCELLANEOUS POWER PLANT EQUIPr4ENT
. 1 Power Station Crane ( 30 Ton) EA 182400.00 182400
.2 Draft Tube Gates EA 2 31500.00 63000
.3 Miscellaneous Equipment LS 400000
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT 645400
336. ROADS AND BRIDGES
. 1 Access Roads
.11 Access Roads Class A (24' wide)
.111 Clearing AC 13 3723.00 48400
.112 Excavation -Rock. CY 14,135 16.92 239100
.113 Excavation -Common CY 35,700 6.18 220600
.114 Crushed Stone CY 10 ,275 18.23 187300
.115 Random Fi 11 CY 30,360 3.24 98300
.12 Access Roads C1 ass B (18 I wide)
.121 Clearing AC 8 3719.00 29800
.122 Excavation -Rock. CY 5,890 16.92 99700
.123 Excavation -Common CY 15,840 6.18 97900
.124 Crushed Stone CY 2,920 18.24 53300
• 125 Random Fi 11 CY 11 ,760 3.24 38100
Total .Access Roads 1112500
.2 Bridges
• 21 Trail lake Crossing
.211 Bridge Girders-A.A.S.H. T.O. EA 8 6975.00 55800
STD. 35' lg
• 212 Concrete -Structural CY 310 560.64 173800
.213 Reinforcing Steel TN 31 2119.00 65700
• 214 Barriers -N.J. Std Barrier LF 280 50.00 14000
.215 Expansion Joints -Metal EA 5 2320.00 11600
• 216 Drains and Drain Pipes EA 16 681.25 10900
.22 Grant Creel< Crossing
• 221 Dimension lumber BF 9,350 3.26 30500
.222 Concrete -Structural CY 15 853.33 12800
18-11
FERC
ACCOUNT
336
.224
.225
.226
i. '] ~. '~~-~ ':'' ~ . ,, ·, ;"·-~.
.; ~· ... -----·
TABLE 18-2
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
f
L
i •
J
\r
Sheet 6 of 7
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT QUANTITY COST
ROADS AND BRIDGES (Cont'd}
Reinforcing Steel TN
Guard Rail -Weathering Steel LF
Misc. Metal and Fasteners LB
Total Bridges
TOTAL ROADS AND BRIDGES
TOTAL HYDRAULIC PRODUCTION PLANT
TRANSMISSION PLANT
1.5
120
250
2133.00
49.17
6.00
TOTAL
COST
'
3200 5900 r
1500
385700
1498200
15950420 r
352. TRANSMISSION PLANT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS
.1
.11
• 12
.13
• 14
353.
355.
.1
.2
~itchyard Civil
Fi 11-Ra ndom
Excavation-Common
Crushed Rock
Fences and Gates
TOTAL TRANSMISSION PLANT STRUCTURES
AND IMPROVEMENTS
CY
CY
CY
LF
SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING EQUIPMENT LS
TOTAL SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING EQUIPMENT
POLES
30
45
40
130
3.33
18.33
18.00
27.73
Clearing Not Included -Use Plant Roads
100
825
720
3605
5250
469000
469000
Poles (Douglas Fir) EA 18 46000
(6 Dead End, 12 Guyed)
TOTAL POLES 46000
18-12
r-:·
rl::f
--
' --
-r
i·
' .-.i
!
J
i
I
I
J
I .
~
I ~
r
r
r
J
[
[
[
TABLE 18-2
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
DETAILED ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COST
Sheet 7 of 7
FERC
ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT QUANTITY COST
TOTAL
COST
356. CONDUCTORS AND DEVICES
• 1
.2
Conductors (336 mcm ACSR)
Insulators
TOTAL CONDUCTORS AND DEVICES
TOTAL TRANSMISSION PLANT
TOTAL DIRECT CONST COST
LF
LS
60. INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
61.
62.
63.
64 •
• 1
69.
70.
71.
Temporary Construction Facilities LS
Construction Equipment LS
Camp and Commissary LS
Labor Expense LS
Travel Pay LS
Total labor Expense LS
Mobilization/Demobilization LS
TOTAL INDIRECT CONST COSTS
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (15%)
SUBTOTAL (Incl Contingency)
OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Professional Services
TOTAL OVERHEAD CONSTR COSTS
19,425
TOTAL PRilJECT COST (in January, 1983 Dollars)
Escalation
TOTAL ESCALATED COST
18-13
2.57 50000
23000
73000
593250
16543670
200000
Included in Direct Costs
Not Required
150000 1soaoo
862000
1212000
17755670
2663330
20419000
2971000
2971000
23390000
1323000
24713000
APPENDIX B
LOAD FORECAST -SEWARD
4569/599/21 17
TABLE 2-3
LOAD FORECAST FOR
CITY OF SEWARD
Peale Demand {HW} Energy (GWH)
Year lowl/ Mediu~/ High~/ low!/ Mediu~/ High~/
1981§/ 5.2 5.2 5.2 27.1 27.1 27.1
1982§/ 5.7 5.7 5.7 29.1 29.1 29.1
.1983 5.9 9.6 11.1 29.9 48.7 56.3
1984 6.0 13.8 20.4 30.7 70.6 104.4
1985 6.2 14.2 21.0 31.5 72.5 107.2
1986 6.4 14.6 21.6 32.5 74.8 110.7
1987 6.6 15. 1 22.3 33.6 77.2 114.2
1988 6.8 15.6 23.0 34.6 79.7 117.9
1989 7.0 16.0 23.7 35.8 82.2 121 . 6
1990 7.2 16.5 24.5 36.9 84.9 125.5
1991 7.4 16.9 24.9 37.6 86.4 127.8
1992 7.5 17.2 25.4 38.2 88.0 130.1
1993 7.7 17.5 25.9 38.9 89.5 132.4
1994 7.8 17.8 26.4 39.6 91.2 134.8
1995 7.9 18.2 26.9 40.3 92.8 137.3
1996 8.0 18.4 27.2 40.8 93.9 138.9
1997 8. 1 18.6 27.5 41.3 95.0 140.6
1998 8.2 18.8 27.8 41.8 96.2 142.3
1999 8.3 19.0 28.1 42.3 97.3 144.0
2000 8.4 19.2 28.4 42.8 98.5-145.7
2001 8.6 19.7 29.1 43.8 100.8 149.0
2002 8.8 20.2 29.9 44.8 103.1 152.5
l/ Low forecast assumes no load growth from industrial development
(both under construction and planned) in Seward area as shown on
Table 2-2. This forecast has the same growth rates as that shown in
the Supplement -Kenai Peninsula Power Supply and Transmission Study
(Beck. December 1982), except that 1981 and 1982 show actual
historical data.
~/ Medium forecast assumes all industrial projects in Seward area which
are currently under construction will be completed and one-half of
the planned industrial projects will be completed (see Table 2-2 for
list of industrial projects and associated loads).
2-7
26768
4569/599/22
FIGURES 1 - 9
GENERAL PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
AND DESIGN -HYDRO
18
.~-~-1¥ • -~ff ' . ~:~. .;i : '' •: t&J c .... w ~CI) ~ 'b ~· z ~ ~..J 0 w t: I"' !I! 110 z: i . ~--a: w a 0 ..J-~ 0 o'-' § z ~ ~&&.i ~N ~ I~ t&J -~~1 ~ . g Wa: ~ e.· ~ a: ..J m~ ~ ~f3 :Iii: 1&1 c w 'b ..J a: ~ 0 3: z a: a: < o< 0 < w z ... ~ 2 ::z:: en~ ow 0 ~~ Cl) ~.J zw 110 (J ~ o::U Q. Cl) Cl) ww a: Cl) wen. :l0 oe 0 1-:.-,. Cl) w ..I ~ a:..~-u. t-2: (i) Q. :..JO (J w Q.<CX) 0 Cl) ~ Cl) ~~oe:i~ <f w z z ?i-cn c w a:-~ a: z ~ ~Wa: _u.cn>o ~ ~ ~ ~ t-..1_0:: u < U) .... <w <t-<c b en m zo Cl) 0 :5 < 0 I I (,!)e::e a:wo~cn 110 i 0: z ~ 0"-W ~(3Z~~ c . LLI w . n.-> z " J I b 0~0 ·;ta:<o:~ L1J 11.1 t-a;;Z Q.OO ~ ..J ··--.-... ·---·-··
!I II
..
'
N_A 1
-.. · ..
" .......
--·.
.....
-. _j
--
'·
J i:
f .
~--'-·-, ... ~~-·-,
---~ r-
~· .
....... -·-~ ------.. -"'" -......,.,.~ ....
~
,·' /-_..,
. -:---~;.;:;--. , ..... -
0
0
0
II'
oD ,..
N
z
...-.t_
. ' ~ .' ./-. , -.,.
:-......... ,
'
C·
--';-.--, --~~
i
• ... . ;
~
\ . -. • \
\
........_ -
·'
GRANTLAK£
'---
-~ c)•· ..:.-........_ ---· --~~-. --... ' -:-~· -~ i ~ . ~ ,. --::.:~
/ . -
. .;,~ .. ;g . ,_ TIH~· ~lOGE-~~--. · ··-~~---~.,~
•• ~' --. • • --; ..::· • # --.._._...,, ..... __ .............. ~ ,........ .
• _ ..... \ ~ ~ ---.._, 'It ' • .. '.... ~ ....,.,.,. ~~ .. --!fi-~--"'-'"·-. ---,_. ~ ""-=--~-~?., .. '" '----L
•. .... ,.......__ ~--. -~ ~ '\~ k"'
;." . - -. ~ ~ -·-------y
.. . .
.. , ~!:::)
'· .· ,·~ ........
' ---
'•\, = . . ---/ .. ' . '"·' ------. ' . . ·'~..;\ ---..
\.. '· .. ~~, '-
'--~\\ '\ \ \ . 1 : .. . ·. .\ ..
"'"'' .... --~ ;......... -:---·
f.--. ..... -q ..... ...__.... _,· ~
~
-I
~
' t:::i; .· \\; .. .:J -----/--. .. ... ,.
" ..,..--. ""'·..:::
"\. : ,'''--1 \.-: ., ' . .
\ ..
'\~.. ( ,,<_ ..
---
-~ \ ,,_,
' ....
'
• I I • 11 a • I • • • l I • I • ______ .._
-.
. · ,
Y"" .-----.. ~ ./ -· ,
\
__/
.. ·:-.:_
-"""'::'-"---
"
~
"-_.
• :. •• - • --•• '!'. --......
. -. .
---.. ---~
l
_.,_
.__..
".-,-.
-::::-
'.... _,..._ ....... ~ -= ..,..,
...-;~-----
/....,;;.. . • _-. . SALHON HOLOING.._.,
. • f'ACILlTY
-,_
-·"':.
,...,
~ ;.
-....
--' .
'·
......... . .........._~ .. :-r. .. . ---· ...
I ' .. ~k
l ~_: . - .. ----
~ . ·, ....... ...~ ... ... '\. ~ . .:. -~·l,? ~-·-. _..... II'=>', .. ·· .
. .1 ·~-·-ti ~1
.....
't _., .,.. ,.
-~ ,.
PRIMARY ACCESS
:J~...e> ·· ..
( \\· .. ----·-· ~ J ~ANT SfffK ' "'· • GAGING STATION
'
...
-..... __ .
---·" -4 ...
,. ., --....... ___ _
--·
i _,'
-... .....
"j ........___
('""'·-
, ~
I
I -_) ------~
. ~ SEWARD-ANCHORAGE • ------GRAtft:-l .. AKE
.......-.. ~----------------------=----------------~ HIGHWAY ------4r"'-SWITc;:tllNG STATIO~
. L-... L -----~--. ----l:x~s~: ~EA ztt:;;---------
,.o ~ llc:'~TC'C'TI'\ll I Tlllr'
LEGEND:
----f"IPELINE AND ~
=====ACCESS ROAD
..,_ ___ .., H£W 11511V T"ANS a..E
•------.. EXISTitG 24_.1lY Ul'FI I
Lit[
NOTES:
L t •OPOGit,.,.,..Y 1$ eASED OM M...,._I'IIIU U &JI
l't' •NORTH PACIFIC AU:tAL ........._ •C.
AND SUitVItYS COttOUCTEO f1f ltall
COfi!SULTAHTS, IHC..1 IN lttl AIIID .-z_
2.. VERTICAL COfO'ROL IS BASED -IIU.S.
DATUM CMEA .. SEA LEVELl. ~-
CONTROL IS lASED ON THE ALa.&A RaE
PLANE 411t1D SYSTEM, ZONE 4 •
3. ALL ROADS ARE CLASS B EX CUT THE
PRIMAY ACCESS ROAD FROM THE KW.__
ANCHORAGE HIGHWAY TO THE ...at-
HOUSE. *HICH IS CLASS A..
400' o• 400' 800' rzoo•
I I I I I I 1 I
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRJ~NT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SELECTED
PRChJECT ARRANGEMENT
SITE PLAN
DATE FEB 198~ FIGURE N-17
-;i :;·~; ~· ~~
, .... \ ·-r ·~ . '
,;,
• •• t
-~ ·r.·
;;.-i
·\I:
. .) ...
~r.
• ~-·:·
• -~
~!
·'" ·~· •• K. .. ~
=•
i···
~::: .. ;· •.
1.·
,.·
~~; -
1~,.-
::
tf.
~:t?..· I ..
; .•
••
NOTES:
I, TOf"OGIIAI'HY IS BASfD 0H MAPf'WG PRE,.AAED 8Y NORTH
AICf'IC M:RIA&.. SUNf;YS, INt.. AND SUW£YS CONDUCTED BY
R8M CONSULTANTS, INC., • IMt AND 1982.
Z. VERTICAL CONTROL tS BASED OH U.S.G.S. DAnat IMEAN
SEA LEVELl. HORIZONTAL CONTROl. IS BASED ON THE
A&.,UICA STATE PLANE GM) SYSTEM, ZDN£ 4.
I, lASED ON PRELIMINARY FIELD 40EOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
PROGRAM. ROCk80l.TING .. THE TUNNEL IS ESTWATED TO
IE REQUIRED FOR APPROXIMATELY 15'W. OF THE TUNNEL
LENGTH.
UPPER TRAIL
LAKE
...... ....
"' X:
'OJ :.
•oo
800
..
:.,,;
·:: ..
PLAN
3" MINIMUM
THI CKNESS OF
SHOTCRETf
LINING
ff' CONCRETE\~
. (' • ROCk80ll'S ISEE NOTE)
, II 10• G FISH
BYPASS
PIPELINE
STEEL
\ PENSTOCk
TYP SHOTCRE:TE LINED TYP STEEL LINED
TUNNEL SECTION TUNNEL SECTION
r .. ·' r r f r-------~----------r----------r----------r---------~~------·---,----------~~~----~----------~~0 SCALE
~------~--------t-~------1---~~~+-------~~~~~~+---------+-----~--~--------lJsoo
:l • s -a!
~
700 I I II\{ v J I l lOOi
. ii
j 5
~ zoo• 0' 200' 400' eOO'
~~~-'-----~----~--____J ~
I
z s ... I I I I I I ..-SH~TCR£T£ LINED I ~ ............... ~'I'D:» \ I : I bOO SCALE. (UNLES!» NOTED)
> w ....
w . • I
TAL WATER
(£Lif68 AT , ':~ ~oa I I PCMERHOUSE>--.\ I ' I 'u"""'" 1-~I I I I I I ~ c;oo
.. w;o....._
TRAIL LAKC
El lfb7
-li+OO ';+OO 10+00
.PROFILE
lli+OO 20+00 21i+OO 10+00
:.J ... ~o l<;+oo
I
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWER CONDUIT
PLAN AND PROFILE
OA TE F EB 198 '3 I FIGURE nl'-18
l
i
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 1 1~1
J ,
' :~
.jj
J
J
a
I
·J
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
I
i
i
--... ' \..\ -----£~ ... ..,,, ' ~ ----:..~:;a:-.::-£=::.::= -' '\ '\ \', \ .. -----.::c-- \ \\\\ \ • 1
N .:::::::.:.==..-::-.:;:-==..:::-," '\ \\\\ ' ~ ~ ===-==---===---,::::, ~ ... \ ~\\ \ ::.-=--=-=---.::-=-~~1" \ ~\\ \ -------''-"~ \ \I -:::::.=--==->==:::.;;:-......... , , ... ,., \\\,, ----=-----,,, '' t\' ,,,, . --------::..... " ' ' \
........ ____ .:= ... , .. x-,',, '''''"'"·· j ~ ::=:::-: __ ..,.-... , \' ' ' "f\ I ~
---... --~ ' ,, ' ' \ \~ 1\\
---------""I : \ I, ., '" . -~ .. ~-, ...
---..... ,i!''l:MA~4_., )
1
.Jt? I 1\\\ '·~==---~~~,.,.~'-.:t-,_;:,,~
, n~"W, ~'i ' / l I 11 -;~•---------.,, ~ ..... , A""'zr,,:,' ,_,, I •'I ----------.=-~-, ,, ----, ~
...1
(I)
!
t!-
1.1..
' z
0
• IL n.,' I ,, ' I I 7 ' I,, .--' I ~ , •, "
'1 /, ::111'\' 1(;/; ~/,f' '608'•6 ,, J I ..... / ,---,, ,,, I I I I II \ I iJ,!' " -. ' --/ ."Y' / --\
I I I I ", " ,. I 'It,,, ~ • . ,.. ---/ 'oil---'
' ' 'I/' " •' 'I,.'' " I -----...... ..,, ---' I ' , ~", "' l/1
''""-N I o / , ' '1': '
I I ,~.-'7Lf_'--Jl :/II /lfiJ t1 rn '-.) \ ' / / / , '•-.
I I '" // ;7,~ \ ~ \ I,, ; •J. D .. , I / "' ~ ,' ... '" " ' I ' ,_,,-I hi '' ·
1
II I 1 v
,, .,, "'"'""' I I' "•''-I \ II I ,' GRANT \ J ~ 'I • ''I'' _,-I''"U I , • •, / ,
I '/.,"', ,,, " ,,,11/,f:· \ ·'.\ I LAKE ------,. " ...... " / 1 I I IJI
1
\ ' \ I / / ,,, I ' 'II llo'o "' " ' 'I r
1
"' I / II -"t,
11
1/ I I I 1 I \ I ~ I I I
1
/II "I --'h ", io I ,, ' 0 ' I ~ o o I / I /I I W ':4'/', 1, '1 , '/ , , I I , 1 I
/I \ '•l ,--,/.-.,-:, /,/1' / ' -~ ... , ' \\ I '
/ 1
1
11 I N,',., '•'/ /o / .. -•• , ', \ \ \ 1 I "' ,, "'" "'"'o', ' I , ~ ' ' ' ' " I
• ' 'I // ,,~. , ,, ' ' =-..._ ', ' ' ' '' >0 I 1/ '~, ~/ ./ /' ' --",•~,' ', '"\I • , II ,,, • I, , ' / " ' ,, ' ' 0\0\ ~~"-.r~ ... "r '~,l,' ,, ,..,;;.." /__ ~ ',~~~ ..... ~~,,~·
,... "'#:.' 'I Jl " I '· "~;., ~·J 'w' 'I //1 ,, ' '' ~~
"' .II ·----'·''' --.:~-~ I -~Y I ' ' L '" '" \ -::,,F '• ' ', •':li ' -/ 11 ,, ,_ -----"\~ ' ''I .. ---•' ·-/ I' ,;_,._ \. ~·~
"'" ~· • ,1,1
'/ / ...-, I' " 0 \\ I
' / •• I " ' \\
' ' ,, '•'~---., \ 0 I h,~ ---------' I / ,,_ -~-~--II
"" ,-' "' '~-... 1 ' I I\
..... .......... '
-..:..'!" -.... , ... " ' \ ---' ---' I ·-' \
-..... __~ "'... ' \ \ ~<----·-~
0
0
PLAN
200' c:t 200' 400'
lu 11 11111 1 I I
SCAI...E
,._ <il EL 691 • NORMAL MAXIMUM POOL
e
~ ~ Jg w 10
SECTION A-A
·??: .. 1, II .r 'r' 2<f0'
SCAI...E
~
SECTION 8-8
2C1 a 2a 4 a (,,.,t,ql I I
SCALE
NOTES:
I. TOPOGRAPHY IS BASED ON MAPPING PIIEJ"lliRED BY NORTH
PACFIC AERIAL SURVEYS, INC., ANO SUlVEYS COHDUCTED BY
R8M CONSUlTANTS, INC., IN 1981 AN> 1!182.
2. VERTICAL CONTROL IS BASED ON U.S.S.S. DAl\lot (MEAN
SEA LEVEU. HORIZONTAL CONTROL IS BASED ON THE
ALASKA STATE PLANE GRID SYSTEM. ZOitE 4.
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
GRANT LAKE
CHANNEL EXCAVATION
DATE FEB 1981 FIGURE N-19
:·~ .,
. ' ~·
.. f
;;'
' I .
r
r
r
r
(
(
I
I
...... ___ _
9'112'
SLIDE
GATE
12'-e
SECTION A~A
3" MIN.
SHOTCREfE
LINING
FISH PIPELINE
TRANSITIONS FROM
TUNNEL CROWN TO
INVERT
21
SECTIONB-B
L tm·~~ ---:1
SECTION C·C
{.4:
100' if1
-s•.OOS
DETAIL E ~
GATE SHAFT AND INTAKE PROFILE
2d o· 20' 4c/ so'
1 .. ,1 I I I
SCALE
"111111111111111111.1
N
I
.~:. r I I I I I I l :'~·.I ·l l. I I I I I I u I
15'
VIEW D-O
PLAN OF CIRCULAR
TRASHRACK
ROCKBOLTS (TYP)
TREMIE CONCRETE
''lo' ,'' \ ... .: . \., . :, ~ ' . ' •
DETAIL E
El 691 NOilMAL MAXIMUM POOL
~
EL 660 MINIMUM POOL
45'
~
• ,. ' .
~
NOTE:
ELEVATIONS BASED ON MEAN SEA LEVEL
!• • o· 5' 10' ~:J'
i • !I I I I I I
SCALE(UNLESS NOTED)
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GAANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
INTAKE AND GATE SHAFJ"
01\ TE FI="R l<lQ"Il rtf"'Hrn ..... ---
·.-:-. .
. ~r:
t•·.
:g
·.·~'i. ,,
'••j,
:'i ~~
···~ ... ~
i.:*
;:;~
:· ~-~
.: ..
·''
""• .
" Ill
•
' I
• ..
I
' II
-
I
I
I
I
f
j
-,
4
':I
" ~
1 ..
N
~
'
I 1./PPER TRAIL LAKE
I
J
/
(
/
/
/
/ .,.
/
I 550
...J ~ 525 .
I-
I>. . z
~ 500
~ w
...J w
475
450 ·7+00
--
PLAN
tiPPER I TRAIL
LAKE ~ ~-r1
v J EL 411 --111 [~ TAl~ A.a.
II
4-S 001 ~ ....
-6+00 -5+00 -4+00 -3+00 -2+00
PROFILE
v v PO ERHOUSI P.. ·r-
..
' EL 488
I{ TURSI~ IE EL 470
!t
~"~-iJ r STEEL L1 ~ER ~~POW
11 I DIAMETE ~VARIES \~ TUNNEL
l
FROM 10 TO 66"
., ... v ·,.. . ... -.'-.; ~-"-v--" v--~ t---L--' vr~ I-s•.ooe \ )"'tt ~RC I-t--s•.
EL.464.6 ~ 1--K TRAP
-1+00 0+00 1+00\ 2+00
EL. 468 AT POWERHOOSE
TRANSITION TO
A LINED TUNNEL
---·-·--
R
.MIW-
55"
3-1
575
550
...J
(J)
525 ~ .
1-
"-.
z
0
500 ~
475
450
00
w
...J w
I
NOTES:
I. TOPOGRAPHY IS BAS£D ON MAPPING PREPARED 8Y NORnt
PACIFIC AERIAL SURVEYS, INC., ANO SURVEYS CONDUCTED 11Y
R61o! CONSULTANTS, INC., IN 1981 AHO 1982.
::!. VERTICAL CONTROL lS BASEO ON U.S.G.S. DATUM IMEMt
SI::A LEVEL). HORIZONTAL CONTROL IS BASED ON THE
ALASKA STATE' PLANE GRIO SYSTEM, ZONE 4.
5,o·. I I I f' 5t '<f' llO'
SCALE (UNLESS NOTED)
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE AREA
PLAN AND PROFILE
DATE FEB 1983 I FIGURE N-21
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATEO ,n "'"'
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
r
-~·-.
0
-I
0 ::r
EXCITER~
GOVERNOR
0
-I
..0
~oc!.,
CONTROL ROOH
~ ~
SERVICE BAY
-!l II I l I·= ~
SECTIONAL PLAN fal EL 487.0'
EL '512.0'
EL '501.0'
.Ut.._l(7o.o• (~--=~ ~ ..
!_,: __ ·---
ROLL-UP
DOOR
1s!...o
I
GENERATOR
I
EL '517.0'
GATE HOIST
DRAFT TUBE
GATE
-TAIL WATER
EL ... bB.O'
..:E m1 DRAFT TUBE ~-:-4:~:.. ACCESS GALLERY
EL 'tS6..'5'
TRANSVERSE SECTION THROUGH ~ OF UNIT
SPIRAL CASE
ACCESS GALLERY
EL ... 68.0'
?
-D
-1
N
~I
L._
·--
VALVE Rl1
EL ... 611).0'
OOAINAGE
SUHP
SECTIONAL PLAN fal EL 470.0'
I
GENERATOR
I
AUXILIARY
TRANSFORHER
U1.._.,~1Q~.O~t--'--
EL '1611).0'
' I I 10" -FISH ~SS PIPELINE .. .....
EL ..... 7.0'
LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH i OF UNIT
LEGEND:
~ . . FIRST STAGE CONCRETE
~ SECOND STAGE CONCRETE
NOTES:
I. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MEAN SEA LEVEL.
r;' o' r;' to' t'i' zo'
!..,.! I I I l
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE PLANS AND SECTIONS
DATE FEB 1983 I FIGURE nl'·22
EBASCO SFRVIr.F~ INr.ORPnR ft TJ:n
;:;
·,
....
I
I
I
I
I
lq
I"
I
I
r •
I
EXCITATION
TRANSFORMER
WAVE
TRAP
~B
Ill Ill ()
MAIN TRANSFORMER
9/IO.f>HVA OAIOF J_
liS ~<.V:Itlf> II.V ,..
Z=ll.'i" <]
GENERATOR
BREAKER
1600A
IC) to-Y .fT :: IIC) KV:b0.4 y
87 70
'£ .... ,,, .. , T
BUS OR CABLE
DI SCONNE<;T LINK
SURGE PROTECTION ~· I I -· .f STATION SERVICE
TRANSFORMER
4J6 II. V 480/277V
150kVA F • • ~ 1 I --fil::l--3 ~>-Cl ' I r r
BUS OR CAil..E
. • • • :tvvvv i
I ' I I
I f ------------.. --------------
GENERATOR EXCITATION
(STATIO
(,! B
GROlN>ING
TRANSFORt1ER
lflb KV:I20V
1
~~>-Cl I I T ~
GENERATOR
7.8/9 MVA 0.90 PF, 60/90C
4.16 kV 3 II 60Hz
400 RPM
1 MW
Z• 3%
~) 400AF
~
_ '!._eovJwcc _ I *----. ---
> ) IOOAF ~ • ~ (TYP.)
6~ 1
1). 120/208 ~.c. 4 80 y
LOAOS lOADS
"'
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ,·,
' :
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
POWERHOUSE
MAIN ONE LNE DIAGRAM
t•ATE FEB 1983 I FIGURE lSl-23
" ~:BASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED,~,..
L
L
l
I I -
1 ..
I
I I
I
I
I
I :
r~
1-
r
r
r
r
r
r
·----. '
~·
1-' -
~~ ..._ ..._
ASSUMED
--3 TOP OF ROCK
,, :::, --...;~ / ORIGINAL
l'!tiit!t \--------./ -..._ t:._ ~O~LI!j(
15 KV TRANSMISSION
LINE--------1
::r
1-i
Uli
~I
40'
~ -·~ --
24'
'.
55'
Ol Q.i
-----~
TYPICAL RIGHT-OF·WAY CLEARING LIMITS TYPICAL RIGHT·OF·WAY CLEARING LIMITS
CLASS A ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
TYPICAL SECTION FOR SLOPED TERRAIN
1•20
:;;,;
4'
ITYP)
DOUGLAS FIR
AVERAGE POLE
SPAN • 400' (TYP)
~ ~ i ~
TYPICAL RIGHT·OF-WAY CLEARING LIMITS : TYPICAL RIGHT·OF·WAY'CLEARING LIMITS
CLASS A ROAD AND TRANSMISSION LINE
TYPICAL SECTION FOR FLAT TERRAIN
~ -(
ORIGINAL
GROUNDl.IN[
-....-...._
TYPICAL CLASS B ROAD SECTION
ORIGINAL
{
GROUNDLINEASSUOMFE~OCK
TOP ~~~~---~ t
I 20'
...-TYPICAL RIGHT·oF·WAY
Q.EARING LIMITS
18'
SAND j
BEDDING
!YPICAL CLASS·B ROAD SECTION ADJACENT TO
TliE FALLS CREEK DIVERSION PIPE
'I
NOTES:
I a.ASS A ROADS PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE
POWERHOUSE.
2. CLASS 8 ROADS PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE
GATE SHAFT, FALLS CREEK DIVERSION OAM
AND PIPELINE.
3. CLASS 8 ROADS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED
IN AREAS OF SLOPED TERRAIN.
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
l ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
:'--------~--------------~ ii GRANT LAKE HYDROB.ECTRIC PROJECT
I'
ACCESS ROADS
TYPICAL SECTIONS
DATE FEB 1983 I FIGURE IST-2'+
EBASC"!O SFRVIC"!FS INCORPORATED
-.;~;
~ ;:; .,
..:.-
4569/599/23
FIGURE 10
(Sheets 1 -4)
SEWARD-DAVES CREEK
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTING PLAN
19
' _,
-.
t _,_ .
~q w
N
,,..... ...........
I -...._
' ....... I -...._
/ ..................
I '-.... I ~ ..... , .
I .................
I ._, ---
1 ......_ --.,---1 ~-.
I
~'b Dt~~T:l~~~K
~==~~-~=_=S=!=E=R~Ll~N=G=H~w=v======~
~
\
\
~~ ·---·~··-------------------·----·--< :::::&:_
-----· -----··
~~ -.:::::::::::::: ~
MOOSE PASS
,-
<=~ ~":='-====---
----··
-----------------·----___ _._ _________ --------. --------------------
~-----------~z~~U;~~R;;TR;~~~-~--~ ~-<= 1 -------------------------
LAKE
Z~--
r--------------:.::.:====="'7"0==~---------• > 4-----------. GRANT LAKE ------------------~~------------~------------•---HYDRO ~ ------..(>. SWITCHING 'zy,.----•-V STATION / ,
/ , ,
c.
~ .-
-------------------------·---· ·-----·-· ----
co
3
t-
4:
'l:
'
I
I. _,-N
~. _;;1[ ~ ~~~~ ~
-~ INDEX •:zo;o;ooo
3 ~
;f';i.
~~ ~-
·~. ;;.· ...
!7
LEGEND
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
.. ______ EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
------ROAD __ __........ RAILROAD <:> MILEPOSTS
---e e -COMB INATION OF NEW &·EXISTING
TRAN SMISSION LINE
10001 d 10001 2000' 5000'
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
_GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE
ROJTING PLAN
.. ... .,
. ;;:¥~:·-
-~-:;_:,·:· :·
SHEET I ~·:
DATE FE9 198'3 I FIGURE l[-2 -.
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED .
-~
i
:i-
.: '..
' I
' ' ' II
I
II
I
-
I
.
1
• ~ '
J
J
~
._,
!
1-w
/
LOWER
TRAIL
LAKE
~r=-=
il
:X:
~
I:
If'
w z ......
~,
~
<t
I:
--.. -
?
...,,.,.-.... --.... ....
~L-----------------------------------
;z-----==-----
FOREST SERVICE
WORK CENTER
~4' ~ .. ,.. , .. ,
--~
TRAIL RIVER ------\\ ~----------·
~
If'
\~ATCH~-
\ ~ ' ~ l <W , L _____ ~;
---c -, \ :i
KENAI LAKE
-------------
:X:
~
."~ I:
MATCH LINE ABOVE
~ :r -------------~ ~
------------------·----------s:
1\..c::l \~-, \ ·,
NOTES:
I.[!NDICATES :AREA OF FREQUENT AVALANCHE ACTMT'I' J
LEGEND
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
•-----• EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
-----ROAD
RAILROAD <:> MILEPOSTS
_.,_ • e -COMBINATION OF NEW a EXISTING
TRANSMISSION LINE
1000' o' 1000' 2ooo' 30o0'
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE
ROUTING PLAN
SHEET 2
oATE FEB 1gs~ 1 FIGURE m-z
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
* I
' ' • Ill -1 • "'"" • ''"!
I ..... ..
·a
t
j
-~
I
'j
i
-i
-7
.s
z~-
C':-:-~
~/v~~-~
I <Z> / -~~,~-,~----~~~~~=====~
/ <S> ---·----
,/'
.II
,"',f/1./'
<3> --------\
SC:WARD
/' ""'-:.SUBSTATION \,~NERATlNG PLANT
RESURRECTION
BAY
I.? z
I~
I.? w ro
N
--~~..._......J~ ....
/45 ,, t-
< ~
----
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
ROAD
RAILROAD 0 MILEPOSTS '
..... ......--..-COMBINATION OF NEW a EXISTING
TRANSMISSION LINE
10001 0' 10001 2:0001 3000'
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SEWARD TRANSMISSI(X'-,1 LINE
ROUTING PLAN
/ /
ABOVE I DATE FEB lq8'~ SHEET 3
FIGURE ill-2
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 1 o-11
l:
11
' I
I
II
• " . • ..., --
j
--~
I
__ j
j
j
• l
•
•
' ~
•
(Y'
1-w w
I
:;,
w z ,_.
_J
..,_ __ _
NA;~-~-----~-~RESURRECTOON BAY RD.I --=-}A-\ ------------~(_-,,
(' "-: "
' --"' .-~~~~ ·~ '\,
/ 1/ r// ~ ,-RESURRECTION ....._ -~--
/,' / ,~ BAY --.... ._
' p:' .....d '----~ .,. ~ ~ ---------=~:=.__./\
~~
11'5 1\V
VERTICAL COI"PACT
WITH UNDERBUILD
11'5 II.V
VERTICAL DELTA
COMPACT
11'5 II.V
VERTICAL COHR\CT
11'5 II.V
VERTICAL COMPACT
LARGE ANGLE
11'5~
VERTICAL C()1PACT
DEAD END
\
FOURTH OF
JULY CREEK l F~THOF
JULY CREEK
.: -'""-·'."·:'fl«,";-:..-·.
,.----------------li ---------..
'r
'r
I
I
I
I
j
SEWARD MARINE
INDUSTRIAL PARK
LEGEND
'l
I
I
I
I
I~
... ----~-
NEW TRANSMISSION l,..ltiE . -_
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
ROAD
RAILROAD
MILEPOSTS· --0
COMBINATION OF NEW a EXISTING .... -__.,____.-TRANSMISSION UNE . , ----
1000' 0' 1000' 2000' --'3000'
SCALE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SEWARD TRANSMISSION LINE
ROOTING PLAN
·'SHEET '+
DATE FEB lg81 I FIGURE III-2
.f
~ -~
'
'
j
~
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 1] 0-12
4569/599/24
TABLE 1
TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT DATA FOR THE
GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
20
TABLE OF SIGNIFICANT DATA FOR
THE GRANT LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
HYDROLOGY
Drainage area. sq m1
Avg. annual runoff, cfs/sq. m1.
Maximum monthly streamflow. cfs
Average annual streamflow. cfs
Minimum monthly streamflow. cfs
PROJECT POWER DATA
Installed capacity. MW
Avg. annual energy generated at plant. GWh
Avg. annual energy at load center. GWh
Annual f1rm energy generated at plant. GWh
Annual firm energy at load center. GWh
Dependable capacity at load center. MW
Annual plant factor
RESERVOIR
Normal maximum power pool elevation {msl)
Minimum power pool elevation {msl)
Reservoir area at normal maximum pool. ac.
Active storage capacity, A-F
Highest reservoir level during possible maximum
f 1 ood {ms 1)
POWER INTAKE
Type -Lake tap intake structure with steel trashrack.
located 900 ft north of natural outlet of Grant Lake
Invert elevation {msl)
POWER CONDUIT
Type -Horseshoe tunnel excavated in rock.
Shotcrete 11ning on tunnel sides and
crown. and concrete lining on floor
Length. ft
Inside diameter. ft
Average shotcrete thickness. inches
POWER STATION GENERATING EQUIPMENT
Turbine Type -Vertical Shaft Francis
Number of units
Rated net head, ft
10
44.1
4.4
504
196
27
7.0
25.40
24.94
18.82
18.48
6.55
0.41
691
660
1. 650
48,000
709
643
3,200
9
3
1
206
Rated flow, cfs
Speed, .,..
Runner dia .. ter, in
Centerline elevation of spiral case
Rated turbine capacity, best gate, hp
Generator Type -vertical shaft synchronous with
enclosed cooling
Generator un•t rating, kVa
STRUCTURE
length
Width
Height (above plant grade)
Generator floor elevation
TAILRACE CHANNEL
length, ft
Bottom width, ft
Maximum velocity, fps
TRANSMISSION LINE
Type -Wood pole construction
Voltage, kV
Length, mi
SITE. ACCESS
Access Roads
459
400
52
470
9,580
7,780
45'-6·
40'-o•
50•-o·
487.0
640
20 to 100
6
115
1.2
Class A -Used to provide penmanent access from
Seward-Anchorage Highway to powerhouse
Length, mi 1.2
Width, ft . 24
Maximum grade, percent 8
Class 8 -used to provide access to gate shaft
and recreation area at &rant Lake
length, •1 1.2
Width, ft 18
Maxi.um grade, percent 8
Bridges:
1 required at narrows between Upper and Lower
Trail Lakes:
Type -Prestressed concrete
Length, ft 140
SITE ACCESS (continued)
1 required across Grant Creek to recreation area:
Type -T111ber
length, ft 60
11
4569/599/25
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
USING 20 YEAR PLANS
21
4
s
'
I
9
10
"
12
1]
11
1 5
.!/
ll
11
!I
11
.... Cast
A 1 t. 1-1.!/
A 1 t. 1-zl.l
A 1 t. 1-l.!/
A 1 t. r-41' .... Cau
A 1 t. 1·1
last Cau
A 1 t. 1-1 .... Cut
A1 t. 1-1 .... Cast
A 1 t. 1-1 .... Cast
Alt. 1-1
tl/
Load Growtll
Scuarto
Ntclfu•
Ntclfu•
Ntclfu•
Nedtu•
Ntdfu•
Low
Low .....
Nttll
liltdtw•
Ntclh•
liltdh•
Ntdtw•
•tdhe
Ntclh•
l'rfct of , ..
(rltul
Nartfllll ISC
Narttllll ISC
Nartfllll tsC
Martha I uc
Martha I uc
lila rt fila 1 uc
Martha I ISC
Martha I ISC
Nartflll ISC
•art hal 101
••rtfllal 101
tiC.
tiC.
tiC.
tiC.
tiC.
tiC.
esc.
fiCo
tiC.
tiC.
uc.
•tldtd ISC tiC.
•tldtd tsC tiC.
•tldtd 101 tiC.
•tldtd 101 tiC •
TAIU 1·1
Total l'rtstllt
llortll Cost
of l'lall
(Jan llll $0001
150,141
IU,lU
IU,tll
IU,lll
1 51,ZOO
77 ,lU
76,lZ1
217,010
ZII,ZZO
136,777
Ill, 1 tl
1 ll ,IU
llZ, 260
III,OU
IZI,UI
last Cast 1'1111 I COIISfltl tf tlfltflll llld IIIW lll•ffrtd ltlltratftll.
let
hlltfftl
Jill 1 Ill $000
0
1. 717
l, 1 5I
Ill
-6,051
0
1 ,Oll
0
1,160
0
_, ,421
0
-lll
0
-l,617
ltlltfft
Cost
I at to
1. 000
1.012
1. 021
1. 006
0.161
1.000
1.014
1 ,000
1.001
1 .ooo
o.uo
1 .ooo
0.117
1.000
0.170
----
.. , .. '"''
Tib1t of
Ttch"ICI1
Appt"d t I
[II -1
Ill -2
Ill ·l
Ill ·4
111 -s
111-6
II I -7
III-I
111-9
111-10
II I ·11
Ill ·1 2
I I I -13
Ill -1 1
111-1 s
A1ttrnatf•t l'la11 1-1 f11clwdtl tilt Gr111t Llkt NJdrotltctrfc l'rtJtct, wllfcll displaces 111·ffrtcl ttneratloll.
A1ttrllatfll 1'1111 I·Z fiiCI•dtl tilt 90 •w lradlt7 Lakt NJdrttltctrtc l'rtJtct, wllfcll dflpiiCII fll•ffrtcl
guera t f 011.
A1ttrllatf•t 1'1an 1-l t11cl•dtt tilt 1l5 NW 1radl17 Lake NJdrotlectrtc l'rtJtct, wlltcll dtsplacts t••·flrtd
, ...... t foil.
4-24
[
[
[
[
[
[
l
[
[
[
[
4569/599/26
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
FOR GRANT LAKE EQUIVALENT OPTIONS
22
r
I
r
r
r
I
Case
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
17
22
17
23
17
y
y
].!
t~
f ·;r~m·:
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES FOR GRANT LAKE EQUIVALENT OPTIONS
Tota 1 Present Reference
Worth Cost Net Benefit Table of
Plan Load Growtt.L Price of Gas of Plan Benefits Cost Tech ni ca 1
Description SCenario (rates) (Jan 1983 $000) (Jan 1983 $000) Ratio Appendix
Sa se Case It!! Me diu• Marginal iSC esc. 31,648 0 1.000 !II-16
Alt. II-tY Medium Not Appicable. 27,579 4,069 1.148 !II-17
Alt. I I-z!l Medium Not Applicable. 21,939 9,709 1.443 III-18
Alt. I I-3!/ Medium Not Appl icab 1 e. 25,582 6,066 1.237 III-19
Alt. II..e/ Medium Marginal @SC esc. 33,060 -1,412 0.957 III-20
Base Case II Medium Marginal @0~ esc. 28,236 0 1.000 ri I -21
Alt. II-1 Medium Not Applicab 1 e. 27,579 657 1.024 III-17
Base Case II Medium Melded 9SC esc. 29,043 0 1.000 1!!-22
Alt. II-1 Medium Not Appli cab 1 e. 27,579 1,464 1.053 Ill-17
Base Case I I Medium Melded @0~ esc. 25,642 0 1.000 I II -23
Alt. II-1 Medium Not Appl fcab 1 e. 27,579 -1,937 0.930 II!-17
Base Case Plan II fs new gas-fired camfned cycle generation.
Alternative Plan II-1 is the Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project.
Alternative Plan II-2 fs the 90 MW Bradley lake Hydroelectric Project with an appropriate adjustment for
capacity credit.
Alternative Plan II-3 is the 135 MW Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project with an appropriate adjustment for
capacity credit.
!Y Alternative Plan II-4 is initially new gas-fired coai>fned cycle generation followed by complete reliance on
the Stlsitna Hydroelectric Project fi'OII 1993 on with an appropriate adjustllent for eapaeity credft.
4-25
4569/599/27
TABLE 4
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT
SUMMARY OF PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS
23
TABLE 18-1
SELECTED PROJECT ARRANGEMENT!/
SUMMARY OF PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS
Cost Iten1
Production Plant
Transmission Plant
Total Direct Construction Cost
Indirect Construction Cost
Contingency
Total Indirect Construction Cost (Including
Contingency)
Engineering, Construction Management and
OWner Administration
Project Subtotall/
Escalation During Construction!/
Total Capital Cost
Amount -January 1983
Price Level ($1,000's)
$15,951
593
$16,544
$ 1,212
2.663
$ 3,875
$ 2,971
$23.390
$1,323
\24,713
ll Selected Project Arrangement is Alternative D with minor
refinements. The minor refinements decreased the project cost by
$802,000. The decrease was due to a reduction in excavation
quantities associated with the channel excavation and modified
unit prices.
ll Represents •overnight• cost estimate in January 1983 dollars.
This value is used 1n the economic analysis of the project.
!I Escalation Based on Project Schedule Shown on Figure IV-27 and
Annual Inflation Rate of 71.
18-6
\[
[
c
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
4569/599/28
TABLE 5
FORECASTED PRICE OF COOK INLET GAS
FOR USE IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
24
TABLE 4-3
FORECASTED PRICE OF COOK INLET GAS
FO.R USE IN ECONOMIC ANAL YSisl/
Marginal Rates£! __ _ Melded Rates~/
0% escalation SC escalation 0% escalation SC escalation
Year $/MCfi/ $/MCF21 $/MCf~/ $/MCFll
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2.71
2.71
2. 77
2.77
2. 71
2. 77
2.77
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3. 12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
3.12
2. 77
2.66
2.55
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.97
3.05
3. 14
3.22
3. 31
3.40
3.49
3.59
3.69
3.79
3.89
4.00
4.11
4.23
0.65
0.74
0.82
1.00
1.13
1.27
1.41
1. 54
1. 73
1 . 75
1.84
1 . 91
1.96
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
0.65
0.72
0.79
0. 95
1.07
1.20
1.35
1. 51
1. 73
1.81
1.95
2.07
2.18
3.41
3.51
3.61
3.71
3.82
3.93
4.05
l/ Derivation of all values in this table 1s provided in a Power
Authority Memorandum to File, dated January 12, 1983, which is
contained in Part IV of the Technical Appendix.
£1 The term •marginal• rates refers to the contracted price of
non-royalty, supplemental gas to AGAS.
~/ The term •melded• rates refers to the forecasted price of gas to
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power and Chugach Electric Association,
where the melded rates are based on the respective amount of energy
generated by each utility;
!/ Prices derived on Table A,
21 Prices derived on Table 8,
~I Prices derived on Table c.
11 Prices derived on Table 0,
53988
Technical
Technical
Technical
Technical
4-26
Appendix,
Appendix,
Appendix,
Appendix,
Part
Part
Part
Part
IV.
IV.
IV.
IV.
l
1 ---
-
[
4569/599/29
TABLE 6
SEWARD-DAVES CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
25
SEWARD-DAVES CREEK TRANSMISSION LINE
ECONOMIC ANALAYSIS
Estimated Lf ne Loss Savings El fmf natf on Of esel
Total Purchases Energy Estimated of Diesel Avoided
Energy from CEA Savings at $/kwh Generation Cost
Demand (mwh) at (mwh) at (wholesale) (mwh) "floor" at $/kwh
Y.!!!:. ( mwh ) 0,97 0.235 0.039 30000 0.15
1986 37500 36375 8548 333377 7500 1125000
1987 39420 38237 8986 350446 9420 1413000
1988 41200 39964 9392 366270 11200 1680000
1989 43400 42098 9893 385828 13400 2010000
1990 45600 44232 10395 405386 15600 2340000
1991 46000 44620 10486 408942 16000 2400000
1992 46700 45299 10645 415165 16700 2505000
1993 47700 46269 10873 424055 17700 2655000
1994 48800 47336 11124 433834 18800 2820000
1995 49200 47724 11215 437390 19200 2880000
Disc. rate: 0.035 Present Val: 3266570 17691441
0,04 3182009 17190359
0.05 3022217 16245441
0.06 2873947 15371122
0.07 2736195 14561141
0.08 2608058 13809863
0.09 2488720 13112213
0.1 2377446 12463613
*Cost of Transmission Line: Bonds $ 5,000,000
5,500,000 Alaska Power Authority
Legislative Appropri~tion's
to Department of Administration
900,000
578,500
3,508,100
$15,486,600
Total Ratio of
Cost Savings to
Savings ($) Cost*
1458377
1763446
2046270
2395828
2745386
2808942
2920165
3079055
3253834
3317390
20958011 1.35
203 72368 1.32
19267658 1.24
18245069 1.18
17297336 1 . 1 2
16417921 1.06
15600934 1.01
14841059 ,96
GRAPHS 1 - 4
4569/599/31 26
City of Seward Peak Energy Demand
30
Actual Compared to Projections
28
26
24
22
20
18 ::
::E
16
14
12 Seward's Forecast
10
8
6
4
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1990 1995 2000
0 Actual/Forecast Pk. + Low ¢ Medium A. High
GRAPH 1
City of Seward Energy Sales
150
Projections & Actual Sales
--~ ------------
140
130
120
11 0 ._____------/'!/
100
I 90
3;
C) 80
70 I
60
50 Seward's Fo~
j //
//
40
30
20
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1990 1995 2000
0 Actual Sales + Low <> Medium ~::!.. High
GRAPH 2
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1 .... u 3 E
" 2.9 .-.
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
1.9
Cook Inlet Gas Price Forecasts
-~~
~~
arton/Enstar
DOR/Enstar --A-~~----------~--
1985
.,
1990
Year
GRAPH 3
1
1995 2000
I :::: y:
'" ~
Grant Lake Feasibility Review
Estimated Cost of Power to Seward
0.3 ---r----------------------------------------------
~
0.28 --j '\
I \
0.26 .J \'
0.24 _J \
I \
I \
0.22 --4 \
0.2 ~ \ ~··
I \ ___..a-----
0.18 ~ '\r--------------
0.16 J
0.14 '
I
0~1-~ ~ /~~
0.081 ///
0.06 i: -~./~~~------+----------+------------+-----
0.04 +--.---------r----------~----~--T-----.--------i
/___a-------------8---
A v
\
\ '\
\
\ ~ --\ A v---\.........,.
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2038
0 Grant Lake + Bradley Lake <> CEA (inflated)
GRAPH 4