Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Feasibility Study, Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie, June 1992
Emenan Feasibility Study Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY June 1992 RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. in association with Dames & Moore & A Recycled Paper Product Power Technologies, Inc. RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Fourth and Blanchard Building, Suite 600 2101 Fourth Avenue m Seattle, Washington 98121-2375 Telephone (206) 441-7500 m Fax (206) 441-4962/441-4972 WS-1559-BA1-AA June 30, 1992 Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Final Report - Feasibility Study of the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Interconnection In accordance with the terms of our agreement, R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. herewith submits the completed final report on the subject study. This study has been prepared pursuant to the Alaska Energy Authority’s Contract Number 2800469, dated November 18, 1991. Principal conclusions of our studies and analyses are found in Subsection F of the Executive Summary, Section I, of the report. The Environmental Report prepared by Dames & Moore and the Power Flow and Transient Stability Analyses prepared by Power Technologies, Inc. are included as Appendices H, I and J to this report, respectively. We appreciate the cooperation given to us by the Alaska Energy Authority and the utilities and various other agencies in the communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell during the course of our study. Respectfully submitted, QUA Tarek, and Aeeretets Austin, TX m@ Boston, MA @ Columbus, NE # Denver, CO m Indianapolis, IN @ Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN m Orlando, FL @ Phoenix, AZ @ Sacramento, CA @ Seattle, WA ecyaled Pat TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter, of Transmitter Uys onxomehsveyoneper skoxswaveh otetlavaonsWoRallstattsWathe etal Waorcmaiietattetatheee tcerranviasttn (i) sablejofiGontentsmmrrr reer eee ee eemend eee emeae eee herons peer ee (ii) List off Figureshotiomyenmnecooronrtsttnabretonct stat ehaietare rer tiers ate eee ail tel tie erat letel (viii) eis EOE ao ee ee oes e en oxsust feved ake ouskousy chal ey momswem eh ton Ha way Mov omoxce ate eve ere mwa tantsts (ix) SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASTPINtrOGUCHON Meee i icaccue hs eter akess ee eet accent re et kcnceoe elon RIee oR I-1 By hurposelorStudyfmerrernricce emer mr eae ccna err rain 1-2 CUStudy: Method olopyireccravelsisosettstererenst st new en cwcqraraw atts oleptattetatettcesrisaePtbaatestba tener 1-3 DD shroject| Description eee cee ce eee an Pekar 1-3 EeBconomichAnalysistar-cmi niet rie eric ets eric ine america: 1-6 BU Conchisi os eee vencbolsHensuclsnomex-seu Medel noe-woxev ORT ed MH oH SH Open RSH et oar cabot ato 1-9 SECTION II INTRODUCTION AcaBackeround tranrersreeeer eer ae ae ee et eee ai eet cae Il-1 Bl [RUTPOSe Of SLUG YAN ccoronsh skp -Honetsnowcesv os H stoke t showotops ey on eH ataW eH Mons Han eH Metal pets woiowshetets II-2 Caistudy;Methodologyie rh eer eer eee Ec II-3 Da hormat of¢Reportu rare ere eerie irr ie cit II-3 SECTION III SYSTEM CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES AS Introductionjand Backeround ior revau-a-beboloferdeusreceu elon hela ky toned Pet ah hove eR toe II-1 Byrevaluation(Criteriageee cr er eee ee eee rere ec ee I-1 C. Summary of Interconnection System Study (PTI) ...............0--e eee ee I-2 Dy PreferrediSystem)Goncepummmermrin catia er circ cll ior arises ers IlI-3 Eq System Concept, Alternatives tiieisssor:tolettotetcneterhopoh shorts ctrot oro Herateley cate heionetaliy ial Ill-3 Lav oltageloelection icra eu wkcra dea euekenc teed beet teleasicnel ee tel eaewem eto II-3 2. Southern Interconnection Alternatives El and E2 .................0045 I-3 a. Alternative E1 - Interconnection at Swan Lake Switchyard ........... Il-3 b. Alternative E2 - Direct Interconnection at a KPU Substation .......... Il-4 CombreterredpAlternativemaacere ree eer etre eer scr Tll-4 3. Tyee Lake System Northern Interconnection Alternatives I] andI2 ....... TI-5 a. Alternative I1 - Interconnection at Tyee Lake Switchyard ............ TH-5 b. Alternative I2 - Interconnection at New Switchyard Near an Intersection with the Tyee Lake Line ................00 000000. Il-5 ceshreferredrAlternativerremmr-sttts vacraclie bier eis aero iter: casas yl Ill-6 (ii) Title Page SECTION III SYSTEM CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES (continued) 4. Tyee Line Tap Arrangement Alternatives Tl and T2..............-.--. Ill-6 a. Alternative T1 - In/Out Feed to New Eagle River Switchyard......... IIl-6 b. Alternative T2 - Direct Tap of Tyee Lake Line............-..-00055 Il-7 c. Preferred Alternative ....... 0... cece cece eee eee eens Ill-7 5. Eagle River Switchyard Location Alternatives SY1 and SY2 ............. Il-7 a. Alternative SY1 - Low Elevation Option ............ 0000 eee eeeee Ill-7 b. Alternative SY2 - High Elevation Option ........... 60... e cece eens Il-8 c: Preferred Alternative ssc0sec0e sess ien cen sein ie ue yen oe va wes III-8 SECTION IV BASIS OF FEASIBILITY DESIGN FOR COST ESTIMATING A. Introduction and Background ......... 0.06 cece eee ee eet tenes IV-1 B. Transmission Line Design ........ 00.66. c ccc e eee eee IV-1 1. Electrical Loading ...... 66... ce ccc ccc eect eee IV-1 2. Physical Loading ........... 0. csc ecee ccc ee scene eee eeeeraeeeeene IV-1 3. Overload Capacity Factors and Safety Factors for Structures............. IV-3 4. Electrical Clearances to Grade .. 1... 6. ec eee IV-4 5. Conductor Selection 0... 0... ccc cee eee eee IV-4 6G: Insulators (5 ojos me sea det ae tet ae sis oe 2 oe ae ee Meee aes se Hs OE IV-5 Z. Design Spans's sac sue na e's se nou dee eon os cos oe es Hee He ee oe ee 2 IV-6 8. Phase Spacing and Insulator Swing Clearances ........-..---+0 eee ee eee IV-7 9. Right-of-Way Design ........ 0... cece cee eee eee IV-8 10: Line Components as .65 os nos 0h a0 aon eee wee aes eG wee ow eee oes IV-8 a. Structures 2.0... . eee ene nee IV-8 by oundations)< <a ae see s aes as gee eamsae soe wes a ee de de aes oe IV-9 c. Guy/Anchor Assemblies .. 1.0.06... 000 c cece eee eee n nee Iv-9 d. Insulator Assemblies ..... 0... 06.6 ec ccc cee eee eee IV-9 11. Long Span Water Crossings ......... 0.0 ee cece cee eee eee eee IV-10 12. Aerial Obstruction Marking ......... 6.0 e cece ee eee eee IV-10 13. Eagle River to Tyee Switchyard Transmission Line Section ............. IV-10 C. Switchyard and Substation Design ......... 0.6.0 e cee eee eee ee eee eee IV-11 1: Switchyard Design —..2csc0-00s see see nae sss soe es oe sens see eee oe IV-11 a. Electrical Design Parameters ...........6 0.0 cee eee eee eee eens IV-11 b. Major Equipment Types ........... 00 eee eee eee eee eee IV-12 c. Protective Relaying ....... 0... ccc cece eee eee nets IV-13 @. ‘Communications. : ac coc sun see ce de see tee soe ee whe ee ee He IV-13 2. Alternative 1 - Tyee Lake Switchyard to Swan Lake Switchyard ......... IV-14 a. Tyee Lake Switchyard Additions and Modifications ............... IV-14 b. Swan Lake Switchyard Additions and Modifications ............... IV-14 c. Bailey Substation in Ketchikan ........ 2.0... 0 0c e eee eee eee eee IV-14 3. Alternative 2 - Eagle River Substation to Swan Lake Switchyard ........ IV-15 a. Eagle River Substation .. 1.0.2.0... cee cece eee cee eee eee IV-15 b. Swan Lake Switchyard ....... 0... cece cece IV-15 c. Bailey Substation ....... 0... cece cece eee eee ens IV-15 d. Tyee Lake Switchyard ......... 6. ec eee eect ee eee eens IV-15 (iii) Title Page SECTION IV BASIS OF FEASIBILITY DESIGN FOR COST ESTIMATING (continued) DD. System Analysis Impacts) | stu UCL lolol alt iatelae mille elave te lelalha Siete lala tale IV-15 1. Shunt Reactor at Tyee Switchyard ........... 02.5 e eee eee eee eee IV-16 2. One Breaker Tyee Interconnection 2.055220 25) eee sis ote tesa ee eee cae IV-16 3. | Hower oystem Stabilizers.) 407 lat|) vc iejolelelee. tele] ope mail viet hteraliee Gslala a4, IV-16 4. Underfrequency/Overfrequency Conditions ........................ IV-16 | INorth: omit Pligeins Busi). a nislelelseseae lelefesa dt fetal ol aie wolelaldad Alelal[l neice IV-17 SECTION V ROUTE ALTERNATIVES } A. Introduction and Background ........... 6... cece cece eee eee eee V-1 iB: | Preferred, Route Alternative) |i)2 oc ie saislaiotlalewiele ae otellge maleate at lalal toa fo V-2 iC: | Route Bvaluation: Criteria, oid. it tis) o.0 late lol act lolelaleelele| tile ee) elele wntelsle mais le V-3 D. Route Alternative Descriptions ........... 06.0 ce cee cece eee eee ee V-4 1. Route Alternatives R1, Eagle River Corridor ..............2...0 000005 V-6 a. Route Alternative R1A, West Side Eagle Lake and Neets Creek ....... V-6 b. Route Alternative R1B, East Side Eagle Lake and Orchard Creek ...... V-6 c. Route Alternative R1C, East Side Eagle Lake, Anchor Passage ........ V-6 d. Route Alternative R1D, West Side Eagle Lake, Orchard Creek ........ V-7 e. |Connection|to Tyee Switchyard . .. ./.).:. sei o0 siele ys sec eeu ice Se ous V-7 2. Route Alternative R2, Cleveland Peninsula .................222200005 V-7 3. Route Alternative R3, Intertie Continuation, Swan Lake-KPU ............ V-8 4,| Preferred Route/Alternative «5/3! 200). \s0\c|20: s\c/ajor elsiclae neleisse aiela) ae sre 6 v-9 E. Summary of Environmental Report ........... 0.60 e eee eee eee ences v-9 SECTION VI PROJECT COST ESTIMATES A.) Introduction and: Backeround | te tli)2 to lslels lees alo ohs ae site ake eelslele an feral ate cate VI-1 B. Transmission Line Construction Cost Estimates ..............-..2.0000005 VI-1 De) [Method Ology ts |s\e.¢ tre eliessls. aie oy ele #5 lstcle liana fois| 14a lntol bate: aes | lal.s 41a )e fel essa VI-1 a.| | Select Design (Criteria) |e isis) biol. lalefol arcs elel sternal slate a5|s/alle sale lala toa (a VI-1 lb. | Preliminary, Bngineering)| 4). 221. slelerccor eel eiei (oles) aie a slelarais «fo lola aie |e VI-2 c. Line Layout, Quantity Tabulations and Assumptions ............... VI-2 d. Request Material and Other Cost Quotes ............ 0.200.002 eee VI-2 e. Develop Spreadsheets for Estimates...............000 eee eee eeee VI-2 £.| | Develop Labor Factors) oa oi.) tac lelale te cteveletel cline ares) aie alele ote stellata, ie fs VI-3 g. Feasibility Cost Estimates ........... 0... e cece eee eee eee eee VI-3 25 | (EOst/Assumptons) 2 — lltsyete ese) ce) | ave lafslslslalat els) alae ole) o]tia mo fstol & wile tala a, 5p! VI-3 a. Structure Size and Type Distribution ............... 0.20: .e eens VI-3 IDs | BOunGationsy sto) alojetsat sietele| aretatoloterat ese lols) atin lolol ol ale oie laiss atte] ae, VI-3 G-| | COTMAUICEOR, foe oe leletelat ace wielelet nae lelshefetele sleyelate ts falalelatecs, alelalaieatelale ewig le VI-4 d. Miscellaneous Materials ..... 2.0.2.0... 00 cece cee cee cee eens VI-4 | | Long-span, Crossings || yi s)ers) a 4:01-/elie|2/alace/olo1cjin-e sfsls) alga. lolctiae Sislalale bat le VI-4 f.| | Tyee Lake Parallel Extension |, 2.°)-/<)<\-)<c 2 |sls| «120: /ose| sen (6) e1e.0 si/s\o)o.6 site VI-4 (iv) Title Page SECTION VI PROJECT COST ESTIMATES (continued) g-a Alternative: Designs triers iis rcusiereettstelet Medstoncie tate t aap ive atin aaicts VI-5 (i): Submarine! Gablejinstallations a-criaoni sete ieee eee eee VI-5 (2): SteelWEI-Rrame) Costs Huw iano nein cna vane Ho Heraeus Hate det al est tee VI-5 (3): SmallersInitiali ConductoriSizei tics ee po eee VI-6 hs Mobilization/,Demobilization riser seers sels beret r tortie ee VI-6 SamRicht-of- Way, Costsaiererterpy ete erie erty fe rte tere rete ree eee te VI-7 4vaaermanent. Intertie) Road) Impact oni Gosticrysirricisie teste earoieecete reser VI-9 5. Feasibility Cost Estimates - Transmission Line Construction ............ VI-10 Gs Switchyard Gonstruction| CostiEstimates crn. ye tt ris al ere ira el VI-10 lee Methodology ir rerisiinctereiieteiie iskacinieremtiertecinicir satires is VI-11 a. oelects Design: Criteria sta iecres sorters teeters ores ienet cnet tenes VI-11 bs Preliminary, Engineeringyinicisiscter cre eee icici aerators sisteie VI-11 ch Request Material Gost: Ouotesi ror sieisy-yotodsters eile eee ees VI-11 da Developi@ther, Cost; Gomponentsiemiscrire secu tee rier ies se etciee VI-11 (es: Develop:Spreadsheets forsEstimates):7sc sis sciatic ierracie VI-11 Zui COst/ASSUMPHONS Veltri elersrlet re tstele eel et Desi P ee a an Ae VI-11 awe howerslransformenin. erie orien iirc iit erst VI-12 bs Communication| Systemic iaercras ei seii ieee isistsisieret VI-12 camehy ee! akel switchyard jesimcct cis tacere riers iette ie a aed rere Perel elistet eek VI-12 di SwaniLakeiswitchyard Mricm sees crrsisisierst siesta ieee ieee rere VI-13 enil BagleiRiver: Switch yard Watts cil st tarts ltt vtis ae etn Ly tay ene eat VI-13 3. Feasibility Cost Estimates - Switchyard Construction ................. VI-13 Da Engineering. Costs meme cis siete ey ire rtensie ei aieyer dt teritt aie eerie VI-14 5-4, Construction; Management Gostsisriis miss oso iat esis ae VI-15 Reahermitting Costs) spy cre rastes sstseteisieleraycioiciels arr rori rsh pene tee teaser pars ara VI-15 GeOwnern Costsipererce mnie cere ric acer e eerie nner nre VI-15 idl otal) Project: Development Gost; Estimatesii jis se torsos stots) sieece sisi sie VI-16 Juahroject: Development: Gost; Hstimatesisiiisiielirierets sierra see se VI-16 yas Low, Initial Cost Scenario ysis ery rete ciitslieisieieie)eeiciere ste isteier asters VI-17 I. Operation and) Maintenance! Gosts tesicnr icicle ie oeeriicle cia VI-17 17 pasic: O&Mi' Cost; Bstimate jaye ere iarer eric ts acicieicl- fois iieteyetere ott: VI-17 22a Lmpact ofaiRoadyon:@écMiGostsitere srr iyoteleiioitacio oielisle oie ie) ey ihr VI-20 Joa oteeli Structure!\O&M Costilmpactive iscsi toe ieee ters VI-20 4.4 Submarine|Cablei\O&M Gost Impacts ac ceie eee ees VI-20 Jaa oimilar, Alaskan! Project; Cost Comparisons cries anisrsttsisi ietet reticle eee VI-21 SECTION VII PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AcE otateolrAlaskapon me emcieps sri ier triers iacieny veette ye VII-1 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit ...... VIl-1 214 Alaska Department of Conservatlonisiijoiist- -fetsiorsiacilercisielsiter jist tiersie> VII-1 3. Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation ..... VII-2 Bs 7 FederaliGovernmentitaicry- i oy-teieiey alclol Poet svetculevooiioicistciieiotsicretsietet ate torent VII-2 I= Federal Energy; Regulatory; Commission! 23 1).1.15-'-sis seis ite sss VII-2 232 horestoervice;opecialiWse!hermitarmerteriisnen ott eryyets stoi atet eb tale VII-2 (v) Title Page SECTION VII PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (continued) 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ............-.---000-- VII-3 4. Environmental Protection Agency ........... 0-00 eee eee eee eee eee VII-3 ee eet VII-4 SECTION VIII PROJECT SCHEDULE A. Project Development Organization ................ eset e eee eee eee VIO-1 1. Authority Acts as Project Manager ............- 000s eee ee eee eee eee VII-1 2. Authority Contracts Externally for Project Manager ............--.--- VIH-1 3. Turnkey (Design/Build) ......... 6... cece eee eee eee eee eens VIll-2 4. Hybrid - Authority as Project Manager & Turnkey (Design/Build) ....... VII-2 B. Permitting Phase ©... 0.2... ec cee cece cece e eee e reece eee eeeeeees VIII-3 C. Design and Construction Phases ........... 066 e eee eect teens VI0I-3 SECTION IX POWER SUPPLY EVALUATION A. Overview of Evaliiation—..25oc cts cece oe rae wees sais wiles oie oe eees oe wes IX-1 B. Principal Assumptions .......... 0.6. e cee eee eee eee eee eet teenies Ix-2 C. General Description of the Market Area ........... 022. s ee eee eee eens Ix-3 D. Use of the Intertie .. 2.0... eee eee eens Ix-4 E. Projected Electricity Requirements ............-.. 00s eee eee eee rete IX-5 F. Existing Power Supply ........... 0 eee cece cece tee eee ete eens Ix-9 1. Hydroelectric Resources ......... 6.06 e eee eee eee eee eee Ix-9 2. Diesel Generation Capacity ...... 2.6... 6 cece eee eee eee eens Ix-9 3. Ketchikan Pulp Company Generation Capacity ..........--.-0 eee eee IX-10 G. Future KPU Power Supply Needs and Options ..............----eeeeee IX-10 1. Alternative Resource Options ............-- se eee eee eee ee eee eee IX-10 a. Diesel Generators ........ 0.06 cee cee cee cee ete eee e eens IX-10 b. Hydroelectric Resources ......... 0.00 e cece cette tenes IX-11 c. Wood Waste-Fired Generation ........... 000. e cece eee eee eens IX-12 2. Conservation Assessment ........ 0... cee cece cece tenet ee eens IX-13 3. Alternative KPU Power Supply Plans ........ 2.52... 2 eee eee eee eee Ix-14 a. Base (Diesel) Case ... 1.0... eee eect teen eeee IX-15 Wosbee: C ase Sac ccc tr sae aes 9 os = ee IX-16 c. Conservation Case ... 0.0... 2c ce ccc eee e eee IX-17 SECTION X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. Overview of Analysis ....... 6.6. c cece ee cee cee cence eee eee tenes X-1 B. Principal Assumptions ........--- eee eee eee ee tee ee eee eee X-1 C. Methodology ........... 2 eee eee cece cece eet eee eee eee eee X-3 D- Base (Diesel) Case ncs cscs ns 0 ss a oe 0G os 5a eh et sores ve eee ae xX-4 Bx ti © ASC rornctacte cnc cecen necro oreo eater w eter or wero ste rape tocol eee oe weer X-4 F. Conservation Case ..... 20... 0. eee eect ete cette eee tees X-5 (vi) Title Page SECTION X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (continued) G4 Gomparison\of Results}/sejsctieireieeriaet eeeieciickeoret veces lel: X-5 H. Analysis of the Expansion of the Lake Tyee Project ..............-.0+000- X-13 BIBLIOGRAPHY COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE AGENCY REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT APPENDICES - Sag Tension Runs - Geotechnical Report, R&M Engineering - Selected Material Cost Quotations - Sample Project Development Cost Estimate Spreadsheets Summary Cost Estimates - Ketchikan Public Utilities Conservation Assessment - Power Supply and Economic Analysis Results - Environmental Report by Dames & Moore - Power Flow Analysis of Interconnected System - Transient Stability Analysis of Interconnected System SS TOAMONMD (vii) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Description I-1 Key Map - Alternative Routes (also included as Figure V-1) Il-1 Block Diagram of Design and Route Alternatives II-2 One-Line Diagram, Tyee Lake Switchyard - Swan Lake Switchyard Il-3 One-Line Diagram, Tyee Lake In/Out Tap - Swan Lake Switchyard TIl-4 One-Line Diagram, Tyee Lake Direct Tap - Swan Lake Switchyard IV-1 Right-of-Way Cross-Section IV-2 Typical Helicopter Landing Pad IV-3 Typical Wood H-Frame Structure Iv-4 Typical Wood 3-Pole Angle Structure IV-5 Typical Wood 3-Pole Heavy Angle Structure IV-6 Typical Pole H-Pile/Rockbolt Foundation IV-7 Typical Steel A-Frame Structure, Long Span Crossings IV-8 Overhead Crossing of Behm Canal, Profile IvV-9 Typical Cross-Section Self-Contained Oil-Filled Cable IV-10 Typical Cross-Section Solid Dielectric Cable IV-11 Tyee Lake Switchyard Modifications - Plan View IV-12 Eagle River Switchyard, Direct Tap - Plan View IV-13 Eagle River Switchyard, In/Out Tap - Plan View V-1 Same as Figure I-1 ( Alternative Routes) V-2 Key Legend - Alternative Routes R1 V-3 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor V-4 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor V-5 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor V-6 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor V-7 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor V-8 Alternative Routes R1 - Eagle River Corridor v-9 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-10 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-11 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-12 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-13 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-14 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula V-15 Alternative Route R2 - Cleveland Peninsula VI-1 Preliminary Project Schedule (viii) LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title I-1 Tyee Lake-Swan Lake Intertie, Route R1A, Alternative A - Base Case Total Project Development Cost Estimate Summary 1-2 Comparison of Economic Analysis Results IV-1 Physical Loading Criteria IV-2 Overload Capacity Factors IV-3 Electrical Clearances to Grade IV-4 Conductor Characteristics and Tension Limits IV-5 Design Spans IV-6 Substation Design Criteria V-1 Route Alternative Characteristics VI-1 Mobilization Costs VI-2 Cost to Log/Yard by Helicopter VI-3 Transmission Line Alternatives - Feasibility Level Construction Cost Estimates VI-4 Switchyard Construction Cost Estimates VI-5 Estimated Engineering Costs - Transmission Lines VI-6 Estimated Engineering Costs - Switchyards VI-7 Total Intertie Development Cost Estimates - All Alternatives VI-8 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs - Alternative A VI-9 Construction Cost Comparison - Swan Lake, Tyee Lake and Intertie IX-1 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements - Base Case Ix-2 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements - Low Case Ix-3 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements - High Case Ix-4 Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg Area Hydroelectric Resources Ix-5 Ketchikan Public Utilities Conservation Program Assessment - Total Estimated Energy and Demand Savings and Total Estimated Costs Ix-6 KPU Loads and Resources - Base Case IxX-7 WML&P and PMP&L-Loads and Resources - Intertie Case Ix-8 KPU Loads and Resources - Intertie Case Ix-9 KPU Loads and Resources - Conservation Case X-1 Economic Analysis - Base Case X-2 Economic Analysis - Intertie Case X-3 Economic Analysis - Conservation Case X-4 Comparison of Economic Analysis Results X-5 Lake Tyee Third Unit Estimated Cost of Construction (ix) SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION In 1987, the Alaska Energy Authority (the “Authority") conducted a reconnaissance level study of several possible transmission interconnections in Southeast Alaska. The reconnaissance study evaluated various route alternatives for each of the interconnections and provided recommended routings and estimated costs of development and construction for each of the alternatives. Based on the ability to utilize surplus hydroelectric generation to offset oil-fired generation in currently isolated load centers, several of the interconnections evaluated were found to have potential for long-term economic benefits. One interconnection identified as having potential long-term benefits was a transmission line (the “Intertie" or the "Project") connecting the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) through the Swan Lake hydroelectric project. Following the completion of a new electric load forecast for several Southeast Alaska utilities in June 1990, the Authority deemed it appropriate to conduct a preliminary assessment of the market and financial feasibility related to development of the Intertie (the "Preliminary Assessment"). The Authority retained the services of RSA Engineering, Inc., and R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc., in October 1990 to conduct the Preliminary Assessment. The Preliminary Assessment updated the estimated cost of construction of the Intertie as previously provided in the reconnaissance study, determined the available energy capability of the Lake Tyee project surplus to the needs of Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMP&L) and Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WML&P), and estimated the potential savings to KPU resulting from utilization of Lake Tyee power to offset diesel generation. The Preliminary Assessment also provided an estimate of the level of debt repayment that could be made towards Intertie-related debt obligations without negatively affecting the cost of power to KPU’s customers. The Preliminary Assessment was completed in March 1991 with the submittal of a final report to the Authority. The Authority, after completion of the Preliminary Assessment, decided to proceed with a Feasibility Study of the Intertie (the "Feasibility Study"). In November 1991, R.W. Beck and Associates, with its primary subcontractors, Dames & Moore and Power Technologies, Inc., was retained by the Authority to conduct the Feasibility Study. This report summarizes the Feasibility Study analysis and findings. The Intertie is intended to interconnect the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake hydroelectric projects, both of which are owned by the Authority as a part of the Four Dam Pool. Through this proposed transmission connection, the electric systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg would be interconnected. Presently, PMP&L and WML&P, both municipally-owned, are the only utilities interconnected with the Lake Tyee project and purchase most of their electricity requirements from this resource. A substantial amount of surplus power is available from Lake Tyee that could be used by other utilities if transmission lines were available. KPU is the only electric utility interconnected with the Swan Lake project and is expected to fully utilize the Executive Summary i1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE annual generation potential of this resource within a few years. The Intertie would provide KPU with access to the Lake Tyee project and its generation surplus to the needs of PMP&L and WML&P. B. PURPOSE OF STUDY The Feasibility Study is intended to define the design and routing criteria and estimated costs related to development of the Intertie, to provide a feasibility level environmental analysis, to determine the technical feasibility of the operation of the interconnected electrical systems, and to assess the project economics compared with alternatives. Feasibility Study is expected to serve as the basis for environmental compliance submittals and final design. The Feasibility Study includes the following principal tasks: : 10. 11. 1-2 Review the Intertie route options as previously identified in the reconnaissance study and the Preliminary Assessment. Based on cost and other pertinent criteria, identify the recommended route for the Intertie. Conduct a review of the environmental factors related to the Intertie. Meet with and solicit input from various governmental and public agencies concerning environmental and other institutional constraints related to the Intertie. Develop a feasibility-level design of the Intertie. Develop a construction cost estimate and schedule for the Intertie. Develop an estimate of operations and maintenance costs for the Intertie. Evaluate and define power supply options, including conservation, for KPU which can be considered as alternatives to power purchases over the Intertie. Prepare an Environmental Report which can serve as the basis for a subsequent Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Conduct a system analysis of the interconnected electric systems of KPU, WML&P and PMP&L which would result from installation of the Intertie. Conduct an economic analysis comparing the costs and benefits of the Intertie to those of its alternatives. Provide a report summarizing the findings of the Feasibility Study. Executive Summary The work performed for the FINAL REPORT Cc. STUDY METHODOLOGY The Feasibility Study involved the efforts of several engineering, environmental, public policy and economic specialists. R.W. Beck and Associates developed the preliminary design, cost estimate, construction schedule, alternative power supply options and the economic analysis. Dames & Moore conducted the environmental analysis and developed the environmental report attached to this report as Appendix H. Power Technologies, Inc. conducted the electric system and transient stability analyses which are attached as Appendices I and J. Both the environmen- tal review and the electric system analysis were used as input to the total cost estimate of the Intertie principally in the form of mitigation costs related to routing and design issues. The various aspects of the Feasibility Study were, in general, conducted on separate but integrated paths. Alternative design and routing criteria were gathered from previous studies and new investigations, and the evaluation of this criteria was made based on past experience with similar projects in Southeast Alaska and elsewhere. Both the environmental review and the electric system analysis relied upon the initial routing and design characteristics of the Intertie as part of their independent analysis. Power supply and conservation evaluations for the KPU system were conducted separately from other aspects of the Feasibility Study. The economic analysis, however, relied upon input from all components of the Feasibility Study. Specific descriptions of the methodology incorporated in the various components of the Feasibility Study are included throughout the sections of this report. Significant effort was extended to gather and incorporate input from the local communities, utilities and State and Federal agencies that will be impacted by the Intertie. Advertised public meetings were held in Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg to introduce the general characteris- tics of the Intertie and obtain comment. Meetings were held with the United States Forest Service (USFS) and other agencies for additional comment and input. Discussions were held with various staff members of KPU to obtain input concerning utility operation and future plans. A meeting with representatives of Ketchikan Pulp Company was also conducted to obtain direct input concerning power supply needs and resources. In addition, technical data was also requested from KPU for input to the overall analysis. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION After review of the various system criteria, route alternatives, design concepts and estimated construction costs, a preferred alternative for the Intertie was developed. The preferred alternative is characterized by a 57.5 mile long, 115-kV transmission line with wood pole H-frame construction and a typical 200-ft-wide cleared right-of-way. The northern terminus of the line is to be at the Lake Tyee Switchyard and the southern terminus, where interconnec- tion with the KPU system occurs, is to be at the Swan Lake Switchyard. Major criteria used in evaluating the route alternatives included: Site line at low elevations (<500 ft) where possible. Minimize major stream and river crossings, especially near the mouth of a waterway. Executive Summary L3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Avoid steep, unstable slopes. Minimize visual impact. Minimize impacts to areas of obvious importance for wildlife and forest habitat such as the Orchard Creek drainage. Minimize flyway impacts. Avoid areas subject to extreme winds where possible. Minimize logging requirements. The preferred route (shown in Figure I-1) begins at the Tyee Lake Switchyard and continues parallel to the existing Tyee line to a crossing of Eagle Bay. The route proceeds up the west side of Eagle River and Eagle Lake to avoid steep, unstable slopes on the east side, and continues to an aerial crossing of Bell Arm. From there it traverses Bell Island to an aerial crossing of Behm Narrows. The preferred route continues up the narrow Beaver Creek and Klam Creek basins, which constitute the only practical route from Behm Canal to Shrimp Bay. There is an aerial crossing of Shrimp Bay and then the route continues up the Neets Creek drainage, where it intersects the Carroll Creek drainage and proceeds south to the Swan Lake Switchyard. The Neets Creek route was chosen over the Orchard Creek route due to lower density second growth forest and probable logging cost reductions and to avoid the high value habitat and recreational area of Orchard Creek. The present configuration of the preferred alternative of the Intertie does not include any submarine crossings since suitable sites for aerial crossings of marine waterways have been identified. Three major overhead water crossings are included in the preferred alternative—Bell Arm, Behm Narrows and Shrimp Bay. Although submarine crossings were evaluated, significant cost savings can be achieved with aerial crossings rather than submarine crossings. The total estimated cost of development of the preferred alternative of the Intertie is $55.6 million in 1992 dollars. This cost estimate includes permitting, engineering, construction materials and labor, construction management, owner's costs and a 20% contingency. The cost estimate assumes that all merchantable timber cleared for the Intertie right-of-way will be yarded by helicopter to water drop points. Presently, the USFS indicates that all merchantable timber cleared from USFS lands must be removed. The following table summarizes the estimated costs of development and construction of the preferred alternative of the Intertie: 1-4 Executive Summary FINAL REPORT Table I-1 Tyee Lake - Swan Lake Intertie, Route RIA Alternative A - Base Case Total Project Development Cost Estimate Summary Construction Costs (Materials and Labor) Transmission Lines: Tyee Lake - Eagle River ...............-. $2,900,463 Eagle River - Swan Lake ...............-- 24,990,825 Subtotal-Transmission Lines ........... $27,891,288 Switchyards /Substations: Tyee Lake Switchyard .................-- $1,453,200 Swan Lake Switchyard .............0-005 442,500 Bailey Substation ................-.005- 0 Subtotal-Switchyards ................ $1,895,700 Right-of-way Clearing: Log and Yard Merchantable Timber ........ $12,343,086 Clearing, Slash Treatment ..............5. 1,851,463 Timber Sales Credit ............0 000-005 (4,701,279) Subtotal-Clearing ................00. $9,493,270 Subtotal-Construction Costs ............5-0000es $39,280,258 Contingency @ 20%... 6... . ee cece eee eee $7,856,052 Project Support Engineering ........ 00. .e cece eee eee eee $2,553,750 Construction Management .............+-+-5 1,964,013 Permit sarees ee et een ee meee 1,500,000 Subtotal-Project Support .............-+0 ee ee eee $6,017,763 Total-Construction Costs and Project Support ....... $53,154,073 Owner Costs @ 4.5% «0.0... 0... e cece eee eee $2,391,933 Total Estimated Project Development Cost ........ $55,546,006 The Intertie will be constructed in remote areas inaccessible by road. Construction will be accomplished with helicopters and all construction crews will be airlifted to the construction area. It is estimated that the total permitting, design and construction time for the Intertie will be about five years. This schedule includes a two-year permitting process, a 20-month engineering and design period, and an 18-month construction period. The permitting process time estimate could be substantially longer depending on actual permitting requirements. It is Executive Summary L5 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE anticipated that the environmental review conducted as a part of this Feasibility Study will serve as a basis from which an EIS can be developed and should consequently help to expedite the eventual preparation time. E. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic analysis performed determines the cumulative present value of the costs related to the various KPU power supply cases that have been developed as part of this Feasibility Study over the expected economic life of the Intertie. Although real escalation in oil costs over time are included, costs included in the analysis generally have no inflation applied in the future. The cumulative present value is therefore calculated using an inflation free discount rate, presently defined as 3% by the Authority. The relative costs used for each case vary in magnitude according to the specifics of the case. Each case is defined to provide similar levels of electric capacity and energy to KPU over the analysis period, however, the costs for this power supply vary with the specifics of the case. The analysis period is the economic lifetime of the Intertie, an assumed 30-year period beginning in 1997. Costs included in the analysis are the annual costs related to capital recovery costs of new generation and transmission additions, operation and maintenance costs of the Intertie and operation, maintenance and fuel costs of new and existing diesel generators. Excluded from the analysis are certain fixed operating and capital recovery costs related to KPU’s existing generation plant, both hydroelectric and diesel. These existing fixed costs do not affect the outcome of the economic analysis because they will be incurred no matter what case is being evaluated. The economic analysis is related to the costs of power supply additions to and operation of the KPU electric system. Since the addition of the Intertie is by contract not to affect the cost of operation of the WML&P and PMP&L systems, the cost of operation of these two systems is not included in the analysis. The cost of power from the Lake Tyee Project which is to be sold over the Intertie is assumed to have "no cost", regardless of the rate that might be charged by the Authority to KPU for such purposes. This is because there is no additional cost incurred to generate this additional power at Lake Tyee, and any payments made by KPU for such generation would constitute transfer payments rather than resource costs. In addition to the cases previously defined, the economic analysis has been performed for alternative cost assumptions to present the effect of changes to certain assumptions on the results of the economic analysis. This sensitivity analysis has been conducted for high and low oil price cases, a low KPU load growth case, a high WML&P and PMP&L case and an alternative Intertie construction cost case. The economic analysis has been performed in conjunction with the definition of the various future power supply options available to KPU. Alternative power supply cases are defined based on future KPU power supply requirements and, for the Intertie Case, the availability of surplus power at the Lake Tyee Project. As additional capacity resources are needed by KPU, new generation plant is assumed to be installed. With the Intertie, the amount of Lake Tyee power surplus to the needs of WML&P and PMP&L is determined based on the average capability of the Lake Tyee Project less the requirements of these two utilities. This derived surplus is assumed to be available for delivery to KPU. The actual amount of power to be 16 Executive Summary FINAL REPORT delivered to KPU is dependent on KPU’s load requirement less the capability of KPU’s existing hydroelectric resources. For the Base Case, KPU’s power requirements are first met with KPU hydroelectric resources and the capability of the Swan Lake Project. Power requirements in excess of this hydroelectric supply are supplied with diesel generation. The Intertie Case replaces the use of diesel generation with the purchase of surplus energy from the Lake Tyee Project. The Intertie Case does not include any capacity credit to KPU for power purchased from the Lake Tyee Project because of the vulnerability of the Intertie to forced outages. Consequently, the Intertie Case also assumes that new diesel generation is added by KPU in the future to fully backup the power purchases over the Intertie. Both the Base Case and the Intertie Case provide equivalent amounts of capacity and energy to KPU and use the same reserve criteria. Upon determination of the sources and amounts of power from each source, the analysis derives the estimated cost of power to KPU in each year of the analysis. As previously described, these costs include capital recovery on new generation additions and operations and maintenance costs. Costs that are the same for all cases are not included in the analysis. The annual costs are projected over the analysis period and discounted to mid 1992. The summation of these discounted annual costs provides the cumulative present value of the case, a value that is suitable for comparing the relative costs of the cases. The Base Case assumes that the Intertie is not constructed and that KPU is required to meet load growth with diesel generation once it has fully used its hydroelectric capability. Based on the medium load forecast for KPU and the previously defined assumptions, KPU will need to install two additional 4,000 kW diesel generator units in 1992 and one 4,000 kW unit in each of 1997, 2008 and 2013. By the end of the analysis period, KPU will have added 20,000 kW of diesel generation. At that time, the estimated amount of annual diesel generation is 69,529 MWh, representing 32% of KPU’s total energy requirement. The Base Case assumes that KPU will continue to sell surplus hydroelectric energy from the Swan Lake Project to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) as long as there is a surplus. Once the surplus is exhausted KPU will not continue to sell energy to KPC. The total cumulative present value of the annual costs for the Base Case is $104,951,000. The Intertie Case assumes that operation of the Intertie begins in 1997. At that time, KPU can begin to offset its own diesel generation with purchases of energy from the Lake Tyee Project. Diesel generators are indicated to be needed by KPU in 1992 (two 4,000 kW units), 1997, 2008 and 2013, primarily to continue to increase the KPU generation reserve capacity to match the capacity of total deliveries over the Intertie and the existing Swan Lake to Ketchikan transmission line. By the end of the study period, KPU is estimated to purchase 72,4226 MWh annually over the Intertie. The total cumulative present value of the annual costs for the Intertie Case is $69,870,000. The economic analysis for the Conservation Case assumes that conservation programs are implemented as defined and that the estimated savings in energy and capacity demand are achieved. The initial installation costs of the programs are assumed to be repaid, for the most part, over a ten-year period. Costs may be incurred over multiple years for a particular program depending on the nature of the program and the assumed implementation plan. As conservation programs are added, KPU power requirements are reduced. As loads continue to grow, however, additional generation resources are needed. For the Conservation Case, the additional Executive Summary 17 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE resources are assumed to be diesel generators. This case is therefore a modification of the Base Case. It should be added, that the assumed timing of the implementation of conservation programs is such that the offset power source is diesel generation and not hydroelectric generation. The benefits of conservation programs cannot be realized until the power source that is offset has a cost related to it. Hydroelectric generation has essentially no variable cost. The cumulative present value of the Conservation Case is $97,498,000. Table I-2 provides a comparison of the cumulative present value for the various cases evaluated. As can be seen in this table, the lowest cost alternative using the basic assumptions is the Intertie Case. The computation of annual costs, from which the cumulative present value is determined, are shown in the results of the Resource Model analyses under the heading "Economic Analysis" included in Appendix G. Table I-2 Comparison of Economic Analysis Results (1992 $000) Cumulative Present Value of System Costs Case ($000) Basic Assumptions Base :(Diesel) (Case iieis-totcicrercterstisinncicier eaateretsisuistiore $104,951 Intertie; Case rrrcecis cicero ese ie oii basierershietisiete 69,870 (Conservation! Gasenn cir erect excrete hiot ieee 97,498 Alternative Assumptions) Base Case ows Ruel:Gostare ces oe creme eee $85,210 IstfanikGerls Gaudco Gemoncs oo umoocnO ooGon 124,925 Low KPU Load Forecast) ..........00c0 eee Sl Intertie Case RowsRueliGostiespaicrerstcrstonetororst-t ofr oet rerenonst area $69,079 HighpRuel: Costasmerimnicimian- terre 70,662 High WML&P and PMP&L Load Forecast ....... 108,292 RowsKPU) Load} Rorecastsirrcr-t tierra 53,384 Rowzintertic: Gostaeccicmminie ici oer ee ee 61,890 Road PrecedesiIntertiesiierq-ncstia secs oxorercnstict er iiees 63,624 (1) Basic assumptions include the medium (base) load forecast, medium fuel cost forecast and the “Base Case" Intertie cost estimate. (2) Alternative cases vary from the “Basic Assumption" cases only for the particular variable identified. (3) In the low load forecast case, nearly all energy requirements of KPU can be supplied with existing hydroelectric resources and essentially no diesel generation is required. 18 Executive Summary FINAL REPORT In addition to the cases summarized in Table I-2, an economic analysis was performed assuming development of either the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project or a wood waste fueled generation addition to the existing generation system of the KPC. These two cases provide adjustments to the Base Case resource plan but development costs for these two cases have not been evaluated in detail as a part of this Feasibility Study. The economic analysis incorporating them is provided only for reference. The cumulative present value for the Mahoney Lake case is $91,026,000 and for the KPC wood waste case is $80,554,000. F. CONCLUSIONS Several alternative system concepts for the Intertie were considered and evaluated. The preferred Intertie system concept is characterized by a northern interconnection to the Tyee- Wrangell-Petersburg system at the Lake Tyee Switchyard and a southern interconnection to the KPU system at the Swan Lake Switchyard. This concept is preferred for its comparatively low cost, ease of maintenance, better system separability, and more reliable system protection. The power flow analysis performed for this study indicates that the interconnection of the Wrangell, Petersburg and Ketchikan systems with the Intertie is technically feasible. The Intertie provides for acceptable steady-state interconnected system operation under various load, generation and power transfer conditions. Four route variations within the Eagle River Basin corridor were evaluated and a preferred route selected (see Figure I-1). The preferred route begins at the Tyee Lake Switchyard and continues parallel to the existing Tyee line to a crossing of Eagle Bay. The route proceeds up the west side of Eagle River and Eagle Lake to avoid steep, unstable slopes on the east side, and continues to an aerial crossing of Bell Arm. From there it traverses Bell Island to an aerial crossing of Behm Narrows. The preferred route continues up the narrow Beaver Creek and Klam Creek basins, which constitute the only practical route from Behm Canal to Shrimp Bay. There is an aerial crossing of Shrimp Bay and then the route continues up the Neets Creek drainage, intersects the Carroll Creek drainage, and proceeds south to the Swan Lake Switchyard. The Neets Creek route was chosen over the Orchard Creek route due to lower density second growth forest and probable logging cost reductions and to avoid the high value habitat and recreational area of Orchard Creek. The conceptual design for the Intertie was based on wood pole H-frame line construction and 115-kV operation. Not only is wood still initially less expensive than steel but, as demonstrated on the Swan Lake line, the design has performed exceptionally well. A steel H- frame alternative was also considered and found to cost an estimated $1.0 million more than the wood option initially. The conceptual design of some portions of the Intertie is based on steel construction, e.g., long water span crossings and the high elevation section of the line which would parallel the existing Tyee Lake line. The total project development cost estimate for the preferred Intertie alternative is $55.6 million (1992 dollars). The cost includes all permitting, engineering, construction materials and labor, construction management, owner's costs, and a contingency of 20%. This cost estimate is higher than that of the most recent previous estimate ($39.8 million, 1991) for several reasons including a larger conductor, higher clearing cost estimates, absence of a road available to assist construction, and the inclusion of permitting costs. Executive Summary 9 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Potential cost reductions for the Intertie were investigated. The most promising possibilities include (1) assuming the USFS will allow cut logs to be left in the right-of-way beyond a certain distance from the nearest drop point (estimated savings $5.7 million), and (2) installing a smaller size conductor initially (estimated savings $2.7 million). For this Low Cost Alternative, the estimated cost is $46.2 million, all factors included. A feasible project schedule was developed based on an accelerated permitting phase ending in February 1994. It is assumed that a site-specific project level EIS will need to be prepared and that the Authority will fund it and become a cooperating agency (USFS would be the lead agency). The total project schedule is expected to take approximately five years. The economic analysis indicates that the Intertie will provide significant benefits over its economic life compared to the diesel generation alternative. For the basic assumptions which include medium load growth and medium fuel escalation, the present value of system costs over the 30-year planning period is estimated for each case as follows: Base (Diesel) Case ... $104,951,000 Intertie Case 4), 253 645s 69,870,000 The Intertie will be used to transmit surplus hydroelectric generation available from the Lake Tyee Project. The primary benefit of the Intertie explored in this study is the avoidance of future diesel generation in Ketchikan. The most significant variable evaluated in the economic analysis is the projected growth in Ketchikan area loads. If Ketchikan loads develop according to the low load scenario (which is essentially no growth), the cumulative present value of the Base Case costs drops to $3,311,000. The cumulative present value of the Intertie Case for the low case is $53,384,000. Several conservation programs have been identified for the Ketchikan area which would be cost effective compared with diesel generation. The present value of system costs for the Base Case drops to $97,498,000 with inclusion of these conservation programs. Under assumptions of medium load growth and fuel escalation the Intertie economics remain favorable. The environmental review and agency comments revealed that several mitigation measures will need to be incorporated in the design of the project and its construction activities. No impacts were identified, however, which would appear to make the project unfeasible from an environmental viewpoint. A significant issue, however, will be requirements of the USFS with respect to timber cleared from the right-of-way. 1-10 Executive Summary AND ASSOCIATES ALTERNATIVE ROUTES R.W._BECK Ww eK rf De zz °o = 2% ah a 22 23 Wa mee ¥Y an << a ot < WW WW > ke ieee canine Biota Pas LEGEND oe ee ee EXISTING TYEE LAKE LINE < te) « w bE = ° a wi z - < z ac wi i 4 =< a Ww a a Wi we w a a n a - oa ° ac wi => = ed z ac pte} - all < | ! | | ! ! ! ' SECTION II INTRODUCTION RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION II INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND In 1987, the Alaska Energy Authority (the "Authority") conducted a reconnaissance level study of several possible transmission interconnections in Southeast Alaska. The reconnaissance study evaluated various route alternatives for each of the interconnections and provided recommended routings and estimated costs of development and construction for each of the alternatives. Based on the ability to utilize surplus hydroelectric generation to offset oil-fired generation in currently isolated load centers, several of the interconnections evaluated were found to have potential for long-term economic benefits. One interconnection identified as having potential long-term benefits was a transmission line (the "Intertie" or the "Project") connecting the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project to Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) through the Swan Lake hydroelectric project. Following the completion of a new electric load forecast for several Southeast Alaska utilities in June 1990, the Authority deemed it appropriate to conduct a preliminary assessment of the market and financial feasibility related to development of the Intertie (the "Preliminary Assessment"). The Authority retained the services of RSA Engineering, Inc., and R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc., in October 1990 to conduct the Preliminary Assessment. The Preliminary Assessment updated the estimated cost of construction of the Intertie as previously provided in the reconnaissance study, determined the available energy capability of the Lake Tyee project surplus to the needs of Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMP&L) and Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WML&P), and estimated the potential savings to KPU resulting from utilization of Lake Tyee power to offset diesel generation. The Preliminary Assessment also provided an estimate of the level of debt repayment that could be made towards Intertie related debt obligations without negatively affecting the cost of power to KPU’s customers. The Preliminary Assessment was completed in March 1991 with the submittal of a final report to the Authority. The Authority, after completion of the Preliminary Assessment, decided to proceed with a Feasibility Study of the Intertie (the "Feasibility Study"). In November 1991, R.W. Beck and Associates, with its primary subcontractors, Dames & Moore and Power Technologies, Inc., was retained by the Authority to conduct the Feasibility Study. This report summarizes the Feasibility Study analysis and findings. In addition to studies conducted over the past few years directly related to development of the Intertie, two studies have been recently conducted evaluating the feasibility and estimated costs of construction of a public access road adjacent to the proposed route, as defined in the Preliminary Assessment, of the Intertie. The first of these studies was funded by KPU and was performed by R.W. Beck and Associates. A final report of this study was submitted in September 1991. The second road study was performed by R&M Engineering of Juneau under contract to the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). The DOTPF study was completed in February 1992 and although it evaluated the possibility of a road route alternative to the proposed Intertie route, concluded that the preferred route of a road would be adjacent to the proposed route of the Intertie. Although various local government Introduction II-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE entities in Ketchikan have discussed the possibility of integrating the permitting process of a road with that of the Intertie, the Feasibility Study looks solely at the development of the Intertie and does not address any issues related to the development of a proposed road except for the possible impact of a road on Intertie construction and operating costs. The Intertie is intended to interconnect the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake hydroelectric projects, both of which are owned by the Authority as a part of the Four Dam Pool. Through this proposed transmission connection, the electric systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg will be interconnected. Presently, Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMP&L) and Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WML&P), both municipally-owned, are the only utilities intercon- nected with the Lake Tyee project and purchase most of their electricity requirements from this resource. A substantial amount of surplus power is available from Lake Tyee that could be used by other utilities if transmission lines were available. KPU is the only electric utility interconnected with the Swan Lake project and is expected to fully utilize the annual generation potential of this resource within a few years. The Intertie would provide KPU with access to the Lake Tyee project and its generation surplus to the needs of PMP&L and WML&P. B. PURPOSE OF STUDY The Feasibility Study is intended to define the design and routing criteria and estimated costs related to development of the Intertie, to provide a feasibility level environmental analysis, and to assess the project economics compared with alternatives. The work performed for the Feasibility Study is expected to serve as the basis for environmental compliance submittals and final design. The Feasibility Study includes the following principal tasks: 1. Review the Intertie route options as previously identified in the reconnaissance study and the Preliminary Assessment. 2. Based on cost and other pertinent criteria, identify the recommended route for the Intertie. 3. Conduct a review of the environmental factors related to the Intertie. Meet with and solicit input from various governmental and public agencies concerning environmental and other institutional constraints related to the Intertie. 4. Develop a feasibility level design of the Intertie. 5. Develop a construction cost estimate and schedule for the Intertie. 6. Develop an estimate of operations and maintenance costs for the Intertie. 7. Evaluate and define power supply options, including conservation, for KPU which can be considered as alternatives to power purchases over the Intertie. 8. Prepare an Environmental Report which can serve as the basis for a subsequent EA or an EIS. 1-2 Introduction FINAL REPORT 9. Conduct a system analysis of the interconnected electric systems of KPU, WML&P and PMP&L which would result from installation of the Intertie. 10. Conduct:an economic analysis comparing the costs and benefits of the Intertie to those of its alternatives. 11. Provide a report summarizing the findings of the Feasibility Study. Cc. STUDY METHODOLOGY The Feasibility Study involved the efforts of several engineering, environmental, public policy and economic specialists. R.W. Beck and Associates developed the preliminary design, cost estimate, construction schedule, alternative power supply options and the economic analysis. Dames & Moore conducted the environmental analysis and developed the environmental report attached to this report as Appendix H. Power Technologies, Inc. conducted the electric system analysis and provided a report which is attached as Appendix I. Both the environmental review and the electric system analysis were used as input to the total cost estimate of the Intertie principally in the form of mitigation costs related to routing and design issues. The various aspects of the Feasibility Study were, in general, conducted on separate but integrated paths. Alternative design and routing criteria were gathered from previous studies and new investigations, and the evaluation of this criteria was made based on past experience with similar projects in Southeast Alaska and elsewhere. Both the environmental review and the electric system analysis relied upon the initial routing and design characteristics of the Intertie as part of their independent analysis. Power supply and conservation evaluations for the KPU system were conducted separate from other aspects of the Feasibility Study. The economic analysis, however, relied upon input from all components of the Feasibility Study. Specific descriptions of the methodology incorporated in the various components of the Feasibility Study are included throughout the sections of this report. Significant effort was extended to gather and incorporate input from the local communities, utilities and State and Federal agencies that will be impacted by the Intertie. Advertised public meetings were held in Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg to introduce the general characteris- tics of the Intertie and obtain comment. Meetings were held with the USFS and other agencies for additional comment and input. Discussions were held with various staff members of KPU to obtain input concerning utility operation and future plans. A meeting with representatives of Ketchikan Pulp Company was also conducted to obtain direct input concerning power supply needs and resources. In addition, technical data was also requested from KPU for input to the overall analysis. D. FORMAT OF REPORT This report includes the description of the work undertaken, discussion of evaluations conducted and a summary of the findings for the various components of the Feasibility Study. Sections III and V provide an overview of the design and route alternatives evaluated. Conclusions of these two sections are identified as the "Preferred Alternative". Section IV Introduction II-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE discusses the conceptual design parameters that determine the basis for the cost estimate developed for the Intertie. The actual cost estimate for the Intertie is presented in Section VI. The various design and route alternatives considered as part of the Feasibility Study all have different costs associated with them. In addition to the cost of the preferred alternative, Section VI identifies the estimated cost of several of the alternatives for comparison. The total costs of development of the Intertie are shown in Section VI.H. A comparison of the costs of similar projects in Alaska is shown in Section VI,J. Section VII provides a review of the permits that are expected to be needed to construct the Intertie. A schedule for Intertie development through construction and the basis for this schedule is shown in Section VIII. The evaluation of power supply options for KPU is described in Section IX. This section concludes with the 20-year alternative power supply plans used to determine the estimated benefits of the Intertie. The economic analysis is provided in Section X. The overall results of the economic analysis are shown in Section X.G. Several appendices are provided with this report. Principal among these are Appendix F - the conservation assessment prepared for KPU, Appendix H - Dames & Moore’s environmental assessment and Appendix I - Power Technologies’ electric system analysis. 1-4 Introduction SECTION III SYSTEM CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION III SYSTEM CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Intertie, as proposed, will deliver surplus power from the Tyee Lake project to the Ketchikan Public Utilities’ system. Although that is the primary motivation for the Intertie, overall system reliability may also be improved as a result of interconnection with the KPU system. Many design concepts and routing alternatives can be considered for implementing the Intertie, and for forming the basis for this Feasibility Study cost estimate. Section III discusses several broad system concept alternatives and our selection of a preferred system concept. Section IV discusses more detailed feasibility-level design concepts and assumptions which formed the basis for cost estimates. Section V treats the several route alternatives. Power Technologies, Inc. performed an electrical system analysis for the Intertie (Appendices I and J) and the results of that work are summarized in Section III.C. below, especially as they affect system design and cost estimates. Please refer to Figure III-1 as you read through the conceptual design alternatives. The preferred alternative is shown shaded in Figure III-1. B. EVALUATION CRITERIA Selection of preferred conceptual design alternatives was based on several evaluation criteria. These criteria were applied qualitatively (i.e., not quantitatively) to select preferred alternatives. The following questions were asked based on discussions with the Authority and other parties, and engineering judgement. 1. Does the Alternative meet the Authority’s principal objectives? a. Make productive use of surplus Tyee Lake power. b. Serve growing load in the KPU system with available hydro resources in the region. c. Proceed toward a more complete Southeast Intertie system. 2. Does the Alternative provide for good operation and maintenance access? 3. Is the Alternative technically feasible and will it provide a satisfactory level of reliability? 4. Is the Alternative obviously cost-prohibitive considering apparent budget limits and previous study demonstrations of cost-benefits and feasibility? System Concept Alternatives III-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 5. Is the Alternative more technically complicated to design and implement, possibly leading to lower overall reliability? 6. Does the Alternative provide for minimal adverse impacts and inconvenience to the Tyee System for disturbances on the KPU system? In other words, how easily separated will the two systems be under the Alternative? These questions were posed for each alternative where applicable. C. SUMMARY OF INTERCONNECTION SYSTEM STUDY (PTI) The power flow analysis performed for this study reveals that the interconnection of the Tyee-Wrangell-Petersburg and KPU systems via a 115 kV line from Tyee Lake to Swan Lake is technically feasible. The intertie provides for acceptable, steady-state interconnected system operation under various load, generation and power transfer conditions. Under winter peak load conditions, acceptable steady-state system performance can be achieved for power transfers up to the capacity limit of the Bailey 115/34.5 kV transformer. However, such a condition heavily stresses the KPU 34.5 kV system and results in voltages on this system down to about 96%. Further, operation of the Swan Lake units at their maximum operating voltage (105%) is necessary under this condition to maintain adequate voltages on the KPU 34.5 kV system. Other operating conditions (e.g., generation outages) can heavily stress the KPU 34.5 kV system and result in low voltages. Under interconnected system conditions, limitations associated with the KPU 34.5 kV system will limit the ability of large industrial consumers, such as Ketchikan Pulp, to take advantage of excess hydro energy which may be available. Further analysis of the KPU system may be warranted if such purchase expectations are deemed realistic. Under minimum load conditions, voltage regulation on the interconnected system is not a significant problem provided at least one unit is on-line at both Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. It is, however, necessary for these units to absorb a significant amount of VARs (relative to their size) to control voltages on the system. A shunt reactor connected to the tertiary winding on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake would facilitate voltage regulation on the system during minimum load conditions by absorbing VARs. Under minimum load conditions when all generation is off-line at Tyee Lake, voltage levels on the 69 kV system in the Wrangell and Petersburg area exceed desired levels. The Swan Lake generation has limited ability to control these voltages, particularly if only a single unit is on-line at Swan Lake. Absorption of more VARs at Swan Lake to control the voltages at Wrangell and Petersburg will result in the depression of voltages on the KPU system to lower than desired levels. A tertiary reactor on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake greatly facilitates voltage regulation on the system during such conditions and is necessary for flexible system operation. Switching study simulations performed for this study show that energization of the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake 115 kV intertie is feasible from either the Tyee Lake or Swan Lake end. Switch voltage performance is better when the line is energized from the Swan Lake end of the intertie. Energization of the line from either end is facilitated by the presence of both units at II-2 System Concept Alternatives FINAL REPORT Tyee Lake or Swan Lake, but energization appears feasible even if only a single unit is on line. A tertiary reactor on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake facilitates energization of the line. This is particularly true when the line is energized during minimum load conditions with only a single unit on-line at Tyee Lake or Swan Lake. See Appendix I for a copy of the report. D. PREFERRED SYSTEM CONCEPT The preferred system concept is shown shaded in Figure III-1. It consists of a northern interconnection directly at the Tyee Lake Switchyard bus (Alternative I1) and a southern interconnection directly at the Swan Lake Switchyard bus (Alternative E1). This concept allows for operation/ maintenance ease, best separability of systems, most reliable and least complicated protective relaying and communication system modifications, and is the least cost alternative. The major disadvantage of this alternative is the need to site a line extension from Eagle River to Tyee Lake at high elevations and perhaps in the tideflat area of Bradfield Canal. The preferred system concept is associated with Route Alternative R1 discussed in Section V. E. SYSTEM CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES 1. Voltage Selection The Swan Lake system was designed for and operates at 115 kV. The Tyee Lake system has dual winding transformers and can operate at 69 kV or 138 kV; it is currently operating at 69 kV because of long cable lengths and low electrical loads. For interconnection, the Intertie must deliver power at approximately the same voltage as the Swan Lake bus. This transfor- mation can occur at Tyee, Eagle River or Swan Lake. The transformer must also have a dual winding primary to accommodate 69 kV or 138 kV operation. If the transformer were to be placed at Swan Lake, the Intertie would have to be designed for both 138 kV operation (affects insulation and requires larger structure dimensions) and 69 kV operation (requires a larger conductor) resulting in a significantly more expensive line. There is also very little room at Swan Lake where a new transformer and associated breaker(s) could be located. Thus, our recommendation is to design the line for 115 kV operation and place the transformer at the northern end of the line. We note that Harza [1] envisioned a Southeast Intertie operating at 138 kV. One option is to convert Swan Lake and Bailey /KPU to 138 kV, entailing a considerable engineering effort and upgrade cost. This option is not recommended at this stage. 2. Southern Interconnection Alternatives El and E2 There are two main alternatives for the southern electrical interconnection of the Tyee/Wrangell/Petersburg (TPW) system and the Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) system. These are depicted in Figures III-2 to III-4. a. Alternative E1 - Interconnection at Swan Lake Switchyard Alternative E1 addresses the primary objectives of the Authority namely (1) to make productive use of surplus energy from the Tyee Lake Project, (2) to serve System Concept Alternatives IL-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE growing load in the KPU system with available hydro resources in the region, and (3) to proceed toward a more complete Southeast Intertie system. It has the disadvantage of having to deliver surplus Tyee power over the Swan Lake line, which, despite the excellent operating record of the line, represents lower reliability for the KPU system in the case of a Swan Lake line outage. Tyee power would not be available in the case of a Swan Lake line outage to support KPU loads and KPU would therefore have to provide reserves for the full loss of Swan Lake generation and Tyee import. Alternative E1 leaves open the future possibility of a direct link by constructing a new line to Ketchikan parallel to the existing Swan Lake line right-of-way. This is discussed further under Section V.D.3. There are two technical concerns regarding the reliability and dynamic performance of this sparse system under Alternative E1, relying as it does on the Swan Lake line for power transfer. First, under the scenario of a fault on the Swan Lake line, the Tyee system would likely see a significant excess of on-line generation overload, leading to overfrequency situation. PTI (Appendix I) recommends consideration of several mitigation measures including (1) coordinated load sharing between Tyee Lake and Swan Lake units to force faster response Pelton turbines at Tyee to counter overfrequency, (2) upgrading Tyee governor controls for separate control of jet needles and deflectors and (3) fast generator tripping to bring load and capacity in line. Second, under the same scenario of a Swan Lake line outage, and especially with the line carrying a large portion of KPU load, the KPU system will experience a sudden and large generation resource deficiency. Underfrequency conditions will result as on-line generators slow down, resulting in dropping voltages and decreased ability to support load. Generator voltage regulation will attempt to adjust field excitation, leading to possible overheating in both rotor and stator. PTI recommends consideration of underfrequency relaying for load shedding to counter these effects. b. Alternative E2 - Direct Interconnection at a KPU Substation Alternative E2 has the advantage of providing an independent tie to the KPU system rather than sharing the existing Swan Lake line. Alternative E2 would provide increased reliability and operation and maintenance flexibility, a high KPU priority. A major disadvantage of this interconnection is the substantially higher cost than Alternative E1. Alternative E2 satisfies the same primary Authority objectives as Alternative El. The higher cost of Alternative E2 may be viewed as purchasing a higher degree of reliability and operational flexibility for the KPU system in addition to providing surplus Tyee power. c. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is E1 due principally to its much lower initial capital cost requirements and the fact that it satisfies the major objectives of Authority. III-4 System Concept Alternatives FINAL REPORT 3. Tyee Lake System Northern Interconnection Alternatives I1 and I2 There are two possibilities for the northern interconnection of the intertie to the Tyee Lake system. Each applies to both Alternatives E1 and E2 with different ramifications depending on the intersection with the Tyee Lake line. a. Alternative I1 - Interconnection at Tyee Lake Switchyard Alternative I is depicted in Figure III-2 as a one-line diagram, and in Figure V-1, a route map. Alternative I1 requires running the Intertie into the Tyee Lake Switchyard over some very difficult terrain parallel to the existing Tyee Lake line. In the case of an intersection at Eagle Bay, the length of this line extension would be approximately 6.6 miles. In the case of an intersection near structure 14-3C on Cleveland Peninsula, the length would be approximately 15 miles. Alternative I provides for better system separability, somewhat higher reliability due to not sharing a length of the Tyee Lake line, and more operational flexibility since switching and all O&M activity on station equipment would occur at the Tyee Lake Switchyard rather than another remote site at either Eagle Bay or mile 15 on the Tyee Lake line. Distance protective relaying schemes are simpler, can be better coordinated, and are thus more reliable than for a three-terminal tap. The costs of modifying the existing yard will be less than constructing a new station. A field review of the section of the Tyee Lake line from Eagle River to Tyee was conducted to determine technical feasibility. The route into Tyee was originally laid out to take full advantage of the terrain. In at least two locations close to the Tyee powerhouse, structures are located on knolls which are the only obvious practical structure sites. Even so, it appears that this line section is technically feasible. b. Alternative I2 - Interconnection at a New Switchyard Near an Intersection with the Tyee Lake Line Alternative 12 is depicted in Figures III-3 and III-4 which are both one-line diagrams, and in Figures V-3 (Eagle Bay tap) and Figure V-9 (Mile 15 tap), which are presented as route maps. Alternative I2 would terminate the Intertie at the intersection with the Tyee Lake line. The major advantage of Alternative I2 is that it saves the significant cost of extending the intertie into the Tyee Lake Switchyard over very difficult terrain. A new switchyard would be required at either Eagle Bay or near mile 15 of the existing line in the case of a route around the Cleveland Peninsula. The Tyee Lake line would have to be tapped at a convenient location and the tap led into the new station. One critical Authority criterion for siting the station is that it be accessible for maintenance and inspection. For a location at Eagle Bay two alternatives exist, namely to site the new station near the Tyee Lake line at higher elevations with a short tap line (preliminary candidate structures include 06-1C, an ST3 guyed 3-pole deadend, and 04-1C, a SSA self-supporting deadend) or to site the System Concept Alternatives III-5 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE station at lower elevations at the mouth of Eagle Bay or the isthmus of Duck Point and run a longer tap line down from the Tyee Lake line to the station. Other complicating factors associated with tapping the line are rebuilding the communication systems, more complex protective relaying schemes, and higher operation and maintenance costs resulting from an additional substation. c. Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative is I1 because of greater operational flexibility, maintenance access, lower station costs, better system separability, and more reliable system protection. 4. Tyee Line Tap Arrangement Alternatives T1 and T2 a. Alternative T1 - In/Out Feed to New Eagle River Switchyard Alternative T1 is depicted in Figure III-3. The in/out or loop feed would require a double circuit tap -could also be two single circuit lines- from the Tyee Lake line through which all Tyee Lake power would flow to Wrangell and Petersburg. A fault on this line would cut Tyee Lake service to both the TWP and KPU systems. Two single circuit lines would be somewhat more reliable but also more costly to construct. For the purpose of estimating, two single circuit tap lines are assumed. The loop feed has the advantage of a more reliable and simpler distance relaying for line protection. A three-breaker ring bus is desirable for system separability and service continuity in the event of equipment maintenance or outage. Alternative T1 has the disadvantage of having to interrupt the Tyee Lake line for the in/out connections during construction. This would be most easily accomplished ifa convenient deadend structure were available where jumpers could be disconnected and taps made with minimal outage time. The nearest deadend structures to Eagle River are 06-1C and 05-1C, both ST3-E55, three-pole, guyed deadend structures, where interference with guying would make siting tap lines difficult. Other more distant, but more suitable, candidate structures include 04-1C, 03-1C, and 02-1C, all self- supporting structures (i.e., no guys). These sites were overflown in a field review and it was determined that, although difficult, an in/out tap of the line at 03-1C is technically feasible, with tap lines running basically down to a switchyard on the isthmus of Duck Point. See Figure V-3 in Section V. Another design option to accomplish an in/out tap of the Tyee Lake line would be to install an insulating link in the conductors and tap either side of the link. This would introduce another element of risk into the system, would be somewhat difficult to install, and is not preferred. III-6 System Concept Alternatives FINAL REPORT b. Alternative T2 - Direct Tap of Tyee Lake Line Alternative T2 is depicted in Figure III-4. The direct tap option, Alternative T2, would require a single circuit tap from the Tyee Lake line to the new station, a classic example of a three-terminal line. Construction costs for the single circuit tap are lower than for the loop feed’s double circuit tap and the costs of the station will be lower as well due to fewer breakers and associated buswork and equipment. A further advantage from the standpoint of the TWP system is that Tyee power to Wrangell and Petersburg is not routed through the station bus and therefore not subject to downtime associated with outages of the substation equipment. Distance protective relaying schemes as used on the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake systems while feasible are, however, more complex and difficult to implement and coordinate. Pilot relaying, not used on the Tyee or Swan Lake lines, would be more appropriate for relaying this option. Alternative T2 has the advantage of needing only to tap the Tyee Lake line directly at a single point. This makes locating the tap easier and minimizes outage time required. This is considered a minor advantage with no long-term benefits. c. Preferred Alternative Under the scenario of Alternative 12 (Tyee Lake line tap, not preferred) the preferred alternative is T1 due to its improved system flexibility and protection. Only Alternative T1 (loop feed, two single circuit lines) is used to estimate the costs of Alternative I2. 5. Eagle River Switchyard Location Alternatives SY1 and SY2 There are two main options for siting a new switchyard at Eagle River, namely at a low elevation or near the line at higher elevation. Alternatives SY1 and SY2 are depicted in Figure V-3, route map. a. Alternative SY1 - Low Elevation Option Alternative SY1 provides sea access and possible access via a new road but requires a tap line plus the Intertie line both converging on the new station. Construction of the tap lines is feasible but will be difficult on steep slopes coming down off the Tyee Lake line, near structure 03-1C. The tap line route down off the Tyee line would have to be laid out carefully to preserve slope stability. The Intertie line route would follow the east side of Eagle Bay to Duck Point. In addition this option will site at least three single circuit lines in the vicinity of the Eagle River mouth with at least one low elevation crossing of the river. This option then would place more obstructions across the river than the high elevation option and has more line costs associated with it than the high elevation option. Duck System Concept Alternatives III-7 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Point and Eagle Bay are also considered favorite locations for eagle nests, which could limit site selection and construction activity. b. Alternative SY2 - High Elevation Option Alternative SY2 is undesirable from an operation and maintenance aspect since helicopter access could be impossible at critical times given the high probability of low cloud cover. A strong preference for a low elevation station has been expressed by the Authority, if a station must be located at Eagle River. Construction will be more expensive due to having to fly in heavy equipment, such as the power transformer, and all materials. It has the advantage of only requiring a short tap line to the station, but this is not judged worth the long term operational and maintenance costs associated with inaccessibility. c. Preferred Alternative Under the scenario of Alternative I2 (Section III.D.2., not preferred) the preferred alternative is SY1. Only SY1 (low elevation site) is used to estimate the costs of Alternative 2. III-8 System Concept Alternatives te tive Desc tio Ii Switchyard Fi Tap Configuration Eagle River terconnect joint on a. ne Cleveland Peninsula Route Alternatives E2 North Pt. Higgins Southern Interconnection KETCHIKAN SUBSTATIONS Note: Preferred Alternative shown shaded and bold FIGURE Ill-1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE BLOCK DIAGRAM OF DESIGN AND ROUTE ALTERNATIVES R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES LEGEND 1-30 OL PETERSBURG TRANSEORMER 12/16/20 MVA SUBSTATION a HYDRO TURBINE © _ GENERATOR 12.5 MVA EACH CIRCUIT 69/138kV BREAKER CIRCUIT TYEE—WRANGELL WRANGELL SWITCHYARD SWILCHIER PETERSBURG ; 30 REACTOR ——— exisTING SYSTEM OPERATED 7.5 MVAR LINE AT 69kV CAPABLE FUTURE OF AND DESIGNED ALTERNATIVE WRANGELL FOR 138kV OPERATION SUBSTATION LINE PROPOSED INTERTIE 1-30 10 MVA 69/138kV @)-@)42.6 ui _ - TYEE LAKE ALTERNATIVE [1 69/138-115kV 69/138kV 1-30 12/16/20 MVA 30 AUTOTRANSFORMER FUTURE KPU NORTH POINT HIGGINS SUBSTATION ALTERNATIVE €1 SWAN LAKE --3 ¢—— 3-19 © KETCHIKAN SWAN LAKE SYSTEM BAILEY OPERATES AT 115kV SUBSTATION 3-19 FIGURE Ill-2 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE 6667 /8867kVA ; ONE-LINE DIAGRAM (EXISTING) TYEE LAKE SWITCHYARD- SWAN LAKE SWITCHYARD R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES APPROXIMATE DISTANCES LEGEND ‘AABO4008 1-30 AL) PETERSBURG @-©® 42.6 MILES 12/16/20 MVA ~~ SUBSTATION — 36.0 MILES TRANSFORMER 60,6 MILES HYDRO TURBINE 53.0 MILES © GENERATOR - / 12.5 MVA EACH 69/138kV ——+———_C) — BREAKER ©-© CIRCUIT TYEE-WRANGELL | 36.0 MI WRANGELL SWITCHYARD PETERSBURG 30 REACTOR SWITCHER SYSTEM OPERATED 7.5 MVAR —______ eyistine AT 69kV CAPABLE LINE OF AND DESIGNED FOR 138kV FUTURE 69/138kV WRANGELL SUBSTATION ALTERNATIVE LINE - 2.6 MI ® © 3 — PROPOSED 1-30 INTERTIE 10 MVA APPROXIMATELY MILE 15 OF TYEE LAKE LINE 1-30 TYEE LAKE —~wL_) ALTERNATIVES LI) ( 1 12, T1 69/138kV 1- EAGLE RIVER TWO SINGLE CIRCUIT > ~ LINES ALTERNATIVE INTERTIE VIA = 53.0 MI CLEVELAND © © PENINSULA 69/138-115kV 12/16/20 MVA L AA 30 AUTOTRANSFORMER KPU NORTH POINT HIGGINS 1 eo SWAN LAKE SUBSTATION 4 3-10 9—MILE SUBMARINE -——{ G ) CABLE LINK (4 ALTERNATIVE SWAN LAKE SYSTEM KETCHIKAN OPERATES AT 115kV BAILEY SUB 3-16 FIGURE IlI-3 — ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 6667 /8867kVA / TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE (EXISTING) ONE-LINE DIAGRAM TYEE LAKE IN/OUT TAP- SWAN LAKE SWITCHYARD R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES LEGEND AABO400A 1-30 KH _ PETERSBURG 12/16/20 MVA TY SUBSTATION TRANSFORMER HYDRO TURBINE © GENERATOR 12.5 MVA EACH 69/138kV oe CIRCUIT BREAKER TYEE—WRANGELL _ WRANGELL SWITCHYARD CIRCUIT PETERSBURG ©- © 30 REACTOR SWITCHER SYSTEM OPERATED : 7.5 MVAR ——— EXISTING AT 69kV CAPABLE LINE OF AND DESIGNED FOR 138kV FUTURE 69/138kV WRANGELL SUBSTATION ACE NATIVE ; : PROPOSED INTERTIE 13%) ALTERNATIVES APPROXIMATELY 125 12 MILE 15 OF cus TYEE LAKE LINE 69/138kV 1-30 EAGLE RIVER “OI (6) ALTERNATIVE “OK ¢ _) INTERTIE VIA. 4 CLEVELAND | 1-39 PENINSULA S 69/138-115kV (G) 12/16/20 MVA ©-©) 53.0 i 30 AUTOTRANSFORMER KPU NORTH POINT HIGGINS SUBSTATION (D) SWAN LAKE 9-MILE SUBMARINE 3-16 CABLE LINK ( { G ) ALTERNATIVES E2 KETCHIKAN SWAN LAKE SYSTEM BAILEY OPERATES AT 115kV SUBSTATION ae FIGURE IIl-4 - ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 6667 /8867kVA TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE (EXISTING) , ONE-LINE DIAGRAM TYEE LAKE DIRECT TAP- SWAN LAKE SWITCHYARD R.W. BECK Seeman AND ASSOCIATES SECTION IV BASIS OF FEASIBILITY DESIGN FOR COST ESTIMATING RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION IV BASIS OF FEASIBILITY DESIGN FOR COST ESTIMATING A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The following basis of feasibility design sets forth and discusses key assumptions and criteria upon which construction cost estimates for transmission lines and switchyards are based. The basis was developed after careful consideration of operating experience on the Tyee Lake 69/138 kV line and the Swan Lake 115 kV line where appropriate and design experience of R.W. Beck and Associates in Southeast Alaska. As presented in Section IIIE.1., the proposed Intertie will be designed for 115 kV operation. B. TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN 1. Electrical Loading The line will be designed for single circuit operation at 115 kV, delivering an ultimate load of 30 MW from an interconnection at the Tyee Switchyard some five miles east of Eagle River to the bus at the Swan Lake Switchyard. Alternatively, an interconnection from a new substation located in the vicinity of the mouth of Eagle River on Bradfield Canal will be considered. Although the Tyee system with two units has only approximately 10 MW available for export to the KPU system, a third unit could make 20 MW available in the medium term depending on load growth on the two systems. Ultimately, the full output of Tyee could be exported to KPU if a northern interconnection is made to Petersburg and load growth warrants. Conductor selection will be based on delivering 20 MW at 0.9 power factor lagging with nominal voltage drop of 5% and 1-2% power losses, and 30 MW at 0.90 power factor lagging, voltage drop less than 7% and losses less than 3%. A conductor optimization study was not performed because of the numerous and uncertain assumptions about load and load factor on the Intertie over its life. It is probable that an optimization study will show a preference for a smaller conductor (minimum 397.5 kcmil) due to the initial light loading of the line. 2. Physical Loading Physical loading criteria for the conceptual design have been selected after careful consideration of operating experience on existing lines (Tyee Lake and Swan Lake) and review of their loading criteria [2,3], as well as loading criteria in Harza [1]. We further reviewed a draft report by Dryden & LaRue [4] addressing line outages on the section of the Tyee Lake line from Wrangell to Petersburg at elevations up to 1500 ft. This draft report contains recommendations from a meteorologist for wind, ice and temperature line loading. The microclimate which affects this portion of the Tyee Lake line is driven by the expansive outflow of the Stikine River and the glacial formations to the east and the recommendations of the draft report are not considered directly applicable to the Intertie. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE However, in the final design stage, a meteorological review of the line route should be performed and has been included in the engineering costs. Due to the proximity and similarity of the existing Swan Lake line to the conceptual design, combined with the excellent operating record of the line since 1983, it was decided to use its loading criteria for the Intertie as summarized below. We have added a 2-inch radial wet snow condition partially in response to findings on the Tyee Lake line at lower elevations. Ice loads are based on density 57 lbs/ft’, snow loads are based on density 37 Ibs/ft’. Table IV-1 Physical Loading Criteria Majority of Intertie Major Waterway Crossings and Elevations > 1000 ft (1) National Electric Safety Code (NESC) - (1) National Electric Safety Code (NESC) - 1990 [8] Heavy Loading Zone, 4 psf wind 1990, Heavy Loading Zone, 4 psf wind (40 mph), 1/2-inch radial ice, at 0 deg F, (40 mph), 1/2-inch radial ice, at 0 deg F, k factor = 0.3. k factor = 0.3. (2) Extreme Wind, 26 psf wind (100 mph, 50- (2) Extreme Wind, 110 mph at 33 ft eleva- year mean recurrence interval), no ice, tion, no ice, 40 deg F. Wind pressure on 40 deg F. conductor will be computed according to methods in [14] assuming exposure cate- gory D and effective height of 267 ft above water for the conductor. Wind pressure on the structures will be com- puted using [7] and based on structure height of 70 ft. (3) Extreme Ice, no wind, 1-inch radial ice, (3) Extreme Ice, no wind, 1-1/2 inch radial 30 deg F. ice, 30 deg F. (4) | Extreme Combined Snow and Wind, 2.3 (4) Extreme Combined Snow and Wind, 2.3 psf wind (30 mph), 2-inch radial wet snow, 30 deg F. psf wind (30 mph), 2-inch radial wet snow, 30 deg F. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT 3. Overload Capacity Factors and Safety Factors for Structures The following overload capacity factors apply to the design of structures. Table IV-2 Overload Capacity Factors STEEL STRUCTURES Overload Capacity Factor Loading Condition —— — ae NESC Heavy, Grade B 2.50 1.50 1.65 Extreme Loadings Except Water Crossings 1.10 1.10 1.10 Extreme Loadings Water Crossings 1.25 1.25 1.25 WOOD STRUCTURES Overload Capacity Factor . . Transverse Vertical Transverse Loading Condition Wind Load Tension NESC Heavy, Grade B 4.00 2.20 2.00 Extreme Loadings 1.30 1.30 1.30 GUYS, ANCHORS AND FOUNDATIONS Overload Capacity Factor Ti Vertical Transverse Loading Condition "Wad Load Tension NESC Heavy, Grade B 2.50 1.50 1.65 Anchors will be designed for an additional safety factor of 1.3 based on calculated maximum loads. Guy strand will be selected based on not exceeding 90% of its ultimate rated strength under the above loading conditions and overload capacity factors applied. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 4. Electrical Clearances to Grade In accordance with NESC 1990 requirements the vertical design clearances of the 115-kV conductor will be based on final sags at 120 deg F (maximum operating temperature) or 1/2-inch radial ice at 30 deg F, whichever is greater. Navigable water crossing clearances will be based on the maximum final sag condition (2- inch radial wet snow at 30 deg F, in the case of 37 No.8 Alumoweld). U.S. Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers regulations require a clearance of 70 ft to mean high water. A clearance of 80 ft is selected for conceptual design [3]. To compensate for conductor blow out on sidehills, survey and plotting inaccuracies, and other contingencies, a plotting margin of 4 ft in excess of the calculated clearances would be applied above surveyed ground elevations. For the purpose of conceptual design and estimates, this margin will be added to the clearance requirements as shown below. Table IV-3 Electrical Clearances to Grade Clearances (ft) Nature of Crossing Base Clear Snow Adder Plot Margin Total Areas accessible to pedestrians 18 2 4 24 Areas accessible to vehicles 22 2 4 28 Navigable Water Crossings 80 N/A 4 84 In addition to the above clearance requirement the line will be designed to maintain a minimum of 15 ft clearance (5 ft snow cover plus 10 ft clearance) under a 2-inch radial wet snow condition without wind. 5. Conductor Selection Conductor selection was based on criteria cited earlier, and conductor types and sizes in use in Southeast Alaska. An appropriate conductor was found to be 556 kcmil 26/7 ACSR/ AW (Dove/AW), aluminum conductor with aluminum-clad steel reinforced core. Below are characteristics of this conductor, taken from manufacturer published information and reference [5]. IV-4 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT Table IV-4 Conductor Characteristics and Tension Limits Characteristic Value RNG ic 6ctcy cg wees eW eT eVe WET ews 0.927 inches Bane Unit Weiehtrencscne ccc Soe eo eee eee es ccc 0.729 Ibs/ft Ce FUT UN aa iiss vei ibis creme nenvecsnves 21,900 Ibs Resistance 60 Hz, 2i/Geg C .... cece cce cece seer anes 0.1603 ohms/mile Resistance 60 Hz, Su: deg C™ ee. serene senses 0.1759 ohms/mile Resistance 60)Fe, 70 eg, Greil (os letexe erect nsi devas 0.1915 ohms/mile Geometric, Mean RM is m porenexcncr your sr ener erenen tote tonato¥ For. V oll Tor onsray rele 0.0313 ft Inductive Reactance to 1 ft ......... ccc eeeeeeeeeeces 0.420 ohms/mile Shunt Capacitive Reactance to 1 ft ..............+-5 0.0965 Megohm-mile Tension Limits for Sag Tension Calculations (In Percent of Ultimate Rated Strength) NESC Heavy Loading, initial tension limit ............. 0.6 ee ee eeee 50% Extreme Wind Loading, initial tension limit ................-0+000- 50% Extreme Ice Loading, initial tension limit.................2-0+000- 50% Extreme Wet Snow Loading, initial tension limit .................+.. 80% -5 deg F, unloaded, initial tension limit ............-... sees eee eeee 20% -5 deg F, unloaded, final tension limit ...... 2.2... 06. :e ee eee ee eee 15% Sag tension data is included in Appendix A for ruling spans 500 to 1,500 ft in increments of 100 ft. The last two conditions above are added to limit tensions under the average annual minimum temperature and thus, the severity of aeolian vibration. Maximum operating temperature of Dove/AW is predicted to be 102 deg F at 30 MW power flow (phase current 167 amps at 115-kV 0.90 power factor) and 30 deg C, a maximum ambient temperature selected after review of data in [6]. IEEE Standard 738-1986 was used to compute predicted maximum operating temperature. A maximum operating temperature of 120 deg F is appropriate for this conductor. It can be expected to operate far below this temperature for most of its life, since Ketchikan is a winter-peaking system. 6. Insulators Polymer suspension-type insulators have been selected for the conceptual design and estimate based on their ease of installation, improved durability, and strength characteristics. Minimum electrical ratings are as follows for 115-kV insulators based on typical maximum elevations along the route of 1500 ft. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-5 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Characteristic Wet 60 Hz Dry CFO + Tangents 395 kV 670 kV Deadends 425 kV 700 kV Insulator strength will be based on the specified mechanical load (SML), approximately equivalent to the ultimate strength rating, exceeding (1) NESC Heavy loads with a safety factor of 2.00 and (2) any extreme loading with a safety factor of 1.33 without separate overload capacity factors. The SML rating of any deadend assembly will additionally exceed the conductor ultimate rated strength. Leakage distance is based on distance from salt water with a value of 1.00 in/kV line-to- ground in areas beyond 1 mile of salt water (assuming light contamination in [6]) and 1.75 in/kV line-to-ground closer than 1 mile (assuming heavy contamination in [6)). 7. Design Spans The selection of design spans was based on Swan Lake experience, review of sag tension data, consideration of structure height limitations and cost impact, and impact on structure sizing. Spans are selected as follows: Table IV-5 Design Spans ELEVATIONS < 1,000 FT Design Span Value (ft) Design Feature Mainly Affected Ruling Span 1,000 Tensions and sags Average Span 800 Structure height determination Wind Span 1,300 Pole, foundation, and bracing Weight Span 1,600 Crossarm, foundation, insulators ELEVATIONS > 1,000 FT Design Span Value (ft) | Design Feature Mainly Affected Ruling Span 1,200 Tensions and sags Average Span 1,000 Structure height determination Wind Span 1,600 Pole, foundation, and bracing Weight Span 2,200 Crossarm, foundation, insulator Crossing-specific data for Behm Canal was used in evaluating all long span crossings. IV-6 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT In the computation of extreme wet snow loads on the structures a span factor of 0.80 is applied to both weight (vertical) span and wind (horizontal) span. This reflects the belief that extreme radial snow accumulation in combination with moderate wind loads (30 mph sustained) is unlikely over the entire length of the selected design spans. Span factors ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 are commonly applied to extreme wind loading to account for the fact that higher gust winds are not uniformly distributed over a span [14]. We have selected a span factor for the extreme wet snow condition based on the high probability that some length of the long design spans will be protected by forest and topography, that steep conductor slope at span ends will make snow accumulation difficult, and that wind will not be uniform over the entire design span. Maximum tangent spans will be determined based on deadending criteria used on the Swan Lake line, namely (1) deadend long span where adjacent span ratio exceeds 2.5 to 1, (2) deadend spans which exceed 125% of the ruling span, and (3) deadend spans which exceed 150% of the average span. Tangent and angle structures will be designed to withstand unbalanced longitudinal loads due to one adjacent span loaded with maximum design ice or snow load and the other adjacent span unloaded but at the same ambient temperature, wires in-tact. All deadend structures will be designed to take a full, single deadend longitudinal load. 8. Phase Spacing and Insulator Swing Clearances Phase spacing was selected based on guidelines given in [6] to accommodate maximum tangent spans assumed to be 1250 ft (less than 1000 ft elevation) and 1500 ft (above 1000 ft elevation). An experience factor of 1.25 was used, as recommended for the NESC Heavy Loading Zone. Insulator swing clearances for wood structures are based on guidelines in [6] as follows: WOOD STRUCTURES Minimum Clearance Wind Condition to Any Part of Structure No Wind 42 inches Moderate Wind (6 psf) 26 inches High Wind (13 psf) 10 inches For steel structures air gap strengths will be coordinated with insulator 60-Hz wet withstand values for the high wind condition and critical positive impulse flashover ratings for moderate wind condition based on air gap ratings in [9] as follows: Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-7 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STEEL STRUCTURES Minimum Clearance Wind Condition to Any Part of Structure Moderate Wind (6 psf) 42 inches (CFO+ air gap 670 kV) High Wind (13 psf) 46 inches (60-Hz air gap 395 kV) (controls) Based on 46-inch minimum clearance, a minimum value for the weight span to wind span ratio (V/H) is 0.60, corresponding to a maximum swing angle of 60 degrees from vertical under high wind (13 psf) conditions, for the Dove/AW conductor. 9. Right-of-Way Design Right-of-way design will be based on access for maintenance and reliability. Right-of-way widths vary on the Tyee Lake project from 60 to 300 ft with a typical width of 150 ft. The Swan Lake project right-of-way width varies from approximately 100 ft to 290 ft, with a typical width of 180 ft. Both project rights-of-way exhibit a high degree of width variation to accommodate special circumstances. A minimum right-of-way width expressed by KPU as necessary for helicopter maintenance is 200 ft [7]. An average width of 200 ft was selected for the conceptual design and cost estimates. It is our experience that clearing danger trees from the edge of the clearcut right-of-way can add significantly to the effective width of the clearcut right-of-way. The impact of this is greater on steep slopes and with taller tree stands. This is further reason for selecting 200 ft as an average right-of-way width, greater than typical widths on Tyee or Swan. In final right-of-way design special clearing techniques will be used to lessen the visual impact and amount of clearing needed. In addition, final right-of-way design may include specifications for wildlife migration corridors, clearing adjacent to streams, wildlife or habitat avoidance, and other special requirements identified in an EIS. Typical cross-section of the cleared right-of-way is shown in Figure IV-1. Helicopter landing pads were used extensively both on Tyee and to a lesser extent on Swan Lake for maintenance and inspection access. In final design landing pads will be placed judiciously to facilitate maintenance and inspection of the line, taking into account experience on existing lines. For the conceptual design landing pads at one every two miles plus six for long span crossings will be assumed. A typical helicopter landing pad is shown in Figure IV-2. 10. Line Components a. Structures The basic tangent structure type selected for conceptual design is a wood H- frame structure as shown in Figure IV-3. Existing designs in Southeast Alaska include wood H-frame (Swan Lake line) and self-weathering steel X-frames (Tyee Lake line). Iv-8 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT The Swan Lake line has been in service since 1983 reliably with reported excellent performance of the structures. A concern was expressed by KPU personnel regarding possible woodpecker damage which they are monitoring closely. The Tyee Lake line has been in service since 1984 and has experienced numerous outages which have been in part due to the flexibility of the guyed X-frame and higher unbalanced snow loading than considered in the original design. Any inadequacies of the Tyee Lake line are not related specifically to the use of steel versus wood but rather the combination of structure concept and loading. In phone interviews with Authority and KPU staff, a marginal preference for steel was expressed based on the perception of longer lifetimes and less maintenance, although KPU also noted that wood structures on the Swan Lake line had performed excellently. For these reasons a cost comparison of steel H-frames to the base case of wood H-frame is included in the study for the preferred alternative. Basic structure types are shown in Figures IV-3 through IV-5. A further discussion of steel structure use is found in Section VI.I.3. b. Foundations Foundations for the conceptual design will be similar to those used on the Swan Lake line, H-pile supplemented with rock bolt anchors where required, poles mounted by grouting in pole-shoe welded to top of H-pile as shown in Figure IV-6. This foundation type allowed marked efficiencies in construction and minimal disruption of structure sites. During their road study, R&M Engineering performed several soil borings and developed foundation recommendations for the transmission line [10]. Bedrock anchors (R&M Type I) were proposed for 90% of the line length. The Swan Lake foundation type is a bedrock anchor foundation. R&M further noted the accumulation of significant granular soil overburden in areas such as the Eagle River basin where deep H-pile or screw anchor foundations could be considered. The recommendations of R&M Engineering are included in Appendix B. c. Guy/Anchor Assemblies Guys will be insulated in accordance with NESC requirements. Guy anchors will be primarily of the rockbolt type with plate anchors used in granular soil areas. d. Insulator Assemblies Tangent and running angle structures will use a single insulator I-string. In final design inverted V-strings may be applied to limit the effects of unbalanced conductor loading (i.e., feeding extra slack into loaded span due to longitudinal insulator swing) where appropriate. Deadend and heavy angle insulator assemblies will utilize suspension-type polymer insulators. The ultimate strength ratings of insulator assembly hardware will exceed the SML of insulator(s) which they support. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating Iv-9 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 11. Long Span Water Crossings Three long span water crossings occur on the route at Bell Arm, Behm Narrows, and possibly Shrimp Bay. It has been determined that these crossings can be accomplished with overhead line construction using 37 No. 8 Alumoweld conductor and self-supporting steel A-frame structures similar to those used on the Carroll Inlet crossing on the Swan Lake line and the ST3-SSA types on the Tyee Lake line as shown in Figure IV-7. Sag tension data for the 37 No. 8 Alumoweld is included in Appendix A for a 3500 ft ruling span. The conceptual crossing of Behm Narrows is shown in Figure IV-8. The determination of this feasibility was based on profiles generated from contours on USGS 15-minute topographic maps and the judgment that acceptable structure sites can be found in final design. Submarine cable installations were not deemed technically necessary. However, submarine cable designs for crossing Behm Narrows from Bell Island to Revillagigedo Island [1, A- ppendix 1] were solicited from various manufacturers for two basic cable types namely (1) self- contained oil-filled cable similar to that used on Tyee Lake line crossings (Figure IV-9) and (2) ethylene-propylene-rubber (EPR) solid dielectric insulation with no lead sheath (Figure IV-10). Costs for the submarine cable options were estimated for comparison purposes assuming single conductor cables with one spare and complete terminal facilities. Final design would include a detailed bathymetric survey. 12. Aerial Obstruction Marking In recognition of the frequent use of river basins and waterways in Southeast Alaska for airplane navigation, all long water crossings and crossings of major streams and creeks will be marked with aerial marker balls, assumed 36-inch diameter, alternately colored white, orange, and yellow, placed at assumed 200 ft intervals in the span, distributed on the three phase conductors for daytime detection. No structure lighting is assumed, as is typically the case in Southeast Alaska. (Marker balls are also available now with electrostatically-driven neon bulbs which, however, depend on the existence of a shieldwire for ground connection. These light- generating markers were not considered due to the absence of a shieldwire for most of the line.) River basins are also used by a variety of bird life for flypaths during migration and hunting forays. Final engineering design would include surveying key crossings known to be major flypaths for typical flight elevations so that conductors can be placed to minimize the potential for collisions at night. For daytime detection, 20-inch aerial marker balls have been assumed at 200 ft intervals on all creek and stream crossings not having 36-inch marker balls. Spiral vibration dampers, used in the protection of wires from aeolian vibration and galloping, are an alternative bird-contact mitigation measure that has gained increasing acceptance. 13. Eagle River to Tyee Switchyard Transmission Line Section For this alternative we selected an identical conductor (37 No.8 alumoweld) and modified but similar steel construction as on the existing line so as to (1) withstand the heavy loading conditions expected, and (2) improve the appearance of this segment. The crossing of Eagle Bay will be made so as to match conductor sags with the existing Tyee Lake line as closely as possible to limit obstructions across the bay. This 6.6 mile line extension is extremely rugged and will in all likelihood have to be situated south of and at higher elevations than the existing IV-10 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT line to avoid steep slopes. The crossing of the existing line must be carefully planned but appears feasible. The final approach to the switchyard may have to be situated in the tide flat. C. SWITCHYARD AND SUBSTATION DESIGN Substation or switchyard new construction and/or modifications will be required at Tyee Lake Switchyard, Swan Lake Switchyard, and Bailey Substation for two Intertie Alternatives, I1 (direct connection to Tyee Lake Switchyard) and 12 (Tyee Lake line tap). Both alternatives are based on transforming Tyee power at 69/138 kV to 115 kV for transmission to Swan Lake. Therefore both alternatives include a 69/138 kV to 115 kV transformer. 1. Switchyard Design The selection of the main design parameters and design criteria for the substations are discussed below. a. Electrical Design Parameters The dual voltage characteristic of the Tyee Lake system (138 kV design, 69 kV operation with possible 138 kV future operation) makes it necessary to install equipment rated 138 kV as far as possible. Phase spacings and clearances will be based on operation at 138 kV and circuit breakers and disconnect switches will be rated 138 kV. The interconnecting power transformer will have dual primary voltage (switchable under cover between 69 kV and 138 kV). However, the voltage transformers and surge arresters will be rated 69 kV and will have to be replaced with 138 kV rated equipment when the operating voltage is switched to 138 kV. The transformer will also probably include a tertiary winding with a shunt reactor. All equipment on the Swan Lake side will be rated 115 kV. Both of the systems proposed for interconnection are characterized by low fault levels, low loads and both are located in an area with a very low isokerauric level. Based on these characteristics we have selected the following standard equipment ratings: Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-11 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE IV-12 Table IV-6 Substation Design Criteria 115 kV System 138 kV System Continuous current carrying capacity: GCircuitibneakers icteric orale oretels oteneiolo cs 1200 A 1200 A Disconnect switches ..............6- 600 A 600 A Circuit breaker interrupting capacity ...... 20 kA 20 kA BIL: Power transformer, windings ......... 450 kV 550 kV Circuit breaker, switches, insulators, bushings, etc. ............ 550 kV 650 kV Phase-phase spacing, busbars ........... 7 ft 8 ft Minimum clearance between bare overhead conductors and ground ....... 12 ft 13 ft Seismic zone (Uniform Building Code Essential Facility, I= 1.25) ............ 3 3 The power transformer rating selection, 12/16/20 MVA OA/FA/FA, is based on the anticipated 10 MVA initial loading of the Intertie. The two stages of forced cooling gives considerable spare capacity for load growth and for peaking during emergencies. b. Major Equipment Types The power transformer would ideally, and most economically, be designed as an autotransformer, but given the dual voltage requirement, the cost savings of the auto- design may be marginal as compared to a full two winding transformer. Information obtained from manufacturers also indicate that it may be very difficult to design, especially with a load tap changer. For the purpose of this study and for cost estimating, the transformer has been assumed as a full, two-winding unit. The selection of transformer type should be addressed during detailed engineering. The circuit breakers will be the SF6 type for low maintenance requirements and of dead tank design with bushing current transformers for space saving. The isolating switches will be the vertical break type for minimum phase spacing requirements and with good ice performance. The voltage transformers will be of the capacitive type to provide coupling for the power line carrier equipment. The surge arresters will be of the metal oxide gapless type and with station class rating. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT c. Protective Relaying The power transformer will be protected by a sudden pressure relay and a percentage differential relay as the main protection and with primary side phase and ground overcurrent relays for back-up protection. The transmission line will have two distance relays (for redundancy) and directional ground fault relays at each end with transfer tripping. In the alternative, with a direct tap to the Tyee Lake-Wrangell line a three- terminal line will be formed. Efficient protection of this three terminal system requires that protection communication channels be established between the three terminals. Pilot relaying will be used with PLC (Power Line Carrier) communication channels. A directional comparison blocking pilot system is considered best suited for this application with the connection to Swan Lake being considered a weak feed. d. Communications The present communication system between Tyee Lake and Wrangell is based on PLC. Both telephone (verbal) and SCADA communication is handled by this system. The system is of General Electric manufacture and is less than two years old. Information obtained from operating personnel at Tyee Lake and Wrangell indicates that the performance of the system for verbal communication is unsatisfac- tory, but that the SCADA communication functions well. Unfortunately, General Electric is no longer manufacturing PLC equipment, but in view of the recent date of the equipment, it is recommended that the problem of poor verbal communication performance be addressed and solved as part of the Intertie project. In the alternative with a tap to the Tyee Lake-Wrangell line at Eagle River, it will be necessary to establish a three-terminal communication system between Tyee Lake, Eagle River and Wrangell. This is most economically accomplished by utilizing the existing PLC equipment and moving the terminal equipment presently installed at Tyee Lake to the new Eagle River substation. To complete the link from Wrangell to Tyee Lake, a new set of PLC equipment would be installed at Eagle River and at Tyee Lake. A bridge would be necessary at Eagle River to connect the existing terminal equipment to the new proposed terminal equipment. PLC communication has also been selected for the link between Eagle River and Swan Lake. Based on the relatively low amount of signal transfer between the systems, a PLC based communication link will be more economical than a fiber optics based system. The most viable alternative for supporting a fiber optic cable on the line would be to wrap the fiber optic cable around one phase conductor. The cost for the fiber optic cable itself and installation would total about $12,000/mile, or about $675,000 for the entire line. The terminal equipment would be in addition to this cost. This Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-13 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE alternative, therefore, appears not to be cost effective as compared to the cost of PLC communication. 2. Alternative 1 - Tyee Lake Switchyard to Swan Lake Switchyard a. Tyee Lake Switchyard Additions and Modifications The Tyee Lake Switchyard would be expanded according to the general equipment layout in Figure IV-11. A 69/138 kV -115 kV, 12/16/20 MVA transformer would be connected to the Tyee single bus through a circuit switcher and to the line through an SF6 circuit breaker. It is possible that a single breaker could be used to trip both transformer and the line. The desirability of this should be evaluated during final design after further transient switching studies have been performed. The line would be tripped on loss of load (i.e. due to Swan Lake breaker operation). The yard itself will be expanded, requiring additional fill in tideland areas and probable relocation of nearby stream channel. b. Swan Lake Switchyard Additions and Modifications The Swan Lake Switchyard would be modified to accept the Intertie connection. The Intertie would connect directly to the Swan Lake bus through an SF6 circuit breaker. A deadend structure for switches and space below for the breaker exists. Relaying at Swan Lake would be set to trip the Intertie on a Swan Lake line or bus fault. c. Bailey Substation in Ketchikan The Bailey Substation will have to modified to be accommodate the additional power flow from Tyee. The existing Bailey Substation has four single phase transformers rated 6667/8867 kVA OA/FA. The transformer capacity increase would depend on the amount of power assumed from Tyee coincident with other sources feeding Bailey through the transformers. The most probable near term export from Tyee would be 10 MW with a mid term figure of 20 MW assuming a third unit at Tyee. We have based our conceptual design on construction of supporting facilities for eventual 20 MW import and initial transformer capacity for 10 MW import. Thus, the Bailey additions may include one of the following alternatives: (a) four new replacement single-phase transformers each rated 115-34.5 kV and 8.67/10.83 MVA, (b) a third stage of forced air cooling on existing transformers, (c) one or two new three-phase transformers which we have found are slightly less expensive in today’s market than four single phase units, or (d) four new additional single-phase transformers each rated 115-34.5 kV and 3.333/5.000 MVA. All equipment ratings would have to be checked for adequacy with the Intertie. We have not looked at the Bailey substation in detail and we have not included any costs for upgrading the substation capacity. Also, we assume that such costs would be borne by KPU and should therefore be separated from the Intertie costs. IV-14 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT 3. Alternative 2 - Eagle River Substation to Swan Lake Switchyard a. Eagle River Substation The Eagle River Substation would be situated on the isthmus of Duck Point near the mouth of the Eagle River as shown in Figure V-3 in Section V, accessible by water and adjacent to the proposed road [10]. For Alternative T1 (loop feed) this would entail tapping the Tyee line and running two single circuit tap lines from high elevations down to the station. The station would include a 69/138 kV to 115 kV, transformer rated 12/16/20 MVA. The Tyee line would feed a three-breaker ring bus, using SF6 circuit breakers, and a SF6 circuit breaker on the line side of the trans- former. Again, the circuit breaker on the transformer line side may not be required depending on further transient studies. Figure IV-12 shows a possible equipment layout for Alternative T2 (direct tap) which was not included in cost estimates because of the numerous merits of Alternative T1. Figure IV-13 shows a possible equipment layout for Alternative T1. The station would be designed to operate remotely. The intertie would be separated on loss of Intertie load. This station would require substantial site work. The proposed site for this substation is in an area apparently very attractive to bald eagles which could restrict construction. b. Swan Lake Switchyard The Swan Lake Switchyard modifications are identical to those for Alternative 1. c. Bailey Substation The Bailey Substation modifications are identical to those for Alternative 1. d. Tyee Lake Switchyard Modifications to the Tyee Lake Switchyard for this alternative affect relaying and communication schemes only. D. SYSTEM ANALYSIS IMPACTS PTI’s system analysis work (Appendix I) investigated steady-state power flow and Intertie energization (i.e., switching) for various system conditions. The Intertie was found to be technically feasible based on acceptable steady-state performance (e.g., voltage regulation). Dynamic simulation studies were also performed by PTI (Appendix J). The dynamic simulation study provides a general estimate of dynamic performance when operating the TWP and KPU systems interconnected and concludes that the interconnection is feasible from a technical point of view. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-15 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE PTI did address, however, several system modifications which would enhance reliability and operation, especially under light loading conditions. These are listed below. 1. Shunt Reactor at Tyee Switchyard PTI recommends that a 4 MVAR shunt reactor be connected to the tertiary winding of the 69/138-kV to 115-kV power transformer to (1) facilitate voltage regulation and limit voltage rise under minimum load conditions and (2) limit switching overvoltages during energization of the Intertie. For best operational flexibility the shunt reactor would be switchable by voltage control. The shunt reactor and automatic padmount switch would require modification of Figure IV-11 for additional equipment space. 2. One Breaker Tyee Interconnection In Figures III-2 and IV-11 the 69/138-kV to 115-kV power transformer is shown connected to the Tyee bus through a circuit switcher and to the Intertie through a circuit breaker. PTI recommends that detailed electromagnetic transient switching studies be performed in final design to determine if it is feasible and desirable to switch both transformer and line together with only a single breaker. For the cost estimate, Figure IV-11 layout was assumed. 3. Power System Stabilizers The dynamic simulations identified poor damping of rotor swing oscillations on the interconnected system. These damping problems are not considered severe and should be correctable through the application of power system stabilizers at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. 4. Underfrequency/Overfrequency Conditions PTI identifies frequency regulation following outage situations as the most significant operational problem the interconnected systems will encounter. Underfrequency problems exist today when the large hydro plants are separated from the load centers. This problem is not worsened by the interconnection but rather slightly improved since the interconnection allows generation reserves in the two systems to be shared. However, the interconnection creates a situation where the entire KPU or TWP system can experience significant overfrequency conditions. Such a situation occurs when both the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake units are isolated on either the TWP or KPU system. PTI cites possible system modifications for evaluation as (1) coordinated operation of Swan Lake and Tyee Lake units in such a way as to force faster-acting Pelton turbines at Tyee to react to overfrequency conditions, (2) generator tripping to remove excess generation, (3) replacement of Tyee Pelton unit governors with digital electronic devices providing separate control over turbine needles and deflectors, and (4) dynamic braking by connecting braking resistors for a few seconds. We have not included any specific costs in our estimate to cover these proposed modifications. Coordinated operation of the two projects may be complicated by other factors such as lake hydrology and energy requirements, unit availability, or agreements between the parties. Generator protection should be reviewed in detail to determine if modifications are necessary for more rapid generator tripping. Based on discussions with the manufacturer we IV-16 Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating FINAL REPORT estimate that the capital cost of replacement of the governors with Woodward 517 units with separate control at Tyee Lake would be about $75,000 per unit and would require about two weeks for the complete installation. 5. North Point Higgins Bus PTI study Exhibit 2 demonstrates potential voltage support problems at the North Point Higgins 34.5-kV bus. In Case 3, with Beaver Falls and Silvas Lake isolated and both Tyee and Swan heavily loaded, Swan Lake is forced to operate at 105% voltage. This reinforces the desirability of an Intertie connection at North Point Higgins Substation. In summary, the Intertie is technically feasible based on steady-state power flow performance and dynamic response simulations. However, several system enhancements to improve reliability and operational flexibility have been recommended. These modifications are not included specifically in the feasibility design or cost estimates. They are not significant cost elements compared to total project costs and could easily be covered as part of the assumed contingency. Basis of Feasibility Design for Cost Estimating IV-17 AABO400P DANGER TREE TO BE CLEARED (IF IT FALLS, WOULD CONTACT TRANSMISSION LINE) RIGHT—OF—WAY CLEARING 100-300 FT 200 FT TYPICAL TYPICAL H—FRAME STRUCTURE D D ¥ i iD K+ Won xX widen . } x, a x ! STABLE LOW GROWTH Gal | VEGETATION CAN REMAIN rH eo. ,¢. = “ FIGURE _Iv-1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES 22'-6" © z = < > WW ac a iene ABT CL PRESERVATIVE TREATED 6x6 TIMBERS @ 2’-0”" OC = GRATE FOR STEPPING OUT TURNBUCKLES TO ADJUST BRACING (TYP ALL SIDES) i i LADDER bo H—PILE FOOTINGS (FOUR TOTAL) END VIEW FIGURE IV-2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL HELICOPTER LANDING PAD ~ RW BECK AND ASSOCIATES MAX POLE LENGTH = 80’ TYPICAL LENGTH = 50’ POLE SHOE | Whi G TRANSMISSION LINE FOUNDATION + xi ‘cn < TN Vl WITHOUT STEEL EXTENSION POLE LENGTH = 75’ POLE SHOE AS REQ’D STEEL EXTENSION WITH STEEL EXTENSION FIGURE _IV-3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL WOOD H-FRAME STRUCTURE R.W BECK AND ASSOCIATES GUY/ANCHOR TYPICAL CONDUCTOR PLAN VIEW LINE. TYPICAL Pm Pm [Pe XX x MAX POLE LENGTH = 80’ TYPICAL LENGTH 50’ 7 | 1 POLE SHOE _aet aS Te | FOUNDATION 1 | yy Ia Se TRANSMISSION LINE 7M FIGURE = Iv-4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE NOTE: GUY NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY TYPICAL WOOD IN PROFILE (LONGITUDINAL) VIEW 3-POLE ANGLE STRUCTURE ~ RW BECK AND ASSOCIATES AABO4001 GUY /ANCHOR TYPICAL & CONDUCTOR PLAN VIEW 19-25’ TYP x LINE TYPICAL MAX POLE LENGTH = 80° TYPICAL LENGTH = POLE SHOE at FOUNDATION 7/7 mS / HI G TRANSMISSION LINE FIGURE IV-5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL WOOD 3-POLE HEAVY ANGLE STRUCTURE R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES TOP OF FON. wooD POLE HP10x42 ae REVEAL nea TYP LENGTH POLE SHOE PILE TIP ELEVATION H—PILES ONLY, MUSKEG AND GRANULAR SOILS TYPICAL POLE SHOE INSTALLATION NOTE: H-PILES NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. TYPICAL ROCK ANCHOR GROUT INSTALLATION ¥: CASING EPOXY ‘ TYPICAL ROCK ANCHOR GROUT: INSTALLATION W/ CASING RESIN 5 EPOXY 4 ° #11 ROCK ANCHOR RESIN hg = #11 ROCK ANCHOR ELEVATION TYPICAL INSTALLATION FIGURE 1V-6 H—-PILE WTH ROCK ANCHORS AND POLE SHOE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL POLE H-PILE/ROCKBOLT FOUNDATION RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES TYPICAL HEIGHT 50’ ANCHOR BOLT ASSEMBLY NOTE: ONE STRUCTURE PER PHASE. FIGURE IV-7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL STEEL A-FRAME STRUCTURE LONG SPAN CROSSINGS R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES 37 NO. 8 AW ‘STEEL A-FRAME ‘STRUCTURE (ONE PER PHASE) NOTE: PROFILE DERIVED FROM USGS KETCHIKAN (C-4) QUADRANGLE (N.TS.) FIGURE IV-8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE OVERHEAD CROSSING OF BEHM CANAL, PROFILE RWBECK AND ASSOCIATES COMPONENT THICKNESS, MM DIAMETER, MM (1) OIL DUCT MIN. 0.97 MIN. 12.0 1.0. (2) CONDUCTOR COPPER - 26.4 (3) STRAND SHIELDING 0.38 27.16 (4) INSULATION PAPER 11.05 49.26 (5) INSULATION SHIELDING 0.49 50.24 (6) BINDER LEAD SHEATH 0.30 50.84 LEAD SHEATH MIN. AVG. 2.3 55.44 (8) BEDDING FOR REINFORCEMENT TAPE 0.40 56.24 REINFORCEMENT S.S. TAPE 0.24 56.72 0.60 57.92 4.0 65.92 2.0 69.92 4.2 78.32 SERVING PROPYLENE YARN 3.7 85.72 NOTE: PRELIMINARY DIMENSIONS OIL VOLUME APPROXIMATELY 397 GALLONS IV-9 PER MILE (940 L/KM) OF CABLE asieme APPROXIMATE OVERALL DIAMETER IS AEASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 3% INCHES TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION SELF-CONTAINED OIL-FILLED CABLE R.W BECK AND ASSOCIATES WHOOP DAd WY OL BOI JOU 190}S SEOIUIDIS OMG + “ON Buyppeg {HOOP OAd NW SE odo} seddop jw OL edo, Bunonpuosjwes PIPIYS YoORDINsy| PleysouLned uONDINsY] eyey PIeysouLEd vonDjnsu) eyyey WL plejysoured (Iw OSg) Wezshs VoRDNsY} seddog (2¢) !wo% 00S IV-10 FIGURE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION SOLID DIELECTRIC CABLE INSULATION MATERIAL IS PROPRIETARY FORMULATION OF ETHYLENE PROPYLENE RUBBER (EPR) SOURCE: HUBBELL/THE KERITE COMPANY, 1992 FOR REFERENCE SEE INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. DRAWNG TY-57-012 CVT — CAPACITOR VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER LT — LINE TRAP er Let oe oie) oe bola ea al, lea wi i z 1 rth ’ | NEW SFgBREAKER | AND DISCONNECTS ; | eS af eet eee eee eae | ie \ r---— } | [ ue | | L FENCE TO BE MOVED OUT eel 12/16/20 MVA s AND FILL AREA EXTENDED ! [ec FUTURE a APPROX. 10’ f vel 5 =: 7 3 115 kV 0.8 =] wt 1 Hikeigestr i Arto ett ' x SWAN LAKE ] | | AH tre | | —--: toes. anon" =a ——+——— | ciRcuIT | | SWITCHER | service || | 115 kV | | ROAD CVTIAT | | lA 4S See a SS 7 PROPOSED. a | STATION oc % sl MODIFICATION gr 5a t z oB * r] 7 = ao oA * » 4 8 os ie iz = : i 26 | 116" | — NOTE: LEGEND FIGURE IV-11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE SWITCHYARD MODIFICATIONS PLAN VIEW R.W BECK AND ASSOCIATES 115 kV 69/138 kV LINE TO H H LINE TO SWAN LAKE TYEE LINE TAP 69/138 kV—115kV 12/16/20 mvA [U1 38 AUTO TRANSFORMER SF, CIRCUIT BREAKER WITH ISOLATING (2) CONTROL AND BYPASS (1) DISCONNECTS BLDG. EACH LOCATION CVT — CAPACITOR VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER LT — LINE TRAP PVT — POWER VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER FIGURE IV-12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE EAGLE RIVER SWITCHYARD DIRECT TAP PLAN VIEW R.W BECK AND ASSOCIATES 115 kV UNE TO SWAN LAKE 69/138 kV-115 kV 12/16/20 MVA 3®@ AUTO TRANSFORMER CB — Sf CIRCUIT BREAKER OS — DISCONNECT SWITCH CVT — CAPACITOR VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER LT = UNE TRAP PVT - POWER VOLTAGE TRANSFORMER NOTE: EQUIPMENT AND BUS LAYOUT MAY CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE SITE AND LINE APPROACHES. FIGURE 1V-13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE EAGLE RIVER SWITCHYARD IN/OUT TAP PLAN VIEW R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES SECTION V ROUTE ALTERNATIVES RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION V ROUTE ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Previous studies of route alternatives for the Intertie have focused on the Eagle River Corridor. Principal among these studies was the 1987 Harza study [1] which first identified the Tyee-Swan interconnection via the Eagle River Corridor as the most promising intertie link among all possible Southeast Intertie links. All alternative designations (A, B, C and D) below in this part refer to those used in [1] and subsequent studies [10,13]. Four principal Intertie routes were identified and studied by Harza in [1], namely Alternatives A, B, C and D of Segment 8, all along the Eagle River Corridor. Basically these represent combinations of route alternatives around Eagle Lake and Bell Island and between Klam Creek and Carroll Creek. Alternatives A and C passed to the east of Eagle Lake and Anchor Passage, crossing to Revillagigedo Island at Point Lees via submarine cable. Alternatives B and D passed to the west of Eagle Lake, crossed Bell Arm, traversed Bell Island and connected to Revillagigedo Island via a submarine cable link. At the mouth of Klam Creek, Alternatives Cand D followed the Neets Creek drainage while A and B followed the Orchard Creek drainage before merging at Carroll Creek. The evaluation in [1] found Alternative B (west side Eagle Lake, Orchard Creek) to be the most preferable of all alternatives but only slightly more preferable than Alternative D (west side Eagle Lake, Neets Creek). Alternatives A and C were found to be preferable from an engineering standpoint but were deselected based largely on the potential for adverse visual and cultural impact on the Point Lees promontory. In the "Preliminary Market and Financial Assessment of the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Intertie" by R.W. Beck and Associates [13] these alternatives were again evaluated based on updated cost estimates as part of an Intertie-specific market and financial assessment study. It was found that Alternative A was marginally the least cost alternative based on costs escalated from [1] using cost increases based on Alaska Economic Trends and Handy-Whitman construction index ($39.8 million). No detailed engineering review was undertaken for this report and the shortcomings of Alternative A (cultural resource impacts) were not considered. In 1991 an Alaska DOT-PF-sponsored preliminary geotechnical survey [10] showed two Intertie routes namely, Harza Alternative B, shown as the preferred route, and Harza Alternative A, as an alternative route. In addition to the Eagle River Corridor route alternatives, this section also considers two alternatives for an independent tie from the Tyee Lake system directly to the 115-kV bus at a Ketchikan substation. One route (R2) taps the Tyee Lake line near Mile 15 and proceeds south on Cleveland Peninsula to interconnect with the 115-kV bus at North Point Higgins Substation. This route was considered as Segment 13 in Harza and was not found to be economically justifiable. This finding is corroborated in the present study. The other route (R3) would continue the Intertie from Swan Lake, parallel but separate from the existing Swan Lake line, to an interconnection with the 115-kV bus at a new Ward Cove Substation. Route Alternatives V-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE In the following discussion we designate route alternatives R1 (Eagle River Corridor), R2 (Cleveland Peninsula), and R3 (Parallel to Swan Lake line). Variations of the most practical route, R1, are designated R1A to R1D and generally correspond to the Harza route alternatives as follows: Route Alternative R1 Corresponding Harza Variations Route Alternative RU Aeron tetel sre eNotelotrer elon ie fe lore lolelNet-¥et-¥ offer D RIB nc ccc e sc cecceecescccesses (no equivalent) BE sh awine ee rer Reem eaeeeN eaves eens A RID Wee ceeicle tattle ere eiecr-ler- B B. PREFERRED ROUTE ALTERNATIVE The preferred route alternative is Route R1A in the Eagle River Corridor. Refer to Figures V-1 to V-8 which depict Routes R1A, R1B, R1C and RID. The preferred Alternative Route R1A begins at the Tyee Lake Switchyard at a new bus connection on the north side of the station (Figure V-3). The line will then parallel the existing Tyee Lake line on the north side, perhaps occupying some tideflat locations, for about 1.5 miles. Crossing to the south side of the existing line, the line continues to parallel the existing line at higher elevations, and at a 150 ft to 200 ft separation, for about 5.1 miles, to a structure on the west side of Eagle River near existing structure 06-1C. The crossing point of the existing line and continuing into the switchyard will be complicated due to terrain features. A crossing of Eagle River was selected to avoid the steep drop to the east side of the river and a low level aerial crossing farther upstream. From the west side of Eagle Bay R1A proceeds along the west side of Eagle River and Lake at low elevations, then veers south through a low pass near the southern end of Eagle Lake. From there the route heads southwest along the steep slopes of Bell Arm to an overhead crossing of the waterway. Total distance from Eagle Bay to Bell Arm is about 14.5 miles. On Bell Island, R1A traverses the northwest face with moderately steep slopes for a distance of 1.9 miles before turning southeast for 2.9 miles to cross Bell Island and Behm Narrows using an aerial crossing. After crossing Behm Narrows, Route R1A turns east for 1.2 miles as it crosses the outflow below Long Lake and approaches Beaver Creek. The route then heads south, west and south again as it follows the Beaver Creek and Klam Creek drainages for 7.0 miles. The Klam Creek section is a very narrow canyon characterized by lakes, steep slopes, and streams. Siting the line in this area is technically feasible but will take careful planning and close study of structure locations. Siting the line in the floor of the canyon for the entire length with even a 150 ft right- of-way could lead to significant adverse visual and habitat impacts. This is, however, the only practical route between Shrimp Bay and Behm Canal. A high elevation route above the valley may be feasible but will be costly due to extreme loading conditions. V-2 Route Alternatives FINAL REPORT The preferred route then heads 1.75 miles southwest to an aerial crossing of Shrimp Bay, then south 2.5 miles to Neets Bay where it heads east 5.5 miles along the north side of the Neets Creek drainage, past Bluff Lake. Bluff Lake is surrounded by steep terrain and it may be desirable to route around its south side in final design. The route then turns south for three miles to climb through a pass leading to the Carroll Creek basin. From this point the preferred route and all other Eagle River Corridor routes follows the Carroll Creek basin, with its final approach to the Swan Lake Switchyard on the east side of Carroll Inlet. The actual entry to the Swan Lake Switchyard bus will be complicated by having to work around existing buildings and paved areas. C. ROUTE EVALUATION CRITERIA Three major corridors were considered for this study, namely R1 (Eagle River), R2 (Cleveland Peninsula), and R3 (parallel to Swan Lake line). Due to the severe topography of Cleveland Peninsula and portions of Revillagigedo Island, few technically feasible or desirable routes exist for the Intertie. Below are listed the major factors used to evaluate the route alternatives and develop cost estimates. EVALUATION CRITERIA / FACTORS . Site line at low elevations (<500 ft) where practical. Line lengths below and above 1000 ft elevation were tabulated. Locations above 1000 ft are subject to higher loading, are often inaccessible, and cost more to build, operate and maintain. . Minimize major stream and river crossings, especially near the mouth of waterways. . Avoid steep, unstable slopes evidenced by landslides. . Minimize visual impact. To a large extent this can be addressed with visual simulation techniques in final design. . Minimize impacts to areas of obvious importance for wildlife and forest habitat such as Orchard Creek drainage. . Minimize flyway impact. . Avoid areas subject to extreme winds where possible. Such wind forces can be considered in final design and a reliable line built to withstand them. A meteorologi- cal consultant would assist in determining final criteria. . Minimize logging requirements. It is worth noting that the Feasibility Study predesign efforts did not include detailed line layout, and many small adjustments to routes shown should be expected. Route Alternatives v-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE D. ROUTE ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS Refer to Figure V-1 for an overview of major route alternatives. Three major route alternatives (R1, R2 and R3) have been proposed for the Intertie project. Alternatives R1A, R1B, R1C and R1D are variations of Alternative R1 which all follow the Eagle River/Carroll Creek corridor from Eagle Bay to Swan Lake and have many line segments in common. Alternatives R2 and R3 are routes which would each provide a direct, independent tie into Ketchikan, respectively around Cleveland Peninsula and following the existing line from Swan Lake to Ketchikan. These routes are depicted in Figure V-1. Alternative Route R2 was evaluated in [1] as Segment 13.1 but found therein to be not economically justified. We have also estimated the costs of these ties and concur that they are significantly more expensive than a Tyee-Swan Intertie. Alternatives R1A, R1B, R1C and RID are the principal focus of this Feasibility Study due to the early finding in [1] that a tie between Tyee Lake and Swan Lake was more economically feasible than a tie directly to a substation in Ketchikan. Alternatives R2 and R3 are discussed for completeness in terms of technical feasibility, route selection, and probable cost, but have not been included in the environmental report because of the established focus on Alternatives R1. See Table V-1 for a tabulation of characteristics of the various alternatives. v4 Route Alternatives FINAL REPORT Table V-1 Route Alternative Characteristics Route Alternative Characteristic RIA R1B R1C R1D R2 R3 Lengths (miles) Total’) 5275 57.9 56.1 56.2 64.5 26.0 <1000 ft Elevation 37.3 39.4 43,7 37.9 49.3 NE? >1000 ft Elevation 11.9 11.9 5.2 10.6 5.1 NE Submarine Cable 0 0 1.7 0 9.0 0 Tyee Line Parallel 6.6 5.5 5.5 6.6 0 0 Long Spans‘) 1.7 11 0 11 1.1 NE Logging Yard (miles) <1 mile 8.5 7.0 5.4 6.7 11.6 NE 1-3 miles 25.3 24.4 23.9 23.0 30.0 NE 3-5 miles 91 9.3 9.8 9.3 8.9 NE 5-7 miles 10.1 9.6 7.1 9.8 5.0 NE 7-9 miles 45 7.6 8.2 74 0 NE Distance to Road (miles) <0.1 mile 11.0 19.0 20.1 21.9 NE NE >0.1 mile 46.5 38.9 36.0 34.3 NE NE Potential Adverse Visual Impact (miles) High 13.5 7.2 9.0 9.7 NE NE Medium 27.5 34.1 30.9 29.9 NE NE Low 16.5 16.6 16.2 16.6 NE NE Major Line Angles (each) 10°-29° 13 14 13 16 18°) NE 30°-59° 25 27 24 27 18 NE 60°-90° 12 10 8 10 18 NE Stream Crossings (each) Minor 21 20 16 20 20°) NE Major 20 17 16 19 20°) NE Long Spans (>3000 ft) 3 2 0 2 26) NE High Recreation Area (miles) Eagle 11 12.5 12.5 11 0 0 Orchard 0 7 7 7 0 0 Misty Fjords 0 0 3 0 0 0 Anan 0 0 0 0 25 0 (1) Based on tie into Tyee Lake Switchyard, except R2, R3. R2 based on tap of Tyee Lake line. (2) Not estimated (NE). (3) At 3000 ft each. (4) Based on preliminary evaluation of routes on maps. See Appendix H for discussion of Alternatives RIA and RIC visual impacts. (5) Estimated. (6) Estimated actual line lengths within 1/4 miles of candidate wild river. (7) Adjacent to Misty Fjords not actually within boundaries. Route Alternatives V-5 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 1. Route Alternatives R1, Eagle River Corridor Route alternatives R1A-R1D are linked to system concept Alternative E1 (Section III.E.2.) for a tie to the Swan Lake bus, and follow the Eagle River, Beaver Creek, Klam Creek , Neets or Orchard Creek, and Carrol Creek basins with crossings of Bell Arm, Behm Narrows, and Shrimp Bay. From a technical feasibility standpoint, only Route R1C requires a submarine cable crossing and conversely all-overhead construction is feasible for routes R1A, R1B and R1D. Route alternatives R1 parallel the Eagle River which has been designated a candidate for Wild River status under Alternative Plan A of the "Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix Volume II" [12]. Route alternatives R1 are the most direct routes connecting the Tyee Lake system and the KPU system. Alternatives R1 were previously evaluated [1] and found to be at that time, compared to numerous intertie alternatives, the most cost beneficial and have been the focus of all studies [10,13] since 1987. Alternatives R1 provide an initial direct link between the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake systems, thus meeting the primary objectives of the Authority cited earlier. R1 also has the advantage of allowing the consideration of a future extension of the intertie into Ketchikan, generally parallel to the existing Swan Lake line (see Alternative R3), for increased reliability and operational flexibility as desired by KPU. a. Route Alternative R1A, West Side Eagle Lake and Neets Creek Alternative R1A passes along the west side of Eagle River and Lake, crosses Bell Arm, Bell Island and Behm Narrows, then, after exiting the Klam Creek drainage, crosses Shrimp Bay overhead and follows the Neets Creek drainage to an intersection with the Carroll Creek basin. Alternative R1A is 57.5 miles long from Tyee Lake Switchyard to the Swan Lake Switchyard. Alternative R1A passes through second-growth forest in Neets Creek basin and adjacent to an abandoned road which could be rehabilitated for logging. Alternative R1A also avoids Orchard Creek and Orchard Lake which have been designated a candidate for Wild River status under USFS Alternative Plan A [12], and have definite high value as a wildlife and forest habitat. b. Route Alternative R1B, East Side Eagle Lake and Orchard Creek Alternative R1B is identical to Alternative R1A, except that it passes on the east side of Eagle Lake and takes the Orchard Creek drainage instead of the Neets Creek drainage to Carroll Creek. Alternative R1B is 57.9 miles from the Tyee Switchyard to the Swan Lake Switchyard. Due to the very steep slopes on the east side of Eagle Lake, a more viable and recommended variation of this alternative is to follow the west side of the lake [10, USFS letter]. c. Route Alternative R1C, East Side Eagle Lake, Anchor Passage Alternative R1C, the shortest of Routes R1 at 56.1 miles between Tyee Lake Switchyard and Swan Lake Switchyard, follows the east side of Eagle Lake and River, proceeds down the east side of Anchor Passage and then from Point Lees across by V-6 Route Alternatives FINAL REPORT submarine cable link to Revillagigedo Island. This alternative has been found to be undesirable from several standpoints, namely (1) steep construction on the east side of Eagle Lake, (2) adverse visual impact to recreational and cultural resources in Anchor Passage and on Point Lees promontory [1], and (3) proximity to Misty Fjords National Monument. This alternative, however, parallels most closely the proposed Intertie road (see Appendix B). d. Route Alternative R1D, West Side Eagle Lake, Orchard Creek Alternative R1D, 56.2 miles long, is a combination of Alternatives R1A (West Side Eagle Lake) and R1B (Orchard Creek Drainage). The only major difference with the preferred alternative is passage through the Orchard Creek drainage instead of Neets Creek. e. Connection to Tyee Switchyard All Alternatives R1 have the option to terminate at an Eagle River Switchyard or continue into the Tyee Lake Switchyard. All alternatives on the west side of Eagle Lake would cross to the east side of Eagle River approximately 1.5 miles from Eagle Bay for an approach to the proposed switchyard. 2. Route Alternative R2, Cleveland Peninsula Alternative R2 was evaluated in [1] as Segment 13.1 and the Tyee Lake to Ketchikan route around Cleveland Peninsula was found to be "not justified on its own merits", i.e., without including an intertie to Prince of Wales Island at Thorne Bay. This alternative was not included in any expansion plan evaluated in [1] due to its high cost, whereas the Tyee Lake - Swan Lake Intertie was included in the most economic plan identified for the assumptions of that study. However, we include a discussion of Alternative R2 for completeness. Alternative R2, as described in [1], would begin at an intersection with the Tyee Lake line at approximately 15 miles from the Tyee Lake Switchyard near structure 14-3C. See Figure V-1 for an overall layout of Alternative R2 and Figures V-9 to V-15 for a more detailed plan view. The proposed route corridor for this alternative is the only route which penetrates the mountain massifs on Cleveland Peninsula without reaching elevations of 1500-2000 ft for significant distances. The route heads south from a tap of the Tyee Lake line at about mile 15 following the East Fork of the Anan Creek through a narrow, steep gap, continuing south to a point about two miles east of Boulder Lake. From here it heads west through the Frost Creek drainage to the coast, then south along the steep coast to the head of Santa Anna Inlet. The proposed route traverses steep land on the north side of the inlet and crosses the creek above Lake Helen. An alternative route would be to cross the inlet farther to the west - perhaps requiring a submarine cable crossing - and circumventing the Santa Anna drainage to the south. The route then heads south across Wasta Creek, then parallel to and west of Hofstad Creek, across the head of Vixen Inlet, through a low elevation gap to the head of Helm Bay, where a future substation has been proposed [1] for a possible interconnection to Prince of Wales Island. The route would then continue southeast on the north side of Helm Bay to a submarine cable crossing terminal. Route Alternatives V-7 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE The 9-mile submarine cable link would begin in the neighborhood of Helm Point and terminate on Revillagigedo Island at approximately Lunch Creek, after traversing north of Beton Island and Clover Passage. An overhead line would then be extended for a tie with the KPU system at the North Point Higgins Substation. The actual termination sites for the submarine cable were not investigated as part of this study and feasibility of the underwater crossing was not determined. Note that this proposed submarine cable route is different from that proposed in [1] which begins at Helm Point and terminates at Survey Point after skirting broadside the very steep underwater southwest slopes of Beton Island. This is not desirable and is the reason a termination at Lunch Creek was selected. An interconnection to the KPU system at Ward Cove or Bailey Substation would not be desirable due to the high cost of rebuilding lines along the North Tongass Highway. Possible routing of lines inland from the highway were not investigated. Anan Creek and Santa Anna/Lake Helen basins have been designated as candidates for Wild River status under USFS Tongass Forest Land Management Plan Alternatives A,B and D (Anan only) in [12]. Adoption of any of these alternatives would effectively block the construction of a line as described for Alternative R2. One alternative for this scenario would be to install a submarine cable crossing across Anan Bay and route the line south along the west shore of Cleveland Peninsula, in very steep terrain. This is highly undesirable because (1) visual impact on ferry traffic would be significant relative to other routes and (2) steep slopes with attendant risks of landslides and difficult access would increase costs considerably over the life of the project and would compromise reliability. The adoption of USFS Land Management Plan Alternatives A, B or D would effectively eliminate route Alternative R2 from consideration for the Intertie. Alternative R2 length between an interconnection with the Tyee Lake line at approximately mile 15, near existing structure 14-3C and North Point Higgins Substation is 64.5 miles total. With an interconnection directly to the Tyee Lake Switchyard bus, the length would be about 79 miles. Under either scenario the length is greater than that of Alternatives R1 (for R1A, 54.8 miles for a line tap and 57.5 miles for interconnection directly to the Tyee Lake Switchyard). 3. Route Alternative R3, Intertie Continuation, Swan Lake-KPU Alternative R3 is a combination of Alternative R1, direct tie between the Tyee Lake system and the Swan Lake bus, and construction of a new single circuit line into Ketchikan parallel to the existing Swan Lake line route. Interconnection with the KPU system could be considered for (1) Beaver Falls, (2) North Point Higgins, (3) Ward Cove, and (4) Bailey Substations. Interconnec- tion at any of the sites would allow system back-up via the 34.5-kV subtransmission circuit. Discussions with KPU staff indicate growing load in the North Point Higgins service area, which together with ample space for installing a 115-kV bay, makes this a very appropriate interconnection point. Steady state system studies confirm this view (see Appendix I). Routing a circuit to Beaver Falls or Bailey Substations will be very costly due to steep terrain and/or the need to rebuild existing lines, requiring in all probability extensive outages. V-8 Route Alternatives FINAL REPORT Routing a new circuit into Bailey appears feasible with a new line-up on the west end of the station, although a nearby liquid storage tank may have to be relocated. KPU envisions a new set of three single phase transformers to handle the additional transfer from Tyee. If space is found to be insufficient (1) the existing transformers would need to be replaced or a third stage of cooling added, or (2) a new three-phase transformer considered. A tie to Bailey has the serious and costly disadvantage of having to reconstruct the 115-kV line for double circuit operation along North Tongass Highway from Ward Cove. Also, carrying both the Swan Lake line and the Tyee Lake Intertie, a failure of this line would sever KPU from both sources. However, this variation of Alternative R3 would still represent a higher reliability option than using the Swan Lake line to transfer power from both sources as is the case for the preferred system concept (Alternative E1). Beaver Falls appears to have adequate space for a 115-kV link but the steep site was not investigated thoroughly. Space at the present Ward Cove Substation is insufficient and it is not feasible to expand the station. A new station could be located in the vicinity of Ward Cove, assuming land can be acquired, and tied into the 34.5-kV system with apparently minimal disturbance. Alternative R3 has the advantage of providing the possibility of staged construction. Initially a direct tie to the Swan Lake bus would serve Authority primary objectives. In the future, a new single circuit line could be built from Swan Lake to Ketchikan (North Point Higgins or new Ward Cove) and connected directly to the Intertie, bypassing Swan Lake and establishing a direct tie between Tyee Lake and KPU for improved reliability. As the Swan Lake line ages and load grows on the KPU system, this second stage of construction would become more appealing. Alternative R3 will encounter the same basic right-of-way issues faced during construction of the existing Swan Lake line. This includes about 6.5 miles of Cape Fox Corporation (CFC) land which required, at the insistence of CFC, an extraordinary ground clearance of 75 ft for unhindered operation of logging equipment. Right-of-way adjacent to the Swan Lake line is assumed to be available for Alternative R3 to be feasible. Alternative routes, not parallel to the Swan Lake line, were not investigated as part of this study. 4, Preferred Route Alternative The preferred route alternative is R1 because it (1) meets Authority objectives for an interconnection, (2) is clearly more economically feasible with a significantly lower length and initial capital cost, and (3) offers the future possibility of continuation into Ketchikan along the Swan Lake line corridor. Of the variations of route R1, Alternative R1A is preferred because of (1) less impact on Orchard Creek drainage with high recreational and biological value and (2) lower overall costs due to expected lower logging costs in the Neets Creek area. E. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Appendix H contains the full "Environmental Report on (the) Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie" prepared by Dames & Moore. This report assembles and analyzes available environmental Route Alternatives V-9 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE information for the Preferred Alternative A (Route Alternative R1A, northern interconnection at the Tyee Lake Switchyard, and southern tie to the Swan Lake bus) and Alternative C (Anchor Passage). The report assesses wildlife types, populations and habitat, soil characteristics and hydrology, fisheries, cultural resources, potential visual impacts and other environmental factors. As part of its assessment several meetings were held with USFS, utility and other interested agency personnel to present the Intertie proposal and receive comments. Some meetings were open to the public. The important report findings are summarized below. The basic conclusion of the report is that neither alternative is markedly superior in its potential environmental impact, and that both alternatives appear feasible with careful attention to environmental impact mitigation measures during design. From an environmental feasibility standpoint, both routes are acceptable and neither route shows an overwhelming advantage. The question of Wild River designation for Orchard Creek or Eagle River should be resolved before making a final commitment to a route. The Tongass Land Management Plan, which will document the USFS decision on the status of these two rivers, is anticipated during the summer of 1992. ——— ——— ———————SSSSSSSSSSFSFSFFFFsesF V-10 Route Alternatives FIGURE V-1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES RW BECK AND ASSOCIATES Ww i De zz 9 -e 2% a3 a oz < WwW 23 pe; < xv a” << oJ od < Wu lu > oe = E w = 2 ° o wi 2 - < = a Ww BK ol < a WW a ac WwW uw WwW a a no Ww Ke 2 ° a w 2 F < z x w k al < LEGEND + 2+ + EXISTING TYEE LAKE LINE Refer to Figures V-3 to V-8 for Alternative Routes R1A -R1D The line sections below are depicted on these figures . An "Xx" indicates the route alternative includes that line section. Route Alternative Line Section R1A R1B R1c R1D 1 x x x x 2 x x 3 x x 4 x x 5,6 Used for all alternatives which tie to Eagle River switchyard 7 x x 8 Used for all alternatives which tie to Eagle River Switchyard and which are routed on the west side of Eagle Lake 9 x x 10 x 11 x 12 x x x 13 x x x x 14 x 15 x x x 16 x x x x FIGURE V-2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE KEY LEGEND -ALTERNATIVE ROUTES R1 R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES NOTE: SEE FIGURE V-2 KEY LEGEND FOR ROUTE R1 ALTERNATIVE LINE SECTIONS. TYEE LAKE POWERHOU AND SWITCHYARD oA Gd ALTERNATIVE SY1 PROPOSED REMOTE SWITCHYARD SITE SAT GLE RIVER - ALTERNATIVE 12 2 “@ OY / LEGEND MATCHLINE FIGURE V-4 —d@— LINE SECTION DELIMITER — ++ EXISTING TYEE LAKE LINE FIGURE V-3 ROUTE R1A, PREFERRED —— — ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 Wo soswicnyarp EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE iINTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES gehts ae , E MATCHLINE FIGURE V-3 MATCHLINE FIGURE V-5 -4 FIGURE V ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR BECK RW. AND ASSOCIATES WwW = rH Ze zz ° ra | 2% ey > oz at uw me u® < x a << | < Ww Wu > Ke Se Md Z Y Mm MATCHLINE FIGURE V. FIGURE V-5 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE ars MATCHLINE FIGURE V-7 FIGURE V-6 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE aa MATCHLINE FIGURE V-6 4, AS MATCHLINE FIGURE V- FIGURE V-7 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES cS “4 \ MATCHLINE FIGURE v7 i Me OS ree FIGURE V-8 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES-R1 EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW. BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES EXISTING SUBMARINE CABLE } TERMINAL TSS Pa TYEE LAKE, LINE ay PISS Gj ~>—e 4 Ee gsew REMOTE < A-—SEFCHYARD- SIRES \ at LEIS) 7 \ TURE 14-30 / “ALTERNATIVES \ \ (FOR ROUTE )R2) f ; $a \O8 MATCHLINE FIGURE V-10 FIGURE V-9 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE-R2 CLEVELAND PENINSULA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES MATCHLINE FIGURE V-9 FIGURE V-10 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE- 1 A> lu ac 2 c oq yw ie qa 4 oO i < = R2 CLEVELAND PENINSULA R.W BECK ‘AND ASSOCIATES ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE F RD \(( bay . (NAS \ Set s/f hK— il if kg ®t Hh C18 eX Ae FIGURE V-11 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE-R2 CLEVELAND PENINSULA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY R.W BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE V-12) © ALTERNATIVE ROUTE-R2 CLEVELAND PENINSULA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE vL-A AYNDIS 3NITHOLVW a / aS 7 7 w > 5 rw / Se a = Os - * a a Ww wZ S FZ] Gi dz 3 << [Ble OF ew Zt ui > ys WwW AP SP a— A 23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE i a i as i L Py Ys x a ) a 3 Q ue . = 2 9° wir NS x Nut : i 2 pers a os Oe 3 e555 aunn 2 ae > w c 2 Z as w x 2 x Oo e < = Tatoosh Rocks Tatoosh Pts * ee rT a NRS37 Fy wee mong Ee _" BN SUBMARINE CABLE TERMINAL ALTERNATIVE ROUTE-R2 CLEVELAND PENINSULA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE ‘AND ASSOCIATES a \ >| ticaadas FIGUR V-15 ALTERNATIVE E2 IS A DIRECT ALTERNATIVE ROUTE-R2 INTERCONNECTION TO A KPU SUBSTATION CLEVELAND PENINSULA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RW BECK TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE AND ASSOCIATES SECTION VI PROJECT COST ESTIMATES RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION VI PROJECT COST ESTIMATES A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This section presents the assumptions, methodology, and results of the feasibility-level cost estimates for the various Intertie project alternatives. Project costs include all costs required to plan, develop, engineer, build, operate, and maintain the Intertie. Project costs are broken down into construction costs, engineering costs, owner costs, and operation/maintenance costs for discussion. The first capital cost estimate for this particular Intertie was developed in 1987 as part of a reconnaissance-level study [1] whose purpose was to identify the most cost-beneficial links in the overall proposed Southeast Alaska Intertie system. The estimated cost at that time for a wood H-Frame line from the Tyee Lake Switchyard to the Swan Lake Switchyard was about $29 million. In 1991, as part of a market and financial assessment for the Intertie, R.W. Beck and Associates [13] updated the earlier cost estimates in [1] and determined a current dollar project initial capital cost to be about $39.8 million. Both estimates were necessarily based on broad engineering assumptions and both demonstrated the attractiveness of the Intertie compared to other links. Two fairly recent transmission line projects in Southeast Alaska are similar in magnitude and design to the proposed Intertie. The Tyee Lake 138-kV Transmission Line (81.9 miles total, steel, X-frame construction, 1984) and the Swan Lake 115-kV Transmission Line (30 miles total, wood H-frame construction, 1983) provide valuable records for evaluating both design options and the validity of certain construction cost estimates. The cost estimates prepared for this study are compared to these other projects in Section VI.J. B. TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Construction costs cover all the material, labor, and equipment required to build the Intertie transmission line facilities. Engineering, construction management, and owner costs are treated separately. Overhead and profit are included. 1. Methodology The following steps were taken to develop reliable feasibility level cost estimates: a. Select Design Criteria Design criteria for the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake projects were reviewed and key personnel familiar with the systems were contacted for operating experience. Based on this input and R.W. Beck and Associates’ design experience in Southeast Alaska, we selected appropriate preliminary design criteria (see Section IV) to guide preliminary engineering. Project Cost Estimates VI-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE b. Preliminary Engineering Using selected design criteria, we performed preliminary engineering calculations in sufficient detail to select preliminary material requirements such as wood structure dimensions and size, insulator strength and dimensions, and conductor size. Manufacturer engineering assistance was requested for steel H-frame structure alternatives and submarine cable alternatives. c. Line Layout, Quantity Tabulations and Assumptions For Alternative R1 routes, key layout information was tabulated. This included total line length, distribution of major line angles, and length of the line above elevation 1,000 ft (see Table V-1, p.V-5). In addition, we tabulated a possible distribution of yard distances for logging operations. Major and minor stream crossings, which affect requirements for special aerial markers and possibly denote ravines where clearing is not required, were counted. Only line length and length over the 1,000-ft elevation were counted for Alternative R2, all other data was estimated from Alternative R1. All data for Alternative R3 was estimated. We tabulated key information, such as structure height and line angle distribution, on the cross-country portion of the existing Swan Lake line for further input. Preliminary quantities were developed from the above and used to request budgetary quotes for material from suppliers. d. Request Material and Other Cost Quotes Based on preliminary quantities we solicited cost quotes for major material delivered to Ketchikan for wood structures and framing, conductors, steel structure alternatives, submarine cable and accessories, and miscellaneous items. Selected major material quotes are included in Appendix C for reference. Recognizing that clearing and logging for the Intertie could be very costly due to the remoteness of the line and the standard USFS Timber Sale Contract clause requiring removal of all merchantable timber, we contacted a helicopter-logging firm in Oregon with significant experience in Southeast Alaska to obtain reasonable estimates of the costs. e. Develop Spreadsheets for Estimates Two linked spreadsheets were used to compute alternative-specific cost estimates. A summary data input spreadsheet contains information such as line length, length over the 1,000-ft elevation, line angle distribution, and numerous other alternative- specific information. The cost estimate spreadsheet uses this input to compute material quantities. Examples of those spreadsheets are included for the preferred alternative a in Appendix D. In addition, a cost summary spreadsheet was linked to both the detailed cost estimate and summary data input spreadsheets. Summary cost estimate spreadsheets are contained in Appendix E for all alternatives studied. VI-2 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT f. Develop Labor Factors We researched unit prices on both Swan Lake and Tyee Lake lines for applicable units to determine appropriate costs to install. We requested from the Anchorage office of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) the current wages and benefits for linemen positions in 1982 and 1992. We found that wages and benefits have not changed significantly and, therefore, had confidence in using labor/overhead/profit-to-material ratios derived from previous projects. g. Feasibility Cost Estimates For each major Intertie alternative we prepared a detailed cost estimate. These are summarized in Section VI.H. 2. Cost Assumptions Many assumptions form the basis for feasibility-level estimates. Typical assumptions are presented in the summary input spreadsheet included in Appendix D for the preferred alternative. Key assumptions are discussed below for the major line components. a. Structure Size and Type Distribution The distribution of structure types was selected based on measurement of major line angles and comparison to the Swan Lake line. Five structure types were selected for estimating with the approximate percentages shown as follows: Tangent H-Frame Structure ............ 60% Light-Angle 3-Pole Structure ........... 15% Medium-Angle 3-Pole Structure ......... 5% Heavy-Angle 3-Pole Structure .......... 10% Long-Span, Deadend H-Frame Structure .. 10% All wood pole construction was estimated except for long-span crossings using A-frame steel structures and the section of line parallel to the existing Tyee Lake line. The dimensions and size of structures were determined in preliminary engineering (see Section IV for design criteria). Structure height was kept to about 55 ft typical with 85 ft maximum, principally because of increased labor costs for working on structures with a height of 60 ft or more. The distribution of heights was based on the distribution for the cross-country portion of the Swan Lake line as follows: 50 ft (50%), 60 ft (25%), 70 ft (15%), and 80 ft (10%). Costs for coastal Douglas Fir wood poles and structure framing materials were obtained from manufacturers. b. Foundations Double H-pile foundations, with steel pole shoes into which wood structures are set, were selected. This design resulted in good economies of installation on the Swan Project Cost Estimates VI-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Lake line. The preliminary geotechnical investigation [10] estimated that 90% of the Eagle River corridor along the proposed road alignment would be characterized by a 3-ft to 7-ft layer of mineral soil over bedrock. The double H-pile foundation was assumed to be 15 ft long with four No. 11 rock anchors each 21 ft long. Our estimate for each double H-pile foundation including all material and labor was $11,340 or about $750/If. c. Conductor Conductor costs for 556 kcmil Dove/AW ($1.45/Ib., $1.06/ft) and 37 No. 8 Alumoweld ($1.46/lb., $1.31/ft) were obtained from a manufacturer. Conductor length includes a 5% margin for sag, jumpers, and wastage. Installation/material cost ratios were developed from similar Swan Lake and Tyee Lake units for Dove/AW (6.00) and 37 No. 8 AW (13.00). d. Miscellaneous Materials Aerial marker balls were assumed to be placed on 200-ft intervals for all long water body crossings (36-inch balls) and major stream crossings (20-inch balls). Vibration dampers were assumed to be needed on 50% of the spans below 1,000 ft elevation and 80% above 1,000 ft. Hold-down weights were assumed to be required on 10% of all tangent H-frames. e. Long-Span Crossings Self-supporting steel A-frame structures and 37 No.8 Alumoweld construction were assumed for the overhead crossings of long spans (Bell Arm, Behm Canal, and Shrimp Bay). The material costs for each crossing were tabulated separately in the Summary Input Data spreadsheet and linked to the cost estimate spreadsheet. A loading and concept drawing was submitted to a supplier for a budgetary quotation on the steel structure. The material cost for each structure, including steel, concrete, rock bolts, and framing, but excluding conductor, was estimated at $53,700. There are six total structures per crossing, for a total material cost of $322,200 per crossing. A labor/ material factor of 2.00 was used to cover installation, yielding a total estimated cost for one crossing of $966,600. This compares to an actual total installed cost of the similar Carroll Lake Inlet crossing on the Swan Lake line of about $710,000. The reasons for the higher cost estimate for the Intertie are the unknown site conditions and significantly higher conductor loads. A similar crossing on the existing Tyee Lake line was estimated to cost approximately $910,000, based on a tabulation of construction units and contract prices. f. Tyee Lake Parallel Extension The preferred alternative includes a line extension from Eagle River to the Tyee Lake Switchyard, parallel to the existing Tyee Lake line. We estimated the cost of this line segment based on using similar construction to the existing line. This 6.6-mile extension is located at higher elevations than the existing line (separation between VI-4 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT lines will be about 150 ft) with very long spans anticipated. We estimated self- weathering steel structures and 37 No. 8 Alumoweld construction. Using construction similar to the existing Tyee Lake line would also have an aesthetic benefit. The Tyee Lake line final costs were tabulated for all construction units for this line section (see Summary Input Datasheet example in Appendix D). A factor of 1.2 was applied to total costs to account for structure modifications which may be required to address reliability concerns of the X-frame guyed design. A further factor of 1.1 was applied to account for working adjacent to the existing, energized line. By situating the majority of the line extension higher up the slope from the existing line, it is probable that more or taller structures will be required to fit the terrain. g. Alternative Designs (1) Submarine Cable Installations We requested manufacturer input on the design and costs of the Behm Canal crossing from Bell Island to Revillagigedo Island [1, Appendix, Crossing 8.5]. A four-cable, single-conductor, self-contained, oil-filled cable design was used. Cost estimates for cable design, final bathymetric surveys, cable manufacture and delivery, and cable system installation were obtained. Based on manufacturer's input, we used the following estimating assumptions: Cost of SCOF Cable - $75/ft material Terminal Station Cost - $250,000 material/labor Accessories - $500,000 material/labor Cable Installation - $1,500,000 labor Bathymetric Surveys - $300,000 lump sum Engineering - $250,000 lump sum For the Behm Canal crossing, the estimated total submarine cable installation cost was about $4.1 million. This compares to a 1984 actual construction cost of $9.3 million for four crossings totalling 11.4 miles on the existing Tyee Lake line1/ (2) Steel H-Frame Costs We requested manufacturer’s input and cost quotes for a steel H-frame structure to be substituted one-for-one for the wood H-frame structures. The one-for-one substitution is not entirely accurate. Typically, steel structures would be designed to handle heavier loads or longer spans than wood poles, due to the greater predictability of strength and consequently lower overload factors, required for steel. However, terrain may limit the effective use of longer spans and in any case, while steel structures may handle longer spans, there will be cost impacts to foundations and perhaps 1/Based on final BID/Change Status March 15, 1984 summarized in [2]. Project Cost Estimates VES LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE other components which we were not able to estimate. For the preferred alternative, the cost of structures, including installation, was estimated at $3.5 million for steel H-frames versus $2.5 million for wood H-frames. The steel structures would not realize any significant cost savings in framing or erection, since the same VERTOL 107 helicopter would suffice to haul both steel and wood. Steel structures have the advantages of being immune to woodpecker damage, and less costly to maintain. This is weighed against higher material costs. (3) Smaller Initial Conductor Size The conductor size selection for the Intertie, 556 kcmil Dove/ AW, was based on 20-MW load transfer. In the near term, the load over the Intertie will be closer to 10 MW, until a third turbine is installed at Tyee Lake. For this lower load, 397 kcmil Lark/AW could be used, although structures would be designed for the heavier Dove/AW. The budgetary material cost estimate for 397 kcmil Lark/AW is $1.15/lb or $0.67/ft versus $1.06/ft for Dove/ AW; there are additional cost savings associated with stringing, accessories, etc. However, the 397 kcmil Lark/ AW would have to be removed and 556 kcmil Dove/ AW installed at significant cost at the time of the Tyee Lake third turbine installation. h. Mobilization/Demobilization A mobilization/demobilization rate of 7% was applied to the total cost of the wood pole section of the transmission line. For comparison, we show figures for the Tyee Lake, Swan Lake, and Intertie (preferred Alternative) numbers: Table VI-1 Mobilization Costs Cost of Total Cost of Mobilization/ Project Construction Demobilization Base of Operation Tyee Lake —_ $20,111,889) $1,100,000 (5.5%) | Wrangell, Bradfield, Petersburg Swan Lake $15,576,367) $1,190,108 (7.6%) Ketchikan Intertie $24,990,825) $1,373,088 (7%) Remote (1) Excludes ROW clearing. (2) Based on final BID/Change Item Status March 15, 1984. (3) Based on Change Order No. 15, October 5, 1983. (4) Excludes Tyee Lake line parallel. VI-6 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT A figure of 7% was selected due to the remoteness of the Intertie route. Remote camps will be required as well as significant helicopter travel. Camps may have to be relocated as construction progresses, or multiple camps set up. 3. Right-of-Way Costs Right-of-way costs cover cutting and yarding merchantable timber, including danger trees, and clearing and treating the slash left in the right-of-way. These costs are the most difficult to estimate with confidence for a number of reasons. First, since there are no active roads along the right-of-way for any appreciable distance, helicopter logging is required. Helicopter logging costs increase rapidly as yard distances increase. If temporary spur roads can be built, yard distances can be reduced, but the cost of road construction, which can vary between $75,000/mile to $200,000/mile, must be included. For our base estimates, we used all helicopter logging. Second, we do not have a reliable estimate of total board ft of merchantable timber. This directly affects the number of yards the helicopter must make to clear a line section. A reliable quantity would not be available until a final route has been laid out and a timber cruise performed. Estimates for merchantable timber are 15 MBF/acre to 30 MBF/acre, with lower values applicable to higher elevations, more sparsely forested sections, and second growth, immature forests. The higher value might apply to low elevation, river basin, old-growth forests. All alternatives pass through many sections of both types as well as some bare, unforested land. Third, we do not have the benefit of firm USFS direction on how to treat the right-of-way slash. This may take many forms, such as lop and scatter, piling in winrows, chipping, controlled burning, etc. Precise treatments will not be specified by the USFS before a Special Use Permit is negotiated and issued. The Tongass Land Management Plan alternatives now under consideration by the USFS, as well as ongoing research on land management techniques, may affect which treatments are desirable. Typically, slash treatments can comprise 15% to 20% of the total clearing costs. On the Swan Lake line, these costs ran up to $75,000/mile. For estimating right-of-way costs, we tabulated line length, determined length to be deducted from clearing due to ravines, long-span crossing and coverage, and applying a 200-ft (70%), 150-ft (20%) or 100-ft (10%) right-of-way width to the remainder, computed total right-of- way acres. We requested a cost estimate from a helicopter-logging firm with significant experience in Southeast Alaska for logging 32 million board feet ($20 million) or 20 million board ft ($16.5 million) from the right-of-way, assuming helicopter-only logging and minimal slash treatment. To compare alternatives, we allocated costs according to yard distances. In other words, we determined the percentage of each alternative which could be yarded less than 1 mile, 1-3 miles, 3-5 miles, 5-7 miles, and 7-9 miles. We estimated the cost/mile for logging and yarding these distances based on the contractor's aggregated initial estimate. We also assumed six drop points at $50,000 each, which would have to be developed, permitted, maintained, and restored. Water drop site permits will be required and selecting suitable sites can entail detailed study of impacts. Our assumptions are listed below: Project Cost Estimates VI-7 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table VI-2 Cost to Log/Yard by Helicopter Rate Distance from (per mile) Drop Point $100,000 <1 mile $200,000 1-3 miles $325,000 3-5 miles $475,000 5-7 miles $700,000 7-9 miles With the cost to log and yard the merchantable timber from the right-of-way determined, we estimated slash treatment at 15% of logging costs. A USFS Special Use Permit will include a Timber Sales Contract in which the USFS sells all merchantable timber in the right-of-way to the owner. Standard clauses in the sales contract require removal of the merchantable timber from the right-of-way. Typically, the sale of timber then shows up as a credit to the project. The Authority has two basic options for handling merchantable logs. First, the simpler approach would be to grant title for the logs to the clearing contractor. This would eliminate exposure to market risks, require minimal Authority management responsibility, and result in a log credit at the time of bidding, hence lower initial costs. Under this scenario the Authority would be limited as to the value it could realize from the logs. Second, the Authority could contract with a forest management firm to market the timber. Under this option, the Authority would likely increase market return on the logs at the expense of greater exposure to market risks, more management responsibility and cost, and, no log credit at bidding. We would recommend the first option. Estimates of saw grade and pulp grade log market values were obtained from a timber merchant in Ketchikan. Since much of the Eagle River corridor is old growth forest, we estimated 50% western hemlock (saw grade) at $350/MBF, 10% Sitka spruce (saw grade) at $450/MBF, 10% yellow cedar (saw grade) at $750/MBF, and 30% pulp grade logs at $150/MBF. These assumptions were then applied to estimated total board feet to find the credit. Market conditions for forest products are in flux and may be quite different at the time of construction. The USFS has been known to waive the timber removal requirement but there is no indication at this stage that a waiver will be granted for the Intertie. If a waiver is granted, allowing logs to be left in the right-of-way, the market value of logs will not show up as a credit to the project. Higher costs for right-of-way slash treatment would also be expected in the case of a waiver. The cost impact of such a waiver would probably be favorable to the Intertie since the market value of merchantable logs will almost certainly not be sufficient to cover the cost of removing them from the majority of the line route. The total estimated right-of-way logging and clearing costs amount to about 17% of the preferred alternative project total costs including contingency. To better estimate the range of costs that could be anticipated, we strongly recommend that a qualified timber management VI-8 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT consultant, with experience in the Tongass National Forest, be engaged to perform a thorough review of the designated routes, including field inspections, and to prepare clearing cost estimates. Such a consultant was of major benefit in the design phase in the Swan Lake Project. 4. Permanent Intertie Road Impact on Cost In 1991, Ketchikan Public Utilities commissioned R.W. Beck and Associates to perform a preliminary feasibility study for building a permanent road between the Swan Lake and Tyee Lake Switchyards [11]. The key recommendations and conclusions of that report include the following: Construction of a 39-mile single-lane permanent road along the Intertie route is feasible and would cost about $17,075,000 in 1991 dollars for the "A" line route, generally the same as that being studied by [10] based on an average construc- tion cost of $250,000/mile plus bridges, permanent surfacing, and indirect costs. (Note: USFS letter indicates a cost closer to $35,000,000 - 6/18/91.) Potential Intertie construction cost savings estimated at $70,000/mile for road construction as opposed to helicopter construction. For the 39-mile parallel, the estimated savings amounted to $2,730,000. Road construction rates of 1-mile per month per heading and, with five headings, estimated completion in 8-9 months at $500,000 premium for accelerated schedule over one construction season. Non-accelerated schedule would take two construction seasons. Recommendation that Intertie stop at Eagle River mouth, saving the project approximately $1,500,000 due to eliminating 4.5 miles of line extension to the Tyee Lake Switchyard. This report also presented a discussion of permitting requirements applicable to the road. The recommendation to terminate the Intertie at Eagle River is discussed further in Section III. The report also cites potential delays to the project if both road and Intertie are pursued together due to the expected higher environmental impact of the road [10]. However, it is not obvious that there would be less opposition to a road than the Intertie once an EIS is prepared. In response to the support for a permanent road along the proposed Intertie corridor, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT/PF) commissioned a road feasibility study in early 1991 [10]. The geotechnical investigation portion of this study was completed in October 1991 and its findings made available for this Intertie Feasibility Study. No other component of the road study was available for consideration in the Intertie study. Based on findings in [10], we estimated the cost savings to the project for constructing the Intertie to be $100,000/mile where the proposed road is probably within 0.10 mile of the Intertie and helicopter construction is unnecessary. It is worth noting that, in the final design, in many instances the line may be within 0.10 mile of the road but farther up a slope and still inaccessible by road. Also, final line layout and road design, if well-coordinated, could result in more accessible line miles for all alternatives. Project Cost Estimates VI-9 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 5. Feasibility Cost Estimates - Transmission Line Construction Transmission line construction cost estimates only are presented in Table VI-3. Table VI-3 Transmission Line Alternatives Feasibility Level Construction Cost Estimates”) ($ million, 1992) Transmission Line Estimated Cost Route Alternative” Without Road With Road R1A - Preferred $41.38 35.50 RIB 43.32 34.40 Ric 45.50 36.15 RID 41.42 32.54 R24) 54.68 No Road Planned R3 Swan-Ward Cove 29.22 Not Estimated . Tyee Line Extension 3.48 No Road Planned, Eagle River to Tyee Not Feasible (Add to R1A-R1D) Tyee Line Extension 6.49 No Road Planned Mile 15 to Eagle River (Add to R2) (1) Does not include engineering, construction management, permitting, owner's cost, or any costs related to switchyards. (2) Includes 20% contingency. (3) Costs for routes R1A to R1D, R2 and R3 shown do not include line sections parallel to the existing Tyee Lake line, which are listed separately in Table and should be added to transmission line costs as indicated for each alternative. (4) Includes submarine cable link costs. C. SWITCHYARD CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Construction costs cover all the material, labor and equipment required to build the substation facilities. Engineering, construction management and owner costs are treated separately. Overhead and profit are included. VI-10 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT 1. Methodology The following steps were taken to develop reliable feasibility-level cost estimates. a. Select Design Criteria Design criteria in terms of switching arrangements were selected based partly on existing switching configurations and on reliability considerations. Equipment ratings were selected based on system characteristics such as load levels, fault current levels and thunder storm frequency. b. Preliminary Engineering Based on the selected switching configurations and other design criteria we performed basic engineering to determine equipment ratings, civil works estimates, switchyard size requirements and materials quantities. c. Request Material Cost Quotes For the estimated material quantities we solicited cost quotes from suppliers for major equipment such as the power transformer, circuit breakers, disconnect switches, etc. The quotes included transport to Ketchikan. d. Develop Other Cost Components Construction costs, local transport and storage costs, mobilization/ demobilization costs, as well as overhead and profits were lumped together and added as a fixed percentage to the material costs. The main basis for estimating these costs was the Tyee Lake construction project and R.W. Beck and Associates’ recent bidding experience in Alaska. The approximate ratio of miscellaneous materials plus civil works plus installation costs to major equipment costs was assumed at 0.75. Civil works and major equipment costs were estimated separately. e. Develop Spreadsheets for Estimates The various cost components were entered into spreadsheets showing estimated material quantities, unit prices, and other costs, such as construction , local transport, overhead and profit, etc., as well as total costs. Total costs were computed for each switchyard alternative. 2. Cost Assumptions Key assumptions affecting the cost estimates for the substations are discussed below. Project Cost Estimates VE-11 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE a. Power Transformer We have assumed that a two-winding power transformer will be necessary for the interconnection of the dual voltage system of the Tyee Lake-Wrangell-Petersburg system (69/138-kV) with the Swan Lake system (115-kV). This assumption represents a cost increase as compared to using an autotransformer. However, the feasibility of designing an autotransformer having dual primary voltage as well as a load tap changer is questionable and should be investigated further during detailed en- gineering. b. Communication System We have assumed that power line carrier (PLC) communication channels will be established on the new line. As an option, we looked at using fiber optics com- munication. There are three major options for installation of an optical fiber link on the Intertie: (1) using an optical groundwire or shieldwire with embedded optical fibers in a special core, (2) a self-supporting fiber optic cable, or (3) a dielectric fiber optic cable wrapped around a phase conductor. Only the wrap-around cable is technically desirable because of heavy snow/ice loading and no need for a shield wire. The wrap-around cable would cost approximately $12,000/mile installed, plus terminal equipment, for a total cost of about $675,000. Although the fiber optic link would provide reliable service for relaying and system communications, there would be no ancillary benefit in terms of trunk communication links to help defray the cost. The fiber optic link is not recommended due to its high cost and marginal application. c. Tyee Lake Switchyard We have assumed that the proposed extension at Tyee Lake will be monitored and controlled locally and remotely from the dispatch center at Wrangell only. No separate remote terminal unit (RTU) for control from the Bailey dispatch center has been included. Based on discussions with the supplier of the Tyee Lake SCADA system (HSQ, San Francisco) we have assumed that the existing RTUs at Tyee Lake are expandable to accommodate the added control and measurement points resulting from the proposed extension at Tyee Lake. The cost included for this alternative will cover expansion of existing RTUs at Tyee Lake and modifications to the data base at the Wrangell dispatch center. We have furthermore assumed that the proposed new line position can be integrated into the existing 138-kV busbar protection system and that the existing synchronizing system can be utilized for the new bus line with input from the new 115-kV voltage transformers. Finally, we have assumed that existing AC and DC auxiliary supplies are adequate for the proposed new equipment installation. VI-12 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT d. Swan Lake Switchyard We have assumed that the only civil works required will be to install foundations for the circuit breaker and voltage transformers. We have also assumed that the proposed extension at Swan Lake will be monitored and controlled locally and remotely from the dispatch center at Bailey only. No remote control or monitoring from the Wrangell dispatch center has been assumed. Information about the capacity of the RTUs at Swan Lake obtained from the Bailey dispatch center indicate that there is enough spare capacity to accommodate the proposed equipment extension. The cost included will cover interconnecting the new equipment to the existing RTU as well as any modifications at the dispatch center. Furthermore, we have assumed that existing AC and DC station supplies are adequate and that existing synchronization equipment can be utilized for the new line position. e. Eagle River Switchyard In the cost estimating of the civil works, we have assumed that no external transport of fill material will be necessary to grade the site. We have assumed that the proposed new substation will be remotely controlled from the Wrangell dispatch center. The cost for establishing communication channels between Tyee Lake, Eagle River and Wrangell have been included in the costs for the Eagle River switchyard, as have the costs for protection of the system between the three stations. 3. Feasibility Cost Estimates - Switchyard Construction A summary of total feasibility cost estimates for the various switchyards and substations only is given in Table VI-4 below. Project Cost Estimates VI-13 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table VI-4 Switchyard Construction Cost Estimates ($ thousand, 1992) Major Installation and Switchyard Equipment Minor Equipment Civil Works Total Tyee Lake Switchyard Direct Intertie $818 $327 $308 $1,453 Tyee Lake Switchyard Line Tap NE NE NE 100 Swan Lake Switchyard 250 163 30 443 Eagle River Switchyard Ring Bus 1576 315 1,050 2,941 Eagle River Switchyard Direct Line Tap 1,106 387 525 2,018 Bailey Substation NE NE NE NE New Ward Cove Substation NE NE NE 25002) North Point Higgins Substation NE NE NE 1,000? (1) Not estimated. (2) No detailed estimate performed. D. ENGINEERING COSTS Engineering costs cover preliminary design and route selection, permitting support, surveying, geotechnical investigations, meteorological investigations, final engineering design, contract document preparation, bidding assistance, and construction phase technical assistance. Engineering cost estimates for the transmission lines were based on a fixed cost and a variable per-mile cost as shown below in Table VI-5. For most alternatives, they represent 4% to 5% of total construction cost estimates. Table VI-5 Estimated Engineering Costs Transmission Lines Estimate of Engineering Costs Variable Cost/Mile Component Fixed Preliminary Engineering $200,000 Surveying $100,000 Geotechnical $80,000 Meteorology $15,000 Final Engineering Design $250,000 $3,000 $17,000 $1,000 $500 $7,000 VI-14 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT Engineering cost estimates for the switchyards were estimated as shown in Table VI-6. These costs are based on 8% of total construction costs for new facilities and 12% of total construction costs for expansion of existing switchyards. Table VI-6 Estimated Engineering Costs Switchyards Estimate of Engineering Costs Tie to In/Out Tap Component Tyee Switchyard of Tyee Line Tyee Lake Switchyard $210,000 Included in Eagle River Eagle River Remote Switchyard N/A $305,000 Swan Lake Switchyard $60,000 $60,000 E. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT COSTS Construction management costs cover contract execution and administration, inspection services, change order control, testing and start-up, and construction records. Construction management costs are estimated at 5% of total construction costs. For comparison, on the Tyee Lake Project final engineering and construction management costs were 8% of total construction costs for a more complex project than the Intertie. On the Swan Lake Project, they represented about 14% of total construction costs, again for a more complex project. We estimate on the Swan Lake Project that construction management itself amounted to about 5% to 6% of total project costs. F. PERMITTING COSTS Permitting costs cover all scientific studies and engineering support plus the actual costs of filing and obtaining all required permits. The permits which may be required for the Intertie are discussed in Section VII. Permitting costs are estimated at a lump sum of from $1,500,000 to $1,900,000 depending on route and based on discussions with the USFS. This figure includes owner costs related to preparation of an EIS as part of the USFS Special Use Permit application process. G. OWNER COSTS Owner costs include all costs incurred by the Authority for its own project staff and supporting independent services required to plan and manage the project. We estimated this cost at 4.5% of total project costs, including construction costs, engineering and construction management, and permitting. For comparison, on the more complex Tyee Lake Project, owner Project Cost Estimates VI-15 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE costs were about 5.4% of total project costs. A board of consultants will probably not be required by FERC since no FERC license amendments are involved. H. TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES 1. Project Development Cost Estimates Total feasibility-level project development cost estimates, including all costs to plan, permit, design and construct the Intertie, are summarized in Table VI-7 below, with and without a road available to assist construction, where applicable. Alternative A is the preferred alternative, combining preferred system concept alternatives E1 and I1 and route alternative R1A. Table VI-7 Total Intertie Development Cost Estimates All Alternatives Estimated Project Development Cost ($ million, 1992) Description of Alternative Alternative Road No Road Route Northern Interconnection Southern Interconnection A $49.14 = $55.55 RIA Tyee Lake Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard (preferred) A N/A 46.16 RIA Tyee Lake Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard (low initial cost scenario) B 47.96 57.67 R1B Tyee Lake Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard Cc 49.81 59.82 R1C Tyee Lake Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard D 45.89 55.55 R1D Tyee Lake Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard E N/A 57.72 RIA Eagle River Switchyard Swan Lake Switchyard Ring Bus Fl N/A 69.54 R2 Mile 15 - Tyee Lake Line —_— North Point Higgins Ring Bus Substation F2 N/A 78.82 R2 Tyee Lake Switchyard North Point Higgins Substation G N/A 94.41 R1A,R3__ Tyee Lake Switchyard New Ward Cove Substation * Discussed as the alternative route in Environmental Report, Appendix H. VL-16 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT A breakdown of project development cost estimates for each alternative shown in Table VI-7 is given in Tables E-1 through E-8 in Appendix E. The total project development cost estimate for the preferred Alternative A at $55.6 million is considerably higher than the most recent, previous estimate in [13] for a basically equivalent route and design concept, $39.8 million in 1991. There are several reasons for this cost estimate increase. Line length measured for Alternative A, 57.5 miles total, is 8.4 miles greater than the 49.1 miles assumed in [13]. Permitting costs are included in this study at $1,500,000. In addition, steel construction from Eagle River to Tyee Switchyard is assumed in this study whereas wood H-frame construction was used to estimate all line costs in [1,13]. Clearing costs also increased in part due to the recognition that all helicopter logging would be required. The conductor used in this study (556 ACSR/AW) is larger than that in [1,13], assumed to be 397.5 kcmil/AW. In addition, right-of- way width at 200 ft average is greater than that assumed in [13], 140 ft. 2. Low Initial Cost Scenario There are two main prospects for reducing the cost estimate for Alternative A, the Base Case. The first is substitution of 397.5 kcmil ACSR/AW (Lark/AW) at $0.67/ft for 556 kcmil ACSR/AW at $1.06/ft. The cost estimate decrease for this substitution is, including contingency, estimated at $2.7 million. This substitution leaves the prospect of an additional, later, significant capital expenditure for replacing the 397.5 kcmil ACSR/AW with 556 kcmil ACSR/ AW if power flow increases to 20 MW. This initial construction option is basically an Authority decision. The other prospect, subject to the discretion of the USFS, affects logging and the assumption that all merchantable timber needs to be yarded from the right-of-way. There appears to be precedent for the USFS agreeing to leave fallen trees in the right-of-way. If this were allowed, trees would still have to be cut and cleared from structure sites. In addition, the USFS could require that cut trees be arranged in the right-of-way, also by helicopter. The timber sale credit for logs from remote line sections would be lost. To estimate the impact of this low-level clearing option we assumed all merchantable timber would be yarded and sold if less than one mile from a water drop point. The remainder of the trees in right-of-way more than one mile from a drop point was assumed to stay. We also assumed tree-felling and arranging operations at $95,000 per mile (95% of cost to log and yard one mile if less than one mile from drop point). The cost estimate reduction due to this minimal right-of-way treatment is $5.7 million including contingency. With contingency, both the cost reduction measures, if implemented on Alternative A, would lower the cost estimate for Alternative A, Low Initial Cost Scenario, to $46.2 million. I. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 1. Basic O&M Cost Estimate Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs cover periodic inspection of the Intertie facilities, required repair, replacement, and maintenance activities, dispatch operations for power on the Project Cost Estimates VI-17 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Intertie, FERC and other reporting requirements attributable to the Intertie, and any other expenditure required to maintain the Intertie in service, reliably. Typically, O&M costs are estimated as a percentage of construction costs. A figure of 1% has been commonly applied for systems in Southeast Alaska [13]. It was suggested in [13] that O&M cost savings would accrue from coordination with Tyee Lake and Swan Lake O&M activities. Two factors weigh against reducing O&M costs based on possible coordination: First, no O&M agreement for the Intertie has been reached and it is premature to assume coordination will yield benefits when responsible parties are not identified. Second, the Intertie is more remote than either of the two systems and would cost more to inspect, repair and replace at the same level as the others. The O&M costs of the Tyee Lake line from 1988 to 1991 averaged about $330,000 or 1.1% per year [13]. For the Swan Lake line, O&M costs have fluctuated from about $2,000 to $48,000 per year, representing less than 0.3% maximum of construction costs for the line2/ The expenditure level for O&M will increase when switchyard equipment is included and as the system ages. O&M expenditures also are a function of the responsible party’s estimate of the inspection and maintenance frequency, and level of effort required. For the purpose of this Feasibility Study a stream of annual O&M expenditures was estimated in current (1992) dollars over the 30-year assumed project life span, as shown in Table VI-8, based on the preferred Alternative A. 2/Based on information furnished by KPU. VI-18 Project Cost Estimates saqwuyysy 4soD yoalorg 6L1A Table VI-8 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Alternative A (1992 dollars) Scheduled Unscheduled Switchyard Full Line Line Climbing | Wood Pole Repair Replacement Testing/ Switchyard Equipment Other Total Annual Years Inspections" Inspections Inspections Test Program“ Cost™ Cost Inspection Repair® Replacement® Costs" O&M Cost 1-4 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 -0- $5,060 -0- $21,000 $1,500 -0- $50,000 $108,650 5 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 -0- $5,060 -0- $71,000 $1,500 -0- $50,000 $158,650 6-9 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 -0- $5,060 -0- $21,000 $1,500 -0- $50,000 $108,650 10 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 $100,000 $5,060 -0- $71,000 $1,500 -0- $50,000 $258,650 11-14 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 -0- $15,180 $30,000 $21,000 $4,000 -0- $50,000 $151,270 15 $20,720 $4,050 $6,320 $100,000 $15,180 $45,000 $71,000 $4,000 $50,000 $50,000 $366,270 16-19 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 -0- $15,180 $45,000 $21,000 $4,000 -0- $50,000 $187,000 20 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 $250,000 $15,180 $45,000 $71,000 $4,000 $50,000 $50,000 $537,000 21-24 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 -0- $25,300 $75,000 $21,000 $10,000 -0- $50,000 $233,120 25 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 $100,000 $25,300 $75,000 $71,000 $10,000 $300,000 $50,000 $623,120 26-29 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 -0- $25,300 $75,000 $21,000 $10,000 -0- $50,000 $233,120 30 $31,080 $8,100 $12,640 $250,000 $25,300 $75,000 $71,000 $10,000 $500,000 $50,000 $1,033,120 (1) Full line inspection costs two person days (8 hrs/day, $80/hr), helicopter at $650/hr for 12 hours, for $10,360/ inspection; two inspections/yr for years 1-15, three inspections/yr for years 16-30. (2) Unscheduled (outage) inspection costs 10 person-hours at $80/hr, helicopter at $650/hr for 5 hours, for $4,050/inspection; one inspection/yr for years 1-15, two inspections/yr for years 16-30. (3) Climbing inspections at 1 person-hour/structure, including transportation time, 8 structures per day per lineman, 2 linemen per trip at $70/hr, helicopter at $650/hr and 8 hrs/16 structures; 16 structure inspections/yr for years 1-15 at an annual cost of $6,320 and 32 inspections/yr for years 16-30 at an annual cost of $12,640. (4) A wood pole test program would cover the cost of a specialized firm to test wood poles for residual strength and signs of decay and prescribe remedial action. A partial test program at $100,000 lump sum is assumed for years 10, 15 and 25, and a full program at $250,000 is assumed for years 20 and 30. (5) _ Includes all costs allocated to actual repair of existing facilities, such as broken insulators, downed conductors, loose guys, etc. O&M costs assumed at $500 material/structure, 8 person-hours/structure at $70/hr, helicopter and other equipment at $1,000/hr, 4 hrs per structure, 1 structure/yr for years 1-10 for an annual cost of $5,060, three structures/yr for years 11-20 ($15,180), five structures/yr for years 21-30 ($25,300). (6) Replacement cost is for replacing a wood pole structure and framing. Cost to replace a structure and transfer wires is assumed to be $15,000. A program to replace structures is assumed to follow each wood pole test program. No replacements are assumed for years 1-10; for years 11-14, two replacements/yr for a total of $30,000/yr is assumed; for years 15-20, three replacements/yr for a total of $45,000/yr is assumed; for years 21-30, five replacements/yr for a total of $75,000/yr is assumed. , (7) Monthly testing/inspection of new Tyee Lake and Swan Lake switchyard equipment in conjunction with old equipment inspection at $500/mo or $6,000/yr. Annual inspection/ testing at $15,000/yr. Major testing by outside firm assumed every five years at $50,000/yr. (8) Repair of switchyard equipment assumed at $1,500/yr for years 1-10, $4,000/yr for years 11-20, $10,000/yr for years 21-30. (9) Replacement assumed at $50,000 in years 15 and 20, at $300,000 in year 25, and $500,000 in year 30. (10) Other costs include contributions to an O&M contingency fund, reporting requirements linked to operation of the Intertie, and miscellaneous costs (level cost assumed at $50,000/yr). Ldoday IWNI LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 2. Impact of a Road on O&M Costs The presence of a permanent all-weather road adjacent to the transmission line would provide only marginal O&M savings. Maintenance crews would be dispatched in all likelihood from Ketchikan or Wrangell. For efficient inspection of the line, especially after an outage event, helicopters would be used. In any case, most of the line will not be visible or readily accessible from the road. The main advantage of the road would be for transportation of major replace- ment material and equipment or right-of-way maintenance crews. Helicopters would still be used for isolated sections of the line. Based on this we might expect a 25% reduction in O&M costs. 3. Steel Structure O&M Cost Impact O&M cost savings could accrue if steel structures are utilized. Two viable alternatives are painted galvanized steel and self-weathering steel. The latter has been used extensively in other transmission lines in Alaska with mixed results (Tyee Lake line, Fairbanks Intertie, Terror Lake line, and portions of the Swan Lake line). From discussions with Kodiak Electric Association (KEA) and Authority personnel, it appears that, although no dangerous uncontrolled and rapid oxidation of self-weathering steel structures has been observed, there are signs that proper weathering is taking substantially longer in Alaska than in other locations because of the lack of effective wet/dry cycles. Depending on location, some structures continue to "bleed rust" while others have developed a proper protective patina and stabilized. The KEA has embarked on a controlled corrosion test program to help determine the exact nature of the process and the rate of material (steel) loss that may be encountered when the self-weathering process does not stabilize. The application of self-weathering steel structures should take into account any findings from the KEA work and other Southeast Alaska experience. Extra thick steel could perhaps be used to give extra assurance that the structures would last their designed lifetime. A periodic test program to gauge any loss of metal should be planned if steel is used. The O&M cost impact of using steel is estimated to be 25% less than the wood pole alternative, provided the self-weathering steel structures are determined to be appropriate for the Intertie. The principal savings would result from elimination of the wood pole test program costs and structure replacement costs. 4. Submarine Cable O&M Cost Impact The most useful gauge for the O&M cost impact of the submarine cable installation is the operating experience of the Tyee Lake lines with four crossings each using four single-conductor, self-contained oil-filled (SCOF) cables (one is a spare). From discussions with the Authority, the operating record on the Tyee Lake submarine cable installations has been outstanding. There have been no cable faults or oil spills. Minor problems with terminal monitoring instrumen- tation have occurred but are not serious. If a cable electrical, non-puncture fault does occur, the spare cable can be rapidly switched in, and repair of the faulted cable scheduled for a later date. Until the faulted cable is repaired, however, the entire system would be at increased risk of a prolonged outage for another fault VI-20 Project Cost Estimates FINAL REPORT in that cable crossing. If the cable is punctured, some oil will spill, sea water will enter the cable and displace the oil, and significant lengths of cable can be destroyed. Both the oil spill and migration of water can be limited by the use of oil stop joints in SCOF cables. In the case of a solid dielectric cable, the use of strand-filling compounds in the conductor would limit migration of water along the cable. O&M costs might be expected to decrease slightly for submarine cables, although a single cable fault could require a major capital outlay for cable repair. Terminals would be inspected on a regular basis. Due to the uncertainty in predicting cable outages and repair costs, no net O&M cost impact is assumed. J. SIMILAR ALASKAN PROJECT COST COMPARISONS The relatively recent Swan Lake (1983) and Tyee Lake (1984) lines provide a good basis for comparison with the estimated costs of the Intertie. In doing so, however, it is important to note several differences between the projects which lead to cost differences. The costs of the existing lines are broken down into major components and compared in Table VI-9 to the cost estimates for Alternative A, for the wood pole line section only. Comparisons are made with and without clearing costs included. Table VI-9 Construction Cost Comparison Swan Lake, Tyee Lake and Intertie % of Total ($ million) SWAN LAKE LINE TYEE LAKE LINE”) INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE A (Entire Line) (Overhead Portion) (Wood Pole Line Only) Cost Component Incl. Clear Excl. Clear Incl. Clear Excl. Clear Incl. Clear Excl. Clear Mobilization/ Demobilization .... . 6% (1.2) 6% (0.8) 4% (1.1) 4% (0.8) 4% (1.4) 4% (1.0) Conductor’......... 13% (2.9) 20% (2.9) 16% (4.4) 22% (4.4) 22% (6.9) 32% (6.9) Structures & Framing 22% (4.7) 33% (4.7) 27% (7.3) 37% (7.3) 15% (4.6) 21% (4.6) Foundation & Anchors 27% (5.9) 41% (5.9) 27% (7.3) 37% (7.3) 29% (9.3) 43% (9.3) Clearing & Logging . . 32% (7.0) - 26% (7.1) - 30% (9.5) - Differing Characteristics | Wood Pole H-Frame Tubular Steel X-Frame Wood Pole H-Frame 336 Oriole/ AW 556 Dove/ AW, 37 No. 8 AW 556 Dove/ AW Significant Underbuild Significant Lengths Uncleared CFC Lands, Urban Portion (1) Based on Change Order No. 15, October 5, 1983. (2) Based on Bid/Change Item Status, March 15, 1984. Project Cost Estimates VI-21 SECTION VII PERMIT REQUIREMENTS RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION VII PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The following discussion of permit requirements is not considered exhaustive. Further investigation of required permits is recommended so that all permitting can be coordinated. A. STATE OF ALASKA A Coastal Project Questionnaire must be completed for the Alaska State Division of Governmental Coordination under the Alaskan Office of Management and Budget. This questionnaire initiates the review process of 30 to 50 days. During this time State agencies determine the permits and authorizations required for proposed projects in or eae the coastal areas of Alaska. Principal State permits apt to be required are discussed below) 1. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit An anadromous fish protection permit (Title 16) is required since anadromous fish streams will be crossed. Contact: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Division 2030 Sealevel Drive Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Process: A detailed project description, including maps, is sent along with the General Waterway/Waterbody Application. Plan details should include time frame desired. Permit response will establish timing windows for Intertie construction across streams. Process typically takes 30 to 60 days. Since bridges are not involved with the Intertie, stream disturbance will be minimal, and mostly related to clearing operations. 2. Alaska Department of Conservation This agency will use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 permit for any dredge or fill activities, so an additional application is not required. This would probably be required for construction of the line into the Tyee Lake Switchyard, expansion of the switchyard, and submarine cable installations for their final approach to terminal stations. Contact: Alaska Department of Conservation - Southeast Office P.O. Box 32420 9000 Old Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796 L/ If submarine cable is used for the transmission line a "State Tideland Permit" will be required. Permit Requirements VII-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 3. Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation No specific permits are required. Studies which are required as part of various Federal permits will be evaluated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as part of the review process. An archaeological cultural survey of the right-of-way will probably be required. The intensity of this survey will be determined by the DNR. Applicable permits are: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 permit, USFS Special Use permit, and FERC. Contact: Department of Historical Preservation - Division of Parks P.O. Box 107001 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7001 B. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Both Tyee Lake and Swan Lake projects operate under FERC licenses which also cover associated transmission facilities. We contacted FERC regarding the proposed Intertie to determine if the Intertie, as conceived, would require amendments of either or both of the FERC licenses. FERC determined that the Intertie as conceived would not constitute a "primary line" and therefore, that neither FERC license will require amendment. 2. Forest Service Special Use Permit Contact: Forest Supervisor Federal Building Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Process: Send copies of environmental documents and plans to the above address. Typically, it takes about 60 days to review. The information from the environ- mental-assessment level work of this Feasibility Study and the 1987 Harza study Special Use Permit will speed up the process. Need to send good maps of routes and alternate routes. The USFS will determine if an EIS is required, or if an environmental assessment is sufficient. All or most of each Intertie alternative is situated in the Tongass National Forest. The USFS is now developing Land Management Plans for the Tongass and has prepared the "Tongass Land Management Plan Revision - Draft Environmental Impact Statement" [12] for various plan alternatives. This draft EIS is in a phase of public comment with USFS issuance of a final EIS and identification of a preferred alternative plan tentatively scheduled for the summer of 1992. A project EIS is required for land uses, such as the Intertie, not considered fully in the EIS. Most of the Intertie route alternatives fall in forest lands managed under classification LUD II which allow for some road development but not specifically power lines. All discussions with the USFS indicate that a project EIS will probably be required. There are two ways in which the USFS, as lead agency for the EIS, can develop the EIS. First, the USFS, under its own regulations, would prepare the EIS and bear all costs. However, this requires federal budget authorization and, with all internal review cycles, can take 2 to 3 VII-2 Permit Requirements FINAL REPORT years to obtain funding. The normal schedule for USFS preparation of a project EIS is 5 to 7 years, a practically intolerable delay for the Intertie. A more desirable option is an expedited review with third-party preparation of required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for the EIS. This expedited review is requested at the time of Special Use Permit application and requires a statement of need for the action (i.e., Intertie) by the applicant. Since the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the NEPA, give deference to State regulatory agencies (e.g., the Authority) in the determination of need, the Authority can limit the number of alternatives the USFS and its EIS contractor would otherwise have to consider under the CEQ regulations. Also, and very importantly, the Authority would have to state that it is willing and able to cover the costs of conducting required studies and preparing the EIS. The Authority may elect to be a cooperating agency in the EIS. With expedited review, the preparation of an EIS for a project such as the Intertie may take 2 to 3 years. Since significant environmental assessment-level studies have been completed as part of this Feasibility Study for the preferred alternative, a 2 year duration appears practical and is assumed in our preliminary schedule. However, this duration is highly dependent on the level of opposition which arises during the EIS. In meetings to date on the Intertie, opposition has not been vociferous. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act, Section 404 Permit and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Contact: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99507-0898 Process: Where jurisdictional wetlands will be affected, a 404 permit is required. A Section 10 permit will be required for any construction over, under or affecting navigable waters, waterward of the mean high water line. Combined Section 10 and Section 404 permits are possible. First step is to send a letter requesting a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) to the above address. This should include drawings, maps and a project description. This process typically takes 60 to 90 days. See discussion under the Alaska Department of Conservation. 4. Environmental Protection Agency Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Review Coordinator may review the EIS or EA, no major separate permits or authorizations from the EPA should be required for this type of project. However, the Department of the Army has signed a memorandum of agreement with the EPA to jointly process permits for new log transfer facilities. For both Section 402 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act the EPA is chiefly concerned with the discharge of bark in U.S. waters. Permit Requirements VIL-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 5. Other Permits The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will require a notice of proposed construction for transmission line segments which could be an obstruction/hazard to plane traffic. Obstruction marking plans must be approved by the FAA. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must issue a radio license and permit to operate radio equipment if such is planned for use with the Intertie. The National Marine Fisheries Service should be contacted to investigate impacts to commercial fisheries and potential conflicts with endangered species. This body would issue a letter of consultation for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service would also have an interest in review of Section 402 and Section 404 permits for log transfer facilities and submarine cable installation as it affects the National Marine Fisheries Service’s responsibility for marine resources. VII-4 Permit Requirements SECTION VIII PROJECT SCHEDULE Pe aot eee iets a ache geen RA ae ee A Nea ise ee Ee RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION VIII PROJECT SCHEDULE A preliminary schedule for total project implementation is shown in Figure VIII-1 based on the preferred Alternative A. This schedule was developed based on other project experience in Southeast Alaska, discussions with the USFS, and the project organization described below. We believe the schedule is practical, though it depends on many assumptions and, above all, careful planning for an accelerated schedule. If preliminary funding to pursue a project EIS and other permitting is authorized in 1992 we estimate completion of the Intertie in the summer of 1997. Each major project phase, its duration, and relationship to other phases are shown in Figure VIII-1. Further elaboration of project schedule phases and assumptions follows. A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION The project can be organized and managed in four basic ways, namely (1) the Authority acts as the project manager, (2) the Authority contracts externally for project manager, (3) a turnkey design and construct project, or (4) a combination of the above depending on project phase. The project schedule is based on (1) above where the Authority retains strong control over all project phases, contracting for project services as necessary. The four alternative project organization methods are discussed below. 1. Authority Acts as Project Manager Under this option the Authority would maintain management of the project and would contract with several entities for the permitting, design and construction of the project. As project manager the Authority would then retain control and the entities selected would have the best qualifications for the different stages of project work. These entities would each be accountable to the Authority. This approach provides the greatest degree of input and control for the Authority and would tend to have more distinct decision points for the project. However, the Authority would have greater administrative and project management responsibilities that would require more staff time. Since several contracts would be involved for outside services, the project schedule would be longer for this option. 2. Authority Contracts Externally for Project Manager Under this option the Authority would contract with a single entity for the management, permitting, design and construction of the project. This project manager (PM) would then be responsible for progress on the project and would maintain project records and books for Project Schedule VIII-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE allocation of costs. The PM would perform some project duties directly and in turn would likely utilize subcontracts for services which may be outside of PM area of expertise, such as environmental, right-of-way acquisition, and possibly design. Advantages of this option are several. Utilizing PM relieves Authority staff of majority of time commitment to the project. Use of single contract for PM may slightly shorten the project development schedule since many services will be obtained/negotiated by PM which may streamline the formal RFP-Proposal-Selection process and time associated with this for each subcontract. This option may also allow some concurrent prosecution of project tasks such as environmental, permitting and conceptual design provided PM has all of these capabilities in- house or under contract. Disadvantages are also manifold. Authority’s direct involvement is limited and this insulation may decrease input or control of decisions. Typically, the multiple stages of the RFP- Proposal-Selection process provides more flexibility and some additional cost control. If schedule acceleration is warranted it may not be identified as soon as if the Authority acts as PM. In the event that the individual acting as PM is changed and a new PM is acquired the project could suffer since the new PM would be lacking much knowledge about the early stages of the project and the Authority staffs would have also been isolated from the project. If an external entity were to serve as PM, this may add another layer of costs to the project. 3. Turnkey (Design/Build) Under this option the Authority would contract with a single entity for the design, construction, and energization of the project. The prime would likely be the construction contractor. The contractor would perform the material procurement and construction and in turn would likely utilize subcontracts for services which may be outside of the contractor’s area of expertise, such as surveying, geotechnical investigations, and design. The primary advantage of this type of contract is ability to compress /accelerate schedule. If a detailed bid document can be developed, this approach may provide the best estimate of the total development cost for the project at the earliest point in the project. It is expected that a turnkey contract would be issued after environmental and permitting work is complete. In the way of disadvantages, this type of contract is typically more difficult or costly to suspend if the Authority chooses to change approach. Importantly, the Authority would have limited input to decisions. 4. Hybrid - Authority as Project Manager & Turnkey (Design/Build) Under this option the Authority would manage the project through the permitting and conceptual design stage to fully define the project requirements and would then contract with a single entity for the design, construction, and energization of the project. VIII-2 Project Schedule FINAL REPORT This approach provides the best opportunity for schedule acceleration at some mid-point of the project. This approach provides for a relatively firm cost for the project at about a third of the way through the project effort. The disadvantages of this approach are basically the same as described for the turnkey contract in 3. above. B. PERMITTING PHASE The most extensive and protracted permit will be the Special Use Permit and probable subsequent EIS preparation. If the USFS as lead agency is relied on to fund the required studies and preparation, the EIS process can take 5 to 7 years based on discussions with the USFS. If an expedited review is requested and the Authority funds all work related to the EIS then a period of 2 to 3 years can be expected. This Feasibility Study contains environmental assessment-level studies for the principal, feasible alternatives for the Intertie and could be expected to expedite the process. Based on this we have estimated a 2-year permitting phase, during which all permitting will be accomplished. This is admittedly ambitious. A more complete discussion of permit requirements is found in Section VII. C. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES It has been assumed that the Authority would contract an engineering firm to (1) execute final design and, later, construction management, (2) coordinate all specialized services such as surveying and geotechnical investigations, and (3) prepare material and construction contracts. Under this scenario, it is assumed that a period of 20 months would be required for engineering up to a notice-to-proceed (NTP) for construction. By comparison, and recognizing that major hydroelectric facilities were involved, similar phases for the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake projects took 27 and 23 months, respectively. The material supply contracting (4 months) and actual supply (10 months) are assumed to extend about 15 months total. Included in separate contracts would be (1) substation equipment including the power transformer, circuit breakers, circuit switchers, disconnect switches, line traps and instrument transformers, and pre-wired control building, (2) transmission line conductors, and (3) major transmission line structure components, especially tubular steel structures. Estimated lead times for major items are as follows: Item Lead Time (ARO) Power Transformer 44 weeks Switchgear 34 weeks Conductor 12-24 weeks Wood Poles 18-20 weeks Steel Structures (including Shop Drawing Review) 24-30 weeks Project Schedule VIN-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE The construction phase is assumed to last 18 months, commencing with mobilization in February of 1996. The type of structure foundations used on Tyee Lake and especially Swan Lake allowed for very rapid placement of structures, once foundations were installed. Hence, clearing and foundation and anchor construction is assumed to take place mostly in the fall 1996, 7- to 8-month construction season, with structure framing and staging over the 1996-1997 winter, and structure erection and stringing in the spring/summer of 1997. For comparison, on the Swan Lake line a construction contract notice to proceed (NTP) was issued in April 1982, and construction was completed by June 1983, almost five months ahead of schedule, for a total construction period of 14 months. The Tyee Lake line was completed over a 15-month period, from a NTP in July 1982 to October 1983. Construction contracts on both lines took advantage of two construction seasons, beginning in spring/summer and ending in fall/winter of the following year. ——— VIII-4 Project Schedule 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 uF ela eos od ae ola ee Js as fa la fa as fo be la as fon | | ' CONTRACT MATERIAL PRELIM FUNDING AUTH DESIGN ENGR CONTRACTS START-UP Juu92 0/0 TERE 20/0 ea 80/0 Saui97 0/0 CONTRACT FINAL PERMITTING ROUTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT JUUI2 40/0 R94 45/0 79 80/0 FINAL ENGINEERING CLLLEPALLLLLLLLLLLZZLLLLLLLLLLL GL OLLA 9 60/0 INAL PERMITTING MATERIAL SUPPLY OLZZ7IZZLIZZZLIZIL LLL LLL 0070 L FINAL FUNDING AUTH CONSTRUCTION NTP i ir 0/0 siane 0/0 Se SURVEY MOBILIZATION R /\ ) 30/0 SeOTE CICA TESTS CONSTRUCTION PHASE UZZZZZZ7LLLLLLLLLLLLL Lg PEL JUL94 80/0 2MAR96 3560/0 LEGEND DESC PROGRESS A MILESTONE Early Start Dur/Tot Flt CRITICAL PATH 23UU92 FIGURE VIII-1 RUN DATE REVISION NO 0 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY START DATE 15JUU92 15suu92 TYEE-LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE LINK KEY: FINISH START FINISH NON- i) To TO DATA DATE PRELIMINARY PROJECT SCHEDULE CONTROLLING CONTROLLING START START FINISH | 1) FILE NAME: SCHEDULE SCHEDULE USED: AEA TYEE - SWAN INTERTIE SECTION Ix POWER SUPPLY EVALUATION RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION Ix POWER SUPPLY EVALUATION A. OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION The Intertie is intended to transmit power from the Lake Tyee Hydroelectric Project to KPU. Presently, power generated at the Lake Tyee Project is delivered only to WML&P and PMP&L, the only two utility systems currently interconnected to the Lake Tyee Project. The power market considered in this analysis consists of the municipally-owned electric utility systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. The completion of the Lake Tyee project in 1984 interconnected the systems of PMP&L and WML&P which had previously been operated as isolated systems. Although KPU is interconnected with the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC), a large industrial operation that generates its own electricity, KPU has no interconnection with any other electric utilities. The Intertie would provide electrical interconnection of KPU, PMP&L and WML&P. This interconnection will permit the three utilities to share generation resources and coordinate future generation planning efforts if so desired. In June 1990, the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska (ISER) presented its twenty year forecast for electricity requirements for KPU, WML&P and PMP&L. This forecast was prepared by ISER under a contract with the Authority. Based on the level of future electricity requirements provide in the ISER forecast, a load and resource analysis was conducted as a part of this study to determine the utilization of existing generation resources and the need for future resources by KPU, WML&P and PMP&L. A primary focus of the load and resource analysis was to determine the amount of Lake Tyee Project power surplus to the needs of PMP&L and WML&P and the need of KPU for additional generation resources. PMP&L and WML&P have first rights to the generation capability of the Lake Tyee Project. The load and resource analysis evaluated resource needs to meet both peak demand and annual energy requirements of the three utilities. With the Intertie, the principal future resource that will be available to KPU is the Lake Tyee Project. Since the Intertie will terminate at the Swan Lake substation, all of the power transmitted over the Intertie will subsequently be transmitted with Swan Lake power over the existing Swan Lake transmission line into Ketchikan. The existing Swan Lake transmission line, a 30-mile 115-kV line, is currently the largest single contingency in KPU’s power supply. While this line has had an excellent reliability history, it would assume added importance in KPU’s power supply as a result of the Lake Tyee interconnection. Generation reserve requirements are a significant factor included in the load and resource analysis. In order to evaluate the economic benefits of the Intertie, alternative resource plans have been developed which provide equivalent amounts of power over the 30-year study period. The primary benefits of the Intertie will be in the use of surplus power from the Lake Tyee Project to offset diesel generation. Although diesel generation is considered the most likely generation alternative available to KPU, the possibility of a wood-fired generation facility was evaluated as was the implementation of demand side management (DSM) or conservation measures in KPU’s system. Costs and operating characteristics of the generation alternatives were derived and used to evaluate the overall costs of each alternative power supply plan. Power Supply Evaluation IX-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE B. PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions have been used in the development of the power supply evaluation. Many of these assumptions are common to or are driven by those made for the economic analysis. Additional assumptions are included in the body of this section of the report. Principal assumptions critical to the power supply analysis are summarized as follows: 1. Future annual energy requirements and peak demand of KPU, WML&P and PMP&L are as forecasted by ISER in its report "Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010", dated June 25, 1990, prepared for the Authority. Forecasted loads within the power supply analysis period beyond 2010, the end of the ISER forecast period, are extrapolated using the implied growth rate in the ISER forecast between 2009 and 2010. 2. The Intertie will become operable in 1997 for the “with Intertie" case. 3. The economic life of the Intertie is 30 years. 4. The power supply analysis period is 20 years, 1997 through 2016. 5. Annual average energy capability of the Swan Lake and Lake Tyee hydroelectric projects is 82,000 MWh and 134,400 MWh, respectively. Under low water conditions, the average annual energy capability is 64,000 and 129,900 for the two projects, respectively. 6. Average fuel consumption of KPU’s diesel generators is 14.0 kWh per gallon as provided by KPU. 7. The cost of new diesel generators to KPU is $1,000 per installed kW in 1992 dollars. 8. The Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) will continue to generate most of its own power requirement and will purchase approximately 15,500 MWh annually from KPU at a surplus sales rate. This assumed KPC energy purchase was provided in the ISER load forecast and represents a constant purchase of approximately 1,750 kW. With the Intertie, KPC is assumed to purchase surplus energy available from the Lake Tyee Project in an amount up to 15,500 MWh annually to offset diesel fuel usage. 9. Power sales to KPC will only continue as long as surplus power from either the Swan Lake Project or the Lake Tyee Project (with the Intertie) is available. 10. Energy losses over the Intertie are 2% of the total amount of energy transmitted between Lake Tyee and Swan Lake. Energy losses between Swan Lake and Ketchikan are an additional 2%. IX-2 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MARKET AREA The power market considered in this analysis consists of the municipally-owned electric utility systems of Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. The completion of the Lake Tyee project in 1984 interconnected the systems of PMP&L and WML&P which had previously been operated as isolated systems. Although KPU is interconnected with the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC), a large industrial operation that generates its own electricity, KPU has no interconnection with any other electric utilities. The Intertie would provide electrical interconnection of KPU, PMP&L and WML&P. The electric utility of KPU provides electric service to the Ketchikan area. In 1991, 129,459 MWh of electric energy were sold in total by KPU to its 5,230 residential customers, 422 harbor customers, 820 small commercial customers, 106 large commercial customers, and 10 industrial customers. Peak demand on the KPU system during 1991 was 25.3 MW in the month of December. The highest peak demand on record of 26.7 MW occurred in January 1989. Approximately 43%, 51% and 6% of the electric energy sold by KPU annually goes to its residential, commercial and industrial customers, respectively. KPC is a pulp manufacturing company and is the largest single user of electric power in the Ketchikan area. The total electric load of KPC is approximately 29 MW. Using process waste, wood waste and oil as generation fuel, KPC generates nearly all of its own power needs. KPC and KPU are electrically interconnected and KPC regularly purchases approximately 2 MW of power from KPU at a surplus power sales rate. WML&P and PMP&L operate separate electric utilities serving the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg, respectively. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991, PMP&L sold 28,640 MWh of electric energy to its 1,425 residential, 284 harbor, 278 small commercial and 24 large commercial customers. Peak demand during fiscal year 1991 was 5.5 MW occurring in August 1990. WML&P sold 28,598 MWh of electric energy during fiscal year 1991 and peak demand was 3.3 MW occurring in January 1991. As of June 30, 1991, WML&P had 1,340 residential, 445 commercial and 1 industrial customers. Approximately 32% and 41% of the electric energy sold by WML&P is supplied to its residential and commercial customers, respectively. In fiscal year 1991, WML&P sold 7,737 MWh of electric energy to the Alaska Pulp Co. sawmill, formerly Wrangell Forest Products. PMP&L and WML&P purchase the majority of their power requirements from the Lake Tyee Project through the Thomas Bay Power Authority (TBPA), a jointly operated utility agency. TBPA purchases the Lake Tyee generated power from the Authority and subsequently sells it to PMP&L and WML&P. The Lake Tyee Project is located 45 transmission line miles from Wrangell and 80 transmission line miles from Petersburg. The transmission interconnection between the Lake Tyee Project, WML&P and PMP&L is operated at 69-kV. KPU and PMP&L both own and operate hydroelectric facilities. Power from these utility- owned hydroelectric facilities is considered a priority resource over purchases from the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake Projects. In 1991, energy generated by KPU’s own hydroelectric resources represented approximately 55% of the total energy requirements of KPU. The remainder of KPU’s 1991 energy requirement was supplied by the Swan Lake Project. In addition to the hydroelectric facilities, all three utilities own diesel oil-fired generation capacity within their respective communities. Power Supply Evaluation IX-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Prior to completion of the Lake Tyee Project, all three of the electric utilities in the market area operated as isolated systems. Since that time, WML&P and PMP&L have operated as separate utilities with a common power supply, the Lake Tyee Project. The transmission interconnection between WML&P and PMP&L, which is technically a part of the Lake Tyee Project, has experienced several outages since its initial operation. Consequently, PMP&L and WMLA&P continue to maintain generation capacity within their respective communities as backup to their respective requirements on the Lake Tyee Project. Generation reserves are not shared between the communities. With the completion of the Intertie, KPU, PMP&L and WML&P will all be interconnected and can, if desired, investigate the possibility of certain joint operating benefits. Principal among these benefits could be some sharing of generation reserve requirements which could reduce the need for each utility to maintain full generation backup in its own community. The vulnerability of the transmission interconnections between the utilities, however, will most likely necessitate the independent reserve requirements. Other benefits may include common operation and maintenance of certain facilities and centralized dispatch of generation resources to maximize the energy capability of the hydroelectric resources. Benefits from centralized dispatch would entail operating arrangements between the communities which may not be practical. Any potential cost savings may be limited because of the need to maintain local operation of power plants in each community. D. USE OF THE INTERTIE The primary use of the Intertie will be to transmit power from the Lake Tyee Project to KPU’s electric system. KPU will only purchase power from the Lake Tyee Project when it has requirements in excess of the combined capability of its own hydroelectric facilities and the Swan Lake Project. Without the Intertie, KPU would have to rely upon diesel generation , or some other future resource, under these circumstances. Consequently, the Intertie will serve to deliver power from the Tyee Lake Project to offset the use of diesel generation by KPU. According to the existing Four Dam Pool Power Sales Agreement which governs sales of power from both the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake Projects, PMP&L and WML&P will always have first right to the generation capability of the Lake Tyee Project. It is anticipated that power from the Lake Tyee Project surplus to the needs of the three utilities could be delivered to KPC. KPC will only purchase power, however, at a rate less than the cost it incurs to generate its own power. Since KPC cogenerates electricity and process steam and the amount of electricity it generates is a function of its steam requirement and process waste production, KPC also has a limited need for outside power purchases. KPC estimates that approximately 25% of its electricity generation is derived from the combustion of oil. This is the most costly of its fuel sources and the amount which could be offset with purchases of surplus hydroelectric power. In addition to the offset of oil-fired generation by KPU and KPC, the Intertie will also permit a more effective operation of the three utilities’ hydroelectric resources than can be achieved in a non-interconnected mode of operation. Jointly operated reservoir management may provide some additional energy production capability. In the future, the Intertie will allow the joint planning of new hydroelectric resource additions and the ability to construct the most economical resource within the interconnected system. In the long-term, the Intertie could IX-4 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT become a component of a much larger transmission system interconnecting the other major communities of Southeast Alaska. As a single circuit subject to failure especially due to environmental hazards, the Intertie cannot be relied upon to deliver power on a firm basis. Although the Intertie will be designed to minimize the possibility, the Intertie could fail at any time interrupting the delivery of power to KPU from the Lake Tyee Project. The remote area in which the Intertie will be constructed has limited access, and weather conditions may delay repairs to damaged sections of line. Consequently, KPU will most likely need to maintain backup generation for the full amount of power it will purchase over the Intertie. E. PROJECTED ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENTS The forecast of electricity requirements used in this analysis were developed by ISER and presented in its report entitled "Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010", dated June 25, 1990. For the base case, this forecast indicates a 2.1% average annual increase in total energy requirements for KPU’s system between the years of 1990 and 2010. Over the same period, the base case forecasts a 1.0% average annual increase for the combined systems of WML&P and PMP&L. The ISER base case forecast also includes 15,565 MWh annually as the amount of KPC energy purchased from KPU over the forecast period. This level of energy purchase is based on KPC’s 1989 purchase amount and is still considered by KPC to be a reasonable forecast amount. The base case forecast for each of the communities is shown in Table IX-1. Both peak demand and annual energy requirements are provided in this Table. The uncertainties involved in any forecasting effort necessitate a range of forecasts. ISER developed alternative high and low forecasts of peak demand and energy requirements for each of the communities. These alternative forecasts are shown in Table IX-2 for the low forecast and Table IX-3 for the high forecast. The high case forecast includes the estimated impacts on KPU electricity requirements from the development of the Quartz Hill molybdenum mine. The high case forecast for KPU is not used in this analysis. Power Supply Evaluation IX-5 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table IX-1 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements“! ) Base Case Peak Demand (kW) Total Energy Requirements (MWh) Year KPu2?) WML&P PMP&L MP&L KPpu®) WML&P PMP&L MP&L_ KPC“) 1990 26,900 3,500 6,100 7,200 131,898 23,885 31,121 25,331 15,565 1991 30,400 3,400 6,200 7,400 149,202 17,989 31,460 25,869 15,565 1992 30,800 3,400 6,200 7,400 151,955 16,857 31,477 25,931 15,565 1993 32,100 3,400 6,300 7,400 158,569 16,947 31,756 25,948 15,565 1994 33,100 3,400 6,300 7,A00 163,372 17,077 32,117 25,978 15,565 1995 33,700 3,400 6,300 7,A00 166,607 17,081 32,200 25,978 15,565 1996 34,000 3,500 6,400 7,500 168,149 17,263 32,597 26,118 15,565 1997 34,300 3,500 6,500 7,500 169,737 17,436 33,053 26,316 15,565 1998 34,300 3,600 6,600 7,600 172,413 17,651 33,514 26,506 15,565 1999 34,900 3,600 6,700 7,600 173,503 17,902 34,041 26,707 15,565 2000 35,100 3,700 6,800 7,700 175,631 18,154 34,578 26,913 15,565 2001 35,500 3,700 6,900 7,700 177 486 18,379 35,056 27,089 15,565 2002 35,900 3,700 7,000 7,800 178,850 18,557 35,444 27,252 15,565 2003 36,200 3,800 7,100 7,800 180,127 18,744 35,849 27,399 15,565 2004 36,500 3,800 7,100 7,900 181,768 18,959 36,319 27,557 15,565 2005 36,800 3,900 7,300 7,900 183,978 19,228 36,895 27,729 15,565 2006 37,200 4,000 7,A00 8,000 186,583 19,539 37,564 27,939 15,565 2007 37,800 4,000 7,500 8,000 189,512 19,880 38,294 28,172 15,565 2008 38,400 4,100 7,700 8,100 192,714 20,245 39,071 28,429 15,565 2009 39,000 4,200 7,800 8,200 195,911 20,603 39,833 28,695 15,565 2010 40,300 4,200 8,000 8,300 198,917 20,941 40,547 28,944 15,565 Average Annual Increase: 1990-1995 4.6% -~0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 48% -6.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 1995-2000 0.8% 1.7% 1.5% 0.8% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 2000-2010 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% (1) Source: Alaska Energy Authority, "Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010", by Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, June 25, 1990. (2) Does not include peak demand of Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC). (3) Does not include projected non-firm sales to KPC. (4) Projected non-firm energy sales by KPU to KPC. Subject to availability of surplus hydroelectric generation capacity. IX-6 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT Table IX-2 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements“)) Low Case Peak Demand (kW) Total Energy Requirements (MWh) Year KPu®) WML&P PMP&L MP&L KPu® WML&P PMP&L MP&L KPC) 1990 26,500 3,500 6,100 7,200 130,156 23,740 30,741 25,198 15,565 1991 26,400 3,300 6,000 7,300 129,370 17,569 30,461 25,586 12,000 1992 26,100 3,300 5,900 7,300 129,210 16,215 29,973 25,485 10,000 1993 27,000 3,200 5,900 7,300 133,567 16,107 29,807 25,404 7,500 1994 27,800 3,200 5,900 7,200 137,333 16,113 29,871 25,331 5,000 1995 28,400 3,200 5,800 7,200 140,652 15,956 29,675 25,194 5,000 1996 28,600 3,200 5,900 7,200 141,472 16,012 29,778 25,229 5,000 1997 28,500 3,200 5,800 7,200 140,952 15,928 29,591 25,220 5,000 1998 28,400 3,200 5,800 7,200 140,587 15,864 29,444 25,190 5,000 1999 28,400 3,200 5,800 7,200 140,504 15,815 29,340 25,147 5,000 2000 28,500 3,200 5,800 7,200 141,103 15,922 29,532 25,171 5,000 2001 28,600 3,200 5,800 7,200 141,545 15,964 29,584 25,193 5,000 2002 28,700 3,200 5,800 7,200 141,898 16,005 29,617 25,197 5,000 2003 28,700 3,200 5,800 7,200 142,178 16,043 29,662 25,208 5,000 2004 28,800 3,200 5,900 7,200 142,546 16,098 29,733 25,229 5,000 2005 27,400 3,300 5,900 7,200 135,614 16,170 29,830 25,274 100 2006 27,500 3,300 5,900 7,200 136,015 16,244 29,931 25,323 100 2007 27,600 3,300 5,900 7,200 136,874 16,330 30,064 25,385 100 2008 27,800 3,300 5,900 7,300 137,696 16,411 30,182 25,460 100 2009 27,900 3,300 6,000 7,300 138,237 16,461 30,238 25,521 100 2010 28,000 3,300 6,000 7,300 138,838 16,517 30,306 25,577 100 Average Annual Increase: 1990-1995 1.4% -1.8% -1.0% 0.0% 1.6% -7.6% -0.7% 0.0% -20.3% 1995-2000 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2000-2010 -0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% -32.4% (1) Source: Alaska Energy Authority, “Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010", by Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, June 25, 1990. (2) Does not include peak demand of Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC). (3) Does not include projected non-firm sales to KPC. (4) Projected non-firm energy sales by KPU to KPC. Subject to availability of surplus hydroelectric generation capacity. Power Supply Evaluation IX-7 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table IX-3 Projected Peak Demand and Total Energy Requirements!) High Case Peak Demand (kW) Total Energy Requirements (MWh) Year KPU®) WML&P PMP&L MP&L KPpu“® WML&P PMP&L MP&L_ KPC°) 1990 27,300 3,500 6,200 _ 7,300 133,947 23,672 31,711 25,500 15,565 1991 31,500 3,500 6,500 7,500 154,433 18,383 33,168 26,233 15,565 1992 32,500 3,700 7,000 7,600 160,399 27,543 35,574 26,477 15,565 1993 40,200 3,800 7,200 8,000 198,280 27,907 36,491 28,034 15,565 1994 42,300 3,900 7,300 8,000 208,316 28,203 37,257 28,206 15,565 1995 47,200 3,900 7,500 8,100 232,673 28,437 37,956 28,224 15,565 1996 47,700 4,000 7,700 8,100 235,418 28,890 39,009 28,472 15,565 1997 47,800 4,100 7,900 8,200 235,907 29,427 40,211 28,893 15,565 1998 49,600 4,300 8,200 8,400 244,768 30,056 41,563 29,382 15,565 1999 50,600 4,400 8,500 8,500 249,260 30,660 42,942 29,917 15,565 2000 52,800 4,500 8,700 8,700 260,218 31,160 44,116 30,321 15,565 2001 53,600 4,600 9,000 8,800 264,411 31,755 45,574 30,777 15,565 2002 54,900 4,700 9,200 8,900 270,808 32,348 46,947 31,180 15,565 2003 56,100 4,900 9,600 9,000 276,556 33,035 48,524 31,557 15,565 2004 57,400 5,000 9,900 9,100 282,768 33,787 50,254 31,980 15,565 2005 59,000 5,200 10,300 9,300 290,442 34,599 52,128 32,456 15,565 2006 60,700 5,400 10,600 9,400 298,989 35,444 54,075 32,957 15,565 2007 62,500 5,600 11,100 9,600 308,090 36,362 56,185 33,491 15,565 2008 64,600 5,800 11,500 9,700 318,308 37,372 58,500 34,079 15,565 2009 66,800 6,000 12,000 9,900 329,184 38,428 60,915 34,688 15,565 2010 69,100 6,200 12,500 10,100 340,029 39,454 63,286 35,299 15,565 Average Annual Increase: 1990-1995 11.6% 2.2% 3.9% 2.1% 11.7% 3.7% 3.7% 2.1% 0.0% 1995-2000 2.3% 2.9% 3.0% 1.4% 2.3% 18% 3.1% 1.4% 0.0% 2000-2010 2.7% 3.3% 3.7% 1.5% 2.7% 2.4% 3.7% 1.5% 0.0% (1) Source: Alaska Energy Authority, "Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010", by Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska, June 25, 1990. (2) High Case for Ketchikan based on development of the Quartz Hill mine, a scenario not included in this Feasibility Study. (3) Does not include peak demand of Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC). (4) Does not include projected non-firm sales to KPe, (5) Project non-firm energy sales by KPU to KPC. Subject to availability of surplus hydroelectric generation capacity. IX-8 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT F. EXISTING POWER SUPPLY 1. Hydroelectric Resources The existing hydroelectric resources operated by KPU, WML&P and PMP&L are shown in Table IX-4. Generating capacity in kW and annual energy production in MWh for both average and low water conditions are shown. Hydroelectric energy generation is directly related to weather conditions and fluctuates annually. Energy production estimates for the utility-owned hydroelectric projects are based on actual experience in recent years whereas the full energy production capability of the state-owned Lake Tyee and Swan Lake projects has never been achieved because utility loads have not been high enough. The energy production for these two projects is estimated based on the design characteristics of the projects and assumed hydrologic conditions. The energy production estimates for the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake projects included herein have been based on historical hydrologic data for the years 1952 through 1978, assumptions regarding monthly load patterns of the utilities, area-capacity curves, minimum reservoir storage capability, head loss factors and generating efficiencies. Table IX-4 Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg Area Hydroelectric Resources Energy Capability (MWh) Capacity Resource Owner (kW) Average Low Water Silvis Lake Ketchikan Public Utilities 2,100 N/A N/A Beaver Falls Ketchikan Public Utilities 5,400 N/A N/A Ketchikan Falls Ketchikan Public Utilities 4,200 N/A N/A Subtotal 11,700 62,700 56,000 Crystal Lake Petersburg Municipal Power & Light 2,000 10,000 N/A Lake Tyee Alaska Energy Authority 20,000 134,400 129,900 Swan Lake Alaska Energy Authority 22,500 82,000 64,000 2. Diesel Generation Capacity All three of the utilities in the market area own and operate diesel generators. These diesel generators primarily serve as backup to the hydroelectric resources and are typically only run for emergency and testing purposes. Operator staffing levels have been reduced over the past few years to reflect the low level of diesel generator operation. Prior to completion of the Lake Tyee and Swan Lake projects, the diesel generators were used to supply base-load power ona regular basis. In total, KPU, PMP&L and WML&P have 14.3 MW, 5.6 MW and 8.4 MW, respectively, of dependable diesel generation capacity. Power Supply Evaluation IX-9 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE The annual energy production capability of the KPU diesel generators, if operated at a 70% annual plant factor, is approximately 114,600 MWh. KPU is not presently in a position from a staffing standpoint to operate its diesel generators on a regular basis. Additional operator and maintenance staff would most likely be needed to operate diesel generators full time. 3. Ketchikan Pulp Company Generation Capacity KPC owns and operates electric generation capacity at its wood products manufacturing production facility at Ward’s Cove. Three large steam driven turbine generator units with a combined nameplate capacity of 38 MW are presently installed. Steam is produced in four heat recovery boilers designed to burn spent pulping liquor ("red liquor"), an industrial by-product containing combustible organics extracted from wood chips during pulp production, and two power boilers that are designed to burn wood waste (hog fuel) and #6 oil. KPC estimates that approximately 50%, 25% and 25% of its electric power is produced from red liquor, wood waste and oil fuels, respectively. KPC indicates that it normally produces approximately 24 MW of electric capacity to supply its electric load. KPC estimates its peak load to be 29 MW. G. FUTURE KPU POWER SUPPLY NEEDS AND OPTIONS 1. Alternative Resource Options As electric loads, net of conservation measures, continue to increase in the Ketchikan area, new generation resources will be needed. Three generation resource options have been identified as alternatives to the Intertie and the delivery of power from the Lake Tyee project to KPU. These resources include diesel generators, new hydroelectric development and a new or expanded wood-waste fired generator at KPC. Of these options, only diesel generators appear to be practicable at the present time primarily because of the high cost of other resource options and the relatively small electric load in Ketchikan, the high cost of hydroelectric development and the unavailability of fuels other than oil. Following is a description of the alternative resources evaluated. a. Diesel Generators Diesel generators have served as the primary source of electric power for the isolated communities of Alaska for many years. Prior to the completion of the Swan Lake project, KPU relied upon its diesel generators for a significant portion of its power supply. Diesel generators have a relatively low initial installation cost, can typically be installed close to the electric load, are available in many sizes and maintenance and operation are readily supported. Diesel fuel is transported to coastal communities by barge. Some of the benefit in low installation cost of diesel generators is offset by the cost of fuel which is subject to many supply and price variables. KPU presently operates three large diesel generator units at its Bailey power- plant. Future diesel generator additions, according to KPU, would be installed at another location at the other end of town to provide increased reliability for the KPU system in the event of a failure of KPU’s primary 34.5-kV transmission line. KPU staff IX-10 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT indicates that it envisions the next diesel generator addition to be approximately 10,000 kW in capacity. For the purpose of this analysis, we have assumed that new diesel generating units, as needed, would be installed in 4,000 kW increments. The smaller size units, as opposed to the 10,000 kW unit indicated by KPU, could be added over time as loads increase and would reduce the amount of early year surplus in diesel generator capacity that a single large unit would provide. These units would operate at medium speeds in the range of 360 rpm to 900 rpm and would be capable of operating on a continuous basis over an extended period of time. Planning, design and construction of new diesel generating units is estimated to require approximately three years. Fuel consumption is estimated to be 71.4 gallons per MWh and the total capital cost is estimated to be $4,000,000 in 1992 dollars for a 4,000 kW unit. Although this cost estimate is not site specific in nature, it is estimated to include permitting, engineering, site development, equipment, controls and housing. b. Hydroelectric Resources In 1983, KPU conducted an appraisal study of the hydroelectric resources available to it to meet future power supply needs. At that time, much of the discussion of power supply needs focused on the proposed development of the Quartz Hill molybdenum mine and the mine’s power supply needs as well as the develop- mental impacts on the Ketchikan community. An update of this appraisal study was provided by R.W. Beck and Associates in 1985. The updated appraisal considered several power supply alternatives including the Intertie and identified two hydroelec- tric options for KPU, the Mahoney Lake Project and the Lake Grace Project. Of these two options, the Mahoney Lake Project was identified as the most economic. The Mahoney Lake Project site is to be located approximately 8 miles northeast of Ketchikan on land owned by the Cape Fox Corporation. The conceptual arrangement for this project, as developed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, was to have included a binwall dam, lake tap, power tunnel and powerhouse. A 5.5 mile transmission line was to have connected the powerhouse to the existing 115-kV Swan Lake to Ketchikan transmission line. The project had been sized at 15 MW and was estimated to have been capable of producing 52,300 MWh of energy on an average annual basis. The total construction cost was estimated to be $51,520,000 in December 1985 dollars. Although an evaluation of the construction costs for this project is beyond the scope of this Feasibility Study, based on known increases in construction costs since 1985, the estimated cost to construct the Mahoney Lake Project would be adjusted to $59,200,000 at January 1992 price levels. Licensing, permitting, design and construction of this project would probably take ten years at a minimum. KPU indicates that no effort toward further study of the Mahoney Lake Project has been made. The Mahoney Lake Project may have cost advantages to KPU over diesel generation in the future if the Intertie is not developed. Comparing development of the Mahoney Lake Project to the Intertie, however, indicates that the Intertie is more cost effective. KPU presently indicates that it considers the possibility of developing either the Mahoney Lake or Grace Lake projects to be remote. Grace Lake is now within the Power Supply Evaluation IX-11 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE boundaries of the Misty Fiord National Monument and although its development was to have involved a lake tap and power tunnel to the Swan Lake powerhouse and would have little impact on the local environment, its permitting and subsequent development is viewed as very difficult and costly by KPU. The Mahoney Lake project, located on Cape Fox Corporation land, is also viewed as an unlikely development by KPU at the present time. c. Wood Waste-Fired Generation As previously described, KPC generates a significant amount of electric power from process and wood wastes. Discussions were held with KPC management to determine the likelihood of the development of additional wood waste fueled generation capacity at its Ward Cove facility. KPC has no current plans to expand its generation capability beyond its own power needs which are not anticipated to increase significantly. Certain replacement of existing plant is expected, however. Further, KPC has limited wood derived fuel sources available to it. At the present time, KPC indicates that its regional operation produces some wood waste, estimated to be equivalent to approximately 100 bone dry tons per day, on Annette Island and in Thorne Bay that is currently not used for steam or electricity generation. This amount of fuel is estimated by KPC to be sufficient to support an additional generation plant in the range of 4,000 kW that could generate approximate- ly 26,280 MWh annually. The estimated cost for transport and processing of the fuel supply is $6 per ton. The cost of a wood waste fueled generation addition of this size cannot be precisely estimated without a complete engineering analysis related to the specific facilities. Based on our knowledge of other wood-waste-fired power plants, however, it is reasonable to assume that the development and installation cost could be between $5 and $10 million. Assuming the cost of installation of a 4,000 kW generation plant is $10 million, fuel costs are $6 per ton and allowing for operations and maintenance costs, it is estimated that the cost of producing power from a wood waste fueled generation plant addition at KPC would be roughly 5¢ per kWh. This is about one-half the cost of diesel generation. This comparison is based on the recovery of capital costs over 20 years at a 3% real interest rate and does not acknowledge actual financing requirements that may exist. The comparison does indicate that a wood-waste generation facility of this type may have significant benefits over diesel generation (see Section X.G.). The continued availability of a long-term fuel supply is an important issue for a plant of this type. Although the possibility does exist for expansion of KPC’s wood waste fueled generation plant to produce power for sale to KPU, this option has not been investigated by KPC or KPU. Both KPU and KPC have recently expressed interest in the concept. Environmental restrictions related to the disposal of wood waste and the combustion of wood waste in certain locations may in the future encourage the expansion of wood waste combustion and power generation at KPC’s Ward Cove facility. IX-12 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT In addition to wood waste generation by KPC, other entities, either public or private, could develop a wood waste to energy facility in the Ketchikan area. It is not known how much wood waste material is presently available in the Ketchikan area outside of that produced by KPC. Initial indications are that significant quantities of wood waste are not generally available. The economic analysis conducted for this Feasibility Study considered a wood waste generation option. Because the result of this analysis indicates benefits over other power supply options, the possibility of wood waste generation should be investigated further and should be considered in any future power supply evaluations for the Ketchikan area. 2. KPU Conservation Assessment An assessment of the potential for demand side management (DSM) or conservation in KPU’s service area has been prepared as a part of this study. In recent years, electric utilities around the country have been pursuing DSM measures to reduce the electricity consumption of their customers. Based on the recent experience of utilities in the Pacific Northwest, several specific programs that could be implemented in Ketchikan have been identified and the energy savings and installation costs for each program have been estimated. Conservation savings and costs are included as a power supply alternative for KPU and are compared as an option to the addition of the Intertie and diesel generators as a "source" of power in the future. The conservation assessment is attached as Appendix F to this report. The assessment has been oriented towards determining the maximum potential savings that KPU could realize with the implementation of conservation programs. As such, the conservation programs would be approached aggressively by KPU and for the most part funded by KPU rather than the consumer. A significant factor in this concept is the financing of conservation measures by KPU. Our analysis assumes that KPU will finance conservation programs similarly to the financing of generation resources. Repayment of the initial costs of implementation is then made over a period of years corresponding to the life of the conservation program. The conservation assessment evaluated several programs from a cost and benefit perspective, i.e., costs of implementation were compared to the reduction in energy consumption. It is assumed that the conservation programs would be implemented over a four year period, 1995-1999. At that time, all of the energy saved by conservation would offset diesel generation, assuming the Intertie is not constructed. Further, the reduction in peak demand caused by conservation programs can also delay the need for additional generation capacity. The conservation assessment concluded that several programs would be cost effective. These programs together with the estimated cost and savings related to each are summarized in Table IX-5. Power Supply Evaluation IX-13 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table IX-5 Ketchikan Public Utilities Conservation Program Assessment Total Estimated Energy and Demand Savings and Total Estimated Costs" Total Annual Savings for KPu2) sraTaaTTTUMTTTUUTIUIITUINDTIUTNNTTUTUNUNTTI Total Program Energy Demand Costs for KPU Description of Programs (MWh) (kW) ($000) RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit 0 0 $482 Blanket Wrap for Existing Electric Water Heaters 1,030 180 195 Low-Flow Shower Head 890 110 49 Weatherization (caulking & weatherstripping) 70 20 53 Efficient Lighting 480 130 120 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback 350 0 57 Efficient Lighting: Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 600 180 140 Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts with Energy Efficient Lamps and Ballasts 2,860 887 1516 Replace Existing Incandescent Bulbs with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 2,930 1,060 802 Total for All Programs 9,210 2,567 3,414 (1) The savings and costs as shown are estimates for the total program and are based on KPU paying 100% of the costs of the following programs: Home Energy Audit Program, Low-Flow Showerhead Program, Thermostat Setback Program, Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Lamps and Replace Existing Incandescent with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps. It was assumed that KPU would pay a portion of the costs for the other programs providing a 2-year payback period for the customers. (2) Savings represent the maximum assumed to be achieved in 1999. 3. Alternative KPU Power Supply Plans Based on the projected electricity requirements for KPU and the identified resource options, three alternative power supply cases have been developed. These cases are the Base (Diesel) IX-14 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT Case, the Intertie Case and the Conservation Case. Both the Base Case and the Intertie Case are designed to provide for the power supply needs of KPU over a 20 year study period beginning in 1997, the first year of Intertie operation. The Conservation Case identifies the energy savings that are estimated to be available to KPU and the effects of these savings on future generation needs. The Conservation Case has been prepared in conjunction with the Base Case in that conservation measures are assumed to offset the need for diesel generation. Although KPU could implement certain conservation measures even if the Intertie were to be constructed, the conservation measures would not be cost effective if they were used to offset the surplus hydroelectric energy to be provided from the Lake Tyee Project. An analytical model was developed to assist with the evaluation of the power supply plans (the "Resource Model"). The Resource Model provides a load and resource balance for both total energy requirements and peak demand on an annual basis for the years 1992 through 2016. Although the resource model is oriented toward the analysis of KPU’s projected power supply needs, it also includes a load and resource evaluation for both WML&P and PMP&L for the purpose of projecting surplus hydroelectric energy available at the Lake Tyee Project. The Resource Model performs the economic analysis of the various power supply plans. The total cost of power for KPU is calculated annually based on the specific power supply resources identified for each case. The power supply plans included herein are the three cases identified to be the most practical at this time based on the resource options evaluated. In the future, other resource options may become available to KPU that would be more cost effective than either the Intertie or the addition of diesel generators. a. Base (Diesel) Case The Base Case assumes that the Intertie is not constructed and that KPU will generate power with its existing diesel generators once it has fully utilized the energy capability of its existing hydroelectric resources. In order to maintain sufficient generating capacity to supply its future peak demand, the Base Case assumes that KPU will install additional diesel generators as needed. Generation reserves are to be maintained at a level to backup the single largest generating unit in the KPU system. Although the Swan Lake Project consists of two 10-MW units, all Swan Lake power is delivered to KPU over the existing Swan Lake to KPU transmission line. This transmission line is considered the single largest contingency in the KPU system and consequently, full backup for the capacity used by KPU from the Swan Lake Project will need to be maintained elsewhere in the KPU system. Based on the medium KPU load forecast, the power supply plan for the Base Case indicates that KPU will need to install additional diesel generation capacity in 1992 (two 4,000 kW units), 1997, 2008, and 2013. As previously mentioned, diesel generators are assumed to be installed in 4,000 kW increments. For the most part, the timing of the diesel additions is determined by the generation capacity requirement, plus reserves, of the KPU system. The Base Case also indicates that KPU will need to begin using diesel generators to meet energy requirements as early as 1992. By 2016, the end of the study period, diesel generation is estimated to be 69,529 MWh per year representing a plant factor of approximately 23% on the estimated installed diesel Power Supply Evaluation IX-15 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE generation capacity at that time. This means, as one operating example, that KPU will need to run all of its diesel generators at maximum capacity for 23% of the year. The existing diesel generators and additional generators to be installed by that time should all be capable of operating for this amount of time. The capacity (kW) and energy (MWh) loads and resources for KPU for the Base Case are shown on an annual basis through the year 2016 in Table IX-6. For the purpose of the economic analysis, loads and resources are held constant after 2016, hence the reason for the end of the load and resource forecast period. Based on the low load forecast for KPU, it is estimated that KPU will only need to install one additional 4,000 kW diesel generator in 1992. No diesel generation is estimated to be needed in 2016. b. Intertie Case The Intertie Case assumes that the Intertie is constructed and becomes operable in 1997. By this time, KPU will fully utilize the energy capability of its existing hydroelectric resources and will be generating power with its existing diesel generators. Diesel generation capacity will need to be added to increase the generation reserve capacity of the KPU system to backup the total capacity relied upon over the existing Swan Lake to Ketchikan transmission line. With the Intertie, the power received from the Lake Tyee Project will be transmitted over this existing transmission line in addition to the power transmitted from the Swan Lake Project. Based on the KPU peak demand and generation reserve requirement, the power supply plan for the Intertie Case indicates that KPU will need to install additional 4,000 kW diesel generators in 1992 (two 4,000 kW units), 1997, 2008 and 2013. These are the same years in which diesel generators are estimated to be added for the Base Case. Because of reserve requirements, KPU will need to install new diesel generators with or without the Intertie. The primary benefit of the Intertie, however, is that KPU will not need to generate power with the diesel generators once the Intertie is installed. Rather, the diesel generators are to be maintained in a standby mode to backup the generation capacity of the Swan Lake Project and the portion of the Lake Tyee Project being used by KPU in the event of a failure of the existing Swan lake to Ketchikan transmission line. A critical element of the power supply plan for the Intertie Case is the derivation of the amount of capacity and energy from the Lake Tyee Project that is surplus to the needs of PMP&L and WML&P. In 1997, the first year of Intertie operation, the medium load forecast indicates that the peak load of the combined PMP&L and WML&P systems will be 10,000 kW, representing 50% of the Lake Tyee total generating capacity. Subtracting the 2,000 kW of PMP&L utility-owned hydroelectric capacity results in 12,000 kW of Lake Tyee capacity available to KPU. Energy requirements on the Lake Tyee Project from PMP&L and WML&P are estimated to be 52,109 MWh in 1997 resulting in a surplus Lake Tyee energy capability of 92,291 in that year. KPU’s total energy requirement on the Lake Tyee Project is estimated to be 26,080 MWh in 1997. By 2016, the end of the study period, the KPU energy requirement on the Lake Tyee Project is estimated to be 72,426 MWh. In that year, the IX-16 Power Supply Evaluation FINAL REPORT surplus Lake Tyee energy generation available to KPU will have declined to 74,676 because of the estimated increases in the PMP&L and WML&P loads. This indicates that in 2016 or shortly thereafter, KPU will have reached the maximum amount of energy that will be available to it from the Lake Tyee Project based on the medium load forecast. From that point on the Lake Tyee energy available to KPU will decrease yearly. The energy requirements and resources for the combined WML&P and PMP&L and the estimated surplus generation capability of the Lake Tyee Project is shown on an annual basis through 2016 in Table IX-7._ Annual energy requirements and resources are shown for KPU in Table IX-8. Both of these tables are based on the medium load forecast. Alternative power supply scenarios for the Intertie Case have been developed for a low KPU load forecast and a high PMP&L and WML&P load forecast. c. Conservation Case The Conservation Case provides an adjustment to the medium load forecast for KPU based on the estimated load reduction that could be experienced by KPU with the implementation of the identified conservation measures. For this case, it is assumed that conservation programs would be implemented beginning in 1995 and that maximum energy savings would be achieved in 1999. The Conservation Case is based on the premise that KPU would implement full scale residential and commercial customer conservation programs with the intent of achieving the maximum participation possible among its customer base. The conservation programs are assumed to be funded with one of two funding levels depending on the individual program. Five of the recommended conservation programs are assumed to be fully funded by KPU and the costs for the other programs are assumed to be borne by both KPU and the individual customers such that the customer will realize a less than two year payback on its portion of the cost of the program. The Conservation Case assumes that the Intertie is not constructed. Conse- quently, diesel generation is assumed to be added to the KPU system as needed to meet KPU energy and capacity requirements. The same reserve criteria as defined for the Base Case is used for the Conservation Case. The power supply plan developed for the Conservation Case indicates that additional 4,000 kW diesel generators will be needed in 1992 (two 4,000 kW units), 2003, 2010 and 2016. The difference in timing for new diesel generation additions between the Conservation Case and the Base Case is due to the reduction in KPU’s peak load that is estimated to be experienced with implementation of the conservation programs. KPU capacity (kW) and energy (MWh) loads and resources for the Conservation Case are shown in Table IX-9. Power Supply Evaluation IX-17 81-XI uoyunoaq Ajddng sam0g Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak Less: Conservation Savings Plus: Reserve Requirement Total Requirements Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel KPU Diesel Additions Swan Lake (to serve load) Lake Tyee (to serve load) Total Resources Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements Less: Conservation Savings Total Requirement Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel Swan Lake Lake Tyee Total KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available 1992 30,800 0 19,100 49,900 11,700 14,300 8,000 19,100 0 53,100 3,200 151,955 0 151,955 62,700 7,255 82,000 0 151,955 0 oo Table IX-6 KPU Loads and Resources Base Case 1993 1994 1995 1996 32,100 33,100 33,700 34,000 0 0 0 0 20,400 21,400 22,000 22,300 52500 54,500 55,700 56,300 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 14300 14300 14300 14,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 0 0 0 0 54,400 55,400 56,000 56,300 1,900 900 300 0 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 0 0) 0 0 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 13,869 18,672 21,907 23,449 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 0 0 0 0 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 34,300 0 22,500 56,800 11,700 14300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 3,700 169,737 0 169,737 62,700 25,037 82,000 0 169,737 0 1998 34,300 0 22,500 56,800 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 3,700 172,413 0 172,413 62,700 27,713 82,000 0 172,413 0 oo 1999 34,900 0 22,500 57,400 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 3,100 173,503 0 173,503 62,700 28,803 82,000 0 173,503 0 oo 2000 35,100 0 22,500 57,600 11,700 14300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 2,900 175,631 0 175,631 62,700 30,931 82,000 0 175,631 0 oo 2001 35,500 0 22,500 58,000 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 2,500 177,486 0 177,486 62,700 32,786 82,000 0 177,486 0 oo Page 1 of 2 2002 35,900 22,500 58,400 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 60,500 2,100 178,850 178,850 62,700 34,150 82,000 178,850 0 oo 2003 36,200 0 22,500 58,700 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 1,800 180,127 0 180,127 62,700 °35,427 82,000 0 180,127 0 oo ALLUALN] NOISSINSNVUL FAV] NVMS-SSAL DIV] uoyunvaq fjddng samog 61-XI 2004 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36,500 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 22,500 Total Requirements 59,000 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 Total Resources 60500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 1500 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Total Requirement 181,768 Energy Resources(MWh) . KPU Hydro 62,700 KPU Diesel 37,068 Swan Lake 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 Total =~ 181,768 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available oo 2005 36,800 0 22,500 59,300 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 1,200 183,978 0 183,978 62,700 39,278 82,000 0 183,978 0 oo 2006 37,200 22,500 59,700 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 60,500 800 186,583 0 186,583 62,700 41,883 82,000 0 186,583 0 oo Table IX-6 KPU Loads and Resources Base Case 2007 37,800 0 22,500 60,300 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60500 200 189,512 0 189,512 62,700 44,812 82,000 0 189,512 0 oo 2008 38,400 0 22,500 60,900 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 0 64,500 3,600 192,714 0 192,714 62,700 48,014 82,000 0 192,714 0 oo 2009 39,000 0 22,500 61,500 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 0 64,500 3,000 195,911 0 195,911 62,700 51,211 82,000 0 195,911 0 oo 2010 40,300 0 22,500 62,800 11,700 14300 16,000 22,500 0 64,500 1,700 198,917 0 198,917 62,700 54,217 82,000 0 198,917 0 oo 2011 40,861 0 22,500 63,361 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 0 64,500 1,139 201,396 0 201,396 62,700 56,696 82,000 0 201,396 0 oo 2012 41,429 22,500 63,929 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 0 64,500 571 203,904 0 203,904 62,700 59,204 82,000 0 203,904 0 oo 2013 42,005 0 22,500 64,505 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 0 68,500 3,995 206,441 0 206,441 62,700 61,741 82,000 0 206,441 0 oo 2014 42,590 22,500 65,090 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 68,500 3,410 209,007 209,007 62,700 64,307 82,000 209,007 0 oo Page 2 of 2 2015 43,182 0 22,500 65,682 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 0 68,500 2,818 211,603 0 211,603 62,700 66,903 82,000 0 211,603 0 oo 2016 43,783 0 22,500 66,283 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 0 68,500 2,217 214,229 0 214,229 62,700 69529 82,000 0 214,229 0 oo LyOday TWNIY 02-XI uoyunvaq Ajddns 4200g Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak Petersburg Peak Total Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell Petersburg Lake Tyee TL Losses Total Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Surplus Tyee Energy 1992 3,A00 6,200 9,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,600 12,400 16857 31,477 1533 49,867 10,000 0 0 39,867 49,867 94,533 Notes: 1993 3,400 6300 9,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 16,947 31,756 1548 50,251 10,000 0 0 40,251 50,251 94,149 Table IX-7 WML&P and PMP&L Loads and Resources Intertie Case 1994 3,400 6,300 9,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 17,077 32,117 1,568 50,762 10,000 0 0 40,762 50,762 93,638 1995 3,400 6,300 9,700 2,000 5,600 800 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 17,081 32,200 1571 50,852 10,000 0 0 40,852 50,852 93,548 1996 3,500 6,400 9,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,900 12,100 17,263 32,597 1,594 51,454 10,000 0 0 41,454 51,454 92,946 1997 3,500 6500 10,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,000 12,000 17,436 33,053 1,620 52,109 10,000 0 0 42,109 52,109 92,291 1998 3,600 6,600 10,200 2,000 5,600 8,00 20,000 36,000 8,200 11,800 17,651 33,514 1,647 52,812 10,000 0 0 42,812 52,812 91,588 1999 3,600 6,700 10,300 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,300 11,700 17,902 34,041 1,678 53,621 10,000 0 0 43,621 53,621 90,779 2000 3,700 6,800 10500 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8500 11,500 18,154 34,578 1,709 54,441 10,000 0 0 44,441 54,441 89,959 2001 3,700 6,900 10,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,600 11,400 18,379 35,056 1,737 55,172 10,000 0 0 45,172 55,172 89,228 1, Existing hydro and diesel units provide required reserves through the end of the study period. 2. Petersburg peak plus Wrangell peak less Petersburg Hydro. Page 1 of 2 2002 2003 3,700 3,800 7,000 7,100 10,700 10,900 2,000 2,000 5,600 5,600 8,400 8,400 20,000 20,000 36,000 36,000 8,700 8,900 11,300 11,100 18,557 18,744 35,444 35,849 1,760 1,784 55,761 56,377 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 45,761 46,377 55,761 56,377 88,639 88,023 ALLYSLN] NOISSINSNVUL AAV] NVMS-3aAL FAV] uoyonyoag Ayddng samog I@-XI Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) . Wrangell Peak Petersburg Peak Total Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell Petersburg Lake Tyee TL Losses Total Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Surplus Tyee Energy 2004 3,800 7,100 10,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,900 11,100 18,959 36,319 1811 57,089 10,000 47,089 57,089 87,311 2005 3,900 7,300 11,200 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,200 10,800 19,228 36,895 1,845 57,968 10,000 47,968 57,968 86,432 2006 4,000 7,400 11,400 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,400 10,600 19,539 37,564 1,884 58,987 10,000 48,987 58,987 85,413 Table IX-7 WML&P and PMP&L Loads and Resources Intertie Case 2007 4,000 7,500 11,500 2,000 5,600 8,00 20,000 36,000 9,500 10,500 19,880 38,294 1,927 60,101 10,000 0 0 50,101 60,101 84,299 2008 4,100 7,700 11,800 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,800 10,200 20,245 39,071 1,973 61,289 10,000 51,289 61,289 83,111 2009 4,200 7,800 12,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,000 10,000 20,603 39,833 2,017 62,453 10,000 52,453 62,453 81,947 2010 4,200 8,000 12,200 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,200 9,800 20,941 40,547 2,060 63,548 10,000 53,548 63,548 80,852 2011 4,254 8,131 12,385 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,385 9,615 21,242 41,198 2,098 64,538 10,000 54,538 64,538 79,862 2012 4,308 8,264 12,572 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,572 9,428 21,548 41,859 2,136 65,543 10,000 55,543 65,543 78,857 2013 4363 8,400 12,762 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,762 9,238 21,858 42,531 2,176 66,564 10,000 56,564 66,564 77,836 2014 4,418 8537 12,956 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,956 9,044 22,172 43,214 2,215 67,601 10,000 57,601 67,601 76,799 Page 2 of 2 2015 4,475 8,677 13,152 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 11,152 8,848 22,491 43,907 2,256 68,654 10,000 58,654 68,654 75,746 2016 4,532 8,819 13,351 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 11,351 8,649 22,815 44,612 2,297 69,724 10,000 59,724 69,724 74,676 LaOdaY TWN @-XI uoyonjvay Ajddng samog Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak Less: Conservation Savings Plus: Reserve Requirement Total Requirements Capacity Resources (KV/) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel KPU Diesel Additions . Swan Lake (to serve load) Lake Tyee (to serve load) Total Resources Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements Less: Conservation Savings Total Requirement Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel Swan Lake Lake Tyee Total KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available 1992 30,800 0 19,100 49,900 11,700 14,300 8,000 19,100 0 53,100 3,200 151,955 0 151,955 62,700 7,255 82,000 0 151,955 0 oo 1993 32,100 0 20,400 52,500 11,700 14,300 8,000 20,400 0 54,400 1,900 158,569 0 158,569 62,700 13,869 82,000 0 158,569 0 oo Table IX-8 KPU Loads and Resources Intertie Case 1994 1995 1996 =—:1997_ 1998 33,100 33,700 34,000 34300 34,300 0 0 0 0 0 21,400 22,000 22,300 22,600 22,600 54,500 55,700 56,300 56,900 56,900 11,700 =11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,000 21,400 22,000 22,300 22500 22500 0 0 0 100 100 55,400 56,000 56,300 60,600 60,600 900 300 0 3,700 3,700 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 0 0 0 0 0 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 18,672 21,907 23,449 0 0 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 0 0 0 25,037 27,713 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 0 0 0 63563 60,212 0 0 0 15565 15,565 0 0 0 47,998 44,647 1999 34,900 0 23,200 58,100 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 700 61,200 3,100 173,503 0 173,503 62,700 0 82,000 28,803 173,503 58,345 15,565 42,780 2000 35,100 0 23,400 58,500 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 900 61,400 2,900 175,631 0 175,631 62,700 0 82,000 30,931 175,631 55,429 15,565 39,864 2001 35,500 0 23,800 59,300 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 1,300 61,800 2,500 177,486 0 177,486 62,700 0 82,000 32,786 35,900 0 24,200 60,100 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 1,700 62,200 2,100 178,850 0 178,850 62,700 0 82,000 34,150 Page 1 of 2 2003 36,200 0 24,500 60,700 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 2,000 62,500 1800 180,127 0 180,127 62,700 0 82,000 35,427 177,486 178,850 180,127 52,872 15,565 37,307 50,943 15,565 35,378 49,075 15,565 33510 ALLYALNJ NOISSINSNVYL INV] NVMS-3aAL av] uoijunjvayq Ajddng s200g €2-XI : 2004 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36,500 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 24,800 Total Requirements 61,300 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 KPU Diesel 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 2,300 Total Resources 62,800 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 1500 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Total Requirement 181,768 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 KPU Diesel 0 Swan Lake 82,000 Lake Tyee 37,068 Total 181,768 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 46,750 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 15,565 Additional Suplus Available 31,185 2005 36,800 0 25,100 61,900 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 2,600 63,100 1,200 183,978 0 183,978 62,700 0 82,000 39,278 183,978 43,697 15565 28,132 2006 37,200 0 25,500 62,700 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 3,000 63,500 800 186,583 0 186,583 62,700 0 82,000 41,883 186,583 40,113 15,565 24,548 Table IX-8 KPU Loads and Resources Intertie Case 2007 37,800 0 26,100 63,900 11,700 14300 12,000 22,500 3,600 64,100 200 189,512 0 189,512 62,700 0 82,000 44,812 189,512 36,115 15,565 20,550 2008 38,400 0 26,700 65,100 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 4,200 68,700 3,600 192,714 0 192,714 62,700 0 82,000 48,014 192,714 31,773 15565 16,208 2009 39,000 0 27,300 66,300 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 4,800 69,300 3,000 195,911 0 195,911 62,700 0 82,000 51,211 195,911 27,458 15,565 11,893 2010 40,300 0 28,600 68,900 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 6,100 70,600 1,700 198,917 0 198,917 62,700 0 82,000 54,217 198,917 23,401 15,565 7836 2011 40,861 0 29,161 70,021 11,700 14,300 16,000 © 22,500 6,661 71,161 1,139 201,396 0 201,396 62,700 0 82,000 56,696 201,396 19,972 15,565 4,407 2012 41,429 0 29,729 71,158 11,700 14,300 16,000 22,500 7,229 71,729 571 203,904 0 203,904 62,700 0 82,000 59,204 203,904 16,498 15,565 933 2013 42,005 0 30,305 72,311 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 7,805 76,305 3,995 206,441 0 206,441 62,700 0 82,000 61,741 206,441 12,981 12,981 0 2014 42,590 30,890 73,479 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 8,390 76890 3,410 209,007 209,007 62,700 82,000 64,307 209,007 9,420 9,420 0 Page 2 of 2 2015 43,182 30,994 74,176 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 8,494 - 76,994 2,818 211,603 211,603 62,700 82,000 66,903 211,603 5,813 5,813 0 2016 43,783 0 30,803 74,586 11,700 14,300 20,000 22,500 8,303 76,803 2,217 214,229 0 214,229 62,700 0 82,000 69529 214,229 2,160 2,160 0 LYOday TWN be-XI uoywnjoaq Ajddng sang Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak Less: Conservation Savings Plus: Reserve Requirement Total Requirements Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel KPU Diesel Additions Swan Lake (to serve load) Lake Tyee (to serve load) Total Resources Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements Less: Conservation Savings Total Requirement Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro KPU Diesel Swan Lake Lake Tyee Total KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available 1992 30,800 0 19,100 49,900 11,700 14,300 8,000 19,100 0 53,100 3,200 151,955 0 151,955 62,700 7,255 82,000 0 151,955 0 oo Table IX-9 KPU Loads and Resources Conservation Case 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 32,100 33,100 . 33,700 34,000 34300 34,300 0 0 (542) (1,083) (1,625) (2,169) 20400 21,400 21,458 21,217 20,975 20,431 52,500 54,500 54,617 54,133 53,649 52562 11,700 =11,700 =11,700 +11,700 11,700 11,700 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 20,00 21,400 21,458 21,217 20,975 20,431 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,400 55,400 55,458 55,217 54,975 54,431 1,900 900 842 «1,083 «1325 1,869 158,569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 0 0 (1,936) (3,874) (5,812) (7,756) 158,569 163,372 164,671 164,275 163,925 164,657 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 13,869 18,672 19,971 19,575 19,225 19,957 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 158569 163,372 164,671 164,275 163,925 164,657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 34,900 (2,711) 20,489 52,677 11,700 14,300 8,000 20,489 0 54,489 1,811 2000 35,100 (2,488) 20,912 53,524 11,700 14,300 8,000 20,912 0 54,912 1,388 2001 35,500 (2,265) 21,535 54,770 11,700 14,300 8,000 21,535 55,535 765 173,503 175,631 177,486 (9,695) 163,808 62,700 19,108 82,000 0 163,808 0 oo (9,017) 166,614 62,700 21,914 82,000 0 166,614 0 oo (8,338) 169,148 62,700 24,448 82,000 0 169,148 0 oo Page 1 of 2 2002 35,900 (2,041) 22,159 56,017 11,700 14,300 8,000 22,159 0 56,159 141 178,850 2003 36,200. (1,817) 22,500 56,883 11,700 14,300 12,000 22,500 0 60,500 3,617 180,127 (7,658) (6,975) 171,192 62,700 26,492 82,000 0 171,192 0 oo 173,152 62,700 28,452 82,000 0 173,152 0 oo ALLYALN] NOISSINSNVUL FAV] NVMS-3dAL INV] Table IX-9 Page 2 of 2 v KPU Loads and Resources 5 Conservation Case g <I 2004 «= 2005S 2006 -S «2007's «2008 «= 2009S «2010» 2011. «Ss 2012) «2013S 2014S 2015 2016 g Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: & Capacity Requirements (KW) 8 Ketchikan Peak 36500 36,800 37,200 37,800 38400 39,000 40300 40861 41,429 42,005 42590 43,182 43,783 Less: Conservation Savings (1,593) (1594) (1,594) (1,594) (1594) (1595) (1,572) (1,549) (1525) (1,502) (1479) (1,479) (1,480) Plus: Reserve Requirement 22,500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22,500 Total Requirements 57,407 57,706 58,106 58,706 59306 59,905 61,228 61812 62,404 63,003 63,611 64,203 64,803 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 22500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resources 60500 60500 60,500 60500 60500 60500 64500 64500 64500 64500 64500 64,500 68500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,093 2,794 2,394 1,794 =—-1,194 595 3,272 2,688 2,096 1,497 889 297 3,697 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 183,978 186,583 189512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Less: Conservation Savings (6,295) (6,295) (6,296) (6,297) (6,299) (6,300) (6,114) (5,928) (5,742) (5,556) (5,370) (5371) (5,371) Total Requirement 175,473 177,683 180,287 183,215 186,415 189,611 192,803 195,468 198,162 200,885 203,637 206,232 208,857 Energy Resources (MWh) . KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 30,773 32,983 35,587 38515 41,715 44,911 48,103 50,768 53,462 56,185 58,937 61,532 64,157 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 175,473 177,683 180,287 183,215 186,415 189,611 192803 195,468 198,162 200,885 203,637 206,232 208,857 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo St-XI LNOdaTY IVNIY SECTION X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SECTION X ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A. OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS The economic analysis performed determines the cumulative present value of the costs related to the KPU power supply cases defined in the previous section over the expected economic life of the Intertie. Although real escalation in oil costs over time are included, costs included in the analysis generally have no inflation applied in the future. The cumulative present value is therefore calculated using an inflation free discount rate, presently defined as 3% by the Authority. The relative costs used for each case vary in magnitude according to the specifics of the case. Each case is defined to provide similar levels of electric capacity and energy to KPU over the analysis period, however, the costs for this power supply vary with the specifics of the case. The analysis period is the economic lifetime of the Intertie, an assumed 30 year period beginning in 1997. Costs included in the analysis are the annual costs related to capital recovery costs of new generation and transmission additions, operation and maintenance costs of the Intertie and operation, maintenance and fuel costs of new and existing diesel generators. Excluded from the analysis are certain fixed operating and capital recovery costs related to KPU’s existing generation plant, both hydroelectric and diesel. These existing fixed costs do not affect the outcome of the economic analysis because they will be incurred no matter what case is being evaluated. The economic analysis is related to the costs of power supply additions to and operation of the KPU electric system. Since the addition of the Intertie is by contract not to affect the cost of operation of the WML&P and PMP&L systems, the cost of operation of these two systems is not included in the analysis. The cost of power from the Lake Tyee Project which is to be sold over the Intertie is assumed to have "no cost", regardless of the rate that might be changed by the Authority to KPU for such purposes. This is because there is no additional cost incurred to generate this additional power at Lake Tyee, and any payments made by KPU for such generation would constitute transfer payments rather than resource costs. In addition to the cases previously defined, the economic analysis has been performed for alternative cost assumptions to present the effect of changes to certain assumptions on the results of the economic analysis. This sensitivity analysis has been conducted for high and low oil price cases, a low KPU load growth case, a high WML&P and PMP&L case and an alternative Intertie construction cost case. B. PRINCIPAL ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions have been made in the development of the economic analysis. The principal assumptions are summarized as follows: Economic Analysis X-1 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE 1. The analysis period is the economic lifetime of the Intertie, assumed to be 30 years. The Intertie is to begin operation in 1997. All fuel costs and electric loads are held constant after 20 years. 2. All costs are stated in unescalated 1992 dollars and are assumed to have 0% per year real escalation, except for oil costs which are assumed to escalate at a real rate corresponding to the oil price projections provided by the Authority. See Item 10, below. 3. Estimated future annual costs are discounted to mid 1992 using an inflation-free discount rate of 3% as provided by the Authority. 4. The capital recovery and fixed operating costs of existing generation capacity are not included in the projection of annual costs. 5. | New diesel generation capacity is estimated to cost $1,000 per installed kW and is added as needed in 4,000 kW increments. The capital costs of new diesel additions are assumed to be recovered over a 20 year period at an annual interest rate of 3%. 6. The capital costs of the Intertie, as defined in Table VI-7, are assumed to be recovered over a 30 year period at an annual interest rate of 3%. The alternative Intertie cases evaluated in the economic analysis and related costs are as follows: Estimated Total Development Cost) ($ millions) Base Intertie Case® ............... $55.55 Low Initial Cost Scenario® ......... $46.16 Road Scenario ..............000- $49.14 (1) Includes estimated costs for permitting, engineering, design and construction. Does not include any allowance for financing costs. Costs are in 1992 dollars. (2) Identified as Alternative A - Preferred, in Table VI-7. (3) Assumes same route and configuration as the Base Intertie Case but excludes removal of merchantable timber. (4) Same as Base Intertie Case with the exception that a road is assumed to be built adjacent to the Intertie corridor prior to the Intertie construction. 7. The operations and maintenance costs of diesel generation are 1.0 cent per kWh variable and $12.50 annually per kW fixed. 8. The annual operations and maintenance cost of the Intertie varies on an annual basis as shown in Table VI-8. X-2 Economic Analysis FINAL REPORT 9. Additional power for KPU is generated from the Lake Tyee Project at no cost. 10. Oil prices for generation fuel are to increase based on projections of world oil prices developed by the Authority in October 1989. These world oil prices, in dollars per barrel, are shown below in constant 1988 dollars. Also shown are fuel prices in 1992 dollars per gallon. The fuel costs in dollars/gallon are based on the Authority’s world oil prices with adjustments for refining, delivery and other costs as presented in the "Juneau 20-Year Power Supply Plan Update" dated August 1990. KPU indicates that its most recent generation fuel purchase was priced at $0.79 per gallon. - Low Middle High 1988 1992 1988 1992 1988 1992 $/Barrel $/Gallon $/Barrel $/Gallon $/Barrel $/Gallon 1990 13 - 16 - 19 - 1992 - 0.83 - 0.95 - 1.07 2000 14 0.84 20 1.03 26 1.21 2010 15 0.87 25 1.18 35 1.49 2016 - 0.89 - 1.28 - 1.69 11. Capital costs of conservation programs are assumed to be recovered over a several year period defined separately for each program. Annual recovery costs are based on a 3% real interest rate. 12. The value of surplus hydroelectric energy sold to KPC is assumed to be 3.5 cents per kWh. This rate approximates the current surplus sales rate for surplus power sales to KPC from Swan Lake. KPC indicates that this rate exceeds its cost of oil-fired generation, currently estimated by KPC to be between 2.0 and 3.0 cents per kWh. C. METHODOLOGY The economic analysis model is integrated with the Resource Model discussed in Section IX.G.3. Alternative power supply cases are defined based on future KPU power supply requirements and, for the Intertie Case, the availability of surplus power at the Lake Tyee Project. As additional capacity resources are needed by KPU, new generation plant is assumed to be installed. With the Intertie, the amount of Lake Tyee power surplus to the needs of WML&P and PMP&L is determined based on the average capability of the Lake Tyee Project less the requirements of these two utilities. This derived surplus is assumed to be available for delivery to KPU. The actual amount of power to be delivered to KPU is dependent on KPU’s load requirement less the capability of KPU’s existing hydroelectric resources. For the Base Case, KPU’s power requirements are first met with KPU hydroelectric resources and the capability of the Swan Lake Project. Power requirements in excess of this hydroelectric supply are supplied with diesel generation. The Intertie Case replaces the use of diesel generation with the purchase of surplus energy from the Lake Tyee Project. The Intertie Economic Analysis X-3 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Case does not include any capacity credit to KPU for power purchased from the Lake Tyee Project because of the vulnerability of the Intertie to forced outages. Consequently, the Intertie Case also assumes that new diesel generation is added by KPU in the future to fully backup the power purchases over the Intertie. Both the Base Case and the Intertie Case provide equivalent amounts of capacity and energy to KPU and use the same reserve criteria. Upon determination of the sources and amounts of power from each source, the analysis derives the estimated cost of power to KPU in each year of the analysis. As previously described, these costs include capital recovery on new generation additions and operations and maintenance costs. Costs that are the same for all cases are not included in the analysis. The annual costs are projected over the analysis period and discounted to mid 1992. The summation of these discounted annual costs provides the cumulative present value of the case, a value that is suitable for comparing the relative costs of the cases. D. BASE (DIESEL) CASE The Base Case assumes that the Intertie is not constructed and that KPU is required to meet load growth with diesel generation once it has fully used its hydroelectric capability. Based on the medium load forecast for KPU and the previously defined assumptions, KPU will need to install two additional 4,000 kW diesel generator units in 1992 and one 4,000 kW unit in each of 1997, 2008 and 2013. By the end of the analysis period, KPU will have added 20,000 kW of diesel generation. At that time, the estimated amount of annual diesel generation is 69,529 MWH, representing 32% of KPU’s total energy requirement. The Base Case assumes that KPU will continue to sell surplus hydroelectric energy from the Swan Lake Project as long as there is a surplus. Once the surplus is exhausted KPU will not continue to sell energy to KPC. The total cumulative present value of the annual costs for the Base Case is $104,951,000. Table X-1 shows the estimated KPU annual costs for the Base Case, medium load forecast. For the low load growth case, the cumulative present value of the annual costs is $3,311,000. Only 4,000 kW of new diesel generation is assumed to be added for the low load growth case and no diesel generation is needed throughout the study period. E. INTERTIE CASE The Intertie Case assumes that operation of the Intertie begins in 1997. At that time, KPU can begin to offset its own diesel generation with purchases of energy from the Lake Tyee Project. Diesel generators are indicated to be needed by KPU in 1992 (two 4,000 kW units), 1997, 2008 and 2013, primarily to continue to increase the KPU generation reserve capacity to match the capacity of total deliveries over the Intertie and the existing Swan Lake to Ketchikan transmission line. By the end of the study period, KPU is estimated to purchase 72,426 MWh annually over the Intertie. The total cumulative present value of the annual costs for the Intertie Case is $69,870,000. Table X-2 shows the estimated KPU annual costs for the Intertie Case, medium load forecast. For the high WML&P and PMP&L load forecast case (medium KPU forecast), the cumulative present value of the annual costs is $108,292,000. This case results in much less surplus Lake X-4 Economic Analysis FINAL REPORT Tyee power available to KPU. The low KPU load forecast case, which is based on essentially no growth in the Ketchikan area, results in a cumulative present value of $53,384,000. F. CONSERVATION CASE The economic analysis for the Conservation Case assumes that conservation programs are implemented as defined and that the estimated savings in energy and capacity demand are achieved. The initial installation costs of the programs are assumed to be repaid, for the most part, over a ten year period. Costs may be incurred over multiple years for a particular program depending on the nature of the program and the assumed implementation plan. As conservation programs are added, KPU power requirements are reduced. As loads continue to grow, however, additional generation resources are needed. For. the Conservation Case, the additional resources are assumed to be diesel generators. This case is therefore a modification of the Base Case. It should be added, that the assumed timing of the implementation of conservation programs is such that the offset power source is diesel generation and not hydroelectric generation. The benefits of conservation programs cannot be realized until the power source that is offset has a cost related to it. Hydroelectric generation has essentially no variable cost. The cumulative present value of the Conservation Case is $97,498,000. Annual cost projections are shown in Table X-3. G. COMPARISON OF RESULTS Table X-4 provides a comparison of the cumulative present value for the various cases evaluated. As can be seen in this table, the lowest cost alternative using the basic assumptions is the Intertie Case. The computation of annual costs, from which the cumulative present value is determined, are shown in the results of the Resource Model analyses under the heading "Economic Analysis" included in Appendix G. Economic Analysis X-5 9X sishjmuy 21u0u0sz Table X-1 Page 1 of 2 Economic Analysis Base Case 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 = =2001 2002 2003 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $490 $955 $1,305 $1552 $1,679 $1808 $2,014 $2,104 $2,267 $2,471 $2,636 $2,790 Variable O&M 73 139 187 219 234 250 277 288 309 328 342 354 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) ' 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 538 538 538 538 538 807 807 807 807 807 807 807 Total Diesel Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 += $2,408 = $2,551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) g Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 $2,408 $2551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 - $2,408 $2,551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) $72,321 (in thousands) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth 32,630 (in thousands) Total Net Present Value $104,951 (in thousands) ALLYALN] NOISSINSNVYL AAV] NVMS-aSAL DIVT sishjmuy omuouorz LX Table X-1 Page 2 of 2 Economic Analysis Base Case 2008 «62005 = 2006 )S 2007's 2008)= 2009S «2010S «2011'S 2012, 2013-S «2014S 2015S 2016 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $2,969 $3,191 $3,442 $3,717 $4,012 $4,302 $4571 $4848 $5,134 $5,429 $5,735 $6,050 $6,377 Variable O&M 371 393 419 448 480 512 542 567 592 617 643 669 695 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 807 807 807 807 1,075 1,075 1075 1,075 538 807 807 807 807 Total Diesel Costs $4,296 $4540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6,389 $6,690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) i Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $4,296 $4540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6,389 $6,690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $4,296 $4540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6,389 $6,690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 LYOdAY TWNIA 8-X sish}ouy ouu0Uu0dz Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) 1992 $490 73 100 538 $1,201 0 $0 $1,201 0 $1,201 1993 $955 139 100 538 $1,731 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $1,731 0 $1,731 Table X-2 Economic Analysis Intertie Case 1994 $1,305 187 100 538 $2,130 $0 1995 $1552 219 100 538 $2,408 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $2,408 0 $2,408 1996 $1,679 234 100 538 $2,551 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 0 $0 $2,551 0 $2,551 1997 $0 0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,037 1,043 26,080 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 1998- 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,713 1,155 28,868 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth Total Net Present Value 1999 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,803 1,200 30,003 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2000 $0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,931 1,289 32,220 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2001 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,786 1,366 34,152 $0 $2,834 159 $2,993 $3,949 (545) $3,404 $53,341 (in thousands) 16,528 (in thousands) $69,870 (in thousands) Page 1 of 2 2002 = 2003 $0 $0 0 0 150 150 807 807 $957 $957 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,150 35,427 1,423, 1,476 35,573 36,903 $0 $0 $2,834 $2,834 109 109 $2,943 $2,943 $3,899 $3,899 (545) (645) $3,354 $3,354 ALLUALN] NOISSINSNVUL IV] NVMS-SdAL INV] sishjouy a1u0U0I7 6X Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) * 2004 150 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,068 1545 38,613 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2005 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,278 1637 40,915 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2006 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00° 41,883 1,745 43,628 $0 $2,834 259 $3,093 $4,049 (545) $3,504 Table X-2 Economic Analysis 2007 $0 0 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 44,812 1,867 46,679 $2,834 151 $2,985 $3,942 (545) $3,397 Intertie Case 2008 $0 0 200 1,075 $1,275 0.00 0.00 0.00 48,014 2,001 50,015 $2,834 151 $2,985 $4,261 (545) $3,716 2009 0.00 0.00 51,211 2,134 53,345 $2,834 151 $2,985 $4,261 (545) $3,716 2010 $0 200 1,075 $1,275 0.00 0.00 0.00 54,217 2,259 56,476 $2,834 151 $2,985 $4,261 (545) $3,716 2011 200 1,075 $1,275 0.00 0.00 0.00 56,696 2362 . 59,059 $2,834 366 $3,200 $4,476 (545) $3,931 2012 200 538 $738 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,204 2,467 61,671 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $3,759 (545) $3,214 2013 $0 250 807 $1,057 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,741 2573 64,313 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $4,078 (454) $3,623 2014 $0 250 807 $1,057 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,307 2,679 66,986 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $4,078 (330) $3,748 Page 2 of 2 2015 $0 250 807 $1,057 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,903 2,788 69,690 $2,834 187 $3,021 $4,078 (203) $3,874 2016 $0 0 250 807 $1,057 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 69,529 2,897 72,426 $0 $2,834 303 $3,136 $4,193 (76) $4,117 LNoday TWN OL-x sishjouy Iuuou0rz Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) Table X-3 Economic Analysis Conservation Case 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 = 1998 1999 $490 $955 $1,305 $1,415 $1,401 $1,388 $1451 $1,396 73 139 187 200 196 192 200 191 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 = $2,252 $2,235 $2,218 += $2,288 = $2,225 $0 $0 $0 $509 $509 $509 $509 $509 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130» $2,761 $2,744 $2,727 $2,797 $2,734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 = $2,761 $2,744 $2,727 $2,797 $2,734 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) $66,666 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth 30,832 Total Net Present Value $97,498 Page 1 of 2 2000 2001 2002 =. 2003 $1,606 $1,843 $2,045 $2,241 219 244 265 285 100 100 100 150 538 538 538 807 $2,463 $2,725 $2,947 $3,482 $432 $432, $422 $422 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2895 $3,157 $3,369 $3,904 0 0 0 0 $2,895 $3,157 $3,369 $3,904 (in thousands) (in thousands) (in thousands) ALLYALNI NOISSINSNVUL FAV] NVMS-3SAL DIV] sishjouy onuou0rz II-X Table X-3 Page 2 of 2 Economic Analysis Conservation Case 2004 §=62005 20063 2007, «2008 )3= 2009-2010. Ss «2011'S «2012s 2013S «2014S «2015'S 2016 Economic Analysis; Diesel Costs ($000) ; Fuel $2,465 $2,679 $2,925 $3,195 $3,486 $3,773 $4,056 $4,341 $4,636 $4,941 $5,256 $5,565 $5,884 Variable O&M j 308 330 356 385 417 449 481 508 535 562 589 615 642 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 150 150 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 807 807 807 807 807 807 1,075 1,075 538 538 538 538 807 Total Diesel Costs $3,729 $3,966 $4,237 $4537 $4,859 $5,178 $5,812 $6,124 $5,908 $6,240 $6583 $6,918 $7582 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $422, «$125 $125. $255 $255 $255 $254 $254 $98 $99 $99 $98 $98 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost : Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $4,151 $4,091 $4,362 $4,791 $5,114 $5,433 $6,067 $6,379 $6,007 $6,339 $6,682 $7,016 $7,680 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $4,151 $4,091 $4,362 $4,791 $5,114 $5,433 $6,067 $6,379 $6,007 $6,339 $6,682 $7,016 $7,680 LYOdAY TWNIF LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE Table X-4 Comparison of Economic Analysis Results (1992 $000) Cumulative Present Value of System Costs Case ($000) Basic Assumptions”) Base (Diesel) Case ........ 0... cece eee eee eee $104,951 Miter tie CaSO re rez enone wovorote fone ore elo et ei i oioraieioxerorsionstasms iar 69,870 Conpervation (CA06 isan 60s 4 sec cece ensaueeuns 97,498 Alternative Assumptions?) Base Case TW Buel CS te eres reper erererteieisieireecicutaceecenereroneaeioaene $85,210 Li ghy Ruel; Cos ticererersr-eercror-ren-vonensteforeonenersasseworetets 124,925 Low KPU Load Forecast ............ 002202005 3,311 Intertie Case Mow Buel Costs carers teserereotererercreroteiefocsueieqsien aici $69,079 igh Fuel (Costierersereteres-sc1e1-c lek) fo eee 70,662 High WML&P and PMP&L Load Forecast ....... 108,292 Low KPU Load Forecast ...........000 ee ee eee 53,384 Low Intertie Cost ... 0.2... . eee eee ee eee eee 61,890 Road Precedes Intertie ...............0.-0 eee 63,624 (1) Basic assumptions include the medium (base) load forecast, medium fuel cost forecast and the "Base Case" Intertie cost estimate. (2) Alternative cases vary from the "Basic Assumption" cases only for the particular variable identified. In addition to the cases summarized in Table X-4, an economic analysis was performed assuming development of either the Mahoney Lake project or a KPC wood waste fueled generation addition. These two cases provide adjustments to the Base Case resource plan and use operating characteristics and cost assumptions defined in Section IX.G.1. of this report. Because of the speculative nature of these two resources and because the development costs have not been evaluated in detail as a part of this Feasibility Study, the economic analysis incorporating them is provided only for reference. The cumulative present value for the Mahoney Lake case is $91,026,000 and for the KPC wood waste case is $80,554,000. X-12 Economic Analysis FINAL REPORT H. ANALYSIS OF THE EXPANSION OF THE LAKE TYEE PROJECT Design and construction of the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project anticipated the addition of a third 10 MW turbine generator at a later date. This would increase the peaking capacity of the project but would essentially provide minimal additional energy generation because of limitations in the hydraulic storage capacity of the lake itself. Assuming average water conditions, the average additional energy potential of the Lake Tyee project with the third 10 MW turbine generator is estimated to be 1,000 MWh per year. With the Intertie, the expanded capability of the Lake Tyee project could provide some benefits to the integrated system through greater peaking capacity at Lake Tyee and by allowing more effective utilization of the Swan Lake project. Coordinated operation could provide some increased generation among all of the integrated hydroelectric projects by taking advantage of the differing hydrologic and storage characteristics of the various projects. Most of this increased generation would be realized with the Intertie alone regardless of the installation of the third turbine at Lake Tyee. System reliability enhancements would be realized with the third turbine. Representatives from the communities of Petersburg and Wrangell have expressed a significant desire to install the third turbine generator at the Lake Tyee Project. Reasons given for this expansion are primarily related to reliability issues in that the full energy capability of the Lake Tyee Project cannot be realized with just one turbine in service. Periodically one of the turbines is out of service for maintenance or repair. If major failure or damage were to occur to one of the turbine generators, and an extensive outage were to occur, the single turbine would be unable to handle the full hydraulic capacity of the Lake Tyee reservoir system. The achievable plant factor (the ratio of average generation output to maximum generation capacity) for the Lake Tyee Project is 77% whereas that of the Swan Lake Project is 42%. With a third turbine generator, the plant factor on the Lake Tyee Project would be 51% also which would mean that the entire annual hydraulic capacity of the Lake Tyee reservoir could be handled with one of the units down. The cost of installing a third 10 MW turbine generator at the Lake Tyee powerhouse is estimated to be $6,160,000 in 1992 dollars. This cost includes the costs for furnishing and installing the turbine, governor, spherical valve, generator, exciter, control boards and SCADA equipment, switchgear, switchyard additions and second stage concrete. The estimated cost also includes the estimated costs of engineering and administration and a 20 percent contingency. It does not include the financing costs, and the cost of replacement power during the installation of the spherical valve, a task estimated to require approximately 20 days, which requires shutdown of the entire Lake Tyee project. This cost estimate has been made based on the escalation and adjustment of the actual costs of the two existing Lake Tyee turbine-generator units averaged with the costs of a similar project constructed recently in Washington state. The estimated costs of the Lake Tyee expansion are shown in Table X-5. The incremental annual operations and maintenance costs associated with the third turbine generator at Lake Tyee are estimated to be approximately $50,000 in 1991 dollars. An economic analysis of the third turbine generator has been developed to evaluate the benefits and costs of this proposed addition. This analysis is based on the premise that there is a reasonable possibility that one of the turbine generators at the Lake Tyee Project will be forced out of service during peak generation periods. Presently, the Lake Tyee Project does not generate its full capacity because the load does not require it. With the Intertie, however, the Economic Analysis X-13 LAKE TYEE-SWAN LAKE TRANSMISSION INTERTIE project will at some time be required to generate at full capacity. According to the outage statistics maintained by the North American Electric Reliability Council, a hydroelectric turbine generator is forced out of service for emergency repairs or other reasons an average of 174 hours or 7.3 days per year. Assuming, for illustrative purposes, a 6 MW average load on the Lake Tyee Project, this outage is equivalent to 1,051 MWh per year (6 MW x 7.3 days/year x 24 hours/day) that would need to be supplied from a replacement source of power. If the outage occurred exclusively at times when only one of the two 10 MW units was available to serve load (ie., the other unit is down for scheduled maintenance) the total replacement power requirement would be 2,102 MWh per year. With the third turbine generator the need for replacement power would be negligible because the third turbine would be available to supply power if one of the other units was down. Using similar assumptions defined for the economic analysis of the Intertie, the annual costs for capital recovery and operation and maintenance of the third turbine generator have been estimated over the economic lifetime of the third turbine, assumed to be 50 years. The cumulative present value of these costs over the 50 year period is $7,446,000. The cost of the replacement power that the third turbine would supply is estimated based on the avoided cost of diesel generation. Assuming that the third turbine displaces 2,050 MWh annually of diesel generation (1,000 MWh for additional average energy plus 1,050 MWh during outages), the cumulative present value of the savings in replacement power costs is $4,879,000. The result of this analysis is that the estimated benefits of the third turbine over its economic life are less than the estimated costs. Further, it is assumed in this analysis that the water not used for generation during turbine downtime is not used at a different time of the year to offset diesel generation. If this water stored in the Lake Tyee reservoir could be used to offset diesel generation at other times, the benefits associated with the third turbine generator would be less. Table X-5 Lake Tyee Third Unit Estimated Cost of Construction“! (1992 Dollars) Item Estimated Cost Turbines, Governors and Valves $1,550,000 Generators and Accessories 1,000,000 SCADA and Communications Equipment 550,000 Power Transformer 250,000 Other Switchyard Costs 210,000 Subtotal $3,560,000 Installation $900,000 Contingency @ 20.0% 900,000 Engineering and Owner's Costs @ 15.0% 800,000 Total Construction Cost $6,160,000 (1) Does not include costs for replacement power during shutdown of power tunnel, interest during construction or financing costs. X-14 Economic Analysis BIBLIOGRAPHY RW, BECK | ee me scones SS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study by Harza Engineering Company, October 1987, for the Alaska Power Authority [2] Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project, Wrangell and Petersburg, Alaska, FERC Project No. 3015, Final Construction Report by International Engineering Company, Inc. and Robert W. Retherford Associates, September 1984, for the Alaska Power Authority [3] Swan Lake Project Transmission Line Facilities, Cross-Country Portion, Design Memorandum 302 by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. [4] Tyee Lake 138 kV Transmission Line Conductor, Structures & Foundations, Wrangell _to Petersburg by Dryden & LaRue, Inc., December 5, 1991, for the Alaska Energy Authority [5] Aluminum Electrical Conductor Handbook, Second Edition; 1982 by the Aluminum Association [6] Design Manual for High Voltage Transmission Lines by the United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Electrification Administration, Bulletin 62-1, Revised August 1980 [7] Tyee/Swan Lake Intertie Draft Report Letter dated January 11, 1991 by Ketchikan Public Utilities to the Alaska Energy Authority (8] American National Standard, National Electrical Safety Code by Secretariat, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., 1990 Edition [9] Transmission Line Design Manual by Holland H. Farr, United States Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, 1980 [10] Preliminary Geotechnical Survey, Swan Lake to Tyee Lake Intertie, R&M Project No. 911170 by R&M Engineering, Inc., October 31, 1991, for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Juneau, Alaska {11] Preliminary Feasibility Study of the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Intertie Road, Ketchikan Public Utilities by R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc., September 1991 [12] Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Summary by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, June 1990 [13] Preliminary Market and Financial Assessment of the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Intertie by RSA Engineering, Inc. and R. W. Beck and Associates, Draft-December 27, 1990, for the Alaska Energy Authority [14] Guidelines for Transmission Line, Structural Loading by the Committee on Electrical Transmission Structures of the Committee on Analysis and Design of Structures of the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers Bibliography Page 1 COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE AGENCY REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Fourth and Blanchard Building, Suite 600 # 2101 Fourth Avenue @ Seattle, Washington 98121-2375 m USA Telephone (206) 441-7500 @ Fax (206) 441-4962 WS-1559-BA1-AA June 10, 1992 Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P. O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519 Dear Mr. Emerman: Tyee-Swan Intertie Study Response to Comments on Draft Report In response to the questions and comments provided by various agencies on the Feasibility Study Draft Report (the “Report"), we have prepared the following explanations. The comments from the agencies are found in the letters at the end of this letter. Specific comments addressed in the various letters are identified numerically in the margins of the letters. Our responding comments make references to various sections of the Report as needed. A. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Mr. Don Cornelius, Area Habitat Biologist April 8, 1992 Comment 1.1A : Eagle Bay Crossing Mr. Comelius comments that a crossing of Eagle Bay, parallel to and at the same elevation as the existing Tyee Lake line crossing, would be preferable to a separate, second crossing. We agree and for this reason the preferred Alternative does include a high elevation crossing (see Section V.B, page V-2, second paragraph). Mr. Cornelius suggests that an alternative to this second crossing would be a route that stayed entirely on uplands on the eastern side of the Eagle River basin from Eagle Bay to an unspecified point where the route would cross over to the western side of the drainage. The use of high country on the east side of the drainage was considered in Route Alternatives R1B and RIC. This eastern side of the drainage is characterized by very steep and demonstrably unstable slopes, with avalanches and wind damaged sections very much in evidence. Field reconnaissance has substantiated this conclusion, namely, that locating a transmission line on the east slopes of the Eagle River drainage would constitute an unacceptable reduction in line reliability, essentially defeating its purpose. In addition to the unstable slopes, the high elevations would present a situation of very heavy ice and wind loading requiring costly construction and which would make maintenance very problematic based on experience to date. Austin, TX m Boston, MA = Columbus, NE = Denver, CO @ Indianapolis, IN = Minneapolis, MN Nashville, TN # Orlando, FL = Phoenix, AZ = Sacramento, CA m Seattle, Washington Mr. Richard Emerman =i June 10, 1992 Comment 1.1B: Overhead Crossings of Behm Canal, Bell Arm and Shrimp Bay The Department of Fish and Game “strongly oppose(s) any aerial crossings of waterways used by waterfowl." In addition the letter states that “the only environmentally acceptable crossings ... Will be underwater." We share the concern expressed over the potential obstruction posed by improperly located and marked aerial lines to both waterfowl and aircraft. The crossings in question would be marked appropriately in accordance with waterfowl protection guidelines and new, innovative marking measures would be explored. The Department and others should be fully consulted in this process. Further, it is anticipated that field surveys of waterfowl flyways would be conducted at each principal crossing to determine an appropriate wire elevation which would minimize the obstruction risk. Any aerial crossing of a marine waterway in Southeast Alaska would be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for both approval of obstruction marking and placement on FAA obstruction charts. The letter makes reference to “areas where significant losses of waterfowl along important waterfowl flyways have been recorded." The available literature cited in the Report indicates, however, that bird strikes represent less than 1% of the total crossings made. Our conclusion is that there would be no effect on the populations of birds from that low level of strikes. The studies cited reported that dabbling ducks were the most affected species of all birds that crossed. These studies were conducted in the Pacific Flyway and the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. The delta supports more than 600,000 waterfowl which include species common in Southeast Alaska. Researchers have been unable to draw consistent conclusions between periods of low visibility (fog, rain, night) and bird strike. Some results indicate slightly higher rates of bird strike and some report slightly lower rates. We would appreciate receiving from the Department citations of additional reports and studies that would assist in analyzing bird/transmission line relationships. Comment 1.1C: No Consideration of Submarine Crossings in Economic Analysis The letter incorrectly states that a cost of $4.1 million was allocated to a 9 mile submarine cable crossing. The $4.1 million estimate was for a 1.7 mile crossing with the benefit of a skeletal bathymetric survey of the underwater route. The route in question is for the Behm Canal crossing from Bell Island to Revillagigedo Island as shown in [1, Appendix 1, Crossing 8.5]. Neither of the crossings for Bell Arm or Shrimp Bay has been surveyed and the technical feasibility of laying cables and siting transition stations on the shores has not been determined. This would require detailed bathymetric surveys. Mr. Richard Emerman -3- June 10, 1992 An underwater crossing of Bell Arm at the crossing point shown on Figure V-5 would be extremely difficult and technically undesirable due to steep slopes. The requirement to cross Bell Arm underwater would require either (1) routing the line over very rugged terrain to the entrance of Short Bay in search of acceptable sites for cable terminations or (2) routing the line along the east shore of Anchor Pass for either a submarine crossing to Bell Island and then to Revillagigedo Island or directly to Revillagigedo Island parallel to the Misty Fjords National Monument (MFNM) boundary. The latter route parallel to MFNM is contained in Route Alternative RIC (see page V-6 and Figure V-5, Segment 11) and has been criticized for its proximity to the MFNM and for its probable adverse visual impacts. A bathymetric survey was performed for a crossing from Pt. Lees to Claude Point [1, Appendix 1, Crossing 8.6], indicating probable technical feasibility. However, this particular crossing lies within the MFNM. No bathymetric survey has been performed for the 1.7 mile direct crossing from Pt. Lees to Revillagigedo Island. Final determination of feasibility would depend on detailed survey findings. The cost of this crossing is estimated to be $4.76 million and was included as part of Alternative C in Table E-3 in Appendix E. The crossing of Shrimp Bay is tied to Route Alternative R1A which follows the Neets Creek drainage, taking advantage of previously logged land and avoiding impacts to the important wildlife habitat of Orchard Creek. Route Alternatives R1B and RID include the Orchard Creek route segment. No bathymetric survey has been performed for this crossing and technical feasibility is undetermined. Placing this crossing underwater would in all probability make the Orchard Creek route Alternative R1D considerably less expensive than the Shrimp Bay route. A Shrimp Bay submarine crossing might cost $3-4 million, provided a suitable underwater route and cable termination sites could be found. Comment 1.2: Raptor Protection of Lines The Department comments that the spacing of the 3-pole heavy angle structure shown in Figure IV-5 appears inadequate for raptor safety and that sheathing (e.g. insulating energized parts with polyethylene covers adjacent to structures) should be considered. Figure IV-5 does not show the spacing between poles which will be 19’-25’ depending on the transmission line angle at the structure. The spacing between conductors themselves would be maintained at 17.5’ (see Figure IV-3), sufficient to prevent accidental raptor contact between phases. At the structure itself, a raptor perching on the pole top could, upon taking off, possibly establish contact between an energized phase conductor and the wood structure or guy wires. The same would be true if a raptor chose to perch on the stand-off insulator or jumper wire, although we consider this unlikely since the pole top is a more natural perch. It is intended that the structures be designed to prevent raptor contact between energized parts and wood or guy wires. Mitigation measures might include increased pole-energized part spacing, extended pole tops and/or raptor perches above the energized conductors, insulator assembly extension from the pole face, and sheathing as suggested, depending on raptor characteristics and behavior. We would be interested in receiving the recent European literature regarding sheathing. We note that ratings for typical line covers for maintenance work Mr. Richard Emerman -4- June 10, 1992 in the United States do not exceed 46 kV phase-to-phase approximately and would be most appropriate for raptor protection on distribution class lines. Comment 1.3: Construction Activity Timing in the Vicinity of Bald Eagle Nests It is planned that the most recent available information on the location of bald eagle nests along the final construction route will be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and made known to all parties, including the construction contractor especially. The construction contract would clearly stipulate and show both buffer zones and construction activity timing constraints, which would be developed in close consultation with knowledgeable authorities. The line would be located to the maximum practical extent well beyond the buffer zones and, if at all possible, at no location would it be within the buffer zone. The construction manager would be responsible for enforcing these requirements. Comment 1.4: Wildlife Migration Corridors The Department specifies dimensions and spacing for wildlife migration corridors across the right-of-way in the event felled trees are allowed to remain in the right-of-way. These requirements would be incorporated into the construction contract document and rigorously enforced by inspection teams. Comment 1.5: Felling Trees Along Anadromous Fish Streams The Department notes that trees should be felled away from such streams where possible, but that some trees felled into the streams may be either unavoidable or desirable to provide woody debris. The Department states that this situation should be decided on a stream-by-stream basis during the EIS preparation in close consultation with them. In a phone conversation with Mr. Cornelius it was clarified that, given the detailed, extensive field work required for the final alignment, the treatment of felled timber adjacent to these streams would be more appropriately determined during the engineering design phase in connection with centerline survey. These stream-by-stream solutions would be clearly shown and included in the construction contract document and vigorously enforced by inspection teams. Comment 1.6: Transmission Line Parallel to Anadromous Streams In a phone conversation with Mr. Cornelius we clarified that the concern is the permanent removal of timber and sources of woody debris from stream banks if the stream falls entirely in the cleared right-of-way for significant stretches. We note that a requirement to avoid running parallel to anadromous fish streams would have a significant effect on the project since the generally preferred alignments follow the Eagle River, Beaver Creek, Klu Creek, Klam Creek, Orchard Creek, Neets Creek, and Carroll Creek, several, if not all, of which are anadromous fish streams. ,A more site-specific level of planning is to be accomplished during final design. Mr. Richard Emerman -5- June 10, 1992 Comment 1.7: Delete Mention of Expediting Title 16 Permit The Department suggests that expediting the Title 16 permit is not necessary and that its mention on page VII-1 be deleted. The mention will be deleted in the Final Report. In a phone conversation with Mr. Cornelius we clarified that the tum-around period for review of the Title 16 permit is 30 days and that our assumption of 30-60 days as referenced in the Report is appropriate without mentioning the possibility of expediting. Comment 1.8: Heavy Equipment Crossing of Anadromous Fish Streams All helicopter construction is expected for this transmission line. No heavy equipment crossing of streams is anticipated and, in the unlikely event it would be required, due caution for timing restrictions would be exercised. Title 16 authorization would be obtained for each. stream where heavy equipment crossing is determined to be necessary. This would likely be made part of the construction contract by prohibiting such crossings, except where absolutely necessary and then only with the stipulation that the construction contractor obtain the Title 16 authorization. The statement cited in Appendix H, page 4, Section 1.3.7, is an issue raised during an agency scoping meeting, not a proposed action. Comment 1.9: Title 16 Permits Unless the project description is changed, instream work will not occur and a Title 16 Permit will not be required. Should it become necessary to obtain a Title 16 Permit, an application will be made in as timely a manner as possible. Comment 1.10: Mountain Goat Winter Range and Goat Kidding Areas One of the recommendations made in the Report is to survey mountain goat habitat to determine areas of use and population numbers that could be affected by the proposed Intertie. Once the goat habitat is delineated and population numbers estimated, it will be possible to estimate the effect the proposed Intertie may have on the mountain goats. In the absence of information, it may be necessary to make a worst case scenario to estimate effects. Comment 1.11: Increased Hunting Pressure from Construction Workers _ Camp locations have not been determined. If field camps are to be used, the effects of human presence on bears can be estimated from Tables 12 and 13, Appendix H, pp. 42 and 43. Similar estimates are not available for mountain goats. It may be possible to mitigate these effects by restricting hunting as suggested in the comment. Mr. Richard Emerman -6- June 10, 1992 Comment 1.12: Wilderness Experience Impact Comments noted. The proposed Intertie will undoubtedly diminish the total wilderness experience of some. In the final design, we anticipate that significant efforts would be expended to minimize this impact. Comment 1.13: Bald Eagles on Duck Point We have noted that Duck Point at Eagle Bay is a popular spot for bald eagle nests. These will have to be located carefully before any final siting of a remote substation on Duck Point. Please note that a remote substation at this location is not desirable for reasons other than potential disturbance of eagle nests and is not included in the preferred route alternative. (See Section IIl.E.2 for a discussion.) 2. Department of the Army U.S. Army Engineers District, Alaska Mr. Glen E. Justis, Eastern Team Leader Project Evaluation Section - South March 25, 1992 Comment 2.1: Section 10 Permit The Department notes that a permit will be required for compliance with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This will be added to the discussion in Section VII. Specific application of Section 404 and its submittal requirements are noted. Comment 2.2: Sections 402 and 404 Permits - Log Transfer Sites The Department states that new log transfer facilities, whether using water storage or bag booms, requires permit authorization in coordination with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. This is noted and will be added to the discussion in Section VII. Comments related to the evaluation of “practicable alternatives" are noted. : Comment 2.3: Wetlands Delineation Comments related to delineation of wetlands are noted. Mr. Richard Emerman -7- June 10, 1992 3. Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Mr. Dennis Lewis, Superintendent March 25, 1992 Comment 3.1: Cost of Air Quality Control Permits The permitting procedure for air quality is discussed on p. 13 of Appendix H. Additional diesel generation would not necessarily require new permits under the Clean Air Act. While there is a likelihood that extensive permitting procedures could be triggered, it is impossible to evaluate without knowing where the generator would be located and what type of diesel equipment and fuel would be used. Comment 3.2: Crystal Lake Hydro Absorbing Volt Ampere Reactives ("VAR") The Power Technologies system study in Appendix I includes the Crystal Lake Hydro facility in its system model. Under most load flow scenarios, Crystal Lake Hydro does absorb Tyee Lake VARs, operating at 0.98-0: 99 pf leading. VAR absorption on the Crystal Lake units can be seen in the power flow simulation plots included in Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, Appendix IL For development of the power flow database used in this study, the impedance of the Crystal Lake generator step-up transformer was taken from an October 8, 1982 report from EBASCO as was the impedance data for the Crystal Lake to Petersburg 24.9 kV line. The transformer winding voltage ratings and tap ratio for this transformer were assumed. AEA did not provide transformer nameplate drawings, test reports or operating records to verify the information for the Crystal Lake step-up transformer, nor any information which would verify the impedance of the line. Thus, it was not possible to establish whether the VAR absorption on the Crystal Lake units observed in the power flow model actually represented the present situation. ; The letter from Petersburg mentions that Petersburg attempts to maintain power factors on its-system to 90% lagging or better through rate structure penalties. Although not explicitly stated, the letter implies that the lack of power factor correction on the entire TWP system is partially responsible for the VAR absorption at Crystal Lake. This does not appear to be the case, and this is discussed in the following paragraphs. VAR absorption by the Crystal Lake units occurs due to the presence of high voltage on the Crystal Lake 24.9 kV bus. Given no other changes or adjustments on the system, improvement of power factors (say, nearer to unity) on the TWP system would further raise system voltages and compound the VAR absorption at Crystal Lake. Rather, the cause of the high voltage at Crystal Lake is a function of the voltage rise across the Crystal Lake to Petersburg 24.9 kV line and the 24.9 kV bus voltage maintained at Petersburg. Mr. Richard Emerman -8- June 10, 1992 Regardless of power factors on the TWP system (within reasonable limits), the voltage at the Petersburg 24.9 kV bus can be maintained to any desired level by the LTC on the Petersburg 69/24.9 kV transformer. The voltage rise across the Crystal Lake to Petersburg line is simply a function of the line’s impedance (primarily the resistance) and the amount of power transferred from Crystal Lake to Petersburg. The Crystal Lake to Petersburg line is about 18 miles long and has a resistance of about 20.7 ohms and a reactance of 17.5 ohms. Given a Crystal Lake plant output of 1.9 MW as assumed in this study, this results in about a 1.2 kV voltage rise from Petersburg to Crystal Lake. Minimizing the voltage at the Crystal Lake 24.9 kV bus (and thus VAR absorption on the units) would require one of several actions: + Reconductoring of the Crystal Lake to Petersburg 24.9 kV line to reduce its impedance and thus the voltage rise across this line. . Adding a second 24.9 kV or higher voltage line from Crystal Lake to Petersburg to reduce the total impedance. ¢ Serving more load from the Crystal Lake 24.9 kV bus, thus decreasing the amount of power flowing over the line and thereby reducing the voltage rise. ¢ Alternatively, using a higher voltage tap on the Crystal Lake step-up transformer to allow the units to operate with less VAR absorption. This would further increase the voltage on the 24.9 kV bus at Crystal Lake, however. Comment 3.3: Tyee Lake Third Turbine and Diesel Peaking Units It is not anticipated that Petersburg and Wrangell would use diesel generator units during peak periods. Petersburg and Wrangell are presumed to have first rights to both capacity and energy from the Lake Tyee Project and would not need diesel generation except in emergencies or during outages of the Lake Tyee system. Comment 3.4: Figure III-2 and Crystal Lake Hydro Figure III-2 is only intended to show the planned Intertie in relation to the overall Tyee- Swan system. It is too congested to have include all features. The system studies contained in Appendix H do include and show the Crystal Lake facility. Mr. Richard Emerman -9- June 10, 1992 Comment 3.5: Communications System We agree that it would be logical and desirable to upgrade the individual project SCADA systems and to implement centralized dispatching for the combined Tyee-Swan system. Implementing central dispatching would require agreement at several levels on the location and protocol for systems operation. Central dispatching would facilitate any coordination of reservoir and power operations. Discussions with KPU staff indicate that KPU could dispatch the Lake Tyee Project from KPU’s present control center without significant additions to either the control center or the existing SCADA system. In addition, KPU feels that it could maintain and operate both the Swan Lake and Lake Tyee Projects with a rotating staff if both projects were interconnected. KPU estimates that joint operating, maintenance and dispatching could save approximately $400,000 per year from current budget requirements for these functions. Comment 3.6: Benefits of Project to Tyee Lake System This Feasibility Study was initiated on the premise that developing the Intertie would be most justifiable on the grounds of delivering excess Lake Tyee power to the Ketchikan area. An interconnected system, including Ketchikan, would certainly provide benefits to Petersburg and Wrangell. These benefits should include improved reliability, access to KPU resources during outage of the Lake Tyee Project and long-term access to future resources that may be developed in the Ketchikan area. In addition, the sale of surplus Lake Tyee power should reduce the existing unit cost of power from the Four Dam Pool projects and would benefit all Four Dam Pool participants, including Petersburg and Wrangell. Comment 3.7: Section X Economic Analysis Assumptions The specific details of any sale of power to KPU from the Lake Tyee Project have not been determined. AEA indicates that, as Four Dam Pool participants, Petersburg and Wrangell will be parties to any power sales negotiations involving the Lake Tyee Project. Comment 3.8: Sales Agreement See previous response. Mr. Richard Emerman - 10- June 10, 1992 4. United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic.and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Mr. Steve Pennoyer, Director - Alaska Region April 7, 1992 Comment 4.1: Log Transfer Points Department of Army Section 402 and/or 404 permits will be required for new log transfer facilities and we acknowledge that the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") would have an interest in such permitting as it affects its responsibility for marine resources. While the NMFS does not issue permits for this activity, we recognize its responsibility for marine resources which could be affected. Permits would be obtained from the Corps of Engineers and conditions in those permits would be developed with NMFS to protect marine resources. Comment 4.2: Steller Sea Lion We thank the NMFS for the map of known Steller sea lion haulouts. The Steller sea lion is listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. While the nearest known population of Steller sea lions is located at Grindall Island 40 to 50 miles by water from the project area, an evaluation will be made of the possible effects of this project on Steller sea lions during preparation of the EIS if the Project proceeds. There is no obvious adverse effect to the Steller sea lion from the proposed Intertie that would preclude the Project’s feasibility as currently described. We note that no haulout is shown in the vicinity of any proposed route for the Intertie, with the possible exception of the Grindall Island haulout. Alternative Route R3 along the Cleveland Peninsula would be the closest route to any shown haulout and is at least 5 miles from Grindall Island. 5. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Forest Service Tongass National Forest - Ketchikan Area Mr. David D. Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor April 10, 1992 Comment 5.1: Project EIS Not Supplemental EIS Required We understand that an EIS will likely be required before the Forest Service could issue its permit for the Project. Thank you for clarifying that the EIS would be project level and would not be a supplement to the Tongass Land Management Plan. We have rewritten page I-2 to clarify. Mr. Richard Emerman -1l- June 10, 1992 Comment 5.2: Environmental Review Not Consistent with NEPA The environmental portion of the Report was intended to provide as much of an environmental analysis as time and data would allow. Emphasis was placed on scoping and public involvement so that issues could be identified for future study in a NEPA document. Chapters 1 and 3 of Appendix H contain most of the material needed to write a Purpose and Need Chapter and an Affected Environment Chapter of an EA. The description of the proposed Project will form the basis of a Chapter 2 in an EA or EIS. Similarly, the discussion of environmental effects could be used to begin a Chapter 4 of an EA or EIS. Additional work will be needed in all areas but it is anticipated that the environmental review included in the Report will provide a quick start to an EIS. Naturally, if the Project description is expanded or greatly modified to include a road, the scope of the necessary study would be similarly expanded. Section I, page I-3, paragraph 2, will be reworded in the Final Report to indicate that several mitigation measures will be required but that no unusual nor project-stopping measures were identified in the environmental analysis. Comment 5.3: Low-Clearing Option Cost Reduction Assumptions Section VI.H.2, page VI-17 describes some broad assumptions used to estimate a $5.7 million cost reduction. We direct your attention to Appendix D which contains samples of two spreadsheets: (1) an estimated project initial capital costs spreadsheet and (2) a cost estimate input data spreadsheet which is linked to and provides input to the former. The latter contains specific assumptions for all cost estimates. In particular, refer to the portion of the spreadsheet labeled “ROW and Clearing Assumptions." For Alternative A, Helicopter Logging shows escalating costs from $100,000/mile to $900,000/mile based on distance of the right-of-way from the nearest drop point. For Alternative A, the total estimated net cost of jogging including timber sales credit is seen to be $9,493,271. For Alternative A - Low Cost Scenario, different assumptions include (1) no drop point costs, (2) flat $95,000/mile cost for clearing the right-of-way for all distances under the helicopter logging section, (3) an increase from 15% to 20% for slash treatment, and (4) no timber sales credit. For Alternative A - Low Cost Scenario, the total estimated net cost of logging was $4,705,782. Including the 20% contingency, the difference in the total estimated net cost of logging is approximately $5.7 million. We inadvertently omitted Table E-1LC from Appendix E from the Report and it will be included in the Final Report. We would appreciate any comments the USFS might have on the validity of the study assumptions. Knowledgeable parties were contacted to help generate reasonable assumptions for all input. However, without a timber cruise and a more-detailed study than the scope of this Report allowed, we realize that estimates of right-of-way costs are speculative. Adding to this uncertainty is the disposition of the USFS regarding the removal of merchantable timber. Mr. Richard Emerman -12.- June 10, 1992 Comment 5.4: Neets Bay Drainage Route and USFS Plans We acknowledge that benefits could accrue to the project if additional roads and logging are pursued by the USFS in the Neets Bay Drainage. The amount of benefits would depend largely on coordination between the projects. The Neets Bay Drainage route as depicted in the study plans an overhead crossing of Shrimp Bay. Strong opposition to an overhead crossing here has been expressed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. If forced to include a submarine cable crossing of Shrimp Bay, it is doubtful whether the Neets Creek route would be preferable from an economic standpoint to the Orchard Creek route even with lower logging costs. See Comment 1.1C. Other factors may still make the Neets Creek route preferable, such as avoiding the high-value wildlife habitat of Orchard Creek. Very truly yours, R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. John L Heberlin Executive Engineer JLH:awh 11-KS8LH Te = WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR Sh rd I | tu! ! A = apie we 1S9! ~ ns DEPART MENT OF FISH AND GA ME P.O. BOX 667 Alaska Energy Authority PETERSBURG, AK 99833-0667 Attention: Richard Emerman PHONE: (907) 772-3801 P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Emerman: 2a eee RE: Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study FUSES ECTASY RUTACRITY The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed a draft feasibility study for a Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie. We have the following comments and concerns regarding this proposal: Comment Reference 1. A major issue to this Department is the proposed aerial Number crossing of waterways including Eagle Bay, Bell Arm, Behm Narrows and Shrimp Bay. We are uncertain if the location of the Eagle Bay crossing in the preferred alternative parallels the current Tyee 1.1A transmission line crossing or if it takes a different route. Although we believe the current Eagle Bay crossing is a serious navigational hazard to aircraft and migrating birds, we believe a crossing immediately adjacent to this site and at the same elevation, where impacts have already occurred, is preferable to a second Eagle Bay crossing site which is not presently impacted. The exception to this would be a site which stays entirely on uplands. This would include partial use of the eastern Eagle River alternative before crossing to the western side of the drainage upstream from Eagle Bay and then utilizing the western alternative through the remainder of this drainage. We recommend this alternative be explored. The Bell Arm, Behm Narrows and Shrimp Bay crossings in the preferred alternative are all new sites where no powerline 1.1B crossings currently exist. We stronaly oppose any aerial crossings of waterways utilized by waterfowl. These waterways are flyways for migrating and resident waterfowl including Vancouver Canada geese, trumpeter and tundra swans and numerous species of sea ducks, alcids and other avian species which utilize marine waters. The species cited by Dames and Moore are dabbling ducks with different behavior patterns than the potentially affected species. In addition the studies cited do not include other areas where significant losses of waterfowl along important waterfowl flyways have been recorded, nor do they represent the environmental conditions of southeast Alaska waterways. Major differences include species, concentrated flyways along narrow waterbodies and weather of southeast Alaska with frequent periods of fog or low cloud cover. The only Richard Emerman 2 April 8, 199 underwater crossings! A failing in the economic sections of this feasibility study is to provide costs for underwater construction of a line across these three sites. With the cost of almost $1 1.1C million for each of the overhead crossings at Bell Arm, Behm Canal and Shrimp Bay and $4.1 million for the single 9 mile underwater Behm Canal crossing, it would appear that underwater crossings of these three saltwater bodies would not be unreasonable. We note the difference between the “base (diesel) case" and the “intertie case" at a medium load growth and medium fuel escalation is over $35 million, so we presume there is still sufficient savings to justify the added cost for this_major environmental issue. This is also a safety issue for aircraft which may be flying at low elevations for various reasons including weather conditions. I have personally been in a plane which struck a powerline while flying in a snow storm on a search and rescue mission. 2. Little information is included regarding the design of the 1.2 lines to be “raptor safe". Consideration needs to be taken for the spacing of the lines as well as sheathing of the lines adjacent to poles. We note the design presented for a “typical wood 3-pale heavy angle structure" presented in Figure IV-5 does not appear to provide needed spacing. Recent literature coming out of Europe indicates sheathing of lines at each pole insulator is a technological inovation that should be incorporated in project design. We request this design be included in the final report. 3. Another raptor issue is the timing of activity adjacent to 13 nesting Bald Eagles. While we concur with the provision of : 330 foot buffers around eagle nests we noticed a failure to address timing of construction in the vicinity of those nests. Disturbance of eagles that leads to the vacation of nests for periods of as little as one hour can lead to egg mortality. Thus, without proper timing for disturbing activities when working around active eagle nests, even though a 330 foot buffer is provided, mortality of eggs can be expected. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can provide specific information regarding timing constraints. 4. The document indicates there is a liklihood that Right-of- 1.4 Way timber may be felled and left in place. If this : practice is utilized and in areas where timber is salvaged, it in essential that wildlife migration corridors be maintained- across the ROW. These corridors must be provided a minimum of every 300 feet and on all ridge tops. . Corridors need only be paths through the downed timber 18 inches wide and with slash no deeper than 12 inches. The Richard Emerman 3 April 8, 1992 10. most reasonable way to achieve this objective is to directionally fell timber away from each corridor as one would do for a streamcourse- Corridors do not need to be straight. If this practice is followed, little cleanup should be necessary. The line will cross numerous anadromous fish streams and their tributaries. Care must be taken to directionally fell timber way from these classes of waterbodies. In some instances, heavily leaning trees may have to be felled across surface waters and in other cases, considering that no future sources of large woody debris will be available along the right-of-way, this Department may desire that trees be felled across streams to provide needed sources of wood for the short term. These issues will need to be addressed on a stream by stream basis and will require coordination with the Department of Fish and Game when the EIS is prepared. The final transmission line alignment also needs to avoid running parallel to anadromous fish streams within the right-of-way. This practice eliminates future sources of large woody debris which would result in long-term losses of fishery values. On page VII-1 a statement is made that Alaska Department of Fish and Game Title 16 permits can be expedited. This is- only an emergency procedure. We believe there is ample lead time for this project to preclude this necessity. We request the suggestion that expedited reviews are possible be deleted from the final report. While this report indicates that construction of the line will utilize helicopters for access, the statement is made on page 4 in appendix H that when crossing streams with heavy equipment concentrations of spawning fish should be avoided. This activity requires title 16 authorization from this Department which will contain timing conditions appropriate for the species af fish present in the watercourse. Restricted periods for crossings begin when the first anadromous fish spawn in the stream and extend through the period the last alevins emerge from the spawning beds. This timing will be quite restrictive for watercourses which support steelhead and early runs of pink or chum salmon. In the list of permits needed on page 5 af appendix H no reference is made to ADFG Title 16 permits. As indicated above, these permits will be needed for any inwater work within anadromous fish streams. Page 41 in appendix H deals with impacts to mountain goats. 1:5 1.6 7 1.8 19 1.10 at met2 ik) Richard Emerman 4 April 8, 1992 Of particular concern to this Department is the location of the ROW through mountain goat winter range which is often found in old-growth forests below cliff areas. Issues include loss of this critical habitat component, blocking of migration corridors and disturbance during construction. Only the later item can me mitigated through timing. This timing needs to include construction activities including helicopter overflights during periods when goats are nutritionally stressed. A second issue is goat kidding areas during periods when female goats are present before giving birth until the females take their kids to summer range. Construction activities including overflights need to avoid these areas as well as all areas occupied by mountain goats. This issue can also be largely mitigated by timing of construction activities and restrictions on helicopter use. 11. Both mountain goats and brown bear will be particularly susceptible to increased hunting pressure from camp Personnel. For example, observations of these or other species near construction camps by camp residents during helicopter overflights can lead to higher than normal hunting mortalities during days off. Prohibition of the possession of firearms in camps is one way to address this issue which was used during the Trans Alaska Pipeline construction and Susitna Hydroelectric Project studies. Closure of hunting seasons in affected areas is another option, but has the disadvantage of affecting traditional resource users. 12. On page 46 in appendix H the statement is made that "Recreational users, seeking a wilderness experience, may find a moderate impact caused by the location of utility lines." This statement indicates a lack of understanding of this issue. 13. The Eagle River substation, described on page 1V-14 is known to be attractive to bald eagles. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to a continued dialog regarding this proposal as plans are developed. Sincerely, OOO al Don Cornelius Area Habitat Bivlogist Richard CCis R. J. L. G. 0. N. 0. S. Emerman 5 Reed, ADFG, Juneau Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan Marshall, DGC, Juneau Kimball, USFS, Petersburg Rittenhouse, USFS, Ketchikan Holmberg, USFWS, Juneau Peterson, NMFS, Juneau Cantor, EPA, Anchorage April 8, 1992 . -omment Reference Number 2:1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 PF Srrention oF: MARCH 2 5 1992 Regulatory Branch Project Evaluation Section - South RECEIVED MAR 21 1992 Mr. Richard Emerson } ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Energy Authority Post Office Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerson: This is in regard to your letter dated March 6, 1992, concerning the Tyee-Swan Intertie Feasibility Study. Our comments are limited to Department of the Amy permit requirements pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Department of the Army (DA) regulates certain activities in waters of the United States. Structures and/or work in (over or under) or affecting navigable waters of the United States would require a DA permit. Activities waterward of a vertical line formed where the mean high water (approximately elevation 14.6 in the vicinity of Bell Arm Behm Canal) strikes the shore, would require a permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In tidal waters of the United States, placement of dredged or fill material waterward of the high tide line (approximately 19.6 feet for this area) would require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, such as: riprap fill for a breakwater or for bank stabilization or a gravel fill pad. Disposal of dredged material or placement of fill material in adjacent non-tidally influenced wetlands or below the ordinary high water mark of streams would also require a Section 404 permit. Often work in navigable waters requires a combined Section 404 and Section 10 permit. The discharge of dredged material or fill material in wetlands may take the form of the disposal of debris resulting from the clearing operation. If it is Alaska Energy Authority's plan to burn as much of the slash as possible and discharge or bury the resulting residual material in jurisdictional wetlands, this material would be considered a Section 404 discharge requiring prior authorization. A typical cross-sectional drawing of the disposal site(s) and a plan view of the location of the burial site(s) would be required for submittal with your application for a DA permit. We would request your best professional estimate of the amount of material (woody © material, ash residue, root wads, etc.) in cubic yards. Any logs used as subbase material for access roads would be considered fill material, if placed in wetlands or other waters of the United States. It is understood that this quantity of material would be difficult to accurately estimate. Any substantial variation between the estimation and the actual amount would be dealt with, if necessary, by permit modification. In the event there would be a timber sale for the project, there may be 2.2 the need for a log transfer facility, in water storage or bag booms. These activities would also require authorization. The DA has signed a memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to jointly process permit applications for new log transfer facilities pursuant to both Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, if applicable. The EPA would become involved if the activity results in a discharge of bark into waters of the U.S. An applicant for an individual Section 404 permit would have to clearly demonstrate that no practicable alternatives exist which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic environment, in order to comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines as stated at 40 CFR 230. An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of the overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. A more expensive alternative may still be practicable if it is still capable of being done. Practicable alternatives include, but are not limited to: a. activities which do not involve a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the U.S.; and b. discharges of dredged or fill material at other locations in waters of the U.S. For jurisdictional purposes both the Department of the Army (DA) and the 23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the identical definition for wetlands in our regulatory program. Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3(t) as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The DA currently uses the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, dated January 1987, to delineate jurisdictional wetlands. The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands is currently subject to rulemaking procedures. Once the final rule is adopted by the agencies involved, the Corps of Engineers is proposing to incorporate portions of the Federal manual into our regulations. When that-occurs, the four agencies; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Soil Conservation Service will have adopted a uniform approach to identifying and delineating vegetated wetlands. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at (907) 753-2712, toll free in Alaska at (800) 478-2712, by FAX at (907) 753-5567, or by mail at the address above. Sincerely, ba d “2 Eastern Te Project EValuation Section - South Petersburg Municipal Power & Light P.O. Box 329 ¢ Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Phone: 907-772-4203 March 25, 1992 Richard Emmerman Alaska Energy Authority RECEIVED P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 MAR 31 1992 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Dear Dick, Comment I appreciate receiving the copy of the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Reference transmission intertie feasibility study and the opportunity to Number give comment. Overall, I believe the study is well done. A lot of time and effort has been put in to this study and now lets build on it. There are some points that I did not see in the study that I feel should be addressed. They are listed below. 1. Firstly, when looking at the economic analysis, I did not see 31 it mentioned anywhere that the increased cost for air quality control permits issued by DEC or EPA would increase the cost of diesel operations. 2. I saw no mention in the study about Crystal Lake Hydro 3.2 absorbing the VARS on the Tyee system nor was there any mention of PMP&L's large commercial rate structure which penalizes users lagging below 90% power factor. (We're doing our part.) 3. The study implies that PMP&L and Wrangell could possibly use 33 their diesel units during peak periods. I cannot understand why there is not more mentioned about installing the third turbine at Tyee. If feel this is a must for the total operation of the systen. 4. Figure 111-2 in my opinion should show the complete Exhibit A 3.4 of the LTPSA. It should also show that Crystal Lake Hydro beyond Petersburg Sub presently is supporting the VARS on the Tyee systen. 5. Page IV-12 para d, communications, is excellent and’ needed. 3.5 You might even want to include two additional items in this . section: updating the existing SCADA for both projects and centralizing dispatching. 6. Re: page IV-16, I would like to reiterate that Crystal Lake 3.6 hydro is absorbing the VARS on the Tyee system. It appears that 37 3.8 Page 2 this study was done mainly with KPU in mind and not the original purchasing utilities of the Tyee project. Benefits to Wrangell and Petersburg need to be considered as well. 7. Section X, economic analysis para B principal assumptions. PMP&L and Wrangell should have much input on the terms of this sale. If we are talking surplus sales, 2 cents and 3 cents per kwh vs. cost of fuel, why haven't the maintenance or new permitting costs for air quality control been included? And why hasn't the third turbine at Tyee been included, rather than looking to PMP&L and Wrangell to use their diesel units for peaking? 8. Re: power flow analysis of Tyee Lake-Swan Lake interconnected systems, page 2, summary first para, I like it but I believe PMP&L and Wrangell should be included in the sales agreement. Sincerely, —sennta tel sie PMP&L Superintendent UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nattonal Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 April 7, 1992 RECEIVED 4P2 10 1992 Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority PLESKA EXERGY AUTHORITY P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alasxa 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: Comment Reference The Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, reviewed ae the draft report of the Tyee-Swan Intertie Feasibility Study. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The report states that initially the downed trees will not be harvested and will be left on the ground. If, at a later. date 4.1 the trees are collected, and they will be placed in marine waters for transport to processing centers, a Department of the Army permit will be required for the log transfer points. Should that happen, the project may affect those living marine, estuarine, or anadromous fishery resources for which we have responsibility. We concur with the determination that the project will not affect 4.2 the endangered humpback whale. However, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Steller sea lion as a threatened species throughout its range because of a precipitous population decline observed over the last 30 years, primarily in the Soviet Union, Gulf of Alaska, and Aleutian Islands (November 26, 1990, 55 FR 49204). The causes of the population decline are unknown. Presently, a decline in Steller sea lion abundance within Southeast Alaska waters has not been observed during breeding season surveys. Any activity that may affect Steller sea lions, their habitats, or their food resources shoula be considered in your analysis for Section 7 consultation purposes. Currently, critical habitat for this species has not yet been designated under the Endangered Species Act. To assist you in your evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed project on Steller sea lions, I have enclosed a map of Southeast Alaska sea lion haulouts and rookeries. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, hw. Poors, Steven Pennoyer Director, Alaska Region 12. 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 21. 22. Location Cape Binghas Benjamin Island White Sisters The Brothers Island Round Rock Yasha Island Cape Ommany Hazy Islands * Timbered Island Cape Addington Grindle Island Forrester Island * Btalt Rock Jacob Rock Turnabout Island Biorka Island Tenake Cannery Point Lull Point Cape Cross Sea Lion Island Sunset Island Coronation Island CaMaga VASVIV NY¥AZLEVAaHLNOS VavNvo Southeast Alaska Steller Sea Lion Haulouts and Rookeries (*) United States Forest Region 10 Tongass National Forest Department of Service Ketchikan Area Agriculture Federal Building Ketchikan, AK 99901 Reply To: 1900/2700 Date: April 10, 1992 RECEIVED Alaska Energy Authority Attn: Richard Emerman APR 20 19 P.O. Box 190869 a en 3s Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Ref: Tyee-Swan Intertie Draft Feasibility Study ee Dear Sir: Number The Ketchikan Area has completed a review of the draft feasibility study report for a power line intertie from Tyee Lake to Swan Lake. Our review concentrated on impacts to National Forest System lands managed by the Ketchikan Area only. We did not review impacts that may affect lands managed by the Stikine Area of the Forest Service (north from Eagle Lake), nor did we look at technical sections of the document that will not affect routes or resources managed by our Agency. Concerns were raised about visual and wildlife effects during the review. They 5.1 will not be listed in this letter except to say that the concerns strengthen our belief that an Environmental Impact Statement will be necessary as part of the Special Use Permit process for the powerline. Should road access be considered, additional issues would also have to be considered in a environmental document. Please note that this would be a project EIS and not a supplement to the Tongass Land Management Plan or any other EIS as suggested in paragraph 5 of page I-2. Page I-3, paragraph 2 seems to imply that this feasibility study qualifies as a 5.2 environmental document. While it does address some questions that would be in an environmental document, it is our view that this document was only intended to determine the feasibility of continuing planning and does not discuss or disclose environmental effects at a level consistent with NEPA. The feasibility study suggests that 5.7 million dollars could be saved if the oS Forest Service would allow any right-of-way clearing to be left on the ground instead of requiring removal. We would appreciate a copy of the assumptions that were used to arrive at that figure for our review. 5.4 Alaska Energy Authority page 2 Your preferred route through Neets Bay drainage instead of Orchard Lake drainage may allow an opportunity for the Forest Service to participate in access to a portion of the powerline route. We are currently working on an project EIS that will include alternatives that consider logging and additional road construction in the Neets Bay drainage. If adopted in the selected alternative this road system may reduce the cost of right-of-way timber removal by reducing helicopter logging costs. Thank you for a chance to review this document. Please keep us informed on the progress of this project. You have identified a ambitious time schedule that will require close coordination and an immediate initiation of the Special Use permitting process. Sincerely, Sols DAVID D. RITTENHOUSE Forest Supervisor Ketchikan Area cc: Ketchikan Ranger District Stikine Area Supervisor APPENDIX A SAG TENSION RUNS RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. " = _ di a Deve AwO@ , 2% Swed Se emit, 15[%o - SF trmits “ ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA AEA TYEE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE 556 DOVE ACSR/AW CONDUCTOR CONDUCTOR DOVE 556.5 KCMIL 26/ 7 STRANDING ACSR AREA= -5083 SQ. IN. DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-782 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN= 500.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F re LB YT LB oO. -50 4.00 -30 2.040 10.72 5963. 9.37 6812. 30. 1.00 -00 -00 3.126 13.06 7505. 12.11 8095. 30. 2.00R 2.30 -00 5.537 15.36 11322. 15.36 11321. 30. 2.00R -00 -00 5.456 15.30 11203. 15.27 11224. 32. -50 -00 -00 1.617 11.07 4576. 9.24 5475. 40. -00 26.00 -00 2.137 12.11 5530. 10.59 6319. 60. -00 13.00 -00 1.241 11.41 3409. 9.16 4241. 60. -00 6.00 -00 -864 10.72 2524. 8.07 3351. 20. -00 -00 -00 -729 7.00 3258. 4.75 4794. -5. -00 -00 -00 -729 7.67 2974. 5.20 4380. oO. -00 -00 -00 +729 7.89 2890. 5.36 4249. 30. -00 -00 -00 +729 9.21 2479. 6.43 3547. 60. -00 -00 - .00 -729 10.35 2207. 7.60 3000. 90. -00 -00 -00 -729 10.93 2089. 8.81 2591. 120. -00 -00 -00 +729 11.52 1983. 9.99 2286. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW AN= 600.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 5. -00 -00 oO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 700.0 FEET “~EEP IS NOT A FACTOR _ DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 5. -00 -00 oO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW HEAVY LOADING K LB/F .30 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 00 00 .00 .00 K LB/F 230 -00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 00 00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 WEIGHT LB/F 2.040 3.126 5.537 5.456 1.617 2.137 1.241 .864 .729 .729 -729 .729 .729 .729 .729 HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT LB/F 2.040 3.126 5.537 5.456 1.617 2.137 1.241 .864 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 FINAL SAG TENSION FT LB 14.62 6299. 17.36 8139. 20.18 12424. 20.10 12291. 14.96 4878. 16.19 5964. 15.29 3666. 14.48 2693. 10.40 3160. 11.14 2950. Li539 2887. 12.81 2567. DSiet 7 2388. 14.44 2279. 15.09 2181. FINAL SAG TENSION FT LB 19.00 6599. 22.12 8701. 25.46 13418. 25.36 13271. 19.34 5141. 20.73 6343. 19.64 3886. 18.46 2877. 14.35 3118. 15.15 2956. 15.41 2906. 16.88 2654. 17.61 2544. 18.34 2443. 19.06 2352. INITIAL SAG TENSION EL LB 12.65 7273. 15.99 8831. 20.18 12424. 20.05 12317. 12.40 5882. 14.05 6864. 12.20 4587. 10.86 3585. 6.93 4739. 7.50 4380.* 7.69 4267. 8.96 3665. 10.30 3190. 11.65 2822. 12.96 2537. INITIAL SAG TENSION FT LB 16.30 7686. 20.26 9492. 25.46 13418. 25.30 13302. US 391 6240. 17.87 7348. 15.59 4887. 14.02 3783. 9.53 4690. 10.21 4380.* 10.44 4283. 11.88 3764. 13.36 3348. 14.84 3017. 16.28 2751. AN= 800.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND PF IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 = Sie -00 -00 oO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 900.0 FEET “~EEP IS NOT A FACTOR ~ DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF Oo. -50 4.00 30. 1:00 .00 3011) S0ORs 2.30 3 OM 24OGR a+ 00 32h .50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. .00 .00 -5. .00 .00 oO. .00 .00 30. .00 .00 60. .00 .00 90. .00 .00 120. .00 .00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW HEAVY LOADING FINAL K WEIGHT SAG TENSION LB/F LB/F FT LB -30 2.040 23.87 6867. .00 3.126 27.35 9202. .00 5.537 31.19 14320. .00 5.456 31.07 14160. 00 1.617 24.19 5373. -00 2137 25.74 6679. .00 1.241 24.47 4078. .00 -864 22.83 3040. .00 .729 18.84 3105. .00 .729 19.67 2975. .00 .729 19.94 2935. .00 .729 21.07 2778. .00 .729 21.87 2678. 00 .729 22.66 2585. .00 .729 23.44 2500. HEAVY LOADING FINAL K WEIGHT SAG TENSION LB/F LB/F FT LB 30 2.040 29.22 7108. .00 3.126 33.03 9653. .00 5.537 37.36 15143. .00 5.456 37.24 14972. -00 1.617 29.51 5579. 00 201357 32.21 6977. .00 ae341 29.77 4246. .00 .864 27.63 3182. .00 .729 23.83 3109. .00 .729 24.68 3002. .00 .729 24.83 2985. .00 .729 25.69 2886. .00 .729 26.54 2794. .00 -729 27.39 2708. .00 .729 28.22 2629. INITIAL SAG TENSION FT LB 20.32 8056. 24.91 10090. 31.19 14320. 30.99 14196. 19.79 6556. 22.06 7781. 19.34 5148. 17.54 3951. 12.57 4647. 13.33 4380.* 13.60 4296. 15.19 3847. 16.79 3481. 18.38 3181. 19.93 2936. INITIAL SAG TENSION FT LB 24.71 8389. 29.94 10635. 37.36 15143. 37.43 15012. 24.03 6837. 26.60 8171. 23.46 5376. 21.43 4094. 16.04 4610. 16.88 4380.* 17.37 4308. 18.89 3917. 20.61 3592. 22.30 3321. 23.95 3094. *AN= 1000.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION HEAVY LOADING DESIGN POINTS FINAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB oO. -50 4.00 -30 2.040 35.61 7208. 30. 1.00 -00 -00 3.126 39.66 9935. 30. 2.00R 2.30 -00 5.537 44.41 15748. 30. 2.00R -00 -00 5.456 44.27 15566. 32. -50 -00 -00 1.617 35.89 5669. 40. -00 26.00 -00 2.137 37.69 7140. 60. -00 13.00 -00 1.241 36.14 4322. 60. -00 6.00 -00 -864 33.53 3240. -20. -00 -00 -00 -729 29.95 3057. =e -00 -00 -00 -729 30.41 3011. oO. -00 -00 -00 -729 30.56 2997. 30. -00 -00 -00 -729 31.47 2911. 60. -00 -00 -00 -729 32.37 2831. 90. -00 -00 -00 -729 33.29 2756. 120. -00 -00 -00 -729 34.13 2686. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 1100.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING “REEP IS NOT A FACTOR _. DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB oO. -50 4.00 -30 2.040 43.61 7134. 30. 1.00 -00 -00 3.126 47.78 9996. 30. 2.00R 2.30 -00 5.537 52.79 16058. 30. 2.00R -00 -00 5.456 52.64 15867. 32. -50 -00 -00 1.617 43.91 5616. 40. -00 26.00 -00 2.137 45.74 7131. 60. -00 13.00 -00 1.241 44.14 4289. 60. -00 6.00 -00 -864 41.22 3193. -20. -00 -00 -00 -729 37.57 2953. -5. -00 -00 -00 -729 38.04 2917. oO. -00 -00 -00 -729 38.20 2905. 30. -00 -00 -00 -729 39.13 2837. 60. -00 -00 -00 -729 40.05 2773. 90. -00 -00 -00 -729 40.96 2712. 120. -00 -00 -00 -729 41.86 2654. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW INITIAL SAG TENSION FT LB 30.19 8486. 35.93 10950.* 44.41 15748. 44.15 15609. 29.43 6898. 32.22 8336. 28.80 5410. 26.67 4064. 21.00 4349. 21.92 4169. 22.22 4112. 24.04 3803. 25.83 3541. 27.58 3318. 29.29 3126. INITIAL SAG TENSION Er LB 37.53 8270. 43.54 10950.* 52.79 16058. 52.50 15911. 36.82 6681. 39.66 8205. 36.26 5207. 34.21 3839. 28.56 3874. 29.49 3753. 29.80 3714. 31.63 3501. 33.42 3315. 35.17 3152. 36.87 3009. °AN= 1200.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 =S. -00 -00 QO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 1300.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR _. DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF QO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 -S. -00 -00 oO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW HEAVY LOADING FINAL K WEIGHT SAG TENSION LB/F LB/F FT LB 30 2.040 52.35 7084. .00 3.126 56.62 10057. 00 5.537 61.87 16337. .00 5.456 61.71 16138. .00 1.617 52.66 5582. .00 21137 54.52 qaise. .00 D241 52.67 4285. .00 .864 49.69 3158. .00 .729 45.99 2876. .00 .729 46.47 2847. .00 .729 46.63 2837. .00 .729 47.57 2781. .00 .729 48.51 2729. .00 .729 49.44 2678. .00 .729 50.35 2630. HEAVY LOADING FINAL K WEIGHT SAG TENSION LB/F LB/F FT LB 130 2.040 61.84 7052. 00 3.126 66.19 10115. .00 5.537 71.66 16587. .00 5.456 71.49 16381. .00 1.617 62.16 5561. .00 ans 7 64.04 7139. .00 1.241 61.95 4283. .00 .864 58.93 saga" 00 .729 55.19 2817. .00 .729 55.67 2793. 00 .729 55.83 2785. .00 .729 56.79 2739. 00 .729 57.74 2695. .00 .729 58.68 2653. 00 .729 59.61 2613. INITIAL SAG TENSION Lay LB 45.69 8097. 51.90 10950.* 61.87 16337. 61.54 16181. 45.02 6512. 47.89 8099. 44.52 5054. 42.54 3679. 36.99 3565. 37.91 3479. 38.22 3452. 40.03 3298. 41.80 3160. 43.53 3036. 45.22 2924. INITIAL SAG TENSION Pe LB 54.65 7958. 61.02 10950.* 71.66 16587. 71.30 16424. 54.02 6380. 56.90 8013. Bs eo7 4938. 51.65 3563. 46.21 3355. 47.12 3291. 47.42 3271. 49.20 3154. 50.94 3048. 52.65 2950. 54.33 2861. ~ AN= 1400.0 FEET CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 S$. -00 -00 QO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 1500.0 FEET erEEP IS NOT A FACTOR — DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND F IN PSF oO. -50 4.00 30. 1.00 -00 30. 2.00R 2.30 30. 2.00R -00 32. -50 -00 40. -00 26.00 60. -00 13.00 60. -00 6.00 -20. -00 -00 at -00 -00 oO. -00 -00 30. -00 -00 60. -00 -00 90. -00 -00 120. -00 -00 R_ RIME ICE/WET SNOW HEAVY LOADING K LB/F -30 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 WEIGHT LB/F 2.040 3.126 5.537 5.456 617) ae s7) 1.241 -864 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 HEAVY LOADING K LB/F -30 00 .00 .00 .00 -00 .00 -00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 WEIGHT LB/F 2.040 3.126 5.537 5.456 1.617 21s 7) 1.241 .864 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 .729 FINAL SAG TENSION FL LB 72.07 7031. 76.50 10171. 82.17 16813. 81.99 16601. 72.41 5548. 74.31 7151. 72.00 4282. 68.93 3110. 65.17 2772. 65.66 2752. 65.82 2745. 66.79 2707. 67.75 2669. 68.69 2633. 69.63 2599. FINAL SAG TENSION EL LB 83.07 7018. 87.56 10224. 93.40 17017. 93.22 16799. 83.41 5541. 85.33 7164. 82.82 4283. 79.72 3094. 75.94 2737. 76.43 2720. 76.60 2714. 77.57 2681. 78.53 2649. 79.48 2618. 80.43 2588. INITIAL SAG TENSION Eo LB 64.41 7845. 70.90 10950.* 82.17 16813. 81.78 16643. 63.82 6275. 66.70 7943. 63.40 4848. 61.54 3475. 56.19 3206. 57.08 3157. 57.38 3141. 59.13 3049. 60.86 2964. 62.55 2886. 64.21 2813. INITIAL SAG TENSION Fr LB 74.97 7753. 81.56 10950.* 93.40 17017. 92.99 16841. 74.41 6190. 77.30 7885. 74.02 4776. 72.21 3406. 66.94 3095. 67.82 3056. 68.11 3043. 69.84 2970. 71.54 2901. 73.22 2836. 74.87 2775. AEA TYEE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE 556 DOVE ACSR/AW CONDUCTOR Dove AW DOVE 1-782 4 556.5 -0 26. 7.HS NOO N1A -000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 -000000 .000000 O . 50830 .92700 -72900 21900. 16 .000 -500 4.000 -500 1.000 30.000 1.000 .000 -500 1.000 30.000 -2.000 2.300 -800 1.000 30.000 -2.000 .000 -000 -000 32.000 -500 .000 -000 -000 40.000 -000 26.000 -500 1.000 60.000 .000 13.000 -000 -000 60.000 .000 6.000 -000 .000 -20.000 - .000 .000 -000 -000 -5.000 -000 -000 .200 1.000 -5.000 -000 .000 .150 2.000 .000 -000 -000 -000 .000 30.000 -000 .000 .000 -000 60.000 -000 -000 -000 2.000 90.000 -000 -000 .000 .000 120.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 11 500. 600. : 700. a) 800. 900. 1000. 1100. 1200. 1300. 1400. 1500. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA CONDUCTOR AREA= -4798 SQ. DATA FROM CHART NO. ENGLISH UNITS SPAN= 3500.0 FEET TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE 37 No. 8 AWG. Alumoweld Strand with Marker Balls (2/25/92) IN. 1-1140 CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN DESIG TEMP F oO. 30. aL 30. 2 30. 2 32. 40. -20. oO. 30. 60. 90. 120. 167. 212. R_ RIME I CONDITION N POINTS ICE WIND IN PSF -56 4.10 -59 -00 -10R 2.30 -10R -00 -50 -00 -00 67.00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 CE/WET SNOW K LB/F .30 -00 .00 .00 .00 .00 -00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 00 -00 37# 8 ALUMOWELD HEAVY LOADING WEIGHT LB/F 2.849 6.361 6.596 6.524 2.308 5.221 1.438 1.438 1.438 1.438 1.438 1.438 1.438 1.438 FINAL SAG TENSION FT LB 189.32 23406. 215.80 46051. 217.19 47459. 216.76 47025. 187.32 19156. 209.37 38914. 174.96 12753. 176.71 12630.* 179.31 12452. 181.88 12281. 184.42 12116. 186.94 11958. 190.83 11721. 194.50 11507. INITIAL SAG TENSION FT LB 185.25 23904. 215.53 46105. 217.19 47459. 216.68 47041. 182.70 19626. 207.82 39194. 169.36 13164. 171.14 13030. 173.79 12837. 176.41 12651. 179.00 12473. 181.56 12302. 185.53 12046. 189.26 11815. TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE 37 No. 8 AWG. Alumoweld Strand with Marker Balls (2/25/92) 1-114011 +0 -0 37. 8.HS 1NN 0 0 N1A -000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 -000000 .000000 0 - 47980 -89900 1.43800 84200. 18 -000 -560 4.100 -500 1.000 30.000 1.590 -000 -600 1.000 30.000 -2.100 2.300 -800 1.000 30.000 -2.100 -000 -000 -000 32.000 -500 -000 +000 -000 40.000 -000 67.000 -600 1.000 -20.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 +200 1.000 -000 -000 -000 -150 2.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 30.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 60.000 -000 -000 -000 2.000 90.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 120.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 167.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 212.000 -000 -000 -000 -000 . 3500. APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, R&M ENGINEERING RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REM ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS SURVEYORS October 31, 1991 Mr. Chuck Gasparek, P.E. Project Manager Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 6860 Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99801-7999 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Survey Swan Lake to Tyee Lake Intertie R & M Project No. 911170 Dear Mr. Gasparek: This letter is a report of the methods and findings of the field and office investigation completed for the referenced project on November 1, 1991, in accordance with our contract. The field investigation was completed on October 24, 1991, with our geotechnical staff performing a total of 37 test borings within the corridor of the powerline intertie between Swan Lake and Tyee Lake. The locations of the exploration sites are indicated on the attached maps. The findings of the exploration effort are indicated on the attached subsurface summary table. This table indicates the depth. interval for each soil type at the locations given. It also indicates the predominant forest species and the foundation type best suited to each location. Explanations of symbols are at the bottom of the table. Soil conditions throughout the proposed corridor can be explained as follows: » Glaciation which ended 6,000 to 8,000 years past left the area devoid of soil cover. None of the usual ice contact (glacial till or morainal) soils found in other parts of Southeast Alaska was observed. : Bedrock is diorite, a light colored igneous rock with a granitic texture. The rock has a fresh appearance at all exposed locations and is weathered only slightly, breaking down into sand where ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS JUNEAU KETCHIKAN Mr. Chuck Gasparek, P.E. October 31, 1991 Page 2 weathered. This rock-type extends over the entire length of the corridor. + Soil cover over bedrock is thin (less than 7‘) and consists of organics, mainly peat. - Soils other than peat are granular and have accumulated to significant depths in three segments of the corridor. 1. Carroll Creek intertidal and uplifted submarine delta areas. 2. Orchard Creek flood plain. 3. Eagle River flood plain. Foundation conditions in the corridor are relatively simple. Three foundation design alternatives have been identified and are described briefly as follows: Type I - Bedrock Anchors. Mineral soil less than 3° in thickness and organic soil less than 7' in thickness over bedrock. Type II - Screw Anchors. Granular soil 6° to 16° in thickness or organic soil less than 16’ in thickness. (Uplift design capacity limited to 29 kips for Tripod.) Type III - Driver Steel Piling. Granular soil and organic soil greater than 16° in thickness. (Uplift design capacity for the “batter” option is 81 kips.) The Type I foundation is required for approximately 90% of the 51 mile corridor between Swan Lake and Bradfield Canal with the following exceptions: Carrol Creek Mile 28.7 to Mile 31.3 2.6 Miles Type II or III Orchard Creek Mile 40 to Mile 41 1.0 Miles Type II or Ill Eagle River Mile 67.5 to Mile 68.5 1.0 Miles Type II or III Subtotal 4.6 Mi TOTAL 51.4 Miles - Alternate Route SUMMARY We concur with the R.W. Beck recommendation that the transmission line end short of Tyee Lake. From (road) Mile Post 73 to Tyee Lake, road construction is extremely expensive. The transmission line from Tyee Lake Mr. Chuck Gasparek, P.E. October 31, 1991 Page 3 to Wrangell is in place to Mile Post 73. Thus, a substation at or near Mile Post 73 appears logical. Regardless of the final route chosen, the geology of the proposed corridor is such that foundation Type I appears to be required for at least 90% of the possible distance. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Alaska Energy Authority on this preliminary geotechnical route survey. Should there be any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, R & M ENGINEERING, INC. eagh & Crna Joseph L. Connolly, P.G., E.G. Malcolm A. Menzies, P.E., L.S. Engineering Geologist Civil Engineer ~ yld Attachments: 1) Transmission line map w/foundation type indicated 2) Ortho photos of route scale 1"=0.5 mile 3) Typical foundation designs TEST BORING SUMMARY TABLE SWAN LAKE TO TYEE LAKE INTERTIE BORING SITE ORGANIC SOIL SILT-SAND | SAND-GRAVEL GRAVEL-BOULDERS DESIGNATION A A EST pe eae Se a men ee Ee EST ee) ee i eNO rl 200° RT a Scans SON soll S00 iii BEDROCK ERI ever foe [= 2 - fnueae fase fs ea 100" RT alee es FA Mile 53.4 Be ee ALA em 250° RT Mile 54.2 200° RT TEST BORING SUMMARY TABLE SWAN LAKE TO TYEE LAKE INTERTIE BORING SITE ORGANIC SOIL SILT-SAND DESIGNATION [io tr [aso ett - 1.5" [Mie 66.5 [0 - 5.5" [ooo ut sf - pat _ fon fie ms [oor GRAVEL- Bouvers | BEDROCK | BEDROCK “| sano-craver | Gravet-a GRAVEL ny wn 1 uw uw ~ ' w rm ow sa oD) 5.8° 0.8° nN So Ss Fe} 4 o ' ° © ~~ —SM _ REM ENGINEERING, INC. IDENTIFIED TOWER FOUNDATION TYPES AS FURNISHED BY ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FOR THE SWAN LAKE TO TYEE LAKE INTERTIE =e ROCK ANCHOR BOLT ——— SCREW ANCHORS ssttttneeennse DRIVEN STEEL PILES SHEET | OF 5 FOUR BOLT -ROCKBOLT FOOTING FOR ROCK AT SHALLOW DEPTH, 3' OF OVERBURDEN OR LESS ULTIMATE DESIGN LOAD STRUCTURE Freee | cancer | cous | STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT HGT COMPRESSION a3. C AM ‘ —2"9 BOLT AND 2-i/4" B HOLE 15"x6"x 1/2" PLATE 6" 12" x 1/2" PLATE EXCAVATION VARIABLE LIMIT OF TEMPORARY a EXCAVATION CVERBURDEN OR i : . 4 i BAO RO 0 to * RECORD DRAWINT TYPICAL MUSKEG INSTALLATION MEV, 4 (2/16/83 RECORD PWG, = : 6. Xrosasumico (‘T2* somes wore 7(m-2)- 62) 67 ComTRacToa. REV.2: ABDEO WOTE -133UEZD FOR CONSTRUCTION. 7, GAL MOTD DRALL REY. 1: MEMOVED 2° MAX. PENDING APPROVAL CON PomTIVE LOCE MD : LIST OF MATERIALS [Tem | DESCRIPTION R i/ | ne (1) 2" Rockboit Assembly, 7° <] uk - Ing, Threoded 20" with [><] oe io DRILL HOLE TO M!NiMUM a DIAMETER REQUIRED BY — Sir (4) Jetsi2"ai/2" Steet Plate =| 8 | ADOITIONAL LENGTH TYPE 1 + [@ peisres stun comm ase cteoi | 6" | iF REQUIRED (TSFO1) ——————-_ + [& 14189 Std Column ASE Steel h i) {1/2"x I5"x 14” Stee! Base Plate * APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THE TOTAL AT 9 ANDO THE ania [arn TT BALANCE AT 6. INSERT APPROPRIATE No, IN() FOR STRUC- jf TURE SHEET. i han Neen TT) HO2-A-55 -S0lz- TRANSMISSION LINE (4-B0LT) ROCKBOLT FOOTING TSF IAG) | OR ARING TSF-10l _ [e70e-Ts-98 INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY A MOAMISON-KMUDSEN COMPANY ACBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DIVISION OWN. BY__K. LANGMAN CKD. BY___0, BURLINGAME OATE SCALE NONE W.0. No. i JAN. 26, 1982 SHEET 2 OF 5 ULTIMATE DESIGN LOAD STRUCTURE FPR PRE [sen coun STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT HGT HORIZONTAL SHEAR Port Let RECORD DRAWING © d pe A hy (~) omgy——_—_J \ yonaty TYPE Ut * TSF-8A - ONE DIXIE ELECTRIC # P694-G EXTENSION WHERE REQUIRED. LIST OF MATERIALS [REQ 'D| DESCRIPTION ion Hetix Section, DIXIE # P694-G, 3 HAROWARE AS SPECIFIED OR EQUAL. FOUNDATION ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO THE MANUFACTURERS TOLERANCES AND SPECIFICATIONS SUCH THAT GRIO GRILLAGE MAY BE FIELD FIT. kev, 2 12/15/88 RECORD, Rev. An 72 “ep lovey oes ‘Teclon TERNA fo aie eee TTL ANS ReSTON LINE ROBERT W. RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DIVISION SCREW ANCHOR FOOTING-TRIPOD DRAWING Na 2708-TS-102 CKD. BY_0, BURLINGAME WO. Ne._ 2708 CHFET ance ORIVEN PILE FOOTING FOR USE IN AREAS OF DEEP SOIL OR MUSKEG GREATER THAN IS’. fae ysowee ULTIMATE DESIGN LOAD STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT HGT. COMPRESSION [49° 34 / ! LEG TO LES/WIOTH pp peer _, i dad { an €._ PAY LINE , anes HORIZONTAL SHEAS UPLIFT 4 / GROUND LINE Bn 1224" kh / / SQUARE BUTT JOINT WELDED a BOTH SIDES r Ss 2 wa = 2 GRIND FOR ° FULL END = BEARING TYPICAL SPLICE WOTE: ALL SPLICES SHALL BE GREATER THAN 3 BELOW THE GROUND SURFACE, REV, Z a mee RECORD DRAWING T YPE Ill Oe LIST OF MATERIALS DESCRIPTION Knltiag * LENGTH OF PILING FOR PAYMENT IS THE TOTAL LENGTH OF PILING 1G) |HP8x38 PILING ASESTL INSTALLED AS LISTED IN FINAL INVENTORY. ————— kA TRANSMISSION LINE STEEL PILING FOOTING RECORD DRAWIN INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY} 2 MCORP LOSER COM any ROBERT W RETHERFORD ASSOCIATES DiviSION OWN. BY__K LANGMAN SCALE NONE OREM ING CKO. BY 0. BURLINGAME W.0. No. . DATE JAN. 27, 1982 2708-TS-!01 SHEET 4 OF § RECORD DRAW,..G TYPE III-BATTER TSF-5 CUT/ WELD UNIT (SEE NOTE 3) TSF-9 DRIVEN NOTES: 1. USE HP&x36 ASTM36 STEEL PILING. 2. USE TYPICAL SPLICE SHOWN ON TSF-6 FOR CONNECTING PILING. 3. UNIT TSF-5 INCLUDES CUTTING THE PIL~ ING TOPS LEVEL AND WELDING THE BASE PLATE IN PLACE. BASE PLATE MATERIAL IS, SUPPLIED BY THE OWNER. SEE DETAIL "A" FOR SINGLE PILING. 4. LENGTH OF PILING FOR PAYMENT JS THE TOTAL LENGTH OF PILING INSTALLED AS LISTED IN FINAL INVENTORY. FOOTING ULTIMATE DESIGN LOAD FOR TSF-$ STRUCTURE 2s! ATTACHMENT HGT feouression [i | — | ads. HORIZONTAL 4 Penge [oot [us a [orury for [ar | — [= H-PILE SSiets wUINs i = oe i SEA i] Ad Iyu ane | mer tt 1 eee : jl TACK WELD y i ie NP BOLT HEAD erin : ge he FOOTING PILE NOTCHED SUFFICIENTLY £64 FE 5 : STUB COLUMN TO ALLOW ATTACHMENT TO ne be TOWER, re cae Aw ites wou 4+ 1/15/88 REGORD DWG, ! ae eh 82 . ISSUED POR CONSTRUCTIO! Rev. 2- 10/1/82 Rex 1- 7/15/82 INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY A MORRISON-KNUOSEN COMPANY ROBERT W. RETHERFORO ASSOCIATES DIVISION DWN, BY__K_LANGMAN SCALE NONE CKO, BY__Q BURLINGAME W.0, No. DATE __ JAN. 28, 1982 LilN SINGLE COLUMN ILLUSTRATION OF TSF-5 CUT & WELD UNIT (HP 8x36 OR HP 14x 89) . .HO2-A-55 -S0K - £44 TRANSMISSION LINE STEEL PILING FOOTING ZZ ALEGEND ~ } aw Am mm mm PREFERRED ROUTE, G naan n= ALTERNATIVE ROUTE™~.. HHMI /EXISTING LINE b> te ome = PLANNED ROAD < / ? * / ‘TEST PIT aw <@erree me = TOWER FOUNDATION / = TYPESLIMITS =F , +46 \ MATCH LINE - SHT. 2 OF 5 MATCH LINE - SHT.1 OF 5 mee. 1 / PREFERRED ROUTE) Caf ALTERNATIVE ROUT ihinn’ exisTING LINE / m PLANNED ROAD< >) ‘ ki TEST RIT tg fys “) ed A ( at \' MATCH LINE - SHT. 4 OF 6 aye on th. Vk figan EN 1 RY: GEOTECH NICAL SORVE = E TO TYEE LAKE INTERTIE ik BF Sheet" ' La LE WN SEEGEND eA (tem eas PREFERRED ROUTE) = \ 5 |S ' |) apap [ALTERNATIVE Ro Tes i (a ef 1) ws le z ns 1 eeotnennnapeannucsugany * Ss Te LINE” \ VS | =_PCANNEMT ROA #, TESTI MATCH LINE - SHT, 3 OF 5 MATCH LINE - SHT. 5 OF 5 - al ; - _ 1 - MONUMENT + SHEET 4 OF 5 i—) 5 ‘ 4 J 2 nei } ENOIIR ENING, wee. V3 = 1 (77 , mF e foo MATCH LINE - SHT, 4 OF 6 z APPENDIX C SELECTED MATERIAL COST QUOTATIONS RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SUL DET AGL UA LCI Ce ewes) tebe th Ot me wee —, ERICKSON AIR-CRANE CO. weer tee evettitewern « arrn: PAUL DORVEZ RW BECK FROM? STEVE BROWN DATE: = 2-4-92 TO FAX No: 206-441-4962 FROM FAX NO: (503) 664-2312 PAGE(S) INCLUDING HEADER: 4 SWAN LAKE - TYEE INTERTIB ASSUMTIONS: 1, 20,000,000 Board Feet Volume to be removed by helicopter No Reads Available . 2. All helicopter, all water drop points 3. Species Composition: . 80% Hemlock ' 10% Spruce , 10% Cedar | 4. Davis = Bacon Wages 5. Very Minimal amount of Slash Work after logging 6, No cost to contractor for stumpage of Total Job:Cost ~ $16,500.00 Log Sales Credit 4,000.00) Cost to A.B.A, 3100 WILLOW SPRINGS RO. P.O, BOX 3247, CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 « (503) 664-5544 « FAX (503) 664-2312 ne Ss of Electrical Workers Local 1547 2702 DENALI STREET ' ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2779 ry. TELEPHONE —_ DISPATCH FAX (907) 272-6571 (907) 276-1547 (907) 276-1963 2 GARY BROOKS VERN C. “BUD” GARRISON BUSINESS MANAGER ¢ FINANCIAL SECRETARY PRESIDENT So N 8 TAL DATE: \f2zi/qz2 NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: ae TIME: TTT TTT TO: Des Seott Ru W) Beck BL FAX NO.: (2d) 441-492 y FROM: Pe) 6 Siis7 Bes-~tis “76% FBR FAX NO.: (907) 276-1963 RE: | COMMENTS : Ht If you have any problems with this transmission, please contact « - Jan at (907) 272-1547 or 272-6571. PROUDLY SERVING 586,000 SQUARE MILES ON TOP OF THE WORLD - <—p- i } JAN 21 792 1bids HNUHURHoE 1547 OUTSIDE AGREEMENT WAGE/BENEFIT PACKAGE 01/01/92 03/01/82 Journeyman 26.10 24.15 Foreman 28.35 26.15 Pension 4.32 3.00 Health & Welfare 3.80 aoa ee Fund -30 oy te} Legal Fund . 15 pss NEBF (3% of gross) 79 -72 Foreman 85 238 Groundmen 16.90 22.15 Apprentices are currently paid a percentage of the journeyman wage and pension contribution ranging from 40% to 90%. In 1982 apprentices were paid a percentage of the journeyman wage ranging from 55% to 95% and a full pension contribution. VER JEtLE DE ESS pe uy) HICH Fae Anke pF ove 60 Abus C¥O. "MEYER INDUSTRIES | G amenican evectaic MEYER INDUSTRIES ANCHOR METALS PO Box 14 Fad Wigs, MIN $9006 Phrane (715) 702-2811 FAX (718) 702-5321 cs co’ PAX No. 715~792~5321 DATE: __. t-4-92. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: __ : (Including Cover Sheet) wo: P _ Beul Dervel company & tocarion: __ 4.4). Beck vax wommer: . ____(200) dd/-f902, FROM: | Steve Melme ALEVIOUS Pfovect Vide ihe. Ft ak wh ee ne} desi ignations exactly as you indicated oe. any of “the structures Some seve close so © used them. fer these I was unable te get clase on, I estimated wei on what IT presumed Ldera wie lee stro: ce the Blow: tabulation; ZT hope his Fale. Kegards rep 04 “Se 16°90 NILIOR diw >. HiNio. reed Haske Beergy: dhe etn ceetpenerer seni pitino ene Oe sae ee nein oe OY ON Estimated _ Structure... Close Match Estimated _Lnit ice ne -—iesigention Designate. ___Iebght . Dekvered —-S02=-482A-tal__ 312-6524: dost 7,272* . 4 13,350 _ STs a a Muth 1,000" 4,300 no wee eel: ES TT 49S#~ £21, 858 _ "STB. - ESSA- = 0 _S73-ES5SE-65__ _ weet 20,800 . Sti EDA = aD bb Mtabh (000 2o,ton ee On SE ee san aes von STM 2 5A - 45 Ne Match 12,500" Irs sr3 ~£SSE-S5S __ 72,923" __ 16,80 ___Sra 585A. 55'. _ W73-.F52A- A= fed srs. ES2E- dos! fo os oa _faze0. . __ ST it'= ES0A- “OD Na, : Dat 4,000* - Bee... __ STK ~ E504 - deh Sra eionttal ta ae0* - “2h200 . &7X -. €30A - a0 ro Makes _ssaa® S7ze0.. 5 ios vt 979% — 19; Fee- SES. =~ESS4 : ooh __323 ah “fon 14,848 18,020... sro ~ ESSE - Oe 14, eee a wer iirze iisos B <00 906 V75K N-M SmLE Sree. va QUOTATION PAGE 10F 2 QUOTE NO. P-0076 Niedermeyer-Martin Co. DATE 2/10/92 nee Wood Products Since 1920 TO: FACSIMILE MESSAGE RK. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES reer See cee ween ee 2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SENT TO: 1-206-441-4964 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96121-2375 YOUR REFERENCE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, TYBE- ATIN: PUL BE. DORVEL,. SWAN LAKE INTERTIE FEASIBILITY PRICES BELOW ARE QUOTED SHIPMENT CAN BE MADE PAYMENT TERMS FOB DOCK, KETCHIKAN, START 120 DAYS A.R.O. NET 30 DAYS - SUBJECT TO ALASKA. COMPLETE 180 DAYS A.R.O. CREDIT APPROVAL. Any applicable taxes imposed by thea United States Government, State or Territorial Government are to be for buyer's account. WE TAKE PLEASURE IN QUOTING SUBJECT OUR CONFIRMATION AS FOLLOWS: ITEM # QUANTITY UNITS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TREATED DOUGLAS FIR POLES A) All material to be Coastal Douglas fir. B) All material to be per ANSI specifications 05.1-1967 for quality and size. C) All material to be treated with .60# Pentachlorophenol or .095# Copper Naphthenate (net retention per cubic foot of wood) at your option in accordance with AWPA specifications Cl & C4. D) A plant certificate for grade, treatment, and size will be provided. B) All material to be unframed. OPTION "A" — PENTACHLOROPHENOL TREATED MATERIAL. 1A 200 PCS. CLASS 1~ 50° @ $ 404.00/Pc. §80,800.00 2a 100 PCS. CLASS 2 ~ 60° @ 540.00/Pc. 45,000.00 3a 100 PCS. CLASS 1 - 60° @ 650.00/Pc. 65,000.00 4a 100 PCs, CLASS 1 ~- 70° @ 838.00/Pc. 83,800.00 5A 70 PCS. CLASS H1 - 70° @ 903.00/Pc, 63,210.00 6A 60 PCS. CLASS 1 - 80° @ 1,068.00/Pc, 64,080.00 7A 60 PCS. CLASS Hl - 80° @ 1,147.00/Pc, 68,820.00 690 PCs. TOTAL AMOUNT OPTION "A", «1 6 « © «© © © © «© + «©§470,710.00 A oni ik itn iio * -—-CONTINUED-- * RERRRARERREREEERE Tel, 503/787-2411 © Toll Free 800/547-6952 Tel. 206/017-3562 © Sales | AX 206/887-0780 © Acct. FAX 206/887-3811 1727 N,t. 11th Avenue » P.O. Box 3768, Portland, Oregon 97208 USA. * 111 West (Division St. © P.O. Box 518 » Rickgefield, Washington 98642 Jelex 15-1323 # Telex 474024 © [AX 503/287-7225 O2rlivo2 llios B&B <00 cof v700 N-M Smecor chu. ve QuOTATION PAGE 10F 2 QUOTE NO. P-0076 DATE 2/10/92 TO: R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES ITEM # QUANTITY UNITS DBSESCRIPTION AMOUNT OPTION “B" - COPPER NAPHTHENATE TREATED POLES 15 200 «PCS. CLASS 1 - 50° @ $ 403.00/Pc. 80,600.00 28 100 = PCS. CLASS 2 - 60° @e 538.00/Pc. 53,800.00 3B 100 «PCS. cLAS8 1 - 60° @ 645.00/Pc. 64,500.00 45 100 = PCS. cuass 1 - 70° e 836.00/Pc. 83,600.00 SB 70 =6PCS. CLASS H1 - 70° @ 899,00/PC. 62,930.00 6B 60 Pcs. CLASS 1 —- 80’ @ 1,066.00/Pc. 63,960.00 7B 60 Pcs. CLASS H1 —- 80’ @ 1,144.00/Pc. 68,640.00 690 Pcs. TOTAL AMOUNT OPTION "BB". . «2 2 2 2 + + © © = © $478,030.00 ABOVE PRICES ARE QUOTED ON AN ALL OR NONE BASIS. ANY VARIATION IN QUANTITY, CLASS OR LENGTH IS SUBJECT TO REQUOTE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUOTE ON THIS MATERIAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL. CORDIALLY, NI tH. BY wlacoey It Abort ates SUSAN M. DOMREIS ROUND STOCK DIVISION SMD: mmi —— FEB-14-’92 11:15 ID:D’EWART REPS TEL NO:286 486-8442 #487 Pol TRANSMITTAL SHEET / PAGE .| oF 1 DATE 2/14/92. SEND TO: SENTO COMPANY: Reo beck A ATTN: ... We ea VEL. LOCATION: FACSIMILE NUMBER: 44( - 4%wo FROM: NAME OF SENDER Dos San Dpeuw FACSIMILE NUMBER: (206).486-8442 D'EWART REPRESENTATIVES BOTHELL WA 98041 (206) 485-6545 REFERENCE: AizfArich CNEREY Bomoe rt / TYEE ~ Sesan LAKE FNTRRTLE ATT CRHED. 15S.. Dio. Benss. - Yoorter. Bees. Meices . Nose : Oto [bess fhieme '(S Jo Séavrte Doc onty FEB-14-'92 11:15 1Div’EWHRI Ker fel NU? e0b 4¢b-6442 A400 rdd GS-S2-M3 4 (6.00) PROPOSAL row & €1) BR - HUBBELL/THE OHIO BRASS COMPANY P.O. Box 1001, Wadsworth, Ohio 44281-0901 (OHIO) 600/623-7735 @ (OUTSIDE OHIO) 800/622-7738 FAX 216/336-7718 NOURY HO t onED . Treo i 4-OZ039EKI {FAK 2/3/98 | ATTN: DON j mach ot yO: D‘EWART REPRESENTATIVE DATE February 4, 1992 ATTN: DON FOR! RW BECK/ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TEM MO. ‘GUANTITY DRSORITION T <a. . ESTIMATING PRICES 2205 ea OBBZ3L056-3001 HI*LITE SUSPENSION / $328.65 ea NET INSULATOR &5,000 lbs SML _ LEAD TIME ~ Q-10 WEEKS «7.7405 <A LZ. > 1080 ea —0B¥232730-3001 HI*LITE SUSPENSION $130.95 ea ner “et . INSULATOR 25,000 lbs SmL ty LEAD TIME - 8-10 WEEKS /©.2 “G5 CA 540 aa * 088232107-3202 H1®LITE POST $263.00 ea NET INSULATOR SERIES-250 > LEAD TIME - STOCK-6 WEEKS G2 465 a ae ALTERNATES : ney de yo 2208 ea OB#511207-1001 HI*LITE SUSPENSION _ $71.50 @a NET “ INSULATOR 25,000 Ibs Sm . LEAD TIME - 8-10 WEEKS 7,6 445 EA 1080 ea . GB#S11008-1001 HI#LITE SUSPENSION “976.50 ea NET INSULATOR 25,000 lbs SML i . LEAD TIME - G10 WEEKS 7,7 Las 4A i 540 ea OBMSEPOCH-1102 HIFLITE XL DESIGN ‘($215.00 em NET : POST INSULATOR SERIES-250 _ LEAD TIME - 4-6 WEEKS 7% 165. éA TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE ON REVERSE SIDE “9x05 1Sro SSW OTH eP:TT 26.p0 ead —— res-1l4—-"92 11i1lb& 1020’ EWHRI REPS TEL NU? 206 486-8442 #487 POS a haan a OHIO BRASS HT ee | 3/8 DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES HI*#LJTE XL. SUSPENSION INSULATOR S/S‘d i "AGS "1ST SSUMd OIHO SV:TT 26. vO Gas PEs=14—'S2 Titi¢ (Ui CWHRKI Rer> (oh NUicdd 400-0442 A400 rus ~ OHIO. BRASS DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES eTto08 Ti Toor s/o'd “AAS "LST SS OIHO Shitt 26. ba Gad - Poep-ig- ye idea Ue CWHRI Rers Hoh NWI edd 4+50-O44e Aso" Ful —— eee Ow eee 12 iT u DIA ; 16 ai 26) sen , au | d Xe ; & (10°* POLE) 35 (7"" POLg) s MOUNTING QETAILS STRiInE O1rsTance LEAKAGE OISTANCE. 0. ww we ON MAXIMUM DESIGN CANTILEVER... ../500 L3 CEFLECTION at RATING (2 1. 42 IN ORY GO wZ FL ASHOVER_ 2 WW 8 8S OKV wET GO mz FL ASMOVER, www tk WET 60 MZ wiTMSTANO IMPULSE CHITICAL POSITIVE. . 475 KV IMPULSE wWITMSTAND POSITIVE, —~ 435 *V IMPULSE CRITICAL NEGATIVE, . 785 KV IMPULSE wiTRSTANMO NEGATIVE ~ _ 745 *V NE EEC ee ee eee ergs (eg HI-LITE LINE POST xL SERIES 250 GAIN SaSe “ANBS"LSMOD SSM OLHO wrITT 26 ¥@ Gd - FEB-14-"92 11:18 1D:D’ EWART REPS TEL NU: 286 486-8442 #487 Pas EB 14 "S92 3:81 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PAGE .@82 BROTHERS ), BOX 159 @ 210 NORTH 13TH STREET ® SEWARD, NEBRASKA 68434 ® PHONE 402/643-2991 @ FAX 402/643-2149 February 12, 1992 RW. Beck and Assoc. 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Att: Paul Dorvel Dear Paul: Attached please find prices for your feasibility study for Alaska Energy Authorities Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie. I have shown prices for the items per your bill of material, and for a couple alternatives. After analyzing the structures using the information you gave I believe that the x-brace size shown on your inquiry may not be sufficient, depending on the transverse spans desired. The attached span charts show four different structure configurations; with braced arms and without braced arms, each analyzed for two sizes of x-brace. As you can see the 3-3/8" x 5-3/8" brace allows spans that are considerably less than an alternative 4-5/8" x 5-5/8” or 5-1/8" x 6” brace. The pole spacings of 17’-6” and 20’-0” make the compressive strength of the smaller brace the controlling factor. For the transverse spans I determined that the controlling load case was the extreme wind of 31 psf. The crossarm height and “Y” dimensions shown on the span charts are just for example, but are close to optimum. By adding. vee braces the allowable span for all your pole sizes exceeds 1000 feet. This is possible since the braces will create a plane of contraflexure between the arm and the x-brace, Without the vee braces the poles above the x-brace act as simple cantilevered beams, The vee braces also will support the vertical loads from the 2 inch radial snow case, allowing for a smaller arm size. The arm size shown would require the purchase of 5” x 10” inch solid sawn beams, a size Manufacturer of Transmission and Dietribution Material for the Electric Utility Industry since 1921. commen FEBW LE Fe 11Li is 130° CWHRI Ker (EL NU? edb 486-9442 that is neither inexpensive nor readily available in structural grade solid sawn timbers. If an unbraced arm is desired, the best solution may be a laminated douglas-fir arm. Laminates are not available in the size shown but a 5-1/8" x 9” or 5-1/8” x 9-1/2” arm could be a viable substitute. The delivery for laminates will be better than solid sawn timbers, The current lead time for the solid sawn size is 12 to 16 weeks while laminates could be provided in 6 to 8 weeks, maybe even less. The prices shown include totals for the structures according to your bill of material, and the unit prices of several alternates. As an example, suppose the pole size is class 2, 60 feet. The estimate of the structure price, as designed, is shown as $1500.00 with an allowable span of 598 feet. By revising the pole top to include the vee and tension braces, smaller arm size and larger x-brace the price drops to $1390.00 with an allowable span over 1500 feet. If longitudinal strength is a concern, the 5-1/8” x 7-1/2” double arm could also used, with similar savings. With the addition of the braces, a crosstie should also be added, but the entire cost is still below the original design. We are not trying to design this for you, but would like to beip you construct the most economical structure with the best strength. If you have any questions regarding the prices, or the alternatives available, please call me. Sincerely, Project Engincer cc: D’Ewart Representatives. EB 14 'S2 9:82 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PAGE. Uus FeB-14-’92 11:19 iDiv’ EWART REPS leL NU? 20b 436-3442 *EB 14 'S2@ 9:02 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PRICE ESTIMATE PRICE ESTIMATE 2. 5. Alaska Energy Asthority Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie Approx. shipping welght; Qty Descrintion 150 Hughes Material for Type 1, one X-brace Tange: 60 43 13 30 1-Crossbrace, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 for 20'-0" pole spacing 2-Crossarm, Douglas-fir, 4-5/8 x 9-3/8 x 36°.0” 3-Type 3415 Spacer Fittings Freight Total Hughes Material for Type 1, two X-brace Tangent H-Frame with: 2-Crossbrace, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 for 20°-0” pole spacing 2-Crossarm, Douglas-fir, 4-5/8 x 9-3/8 x 36'-0” 3-Type 3415 Spacer Fittings Freight Total Hughes Material for 3-Pole Light Angle Structure, Includes: 4-Crossbraces, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 for 17’-6” pole spacing 3-Type 2848 Bracket Freight Total Hughes Material for 3-Pole Medium Angle Structure, Includes: 4Crossbraces, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 for 17’-0” pole spacing Freight Total Hughes Material for 3-Pole Heavy Angle/Dcadcnd, Incindes: 4-Crossbraccs, 3-5/8 x 7-1/2 for 20°-0” pole spacing Freight Total Alternate Materjais for Item 2 1-Croasbrace, 4-5/8 x 5-5/8 for 20’-0” pole spacing 1-Crossbrace, 5-1/8 x 6 for tt spacing 2-Crossarm, Laminated Douglas-fir, 5-1/8 x 7-1/2 x 36°-0” 2-Crossarm, Laminated Douglas-fir, 3-1/8 x 9-1/2 x 36'-0” Items.for Braced Arm Construction 2-Type 2025 Vee Braces 2-Type 2043 Tension Braces with. Turnbuckles Prices shown ere for estimating purposes only. nt H-Frame with: Fay rod PAGE. @@4 Time Required to ship: See Letter 280,000# Price FOB; Ketchikan, Alaska Price $260.00 $510.00 $50.00 $70.00 $1,500.00 $260.00 $510.00 $50.00 $70.00 $1,760.00 $250.00 $80.00 $50.00 $1,290.00 $250.00 $50.00 $1,050.00 $420.00 $50.00 $1,730.00 $420.00 $505.00 $240.00 $230.00 $50.00 $95.00 ca. ca. ea. ca. ea. ea. ea. ca. ea. ca. ea. ea. Pes-14-"92 11:19 1D:D’EWART REPS TEL NO:206 486-8442 #487 PBS FEB 14 '92 9:83 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PHue. wus Maximum Theoretical Spans 2-10-1992 Unbraced Arm X-Brace = 1042 Wind Load= 31 Ibs Ice Loading (radial) = 0 in Fiber Gtress = 8000 psi Safety Factor =_ 1.3 # of Conductors = 3 CroseArm Height = 6_—sf tt # of Shield Wires = 2 Ys 6 ft Pole Spacing =__17.5 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.927 in Shield Wire Diameter =_ 0.385 in X-Brace Height = 3.875 in Transverse Wire Tension = oO Ibs X-Brace Width = 5.375 _in X-Braoe Strength =_20,000 lbs Crossarm Height iv 1042 X-brace ~_ Pole Class Pole Height * DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING PES-14-"s2 llico 1U3 0° EWHRI Ker feL NUi eb 4db-544z ASoe Fl "EB 14 '92@ 9$:84 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PAGE. 486 Maximum Theoretical Spans 2-11-1992 Unbraced Arm X-Brace =_ 2096 Wind Load = 31° Ibs lo Loading (radial) = Q in Fiber Stress =_ 8000 psi Safety Factor « 1.3 # of Gonductors = 3 CrossArm Height =__ 6 sft # of Shield Wires = 2 Ys 6 ft Pole Spacing =__17.5 ft Conductor Diameter =_ 0.927 In Shield Wire Diameter = 0.385 in X-Brace Height =_ 4.625 in Transverse Wire Tension = _—O Ibs X-Brace Width =_6.625_in X-Braoe Strength =_35,000 Ibs : Crossarm Height v 2096 X-brace Pole Class } 1195 | 943 | 11661" | 1673°{ 1463 | 1167 | 920 | |1586* | 1600° | |1144 | 898 | | 1523° | 1536* | 1993 [| 1116 | 877 _| [1466°| 1484°| 1288 | 1063 | 3839 | 11416*] 1406 | 4176 | 371 | 767 | |1370°| 1298 | 1088 | 873 | sas | [1329°| 1209 | 987 | 792 | 642 | 11264°| 1129 | o22 | 7i9 | 581 | 11248°| 1036 | 644 | 675 | 528 | (1194 | 988 | 7384 | 625 | 487 | 1.1108 | 916 [744 | 575 | 445 | | 1033 [ 851 | 689 | 530 | 407 | “DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING res-i4—"y2 11lidl 10:0’ EWHRT REPS TEL NO:266 486-8442 #487 P11 "EB 14 "S92 9184 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PAGE .907 Maximum Theoretical Spans 2-11-1992 X-Brace = 1042 Wind Load = _31_—siibs ice Loading (radial = 0 In Fiber Stress =__8000_ psi Safety Factor = 1.3 # of Conductors = 3 CroseArm Height = 8s ft # of Shield Wires = 2 Ye 6 ft Pole Spacing = 17.5 {ft Conductor Diameter =_0.927_In Shield Wire Diameter =_0.385_In X-Brace Helght =_3.375_in Transverse Wire Tension = 0 Ibs X-Brace Width =_§.375_In X-Brace Strength = 20,000 Ibs Crossarm Height 1042 X-brace — Pole Class TT eT Se | 841° | 853° | 864° | 875° | 775° | 787° | 800° | 813° | 826° | B39" | x 619° | 636° | 653° | 671° | 689 | 708" | Ts76* | 894° | 614° | 634° | 683° | 673° | 536° | 656° | 577° | 596° | 619° | 641° | 'e 498° | 520° | 542° | 564° | 588° | 611° | 2 458° | 482° | 506° | 830° | 555° | N/A | 391" | 418° | 444° | 472° | 500° | N/A_| 366° | 363° | 419° | 441° | 472° | N/A _| 320° | 350° | 381°] 411° | 444° | N/A _| [286° | 317° | 380° | 382° | 417° | N/A_| * DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING ~ FEB-14-'92 11:21 Iviv’EWHRI RerS FEL NU? 20 486-3442 A450 rle FEB 14 '92 9:85 FROM HUGHES BROTHERS INC TO DEWARTS PAGE .888 Maximum Theoretical Spans 2-11-1992 X-Brace =_ 2086 Wind Lead = -31__—sibs Ice Loading (racial) = 0 _in Fiber Strese = _ 6000 psi Safety Fector = 1.3 # of Condue'crs = 3 CrossArm Height = 8 tt # of Shield Wires = 2 Vie amet Pole Spacing = 17.5 {t Conductor Diameter = 0.927 in Shield Wire Diameter =_0.385_in X-Brace Height = _ 4,625 in Transverse Wire Tension = 0 ibs X-Brace Width =_ 3,625 in X-Brace Strength =_35,000 Ibs Crossarm Height 2086 X-brace Pole Class Pole Height ** TOTAL PAGE.@0B *x SUMITOMO ELECTRIC U.S.A. Inc. : ACTION COPY File SiS Bi A Ref. No. MM-E92007 Code —_27*7 February 13, 1992 Mr. Paul E. Dorvel Principal Engineer R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Fourth and Blanchard Building, Suite 600 2101 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121-2375 RE: Alaska Energy Authority 115 kV Submarine Cable Dear Mr. Dorvel: I am pleased to advise you of the following in response to your letter dated January 23, 1992 on the above-mentioned subject. 1. Specificati Cabl Please refer to the attached sheet, CS1-7754, in which the cable is specified. The schematic diagram for cable system specifying the accessories required is included in CS1-7754, as well. The remark is as follows; (1) Conductor Size The selected size of conductor is 300 mm? from viewpoints of the reliability on mechanical characteristics of cable, such as bending. In terms of the cable ampacity, the size of 300 mm* is able to carry 500 to 600 A, so that it is rather enough for the specified current of 167 A. (2) Insulation Wall Thickness The insulation thickness of cable is specified i: compliance with the AEIC specification. 551 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 (212) 308-6444/Telex: WU 640739 SUMOELEC NY} Facsimile (212) 308-6575 (3) Cable Installation In case the cable is suspended on rock outcrops as mentioned in your letter, it is concerned that the metallic sheath could get cracked due to the metal fatigue caused by tide. Generally, it has been one of essential design to avoid the condition. Consequently, we would like to recommend strongly that further bathymetric surveys are carried out in order to determine the cable route on which the cables are able to be layed onto seabed over the length. 2. Cost Estimate Please refer to the attached sheet, T416-1087. Should you need any further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Cpt Ce Lament” Munehisa Mitani Manager, Power Cable Engineering encl: CS1-7754 & T416-1087 ETR No. 3A-1937 (T) & ETR No. 1A-135 J cc: Mr. Ohtski/Mr. Nakaura, SEI > SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. CABLE ADDRESS HEAD OFFICE (TOKYO) *SUMITELIN TOKYO" ESTIMATE 3-12, 1 CHOME, TELEX : SEITOK J28202 (BUDGETARY) MOTOAKASAKA TEL =: (03) 3423-5741 MINATO - KU FAX —: (03) 3423-5093 / 5084 ; "TOKYO. 107 JAPAN Date: Feb. 12, 1992 Attn: Mr. Paul E. Dorvel Your Enquiry No. : Principal Engineer Our Estimate No.: 1416 - 1087 R.W. Beck and Associates, Inc. Dear Sirs : ‘ Herewith our quotation in reply to your kind ntl of 115kV Oil-filled Cable for Behm Canal Submarine Cable Crossing. Terms of Payment: 100% Cash Within 14 days after shipment . Place of Delivery: CIF = Anchorage (INCOTERMS 1990) Time of Shipment: N/A a Destination: Anchorage, Alaska Specification : CS1-7754 Inspection: Our inspection's final Validity: N/A Subject to Validation by the authorities concerned. Soliciting your esteemed order, Yours Faithfully, a | “2 Il) =e allege eal | TN eet M. Sasaki Manager, Power Cable Sec. International Business Div. = Offered Price In Total : FOR REFERENCE ONLY __ CIF Anchorage (INCOTERMS 1990) _ In USS USS 4,014,464. Additional Terms and Conditions : The following terms and conditions shall be applied to this estimate : Price Variation -- The above price(s) is not subject to any price variation. Cable Length Unit length of the cable is 1,820m. ~ - Creepage Distance of Outdoor Sealing End : 3,360mm Pressure Tank Pressure tank shall be manufactured i in accordance with JIS Japan Industrial Standard), instead of ASME standard. ™= —&@ SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. Attached Sheet Dec. 12, 1992 ffer Pri Enq. No. : : Est. No.: 1416 - 1087 Item Description Quantity Unit Price Amount CIF Anchorage In US$ 1 115kV Copper Conductor, Paper Insulated, and Wire Armored Oil-Filled Cable 1x300mm2 7,280 m 280.00 20138, 400.50 2 Accessories for Item 1 (Details as shown in the following list) i 1 lot 476,064.00 476,064.00 3 Installation 1 lot 1,500,000.90 1,500,000.90 4,014,464.00 List of Accessories for 115kV Oil-Filled Cable . ~~ Item Description Remark Quantit . 2-a Outdoor Sealing End: - --for Item 1 . 8 set 2-b Pressure Tank Plinth Mounted Type (S00ltr, K=0.075) 24 set, 2-< Oil Feeding Pipe ID=20, Aluminum 272, om! 2-d Insulated Coupling - . 8 - set: 2-e Three Way Connector Bess ee ees 16 set! 2-f Gauge Panel (GP-A4T-4C) _-_ cv... 2 set 2g Armour Clamp) -- = for Item 1. 8 set 2-h Link Box (LB-4EB) Structure Mounted Type 2 set 2-1 Link Box (LB-4EB) Buried Type 2 set’ 2-J__Earthing Wire 600V PVC/PVC 75mm2 480m, 2-k —_ Earthing Wire 600V PVC 25mm2 260 =m 2-1 Alarm Receiver for 8 cct. - 1 set 2-m Control Cable + 12 x 2.0mm2 200 =m -E&O.E.- - = © SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. 1-3 Shimaya 1-chome, konohana-ku, Osahe, 554 JAPAN Telex 5248005 SEIKON J Facsimile (06) 365-6141 lst Power Cable Engineering Section Tel (06) 466-5522 2nd Power Cable Engineering Section ~ Tel (06) 466-5523 Messrs. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY (AEA) Date... Feb. 11, 199 Spec. No. Design No. eee SPECIFICATION FOR 115 KV 200 MM?SINGLE CORE, COPPER CONDUCTOR, PAPER INSULATED, LEAD ALLOY SHEATHED, POLYETHYLENE JACKETED AND SINGLE-WIRE ARMOURED OIL-FILLED SUBMARINE CABLE FOR BEHM CANAL SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING A. Ohtsuki Manager, lst Power Cable Engineering Section 911-038 Y.N.smt > SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. eB 248 GENERAL: This specification covers the construction and manufecture for 115 xv single-core 300 mm?, copper ccnductor, paper-insulated, lead alley-sheathed, polyethylene jacketed and single wire-armoured oil-filled submarine cable, used for lagoon portion. CONSTRUCTION OF—THE CABLE: Oil Duct Oil duct shall consist of galvanized steel strip formed into an open helix. The particulars of the dimensions shall be as shown in the attached Teble. The inner diameter of oil duct is selected to be 12 mm in order to reduce the transient oil pressure change. Conductor: - The conductor shall be plain annealed copper, and shall be hollow round conductor with central oil duct. The wire before stranding shall meet the physical requirements of "the american society for testing and materials standard specifications for soft or annealed copper wire", ASTM B-3, The particulars of dimensions are shown in the attached Table. Conductor Screen: The screen over the conductor shall consist of two layers of carbon black paper tape and metalized paper tape. Insulating Paper: -. Fal i ah pein Sy The paper shall be uniform in texture, long fibred and free_ from imperfectly pulped materials; woody matter, lime spots, metallic particles or other deleterious substances. It shall contain no mechanical wood pulp or esparto. Chemicals used in pulping; bleaching or other process of manufacture shall be removed. The peper shall be free from loading materials and from gelatine, albumen and resin size. The paper shall be applied in the form of tapes laid helically. The minimum radial thickness of insulation shall be not less than the value shown in the attached Table. ee 248 © SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. 2-5. 2-6. 2-7. 2-8. 2-9. 2-10. Manufacturer's Identification: The manufacturer's name and the year cf manufacture shall be printed on the cutermost layer cf insulating paper at intervals not greater than 300 mm in such a way that they can be clearly distinguished for a long time. Insulation Screen: Insulation screen shall consist of one layer of carbon black paper tape and an aluminum tape intercalated with a carbon black paper tape. Moreover, a copper-woven fabric tape shall be applied. Imprecnation: The insulation shall be suitably dried and impregnated with insulating oil such that no deterioration of the insulation will occur under working conditions. The synthetic oil shall be used. Metallic Sheath: The metallic sheath shall be lead alloy (Cu+ Te). The thickness of the metallic sheath is decided in accordance with the AEIC: specification-(7th edition). The average thickness and the minimum thickness of the metallic sheath shall be not less than the value shown in the attached Table. Reinforcement: The melaliic seinforcement of the pressure retaining lead alloy sheath shall consist of two layers of stainless steel tape. Details of the metallic reinforcement, bedding tapes and binder tape shall be as shown in the attached Table. Anti-corrosive Covering: The anti-corrosive covering shall consist of extruded polyethylene. The thickness of anti-corrosive covering is decided in accordance with the AEIC specification (7th edition). The average thickness and the minimum thickness of the anti-corrosive covering shall be not less than the value shown in the attached Table. RB 248 © SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. 2-12. 2-13. 2-14. The anti-corrosive covering shall te marked with the following identification at least at an interval of one meter. "SUMITOMO Year of Manufacture 115 kv 1 x 3C0O MM2" Bedding of Armour: An polypropylene yarn shall be applied on the anti-corrosive covering as a bedding of wire armour. Wire Armour: The wire armour shall consist of a single layer of galvanized steel wire of 8 BWG. Serving: The serving for the cable shall ccnsist of two layers of compounded polypropylene yarn. & SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. Constructional Data of Oil-Filled Submarine Cable Particulars Unit Description Rated voltage kV 115 area nom. Shape Hollow circular Number of core - . 1 - Galvanized steel spiral oil Inner diameter mm 12.0 passage - ea 0.8 Plain annealed copper Conductor Cross sectional : "300 Diameter over the conductor approx. ; Carbon black paper tape and Conductor jwaterias |= | metalized paper tape... -- screen Thickness min. mm 11.05 mm 26.4 a Insulation Carbon black paper tape and Material aluminum tape intercalated with carbon black paper tape Binder priciness vom | a | 3 sheath Thickness nom. re Diameter over the sheath . 55 approx. Core screen * Thickness of paper part of metalized paper tape shall be considered to be a part of insulation. B+ 248 mm. fan © SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. Particulars Unit Description Type of impregnated oil Synthetic oil Material Fibrous tape Thickness nom. a ie re Material | - | Stainless steel tape Reinforce- ment Thickness nom. 2x 0.14 Bedding Anti- [material = || Extruded black polyethylene corrosion Bedding Armouring No./dia. of No./ = wires nom. 52 / 4.2 Serving Thickness nom. | mn . Overall diameter of completed cable approx. Weight of completed cable - fF approx. kg/km . 18,000 Oil volume of completed i paisa Ea ea = Max. D.C. resistance of conductor (at 20°C) 0.0601 Max. electrostatic capacitance of insulation -_ (at 20°C) Drawing No. Des 7754 115 KV_ SINGLE CORE OIL-FILLED SUBMARINE CABLE (Not to scale) Oil Passage Galvanized steel spiral Copper conductor " Carbon black paper tape and metalized paper tape Kraft paper tape Carbon black paper tape and aluminum tape intercalated with carbon black paper tape Copper woven Fabric tape Lead alloy (Cut+tTe) sheath Fibrous tape, stainless steel tape and fibrous tape Extruded black polyethylene jacket Polypropylene yarn Galvanized steel wire Polypropylene yarn © SUMITOMO ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, LTD. OMENTS PRINT [SSUE RICINAL _PRINT ISSUE 4 UU al ty Ay it EARTARING WIRE @oo Viet SQ.mm IV EARTHING Wiac soe Vis SQ.mm VV ARMOUR CLAMP ron. BUAIED TYPE FOR ¢ Lincs LINK 80x EAATAING STAUCTUAC MOUNTED [FOR «4 LIMES TYPE Link BOX CARTHING GAUCE PANEL WITH fOR 6 SCTS OF t ea TANRS AND « CABLES ' ALAAM CONTACT _ eT art TAACEWAY CONNECTOR vet INSULATED COUPLING 8 OIL FEEDING Pipe . te PACSSURE TANK PLIMTA MOUNTED TYP SEALING END FOR 1. OUTDOOR TYPE 8 283 AV SINCLE Coat OIL-FILLED CABLE NAME OF PART ae Lye corren ™ conpucron 1200 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FOR 11S5KV OIL-FILLED CABLE SYSTEM!’ FOR BENM CANAL SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING SCALE : NOT TO SCALE TRACE TANAKA CALCRER <> DESIGNER : CMECKER cuter ae ree. ae prawinc] O FW 1001-01 O41 A JAI I IIIT IIIT IIR IH MagneTek Electric, Inc. i NO. OF PAGES.. 400 S. Prairie Aye. Vaukesha, Wisconsin 53186 FeO III II III IIA IS DATE. seer vece ’ Sobick TO kkk NAME...i++++ Mr. John Bakken COHPANY,.... RW Beck (Seattle) DEPARTMENT. « ; TBLECOPY NO. 206-441-4962 NAMB. .seesveee DEPARTMENT...» TELECOPY NO... TELEPHONE NO.. COPY TO..... COPY TO....... 5 January 31, 1992 "deck PROM tik David L. Harris, PE PDS Marketing (414) 521-0196 (414) 547-0121 A. Gore, 206-881-8203 K. White R. Klesch FRIIS I IKI IIR IASI IAN IADR IRI TAIT AAAI AI IIA I IAAI IIR IIA IA ISI RIDA AIII AIA III IIIS IISA SUBJECT: Ketchikan Public Utilities MagneTek Estimate 1 -- MagneTek Electric medium Power Transformer, . as per performance specification ITEM 01 12/16/20 (22.4) HVA, 138X69kVY - 115 kVY, with buried tertiary, LTC on 115 kv. NOTE: Quote is for a 3 winding transformer, autotransformer design with HV series parallel -- NO QUOTE 1 -- MagneTek Electric 3 phase medium power . ° transformer as per the performance specification ITBH 02, 25/31.25 MVA, 115 kVY - 34.5 kV, non-LTC. 4 -- MagneTek Electric 1 phase medium power . . transforemrs as per the performance specification ITEM 03, 8.33/10.417 MVA, 115 kVY - 34.5 ky, non LTC. 6 CTs, 1 per bushing. 6 CTs, 1 per bushing. 1 -- 138 kV disconnect switch - vertical break ’ $ 3 phase, 650 kV BIL, 1200 amp, with - manual operator, arcing horns, auxiliary contects, and galvanized steel stand. 1 -- 115 kV disconnect switch - vertical break . $ 3 phase, 550 kV BIL, 1200 amp, with manual operator, arcing horns, auxiliary contacts, and galvanized steel stand. Ctakiéer post cat uA tor 138 kV dead tank SF6 circuit breaker with . $ 115 kV dead tank SF6 circuit breaker with . $ $ 485,900.00 $ 365,300.00 $ 200,330.00 each 90,750.00 88,250.00 12,750.00 ae, a +3500 4 12,250.00 DG Ce nee Sears® IN Rtelt 0 eemmeepesneogpuccneyg ees anu amnescgunesteoe® 0c acetone MINOT OR CLOLINAG Poe ei 21 VU VGN vate avy ret We evar Page 2 i 1 -- 115 kV, 550 kV BIL, CCVI, with wave trap . $ 15,750.00 and tuning accessories. i i -- 138 kV circuit switcher, S&C series 2000 » $34,500.00 model 2030, vertical interrupter, with operating mechanism and mounting stand. 1 -- Relay and control enclosure, factory ; . $ 330,850.00 assembled, including batteries, charger, ac and dc distribution panels, relays and controls, including pover line carrier equipment, RPL communication equipment, etc. (This estimate is based on an enclosure and relay package for a ring bus substation for a contract ve have for a 3 breaker ring bus substation vith two transmission lines for a Cogen in New York State. We would be willing to prepare an estimate for the entire substation package along with Plan & Elevation drawings if you can forward a single line diagram. We are very interested in quoting the equipment package for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me, or Mr. Allen Gore, our representative at Gore Blectric, 206-883-4505, or Mr. Ray Klesch, our Field Applicetion Engineer at 503-484-6303. PEE Oe em A FT OPP eS TIE rE LS ER EP I TTP nnn ‘== t FOR: R. W. BECK & ASSOC. mat ven vary PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION PROPOSAL NO, ESTIMATE DATE: ITEM NO. OL BATING : . : TYPE: 8 PHASE 60 HZ CORE FORM OIL Ti. $s iH WINDING X_ WINDING 138YK69Y KV. 415y KV. OA 12° MVA 42 MVA PA 6 MYA o6 | MVA PA .20/22.4 MYA 20/22.4 MVA TIONAL TAP VOLTAGES H WINDING 24-2.5% X WINDING +-102%LTC IN 32 5/8Z STEP RC Y WINDING NONE BASIC IMPULSE LEVEL H LINE 550 KV 4H WINDING H NEUTRAL 110 KV X WINDING X LINE 450 KV Y WINDING | X NEUTRAL 110 KV . Y LINE 110 KV .Y NEUTRAL - EV PERCENT. REGULATION 1002 PF_ 90 PF 80x PF _70z PF 0.7L 4.29 $.59 6.47 PERCENT EXCITING CURRENT GORY ANE 0.56 LOSSES ~ SEE \BoDY OF QUOTE FOR CITATION 1007 V 12.6 KW 41. 1102 Vv : kw “PERFORMANCE DATA LOAD van virgo save Woevevs JANUARY 31, 1992 SELF-COOLED TEMP. RISE 55/65 ¢ . WINDING 8.32 KV $5% BURIED MVA FOR HARMONIG MVA MVA, SUPPRESSION IMPEDANCE VOLTS (2 APPROXIMATE dpaszovie. AND WEIGHTS (Not FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES) OUTLINE DWG. NO. HEIGHT OVERALL A 245 IN. WIDTH ,. B 156 IN. DEPTH i c 168 IN. HEIGHT OVER cove D 161 IN. 238 #KV12 #MVA HT0X8.5 AT12 HVA 115 KV12.0s MVA_-sdaRTO YY AT MVA KV MYA XTOY AL MVA AUXILIARY SOUND LOSSES © LEVEL TRANS MVA CLASS KW Ds "12°C 0 71 16 FA 0.9 73 20. FA 1.8 74 REFERENCE TEMPERATURE FFICIENCIES LOAD TOTAL LOAD 6 54.4 KW 1/4 99.49 mW. KW 1/2 99.61 . 3/4 99.60 FULL 99.55 CORE AND COIL 44300 LBS. TANK AND FITTING 30300 LBS. OTL (5950 GALS.) 44600 LBS, TOTAL WEIGHT 119200 LBS. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION POR: R. W. BECK & ASSOC. PROPOSAL NO. ESTIMATE : DATE: JANUARY 31, 1992 ITEM NO. 02 ul RATING ; TIPE: 3 PHASE 60 HZ CORE FORM OIL IMM. S8ELF-COOLED TEMP, RISE 55/65 G CLASS ‘_H_ WINDING X WINDING ¥_ WINDING 1isY RV is4es KV Kv Cm MINS SI EVA) 25) MIVA MVA FA $1.25/35.0 HVA = 31.25/33,0 -MVA eS MVA . MYA MVA MVA ADDITIONAL TAP VOLTAGES H WINDING 2+-2.5% X WINDING NONE Y WINDING | BASIG IMPULSE LEVEL PERFORMANCE DATA LOAD IMPEDANCE VOLTS (2) H LINE 450 KV H WINDING 115 XV 25 HT0X9.0 AT 25 MVA H NEUTRAL 150 KV X WINDING 34.$ KV 25 a MFO, Pa as MYA X LINE 200 KV Y¥ WINDING KV MWA XTOY AT uvA X NEUTRAL ! KV Y LINE : ¥ NEUTRAL KV Hl ! : 7 3 AUXILIARY SOUND PERCENT REGULATION LOSSES LEVEL 100% PF 90% PF 602% PF 702 PF k MVA S D 0.70 SL °' ses 6.82 25 ; OA 0 75 PERCENT EXCITING CURRENT $1.25 FA 1.2 77 100% V_ 110 0.50 ! i - ‘LOSSES - SEE BODY OF QUOTE FOR REFERENCE TEMPERATURE EFFICIENCIES BSCETATION RO LORD aan era Load 100% Y 18.6 KW 74.8 KW 93.4 KW 1/4 99.63 110% Vv : kw kw KW 1/2 99.70 : : 3/4 99.68 FULL 99.63 APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS (NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES) OUTLINE DWG, 'NO. CORE AND COIL 52900 LBS. HEIGHT OVERALL A 240 IN. TANK AND FITTING $4700 LBS. WIDTH : ‘B 208 IN. OIL (4750 GALS.) 35600 LBS. DEPTH ; c 151 IN. TOTAL WEIGHT 123200 LBS. _HEIGHT OVER COVER D 165 IN. wove Eee Pees Haw Yee Var VO Vere Ate eve ee ERFO TION FOR: R. W. BECK & ASSOC. PROPOSAL NO. ESTIMATE DATE: = JANUARY 31, 1992 ITEM NO. : 03 RATING : i TYPE: 1 PHASE 60 HZ CORE FORM OIL IMM. SELF-COOLED ‘EMP. RISE 55/65 C LASS “H WINDING WINDING Y_ WINDING ~ 11sy KV 34.5 KV Ts KV OA 8.33, MVA 8.33 HVA MVA FA 10.43.7/11.7 MYA =. :10.417/11.7 HVA MVA . HVA : MVA MVA ADDITIONAL TAP VOLTAGES H WINDING 2+-2.52 X WINDING NONE Y WINDING ¢§ ~ BASIC IMPULSE LEVEL PERFORMANCE DATA LOAD IMPEDANCE VOLTS (2) H LINE 450 KV H WINDING 115 KV 8.33 MVA HTOX9.0 AT 8.33 MVA H NEUTRAL 150 KV X WINDING 34.5 KV 8.33 MVA HTOY aT MVA X LINE 200 KV Y WINDING KV MVA XTO0Y AT MVA X NEUTRAL : KV Y LINE KV, Y NEUTRAL + KV Whe | AUXILIARY SOUND PERCENT REGULATION | OSSES ‘LEVEL 00% PF 90Z 80Z PF 702 PF TRANS MVA_ CLASS kW . DB 0.73 4.58 $.90 6,84 8.33 OA 0 70 PERCENT EXCITING CURRENT - 10.417 FA 0.6 72 100% v__110z Vv 0.50 i “LOSSES - SEE BODY OF QUOTE FOR REFERENCE TEMPERATURE | FFICIENCIES EXCITATION NO LOAD LOAD TOTAL LOAD Zz 100% Vv 6.7 KW 27.4 KW 34.1 KW 1/4 99.60 110z Vv i Kw _ kW kw 1/2 99.68 i . ; 3/4 99.65 ; ; ; FULL 99.59 APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS (NO CONSTRUCTION OUTLINE DWG. No. ! CORE AND COIL 22600 = LBS. HEIGHT OVERALL A 218-IN, TANK AND FITTING 17500 LBS. WIDTH : B 100 IN. OIL (2550 GALS.) 19100 LBS. DEPTH i c 149 IN, TOTAL WEIGHT 59200 LBS. HEIGHT OVER COVER D 143 IN, DN TT rr rr rer rier norm imrne serie 9 3 rr APPENDIX D SAMPLE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SPREADSHEETS RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE: ALTER-A\ALTER-A.WQ1|TLINPUT.WK1 Project : AEA TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE Type Est: FEASIBILITY Item eeesesces WOOD POLES Low Elev 50/1 60/2 70/1 80/1 High Elev 50/1 60/1 70/H1 80/H1 BRACING/ARMS/ATTACH HF NO X HF 1-X HF 2-X LIGHT ANGLE MEDIUM ANGLE HEAVY ANGLE HF IN-LINE DE INSULATOR ASSEMBLIES TANGENTS RUNNING ANGLE DEADEND JUMPER POSTS CONDUCTOR ACCESSORIES DAMPERS 36 IN MARKERS 20 IN MARKERS HOLD DOWN WTS GUYS AND ANCHORS ROCKBOLT-TYPE | HF TANGENTS LIGHT ANGLE MEDIUM ANGLE HEAVY ANGLE HF IN-LINE DE Take-Off: Quantity 282 141 84 56 73 36 22 15 96 48 48 37 12 37 31 578 149 411 112 678 93 80 58 101 67 235 112 Feature: SM/PED Unit ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea ea Material/U sescsseesense factor =s2=scesse= $405 $540 $840 $1,070 $405 $650 $900 $1,145 $1,635 $1,945 $2,260 $1,515 $1,310 $1,420 $1,945 $150 $165 $165 $250 $75 $335 $134 $150 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 L/M R. W. Beck and Associates ESTIMATED PROJECT INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS ALTERNATIVE A, TYEE-SWAN, ROUTE RIA Priced :PED Labor/Unit 3.00 $1,215 2.30 $1,242 1.60 $1,344 1.30 $1,391 3.00 $1,215 2.00 $1,300 1.60 $1,440 1.30 $1,489 1.20 $1,962 1.20 $2,334 1.20 $2,712 1.15 $1,742 1.15 $1,506 1.15 $1,633 1.15 $2,237 1.20 $180 1.20 $198 1.75 $289 1.10 $275 1.50 $113 3.00 $1,005 6.00 $804 2.00 $300 4.25 $1,700 4.25 $1,700 4.25 $1,700 4.25 $1,700 4.25 $1,700 Checked: DKS Location: Approved: Material $114,210 $76,140 $70,560 $59,920 $29,565 $23,400 $19,800 $17,175 $156,960 $93,360 $108, 480 $56,055 $15,720 $52,540 $60,295 $86,700 $24,585 $67,815 $28,000 $50,850 $31,155, $10,720 $8,700 $0 $40,400 $26,800 $94,000 $44,800 SE ALASKA Labor $342,630 $175,122 $112,896 $77,896 $88,695 $46,800 $31,680 $22,328 $188,352 $112,032 $130,176 $64,463 $18,078 $60,421 $69,339 $104,040 $29,502 $118,676 $30,800 $76,275 $93,465 $64,320 $17,400 $0 $171,700 $113,900 $399,500 $190,400 WORK ORDER: WW-1559-BA1-AF 22-Feb-92 Total $456,840 $251,262 $183,456 $137,816 $118,260 $70,200 $51,480 $39,503 $345,312 $205,392 $238,656 $120,518 $33,798 $112,961 $129,634 $190,740 $54,087 $186,491 $58,800 $127,125 $124,620 $75,040 $26,100 $0 $212,100 $140,700 $493,500 $235,200 1308817 1186272 490118 352885 FILE: ALTER-A\ALTER-A.WQ1|TLINPUT.WK1 Project : AEA TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE Type Est: FEASIBILITY Take-Off: Item Quantity GUYS AND ANCHORS cont PLATE -TYPE II HF TANGENTS 0 LIGHT ANGLE ll MEDIUM ANGLE 7 HEAVY ANGLE 26 HF IN-LINE DE 1 FOUNDATIONS : TYPE I (SL HP2) 634 TYPE I] & III 70 CONDUCTOR 556 ACSR/AW 596482 37 no 8 AW 39633 MISCELLANEOUS 30% Foundation Tests 211 30% Guy Anchor Tests 168 Helicopter Pads 25 WATER CROSSINGS Structures, Foundations, Framing Crossings 3 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Feature: SM/PED Unit ea ea ea ea ea ea ea Ib lb ea ea ea ea R. W. Beck and Associates ESTIMATED PROJECT INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS ALTERNATIVE A, TYEE-SWAN, ROUTE RIA $1 $1 $7 $322 Material/U seeesssseee== factor ====scssec= $280 $280 $280 $280 $280 750 500 000 200 Priced :PED Checked: DKS L/M Labor/Unit 10.00 $2,800 10.00 $2,800 10.00 $2,800 10.00 $2,800 10.00 $2,800 5.50 $9,625 8.00 $12,000 6.00 $8.76 13.00 $18.85 $600 $600 4.00 $28,000 2.00 $644,400 TRANSMISSION LINES Material Location: Approved: Material $0 $3,080 $1,960 $7,280 $280 $1,109,500 $105,000 $870,864 $57,468 $o $0 $175,000 $966,600 $253,690 $5,019,426 SE ALASKA CHW Labor WORK ORDER: WW-1559-BA1-AF Date: Labor $0 $30,800 $19,600 $72,800 $2,800 $6,102,250 $840,000 $5,225, 182 $747,082 $126,600 $100,800 $700,000 $1,933,200 $1,119,398 $19,971,399 SUBTOTAL 22-Feb-92 Total $0 $33,880 $21,560 $80,080 $3,080 $7,211,750 $945,000 $6,096, 046 $804,550 $126,600 $100,800 $875,000 $2,899,800 $1,373,088 $24,990,825 1220100 8156750 6900596 1102400 2899800 1373088 FILE: ALTER-A\ALTER-A.WQ1|TLINPUT .WK1 Project : AEA TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE Type Est: FEASIBILITY Take-Off: Item Quantity TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION Contingency applied to subtotal construction costs Feature: SM/PED Unit R. W. Beck and Associates ESTIMATED PROJECT INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS ALTERNATIVE A, TYEE-SWAN, ROUTE RIA Priced :PED Checked: DKS Material/U = -L/M_ —_Labor/Unit maneesaazeess factol ==ssuesnune TRANSMISSION LINES Material LINKED SWITCHYARDS Tyee Lake Switchyard Eagle River SY Single Bus Eagle River SY Ring Bus Swan Lake Switchyard Bailey Substation LINKED Tyee - Eagle River Eagle River - Milel5 LINKED RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING TYEE LAKE LINE PARALLEL Location: SE ALASKA WORK ORDER: WW-1559-BA1-AF Approved: CHW Date: 22-Feb-92 Material Labor Total $5,019,426 Labor $19,971,399 SUBTOTAL $24,990,825 SUBTOTAL $1,453,200 SUBTOTAL $o SUBTOTAL $0 SUBTOTAL $442,500 SUBTOTAL $0 $641,651 $2,258,812 SUBTOTAL $2,900, 463 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $0 SUBTOTAL $9,493,271 Eagle River to Swan Lake only OTHER COSTS LINKED ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PERMITTING LAND ACQUISITION SUBTOTAL OTHER COSTS SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS OWNER COSTS 4.5% PRICING CHANGE ALLOWANCE SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $39,280,258 20% $7,856,052 6.5% $2,553,750 5% $1,964,013 $1,500,000 $0 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL OWNER COSTS ALTERNATIVE TYEE-SWAN DIRECT INTERTIE, PREFERRED ROUTE RIA AEA TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TRANSMISSION LINE LAYOUT ASSUMPTIONS COST ESTIMATE INPUT DATA WW-1559-BA1-AF PED 14-Jun-92 ALTERNATIVE TYEE-SWAN DIRECT INTERTIE, PREFERRED ROUTE R1A EAGLE RIVER CORRIDOR, BELL ISLAND, NEETS CREEK SUMMARY INPUT DATA SHEET ITEM VALUE NAME TOTAL ALTERNATIVE LENGTH MILES 57.5 LENGTH LONG CROSSINGS AT 3000 FT EACH 3 1.7 LNGXING TOTAL LENGTH STEEL STRUCTURE MI 6.6 LSTEEL TOTAL WOOD POLE LINE LENGTH MI 49.2 LWP TOTAL HIGH ELEVATION LENGTH MI 11.9 LHE TOTAL LOW ELEVATION LENGTH MI 37.3 LLE AVERAGE LOW ELEVATION SPAN ED 800 ALE AVERAGE HIGH ELEVATION SPAN ET 1000 AHE TOTAL HIGH ELEV STRUCTURES EA 64 SHE TOTAL LOW EVEL STRUCTURES EA 247 SLE 311 STRUCTURE TYPE DISTRIBUTION TANGENT 0-1 DEG 193 62% TPCT LIGHT ANGLE 1-10 DEG 37 12% LAPCT MEDIUM ANGLE 10-30 DEG 12 4% MAPCT HEAVY ANGLE DE 30-60 DEG 25 8% HAPCT1 HEAVY ANGLE DE 60-90 DEG 12 4% HAPCT2 HF IN-LINE DE IN LINE 31 10% DEPCT 1 STRUCTURE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION 50 FT STRUCTURES 50% PCTSO 60 FT STRUCTURES 25% PCT60 70 FT STRUCTURES 15% PCT70 80 FT STRUCTURES 10% PCT80 UNBALANCED SPANS 10% PCTUB (percent of tangent spans unbalanced-special insulators/guys) VIBRATION RECOMMENDATIONS LOW ELEV SPANS % DAMPERS 800 50% PCTDAMPLE HIGH ELEV SPANS % DAMPERS 1000 80% PCTDAMPHE HOLD DOWN WEIGHTS PERCENT TAN STRUCTURES REQ HD WT 10% PCTWEIGHTS (assume 100 1b/phase weights Type NH LC MODEL 50) WATERWAY AND STREAM CROSSINGS TOTAL LENGTH OF FLIGHT PATH SPANS 18500 L36MARKERS TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAM CROSSINGS 20 = 20MARKERS LENGTH OF STREAM XINGS TO PROTECT 16000 L20MARKERS (estimated at 800 ft per crossing) PERCENT LENGTH IN TYPE I, II OR III SOILS PERCENT IN TYPE I SOILS 90% PCTTYPEI PERCENT IN TYPE II SOILS 5% PCTTYPEII PERCENT IN TYPE III SOILS 5% PCTTYPEIII ALTERNATIVE TYEE-SWAN DIRECT INTERTIE, PREFERRED ROUTE RIA LONG SPAN CROSSING MATERIAL COST (A-frames, 3 per structure, 2 structures per crossing) PER AF KIPS COST/KIP A-FRAME WT 24 1250 $30,000 cy COST/CY CONCRETE 12 1500 $18,000 EA COST/EA ROCKBOLT 8 400 $3,200 EA COST/EA FRAMING 2 1250 $2,500 TOTAL COST PER A-FRAME $53,700 AFRAMECOST MATERIAL COST PER XI 6 $322,200 XINGCOST ROW AND CLEARING ASSUMPTIONS TOTAL ROW LENGTH 49.2 MILES DEDUCT LONG SPANS 3000 3 1.7 MILES DEDUCT RAVINES 800 41 6.2 MILES NET ROW DISTANCE 41.28 NETROW PERCENT ROW AT 200 FT 70% 28.9 200ROWMI PERCENT ROW AT 150 FT 20% 8.3 150ROWMI PERCENT ROW AT 100 FT 10% 4.1 1OOROWMI TOTAL ACRES TO LOG AND CLEAR 901 TOTACRES PERCENT ACRES AT 30 KBF/ACRE 30% 270 ACRES30 PERCENT ACRES AT 15 KBF/ACRE 60% 540 ACRES15 MBF OF TIMBER 16 MBF HELICOPTER LOGGING DROP POINTS 50000 6 300000 DISTANCE < 1 MI 100000 15% 6.2 619182 DISTANCE 1-3 MI 200000 44% 18.2 3632533 DISTANCE 3-5 MI 325000 16% 6.6 2146497 DISTANCE 5-7 MI 475000 17% 7.0 3333262 DISTANCE 7-9 MI 700000 8% 3.3 2311612 DISTANCE 9-11MI 900000 0% 0.0 0 TOTAL COST FOR LOGGING 1 OK $12,343,086 COST FOR SLASH/CLEARING % OF LOG 15% $1,851,463 ESTIMATED CREDIT FOR LOGS ESTIMATED TOTAL BOARDFEET $/BF 16211306 CREDIT PERCENT Pulp Grade 30%0.15 4863392 $729,509 PERCENT HEMLOCK saw 50%0.35 8105653 $2,836,979 PERCENT SPRUCE saw 10%0.45 1621131 $729,509 PERCENT YCEDAR saw 10% 0.7 1621131 $1,134,791 $5,430,787 NET COST OF LOGGING $8,763,762 HELICOPTER LOGGING WITH SPUR ROADS COST/MILE MILES OF SPUR ROAD 100000 20 2000000 TRANSFER POINTS 50000 6 300000 DISTANCE < 1 MI 175000 60% 24.8 4334273 DISTANCE 1-3 MI 275000 30% 12.4 3405500 DISTANCE 3-5 MI 400000 10% (Jai! 1651152 1 OK $11,690,924 COST FOR SLASH/CLEARING % LOG * 12% $1,402,911 NET COST FOR LOGGING WITH ROADS $7,663 ,048 LOGCOST SLASHCOST LOGCREDIT ROWCOST ALTERNATIVE TYEE-SWAN DIRECT INTERTIE, PREFERRED ROUTE R1A Electrical Electrical Civil Works SWITCHYARD COSTS Material Labor all Total LF TYEE SWITCHYARD 0.4 $818,000 $327,200 $308,000 $1,453,200 SUBTYEE EAGLE SWITCHYARD single bus 0.35 $1,106,000 $387,100 $525,000 $2,018,100 SUBEAGLE1BUS EAGLE RIVER Ring bus 0.2 $1,576,000 $315,200 $1,050,000 $2,941,200 SUBEAGLERING SWAN SWITCHYARD 0.65 $250,000 $162,500 $30,000 $442,500 SUBSWAN BAILEY SUBSTATION $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBBAILEY TYEE LINE EXTENSION Material Labor EAGLE RIVER TO TYEE Structures $240,702 Conductor 37 No 8 AW $268,545 STructure Erection $288,000 Framing/Foundations $452,900 Clearing $451,500 Conductor Installation $294,420 Markers/Instal lation $150,000 Subtotals $509,247 $1,636,820 Factor for Modifications 1.2 $611,096 $1,964,184 Factor for Adjacent Work Lol $2,160,602 Mob/Demob Allocation 5% $30,555 $98,209 TOTAL $641,651 $2,258,812 TYEEMATL TYEELABOR CLEVELAND MILE 15 TO ER Structures $356,000 Conductor $299,547 STructure Erection $485,500 Framing/Foundations $796,500 Clearing $741,617 Conductor Installation $996,960 Markers/ Installation $300,000 Subtotals $655,547 $3,320,577 Factor for Modifications 1.2 $786,656 $3,984,692 Factor for Adjacent Work 1.1 $4,383,162 Mob/Demob Allocation 5% $39,333 $199,235 TOTAL $825,989 $4,582,396 MILE1SERMATMILE1SERLAB ENGINEERING COSTS (Tlines only) miles 57.5 fixed variable total Surveying 100000 17000 $1,077,500 Geotech 80000 1000 $137,500 Meteor 15000 500 $43,750 Prel Engr 200000 3000 $372,500 Final Engr 250000 7000 $652,500 SUB TYEE 210000 0 $210,000 SUB ER 0 0 $0 SUB SWAN 60000 0 $60,000 total$2,553,750 ENGRCOST NOTES 1. DISTRIBUTION OF STRUCTURE TYPES AND HEIGHTS BASED ON COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR SEGMENTS OF SWAN LAKE PROJECT. 2. PERCENTAGE OF MEDIUM AND HEAVY ANGLE STRUCTURES BASED TABULATION OF MAJOR POINTS OF INTERSECTION ALONG THE ALIGNMENT. APPENDIX E SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE E-1 ALTERNATIVE A , BASE CASE TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1A TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $24,990,825 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $12,343,086 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,851,463 3. Timber Sales Credit ($4,701,279) SUBTOTAL $39,280,258 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $7,856,052 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,553,750 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,964,013 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $53,154,073 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,391,933 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ALTERNATIVE A TABLE E-1R ALTERNATIVE A , WITH ROAD TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1A TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES = 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $24,990,825 3. Road Savings ($1,100,000) B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $9,278,136 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,113,376 3. Timber Sales Credit ($4,701,279) SUBTOTAL $34,377,222 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $6,875,444 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,553,750 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,718,861 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $47,025,277 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,116,137 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $49,141,415 ALTERNATIVE A, WITH ROAD TABLE E-1LC ALTERNATIVE A , LOW COST SCENARIO TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1A TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900, 463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $22,590,976 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $3,921,485 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $784,297 3. Timber Sales Credit $0 SUBTOTAL $32,092,921 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $6,418,584 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,553,750 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,604,646 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $44,169,901 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $1,987,646 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $46,157,547 =eessessses= ALTERNATIVE A LOW COST SCENARIO TABLE EaZ ALTERNATIVE B TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1B TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES : 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $24,454,948 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $14,535,658 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $2,180,349 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,070,561) SUBTOTAL $40,896,556 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $8,179,311 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,565,150 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $2,044,828 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $55,185,845 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,483,363 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $57,669, 208 ALTERNATIVE & B TABLE E-2R ALTERNATIVE B , WITH ROAD TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1B TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900, 463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $24,454,948 3. Road Savings ($1,900,000) B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $9,983,364 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,198,004 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,070,561) SUBTOTAL $33,461,917 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $6,692,383 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,565,150 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,673,096 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $45,892,546 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,065,165 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $47,957,711 ALTERNATIVE B, WITH ROAD TABLE E-3 ALTERNATIVE C TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1C TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $21,323,204 3. Submarine Cable $4,760,123 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $14,539,652 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $2,180,948 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,017,067) SUBTOTAL $42,583,023 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $8,516,605 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,513,850 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $2,129,151 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $57,242,628 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,575,918 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $59,818,547 ALTERNATIVE C TABLE E-3R ALTERNATIVE C, WITH ROAD TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE RIC TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $21,323,204 3. Submarine Cable $4,760,123 3. Road Savings ($2,010,000) B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTAT IONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $9,881,205 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,185,745 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,017,067) SUBTOTAL $34,919,372 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $6,983,874 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,513,850 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,745,969 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $47,663,064 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,144,838 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $49,807,902 ALTERNATIVE C, WITH ROAD TABLE E-4 ALTERNATIVE D TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1D TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $23,599,988 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $13,595,236 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $2,039,285 3. Timber Sales Credit ($4,717,154) SUBTOTAL $39,313,519 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $7,862,704 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,516,700 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,965,676 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $53,158,598 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,392,137 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $55,550,735 ALTERNATIVE D TABLE E-4R ALTERNATIVE OD, WITH ROAD TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1D TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake $23,599,988 3. Road Savings ($2,190,000) B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 3. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $9,308,455 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,117,015 3. Timber Sales Credit ($4,717,154) SUBTOTAL $31,914,466 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $6,382,893 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,516,700 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $1,595,723 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $43,909,782 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $1,975,940 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $45,885,723 seseceeccess ALTERNATIVE D, WITH ROAD TABLE E-5 ALTERNATIVE E EAGLE RIVER-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE, ROUTE R1A TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Eagle River - Swan Lake $26,786,650 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $100,000 2. Eagle River/Mile 15 Switchyard $2,941,200 3. Swan Lake Switchyard $442,500 4. Bailey Substation $0 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $13,740,689 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $2,061,103 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,145,453) SUBTOTAL $40,926,689 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $8,185,338 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,571,800 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $2,046,334 C. PERMITTING $1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $55,230,162 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,485,357 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $57,715,519 ALTERNATIVE E TABLE E-6 ALTERNATIVE F1 TYEE LINE - KPU, CLEVELAND PENINSULA ROUTE R2 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Mile 15 to North Point Higgins $24,449,223 2. Submarine Cable $14,004,400 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $100,000 2. Eagle River/Mile 15 Switchyard $2,941,200 3. North Point Higgins $1,000,000 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $10,853,542 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,628,031 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,371,855) SUBTOTAL $49,604,542 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $9,920,908 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $2,788,250 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $2,480,227 C. PERMITTING $1,750,000 SUBTOTAL $66,543,927 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $2,994,477 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $69,538,404 ALTERNATIVE Fl TABLE ER, ALTERNATIVE F2 TYEE LAKE - NORTH POINT HIGGINS, ROUTE R2 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. -CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) ESTIMATE A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River $2,900,463 2. Eagle River to Mile 15 $5,408,385 3. Mile 15 to North Point Higgins $24,449,223 4. Submarine Cable $14,004,400 B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard $1,453,200 2. North Point Higgins $1,000,000 C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable Timber $10,853,542 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment $1,628,031 3. Timber Sales Credit ($5,371,855) SUBTOTAL $56,325,390 D. CONTINGENCY 20% $11,265,078 II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING $3,120,750 B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $2,816,270 C. PERMITTING $1,900,000 SUBTOTAL $75,427,488 D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% $3,394,237 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST $78,821,725 ALTERNATIVE F2 TABLE E-8 ALTERNATIVE G TYEE-SWAN-WARD COVE, ROUTES R1A,R3 TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY I. CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Materials and Labor) A. TRANSMISSION LINES 1. Tyee Lake -Eagle River 2. Eagle River - Swan Lake 3. Swan Lake to New Ward Cove B. SWITCHYARDS/SUBSTATIONS 1. Tyee Lake Switchyard 2. Swan Lake Switchyard 3. New Ward Cove Substation 4. Bailey Substation C. RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARING 1. Log and Haul Merchantable 2. Clearing, Slash Treatment 3. Timber Sales Credit D. CONTINGENCY 20% II. PROJECT SUPPORT A. ENGINEERING B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT C. PERMITTING D. OWNER COSTS 4.5% TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE G $2, $24, $26, $1, $1, $2, Timber SUBTOTAL $68, $13, $2, $3, $1, SUBTOTAL $90, $4, cost $12, $1, ($4, $94, ESTIMATE 900, 463 990,825 493,585 453,200 000,000 500,000 $0 343,086 851,463 701,279) 831,343 766,269 553,750 441,567 750,000 342,929 065,432 408,361 APPENDIX F KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX F ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS FOR KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES INTRODUCTION As an alternative to building the Intertie, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) could implement Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs to offset the cost of diesel generation and possibly delay the need to add new diesel generators. This assessment provides a description of potential DSM programs identified for KPU, the results from the evaluation of these programs, and a list of the programs included in the conservation resource alternative for KPU. DSM programs generally include (i) "conservation programs" which reduce the consumption of electricity by customers for the same level of service and (ii) "load management programs" which change the pattern of customer's electricity use to reduce peak demand. For example, a load management program could be used to reduce peak demand by shifting the use of electricity from on-peak hours to off-peak hours. Most of KPU’s energy requirements are currently met with hydroelectric generation which has little or no variable operating cost. KPU’s loads are projected to increase and more and more diesel generation, which has substantially higher variable operating cost, will be required to serve loads. DSM programs that are directed at reducing the electric consumption of customers, i.e. conservation programs, could help offset the projected increased use of diesel generation. Potential reductions in peak demand from these programs could also delay the need to add new diesel generators. A total of nine potential conservation programs were identified for KPU which included five residential programs and three commercial/industrial programs. The potential residential conservation programs were targeted at reducing (i) electric space heating load, (ii) electric water heating load, and (iii) lighting load. Commercial/Industrial conservation programs were targeted at reducing (i) electric space heating load and (ii) lighting load. The following residential conservation programs and commercial/industrial conservation programs were evaluated: Residential Programs 1. Energy Audit (Energy Rating) Program 2. Blanket Wrap Program for Existing Electric Water Heaters 3. | Low-Flow Showerhead Program 4. Weatherization Program 5. Efficient Lighting Program Appendix F Page 1 Commercial/Industrial Programs 1. Thermostat Setback Program 2. Building Envelope Improvement Program 3. Efficient Lighting Programs a. Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps b. Rapier Existing Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts ic Replace Existing Incandescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Fluores- cent Lamps PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Descriptions of the conservation programs including the estimated (i) eligible customers, (ii) peak demand and energy savings and (iii) total costs are discussed in the following sub- sections. Each program’s total estimated annual energy savings and demand savings for KPU represents the estimated technically feasible savings available net of market driven savings. This net technically feasible savings does not include any adjustment for the actual number of customers expected to participate in the program except for a reduction in savings for participants that would have installed the energy efficient measures without the program, or “free-riders". In the resource planning model used to evaluate the alternative resource cases, these net technically feasible savings were adjusted for the assumed market penetration rate to estimate the achievable savings. The estimated cost of each program includes equipment costs, installation costs, and utility administrative costs. The utility administrative costs for each program were estimated as 10% to 40% of the installation and equipment costs depending on the program. The total costs for each program includes the cost of "free-riders". All costs are shown in 1992 dollars. The timing of the conservation programs for this assessment coincides with the estimated on-line date for the Intertie and not on an analysis of the optimal on-line date for these programs. Since conservation programs require a ramp-up period before the majority of the potential savings would be available, it was assumed that the conservation programs would begin in 1995 and installations for existing customers would be completed by 1999. Limited information was available for the characteristics and energy usage patterns of KPU’s customers. Information and reports from other utilities were relied upon to develop the estimated savings and costs for the conservation programs. The three main sources of information included (i) the R. W. Beck and Associates November 1991, "Electric Resource Evaluation and Strategic Plan" for the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska ("Sitka Report"), (ii) the R.W. Beck and Associates February 1991, "Electric System End-Use Study and Load Forecast" ("Sitka End-Use Study"), and (iii) the Northwest Power Planning Council "1989 Supplement to the 1986 Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan" ("NW Power Plan"). The potential savings for most of the conservation programs were based on the current (1992) number of customers. Customers added to the KPU system after 1992 were assumed to be primarily new energy efficient construction and not be eligible for most of the programs. Page 2 Appendix F In addition, the estimated savings and costs for the conservation programs were based on current technology. Reducing the electric consumption of appliances and lighting is a rapidly developing technology. Because of potential changes and improvements in this industry, the estimated savings and costs for these programs may change by 1995. Following the descriptions of the conservation programs is a discussion of the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the programs and the identification of the programs included as part of the conservation resource alternative for KPU. Residential Programs Energy Audit The primary focus of the residential energy audit program would be to promote energy conservation. As part of this program, KPU would provide an on-site energy audit for each eligible residential customer interested in participating. Residential customers with homes built in 1992 or before would be eligible for this program. KPU could contract out for this service or train existing staff to provide this service. While the audit would identify and recommend energy saving measures that could be undertaken by the home owner, there were no direct savings attributed to this program. Instead, this program would identify customers that would be eligible for the other residential programs offered by KPU. Each energy audit would include (i) a survey of the electric end-uses and a heat loss analysis to identify measures to improve the heating efficiency of the home, (ii) the identification and promotion of other residential conservation programs offered by KPU that the home is eligible for, and (iii) detailed information about appliance efficiency. The energy audits would also provide valuable detailed customer information to KPU that could be used in the development of future conservation programs. The energy audits were assumed to cost $120 each including administration costs. Approximately 5,356 residential customers were assumed to be eligible for this program. The program was assumed to be offered over the five-year period 1995 - 1999 at a total cost of approximately $642,700. Weatherization It was estimated that approximately 10% of KPU residential customers currently use electric space heating. Although this does not represent a large portion of KPU residential customers, this program was included because of its substantial potential savings per customer. Weatherizing electrically heated homes by (i) improving floor, wall, and ceiling insulation, (ii) installing storm windows or double pane windows, and (iii) installing caulking and weather stripping was estimated, based on the Sitka Report, to reduce annual energy consumption approximately 3,200 KWh per home and reduce annual peak 1.0 kW per home. The estimated cost for weatherizing was $5,700 per home, which was increased 40% for administrative costs for a total cost of $7,980 per home. An estimated 30% of existing electrically heated residential homes were assumed to be already weatherized to an energy efficient level. The remaining 70% of the existing electrically heated residential homes, or 383 homes, were considered eligible for this program. It was assumed that 2% of these eligible homes would have installed the measures without the program. This program’s maximum total annual energy savings for KPU were estimated to be 1,200 MWh and maximum total annual peak savings for KPU were estimated to be 375 KW at a total program cost of approximately $3.0 million. Appendix F Page 3 The installation of the insulation and window measures were assumed to last over 20 years. The caulking and weather stripping measures were assumed to last 12 years. A replacement program was assumed to start in 2007 to replace the caulking and weather stripping installed in the original program. The cost of the replacement program was assumed to be $280 per home including administrative costs of 40%. Electric Water Heater Program KPU estimated that 95% of residential customers currently use electric water heaters. The two main uses of electricity for electric water heaters include the electricity used to heat the water and the electricity used to keep the water hot after it has been heated. The electricity used to heat water can be reduced by reducing the consumption of hot water, as discussed for the low-flow showerhead program. The electricity used to replace the heat loss through the tank to the surrounding air, typically referred to as standby losses, can be reduced through improving the thermal integrity of the water heater. A blanket wrap program was identified to improve the thermal integrity of the current stock of electric water heaters for KPU residential customers. The blanket wrap program would involve adding an insulated blanket wrap (R-20), a thermal trap and a bottom board to the eligible existing electric water heaters. It was assumed that this would result in annual energy savings of 700 KWh per home and annual peak savings of .12 KW per home at a total cost of $230 per home including 40% administrative costs. It was assumed that approximately 50% of the existing stock of electric water heaters were already insulated to this level resulting in approximately 2,725 eligible customers. Of the total eligible customers, it was assumed that 10% would have added the energy efficiency measures without the program. The remaining 2,450 eligible customers would provide KPU with an estimated 1,700 MWh of annual energy savings and 290 KW of annual peak savings at a total program cost of approximately $627,000. The average remaining life of the eligible electric water heaters in 1995 was assumed to be seven years. Based on a 15-year life for electric water heaters, it was assumed that the existing stock of electric water heaters would be replaced beginning in 2002. KPU would pay the incremental cost of replacing the existing water heaters with energy efficient water heaters. The incremental cost was assumed to be $230 per electric water heater including administrative costs. As an alternative to the blanket wrap program, a more capital intensive program for KPU which included the actual replacement of the older electric water heaters with new electric water heaters with a thermal trap was also evaluated but it was found not to be cost effective. Residential Low-Flow Showerhead Program Reducing the amount of hot water used at a residence with an electric water heater will also reduce the electric consumption of electric water heaters. Low-flow showerheads reduce the amount of water used per shower by up to 40%. The low-flow showerhead program would involve the replacement of conventional showerheads with low-flow showerheads for customers with electric water heaters. This program was estimated to provide energy savings of approximately 400 KWh per year per home and peak savings of approximately .05 KW per year per home. The estimated cost for the program was $21 dollars per home including 40% administrative costs. Of the estimated 95% of KPU residential customers with electric water heaters, an estimated 60% of these customers were considered eligible for this program. The remaining 40% were assumed to either already have a low-flow shower head or not have a shower in their home. It was assumed that 5% of the eligible customers would have installed low-flow showerheads without the program. The remaining 2,960 eligible customers were estimated to provide KPU with approximately 1,180 MWh of annual energy savings and 148 KW Page 4 Appendix F of annual peak savings at a total program cost of approximately $65,000. Savings were assumed to drop off fifteen years after the program began based on a fifteen year life for the low-flow showerheads. Efficient Lighting Residential lighting offers an opportunity for reducing electric consumption. Many standard incandescent bulbs currently used in a home could be replaced with energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. Compact fluorescent bulbs are physically taller, in general, than standard incandescent bulbs. This often requires an adapter for the fixture to be part of the cost of the conversion. For example, an adapter may be needed to extend the neck of a table lamp to accommodate a taller compact fluorescent bulb. Compact fluorescent bulbs have a higher initial cost than existing incandescent bulbs but can last thousands of hours longer and provide the same level of light for less energy. For the residential lighting program, it was assumed that two, 75-Watt incandescent bulbs per home would be replaced with 18-Watt compact fluorescent bulbs. The bulbs to be replaced would be selected based on an estimated use of at least 3.5 hours per day. This would result in annual savings of approximately 73 KWh per bulb or total annual energy savings of 146 KWh per home and annual peak savings of .04 KW per home. The compact fluorescent bulbs were assumed to cost $28 each for a total cost of $56 per home including 40% administrative costs. This program was assumed to be staged in over 5 years. An estimated 95% of residential customers in each year were assumed to be eligible for the program. It was assumed that the remaining 5% of residential customers would have purchased the energy efficient bulbs without the program. A replacement program would be offered after the fifth year of the original program in which KPU would pay for 50% of the cost of replacement bulbs. It was assumed that the compact fluorescent bulbs would be replaced every 5 years. Approximately 80% of the original participants (net of customers replacing the bulbs on their own) were assumed to participate in the replacement program. A program for new customers would be added in conjunction with this replacement program. The new customer program would offer new customers a 50% refund for purchasing energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs. It was assumed that each year 15% of new homes would be eligible for this program and 5% of these would have purchased the energy efficient bulbs without the program. The program to replace existing incandescent bulbs with energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs was estimated to provide KPU a maximum total annual energy savings of 800 MWh and annual peak savings of 220 KW at total cost of approximately $309,300. Commercial/Industrial Programs The main conservation savings for the commercial/industrial class was assumed to be through reduction in electrical heating load and reduction in lighting load. It was assumed that 10% of the commercial/industrial customers in 1992 were electrically heated. Two programs were identified for these customers (i) thermostat setback program and (ii) building envelope improvement program. The third commercial/industrial program which would apply to most of KPU’s commercial/industrial customers was a lighting efficiency program. Because of the limited information available for the commercial/industrial customers, estimated savings were based on a total square-footage estimate for the commercial/industrial class. In 1991, KPU had approximately 106 large commercial customers, 10 industrial customers and 820 small commercial customers for a total of 960 commercial/industrial customers. The Appendix F Page 5 number of buildings this represents was estimated based on the ratio of buildings to meters of 77% identified in the Sitka End-Use Study. Applying this ratio to the 960 customers (or meters) resulted in an estimated 720 buildings for KPU’s system. Assuming an average building size of 10,000 square-feet per building, 7.2 million square-feet of commercial/industrial floor space was estimated to be connected to KPU in 1991. Based on the energy requirements for 1991, this resulted in an estimated average electricity use per square-foot of 11.8 KWh. Thermostat Set-Back Program The thermostat set-back program would involve the installation of automatic temperature set-back controls to automatically set the temperature back after operating hours. This program was assumed to provide annual energy savings of 1.65 KWh per square-foot based on saving 15% of an estimated 11 KWh per square-foot annual heating load. These estimated savings do not include any adjustment for interactive savings with the building envelope improvement program. It was assumed that each eligible building would require 4 thermostat set-back units at an installed cost of $430 each. It was assumed that 10% of KPU’s commercial/industrial customers were electrically heated. Thermostats were assumed to be used in 80% of the 720,000 square-feet of electrically heated commercial/industrial floor-space. Approximately 45% of this building area was assumed to already have either automatic or manual temperature set-back measures in place. It was estimated that 10% of the eligible customers would install temperature set-back measures without this program. This resulted in a total eligible floor-space of 285,000 square-feet. The total program maximum annual energy savings for KPU were estimated to be 513 MWh at a total cost of approximately $66,500. Building Envelope Improvement Program The Building Envelope Improvement Program for the electrically heated commer- cial/industrial customers would include (i) improving floor, wall, and ceiling insulation and (ii) installing storm window or double pane windows. The following indicates the savings assumed for each measure and the cost per square-foot based on adjusted estimates from the Sitka Report. Page 6 Appendix F Estimated Savings per sq-ft ————— Estimated Cost Energy Demand (Including Administrative) (kWh/year) (kW/year) ($/sq-ft) Floor Insulation ............ 1.2 0004 1.46 Wall Insulation ............ 15 -0005 1.93 Roof Insulation ............ 13 0004 1.31 GIQ8O eerie eae. 8.8 0027 17.22 The area of glass was assumed to be approximately 15% of the total estimated commer- cial/industrial floor space and the area of roof, wall, and floor insulation was assumed to be 50% of the total estimated commercial/industrial floor space. It was assumed that 75% of eligible customers either already have energy efficient glass installed or it would not be feasible to install. It was also assumed that energy efficient roof, floor and wall insulation was either already installed or it would not be feasible to install for 90%, 85% and 50% of eligible customers, respectively. It was assumed that 5% of eligible customers would have added these energy efficiency measures without the program. The total program was estimated to provide KPU with maximum annual energy savings of 548 MWh and annual peak savings of 170 KW at a total program cost of approximately $840,000. The added insulation and glass were assumed to last over 20 years. Efficient Lighting Program Three efficient lighting programs were evaluated for the commercial/industrial class (i) replace existing fluorescent lamps with energy efficient fluorescent lamps, (ii) replace existing fluorescent ballasts and lamps with new energy efficient ballasts and lamps, and (iii) replace existing incandescent bulbs with energy efficient fluorescent lamps. The first two programs target the same stock of fluorescent fixtures. Both of these programs were included because under certain circumstances a customer may not want to replace the existing ballast. For the evaluation of these programs it was assumed that 100% of the eligible customers would replace ballasts and lamps if KPU paid 100% of the costs. Alternatively, it was assumed that 75% of the eligible customers would replace both the ballasts and lamps and 25% would replace only lamps if the program was only partially funded by KPU. Approximately 50% of the total estimated commercial/industrial floor space was assumed to be lit based on the Sitka End-Use Study. Approximately 15% of this space was assumed to already have the most efficient lighting fixtures. The following table shows the estimated lighting stock for the lit space based on the Sitka Report: 50% fluorescent fixtures only 10% incandescent fixtures only 40% mixed (60% fluorescent fixtures and 40% incandescent fixtures) It was assumed that there was one 4’X4’ fixture or two 2’X4’ fixtures per 64 square-feet. Existing fluorescent lights were assumed to be in use an average of 60 hours per week and existing incandescent lights were assumed to be in use an average of 48 hours per week. Also because of the low percentage of electrically heated customers, there was no adjustment for the Appendix F Page 7 contribution of inefficient lighting to space heating. In addition, there was no adjustment for potential reduction in air-conditioning loads. Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps The existing stock of fluorescent lights was assumed to consist of 40-Watt fluorescent bulbs. This program would replace these 40-Watt fluorescent bulbs with energy efficient 32-Watt fluorescent bulbs. It was assumed that one 4’X4’ replacement would cost $18 and one 2’X4’ replacement would cost $9. This resulted in an estimated savings of 0.5 watt per square-foot at a cost of $.33 per square-foot including administrative costs. This program was estimated to provide KPU with a maximum total annual energy savings of 3,260 MWh and annual peak savings of 1,020 KW at a total program cost of approximately $750,000. These savings and cost estimates were based on the total stock of fluorescent fixtures. The new lamps were assumed to have a five-year life. At the end of five years, it was assumed that KPU would pay the incremental cost of new energy efficient lamps. Replacement of Existing Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts The total replacement of existing fluorescent ballasts and lamps with energy efficient equipment was estimated to save 1 Watt per square-foot for lit building floor space. The estimated replacement cost for one 4’X4’ fixture was $105 per installation for an average replacement cost of $1.97 per square-foot. The total program was estimated to provide KPU with maximum annual energy savings of 6,300 MWh and annual peak savings of 2,040 KW for a total program cost of approximately $4.4 million. These savings and cost estimates were based on the total stock of fluorescent fixtures. The new lamps were assumed to have a five-year life and the new ballasts were assumed to have a 12-year life. It was assumed that KPU would pay the incremental cost of replacing the ballasts and lamps at the end of their life with new energy efficient ballasts and lamps. Replace Existing Incandescent Bulbs with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps This program would involve replacing inefficient incandescent bulbs with energy efficient fluorescent bulbs. It was assumed that 4.7 Watts per square-foot of incandescent light would be replaced with 1.2 Watts per square-foot fluorescent light for a savings of 3.5 Watts per square- foot. It was assumed that 50% of the existing incandescent bulbs could be replaced. The cost of the replacements was estimated at $1.97 per square-foot including administrative costs. The total program was estimated to provide KPU with maximum annual energy savings of 3,940 MWh and peak savings of 1,432 KW per year at a total cost of approximately $960,000. The new lamps were assumed to have a five year life. At the end of five years it was assumed that KPU would pay the incremental cost of new lamps. STATE OF ALASKA CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Currently the State of Alaska is sponsoring three residential conservation programs and one small business conservation program. The residential programs include the Home Energy Efficiency Programs and Energy Rated Homes of Alaska. The small business program includes the Business Energy Assistance Team. Page 8 Appendix F The Residential Home Energy Efficiency Program is comprised of two programs; the Home Energy Loan Program and the Home Energy Rebate program. The Home Energy Loan Program provides principal buydowns and interest subsidies on loans for qualifying energy conservation improvements of residential buildings. The Home Energy Rebate Program provides rebates of up to 50% of the total cost of qualifying energy conservation measures to a maximum of $2,000 per home. The Residential Energy Rated Home of Alaska Program includes two parts. The first part provides incentives for the training of "energy raters" and the second part includes a rebate to the home owner of $35 towards the cost of an energy rating (or energy audit). As part of the Business Assistance Team Program the State will provide an energy rating (or energy audit) of the small business free of charge. In addition, the State will reimburse up to 50% (for a maximum of $1,000 per business) of the cost of qualifying measures. The eligible small business must be less than 15,000 square-feet, employ fewer than 20 employees, and have a peak demand of less than 25 KW. These conservation programs are currently being offered by the State as part of the Alaska Stripper Well Plan and are available to KPU’s customers. The analysis contained in this report did not include any of the State’s programs because these programs may not be available in 1995. However, KPU may want to investigate the possibility of offering conservation programs in conjunction with the State’s programs to offset the total cost of the conservation programs. Availability of money from the State’s programs does not affect the economic analysis of the conservation programs. EVALUATION OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS The conservation programs included in this assessment were targeted at offsetting the cost of diesel generation for KPU and potentially delaying the need for diesel generators to be added to the KPU system. To select the recommended conservation programs for KPU, the cost- effectiveness of the conservation programs was evaluated using two methods (i) a 20-year levelized life-cycle cost analysis and (ii) the resource planning model used to evaluate the alternative resource plans for KPU. All of the conservation programs except for the replacement lighting programs were assumed to be staged in over the five-year period 1995 to 1999 and financed over a ten-year period, or less if the life of the program was less than ten years. The costs of the replacement conservation programs were assumed to be the actual cost of the measures installed in each year. The number of years the savings would be available from each program was dependent on the life of the individual measures. Two levels of participation in the conservation programs were evaluated for each program. The first level assumed that KPU would pay 100% of the costs of the original programs and 50% of the costs of the replacement programs. It was assumed that 75% of the identified eligible customers would participate in the programs fully paid for by the utility and 60% of the eligible customers would participate in the replacement programs partially funded by KPU. The second level of participation assumed that the customers would contribute a portion of the costs of the programs resulting in a two-year simple pay-back period for their investment and KPU would contribute the balance of the costs. For this second level of participation, an estimated 60% of the identified eligible customers were assumed to participate. Both levels of participation were Appendix F Page 9 evaluated for each program. The most cost-effective of the two levels was selected as part of the recommended programs. The estimated amount the utility would pay for each program to provide the two-year simple pay-back period was calculated based on the 1991 electric rates for KPU residential and commercial/industrial customers. The residential costs were calculated based on a per home basis and the commercial /industrial class costs were based on the total class. The utility portion and customer portion of the total costs are shown in Table F-1 below. A levelized life-cycle cost analysis was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the conservation programs as compared to the cost of diesel generation. The analysis was based on a 20-year life cycle for each measure. Replacements were included for measures with lives shorter than 20 years and an adjustment was made for measures with value extending beyond the 20 year period. The levelized costs for each measure was calculated by dividing the net present value of the 20-year stream of annual fixed and variable costs by the net present value of the annual energy for the 20-year period. No inflation was included for the costs and a 3% discount rate was used. The estimated conservation savings identified in this assessment represent the savings at the customers’ meter. To compare conservation programs on an equivalent basis with diesel generation, i.e., at the busbar, the savings for the conservation programs were adjusted for distribution losses. The 20-year levelized life cycle costs of the conservation measures compared to the diesel generator are shown in Table F-2 below. The total costs were further broken down to indicate the utility portion and customer portion of the costs assuming the utility provided two-year simple payback period for customers’ investments. Based on the 20-year levelized life cycle cost analysis, all of the proposed conservation programs except for the Residential Weatherization Program and the Commercial Building Envelope Improvement Program were shown to be more cost-effective than adding diesel generation. However, the 20-year levelized life cycle cost analysis did not capture the potential cost savings these programs could provide KPU by delaying the need for new diesel capacity. Therefore, the final evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the conservation programs was based on the results of including the conservation programs in the resource planning model on a trial and error basis. The conservation programs were added to the resource planning model one at a time. The annual diesel generation required to serve KPU requirements was reduced by the energy savings from the conservation programs and the addition of diesel generators to KPU’s system was adjusted appropriately based on the peak savings of the conservation programs. Conservation programs that reduced the net-present value of the total annual resource costs were determined to be cost-effective and included as part of the recommended conservation programs. The following programs were found to be cost-effective and were included as part of the conservation resource alternative for KPU: Page 10 Appendix F Table F-1 Ketchikan Public Utilities Estimated Costs for Conservation Programs Based on a 2-Year Minimum Simple Pay-Back Period for Customers Estimated Annual Savings Estimated Cost Customer Energy Demand Total Utility Percent Customer Percent Pay-Back (eKWh) _ (eKW) ($) ($) of Total ($)_ of Total (years) RESIDENTIAL Existing Water Heater Program: Blanket Wrap Program 700 0.12 230 120 52% 111 48% 2.00 Low-Flow Showerheads 400 0.05 21 0 0% 21 - . 100% 0.66 Weatherization Programs: Window 1900 0.59 4900 4600 94% 300 6% 2.00 Insulation 1000 0.31 2800 2642 94% 158 6% 2.00 Weatherstrip/Caulking 300 0.09 280 233 83% 48 17% 2.00 Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Program 146 0.04 56 33 59% 23 41% 2.00 New Customer Program 146 0.04 43 20 47% 23 53% 2.00 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL __ Estimated Annual (Based on total class) Savings Estimated Cost Customer Energy Demand Total Utility Percent Customer Percent Pay-Back (eMWh) (eKW) ($000) —_ ($000) of Total ($000) of Total (years) Thermostat Setback 470 0 69 0 0% 69 100% 1.97 Weatherization 548 170 835 751 90% 85 10% 2.00 Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 795 234 168 45 27% 123 73% 2.00 Incandescent -> Fluorescent 3910 1343 962 353 37% 609 63% 2.00 Efficient Fluor. Ballast & Lamps 4769 1404 3011 2274 76% 737 24% 2.00 KPU - 1991 Rates: Residential energy 0.079 $/kWh Harbor energy 0.079 $/kWh Commercial/Industria energy —(0.074 $/kWh demand 2.4 $/kW-month (40% of eligible customers assumed to have a demand charge) Appendix F 7 Page 11 Table F-2 Ketchikan Public Utilities 20-Year Levelized Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (cents/KWh in 1992 dollars) Total (1 Utility (2) Customer (3) DIESEL GENERATOR 4000 KW Diesel Generator (80% Plant Factor) 9.55 9.55 0 RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Home Energy Audit (4) - - - Existing Water Heater Programs: Blanket Wrap Program 4.71 2.45 2.26 Low-Flow Showerheads 0.46 0.00 0.46 Weatherization Programs: Window 19.71 18.50 1.21 Insulation 21.39 20.19 1.21 Weatherstrip/Caulking 10.64 8.84 Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Program 5.66 3.34 2.32 New Customer Program 3.80 - - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS Thermostat Setback. 151 0.00 151 Weatherization 12.02 10.80 1.22 Efficient Lighting : Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 3.12 0.84 2.29 Incandescent -> Fluorescent 4.58 1.68 2.90 Efficient Fluor. Ballast & Lamps 6.97 5.27 1471 Notes: 1. Total cost represents the total program costs adjusted for losses and for participants that would have installed the energy efficient measures without the program. 2. Utility cost represents the amount the utility would contribute to provide a 2-year simple pay-back period for the customer based on 1991 rates. 3. Customer cost represents the amount the customers would contribute to obtain a 2-year simple pay-back period on their investment based on 1991 rates. 4. There were no estimated direct savings for this program. Page 12 Appendix F Residential Programs Commercial/Industrial Programs 1. Energy Audit (Energy Rating) Program 1. Thermostat Setback Program 2. Blanket Wrap Program for Existing Elec- 2. Efficient Lighting Programs tric Water Heaters a. Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps 3. Low-Flow Showerhead Program with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps 4. Efficient Lighting Program b. Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts with Energy Efficient Lamps and Ballasts c. Replace Existing Incandescent Bulbs with Energy Efficient Fluorescent Lamps The analysis was evaluated for both (i) KPU paying 100% of the costs of the programs and (ii) KPU paying a portion of the costs to provide a 2-year pay-back period for the customer's investment. The residential programs were found to have higher level of cost savings with KPU funding a portion of the costs and providing the customers a 2-year payback period except for the Low-Flow Shower Head Program which KPU was assumed to fully fund. The commercial/industrial efficient lighting program that replaced both the fluorescent ballasts and lamps was also found to provide the higher level of cost savings with the utility funding a portion of the costs and providing a 2-year payback period for the customers. The other two commercial /industrial efficient lighting programs and the thermostat setback program were found to provide the highest level of savings if they were fully funded by KPU. A summary of the total annual energy savings and demand savings the selected conservation programs were estimated to provide KPU is shown in Table F-3 below. The table also includes the total costs to KPU for these programs. The estimated savings and costs for the programs were based on a 75% participation rate for the programs fully funded by KPU and a 60% participation rate for the programs partially funded by KPU. Detailed output from the conservation assessment is provided at the end of this appendix. Appendix F Page 13 Table F-3 Ketchikan Public Utilities Conservation Program Assessment Total Estimated Maximum Annual Energy and Demand Savings and Total Estimated Costs (1) Total Annual Savings For KPU Total Program Energy Demand Costs for KPU Description of Programs (MWh) (KW) ($000) RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit - _ $482 Blanket Wrap For Existing Electric Water Heaters 1,030 180 195 Low-Flow Shower Head 890 110 : 49 Weatherization Caulking and Weatherstripping 70 20 53 Efficient Lighting Original Program 480 130 120 Replacements for Original Program (2) - - 255 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback 350 0 57 Efficient Lighting Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Flurorescent Lamps 600 180 140 Replace Existing Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts with Energy Efficient Flurorescent Lamps and Ballast 2,860 887 1516 Replace Existing Incandescent Lamps with Energy Efficient Flurorescent Lamps 2,930 1,060 802 Replacements for Original Programs (2) = = 1,272 Total for All Conservation Programs 9,210 2,567 $4,942 Notes: 1. The savings and costs for all of the residential programs except the Residential Low-Flow Showerhead Program and the Residential Audit Program are based on KPU paying a portion of the costs to provide a 2-year payback period for the customers. Savings and costs for the commercial programs are based on KPU providing a 2-year payback period for the Fluorescent Lamp and Ballast Program and fully funding the other commercial programs. The programs that are fully funded by KPU are estimated to have a 75% participation rate and the partially funded programs are assumed to have a 60% participation rate. The savings represent the maximum savings assumed to be achieved in 1999. 2. The savings for the replacement programs are included in savings for the original programs. Page 14 Appendix F KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Run Parameters for Conservation Analysis: Description 1 Description 2 Description 3 Description 4 Load Forecast (H,M,L) Inflation Base Year for Costs Distribution Losses Real Discount Rate Finance Cost Interest Rate Diesel Financing Term Conservation Financing Term Diesel Reserve Fund Conservation Reserve Fund Conservation Programs: RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottom Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Window Insulation Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Progran Replacement of Original New Customer Progran COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback Weatherization Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Incandescent -> Fluorescent Rep Flr Ballast & Lip Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of Incandescent Replacement of Flr Blt ===> Base Case = => = =n =—_— 0.0% => 1992 = 5.0% => 3.0% ==> 3.0% —= 3.0% => a2 =— 10 => 6.7% == 1.% Select 1 -o- -oo RRRRAA AR RAS SAX AAR w aaa Percent 100% Program Percent (1=y;0=n)% Achvble Utility Customer 882 Ree aai a RRRRRR AA 2-yr Payback for Customer Percent Percent Utility Customer 1 Hee Hai a RRRRAIN RR RAS ARR aX & RRRRAA RR AR Market Driven Participants Base Case RESIDENTIAL Customers. Energy Requirements Home Energy Audit Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottan Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Window Insulation Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Progran Replacement of Original New Customer Program Total Residential Savings % of Armual Energy COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Energy Requirements Thermostat Setback Weatherization Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Incandescent -> Fluorescent Rep Flr Ballast & Lip Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of Incandescent Replacement of Flr Blt Total Con/Ind Savings % Arrual Energy co ge ecco coo °o ooo ge ecoocco KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Estimated Energy Savings from Conservation Programs o oo go eco coo ooo ge eoccco 19% ooo ge eco oo geo eooo°O 195 > = oO 2 sz (ath) 19% 197 5,600 5,689 5,722 53,844 54,119 54,433 0 0 0 42618 0 0 355 0 0 0 0 7 40 19 (285 0 0 0 0 WB 1,476 x % 98,289 99,450 41 ot 0 0 m3 OB 1,173 1,759 145 1,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,697 4,045 % a% 198 ¥ Re 1,759 1,717 610 5,550 5% 1,173 1,145 8 Nb 4,953 5% Boo 1,51 1,221 4,357 a% KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Estimated Energy Savings fram Conservation Programs Base Case (teh) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 = 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 RESIDENTIAL Hame Energy Audit Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottan Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Existing Water Heater Programs: Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Insulation Window _ _ - o 0 Ze 2 Original Program Replacement of Original New Customer Progran Total Residential Savings 1,342 x 1,341 a 1,341 a a 1,517 1,871 1,6% a a 2,08 % 4% 2,23 2, a% a 2,220 2,221 2, 4K a 4% 2,219 % of Arual Energy COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL 130,011 108,099 109,674 111,426 113,341 115,383 117,412 119,349 121,063 122,802 124,566 126,355 128,170 353 3°33 3 33 33 3 BD 33 33 353 Thermostat Setback Weatherization coos 3a o°°BaR -o°Raa -°°RaR -°°Baa -o°RaR -o°RaR -°°Rag -o°Rag ooosss ooo saa Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of I Replacement of Flr Blt Rep Flr Ballast & Lap Incandescent -> Fluorescent ' Efficient Fluorescent Efficient Lighting 3,761 76 3 3 ie ” z Oa) 3h mm oF m 3h 8 mm 3,761 =f m =" m sh Total Con/Ind Savings % Arrual Energy Base Case KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Estimated Demand Savings from Conservation Prograns (KW) 192 193 19% 195 19% 197 198 199 2000 2001 2002 2003 RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottan Bd 0 0 0 % 3 10 45 182 182 182 182 182 Replace and Add Thermal Trap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Flow Showerheads 0 0 0 2 4h 67 9 1 1 11 11 1 Weatherization Programs: Window 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Insulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weatherstrip/Caulking 0 0 0 4 8 B 7 21 21 21 21 21 Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Progran 0 0 0 a 51 7 105 131 105 8 4 2% Replacenent of Original 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 a 7 50 New Customer Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Residential Demand Savings 0 0 0 8&8 7 265 35 45 431 418 405 m1 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weatherization 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Efficient Lighting : Efficient Fluorescent 0 0 0 7 % 111 148 18 148 111 % 7 Incandescent -> Fluorescent 0 0 0 212 424 66 BB 1,060 8 636 424 212 Rep Flr Ballast & Lip 0 0 0 77 355 532 79 887 709 532 355 7 Replacement of Fluorescent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 x» 59 a Replacement of Incandescent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 226 BD 452 Replacement of Flr Blt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 19 0% 378 Total CotVInd Demand Savings 0 0 0 426 2 1,279 1,75 2,131 1,92 1,733 1,534 1,336 Base Case RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottan Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Window Insulation Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Program Replacement of Original New Customer Program Total Residential Demand Savings COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback Weatherization Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Incandescent -> Fluorescent Rep Flr Ballast & Lip Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of Incandescent Replacement of Flr Blt Total Con/Ind Demand Savings 182 1 Roo =Bio oo BE8cce 1,137 182 111 Roo =Bio o KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Estimated Demand Savings fran Conservation Programs (KW) 2006 2007-2008? 0 0 0 0 182 182 182 182 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 21 21 0 0 0 o & & 3 & 1 1 2 2 37 38 we we 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 #9 bd #9 565 565 565 565 43 43 473 473 1,137 1,137 «1,137 1,137 2010 o Bo uRo Roo 8B of oo G BBscoco 1, 2011 o® 67 Roo 8 Bic oo BE 8cc0 1,137 2012 Roo uBio 312 oo 2013 Busco Yoo BR of coco 2014 o 8 uBio Roo o oR oo G BBscco = 2015 Roo B uBio oo @ Sscoo 1, 2016 oo G F8scco 1, Base Case RESIDENTIAL Home Energy Audit Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap,Thermal Trap & Bottom Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Window Insulation Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Progran Replacement of Original New Custamer Progran Total Residential Cost COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback Weatherization Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Incandescent -> Fluorescent Rep Flr Ballast & Lip Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of Incandescent Replacement of Fir Blt Total Com/Ind Cost Total Conservation Progran Cost 192 8 08 o08 8 008 8 8 8 8 cc0008 1993 co8S) 8 08 8 008 8 8 8 8B ccc008 Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Estimated Cost of Conservation Programs ($000) 19% 195 19% $0 $66 $6 90 37 $37 0 $0 0 $0 $7 $7 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 7 7 $0 $29 $29 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $147 $147 8 8 & $0 0 0 9 $36 $36 0 110 110 0 208 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $362 $362 $0 $509 $509 197 $66 of $7 & BR oof 08 38 2 198 $66 of $7 * Hoof N co no8 ae a 19 of $7 & Root eanes 8 8 ag 3 co $8 ooo of & 8 $i gs no8 5 $132 B 8 ceckes $i gs xo8 5 $132 £8 ce8es oS & & Bj noS 0 5 $122 & 8 cess oS & &B gs noS 5 $122 8 8 & 8 cx .Bes Base Case RESIDENTIAL Hame Energy Audit Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottom Bd Replace and Add Thermal Trap Low-Flow Showerheads Weatherization Programs: Window Insulation Weatherstrip/Caulking Residential Lighting Efficiency: Original Progran Replacement of Original New Custamer Program Total Residential Cost COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL Thermostat Setback Weatherization Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent Incandescent -> Fluorescent Rep Flr Ballast & Lip Replacement of Fluorescent Replacement of Incandescent Replacement of Fir Blt Total ConVInd Cost Total Conservation Program Cost of & 8B $i 3 no 5 $122 8 8 & 8 cxoBes 8 co8 8 of 8 oko 88 $15 KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study o08 8 of 8 8 8 ceo 88 315 Estimated Cost of Conservation Programs ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 012 9 0 9 90 9 0 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 90 9 0 $0 $0 90 9 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 a "1 " "1 " 0 co $0 0 $0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 $53 $53 $52 $52 $15 90 $0 0 $0 $0 90 8 8 8 8 8 § 8 Secces 8 § Secs § § Seccss 8 8 Seccss 8 8 seccss $8 cRo088 2013 of o08 5 $15 $8 oR.088 2014 8 oo8 6 $15 $8 oRoo88 2015 of co8 5 $15 $8 oe.088 2016 8 oof 5 $15 $8 oe.088 Base Case Estimated Energy Savings (mh) Residential Commercial/Industrial Total Estimated Demand Savings (kw) Residential Commercial/Indstrial Total Estimated Cost ($000) Residential Commercial/Indstrial Total Base Case Estimated Energy Savings (mh) Residential Conmercial/Industrial Total Estimated Demand Savings (kW) Residential Cammercial/Industrial Total Estimated Cost ($000) Residential Comercial/Indstrial Total Net Present Value Level ized Rate KPU: Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study Summary of Conservation Programs Savings and Costs 192 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 0 20066-2005 2,219 2,220 3,761 3,761 5,980 5,981 7 OTT 1,137 1,137 1,514 1,514 siz $42 300 & V2 $15 19% 0 0 0 coo B08 g a g y BSN seen vn RY 19% 8 2,07 3,680 7 852 1,029 $147 362 $509 3 Bah eon aes ay g g Fyn WES == Bee y BEN as we ay Sag Bau EWS n= Bxe 201 3 yo Sk Bas == Sas Sa¢ Bes <= Sag 8 8 8 aay ska SR <b an 88s 2014 1,341 5,101 Mae Bue 88s 2016 Ketchikan Public Utilities Estimate of Technically Feasible Conservation Program Savings and Costs (Net of Market Driven Savings) Estimated Savings End-Use Base Total Cost Energy Demand Load Coincid. Life Cost $/meas RESIDENTIAL 10%-40%, Home Energy Audit 5465 100% FX 5356 ne. ne. ne. ne. ne. 100 120 20% 40% 6% 8% 100% Existing Water Heater Programs: Wrap, Thermal Trap & Bottom Bd = 5445 Bx 4ST = 2453 70 30.12 55% 85% 7 167 20 20% 40% % 80% = 100% Replace and Add Thermal Trap 5465 Bx 4ST = .2453 7m 30.12 55% 8% 5 45 665 20% 40% % 80% = 100% Low-Flow Showerheads 5465 Bx 5% = 259 400 (0.05 50% OK 5 5 21 20% 40% 60% 80% = 100% Weatherization Programs: Window S465 10% HR 3 190 = (0.59 3% B% 2 8693500 «864900 20% 40% 6% 80% 100% Insulation 5465 1% OM 35 1000 0.31 35% Bx 20 2000 2800 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Weatherstrip/Caulking 5465 10% OM 35 300 0.09 3% Br 12 200 280 2% 40% OK 80% 100% Residential Lighting Efficiency:1999 ast Original Program 5814 100% B% 5523 46 (0.04 40% B% 5 40 56 20% 40% om 80% = 100% Replacement of Original 5814 100% 80% = 5523 146 0.04 40% Px 5 % a3 New Customer Progran ne. 100% 4% new 146 0.06 40% Bx 5 % QB Estimated Savings End-Use Base Total Cost COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL sq feet Tot Sq-ft Energy Demand Load Coincid. Cost $/sq-ft (000) %Elec %SqFtXElgble (000) ekwh/yr ekW/yr factor Factor Life $/sq-ft (10%-40%) year 1 year 2 year3 year4 year 5 Thermostat Setback 7200 10% 80% 50% 285 1.7 ne. ne ne 5 20% 40% oO% 80% 100% 721 10% 80% 50% 29 bldgs. $/bldg 1720 2408 Weatherization Glass 7200 10% 15% 24% % 8.8 0.0027 35% Fx 20 = «12.30 17.2 20% 40% OK 80% 100% Roof Insulation 7200 10% 50% % % 1.3 0.000% 35% F% 2 0% 131 20% 40% o% 80% = 100% Wall Insulation 7200 10% 50% VK 51 1.5 0.0005 35% S% 20 1.38 1.8 20% 40% OM 80% 100% Floor Insulation 7200 10% 50% 4% 1 1.2 0.0004 3% Hx 20 1.05 1.46 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total Weatherization Savings and Costs Total (thousands) 548 0.17 57 835 (000) dollars cost Efficient Lighting Efficient Fluorescent 7200 100% 74% 10% 509 1.6 0.0005 3% Hx 5 0.28 0.3 20% 40% O% 80% = 100% Incandescent -> Fluorescent 7200 100% 26% 3% 716 5.5 0.0020 30% Bx 5 1.12 1.3% 20x 40% % 80% 100% Rep Flr Ballast & Lrp 7200 100% 74% 2% 1528 3.1 0.0010 35% Bx 5 1.64 1.97 20% 40% 6% 80% = 100% Replacement of Fluorescent 7200 100% The % 509 1.6 0.0005 35% Bx 5 0.10 0.11 (Incremental cost) Replacement of Incandescent 7200 100% 26% Ur 716 5.5 0.0020 30% Bx 5 0.56 0.62 (50% of Replacement cost) Replacement of Fir Blt 7200 100% The 2% =: 1528 3.1. 0.0010 35% Fx 10 0.10 0.11 (Incremental cost lamp) 0.47 0.52 (Incremental cost bal lasts) n.e. = not estimated APPENDIX G POWER SUPPLY AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX G POWER SUPPLY AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Output from the Resource Model used to evaluate the loads, resources and economics for the following resource plans are included in this appendix. Please note that output from several of the cases identified in Section X of this report are not included here. Cases Included Base (Diesel) Case Intertie Case Conservation Case Intertie Case with High Loads for Petersburg and Wrangell Pp Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study ASSUMPTIONS: Run Description === BASE CASE No Conservation No Intertie Med Loads;Med Fuel Run Options (1=yes;0=no) Conservation === 0 Intertie === 0 Load Forecast (H,M,L) === m Ketchikan === m Wrangell and Petersburg Hydro Energy (A,L) Avg Wtr Low Wtr TL Loss % MWh MWh Tyee 134,400 129,900 (gross) Swan Lake i 82,000 64,000 (net) KPU Hydro 0.00% === a 62,700 56,000 (net) KPU Existing Diesel Units Fuel Costs (H,M,L) Variable O&M Cost(c/KW 1.00 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) 12.00 Online New Diesel Units Year KW Variable O&M Cost(c/KW 1.00 Unit 1=> 1992 4,000 Fixed O&M Cost($/KW) 12.50 Unit 2=> 1992 4,000 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) === 14.00 Unit 3=> 1997 4,000 Unit 4=> 2008 4,000 Unit 5=> 2013 4,000 Unit 6=> 2050 4,000 Unit 7=> 2050 4,000 $/KW (1992$) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Lake Tyee -Swan Lake Intertie KPU Power Rate Option Debt Service === 2 O&M === 2 On-line Date === 1997 % O&M Annual Carrying Cost ss 2,834 Total Cost($000) 55,546 100% Base 55,546 100% AltA 49,141 75% Distribution Losses === 5% AltB = 46,158 100% Economic and Financial Mahoney Hydroelectric General Inflation 0.00% Online 2050 2004 Real Discount Rate 3.00% Cost $59,200 Real Interest Rate 3.00% Annnual 3,020 Finance Cost 3.00% Energy 51,254 Finance Life (diesel) 20 Capacity 14,700 Base Year 1992 O&M 600 BASE CASE No Conservation No Intertie Med Loads;Med Fuel Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak Petersburg Peak Total Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell Petersburg Lake Tyee TL Losses Total Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Surplus Tyee Energy 1992 3,400 6,200 9,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,600 12,400 16,857 31,477 1533 49,867 10,000 0 0 39,867 49,867 94,533 Notes: 1993 3,400 6,300 9,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 16,947 31,756 1,548 50,251 10,000 0 0 40,251 50,251 94,149 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 1994 3,400 6,300 9,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 17,077 32,117 1,568 50,762 10,000 0 0 40,762 50,762 93,638 (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1995 1996 1997 1998 3,500 6500 10,000 3,600 6,600 10,200 3,400 6,300 9,700 3,500 6,400 9,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,900 12,100 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,000 12,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 7,700 12,300 8,200 11,800 17,081 32,200 1571 50,852 17,263 32,597 1594 51,454 17,436 33,053 1,620 52,109 17,651 33,514 1,647 52,812 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,852 41,454 42,109 42,812 50,852 51,454 52,109 52,812 93,548 92,946 92,291 91,588 1999 3,600 6,700 10,300 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,300 11,700 17,902 34,041 1,678 53,621 10,000 0 0 43,621 53,621 90,779 2000 3,700 6,800 10,500 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8500 11,500 18,154 34,578 1,709 54,441 10,000 0 0 44,441 54,441 89,959 2001 3,700 6,900 10,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,600 11,400 18,379 35,056 1,737 55,172 10,000 0 0 45,172 55,172 89,228 1. Existing hydro and diesel units provide required reserves through the end of the study period. 2. Petersburg peak plus Wrangell peak less Petersburg Hydro. 04-Mar-92 2002 3,700 7,000 10,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,700 11,300 18,557 35,444 1,760 55,761 10,000 45,761 55,761 88,639 2003 3,800 7,100 10,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,900 11,100 18,744 35,849 1,784 56,377 10,000 46,377 56,377 88,023 BASE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2008 §=6.2005 = 2006 = 2007, s«2008)3=— 2009) «2010S 2011'S 2012) 2013) 2014S 2015 2016 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak 3800 3,900 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,200 4,254 4308 4,363 4418 4,475 4532 Petersburg Peak 7100 7300 7,400 7,500 7,700 7,800 8000 8,131 8,264 8400 8537 8677 8819 Total 10,900 11,200 11,400 11500 11800 12,000 12,200 12,385 12572 12,762 12,956 13,152 13,351 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5600 5,600 5600 5600 569 5600 5600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8400 8400 8,400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8,00 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) 8900 9,200 9,400 9500 9800 10,000 10,200 10,385 10,572 10,762 10,956 11,152 11,351 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 11,100 10,800 10,600 10500 10,200 10,000 9800 9,615 9428 9,238 9,044 8848 8,649 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 18,959 19,228 19,539 19,880 20,245 20,603 20,941 21,242 21,548 21,858 22,172 22,491 22815 Petersburg 36,319 36,895 37,564 38,294 39,071 39,833 40547 41,198 41,859 42531 43,214 43,907 44,012 Lake Tyee TL Losses 1811 1845 1,884 1,927 1,973 2,017 2,060 2,098 2,136 2,176 2,215 2,256 2,297 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64538 65,543 66,564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Petersburg Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrangell Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 47,089 47,968 48,987 50,101 51,289 52,453 53548 54,538 55,543 56564 £ 1 58,654 59,724 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64538 65,543 66564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Surplus Tyee Energy 87,311 86,432 85,413 84,299 83,111 81,947 80,852 | 79,862 78,857 77,836 76,799 75,746 74,676 BASE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 «1997 = 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 30,800 32,100 33,100 33,700 34,000 34,300 34,300 34,900 35,100 35,500 35,900 36,200 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Total Requirements 49,900 52500 54,500 55,700 56,300 56,800 56,800 57,400 57,600 58,000 58,400 58,700 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 =11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resources 53,100 54,400 55,400 56,000 56,300 60500 60,500 60,500 60500 60,500 60,500 60,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,200 1,900 900 300 0 3,700 3,700 3,100 2,900 2500 2,100 1,800 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 7,255 13869 18,672 21,907 23,449 25,037 27,713 28,803 30,931 32,786 34,150 35,427 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available oo oo coo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo BASE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 «=62005 «= 2006 = 2007-— «2008 «= 2009S 2010S «2011S 2012, 2013. 2014S 2015 =. 2016 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36500 36800 37,200 37,800 38400 39,000 40,300 40,861 41,429 42,005 42590 43,182 43,783 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 22,500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 Total Requirements 59,000 59,300 59,700 60,300 60,900 61,500 62,800 63,361 63,929 64505 65,090 65,682 66,283 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resources 60500 60500 60,500 60500 64500 64,500 64500 64500 64,500 68500 68500 68,500 68,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 1500 = 1,200 800 200 3600 3,000 1,700 1,139 571 3,995 3410 2,818 2,217 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 37,068 39,278 41,883 44812 48,014 51,211 54,217 56,696 59,204 61,741 64,307 66,903 69,529 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 Total . 181,768 183,978 186,583 189512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 25,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Additional Suplus Available 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BASE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $490 $955 $1,305 $1552 $1,679 $1,808 $2,014 $2,104 $2,267 $2,471 $2,636 $2,790 Variable O&M 73 139 187 219 234 250 277 288 309 328 342 354 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 538 538 538 538 538 807 807 807 807 807 807 807 Total Diesel Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 $2,408 $2,551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 + $2,408 += $2,551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 + $2,408 += $2,551 $3,015 $3,248 $3,349 $3,533 $3,756 $3,934 $4,101 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) $72,321 (in thousands) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth 32,630 (in thousands) Total Net Present Value $104,951 (in thousands) BASE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 «=62005 »3=— 2006~S ss 2007) «2008 )3=— 2009S «2010S «2011.2 2012, 2013'S 2014S 2015S. 2016 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $2,969 $3,191 $3,442 $3,717 $4,012 $4,302 $4571 $4,848 $5,134 $5,429 $5,735 $6,050 $6,377 Variable O&M 371 393 419 448 480 512 542 567 592 617 643 669 695 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 807 807 807 807 1075 1,075 1,075 1,075 538 807 807 807 807 Total Diesel Costs $4,296 $4540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6,389 $6,690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $4,296 $4540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6389 $6690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $4,296 $4,540 $4,818 $5,122 $5,767 $6,090 $6,389 $6,690 $6,464 $7,103 $7,434 $7,776 $8,128 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study ASSUMPTIONS: Run Description === INTERTIE CASE === No Conservation === Intertie - No Road === Med Loads;Med Fuel Run Options (1=yes;0=no) Conservation === 0 Intertie =S= 1 Load Forecast (H,M,L) === m Ketchikan === m Wrangell and Petersburg Hydro Energy (A,L) Avg Wtr Low Wtr TL Loss % MWh MWh Tyee 4.00% === a 134,400 129,900 (gross) Swan Lake 2.00% === a 82,000 64,000 (net) KPU Hydro 0.00% === a 62,700 56,000 (net) KPU Existing Diesel Units Fuel Costs (H,M,L) Variable O&M Cost(c/KW 1.00 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) 12.00 Online $/KW New Diesel Units Year KW (1992$) Variable O&M Cost(¢/KW === 1.00 Unit 1=> 1992 4,000 1,000 Fixed O&M Cost($/KW) = 12.50 Unit 2=> 1992 4,000 1,000 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) === 14.00 Unit 3=> 1997 4,000 1,000 Unit 4=> 2008 4,000 1,000 Unit 5=> 2013 4,000 1,000 Unit 6=> 2050 4,000 1,000 Unit 7=> 2050 4,000 1,000 Lake Tyee -Swan Lake Intertie KPU Power Rate Option Debt Service s== 2 O&M === 2 On-line Date === 1997 % O&M Annual Carrying Cost === 2,834 Total Cost($000) 55,546 100% Base 55,546 100% Alt A 49,141 75% Distribution Losses === 5% Alt B 46,158 100% Economic and Financial Mahoney Hydroelectric General Inflation 0.00% Online 2050 2004 Real Discount Rate 3.00% Cost $59,200 Real Interest Rate 3.00% Annnual 3,020 Finance Cost 3.00% Energy 51,254 Finance Life (diesel) 20 Capacity 14,700 Base Year 1992 O&M 600 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie- No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 §=2001 +8 2002 2003 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak 3400 3400 3,400 3400 3500 3500 3600 3,600 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,800 Petersburg Peak 6,200 6,300 6,300 6300 6400 6500 6,600 6,700 6800 6900 7,000 7,100 Total 9,600 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,900 10,000 10,200 10,300 10500 10,600 10,700 10,900 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5600 5600 5600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8,400 8,400 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) 7600 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,900 8,000 8200 8300 8500 8600 8,700 8,900 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 12400 12300 12,300 12,300 12,100 12,000 11,800 11,700 11500 11,400 11,300 11,100 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 16857 16,947 17,077 17,081 17,263 17436 17,651 17,902 18,154 18,379 18,557 18,744 Petersburg 31477 31,756 32,117 32,200 32,597 33,053 33514 34,041 34578 35,056 35,444 35,849 Lake Tyee TL Losses 1533-1548 1,568 1571 1,594 1,620: 1,647 1,678 1,709 1,737 1,760 1,784 Total 49867 50,251 50,762 50,852 51,454 52,109 52,812 53,621 54,441 55,172 55,761 56,377 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Petersburg Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrangell Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 39,867 40,251 40,762 40852 41,454 42,109 42812 43,621 44,441 45,172 45,761 46,377 Total 49,867 50,251 50,762 50,852 51,454 52,109 52,812 53,621 54,441 55,172 55,761 56,377 Surplus Tyee Energy 94533 94,149 93,638 93548 92,946 92,291 91588 90,779 89,959 89,228 88,639 88,023 Notes: 1. Existing hydro and diesel units provide required reserves through the end of the study period. 2. Petersburg peak plus Wrangell peak less Petersburg Hydro. INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road * Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 «= 2005 «= 200639 «2007,-—'-s«2008)«= 2009S «201022011. Ss «2012s 2013-2014. 2015 = 2016 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak 3,800 3,900 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,200 4,254 4,308 4363 4418 4475 4/532 Petersburg Peak 7100 7,300 7,400 7500 7,700 7,800 8,000 8,131 8,264 8400 8537 8677 8819 Total 10900 11,200 11,400 11500 11800 12,000 12,200 12,385 12,572 12,762 12,956 13,152 13,351 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5600 5600 5,600 5600 5600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8A00 8400 8,400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8,400 8,00 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) 8900 9,200 9,400 9500 9800 10,000 10,200 10,385 10,572 10,762 10,956 11,152 11,351 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 11,100 10,800 10,600 10,500 10,200 10,000 9800 9615 9,428 9,238 9,044 8848 8,649 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 18,959 19,228 19,539 19,880 20,245 20,603 20,941 21,242 21,548 21,858 22,172 22,491 22,815 Petersburg 36,319 36,895 37,564 38,294 39,071 39,833 40547 41,198 41,859 42531 43,214 43,907 44,612 Lake Tyee TL Losses 1811 1845 1,884 1,927 1,973 2,017 2,060 2,098 2,136 2,176 2,215 2,256 2,297 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64538 65,543 66564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10000 10,00 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Petersburg Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrangell Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 47,089 47,968 48,987 50,101 51,289 52,453 53548 54538 55,543 56564 57,601 58,654 59,724 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64,538 65,543 66564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Surplus Tyee Energy 87,311 86432 85,413 84,299 83,111 81,947 80,852 ‘79,862 78,857 77,836 76,799 75,746 74,676 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 §=:1997, «1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 30,800 32,100 33,100 33,700 34,000 34,300 34,300 34,900 35,100 35,500 35,900 36,200 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22,600 22,600 23,200 23,400 23,800 24,200 24,500 Total Requirements 49,900 52500 54,500 55,700 56,300 56,900 56,900 58,100 58500 59,300 60,100 60,700 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 =11,700 = 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 8,000 8,000 8,000 8000 8,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 700 900 1,300 1,700 2,000 Total Resources 53,100 54,400 55,400 56,000 56,300 60,600 60,600 61,200 61,400 61,800 62,200 62,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,200 1,900 900 300 0 3,700 3,700 3,100 2,900 2,500 2,100 1,800 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 151,955 158,569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 151,955 158,569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 7,255 13,869 18,672 21,907 23,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 25,037 27,713 28,803 30,931 32,786 34,150 35,427 Total 151,955 158,569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 63563 60,212 58,345 55,429 52,872 50,943 49,075 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 0 0 0 0 0 15565 15565 15,565 15565 15,565 15,565 15,565 Additional Suplus Available 0 0 0 0 0 47,998 44,647 42,780 39,864 37,307 35,378 33510 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 §=6.2005 = 2006 )=S 2007s 2008)=— 2009S «2010S 2011'S 2012, 2013'S 2014S 2015S 2016 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36500 36,800 37,200 37,800 38,400 39,000 40,300 40,861 41,429 42,005 42590 43,182 43,783 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 24,800 25,100 25,500 26,100 26,700 27,300 28600 29,161 29,729 30,305 30,890 30,994 30,803 Total Requirements 61,300 61,900 62,700 63,900 65,100 66,300 68,900 70,021 71,158 72,311 73,479 74,176 74,586 Capacity Resources (KW) : KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) . 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 2300 2,600 3,000 3600 4,200 4,800 6,100 6661 7,229 7,805 8390 8,494 8,303 Total Resources 62,800 63,100 63,500 64,100 68,700 69,300 70,600 71,161 71,729 76,305 76890 76,994 76,803 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 1500 1,200 800 200 3,600 3,000 1,700 1,139 571 3,995 3410 2,818 2,217 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro . 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 . 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 37,068 39,278 41,883 44812 48,014 51,211 54,217 56,696 59,204 61,741 64307 60,903 69529 Total 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 46,750 43,697 40,113 36,115 31,773 27,458 23401 ‘19,972 16498 12,981 9420 5,813 2,160 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 15565 15565 15565 15565 15565 15,565 15565 15565 15,565 12,981 9420 5,813 2,160 Additional Suplus Available 31,185 28,132 24,548 20550 16,208 11,893 7836 4,407 933 0 0 0 0 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road Med Loads;Med Fuel Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 =: 1997 $490 $955 $1,305 $1552 $1,679 $0 73 139 187 219 234 0 100 100 100 100 100 150 538 538 538 538 538 807 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 = $2,408 $2,551 $957 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~=—-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~—-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 25,037 0 0 0 0 0 = 1,043 0 0 0 0 0 26,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,834 0 0 0 0 0 109 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,943 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 += $2,408 $2,551 $3,899 0 0 0 0 0 = (645) $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 $2,408 $2,551 $3,354 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth Total Net Present Value 1998 $0 0 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,713 1,155 28,868 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 1999 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,803 1,200 30,003 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2000 $0 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,931 1,289 32,220 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2001 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,786 1,366 34,152 $0 $2,834 159 $2,993 $3,949 (545) $3,404 $53,341 (in thousands) 16,528 (in thousands) $69,870 (in thousands) 04-Mar-92 2002 2003 $0 $0 0 0 150 150 807 807 $957, $957 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,150 35,427 1423 1,476 35,573 36,903 $0 $0 $2,834 $2,834 109 109 $2,943 $2,943 $3,899 $3,899 (545) (545) $3,354 $3,354 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 =. 2015 2016 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Variable O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 807 807 807 807. 1075 1,075 1,075 1,075 538 807 807 807 807 Total Diesel Costs $957. $957» $957 = $957 $1,275 $1,275 $1,275 $1,275 $738 $1,057 $1,057 $1,057 $1,057 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 37,068 39,278 41,883 44812 48,014 51,211 54,217 56,696 59,204 61,741 64,307 66903 69,529 Transmission Losses(MWh) 1545 1637 1,745 1867 2,001 2,134 2,259 2,362 2,467 2573 2679 2,788 2,897 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 38,613 40,915 43,628 46,679 50,015 53,345 56476 59,059 61,671 64,313 66,986 69,690 72,426 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $2,834 $2834 $2,834 $2834 $2,834 $2,834 $2834 $2834 $2,834 $2834 $2834 $2,834 $2,834 Annual O&M Costs 109 109 259 151 151 151 151 366 187 187 187 187 303 Total Intertie Costs $2,943 $2,943 $3,093 $2,985 $2,985 $2,985 $2,985 $3,200 $3,021 $3,021 $3,021 $3,021 $3,136 Total Power Costs $3,899 $3,899 $4,049 $3,942 $4,261 $4,261 $4,261 $4,476 $3,759 $4,078 $4,078 $4,078 $4,193 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC (545) (545) (545) (545) (545) (545) (545) = (545) (545) (454) (330) ~—(203) (76) Net Cost of Power ($000) $3,354 $3,354 $3,504 $3397 $3,716 $3,716 $3,716 $3,931 $3,214 $3,623 $3,748 $3,874 $4,117 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study ASSUMPTIONS: Run Description Wout out ou Run Options (1=yes;0=no) Conservation Intertie Load Forecast (H,M,L) Hydro Energy (A,L) TL Loss % Tyee 4.00% === Swan Lake 2.00% === KPU Hydro 0.00% === KPU Existing Diesel Units Fuel Costs (H,M,L) S55 Variable O&M Cost(c/KW = Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) = New Diesel Units Variable O&M Cost(c/KW Fixed O&M Cost($/KW) Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) = CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 No Intertie Med Loads;Med Fuel 1 0 m Ketchikan m Wrangell and Petersburg Avg Wtr Low Wtr | MWh MWh 134,400 129,900 (gross) 82,000 64,000 (net) » 2 a 62,700 56,000 (net) m 1.00 12.00 Online Year KW 1.00 Unit 1=> 1992 4,000 12.50 Unit 2=> 1992 4,000 14.00 Unit 3=> 2003 4,000 Unit 4=> 2010 4,000 Unit 5=> 2016 4,000 Unit 6=> 2050 4,000 Unit 7=> 2050 4,000 $/KW (1992$) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Lake Tyee -Swan Lake Intertie KPU Power Rate Option Debt Service 2 O&M 2 On-line Date 1997 % O&M Annual Carrying Cost === 2,834 Total Cost($000) 55,546 100% Base 55,546 100% AltA 49,141 75% Distribution Losses === 5% Alt B 46,158 100% Economic and Financial Mahoney Hydroelectric General Inflation 0.00% Online 2050 2004 Real Discount Rate 3.00% Cost $59,200 Real Interest Rate 3.00% Annnual 3,020 Finance Cost 3.00% Energy 51,254 Finance Life (diesel) 20 Capacity 14,700 Base Year 1992 O&M 600 CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie ‘ Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak 3400 3,400 3,400 3400 3,500 3500 3600 3,600 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,800 Petersburg Peak 6,200 6,300 6,300 6300 6400 6500 6600 6,700 6800 6,900 7,000 7,100 Total 9600 9,700 9,700 9,700 9,900 10,000 10,200 10,300 10,500 10,600 10,700 10,900 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,00 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8400 8,00 8,400 8400 8400 8,400 8,400 8400 8400 8400 8,400 8,400 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) 7,600 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,900 8000 8200 8300 8500 8600 8,700 8,900 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 12400 12300 12,300 12300 12,100 12,000 11,800 11,700 11500 11,400 11,300 11,100 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 16857 16,947 17,077 17,081 17,263 17,436 17,651 17,902 18,154 18,379 18,557 18,744 Petersburg 31A77 31,756 = 32,117, 32,200 32,597 33,053 33,514 34,041 34578 35,056 35,444 35,849 Lake Tyee TL Losses 1533-1548 1,568 1571-1594 1,620 1,647 1,678 1,709 1,737, 1,760 ~—-1,784 Total 4967 50,251 50,762 50,852 51,454 52,109 52,812 53,621 54,441 55,172 55,761 56,377 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Petersburg Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrangell Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 39,867 40,251 40,762 40852 41,454 42,109 42,812 43,621 44,441 45,172 45,761 46,377 Total 49867 50,251 50,762 50852 51,454 52,109 52,812 53,621 54441 55,172 55,761 56,377 Surplus Tyee Energy 94533 94,149 93,638 93548 92,946 92,291 91,588 90,779 89,959 89,228 88,639 88,023 Notes: 1. Existing hydro and diesel units provide required reserves through the end of the study period. 2. Petersburg peak plus Wrangell peak less Petersburg Hydro. CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 «©2005 «= 2006 = 2007-— «2008 )= 2009S «2010S «2011'S 2012, 2013. 2014S 2015 2016 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak 3800 3,900 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,200 4,254 4,308 4,363 4418 4475 4,532 Petersburg Peak 7,100 7,300 7,400 7500 7,700 7,800 8000 8,131 8,264 8400 8537 8677 8819 Total 10,900 11,200 11,400 11,500 11800 12,000 12,200 12,385 12,572 12,762 12,956 13,152 13,351 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5600 5600 5,600 5600 5600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8,400 8,00 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) 8,900 9,200 9,400 9500 9800 10,000 10,200 10,385 10,572 10,762 10,956 11,152 11,351 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 11,100 10,800 10,600 10500 10,200 10,000 9800 9615 9,428 9,238 9,044 8,848 8,649 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 18,959 19/228 19,539 19,880 20,245 20,603 20,941 21,242 21,548 21858 22,172 22,491 22,815 Petersburg 36,319 36,895 37,564 38,294 39,071 39,833 40547 41,198 41,859 42531 43,214 43,907 44,612 Lake Tyee TL Losses 1811 1845 1,884 1,927 1973 2,017 2,060 2,098 2,136 2,176 2,215 2,256 2,297 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64,538 65,543 66564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Petersburg Diesel 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrangell Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Lake Tyee 47,089 47,968 48,987 50,101 51,289 52,453 53548 54538 55,543 56564 57,601 58,654 59,724 Total 57,089 57,968 58,987 60,101 61,289 62,453 63548 64538 65,543 66564 67,601 68,654 69,724 Surplus Tyee Energy 87,311 86,432 85,413 84,299 83,111 81,947 80,852 ' 79,862 78,857 77,836 7).799 75,746 74,676 CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 No Intertie Med Loads;Med Fuel 1992 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 30,800 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 19,100 Total Requirements 49,900 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 KPU Diesel 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 8,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 19,100 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 Total Resources 53,100 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,200 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 151,955 Less: Conservation Savings 0 Total Requirement 151,955 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 KPU Diesel 7,255 Swan Lake 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 Total 151,955 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement Additional Suplus Available oo 1993 32,100 0 20,400 52,500 11,700 14,300 8,000 20,400 0 54,400 1,900 158,569 0 158,569 62,700 13,869 82,000 0 158,569 0 oo Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 33,100 33,700 34,000 34,300 34,300 0 (542) (1,083) (1,625) (2,169) 21400 21458 21,217 20,975 20,431 54,500 54,617 54,133 53,649 52,562 11,700 =11,700 +11,700 11,700 11,700 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 21400 21458 21,217 20,975 20,431 0 0 0 0 0 55,400 55,458 55,217 54,975 54,431 900 842 1,083 1325 1,869 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 0 (1,936) (3,874) (5,812) (7,756) 163,372 164,671 164,275 163,925 164,657 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 18,672, 19,971 19,575 19,225 19,957 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 0 0 0 0 0 163,372 164,671 164,275 163,925 164,657 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04-Mar-92 2001 2002 =. 2003 1999 2000 35,900 (2,041) 22,159 56,017 36,200 (1,817) 22,500 56,883 34,900 (2,711) 20,489 52,677 35,100 (2,488) 20,912 53,524 35,500 (2,265) 21,535 54,770 11,700 14,300 11,700 14,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 20,489 20,912 21,535 22,159 22,500 0 0 0 0 0 54,489 54,912 55,535 56,159 60,500 1811 = 1,388 765 141. 3,617 11,700 14,300 11,700 14,300 11,700 14,300 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 (9,695) (9,017) (8,338) (7,658) (6,975) 163,808 166,614 169,148 171,192 173,152 62,700 62,700 19,108 21,914 24,448 26,492 28,452 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 0 0 0 0 0 163,808 166,614 169,148 171,192 173,152 0 0 0 0 0 62,700 62,700 62,700 oo oo oo oo oo CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 = 2005 )=S «2006 )3= «2007, 's«2008 «= 2009S «2010-2011 Ss 2012) 2013'S 2014 = 2015 =. 2016 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36,500 36800 37,200 37,800 38400 39,000 40,300 40,861 41,429 42,005 42,590 43,182 43,783 Less: Conservation Savings (1,593) (1,594) (1594) (1,594) (1594) (1595) (1,572) (1,549) (1525) (1,502) (1,479) (1,479) (1,480) Plus: Reserve Requirement 22,500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 Total Requirements 57,407 57,706 58,106 58,706 59,306 59,905 61,228 61,812 62,404 63,003 63,611 64,203 64,803 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Resources 60500 60500 60,500 60500 60500 60,500 64500 64500 64500 64500 64500 64,500 68,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,093 2,794 2,394 1,794 1,194 595 3,272 2,688 2,096 1,497 889 297 3,697 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Less: Conservation Savings (6,295) (6,295) (6,296) (6,297) (6,299) (6,300) (6,114) (5,928) (5,742) (5,556) (5,370) (5,371) (5,371) Total Requirement 175,473 177,683 180,287 183,215 186,415 189,611 192,803 195,468 198,162 200,885 203,637 206,232 208,857 Energy Resources (MWh) k KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 30,773 32,983 35,587 38515 41,715 44,911 48,103 50,768 53,462 56,185 58,937 61,532 64,157 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 175A73 177,683 180,287 183,215 186415 189,611 192803 195,468 198,162 200,885 203,637 206,232 208,857 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement oo oo oo oo oo oo oo Se. oo oo oo co oo Additional Suplus Available CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $490 $955 $1,305 $1415 $1,401 $1,388 $1451 $1,396 $1,606 $1,843 $2,045 $2,241 Variable O&M 73 139 187 200 196 192 200 191 219 244 265 285 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 807 Total Diesel Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 = $2,252 $2,235 $2,218 + $2,288 $2,225 $2,463 $2,725 $2,947 $3,482 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $0 $0 $0 $509 $509 $509 $509 $509 $432 $432 $422 $422 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 $2,761 $2,744 + $2,727 $2,797 $2,734 $2,895 $3,157 $3,369 $3,904 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power ($000) $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 = $2,761 + $2,744 + $2,727 $2,797 $2,734 $2895 $3,157 $3,369 $3,904 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) , Cumulative (1992-2016) $66,666 (in thousands) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth 30,832 (in thousands) Total Net Present Value $97,498 (in thousands) CONSERVATION CASE Conservation Beginning 1995 Alaska Energy Authority No Intertie Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 04-Mar-92 Med Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 8=2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel $2,465 $2,679 $2,925 $3,195 $3,486 $3,773 $4,056 $4,341 $4,636 $4,941 $5,256 $5,565 $5,884 Variable O&M 308 330 356 385 417 449 481 508 535 562 589 615 642 Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) 150 150 150 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) 807 807 807 807 807 807 1075 1,075 538 538 538 538 807 Total Diesel Costs $3,729 $3,966 $4,237 $4537 $4859 $5,178 $5812 $6,124 $5,908 $6,240 $6583 $6,918 $7,582 Total Conservation Cost ($000) $422 $125 $125 $255 $255 $255 $254 $254 $98 $99 $99 $98 $98 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O&M Component 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses(MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Annual O&M Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( Total Intertie Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Power Costs $4,151 $4,091 $4,362 $4,791 $5,114 $5,433 $6,067 $6,379 $6,007 $6,339 $6,682 $7,016 $7,680 Less: Surplus Sales to KPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,007 $6,339 $6,682 $7,016 $7,680 Net Cost of Power ($000) $4,151 $4,091 $4,362 $4,791 $5,114 $5,433 $6,067 $6,379 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study ASSUMPTIONS: Run Description INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road High W&P Loads;Med Fuel Run Options (1=yes;0=no) : Conservation === 0 Intertie === 1 Load Forecast (H,M,L) === m Ketchikan === h Wrangell and Petersburg Hydro Energy (A,L) Avg Wtr Low Wtr TL Loss % MWh MWh Tyee 4.00% === a 134,400 129,900 (gross) Swan Lake 2.00% === a 82,000 64,000 (net) KPU Hydro 0.00% === a 62,700 56,000 (net) KPU Existing Diesel Units Fuel Costs (H,M,L) Variable O&M Cost(c/KW 1.00 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) 12.00 Online New Diesel Units Year KW Variable O&M Cost(¢/KW 1.00 Unit 1=> 1992 4,000 Fixed O&M Cost($/KW) 12.50 Unit 2=> 1992 4,000 Fuel Consmptn (KWh/gal) 14.00 Unit 3=> 1997 4,000 Unit 4=> 2008 4,000 Unit 5=> 2013 4,000 Unit 6=> 2050 4,000 Unit 7=> 2050 4,000 $/KW (1992$) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Lake Tyee -Swan Lake Intertie KPU Power Rate Option Debt Service 2 O&M 2 On-line Date 1997 % O&M Annual Carrying Cost 2,834 Total Cost($000) 55,546 100% Base 55,546 100% AltA 49,141 75% Distribution Losses azn 5% Alt B 46,158 100% Economic and Financial Mahoney Hydroelectric General Inflation 0.00% Online 2050 2004 Real Discount Rate 3.00% Cost $59,200 Real Interest Rate 3.00% Annnual = 3,020 Finance Cost 3.00% Energy 51,254 Finance Life (diesel) 20 Capacity 14,700 Base Year 1992 O&M 600 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road High W&P Loads;Med Fuel Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak Petersburg Peak Total Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell Petersburg Lake Tyee TL Losses Total Energy Resources (MWh) - Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Surplus Tyee Energy 1992 3,700 7,000 10,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 8,700 11,300 27543 35,574 2,125 65,242 10,000 0 0 55,242 65,242 79,158 Notes: 1993 3,800 7,200 11,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,000 11,000 27,907 36,491 2,176 66,574 10,000 0 0 56574 66,574 77 826 1. Existing hydro and diesel units Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 1994 3,900 7,300 11,200 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,200 10,800 28,203 37,257 2,218 67,678 10,000 0 0 57,678 67,678 76,722 (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1995 1996 1997 = 1998 4,300 8,200 12,500 3,900 7,500 11,400 4,000 7,700 11,700 4,100 7,900 12,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,500 9,500 2,000 5,600 800 20,000 36,000 9A00 10,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 9,700 10,300 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,000 10,000 30,056 41563 2A65 74,084 28,437 37,956 2,256 68,649 28,890 39,009 2,316 70,215 29,427 40,211 2,386 72,024 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,649 60,215 62,024 64,084 68,649 70,215 72,024 74,084 75,751 74,185 72,376 70,316 2. Petersburg peak plus Wrangell peak less Petersburg Hydro. 1999 4,400 8,500 12,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 10,900 9,100 30,660 42,942 2,544 76,146 10,000 0 0 66,146 76,146 68,254 2000 4500 8,700 13,200 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 11,200 8,800 31,160 44,116 2,611 77,887 10,000 0 0 67,887 77 887 66,513 2001 4,600 9,000 13,600 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 11,600 8,400 31,755 45,574 2,693 80,022 10,000 0 0 70,022 80,022 64,378 ide required reserves through the end of the study period. 2002 4,700 9,200 13,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 11,900 8,100 32,348 46,947 2,772 82,067 10,000 0 0 72,067 82,067 62,333 2003 4,900 9,600 14,500 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 12,500 7,500 33,035 48524 2,862 84,421 10,000 74,421 84,421 59,979 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road High W&P Loads;Med Fuel Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power: Capacity Requirements (KW) (1) Wrangell Peak Petersburg Peak Total Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Net Demand on Lake Tyee (2) Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell Petersburg Lake Tyee TL Losses Total Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro Petersburg Diesel Wrangell Diesel Lake Tyee Total Surplus Tyee Energy 2004 5,000 9,900 14,900 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 12,900 7,100 33,787 50,254 2,962 87,003 10,000 77,003 87,003 57,397 2005 5,200 10,300 15,500 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 13,500 6500 34,599 52,128 3,069 89,796 10,000 79,796 89,796 54,604 2006 5,400 10,600 16,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 14,000 6,000 35,444 54,075 3,181 92,700 10,000 82,700 92,700 51,700 Alaska Energy Authority Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 2007 5,600 11,100 16,700 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 14,700 5,300 36,362 56,185 3,302 95,849 10,000 85,849 95,849 48,551 (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2008 5,800 11,500 17,300 2,000 5,600 800 20,000 36,000 15,300 4,700 37,372 58,500 3,435 2009 6,000 12,000 18,000 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 16,000 4,000 38,428 60,915 3,574 2010 6,200 12,500 18,700 2,000 5,600 800 20,000 36,000 16,700 3,300 39,454 63,286 3,710 99,307 102,917 106,450 10,000 0 0 89,307 10,000 0 0 92,917 10,000 0 0 96,450 99,307 102,917 106,450 45,093 41,483 37,950 2011 6,402 12,961 19,363 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 17,363 2,637 40,396 65,611 3,840 109,848 10,000 0 0 99,848 109,848 34,552 2012 6,610 13,440 20,050 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 18,050 1,950 41,361 68,022 3,975 113,358 10,000 0 0 103,358 113,358 31,042 2013 6,826 13,936 20,761 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 18,761 1,239 42,349 70,521 4,115 116,985 10,000 0 0 106,985 116,985 27,415 2014 7,048 14,450 21,498 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 19,498 502 43,360 73,113 4,259 120,731 10,000 0 0 110,731 120,731 23,669 2015 7,277 14,983 22,261 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 20,000 0 44,395 75,799 4,408 124,602 10,000 0 9 114,602 124,602 19,798 2016 7,514 15,536 23,051 2,000 5,600 8,400 20,000 36,000 20,000 0 45,456 78,584 4,562 128,601 10,000 0 0 118,601 128,601 15,799 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation , Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study High W&P Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 §=6.1997,: 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 30,800 32,100 33,100 33,700 34,000 34300 34300 34,900 35,100 35,500 35,900 36,200 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22,600 22,600 23,200 23,400 23,800 24,200 24,500 Total Requirements 49,900 52500 54,500 55,700 56,300 56,900 56,900 58,100 58500 59,300 60,100 60,700 Capacity Resources (KW) : KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 ‘11,700 KPU Diesel 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 19,100 20400 21,400 22,000 22,300 22500 22500 22,500 22500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 700 900 1,300 1,700 2,000 Total Resources 53,100 54400 55,400 56,000 56,300 60,600 60,600 61,200 61,400 61,800 62,200 62,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 3,200 1,900 900 300 0 3,700 3,700 3,100 2,900 2,500 2,100 1,800 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements _ 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 7,255 13869 18,672 21,907 23,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swan Lake 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 0 0 0 0 0 25,037 27,713 28,803 30,931 32,786 34,150 35,427 Total 151,955 158569 163,372 166,607 168,149 169,737 172,413 173,503 175,631 177,486 178,850 180,127 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 0 0 0 0 0 44,444 39,791 36,721 32,921 29,017 25,690 22,152 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 0 0 0 0 0 15565 15565 15,565 15565 15,565 15,565 15,565 Additional Suplus Available 0 0 0 0 0 28879 24,226 21,156 17,356 13,452 10,125 6587 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Alaska Energy Authority Intertie - No Road Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study High W&P Loads;Med Fuel (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2004 «=62005 = 2006 )S 2007-2008 )3=— 2009S «2010S 2011. Ss 2012,-—s« 2013'S 2014S 2015— 2016 Derivation of Ketchikan’s Requirements: Capacity Requirements (KW) Ketchikan Peak 36500 36800 37,200 37,800 38,400 39,000 40,300 40,861 41,429 42,005 42590 43,182 43,783 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plus: Reserve Requirement 24,800 25,100 25,500 26,100 26,700 26,340 25,668 25,031 24,372 23,689 22,982 22,500 22,500 Total Requirements 61,300 61,900 62,700 63,900 65,100 65,340 65,968 65,892 65,801 65,694 65,572 65,682 66,283 Capacity Resources (KW) KPU Hydro 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 11,700 KPU Diesel 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300 14300 14,300 14,300 14300 14300 14,300 14,300 KPU Diesel Additions 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Swan Lake (to serve load) 22,500 22,500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 22500 22,500 22500 22500 22,500 22,500 Lake Tyee (to serve load) 2,300 2,600 3,000 3,600 4,200 3,840 3,168 2531 1,872 1,189 482 0 0 Total Resources 62,800 63,100 63,500 64,100 68,700 68,340 67,668 67,031 66,372 69,689 68,982 68,500 68,500 Annual Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 1500 1,200 800 200 3,600 3,000 1,700 1,139 571 3,995 3,410 2,818 2,217 Energy Requirements (MWh) Ketchikan Requirements 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Less: Conservation Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Requirement 181,768 183,978 186,583 189512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 Energy Resources (MWh) KPU Hydro 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 62,700 KPU Diesel 0 0 0 0 4,725 11,387 17,785 23526 29,404 35,422 41585 47,897 54362 Swan Lake : 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 82,000 Lake Tyee 37,068 39,278 41,883 44812 43,289 39,824 36,432 33,170 29,800 26,319 22,722 19,006 15,167 Total 181,768 183,978 186,583 189,512 192,714 195,911 198,917 201,396 203,904 206,441 209,007 211,603 214,229 KPU Surplus Hydro Net of Losses (MWh) 18,033 13,142 7,749 1,797 (0) 0 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) 0 0 Ketchikan Pulp Company Existing Surplus Sale Agreement 15565 13,142 7,749 = 1,797 (0) 0 0 (0) (0) (0) (0) 0 0 Additional Suplus Available 2,468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road High W&P Loads;Med Fuel Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs - Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) ‘Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 1992 = 1993 1994 $490 $955 $1,305 73 139 187 100 100 100 538 538 538 $1,201 $1,731 — $2,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 $1,201 $1,731 $2,130 0 0 0 $1,201 $1,731 — $2,130 Alaska Energy Authority (Constant 1992 Dollars) 1995 1996 1997 $1552 $1,679 $0 219 234 0 100 100 150 538 538 807 $2,408 $2,551 $957 $0 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 25,037 0 0 1,043 0 0 26,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,834 0 0 109 $0 $0 $2,943 $2,408 $2,551 $3,899 0 0 (545) $2408 $2,551 $3,354 1998 $0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,713 1,155 28,868 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 Present Value in mid-year 1992 Dollars (Discounted @ 3%) Cumulative (1992-2016) 10 year (2017-2026) with no additional growth Total Net Present Value 1999 $0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,803 1,200 30,003 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2000 $0 150 c07 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,931 1,289 32,220 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2001 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,786 1,366 34,152 $0 $2,834 159 $2,993 $3,949 (545) $3,404 $69,264 (in thousands) 39,028 (in thousands) $108,292 (in thousands) 2002 $0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,150 1,423 35,573 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2003 $0 150 807 $957 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,427 1,476 36,903 $0 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 INTERTIE CASE No Conservation Intertie - No Road High W&P Loads;Med Fuel Economic Analysis: Diesel Costs ($000) Fuel Variable O&M Fixed O&M (New Diesel Only) Capital Cost (New Diesel Only) Total Diesel Costs Total Conservation Cost ($000) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU (c/kWh) Debt Service Component O&M Component Total Tyee Sales to KPU (MWh) Transmission Losses(MWh) Total Sales to KPU Load (MWh) Cost of Tyee Power to KPU ($000) Intertie Cost Annual Carrying Charge Annual O&M Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales to KPC Net Cost of Power ($000) 2004 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,068 1,545 38,613 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (545) $3,354 2005 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,278 1,637 40,915 $2,834 109 $2,943 $3,899 (460) $3,439 2006 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,883 1,745 43,628 $2,834 259 $3,093 $4,049 (271) $3,778 Lake Tyee - Swan Lake Intertie Feasibility Study 2007 $0 0 150 807 $957 0.00 0.00 0.00 44,812 1,867 46,679 $2,834 151 $2,985 $3,942 (63) $3,879 Alaska Energy Authority (Constant 1992 Dollars) 2008 2009 2010 $395 $957 $1,500 47 114 178 200 200 200 1,075 1,075 =: 1,075 $1,717 $2,346 $2,953 $0 $0 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43,289 39,824 36,432 1804 1,659 1518 45,093 41,483 37,950 $0 $0 $0 $2,834 $2,834 $2,834 151 151 151 $2,985 $2,985 $2,985 $4,703 $5,331 $5,938 0 (0) (0) $4,703 $5,331 $5,938 2011 $2,012 235 200 1,075 $3,522 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 33,170 1,382 34,552 $2,834 366 $3,200 $6,723 $6,723 2012 $2,550 294 200 538 $3,581 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,800 1,242 31,042 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $6,602 $6,602 2013 $3,115 354 250 807 $4,526 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,319 1,097 27,415 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $7,547 $7,547 2014 $3,708 416 250 807 $5,181 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,722 947 23,669 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $8,202 $8,202 2015 $4,332 479 250 807 $5,867 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 19,006 792 19,798 $0 $2,834 187 $3,021 $8,888 (0) $8,888 2016 $4,986 544 250 807 $6,586 $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,167 632 15,799 $0 $2,834 303 $3,136 $9,722 (0) $9,722 APPENDIX H ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT BY DAMES & MOORE RW, BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ON TYEE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE Prepared for ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AND RW BECK & ASSOCIATES JOB NO. 12023-031-020 February 25, 1992 Prepared by: DAMES & MOORE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ee eee alla esate leet arate tal Mann aM Mead aed ce alates se er er ed at el a vi FO) INTENTION elect SAI Sen cL eta aa lao Mate ees eared ned a 1 121 RG Ane eee eee eet ailellllallaey allele vlerletltlal eat lUlas ltahealll | ate slate! (a Lleol Meg 1 Co ee ene ee eee e eet etal taste IMAM Lal ael lollies ie be Le acta de [ela 1 1:2 a ET ee esate y ies tale (oe dtlel allel atte allt Aiea tesla al art le sata eal 2 Te FRE I FOI aes on ali eee el ein eee eee | ale a nl 2 A | ree ST ta allel see i edna a a | 8 ar le a | 2 ST, Te IU I ice a lela aad ey ale ele ge es ol 6 angle wee lal 3 1.3.4 Future Forest Service Road Construction ... 0.2.2.0... 00. e cee eee eee eee eee 4 1.3.5 Ketchikan to Canada Highway Construction ............ 060 e eee eee eee 4 Fee ee ee coon eee rlellelluiselselllausterterkelta lettatel eyseueh lod al etlaMe eeu toate lol lel ite 4 TF Perea FR nes ores eee ee ee eee erie eee e eee 4 1:4) PERDAETS THAT MAY: BE FEQUIRED eee eats celta se olor loo ollie ml er rexaits to oy olla 80} 5 U0, | FRO POEUN acral all ol srcyazata fa alata atfae [ol as-atali cipal lallo}la| altoontel a cite teal atletal tala (oa faa 5 Oo Aa | UU UO || 0 2 ada a 6 a 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............. 2.0.00 cece eee cece ee ees 7 2s A)| TP Rea MENU Ee, PON 1011016121 AML LLIL Ua lesa Ul al aliclegl eMreallarteelollaey lliassetta a olathe bella ciate felt sted ed 7 EF Ce Pe I ness seen ces iciny elt ows ee eles nlee memes one if 2s Ve aE MSUNNN PUNO EES 01001 cts 15 ctl lots aot fatto ala aloo] ates cers fetter ieee a tel aa a 7 2:2 | LSE e Tm NOs Wee ceed IE aU ra SL tat catia oa a teal funeral sa Spe ed a ft oases 1 BT PE, oi a bre eine es a tia ee pele i lla lam oe 11 Zi CONUBITUNONR ENON sole) es eae fa! 012) scilsb5) 0 gsagta lait fale) |orsl ollie fled my Ltr or taal to [a 11 2.3 POWER GENERATION ALTERNATIVE... 2.0.05. 5c ccc cece sce ct epee s eros 13 2.3.1 Power Generation Alternative ... 0.0.0... ccc cece eee eee ees 13 2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED OR NOT FURTHER ANALYZED .................-. 14 SAY Copvelnnd Peptide Rotts . . we. ee ee ener e eee teeter eeeee 14 eee le ial. oy tax eae Lan te a a ae 14 eisai | SPRINT PRU 8) ie acs se else acn ce Jo a ln sal Lege i 14 Bd} | SOMES |e Acasa lta eet alae taat eel a ee era el a Fal an a 15 ee TU he HLA Nee! M1 ee ted Ad a a 16 3.1.1.1 Steep Slope Areas (Slope Class EF or F - >75%)............0 00 eens 16 3.1.1.2 biirip Golle and Probable Wellends ............ 2c cc ccccccreness 16 Te I NE ie 6a led se ie lok sleet eS nN Td i 17 3.1.2.1 Steep Slope Areas (Slope Class EF or F - >75%).......... 0.0.0 e eee 17 3.1.2.2 Hydric Soils and Probable Wetlands .............0 00 cee eee cece eee 17 See VAT ee eee eres lst Utell stall aeaaiwill tele loy allel abe ot oe|o altel lpoialial lt allt oa 18 8:2.) PF OYSIOC TADS ee eee reat ey eile lal bt etal te leltal lel lol ass etie et yatta elfelieltareatsotl a 18 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 3.2.2 Geologic Setting 9.237 Climatic’ Setting or eee eee ese eeceese a es ee eee LLIN tsb v ode teskan av eicbabe 19 BS ee reas eam ead te peas «besa be 19 Seite A | UTI TNE IN dL a le te eta naa PSP 19 era a hie ae me Oe eo ela lle bald ee bhi oie eid eel dl 20 Mata PIE IRIN dct test tg deft ble Fab aaa ay 20 ee eee I eae eciie kee e sa wi deco ese tee 21 3:2:6; Water, U8) i cisinlvekoxsdsfoksketsirenststevehstetaystcpazevarer obs ates Pe beraiher trast ts baci papi e 21 3'2*77 Construction IMpacts srr cl chi elke ee oes ee eee ers 21 3.2/6. Post Construction Impacts |p iicylsrucbtelsnsere bien bd ot reenact nei eke rar teres tetrsterayctt 22 3.3 “AQUATIC; ECOLOGY p-peteperertntetastcanicnen tac tety net min nt Uatete fie ei abste mide le oisiaie et 22 3.3.1 Affected Environment - Preferred Route ........... 0... eee eee eee eee 24 ash re ee ee et es eine & & bikie alba o boela le obits op 28 Ree Meal | III, COPMIMONI, Sole teh tta-tel cdot haat Ri a ah talc Pc 28 Bie ET a cee cakes bee ctae walked wrk UE a 28 3.3.1.4 Bluff Lake, Neets Lake, Neets Creek, Neets Bay.................04.. 28 3.3.1.5 Revillagigedo Island - Northeast of Neets Bay ..................004. 29 3:3; 1 GUSTIN: BAY tot laketsforevekekatottevetaratspeyotayclevatetercPctakatotctepalenite pe tatetate te ktehats 29 SER Ce ee cae as COM Se teu w Shd ie sible oles 29 3.3.1.8 Beaver Creek and Tributaries ............ 0.00. cece ee eee eee eee 29 BS ee ON aes Coes esis s Penekas eeeed dh hoa este nied a 29 Maile hg TAR | WOU, PIRES, SIRI dat uspecks rd dlls taah raises pda RSE a mtn APR 30 SST stil Bed Arrraprertretetersngsteteteteratessceterercrers felcrersrstetecner ote eteratosicerstat stokakaae 30 3.3.1.12 Eagle Lake, Eagle River, and Tributaries ....................0.000. 30 Dts ON CE ee nee eae eee eae welt 30 3:3: 2. impacts) FrOM)Preterned): ROULG)-rarsi.voretatoveledolisravel stay suet chetsicih bets iat treeer nin stn Pitre 31 3.3.3 Affected Environment - Alternate Route .............. 20. e eee eee eee ee 31 A I ee eee er ere ee ee ee 31 See ae err ea a es sce ae nad s bea wets eee 31 SRB, | MORTIMER ea aloe 31 3.3.3.4 Orchard Lake, Orchard Creek and Tributaries ...................0.. 32 ee. Peek LAU OG, TIRRER een ere SERVE RRS STEERS 32 ee te CO Oe TIN Cece s ah tte ee ea ee a el lle 32 S227. Deer AO Oe TRE eee ERE Eee eee ee rete eee 32 G.d1d SHOOT NGITOWS Ty lore iil dcelauctck tie natiet sticich bed sdevek ek penceek ti 32 ARS AOE PRR eer ee EEE EERE Eee eee s Neeee an tee 33 3.3.0;10) Bedlisland Tributanesy si vcisuieleiasbs cdeieust stereicbeleiedenchebes derek sk womeicoeeats 33 BA8.77, | SUR ME AeGnG PORE osc ciensieeweieew cee yee eee Yl 33 3.3.3.12 Eagle Lake, Eagle River, and Tributaries ............... 000 e ee eee 33 3:3.3.13)) Bractieid | Carelli ih chtrscyorersraystotatorsterateyerotetohevehetatatsat stab oe tbat nn REE 33 (020\REPORTS\ TYEE .RMP TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 3.3.4 Impacts From Alternate Route ............ 0.6 c eee eee eee eee 33 B14: THEIR SE US OCU oo sooo fale oo ioe cies ope stn forage chins « ei veiseie’s wae ass sree 33 3.4.1 Preferred Route Affected Environment ............. 00 e cece eee ee eee eee 34 BUNT TI NN IN 565 5510S 5p os oes ssysie fo 0a else fe os coin jer ereroieere 34 AR Si ce ere Fe 0 EE Ee ee 35 pe enerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresy Tr rerr ieee rire oe a1 Ge MR RNIN 5115 Fo 0y oom co ot cl ol eo rol fot eroneneier aioe rae rare ere err ters 35 SACs MNMMIURLEMUUIN: Tels ore) er alco ese oo) ofeifo fe feral ore tets ier ev oeeasne elonereitieccacieieis s1a -.. @ 3.4.1.6 Alexander Archipelago Gray Wolf .... 2.2... ee eee 37 SAT PON 12055 ocgsie CRs ORNL 6 cede + Nwh we Hol dietietesiaivieeue 38 aa I 555555 w emits is too rete pe ere an Toltavere ra Bidiaae sow Bre wriete tos ererieite'ist 38 D4. 1OU NRE CIEL SCRBIOL on5 ons Kis ewe do ans Te ce ces teeters 39 a 0 oro a Serer etermng tence eb ae uues aicioice sediones 39 3.4,1.11. Vancouver: Canada-Gonse, and Ducks... 6. ie Sete e ccc cc ccc 40 SR CTI ov ask oe cc cnn tee sce ctitiesiececwewen 40 EAST 1S UAICY WRNMMRNIUNNOIDE cx. oh oy ol roceies 91 09 916 e1cn se at ax o'o! Go fe! oho} el oho als otetlonel(o- ener otfvio cane 40 3.4.1.14 Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) ..........--.--eeeeeeee 40 3.4.2 Alternative Route Affected Environment .............0 00 cece eee eee eee 40 3.4.5 ExqpectpeDigholetn While, 2... 8 cette c etnies enercens 41 SAT Blak: Black Talldd DOG... oon ce ci 8 oes ewe cee 41 SMe ee WO 05 0 ore ao eo oy oy aioe oo Ie Ge To Foe 9 ooo Ror ot or ons Toner Wooo nenop st olieuedone co 41 Pt 8 ge. PEPETTTELETEL TELE EE eee a Tee ee 41 eR. gs WWPPETUUTVITEL EET et a 41 GAMUT oC oj0. ooo is) oi eee ta, 91) w ioin charles eleyeioleierei eye seetohs. chs 43 SARE r TG. 5. edi oloign ce 5 6 0 wilting We Wigs vice taae iowa o mm ood Moe wree® 44 DST WEIN cdi cites cas cee. cece ete se Miieasts OTN oceans ged Hetls 44 S468 NeHHENTEIVING SCUNTOR, «5 65.0660 oe. oom teie ciate s chico 9 one 44 SABO: Bl MORNOS © «cies, smcoieis cio sonia isola 1s eis sisicicigiele si lekee © stevereiele sisters 44 3.4.3.10 Vancouver Canada Goose and Ducks .........-. 0-0 cece eee ee eens 45 3.4.3.1 Hay WOOCDOONON eco. eo ee cee entre nodes «enmiees esis 46 3.4.4 Alternate Route Impacts to Wildlife ..... 2... 2... c eee eee eee ee 46 3.5 LAND USES. AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS .............cccccccccccccccceess 46 ee f errrrrrrT TTrrrrTrT rr ri rrr rrr eee 46 3.5.1.1 Eagle River and Lalee ..... 0... ccc ccc cece cece cern encore eenes 47 3.5.1.2 Eagle Bay to Behn Canal ..... 0... cece cece cece rece eens ceee 48 3.5.1.3 Behm Canal to Carroll Inlet 2... 0... eee teens 48 S155 174s N@WUR GAMO esterereie rots oie raeleice foie on ee tedet Poli debelonstonslolol eveistorenersneiiiorsisrs 48 B55 9:5 = Caarvc | NFMOES: Fee CHK oases ss ersten oe or ay ctoters epreronicror =! onesie nouodenekeretiedeiers 48 B.G) VISUAL; AND REGCRIEATION -roresere rere ererrera 7510) osfotor = ot arcetoitor or er ctisiaiies reretilievelereilerenerers 50 3.6.2 — Feecremntiony! CQVGU WNW or sresce occ crstiwite ta co ot ore lrertenn cr anejoirenec seal 4c eMisiee wiwieieie ee 52 e20\Reronrs \T¥EE. mr iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page '3/G'3 || Protorred IROUTO | ric arete rer eletexeye ey epel el oratettens sine Lereitster at csevclen waren nte en sera eieie 54 316.355) Vieual Impacts |r yascen ee eS neeC Eee ee emer ae tence 54 3:6.3:2) Recreation [impacts ys oc rere ct ols-)teietiecte eral el cis lerscerey otters eet uelel leila 56 Bie | FS GS hae dds ered a dads Pebee sane CARRE KEN S ee de) eee 58 36.4.1) Visual Impacts) |lirerie clare ierercteyaleterelereferctintcts ersyaierareiercienstoleeteretoclecte 58 3:6:4-2) Recreation Impacts yey. er)-rletcle stores clit srorederclorcne lactis cyerersterele ele 59 3.6: | MMIGAHION) <foicsteveisiss-[ovrensiels sreiecclcitelo tess slaiaianvsisrehel ce srekete romieia clan nels ale 60 Si7 | CULTURAL RESOURGES iain eters cially ctaicrosisiersvelcreroters obtain oea risers 60 mr,) | OER CAR FORO 6 obec ae a it chee eens bdbance Leena 60 EE | La hemdakels eee dat ree edaene 1 RhERS a eth tepals bene 61 Ue | PO ls i ho et et ceceewhenas bebe bE oe dkdaees bees 62 4:1) ‘SOILS; GEOLOGY, AND WATER) .)o..)66) «1. <1. ctu aorsere se ol eciete el oreclerls aelosien sel 79 CR ERI Bo ote ee ewan a ss Cee eee eee we es cates Guneedebuadss oe 79 AS) WILDEIFE*RESOURGES I eclnietecey eter cleieiatoratens]sia) erstete levers ots over elerehelratoier els ratieluetrels 79 4.4 VISUAL QUALITY AND RECREATION ........... 0... cece cece cece eee eens 80 AIG LAND IUSES Fei etc ere lenave sve) eloteene de el svelele/eveyeporelevcreler Rieke alaisiiekae cts eleicie ceiver 81 416 CULTURAL RESOURCES Ta snare sre) rclereleoueloicters elticiarctore enraielekete) ele) ceis le laiversiors 81 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Soil Appendix B - Overview of Commercial Fishing Appendix C - Cultural Resource Background Appendix D - Public Scoping (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This Environmental Report was prepared to assist the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in understanding the environmental effects of constructing and operating an electric power intertie in southeast Alaska. The overall Feasibility Study of which this report is a part, has been preceded by general route reconnaissance studies and load forecasts. The Feasibility Study will assist the AEA in a determination of whether or not to pursue the project. The Swan Lake hydro-electric plant which supplies energy to the community of Ketchikan, Alaska is now operating near its design capacity. On the other hand, the Tyee Lake hydro-electric plant which supplies energy to the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg, Alaska only uses about one-third of its ultimate generating capacity. The distance between Tyee and Swan lakes is about 60 miles. The AEA proposal, therefore, is to connect these two hydro-electric facilities with a 115 kV transmission line. The Tyee - Swan Intertie appears desirable because mid-range projections for the community of Ketchikan indicate that the community will require additional electrical power in the near future beyond the capacity of its present generating system (Swan Lake and other hydro plus diesel generation). AEA management and the Governor of Alaska support use of the Tyee Lake facility by an intertie to Ketchikan, if that intertie is feasible from an economic, environmental, and engineering standpoint. ROUTES Two overland routes between Tyee and Swan lakes were analyzed in the report. Both routes begin at the Tyee Lake switchyard and follow the existing Tyee transmission line corridor to Eagle Bay on the Bradfield Canal. The preferred route crosses Eagle River at its mouth and turns southward along the west side of the river and Eagle Lake. The alternate route follows the eastern side of the river and lake. The preferred route crosses Bell Arm, Bell Island, and Behm Narrows onto northern Revillagigedo Island. The alternate route parallels Anchor Pass and crosses Behm Canal from Point Lees to the vicinity of Beaver Creek on Revillagigedo Island. From the island, both routes continue together south along Beaver Creek and Klam Creek. From this point, the preferred route crosses Shrimp Bay and follows the shoreline of Neets Bay to the mouth of Neets Creek. The route then turns easterly along Neets Creek to its headwaters. From Klam Creek, the alternate route follows Klu Creek and then turns southeasterly north of Orchard Lake. It then crosses Orchard Creek and turns south meeting up with preferred route in the upper Carroll watershed. Both routes then follow the east side of the Carroll Creek Valley to Falls Creek below Swan Lake. CONSTRUCTION Much of the intertie will be constructed over rugged terrain. Helicopter construction techniques are planned over the majority of the route as no maintained roads exist along the route. Helicopter (020\REPORTS\ TYEE RU construction techniques assume all material, equipment, and construction crews are transported via helicopter. It also includes helicopter assistance with clearing, log removal, and conductor stringing. Predominately, H-frame wood pole structures will support the line and will be placed nominally at seven structures per mile. The H-frames will be brought to the site by helicopter and set into pre- established H-pile foundations. Clearing width for the transmission line is assumed to average 200 feet in the heavily forested sections. Narrower widths are possible where vegetation is lower. In some sections, the line will span ravines which will not require clearing. Up to 1,150 acres may have to be cleared along the intertie route. Clearing will be done with hand crews and chain saws felling trees and taller vegetation which could fall against a structure or into the transmission lines. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The AEA held a series of meetings in southeast Alaska during December 1991 and January 1992. One meeting was held in each of the three affected communities. Attendance was primarily by community leaders concerned with the distribution of electrical energy in their communities. The AEA also met with Forest Service managers in Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan. These discussions covered the permitting and planning processes the Forest Service anticipates would be necessary if the proposal goes forward. Representatives of the State of Alaska regulatory agencies (Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Environmental Conservation) and federal regulatory agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service met with AEA in January. The meeting identified the major permits likely to be needed and the environmental issues to be addressed. A number of issues were identified that would likely form the scope of future National Environmental Policy Act planning documents such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To the extent that information was available within the time frame of the Feasibility Study, these issues were analyzed in this environmental report. A few of the more important issues are identified in this summary. ISSUES Orchard Lake and Creek and Eagle Lake and River have been mentioned as eligible for Wild or Scenic status in some alternatives of the draft Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). However, the TLMP preferred alternative allows for a utility and transportation corridor along the general route of the intertie. As part of the Special Use Permit to be issued by the Forest Service, the permittee is required to purchase and remove all the merchantable material that would be cut during right-of-way clearing operations. On a project like the Tyee - Swan Intertie which will likely be constructed with helicopter access the requirement to remove all merchantable material places a severe economic burden on the project. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP Wildlife issues are of concern to many state and federal agencies. The possible effects the intertie might have on eagles, swans, ducks, geese, furbearers, deer, and marine mammals is discussed in the environmental report. Bald eagle nests must be protected in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. There is also a herd of mountain goats » the Eagle Lake vicinity. A concern was raised about the effect of clearing a right-of-way through what may be wintering and calving areas. Timber access roads are not expected to be constructed along the intertie corridor within the next 10 years. However, several adjacent areas on northern Revillagigedo Island are under study now and could result in logging and road building being scheduled in the 1995 Timber Sale Action Plan. These routes do not access the intertie corridor. There is interest, particularly in Ketchikan, about the possibility of constructing a highway from Ketchikan to British Columbia along the general preferred intertie route. Studies have been made of this route and its feasibility is currently being considered. If such a road were built before the intertie, there would be potential cost savings for the intertie construction. At this time, the AEA proposal is to construct the intertie with helicopter techniques. However, if a viable highway construction project were planned on the same schedule as the intertie plan, then the two projects could be coordinated. EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFE Both the preferred and alternate route cross extensive areas of hydric soils (probable wetlands) and areas of steep slopes. There are almost twice as many miles of steep terrain crossed by the alternate route when compared to the preferred route. While the extent of hydric soils is comparable for both routes, the longest continuous stretch of hydric soils occurs near Anchor Pass on the alternate route. Neither the steep slopes or the wet soils would preclude construction of an intertie on either route. Six known slides on the east side of Eagle lake, however, warrant location of the intertie on the west side. Clearing forest vegetation from approximately 1,150 acres over a 60-mile length should have relatively little adverse effect on most wildlife species. Human/animal interactions during the construction phase can be more significant. Proper disposal of garbage and training of construction personnel can help prevent unnecessary destruction of bears. There is only one known bald eagle nest in close proximity to the preferred route and none along the alternate route. However, survey information for some route segments is old. Detailed site specific route surveys should be conducted for bald eagle nests before final route selection. Minor route changes can then be made to avoid nest trees. A helicopter constructed transmission line should not affect fish habitat along either route. Careful clearing of right-of-way in riparian areas should be done to prevent foliage and brush from entering fish habitat. Also fuel handling should be carefully controlled to prevent damage to aquatic resources. 020\REPORTS\TYEE vii Visual simulation techniques are recommended to analyze and illustrate potential effects of the preferred and alternate routes on the visual resource. Visual simulation is a useful tool that can assist planners in siting transmission line towers to maximize advantages of landform and vegetation screening. In addition, use of non-specular conductors should be considered to minimize light reflection from conductors, especially for aerial crossings of waterways. Form, color, and material should also be considered during transmission line tower design. Both the preferred and alternate routes would be affected if Eagle Lake and River were designated a Wild River. It would be possible to relocate the routes at a higher elevation outside the 1/4 mile Wild River Zone along the waterway. An assumption is made that even if Eagle River were designated Wild that additional transmission lines could cross the creek at its mouth in the existing Tyee Transmission line corridor. Aerial marine water crossings of the intertie at Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, and Bell Arm would be visually obvious. However, because the crossings would be elevated and no right-of-way clearing would take place next to the shoreline, the actual effect may not be severe. Submarine cable crossings require right-of-way clearing to the shoreline and small structures to accommodate the transition from aerial to submarine cable. Mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact would be considered in the final design. CONCLUSION From an environmental feasibility standpoint, both routes are acceptable and neither route shows an overwhelming advantage. The question of Wild River designation for Orchard Creek or Eagle River should be resolved before making a final commitment to a route. The Tongass Land Management Plan, which will document the Forest Service decision on the status of these two rivers, is anticipated during the summer of 1992. (020\REPORTS TYEE. viii CHAPTER | - INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental report was prepared for R.W. Beck and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) as a section of the Feasibility Study for a possible intertie between Tyee and Swan Lake hydro-eiectric generating plants. In general, this report follows the format and subject matter of a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) and is intended as a basis for preparing an EA should that become necessary. The overall Feasibility Study has been preceded by general route reconnaissance studies and load forecasts. The Feasibility Study will assist the AEA in determining whether or not to pursue the project. 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED The community of Ketchikan, located on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, currently uses a maximum (peak) 26 MW of electric power for its residential and industrial needs. This electric power is primarily generated by the Swan Lake hydro-electric plant (22 MW) and is supplemented by smaller hydro sites and diesel generating plants in Ketchikan. The Swan Lake plant is now operating near its design capacity. The communities of Wrangell and Petersburg, Alaska receive their primary electric power from the hydro-electric plant at Tyee Lake. Both communities have diesel generating plants and Petersburg operates a hydro-electric plant at Crystal Lake. Only about one-third of the energy production capacity at Tyee reservoir is used by the two communities. The distance between Tyee and Swan lakes is about 60 miles. The AEA proposal, therefore, is to connect these two hydro- electric plants with a new 115 kV transmission line. The Tyee-Swan Intertie appears desirable because mid-range projections for the community of Ketchikan indicate that the community will require additional electrical power in the near future beyond the capacity of its present generating system (Swan Lake and other hydro plus diesel generation). The generating system at the Tyee Lake hydropower plant is under-utilized by about one-half of its rated 20 MW capacity. AEA management and the Governor of Alaska support use of the Tyee Lake plant by an intertie to Ketchikan, if that intertie is feasible from an economic, environmental, and engineering standpoint. 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT To inform the public and regulatory agencies of the preferred intertie and to identify issues and concerns the public and regulatory agencies may have, AEA held a series of meetings in southeast Alaska during December 1991 and January 1992. One meeting was held in each of the three affected communities. Attendance was primarily by community leaders concerned with distribution of electrical energy in their communities. Brief reports of each meeting are included in Appendix D. (020\REPORTS\TYEE.RM AEA also met with Forest Service managers in Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan. These discussions covered the permitting and planning processes the Forest Service anticipates would be necessary if the proposal goes forward. Reports of these Forest Service meetings are also contained in Appendix D. In January, representatives of the state regulatory agencies: Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); and federal regulatory agencies such as the Corps of Engineers (COE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) met with the AEA in Juneau. This meeting was hosted by the State of Alaska, Office of Government Coordination. The meeting identified the major permits likely to be needed and the environmental issues to be addressed in that permitting process. 1.3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED As a result of the meetings and correspondence and telephone conversations with sources in southeast Alaska, a list of environmental issues was developed. These issues indicate concerns that individuals and government agencies feel should be considered either at the feasibility level or in future permitting actions and reports. It is expected that this list would be used by a federal lead agency in the scoping process to develop an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS) should this project go forward. 1.3.1 Recreation Management Issues Orchard Lake and Creek and Eagle Lake and River have been mentioned as eligible for Wild or Scenic status in some alternatives in the draft Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). However, the TLMP preferred alternative allows for a utility and transportation corridor along the general route of the intertie. Developed recreation sites along the route include Forest Service cabins at Orchard Lake, Eagle Lake, and at Anchor Pass. There is recreational use of the marine waters near the route especially in Behm Canal and Anchor Pass by small boats and the smaller tour ships. It is important to protect the visual quality of Orchard Lake, Eagle Lake, and saltwater crossings. 1.3.2 R-O-W Timber Removal As part of the Special Use Permit to be issued by the Forest Service, the permittee is required to purchase all the merchantable material that would be cut during right-of-way clearing operations. A Timber Sale Contract is issued for this purpose. One clause requires the purchaser (permittee) to remove all merchantable material. It is not normally permissible to pay for the material, cut it, and leave it in place. On a project like the Tyee-Swan Intertie, which will be constructed with helicopter access, the requirement to remove all merchantable material places a severe economic burden on the project. This (020\REPORTS\TYEE.RwP is because removing logs long distances by helicopter is very expensive. Sections of the Tyee-Swan Intertie are 6 miles from a drop point. The timber sale value will not cover removal costs. Alternatives to helicopter removal exist. For example, merchantable timber may be burned in piles, but this would be almost as expensive as helicopter removal. This is because piling could probably only be done by helicopter. Also, broadcast burning could be used. This, however, would remove the smaller pieces of woody debris and leave the logs untouched, which would not meet requirements for removal of all merchantable timber. This option also poses possible damage to the surrounding uncut forest, if great care was not taken to control the fire within the right-of-way. Leaving the material in place would not necessarily be ecologically harmful if it were left lying flat on the ground and not in huge slash piles which could interfere with wildlife movement. Constructing short temporary roads to haul the timber out might prove to be most cost effective when combined with helicopter logging. To keep the cost down, roads should be single-lane shot-rock overlay on top of logging debris suitable for low speed truck haul of logs to tidewater Log Transfer Facilities (LTF). 1.3.3 Wildlife Management Issues Wildlife issues are of concern to the Forest Service. They mentioned the possible effects the intertie might have on eagles, swans, ducks, geese, fur bearers, deer, and marine mammals. Bird strikes on the transmission lines and clearing of right-of-way are two effects that are of concern. Also, eagle nests must be protected in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the USFWS. It is preferable for the transmission lines to parallel streams at some distance rather than cross them. This would avoid interference with flyways and possible bird strike in the lines. In addition, right-of-way clearing should be done so as not to create a barrier to wildlife movement. Eagle nests and perch trees should be avoided. The minimum encroachment distance to a nest site is 330 feet. Human activity near nests during the spring and early summer is particularly disturbing to eagles. Timing restrictions on construction activity may be imposed in areas of high eagle concentration. There is a herd of mountain goats in the vicinity of Eagle Lake. A concern was raised about the effect of clearing a right-of-way through what may be wintering and calving areas. A habitat survey of the goat winter range was suggested as a necessary study to understand what the effect might be. Rerouting to avoid key habitat and performing construction during periods when the goats would be elsewhere was suggested as possible mitigation to consider. There were mountain goats introduced near Swan Lake several years ago but it is thought that their habitat would not be affected by the intertie. The USFWS is currently studying the Marbled Murrelet in southeast Alaska. They occur in the area and their nest sites should be avoided. At this time, it is undetermined as to whether the species should be considered for Threatened or Endangered status, but the possibility exists. Results of the USFWS study will not be available for some time. ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 3 A concern was voiced that construction crews working along the intertie route would hunt brown bear and deer in areas that normally receive very little hunting pressure. This could have a depressing effect on these two species’ area populations. The locations of construction crew camps (floating or land based) should be coordinated with ADF&G. A permit is required from DNR. 1.3.4 Future Forest Service Road Construction No timber access roads are expected to be constructed along the intertie corridor within the next 10 years. However, several adjacent areas on northern Revilla Island are under study now and could result in logging and road building being scheduled in the 1995 Timber Sale Action Plan. These routes do not access the intertie corridor. The Forest Service is concerned that if a transmission line is built that it not preclude a future opportunity to conduct logging operations. This concern would be included in the Special Use Permit for the intertie by requiring towers to be moved if necessary to allow future road construction. Close coordination between the Forest Service and design engineers for the intertie would reduce the possibility of later tower relocation. 1.3.5 Ketchikan to Canada Highway Construction There is interest, particularly in Ketchikan, about the possibility of constructing a highway from Ketchikan to British Columbia along the general route preferred for the intertie. Studies have been made of this route and its feasibility is currently being studied. If such a road were built before the intertie, and if the route were essentially the same, cost savings might be realized on the intertie construction. The AEA proposal is for a helicopter access intertie. However, if a viable highway construction project were planned on the same schedule as the intertie, then the two projects could be coordinated. 1.3.6 Marine Crossings Areas within 1/4-mile of tidewater are considered high value habitat for many species including deer, eagles, and fur bearers. Marine crossings for the intertie should be placed away from flyways and areas of bird congregation. Submarine crossings should avoid high value subtidal environments such as eel grass areas or spawning areas. LTFs or drop zones should be chosen with care so as to avoid adverse impacts to the marine environment, such as bark deposition. The state has issued LTF siting guidelines which should be followed. 1.3.7 Anadromous Fish Issues Streams along the preferred route have not all been assigned a number in the ADF&G Anadromous Fish Stream Catalog. That does not mean that there are no anadromous fish in those streams only that they have not been surveyed. If the streams will be entered or crossed with heavy equipment, they should be surveyed first. Crossings should be kept to a minimum and should avoid concentrations of spawning fish. Spawning areas also attract birds and other wildlife. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Rue The effects an intertie might have on the existing Tyee Creek flow were mentioned. It was suggested that restricting the flow could have an adverse impact on anadromous fish. Tyee Lake was not impounded but tapped to create the "head" required to generate electricity. As such, the normai lake outlet was not modified. Also, the normal lake outlet is a precipitous cataract not thought to have ever contained fish. Water discharged from the turbines at Tyee Lake discharges into a man-made channel that runs into the Bradfield Canal. Since construction, a few salmon have begun spawning in this channel. If the intertie is built, it is likely that more electricity would be generated thus increasing the flow from the turbines into the man-made channel. The effect this would have on spawning salmon would depend upon the timing and rates of flow discharged from the turbines. 1.4 PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED The following list of permits was developed to describe those likely to be needed for the intertie project. The list may not be complete in that the project’s engineering design is still in the conceptual stage. Similarly, there may be permits included in the list which will not be necessary after the project is better defined. 1.4.1 Federal Permits If wetlands would be affected, the COE would review the project. An application to the COE would be necessary if wetlands would be filled or vegetation cleared. The COE would also issue permits for LTFs at tidewater locations. Only one application for the project would be needed for all COE authorizations under the Clean Water Act (Section 404) or the Rivers and Harbor Act (Section 10). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be consulted by the COE during this permit process as would the NMFS, the USFWS, and the ADEC. Because the intertie route crosses the Tongass National Forest, a Special Use Permit for the right-of- way would be required from the Forest Service. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Authority should be consulted about coordination of the transmission line’s marine crossings. This coordination is required for navigation and safety of vessels and aircraft. 1.4.2 State Permits The Alaska DNR would issue permits for all crossings of tidelands and for LTFs. An “as built" survey of the right-of-way across tidelands, whether aerial or submarine, would be required. Also, the DNR issues permits for drop zones in marine waters for helicopter logging. ADEC would issue a Water Quality Certification of the COE Permit as part of the coordinated state review process. The Office of Governmental Coordination would oversee the state permitting actions. A consistency determination with the Alaska Coastal Management Program would be issued by the Office of Governmental Coordination. cao weronTs\ TYEE mie 5 eres 33AL\SimoaaU\oz0 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 THE INTERTIE PROPOSAL The AEA proposal is to connect the hydro-electric plants at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake with a 115 kV transmission line. The two plants are approximately 60 miles apart. The Feasibility Study considers several conceptual design and route alternatives for the purpose of determining economic and engineering feasibility. For the Environmental Report, two route alternatives, the Preferred Route and the Alternate Route, both of which follow the Eagle River Corridor, were considered in detail. 2.1.1 Preferred Route Description The preferred route parallels the existing Tyee Lake to Wrangell transmission line for approximately six miles from the Tyee Lake switchyard, then turns south along the west side of the Eagle River drainage and crosses Bell Arm onto Bell Island near the northern end of Bell Island. The line first turns westerly parallel to the north shore of Bell island, then southerly across the center of the island. The line crosses Behm Narrows onto Revillagigedo Island. The line follows the Beaver and Klam Creek drainages southerly, crossing Shrimp Bay near its head. The line continues south to Neets Bay following the shoreline of Neets Bay and then turns east following Neets Creek to its headwaters. The line then turns south into the Carroll Creek drainage and follows the east side of Carroll Creek Valley and Carroll Inlet to join with the existing Swan Lake transmission line at Falls Creek powerhouse (see Figure 1). In total, the route will be approximately 60 miles long with 3 aerial crossings of marine waters at Bell Arm, Behm Canal, and Shrimp Bay. 2.1.2 Construction Methods Much of the intertie will be constructed over rugged terrain. Helicopter construction techniques are assumed to be needed over the majority of the route in that there are no maintained roads along the route. There are several miles of abandoned logging road in the Neets Bay and lower Carroll Creek areas. However, their location in relation to the transmission line and their present condition reduce their value somewhat as an aid to construction. They may be useful in providing access for right-of-way clearing. Helicopter construction techniques assume all materials, equipment, and construction crews are transported via helicopter as well as helicopter assistance with clearing, log removal, and conductor stringing. Predominately H-frame wood pole structures (see Figure 2) will support the line. These will be placed nominally at seven structures per mile. The H-frames will be brought to the site by helicopter and set into pre-established H-pile foundations (see Figure 3). Clearing width for the transmission line is assumed to average 200 feet in the heavily forested sections. Narrower widths are possible where vegetation is lower. Also, some sections of the line will span ravines which will not require clearing. Up to 1,150 acres may have to be cleared along the intertie route. Clearing will be done with hand crews and chain saws felling trees and taller vegetation which could fall against a structure or into the transmission lines. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 7 Job No. 12023-031-020 Legend: mus Proposed Route =====—= Alternate Route ° 5 10 ——S Scale in Miles J Cenay ae aS “Sh yee Lake 4 aeiee \\ Revillagigedo Island % 4 ees Lake a Figure 1 ‘ Vicinity Map of Proposed and Alternate Routes Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore! MAX POLE LENGTH = 80’ 20° TYPICAL LENGTH = 50° NIT POLE SHOE | | FOUNDATION Tie 7 ye Ih 7H if GTRANSMISSION LINE WITHOUT STEEL EXTENSION POLE LENGTH = 75’ POLE SHOE AS REQ’D LENGTH VARIES STEEL EXTENSION WITH STEEL EXTENSION FIGURE 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL WOOD H-FRAME STRUCTURE R.W BECK. AND ASSOCIATES TOP OF FON. wooD POLE Ht HP10x42 val 3'-0" MAX YP LENGTH 25°-0" | POLE SHOE Fae lt HP10x42 “T° ELEVATION J H-PILES ONLY, MUSKEG AND GRANULAR SOILS TYPICAL POLE SHOE INSTALLATION NOTE: TYPICAL ROCK | ANCHOR GROUT H-PILES NOT SHOWN INSTALLATION FOR CLARITY. oe i ST % CASING 5 TYPICAL ROCK ANCHOR EPOXY GROUT INSTALLATION W/ CASING i RESIN EPOXY #11 ROCK ANCHOR RESIN A #11 ROCK ANCHOR ELEVATION TYPICAL INSTALLATION FIGURE 3 H-PILE WITH ROCK ANCHORS AND POLE SHOE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL POLE H-PILE/ROCKBOLT FOUNDATION R.W. BECK Line stringing is accomplished with trailer, truck, or tractor-mounted equipment flown in by helicopter. Cable drums and a tensioner are placed at one end of the section to be strung and a puller winch is placed at the other end approximately two miles away. A light weight “pilot” line is flown by helicopter and placed in guides on the structures. This pilot line is used to pull a heavier pulling line which in turn is attached to the transmission conductor. The puller is used to pull the conductor through the structure guides. The tensioner and cable puller are typically leapfrogged by helicopter along the corridor so that there is no across-the-ground travel by heavy machinery. At intervals along the line, helicopter landing pads would be constructed of timbers supported on H-piles (see Figure 4). These pads would be cleared of vegetation and the foundations drilled into rock for support. Earth moving or shot rock would not be required with this design. 2.2 ALTERNATE ROUTE 2.2.1 Route Description The alternate route parallels the existing Tyee Lake to Wrangell transmission line for approximately five miles from the Tyee Lake switchyard and then turns south along the east side of the Eagle River drainage. The line crosses Behm Narrows at Point Lees onto Revillagigedo Island. The line follows the Beaver and Klam Creek drainages southerly, turning southeasterly along the Klu drainage. The route continues southeasterly north of Orchard Lake eventually crossing Orchard Creek and the divide into the Carroll Creek drainage. The line then turns south into the Carroll Creek drainage and follows the east side of Carroll Creek Valley and Carroll Inlet to join with the existing Swan Lake transmission line at the Falls Creek powerhouse (see Figure 1). In total, the route will be approximately 57 miles long with one submarine cable crossing of marine waters at Behm Canal. 2.2.2 Construction Methods Construction of the overhead line would be as described under the preferred route Section 2.1.1. The submarine cable crossing would consist of four cables (one spare) laid approximately 500 feet apart and roughly parallel on the sea floor. A rigorous bathymetric survey would be conducted to select the most reliable submarine route for the cables. Special undersea water jet trenching equipment would be used to bed the cables in the sea bottom sediments for a distance from the shore to a safe and practicable depth. The cables would be laid directly on the sea floor for the rest of the route. At each end of the crossing, a small station would contain cable terminators, oil feeding equipment, oil system monitoring and alarm equipment, and structures for the transition to overhead construction. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. uP 11 22'-6" PRESERVATIVE TREATED x6 TIMBERS @ 2'-0" OC = : PREVAILING WIND GRATE FOR STEPPING OUT TURNBUCKLES TO ADJUST BRACING (TYP ALL SIDES) LADDER a H—PILE FOOTINGS (FOUR TOTAL) END_VIEW FIGURE 4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERTIE TYPICAL HELICOPTER LANDING PAD R.W BECK AND ASSOCIATES 2.3 POWER GENERATION ALTERNATIVE 2.3.1 Power Generation Alternative Additional electrical energy could be developed for Ketchikan by using the three diesel generators located at the Bailey Power Plant in Ketchikan. The Bailey Power Plant has three diesel-powered generators, installed prior to 1978, with a combined capacity of approximately 18 MW. The generators are currently used on a back-up basis during peak demand or during dry seasons when an inadequate supply of hydroelectric power is available. The largest generator at this facility has a fuel burning rating of 64 million Btus per hour. A state permit to operate under 18 AAC 50.300(b) is not required when the fuel burning rating (heat input rate) is less than 100 million Btus per hour and allowable emissions are below 250 tons per year (tpy) of a regulated air contaminant. This facility does not exceed either threshold requirement and therefore does not require a permit. As long as actual emissions remain below 250 tpy, full time operation of the existing generators (without upgrades or modifications) would not require a permit to operate under 18 AAC 50.300(b) since the highest rated generator at the facility has a fuel burning rate below 64 million Btus per hour. A permit to operate application requires an estimate of types and amounts of emissions, a description of air control devices, and assurances that the equipment is capable of complying with applicable emission requirements. Upgrades or modifications to the existing generators, such as may become necessary if the intertie is not constructed, would subject the facility to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review assuming increases in actual emissions equal or exceed limitations in 18 AAC 50.300(a)(6)(C). Increases in emissions are limited to 40 tpy nitrogen oxides, 100 tpy carbon monoxide, 40 tpy sulfur dioxide, and 25 tpy particulate matter. In addition to the permit to operate requirements discussed above, the following additional information is required for PSD review pursuant to 18 AAC 50.300(c): 15 Ambient air quality and meteorological data collection (usually for a one-year period). 2. A demonstration that expected maximum emissions from the facility will not cause a violation, or contribute to an existing violation of ambient air quality standards. 3. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis that would consider the maximum reduction achievable for each regulated air pollutant taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts. 4. Visibility impact analysis. With an upgrade or modification, the PSD review process could be avoided if a permit to operate contains a restriction to keep increases in nitrogen oxide emissions below 40 tpy (emission limitations for nitrogen oxides are the most difficult for diesel-powered generators to meet), and if compliance with the ambient increment can be demonstrated (for nitrogen oxides this increment is 25 micrograms per cubic meter). However, for a facility of this type, it is difficult to make upgrades or modifications without ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 13 exceeding 40 tpy nitrogen oxides. It is difficult to demonstrate compliance with the ambient nitrogen oxide increment without a lengthy local monitoring program. Therefore, it is unlikely that the PSD process could be avoided should the existing facility undergo upgrade or modification. 2.4 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED OR NOT FURTHER ANALYZED 2.4.1 Cleveland Peninsula Route Three major route corridors have been proposed for delivering power from Tyee Lake to the Ketchikan Public Utility (KPU) system. The preferred and alternate routes analyzed herein use the Eagle River corridor to Swan Lake, then depend on the existing Swan Lake - Bailey transmission line to deliver power to Ketchikan. To provide an independent tie to the KPU system, two basic alternatives have been proposed, namely a route along the Cleveland Peninsula and a route consisting of the Eagle River Corridor, then a new line parallel to the existing Swan Lake line. The Cleveland Peninsula route would tap the existing Tyee Lake line on the northwest corner of Cleveland Peninsula. Then proceed south through the Anan Creek basin which has been designated a candidate for Wild River status under the alternative Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) scenarios. There is no viable route around the Anan Creek basin. The route would continue south to Helms Points, then via a nine-mile submarine cable link, connect to Revillagigedo Island in the vicinity of Lunch Creek. The route would continue southwest along North Tongass Highway to the KPU North Point Higgins Substation. This route is longer than the preferred route and would have very similar environmental effects. The cost of this alternative is about one and a half times that of the preferred route. As this alternative provided no cost or environmental advantage, it was not analyzed in this report. The route adjacent to the existing Swan Lake line was also not analyzed in this report since it, too, is considerably higher in cost than the preferred route. 2.4.2 Highway Construction Although a road has been discussed which would use some of the same route as the intertie, the environmental effects of a road-supported intertie are not addressed in this report. Road construction for the single purpose of construction and maintenance of a transmission line does not appear to be cost effective. On the other hand, if at some future time a definite highway proposal (including a plan of finance and a project sponsor) is put forth and which would be constructed prior to the intertie, it could reduce costs significantly. However, it is premature to evaluate the environmental effects of a road now. 2.4.3 Conservation of Energy Conservation of electrical energy could reduce demand within the Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) system and thus eliminate the need for an intertie. Conservation practices such as increased insulation of residences, particularly those with electric heat, and conversion to efficient hot water heaters could lower overall demand within the community of Ketchikan. However, because of the relatively small size of Ketchikan and low use of electric heat, it is not thought that conservation could decrease demand sufficiently to do more than delay the need for an intertie a short time. 14 020\REPORTS\ TYEE RMP CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Chapter 3 describes the environment through which the preferred and alternate routes would pass between Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. Potential environmental effects from construction and operation of the intertie are also described. This information is presented in graphic form on strip maps of the route at the end of this chapter (Figure 6). 3.1 SOILS The soils and landforms along the preferred and alternate routes were analyzed by reviewing available USDA Order 3 and Order 4 soil survey maps, USGS topographic maps, and AEA orthophotoquad maps. Specifically these included: e USDA Ketchikan Area Soil Survey Maps (5) Orders 3 and 4 e USDA Stikine Area Soil Survey Maps (3) Order 4 ¢ Orthophoto Quad Maps produced by R&M Engineering, Inc.(7) « USGS Topographic Maps (5): Areas of potential hydric soils, assumed to be wetlands, were identified along the preferred and alternate routes. Areas of steep slopes, greater than 60 percent, were also identified. Soil descriptions and slope classifications are presented in Appendix A. Areas of either category over .5-mile-long are tabulated under the preferred and alternate route descriptions. The preferred intertie project occurs in an area of relatively young geologic and geomorphic terrain. It is typified by deeply incised v-shaped valleys with lowlands blanketed in a relatively thin veneer of recent alluvial sediment. In addition, the terrain has been modified by glaciation. The typical soil sequence includes a top organic layer, soil layer, then rock or glacial till. Soil classifications for drainage, permeability, erosion hazard, and slope stability vary greatly depending on the soils type. Soils on the ridges and uplands are shallow, generally less than two feet deep. The soil is generally formed on top of sedimentary, meta-sedimentary, intrusive igneous rock, or glacial till. In addition, talus slopes of colluvium and rubble are common. Landforms can vary from deeply incised to smooth slopes, and can occur from sea level to greater than 3,000 feet. Soils in the lowlands, floodplains, and stream areas are moderately deep to deep, and can vary from alluvial sand and gravel deposits to peat. The peat deposits, locally known as muskeg, can be up to 10 feet deep. Drainage in muskeg areas is poor to very poor. 020\REPORTS TYEE. 15 3.1.1 Preferred Route 3.1.1.1 Steep Slope Areas (Slope Class EF or F - >75%) Steep slope areas which occur along the preferred route are tabulated below. Approximately 10 miles of the preferred route are in this category. The area along Bradfield Canal is adjacent to the existing right-of-way, however, the widening of this right-of-way will occur in an area of steep slopes. TABLE 1 fa tewsaey i wee a 75 4. N. Bell Island/Bell Arm 5. Eagle River 6. Eagle River Delta 7. Bradfield Canal 2 (aggregate) 3.1.1.2 Hydric Soils and Probable Wetlands Major areas of hydric soils or probable wetlands along the preferred route are tabulated below. Approximately 6.5 miles of the preferred route have this classification. TABLE 2 2. Unnamed Creeks SE of Bluff Lake fog25 16 (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 3.1.2 Alternate Route 3.1.2.1 Steep Slope Areas (Slope Class EF or F - >75%) Steep slope areas which occur along the alternate route are tabulated below. Areas common to both routes have not been duplicated in the table. Approximately 16 miles of the alternate route have this classification. The portion running east-west through the middle of Bell Island occurs along a steep 2.5-mile4ong continuous run. The area east of Eagle lake is a 6-mile4ong steep slope that is continuous except for a stream delta approximately in the middle. TABLE 3 Length (miles) 1. Orchard Creek 1.25 (aggregate) 3. Klu Creek 4. Eagle Lake/Eagle River 5. Eagle River Delta 3.1.2.2 Hydric Soils and Probable Wetlands Major areas of hydric soils or probable wetlands along the alternate route are tabulated below. Approximately seven miles have this classification. TABLE 4 or etal 3. Anchor Pass 720AC, 710AC, 710DE c2oyneronrs\ 1188. 17 3.2 WATER RESOURCES 3.2.1 Physiographic Setting Southeast Alaska in the project vicinity, including Revillagigedo Island, consists of forested, irregular, and mountainous terrain surrounded by marine waters. The area has steep topography, with elevations ranging from sea level to greater than 4,000 feet over short distances. At higher elevations, low alpine vegetation is interspersed with extensive rocky areas. The tree line in the project area typically occurs near 2,000 feet in elevation. Numerous lakes, rivers, and streams are present. Ground surface elevations along the Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie route range from sea level to over 1,500 feet. The intertie corridor is located almost entirely at lower elevations along river and stream valleys. The Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie corridor is approximately 60 miles long and extends from Carroll Inlet in the south to the mouth of Bradfield River in the north and traverses Revillagigedo Island, Bell Island, and portions of the mainland. Principal marine water bodies crossed by or adjacent to the intertie corridor include Carroll Inlet, Neets Bay, Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, Bell Arm, and Bradfield Canal. 3.2.2 Geologic Setting In general, southeast Alaska’s geology, including the Revillagigedo Island area is dominated by two principal geologic environments: complex bedrock geology and a more recent glacially derived geology. The bedrock consists of complexly folded and faulted igneous and metamorphic rocks of mostly Mesozoic age. Structural lineaments in the bedrock trend northwest to southeast with surface drainage patterns strongly controlled by faulting and jointing in the bedrock. More recent geological formations resulted from widespread Pleistocene glaciation. Repeated glacial advance and retreat resulted in sediments deposition and erosion, partially or completely obliterating the previous depositional record. Sediments deposited by glacial activity include outwash and recessional sands and gravels, lacustrine silts and clays, and a relatively homogenous unstratified mixture of silt, sand, and gravel (glacial till). These unconsolidated materials typically occur in river and stream valleys, and in thin mantles on lower slopes, and are the parent material for a large portion of the developed soils. Thin stratified alluvial deposits exist in the river and stream valleys and consist of glacial sediments reworked by the action of flowing water (Karistrom, 1964). At higher elevations above the tree line, rocky terrain predominates, with little or no soil development. As a result of this recent glacial activity, the surficial morphology of the glacially deposited sediments is still under formation. Valley walls are often greatly oversteepened, frequently above a stable angle for soils and are subject to frequent natural slides and debris flows. Soils are thin, young, and poorly developed. Drainages occupy preglacial channels controlled by bedrock faulting and jointing. o20\RePonTs\ TYEE. me 18 3.2.3 Climatic Setting Southeast Alaska’s climate is considered to be maritime. The climate is dominated by cool summers, moderate winters, and a high incidence of cloudiness. The average yearly temperature is approximately 45 degrees fahrenheit (F) (Lamke, 1979). Average winter temperatures are around 32 degrees and average summer temperatures are around 60 degrees (DEIS, Tongass National Forest (TNF), 1988). The onshore movement of moisture laden air masses from the Gulf of Alaska results in significant precipitation as snow or rain. The average annual precipitation in the Revillagigedo area ranges from 80 to over 160 inches per year, depending upon local weather circulation patterns and elevation (Lamke, 1979). The average yearly rainfall in the Ketchikan area is about 150 inches per year (USFS, Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), 1991). Although many days are cloudy, most precipitation occurs during the winter months with 60 percent of daily precipitation occurring between October and March, and 40 percent occurring between April and September. Based on the Ketchikan precipitation record, June and July are typically the driest months, with monthly averages less than 8 inches. October averages the most rainfall, with a monthly average of over 20 inches (National Climatic Data Center, 1980). Rainfall and snowfall amounts vary by elevation and distance inland from the coast. Evidence for significantly higher precipitation at higher elevations is provided by streamflow measurements which show that basin runoff exceeds precipitation as recorded at stations near sea level (Fueler et al, 1971). 3.2.4 Surface Water 3.2.4.1 Streams and Lakes Numerous lakes, creeks, rivers, and muskegs (swamps, bogs) are situated along the intertie route. Approximately 43 lakes and ponds are located within 1 mile of the intertie corridor. Major lakes include Orchard Lake, Bluff Lake, Cedar Lake, Swan Lake, Tyee Lake, Eagle Lake, Little Eagle Lake, and Long Lake. These lakes range from less than one mi* to greater than two mi’ in size. Lakes along the intertie route range in elevation from approximately 100 feet above sea level (Orchard Lake) to 1,370 feet above sea level (Tyee Lake). No lakes are crossed by the intertie. Larger named creeks and rivers along the route include Carroll Creek, Neets Creek, Orchard Creek, Klu Creek, Klam Creek, Beaver Creek, Falls Creek, Eagle River, Tyee Creek, Hidden Creek, Bradfield River, and Bell Creek. Most of these are relatively short in length with channels less than five miles (as indicated on USGS topographic maps). Carroll Creek (also termed Carroll River), one of the larger rivers near the intertie route, has a channel length of 11 miles (Edgington, et al, 1977). At this time, the intertie will also cross many small tributary drainages to the larger creeks, flowing from steep slopes into the valleys. The route will also cross several marine water ways including Shrimp Bay, Behm Narrows, and Bell Arm. Stream gradients along the intertie route vary widely and may range from 10 to 1,000 feet per mile (USGS topographic maps). In large valleys, the tributary gradients decrease abruptly once the main (©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP 19 valley floor is reached. Erosional environments resulting from high gradients and subsequent high stream velocities occur in the upper tributaries to the major drainages. Depositional environments are also commonly found in both the lower tributaries and the main streams (Harris, et al, 1974). 3.2.4.2 Hydrology The surface hydrology of southeast Alaska and Revillagigedo Island area is dominated by the occurrence of high seasonal precipitation and mild maritime climate. Stream and river flow characteristics are typified by peaks occurring in winter and spring as a result of rainfall runoff, snowmelt from higher elevations, and rain on snow events. Low flows occur between June and September. Baseflows are maintained during the dryer months by limited ground-water contribution to streams. The mean annual runoff estimated for the Revillagigedo Island area is approximately 12 cfs/mile” (Balding, 1976). The average low monthly runoff is estimated to range from approximately 2 ft?/second to greater than 20 ft?/second per mi? (Balding, 1976). The average peak annual runoff in southeast Alaska is estimated to range from approximately 150 ft?/sec per square mile for basins less than 10 mi? in area to approximately 50 ft?/sec per mi? for basins greater than 100 mi? in area (Balding, 1976). Analysis of limited flow records for streams on Revillagigedo Island indicate that heavy precipitation during the winter months supplies a large runoff volume that is carried to the sea by streams of all sizes. The combination of steep slopes, heavy precipitation, and limited water-holding capacity of the watersheds results in rapid rise and fall of hydrographs, and fairly uneven flow characteristics. This is especially true of streams and rivers without lakes in their watersheds. This precipitation supplies surface water to local streams and rivers in two methods: direct runoff and base flow. Direct runoff is directly associated with rain and snowmelt which forms the bulk of the stream and river flow. Base flow or runoff represents the sustained flow during dryer conditions and originates as water percolated into the ground-water system or which was retained in the soil or alluvial materials. Rapid loss of base flow occurs in periods of very low precipitation (DEIS, TNF, 1988) because ground-water reservoirs are limited. 3.2.4.3 Water Quality In general, surface water quality in streams, lakes, and rivers in the Revillagigedo Island area can be considered very good to excellent, closely reflecting precipitation quality. Most surface water has short residence time in watersheds, and is derived from recent precipitation, short-term storage in the snow pack, or in shallow ground-water reservoirs in surficial sediments. This conclusion is evidenced by watershed information, such as steepness of the terrain tending to cause rapid runoff, low permeability bedrock near the ground surface with little ground-water storage (except where large fracture systems are present) and minimal concentrating effects of evaporation, due to low evapotranspiration relative to local precipitation (Patric and Black, 1968). Since the residence time of water is short, the chemical composition of precipitation has little time to be affected or modified by geochemical interactions and concentrating effects. Sediment is water-transported earth material which is either transported as suspended load or bedload. In southeast Alaska, suspended sediment in non-glacial streams in undisturbed watersheds (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP 20 is very low, normally less than 10 ppm in winter, four to 30 ppm in summer and occasionally over 100 ppm during fall storm events (TLMP DEIS, 1991). Limited sediment load information is available for the intertie route, however, in Connell Lake, near Ketchikan, dissolved solids were reported at 14.0 mg/l (ppm) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Hubartt, 1989). Low sediment supplies result from the lack of erodible material over large portions of the area, and the constant flushing by high streamfiows. Dissolved oxygen content in most streams, rivers, and lakes in southeast Alaska is usually at or near saturation due to the self-aeration in the turbulent high gradient streams. In quiet waters in lakes and wetlands, dissolved oxygen content may drop below saturation. Dissolved oxygen content in Eagle Lake, located immediately adjacent to the intertie route, recorded dissolved oxygen levels ranging from 9.30 to 11.30 mg.I which are at or near saturation. Water temperature in southeast Alaskan streams and lakes is principally a function of the solar radiation available for heating the water surface. Most southeast Alaskan streams and lakes are not highly sensitive to temperature changes (TLMP DEIS, 1991). Water temperature measurements collected during May, July, and October for streams and lakes situated along the Intertie route ranged from 40 degrees F to 51 degrees F (Edgington, et al, 1977). Southeast Alaska surface water has a pH generally similar to that expected for rain or melted snow. This observation is based upon the short residence time of surface water in surficial materials which may affect the water’s pH. Measured pH in several streams located along the intertie route ranged from 5 to 7.5 Standard Units (Edgington, 1977). 3.2.5 Ground Water As previously described, ground-water supplies in the area are very limited, and occur in shallow alluvial and glacial sediments in river and stream valleys, and in fractured bedrock. 3.2.6 Water Use Water use in the Revillagigedo Island area is mainly recreational, although the City of Ketchikan receives its municipal water from Ketchikan Lakes. Connell Lake near Ketchikan supplies the Ketchikan Pulp Mill. Both of these lakes are located south of the intertie corridor. 3.2.7 Construction Impacts Construction impacts do not appear to differ markedly between the preferred route and the alternate route, therefore, no distinction is made in the following discussion of potential effects between the two routes. Project construction will include clearing trees within a nominal 200-foot-wide swath along the intertie alignment, preserving the underbrush. The clearing will provide a clear corridor for the high voltage overhead cables. Construction will be conducted via helicopter, eliminating the need to O20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 21 construct a road capable of providing access by large trucks. Initially, the downed trees will not be harvested and will remain on the ground. The alignment traverses small steep drainages which run to larger streams, creeks, and lakes. It also crosses five larger streams and two marine channels. Potential impacts to surface water from the clearing activities include ground surface disturbance along the alignment subsequently increasing erosion of surface soils by rainfall runoff. In addition, removal of the upper tree canopy will allow greater amounts and more intense rainfall to reach the ground surface due to reduced interception. For this reason, rainfall runoff and soil erosion within the alignment corridor will increase somewhat. However, these disturbances will be minimized by preserving the underbrush, as it will provide natural soil protection and will preserve much of the runoff characteristics of the original ground surface. In addition, disturbance will be small relative to the basin areas of the larger named streams in the project area (all less than one percent of the watershed areas for Carroll Creek, Neets Creek, Orchard Creek, Beaver Creek, Klu Creek, and Eagle River). In southeast Alaskan watersheds where disturbances from timber harvesting is less than 30 percent of the total watershed area, impacts to surface water yield were not observed (TLMP DEIS, 1991). The small increases in erosion and runoff from the corridor that may be expected during construction and shortly thereafter, would contribute increased turbidity to streams and lakes downslope of the alignment. It is not expected that there would be significant increases in sediment loads or turbidity, however, because of underbrush preservation, and lack of significant quantities of erodible soil along the alignment. Sediment and turbidity may be generated in areas where clearing occurs within several hundred feet or less of drainages and stream crossings. Beyond these adjacent areas, the natural underbrush would likely act as a biofilter, and remove sediment loads carried by rainfall runoff. 3.2.8 Post Construction Impacts Southeast Alaskan watersheds typically return to previous hydrologic conditions shortly after disturbances from timber harvesting, as long as excessive amounts of the watershed have not been impacted (TLMP DEIS, 1991). This is because of regrowth and stabilization of soils, a balance between increased evapotranspiration from regrowth and underbrush and decreased interception, and the ability of undisturbed and regenerated portions of the watersheds to buffer and absorb impacts. Since the area of disturbance along the intertie alignment is small relative to the watersheds of the major drainages, and the underbrush will be preserved, it would be expected that hydrologic conditions and natural soil stabilization processes would rapidly return to the previous balance. This would reduce any impacts over the life of the project. 3.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY This section provides information on the aquatic ecology for the preferred and alternate intertie corridor. First, a regional overview of fisheries resources is presented for the project area and in the following affected environment section, detailed information is provided for specific rivers, streams, lakes, and waterways with potential impacts expected due to the preferred project. The following information 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 22 was derived from personal communications with ADF&G, U.S. Forest Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) fisheries biologists; ADF&G Revised Stream Catalog of Southeastern Alaska (1977); ADF&G Commercial Fisheries database (1992); ADF&G Stream Catalog (1990); and other pertinent literature. The region where the preferred project is located has important commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries resources. The common commercial, sport, and subsistence species harvested are presented in Table 5 (U.S. Forest Service, 1991). Halibut, rockfish, a variety of bottomfish, smelt, herring, grayling, and clams are also harvested. X | Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) X King salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ‘Oncorh’ a ! X = Common Use Commercial and sport fisheries are very important aspects of the economy and environmental considerations in southeast Alaska. Appendix B provides additional information on a regional overview of these fisheries. Subsistence fishing along with hunting, trapping, and gathering activities represents a major focus of life for many southeast Alaska residents, although nearly two-thirds of southeast Alaska’s population resides in urban communities. Some individuals participate in subsistence activities to supplement personal income or food; to perpetuate cultural customs and traditions; or for some, subsistence is a 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Rue 23 lifestyle reflecting deeply held attitudes and beliefs (U.S. Forest Service, 1991). Table 5 illustrates the most common fish species harvested for subsistence use in the area. In southeast Alaska, pink salmon are the most abundant species but sockeye are preferred by subsistence users. Harvest of all salmon species constitutes 21 percent of the total harvest of subsistence resources. Finfish, other than salmon, account for 24 percent of the total subsistence harvest by southeast residents. These finfish include halibut, cod, flounder, sole, rockfish, herring, steelhead, trout, and Dolly Varden char. Halibut is the second most harvested fish (salmon is the first) with 48 percent of all households catching one or more halibut in 1987. Invertebrates constitute 16 percent of the total subsistence harvest in southeast Alaska. 3.3.1 Affected Environment - Preferred Route Table 6 provides a summary of streams, rivers, and watercourses crossed or directly downstream of the preferred route. The creeks without ADF&G catalog numbers most likely support non- anadromous resident fish. Where possible, stream classifications have been provided by the U.S. Forest Service using the U.S. Forest Service Aquatic Habitat Management Units (AHMUs) designation. Class |, Class II, and Class III designations are generally based on fish presence. Fish presence is normally determined by channel type, position in watershed, and fish passage barriers. The stream classes are generally defined as follows: l- Streams that have anadromous or high-value resident sport fish and additional fish habitat upstream of migration barriers with reasonable enhancement opportunities. il- Streams that have resident fish populations with sport fish value. Ml - Streams that have no fish populations, but have water quality influence on downstream fish habitat. Verification of fish species present and habitat descriptions are not available for many small tributaries and areas above potential fish barriers, particularly in those areas that may support non- anadromous (resident) fish. The definition of Class II versus Class III streams are, therefore, not verified in some of the potentially affected streams as pointed out in the descriptions that follow. A small percentage of the escapements in southeast Alaska are enumerated or surveyed (coho in particular) because of the extremely scattered distribution of stocks and difficult conditions for observation of spawners. Thus, escapement data for the project area is limited but provided where available for specific streams. cxoyneronrs\ 118. me 24 STREAMS, RIVERS, AND WATERCOURSES CROSSED OR DIRECTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE ROUTES WITH STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND FISH USAGE Stream Name ADF&G Stream | Mile Along | Stream Class’ Fish Usage Number’ Route” Falla Greek Eee ede TNT Ta Pa ee eT Tib, North of Fals Greak | 107-46-107802008 | 3 |" |®,.0o _| Resident Fish CT,DV,Kokane Potentially II Orchard Lake (ALT) Cedar Lake (ALT) 8.5 \-Resident SH, (DV, CT) Pim | etn Wf tee ee ieee 1 [ee | es) ee pe cori ee ee ae nh, een eT cn on [Tri S. EastNests Lake | toreot01002008| 196 [| 1”? |P _—_—i mee oe eed 2004-0010 iS ae 1 ec a ee ices iwee | | 7 | NO [Ne | oeemeee: lee | me | SO [we | ee ee eee ee ee a Orchard Creek (ALT) High Quality — | Resident 2 Trib. Orchard Creek - 1 Il Possibly 111 (ALT) Trib. Orchard Creek - 2 ul May Contain (ALT) Potentially II Resident Fish 16 ul May Contain 101-80-10200 ns un eee (ALT) — eT cA os | 101-80-10200-2001 | 19 mam | 205 | Klu Creek (ALT) CO, P, CH Trib. North Klu Creek (ALT) | 101-80-10200-2001 CO, P, CH Klam Creek 101-80-10150 CO, P, CH (DV) Trib. Kiam Creek-1 (ACT) [No# ine foe ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. AP 25 TABLE 6 STREAMS, RIVERS, AND WATERCOURSES CROSSED OR DIRECTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE ROUTES WITH STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND FISH USAGE Stream Name ADF&G Stream Mile Along | Stream Class Fish Usage Number’ Route” Trib. Kam Greek-2 [Now | __s | _m| ND Trio. Kiam Greek-3_[No# [3 [| [np Trib. Kam Cresk-4__[No# | 2 | m |no___] mI Meal Fie wun 25.7 Trib, West Beaver Greek-1 [No# | 5 | _m [wo Trib. West Beaver Greek-2 [No# | 26 |__| ND Trib. East Beaver Creek - 25.7 (Alt) Long Lake Creek 101-80-10050-2001 | 28.2 | | Tribs on Bell Island - (&Alt) 30 Wl 30.4 Possibly II 33(Alt) ND Trib. NE Anchor Pass - (Alt) | 101-80-10950 Possibly II More Info Needed Trib. South of Eagle Lake 101-80-10930 1? co (8Alt) [Eage take Tib-1 | No# | 39 [| ND [ND] [Eagle Lake Tib-2 | No# _— (eT [No# ior NOT TTINITTL 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? 1? ND TATRA MUON UTI Steerer! DV, SH, CT Eagle River (&Alt) 107-40-10550 48.6 Eagle River Trib 107-40-10550-2004 OU DV, CT DV, CT Trib. E. Eagle River- 1 107-40-10544 Trib. E. Eagle River - 2 107-40-10542 Trib. E. Eagle River - 3 107-40-10540 Hidden Creek 107-40-10538 52.6 Tyee Creek No # 52.7 Bradfield River 107-40-10530 Carroll Inlet 101-45 26 Eagle River Trib (Alt) 107-40-10550-2007 DV,CT,SH,S,K, CH,P,CO CO, P, CH, K (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RwP TABLE 6 STREAMS, RIVERS, AND WATERCOURSES CROSSED OR DIRECTLY DOWNSTREAM OF THE PREFERRED AND ALTERNATE ROUTES WITH STREAM CLASSIFICATION AND FISH USAGE —— — a ir ; n a Stream | Mile Along | Stream Class” | ; Number! Route” = =| . 1 An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes, State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1990 2 Mileage indicates point of crossing. See text for further explanation. 3 Stream Classification I- Anadromous or high-value resident sport fish stream. Additional fish habitat upstream of migration barriers with reasonable enhancement opportunities are included. - Streams have resident fish populations with sport fish value. Ml - Streams have no fish populations, but have water quality influence on downstream fish habitat * CO = Coho (Silver) Salmon K = King Salmon CH = Chum (Dog) Salmon SH = Steelhead P = Pink Salmon DV = Dolly Varden CT = Cutthroat Fish species in parenthesis indicate species possibly present. Alt = Alternate Route ND = No Data 020 \ROPORTS\ TYEE. Re 27 3.3.1.1 Carroll Inlet Salmon species of importance are chum, coho, pink, and king salmon. The Carroll Inlet hatchery release site is probably the most important in the project area. This release site contributed 31.9 percent of the Alaska hatchery king salmon harvested during the 1990 summer troll season. In 1975, subtidal dives were performed in the northern portion of Carroll Inlet by the NMFS to investigate preferred log transfer stations (NMFS, 1983). A dive site near the mouth of Falls Creek was found to have a substratum of mostly boulders and silt from shore to a distance of 15 meters. Beyond 15 meters, the substratum was composed of silt mixed with woody debris. A sparse band of macrophytic algae occurred from shore to 25 meters. Animal species were very sparse both in diversity and numbers. 3.3.1.2 Falls Creek Falls Creek flows from Swan Lake to Carroll Inlet. Falls Creek is a Class |-anadromous stream with chum and pink salmon and is a known spawning area. The preferred intertie route begins approximately -12 mile north of the creek. 3.3.1.3 Carroll Creek Carroll Creek is a Class | stream with chum, pink, king, and coho salmon and steelhead trout reported as present. There is a fish barrier approximately three miles upstream from Carroll Inlet. The stream is Class |-Resident due to the potential for use by anadromous fish if a future fish passage structure is installed. Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout are also potentially present in the stream, although this has not been verified. Over the last five years (1987-1991), the peak escapement count in 1989 was 211,000 pink salmon, in 1988 39,220 chum salmon, and in 1991 375 coho salmon (chinook and sockeye have also been observed). Carroll Creek is crossed by the preferred intertie route at miles 7.5 and 8.5. Tributary 2004 has pink and coho salmon and is Class II where the transmission line crosses at mile 3. Tributaries which occur further north of Carroll Creek (no ADF&G numbers) are Class | or Il. Two of these tributaries are crossed by the preferred route at miles 5 and 6.5 ADF&G has noted that good crab fishing exists in the flats at the mouth of the creek (ADF&G, 1977). 3.3.1.4 Bluff Lake, Neets Lake, Neets Creek, Neets Bay The preferred intertie meets Bluff Lake at mile 13.5 and Neets Creek at mile 13.7. Neets Creek is an anadromous stream with sockeye, pink, and coho salmon. It is also a known spawning area for chum salmon. The Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) has a hatchery at Neets Bay. Terminal troll fisheries for king and coho salmon are also conducted adjacent to the hatchery facility. In 1990, nearly 90 percent of the summer troll harvest of Alaska hatchery king salmon ccoynarenrs\Trt2.me 28 was produced by five hatcheries. The SSRAA Neets Bay hatchery contributed 8.8 percent of the hatchery harvest. See Appendix B for more details on Alaska hatchery production. 3.3.1.5 Revillagigedo Island - Northeast of Neets Bay The preferred transmission line crosses several unnamed streams at miles 14.7, 15.7, 16.2, 18.2, and 18.7. Stream class and species composition is unknown for these streams. At mile 19.7, stream tributary 10230 is crossed by the preferred line and is an anadromous stream with pink salmon. 3.3.1.6 Shrimp Bay Salmon species of importance in Shrimp Bay area are coho, pink, and chum salmon. The waterway is crossed between route miles 20.2 and 20.6. 3.3.1.7 Klam Creek and Tributaries The preferred intertie crosses Klam Creek at mile 21.2 and then parallels it. The creek is Class |- anadromous with coho, pink, and chum salmon. Dolly Varden may also be present in the stream. Beginning at approximately mile 23, the creek becomes Class Il. Three tributaries of Kiam Creek are all Class II streams. The route crosses these tributaries at miles 22.5, 23, and 25. Klam Creek flows into Klu Bay which in 1975 was known to have a good dungeness crab population (ADF&G, 1977). 3.3.1.8 Beaver Creek and Tributaries The southern reaches of Beaver Creek are considered Class Ill stream. The preferred intertie crosses this creek at mile 25.7 and two of its tributaries at miles 25.5 and 26. Habitat and fish species present are not verified for this portion of the route. The lower end of Beaver Creek (where it flows into Behm Narrows) is a Class |-anadromous stream with pink salmon and possibly Dolly Varden. Where the preferred route crosses Beaver Creek in this area (mile 27.8), the stream is Class | or Il. Long Lake Creek (tributary 2001) is a Class | stream with pink salmon reported, but it may be a Class II where the intertie crosses at mile 28.2. The only recent peak escapement count available for Beaver Creek is 1,200 pink salmon counted in 1986. The mouth of Beaver Creek at Behm Narrows has a limited delta area and most likely limited shellfish potential (ADF&G, 1977). 3.3.1.9 Behm Narrows Salmon species of importance in the Behm Narrows area are chum, coho, pink, and king salmon. This waterway is crossed between route miles 29 to 29.5. €20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 29 3.3.1.10 Bell Island Tributaries Streams that flow into Bell Island Lakes are Class III streams but may be Class II since there are no verification data. The intertie crosses these streams at miles 30 and 30.4 respectively. 3.3.1.11 Bell Arm Bell Arm is the waterway on the northeast side of Bell Island. Salmon species of importance are chum, coho, pink, and king salmon. This waterway is crossed between route miles 34.3 and 34.5. 3.3.1.12 Eagle Lake, Eagle River, and Tributaries The tributary, which is south of Eagle Lake and runs into Bell Arm, is an anadromous stream with coho salmon reported. The route meets this stream at mile 36.5. Eagle River originates on the mainland at approximately 500 feet elevation and flows approximately 12 miles into saltwater at Eagle Bay. This river has high fish and recreation values. There is a Forest Service recreation cabin on Eagle Lake. The preferred intertie parallels this stream system. Eagle Lake has cutthroat trout and kokanee salmon. This lake extends between miles 37.5 and 41 along the route. Three tributaries to the lake are crossed by the preferred intertie at miles 39, 40, and 41.5. Channel typing has been done on these creeks, but classifications are not available. Tributary 2004 (crossed at line mile 45) has coho and pink salmon. Eagle River also supports coho, chum, pink, and king salmon; Dolly Varden; and cutthroat trout. Eagle River receives heavy use by outfitters, and fishing for steelhead is a major activity. Eagle River has also been identified as having potential for fish enhancement by construction of a fish ladder for passage at a barrier falls approximately five miles upstream from saltwater. ADF&G lists Eagle River as one of the 83 “Quality Watersheds" and as an important cutthroat trout stream in southeast Alaska. This system also is eligible for consideration as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System. Over the last five years (1987-1991), the peak escapement count was 36,200 pink and 1,900 chum salmon were counted in 1988 (pink, chinook, and sockeye salmon have also been observed). 3.3.1.13 Bradfield Canal The preferred intertie connects with the already existing line just south of the Eagle River entrance to Bradfield Canal. Salmon species of importance in Bradfield Canal are chum, coho, pink, and king salmon. In 1982, a subtidal survey evaluated preferred log transfer facilities for Bradfield Canal. Although the dive sites were on the north side of Bradfield Canal, they probably represent the general subtidal environment in the project area. It was found that, in general, the higher intertidal zones consist of bedrock, boulders and cobbles with thick mats of rockweed, barnacles, and blue mussels. Except for the rocky intertidal zone and a scattering of large boulders, the subtidal zone beyond 100 meters from shore was a mixture of sand, silt, and broken shell. Red and green algae, shrimp, tunicate and calcerous worms, and crabs were observed (USF&WS, 1982). 30 (020\REPORTS\ TYEE .RWP Tributaries 10544 (at mile 50) and 10538 (at mile 52.6) are crossed by the already existing transmission line. Tributary 10544 is an anadromous stream with Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout. Tributary 10538 also called Hidden Creek is an anadromous stream with coho, pink, and chum salmon. The intertie is over a thousand feet above these stream crossings. The Bradfield River is also in this area and has sockeye, king, chum, pink, and coho salmon; Dolly Varden; cutthroat; and steelhead trout. 3.3.2 Impacts From Preferred Route Potential impacts can result from clearing activities. These include increased turbidity, sedimentation, debris deposition in streams which can inhibit migration, and disruption of spawning areas. However, it is assumed that all clearing activities and logging will be done by helicopters and workmen on foot. It is also assumed that workmen will implement best management practices to avert deposition of debris into waterways. Very little surface disturbance is expected and sedimentation entering streams or lakes would be minimal if any. It is also expected that riparian vegetation will not need to be cut, preventing stream cover from being disrupted. This will eliminate any effects of stream temperature changes due to clearing activities. Fueling practices (of chain-saws and helicopters) can also potentially impact streams and lakes if fueling is done near these bodies of water. It is expected that good work practices will be followed and that any fuel dumps and refueling activities will be in accordance with federal and state standards. It is assumed that spill prevention control and countermeasures will be in use if fuel dumps are used. By following these standards and good work practices, significant impacts from fueling activities are not expected. Increased accessibility via the intertie corridor could increase fishing pressure in the remote areas. A significant impact is not expected because terrain is not conducive to All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) activities and there is insufficient snowfall to allow snowmobile activity. Although the location of logging roads near Neets Creek may make this possible. Overall the project appears to have no significant impacts to fisheries. 3.3.3 Affected Environment - Alternate Route 3.3.3.1 Carroll Inlet Same as preferred route. 3.3.3.2 Falls Creek Same as preferred route. 3.3.3.3 Carroll Creek Same as preferred route. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE .RwP 3 1 3.3.3.4 Orchard Lake, Orchard Creek and Tributaries Orchard Creek and Lake are on Revillagigedo Island. Orchard Creek originates at about 2,000 feet in elevation, and meanders 25 miles, passing through Orchard Lake before it empties into saltwater at Shrimp Bay. A waterfall where the creek drops into Shrimp Bay is a barrier that prevents anadromous fish from using Orchard Creek for spawning habitat. The preferred intertie meets with Orchard Creek at approximately mile 12.5 and parallels the creek to Orchard Lake. The creek at this crossing is a high value Class II stream. The area is well known for its fishing and recreation opportunities. The Forest Service maintains two recreation cabins on Orchard Lake and a 0.8-mile-long trail from Shrimp Bay to the lake. Cutthroat and Dolly Varden fishing is excellent. Kokanee salmon are also present. ADF&G lists this system among the 83 “Quality Watersheds" in southeast Alaska for fisheries values. The tributary crossed by the intertie at mile 11 is a Class Il-Resident but potentially Class Ill. Tributaries that flow into Cedar Lake, just north of Orchard Lake, are Class III but potentially Class II. Stream survey data are not available on these streams, so resident fish species may be present but are unknown. The preferred intertie crosses these creeks at miles 15 and 16. This system also meets the criteria for consideration as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System. 3.3.3.5 Klu Creek and Tributaries Klu Creek meets the preferred intertie at mile 18. This creek is a Class l-anadromous stream with coho, pink, and chum salmon. Tributary 2001 is a Class Il stream where the intertie crosses it at mile 19. Anadromous fish present below the crossing are coho, pink, and chum salmon. Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout are possibly present in the stream but this is not verified. Peak escapement counts available for Klu Creek are 3,500 pink salmon counted in 1984 and 4,000 chum salmon counted in 1986. The mouth of the creek is noted by ADF&G to have good shellfish potential for clams and crabs (ADF&G, 1977). 3.3.3.6 Klam Creek and Tributaries Same as preferred route. 3.3.3.7 Beaver Creek and Tributaries The southern reaches of Beaver Creek are Class Ill. The alternate route does not cross this creek but parallels it on the west side. The habitat and fish species present for this portion of the line are not verified. The lower end of Beaver Creek where it flows into Behm Narrows is a Class |-anadromous stream with pink salmon. One tributary is crossed by the alternate route at mile 25.7, this is a Class III stream. 3.3.3.8 Behm Narrows Crossed between route miles 29 and 29.5. Same as preferred route. ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 32 3.3.3.9 Anchor Pass Crossed between route miles 33 and 33.2. Same as Behm Narrows on preferred route. 3.3.3.10 Bell Island Tributaries Streams that flow into Bell Island Lakes are described as Class Ill streams. Due to lack of verification, some may be Class II. The intertie crosses these streams at miles 30 and 30.4, respectively. The tributary, which flows to the east side of the island, is an uncatalogued stream. One alternative route follows this stream from miles 32.75 to 33. 3.3.3.11 Tributary NE Anchor Pass The intertie crosses this tributary at mile 31.5. This is an anadromous stream with pink salmon. It is described as a creek with limited spawning and rearing area, due to very little gravel present and a steep gradient. 3.3.3.12 Eagle Lake, Eagle River, and Tributaries This system’s general description is provided under the preferred route. The alternate route differs in that it parallels the south shoreline of Eagle Lake and west shoreline of Eagle River rather than the north shoreline of the lake and east shoreline of the river. A lake tributary is crossed at mile 39, its classification is unknown. Tributary 2007 (crossed at line mile 44) has Dolly Varden. 3.3.3.13 Bradfield Canal Same as preferred route. 3.3.4 Impacts From Alternate Route Same as preferred route. From a fisheries standpoint it appears that there are not any significant differences in either the proposed or alternate routes as being a preferred route of choice. 3.4 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY Many wildlife species are valuable, economically and/or aesthetically, to the people of southeast Alaska. Approximately 53 mammalian species, 300 avian species, and 7 amphibian and reptilian species occur in southeast Alaska. They occupy a diverse range of land types, plant communities, and special habitats and are equally diverse in their adaptability to climatic extremes, habitat change, predation, and hunting pressure. Forty-two of the above species of mammals and birds in southeast Alaska nest or den in tree cavities. Several species depend exclusively on cavities in the large diameter snags for nest or den sites. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 33 Most hunting, trapping, and wildlife viewing on the Tyee-Swan Intertie lands is limited to boat or float plane access. Wildlife habitats adjacent to saltwater beach and freshwater lakes receive the most intensive use. 3.4.1 Preferred Route Affected Environment The preferred route is located in Game Management Unit (GMU) 1A and part of GMU 1B. Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA) within GMU 1A and 1B that may affected by the preferred route include: 406, 510, 715, and 1814. Below, is a discussion of those wildlife species that may be affected by the preferred Tyee-Swan Intertie. 3.4.1.1 Sitka Black-Tailed Deer Sitka black-tailed deer populations are highly dynamic and can display large fluctuations (Merriam 1970). The capability of winter habitat in the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor to support Sitka black-tailed deer is a function of forage abundance and quality, snow interception qualities of overstory, and climate as influenced by aspect, elevation, and maritime conditions (Hanley and Rose, 1987; Hanley et al., 1987; and Kirchhoff and Schoen, 1987). Deer populations within the corridor will also respond to predation pressure and hunting mortality. Predation by gray wolves is thought to significantly retard the recovery of deer from mortality associated with deep-snow winters (Smith et al., 1986a and b). Historically, Sitka black-tailed deer populations have been linked with winter severity (Merriam, 1970) and predation pressure (Van Ballenberg and Hanley, 1985). Severe winters consisting of deep snows and late springs have occurred several times in the last 80 years. Deer die-offs are common, even in the best old-growth winter ranges during severe winters. Research conducted in southeast Alaska indicates that high volume old-growth forest at lower elevations are essential to maintaining deer populations during severe winters (Schoen et al., 1981 and 1985; Klein, 1965; Hanley and Rose, 1987). High volume stands support adequate herb and shrub layers of deer forage. Deer mobility and access to forage within young second-growth stands may be restricted by logging slash and blowdown along unit boundaries (Schoen et al., 1985). Snow accumulation in moderate or severe winters, further reduces or eliminates winter travel within young clearcuts. Sitka black-tailed deer represent species using lower elevation old-growth forest habitats during the winter period. Quality and quantity of winter habitat has been identified as the most limiting factor for Sitka black-tailed deer in the preferred project area (Suring, et al., 1988). Sitka black-tailed deer are the wildlife species receiving the highest sport hunting and subsistence use of terrestrial game species in the preferred project area. The total 1990 deer harvest for GMU 1A and 1B was 723 and 73 respectively. In GMU 1A, the WAAs with the highest deer harvests are those which are adjacent to or within short distances of Ketchikan. Table 7 gives the 1989 estimated deer harvest and population for each WAA within the preferred project area. (©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP 34 TABLE 7 SITKA BLACK-TAILED DEER HARVEST AND ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR EACH WAA WITHIN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) SITKA BLACK-TAIL 3.4.1.2 Moose A bull moose was observed and photographed as it swam across Orchard Lake in September, 1990. This was the only documented occurrence of moose in the preferred corridor in recent years (ADF&G pers. comm. 1991). 3.4.1.3 Mountain Goats Seventeen mountain goats were transplanted from the mainland to the Swan Lake area in 1983. ADF&G estimate that there are now between 80 and 100 goats between Mirror Lake and Orchard Creek (ADF&G 1991). ADF&G estimate that about 190 goats inhabit WAA 715, and another 120 goats inhabit WAA 1814. These WAASs include the intertie corridor and the areas to the west of Eagle Lake and River. 3.4.1.4 Brown Bear Records indicate that the current and historical distribution of brown bear in southeast Alaska are the same. Brown bears are present on the mainland and on the islands north of Frederick Sound, but are not found on any of the other islands in southeast Alaska. Brown bear use sea level to alpine habitats and require large expanses of habitat and protection from human disturbances. Some of the highest brown bear population densities in the world are found in the Tongass National Forest. Late summer season has been identified as the most critical or limiting period for brown bear (Schoen, et al., 1985 and 1989). During this season, the bears concentrate along low-elevation valley bottoms and coastal salmon streams. These are the same areas of highest human use and most intense resource development activities. ©20\REPORTS\TYEE. a 35 Brown bear occur only in the northern portion of the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor. Data for 1989 brown bear harvest and populations are available for WAAs 406, 715 and 1814 (Table 8). There is no ADF&G data for brown bear in WAA 510. The 1990 GMU 1A harvest was eight bears. TABLE 8 BROWN BEAR HARVEST AND ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR EACH WAA WITHIN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) Wildlife Analysis Area 1989 HARVEST ESTIMATED POPULATION BROWN BEAR 3.4.1.5 Black Bear Black bears use all available habitats (alpine, subalpine, estuarine, lakeside, streamside, beach, and upland forest), but their use is seasonally concentrated within riparian, estuarine, lakeside, and beach habitats (Suring et al., 1988c). Estuaries, beach, and lakeside habitats produce abundant high quality forage for bears. Bears opportunistically forage in all habitats, particularly in subalpine areas in summer. Black bears also forage readily in early clearcuts (Erickson, 1965; Lindzey and Meslow, 1977a and b). Black bear select winter dens within their general foraging habitat. Den sites include cavities in trees and stumps, caves, and holes in the ground often under trees or logs at high elevations. In the Petersburg area, black bears tend to prefer large diameter, hollow, hemlocks as denning sites (Erickson, 1965). Some of the highest black bear population densities in southeast Alaska are found in the Tongass National Forest. Black bear densities on Revillagigedo Island are estimated at 1.5 bears per square mile (ADF&G, 1991). It has been reported that higher concentrations occur along Carroll Creek during fall when salmon spawn (ADF&G, 1991). Black bear are not as susceptible to human disturbance as brown bear. The season which is most limiting for black bear has not been identified (ADF&G, 1991). Data for 1989 black bear are available for WAAs 406, 510, 715, and 1814 (Table 9). The 1990 GMU 1A black bear harvest was 82 bears. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 36 TABLE 9 BLACK BEAR HARVEST AND ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR EACH WAA WITHIN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) Wildlife Analysis Area 1989 HARVEST ESTIMATED POPULATION sooo TUCO een LOU Jee 01 eA TTT ONT TTT 3.4.1.6 Alexander Archipelago Gray Wolf Two Alaskan subspecies of gray wolf are currently recognized; one of these subspecies is found in southeast Alaska, and is known as the Alexander Archipelago gray wolf (Pedersen, 1982; Stephenson, 1989). Records indicate that the current distributions of gray wolves in southeast Alaska are higher than those historically. Wolves require an adequate prey base of ungulates, beaver, and salmon. Habitats must equate to areas capable of supporting the prey base. Wolves use a wide variety of habitats where their prey are present, affecting prey populations in those habitats. Wolves are hunted and trapped in southeast Alaska. The Alexander Archipelago gray wolf is found in the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor (GMU 1A, WAA 406). Records indicate that the historical and current distributions of gray wolves in the preferred project area have increased (ADF&G, 1991). Smith et al. (1986) speculated that at least one pack of wolves frequents upper Carroll Inlet (Carrol Inlet Pack) and at least two more packs inhabit the area between the head of Carroll Inlet and Bell Island (Northeast and Klu Bay Packs). Estimated numbers were two to four in the Carroll Inlet Pack, six in the Northeast Pack, and two in the Klu Bay Pack. Based on recent ADF&G (1991) observations, it appears that wolf numbers are higher now than they were when Smith’s work was done. It is suspected that the estimated minimum numbers of wolves would include four packs within the preferred Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor. Pack sizes are unknown; however, using the average of five wolves per pack calculated from Smith et al. (1986), it appears that at least 20 wolves may frequent the preferred route (ADF&G, 1991). 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Ru 37 Historically, wolves have been hunted and trapped in the preferred project corridor. ADF&G harvest data from 1980 to 1987 for WAA 406 show that a total of seven animals were taken (1984 (4), 1985 (2), and 1987 (1)). The total 1990 GMU 1A harvest was 15 wolves. 3.4.1.7 River Otter River otter within the preferred project corridor generally occur in close proximity to rivers and streams in spruce/hemlock timber type (Larson 1983) and areas identified as beach fringe habitat. It has been reported that river otter avoid clearcuts (Larson 1983). Natal denning habitats within the intertie corridor include: beach, upland forest, and subalpine. Existing 1989 ADF&G population and harvest levels are reported in Table 10. The total 1990 GMU 1A harvest was 80 otters. River otters within the preferred corridor are dependent on large organic debris and large trees in streamside, lakeside, and beach habitats. The large extensive root systems, down tree trunks, and overturned root wads of old-growth trees create undercuts and hollows that maintain den sites, cover, and high prey densities. TABLE 10 RIVER OTTER HARVEST AND ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR EACH WAA WITHIN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) Wildlife Analysis Area 1989 HARVEST ESTIMATED POPULATION 3.4.1.8 Marten Marten habitat within the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor is defined as: beach, estuarine, upland forest, and subalpine habitats. Snags and down woody debris are important as they provide marten dens and resting sites for winter and summer, and cover for prey species. o20\nerons\ TYEE me 38 ADF&G 1989 data for marten harvests and populations are in Table 11. The 1990 GMU 1A harvest was 261 martens. TABLE 11 MARTEN HARVEST AND ESTIMATED POPULATION FOR EACH WAA WITHIN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) [ species _| Wildlife Analysis Area Analysis Area 1989 HARVEST ESTIMATED ——_ | 3.4.1.9 Northern Flying Squirrel Little is known about the status or population of the Alaska northern flying squirrel within the Tyee- Swan Intertie corridor. However, it has been suggested that there is a strong relationship between old, mature spruce-dominated forests and high populations of flying squirrels (Hokkanen et al., 1982). 3.4.1.10 Bald Eagles Bald eagles nest almost exclusively within 500 feet of the beach in large old-growth trees capable of supporting their ponderous nests. Eagles use large trees and snags located along beaches, major streams, and estuaries as perches. Disturbance relevant to bald eagles, has traditionally centered around nest sites. Disturbance is also an important factor where eagles concentrate seasonally. Bald eagles vary considerably in their response to human activity, therefore, it is difficult to predict the effects of a given type of human disturbance on individual eagles (Stalmaster et al., 1985). The majority of coastal southeast Alaska is without permanent human habitation, residential or commercial developments. Most potential disturbances to bald eagles are associated with road construction, timber harvest, and recreational use of National Forest lands and surrounding waters. In general, these activities, except logging and frequent use of certain roadways, create sporadic rather than prolonged disturbance. There are thirty-eight bald eagle nest locations along the preferred and alternate routes. Jacobson (pers. comm. 1991) reports that only a small portion of the preferred route has had recent (1987) surveys for bald eagles, and that the marine shoreline areas of Bell Arm, Anchor Pass, and the north ©20\REPORTS TYEE. AP 39 side of Behm Narrows have never been surveyed. He does feel that these areas no doubt do contain eagles. Upper Neets Bay has not been surveyed for twenty years, and Shrimp Bay was last surveyed in 1977. Jacobson feels that there have been significant changes in nest locations in Neets and Shrimp Bays. Bradfield Canal and the head of Carroll Inlet were last surveyed in 1987. The south side of Behm Narrows was last surveyed in 1977. Jacobson (pers. comm. 1991) further reports that those inland areas away from saltwater, such as Eagle River near Bradfield Canal, Beaver Creek, Neets Creek, Orchard Lake, Orchard Creek, and Carroll Creek on Revillagigedo Island probably have few or no bald eagle nests. 3.4.1.11 Vancouver Canada Goose, and Ducks Goose and duck habitat is usually in estuarine, streamside, lakeside, or muskeg areas. Nesting requirements vary by species. Mallards and pintails use grass, sedge or brushy grass areas. While goldeneyes, buffleheads, and hooded mergansers nest in tree cavities near water. Vancouver Canada geese will nest in a variety of habitats bordering water including old-growth habitats (Lebeda 1980; Warner et al. 1982; and Mickelson 1984) and muskegs (Rose 1982). 3.4.1.12 Trumpeter Swan Orchard Lake, Orchard Creek, Carroll Creek, Bell Arm, and Eagle Bay estuaries are important staging areas for migratory waterfow\, including large numbers of trumpeter swans. Gale (1989) stated that "swans have shown extreme fidelity to their ancestors’ wintering areas. Trumpeters are long-lived with strong family bonds. Cygnets most often follow and adopt the movement patterns of their parents, particularly as the families move to wintering areas. Trumpeters are slow to explore and successfully pioneer new migration routes and winter habitats. Thus, as the population increases, the swans increasingly concentrate on the few known wintering sites." 3.4.1.13 Hairy Woodpecker The hairy woodpecker prefers old-growth and is dependent on snags. This woodpecker prefers habitat containing spruce/hemlock or deciduous/conifer timber types, in humid coastal lowland, and open woodlands, with an old-growth component of snags (Suring et al. 1988e; A.O.U. 1983). The hairy woodpecker is a primary excavator, providing potential nesting cavities, dens, and roosting areas for marten, owls, flying squirrels, and mice (Kessler 1981; Noble 1983; and Noble and Harrington 1983). 3.4.1.14 Threatened and Endangered Species (TES) No known TES occur in the planning area (ADF&G, 1991). Humpback whales are rarely found in waters bordering the planning area. No effects to the humpback whale are expected from the project. 3.4.2 Alternative Route Affected Environment The affected environment of the alternate route is similar to that of the preferred route. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP 40 3.4.3 Expected Impacts to Wildlife This section deals with the potential construction and use effects of the Tyee-Swan Intertie project on wildlife. Because it is anticipated that there will be no road construction and thus no long-term human occupancy within the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor, effects on wildlife would be minimal and temporary. 3.4.3.1 Sitka Black-Tailed Deer If the transmission tower and right-of-way (ROW) areas are cleared, the populations within the intertie corridor may be affected. In the long term, timber clearing converts old-growth stands into even- aged, closed-canopy stands from 25 to 100 years. The closed-canopy stands provide thermal cover, but eliminate preferred browse species, reducing habitat capability for the deer. However, because of the relatively narrow, linear nature of the clearing the effect should be minimal. If road systems are built to access the ROW, vehicle access into areas may increase the demand for deer. Increased road access could also increase hunter numbers to the point where there may not be enough deer to satisfy demand. 3.4.3.2 Moose No effect on moose is expected from the project. 3.4.3.3 Mountain Goats No effect on the expanding mountain goat population is expected. However, according to ADF&G (pers. comm. 1992) there is little data available concerning winter range, birthing interval and season, and location of breeding and birthing areas. It is has been suggested that surveys to acquire this information be performed prior to construction, particularly in the areas near Eagle Lake and River. 3.4.3.4 Brown Bear Brown bear are found in the project corridor, and use a wide variety of habitats which could be influenced by the preferred action. These bear are not adaptable, and are intolerant of change or disturbance. It is especially critical for the brown bear not to be disturbed during the summer season. Development which increases human activity in brown bear habitat, may result in increased direct human-induced mortality of bears. Schoen et al. (1989) estimated the effects of human development and activity on habitats and populations of brown bear (Table 12). ©20\ REPORTS TYEE. 41 TABLE 12 EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN ACTIVITY ON HABITAT CAPABILITY FOR BROWN BEAR IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA (Source: Schoen, et al., 1989) ae Greater than 1,000 people 501-1,000 people 11-500 people Nn o Less than 10 people Landfill - no effective incineration F.S. Cabin/Developed Campground Permanent Camp Site Temporary Camp Site Access Point (airstrip, dock, floatplane lake) Mainline Roads with Ferry Access or Towns Secondary Roads with Vehicle Access Roads Closed Administratively Roads Closed Permanently Categories in Table 12 that may affect the brown bear habitat during construction include: 11-500 people, temporary camp site, and access point. Potential adverse effects to brown bear from development and human access can be reduced with appropriate management activities, such as requiring incineration of burnable garbage, and “pack-it-in, pack-it-out" requirements. 42 (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RwP 3.4.3.5 Black Bear Black bear are found in the project corridor, and use a wide variety of habitats which could be influenced by the preferred action. These bear are adaptable, and are tolerant of change or disturbance. Development which increases human activity in black bear habitat, may result in increased direct human-induced mortality of bears. Suring et al. (1988c) estimated the effects of human developments and activity on habitats and populations of black bear (Table 13). TABLE 13 EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN ACTIVITY ON HABITAT CAPABILITY FOR BLACK BEAR IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA (Source: Suring, et al., 1988c) —— mm! J Habitat Capability Reduction (in percent) within Two Influence | Type of Development or Activity J z= = a | | Road Accessible to Vehicles F.S. Cabin/Developed Campground/Seasonal Camp Site /Residence/Float Camp Trails or Road Access Limited to 10 (within 2 mites) Access Point (airstrip, dock, floatplane lake) Mainline Roads with Ferry Access or Accessible Road within 0.5 mile of 20 (within 0.5 miles) i | Road Limited to Hiking/ORV's (within | 0.5 mile of Anadromous Streams) 10 (within 1 mile) td Categories in Table 13 that may affect the black bear habitat during construction include: permanent camp site/residence/float camp, access point, open-pit garbage dump, and accessible road within 0.5 mile of anadromous streams. ) : ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. RAP 43 Potential adverse effects to the black bear from development and human access can be reduced with appropriate management activities, such as requiring incineration of burnable garbage, and “pack-it- in, pack-it-out" requirements. 3.4.3.6 River Otter River otters within the corridor are dependent on large organic debris and large trees in streamside, lakeside, and beach habitats. The large extensive root systems, downed tree trunks, and overturned root wads of old-growth trees create undercuts and hollows that maintain den sites, cover, and high prey densities. The effect on river otter from the preferred project would be minimal. It would only be in the area of transmission tower or ROW clearings that may limit access to other habitats because of corridor interdiction, as they avoid clearcuts. 3.4.3.7 Marten Marten habitat within the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor is defined as: beach, estuarine, upland forest, and subalpine habitats. Snags and down woody debris are important in providing marten dens and resting sites for winter and summer, and cover for prey species. If woody debris from ROW and transmission tower construction were left, it would create habitat and have a positive effect for the marten. 3.4.3.8 Northern Flying Squirrel Because little is known about the status or population of the flying squirrel within the preferred intertie corridor (Hokkanen et al., 1982), it cannot be predicted what effects the project would have on their population. 3.4.3.9 Bald Eagles Removal of perch or nest trees would reduce habitat availability. A protective buffer of 300 feet around nest trees is required in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). It is suggested that all bald eagle data should be updated (surveys flown) before the actual ROWs are determined (pers. comm. USFWS, 1992). Vulnerability of bald eagles to disturbance during construction may vary during the breeding cycle. Vulnerability is believed highest during territory establishment and mating. When nest site tenacity is low, a pair may abort their nesting attempt and desert the site (Stalmaster et al., 1985). Egg laying and incubation have been suggested as the most critical periods by Stalmaster et al. (1985), who cite Fraser’s findings (1981) of a negative relationship between disturbance and production of young. Conversely, in a 2-year study of 8 raptor species Ellis, Ellis, and Mindell (1991) found that frequent, nearby disturbance (jet aircraft; > 1000 passes; > 100 simulated sonic booms): (1) sometimes noticeably alarmed birds, (2) most often evoked only minimal responses, (3) occasionally caused birds to fly from their perches or aeries, and (4) were never associated with reproductive failure. 44 (020\REPORTS\TYEE.RwP Table 14 gives the 1989 ADF&G bald eagle population estimates for the WAAs within the project corridor. TABLE 14 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE BALD EAGLE, VANCOUVER CANADA GOOSE,AND HAIRY WOODPECKER FOR WAAs IN THE TYEE-SWAN INTERTIE PROJECT CORRIDOR (Source: Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 1991) ESTIMATED Wildlife Analysis Area POPULATION l _ 76 715 8 715 Hairy Woodpecker 715 8 Hest LALA | I | i 3.4.3.10 Vancouver Canada Goose and Ducks Overall, clearing levels preferred in the Tyee-Swan Intertie goose and duck habitat would be relatively low. Implementation of the project or alternatives should result in no measurable impact in population for the Vancouver Canada goose. There is concern that waterfowl, geese and swans may impact the transmission lines. The incidence of collision and, consequently, magnitude of loss attributed to waterfow striking transmission lines has, for the most part, been low when compared to total crossings (Cassel, et al. 1979; Hugie and Chanson, 1989; James and Haak, 1979; Meyer, 1978; Meyer and Lee, 1981; Willdan Associates, 1982). The reason behind such a low collision rate is that most birds cross transmission lines 10 feet or more above the groundwires. Meyer (1978) recorded 103 collisions in 146,850 crossings (0.07 percent) at Bybee ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 45 Lake and only 78 collisions in 156,975 crossings (0.05 percent) at Lower Crab Creek in a study done for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The vast majority of waterfow observed and reported in the literature crossed transmission line corridors at elevations ten feet or more above the elevated groundwire. Lee (1978) reported 89 percent of the waterfowl (between 90 and 99 percent) generally prefer to cross above the lines. Between 85 and 90 percent of the flights observed by Willdan Associates (1982) biologists were above groundwire height. James and Haak (1979) found that mallards consistently flew high near transmission lines and that, on the average pintails flew even higher. It appears, that most waterfow, particularly dabblers, do not elect to fly under transmission lines. When approaching from below groundwire height most birds that react at all do so by beginning to climb over the lines. Meyers (1978) and Meyer and Lee (1981) concluded that the effect of transmission lines on bird flight behavior and collision mortality varies from each line and site, largely as a result of specific factors associated with each location. 3.4.3.11 Hairy Woodpecker The hairy woodpecker found in fairly large numbers (Table 8) in the Tyee-Swan Intertie corridor, preferring old-growth, is dependent on snags. Hairy woodpeckers require a continual recruitment of snags into the habitat (Menasco 1983; and Goodwin 1983). Since woodpecker densities are assumed to be directly related to snag densities, care should be given to maintaining snags within the ROW. Elimination of timber down to 8 inches at the top eliminates nesting and roosting sites, reducing future use by secondary cavity users. 3.4.4 Alternate Route Impacts to Wildlife The effects on wildlife from the alternate route will be similar to that described for the preferred route. 3.5 LAND USES AND COMMUNITY EFFECTS 3.5.1 Preferred Route The preferred intertie route would be approximately 60 miles in length and located entirely within the Tongass National Forest. The majority of the land within the project area is heavily forested, unroaded, and mountainous terrain. There are a few logging roads along or near the preferred route. These roads, however, are not connected to communities nor to the termini of the preferred intertie. As described below, recreational use occurs in the area. Recreational users, seeking a wilderness experience, may find a moderate impact caused by the location of utility lines. Clearing for the lines may create an increase in access to what is now a largely roadless area. Given the small populations of nearby communities, it is not expected that this would create more than a minimal increase in the number of recreational users in the area. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE .RWP Other than a potential increase in access to nearby wilderness areas, a direct impact to local communities is not expected. The intertie is not expected to create new jobs nor to bring workers into the area except for the duration of construction. A secondary impact, to be analyzed in further environmental studies, is the potential impact of community growth. Growth could occur if new electric capacity is created. The preferred intertie would be an alternative to power generation through fuel sources. As power generation is already planned, it could be argued that the resulting growth would occur without the intertie project. As preferred, the line would pass through the Eagle River and Lake Corridor. It is eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, and is currently preferred for designation as a Wild River in one or more of the alternatives of the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision (1991). This designation would restrict the preferred intertie route from crossing this river or being located within 1/4 mile of high water marks. Controls on adjacent lands under this designation would likely constrain, but would not necessarily preclude, utility development outside of the 1/4 mile. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the river may also be designated as Scenic or as Recreational. Scenic river designation would place constraints on utility development to minimize potential adverse visual impacts along the river. Controls on visual impacts of the powerlines when viewed from the river may help to mitigate the potential impact on recreational users in the area. Designation as a Recreational River would allow construction of the intertie, with fewer constraints. Wild, Scenic, and Recreation river designations may also affect adjacent lands. These corridors are explained in more detail below. 3.5.1.1 Eagle River and Lake Eagle River and Lake are located within the Coast Range Geographic Province (Wrangell Ranger District) in VCU 519. The preferred intertie route passes along the west side of the lake and river. There is a forest service cabin located on the northeast end of Eagle Lake. A Forest Service Trail (#414) follows the river from Eagle Bay to the cabin. The river corridor contains approximately 5,300 acres, all of which is National Forest System land. There are no private lands within the river corridor. Although there are no valid mining claims in the area, the U.S. Bureau of Mines lists this area as having potential for mineral development. Wild River designation would prevent mineral exploration and subsequent development. Recreational River designation would allow for mineral exploration and development compatible with the area’s management emphasis. The Eagle River Valley has been identified as a transportation corridor by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for a link from Ketchikan to Bradfield Canal where it would connect with a highway linking Wrangell to Canada along the North Fork of the Bradfield River. Wild River designation would generally limit road development within the corridor, except as provided for in (020\REPORTS\ TYEE RP 47 ANILCA Title XI. Recreational River designation would allow for road development through the river corridor. There Is an existing special use permit for a power line that connects the Tyee Power Plant to the city of Wrangell, but the powerline crosses Eagle Bay and is just outside of the river corridor. The preferred project would connect with this powerline. Recreational River designation would be compatible with powerline construction. 3.5.1.2 Eagle Bay to Behm Canal The preferred intertie route between Eagle Bay and Behm Canal occurs within areas of the Tongass National Forest that are currently managed under Land Use Designation II (LUD II) in management areas K31 and S30. The LUD II designation manages lands in a roadless state to maintain their wildland character. Water and power developments are permitted if they can be designed to retain the overall primitive characteristics of the allocated area. This area is also within Roadless Areas 207-Harding and 529-North Cleveland. Roadless areas are essentially undeveloped areas of the Tongass National Forest. 3.5.1.3 Behm Canal to Carroll Inlet The preferred intertie route between Behm Canal and Carroll Inlet crosses through areas of the Tongass National Forest that are currently managed under Land Use Designation Il, III, and IV (LUD II, LUD Ill, and LUD IV) in management areas K31 and K32. LUD II has been explained above. LUD Ill is a designation for lands that are managed for a variety of uses with an emphasis on managing for uses and activities in a compatible and complementary manner to provide the greatest combination of benefits. These areas have either high use or high amenity values in conjunction with high commodity values. The LUD Ill area is north of Orchard Lake and encompasses approximately fifteen percent of the route. The next designation, LUD IV, encompasses land south of Orchard Lake to Carroll Inlet. This designation signifies land that is managed with provisions for intensive resource use and development where emphasis is primarily on commodity and market resources. This area is also within Roadless Areas 524-Revilla. 3.5.1.4 Neets Creek Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, a private nonprofit salmon hatchery, has a special use permit from the Forest Service to operate their hatchery at the mouth of Neets Creek. The preferred route will pass adjacent to the fish hatchery on the north side. 3.5.1.5 Carroll Inlet, Falls Creek At the outlet of Falls Creek (approximately .12 miles southeast of the preferred route) there is a picnic area and trail that goes to Swan Lake. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. 3.5.2 Alternate Route The alternate route would cross through the same areas as the preferred route with the following additions. The alternate route which parallels Anchor Pass and crosses Behm Canal is adjacent to the boundary of the Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. The alternate route, in the Anchor Pass area, would traverse the east slope of Anchor Pass and pass adjacent to a Forest Service Recreation Cabin located on the shoreline. Impacts to land use and recreational uses within the project area would be similar to the impacts under the preferred route. Orchard Creek and Lake are located on Revillagigedo Island and are within the Central Interior Islands Geographic Province (Ketchikan Ranger District) and Value Comparison Units (VCUs) 733 and 734. VCUs are roughly equivalent to large watersheds. The alternate intertie route passes along the northeast side of Orchard Lake and within one mile of a Forest Service recreation cabin located at the lake’s northeast end. A potential Forest Service Trail is planned along Orchard Creek that would be crossed by the route approximately three miles southeast of the cabin. Another cabin is located near the lake outlet into Shrimp Bay and is accessible from bay by a trail. This cabin and trail are located west of the route. This corridor contains approximately 10,000 acres, all of which are National Forest System land. There are no private lands or mining claims within the river corridor or on nearby adjacent forest lands. U.S. Bureau of Mines does not list this area as having known potential for mineral extraction, and there are no estimated undiscovered mineral resources in the drainage. The AEA has a power site withdrawal which includes approximately seven miles of the lower river corridor (southwest of the preferred intertie route). However, the site has not been identified by AEA or by scoping as having potential for development. The State of Alaska has indicated an interest in developing a transportation corridor through this area which would link Ketchikan with the mainland, and access British Columbia. Designation of Orchard Creek and Lake as a Wild River could preclude inter- island and utility corridors along this route, except as provided for in ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980). Orchard Creek and Lake Corridor is eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Its status is the same as described for Eagle River and Lake Corridor under the preferred route. Currently, timber harvest is planned for the Orchard Creek area during the next 10 years. Designation as a Wild River would remove approximately 4,300 acres of tentatively suitable forest land within the river corridor from consideration for timber harvest. 20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 49 3.6 VISUAL AND RECREATION This section contains overviews that briefly describe the concepts and techniques used by the Forest Service to inventory and analyze the visual and recreation resources. It also describes the affected environment and the potential adverse effects that could result from the preferred and alternate routes. The potential adverse effects described in these sections are based on a review of available recreation and visual resource inventory data and personal communications with the members of the Staff from two administrative units of the Tongass National Forest: the Ketchikan Area and the Stikine Area. No specific impact or mitigation planning process was used. 3.6.1 Visual Overview The Visual Management System (VMS) was developed by the Forest Service to inventory the landscape’s scenic resources and provide measurable standards for managing these resources. The visual environment inventory consists of three basic components: variety class (landscape aesthetics), distance zones (visibility from sensitive viewpoints), and visual sensitivity levels. These components are analyzed and combined to develop management guidelines known as visual quality objectives (VQOs). VQOs define the level of change that is acceptable in the landscape. Table 15 contains definitions for the five VQOs. Visual character types are discreet geographic units of the landscape each composed of distinguishing visual characteristics of landform, rock formations, vegetative patterns, and waterforms. Visual character types provide a frame of reference and establish criteria for the inventory and mapping of variety class. Variety class designations describe the inherent scenic quality of the natural landscape in terms of form, line, color, and texture. There are three variety class designations: Class A Outstanding areas where characteristic features of landform, geologic features, waterform, and vegetation patterns are distinctive or unique in the context of the visual character type. These features exhibit considerable variety in form, line, color, and texture. Class B Above average areas in which features provide variety in form, line, color, and texture; and although the combinations are not rare within the visual character type, they provide sufficient visual diversity to be considered moderately distinctive. Class C | Commonareas where characteristic features have moderate-to-little variety in form, line, color, or texture, in relation to the visual character type. Visual sensitivity is a measure of the expected public concern for the scenic quality of national forests. Three sensitivity levels have been developed to identify the degree of concern forest users have for their visual environment. The three established levels of sensitivity (FS, 1974) are: 020 \REPORTS\ TYEE. me 50 | Management activities, except for very low visual impact recreation facilities, are prohibited. This VQO allows for only "ecological" changes. This management objective applies to wilderness areas, primitive areas, | other special classified | areas, and some unique | management units that do not justify other special classification. (©20\REPORTS\ TYEE RP TABLE 15 VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES (VQO) Management activities must not be visually evident to the casual forest visitor. Modifications must repeat form, line, color, and texture found in the surrounding natural landscape. Modifications may be visually evident, but must be integrated into and visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Activities may introduce form, line, color, and texture not common in the surroundinglandscape, but they should not attract attention. 51 Management activities may visually dominate the surrounding natural landscape. However, they must repeat the naturally established elements of form, line, color, and texture to appear compatible with the natural surroundings. Management activities may visually dominate the surrounding natural landscape, yet when viewed from background distance zone, activities must appear as natural occurrences within the landscape. Activities in foreground and middlegroundviews may be out of scale or introduce visual elements not found in the natural landscape. High Sensitivity (Level 1) primary use areas and recreation-destination travel routes where users would have major concern for the scenic qualities Moderate Sensitivity (Level 2) primary or secondary use areas and travel routes where few of the users would have a major concern for the scenic qualities Low Sensitivity (Level 3) secondary use areas and travel routes where there is the least concern for the visual quality Distance zones are typical perception thresholds for viewing the landscape from specific viewpoints that are defined as being sensitive (refer to discussion above). As a frame of reference in which to discuss landscape characteristics or activities of man, the Visual Management System uses three distance zones: foreground, middleground, and background. Foreground (0 - 1/2 mile) is the nearest distance zone where details can be perceived and discerned. Patterns and textures in the landscape tend to be the elements in the landscape that are most easily perceived in this distance Zone. In the middleground (1/2 mile - 3 miles), form tends to be the dominant element perceived. The details of textures, patterns, and subtle color differences tend to be much less perceptible. The elements of line and form (e.g., mountain ranges) tend to dominate the background (3 to 5 miles, and beyond) and provide a frame for the foreground and middleground distance zones. The term unseen is used to describe areas that are not visible from sensitive viewpoints. Existing visual conditions, or human-introduced changes (e.g., land uses or management activities), describe the degree of change in the natural landscape that may be noticed by the casual forest visitor: Type | Areas are untouched by human activities. Type Il Changes in the landscape are not visually evident. Type lil Changes in the landscape may be noticed by the casual forest visitor. Type IV Changes in the landscape are easily noticed by the casual forest visitor. Type V Changes in the landscape are strong and obvious to the casual forest visitor. Type VI Changes in the landscape are in glaring contrast to the natural forest appearance. 3.6.2 Recreation Overview The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a system developed by the Forest Service to help identify, quantify, and describe potential recreation values. This system combines recreation activities, settings, and experience expectations along a continuum that ranges from highly modified to primitive environments. The six ROS classes are described in Table 16. ROS classes described for the preferred and alternate routes in the following sections were determined during the Forest- wide inventory completed in 1989 using the following elements (FS, 1991): 52 (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Very high probability of experiencing solitude, freedom, closenessto nature, tranquility, self- reliance, challenge, and risk. Unmodified natural environment. | Low interaction between | users. Little evidence of other users. Restrictions and controls not evident after entry. Accessand travel is non- motorized on trails or cross country. No vegetative alterations. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE RMP High probability of experiencing solitude, closenessto nature, tranquility, self-reliance, challenge, and risk. Natural appearing environment. Low interaction between users. Some evidence of other users. Minimum of subtle on-site controls. Accessand travel in non- motorized on trails, some primitive roads, cross country. Vegetative alterations very small in size and number widely dispersed and not obvious, TABLE 16 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM Moderate opportunity for solitude, tranquility, and closenessto nature. High degree of self-reliance, challenge, and risk in using motorized equipment. Predominantly natural appearing environment. Low concentration of users but often evidence of other users on trails. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions present but subtle. Vegetative alterations very small in size and number widely dispersed and not obvious. 53 Opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites but with some chance for privacy. Self-reliance on outdoor skills of only moderate importance. Little challenge and risk. Mostly natural appearing environment as viewed from sensitive roads and trails. Interaction between users at campsites of moderate importance Some obvious on-site control of users Accessand travel is conventional motorized. Vegetative alterations to maintain desired visual and recreation characteristics. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is important as is convenience of facilities. Self-reliance on outdoor skills of little importance. Little challenge and risk except for activities such as downhill skiing. Natural environment is culturally modified yet attractive (i.e. pastoral farmlands). May have natural appearing backdrop. Interaction between users may be high. Evidence of other users apparent. Obvious and prevalent on-site controls. Accessand travel facilities are for individual intensified motorized use. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with others is very important as is convenience of facilities and recreation opportunities. Outdoor skills, risk, and challenge are unimportant except in competitive sports. Organized environment with dominant structures and paved roads. May have natural appearing backdrop. Recreation places may be city parks and large resorts. Interaction between large numbers of users is high. Intensive on-site controls are numerous. Access and travel facilities are intensely motorized and often with mass transit Visual quality a measurement of the degree of modification of the natural landscape characteristics that are apparent within the setting. Access the mode of access required or appropriately used in the pursuit of activities, and the relative ease with which users can travel to or within the setting. Remoteness __ the perceived separation of the setting from the sights and sounds of other human activity or structures. Visitor management the degree and appropriateness of the perceived control and regulation of visitor actions and the extent and appropriateness of services and information provided within the setting. On-site recreation the degree and appropriateness of the recreation facilities development provided within the setting. Social encounters _ the degree of solitude or social opportunities the setting provides, usually in terms of other parties encountered while traveling within the setting, and/or within sight or sound while camped within the setting. 3.6.3 Preferred Route 3.6.3.1 Visual Impacts The preferred intertie route would pass through remote landscapes within two major visual character types. The northern portion of the project area, from Behm Canal to Bradfield Canal falls within the Coastal Range visual character type. The southern portion of the project area, from Behm Canal to Swan Lake, falls within the Coastal Hills visual character type (FS 1979). From Eagle Bay along the Eagle River to the northwest end of Little Eagle Lake, the preferred route would traverse the steep slope of the west side of Eagle Bay and pass through landscapes inventoried as variety class C and managed with VQOs of Modification and Maximum Modification. The Eagle Bay area may be visible to foreground views from boats anchored in the bay and to middleground views from tourboats on Bradfield Canal and from the Harding cabin. In addition, portions of the preferred route may be visible to foreground views from Trail #414 along the Eagle River. The presence of the existing Tyee transmission line contributed to inventory of the existing visual conditions as Type Ill and IV. Presence of this line would likely reduce potential for significant visual impacts as a result of the preferred route in the Eagle Bay area. Some localized potentially significant visual impacts might occur where this route would parallel Trail #414 and Eagle River. ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. RA 54 From Little Eagle Lake south to the end of Eagle Lake, the route would pass through landscapes inventoried as variety class A and managed with a VQO of Partial Retention. The unique landforms, diverse vegetation, and the pristine quality of the lakes in the absence of existing visual intrusions contribute to the highly scenic values of the landscape in this area. In the area just north of Little Eagle Lake, the preferred route would be visible in the foreground from viewpoints along Trail #414, where this trail passes along the east shoreline of the lake. A Forest Service recreation cabin is located on the alluvium of a steep drainage near the northeast end of Eagle Lake. The preferred route would be visible in foreground and middleground views across Eagle Lake from this cabin, where the route would traverse the lower slopes of the mountains parallel to the west shoreline. Removal of trees along the right-of-way of the preferred route would likely result in potentially significant visual impacts to views from this recreation cabin and from views along Trail #414. The preferred route would cross Bell Arm, Bell Island, and Behm Canal onto Revillagigedo Island in a transition zone from the Coastal Range to the Coastal Hill visual character type. In the area from Eagle Lake across Bell Island into the Beaver Creek drainage and along the Kiam Creek drainage to Orchard Lake, the preferred route would pass through areas inventoried as variety class B and managed with VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention. Aerial crossings of Bell Arm and Behm Canal would likely result in significant visual effects to foreground views from boats anchored in Bell Arm and views from tour and recreation boats using these waterways to access recreation places and destinations in the Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. Just north of the outlet of Kiam Creek into Klu Bay, the preferred route would climb to the top of a steep hill and cross the narrows of Shrimp Bay. The area around Shrimp Bay has been inventoried as variety class B and is managed with a VQO of Partial Retention. The preferred route would likely be visible to foreground views from boaters in the bay. An aerial crossing from high points on either side of the bay would likely be somewhat less visually intrusive than the potential disturbances that would be caused by the construction of a submarine cable crossing and ancillary facilities on the steep side slopes of this bay. The route may also be visible to middleground views from a trail at the head of Shrimp Bay that provides access to the Forest Service cabin located at the west end of Orchard Lake. The preferred route would be visible to foreground views from boats where the route would parallel the north shoreline at the head of Neets Bay. Similar to Shrimp Bay, the landscape in this area has been inventoried as variety class B and is managed with a VQO of Partial Retention. The steep slopes on which the route would traverse would be visible to foreground views from boats in Neets Bay and at two anchorages, one located at each of the two heads of this bay. Careful siting of the right-of-way could take advantage of dense tree cover to screen potential visual effects of this route from sensitive views in this area. From Neets Bay, the preferred route would parallel Neets Creek and traverse a low pass into Carroll Creek passing through landscapes heavily altered by previous activities. The area along Neets Creek has been inventoried as variety class B and is managed with a VQO of Modification. Though largely unseen from sensitive viewpoints, the route may be visible to foreground views from dispersed recreation users (e.g., hikers) that may use several existing roads in the area to access Neets Lake and Bluff Lake. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE Re 55 From the upper Neets Creek watershed to Carrol Creek and the outlet of Falls Creek into Carrol Inlet, the preferred route would pass through areas inventoried as variety class B. The majority of the landscape that would be crossed is managed with a VQO of Modification. The shoreline along Carrol Inlet is managed with a VQO of Partial Retention. Existing visual conditions along this route segment are largely Type |. Where the route would be visible to foreground views from picnic site and from boats in Carrol Inlet and in the estuary on Carrol Creek, moderate visual effects could be expected. 3.6.3.2 Recreation Impacts Eagle River and Lake and Orchard Creek and Lake are eligible for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Both of these rivers (and lakes) are currently preferred for designation as Wild rivers in one or more of the alternate of the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision (1991). The Wild designation would restrict the preferred intertie route from crossing these rivers or occurring within 1/4 mile of the high water marks. Adjacent lands would likely also constrain, but would not necessarily preclude, utility development. Scenic or Recreational river designations would not preclude utility development. However, Scenic river designation would place constraints on utility development to minimize potential visual impacts along the river (e.g., routing, mitigation, etc.), which would likely increase construction costs. Designation as a Recreational river would also allow construction of a intertie, but with fewer constraints. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational river designations may also effect adjacent lands (FS, 1991). From Eagle Bay to several miles south of Behm Canal, the project area occurs within areas of the Tongass National Forest currently managed under Land Use Designation II (LUD Il), a designation that manages lands in a roadless state to maintain their wildland character. Although this designation would not necessarily preclude utility development, it would likely impose considerable constraints to preserve primitive recreation opportunities. It should be noted that under the alternatives of the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision (1991) this area would no longer be managed under LUD II. The preferred route would pass through areas inventoried semi-primitive motorized and semi- primitive non-motorized ROS classes in the Eagle Bay area. The Bradfield Canal is a moderately used waterway that provides recreation users with boat access to recreation places. The Eagle Bay area is popular for salmon and halibut fishing, crabbing, and waterfowl and big-game hunting. From anchorages in the bay, recreation users can access steelhead and salmon fishing in Eagle River by Trail #414. The preferred route would likely not change the recreation use in this area. Further inland, along the Eagle River, the preferred route would pass through areas inventoried as primitive ROS settings. Construction in these untouched natural landscapes would introduce an element(s) that would likely be noticed by recreation users seeking solitude and remoteness in a primitive setting. The greatest potential for direct impacts to recreation experiences would likely occur along Trail #414 where this trail parallels Eagle River from Eagle Bay to Eagle Lake. In ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. 56 addition, introduction of the preferred route into a primitive landscape would likely change the ROS setting. Such a change may require an amendment to the Tongass Land Management Plan. A recreation cabin on Eagle Lake, operated by the Forest Service, is a popular recreation place accessed only by float plane. This cabin provides good opportunities for primitive recreation experiences and receives moderate use (from 30 to 60 day of visitor use per year) by fisherman and hunters. The preferred route would likely result in visual impacts that would diminish the primitive recreation opportunities available at Eagle Lake. The preferred route would cross Bell Island through primitive ROS settings. Recreation use on this island tends to occur along the shoreline. The presence of the preferred intertie crossing Bell Arm and Behm Canal would likely be noticed by recreation users approaching shoreline areas by boat and by visitors onboard tourboats on Behm Canal destined to the Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness. The recreation experience that visitors to this area are likely to expect includes views of untouched natural landscapes. A transmission line in this setting would diminish the opportunity for this desired experience. An aerial crossing of Bell Arm and Behm Canal by the preferred route would likely require using highly visible aerial markers to protect low-flying aircraft. The result would be a noticeable intrusion into the natural landscape that would diminish the opportunity for primitive recreation experience in this area. From Behm Canal to Shrimp Bay, the preferred route would pass through primitive ROS settings. There is good potential for primitive recreation opportunities in this area, however, access is very limited. The preferred route could indirectly provide better access, but would also likely diminish primitive recreation experiences. The area around Klu Bay is roaded modified and is accessed by boat. The area that would be traversed by the preferred route, from just north of Shrimp Bay to Carroll Creek, has been inventoried in the ROS class of roaded modified. The Forest Service has also identified a potential cabin site near an existing anchorage in a cove off the south side of Gedney Pass. Shrimp Bay is frequently used by boaters to access a trail located at the head of the bay. This trail provides access to a Forest Service cabin located at the west end of Orchard Lake and to some highly scenic waterfalls along the outlet of Orchard Lake into the bay. Shrimp Bay is also a popular area for saltwater fishing. An aerial crossing at the narrows of Shrimp Bay would likely cause a visible intrusion into the natural landscape. However, because boaters would likely be headed toward recreation destinations at the end of the bay, this intrusion might be quickly forgotten. The preferred route would parallel the shoreline on the steep slopes above Neets Bay. With an anchorage at the end of each of the twin heads of the bay, the area is popular for boating, saltwater fishing, shoreline access, and hiking. This bay is also heavily used by commercial salmon fishing and floating fish processing operations. If this route can be carefully sited taking advantage of tree cover on the slopes to screen potential visual effects, the potential for adverse effects to recreation uses in the Neets Bay area could be minimized. ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE.RWP 57 The preferred route would pass through areas inventoried semi-primitive motorized and semi- primitive non-motorized ROS classes in the Carroll Inlet and Carrol Creek areas. The inlet is a moderately used waterway that provides recreation users with boat access to a family picnic area and trail located near the outlet of Falls Creek. The Carrol Inlet area is popular for salmon and halibut fishing and crabbing. Anchorages in the inlet provide recreation users access to steelhead and salmon fishing in Carrol Creek. The preferred route would likely not change recreation use in this area. 3.6.4 Alternate Route The visual resource inventory (e.g., existing visual conditions, variety class, and VQO) and the recreation resource inventory (e.g., ROS settings, recreation places) for areas that would be traversed by the alternate route is essentially the same as described for the preferred route above. The following sections describe differences in the inventories for the areas that would be traversed by the alternate route. These sections focus on the potential effects of the alternate route. 3.6.4.1 Visual Impacts The alternate route in the Eagle Bay area would traverse the east slope along the bay opposite the preferred route. Similar to the preferred route, this alternative may be visible to foreground views from boats anchored in the bay and from Trail #414 along the Eagle River, and to middleground views from tour boats on Bradfield Canal and the Harding cabin. Existing visual conditions in this area are Type Ill and IV largely associated with the Tyee transmission line. Again, the presence of this line would likely reduce potential for significant visual impacts as a result of the alternate route in the Eagle Bay area. Along Eagle River, an alternate route would traverse the steeper slopes of the east side of the river. This alternate may be visible to foreground views from Trail #414 along Eagle River. Tree removal on the right-of-way where this alternate would traverse steeper slopes could likely result in somewhat greater visual impacts than the preferred route. In the area around Little Eagle Lake, the alternate route may be visible in the foreground to views along Trail #414, where the trail passes along the eastern shoreline of this lake and continues south parallel to Eagle River. This alternate route may be visible to foreground views from a Forest Service cabin located near the northeast end of Eagle Lake. The route would traverse the steep lower slopes of the mountains behind the cabin. Because the general view orientation of the cabin is likely to be toward the lake, tree removal along the right-of-way of this alternate route would likely result in less noticeable visual effects than the preferred route. However, potentially severe visual effects would likely occur where this alternate route occurs in the immediate foreground views of Trail #414 for over a mile along the lake. The alternate route that would traverse parallel to Anchor Pass and cross Behm Canal adjacent to the boundary of Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness would likely result in severe visual effects to foreground views from boats anchored in Bell Arm and boats using the waterways to access shoreline areas and destinations within Misty Fiords. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Rue 58 North of Orchard Lake, the alternate route would be visible in the middleground from boats in Klu Bay. The route would pass within one mile of a Forest Service recreation cabin located at the northeast end of Orchard Lake. However, views of the route from this cabin are likely to be screened by a hill situated between Orchard Lake and Cedar Lake. A potential Forest Service trial is planned along Orchard Creek that would be crossed by the preferred route, a few miles southeast of the cabin. 3.6.4.2 Recreation Impacts The alternate route along Eagle River and Lake would also be affected by the possible Wild and Scenic river designations described for the preferred route (refer to section 3.6.3). The alternate route in the Eagle Bay area would have similar effects on the recreation resource as those described for the preferred route. Because the alternate route along the east slope of Eagle River would traverse steeper terrain, there is greater likelihood that the visual effects of the intertie would be more evident to recreation users from the untouched primitive landscape along this river. The alternate route in the Anchor Pass area would traverse the east slope of Anchor Pass and pass adjacent to a Forest Service recreation cabin located on the shoreline. Because the orientation of the view from this cabin is toward the water, this alternate route may not be noticed by recreation users at the cabin. However, the presence of the intertie on the slope above this cabin would likely be noticed by recreation users approaching the cabin or adjacent shoreline areas by boat and by visitors onboard tourboats on Behm Canal. Potential effects of this alternate route on the recreation experience of visitors traveling by boat on Behm Canal would likely be considerably more noticeable than the effects of the preferred route. An aerial crossing of Behm Canal by this alternate route (if possible) with aerial markers or lights would result in a glaring and obvious intrusion into a landscape that is otherwise natural in appearance. A terminal for the submarine cable crossing at Point Lees would also intrude upon the natural setting. Alternative locations or screening should be considered in designing this facility. The alternate route that would traverse east-west across Bell Island would cross Anchor Pass adjacent to the cabin on the shoreline. This alternate route would introduce an element that would be inconsistent with the primitive setting of this island. However, its position within a drainage would likely minimize potential effects to recreation users, except where this alternative would effect the shoreline on Anchor Pass and degrade the quality of the recreation experience. There are two Forest Service recreation cabins at Orchard Lake, another popular recreation place that would be affected by the alternate route. One cabin is located near the lake outlet into Shrimp Bay. This cabin can be accessed by a trail from the bay. The other cabin can only be accessed by float plane, providing good opportunities for primitive recreation experiences. These cabins also receive moderate use primarily by fisherman and hunters. The alternate route would pass behind the hill that separates Orchard Lake from Cedar Lake and would likely have minimal effect on recreation opportunities available at this cabin. The Forest Service has identified a potential trail from the cabin along Orchard Creek that would be crossed by the alternate route. 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Rue 59 3.6.5 Mitigation Potential visual effects that would result from construction of the preferred intertie could be minimized through the application of mitigation. Because much of the preferred and alternate routes would traverse largely undisturbed natural landscapes, it will be important to minimize ground disturbance and removal of vegetation, in particular, trees. The right-of-way should be sited to take advantage of the dense tree cover to provide screening from sensitive viewpoints. Clearing and tree removal should only occur where it is necessary to meet electrical safety codes. Use of non-specular conductors should be considered to minimize light reflection from conductors, especially for aerial crossing of waterways. Form, color, and material should be considered during transmission line tower design. Single pole or H-frame wood structures would likely have a better chance of blending into the natural landscape than light-colored steel lattice type structures. We recommend that during later detailed analysis that visual simulation techniques be employed to analyze and illustrate potential effects of the preferred and alternate routes on the visual resource. Visual simulation is a very useful tool that can assist planners in siting transmission line towers to best take advantage of the landform and vegetation screening. Further, visual simulations are an excellent method for evaluating the potential effectiveness of mitigation recommendations. Potential adverse effects of an intertie on the recreation resource are strongly related to potential visual effects visible to users of recreation places. For this reason, mitigation of visual effects would largely mitigate potential effects to recreation. 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Numerous laws, regulations, and statutes seek to manage and protect cultural resources. These include the Antiquities Act of 1906; Historic Sites Act of 1935; Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 5/13/1971); 36 CFR 800 and CFR 60 (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, Amendments to Existing Regulations, 1/30/1979, National Register of Historic Places, Nominations by States and Federal Agencies, Rules and Regulations, 1/9/1976); Revisions to 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, 1/10/1986); Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974; American Indian Religious Freedom Joint Resolution of 1978; and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Collectively these regulations and guidelines establish a comprehensive program for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources. 3.7.1 Identified Cultural Resources A record search completed for this project consisted of a review of archaeological base maps, site records, and survey reports on file at the Office of History and Archaeology for the State of 60 020\REPORTS\TYEE.RuP Alaska and within the Forest Archaeologist’s office for the Tongass National Forest by representatives of the these respective agencies. Judith E. Bittner, State Historic Preservation Office, provided the review at the Office of History and Archaeology, while John T. Autrey, Forest Archaeologist, provided record search information for the Tongass National Forest. Only one previously recorded archaeological site has been identified within the project boundaries, although several known sites do occur within the vicinity of both the preferred route and its alternate. Below is a description of the known cultural resources situated within and/or adjacent to the preferred Tyee-Swan Lake Intertie Project. KET-63: Site KET-63 is situated on the north coast of Revillagigedo Island. This multi- component site is comprised of three massive stone fish weirs, two smaller wood fish weirs, a canoe landing, three housepit depressions, a historic structure, and a possible garden plot. KET-64: This particular site is located immediately adjacent to the alternate intertie corridor at Point Lees. This site consists entirely of a circle-dot motif petroglyph upon a bedrock outcrop situated 0.5m above the mean high tide mark. KET-65: KET-65 is another circle-dot motif petroglyph within the vicinity of the alternate intertie corridor. This particular site is located on Claude Point, east of the project area. KET-66: KET-66 is situated between the preferred and alternate corridors on the southeast coast of Bell Island. Similar to KET-64 and -65, this site consists entirely of a circle-dot motif Petroglyph. KET-67: This circle-dot motif petroglyph is situated upon the north coast of Revillagigedo Island, east of the preferred corridor. KET-71: KET-71 is the only site identified that is situated directly within the project area. This historic era site, comprised of a small shelter, is located on Lees Point, within the alternate intertie corridor. KET-96: Situated to the west of the preferred intertie on the north shore of the Bell Narrows is a canoe landing which has been recorded as KET-96. KET-97: KET-97 is a single fish weir situated on the east shore of Anchor Pass, just south of where the junction in the alternate route occurs. KET-102: KET-102 is located adjacent to the southern terminus of the preferred intertie. Identified in 1983, this site consists of a stratified midden within an area of second growth forest. 3.7.2 Effects Cultural resources are subject to both direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts from utility projects occur during both construction and operation, and result from ground-disturbance which destroys or alters the context of cultural materials. Visual and aural impacts to sites can also be 020\REPORTS\ TYEE. RP 61 considered direct impacts. Such impacts are significant if aesthetic or religious values are represented at the site and if the overall setting is disturbed. Indirect impacts occur primarily during the operation phase, most often in the form of damage to sites resulting from increased public access to formerly inaccessible areas. Both direct and indirect impacts must be taken into account in impact assessment. Construction activities within the project area could have a significant impact on known as well as unrecorded cultural resources within the project area. Such impacts are especially indicated for archaeological sites beneath or adjacent to support structures and/or cultural resources along improved transportation routes. Potential impacts include removal of cultural deposits, degradation of sites through increased erosion, and removal of historic structures. Available data indicate that only one previously identified cultural resource, KET-71, has been recorded within the intertie corridor. The record for this site indicates that the structure may be “relatively recent," and as such may not be considered a cultural resource within existing regulations and guidelines for cultural resource management. A more thorough recording of the structure and its contents would likely reveal the site’s age. It should also be noted that the list of identified cultural resources within and/or adjacent to the preferred project area may not be as all inclusive. Only a small portion of the project area (less than 5 percent) has been subject to archaeological reconnaissance and, hence, other cultural resources may be located within the preferred and alternate corridors. Because the preferred project area has not been subject to intensive archaeological survey, the Office of History and Archaeology for the State of Alaska has indicated that they will recommend that both the preferred and alternate routes be surveyed prior to project implementation (letter dated 1-17-91, State Historic Preservation Officer). Such a reconnaissance would intensively examine both intertie corridors, record all cultural resources situated within these areas, and provide preliminary assessments of their significance. 3.7.3 Recommendations As noted above, to determine affects and appropriate mitigation measures, systematic archaeological reconnaissance should be undertaken. Site records provide baseline data with which to assess operation alternatives. If cultural resources are identified within the corridors, the Office of History and Archaeology may require definitive site assessments. Such assessments are generally determined through archaeological test excavations. If these efforts determine that some or all of the cultural resources located within the corridors are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the Office of History and Archaeology would likely recommend that changes in project design be considered. If such changes are infeasible, they may require that project impacts to the significant resources be mitigated through the implementation of data recovery excavations. As noted above, KET-71, which is the only site currently known to occur within the project corridor, may be of insufficient age to be considered a significant cultural resource within federal regulations and guidelines. (020\REPORTS\ TYEE. Job No. 12023-031-020 ae : 3 ld "eS ‘ a ragy iel Coe : ee we ey ae Tyee Lake Rt <, ‘i an Revillagigedo 4 Es 3 Figure 5 : Key Map aummm= Proposed Route ——=— Alternate Route Transmission Line Environmental se _ sascea Feasibility Study Pee Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore! Soils/Geology/Wetlands Steep Side Slopes = Black Bear Concentrations along Carroll Creek. Wildlife ee Carroll Creek Waterfowl Area K Swan Lake Wolf Pack » Fish Falls Creek Tributary of Falls Creek Carroll Creek - Class I Stream ClassI1Stream Class II Steam ii Vi a View from Carroll Inlet Land Uses/Recreation Archaeologic Site Picnic Site and Trail to KET-102 Swan Lake ZR f Sy) We g vawa Alternate NW he Bre Transmission Line 8 HLS aad ‘8 ; : F 0 o5 1 SESS X Ya GZ cs (Se ANG a ». 3 Sy Sa KA FN ES \ y) (7 = A 4 2 SOP Soenrieee ES SES MSG 15 Minute Series. eS i= ae a wf | N= ~ —~ St} WA \ i AZ op or a SE a M) A 8 q am SS p Ce TRE Se « ‘ a SB Kw \ Z \S f Y M Transmission Line| ~ Environmental Feasibility Study} / Job No. 12023-031-020 Wetland Areas Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wildlife Upper Carroll Creek Wolf Pack Carroll Creek and tributaries Class II above barrier. | Fah Barrier could be bypassed with a fish pass structure. “ Intertie corridor not readily viewed. Minor effect. Visual Existing recreation opportunity setting (ROS) may change from Primitive to Semi-Primitive. Land Uses/Recreation LUDIV aS)? OU AWAAN ( CS . VY, Te ep = | : SMW : Source: USGS Topographic Maps, PFS ° q KW 15 Mote Sores. Soon 7 PW GRWSl . Cee WS A BN Ai ER a iE ( ISI2 SL OG AS ST, A Ne ae ic bo LIS iP Vil { LYN) UC Ws SS Gz ANS QI F NN), Ks gO. Job No. 12023-031-020 Figure 6 (2 of 14) Proposed Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore Soils/Geology/Wetlands | — Wetland | | Wetland | Wildlife ees Fish Neets Creek Class II Steam 1 Visual Land Uses/Recreation | BOS Cos ie (oaded mode Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) fish hatchery is located at the head of Neets Bay LUD TT \\) NY Ss CA Br AY mums Proposed Vy Ye! , ) t Transmission Line ( CONN Aa Route Seo \ S \\ (WS ‘i J 8) Ku ea J} vara Alternate A ASS S/ZANU S AK \ \ Teeetinicn Line ASC. / Lia X P «(l Ue <%e. SH SS Sng Kory (Gar : ee § Oe 2 | a9 UY p>») 4 ee — @ ADRIAN 7S ; | Scale in Miles Si KH aS i NAC >) i SH) G < Nt aN) a le | eh | Figure 6 (3 of 14) |= = oo ee ZY A Transmission Line Fe INR vironmental === meee Z \ Vi Dames & Moore AN Che l i TR ll N ZA) ) AAW i Job No. 12023-031-020 Job No. 12023-031-020 Soils/Geology/Wetlands Eagle Nest = @ Klu Bay wolf pack Klam Creek is Class I and Class IL Upper tributaries of Klam Creek are Class III. Upper Beaver Creek is Class III. Klam Creek Wildlife View from Shrimp Bay affected. Shoreline areas have VQO of partial retention Land Uses/Recreation May change ROS from primitive to semi-primitive. LUD III \ CS SK SN mum Proposed z) = y. S @ Transmission Line : Route vawa Alternate ' Transmission Line Route — ‘2. 3 «| 0 05 1 Es Scale in Miles Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (4 of 14) Proposed Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wetland Area | Wildlife Eagle Nest = @ Fish Headwaters of Beaver Creek Class I and IT Belll Island | Class III Visual Potential adverse effects when viewed from Behm Canal, Bell Arm and Anchor Pass. Exitsting VQ is retention. Land Uses/Recreation Primitive ROS could change to semi-primitive. Anchor Pass LUD II mums Proposed Transmission Line Route vawa Alternate Transmission Line \ A TZZN\ NN: TWA Mu tae : SLU | So WA S\ ela \i\ Za we \ uC en \ 5 ws G v5 \ , \ \ \\ 18 \ mS aN » N \ Se iS “a ( gure 6 (5 of 14) => Foyt W SS SSA Proposed iy RAL. 8D Shs eo ted Z EN Se a pe i y) ms ee JE tal DZ —"" )8 fit cigs SS SS ES as SS CK ret S00 ig Alaska Energy Authority); 7 : Nacsa By. ESR (ea Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wetland Area Wetland Area 5 Wildlife Brown Bear Habitat Fish | Eagle Lake sportfishing for Cutthroat Trout Visual View of intertie from cabin and lake would not likely meet VQO of partial retention. Mitigation may be possible by using lower structures located close to lake. coni in i Visual effect would change ROS from Primitive ito semi-primitive. Land Uses/Recreation SAS CSW GSS STAC aun AG i \ : re Roa ut ee | ey AA ws a q ( AS ) AN (4) Wy UA oa ZY Fae | 1 \Si \ Sy) Job No. 12023-031-020 Gp ‘ c oe oy) ie a a = y , — i KNS \\) sum Proposed EN \ Transmission Line Route Figure 6 (6 of 14) Proposed Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Zi Ky Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore. Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wildlife. Mountain Goat Habitat, Brown Bear Habitat Eagle River Class | Stream VQO of partial retention south of Little Eagle Lake VQO of maximum modification north would not be met when viewed from trail. of Little Eagle Lake may not be affected. Land Uses/Recreation Eagle River eligible for Wiki/Scenic status. F.S. Trail #414 could be affected. Primitive ROS could be changed to semi-primitive. mum Proposed Transmission Line Route vawa Alternate Transmission Line Route 0 0.5 1 |_| Scale in Miles Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (7 of 14) Proposed Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore Job No. 12023-031-020 Areas of steep side slopes. Soils/Geology/Wetlands Eagle Nest = @ Widlife Waterfowl Concentrations, Brown Bear Habitat Bradfield Canal sportfishing for salmon and halibut. Fish Eagle River class I stream. Bradfield Tributaries class III. VQO of modification not likely changed by addition of new transmission lines and structures. Visual Popular salt waterand stream fishing area may be affected temporarily during construction. Land Uses/Recreation No long term effects anticipated. LUD II > ny ip Ih ei fe Lg »)) IAS ISR Leh IW s YJABBAD a es ey \ eB M SS EZ, eo L i ~ ‘ ys 8 . ee Ze \ mM } Sy . : Cee Lp sa \ ) \ J ye ASS AEE yp A I i ; C AY “id ( ys AW a ) Py NY j | ‘ eek —— Wj ara Aiternate Proposed Transmission Line Route Transmission Line Route 0 0.5 1 a Scale in Miles : Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (8 of 14) Proposed Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore Soils/Geology/Wetlands nant | Mountain Goat Habitat Fish hh vale eet Visual Area not easily viewed, minor visual effect. incase renin ce day Rae roy aitaistregeapeo Wi FEF. CAIK ARR AK i a ro nn EQK SCOTS i iD Gj EE Transmission Line ore Ze Zz, IN) M ae yy ee LAW ae Scale in Miles e =) (] ji Y) Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (9 of 14) Alternate _ Transmission Line} ~~ Environmental Feasibility Study). * Alaska Energy Authority|— aN 2 a ' eae O ioe / ee WAAaeee eit NV Neuse ee ene it ~ See | | oe \ MK Wt ®))2N IRA) ZY S SY OI RAR CS TaN ee & Ah Su) x LY ) f SY Te —_—— a = - : Sa Niall Job No. 12023-031-020 Job No. 12023-031-020 Soils/Geology/Wetlands ; Wildlife Waterfowl Concentrations Orchard Lake is a valuable sport fishing area. Resident species include: Cutthroat Trout, Dolly Vardens, and Kokanee. A waterfall at the lake outlet prevents Anadromous fish runs. Fish Klu.Creek Class II Visual View of intertie screened from cabins. Land Uses/Recreation Cabins on Orchard Lake. ROS could change fr —_ imitive to semi-primitive. Su re oF a a7 ’ mr if = 2 SZ mam Proposed Transmission Line Route . = \| vara Alternate Transmission Line Route Scale in Miles Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (10 of 14) Alternate Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study 2W//\ Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wildlife Fish Eagle Nest = @ Salmon fishing in Behm Canal and Anchor Pass. Visual Transmission Line Route vawa Alternate Transmission Line Route 0 0.5 1 —— _| Scale in Miles 15 Minute Series. ww oe Figure 6 (11 of 14) Feasibility Study Source: USGS Topographic Maps, y Alternate = Transmission Line|=AZ Environmental | Zz Shoreline VQOs are retention. T . Recreation cabin at Anchor Pass. Cabin Land Uses/Recreation Saltwater Sportfishing. 4 sites KET- ria Luo a yD J \\ mum Proposed \ S \ y AS \. XO x WAIN 2X (=~ \\ \ WWW ! Yes NYY AG AWG i ie Va VRE i NN MS oN DAFA alt i Ny \ 5 Nie aN , . eee eA \ N Alaska Energy Authority|= LAGE Dames & Moore tio Aes Wi i » ei / eo \ Li hh AiG FRX SL a Sle SSM Job No. 12023-031-020 | Wetland Areas Steep Areas Soils/Geology/Wetlands Wildlife Fish eal ~ we Pes a ; te Zed} ni Transmission Line ‘A Wi WW Pez i in BS : (i rd esa W BIT JP | aS ! ey) AG Y4U/= SY Hea Sy = 7g CSS Wg hi: A SY DX es = iN SEX EG SF LAN? Vers ess NES ea Nia Cais SSH ZN, SK pea e Bs ys { BY SD iS Z oy) 2 | es Va ‘G Figure 6 (120 14) : Ce FA Ll /; EWE NWR WW NC : a Alternate Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore : \} Dip é 0Z0-LE0-EZ0Zt “ON Gor aes OS oy " 2A “eg 5 Oe if ty i Uf SS a yp Hy Ht potle ta SQ Will yy Z a Yu Z GYR ALL LA d Zi Extremely steep side slopes and “V" notches. Mountain Goat Habitat, Brown Bear Habitat Same as proposed route. VQO of retention around Eagle Lake could be affected. Visual impacts could degrade recreational experience by introducing evidence of man. SI \), RC TE fe Z = GES = SS \ Bs \ LDDs D Ox a WIGS i oO0%5 > @ = effets i ; | e S5eos5 3 5 ; \ = “gees CiHilh PID 8 3 & 3 zee i E 8 § 3 : sit ft 3 Job No. 12023-031-020 Re Soils/Geology/Wetlands Land Uses/Recreation Transmission Line Route vawa Alternate Transmission Line Route Oo 05 1 a Scale in Miles Source: USGS Topographic Maps, 15 Minute Series. Figure 6 (14 of 14) Alternate Transmission Line Environmental Feasibility Study Alaska Energy Authority Dames & Moore CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From an environmental feasibility standpoint, both the preferred and alternate routes are acceptable and neither route shows an overwhelming advantage. The question of Wild River designation for Orchard or Eagle Creek should be resolved before making a final commitment to a route. The Tongass Land Management Plan which will document the Forest Service decision on the status of these two rivers is anticipated during the summer of 1992. The following are brief summations by environmental resource subject of the major conclusions and recommendations of this study. 4.1 SOILS, GEOLOGY AND WATER Both the alternate and preferred routes cross extensive areas of hydric soils (probable wetlands) and areas of steep slopes. There are almost twice as many miles of steep terrain crossed by the alternate route when compared to the preferred route. While the extent of hydric soils is comparable for the preferred route and the alternate route, the longest continuous stretch of hydric soils occurs near Anchor Pass on the alternate route. Neither the steep slopes or the wet soils would preclude construction of an intertie on either route. The alternate route, in the vicinity of Eagle Lake and Creek, crosses the steepest sections of any route segment. Direct effects to wetlands would be relatively minor and unavoidable consisting almost entirely of clearing vegetation for structures and transmission lines. A wetlands delineation study would be required as part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit application. 4.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES A helicopter constructed transmission line should not affect fish habitat along either route. Careful clearing of right-of-way in riparian areas should be done to prevent foliage and brush from entering fish habitat. Also, fuel handling should be carefully controlled to prevent damage to aquatic resources. 4.3 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Effects to wildlife habitats would be similar along the preferred and alternate routes. Clearing forest vegetation from approximately 1,150 acres over a 60-mile length should have relatively little adverse effect on most wildlife species. Human/animal interactions during the construction phase can be more significant. Proper disposal of garbage and training of construction personnel can help prevent unnecessary destruction of bears. A survey of mountain goat habitat in the vicinity of Eagle Lake was recommended by ADF&G to determine areas of goat use and population numbers that could be affected by right-of-way clearing. There is only one known bald eagle nest in close proximity to the preferred route and none along the alternate route. However, survey information for some route segments is old. A detailed 020\REPORTS\TYEE.AP 79 site specific survey along the routes should be conducted for eagle nests before final route selection. Minor route changes can then be made to avoid nest trees. 4.4 VISUAL QUALITY AND RECREATION Mitigation, as described in Section 3.6.5, would greatly reduce adverse visual and recreational impacts along the preferred and alternate corridors. Clearing and tree removal should be kept to the minimum necessary, consistent with electric transmission line safety standards. Use of non- specular conductors should be considered to minimize light reflection from conductors, especially for aerial crossings of waterways. Also, form, color, and material should be considered during transmission line tower design. Visual simulation techniques are recommended to analyze and illustrate potential effects of the preferred and alternate routes on the visual resource. Visual simulation is a useful tool that can assist planners in siting transmission line towers to take maximum advantage of the landform and vegetation screening. Further, visual simulations are an excellent method for evaluating the potential effectiveness of mitigation recommendations. Both the preferred and alternate routes would be affected if Eagle Lake and Creek were designated a Wild River. It would be possible to relocate the routes at a higher elevation outside the 1/4 mile Wild River Zone along the waterway. An assumption is made that even if Eagle Creek were designated Wild, that additional transmission lines could cross the creek at its mouth in the existing Tyee transmission line corridor. The alternate route segment that crosses Orchard Creek could not be built if Orchard Creek is declared a Wild River. This is because the headwaters of the river are in Misty Fiords National Monument and the river flows westerly across Revillagigedo Island dividing the southern part of the island from the north. No crossing of a Wild River would be possible. The preferred route does not cross Orchard Creek. Views from the lake, cabin, and trail would be affected by both routes in the vicinity of Eagle Lake. Although the alternate route passes near Orchard Lake, it may be possible to screen views of the structures and lines depending upon the exact location and design of the intertie. Aerial marine water crossings of the intertie at Shrimp Bay, Behm Canal, and Bell Arm would be visually obvious. However, because crossings would be elevated and no right-of-way clearing would take place next to the shoreline, the actual effect may not be severe. Submarine cable crossings require right-of-way clearing to the shoreline and small structures to accommodate the transition from aerial to submarine cable. Mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact would be considered in the final design. Potential adverse effects of an intertie on the recreation resource are strongly related to potential visual effects visible to users of recreation places. For this reason, mitigation of visual effects would largely mitigate potential effects to recreation. ©20\ REPORTS \ TYEE. 80 4.5 LAND USES Both routes cross National Forest lands exclusively except for the tidal lands which are state owned. Each route crosses essentially the same mix of Land Use Designations (LUD). While both routes cross extensive unroaded areas, neither route enters Wilderness Areas. Although the alternate route approaches Misty Fiords National Monument closely in the vicinity of Anchor Pass. The draft Tongass National Forest Land Management Plan designates a utility and transportation corridor that approximates major segments of the intertie route. 4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES Available data indicate that only one previously identified cultural resource, KET-71, has been recorded within the corridor. The record for this site indicates that the structure may be “relatively recent," and hence, may not be considered a cultural resource within existing regulations and guidelines for cultural resource management. A more thorough recording of the structure and its contents would likely reveal the site’s age. Because the preferred project area has not been subject to an intensive archaeological survey, the Office of History and Archaeology for the State of Alaska has indicated that they will recommend that both the preferred and alternate routes be surveyed prior to project implementation. Such a reconnaissance would intensively examine both corridors, record all cultural resources situated within these areas, and provide preliminary assessments of their significance. ©20\REPORTS\ TYEE. RMP 81 APPENDIX A SOILS (020\REPORTS\RWBECK. RWP APPENDIX A SOILS 1. USDA Slope Steepness Classifications: 0 to 5 percent 5 to 35 percent 35 to 60 percent 60 to 75 percent 75 to 100 percent marmmoge, Slope phases may be combined for certain soil consociations, complexes, and associations. 2. Soil Descriptions Ketchikan Area Order 3 Inventory 23 25 29EF 50F 53F 528F Ketchikan Area Order 4 Inventory 710AC 710DE 710F 720AC 820F 840AC Stikine Area Order 4 Inventory 436 439 460 c2o\neronts mecck. me A-1 Soil Descriptions - Ketchikan Area Order 3 23 Kina - Kaikli association, 0 to 40 percent slopes. This association consists of nearly level to moderately steep, poorly and very poorly drained, deep and shallow soils on toeslopes, foot slopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides. The Kina soil makes up about 50 percent of the mapping unit. The Kaikli soil makes up about 35 percent of the mapping unit. Included in mapping are areas of St. Nicholas, Helm, Maybeso, Kogish, and Staney soils, and small pools of standing water. These inclusions make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. The Kina soil is deep, and poorly and very poorly drained. It occurs on nearly level to moderately steep toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides and is generally located in depressional areas associated with structural benches. It is formed in partially decomposed organic material that overlies unconsolidated mineral material of various origins. Slopes are 0 to 35 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and slightly concave in shape. Most areas of this soil are open muskeg. The Kaikli soil is shallow, and poorly and very poorly drained. It occurs on nearly level to moderately steep toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides, and is associated with structural benches. It is formed in well decomposed organic material that overlies bedrock of variable origin. Slopes are 0 to 40 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and single and slightly convex in shape. most areas of this soil are forested muskeg. Potential timber production is poor, and overstory tree growth generally exhibits very low stocking levels and poor growth form on the Kina soil. Potential timber production is fair or poor for the Kaikli soil. Site index is 70 to 90 for the Kaikli soil, but may be higher in some areas. Overstory vegetation on the Kina soil is dominantly lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and Alaska- cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Overstory vegetation on the Kaikli soil is dominantly Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Understory vegetation on the Kaikli soil is dominantly salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), deer cabbage (Fauria crista-galli), marsh marigold (Caltha spp.), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), woodfern (Dryopteris dilatata), sedges, and mosses. Lesser amounts of yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) may be present. A-2 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP A representative profile for the Kina soil is similar to that described for Kina component of the Kaikli - Kina association, 5 to 40 percent slopes (25). In a representative profile of the Kina soil, the surface layer is a dark reddish brown peat about 7 inches thick. The underlying layer is dark reddish brown, mucky peat about 9 inches thick. The next layer is a dark reddish brown, mucky peat 39 inches thick. Permeability is moderately rapid. Natural fertility is low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow or ponded and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. A representative profile for the Kaikli soil is similar to that described for Kaikli mucky peat, 60 to 75 percent slopes (24E). In a representative profile for the Kaikli soil, the surface layer is a very dusky red mucky peat about 5 inches thick. The underlying layer is a dark reddish brown mucky peat about 10 inches thick. The next layer is a black muck about 15 inches thick. The next layer down is a yellowing brown silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by schist at 32 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is medium low or medium. 25 Kaikli - Kina association, 0 to 40 percent slopes. The association consists of nearly level to moderately steep, poorly and very poorly drained, shallow and deep soils in toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes of valley sides. The Kaikli soil makes up about 45 percent of the mapping unit. The Kina soil makes up about 40 percent of the mapping unit. Included in mapping are areas of St. Nicholas, Helm, Maybeso, Kogish, Grindall, and Staney soils. These inclusions make up about 15 percent of the total acreage. The Kaikli soil is shallow, and poorly and very poorly drained. It occurs on nearly level to moderately steep toeslopes and footslopes of hillslopes and valley sides, and is associated with structural benches on lower backslopes. It is formed in well decomposed organic material that overlies bedrock of variable origin. Slopes are 0 to 40 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and single and slightly concave in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested muskeg. The Kina soil is deep, and poorly and very poorly drained. It occurs on nearly level to moderately steep toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides and is generally located in depressional areas associated with structural benches. It is formed in partially decomposed organic 020\REPORTS \RM@ECK. Re A-3 material that overlies unconsolidated mineral material of various origins. Slopes are 0 to 35 percent, 20 to 200 feet in length, and slightly concave in shape. Most areas of this soil are open muskeg. Potential timber production is fair or poor for the Kaikli soils, and is poor for the Kina soil, generally exhibiting very low stocking levels and poor growth form. Silt index is 70 to 90 for the Kaikli soil, but may be higher in some areas. Overstory vegetation on the Kaikli soil is dominantly Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Overstory vegetation on the Kina soil is dominantly lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and Alaska- cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), mountain hemlock ([suga mertensiana), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Understory vegetation on the Kaikli soil is dominantly salal (Gaultheria sallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), deer cabbage (Fauria crista-galli), marsh marigold (Caltha spp.), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), deerfern (Blechnum spicant), woodfern (Dryopteris dilatata), sedges, and mosses. Lesser amounts of yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) may be present. Understory vegetation on the Kina soil is dominantly labrador-tea ledum (Ledum groenlandieum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), sedges, and mosses. Lesser amounts of yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), bog rosemary (Andromeda polifolia), fiveeaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), false lily of the valley (Maiantehmum dilatatum), rusty menziesia (Mensiesia ferruginea), bog kalmia (Kalmia poliforlia), clasping twisted stalk (Streptocus amplexifolius), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) may be present. A representative profile for the Kaikli soil is similar to that described for Kaikli mucky peat, 60 to 75 percent slopes (24E). In a representative profile of the Kaikli soil, the surface layer is a very dusky red mucky peat about 5 inches thick. The underlying layer is a dark reddish brown mucky peat about 10 inches thick. The next layer is a black muck about 15 inches thick. The next layer down is a yellowish brown silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by schist at 32 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under natural vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is medium low or medium. In a representative profile of the Kina soil, the surface layer is a dark reddish brown peat about 7 inches thick. The underlying layer is dark reddish brown mucky peat about 9 inches thick. The next layer is a dark reddish brown mucky peat about 39 inches thick. A-4 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP Permeability is moderately rapid. Natural fertility is low throughout the profile in the organic horizon. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow or ponded and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. 29EF McGilvery peat, 60 to 100 percent slopes. This McGilvery soil is shallow, and well and somewhat excessively drained. It occurs on very steep and extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides, and is typically associated with structural benches, rock outcrops and colluvium composed of extremely large boulders. It is formed in slightly decomposed organic material overlying a thin layer of residuum. The underlying bedrock is of variable origin. Slopes are 60 to 100 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and broken in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. It has good potential for timber production. Site index is 90 to 120. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicate), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferrigomea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), ferns, and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria shallon), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridum), fern- leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), heart-leaved twaybalde (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lyschitum americanum) may be present. Included in mapping are small areas of the McGilvery soils on less than 35 percent slopes and greater than 60 percent slopes, rock outcrop, and the Tolstoi, Kaikli, Shakan, St. Nicholas, and Kupreanof soils. In areas where the bedrock is phyllite or schist, the Traitors and Helm soils may also be included. In areas where the bedrock is limestone, the Ulloa and Sarkar soils may also be included. In a representative profile of the McGilvery soil, the surface layer consists of undecomposed litter of twigs, needles and cones, and living forbs and mosses about 1 inch thick. The underlying layer is a very mucky red peat about 9 inches thick. The next layer is a dark grayish brown and grayish brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at 12 inches. Other characteristics: black organic stains may be present in the mineral horizon immediately overlying bedrock. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is medium. ©20\REPORTS \RMBECK. AP A-5 50F Tolstoi and Karta soils, 75 to 100 percent slopes, severely V-notched. This undifferentiated unit consists of shallow and deep soils on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides. These areas are typically dissected by a high concentration of V-notches with severe levels of erosion occurring on the unconsolidated material composing parts of the sides of the V-notches. Soil profiles along the sides of the V-notches are truncated and may have lost diagnostic horizons due to erosion. The Tolstoi soil makes up about 45 percent of the mapping unit. The Karta soils make up about 20 percent of the mapping unit. V-notches make up about 20 percent of the mapping unit. Any one or both of these soils may be present in any delineation of this mapping unit. Included in mapping are areas of the Kupreanof, St. Nicholas, Wadleigh, and McGilvery soils, and truncated exposures of these soils on slopes that are greater than 75 percent along the sides of V- notches. These inclusions make up about 10 percent of the total acreage. The Tolstoi soil is shallow, and moderately well and well drained. It occurs on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides. It is formed in colluvium derived from igneous and noncalcareous and detrital sedimentary rocks. Slopes are 75 to 100 percent, 100 to 400 feet in length, and single or slightly concave in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. The Karta soil is deep, and moderately well and well drained. It occurs on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides. It is formed in glacial drift of mixed mineralogy. Slopes are 75 to 100 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and single or slightly concave in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential timber production is good for the Tolstoi and Karta soils and the site index is approximately 150 for both soils. Overstory vegetation on the Tolstoi soil is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Overstory vegetation on the Karta soil is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), with lesser amounts of mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Understory vegetation on the Tolstoi soil is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), deerfern (Blechnum spicant), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), and mosses. Lesser amounts of ladyfern (Athyrium felix- femina), northern maidenhair-fern (Adiantum pedatum), trailing black currant (Ribes laxiflorum), five-leaf bramble (Rubus Pedatus), false hellebore (Veratrum viride var. Eschsholtzii), false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trifoliate foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), simple-stemmed twisted stalk (Streptopus roseus), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) may also be present. A-6 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP Understory vegetation on the Karta soil is domirntly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), five af bramble (Rubus pedatus), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), deerfern (Blechnum spicant), woodfern (Dryopteris dilatata), oakfern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris), and mosses. Lesser amounts of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), trailing black currant (Ribes laxiflorum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), fern- leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), trifoliate foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), simple-stemmed twisted stalk (Strptopus roseus), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), and common monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) may also be present. The soil profiles occurring along the sides of the V-notches are truncated in varying degrees due to erosion. The profiles described are considered representative for undisturbed sites for both soils. A representative profile for this Tolstoi soil is similar to that described for Tolstoi silt loam, 60 to 75 percent slopes (53E). In a representative profile of the Tolstoi soil, the organic layer is about 4 inches thick. The surface layer is a brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is a reddish brown silt loam about 2 inches thick. The lower part of the subsoil is a yellowish red silt loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is a reddish brown very gravelly silt loam about 5 inches thick overlying a dark reddish brown very gravelly loam about 4 inches thick, and is underlain by graywacke at 17 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. Organic matter content in the upper mineral layer is high. Natural fertility is low in the mineral horizons and high in the organic horizon. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic and the top mineral horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is very rapid and the erosion hazard is high. Mass movement potential for this soil is extreme. A representative profile for this Karta soil is similar to that described for Karta loam, 5 to 35 percent slopes (30C). In a representative profile of the Karta soil, the organic layer is about 10 inches thick. The surface layer is a grayish brown silt loam about 2 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is a very dark brown silt loam about 1 inch thick. The middle part of the subsoil is a dark brown and dusky red loam about 4 inches thick. The lower part of the subsoil is a dark yellowish brown and reddish brown gravelly loam about 7 inches thick overlying a dark yellowish brown, dark brown, and dark reddish brown gravelly loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is a dark yellowish brown and olive gravelly sandy loam about 7 inches thick, and is underlain by an olive extremely gravelly sandy loam to 41 inches or more. Other characteristics: in some areas the underlying glacial till is highly compacted; indurated iron pan layers may be present in the glacial till below 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid over rapid. Organic matter content in the upper mineral layer is high. Natural fertility is low in the mineral horizons and high in the organic horizon. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic and the top mineral horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard 020\REPORTS MEEK. me A-7 is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is high. Mass movement potential for this soil is extreme. 53F Tolstoi silt loam, 75 to 100 percent slopes. This Tolstoi soil is shallow, and well and moderately well drained. It occurs on extremely steep upper backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides, and is formed in colluvium derived from igneous and noncalcareous detrital sedimentary rocks. Slopes are 75 to 100 percent, 100 to 300 feet in length, and single in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. It has good potential for timber production. Site index is approximately 150. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophyila), with lesser amounts of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), and mosses. Lesser amounts of ladyfern (Athyrium felix-femina), northern maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), trailing black currant (Ribes laxifloram), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), false hellebore (Veratrum viride var. Escholtzil), false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trifoliate foamflower Ciarella trifoliata), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), simple-stemmed twistedstalk (Streptopus roseus), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) may be present. Included in mapping are small areas of the Kupreanof, St. Nicholas soils and rock outcrop. A representative profile of this Tolstoi soil is similar to that described for Tolstoi silt loam, 60 to 75 percent slopes (53E). In a representative profile of the Tolstoi soil, the organic layer is about 4 inches thick. The surface layer is a brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is a reddish brown silt loam about 2 inches thick. The lower part of the subsoil is a yellowish red silt loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is a reddish brown loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is a reddish brown very gravelly silt loam about 5 inches thick overlying a dark reddish brown very gravelly loam about 4 inches thick, and is underlain by graywacke at 17 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. Organic matter content in the upper mineral layer is high. Natural fertility is low in the mineral horizons and high in the organic horizon. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic and the top mineral horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is very rapid and the erosion hazard is moderate. Mass movement potential for this soil is high. A-8 020\REPORTS\RMBECK. RP 528F Tolstoi - McGilvery complex, 75 to 100 percent slopes. This complex consists of shallow soils on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides and is typically associated with structural benching and bedrock exposures. The Tolstoi soil makes up about 45 percent of the mapping unit. The McGilvery soil makes up about 35 percent of the mapping unit. Included in mapping are areas of the Tolstoi and McGilvery soils on slopes less than 75 percent, rock outcrop, and the Kupreanof, St. Nicholas, Hydaburg, Sunnyhay, and Kaikli soils. These inclusions make up about 20 percent of the total acreage. The Tolstoi soil is shallow, and well and moderately well drained. It occurs on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides and is typically associated with colluvial slopes below structural benches. It is formed in colluvium derived from igneous or noncalcareous metamorphic and detrital sedimentary rocks. Slopes are 75 to 100 percent, 100 to 300 feet in length, and single or slightly convex in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. The McGilvery soil is shallow, and well and somewhat excessively drained. It occurs on extremely steep backslopes of hillslopes and valley sides and is typically associated with structural benches, rock outcrops, and colluvium composed of extremely large boulders. It is formed in slightly decomposed organic material overlying a thin layer of residuum. The underlying bedrock consists of igneous or noncalcareous metamorphic and detrital sedimentary rocks. Slopes are 75 to 100 percent, 50 to 200 feet in length, and broken in shape. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential timber production is good for the Tolstoi and McGilvery soils. Site index is approximately 150 for the Tolstoi soil, and 90 to 120 for the McGilvery soil. Overstory vegetation on the Tolstoi and McGilvery soils is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Understory vegetation on the Tolstoi soil is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), oakfern (Gymnnocarpium dryopteris), and mosses. Lesser amounts of ladyfern (Athyrium felix-femina), northern maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), trailing black currant (Ribes laxifloram), fiveleaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), false hellebore (Veratrum viride var. Eschscholtzii), false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa) devilsclub (Oplopanax horridus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trifoliate foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), simple-stemmed twistedstalk (Streptopus roseus), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia) may be present. Understory vegetation on the McGilvery soil is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), 020 \RcronTs\mweeck. ve A-9 ferns and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria shallon), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridus), fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), heartJeaved twaybalde (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) may be present. A representative profile for this Tolstoi soil is similar to that described for Tolstoi soil loam, 60 to 75 percent slopes (53E). In a representative profile of the Tolstoi soil, the organic layer is about 4 inches thick. The surface layer is a brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is a reddish brown silt loam about 2 inches thick. The lower part of the subsoil is a yellowish red silt loam about 4 inches thick. The substratum is a reddish brown very gravelly silt loam about 5 inches thick overlying a dark reddish brown very gravelly loam about 4 inches thick, and is underlain by graywacke at 17 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid. Organic matter content in the upper mineral layer is high. Natural fertility is low in the mineral horizons and high in the organic horizon. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic and the top mineral horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is very rapid and the erosion hazard is moderately high. Mass movement potential for this soil is high. In a representative profile of the McGilvery in this mapping unit, the surface layer consists of undecomposed litter of twigs, needles, and cones, and living forbs and mosses. It is about 2 inches thick. The underlying layer is a dark brown mucky peat about 1 inch thick. The next layer is a black muck about 5 inches thick. The next layer down is a yellowish brown very fine sandy loam about 3 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at 18 inches. Other characteristics: black organic stains may be present in the mineral horizon immediately overlying bedrock. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is moderately low under native vegetation. However, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is medium. ©20\REPORTS\RWOECK. A-10 Soil Descriptions - Ketckikan Area Order 4 710AC Cryosaprists and McGilvery soils, 0 to 35 percent This undifferentiated group consists of nearly level to moderately steep, very poorly to well drained soils on toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and mountainsides. The Cryosaprists make up 85 percent of the mapping unit. The McGilvery soils make up 10 percent of the mapping unit. Any one or both of these soils may be present in any delineation of this mapping unit. Included in mapping and making up 5 percent of the mapping unit are areas of Shakan soils and Talus slopes. Shakan soils are moderately deep well drained mineral soils derived from sedimentary sources. Talus slopes consists of colluvial boulders and rubble. The Cryosaprists soils include the Maybeso and Kaikli series. These soils are moderately deep and poorly or very poorly drained organic soils. In a representative profile of a Cryosaprist, the surface is an undecomposed organic layer 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a black, well decomposed organic layer 25 inches thick. Bedrock or compact glacial till occurs at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is low. Site index is 50 to 60 feet. Overstory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus Contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (tsuga mertensiana). Understory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium _spp.), deer cabbage (Fauria crista-galli), marsh marigold (Caltha spp.), bunchberry dogwood (cornus canadensis), yellow skunk cabbage (Lystichitum americanum), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), deerfern (Blechum_spicant), with lesser amounts of salmonberry (Rubus spectabalis), false Solomon's seal (Smilicina racemosa), and fernteaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia). Permeability is moderately rapid in the organic horizons of the Cryosaprists. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, surface runoff is medium and erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The McGilvery soils are well drained, shallow to bedrock organic soils that occur on convex ares of lower backslopes and toeslopes of mountain slopes. In a representative profile of a McGilvery soil, the surface layer consists of undecomposed twigs, needles, cones, and living forbs and mosses 1 inch thick. The upper subsoil is a very dusky red peat about 9 inches thick. The lower subsoil is a dark grayish brown and grayish brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at a depth of 12 inches. ©20\RCPORTS\RMBECK. AP A-11 Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is good. Site index is 110 feet. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with less amounts of Alaska- cedar (Chamaeparis_nootkatensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and sitka spruce (Picea stichensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferrigomea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), ferns and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria shallon), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridum), fern- leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), heart-leaved twayblade (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) may be present. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the surface layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. 710DE Cryosaprists and McGilvery soils, 35 to 75 percent This undifferentiated group consist of moderately steep to very steep, very poorly to well drained soils on footslopes, and lower backslopes of hillslopes and mountainsides. The Cryosaprists make up 85 percent of the mapping unit. The McGilvery soils make up 10 percent of the mapping unit. Any one or both of these soils may be present in any delineation of this mapping unit. Included in mapping and making up 5 percent of the mapping unit are areas of Shakan soils and Talus slopes. Shakan soils are moderately deep to bedrock well drained mineral soils derived from sedimentary sources. Talus slopes consist of colluvial boulders and rubble. The Cryosaprists soils include the Maybeso and Kaikli series. These soils are moderately deep and poorly or very poorly drained organic soils. In a representative profile of a Cryosaprist, the surface is an undecomposed organic layer 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a black, well decomposed organic layer 25 inches thick. Bedrock or compact glacial till occurs at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is low. Site index is 50 to 60 feet. Overstory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus Contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Understory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), deer cabbage (Fauria_crista-galli), marsh marigold (Caltha_spp.) bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), yellow skunk cabbage (Lystichitum americanum), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), deerfern (Blechum spicant). Lesser amounts of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), false Solomon's seal (Smilicina racemosa) and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia). A-12 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK.P Permeability is moderately rapid in the organic horizons of the Cryosaprists. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, surface runoff is medium and erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The McGilvery soils are well drained, shallow to bedrock organic soils that occur on convex areas of lower backslopes and shoulders of mountain slopes. In a representative profile of a McGilvery soil, the surface layer consists of undecomposed twigs, needles, cones, and living forbs and mosses 1 inch thick. The upper subsoil is a very dusky red peat about 9 inches thick. The lower subsoil is a dark grayish brown and grayish brown gravelly soil loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at a depth of 12 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is good. Site index is 110 feet. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Alaska- cedar (Chamaeparis nootkatensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and sitka spruce (Picea stichensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), ferns and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria shallon), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), devilsclub (OQplopanax horridum), fern- leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), heart-leaved twayblade (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) may be present. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the surface layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. 710F McGilvery and Cryosaprist soils, 75 to 100 percent This undifferentiated group consists of extremely steep, very poorly to well drained soils on upper backslopes and shoulders of hillslopes and mountainsides. The McGilvery soils make up 85 percent of the mapping unit. The Cryosaprist soils make up 10 percent of the mapping unit. Any one or both of these soils may be present in any delineation of this mapping unit. Included in mapping and making up 5 percent of the mapping unit are areas of Shakan soils and Talus slopes. Shakan soils are moderately deep well drained mineral soils over sedimentary bedrock. Talus slopes consist of colluvial boulders and rubble. The McGilvery soils are well drained, shallow to bedrock organic soils that occur on convex areas of lower backslopes and toeslopes of mountain slopes. In a representative profile of a McGilvery soil, the surface layer consists of undecomposed twigs, needles, cones, and living forbs and mosses 1 inch ©20\REPORTS \RWBECK. RMP A-13 thick. The upper subsoil is a very dusky red peat about 9 inches thick. The lower subsoil is a dark grayish brown and grayish brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at a depth of 12 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is good. Site index is 110 feet. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Alaska- cedar (Chamaeparis_nootkatensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and sitka spruce (Picea Stichensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferrigomea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), ferns and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria shallon), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), devilsclub (Oplopanax horridum), fern- leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnaea borealis), heart-leaved twayblade (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) may be present. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the surface layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The Cryosaprists soils include the Maybeso and Kaikli series. These soils are moderately deep poorly or very poorly drained organic soils. In a representative profile of a Cryosaprist, the surface is an undecomposed organic layer 5 inches thick. The subsoil is a black, well decomposed organic layer 25 inches thick. Bedrock or compact glacial till occurs at depths of 20 to 40 inches. Most areas of this soils are forested. Potential timber production is low. Site index is 50 to 60 feet. Overstory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly western red cedar (Thuja Plicata), and Alaska- cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus Contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Understory vegetation on the Cryosaprists is dominantly salal (Gaultheria Shallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), deer cabbage (Fauria_crista-galli), marsh marigold (Caltha spp.), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), yellow skunk cabbage (Lystichitum americanum), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), deerfern (Blechum spicant), with lesser amounts of salmonberry (Rubus spectabalis), false Solomon's seal (Smilicina racemosa), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis asplenifolia). Permeability is moderately rapid in the organic horizons of the Cryosaprists. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation; however, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, surface runoff is medium and erosion hazard is moderate. Mass movement potential for this soil is moderate. ©20\REPORTS \RM@ECK. MM A-14 720AC Lithic Cryohemists, Lithic Cryosaprists, and Staney soils, 0 to 35 percent slopes This undifferentiated group consists of nearly level to moderately steep, very poorly and poorly drained organic soils on toeslopes, footslopes, and lower backslopes. The Lithic Cryohemists make up 35 percent of the mapping unit, the Lithic Cryosaprists make up 35 percent of the mapping unit, and the Staney soils make up 20 percent of the mapping area. Any one or all of these soils may be present in any delineation of this mapping unit. Included in mapping and making up 10 percent of the mapping unit are areas of rock outcrop, Wadleigh, Isidor, Kina, and Kogish soils. Wadleigh and Isidor soils are shallow poorly drained mineral soils underlain by compact glacial till. Kina and Kogish soils are deep organic soils. The Lithic Cryohemists include the Hydaburg and Grindall series. These soils are shallow and poorly and very poorly drained. Lithic Cryohemists, formed in partially decomposed organic materials. In a representative profile of a Lithic Cryohemist, the surface layer is a dusky red peat 1 inch thick. The upper subsoil is a dark reddish brown mucky peat 17 inches thick. The next layer is a black muck 14 inches thick. The lower subsoil is an extremely gravelly black muck 4 inches thick and is underlain by diorite at 36 inches. Most areas of this soil are not forested. Potential for timber production is low. Site index is less than 20 feet. Overstory vegetation, when present, exhibits poor growth and is dominantly lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and common juniper (Juniperus communi: with lesser amounts of western hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and Alaska yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensia). Understory vegetation is dominantly sedges and mosses. Lesser amounts of deer cabbage (Fauria Crista-qalli), bog kalmia (Kalmia polifolia), huckleberry and blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), heather (Cassiope and Phyllodoce spp.), bog cranberry (Oxycoccus spp.), labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum), crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), and salal (Gautheria shallon) may be present. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation; however, if the surface layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is low to moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The Lithic Cryosaprists include the Sunnyhay, Kitkun, Kaikli, and Maybeso soils. The soils in this group are shallow and poorly drained. They formed in fully decomposed organic materials. In a representative profile of a Lithic Cryosaprist, the surface layer is undecomposed needles, twigs and mosses 1 inch thick. The next layer is a dark reddish brown muck about 10 inches thick. The next layer is a black muck about 15 inches thick and is underlain by schist at 25 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is fair. Site index is 70 to 90 feet. Overstory vegetation on the Lithic Cryosaprists is dominantly western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and 020\REPORTS \RMBECK. mu ~ A-15 Alaska-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) with lesser amounts of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Understory vegetation on Lithic Cryosaprists is dominantly salal (Gaultheria shallon), blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium _spp.), deer cabbage (Fauris_crista-qalli), marsh marigold (Caltha_spp.), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), ferns, sedges, and mosses. Permeability is moderate in the Lithic Cryosaprists. Natural fertility is medium or low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation; however, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, the surface runoff is medium and erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The Staney soils are deep and very poorly drained and formed in relatively undecomposed organic materials. In a representative profile of a Staney soil, the surface is a mat of living sedges and mosses 2 inches thick. The next layer is a reddish brown peat 4 inches thick. The next layer down is a dark reddish brown peat 20 inches thick. The next layer is a black mucky gravelly loamy sand about 4 inches thick and is underlain by a black muck to a depth of 60 inches or more. Most areas of this soil are not forested. Understory vegetation is dominantly sedges and mosses with lesser amounts of buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliata) and Sitka burnet (Sanquisorba sitchensis). Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility is low throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the upper organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation; however, if the surface organic layer is disturbed, surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. 820F McGilvery and Lithic Cryorthods association, 75 to 100 percent slopes This association consists of nearly extremely steep, well drained organic and mineral soils on upper backslopes of mountain slopes and hills. The McGilvery soil is a well drained organic soil found on convex areas of backslopes and makes up 45 percent of the mapping unit. The Lithic Cryorthods include Traitors, Tolstoi, Tokeen, and Sarkar soils and make up 40 percent of the mapping unit. Included in mapping and making up 15 percent of the mapping unit are areas of the Kupreanof, St. Nicholas, and Shakan series. The Kupreanof soils are greater than 60 inches to bedrock. St. Nicholas soils are shallow and poorly drained. Shakan soils are sandy and underlain by sedimentary bedrock. The McGilvery soils are well drained, shallow to bedrock organic soils that occur on convex areas of upper backslopes and crests of mountain slopes. In a representative profile of a McGilvery soil, the cao\ncronTs\meccK.me A-16 surface layer consists of undecomposed twigs, needles, cones, and living forbs and mosses 1 inch thick. The upper subsoil is a very dusky red peat about 9 inches thick. The lower subsoil is a dark grayish brown and grayish brown gravelly silt loam about 2 inches thick, and is underlain by diorite at a depth of 12 inches. Most areas of this soil are forested. Potential for timber production is good. Site index is 110 feet. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) with lesser amounts of Alaska- cedar (Chamaeparis_nootkatensis), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and sitka spruce (Picea = .chensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferrigomea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), ferns, and mosses. Lesser amounts of salal (Gaultheria_shallon), five-eaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis Asplenifolia), northern twinflower (Linnea borealis), heart-leaved Tway blade (Listera cordata), and yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) may be present. Permeability is rapid. Natural fertility in the mineral horizons is high or medium throughout the profile. Root distribution is concentrated in the organic horizons. Surface runoff is very slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation; however, if the surface layer is disturbed, surface runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is moderately low. Mass movement potential for this soil is low. The Lithic Cryorthods are shallow to bedrock, well drained mineral soils formed in colluvium and residuum of phyllite and schist bedrock. In a representative profile of a Lithic Cryorthod, the surface layer is an organic mat 4 inches thick. The mineral surface is a dark reddish gray very fine sandy loam 1 inch thick. The upper part of the subsoil is a dark reddish brown gravelly fine sandy loam 3 inches thick. The substratum is a yellowish red very gravelly fine sandy loam 9 inches thick, and is underlain by bedrock at a depth of 15 inches. Areas of this soil are forested. It has good potential for timber production. Site index is approximately 140 feet. Overstory vegetation is dominantly western hemlock (Tsuga heterophyla), with lesser amounts of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga _mertensiana), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and Alaska cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis). Understory vegetation is dominantly blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea), bunchberry dogwood (Cornus canadensis), deerfern (Blechum spicant), swordfern (Adiantum pedatum), oakfern (Gymnocarpinium dryopteris), and mosses. Lesser amounts of ladyfern (Athyrium felix-femina), northern maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatus), trailing black current (Ribes laxifloram), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), false hellebore (Veratum viride var. Eschscholtzii), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), devilsclub (OQplopanaz horridus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trifoliate foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata), false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilatatum), simple-stemmed twisted stalk (Streptopus roseus), and fern-leaved goldthread (Coptis Asplenifolia) may be present. Permeability is moderate over moderately rapid. Organic matter content in the upper mineral layers is high. Natural fertility in the mineral horizons is low and high in the organic horizons. Root distribution 020 \REPORTS\RMRECK. MP A-17 is concentrated in the organic and upper mineral horizons. Surface runoff is slow and erosion hazard is low under native vegetation, however, if the organic layer is disturbed, surface runoff is very rapid and erosion hazard is high. Mass movement potential for this soil is high. 840 Shallow Lithic and Lithic Cryohemists; Lithic Cryosaprists; Placic Haplaquods; Typic and Lithic Cryaquods; Rockland Slopes AC 0 to 35 Percent ©20\REPORTS \RMOECK. RP A-18 Soils Descriptions - Stikine Area Order 4 436 Humic Lithic Cryorthods, 75 to 120 percent slopes Shallow to bedrock, well and moderately well drained soils on mountain slopes. Slope: Landform: Geology: Elevation: Plant Communities: Soil Series: 75 to 120 percent (smooth) 31 Frequently dissected, deeply incised mountain slopes 32 Frequently dissected, shallowly incised mountain slopes 35 Infrequently dissected, smooth mountain slopes 10 Plutonic (intrusive igneous) rock 40 Metamorphic rock (foliated) Sea Level to 3,000 feet 110 Western Hemlock/Blueberry 210 Western Hemlock-Alaska Cedar/Blueberry 120 Western Hemlock/Blueberry/Shield-Fern SOCHL Humic Lithic Cryorthods: Tolstoi Series* Traitors Series* Mosman Series* McGilvery Series* 439 Humic Lithic Cryorthod - Cryaquod Complex, 75 to 120 percent slopes. 30% 35% 35% 75% 25% 50% 40% 10% 100% Complex of shallow to bedrock, well and moderately well drained soils with somewhat poorly and poorly drained soils on broken mountain slopes. Slope: Landform: Geology: Elevation: Plant Communities: Soil Taxa: (020\REPORTS\RWBECK. RP 75 to 120 percent (complex) 36 Broken mountain slopes or broken hill slope 30 Metamorphic rock (non-foliated) 40 Metamorphic rock (foliated) Sea level to 1,500 feet 100 Western Hemlock Series 200 Western Hemlock-Alaska Cedar Series 400 Mixed Conifer Series SOCHL Humic Lithic Cryorthod: Mosman Series* Tolstoi Series* Traitors Series* SACG Cryaquod: St. Nicholas Series* Fords Terror Series* Peril Series* Maybeso Series* Kaikli Series* A-19 100% 40% 60% 60% 30% 10% 70% 30% 460 Cryohemist and Cryosaprists Moderately deep to deep, very poorly drained organic soils Slope: Geology: Landform: Plant Communities: Soil Taxa: 020\REPORTS\RWBECK. RP 3 to 35 percent 90 Mixed Lithology 100% 60 Lowlands landform association 60% 40 Hills landform association 20% 36 Broken mountain slopes and or broken hillslopes 20% MP Sphagnum Peat Musket 50% 400 Mixed Conifer Series 40% 600 Shore Pine Series 10% HHCG Cryohemist: 50% Kina Series* Grindall Series* HSCG Cryosaprist: 50% Kushneahin Series* Maybeso Series* Kaikli Series* A-20 APPENDIX B REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SPORT FISHING AND COMMERCIAL FISHING (020\REPORTS \RWBECK. RP APPENDIX B REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SPORT FISHING AND COMMERCIAL FISHING Sport Fishing Sport fishing is an important part of the southeast Alaska lifestyle. Salmon, trout, grayling, halibut, a variety of bottomfish, rockfish, smelt, herring, and clams are harvested. It is it one of the most important recreational activities for residents of the region, and fishing opportunities attract thousands of visitors annually. Approximately 18 percent of the sport fishing in the State of Alaska occurs in southeast Alaska. Of this percentage approximately 85 percent occurs in the vicinity of the Tongass National Forest (U.S. Forest Service, 1991). In 1986, seventy-six percent of the regional sportfishing occurred in saltwater, and two-thirds of the fishing took place in marine-boat fisheries adjacent to urban centers. However, remote fishing (both freshwater and saltwater), is also an important component of the regional fishery. A remote cabin system on the Tongass National Forest provides opportunities for fishing in wilderness settings. Commercial Fishin Southeast Alaska provides a significant portion of the commercial fish catches in Alaska. The salmon fishery accounts for most of the harvest activity in the region. The five species of salmon (pink, chum, coho, king, and sockeye) are all harvested by a variety of gear types and managed by a variety of harvest/stock maintenance strategies. The Southeast Alaska Region is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Division of Commercial Fisheries and consists of waters between Cape Suckling on the north and Dixon Entrance on the south. The area is also divided into 17 regulatory districts and some of the districts are further divided into regulatory sections. The following describes the purse seining, drift gill net, and troll fisheries of Southeast Alaska for Districts near the project area. Purse Seining Purse seining districts that surround the area traversed by the proposed transmission line are ADF&G Districts 1 through 7. Table 1 summarizes ten years (1982-1991) of purse seine fisheries catch by district and species. The purse seine fishery normally accounts for between 70 percent and 90 percent of the total commercial salmon harvest in the southeast Alaska region. Pink salmon are the primary species targeted by the seine fleet and management actions are based primarily on abundance of pink salmon stocks. Other species are generally incidental harvest to the pink salmon purse seine fishery. On average, sockeye and coho salmon account for approximately 2 percent, chum salmon 7 percent, and chinook salmon significantly less than 1 percent of the total purse seine salmon harvest (ADF&G, 1991). 020\REPORTS \RWBECK.RWP B 7 1 TABLE 1 PURSE SEINE CATCH BY DISTRICT AND SPECIES PRESENTED AS A 10-YEAR AVERAGE (1982 - 1991) [oe Poe ee eon [1 [ems [ seam | sraoe| —sosaas | 10020 | [2 [___a[ sores | aaca | aaraeaa | sreao, [3 [7 [ti a08 | "seco | “sana | aaser, [4 [oar [sores | “15751 | 1.600 | 208 06 il OE al Ea am == Ua ea [aoe Drift Gill Net The drift gill netting districts reported here include districts 1, 5, and 8. Table 2 summarizes ten years (1982-1991) of gill net catch fisheries catch by district and species. Numbers reflect the average number of fish harvested over ten years. TABLE 2 DRIFT GILL NET CATCH BY DISTRICT AND SPECIES PRESENTED AS A 10-YEAR AVERAGE (1982 - 1991) Average Number of Fish Harvested [Grinook [Sockeye [coho [Prk [ohm I [6 | aer | a3ss0 | —sasne | sacs | ee 0 ea = aE UE During the 1990 season, harvest for the drift gill net fishery in Southeast Alaska was approximately 3.7 million salmon, the third highest harvest ever reported. The drift gill net catch consisted of 48.4 percent pink, 22 percent sockeye, 18.8 percent chum, 10.3 percent coho, and 0.4 percent chinook salmon (ADF&G, 1991). B-2 (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK. RP Hand Troll and Power Troll Tables 3 and 4 summarize troll catches for the last 10 years. The troll fishing districts reported here encompass the project area and nearby districts (1 through 8) to reflect the regional catch. TABLE 3 HAND TROLL CATCH BY DISTRICT AND SPECIES PRESENTED AS A 10-YEAR AVERAGE (1982 - 1991) [Average Number of Fan Havested | [chino Sootaye [Gono [Pin Ohun_| Table4 Power Troll Catch by District and Species _ Presented as a 10-Year Average (1982 - 1991) Poses na] soz [rao [167 | | 2 | tee] aaaor] ozo | 228 | | 3 | 6305] tes a3,soz| 6845 | 281 | a p 8 asee [io | araer | vaae0 [250 OO eee 8 989 3 146 81 A ea ©20\REPORTS \=MBECK. AvP B-3 The commercial troll fishery harvests primarily chinook and coho salmon. Other species of salmon harvested by trollers are normally considered incidental, although targeting of pink and chum salmon has increased in recent years. The troll fishery normally harvests 90 percent of the chinook salmon and between 50 and 75 percent of the coho salmon taken in southeast Alaska commercial fisheries (ADF&G, 1991). Alaska Hatchery Production State, federal and private hatcheries produce both chinook and coho salmon. Hatchery produced chinook salmon began appearing in significant numbers in troll catches in 1980 when an estimated 5,877 were harvested. Alaska hatchery contributions have continued to increase and in 1990 contributed a total of 29,560 king salmon to the troll catch, comprising 10.3 percent of the total troll catch. Alaska hatcheries have contributed approximately 13 percent of harvested king salmon to the winter fishery in recent years. The percent of the total catch contributed by Alaska hatcheries increased from 3.1 percent in 1989 to 6.7 percent in 1990 for fish taken during the general summer season. Nearly 90 percent of the summer troll harvest of Alaska hatchery king salmon was produced by five hatcheries: Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA) Carroll Inlet release site (31.9 percent), Crystal Lake (22.1 percent), Little Port Walter (12.6 percent), Whitman Lake (10.9 percent), and SSRAA Neets Bay (8.8 percent). Hatcheries contributed an estimated 15.9 percent to the total coho salmon troll catch in 1990. Hatchery produced coho salmon were first documented in the troll catch in 1980. Total and proportional contributions increased annually until 1986 when hatchery produced coho salmon contributed 13 percent of the total troll coho salmon catch. Hatchery contribution declined again during the 1987-1989 season, but increased again to a record high in 1990. The proportional contribution of hatchery stocks has been greatest when wild stocks were abundant and lowest when wild stocks were less abundant. ©20\REPORTS \RM@ECK. B-4 Job No. 12023-031-020 etersburg Approximate Project <f Area Project Area Showing ADF&G Regulatory Districts (Not to Scale) in the Southeastern Alaska Area bo Dames & Moore APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK. RP APPENDIX C CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND Cultural Overview As a background to discussion of known cultural resources within the project area, brief overviews of prehistory, ethnography, and history are provided below. Prehistory The oldest archaeological sites identified thus far in southeastern Alaska date to the period between 9000 to 4500 B.C. Referred to as the Paleomarine Tradition, these early sites are characterized by a tool kit dominated by microblades and microblade cores and a faunal assemblage suggesting a coastal- marine subsistence strategy (Davis 1990). It is assumed that following the Paleomarine Tradition came a period of transition, as aboriginal peoples adapted to changing environmental conditions. The Transitional Stage, as it is called, lasted approximately 1500 years and is presumed to exist based on the fact that assemblages dating before and after this period reflect markedly different technologies. No characteristic traits of the period have been provided, however (Davis 1990). The Developmental Northwest Coast Stage, which follows the Transitional Stage, is marked by deposits of shell midden, ground stone and bone tool industries, and human burials. In addition, various site types are recognized including winter villages, subsistence camps, and fortifications. This stage is divided into three phases, Early, Middle, and Late, each being an elaboration of the preceding cultural manifestation. The Early Phase began about 3000 B.C., the Middle around 1000 B.C., and the Late spanning from A.D. 1000 to European contact (Davis 1990). Ethnology The proposed transmission line is located within the region of North America referred to by ethnographers as the Northwest Coast culture area. The Northwest Coast culture area is comprised of the coastal strand located between the redwood forests of northern California and Prince William Sound, Alaska. The aboriginal peoples who inhabited this environmentally rich area shared several Cultural traits, including an adaptation focused upon the use of marine resources, well-developed class systems, complex concepts of wealth, and the extensive use of wood for items of material culture (Spencer et al. 1977:114-162). The project area lies within the traditional territory of the Tlingit, who inhabited the numerous islands and rugged coastline between Yakutat Bay and Cape Fox. The Tlingit were divided into sixteen tribal groupings, each with its own territory and subdialect of the common language. The proposed intertie 020\RePORTS\sMM@cCK. Ae C-1 bisects the territories of three of these Tlingit tribal groups; the Tongass, Sanya, and Stikine (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al. 1977). Each Tlingit tribal territory contained at least one primary village, generally located upon a sheltered bay adjacent to important resource areas. Principally occupied in winter, these villages contained several large plank houses, smokehouses, sweathouses, other associated outbuildings, and a cemetery. Satellite camps were scattered about the territory and were generally used for task-specific purposes (e.g., hunting, fishing). These camps were primarily occupied in the summer months, with inhabitants returning to the principal village with the arrival of winter (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al. 1977). Like all inhabitants of the Northwest Coast culture area, the Tlingit made extensive use of the dense forests found throughout the region. Trees were felled and often split with wedges to produce lumber for their houses or to hollow out for canoes. Perhaps the most famous item of material culture of the Tlingit were the wooden totem poles which were erected in front of the village houses. Smaller items produced from wood include boxes, bowis, masks, helmets, and fish hooks, most displaying intricate carving. Wood carving became an important art form among these peoples and even utilitarian pieces were highly decorated (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al. 1977). Subsistence practices of the Tlingit revolved around taking of marine resources, although terrestrial resources were also used. The most important food of the Tlingit diet was the salmon, five species of which (sockeye, chinook, coho, pink, and chum) seasonally occurred within their territory. From late spring through early winter, the villages or camps located along the streams in which the salmon ran were inhabited and the occupants remained busy with capture, preparation, and storage of salmon. Salmon were captured in a number of ways including trapped in weirs, impaled on stakes set in the streams, harpooned from canoes, or gaffed from shore. Besides salmon, other important fish species to the Tlingit economy included halibut, eulachon, and herring (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al. 1977). Sea mammals were commonly hunted by the Tlingit using harpoons thrown from canoes or shot with arrows from shore. Important species included sea lions, sea otters, and porpoises. Whales were not common Tlingit targets (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al 1977). Of the terrestrial game, bears were the most important to the Tlingit. In addition to providing meat and fat, the bear coat was used for clothing. Bears were often killed using teams of dogs. The hunters dispatched the animal with spears, slings, and bows and arrows while the animal was cornered or distracted by the dogs. Sitka black-tailed deer, mountain goat, and Dall sheep were also often hunted with dogs and similar implements were used. Waterfowl and other small game were also taken (De Laguna 1990; Spencer et al. 1977). History The first non-native peoples to enter southeastern Alaska were European explorers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Among these were the Russian expeditions of Bering and Chirikov in 1741 and Izmailov and Bocharov in 1788. Spanish explorations included those of Hernandez in 1774, Valdez and Galiano in 1792, Camano in 1792, and Fidalgo in the early 1790s, while British journeys included those of Cook in the late 1770s and Vancouver in 1792-1794. In addition to these seafarers, o20\neronTs \m@ecK.me C-2 there were interior explorations of the region by Mackenzie in 1793 and Fraser in 1806-1808 (Cole and Darling 1990). Following this era of exploration, southeastern Alaska began to be exploited for its wealth in natural resources, with the pelt of the sea otter being of prime importance. Trading posts were established and friendly trade relationships with the aboriginal inhabitants of the region were actively pursued. Within the project area’s vicinity, Russians were the dominant European force. The Russians were not well liked by the Tlingit, however, and suffered because of the poor relationship. Within the first decade of the nineteenth century, the Russian settlements at NovoArkangel’sk and Yakutat were attacked by Tlingit armed with muskets, pistols, and cannons supplied to them by American traders. Forty-seven Russians and 130 of their Aleut laborers were killed in the attacks (Cole and Darling 1990). The weak Russian on this vicinity is evidenced in the number of Tlingit converts to the Russian Orthodox Church. By 1840, the Russian missionaries had only been successful in baptizing 20 Tlingits, a number far below that attained by them among the Aleuts and Eskimos (Cole and Darling 1990). Russia sold its rights to Alaska to the United States in 1867. Following its purchase, Alaska was administered as a military district by the United States War Department. Establishment of the United States Army within the region was relatively short lived, however, for all Army posts save one were abandoned in 1870 and all remaining troops were withdrawn in 1877 (Worl 1990). Although the Army lost its influence within Alaska, the United States Navy began its control of the region in 1879. One of the Navy's first goals was to open the interior of Alaska to miners and settlers. This called for negotiations with various Tlingit groups to allow for safe passage of sojourners. Following successful signing of these treaties, Alaska’s interior was open to exploitation by non-native peoples. Prior to 1880, the non-native population was less than 400. By 1890, that figure had grown to over 4,200 Whites and 1,800 Creoles (Worl 1990). With this influx of non-native peoples, the stage was set for the development of Alaska as we know it today. Although gold was the major draw during these early years, it was salmon that was perhaps the resource of most consequence. Within the next few decades, salmon processing surpassed mining as Alaska’s major industry, and soon thereafter Alaska became the world’s principal producer of salmon. As the economic value of Alaska increased, so did the active participation of the United States in the region’s affairs. In the early decades of the twentieth century, both Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument were established. This increase in the United States presence ultimately led to Alaska’s statehood (Worl 1990). ©20\REPORTS\RWBECK. AW C-3 APPENDIX D PUBLIC SCOPING (020\REPORTS\RWBECK..RWP Tyee - Swan Feasibility Study Interagency Meeting Juneau 1/23/92 1.0 INTRODUCTION Lorraine Marshall of the State of Alaska Office of Governmental Coordination chaired a pre- application meeting on January 23rd to allow the Alaska Energy Authority to describe the Tyee - Swan Intertie Proposal and to identify permits and environmental issues of concern to various state and federal agencies. A list of attendees to the meeting is attached to this report. The first six names on the list are people who attended via a telephone conference call. Dick Emerman of AEA began the meeting with a brief description of the proposal and the level of study currently underway. He reviewed the planning steps taken to date and the general time schedule envisioned. Ed Johnson of Dames and Moore then solicited comments from the participants relating to the permits and environmental issues anticipated. Lorraine Marshall described the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) Consistency Review and Coastal Project Questionnaire. She handed out documents which describe a coordinated permit review process used by Alaska. Federal permits such as those issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the US Forest Service are subject to this review as well as state permits. In fact, although there will likely be an EIS on this proposal if it goes forward, it is the federal permits which are subject to ACMP review not the federal EIS. Lorraine did say that a federal EIS would be used to assist in the review. The ACMP begins with a Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification statement filled out by the applicant. Applications to the federal agencies usually precede this step as does preparation of any necessary EIS. Project review can complete in as little as 30 days although longer time periods are not unusual if there is missing information or the Consistency Determination is elevated to higher administrative authority within the state. Details of this process are contained in the attached Questionnaire. I..0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Issues relating to wildlife and fish dominated the meeting. Most of these issues were brought up as questions to be answered in future environmental analyses although some preferences relating to the potential design of the intertie and its components were noted. o20\REPORTS\RUBECK Ave D-1 Marine Crossings A preference was stated by representatives of several of the natural resource agencies present that the corridor be kept 1/4 of a mile from marine waters to the extent possible. This area is considered high value habitat for many species including deer, eagles and furbearers. Marine crossings for the Intertie should be placed away from flyways and areas of bird congregation. Submarine crossings should avoid high value subtidal environments such as eel grass areas or spawning areas. Log Transfer Facilities (LTF) or drop zones should be chosen with care so as to not cause adverse impacts to the marine environment. Bark deposition was cited as an adverse effect. The state has issued LTF siting guidelines which should be followed. Anadromous Fish Issues All streams along the proposed route have not been assigned a number in ADF&G Anadromous Fish Stream Catalog. That does not mean that there are no anadromous fish in those streams only that they have not been surveyed. If the streams will be entered or crossed with heavy equipment then they should be surveyed first. It is preferable to parallel streams at some distance rather than cross them to avoid interfering with flyways and causing possible bird strike in the lines. Crossings should be kept to a minimum and avoid concentrations of spawning fish. Spawning areas attract birds and other wildlife. Right-of-way clearing should be done so as not to create a barrier to the movement of wildlife. Also clearing with heavy machinery could cause severe sedimentation in streams and lakes. It was explained that clearing would be done with helicopter access and that heavy equipment was not expected to be used. American Bald Eagle Eagle nests and perch trees should be avoided. The minimum encroachment distance to a nest site is 330 feet. Human activity near nests during the spring and early summer is particularly disturbing to eagles. Timing restrictions on construction activity may be imposed in areas of high eagle concentration. Tyee Lake Discharge A question was raised concerning the effects an Intertie might have on the existing Tyee Creek flow. It was suggested that restricting the flow could have an adverse impact on anadromous fish. Subsequent to the meeting it was learned that Tyee Lake was not impounded but tapped to create the “head" to generate electricity. The normal lake outlet was not modified. Also the normal lake outlet is a precipitous cataract not thought to have ever contained fish. Water discharged from the turbines at Tyee Lake discharges into a man-made channel that runs into the Bradfield Canal. Since construction a few salmon have begun spawning in this channel. If the Intertie is built it is likely that more electricity would be generated thus increasing the flow from the turbines into the man-made channel. The effect this would have on spawning salmon would depend upon the timing and rates of flow discharged from the turbines. D-2 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP Mountain Goats There is a herd of mountain goats in the vicinity of Eagle Lake. A concern was raised about the effect of clearing a right-of-way through what may be wintering and calving areas. A habitat survey of the goat winter range was suggested as a necessary study to understand what the effect might be. Rerouting to avoid key habitat and construction during periods when the goats would be elsewhere was suggested as possible mitigation to consider. There were mountain goats introduced near Swan Lake several years ago but it is thought that their habitat would not be affected by the Intertie. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently studying the Marbled Murrelet in southeast Alaska. They do not know whether the species should be considered for Threatened or Endangered status but the possibility exists. Marbled Murrelets do occur in the area and their nest sites should be avoided. Results of the USFW study will not be available for some time. Sport Hunting A concern was voiced that construction crews working along the Intertie route would hunt Brown Bears and Deer in areas that normally receive very little hunting pressure. This could have a depressing effect on populations of these two species in the area. The locations of construction crew camps (floating or land based) should be coordinated with ADF&G. A permit is required from DNR. l..0 PERMITS Federal Permits If wetlands would be affected, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would review the project. An application to the COE would be necessary if wetlands would be filled or vegetation cleared. The COE would also issue permits for Log Transfer Facilities (LTF) at tidewater locations. One application for the project would be needed for all COE authorizations under the Clean Water Act (section 404) or the Rivers and Harbor Act (section 10). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be consulted by the COE during this permit process as would the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Alaska. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Authority should be consulted about coordination of marine crossings of the Transmission Lines. The coordination is for navigation and safety of vessels and aircraft. State Permits The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would issue permits for all crossings of tidelands and for LTFs. An “as built" survey of the right-of-way across tidelands whether aerial or submarine would be required. Also the DNR issues permits for drop zones in marine waters for helicopter logging. 020\REPORTS \RMBECK. RP D-3 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would issue a Water Quality Certification of the COE Permit as part of the coordinated state review process. The Office of Governmental Coordination would oversee the state permitting actions as described in the introduction. o2o\ncronrs\maecK. me D-4 Tyee - Swan Feasibility Study Forest Service Meeting Ketchikan 1/22/92 Attending the meeting were: David Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor James Moe, Forest Engineer Steve Segovia, District Ranger Robert Latham, Recreation and Lands Staff Officer Jim Rhodes, Transportation Planner Gary Laver, Land Uses Bill Nightingale, Land Management Planner Carol Reinhardt, Assistant District Ranger Dick Emerman, AEA John Heberling, R.W. Beck Ed Johnson, Dames & Moore The purpose of the meeting was to describe the AEA proposed Tyee - Swan Intertie and to learn Forest Service views about the proposal. Dick explained that AEA was at the Feasibility stage of planning and was interested in learning about environmental issues and permitting procedures from the various regulatory agencies that would be involved if the proposal proceeded beyond the Feasibility stage. 1.0 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIREMENTS Much of the discussion at the meeting centered upon the relationship between the Intertie proposal and possible road construction from Ketchikan to Canada along the same general route. The Forest Supervisor stated that it would be quite likely that an EIS would be needed for the Intertie alone. However, if a road corridor is also proposed then the EIS would be much more complex than for an Intertie alone. Implicit in this statement is that a combined EIS would be both more lengthy and costly with a road proposal. It was also pointed out that even if a road was not proposed it would be necessary to discuss a road if it was a “reasonably foreseeable related action* (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.25). The degree to which a road is related to the Intertie proposal will be an important consideration in evaluating the cost and timing of future environmental analysis. It was recommended that the feasibility study describe the rationale for each alternative under consideration and include a discussion of why certain alternatives were eliminated. This would help people to understand the scope of the study and should be beneficial when or if an EIS is prepared. The feasibility study should also explain why the Intertie is needed and valuable. It should explain the benefits that are expected from constructing the Intertie. 020\REPORTS \RMBECK. RA D-5 2.0 RECREATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES Orchard Lake and Creek were mentioned as eligible for Wild or Scenic status in some alternatives in the draft Tongass Land Management Plan. However the preferred alternative allows for a utility and transportation corridor along the general route of the Intertie. Developed recreation sites along the route include Forest Service Cabins at Orchard Lake and at Anchor Pass. There is recreational use of the marine waters near the route especially in Behm Canal and Anchor Pass by small boats and the smaller tour ships. It is important to protect the visual quality of the saltwater crossings and Orchard Lake. 3.0 FUTURE FOREST SERVICE ROAD CONSTRUCTION No timber access roads are expected to be constructed along the Intertie corridor within the next 10 years. However, several adjacent areas are under study now and could result in logging and road building being scheduled in the 1995 Timber Sale Action Plan. A concern of the Forest Service is that if a transmission line is built that it not preclude a future opportunity to conduct logging operations. This concern would be included in the Special Use Permit for the Transmission Line by requiring towers to be moved if necessary to allow future road construction. Close coordination between the Forest Service and engineering design of the Intertie would reduce the possibility of later tower relocation to a minimum. We examined a Logging System Transportation Analysis (LSTA) for the area and timber type maps. The information confirmed that the Intertie route is also, for the most part, a good route for a road. The timber on the southern third of the route is much better and more accessible than the timber on the northern two-thirds of the route. The area north of Gedney Pass is very rugged and would be costly to construct a road. Transmission line construction appears feasible. 4.0 R-O-W TIMBER REMOVAL A Forest Service requirement to remove all merchantable logs from the Intertie right-of-way was discussed at length. As part of the Special Use Permit to be issued by the Forest Service, the Forest Service also requires the permittee to purchase all the merchantable material that would be cut during right-of-way clearing operations. A Timber Sale Contract is issued for this purpose. One of the clauses in the Timber Sale Contract requires the purchaser (permittee) to remove all merchantable material. It is not permissible to pay for the material, cut it and leave it lay on the National Forest. On a project like the Tyee - Swan Intertie which will be constructed with helicopter access the requirement to remove all merchantable material places a severe economic burden on the project. This is because the cost of removing logs long distances by helicopter is very expensive. Normally helicopter logging is constrained to distances of 1/4 mile to the drop point and, if a profit is to made, D-6 (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK.. RMP the logs must be of high quality. Some sections of the Tyee - Swan right-of-way are 6 miles from a drop point and the quality and quantity of the timber ranges from average to poor. We briefly discussed other options for removal of the merchantable timber. Burning in piles might be possible but would be almost as expensive as helicopter removal. This is because piling could probably only be done by helicopter. Broadcast burning would remove the smaller pieces of woody debris and leave the logs untouched. Additionally there could be damage to the surrounding uncut forest if great care were not taken to control the fire within the right-of-way. Leaving the material in place would not necessarily be ecologically harmful if it were left lying flat on the ground and not in huge slash piles which could interfere with wildlife movement. Constructing short temporary roads to haul the timber out might prove to be the most cost effective when combined with helicopter logging. To keep the cost down the roads would single lane shot rock overlay on top of logging debris suitable for low speed truck haul of logs to tidewater Log Transfer Facilities. 5.0 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Wildlife issues are of concern to the Forest Service. They mentioned the possible effects the Intertie might have on Eagles, Swans, Ducks, Geese, Furbearers, Deer, and Marine Mammals. Bird strikes on the transmission lines and clearing of right-of-way are two effects that were of concern. Also Eagle nests must be protected in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 020\REPORTS BECK. RP D-7 Report of Public Meetings Wrangell and Petersburg, Alaska Proposed Tyee-Swan Intertie Introduction The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is conducting a Feasibility Analysis on a proposed electric transmission line intertie between Tyee and Swan Lake hydro-electric generating stations. As part of that study public meetings were scheduled in the three potentially affected communities currently served by one or another of the two generating stations. This report summarizes the meetings which took place in Wrangell, Alaska on 12/4 and Petersburg, Alaska on 12/6. A similar meeting is scheduled in Ketchikan on 1/21/92. The primary purpose of the meetings was to elicit concerns and ideas for possible consideration during the Feasibility Study. A wide variety of topics relative to the proposed intertie were addressed. Each meeting was introduced by Dick Emerman of AEA who described the proposed project, the background of events leading up to the proposal, a description of the purpose of the project and why it could be beneficial, the schedule for the Feasibility Study, and an estimate of costs. Mr. Emerman then introduced Ed Johnson of Dames and Moore who described the project route and some of the more obvious environmental concerns associated with it. The meeting was then opened to comments and questions from the audience. Wrangell Meeting The Wrangell meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 7pm on December 4, 1991. Approximately 15 persons attended of which 11 signed an attendance list (list attached). The audience consisted primarily of City Council members, the City Manager, several individuals from Wrangell Power and Light, and representatives of the local news media. After the introductory comments by Mr. Emerman and Mr. Johnson a number of questions were asked to clarify points made in the introduction. These included a question as to the accuracy of the capital cost that will be produced in the feasibility study. Mr. Emerman stated that the feasibility level cost estimate is intended to be within 15% of the actual cost. A second question was how much of that capital cost would be borne by Thomas Bay. Mr. Emerman stated that he was not aware of any scenario under which any of the capital cost would be borne by the rate payers in Wrangell and Petersburg. AEA’s preliminary financing study suggests that about half of the cost could be financed with revenue bonds paid off by Ketchikan ratepayers if the other half is paid by the State. 020\REPORTS \RM@ECK. ve D-8 The subject of installing a third turbine at Tyee was brought up. The foundation and piping for a third turbine were constructed in the power house at Tyee when the facility was built. The Feasibility Study will give additional consideration to the third turbine option. Mr. Emerman stated that the addition of a third turbine would not increase the total annual energy that can be produced at Tyee, but would provide added reliability and peaking capacity. A comment from the audience was made to the effect that there may be an opportunity to divert additional water into Tyee Lake in conjunction with the third turbine, such that additional annual energy would be produced. Mr. Emerman stated that he would have the Feasibility Study contractor look into that possibility. A discussion of power sales agreements began. Mr. Emerman stated that Wrangell and Petersburg had in their contracts with AEA firm power commitments that would take precedence over the sale of interruptible power over the intertie to Ketchikan. What isn’t decided is who would have priority for sales of interruptible power to others and if those potential sales would have precedence over the sale of power to Ketchikan. This issue would be beyond the scope of the current Feasibility Study but would require negotiation among the affected communities and AEA. A number of comments were made about how power would be dispatched from Tyee after the intertie is built. Concerns were expressed that Ketchikan would take over the dispatch function for the interconnected system, that jobs would be lost in Wrangell, and that local control over the system would be weakened. Mr. Emerman stated that, although possible savings and impacts of combined dispatch had not been included in the study scope, AEA would direct the contractor to describe what the alternate dispatch possibilities might be. Mr. Paul Fisher, City Councilman, introduced a one page summary of concerns about the proposed action. A copy of this list is attached. Mr. Fisher made five points as follows: 1. The intertie is not a long term solution to Ketchikan’s needs. A study should be done to identify future power sources not only for Ketchikan but for southeast Alaska as well. 2. The intertie should be a first phase with future interties with Green Lake, Snettisham and perhaps B.C. Hydro. 3. The third turbine at Tyee should be made part of the proposed intertie. 4. Opposition to the possibility of moving dispatch function from Wrangell to Ketchikan. 5. Ifaroad is necessary for maintenance of the intertie then a road should be built from Tyee to Wrangell and Petersburg. These points were addressed by Mr. Emerman. He discussed several studies that AEA had done evaluating a power grid for southeast Alaska with potential connections to B.C. Hydro south of Ketchikan and north of Juneau. None of those interties had favorable economic benefits in the near future except the Tyee-Swan and Greens Creek-Juneau. In the long term many of the connections may be made. ezo\neronts \ieccK. me D-9 The question of a road along the intertie corridor has come up in Ketchikan where there is a desire for road access to Canada and for local recreation access. It is not part of the AEA intertie proposal, although if a road were built it could reduce the construction and possibly maintenance costs for the intertie. On the other hand the cost of the road would be quite high and the environmental effects would probably be greater with a road than with helicopter supported intertie construction. A request was made for copies of a recent load forecast report. Mr. Emerman promised to send 15 copies to the City Clerk. The City Manager listed seven concerns which he thought should be considered in the Feasibility Study. These were: Potential loss of jobs in Wrangell. Potential loss of control. Potential loss of flexibility for sale of interruptible power. Potential loss of electric power for future Wrangell growth. Is this the best use of $20,000,000 for a capital project? Will future growth be relocated away from Wrangell? Could the road go to Wrangell instead of to Ketchikan? DSO BONE A question was raised as to whether the salmon run below Tyee would be affected by the intertie. Also it was pointed out that Eagle Lake is a trophy Cutthroat Trout lake. A barrier on Eagle River prevents anadromous fish from reaching the lake, but ADF&G would prefer not to remove the barrier to protect the trophy Cutthroat Trout fishing in the lake. Eagle River is a steelhead stream and a road along it would probably ruin the steelhead fishing. Petersburg Meeting The Petersburg meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 7pm on December 6, 1991. Approximately 12 persons attended of which 10 signed an attendance list (list attached). The audience consisted primarily of City Council members, the acting City Manager, the Superintendent of Petersburg Municipal Power and Light, Utility Board Members and a reporter from the Petersburg Pilot. After the introductory comments by Mr. Emerman and Mr. Johnson several comments were made. The comments are summarized in this report. It was pointed out that span lengths on the Tyee line exceed the nominal 300 feet between towers. There are spans of several thousand feet in places along the existing line. Also the proposed intertie connection with the Tyee line is shown near sea level at the mouth of Eagle River. At that point the existing Tyee line is 3000 feet above sea level. An adjustment of the corridor will be needed to provide for a switching station at the approximately 3000 foot level on one side of the river or the other. D-10 (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK. WP A question was asked about how the intertie would be financed. Mr. Emerman stated that he was not aware of any financing scenario that involved payment coming from Wrangell or Petersburg, but that a wheeling charge would probably be paid by Ketchikan on power sales over the intertie. What would be the effect of this intertie on the long term power sales agreement and would Petersburg have an opportunity to express their feelings during negotiations between the State and Ketchikan? This question led into a discussion of firm power commitments and interruptible sales. Ketchikan’s use of Tyee power would be on an interruptible basis; but whether it would have priority over other interruptible sales or not is not decided and would be subject to negotiation among the affected parties. The construction of a third turbine for Tyee was discussed. There is a strong desire on the part of the participants at the meeting that a third turbine be included in the proposed intertie. The advantage appears to be in greater reliability, “spinning reserve", and peak capacity. A commitment was made to discuss the third turbine in the Feasibility Study to the extent that information was available to analyze. The question was asked whether combined dispatch would be considered in the Feasibility Study. Mr. Emerman stated that the study will include a description of alternate dispatch possibilities and an estimate of the savings that might be achieved from combined dispatch. A comment from the audience was made that combined dispatch would probably be more efficient, and should be favored as a cost savings to the rate payers. The next comment was how will the two reservoirs be operated? All three communities probably peak at about the same time in summer and both reservoirs probably draw down fastest in late summer. Detailed operational questions will not be addressed in the Feasibility Study but will be considered before the project is built. A comment was made that it would be very important for the AEA to keep in communication with the community during the planning stages of this project. The community leadership needs to know what is being planned, what schedules are being followed and be notified of changes as they occur. This would be particularly important in terms of negotiations on wheeling agreements or decisions to be made on sales of interruptible power. No specific environmental concerns were identified at the meeting except for a discussion on the possibility of Eagle River being recommended for Wild or Scenic Status by the Forest Service. A copy of a resolution passed by the City Council was handed out which supports the intertie proposal and includes a clause recommending that the Forest Service not recommend the Eagle River as Wild and Scenic. There was a brief discussion of the possibility of a road being built along the intertie corridor from Ketchikan to the Bradfield and on to Canada. It was explained that the Feasibility Study was not going to evaluate the environmental effects of the road proposal. An icing problem with the Tyee line was mentioned. Also mentioned was the Dryden LaRue Report which has information in it that should be useful to R.W. Beck. ©20\REPORTS\RMBECK. Ru D-11 Report prepared by DAMES & MOORE for R. W. Beck and the Alaska Energy Authority Edward R. Johnson Environmental Planner D-12 (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP Report of Public Meeting Ketchikan, Alaska Proposed Tyee-Swan Intertie Introduction The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is conducting a feasibility analysis of a proposed electric transmission line between the Tyee and Swan Lake hydro-electric projects. As part of that study public meetings were scheduled in the three potentially affected communities currently served by one or another of the two projects. This report summarizes the meeting which took place in Ketchikan, Alaska on 1/21/92. Similar meetings were held in Petersburg and Wrangell in December 1991. The meeting was introduced by Dick Emerman of AEA who described the proposed project, the context of power supply and demand in the affected region,the purpose of the project and why it could be beneficial, an overview of the AEA project review and development process, and where the proposed intertie project presently stand within that process. Mr. Emerman then introduced Ed Johnson of Dames and Moore who described the project route and some of the more obvious environmental concerns associated with it. The meeting was then opened to comments and questions from the audience. The Ketchikan meeting was held in the City Council Chambers at 7pm on January 21, 1991. Eight people attended of whom seven signed an attendance list (list attached). The audience included a City Council member, the City Mayor, the General Manager of Ketchikan Public Utilities, and a representative of the local news media. The primary purpose of the meeting was to elicit concerns and ideas for possible consideration during the feasibility study. A variety of topics regarding the proposed intertie were addressed. Summary of Subjects Discussed The general discussion opened with a question about the level of environmental planning that would be required by the Forest Service before issuing a permit to cross the National Forest with an intertie. There was a perception that an Environmental Assessment might be sufficient. Mr. Johnson explained that there were indications from the Forest Service that an EIS may be necessary. A decision on the level of environmental documentation needed would be made by the Forest Service after they receive an application for a Special Use Permit to build the intertie. Other federal agencies who would probably be involved in that decision are the Corps of Engineers and possibly the EPA. The relationship between a road to Canada from Ketchikan along the intertie corridor was discussed particularly as it could relate environmental planning. A road would complicate environmental planning in that environmental effects from road construction and traffic would have greater effects than a transmission line constructed by helicopter. Linking the two projects could extend the time needed and 020\REPORTS\RMOEEK. D-13 the cost for development of an EIS. On the other hand, accounting for both projects in the planning stage could have some benefit: if the transmission line were to be built before a road then the transmission line location should be such that it does not interfere with future road construction, yet it should be close enough to be beneficial for transmission line maintenance. The linkage between the proposed intertie project and a proposed highway project was discussed. AEA is not proposing a road but understands that the community of Ketchikan and DOT-PF are studying the idea. If the legislature provides funds and direction to conduct a combined EIS, then AEA and DOT- PF would coordinate their efforts as directed. However, if the legislature only funds a study for a helicopter constructed intertie, then there is no viable road project to analyze. A great deal would depend upon the priority the Governor places on these projects and on the priority that the legislature has for funding them. It is too early to say how this will turn out. The long range forecast for energy demand in Ketchikan was briefly discussed. It was pointed out that while Ketchikan experienced no increase in electric power use in 1991 the long term expectation was for continued increases in the future. Thus, a need for the intertie was still felt to be valid. The question was raised as to why the AEA had to bother with an EIS for this project but not for so many others it did in other parts of the state. The answer is that this project requires federal approval to cross National Forest Lands. The federal agency is required to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act which in this case is expected to be an EIS. There was discussion of the cost estimates and funding sources expected for the construction of the intertie. The best estimates will be in the feasibility study, however for working purposes the AEA has been using a $40 million estimate based on 1987 information. This discussion led into speculation about the rates Ketchikan would pay for power wheeled across the intertie. Essentially what is anticipated is that Ketchikan would pay a rate comparable to their avoided diesel generation costs during the early years and the State of Alaska would fund the balance which could be approximately $20 - $25 million. Negotiation among the Four Dam Pool members and AEA would precede any agreements reached. The Ketchikan Mayor gave a strong statement of support for the intertie and for the AEA’s efforts in getting the project to this stage of planning. She also said that while it would be very positive for Ketchikan to have both a road and a transmission line she hopes the process of combining them would not delay the transmission line. The Ketchikan Public Utilities Manager made a statement that the intertie appears to be the best alternative for Ketchikan’s future energy needs. The intertie is the most economical and realistic approach, he said. D-14 (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK. RP Tyee - Swan Intertie Feasibility Study Forest Service Meeting Wrangell (12/4) & Petersburg (12/6) Attending the meetings were: Dick Estelle, Recreation, Lands, Wildlife, Fisheries, Watershed Staff Officer 12/6). Mike Condon, Planning Staff Officer (12/6). Tammy Thompson, Acting Administrative Officer (12/6). Dave Cottrell, Timber Staff Officer (12/6) Dave Helmick, Transportation Planning Engineer (12/6) Keene Kohrt, District Ranger (12/4). Willard Lowe, Assistant District Ranger (12/4). Ed Johnson, Dames & Moore (12/4 and 12/6). Dick Emerman, Alaska Energy Authority (12/4 and 12/6). Mr. Emerman described the background for the proposed electric transmission line intertie between Tyee and Swan Lakes. He discussed the schedule for the feasibility study and the schedule for possible development if the Legislature funds the project. Most of the meeting was spent in a discussion of the probable environmental issues and future planning requirements. 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES There are no plans by the Forest Service to build roads for logging or any other purpose in the Eagle River drainage. The reasons for this appear twofold. First the area has value for roadless recreation, primarily sportfishing in Eagle River for steelhead and in Eagle Lake for Cutthroat Trout. The area is used to some extent as an aerial transportation route by small planes from Wrangell and from nearby resorts both for fishing and sightseeing. The second reason that no roads are proposed is that the overall quality of the timber is poor and would not likely support the cost of building a road. There is a Forest Service cabin located on the northern shore of Eagle Lake. A transmission line along the south shore would be visible from the cabin and could detract from the recreational experience of camping there. The visual quality objective for the area around the lake is Partial Retention. Eagle River has been found eligible for Wild or Scenic River Status in the Draft Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP). A decision on the suitability of the river has not yet been made but is expected in the Final TLMP due out next spring. Wild River status would preclude the line from being built within one-quarter mile of the river. Scenic river status would allow the line to cross the river and approach more closely than one-quarter mile if the visual impact was subordinate to the natural landscape. ©20\RePORTS VEX. MP D-15 Removal of vegetation and timber from the right-of-way is an obvious direct environmental impact. An evaluation of the effect on plants and animals would be needed to quantify this impact. Removal of merchantable timber from the site would normally be required. This could only be done by helicopter in unroaded areas at great expense. Also a permit would be needed from the state to put the logs in tidewater. Possible alternatives to removing the logs were discussed. If there would be no severe threat of insect or fire damage it may be possible to leave the logs scattered along the right-of-way. An argument can be made that the downed vegetation could have ecological value as habitat for wildlife. This would require site specific analysis. Relocating the route to higher elevations with less timber was also suggested. This alternative could result in a more natural appearance so long as the line was not on a skyline. The District Ranger suggested that he would prefer to have the transmission line on one side of the river for its entire length rather than cross once as currently described. The reason is both for visual quality and for aircraft safety. The health risk of EMF was briefly mentioned in relation to humans and wildlife. No one had any specific knowledge as to the likelihood of this issue becoming important. In summary the major environmental issues are: 1. Potential adverse visual effects 2. Potential adverse effects to Recreational activities. 3. Removal of Timber 4. Loss of Wildlife Habitat 5. Wild or Scenic River designation for Eagle River. 2.0 FUTURE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The Draft TLMP identifies the route proposed for the Intertie as a transportation and transmission line corridor. The people we met with were surprised to see the Wild or Scenic designation potentially applied to the Eagle River. This would result in a conflict of uses that they would rather avoid. They plan to discuss this with the TLMP planning team and have the river either designated as unsuitable or recreational which would allow the transmission line to be built. The general consensus of the Forest Service people we talked with was that an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. This observation was based in part on the potential connection between the transmission line corridor and the possible road corridor from Ketchikan to the Bradfield Canal area. The concerns about visual quality and recreation also contribute to their feeling that an EIS would be necessary. Much of the area the intertie would pass through is designated roadless in the current TLMP. Even allowing for a change in the designation with the new TLMP they thought other affected agencies would want to see an EIS before approval of construction. When AEA completes an application for a Special Use Permit, the Forest Service will make a decision on whether an EIS is necessary. The degree to which such an EIS would be required to 020\REPORTS \M@ECK. MP D- 16 discuss the effects of a road is not clear at this time. Some discussion appears necessary if the road is a foreseeable action or a related and connected action. The decision to require an analysis would be with the "Responsible Official" who in this case would be the Regional Forester. The alternative of submarine cable routes was brought up. AEA studies have shown them to be essentially cost prohibitive except under the most favorable economic conditions. Mike Condon said they would need to be evaluated in an EIS at least to the extent that they could be shown to be infeasible before they could be eliminated. The Special Use Permit would likely be issued by the Regional Forester because the route crosses two Forest Supervisor Areas. One Forest Supervisor would be appointed to lead and coordinate the planing for the environmental analysis with the other Forest Supervisor. 020\RCPORTS\RMBECK. RP D-17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaska Department of Fish and Game. January 1992. Personal Communications. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1977. Revised Anadromous Stream Catalog of Southeastern Alaska, Western Behm Canal and Ketchikan Area Survey Data, Appendix A - District 1, Volume III. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1990. Finfish Fisheries, Southeast Alaska-Yakutat Region, Report to the Board of Fisheries. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1990. An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1977. A Fish and Wildlife Resource Inventory of Southeastern Alaska, Vol. 2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1986. Alaska Habitat Management Guide - Southeast Region, Fish and Wildlife Resources. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. December 1991. Southeast Alaska Sport Fishing Economic Study, Executive Summary. Alaska. Department of Fish and Game. 1991 Balding. 1976. Water Availability, Quality and Use in Alaska, USGS Open File Report 76-513. Cassel, J. Frank. 1979. Relation of birds to certain power transmission lines in central North Dakota. n. Dakota St. Univ., Fargo, ND. 50pp. Cole, D., and D. Darling. 1990. History of the Early Period. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 119-134. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Davis, S.D. 1990. Prehistory of Southeastern Alaska. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 197- 202. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. De Laguna, F. 1990. Tlingit. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 203-228. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Edgington and Larson. 1977. Revised Anadromous Stream Catalog of Southeastern Alaska, Appendix A. District 1, Volume Ill, ADF&G Technical Report No. 30. (020\ REPORTS \RWBECK.RMP Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, and D.P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor responses to low level aircraft and sonic booms. Environmental Pollution 74(1991)53-83. Erickson, A. W. 1965. Black bear in Alaska: Its ecology and management. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Department Program W-8-R-5, Work Plan F. 19pp. Fudner, Childers, Norman, 1971. Water Resources of Alaska. Water Res. Div., Alaska Dist. USGS Open File Report. Gale, R.S. 1989. Utah Birds. 5(1):1-13. Goodwin, G.A. 1983. Challenges of snag management. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-99:223-225. Hanley, T.A., and C.L. Rose. 1987. Influence of overstory on snow depth and density in hemlock-spruce stands: Implications for management of deer habitat in southeast Alaska. USDA For. Serv., Res. Note PNW-RN-459. 11pp. Hanley, T.A., R.G. Cates, B. Van Horne, and J.D. McKendrick. 1987. Forest stand-age-related differences in apparent nutritional quality of forage for deer in southeastern Alaska. Pages 9-17. In: F.D. Provenza, J.T. Flinders, and E.D. McArthur (eds.) Proceedings-symposium on Plant-herbivore Interactions. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Harris, et al. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska, |. Setting Pacific Northwest Forest and Range. Exp. Sta. USDA. Forest Service. Hodges, J.I., Jr. 1982. Evaluation of the 100-meter protective zone for bald eagle nests in southeast Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau, Alaska. 11pp. Hodges, J.I.,Jr. and F.C. Robards. 1982. Observations of 3,850 bald eagle nests in southeast Alaska. Pages 37-56 In: W.N. Ladd and P.F. Schempf (eds.) Proceedings of a Symposium and Workshop on Raptor Management and Biology in Alaska and Western Canada, 17-20 February 1981, Anchorage, Alaska. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Reg. Rep. Proc-82. Anchaorgae. 335pp. Hokkanen, H.T., T. Tormala, and H. Vuotinen. 1982. Decline of the flying squirrel Pteromys volans L. populations in Finland. Biological Conservation 23:273-284. Hubartt, D.U. 1989. Draft Fishery Data Series, Evaluation of Population Size, Status of Fish Populations and Lake Characteristics for Three Lakes in the Vicinity of Ketchikan, Alaska during 1989. ADF&G, Division of Sport Fish, Juneau, Alaska. Hugie, Roy D. and B.S. Chanson. 1989. Great Falls-Conrad 230 kV Transmission Line Post-construction Bird Monitoring Study. BIO/WEST, Inc. Logan, UT. 78pp. Processed Report. 020\ REPORTS \RWBECK.. RMP James, B.W. and B.A. Haak. 1979. Factors affecting avian flight behavior and collision mortality at transmission lines. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 109pp. Processed Report. Johnson, L. 1981. Otter Life History Studies. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Final Report Project W-17-10, and W-21-1, Job 7.10R. Sitka, Alaska. 29pp. Karistrom, N.V. et al. 1964. Surficial Geology of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Geologic Investigations, Map 1-357. Kessler, W. 1981. Wildlife and second growth forests of southeast Alaska: Problems and potential for management. Administrative Document 10. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, Alaska. Kirchhoff, M.D., and J.W. Schoen. 1987. Forest cover and snow: Implications for deer habitat in southeast Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:28-33. Klein, D.R. 1965. Ecology of Deer Range in Alaska. Ecological Monographs. 35:259-284. Lamke, R.D. 1979. Flood Characteristics of Alaskan Streams, USGS Water Resource Investigation 78- 129. Larson, D.N. 1983. Habitats, movements, and foods of river otter in coastal southeastern Alaska. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Alaska. Fairbanks. 149pp. Lebeda, C.S. 1980. Nesting and rearing ecology of the Vancouver Canada goose on Admiralty Island, Alaska. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of South Dakota, Brookings. 7pp. Lebeda, C.S. and J.T. Ratti. 1983. Reproductive biology of Vancouver Canada geese on Admiralty Island, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:297-306. Lee, J.M. 1978. Effects of transmission lines on bird flights: Studies of Bonneville Power Administration lines. In: Impacts of Transmission Lines on Birds in Flight, Workshop Proceedings, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. M.L. Avery (ed). U.S. Dept. Int., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biological Services Program, FWS/OBS-78/48. pp 53-68 Lindzey, F.G. and E. C. Meslow. 1977b. Characteristics of black bear dens on Long Island, Washington. NW Science 50:236-242. Lindzey, F.G. and E.C. Meslow. 1977a. Populations characteristics of black bears on an island in Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:408-412. Menasco, K.A. 1983. Providing snag habitat for the future. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiemnt Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99:205-209. Merrian, H.E. 1970. Deer fluctuations in Alaska. Paper presented at the 1970 Ann. Meeting NW Sec. Wildl. Soc., Spokane, WA. 4pp. 020\ REPORTS \RWBECK AP Meyer, J.R. 1978. Effects of transmission lines on bird flight behavior and collision mortality. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 200pp. Processed Report. Meyer, J.R. and J.M. Lee, 1981. Effects of transmission lines on flight behavior of waterfowl and other birds. /n: Tillman, R.E. (ed). Environmental concerns in rights-of-way management. Proc. of the second symposium, 16-18 Oct. 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA. Pub. No. WS 78-141. Mickelson, P.G. 1984. Use of old-growth forest by Canada geese. Pages 303-307. In: Fish and Wildlife relationships in old-growth forests: Proceedings of symposium. W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell, Jr., and T.A. Hanley (eds.). Am. Inst. Fish Res. biol., Reintes Publ., Morehead City, North Carolina. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service. July 18-23, 1983. Report of Field Investigations Carroll Inlet, Thorne Arm, Revillagigedo Island, Tokeen Bay, Kosciusko Island, Shelikof Island, Prince of Wales Island. National Climatic Data Center. 1980. Climatography of the United States No. 20, Climatological Survey, Ketchikan, Alaska. Noble, R.E. 1983. Breeding bird populations in hemlock-spruce old-growth and clearcuts, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan, Alaska. 63pp. Noble, R.E. and P. Harrington. 1983. Snag characteristics in old-growth forests on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region Report Number 125. Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Notes. Patric and Black. 1968. Potential Evapotranspiration and Climate in Alaska by Thornthwaite Method. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-71. Pedersen, S. 1982. Geographical variation in Alaskan wolves. Pages 135-150 In: F.H. Harrington and C.P. Paquet (eds.). Wolves of the World. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, New Jersey. R&M Engineering, Inc. (undated). Preliminary Geotechnical Survey Swan Lake to Tyee Lake Intertie Otrthophotoquad Maps, High Resolution Orthophotoquad, USDA Forest Service. Rose, C.L. 1982. Deer response to forest succession on Annette Island, southeast Alaska. MS. Thesis, Univ. of Alaska. Fairbanks. 59pp. Schmiege, Helmers, Bishop. 1974. Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. 8. Water. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range, Exp. Sta. USDA Forest Service. (020\ REPORTS \RMBECK. RP Schoen, J.W., R.W. Flynn, LH. Suring, LR. Beier, and M.L. Orme. 1989. Habitat capability model for brown bear in southeast Alaska. ADF&G Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report Project W23-1, 32pp. Schoen, J.W., M.D. Kirchhoff, M.H. Thomas. 1985. Seasonal distribution and habitat use by Sitka black- tailed deer in southeastern Alaska. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Final Report. Projects W-17- 11, W-21-2, W-22-2, W-22-3, and W-22-4. Job Number 2. R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 44pp. Schoen, J.W., J.W. Lentfer, J.W. Matthews, and U. Beier. 1982. Brown bear habitat preferences and brown bear logging and mining relationships in southeast Alaska. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Project W-22-1, Job 4.17R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Schoen, J.W., M.D. Kirchoff, and O.C. Wallmo. 1981. Seasonal distribution and habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer in southeastern Alaska. Vol. Il Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-22-1, Job 2.6R. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. 59pp. Sidle, W.B. and LH. Suring. 1986. Wildlife and Fisheries habitat management notes: The bald eagle in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest R10-MB-9. 29pp. Smith, C.A., R.E. Wood, L. Beier, and K.P. Bovee. 1986a. Wolf-deer habitat relationships in southeast Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program Report. Project W-22-4. Job 14.13. 19 pp. Smith, C.A., R.E. Wood, L. Beier, and K.P. Bovee. 1986b. Effects of predation on Sitka black-tailed deer population growth. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program Report. Project W-22-3 and 4. Job 14.14. Spencer, W.D. 1981. Pine marten habitat preferences at Sagehen Creek, California. MS thesis. Univ. of California. berkeley. 121pp. Spencer, R.F., J.D. Jennings, E. Johnson, A.R. King, T. Stern, K.M. Stewart, and W.J. Wallace. 1977. The Native Americans: Ethnology and Backgrounds of the North American Indians, 2nd. Edition. Harper & Row, New York. Stalmaster, M.V., R.L. Knight, B.L. Holder, and R.J. Anderson. 1985. Bald Eagles. Pages 269-290 In: E.R. Brown (tech. ed.) Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. Part | - Chapter Narratives. No. R6-F&WL-192-1985. Portland, OR. 332pp. Stephenson, R.O. 1989. Wolf (Canis lupis). Wildlife Notebook Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Mimio. 2pp. Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Flynn, M.L. Orme, LC. Shea, and R.E. Wood. 1988b. Habitat capability model for gray wolves in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, Ak. (020\REPORTS \RWOECK.RMP Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, and P.F. Schempf. 1988d. Habitat capability model for bald eagles in southeast Alaska: nesting habitat. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, AK. Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Flynn, T.M. McCarthy, and M.L.Orme. 1988c. Habitat capability model for black bear in southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, AK. Suring, LH., J.H. Hughes, R.W. Flynn, M.L. Orme, and D.A. Williamson. 1988e. Habitat capability model for hairy woodpecker in southeast Alaska: Winter habitat. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, AK. Suring, L.H., E.J. DeGayner, R.W. Flynn, M.D. Kirchhoff, J.R. Martin, J.W. Schoen,and L.C. Shea. 1988a. Habitat capability model for Sitka black-tailed deer in southeast Alaska: Winter Habitat. USDA Forest Service. Juneau, Ak. 15pp. USDA, Forest Service, Region 10, Alaska. Ketchikan C-5 NE, 1:31,680, High Resolution Orthophotoquad. . Ketchikan D-4 SW. . Ketchikan D-5 SE. Ketchikan D-5 NE. . Bradfield Canal A-5 SE. Bradfield Canal A-5 SW. . Bradfield Canal A-5 NW. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. . 1991. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix Volume Il. . 1991. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Revised Forest Plan. . 1979. Tongass Land Management Plan. Amended 1985-1989 . 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2. Chapter 1, The Visual Management System. . 1985. Region 10 Landscape Management Handbook . 1979. Visual Character Types. Alaska Region, Division of Recreation, Soils, and Watershed. 020\REPORTS\RWBECK.RWP . 1988. VQO/EVC Inventory mapping. Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area. . 1988. VQO/EVC Inventory mapping. Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Area. . 1986. ROS User's Guide. . 1987. ROS User’s Guide, Chapter 60, Project Planning. . 1989. ROS Inventory mapping. Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Area. . 1989. ROS Inventory mapping. Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan C-5 NE, Alaska, Soil Survey Map 1:31,680. . 1987. Ketchikan D-5 SW. . 1987. Ketchikan D-5 SE. ____. 1987. Ketchikan D-5 NE. . 1983. Ketchikan D-4 SW. ___. 1987. Bradfield Canal A-5 SE. . Undated. Bradfield Canal A-5 SW. . Undated. Bradfield Canal A-5 NW. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, On-site Evaluation of Proposed Log Transfer Facilities for Bradfield Canal, May 23-26, 1982. U.S. Forest Service. June 1986. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. U.S. Forest Service. January 1992. Personal Communications. U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Tongass National Forest Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1991. U.S. Forest Service. 1991. Tongass Land Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement. USFS. 1990. Shelter Cove Final Environmental Impact Statement. United States Department of Interior, Geologic Survey. 1955. Bradfield Canal (A-5) Quadrangle, Alaska, 1:63,360 Series (Topographic). 020\REPORTS\RWBECK. WP . 1955. Bradfield Canal (A-4). . 1955. Bradfield Canal (B-4). . 1955. Bradfield Canal (B-5). . 1955. Ketchikan (C-4). . 1948. Ketchikan (C-5). . 1955. Ketchikan (D-4). . 1952. Ketchikan (D-5). Van Ballenberg, V. and T.A. Hanley. 1984. Predation on deer in relation to old-growth forest management in southeastern Alaska. Pages 291-296. In: W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell, Jr., and T.A. Hanley (eds.). Fish and Wildlife relationships in old-growth forests: proceeding of a symposium. American Institute Fisheries Research Biology, Reintjes Publ., Morehead City, NC. Werner, S., W. Reid, V. Fay, and D. Van Horn. 1982. The Vancouver Canada goose, old growth forests, and timber harvesting in southeast Alaska. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northwest Section of the Wildlife Society, April 14-16, Juneau, AK. Willdan Associates. 1982. Impact of the Sahe-Slatt 500 kV transmission line on birds at Crow Butte Island: post construction study final report. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 155pp. Processed Report. Worl, R. 1990. History of Southeastern Alaska Since 1867. In Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 149-158. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. APPENDIX I POWER FLOW ANALYSIS OF INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Power Technologies, Inc. Page 1 POWER FLOW ANALYSIS OF TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM INTRODUCTION This report presents the power flow analysis results for the Southeast Alaska system with the proposed interconnection of the Tyee Lake-Wrangell-Petersburg (TWP) system and the Swan Lake-Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) system. This report includes both the steady-state power flow and switching study simulations for the interconnected system. This work is part of Subtask 7.2 as outlined in the study proposal for the Tyee-Swan Intertie Feasibility Study. SIMULATION CONDITIONS A power flow data base was established for the Southeast Alaska system. It is based on the best available information as supplied by the Alaska Energy Authority, Ketchikan Public Utilities, and RW Beck and Associates. However, reasonable estimates had to be used for some data where actual data was not available. This power flow data base is in Power Technologies, Incorporated’s PSS/E data format. A listing of the interconnected system power flow data base created for this study is listed in Exhibit 1 to this report. This data base provides a detailed model of the interconnected system, and represents 64 buses and 66 branches (lines & transformers) from 115 kV down to the first distribution level buses. The data base includes all existing generation on the interconnected system. It includes both positive and zero sequence data. Thus, this data base provides for both power flow and short-circuit analysis of the interconnected system. The interconnecting facilities represented in the data base include a 53.7 mile long, 115 kV transmission line (entirely overhead) extending from the Tyee Lake Switchyard to the Swan Lake Switchyard. Due to the different transmission voltage levels used on the TWP and KPU systems, the data base also includes a 20 MVA, 115/69 kV autotransformer at the Tyee Lake Switchyard. For the purposes of this study, the interconnected Southeast Alaska system was represented under three loading conditions. The three loading conditions and the corresponding load on the TWP and KPU systems is shown in the following table: Loading Condition KPU System Winter Peak [Simmer averse | 94 | o20—| | Minimum Tas to Power Technologies, Inc. Page 2 The above load totals also include the gross load for the Alaska Lumber & Pulp (ALP) and Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) facilities interconnected with the respective systems. For the purposes of this study, only of hydro generation and the steam units associated with the two pulp facilities were utilized in the simulations to supply system loads. Further, under all load conditions studied, it is assumed that the KPC facility supplies all of its own load from its own generation. A significant amount of diesel generation exists at Wrangell and Petersburg as well as on the KPU system. These diesel generation facilities are included in the data base, but are assumed off-line in all simulations contained in this report. SUMMARY The power flow analysis performed for this study reveals that the interconnection of the TWP and KPU systems via a 115 kV line from Tyee Lake to Swan Lake is technically feasible. The intertie provides for acceptable, steady-state interconnected system operation under various load, generation and power transfer conditions. Under winter peak load conditions, acceptable steady-state system performance can be achieved for power transfers up to the capacity limit of the Bailey 115/34.5 kV transformer. However, such a condition heavily stresses the KPU 34.5 kV system and results in voltages on this system down to about 96%. Further, operation of the Swan Lake units at their maximum operating voltage (105%) is necessary under this condition to maintain adequate voltages on the KPU 34.5 kV system. Other operating conditions (e.g., generation outages) can heavily stress the KPU 34.5 kV system and result in low voltages. Under interconnected system conditions, limitations associated with the KPU 34.5 kV system will limit the ability of large industrial consumers, such as Ketchikan Pulp, to take advantage of excess hydro energy which may be available. Further analysis of the KPU system may be warranted if such purchase expectations are deemed realistic. Under minimum load conditions, voltage regulation on the interconnected system is not a significant problem provided at least one unit is on-line at both Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. It is, however, necessary for these units to absorb a significant amount of vars (relative to their size) to control voltages on the system. A tertiary reactor on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake facilitates voltage regulation on the system during minimum load conditions. Under minimum load conditions when all generation is off-line at Tyee Lake, voltage levels on the 69 kV system in the Wrangell and Petersburg area exceed desired levels. The Swan Lake generation has limited ability to control these voltages, particularly if only a single unit is on-line at Swan Lake. Absorption of more vars at Swan Lake to control the voltages at Wrangell and Petersburg will result in the depression of voltages on the KPU system to lower than desired levels. A tertiary reactor on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake greatly facilitates voltage regulation on the system during such conditions and is necessary for flexible system operation. Switching study simulations performed for this study show that energization of the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake 115 kV intertie is feasible from either the Tyee Lake or Swan Lake end. Switch voltage performance is better when the line is energized from the Swan Lake Power Technologies, Inc. Page 3 end of the intertie. Energization of the line from either end is facilitated by the presence of both units at Tyee Lake or Swan Lake, but energization appears feasible even if only a single unit is on line. A tertiary reactor on the 115/69 kV transformer at Tyee Lake facilitates energization of the line. This is particularly true when the line is energized during minimum load conditions with only a single unit on-line at Tyee Lake or Swan Lake. FUTURE STUDY EFFORTS & EXPECTATIONS This study represents a screening study and provides only a general estimate of the technical feasibility of operating the TWP and KPU systems as an interconnected network. As noted above, the model developed for this study used the best information available, but had to rely on some assumed or estimated data. This is particularly the case concerning load power factors, transformer tap settings and impedance data for the smaller generators on the system. The load power factor and transformer tap data will affect the steady-state system voltage characteristics under the various load and generation conditions. This will thus have an influence on the level of reactive compensation required as part of the interconnection. The generator impedance data will effect the results of the switching studies. This will also have some bearing on reactive compensation required as part of the interconnection, and may affect the feasibility of intertie energization under certain situations. All such data needs to be thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into a more detailed design analysis. The switching studies performed as part of this study provide only a general estimate of the ability to energize the propose intertie under various system conditions. These are not electromagnetic transient (EMTP)-type simulations as they do not represent transformer saturation, harmonic voltages or high-frequency transients which occur during energization. EMTP-type studies are required and should be performed as part of the detailed design analysis. Such studies are necessary regardless of how the intertie line and transformer are switched (i.e., separately or together). EMTP-type studies are required to identify whether the intertie line and transformer can be switched together thus eliminating the need for a 115 kV circuit breaker at Tyee Lake. This study has only examined the steady-state performance of the interconnected network through power flow analysis. Dynamic simulations to be conducted as part of the overall screening study outlined in Subtask 7.2 have yet to be performed. Results from this dynamic analysis are necessary in order to fully establish the feasibility of operating the TWP and KPU systems as an interconnected network. However, results from the power flow analysis, knowledge which has been gained about the system facilities, and engineering judgement can provide some insights as to what can be expected from the dynamic simulations. Transient stability of the interconnected system for the generation and power transfer conditions envisioned is not expected to be a problem. That is to say, faults not directly on the interconnecting facilities and which do not isolate the two systems are not expected to cause the TWP and KPU system to go ’out of step’ and become transiently unstable. Damping of power oscillations on the interconnected system may be poor due to relatively low generator inertias and the use of static, high initial response exciters on the major Power Technologies, Inc. Page 4 generators. Damping problems, if they do occur, should be readily solvable by the application of power system stabilizers at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. The most significant problem which is expected to be identified by the dynamic simulations will be that of system ’survival’ and frequency regulation following outages of the proposed intertie or major transmission elements (69 kV and 115 kV). The KPU system will experience rapid frequency decay and potential loss of ‘local’ generation following outages of the Swan Lake-Bailey 115 kV line. It will also experience similar (but less significant) problems for loss of the proposed intertie when power is being transferred from Tyee Lake to the KPU system. These problems will become worse as the power transfer into the heart of the KPU system become larger. ’Survival’ of the KPU system under such conditions (that is, the ability to keep all ‘local’ generation on-line and to continue serving some load) will be influenced by two factors: ° The ability of the KPU system to rely on excess steam generation capacity at the Ketchikan Pulp facility ° The ability to rapidly shed load on the KPU system Underfrequency load shedding relays will likely be a key requirement on the KPU system to assure ’survival’ under such conditions. If they do not already exist, operating agreements to provide for coordinated system response during emergency situations will need to be developed between KPU and the pulp facility. Additional transmission lines from Swan Lake into the heart of the KPU system may also need to be considered to improve system reliability. Overfrequency on the TWP system will be the most significant problem under interconnected system operations. The transmission outages which interrupt power transfers into the KPU system will leave the TWP system with excess generation (i.e., up to three times more generation than load). Overfrequency control will be highly dependent on the capability and the speed of response of the governors on the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake hydro units. The Tyee Lake units, due to the use of Pelton turbines with jet deflectors, may show better ability to compensate for overfrequency situations than the Swan Lake units which have Francis turbines. Overfrequency problems on the TWP system may most easily be limited by coordinated operation of the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake generation. That is to say, Swan Lake could be operated so its output equals the Wrangell and Petersburg load, and the Tyee Lake generation is run to its maximum before increasing the Swan Lake generation. Thus, under situations which result in excess generation on the TWP system, overfrequency control will be forced on the units which should be most capable of dealing with overfrequencies (i.e., the Tyee Lake Pelton turbines with jet deflectors). Overfrequency may also likely be solved by using generator tripping to remove excess generation from the system (i.e., at Swan Lake). Replacement of the governors on the Tyee Lake units may also be a viable option. A digital, electronic governor which can provide separate control over the needles and deflectors on the Tyee Lake Pelton turbines may substantially improve these units’ ability to respond to overfrequency situations and reduce reliance on generator tripping. Given the nature of the system and the lack of any significant ‘local’ generation under Power Technologies, Inc. Page 5 normal situations, ’survival’ of the Wrangell and Petersburg systems following 69 kV transmission outages is not a readily solvable problem. This problem is not affected by the proposed interconnection. These outages separate Wrangell and/or Petersburg from their primary power source (Tyee Lake), and ‘black out’ these systems. Thus, underfrequency load shedding on the Wrangell and Petersburg systems will not play a significant role in system ’survival’ as it does in the KPU system which has a moderate amount of local’ generation. However, underfrequency load shedding will be appropriate on the Wrangell and Petersburg systems so that these utilities ’share’ with KPU the responsibility for generation deficiencies which affect the interconnected network as a whole. STUDY CASE DISCUSSION Power Flow Cases For the three system load conditions noted above, power flow simulations were performed for various levels of generation and power transfer between the TWP and KPU systems. These simulations represent the interconnected system under steady-state operating conditions. The results are shown on power flow diagrams contained in the exhibits to this report. Exhibit 2 Winter Peak Load Simulations Exhibit 3 Summer Average Load Simulations Exhibit 4 Minimum Load Simulations For the winter peak load condition simulations shown in Exhibit 2, the BASE CASE assumes a normal generation dispatch with the TWP and KPU systems interconnected, but no power transfer between the systems. For this case, all voltages are acceptable and no overloads exist on any facilities. However, it can be noted that the voltage levels on the KPU 34.5 kV system going toward North Point are the lowest on the interconnected system. These voltage levels are not the consequence of the interconnection, but merely indicate this is the weakest area of the interconnected system. Exploratory cases run on the winter peak load condition (not included in this report) indicate that the voltage on this 34.5 kV system can dip substantially (10% or more) if the KPC facility draws even moderate amounts of power (7 MVA) from the system. This may not represent a limiting condition under today’s operating practices, but it will limit the ability of the KPC facility to utilize excess hydro power which will exist on the interconnected system. CASE 1 in Exhibit 2 represents maximum generation at Tyee Lake (assumed to be 25 MW based on review of turbine data), but a single, lightly loaded unit at Swan Lake. This results in 14.5 MW transfer from the TWP to the KPU system. System voltage and loading conditions are acceptable. CASE 2 in Exhibit 2 represents the reverse situation where the generation at Swan Lake is maximum (assumed to be 20 MW), and a single, partially loaded unit is on line at Tyee Lake. This only produces about a 3.5 MW transfer from the KPU system to the TWP system. All system conditions are acceptable. CASE 3 in Exhibit 2 represents the most heavily stressed system situation for the winter peak load condition. In this case, generation at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake is operated Power Technologies, Inc. Page 6 at high output levels (18 MW at each plant) to force the Bailey 115/34.5 kV transformer to its full load capability. This high transfer is achieved by assuming the Silvis Lake and Beaver Falls hydro units are isolated from the system and unable to support the KPU system. Although heavily stressed, the system operates at acceptable voltage and line loading levels. However, it is necessary to operate the Swan Lake units at 105% voltage for this condition in order to achieve acceptable voltage levels on the KPU 34.5 kV system. For the summer average load condition simulations shown in Exhibit 3, the BASE CASE represents the interconnected TWP and KPU systems with no power transfer between them. It is assumed for this load condition that the normal generation dispatch has only a single unit on-line at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. All voltages are acceptable, and there are no overloads. Voltages on the KPU 34.5 kV system are higher than for the winter peak load condition. CASE 1 in Exhibit 3 represents a moderate power transfer (7.5 MW) from the TWP to the KPU system. All Swan Lake generation is off-line, but both unit are on-line at Tyee Lake (about 14 MW). All system conditions are acceptable. CASE 2 in Exhibit 3 also represents the system with no Swan Lake generation, but two units at Tyee Lake (about 21 MW). The Silvis Lake and Beaver Falls generation is assumed to be isolated from the system. This results in a power transfer from the TWP to the KPU system of about 15 MW. All system conditions are acceptable. CASE 3 in Exhibit 3 is a variation on CASE 2. It assumes two units on-line at Tyee Lake (18 MW), but also assumes one unit on-line at Swan Lake (lightly loaded) for voltage control. Although this situation allows for a ’flatter’ voltage profile across the network and less var absorption at Tyee Lake, it does not provide any significant advantage over the case where generation is off-line at Swan Lake. CASE 4 in Exhibit 3 represents a situation where all Tyee Lake generation is off-line, and the two Swan Lake units provide the power for the TWP system. With the absence of Tyee Lake generation, the voltages on the TWP 69 kV system approach 104% even with significant var absorption on the Swan Lake units. Such voltage levels are acceptable and within equipment operating limits. Further reduction of TWP system voltages could be achieved by absorbing more vars at Swan Lake, but this would also reduce the voltages on the KPU 34.5 kV system. For the minimum load condition simulations shown in Exhibit 4, the BASE CASE represents a zero interchange condition between the TWP and KPU systems. The generation dispatch assumes a single, lightly loaded unit on- line at both Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. The units at these plants are required to absorb significant vars (4.5- 5.5 Mvar each) to regulate system voltages. For this case, the voltage on the 69 kV system in the Wrangell and Petersburg area slightly exceeds 105 %. Further var absorption at Tyee Lake could control this voltage (refer to CASE 1, below). CASE 1 in Exhibit 4 represents the lightly loaded system without any generation on-line at Swan Lake and only a single unit at Tyee Lake. Voltages on the system are acceptable, but approach the 105% steady-state limit in the Wrangell and Petersburg areas. The Tyee Lake unit is forced to absorb about 9 Mvar to control system voltages. CASE 2 in Exhibit 4 represents a reverse situation from that of CASE 1. That is, all Tyee Lake generation is off-line, and only a single unit is on-line at Swan Lake. For this Power Technologies, Inc. Page 7 condition, voltages on the 69 kV system in the Wrangell and Petersburg areas operate near 107%. The single Swan Lake unit is at its reactive absorption limit in attempting to control these voltages, and this results in voltages on the KPU system being near unity. CASE 3 in Exhibit 4 is the same generation condition as in CASE 2, but a 4 Mvar reactor is represented on the tertiary of the Tyee Lake 115/69 kV transformer. This results in all voltages on the TWP system being below 105%, and the Swan Lake unit no longer operates at it reactive absorption limit. Switching Study Cases Exhibits 5 and 6 contain the results of switching study simulations which were run to investigate voltage performance on the system during the energization of the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake 115 kV intertie. These simulations assume the TWP and KPU systems are isolated, and represent energization of the line from both the TWP and KPU systems. The cases contained in these Exhibits are summarized as follows: EXHIBIT 5: Winter Peak Load, Both Units On-Line At Tyee Lake & Swan Lake CASE 1: Energize intertie from Tyee Lake CASE 2: Energize intertie from Tyee Lake with 4 Mvar tertiary reactor at Tyee Lake CASE 3: Energize intertie from Swan Lake CASE 4: Energize intertie from Swan Lake with 4 Mvar tertiary reactor at Tyee Lake EXHIBIT 6: Minimum Load, Single Unit On-Line At Tyee Lake & Swan Lake CASE 1: Energize intertie from Tyee Lake CASE 2: Energize intertie from Tyee Lake with 4 Mvar tertiary reactor at Tyee Lake CASE 3: Energize intertie from Swan Lake CASE 4: Energize intertie from Swan Lake with 4 Mvar tertiary reactor at Tyee Lake These switching studies represent the fundamental voltage response on the system immediately after closing the circuit breaker to energize the line (i.e., time = t+). All of the switching study simulations represent the energization of the Tyee Lake to Swan Lake 115 kV transmission line along with the 115/69 kV autotransformer at Tyee Lake. Each case is represented by three power flow plots. The first plot represents the conditions on the system just prior to energizing the intertie (i.e., time = t-). The second plot represents the conditions on the system just after energization of the line, but before the flux levels in the system generators has changed. The last plot for each case shows Power Technologies, Inc. Page 8 the steady-state conditions on the system after voltage regulators and LTCs have adjusted to the line energization. General observations from the switching study cases indicate that energization of the intertie from either Tyee Lake or from Swan Lake is not a substantial problem. Post- switch t+ and steady-state voltages are lower when the intertie is energized from Swan Lake. The two dominant reasons for this are that the KPU system is electrically ’stiffer’ than the TWP system, and the 115 kV line energization does not occur through a transformer impedance. Post-switch t+ and steady-state voltages are also lower when both units are on-line at either Tyee Lake or Swan Lake. The presence of a tertiary connected reactor at Tyee Lake substantially reduces the switching overvoltages. This is particularly the case when the line is energized with only a single unit on-line at Tyee Lake or Swan Lake. EXHIBIT 1 DATA BASE LISTING PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:23 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. AREA DATA X-- AREA --X X-------------- AREA SWING -------------- X X--- DESIRED ---X BUS# NAME BSKV PGEN PMAX PMIN INTERCHANGE TOLER BUSES 1 TWP SYS 0 0.0 10.0 30 2 SWAN/KPU 0 0.0 10.0 34 SUMMATION: 0.0 ZONE DATA X-- ZONE --X BUSES 10 TYEE SYS 9 11 ALP MILL 3 12 WRANGELL 5 13 PETERSBG 13 20 KPU SYS 33 21 KPC MILL 1 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. BUS DATA NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. BUS# NAME BSKV CODE VOLT ANGLE PLOAD : S HUNT = AREA ZONE 1000 TYEE L 69.0 1 1.0187 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 al 10 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 3 1.0100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 2 1.0100 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1011 BRANDF-A69.0 1 1.0114 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1012 BRANDF-B69.0 1 1.0100 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1013 TYEE L-* 1 1.0186 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1014 TYEE L-T13.8 1 1.0186 -2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 10 1015 TYEE L 115 1 1.0205 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 10 1100 WRANG SW69.0 1 0.9941 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 10 1101 WRANG SW24.9 1 1.0091 ~-12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A LL 1102 ALP MILL24.9 1 0.9960 -13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a Ly 1103 ALP MILL2.40 -2 0.9956 -47.2 6.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 ab Li 1110 ZIMONA-A69.0 1 0.9941 22.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.5 1 13 1111 ZIMONA-B69.0 1 0.9943 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 az 13 1112 STIKIN-A69.0 1 0.9970 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 13 1113 STIKIN-B69.0 1 0.9970 22.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 it 13 1114 SUMNER-A69.0 1 0.9981 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 13 1115 SUMNER-B69.0 1 0.9975 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 aL 13 1200 WRANGELL69.0 1 0.9932 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 12 1201 WRANGELL12.5 1 1.0076 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 12 1202 WRANGELL2.40 -2 1.0038 -10.2 3.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 at 12 1203 WRANGL * 1 0.9845 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 aL LZ 1204 WRANGL T4.32 1 0.9845 -9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a 12 1300 PETERSBG69.0 1 0.9921 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ul 13 1301 PETERSBG24.9 1 1.0113 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 13 1302 PETERSBG2.40 -2 1.0046 -10.7 4.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1 13 1303 PETERS * 1 0.9803 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 13 1304 PETERS T6.90 1 0.9803 -9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 al 13 1400 CRYSTAL 24.9 1 1.0614 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ab 13 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 2 1.0300 -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 13 2000 SWAN L 115 1 1.0159 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 2 1.0100 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2100 BAILEY 115 1 1.0013 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2101 BAILEY 34.5 1 0.9910 -8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2102 BAIL1&2G4.16 -2 0.9896 -39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2103 BAILEY3G4.16 -2 0.9910 -38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2104 BAIL GRD4.16 1 0.9910 -38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2105 BAILEY 4.16 1 1.0389 -39.8 4.4 z.5 0.0 1.2 2 20 2150 WARD C 34.5 1 0.9865 -8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2151 WARD C 12.5 1 1.0403 -39.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 2 20 2160 KPC TAP 34.5 1 0.9856 -8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 2 1.0200 -38.9 20.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 2 21 2170 TOTEM B 34.5 1 0.9792 -9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2171 TOTEM 164.16 -2 1.0404 -39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2180 N. POINT34.5 1 0.9671 -9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2181 N. POINT12.5 1 1.0393 -43.1 3.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 2 20 2200 BETHE 34.5 1 0.9887 -8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2201 BETHE 12.5 1 1.0260 -41.0 3.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 2 20 2300 PORT TAP34.5 1 0.9882 -8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2301 PORT WST34.5 1 0.9879 -8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2302 PORT WST12.5 1 0.9749 -40.4 2.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 2 20 2400 KETCHIKN34.5 1 0.9877 —8).3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2401 KETCHIKN12.5 1 0.9861 -40.5 9.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 2 1.0200 -38.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. BUS DATA NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. BUS# NAME BSKV CODE VOLT ANGLE PLOAD QLOAD S HUNT AREA ZONE 2500 SHOOP ST34.5 1 0.9918 -7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2501 SHOOP ST4.16 1 0.9824 -39.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 2 20 2600 MT.POINT34.5 1 0.9977 -7.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 2 20 2700 HERRING 34.5 1 1.0005 -6.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 2 20 2800 BEAVER 34.5 1 1.0095 -6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 2 1.0200 -33.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 2 1.0200 -33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 2 1.0200 -33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2900 SILVIS 34.5 1 1.0114 -5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 2 1.0200 -33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 20 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. NORMAL DISPATCH, BUS# 1001 1002 1103 1202 1202 1202 1202 1202 1202 1302 1302 1302 1302 1302 1401 1401 2001 2001 2102 2102 2103 2161 2161 2161 2171 2402 2402 2402 2801 2803 2804 2901 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E WINTER PEAK LOAD. NO INTERCHANGE. TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 GENERATOR UNIT DATA NAME BSKV COD ID ST PGEN QGEN QMAX QMIN PMAX PMIN MBASE ZS ORCE TYEE L1G13.8 TYEE L2G13.8 ALP MILL2.40 WRANGELL2 .40 WRANGELL2 .40 WRANGELL2.40 WRANGELL2 . 40 WRANGELL2 .40 WRANGELL2.40 PETERSBG2.40 PETERSBG2.40 PETERSBG2 .40 PETERSBG2.40 PETERSBG2.40 CRYSTALG2.40 CRYSTALG2.40 SWAN1&2G13.8 SWAN1&2G13.8 BAIL1&2G4.16 BAIL1&2G4.16 BAILEY3G4 .16 KPC 1-3G613.8 KPC 1-3G613.8 KPC 1-3G13.8 TOTEM 164.16 KETCHIKN4 .16 KETCHIKN4 .16 KETCHIKN4 .16 BEAVER1G2.40 BEAVER3G2.40 BEAVER4G2.40 SILVIS1G4.16 3 2 NNNNNNNNNNND PPWRP OP WHEFWNHRPWNHERENEPNEPUSWNHRPAUOSWNHRENE 1 RPRRPRPRPrRPRPORPRPOOOCOFRFRRFRRPOOOCOCOOOCOCOCOCOOFRF NNNRFPRFPRFRPORPWONDOCOWDDONDODCCCCVOCDCOONUDA -1 = ! CORP RPORPRPRPRPONUORPDFRFPOCOCOCOORFPROCOOCOCOOF PNUNPRPRPEPNEPIYIYUWWHADPRPHPOOPNNORPEBPRPHPBPUY -5 2) 13 0 13 0 9999-9999 1 0 az 0 1 0 a 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9999-9999 9999-9999 10 0 10 0 4 0 4 0 6 1 3 3 9 3 15 5 2 0 az 0 1 0 a 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 13 13 2 BR MPADWWENKRPEFONWWENNNN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 eooo°coe 0.2100 0.2100 0.2140 0.2451 0.2451 0.2451 0.2451 0.1280 0.2800 0.2800 0.2451 0.0890 0.1430 0.1330 0.2900 0.2900 0.3100 0.3100 0.3300 0.3300 0.2300 0.2140 0.2140 0.2140 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 X TRAN GENTAP PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK * AD. NO INTERCHANGE. NORMAL DISPATCH, TO CKT FROM 1000* 1000* 1000* 1000* 1011* 1012* 1013 1013 1015* 1100 1100* 1100* 1101* 1102* 1110* 1111* 1112* 1113* 1114* 1115* 1200* 1201* 1201* 1201* 1201* 1201* 1203 1300* 1301* 1301* 1301* 1303 1400* 2000* 2000* 2100* 2101* 2101* 2101* 2101* 2101* 2102 2150 2150* 2160* 2160* 2170 2170* 2180 2200 2200* 2300* 2300* 2301* 1001 1002 1011 1013 1012 1100 1014* 1015* 2000 1101* 1110 1200 1102 1103 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1300 1203 1202 1202 1202 1202 1203 1204* 1303 1302 1303 1400 1304* 1401 2001 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2150 2200 2105* 2151* 2160 2161 2170 Zag 2180 2181* 2201* 2300 2301 2400 2302 2 PPP PPB BBB BP BBBBBBBBBPBPBPBPBBPRPBRBPP BP BWNEPP BRB BPP BPP BRP BPP PPP RPE RBBB NAME TYEE TYEE TYEE TYEE BRANDF-A BRANDF-B TYEE L-* TYEE L-* TYEE L WRANG SW WRANG SW WRANG SW WRANG SW ALP MILL ZIMONA-A ZIMONA-B STIKIN-A STIKIN-B SUMNER-A SUMNER-B WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGL * PETERSBG PETERSBG PETERSBG PETERSBG PETERS * CRYSTAL SWAN L SWAN L BAILEY BAILEY BAILEY BAILEY BAILEY BAILEY BAIL1&2G WARD C WARD C KPC TAP KPC TAP TOTEM B TOTEM B N. POINT BETHE BETHE PORT TAP PORT TAP PORT WST eter NAME TYEE L1G TYEE L2G BRANDF-A TYEE L-* BRANDF-B WRANG SW TYEE L-T TYEE L SWAN L WRANG SW ZIMONA-A WRANGELL ALP MILL ALP MILL ZIMONA-B STIKIN-A STIKIN-B SUMNER-A SUMNER-B PETERSBG WRANGL * WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGELL WRANGL * WRANGL T PETERS * PETERSBG PETERS * CRYSTAL PETERS T CRYSTALG SWAN1&2G BAILEY BAILEY BAIL1&2G BAILEY3G BAIL GRD WARD C BETHE BAILEY WARD C KPC TAP KPC 1-3G TOTEM B TOTEM 1G N. POINT N. POINT BETHE PORT TAP PORT WST KETCHIKN PORT WST TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 BR» NCH DATA LINE R_ LINE X CHRGING TP ST RATA RATB RATC -0267 0.7449 -0267 0.7449 -1416 0.3345 +0192 -0.0042 -0145 0.0069 -1564 0.4340 -0917 1.6642 -0050 0.3450 -0846 0.3385 +1333 2.0267 -0000 0.0001 -0135 0.0636 +2782 0.2354 -0000 1.5714 -0216 0.0103 -0108 0.0505 -0232 0.0111 -0096 0.0450 -0287 0.0136 -0834 0.3385 -0375 0.9561 -0000 2.2000 -0000 2.2000 -0000 2.2000 +0000 2.2000 -0250 0.0989 -0000 0.4046 -0250 0.7845 -0000 0.7333 0167 -0.0536 -3387 2.8248 -0000 0.5560 -0000 2.2000 -0000 0.3500 -0705 0.1492 -0000 0.4650 -0000 0.6000 -0000 0.5900 -0000 4.5333 -1626 0.2304 -0186 0.0378 -0000 0.1000 -0000 1.3600 -0407 0.0577 -0000 1.1760 -1035 0.1399 -0000 3.8467 +2099 0.2243 -0000 1.5000 -0000 1.2800 -0083 0.0236 -0057 0.0105 -0543 0.1106 -0000 1.2600 Feoooeo ecooooecoooocooooooocooooooowooooooooooooooooooooocooo: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0065 0.0000 0.0178 0.0094 0.0000 0.0000 0.0376 0.0000 0.0000 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0264 0.0014 0.0284 0.0012 0.0350 0.0090 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0206 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 F F F AH NA tay ay ay gay tay rey ray ayy yyy MIs HH a PRP RPP PPR PB RPP BBP BBP BBP PPB PPP BPP RBBB BP BBP BPP BP BBB PB PPB ERP BBE RB 15 15 53 20 100 53 4 20 53 5 0 53 10 4 100 87 100 87 100 85 10 3 3 3 3 10 3 20 10 20 10 7 3 25 105 25 14 10 2 23 32 5 6 23 7 20 2 a7 6 6 39 15 32 6 ecocooocooocoocoocooocooooooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooso 0 ecooooooeooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooso PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. TO CKT NAME FROM 2400* 2400* 2401* 2500* 2500* 2600* 2700* 2800* 2800* 2800* 2800* 2900* 2401 2500 2402 2501 2600 2700 2800 2801 2803 2804 2900 2901 PRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPPPH KETCHIKN KETCHIKN KETCHIKN SHOOP ST SHOOP ST MT.POINT HERRING BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER BEAVER SILVIS NAME KETCHIKN SHOOP ST KETCHIKN SHOOP ST MT.POINT HERRING BEAVER BEAVER1G BEAVER3G BEAVER4G SILVIS SILVIS1G TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 BRANCH DATA LINE X CHRGING TP ST RATA RATB RATC 0.5833 0.1693 1.1600 4.2000 0.2006 0.0804 0.2431 3.9133 2.2800 2.2800 0.0817 2.3760 -0000 +0000 -0000 +0000 +0000 -0000 +0000 -0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 eooooococo F F F oj my PRPRPRPRPRPPRPREPPR 20 39 5 1 39 39 39 2 3 3 17 3 0 eoooooocococ]e eooooooocooce PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL FROM 1000 1000 1000 1013 1013 i100 1102 1200 1201 1201 1201 1201 1201 1203 1300 1301 1301 1303 1400 2000 2100 2101 2101 2101 2102 2150 2160 2170 2180 2200 2301 2400 2401 2500 2800 2800 2800 2900 NO INTERCHANGE. DISPATCH, TO CKT TP RATIO 1001 1 F 1.0000 1002 1 F 1.0000 1013 1 F 1.0000 1014 1 T 1.0000 1015 1 T 1.0000 1101 1 T 1.0312 1103 1 F 1.0000 1203 1 F 1.0000 1202 1 F 1.0000 1202 2 F 1.0000 1202 3 F 1.0000 1202 4 F 1.0000 1203 1 F 1.0250 1204 1 T 1.0000 1303 1 F 1.0000 1302 1 F 1.0000 1303 1 F 1.0312 1304 1 T 1.0000 1401 1 F 1.0250 2001 1 F 1.0000 2101 1 F 1.0000 2102 1 F 1.0000 2103 1 F 1.0000 2104 1 F 1.0000 2105 1 T 1.0500 2151 1 T 1.0562 2161 1 F 1.0000 2171 1 T 1.0625 2181 1 T 1.1000 2201 1 T 1.0562 2302 1 F 1.0000 2401 1 F 1.0000 2402 1 F 1.0000 2501 1 F 1.0000 2801 1 F 1.0000 2803 1 F 1.0000 2804 1 F 1.0000 2901 1 F 1.0000 ANGLE 30.00 30.00 0.00 -30.00 0.00 -30.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 -30.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 -30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 -30.00 30.0 -30.0 -30.00 -30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 RG CONT PRPRPRPPRPRPRPRPRPRPBRPBPRPBPRPRPPRPBBBRBBPBPBPBRPBPBBPBPBREBRPE 110 eoooocorCGCCCO P iS) o Pp PRPPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPBPRPBBRBRPRPBEBPREBBBPREEHB coo 1301 eooooocno 2105 2151 2171 2181 2201 eoooocceo RMAX 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.1000 1.5000 1.5000 -5000 - 5000 -5000 - 5000 -1000 -5000 -5000 - 5000 -1000 -5000 - 5000 - 5000 -5000 +5000 -5000 -5000 +1000 -1000 -5000 -1000 -1000 -1000 -5000 +1000 -5000 +5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 RMIN 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.9000 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.9000 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.9000 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.9000 0.9000 0.5100 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.5100 0.9000 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 0.5100 TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:19 ‘VMAX 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.0200 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.0200 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.0200 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.0462 1.0462 1.5000 1.0462 1.0462 1.0300 1.5000 1.0300 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000 TRANSFORMER DATA VMIN STEP TAB 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0000 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0000 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0000 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0338 0.00625 1.0338 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0338 0.00625 1.0338 0.00625 1.0200 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 1.0200 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 0.5100 0.00625 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:24 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. BUS DATA NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. X------ BUS -----' X COD ZERO SEQ SHUNT NEG SEQ SHUNT POS SEQ SHUNT PLOAD QLOAD 1000 TYEE L 69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1011 BRANDF-A69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1012 BRANDF-B69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1013 TYEE L-* 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1014 TYEE L-T13.8 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1015 TYEE L 115 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1100 WRANG SW69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1101 WRANG SW24.9 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1102 ALP MILL24.9 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1103 ALP MILL2.40 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.012 1110 ZIMONA-A69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.075 0.000 0.000 1111 ZIMONA-B69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1112 STIKIN-A69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1113 STIKIN-B69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1114 SUMNER-A69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1115 SUMNER-B69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1200 WRANGELL69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1201 WRANGELL12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1202 WRANGELL2.40 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.006 1203 WRANGL * a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1204 WRANGL T4.32 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1300 PETERSBG69.0 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1301 PETERSBG24.9 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1302 PETERSBG2.40 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.009 1303 PETERS * 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1304 PETERS T6.90 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1400 CRYSTAL 24.9 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2000 SWAN L 115 #1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2100 BAILEY 225) |) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2101 BAILEY 34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2102 BAIL1&2G4.16 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2103 BAILEY3G4.16 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2104 BAIL GRD4.16 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2105 BAILEY 4.16 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.044 0.015 2150 WARD C 34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2151 WARD C 12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.001 2160 KPC TAP 34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.124 2170 TOTEM B 34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2171 TOTEM 164.16 -2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2180 N. POINT34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2181 N. POINT12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.013 2200 BETHE 34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2201 BETHE 12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.012 2300 PORT TAP34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2301 PORT WST34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2302 PORT WST12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.009 2400 KETCHIKN34.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2401 KETCHIKN12.5 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.030 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, SHOOP ST34.5 SHOOP ST4.16 MT.POINT34.5 HERRING 34.5 BEAVER 34.5 BEAVER1G2.40 BEAVER3G2.40 BEAVER4G2.40 SILVIS 34.5 SILVIS1G4.16 - BUS ----- X COD ZERO SEQ SHUNT NEG SEQ 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 Z 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 NO INTERCHANGE. TUE, FEB 25 1992 BUS DATA SHUNT POS SEQ SHUNT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. QO. QO. QO. -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 ceoooo°o 000 000 000 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PLOAD 0.000 0.006 -007 -003 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 -000 eceooo0o00d 15:24 QLOAD 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NO INTERCHANGE. NORMAL DISPATCH, BUS# 1001 1002 1103 1202 1202 1202 1202 1202 1202 1302 1302 1302 1302 1302 1401 1401 2001 2001 2102 2102 2103 2161 2161 2161 2171 2402 2402 2402 2801 2803 2804 2901 ID ZGEN [eke eRe Qakk kee 1 0.0000 -1 0.0000 -2 0.0000 -3 0.0000 -4 0.0000 -5 0.0000 -6 0.0000 -1 0.0000 -2 0.0000 -3 0.0000 -4 0.0000 -5 0.0000 1 0.0000 2 0.0000 LKR RRR QeekKeee -1 0.0000 -2 0.0000 -3 0.0000 -1 0.0000 2 0.0000 3 0.0000 -1 0.0000 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 5 0.0000 1 0.0000 3 0.0000 4 0.0000 1 0.0000 (ZERO) 0.0920 -0920 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -1600 -1600 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ceooooocooocoocoocooocoooooocoooooooooCoCoO ZGEN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (POS .) 0.2100 0.2100 0.2140 0.2451 0.2451 0.2451 0.2451 0.1280 0.2800 0.2800 0.2451 0.0890 0.1430 0.1330 0.2900 0.2900 0.3100 0.3100 0.3300 0.3300 0.2300 0.2140 0.2140 0.2140 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 TUE, ZGEN (NEG.) MBASE 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2110 0.2110 0.2140 0.2460 0.2460 0.2460 0.2460 0.2460 0.1160 0.2200 0.2460 0.0820 0.1320 0.1210 0.2900 0.2900 0.2800 0.2800 0.3300 0.3300 0.2300 0.2140 0.2140 0.2140 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 0.2900 13 13 2 FEB 25 1992 15:24 GENERATOR UNIT DATA XTRAN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 BR DBADWWHENRFPRPONWWHENNND NPR ww w WWWRrRNHNND 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 GENTAP 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E TUE, FEB 25 1992 15:24 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. BRANCH DATA NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. FROM TO CKT R, X, B (POS. AND NEG.) R, X, B (ZERO SEQ.) STAT RATIO ANGLE 1000G 10010 0.0267 0.7449 0.0000 0.0000 0.7449 0.0000 11.0000 30.00 1000G 1002U 0.0267 0.7449 0.0000 0.0000 0.7449 0.0000 1.0000 30.00 1000 1011 0.1416 0.3345 0.0065 0.2444 0.9996 0.0000 1000G 1013G 0.0192 -0.0042 0.0000 0.0042 -0458 0.0000 1.0000 1011 1012 0.0145 0.0069 0.0178 0.0148 -0060 0.0000 1012 1100 0.1564 0.4340 0.0094 0.2991 +3623 0.0000 1013G 1014UT 1013G 1015GT 0.0917 1.6642 0.0000 0.1250 0.0050 0.3450 0.0000 0.0242 -5225 0.0000 +2992 0.0000 1.0000 -30.00 1.0000 1015 2000 0.0846 0.3385 0.0376 0.2204 -0220 0.0000 1100U 1101GT 0.1333 2.0267 0.0000 0.0000 -0267 0.0000 1.0312 -30.00 1100 1110 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 -0001 0.0000 ZERO IMP LINE 1100 1200 0.0135 0.0636 0.0017 0.0376 +2214 0.0000 1101 1102 0.2782 0.2354 0.0000 0.8293 -7062 0.0000 1102U) 1103G 0.0000 1.5714 0.0000 0.0000 -5714 0.0000 1.0000 30.00 1110 1111 0.0216 0.0103 0.0264 0.0219 -0089 0.0000 1111 1112 0.0108 0.0505 0.0014 0.0299 -1760 0.0000 1112 1113 0.0232 0.0111 0.0284 0.0236 -0096 0.0000 1113 1114 0.0096 0.0450 0.0012 0.0266 -1566 0.0000 1114 1115 0.0287 0.0136 0.0350 0.0291 -0118 0.0000 1115 1300 0.0834 0.3385 0.0090 0.2317 -1794 0.0000 1200G 1203G 1201G 1202U 1201G 1202U 1201G 12020 1201G 1202U 0.0375 0.9561 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000 0.0000 0.0000 -9561 0.0000 +2000 0.0000 +2000 0.0000 +2000 0.0000 -2000 0.0000 1.0000 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1201G 1203G 0.0250 0.0989 0.0000 0.0000 -0989 0.0000 1.0250 1203G 1204UT 0.0000 0.4046 0.0000 0.0000 -4046 0.0000 1.0000 -30.00 1300G 1303G 0.0250 0.7845 0.0000 0.0000 -7845 0.0000 1.0000 1301G 1302U 0.0000 0.7333 0.0000 0.0000 +7333 0.0000 1.0000 30.00 1301G 1303G 0.0167 -0.0536 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0536 0.0000 1.0312 1301 1400 1303G 1304UT 1400G 14010 2000G 20010 2000 2100 2100G 2101U 21010) 2102G 21010) 2103G 2101G 2104U 2101 2150 2101 2200 2102G 2105GT 21500 2151GT 3.3387 2.8248 0.0000 9.9521 0.0000 0.5560 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0705 0.1492 0.0206 0.1360 0.0000 0.4650 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.5333 0.0000 0.0000 0.1626 0.2304 0.0000 0.2594 0.0186 0.0378 0.0000 0.0322 0.0000 0.1000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.3600 0.0000 0.0000 -4744 0.0000 -5560 0.0000 +2000 0.0000 +3500 0.0000 -6805 0.0000 +4650 0.0000 -6000 0.0000 -5900 0.0000 +5333 0.0000 -0175 0.0000 -1881 0.0000 -1000 0.0000 -3600 0.0000 1.0000 -30.00 1.0250 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0000 30.00 1.0500 1.0562 -30.00 2150 2160 0.0407 0.0577 0.0000 0.0647 +2539 0.0000 2160G 21610 0.0000 1.1760 0.0000 0.0000 -1760 0.0000 1.0000 30.00 2160 2170 0.1035 0.1399 0.0000 0.1587 -5921 0.0000 21700) 2171GT 0.0000 3.8467 0.0000 0.0000 -8467 0.0000 1.0625 -30.00 2170 2180 0.2099 0.2243 0.0000 0.3016 -9744 0.0000 21800 2181GT 2200U 2201GT 0.0000 1.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2800 0.0000 0.0000 -5000 0.0000 -2800 0.0000 1.1000 -30.00 1.0562 -30.00 2200 2300 0.0083 0.0236 0.0000 0.0194 -1134 0.0000 2300 2301 0.0057 0.0105 0.0001 0.0170 -0316 0.0000 2300 2400 0.0543 0.1106 0.0000 0.0941 -5501 0.0000 PRPPRPRPBRPBPPRPBRPBRPBPBBPBPPBBPBPBEBBPEPHBBPPBWNEBPBPPBPBPEPBPBPRP RRP PRR RPRPRRERER FPOCOCHHOWOHPOHOCOHPBDODDCDONDDMODDDCONNNNOHOCOCOOHPOCOONKHORKHOO PRPRPRPRPRPRPRPBPBPBPPRPBRPBPBRPBPPBPBPBPBP RBBB RPBPRRPBBRBPPRPBPBBPBREBBPBPBPBPEPBPEBBBBBEBE 2301U 2302G 0.0000 1.2600 0.0000 0.0000 +2600 0.0000 1.0000 30.00 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E FROM 2400U 2400 24010 2500U 2500 2600 2700 2800G 2800G 2800G 2800 2900G 2401G 2500 2402U 2501G 2600 2700 2800 28010 2803U 2804U 2900 29010 1 PRRBPPRPRPPRBRPRPPHP NO INTERCHANGE. TO CKT R, X, B (POS. AND NEG.) 0.0000 0.0580 0.0000 0.0000 0.0687 0.0275 0.0833 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0879 0.0000 0.5833 0.1693 1.1600 4.2000 0.2006 0.0804 0.2431 3.9133 2.2800 2.2800 0.0817 2.3760 +0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 -0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ceooooc]oe R, X, 0.0000 0.1308 0.0000 0.0000 0.1603 0.0643 0.1941 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1211 0.0000 TUE, FEB 25 1992 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, BRANCH B (ZERO SEQ.) STAT RATIO -5833 +7734 -0000 +2000 -9475 -3799 -1477 +9133 +2800 +2800 0.3496 2.3760 NNWROOLCOCO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 aL PRRPPRPRPRPRPBRPR 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 15:24 DATA ANGLE 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 EXHIBIT 2 WINTER PEAK LOAD POWER FLOW SIMULATION PLOTS WRANGELL e + PETERSBG 1202 : (1302 we de ed 9 @ ® 0.0}-0.8 gSters x 0 0.0]/-0.2 sole 0.0 @ @—-4 0.0 0.0 r 0.0 @ 0.0 Soe -4.2110.0 @ 0.0 oS -0.9 CRYSTALG Ss 0.0 @ 0.0 1401 0.0 @) 0.0 0.4) A -0.0 : 6) ©—4 ral 0.0 0.0 ® 15 Si|1.9 -1.8 0.0 =0.2 Soll-0.3 0.4 4.2 © 0.0 0.0 | 09 > 0.0 2.5 26.4 25.2 2.4 1.030 1.061 1.011 1.005 ) 12.6 1.008 Oljw a} BN on. rs) S WRANG SW 1100 2000 SWAN L i BASE CASE NO INTERCHANGE. FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:51 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) BRANCH - MW/MVAR EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR N. POINT 33.4 1015 SWAN L 2180 0.967 8.4 a Poe) alo 8.4 @ -0.6 KETCHIKN 2401 SHOOP ST 13.9 TOTEM 1G 4.3 e200 1.010 i KETCHIKN ; 2171 1.040 3400 -5.2 34.2 TOTEM B ‘ 0.992 2170 0.979 MT. POINT Tht 2600 lw alo 1 PORT TAP Ol" 34.1 2300 fe 0.988 itt KPC 1-36] SIF Ae OF NO 14,1 aise 2161 slo 1.020 wo HERRING BETHE ols 34.1 2700 kpc TAP '|¢ .0 wlo 0.989 2160 a 986 yt I lay w BAILEY ws 2100 34.2 0.991 ; BEAVER S48 2800 1.009 WARD C 4 oe 1.020 4.0||-4.3 -1.2]/1.1 34.0 0.987 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. 0.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH — MW/MVAR BASE CASE FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:51 KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 |EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR WRANGELL ray e PETERSBG 1202 a al 1302 we de 3 0.0 @ 0.0]|-0.8 oS eof S loco 1) 0.0]/-0.2 Sola 0.0 @) o o : @—4 0.0 0.0 0.0 )) ® 0.0 0.0 0.0 CRYSTALG 0.0 @—4 0.0 @ 0.0 0.0 6) 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 0.0 4.2 5 ©—-4 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.4 1.009 12. 1.013 322 a 2.4 1.009 WRANG SW 1100 2000 SWAN L GEN @ TYEE & 2.5MW GEN @ SWAN. 0.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH — MW/MVAR i? TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 25MW CASE 1 FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:52 KV: $35 ,$69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 ' b == ano TOTEM 1G 2171 TOTEM B 2170 6°€- KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP 2160 ' uw Wo 33.3 0.966 34.0 0.984 BAILEY 2100 34.0 0.985 KETCHIKN PORT TAP 2300 2200 1 ° x BETHE Si ~ 1 N e SHOOP ST 2500 0.991 MT.POINT 2600 8°s 1 of 34.0 ‘fe 0.987 Pees, a fo} HERRING = 34.1 2700 ° 0.987 ' ~ ~ 34.1 25MW GEN @ TYEE & 2.5MW GEN @ SWAN. ‘if TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. CASE 1 FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:51 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) KV: $35 ,$69 ,@138 [EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR PETERSBG WRANGELL w ray 1202 -2. 45 5 1302 » le b -1.645 = 0.0 0.0]|-0.8 odio oll-3.2 69.0 8 8 0.0 @) ® 0.0]/-0.2 So -0.8 1.001 ° ° 0.0 Q) @Q—— 69.2 0.0 0.0 1.002 Ul avs : ® 0.0 So -4.210.0 @) oe CRYSTALG °3s rn 0.0 @ ® 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ds ©—22 oo ©) 0.0 -1.8 0.0 Wn 0.5 4.2 Kn 0.0 0.0 © 0.9 © 0.0 25.4 2.4 1.019 1.012 12.7 1.017 g 32 0.6 2.4 } 1.013 0.0 145 1 WRANG SW sie iy 69.2 1100 Jr rin 1.003 rE 1005 © ofe ~ lo Huot 0.0 (2) >) | o ALP MILL + GRR 2889. js Is 0.0 o|= —-| ° 14.2 alo peel. -2.3] 1.029 1015 r ri pa ol, yi) 0.5 So aa WY o o oo 118.2 71.0 ° 14.1 1.028 1.029 1.020 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ONE UNIT @ TYEE, 20MW GEN @ SWAN. 0.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR CASE 2 FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:52 KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 |EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR TYEE L N. POINT 33.5 1015 SWAN L 2180 0.970 oe alo KETCHIKN SHOOP ST 14.0 TOTEM 1G 2500) 1.022 1.015 2171 KETCHIKN . . 2400 TOTEM B |‘ 0.994 2170 a MT.POINT S|” 34.5 - 2600 sho 1.000 4.2 “s ojo yt 1.020 os to] Sete o|”n SILVIS 1.0000 34.9 30}.0 1.013 PORT TAP Site 34.2 2300 le 0.991 ——_—— KPC 1-3G NiO 14.1 tei 2161 elo 1.020 Nic HERRING BETHE ri 34.2 2700 KPC TAP S|? 34.1 nlo 0.992 2160 alo 0.988 io Nin ell % of? BAILEY a|~ ho 2100 34.3 0.994 34.9 1.011 0 WARD C 4.1 4 2150 0.994 .020 4.0]|-4.3 -1.0//0.9 34.1 0.989 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ONE UNIT @ TYEE, 20MW GEN @ SWAN. ‘tit TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. CASE 2 FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:52 KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 [EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR PETERSBG WRANGELL e 1202 -2.4f5 1302 role =1.55 0 -0.8 gS 9$ of-3.2 69.2 yo 0 © -0.2 Sole -0.8 1.002 o x4 0 69.3 0 @) 1.004 0 0. @ CRYSTALG 1401 colo ofo ofo ole colo olo Io So|O O10 OfO o]o olo ofo FPNwly OC]O C1O O]O O]lo oOlo 0.0 4 © 0.0 42 b> 0. 4 009 12.6 1.012 33 +55 2.4 J 1.009 0.0 7.6 ' WRANG SW oC ris 69.3 1100 aif 1.005 HL 1000 ote | » 9.0 ls ci : 1.0812 25.3 he So -1.7 2) ALP MILL -3P.0 1.016 es 1103 —— es ole ii.i! © 14.1 @ 1.9 tole ryee E -2.2 1.020 : 1015 i081 7: 6.0 r : wal ol} oe 8.9 1.2) - pee =5.0 =2.6 Slise =D Sol-o.3 ° jes 2.4 7 119.5 711.2 9° 14.1 1.000 1.039 1.032 1.020 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED, 18MW @ SWAN & TYEE, 2MW @ KETCHIKAN. 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR CASE 3 FRI, FEB 21 1992 16:08 KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 ' b a TOTEM 1G 2171 Sane 0.964 KETCHIKN KETCHIKN SHOOP ST 2500 A) 0.3 33.5 TOTEM B "|! 0.971 tf 2170 a MT.POINT OF 33.5 —= 2600 wlo 0.970 S| 0.0 - colo ofo olo 0.000 S RO ble ' ww 2500» 3060. 0.000 PORT TAP 8} |® 33.8 | 2300 ole 0.981 1 yt ' ' KPC 1-3G 14.1 ls ' 2161 1.020 of, ! ' ijt ' ' i HERRING (23325 ' BETHE wir 33.9 2700 0.970 1 KPC TAP }|> 33.9 os 0.982 ' 2160 alo 0.982 yt 1 I]t Salta : a BAILEY tors ' lo 2100 ' = ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 _ ' ' 34.0 ' 1 a 0.987 ' | BEAVER ' ' 0.0 2800 \ 0.000 ae 1000 12000 WARD C 2150 “900 ‘Oo. 000 ‘oO. 300 sje sje sje 4.0)/-4.3 olo olo olo vps 33.9 0.983 i CASE 3 FRI, 18MW @ SWAN & TYEE, 16:08 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED, FEB 21 1992 2MW @ KETCHIKAN. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,$69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR EXHIBIT 3 SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD POWER FLOW SIMULATION PLOTS PETERSBG WRANGELL = a 1202 =1,, 245 S 1302 eye e =1.2 0.0 ® 0.0]|-0.6 22e o off-2.4 70.9, ° ° 0.0 0.0|/-0.1 lols S]-0.6 1s sols s 0.0 @) @ 0.0 70.8 0.0 0.0 1.025 n 0.0 @) ® 0.0 So -3.0//0.0 0.0 oo -0.6 CRYSTALG 3 0.0 @—2 1401 0.0 @ 0.0 0. -0. 0.0 6) © 0.0 0.0 0.0 1; -1.8 0.0 -0. 0.5 3.0 5 ©—44 0.0 0.6 0.0 25.4 2.4 1.019 1.014 ¥12.7 1.018 gq 2.4 0.5 2.4 v 1.016 0.0 7.9 WRANG SW or a Sl 10 oe 1100 Ss “4 . TYEE L ule 33 loo -@ 1.025 25.4 te So 0.0 ALP MILL 23p°0 1-619 m2) 1103 6.3) Oo 14.2 @) a euler TYEE L -3.6 1.031 ‘ 1015 7 6i1 - : gq 4.0 Be ‘ 0.08 n 6.3 N0.8 oS]-2.5 0.3 Sis =2.9 So]-0.7 S Clos 2.4 118.5 71.2 ° 13.9 1.000 1.030 1.031 1.010 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) THU, NO INTERCHANGE, FEB 20 1992 15:14 SINGLE UNIT @ TYEE & SWAN. ,£69 ,#138 [EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR TYEE L N. POINT 34.1 1015 SWAN L 2180 0.989 tt HIn oft KETCHIKN TOTEM 1G 3 1.010 2171 040 rm , KETCHIKN -6.5 0.4 34.7 TOTEM B f’|' 1.007 1 2170 ° MT.POINT 2} 34.9 — 2600 wl 1.010 oF 4.2 Fak Slo ol fo 11020 mu Sieyss NW NI SILVIS 1.0000 35.2 ' 2900 _ 30.0 1.020 PORT TAP t"|¥ 34.6 T= 2300 fo 1.004 . oe = 1] ° KPC 1-36] O[S AO win om 14,4 Tu 2161 jo 1.020 So ' HERRING BETHE rie 34.6 2700 KPC TAP f°|N 34.5 2200 sofw 1-004 2160 oly 1.001 Th oj! Sie ale BAILEY 116.8 lw ~ 2100 1.016 Sie 34.7 oo __ 1.005 rye 30). Plo 1.0000 uo oneO BAIL1é2G O}¢ 4.2 BAILEY3 a2 | 2102 1.007 2103 1.005 2.7/|-3.0 op 34.6 1.002 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NO INTERCHANGE, SINGLE UNIT @ TYEE & SWAN. Q.950UV 1.050 OV BRANCH - MW/MVAR FRI, FEB 21 1992 13:22 : KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR WRANGELL = ° PETERSBG 1202 f) -1.2f5 mE 1302 Bo He w -1.118 [ 0.0 @ @ 0.0]/-0.6 RBS Heng of-2.4 71.1 yo a 0.0 0.0]/-0.1 Sola S]f-0.6 1.031 So lu ° 0.0 @—4 10.9 0.0 @) 0.0 1.028 _ r : ® 0.0 So -3.0l/0.0 @) 0.0 oS -0.6 : CRYSTALG 0.0 @ ® 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6) O©—4 0.0 0.0 -1.8 0.0 0.4 3.0 5, © 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 25.2 2.4 1.010 1.006 ¥ 12.6 1.008 gq 2.4 0.5 2.4 | 1.005 0.0 7.9 ' WRANG SW oP oir 71,0, iN . 1100 afin z nyse 7 ue ft 8.0 _() 1.0000 25.3 So -2.8 ALP MILL -30.0 1.014 oe 6.3) © 13.9 or sta) TYEE L 4-0} 1.010 1015 } i | 14ho oll 8.8 =2. 69S Sis =2.8 oS Clos 119.2 71.1 ° 13.9 1.037 1.030 1.010 2000 SWAN L 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NO SWAN LAKE GEN, 14MW @ TYEE. !CASE 1 FRI, FEB 21 1992 16:40 it TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 [EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 34.2 1015 SWAN L 2180 0.993 le ofu sae SHOOP ST TOTEM 1G a 2500 11633 2171 KETCHIKN -6.5 0.7 4.2 34.9 TOTEM B 1.020 1.010 2170 ° MT. POINT t 4.2 i 1.020 o SILVIS 1,000 35.2 ' 30.0 1.022 PORT TAP us 2300 ule 1.008 i KPC 1-3G ol 14.1 2161 Slo 1.020 I HERRING .8 2700 KPc TAP 1} 34.7 -009 2160 ° 1.005 oll oe BAILEY ~ 2100 34.9 1.010 \ BEAVER ~=3552 2800 00 a RDEC 4.2 BAILEY3G 4.2 R. 2.4 2103 1.010 1,020 _|1,020 2.7/|-3.0 -0.2]/0.2 34.7 1.006 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) i NO SWAN LAKE GEN, CASE 1 FRI, FEB 14MW @ TYEE. 21 1992 16:40 KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR WRANGELL a o PETERSBG 1202 : - 1302 a °o a .0 0.0]/-0.6 222 io off-2.4 @ 0.0]/-0.1 So -0.6 o uo o @—4 70.7 0.0 1.025 ® 0.0 o5 CRYSTALG bilo 1401 @ 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 uh P 0 0.1 : 0.0 0.0 | ca © 0.0 2.5 26.4 1.030 1.060 12.5 1.005 2.4 $75 2.4 1:002 0.0 7.9 ' WRANG SW Sk) ie 10.8 1100 ‘sls wl 1.026 = TYEE L a iol 10000 10.5 0 7 ° -2. ALP MILL 12°87? 513 = ny 1103 es O|N 6.3 oO 13.9 1.5 ak zs @) = alo Pen acy 1.010 az 1015 28s eI be 44.0 b : 4.9 e 10.8 w—0.8 oSl|-2.5 2.8 Siso -2.2 Q) Sol-0.4 S sfcs 2.4 ° 118.6 70.8 ° 13.9 1.000 1.031 1.027 1.010 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 21MW @ TYEE, SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED. 16:52 NO SWAN LAKE GEN, CASE 2 FRI, FEB 21 1992 it KV: $35 ,£69 , 8138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 tit RI o|~ TOTEM 1G Calpe TOTEM B Tr} 2170 ° — 1 » at KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP 2160 0.986 ere aa jo 1.020 34.4 0.998 BAILEY 2100 KETCHIKN 6.3 2401 PORT TAP 2300 KETCHIKN SHOOP ST WARD C BAIL1&2G | 2150 2102 21/=3'0 ale 34.5 0.999 yah e200 1.023 0.7 0.2 34.3 0.995 tht MT.POINT IS 34.3 0.994 Sle 0.0 ojo 0.000 ' wy 358075 23888" 8:00 ole 34.5 eee inlio 0.999 ' 1 ' NO ' 1 t \ ' HERRING : 34.3 ' a 34.5 2700 0.994 ' Wo . i je a ' i 1 1 a ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ' ! ' 1 ' t ' 1 BEAVER ' ' 0.0 2800 \ H 0.000 301.0 30.0 301.0 1.0 e 1.0) i 1.0 _ ‘oO: d00 10. “800 10. “O00 9|o ole ole olo olo olo i CASE 2 NO SWAN LAKE GEN, FRI, 21MW @ TYEE, FEB 21 1992 16:52 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED. KV: $35 ,£69 8138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR WRANGELL v ° PETERSBG 1202 f -1.2f5 . 1302 Bo B =1. 095 0.0 o 0.0]|-0.6 odllic -2.4 70.9 io w 0.0 0.0//-0.1 Sols -0.6 1.027 So lla 3 0.0 @) 0.0 10.6 0.0 @ 0.0 1.023 ok on : @—-4 So -3.010.0 @ 0.0 oo -0.6 CRYSTALG 3 0.0 @ 0.0 1401 0.0 @) 0.0 0.0 6) 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 -1.8 0.0 0.3 3.0 5 0 0.0 © 0.6 © 0.0 25.1 2.4 1.007 1.002 12.5 1.004 g2-4 0.5 2.4 } 1.001 0.0 7.9 ' WRANG SW ofp Fie 70.7 1100 oi olm 1,024 TYEE L ofl Bs 1000 fy, 9.0 1.0000 25.2 he ES =2.0 ALP MILL -3).0 1.012 lsS . 1103 =S 6.3} S 13.9 @ 1.8 Pe rs “aH 1.010 ; 1015 i605 E | 4.4.0 e ss oh oh. 9.2 J 0.8 o5]|-2.5 a So =2.0 So]]-0.3 ol los 2.4 S 118.0 70.7 bo 13.9 1.000 1.026 1.025 1.010 2000 SWAN L 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 3MW @ SWAN, 18MW @ TYEE, SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED. P TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. CASE 3 FRI, FEB 21 1992 16:51 0.950UV ' 150 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,s09 ,@138 [EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 ' Bb ° TOTEM 1G 2171 TOTEM B 2170 KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP {f° 2160 So - bP Ow —S— Bic Esc= L°e Exc= [5 oie 14) ajo 1.020 34.3 0.995 BAILEY 2100 me 34.4 0.996 KETCHIKN 6.3 2401 KETCHIKN PORT TAP Ol 2300 wo —SS Rio oo BETHE alls 2200 o|wo ty NI@ 115.5 o}n 1.005 N ° SHOOP ST 2102 13). 9) 7 1.010 0.2 34.2 0.991 ttt MT.POINT OO 34.2 2600 Nis 0.991 oe 0.0 olo ofo ojo 0.000 Rw ble ' ww 358378 25888 8:00 34.3 | 0.995 ' ' ' it ' HERRING Sicmesece A 34.4 2700 tI 0.990 : 0.996 oJo 1 H ble ' ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ae 1 ' ' ' ' I t 34.4 : ' 0.998 ' ' i BEAVER ' ' 0.0 2800 \ t 0.000 0 30! 301.0 301. 1.0 we 1.0 re) 1.0) 80 10. 000 ‘oO. 000 ‘oO. 300 sje sje gje olo olo o]o CASE 3 @ SWAN, FRI, 18MW @ TYEE, FEB 21 1992 SILVIS/BEAVER ISOLATED. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. if 3MW | 16:51 100% RATEA KV: $35 BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ,s69 ,#138 [EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR PETERSBG WRANGELL nA a 1202 -1.2f5 . 1302 =e B -1.0 Fr 0.0 0.0}/-0. ool ofl-2.4 71.7 id S 0.0 Oye 32 is =0.6 1.039 So fo ° 0.0 @) @ 0.0 71.5 0.0 0.0 1.036 i = : @ 0.0 So -3.0]f0.0 Q) 0.0 oo -0. CRYSTALG 3 0.0 ® ua 1401 0.0 @ 0.0 0. -0. 0.0 6) 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1s -1.8 | 0.0 5, -0. 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 © 0.0 25.1 Vo2.4 1.006 1.001 ¥12.5 1.003 g—2.4 0.5 2.4 J 1.000 o. 8. ' WRANG SW of ra 31.5 1100 oh wl) 1.036 — TYEE L “Jo 1000 on 0.0 © 0.9875 25.2 NS So 0.0 ALP MILL -3P.0 1.012 os 1103 == es O|N 6.3 Oo 14.3 1.5 lt a O34 5 wen aS 4.3 1.036 7 1015 25.0 i is 1.004 t 4 4.0 e : =6,3flo ole 0.0 t's odl|-2.5 4.199 Siiso 0.0 @ Sa]-0.3 8 Sos 2.4 io Lis 71.5 ° 14.3 1.000 1.023 1.036 1.036 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA |BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) i NO TYEE LAKE GEN, CASE 4 FRI, 14MW @ SWAN LAKE. FEB 21 1992 17:02 KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. POINT 33.9 2180 0.983 ae oly KETCHIKN TYEE L 1015 SHOOP ST i NO TYEE LAKE GEN, CASE 4 FRI, FEB 21 1992 14MW @ SWAN LAKE. 17:02 KV: $35 ,£69 , 8138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR 13.5 2500 . TOTEM 1G 4.3 0.980 2171 1.034 KETCHIKN -6.5 2400 -0.0 34.6 @ TOTEM B '|' 1.002 2170 ° MT.POINT O]” 34.7 1 2600 ln 1.006 ol 4.2 _ ofo tf! Nilo 1.020 a du OP wir, SILVIS 1,000 35.1 2900 _ 30.0 1.017 4 o]e .997 cere * KPC 1-3G om 14.1 2161 sJo 1.020 ' HERRING i? EOE) BETHE re 34.4 2700 wh 1.008 KPC TAP P’|N 34.3 2200 Hw 0.997 I]! 2160 oft 0.995 TTI Si 0 Sie plo pe BAILEY 115.4 lw Sy 2100 1.003 34.4 0.998 1 ge BEAVER . 35.0 Plo 2800 1.015 wo op0o ee BAIL162G 2.4 2102 1.020 2.7/|-3.0 -1.1//1.0 34.4 0.996 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SUMMER AVERAGE LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) EXHIBIT 4 MINIMUM LOAD POWER FLOW SIMULATION PLOTS WRANGELL 1202 es 0.0]/-0.3 oS ‘og 22 -1.0 ® 0.0]/-0.1 Sole Si-0.2 wo o @ 0.0 72.7 0.0 1.054 0.0 ® 0.0 0.0 ® 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 0.0 0.0 00> © 0.0 ) 12.6 1.012 1.0 I 2 2.4 v 1:011 WRANG SW 1100 ALP MILL 1103 25.2 42.0 of 2-923 0.4 oS||-0.5 So]/-0.9 2.4 ° 1.000 CRYSTALG 1401 QO. 0. 1 0 2000 SWAN L - o PETERSBG -0.5j/o ip 1302 -0.2il6 0 -0 0 -0 .0 -0 .0 0 .0 +0 23. “3 2. 1 TYEE L 1.000 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. NO INTERCHANGE, SINGLE UNIT @ TYEE & SWAN. THU, FEB 20 1992 15:25 100% RATEA |BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) Kv: $35 ,$69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR TYEE L i FRI, NO INTERCHANGE, FEB 21 1992 SINGLE UNIT @ TYEE & SWAN. ak }ae77 9.9 KV: 35 ,£69 ,#138 UV 1.050 OV [BRANCH - MW/MVAR EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 34.7 1015 2180 1.007 oft aly KETCHIKN SHOOP ST 13.8 2500 TOTEM 1G 4.3 1.003 2171 1.036 KETCHIKN 4.7 0.7 35.1 ® TOTEM B © 7 1.016 ' 2170 = 1.010 MT.POINT Of[* 35.1 \ TI]! 2600 a 1.018 ol 4.2 Ss ojo oOo], i+Jo 1.020 aye bly al wo SILVIS 1,0000 35.3 \ 2900 30.0 1.023 PORT TAP }|¥ 35.0 TlH 2300 ro 1.015 ce ao ~ KPC 1-3G eet eee nae) The 2161 alo ojo wio 1.015 ~ 1 1 HERRING Choe BETHE pe 35.0 2700 ho ‘ KPC TAP O° 34.9 2200 alo 1.015 ° 2160 Be 1.012 SO ° 3 lh s BAILEY 117.4 © N 2100 1.021 ' ce 35.0 fe 1.015 oie 30]. 0 Nw 1.0000 Tees BAIL162G BAILEY3G 4.2 2102 2103 1.015 fo} lo} 1.2||-1.3 eat 0 ie 34.9 1.013 ® TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) WRANGELL ’ » ° PETERSBG 1202 Silo o 1302 r “lis 3 0.0 @ @® 0.0]|-0.2 22H Ee ° 0.0 0.0]/-0.1 So ~~ oO : @ 0.0 0.0 @) 0.0 v 0.0 @ 0.0 Soe -1.5]/0.0 @ 0.0 oS -0.3 5.0 °o : @—4 0.0 @ 0.0 0 0 0.0 6) © 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 ® 1.0 oo]]1.0 -1.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 -0.4 1.5 ©—2 0.0 P 8 3 P 0.0 2.5 26.0 25.0 2.4 1.030 1.046 1.003 1.000 ¥12.5 1.004 qo 0.2 2.4 1.003 WRANG SW 1100 ALP MILL 1103 O|h Bly g 2.0 0.4 2.4 1.000 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NO GENERATION @ SWAN LAKE. 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR CASE 1 MON, FEB 24 1992 12:31 KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 {EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 1.013 TOTEM 1G 2172 1.0000 TOTEM B Ot 2170 = ofo ofo ay in olo = REG 1—3G6 SIS bealaa| lisa isle edn, 2161 ojo Hilo ofo wilo 1,015 KPC TAP OO} 35.1 2160 SM 1.018 i]t al BAILEY 118.8 sy 2100 033 KETCHIKN KETCHIKN 2400 1.1 35.2 1.021 ' PORT TAP |# 35.2 2300 woe 1.021 ee ae * IN be I BETHE me Ss o}e 2200 fie 1.022 ee *t wi ole uo WARD C 2150 2102 me nia 35.1 1.019 SHOOP ST 2500 -4.7 35. 1.022 1 022 1.036 2 MT.POINT 35.3 1.023 1 ° N HERRING 2700 BEAVER 2800 €°0-| 14.3 1.03 @ = lo = SILVIS 1.0000 2900 30}.0 = lo 4. at 35. a 6 2 +020 oe +026 i TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. NO GENERATION @ SWAN LAKE. CASE 1 MON, FEB 24 1992 12:31 100% RATEA 0.9 KV: $35 ,£69 BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) Uv 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR 78138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR PETERSBG WRANGELL °o 1202 ( > i 1302 role r .0 @© 0.0}|-0.2 3eSS Hong 3 8 ° XN 0.0}/-0.1 Sole = o ~ o @ 0.0 0.0 @® 0.0 ooo CRYSTALG 0.0 1401 ® 0.0 0. 0. © 0.0 ae 0.0 1 O]]1.0 0.0 0 oO |]0.4 ©—22 oo? 7 0.0 26.0 i , 1.046 1.003 001 12.5 1.005 o|h NIo 1:004 WRANG SW 2000 SWAN L TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NO GENERATION @ TYEE LAKE. 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR CASE 2 MON, FEB 24 1992 11:06 KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. POINT 2180 TOTEM 1 anil TOTEM B 2170 KPC 1-3 2161 KPC TAP 2160 G b°0-|/b°O G ° Loe 34.4 0.996 Cb 1.000 ' uy In *I~ 14.0 wlo 1.015 i 34.6 no 1.002 - BAILEY My 2100 KETCHIKN PORT TAP 2300 KETCHIKN 2400 SHOOP ST 2500 1.007 MT.POINT HERRING 34.6 2700 34.6 _, 1.002 WARD C | 2150 1.2)-1.3 op 34.6 1.002 2102 BEAVER 2800 GENERATION @ TYEE LAKE. MON, FEB 24 1992 11:06 SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. TYEE- NO CASE 2 100% RATEA KV: $35 ,<69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT — BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) MW/MVAR WRANGELL 1202 iit Le Io S]O0 OfO Oo]O Oolo ofo ojo O|]0 olo ofo ofo olo i -0.2 wee 4 -0.1 oo o}|F NIo 2. 1. on. eB @ oJo ojo 12.7 1.019 WRANG SW 1100 ALP MILL OSLI6*O 00|0* 1 ° NS 1.048 CASE 3 MON, 12:36 PETERSBG - Oo -0.5/5 ip 2202 0.245 S 0.0 @ 72.9 3 a 0.0 1.056 0.0 @® 0.0 r 0.0 @ So -1.5]/0.0 = =0 CRYSTALG °s 1401 ba +o (4) 0.0 0.0 ©) -1.0 -0.2 sD 03> 25.3 2.4 1.015 1.013 0.0 8.2 of slo 72,3 ojo woln 1.048 ae TE no 0.0 ra : ea So 0.0 2) oS 2.1 14.1 ieee fu =5.9] 1.024 1015 i +] 7 lo ro) | a 0.0 1.98S siise 0.0 @ o fos 117.1 70.6 bo 14.1 1.018 1.024 1.024 2000 SWAN L 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. NO GENERATION @ TYEE LAKE. 4MVAR TERTIARY REACTOR @ TYEE. FEB 24 1992 KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR N. POINT 34.5 2180 1.001 a alte TOTEM 1G 2171 TOTEM B 2 ° 2170 = 1.004 iit o|r aly KPC 1-36] PIP YIP SIP I> 14.0 2161 wio 1,015 KPC TAP O|t* 34.7 2160 8 1.006 ee o}l ite BAILEY ND 2100 34.7 1.007 ay eE ee SWAN L KETCHIKN SHOOP ST LSrio 2500 . KETCHIKN ne 1.007 0.980 2400 0.2 34.9 ® 1.011 1 MT.POINT O}* 35.0 2600 Nn 1.014 oF 4.2 ojo ofr ojo 1.020 tle BP oe, wo SILVIS 1.0000 35.2 ' 2900 30}.0 1.020 PORT TAP SiS 34.8 —. 2300 Ble 1.008 CS LIN o or e IN ~ 1 1 HERRING C3500 BETHE i. 34.8 2700 Ko . 2200 sj 1.008 o tile i ole 115.9 ° 1.008 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD. 100%_RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ‘it NO GENERATION @ TYEE LAKE. 4MVAR TERTIARY REACTOR @ TYEE. CASE 3 MON, FEB 24 1992 12:36 Q.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH —- MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR EXHIBIT 5 WINTER PEAK LOAD SWITCHING STUDY SIMULATION PLOTS PETERSBG WRANGELL AP I 1202 -2.4f'> - ! = Pie e 1.346 mn 2 O—2:9f20-8 oSis Si-3.2 68.4 8 3 oe -O]/-0. Solo oy-0.8 0.992 0.0}-0.2 sola S 0.0 Q) @—-4 68.5 0.0 0.0 0.992 ie oer : @—22 Sa,¢__-4.2i10.0 @) a CRYSTALG os pea 0.0 @ 0.0 0.0 ® 0.0} 0.0 0.0 0.0 G) © 0.0] -1.8 0.0 4 0.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 © 0.9 © 0.0 25.0 2.4 1.006 0.999 12.6 1.007 3.2 +746 2.4 1.003 0.0 7.4 ' WRANG SW oe iN 68,5, 1100 >I. oh . TYEE L ole 1000 on 5.0 1.0B12 25.1 an So -1.0 ALP MILL -3P.0 1.008 oo 1103 BS 10.6 © 13.9 lig ai SWAN L TYEE L Peal 1.010 000 1015 = | wecnnnnncneennnnennnn nnn n nnn nnn n nnn n = $295. - - = - 5 i 5.6 30 Reo Pit jo Solos .0 0.0 70.2 ° 13.9 0.000 0.000 1.017 1.010 TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) WINTER PEAK, BOTH TYEE LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. 0.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR CASE 1: PRE-SWITCH T = T- MON, FEB 24 1992 13:52 KV: $35 ,£69 ,138 |EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR WRANGELL 1202 ® ojo N]@o ojo off O]O O|9o O|o Oofo QqYQOoOo8d ZN Olw jw 1.045 ALP MILL WINTER PEAK, CASE 1: POST-SWITCH T = T+ re de r 2S ° of-3.3 Sola of-0.9 o Oo o 71.4 1.034 | i] }O.0 py Jo.0 13-0, 1.049 WRANG SW 1100 1.0B12 26.0 -3P.0 1.044 o|- alo 25.6 1.030 lea }-0.5 of SS) Ss O=n Cinkes ojo B°OT-F9°2 wlo BOTH TYEE LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 CRYSTALG 1401 2.5 1.057 PA _e o- os a SWAN L TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 13:51 eSi|1.9 TYEE L mean 0000 °T osqo't Pt w co co TYEE L 1000 ws WOO oo mG -0. reverses | 1302 0.0 0.0 @ 0.0 0.0 @) 0.0 0.0 3) 0.0 0.0 (4) 0.0 0.0 G) anaes 0.9 © 2.5 1.039 100% RATEA EQUIPMENT — BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 9.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 MW/MVAR WRANGELL 1202 } ae v ® 0.0}/-0.8 2Slle -3.2 0.0]/-0.2 So -0.8 | o \S °o @) 0.9} 69.3 0.0 1.004 6) 0.0] | 0.0] | | @) 0.0 0.0] 6) 0.0} 0.0 | | lo.o © 0.0] 0.0 ” 0.0] ) 12.7 1.019 4 3.2| V0.6] 2.4 J 1.016 WRANG SW 1100 ALP MILL 129813 7°65 o|- alo CASE 1: oj sj MON, FEB 24 1992 PETERSBG " e -2.45 2 1302 -1.5 : 0.0 69.2 ° 3 0.0 @ 1.003 - 0:0 2) 0.0 So -4.2110.0 @ oS -0.9) CRYSTALG ee 1401 $8 (4) 0. , -0. 0.0 0 2) 1. -1.8 -0. 0.5 4.2 4 o.9 © 25.3 2.4 1.016 1.009 0.0 7.6 ' rN 69.4 rion 1.005 ai TYEE L 2B 1000 on 5.0 ee Se 2.9 10.6 °8 13.9 SWAN L TYEE L macs pote 2000 1015 i e 0.0 0.0 ole 5.6 0.0 ~4.1 So =2.9 io Stoo 120.9 120.1 71.1 J 13.9 1.051 1.044 1.031 1.010 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK, BOTH TYEE LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. POST-SWITCH STDY STATE 13:53 9.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR PETERSBG WINTER PEAK, CASE 2: POST-SWITCH T = T+ BOTH TYEE UNITS ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. MON, FEB 24 1992 13:57 BRANCH — MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR WRANGELL " e 1202 =2.4[lo S 1302 Pie e -1.36 1 0.0 Q—2.0f-0-8 eae -3.2 68.5 JS 3 30 0.0]/-0.2 Solu -0.8 0.992 So jlo ° 0.0 Q) Q) 0.0 68.5 0.0 0.0 0.993 0.0 6) 0.0 | So -4.21I0.0 @ ioe 0. ie | CRYSTALG °3 0.0 @ @ 0.0] 0.0 0.0] ie 6) 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 -1.8 HO.0 on, 0.3 4.2 © 0.0 0.0 © 0.9 0.0 25.1 2.4 | 1.006 1.000 12.6 | 1.007 unig ~ 0.7 2.4 1.004 0.0 7.4 ' WRANG SW ok ris 68.6 1100 uly when 0,994 = TYEE L |= 1000 5.0 6 1.0812 25.1 hk So -1.1 ALP MILL =3p.0 1.009 pe es 1103 10 co : 13.9 SWAN L TYEE L eee aO1d R000 1015 61596 — - r . 0.0 0.0flo of] 5.6 xe -4.5 (0.0 =4.0 So =1.1 (1) So|/-0.2 Fe Slloo ° 119.3 118.6 70.2 ° 13.9 1.038 1.031 1.018 1.011 TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) WRANGELL 1202 f we de e @ o.0}-0.8 SS] -3.2 0.0}/-0.2 So -0.8 o o ° Q) 0.0 | 68.5 0.0 . 0.993 @) 0.0 0.0] (4) 0.0] ae 6) 0.0} 0.0] ! HO.0 on © 0.0} jo.0 0.0 | ) 12.6 1.007 4g 3.2] “0.61 } 2a p 1.003 WRANG SW 1100 ALP MILL se eee shaeon o|* lov Ow id 00Q0°T osqo°Tt ra CRYSTALG T° O-ff€ *T- E°OT-§S°2 xlo SWAN L PETERSBG 1302 ® of= clo colo colo ofc ojo SON wily Cfo O10 O]O O|fo ofo VY orn © © TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK, BOTH TYEE UNITS ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. CASE 2: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE MON, FEB 24 1992 100% _ RATEA 9.950.0V 1,050 ov KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) BRANCH — MW/MVAR 13:55 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR N. 2180 POINT TOTEM 1G Zit 2160 ay TOTEM B f'|¥ 2170 a}o ui ajo KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP ["|> Hic WINTER PEAK, CASE 3: PRE-SWITCH T = T- BOTH SWAN LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 14:14 KV: 33.2 TYEE L SWAN L 0.963 1015 2000 [, 4 Se ee ee 07 = wt Soo .0 sc 18.4 0.000 6.7 °8 0.7 2) @ o5 AN KETCHIKN yea oel (iced pepouion 115.8 J 13.9 bw a ee e320 1.007 1.010 olo _ojo__ 1.036 r KETCHIRM -5.8 -3p.0 -6.3 200} esqeHo) 1.0625 1.0000 -0.0 gof-3-2 ae o |-0. i 1 4.2 12.3 34.1 @) CISi3356 1.018 0.983 0.988 colo 0.975 Plo elo elo J MT.POINT Peete Ala) ofio of ole 33.9 0.6 2600 Nim 0.995 ol 4.2 0.984 ojo fi wo 1.020 Molaeteale ORORS en wD SILVIS 1.0000 34.8 ' 2900 _ 30.0 1.009 @) 2) 3) PORT TAP Ot" 33.9 o]e om 2300 ao 0.983 cee itt Solo alo ole nie 14.1 oC clo alo Plo slo 1.020 set wit whe lo HERRING bee =3a)a4 BETHE o|> 33.9 2700 wo 0.998 1.0000 33.9 2200 _ ufo 0.984 ole Hy 30}.0 0.982 At elt Hl TP BAILEY SO 114.2 w~ oo 2100 hn 0.993 30]. 0 1.0000 ' tie BAILEY O|% Pasa 34.0 2101_ lun ‘o}oo 0.986 i aS 301.0 30.0 BEAVER Fay Or 34.8 bal 1.0000 1.0000 2800 ufo ‘sho 1.007 = 30,0 30.0 30),0 ft 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 WARD C BAIL1s62G O|> 4.1 BAILEY3G 4.1 2.4 4 a.4 2150 2102 fe 0985 2103 0.986 020_]1.029_]1.020 ojo ol|o ojo o|r o|N O|N 4.0)|-4.3 clo = ofo olo wlo alo alo coe © ® @ 33.9 3359, @ © 3) KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% _ RATEA Q.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR ls = VOLTAGE (KV/PU) $35 .$69 .@138 IROTITDMPNT — Mu /amran TYEE L SWAN L N. POINT 33.9 2180 0.982 1015 2000 ae ele I-00 0.0 =Ond (1) ajo 0.0 ~4.180 So ] 120.4 oo 18.7 04 Lacs H-0.4 @) 2:3 | KETCHIKN 4 _9.3f 2401 SHOOP ST 119.6 | 14.3 TOTEM 16] SIS SIS 4.4 ae et fizeco 1.040 1.036 2171 olo_ _olo _ 1.056 K, KETCHIKN I-5.9 -3p.0 }-6.5 200} -0.8 1.0625 1.0(00 =0.4 > Sofi-5.2 5.2] © Y-0.5 0.5 ; 4.3 12.5 | ) 34.8 @) ‘TOTEM BB TP OIF 34.3 1.034 1.001 1.008 2170 jo clo 0.994 rye ele eye -1.3 MT.POINT a Roya a yt ok shor ok 34.6 -0.1 2600 one 1. Sra: rie | wate | ea | eee 004 Seo TT shio 11035 sO ala rl —— Q@ ®@ © ate to SILVIS 1,000 35.4 2900 _ 30.0 1.027 © @ @) A PORT TAP =O} 34.7 oP 2300 ees 1.005 Pi I eI me BPC 1-961: 2 op? Sm hP 14.2 ie 2161 ojo wlo alo oa} 1.026 wir NII lo wl Ne HERRING ei 35.1 BETHE ve 34.7. 2700 ___j_— 1.016 KPC TAP }|> 1,.0P00 34.5 2200 _ wis sa: 006 S]o TTI alo 30}. 0 1.000 TI]! mle care? —— —— 1 1 ue NiO uk BAILEY ebaae lle? sje bo S 2100 = 1.024 30]. 0 1.0000 ' tle BAILEY ‘J~ Sie 34.8 2101 aj @jo 1.008 ili = 30].0 30].0 BEAVER {| eee 544 Sis 1.0000 1.0000 2800 wlo who 1.025 | 130680 138680 136680 tit . . rac BAIL162G O}* 4.2 BAILEY3G 4.2 5 Aka.5 5 2102 irju 1.007 2103 1.008 11,035 11,035 |1.035 ojo ojo ojo o|r oO|N O|N 4.2/|-4.6 clo ofo olo wlo ulo ufo le: i) 6. © 34.6 34.6 QM @ 3) KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) WINTER PEAK, CASE 3: POST-SWITCH T = T+ BOTH SWAN LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 Q.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR 14:16 KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 33.4 2180 0.968 © TOTEM 1G] O|° Sie a3 2171 ojo ojo 1.041 -3p.0 1.01625 ZN tit TOTEM B Y'|¥ SISe 33-8 2170 alo colo 0.980 ttt lw alo QM @ @ KPC 1-36 2 Sie ole oo SIS iq.a ZN 2161 clo alo slo slo 1.020 NIC io]o KPC TAP }*|™ 1.0000 34.0 2160 alo 30]. 0 0.986 ey] ne BAILEY ho 2100 WARD C 2150 4.0)/-4.3 -1.2]]1.1 34.1 0.987 TYEE L SWAN L 1015 2000 | 8.4 I-00 0.0 |-0.8 (1) 0.0 =3.9 se 117.8 Bo Je.4 No 6.7N°o |-0.8 (2) KETCHIKN aes | qi ae seer St 117.0 J 13.9 . » _ KETCHIKN ie 1.017 1.010 -6.3 oS 2400 |-0.8 1.0P00 0.2 > Soft5.2 5.2] o |-0.5 0.6] 4.2 ) 12.3 ) 34.2 @) 1.020 0.987 | 0.992 Ryo Flo KIO =1.1 MT.POINT O]” 34.4 ol ole ol 34.1 Vo.1 2600 who 0,998 ol 4.2 0.988 ofo (tf ho 1.020 + |e Hla — 3) (4) G) af SILVIS 1,0000 34.9 ' 2900 301.0 1.012 PORT TAP or 34.1 o|r 2300 i 0.989 e Aik olo HERRING raine a oea5 BETHE oi 34.1 2700 Rio 1.001 2200 ___—iolo 0.990 Slom , Seer: | eee ioe ele 1 Nin who SET 5a3 aIN a oO} 1.003 301.0 1.0000 ' tie BAILEY !|% bed Pa 34.2 2101 ajo oo 0.992 wht aS 30]. 0 30]. 0 BEAVER = ["|% Sie 3458 ko 1.0000 1.0000 2800 Se who 1.010 = 30.0 30,0 _30).0 ifn 1.0000 1.000 1.0000 BAIL1&2G O|* 4.1 BAILEY3G 4.1 4 2.4 2.4 2102 nie 0.991 2103 0.992 1,020 11.020 _]1.020 ole eye ojo o]N oN olo olo olo wie wl wle OQ @ 6) Q@ @ @ WINTER PEAK, BOTH SWAN LAKE UNITS ON-LINE. 0.950 UV 1.050 0V [BRANCH - MW/MVAR SE 3: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE MON, FEB 24 1992 14:17 KV: $35 .$69 .@138 IROMITPMENT — mu /mad if es SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) CA N. POINT 2180 TOTEM 1G 2171 TOTEM B Y|¥ 2170 KPC 1-3G 2161 33.9 0.982 BAILEY 2100 ‘ TYEE L 1015 -0 0 3.7 115.1 4 q 9. 3. 1.000 ee ON rlo Rilo RIO ojo off ow Q@@® © 114.3 0.994 oShz:z- 0 000 ' tie 1 BAILEY 9°|® 2101 ol ul= 30]. 0 ole 1.0000 > yt o}- XN] Colo fo} lo} BAIL1&62G 2102 olo o|o ©O © KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK, 1} 0} BOTH SWAN UNITS ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. CASE 4: POST-SWITCH T T+ MON, FEB 24 1992 14:23 KV: $35 + £69 , 138 EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR 2000 8.4 0.0 3d) pa e We co Se 8.4 6.718 or) 0.5 KETCHIKN ae saoor: St 115.8 J 13.9 _._ KETCHIRN 5g 1.007. 1.010 .3 208] 2400 =1.2 +0 > Softed.2 5.2 So }-0.9 0.9 233 34.1 1) 983 | 0.988 -1. MT.POINT Pe }6|O4.3 33.9 0.6 2600 fo 0.995 ol 4.2 0.984 ofo tft ufo 1.020 nfo 1D — T. wio ¢ SILVIS 1.0000 34.8 1 2900 _30).0 1.010 PORT TAP Ol" 33.9 ol 2300 ne 0.984 Sh jk alo HERRING rin 34.4 BETHE A 34.0 2700 ____uwln_0.998 2200 ulo 0.984 oye TY! nD tales oe rin alo wl~ Vy Tb 34.0 wlo 0.986 itt 30].0 BEAVER "| oir 34.8 1.0000 2800 uhio sho 1.008 30.0 30,0 301.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 4.1 BAILEY3G wl g.4 8.4 2.4 0.985 2103 0.986 _11.020_]1.020 ]1.020 ole ole P=) () o[N olo wl alo alo 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) N. POINT 2180 0. TOTEM 1G 2172 TOTEM B f'|¥ 2170 KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP !"|> 33.9 2160 0.982 BAILEY 2100 TYEE 1015 3.7 115.1 g—9-1f = 3.0 1.0000 Po on Pe © i) a) (er [) ojo oOo} Ow Q @ © BAIL1&2G 2102 o|s ie ojo oo olo ojo -1.641.4 33.9 0.982 ® @ i KETCHIKN 2401 KETCHIKN -6.3 2,08f 2400 -0.0 > Soll-5.2 3° -0-9 12.3 0.983 | -1.1 33.9 0.6 0.984 1 PORT TAP =O} 2300 ee.) iyi o|* alo BETHE Sise 2200 _ ajo | yt nla wo}u PIN io} 30]. 0 1.0000 4.1 BAILEY3G 0.985 2103 ojo olo KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. SWAN L 2000 8.4 0.0 0.7 (1) -0.1f So tae 8.4 ml nO, 0.5 | SHOOP ST 115.8 J 13.9 g 2500 1.007 1.010 -5.8 -1.2 5.2 0.9 34.1 @) 0.988 MT.POINT |" 34,3 2600 jo 0,995 ol 4.2 ofo tii wjo 1,020 ele ble, —= NIW ek wis, dy SILVIS 1.0000 34.8 2900 _ 30.0 1.009 33.9 Soe 0.984 he HERRING rin 34.4 33.9 2700 __ulo 0.998 0.984 ojo ty]1 = o |} ria lw + | alo V7 34.0 0.986 if BEAVER eis er 34.8 2800 _ x} bho 1.007 30,0 30,0 —30].0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0600 4.1 4 2.4 2.4 0.986 _11.020_11,020_]1.020 o|r o|N Oo|N wlo = alo alo WINTER PEAK, CASE 4: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE MON, FEB 24 1992 BOTH SWAN UNITS ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. 14:22 KV: $35 == ,£69 ,@138 [EQUIPMENT — MW/mvaD EXHIBIT 6 MINIMUM LOAD SWITCHING STUDY SIMULATION PLOTS WRANGELL PETERSBG 1 UNIT @ TYEE ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 IMINIMUM LOAD, CASE 1: PRE-SWITCH T = T- 14:31 KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 1202 -0, sft i 1302 | ro w 0.06 o 0.0 (2-04-03 al -1.0 74.5 8 3 pa 0.0]-0.1 >So =0.2 1.030 go} S 0.0 (5) @) 0.0 | 70.8 0.0 0-0] 1.620 0.0 i - : 6 0.0] 39 -1.5l/0.0 @ 0.0] CRYSTALG Sotiaelat ® 0.0] 1401 0.0 (4) 0.0] 0.0 @) 0.0 0.0 6) 6) 0.0} | a 0.0 | D—2} yg8h1.0 -1.0 Jo.0 0.4) SSolfo.4 =0.4 1.5 5 © 9.0] fo.0 © 3 0.3 0.0 | 2.5 ) 26.1 25.0 2.4 | 1.030 1.047 1.008 1.003 12.5 1.006 AULA “7j0.2] | ANID 0.909 0.0 7.8 t WRANG SW of lO 779.8 1100 ojo win 1.020 = TYEE L oa 1000 Ale 0.0 Q) 0.9602 25.9 a So 0.0 ALP MILL =3p.0 1.009 os 1103 f 2.24°S sila 5 18.2 (1) ae elu SWAN L TYEE L . meee eo. 088 4] 000 1015 i606 fi ‘ q—_2.0 an eX ee 2.2 . 0.4] 2S]-0.5 30 ‘ #8 So -5.7 (1) | _3*S<]-0.0 3 eS oe aie ° -0 0.0 we.6 p © 13.8 : 0:000 0:000 0.695 0.960 TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 9.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR WRANGELL 1202 PETERSBG 00Q0°T osu6°0 i ojo olo CRYSTALG 1401 ef io ofO OfO Ofo o|o olo ojo ° WRANG SW TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD, 1 UNIT @ TYEE ON-LINE. CASE 1: POST-SWITCH T = T+ MON, FEB 24 1992 14:32 KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 |EQUIPMENT —- MW/MVAR QO9AOODOEO, .« ©) oO) PETERSBG 5S & Sue Mm “i: ~Pps yet a= ae Q'24 2 @ 1omw a: nab D a onan ale a3} Ho ai S apt” ol hw Ste a), he f N = a co co to] ad a aw ” - <i 3 male ale ale ele ale anan ge st Ag a2 ojo _ olo olo olo ojo Ho clo alt 7° mn ao yy 0 1.0000 1.01000 t= 30}. 0 30}.0 1.0000 ws fo 000 30).0 vc a We 1.0000 2 a 9 Wo 1 *° 0.9687 a3 ho o lo Oo ca yd et 1.0000 1.0000 DIN Ojo w 7 =~ o1Oo ad ™ yt aw i @e2o o ae a wv +o ae Re = Rea N Nw oO oIN we ao 8" => g g a z °S zo 28 aa Na as cS BFS ao xs “oO zo iia 5x ae nS ° ar Rea Ol Om 0. 6-2.1 —2.792.2 1.0) 0.0 a as No = ~ oN “oO me . ° - do Ra Nn i xe 1.0000 mo//0.5 nT O.5 A 71 lO. oO a S “Oo = ojo vn. a e aig = ad SL ole Zo “8 fin 30}. 0 S a i Na 1.0000 gq acai ea 30}.0 1.0000 Oa O10 a a oo ojo ojo ojo ojo ojo OIN oo re oie ov o yn oo o]O0 O10 O|O OO Olo ajo a a Ho aNIo So 8 zo Ss ' To ZN Na ” aq so V uO V [= @OAODL®O OE 22 © sa aa FEB 24 1992 14:33 MON, 1 UNIT @ TYEE ON-LINE. POST-SWITCH STDY STATE TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD, CASE 1 WRANGELL 1202 ojo ofO© OfO OfO Olo olo ojo ojo Oof9 Ofo off ojo Qq@aOOo8 ZN ) nNio ALP MILL 1103 clo lwo MINIMUM LOAD, CASE 2: POST-SWITCH T = T+ r lo eSllic of-1.0 So -0.2 o yo oOo 70.6 1.023 | | 0.0 0.0 12.6 1.007 WRANG SW 1100 0.9612 25.0 =3p.0 1.003 fo} fo} ol 24.9 1-001 QS]}-0.5 So]]-0.0 o MON, PETERSBG TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 1 UNIT @ TYEE ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. a °o -0.5fo a 1302 0.08 0.0 4.8 8 : ow 1.032 nin mn, r 0.0 So -1.5]f0.0 @) oS -0.3 CRYSTALG cs 0.0 1401 en) Q) 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0:0 ©) 1) 1.0 o0]}/1.0 -1,0 0.4 Bollo.4 -0.4 1.5 by 3 Ee 2.5 26.1 25.0 2.4 1.031 1.048 1.006 1.003 0.0 7.8 a a SO olo co}oy 1.023 h wes * * Ip o}- r 0.0 i Ex P 0 (2) 2.24°8 13.7 SWAN L TYEE L mood O59 36 2000 1015 ba rl 0.0 0.0flo oe Qe =0.0 = So -5.8 So elloa 116.8 116.0 68.7 ° 13.1 1.016 1.009 0.996 0.951 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 9.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR FEB 24 1992 14:37 KV: $35 ,s69 ,@138 [EQUIPMENT — MW/mMvVaD WRANGELL 1202 we °o re @D 0.0}/-0.2 oSllis off-1.0 0.0]/-0.1 Sole S]-0.2 Oo YN o @) 0.0 10.6 0.0 1.023 8) 0.0 0.0 @) 0.0 0.0 6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 © 0.0 0.0 © 0.0 12.5 1.001 4__1.0 ™ 6.2 2.4 0.999 WRANG SW 1100 8 5. ALP MILL 923516 7602 1103 MINIMUM LOAD, CASE 2: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE MON, CRYSTALG 1401 1.030 0.0 7.8 oe Slo 70.6 colo wl 1.023 NT InN @]- > SWAN L 2000 0.0 -0.0 116.7 1.015 FEB 24 1992 TWP SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 1 UNIT @ TYEE ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. 14:36 PETERSBG KV: $35 ,£69 ,@138 EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR we oO =0.5ff3 ‘o nue 0.198 : 0.0 a 5 po 1.032 oun 0-0 2) r 0.0 So -1.5]10.0 @ og* O31 0-0 4) 0.0 0.0 GS) -1.0 -0.4 15 4 On ~ 24.9 2.4 1.000 0.998 1888 * 0.0 153 0.0 2) Hoo 2.2 ° 13.7 aaa -6.1) 0.995 1015 in e Oho ole 262 ~3, 89S S 39 -5.8 (1) o Clos 116.0 68.7 bo 13.1 1.009 0.995 0.950 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ; TYEE L SWAN L N. POINT 34.5 2180 1.001 1015 2000 ae co 0 =e 0.0 @ 9.000 °3 0.0 (2) AN KETCHIKN acd SHOOP ST 115.9 J 13.8 TOTEM 16] P12 Slo 4,3 1.007. 1.000 2171 ofo _ofo «1.036 -4.7 -30.0 0.2 1.0Bi2 \ 4.2 34.9 TOTEM B Of = =PlS 34,7 1.020 1.011 1 2170 Bip ojo 1.005 MT.POINT a es 2600 4.2 Sie 1.020 BIN 30}.0 1.020 @) (2) 3) PORT TAP oats 5 Zi 2300 REC 21 = 3G | SO] ace ese ek dO) 2161 ojo _Hlo ofo wlio 1.015 ojo ujo HERRING BETHE 34.8 2700 KPC TAP O| 1.0P00 34.7 2200 2160 si 30]. 0 1.006 o}l ' wh BAILEY or 115.9 ND 2100 ofm 1.008 30). 0 1.0000 ' BAILEY Oj! 2101 la ; Ty 3 BEAVER i 35.2 hs 1.0000 1.019 w R 0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Roe ae BAIL1&2G 4.2 BAILEY3 2. 4 2102 1.013 2103 1.020 1.2||-1.3 -0.3//0.3 34.7 1.007 KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD, 1 UNIT @ SWAN LAKE ON-LINE. CASE 3: PRE-SWITCH T = T- MON, FEB 24 1992 15:15 BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) ) UV 1.050 OV /BRANCH - MW/MVAR <6q) a@i20 0 IpArtitoamam nares fawen nm N. POINT 2180 ryt o|h BIN TOTEM 1G 2171 “TOTEM BO 2170 alt tft oF ‘alte © ojo ojo KPC 1-3G 2161 KPC TAP Oj 2160 we yt Ble Olw KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. MINIMUM LOAD, 35.7 1.035 ZN al olo wii eek, eb eae) ole ojo we 1.035 35.9 1.040 BAILEY 2100 CASE 3: POST-SWITCH T = T+ 1 UNIT @ SWAN LAKE ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 15:16 121.8 1.059 2900 14.4 1.045 KV: $35 o> 8138 TYEE L 1015 —() . 0 0.0 22.5 066 KETCHIKN 2401 SHOOP ST 42.9 I-79 2500 KETCHIKN -4.8 |-1.3 s|-+. ae 1.0 1.0p00 -0.4 > So]-4. 4.6 ° -1.0 4.4 } 13.0 36.1 1.049 | 1.046 ! s[r efe ojo i" 4 MT.POINT o|= ulo Bln olo ana 0 1.5 2600 wo]o 2045 ofo oo Ll ol 8) @ © e VY ' PORT TAP {"|% 36.0 2300 ly 1.045 Te eI « Ww @ I ' HERRING ole BETHE re 36.1 2700 @lo 2200 ___mw 1.045 oye oO i of} ey i ole be 121.4 x as ois 1.056 301.0 1.0000 ijt ' BAILEY ‘|r oh 36.1 2101 was Nie 1.046 Bir 30].0 30). 0 BEAVER ols 1.0000 1.0000 2800 ' BAIL1&2G Ot" 4.4 BAILEY3G 4.3 2102 ES 1.051 2103 1.046 ojo olo 1098. RATEA EQUIPMENT - BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) MW/MVAR TYEE L SWAN L N. POINT 34.7 2180 1.005 1015 2000 . iT oft 0.9 0.0 1 aly -0.0 3.98. ;* co 0 52 0. 117 8 Ace 0 2) KETCHIKN aaa | g_2.8/) 2402 2300" oe 117.1 J 13.8 TOTEM 1G 4.3 0.9 on 1.018 1.000 rm CHIKN -4 2171 1.040 ealoaon | -1.3 206 0. 7 1.0000 -0.2 > Soll-4.4 4.5 o 0.6 -0. 6] 4.2 12.6 | ) 35.0 TOTEM B O i, 1.020 1.012 1.015 1 2170 = 1.009 ofr oye ole 3.) MT.POINT of= 35.1 TI, alo Niu olo 35.0 J-0.9 2600 wf 1.017 IH 4.2 dl 1.014 oye Off lo 1.020 al pe ti ale Q @ © i hy SILVIS 1.0000 35.3 ' 2900 .0 1.022 PORT TAP (Ol 34.9 i} 2300 to 1.013 Plo 0 b KPC 1-3G rise Enid ea 0) Sin 2161 ajo _ofo wo 1.015 Nn 1 1 HERRING S35 at BETHE i 34.9 2700 ajo 1.018 KPC TAP 34.9 2200 Nj 1.013 oje a) 2160 1.011 TI re) eS if hen lo BAILEY °F 117.0 a db 2100 lon 1.017 301.0 1.0000 ijt ' BAILEY 9} Tea 35.0 2101 wor a} 1.013 1 1 ofF 30].0 BEAVER |” bd SE take 1.0000 139690 2800 wlo fo 1.021 170680 178680 1°8p00 ' . . . Peet BAIL162G Of" = 4.2 BAILEY3G 4.2 2.5 4 AXB.4 2102 ols 1.018 2103 1.013 _11,021_|1.020_]1,020 colo Colo o|co cic tin iy aot ole Ole ole alo Sle lo i © 34.9 34.9, i) 3) KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) MINIMUM LOAD, CASE 3: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE 1 UNIT @ SWAN LAKE ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 15:22 -£69 .@138 FOUTPMENT — Mil /anzan N. POINT 2180 TOTEM 1G 2171 TOTEM B Ot 2170 ej yt o|r iy KPC 1-3G 2161 MINIMUM LOAD, CASE 4: POST-SWITCH T = T+ 34.6 1.002 A\ clo blo clo wo 1.015 oo ulo 1.0000 34.7 30}. 0 1.007 BAILEY 2100 WARD C 2150 1.29-1.3 -0.3/0.3 KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 1 UNIT @ SWAN ON-LINE. MON, FEB 24 1992 15:28 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. J TYEE L SWAN L 1015 2000 136 -0 0 0,0 ona (1) -3.7 r ws So 115.2 Ooo 0.0 a >) || moe -2.1 KETCHIKN auegye | zecl 4 2500 113.9 F 13.8 0.9 HI | Seapets bay .008 = 1.001 =1.3 y98f 2400 0.3 1.0900 }-0.0 S| -4.4 4.5 Oo 10.4 -0.3 4.2 12.6 | 34.9 @) 1.020 1.010 | 1.012 ' ofr eye ojo H3.1 MT. POINT er isos0 alo wn olo 34.8 -0.4 2600 __ Nis 1.015 ol 4.2 1.010 ofo oft ojo 1.020 the BE Q@ ®@ © i db SILVIS 1,000 35.2 ' 2900 30}.0 1.021 PORT TAP CY 34.8 tle 2300 ire 1.009 oT IN i ° o} * we ~~ 1! | HERRING mien leo) BETHE os 34.8 2700 who 1.016 2200 ue 1.609 sje 1 ve of} ~h 1 rhe = 116.0 ts WY =) 1.009 30}.0 1.0000 ' ' BAILEY O|f ee 34.8 2101 olor rhe 1.009 1 1 7S ; BEAVER O|% ol 35.2 Pl 130p00 13Op00 2800 olo olo _ 1.020 “ 30.0 30).0 —30).0 ' 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 BAIL1&62G oO} 4.2 BAILEY3G 4.2 4 @.4 @.4 2102 ©}. 1,014 2103 1.009 —i1,020_|1.020_ {1.020 oyo ole ojo oJo o]N o]N clo ofo olo olo lo blo 100% _ RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 9.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR KV: $35 ,£69 ,#138 EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR TYEE L SWAN L N. POINT 34.5 2180 1.001 1015 2000 tft 1.6 Sip -0,0 0.0 -2.2 =i 3.7 - ate So 115.2 ee 0.0 @ 00 6 °3 lo.o (2) fl ils i g_2.8| Seco ian 115.9 J 13.8 TOTEM 1G] P92 PIO «4.3 0.9 1.008 1.000 2171 elo _olo 1.036 al SaOORaIL -4.7 =3p.0 -1.3 2,00] 0.3 1.0Bi2 1.0f00 -0.0 > So]l-4.4 4.5 o 70.4 -0.3 4.2 ) 12.6 34.9 @ TOTEM B Of S/O 34.7 1.020 1.009 1.011 ' 2170 ely ojo 1.005 o]F fo slo 3.1 MT.POINT S350 bi alo win ofo 34.8 -0.4 2600 Nf 1.014 ol+ 4.2 a 1.009 colo of: ojo 1.020 als bho Taal Q @® © 7 ae SILVIS 1.0000 35.2 ® @ 1 2900 _ 30.0 1.020 @) A PORT TAP Sie 34.8 an 2300 ale 1.008 So) tin o KPC T=36) SIS Sis Sie l=14"0 ole 2161 colo _Hlo ofo wio 1.015 ~ o|Co Slo : ' HERRING Sf 35.0 BETHE ce 34.8 2700 who 1.015 KPC TAP Ot" 1,000 34.7 2200) _ | ___, 1.008 ojo of]! 2160 iro 30}.0 __—s:1.006 te ole fale ol! 1 a> lo a BAILEY a 115.9 b to 2100 ola 1.008 30].0 1.0000 ' 1 BAILEY O|t lea 34.8 2101 ola fo 1.008 1 ' ér 30].0 30].0 BEAVER O|” of 35.2 oF, 1.0000 1.0000 2800 olo olo 1.019 ri ' 29 p00 1:0b00 130p 80 eo c BAIL1&2G O|r 4.2 BAILEY3G 4.2 2.4 4 4 2102 fm 1.013 2103 1.008 1.019 [1.020 |1.020 sje ele ojo 1.2//-1.3 olo ojo olo olo blo blo -0.3]/0.3 a ©® © @ 34,7 Q @ 3) KPU SYSTEM ISOLATED PRIOR TO ENERGIZING TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. 100% _RATEA MINIMUM LOAD, if? CASE 4: POST-SWITCH STDY STATE MON, FEB 24 1992 1 UNIT @ SWAN ON-LINE. 4MVAR REACTOR @ TYEE. 15:26 0.950UV 1.050 OV KV: $35 .£69 .@138 FROMNTPMENT — TEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) BRANCH - MW/MVAR Mil /MITAD APPENDIX J TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS OF INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM RW. BECK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Power Technologies, Inc. Page 1 TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS OF TYEE LAKE - SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM INTRODUCTION This report presents the transient stability analysis results for the Southeast Alaska system with the proposed interconnection of the Tyee Lake-Wrangell-Petersburg (TWP) system and the Swan Lake-Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) system. This report includes selected dynamic simulation plots from the analysis of the interconnected system. This work is part of Subtask 7.2 as outlined in the study proposal for the Tyee-Swan Intertie Feasibility Study. SIMULATION MODEL & CONDITIONS This transient stability analysis is based on and utilized the power flow data base established for the Southeast Alaska system and discussed in the power flow analysis section of the feasibility study. In addition, a dynamic simulation data base was established for this study. The dynamic simulation data base model includes the time-domain response characteristics of the generating equipment on the interconnected system. This includes models for the generators, excitation systems, and turbine-governors associated with each unit. It is based on the best available information as supplied by the Alaska Energy Authority, Ketchikan Public Utilities, and RW Beck and Associates. However, majority of data needed to establish this dynamics data base was not available. Therefore, reasonable estimates had to be used for most of the generating equipment. The dynamics data base is in Power Technologies, Incorporated’s PSS/E data format. A listing of the dynamics data used for the generating equipment on the interconnected system as used in this study is included in Exhibit 1 to this report. The data for each excitation system and turbine-governor was tested prior to running system dynamic simulations to verify its response. These tests validate the reasonableness of the data used to represent such equipment. The results from the excitation simulation tests are included in Exhibit 2. The results from the governor simulation tests are included in Exhibit 3. Both groups of tests verify the control stability of the models used for each unit when operating in an off-line mode. This is the worst case condition for testing control stability. Exciter models which provide stable operation in the off-line will exhibit stable response when interconnected with other generating units. It should be noted that these tests on the excitation systems and turbine-governors do not confirm or verify the accuracy with which these models represent the actual excitation and governor controls used on the subject units. They merely establish that the models exhibit reasonable response characteristics for such equipment. Since the majority of the excitation system and turbine-governor data was estimated, the results from this study have to be considered only approximate and indicative of actual system response. Much more data collection effort, including field testing, would be required to fully verify the accuracy and validity of the dynamic response provided by these models. Power Technologies, Inc. Page 2 Typically, system stability becomes most marginal under high power transfer and heavy system load conditions. Therefore, this study simulated the dynamic response of the interconnected Southeast Alaska system only under winter peak loading conditions. This is one of the conditions represented and reported in the power flow analysis section of the report. For this winter peak loading, three generation dispatch and power transfer conditions were represented. These are summarized as follows: WINTER PEAK LOAD CONDITION CASES CASE 1: System Interconnected. No Power Transfer Between Tyee Lake & Swan Lake. Both Tyee Lake & Swan Lake Units On-Line. CASE 2: System Interconnected. Heavy Power Transfer (12.5 MW) From Tyee Lake To Swan Lake. Both Tyee Lake & One Swan Lake Units On-Line. CASE 3: System Interconnected. Moderate Power Transfer (3.3 MW) From Swan Lake To Tyee Lake. Both Swan Lake & One Tyee Lake Units On-Line. For each of the above winter peak load cases, the interconnected system was subjected to several disturbances. These are identified in the table below and are limited to disturbances at the 34.5 kV level or above (i.e., transmission level). This table also lists the expected result or impact each disturbance has on the interconnected system. Due to the sparsity of the interconnected transmission system, the majority of disturbances which can occur will island or separate various portions of the network. These disturbances leave portions of the system which are either excess in generation or deficient in generation. Therefore, the listed disturbances (i.e., disturbances A through F) mainly test the interconnected system’s overfrequency and underfrequency response following islanding. The system is not subject to many transmission level disturbances which test the true transient stability of the system. However, disturbance G is one such disturbance. Transient stability problems, in the classical sense, result when disturbances on a network do not directly separate portions of the network, but perturb the system sufficiently for portions of the system to go out-of-step. Thus, true transient stability problems are not the major concern in sparsely interconnected networks such as the Southeast Alaska System. Power Technologies, Inc. Page 3 DISTURBANCE SIMULATIONS "DISTURBANCE "RESULT OF DISTURBAN' CE A: Wrangell-Petersburg 69 kV fault at Small load rejection on TWP system Wrangell B: Tyee-Wrangell 69 kV fault at Tyee Large load rejection on TWP system, Tyee Lake isolates on KPU system C: Tyee-Swan 115 kV fault at Tyee Voltage impact & separation of network D: Swan-Bailey 115 kV fault at Swan Large load rejection on KPU system, Swan Lake isolates on TWP system E: Bailey-Bethe 34.5 kV fault at Bailey Moderate load rejection on KPU system F: Ketchikan-Shoop St. 34.5 kV fault at Load acceptance on KPU system Ketchikan G: Bailey 34.5/4.16 kV, 10 MVA transformer | Voltage impact & disturbance of network fault on 34, 5 KV side | without load or or generation rejection _ For the purposes of this study, only of hydro generation and the steam units associated with the two pulp facilities were utilized in the simulations to supply system loads. Although a significant amount of diesel generation exists at both Wrangell and Petersburg as well as on the KPU system, these diesel generation facilities are not included in the dynamics data base and are assumed off-line in all dynamic simulations contained in this report. This is the same assumption used in the power flow analysis study. This is considered to be the most likely generation dispatch on the interconnected system. Further, it results in the bulk of the generation being remote from the loads. It presents a condition which is most likely to have stability or dynamic response problems. SUMMARY & CASE DISCUSSION This study represents a screening study and provides only a general estimate of the dynamic performance when operating the TWP and KPU systems as an interconnected network. However, the results of this study, although identifying some problem areas, do not indicated that the proposed interconnection is unfeasible from the technical point of view. The results from the dynamic simulation analysis performed for this study are included in Exhibits 4, 5 & 6 to this report. These exhibits contain the initial condition power flow plots associated with CASE 1, CASE 2, and CASE 3, respectively, as well as dynamic simulation plots of selected quantities for each disturbance. The quantities selected for plotting are: generator rotor angles relative to Ketchikan Lakes Unit 3 frequencies at various transmission buses voltages at various transmission buses mechanical power output of various generators These simulation results confirm that the most significant problem associated with the Power Technologies, Inc. Page 4 interconnected TWP and KPU systems is one of overfrequency or underfrequency following disturbances. Dynamic voltage response following disturbances is generally acceptable an does not pose a significant problem. However, areas of the system which experience large resource deficiencies will experience low voltages as well as underfrequency conditions. Evidence of transient instability problems were only found for one of the conditions evaluated. Rotor swing oscillation damping is of concern. The underfrequency problem is one which exist in each of the systems today when the large hydro plants are separated from the load centers. This problem is not worsened by the interconnection. The proposed interconnection does allow generation reserves in the two systems to be shared, thus somewhat reducing the possibility of underfrequency situations occurring as a result of generation losses. However, it does little to reduce the possibility of underfrequency situations occurring as a result of transmission outages. This problem could only be corrected by the addition of redundant transmission facilities which would prevent single contingencies from directly separating portions of the network. The overfrequency problem, however, is increased by the proposed interconnection. Portions of the existing KPU and TWP systems can experience moderate overfrequencies following loss of load or transmission outages affecting other portions of the respective systems. Additionally, transmission outages on the existing systems which isolate Tyee Lake or Swan Lake only create overfrequency situations at these plant and do not expose system loads to these overfrequencies. However, the interconnection creates a situation where the entire KPU or TWP system can experience significant overfrequency conditions. Significant overfrequency conditions occur when both the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake units are isolated on either the TWP or KPU systems. This can result in overfrequencies exceeding 65 Hz on the respective system. Transient stability problems on the interconnected system were observed only for the condition where large power transfers existed from Tyee Lake to Swan Lake. This is, of course, a situation which can only exist with the proposed interconnection. For this one case (CASE2G in Exhibit 5), the Beaver Falls and Silvis Lake units went out-of-step due to a fault on the high-side of the 10 MVA transformer at Bailey. This transformer is used as a generator step-up for the largest diesel unit at Bailey. In the simulation, this Bailey unit was off-line, so this disturbance did not directly remove generation or load from the system. It merely disturbed the system and accelerated the Beaver Falls and Silvis Lake units. The 12.5 MW power transfer from Tyee Lake to Swan Lake is not the sole contributing factor to the transient stability problem. As part of the transfer scenario, it was also assumed that one of the Swan Lake hydro units was off-line. This reduced the total inertia in the KPU system. Thus, following clearance of the disturbance, there was less inertia on the KPU system to arrest the acceleration of the Beaver Falls and Silvis Lake units. Thus generator outages may have as significant effect on system stability as will power transfers across the proposed intertie. Damping of rotor swing oscillations following disturbances was also observed to be less than desirable. Oscillation damping was poorer under conditions where the proposed intertie was floating’ and not heavily loaded. None of the conditions studied identified the presence of growing or negatively damped oscillations, but oscillations lasted for 7-8 seconds in some cases. The most significant oscillations were observed on the Tyee Lake, Swan Lake and Ketchikan Pulp units. These units dominate the inertia on the system Power Technologies, Inc. Page 5 and are most prone to oscillate against one another. Moreover, the Tyee Lake and Swan Lake are remote from system loads and do not benefit from the damping effects of load. FUTURE STUDY EFFORTS As noted above, the dynamics model used in this study relied heavily on estimated data for the generating units. Thus, one of the primary efforts required for future studies is to verify and refine the dynamics models used to represent the generating units. This is best done through field tests of all of the major generating units. Field testing should focus most heavily on identifying governor response since governor characteristics will most influence overfrequency and underfrequency situations. This is the dominate problem affecting the interconnected system. Using dynamics data derived from and verified through field tests, future studies should more closely explore the overfrequency and underfrequency response of the system. Provided the field verified dynamic model data supports the results from this study, alternatives to these problems need to be examined. Overfrequency control options suggested for evaluation are as follows: Improved governor performance Generator tripping upon system separation Dynamic braking Improved governor performance may provide significant improvements in overfrequency control. Significantly improved control of overfrequency conditions will most likely be achieved on Pelton turbine hydro unit which have deflectors. Tyee Lake is the most likely candidate for improved governor controls due to it size relative to other units on the system. Through digital governor technology (such as that used on the Bradley Lake units) deflector action can be made essentially independent on needle valve controls. The action of the deflector is not constrained by hydraulic time constants, and thus can provide very effective overfrequency control if effectively managed by the governor. Application of digital governor technology on Pelton units will also improve unit efficiency by providing variable and independent needle valve control. Generator tripping is an effective, low cost option for controlling overfrequency following load rejections. It is a control which can be implemented with little effort. Generator tripping does not offer precise control and can provide control action which exceeds that required under some system situations. Dynamic braking may likewise be a reasonable option to pursue. It does involve more cost that generator tripping, and it does not offer continuous overfrequency control since resistors can only be connected to the system for a few seconds. Braking resistor control is more complicated and require proper coordination with governor controls to be effective in system separation situations. The most likely solution to the underfrequency problem is the application of underfrequency load shedding relays. Such relays appear to be most applicable on the KPU system since it normally has modest amounts of local generation on-line to support some reduced level of load. Underfrequency load shedding relays may also be applicable in the Petersburg system to separate Crystal Lake and a small amount of load in the Power Technologies, Inc. Page 6 event of system frequency decay. Damping of power oscillations on the interconnected system needs to be addressed further. The damping problems which exist are not severe, and should be correctable through the application of power system stabilizers at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake. EXHIBIT 1 DYNAMICS DATA BASE LISTING PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 1 26- 37 26- 30 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+3 0.21000 0.00000+J3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x'D x’'’D xL 4.500 0.050 0.120 2.15 0.00 0.7960 0.4930 0.2950 0.2100 0.1600 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1240 0.3150 *** CALL SCRX( 1001,'1’, 1, 238, 115) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 1 1 238- 245 115- 116 az FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 * HYGBRL * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 1 422- 756 165- 231 34- 156 26- 35 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 2 NO UNIT SELECTED HYDRAULIC SYSTEM DATA RRR REE RE HLAKE HTAIL PENLGTH PENLOSS PENSPEED PENAREA 1300.0 29.0 1382.0 0.0000046 4360.0 15.9 TUNLGTH TUNLOSS TUNSPEED TUNAREA SCHAREA SCHMAX 8282.0 0.0000137 4200.0 101.0 0.0 9999.0 SCHMIN SCHLOSS UNTILOSS UNT2LOSS UNT3LOSS -9999.0 0.0000000 0.0000186 0.0000186 0.0000000 PRATED 13.2 SPEED1 0.167 CA-DFCV3 0.57894 QFCV2000 0.6800 MSPE-TC 5.0 %POW4 31.70 NF (P)B 0.0000 4-6SWPT 0.050 MXDFRF 1.1000 KI-2NDL 0.000 KD-4NDL 0.000 KI-DEFL 0.000 EQL-CLOS -0.011 DFEQ-CLS -0.030 ND-SRTC 0.150 DEFLMIN 0.000 QRATED 127.0 DTURB2 1.750 CB-DFCV3 0.28458 QFCV3100 0.1300 %POW1L 8.00 %NDL4 20.00 NF (P)C 0.0000 6-4SWPT 0.020 MNDFRF 0.8500 KD-2NDL 0.000 KP-6NDL 1.991 KD-DEFL 0.000 NEQ-OPEN 0.011 DFNE-OPN 0.011 MXJDOR 0.667 DF-OFST 0.050 HRATED 1357.0 SPEED2 0.330 CA-DFCV4 0.20606 INTNDCV3 0.7000 *NDL1 5.00 %POWS 40.00 NF (P) OFS 0.200 MXNDRF 1.1000 DFRF-RS 0.0100 KP-3NDL 0.000 KI-6NDL 0.461 DFF (ND)A 0.91373 NEQ-CLOS -0.010 DFNE-CLS -0.005 MXJDCR -0.667 KIDF-TH 0.010 UNIT #1 DATA KKK KK KK RK QNLOAD 0.005 CA-DFCV1 0.88381 CB-DFCV4 0.14671 QFCV3INT 0.2500 *%POW2 17.00 *NDLS 25.50 2-3SWPT 0.050 MNNDRF 0.8500 DFRF-LW -0.0100 KI-3NDL 0.000 KD-6NDL 0.000 DFF (ND)B 0.30245 SHUTDWN -0.010 MXNDOR 0.068 DEFLMAX 1.000 DF-SRTC 0.1500 QF (HN)A 0.9161 CB-DFCV1 0.30248 QFCV2100 0.9600 QFCV3000 0.1300 *NDL2 10.00 SPOWE6 50.00 3-2SWPT 0.020 NDRF-RS 0.0100 DFDROOP 0.050 KD-3NDL 0.000 KI-THRS 0.035 KFBKDFL 1.000 DFEQ-TH 0.050 MXNDCR -0.068 QF (HN) B -0.3415 CA-DFCV2 0.80909 INTNDCV2 0.6000 MSHD-TC 60.0 %POW3 25.00 SNDL6 33.30 3-4SWPT 0.050 NDRF-LW -0.0100 NPID-TC 0.050 KP-4NDL 0.000 DPID-TC 0.050 EQL-THRS 0.010 DFEQ-RS 0.010 MAXNDL 1.000 DTURB1 1.150 CB-DFCV2 0.33956 QFCV2INT 0.9600 PBS/HD 0.0104 *NDL3 15.50 NF(P)A 0.0000 4-3SWPT 0.020 NDDROOP 0.050 KP-2NDL 0.000 KI-4NDL 0.000 KP-DEFL 1.000 EQL-OPEN 0.011 DFEQ-OPN 0.030 MINNDL 0.000 PRATED 13.2 SPEED1 0.167 CA-DFCV3 0.57894 QFCV2000 0.6800 MSPE-TC 5.0 SPOW4 31.70 NF(P)B 0.0000 4-6SWPT 0.050 MXDFRF 1.1000 KI-2NDL 0.000 KD-4NDL 0.000 KI-DEFL 0.000 EQL-CLOS -0.011 DFEQ-CLS -0.030 ND-SRTC 0.150 DEFLMIN 0.000 QRATED 127.0 DTURB2 1.750 CB-DFCV3 0.28458 QFCV3100 0.1300 sPOW1 8.00 *NDL4 20.00 NF(P)C 0.0000 6-4SWPT 0.020 MNDFRF 0.8500 KD-2NDL 0.000 KP-6NDL 1.991 KD-DEFL 0.000 NEQ-OPEN 0.011 DFNE-OPN 0.011 MXJDOR 0.667 DF-OFST 0.050 HRATED 1357.0 SPEED2 0.330 CA-DFCV4 0.20606 INTNDCV3 0.7000 $NDL1 5.00 SPOWS 40.00 NF (P) OFS 0.200 MXNDRF 1.1000 DFRF-RS 0.0100 KP-3NDL 0.000 KI-6NDL 0.461 DFF(ND)A 0.91373 NEQ-CLOS -0.010 DFNE-CLS -0.005 MXJDCR -0.667 KIDF-TH 0.010 UNIT #2 DATA RRKKKK KKK QNLOAD 0.005 CA-DFCV1 0.88381 CB-DFCV4 0.14671 QFCV3INT 0.2500 %POW2 17.00 *NDLS 25.50 2-3SWPT 0.050 MNNDRF 0.8500 DFRF-LW -0.0100 KI-3NDL 0.000 KD-6NDL 0.000 DFF (ND)B 0.30245 SHUTDWN -0.010 MXNDOR 0.068 DEFLMAX 1.000 DF-SRTC 0.1500 QF (HN)A 0.9161 CB-DFCV1 0.30248 QFCVv2100 0.9600 QFCV3000 0.1300 *NDL2 10.00 SPOWG 50.00 3-2SWPT 0.020 NDRF-RS 0.0100 DFDROOP 0.050 KD-3NDL 0.000 KI-THRS 0.035 KFBKDFL 1.000 DFEQ-TH 0.050 MXNDCR -0.068 QF (HN)B -0.3415 CA-DFCV2 0.80909 INTNDCV2 0.6000 MSHD-TC 60.0 sPOW3 25.00 SNDLE6 33.30 3-4SWPT 0.050 NDRF-LW -0.0100 NPID-TC 0.050 KP-4NDL 0.000 DPID-TC 0.050 EQL-THRS 0.010 DFEQ-RS 0.010 MAXNDL 1.000 DTURB1 1.150 CB-DFCV2 0.33956 QFCV2INT 0.9600 PBS/HD 0.0104 *NDL3 15.50 NF(P)A 0.0000 4-3SWPT 0.020 NDDROOP 0.050 KP-2NDL 0.000 KI-4NDL 0.000 KP-DEFL 1.000 EQL-OPEN 0.011 DFEQ-OPN 0.030 MINNDL 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 2 38- 49 31- 35 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+3 0.21000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’Do T’’Q0 H DAMP xD XQ x'D x’'D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 2.15 0.00 0.7960 0.4930 0.2950 0.2100 0.1600 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.1240 0.3150 *** CALL SCRX( 1002,’2’, 2, 246, 117) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 2 2 246- 253 Lees 2 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES *** CALL GENROU( 1103,’1’, 3, 50, 36) *** BUS NAME BASKV MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT 1103 ALP MILL2.40 1 3 50- 63 36- 41 3 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 2.3 0.00000+3 0.21400 0.00000+3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’QO0 T’’Q0 H DAMP XD XQ x’D x'Q xD xL 4.50 0.025 0.35 0.033 2.42 0.00 1.6500 1.5300 0.2420 0.7000 0.2140 0.1270 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.0610 0.2000 *** CALL IEEET1( 1103,’1’, 3, 254, 119, 26) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 1103 ALP MILL2.40 1 3 254- 267 119- 122 26 3 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.300 0.000 0.100 0.300 0.050 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S$ (E2) KE VAR 2.4750 0.1130 3.3000 0.4410 0.0000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH ClO NaS: STATE’S 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1 64- 75 42- 46 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 2.0 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’bDO TAQ0 H DAMP xD XQ x’D xD) XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL IEEET1( 1401,’1’, 15, 268, 123, 27) *e*% BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT COUN aS) STATE’S VAR SLOT 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1 15 268- 281 123- 126 27 15 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.472 0.000 0.100 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.0400 0.1130 2.7200 0.4410 0.0000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 2 76- 87 47-51 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 0.5 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+7 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO = 1T”’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x’D x''D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 7 *** CALL IEEET1( 1401,’2’, 16, 282, 127, 28) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE'S VAR SLOT 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 2 16 282- 295 127- 130 28 16 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.472 0.000 0.100 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.0400 0.1130 2.7200 0.4410 0.0000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 at 88- 99 52- 56 MBASE ZSORCE Xx TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+3 0.31000 0.00000+J3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO DO T’’Q0 H DAMP XD XQ x’D x’'D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 4.49 0.00 0.9300 0.5000 0.3500 0.3100 0.2700 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1930 0.4400 *** CALL SCRX( 2001,'1’, 17, 296, 131) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1 17 296- 303 131- 132 17 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 2.81 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1 757- 794 226- 232 157- 242 39- 44 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR TF TG 0. 12.0 500.0 304.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 0.657 11.800 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 284.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 175.0 0.0000186 2300.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 31.8 4200.0 47.5 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 2 100- 111 57- 61 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+J 0.31000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x’D x’'D xL 4.500 0.050 0.120 4.49 0.00 0.9300 0.5000 0.3500 0.3100 0.2700 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.1930 0.4400 *** CALL SCRX( 2001,’2’, 18, 304, 133) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 2 18 304- 311 133- 134 18 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 2.81 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ Ss 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 2 795- 832 233- 239 243- 328 45- 50 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR Tr TG 0. 12.0 500.0 304.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 0.657 11.800 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 284.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 175.0 0.0000186 2300.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 31.8 4200.0 47.5 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES *** CALL GENROU( 2161,'1’, 22, 112, 62) *** BUS NAME BASKV MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1 22 112- 125 62- 67 22 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+3 0.21400 0.00000+3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’QO T’’QO H DAMP xD xQ x'D x'Q x’'D XL 4.50 0.025 0.35 0.033 2.42 0.00 1.6500 1.5300 0.2420 0.7000 0.2140 0.1270 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.0610 0.2000 *** CALL IEEET1( 2161,'1’, 22, 312, 135, 29) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1 22 312- 325 135- 138 29 22 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.300 0.000 0.100 0.300 0.080 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S$ (E2) KE VAR 2.4750 0.1130 3.3000 0.4410 0.0000 ** IEEEG1 ** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1 833- 852 240- 245 329- 330 K T1 T2 T3 uo uc PMAX PMIN T4 Kl 18.75 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.600 -0.600 0.7500-0.0100 0.250 1.000 K2 TS K3 K4 Té6 KS K6 TT K7 K8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES *** CALL GENROU( 2161,’2’, 23, 126, 68) *** BUS NAME BASKV MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 2 23 126- 139 68- 73 23 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 12.5 0.00000+J 0.21400 0.00000+3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’QO T’’Q0 H DAMP XD XQ x’D x’Q x’'D XL 4.50 0.025 0.35 0.033 2.42 0.00 1.6500 1.5300 0.2420 0.7000 0.2140 0.1270 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.0610 0.2000 *** CALL IEEET1( 2161,'2’, 23, 326, 139, 30) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 2 23 326- 339 139- 142 30 23 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.300 0.000 0.100 0.300 0.080 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.4750 0.1130 3.3000 0.4410 0.0000 ** IEEEG1 ** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 2 853- 872 246- 251 331- 332 K Tl T2 T3 uo uc PMAX PMIN T4 Kl 18.75 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.600 -0.600 0.7500-0.0100 0.250 1.000 K2 TS K3 K4 T6 KS K6 T7 K7 K8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES *** CALL GENROU( 2161,’3’, 24, 140, 74) wee BUS NAME BASKV MACH KOUNT cON’S STATE’S SLOT 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 3 24 140- 153 74- 79 24 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 21.3 0.00000+3 0.21400 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’QO0 T’’Q0 H DAMP XD xQ x’D x'Q x’'D XL * 4.50 0.025 0.35 0.033 2.42 0.00 1.6500 1.5300 0.2420 0.7000 0.2140 0.1270 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.0610 0.2000 *** CALL SCRX( 2161,'3’, 24, 340, 143) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 3 24 340- 347 143- 144 24 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 ** IEEEG1 ** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 3 873- 892 252- 257 333- 334 K TL T2 T3 vo uc PMAX PMIN T4 Kl 17.65 0.000 0.000 0.110 0.600 -0.600 0.7059-0.0100 0.250 1.000 K2 TS K3 K4 T6 K5 K6 T7 K7 K8 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 3 154- 165 80- 84 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 1.8 0.00000+J 0.29000 0.00000+3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’Do T’’Q0 H DAMP xD XQ x'D x''’D xL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL IEEET1( 2402,’3’, 26, 348, 145, 31) **¥ BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 3 26 348- 361 145- 148 31 26 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.472 0.000 0.100 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.0 El S$ (E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.0400 0.1130 2.7200 0.4410 0.0000 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 3 893- 930 258- 264 335- 420 51- 56 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR TF TG 0. 1.9 65.0 250.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 1.270 5.800 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 250.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 175.0 0.0000186 3752.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 9.4 4200.0 23.3 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 4 166- 177 85- 89 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 1.8 0.00000+J3 0.29000 0.00000+J3 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO <DO0 T’’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x’D x’'D xL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) $S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL IEEET1( 2402,'4’, 27, 362, 149, 32) ane BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 4 27 362- 375 149- 152 32 27 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.472 0.000 0.100 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.0 El S(E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.0400 0.1130 2.7200 0.4410 0.0000 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE'S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 4 931- 968 265- 271 421- 506 57- 62 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR TF TG oO. 1.9 65.0 250.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 1.270 5.800 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 250.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 175.0 0.0000186 3752.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 9.4 4200.0 23.3 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 5 178- 189 90- 94 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 1.8 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD XQ x’D x’’D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) $(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL SCRX( 2402,’5’, 28, 376, 153) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 5 28 376- 383 153- 154 28 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 5 969- 1006 272- 278 507- 592 63- 68 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR Tr TG 0. 1.9 65.0 250.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 1.270 5.800 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 250.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 175.0 0.0000186 3752.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 9.4 4200.0 23.3 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 1 190- 201 95- 99 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 1.3 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+7 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’pDo T’’QO0 H DAMP xD XQ x’'D x’'D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL IEEET1( 2801,’1', 29, 384, 155, 33) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S VAR SLOT 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 1 29 384- 397 155- 158 33 29 TR KA TA VRMAX VRMIN KE TE KF TF SWITCH 0.000 25.00 0.100 1.472 0.000 0.100 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.0 El S (E1) E2 S(E2) KE VAR 2.0400 0.1130 2.7200 0.4410 0.0000 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’‘S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 1 1007- 1044 279- 285 593- 678 69- 74 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR Tr TG 10.. 2.7 26.0 760.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 0.800 3.630 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN MXJDOR MXJDCR HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.500 -0.500 760.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 170.0 0.0000186 4000.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 1.15 0.17 1.75 0.33 4360.0 4.3 4200.0 4.9 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 3 202- 213 100- 104 MBASE ZSORCE X TRAN GENTAP 2.5 0.00000+J 0.29000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’ DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x’D x’’D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 : *** CALL SCRX( 2803,'3’, 30, 398, 159) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 3 30 398- 405 159- 160 30 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 3 1045- 1082 286- 292 679- 764 75- 80 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR TF TG 10. 2.7 38.0 760.0 1.000 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 PENLGTH PENLOS 3660.0 0.0000186 TUNLGTH DTURB1 1.15 SPEED1 0.17 DTURB2 1.75 SPEED2 TUNLOS 3800.0 0.0000137*****e« 0.33 0.005 0.050 1.080 4.920 0.050 0.500 GMAX GMIN MXJDOR MXJDCR HLAKE HTAIL 1.00 0.00 0.500 -0.500 760.0 0.0 SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN 999.0 0.0 SCHLOS 0.0000000 PENSPD 4360.0 PENARE TUNSPD 5.7 4200.0 TUNARE 25.2 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH CON’ S STATE’S 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 4 214- 225 105- 109 MBASE ZSORCE iE Ree GENTAP 2.5 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD xQ x’D x’'’D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) $S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL SCRX( 2804,'4', 31, 406, 161) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 4 31 406- 413 161- 162 31 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 4 1083- 1120 293- 299 765- 850 81- 86 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR Tr TG 10. 2.7 38.0 760.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 1.080 4.920 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN MXJDOR MXJDCR HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.500 -0.500 760.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 3660.0 0.0000186 3800.0 0.0000137******* 999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 1.15 0.17 1.75 0.33 4360.0 5.7 4200.0 25.2 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E THU, MAY 28 1992 15:54 TYEE-SWAN DYNAMICS DATA. GENS, EXCITERS & GOVERNORS. BRADLEY MODEL USED @ TYEE. ALL BUSES ** GENSAL ** BUS NAME BASKV MACH cON’S STATE’S 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 1 226- 237 110- 114 MBASE ZSORCE XTRAN GENTAP 2.5 0.00000+3 0.29000 0.00000+J 0.00000 1.00000 T’DO T’’DO T’’Q0 H DAMP xD XQ x’D x’'D XL 4.500 0.050 0.120 1.14 0.00 1.0400 0.6700 0.3400 0.2900 0.2200 $(1.0) S(1.2) 0.1250 0.3000 *** CALL SCRX( 2901,'’1’, 32, 414, 163) *** BUS NAME BSVLT MACH KOUNT CON’ S STATE’S SLOT BUS 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 1 32 414- 421 163- 164 32 FED TA/TB TB K TE EMIN EMAX SWITCH RC/RFD 0.100 7.000 100.0 0.050 0.00 3.02 0.0 10.00 * HYGOVT * BUS NAME BSVLT MAC CON’ S STATE’S VAR’ S ICON’ S 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 1 1121- 1158 300- 306 851- 936 87- 92 OPTION PRATED QRATED HRATED GRATED QNL R-PERM R-TEMP TR TF TG QO. 2.7 98.0 327.0 1.000 0.005 0.050 0.440 2.000 0.050 0.500 MXGTOR MXGTCR MXBGOR MXBGCR BUFLIM GMAX GMIN RVLVCR RVLMAX HLAKE HTAIL 0.100 -0.100 0.050 -0.050 0.15 1.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 288.0 0.0 PENLGTH PENLOS TUNLGTH TUNLOS SCHARE SCHMAX SCHMIN SCHLOS 160.0 0.0000186 980.0 0.0000137******* 9999.0 0.0 0.0000000 DTURB1 SPEED1 DTURB2 SPEED2 PENSPD PENARE TUNSPD TUNARE 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.33 4360.0 7.1 4200.0 38.5 EXHIBIT 2 EXCITER MODEL VERIFICATION SIMULATION PLOTS ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER ENTER BUS 1001 1002 1103 1401 1401 2001 2001 2161 2161 2402 2402 2402 2801 2803 2804 2901 BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NUMBER, NAME BASKV MACH FULL LOAD EFD RESPONSE RESPONSE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE MACHINE TYEE L1G13.8 TYEE L2G13.8 ALP MILL2.40 CRYSTALG2 . 40 CRYSTALG2 .40 SWAN1&2G13.8 SWAN1&2G13.8 KPC 1-3G613.8 KPC 1-3G13.8 KETCHIKN4 .16 KETCHIKN4 .16 KETCHIKN4 .16 BEAVER1G2.40 BEAVER3G2. 40 BEAVER4G2 . 40 SILVIS1G4.16 PERWRPUOBWWNHNEPNRPRNE RATIO TEST ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, ID, TDs POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER 1.81426 1.81426 2.54766 2.20691 2.20691 2.11630 2.11630 2.54766 2.28158 2.20690 2.20690 2.20690 2.20691 2.20691 2.20691 2.12791 FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: FACTOR: 1001,1, .9 1002,2, .9 1103,1, .8 1401,1,.8 1401,2, .8 200272729 2001,2, 2161,1, 2161,2, 2161,3. 2402, 3, 2402,4, .8 2402,5, .8 2801,1, .8 2803,3, 2804,4, 2901,1,. 2.65836 2.65836 0.50064 0.49996 0.49996 SLES Leste 0.50064 1.29458 0.49996 0.49996 aris 0.49996 1247373 1.47373 1.67692 T# GMWI FaAL €S'St Z66T 61 aaa ‘CaM sacar ET 1001 MC1 FILE: TEMP.CHN -SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. TYEE LAKE 1.5000 EFD_ 1001 MC1 0.0 5.0000 ooos*b 0000°S 0000°b ooos*e 0000°€ GNIS o00s*z 0000°% ooos"T 0000°T 0000S°0 O° 0 LINQ WVWULS TIIN div GNI. 41:80 7266T OZ aaa ‘NHL o00S*b ooos"€ oo00s"z oo00s*T 0000S°0 0000°S 0000°b 0000°€ 0000°% 0000°T 0°0 : STATA o °o o o °o wo o i] Y A A | fi | 3 | a So Q ‘ = 5} H n y n a a a u 3) a gi oO i = Sale gf 8 B at ||| |e Sa 7 et) Illes “8 fe] 4 be al B H i fy = Au =O ne ee fl fel Hm BE o °o °o °o o °o wo °o T# AMWI TWLSAYO bS'ST 2661 61 aaa ‘GaM aWIL 000S*»b ooos’€ ooos*z oo00s*T o000Ss"0 0000°S 0000°6b 0000°E 0000°@ 0000°T 0°0 0.50000 0.0 ---To FILE: TEMP.CHN ET 1401 MC1 EFD_ 1401 MC1 TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. 5.0000 it TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH [1.5000 T# AMVWI NWMS SS'ST Z66T 6T aaa ‘OGM ANIL 000S*b ooos"e o00s*z 000S*T oo000s"0 0000°S 0000°b 0000°€ 0000°2 0000°T 0°0 0.50000 | 0.0 ----S ET 2001 MCi EFD 2001 MC1 FILE: TEMP.CHN TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. 1.5000 5.0000 iit TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH C# “OO dINd NWMIHOLEY 81:80 Z66 OZ aaa ‘NHL eid o00S*b ooos"€ o00s*z o00s"T 0000S°0 0000°S 0000°b 0000°€ 0000°2 0000°T o°o e |e | | T | S |o o wo ° m Y = | . | a a Q 4 = fl B n > n Zz e Fs} H Co sy 8 Fs , 7 & dq S g is es 8 a 1. GH & eg B] | a) 5 H aM fa a = qu =O Oe f £3 fa fl ES He o o o o o o wo o (ee a jo TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. ic - +e @ oO FILE: TEMP.CHN e x oO nO et SH Te Au fl fe i¢ ET 2161 MC3 = 1.5000 Sd 0.50000 oo EFD 2161 MC3 oO 5.0000 =————4 0.0 rat S isa} s MM wo co 3 8 8 o o 3 o o s “ o 3 wo ie o o o o a co o 3 1.0000 0.50000 +0 0 TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. FILE: TEMP.CHN ET 2402 MC3 1.5000 EFD_ 2402 MC3 5.0000 -—— — -< 0.50000 0. 0 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 -0 2.5000 3.5000 TIME 1.5000 0.50000 BEY FEB 19 1992 KETCHIKAN #3 WED, T# STIW4 UAAVAd LS?ST TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. iP FILE: TEMP .CHN 766T 6T Fad ‘dam ET 2801 MC1 0.50000 ----_- a 1.5000 EFD_ 2801 MC1 0.0 5.0000 o00s*b 0000°S 0000°b ooos"€ o000'€ ANIL o00s*z 0000°2 000S°T 0000°T 0000S°0 0°0 c# STIVH UAV 8S:°ST TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. FILE: TEMP.CHN Z66T 6T Add ‘dam ET 2803 MC3 0.50000 --- To 1.5000 EFD_ 2803 MC3 0.0 5.0000 o00S*b ooos"€ 0000°b o000°E aWIL ooos*z 0000°Z 0000°S 7 TO TT | ooos*T 0000°T oT 0000S"0 0°0 1.5000 5.0000 TYEE LAKE-SWAN LAKE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEM MODEL. WITH TYEE LAKE TO SWAN LAKE TIE. FILE: TEMP .CHN ET 2901 MC1 EFD 2901 MC1 -_—- —-—— — 0.50000 oO. 0 5.0000 4.5000 4.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000 0.0 2.5000 3.5000 TIME 1.5000 0.50000 15:59 SILVIS LAKE FEB 19 1992 WED, GOVERNOR RESPONSE TEST 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING ENTER INITIAL LOADING, STEP (P.U.): .6,.1 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E MON, APR 06 1992 13:42 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. INITIAL CONDITION LOAD FLOW USED 0 ITERATIONS BUS -----X ID ETERM EFD POWER VARS P.F. ANGLE ID IQ 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 1.0000 1.2270 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.48 0.1685 0.5697 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 1.0000 1.2270 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.48 0.1710 0.5689 1103 ALP MILL2.40 1.0000 1.4593 1.35 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.6024 0.0178 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.20 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.2480 0.5271 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1.0000 1.2890 0.30 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.2480 0.5271 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1.0000 1.3348 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.70 0.1610 0.5718 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1.0000 1.3348 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.70 0.1610 0.5718 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1.0000 1.4593 7.50 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.5793 0.1020 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1.0000 1.4593 12.75 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.5793 0.1020 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 0.75 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4862 0.3312 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4841 0.3342 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4841 0.3342 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4838 0.3346 PWR UBWWNHNPNPENE TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU) 1.0000 a 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 nea Ta 55.000 30.000 24.000 18.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 MON a TYEE LAKE #1 9.0000 3.0000 13:44 APR 06 1992 LOAD PICKUP TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. =n GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP “5 FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. oN FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN oO aw 2 Ay at SR Oo i. © 4 a a] MECHANICAL POWER (PU 2 + 1.0000 Se) eel on 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 9 65.000 ———_ 55.000 ec e 4 "g a . = 5 Wn E 6.0000 18.000 9.0000 15.000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 -0 0 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 = SS is FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 a————_4 —e —- — — — — | 12.000 30.000 18.000 24.000 21.000 27.000 15.000 6.0000 9.0000 3.0000 0.0 13:45 LOAD PICKUP APR 06 1992 MON, KPC #2 TIME (SEC) TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 -——— —-< FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 ae 0.0 55.000 30.000 -000 24 18.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 13:45 LOAD PICKUP APR 06 1992 MON, KPC #3 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU. 1.0000 SS = =< 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 —————s 55.000 30.000 6.0000 12.000 18.000 24.000 3.0000 9.0000 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 0 0. zB aM vo aw 2 AY le SG «2 4 a zm oS H a oO BH & MS TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN 1.0000 65.000 MECHANICAL POWER (PU FREQUENCY (HZ -—-—--_—-—-— 4 0.0 55.000 30.000 24.000 18.000 12.000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 13:45 LOAD PICKUP APR 06 1992 MON, BEAVER #1 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. 2a, GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP =D FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. NG FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN oO aH oS Ay a Sa Oo we oO a = Zam MECHANICAL POWER (PU g + 1.0000 ar ree 0.0 ~ FREQUENCY (HZ fx] 65.000 ee Tire 55.000 S sg 7 ica s mM s 7 x o o o < N o co 7 a co o o 3 Cal ef sa ef "g H Be 6.0000 12.000 3.0000 9.0000 -0 0 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD PICK-UP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-UP.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 ee 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 Se 55.000 30.000 24.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 APR 06 1992 13:45 MON, SILVIS #1 LOAD PICKUP EXHIBIT 3 GOVERNOR MODEL VERIFICATION SIMULATION PLOTS GOVERNOR RESPONSE TEST 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING ENTER INITIAL LOADING, STEP (P.U.): .6,-.1 PTI INTERACTIVE POWER SYSTEM SIMULATOR--PSS/E MON, APR 06 1992 13:50 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. INITIAL CONDITION LOAD FLOW USED 0 ITERATIONS BUS -----X ID ETERM EFD POWER VARS P.F. ANGLE ID IQ 1001 TYEE L1G13.8 1.0000 1.2270 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.48 0.1685 0.5697 1002 TYEE L2G13.8 1.0000 1.2270 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.48 0.1710 0.5689 1103 ALP MILL2.40 1.0000 1.4593 1.35 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.6024 0.0178 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.20 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.2480 0.5271 1401 CRYSTALG2.40 1.0000 1.2890 0.30 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.2480 0.5271 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1.0000 1.3348 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.70 0.1610 0.5718 2001 SWAN1&2G13.8 1.0000 1.3348 7.50 0.00 1.0000 16.70 0.1610 0.5718 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1.0000 1.4593 7.50 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.5793 0.1020 2161 KPC 1-3G13.8 1.0000 1.4593 12.75 0.00 1.0000 41.12 0.5793 0.1020 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2402 KETCHIKN4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.05 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.5121 0.2894 2801 BEAVER1G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 0.75 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4862 0.3312 2803 BEAVER3G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4841 0.3342 2804 BEAVER4G2.40 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4841 0.3342 2901 SILVIS1G4.16 1.0000 1.2890 1.50 0.00 1.0000 21.90 0.4838 0.3346 PPRWRPURWWNHNPNPE NE TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. S Ay GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP ies re FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. = FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN Q N aQ me SH Go. aq te z MECHANICAL POWER (PU 2H 1.0000 4 0.0 mS FREQUENCY (HZ . 65.000 s—————9 55.000 o 2 oy 8 > Ss AH o me N o o Ss x o o c an o o o © et - 2 sa 4 5 ° ae o o x co i=] $ es o co o o © o o o o cc o o TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. Xa GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP =O FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. — G FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN aA N ae ei eo oO 34 Go. aa — 2 MECHANI. POWER (PU 2H 1.0000 ----s 0.0 G FREQUENCY (HZ < 65.000 ————— 55.000 2 & 2, = gn 5 Ss e o s 28 Sn 7 = s & 3 s 6.0000 3.0000 1.0000 65.000 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU Caiinadktaniamdlins, 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ Se 55.000 30.000 24.000 18.000 12.000 0.0 14:22 APR 06 1992 15.000 21.000 27.000 MON eee KPC #2 — LOAD DROP 9.0000 3.0000 1.0000 65.000 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 8 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ ——s 55.000 3. s % r 6.0000 12.000 18.000 9.0000 15.000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 0.0 14:22 LOAD DROP APR 06 1992 MON, KPC #3 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 =| = = = 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 ——_—_——— 55.000 30.000 27.000 24.000 12.000 18.000 15.000 21.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 6.0000 3.0000 -0 0 14:23 LOAD DROP APR 06 1992 MON, KETCHIKAN #3 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 een a 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 Sr e 55.000 Pc en | | | | | | 4 | 4 18.000 24.000 30.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 :23 14 LOAD DROP APR 06 1992 MON, BEAVER #1 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK LOAD. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU 1.0000 eos 0.0 FREQUENCY (HZ 65.000 Sie 55.000 30.000 24.000 18.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 14:23 LOAD DROP APR 06 1992 MON, BEAVER #3 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. GOVERNOR RESPONSE FOR 10% LOAD DROP FROM 60% INITIAL LOADING. FILE: GRUN-DN.CHN MECHANICAL POWER (PU) 1.0000 FREQUENCY (HZ) 65.000 WINTER PEAK LOAD. 30.000 24.000 18.000 12.000 6.0000 0.0 15.000 21.000 27.000 TIME (SEC) 9.0000 3.0000 14:23 LOAD DROP APR 06 1992 MON, SILVIS #1 EXHIBIT 4 CASE 1 DISTURBANCE SIMULATION PLOTS WRANGELL 1202 ede Be @ 0.0]|-0.8 odllo off-3.2 0.0|/-0.2 So -0.8 o o Oo Q) 0.0 68.5 0.0 0.993 3) 0.0 0.0 (4) 0.0 0.0 6) 0.0 0.0 Jo.0 » 6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 | 12.6 1.008 aL ag ae 2.4 1.004 WRANG SW 1100 i ALP MILL 1.9812 eons 1103 o}f i Rio CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. INITIAL CONDITIONS FRI, MAY 15 1992 Oljw SIN Blo 2*.O-ge" T— €°Ot-s°2 uo 23:31 CRYSTALG 68.6 0.994 2000 SWAN L e e =2.4llo ° -1.4]16 ha 68.5 ° N 0.992 S So -4.2 oo -0.9 o -1.8 0.4 25.2 1.011 TYEE L 1000 i, uit So. 10, 6f°S TYEE L ~2.4y 1015 | hm ei 0,0 BH" -0.69S ofes 7 oles 117.4 70.3 bo 1.021 1.019 PETERSBG 1302 0.0 co 0.0 0.0 (2) 0.0 0.0 @ 0.0 co 0.0 0.0 GS) 4.2 6 0.9 2.4 1:005 Kv: <35_,69 ,@138 {EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR N. POINT 33.4 SWAN L 2180 0.967 ryt Blo afo KETCHIKN ( SHOOP ST TOTEM 1G 4.3 010 2171 1.040 4.2 TOTEM B . 1.020 2170 0.979 PORT TAP aa 34.1 2300 0.988 Kec 1-3G) SIP ON we ee lon 2161 lo 1.020 HERRING KPC TAP 34.0 2160 0.986 BAILEY 2100 ' tis BEAVER 4 34.8 Es 2800 1.009 a BAIL1&2G 4 2102 1.020 4.0 a. -1.2}/1.1 34.0 0.987 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 100% _RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) NORMAL DISPATCH, NO INTERCHANGE. 0.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR INITIAL CONDITIONS FRI, MAY 15 1992 13:32 KV:s35 .<69 .@132 IROTITPMFENT — MW/mi7nD CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. sm 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 5 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE oo ate 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE Tf] TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. g TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. SH FILE: CASE1A.CHN 5 FILE: CASE1A.CHN 2 Nn Nn 90.000 FS STS *=10.00] OE 2 8 “8 “a 30.000 =i0.00] @5.000 35.0001 = ig Nn Oo N 90.000 =10.00 g F4| [65.000 55.000 g fy 90.000 =10.00 d ij €5.000 oss s Se 7 35.000 d 90.000 =10.00 wn| [#5000 eT. 000 90.000 ——a 10.00 4 65.000 ———s 55.000 T ny B 2 z | Ee a Se 4 ! 3 3 . 1 6 7 a 1 x I 8 _ 8 ut : ut ny g 3 4 ' : 5 i \ : : | en 3 1 ‘ ~ " o vu nf a8 a8 a 1 ° a al Py e \ 5 a : ; a g & ! t ls * \ * / x i 3 g a 3 ei --13 g a a | ! g e CASE 1. ‘TYEE SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. - & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. =u 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2n 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE 2 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE 2% TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. eo TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. $a FILE: CASE1A.CHN g FILE: CASE1A.CHN 3 N Nn 1.2500 PS ¥ 9.750001 2 3 ts SU eae sae 7 ¥—o.20000] 2A SS "AL! “a nS 1.2000 ae « 0.20000 PS s n 2D Laas FF sue | ZH Sm : s K 72500 none ae ess s =e . are R bres ee aaa oao 7 arr . LL 6 8 oO 1.2500 => ST 0.75000 1.2000 = = >= T 0.20000 a baw as =—————+ 1.75000 1.2000 =——————a 7.20000 Bg 1 Rg 8 | 1 8 é ! é | : g 3 s | s 1 g | 3 e . 1 rc | Dar i | ‘4 i i ok by = \ oo eS o . . uv 3 | it 38 "g ih "g 5 + 4 & g ae g i. Oo - \ 5a ———t 3 | = i ” } ‘ ' « : ld ; 8 \ my s fe es / ar t 3 / reed 3 8 eS 3 3 \ a * i le | | | 3 [ee Ee ee [Eee é CASE 1. TYEE_SuAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. ane see SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. a -SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2m 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2M 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE Ste 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE re f) TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. e TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. SH FILE: CASE1B.CHN a FILE: CASE1B.CHN ov aV aa 3 fa 35 “2 "a 90.000 Weer eres * =10.00 ct 65.000 eretesseeeeie x 55.000 c G) ae Oo nN 9 90.000 =F _-10.00 g | [es.000 SSF 55.000 é fy 90.000 a iJ 65.000 g boas a 5 bes-aas n 90.000 9 65.000 T—1—T7 ! ® 3 ' ' se ' a ' ' ' 1 8 ' e ' io ‘ ; i i ec ‘ ' i ( 3 \ ‘ o o ay a 3 a ¢ a \ < se , g g e H H a soe is 3 a 3 es 3 8 3 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1B.CHN 1.2500 pas renee e 0.75000 1.2500 Ban chi a x 0.75000 1.2500 ee 0.75000 1.2500 a ° 0.75000 | 1.2500 a 0.75000 1.2500 ee 0.75000 Ss = ae! a eal ies 1! i le = We i. 1s 8 19 ls (ie fae (15 g t¢ ec ‘e leas 3 3 8 Nees is Pe 4 . Nees 3 Tae “ ve 1.0000 SSI | 00:48 BUS VOLTAGES MAY 27 1992 TIME (SEC) if 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1B.CHN eee =* 0.20000 R Wioieseiejesats 0.20000 - === =F 0.20000 CEOSrar 0.20000 1} — = =T_ 0.20000 —— 0.20000 10.000 9.0000 6.0000 ‘4.0000 2.0000 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 249 MAY 27 1992 00 HANICAL POWERS WED, a” v. ME CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2m 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2n 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE x ie 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE = Bl TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. s TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. eH * FILE: CASE1C.CHN 3 FILE: CASE1C.CHN S 90.000 Stierecenenrores > 0.00 3 es . 3 fa =) S) 90.000 PC SOEE x =10-00] of | Tesco ra x $5.00] 5 Fy °o 4 | [es-000 ===> It 55.000 4 by a iy 65.000 a 5 65.000 . . i . a 65.000 t s 9 8 1 ” = a - I ut is Rg 4 ! s s H sot ¢ e i : } ' x ! s 8 : rnd e re ‘ a) lz ls ‘ det 3 3 ‘ ; : ; \ . @ . E 1 s i ‘ ‘i ‘ fod : i ; ie se 5 ' 4 \ ‘ sg o o by HN 3 3 3 a 1) a < \ an g g ‘ " \ C : d 3 eB g a >S aoe iS | vy eM i * ca + N ar ‘ 7 ss x zm 3 3 Fd he y s s Ye. 5 - “y we 2 ey Pea ws 8 g ‘ = oe 5 ' Fi s i iS is ic CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. sun 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. on 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE fal 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE 2m TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. su TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. s a FILE: CASE1C.CHN g FILE: CASE1C.CHN 5 Nn Nn 1.2500 rose * 0.75000] & 3 bass r= * 0.20000] 2 AL a = 1.2500 Misieisiogesexe x 0.75000 S = 1.2000 Aisisimicieise x 0.20000 a 4 wn 8 1.2500 - === =F 0.75000 g B 1.2000 - === =F 0.20000 § H 'U) boas Cansei on . arr > bees es=s--—— * 0.20000 a 4 g gS 1.2500 => >To. 75000 T2000 == =F 0.20000 a 1.2500 = __ 0.75000 1.2000 =———* __0.20000 a 0 8 3 oe is S, rn g 3 { ‘ a ly 5 f (lt : 3 1 5 f ' Mt t 3 = 4 I ly 3 jt 3 3 { c E 8 Ss lS ait ‘ o S iit a8 g4 YN 32 gc (it g g a a "| i. 3 a 3 a (af ie - Sr, ¢ g g a a es es i ; a a le je je le CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1D.CHN SILVIS LAKE $1 (DEG) 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1D.CHN 52 52 FREQUENCIES ANGLES REL TO KETCH #3 (1 i 4 o co s s | 3 3 a a a ee re | 5 les-aes rr. X 35.000] N 8 nx 4 besos a TT) € x €5.000 FSS ==e 75.0001 8 SWAN LAKE (H2) 8 65.000 > =T_ ie o 20 ag 28 o Te 2 ge ae 2 s 2 g a 3 i. E 8 3 5 be g CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2H 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE = fe 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE 2 TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. eu TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. oi FILE: CASE1D.CHN & FILE: CASE1D.CHN 5 Nn 1.2500 wena _ 0.75000 s 4 1.2000 > 0.20000 $ A ay a 2 2 1.2500 Sse e es x 0.75000 e 0.20000 c 4 N n N ‘Cc! 1.2500 === =F 0.75000] 2] [72000 === =F 0.20000 ¢ H Sm 3 1.2500 Geseseen ° 0.75000 a 1.2000 ae e 0.20000 a v) g BO 1.2500 ae a 0.75000 1.2000 a ae 0.20000 Q Vv 1.2500 = 0.75000 1.2000 —— 0.20000 is s. i i é é fe fs : i © fe le 3 8 2 s ls Fj o o a8 8 a7 se ge g & is 8 < i i i 4 a 3 3 ed ei g g HH a le le je le CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2m 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE ce ate TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. $ FILE: CASE1E.CHN 8 Nn 90.000 ere = = *=10.00| QE 123] “i N O° 90.000 FST 10.00 g B 30.000 ss 710-00 gi e 90.000 eS ST 10.00 a 8 a 2 is 6.0000 8.0000 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1E.CHN 54 FREQUENCIES MAY 27 1992 00 o a = g a & if 1.2500 Lar oe! > 0.75000 1.2500 1.2500 1.2500 1.2500 1.2500 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1E.CHN PU tcc * 0.75000 = — >> SF_9.75000 —--=o * 0.75000 = TF 7-75000 =—* _ 0.75000 54 MAY 27 1992 00 WED, 10.000 9.0000 6.0000 $.0000 7.0000 5.0000 TIME (SEC) 2.0000 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 BUS VOLTAGES CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1E.CHN SILVIS LAKE #1 (PU) 0.20000 00:54 10.000 9.0000 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 ‘8.0000 3.0000 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 0.0 WED, MAY 27 1992 MECHANICAL POWERS CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1F.CHN } SILVIS LAKE ¢1 (DEG) 90.000 -10.00 } BEAVER FALLS ¢3 (DEG) sat 90.000 Tee Tee ™_=10.00 } KETCHIKAN PULP $3 (DEG) 90.000 10.00 90.000 90.000 90.000 TT 10.000 9.0000 ‘4.0000 0.0 00:55 WED, 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 MAY 27 1992 ANGLES REL TO KETCH #3 CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1F.CHN 65.000 Pe MOT x 55.000 65.000 STL ini 55.000 65.000 eT rT 7 55.000 65.000 wae hence 55.000 65.000 afb lSeiENbes 5.000 T T T T | T T te ‘4.0000 0.0 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 WED, MAY 27 1992 00:55 FREQUENCIES CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 2H 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE = Ea] 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE = OG TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 290 TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. | FILE: CASE1F.CHN g FILE: CASE1F.CHN 5 Nn Nn 1.2500 es => 0.75000] 2H! [i2000 IS =F 0.20000 | A a 8 74 1.2500 Aivioje wheeze x "0.75000 cS 1.2000 Mie ie is je ieie is x 0.20000 fy 8 U} n 1.2500 === =F 0.75000] 22] [2000 = — == =F— 0.20000 ¢ H Sm 1.2500 F=====55 7 0.75000 d T2000 +--===== 0.20000 dz 1.2500 S54) 0.75000 1.2000 os oa eo 0.20000 g ie =——— _ 0.75000 | aes =—= _0.20000 3 's 3 | 8 e ; e 3 | ie | 3 j 3 8 8 « — 5 8 | is ba = \ _ o o 28 | 38 2 ; a ge a S | e L \ é | i a a ) 2.0000 j 1.0000 1.0000 0.0 = CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. sm 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. Lun 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA tate 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA as TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. s TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. eH FILE: CASE1G.CHN a FILE: CASE1G.CHN 2 } SILVIS LAKE ¢1 (DEG) a0 98 90.000 Ferree =10.00| 5 a5 DEE wéM “a 90.000 rs * =10.00] 5 5 ia beg een +2 af 90.000 - + =10.00 1 g & s .H d ig 55.000 . n fy 4 Silyile e g 8 aii Rg a Re u ' e ba Mle ais i a ali d : NI se. s ! 1 oy ad Aili i i al "a i aiiiit g + ; & s " s . I: uM 5 SIMs o ail fy | 23 “ ) “74 i a ” a alii 5 bE 4 a 4 J _|s 2 : . 3 3 8 8 “| = a ii r i i a a 2 e jo iS CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 1. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. Sn 2-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. NO INTERCHANGE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA ‘ Ea] 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. eo TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE1G.CHN g FILE: CASE1G.CHN i) N 1.2500 eres =* 0.75000] & a 1.2000 STS =F 0.20000 a sae | = | bras Rie ini iope late 9.20000 | KETCHIKAN LAKES 34.5KV (PU) Sn 1.2500 : === =F 0.15000 g B raees == ——=—F 0.20000 1.2500 es * 0.75000] 1.2000 F======= 0.20000 brass anid saa bases SS To. 1.2500 =——*__ 0.75000 1.2000 =———*_0.20000 T T 3 [I T al Teal T Hy Rg ' i g $ | ' I a \ . OH + | ! 3 | ' iH 3 iS \ ' iS , i 3 ig | ' t! 8 : 14 : " =) BE. ' i | ‘ ih ‘ it 2 | + 1! 3 ry <a . ' ee \ 5; i" - ' ef & ' \¢ “ ; it g { \ ia so . i 8 i E& | ' iy fd iv \ ‘ W : : j 8 ! a r- t / ‘I ’ 8 i 8 iS Ay iS s L . Py Ss ! 4 i a a tr lees a al 3 | MES ee a 3 je 00:57 MECHANICAL POWERS 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 WED, MAY 27 1992 EXHIBIT 5 CASE 2 DISTURBANCE SIMULATION PLOTS 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. MAY 27 1992 09:42 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. INITIAL CONDITIONS WED, KV: $35 ,$69 ,#138 BRANCH —- MW/MVAR EQUIPMENT — MW/MVAR WRANGELL er ~ PETERSBG 1202 | -2.4f/o > re0Z Pore 5 =1.5]/S a 0.0 @—2.0f-0.8 x28 oll-3.2 68.8 Js 8 0-0) 0.0]-0.2 Sole -0.8 0.998 co jlo °o 0.0 2) Q) 0.0 68.9 0.0 0.0 0.999 - } a : 8) 0.0} | So -4.2110.0 Q) 0.0) | CRYSTALG ess -0. 0.0 (4) 0.0} | 1401 0.0 (4) 0.0] Re 0.0 oa | . Pel 8 0 ©) 0.0] : : -1. | 0.0 5 =0. RTS 0.5 4.2 5 6)—2-9} 0.0 oF 0.9 0.0} 2.5 26.5 25.3 2.4 1:030 1.063 1.016 1:010 ) 12.6 | 1.014 4 3.2] * oe 2.4 J 1:010 0.0 7.5 ' WRANG SW Si? Sm 69:0 1100 uly fe 17600 = TYEE L oe 1900 11.6 wl] nae : ALP_MILL 42916 2552, ts = meee 1103 10.63 ce ‘ 14.1 alos ar 2.4 1.020 1015 24.9 In rl 1 1.001 : =| ef ca eo 11.6 - hg 4.5 -1. 33 =0.6 (1) oo 0.2 oa S co $ 117.9 70.7 ° 14.1 1.025 1.025 1.020 2000 SWAN L CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) N. POINT 33.3 2180 0.966 oh ano KETCHIKN SHOOP ST 2500 13.9 1.010 1.014 TOTEM 1G 2171 KETCHIKN -5.8 -0.9 ) 34.2 TOTEM B |! 0.991 2170 my MT.POINT —— 1 ew o) PORT TAP 2300 KEG 136 etsy alsa eatin cel aod 2161 slo 1.020 HERRING 2700 KPC TAP !°|> 34.0 2160 a}o 30}. 0.985 BAILEY 2100 BEAVER nv BAIL162G OO}! 4 , Q. a. 2.4 2102 : . < a 1.020 4.0}|-4. -1.371.2 34.0 0.986 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 100% _ RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. Q.950UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR INITIAL CONDITIONS WED, MAY 27 1992 09:42 KV: 535 .$69 .€138 IROMITPMENT — mt /amran CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 20 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 2n 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE te 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE ~~ i) TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 5 TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. SH FILE: CASE2A.CHN m FILE: CASE2A.CHN S 90.000 a > =i0.00 Se S 8 3 “ 390.000 Wee 10.00] 5 4) Fesco00 Sess 35.000] 5 3 oO : 90.000 ---——* 10.00 g Ei] [és.000 ===> 55.000 g fy 90.000 eee = ° -10.00 g iJ 65.000 ee ee re ° 55.000 g 90.000 I =10.00 wn 65.000 Sa a 55.000 90.000 ic $5,000 ——_ 55.000 z T T T T T T T 8 Ss Ss i i - iad = < 3 3 8 ® - z g 3 is o o e a g y a soe s . 4 a H es 3 g 8 3 a t a L | CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2A.CHN ta 1.2500 SSeS =e 0.75000 0.75000 1.2500 0.75000 4) 1.2500 0.75000 1.2500 0.75000 1.2500 a Boe 0.75000 . 2.0000 13 MAY 27 1992 07 BUS VOLTAGES WED, 3.0000 1.0000 TIME (SEC) CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2A.CHN 1.2000 sas ee Fe 0.20000 1.2000 Mise isis a x 0.20000 1.2000 fia a ie 0.20000 1.2000 ° 0.20000 1.2000 te Lo Te 0.20000 1.2000 Sn 0.20000 s 3 ° : . 4.0000 2.0000 0.0 13 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 MAY 27 1992 07 MECHANICAL POWERS WED, CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2B.CHN 90.000 Perel wae im ie -— -10.00 90,000 eee eens x -10.00 90.000 a 10.00 90.000 — es 10.00 90.000 SS 10.00 OC ara a eto en : a9 2 oe a Z8 wH go n ie WW oO a TIME (SEC) 65.000 65.000 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2B.CHN 738 55.000 === =F 55.000 o—_——* 55.000 aE aa 55.000 10.000 9.0000 ‘4.0000 MAY 27 1992 01:05 FREQUENCIES WED, 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. gn 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 2 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE fe] 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE ~ TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. so TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. os FILE: CASE2B.CHN g FILE: CASE2B.CHN 5 Nx 1.2500 este * 0.75000] 2 a T2000 oT 70000] HL “ a 1.2500 ase sS Ld 0.75000 S 1.2000 — x 0.20000 S 8 Yn 1.2500 =~ === =F 0.75000 g RB 1.2000 = —=——F 6.20000 g H 1.2500 era mam + 0.75000 . 1.2000 Cea * 0.200001 4 oO 1.2500 = = —T 6.75000 1.2000 == =F 0.20000 5 a 'U} 1.2500 SS 0.75000 1.2000 Se 0.20000 T T T T 1 Ty 3 { T “TTT | j 8 ‘ ‘ ' | ' a ‘ . . ' i | : ' ! : i | : - 1 os ; y + ' i ( | x ‘i I \ 8 ‘ = . t 1 se ' | ‘ ' 1 ‘ : A ' ¢ 8 , g \ | an: : 3 5 — i ' ' ec ( \ : : ' ' | ’ : 4 | \ 8 t - ! a ' 1 8 } _ ) ¥ ' | ‘ _ o : : 1 g ( ge \ Ds 1 i | a8 , ° ' ‘ # i g { ‘ ‘ | ; g 5 7 ' | ' 3 a ) 8 ' \ s re ‘1 ' I a lo \ ' $ i ’ g 7 io » 18 2 : 6 : e a kame \ ' 4 in ” Ca ig ‘ ' ‘ . 1 1 > 3 ' | A : 3 eee ¢ a 1 | ~ sy 1 oe . 3 <a ce | Bano g al _ ; >= ~~ 50 (ae 4 . i le a ae ; | tI 15-1 | il a | 3 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. Lm 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE So te 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. b=} TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2C.CHN 3 FILE: CASE2C.CHN 90.000 eos Se => =10.00 S & bpp ras tt “Oy 90.000 Mert eee x =10.00 c [65.000 Mee cecee « 55.000 N ° 90.000 SF =10.00 é B 5.000 >> 55.000 bara re ===> 710-00 | a ij bea F==== === 55.000 90.000 =10.00 5 a 5.000 —— =e 55.000 90.000 10.00 ‘ 65.000 oe 55.000 s iT T T T T T TOT T 3 8 6 — 3 e L : 8 S S e 3 8 ec L. o 8 2 | a d a BE] 4 / 3 e = 3 8 g = 3 eS = . 3 8 S 3 | ! bod L | _t | 10.000 9.0000 MAY 27 1992 01:06 FREQUENCIES WED, 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. LCN 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 5H 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE 2 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE v % TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 2Q TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. os FILE: CASE2C.CHN g FILE: CASE2C.CHN 5 ns Nn Nn b-a5 Sai =* 0.75000 an b-sase Serer iol oke = 0.20000] 2 Au "2 “4 5 1.2000 b RCICEECISE * 0.20000] = 2D SS 2H 1.2000 (0.20000 sm § Es . 1.2000 See) + 0.20000] g 85 <5 — 5 0575000) 1.2000 -— = = 0.20000 a 0.75000 braves =———* __ 0.20000 "s sg 8 s e « 3 3 le oe fe 8 = 3 s \s o o 38 a3 a o ge g 8 ie iS g 3 a * : : es CT i i a a le le Is iS CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2D.CHN 90.000 _Ss2Ee — -10.00 90.000 wT x -10.00 90.000 oe -10.00 } SWAN LAKE #1 (DEG) | 90.000 -10.00 10.000 9.0000 0.0 07 WED, 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 MAY 27 1992 01 ANGLES REL TO KETCH #3 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. sun 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE 2 a] TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. aH FILE: CASE2D.CHN Y & fa a) $5,000 SSS % $5,000] Sf 65.000 SSF 55.000 € fy €5.000 Fs=ssSS= 735.0001 65.000 Se == | == 4 55.000 65.000 ———_55.000 "3 L_ 43 Ss 3 8 bE 7 3 8 & + 0 48 8 ge 8 4s L b 2 3 8 a CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. Zn 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE 2 fl TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 20 FILE: CASE2D.CHN g N 1.2500 ose => 9.75000] & n i. 1.2500 al ram ee 0.75000 Le > 2B 1.2500 a a a 0.75000 i" sm 1.2500 penne ° 0.75000 > 1.2500 a a? 0.75000 1) 1.2500 —— 0.75000 re ja i af Rg ot 8 iat : oe 5 x! 8 ’ s — ‘ + le “4 m 3 8 = a : vt Sf ig L | e x it g8 : ee = \ a ei g vel a 7 i al - :1 LL x I 3 et 3 it cel L El : i ( ‘ g 3 = 3 st = | js 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2D.CHN rome * 0.20000 meres 218 0.20000 esi + 0.20000 S22 =e 0.20000 Se 4 0.20000 ———— 0.20000 + [TTT 4 rn ; \ ' ' \ ' : \ ' — \ 1 ' ‘ \ f ‘ \ 1 ' ny : \ \ ; Yo 1 \ ' ' vot + \ ; = ' : a ; \ ' i ; \ ‘ ' iN dj aN at 1 xs oy — ¢ \ ! \ : \ ‘ x = \ \ —— <= \ a, = = == =-=--=--r=->=>-=-=-=- 208 MAY 27 1992 01 HANICAL POWERS 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.000 3.0000 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000 WED TIME (SEC) MECE 1.0000 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2E.CHN s 10.00 10.000 9.0000 4.0000 2.0000 WED, 7.0000 5.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 01:08 MAY 27 1992 ANGLES REL TO KETCH #3 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. i? 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE2E.CHN Hi: 65.000 elt eaeneneee « 55.000 65.000 eae ete 55.000 65.000 Perce = ==! ° 55.000 65.000 eer see ire 55.000 65.000 09 5.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 WED, MAY 27 1992 01 FREQUENCIES CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 2n 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. 2H 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE Sf 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE m4 TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 20 TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. ou FILE: CASE2E.CHN g FILE: CASE2E.CHN 5 N Nn 1.2500 ross * 0.75000] & a 1.2000 TST STS saa oA “> “) “4 5 1.2000 TT X 0.20000] Ss 2 > 1.2500 >>> 0.750001 ZO] [i-2000 Fi ie peter ig 4 sa 1.2500 +---===> 7.750001 1.2000 oss === * 0.20000] ¢ 1 oO 1.2500 == >T_ 0.75000 1.2000 == =f _0.20000 a 1.2500 = 0.75000 1.2000 =——=* ___ 0.20000 + } : ' E 1 ' 8 « 1 1 g ‘ g ) Se ' o } ' 4 \ 8 } ' E . ' 4 + } 3 g ! & 8 ' 4 ' ' \ ' 3 ! t ry ' o i o ia 3 4 t 4 = ' a ‘ 8 8 \ iS ‘i js ‘ ‘ ‘ i i a / a \ y ¢ 3 . Py \ ” j i CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. om 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. on 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE os 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE 7! By TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 2 TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. gH FILE: CASE2F.CHN ~ FILE: CASE2F.CHN 9 SILVIS LAKE $1 (DEG) a0 oF 7000 yo —*=10.00] Es . 8 a 9 75 90.000 Meee eens x 10.00 ~ = 8 N N ° ol 90.000 waa 10.00} & ¢ fa 90.000 eoS2° rss . 10.00] iJ a e & 90.000 eT 10-00 n 90.000 + __A10.00 4 g oO fe 8 é 3 s is 3 re 3 is o o a8 5 2 g y gH a S 3 8 a 3 bd i 3 & 1 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. on 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. cn 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE 7 fl 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE ion TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 20 TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 3H FILE: CASE2F.CHN g FILE: CASE2F.CHN 5 . Nn bone as =* 0.75000 2 4 brzeas rosa F—7:70000] SAL U} « rol 0.750001 & >| bea Wee 9.20000 a4 n 1.2500 = === =F 0.75000 g a 1.2000 = ————* 0.20000 g H 1.2500 e a 0.75000 a 1.2000 rela ° 0.20000 g a E SWAN LAKE ¢1 (PU) _ oO 1.2500 eT 75000 beaees => 7 za a 1.2500 ——s 0.75000 1.2000 + 1.20000 Sites 1 8 i}: rs} s ; ee ple : ; rycl 3 e ' ° ! ane ifxl 8 net ls : ie ‘ Mi I Mais thi i i rot © fe ' | ot as oA rts 2 ss I \s ' x |i 3 3 ine ryid a8 a8 Text a™ ec ihe 2 2 vost gs 8 a p)el 8 , si ‘ \ 5 ‘ yNa 3 3 Hlheoe 8 8 ’ . } = * "dey ig i i a a le ls CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. am 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. an 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA Tote 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA fe] TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. S TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. SH FILE: CASE2G.CHN a FILE: CASE2G.CHN oS a0 aZ 90.000 = StS = =10.00| QE 8 a8 a8 90.000 Wess x 10.00 : 65.000 macs tele 2 7 55.000 5 3 Oo : 90.000 a =10.00 4 A 65.000 oS =. 55.000 g fy 90.000 ease ee== . =10.00 a iJ 65.000 vere tes e 55.000 a e 90.000 --—--- =10.00 5 wo 65.000 ent Sees) ee a 55.000 90.000 Ss -10.00 Q 65.000 _—_= 55.000 g 3 I I I T T T g se a S 8 3 ° : o a : : le 6 3 3 5 5 8 g 8 6 e a o ig 28 so 2 g g a 4 ° 7 i 3 a * 3 3 ei ei é i HD Peete eae s. “ 3 Le 4 L _t ! ! 3 CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 2. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. an 2-TYEE & 1-SWAN UNITS. 12.5MW TRANSFER FROM TYEE TO SWAN. an if 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA a 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA 7% TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. 20 TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. 3 fa FILE: CASE2G.CHN g FILE: CASE2G.CHN 8 Nn 1.2500 SSS =* 9.75000] 2 8 1.2000 oll ili * 9.20000] 2 Ax a Vv 4 1.2500 Wee c es ee % 0.750001 > T.2000 eee x 0.200001 sg n cod 1.2500 | ee 0.75000 g a 1.2000 oe ae ee 0.20000 $ H 1.2500 Fea = === 7 0.750001 1.2000 oS aoe * 0.20000 i 9 0} 1.2500 = T175000 5 1.2000 — = =f __ 0.20000 g 9 1.2500 Ce 0.75000 1.2000 a 0.20000 . ' hcl 3 ! : ' 7. ’ 3 Hine ee ‘ : iy: Gs \ ' F ! t ie ' xl ' ‘ ' ih: t H eel Wile ' 3 iyi 3 a oy 5 ' ne eat ! Nee ‘ ‘ ' ° 1 1 ats vfxt - ; = tele o 1 o be i i %, a8 4 ! a i a] a 1 g fe 4 i=] ’ a aN u ‘ a ’ ' ’ 1 ' ' ‘ 1 ‘ ' ’ 3 ' 3 a t a ' ¢ j i a a EXHIBIT 6 CASE 3 DISTURBANCE SIMULATION PLOTS PETERSBG WRANGELL a 1202 =2.4f > 1302 we fe e =1. 6] 0.0 @ 0.0} 0.8 odio oll-3.2 69.0 ) S 0.0 (1) 0.0}/-0.2 oO -0.8 1.001 Sao ° 0.0 Q) Q) 0.0} 69.2 0.0 0.0] 1.002 - | | oa = 6) 0.0] So -4.21/0.0 @) 0:0] CRYSTALG Bes) 150:8 0.0 @ 0.0} 1401 0.0 (4) 0.0) | 0.0 6) 0.0} 0.0 6) 0.0 -1.8 HO.0 on 0.5 4.2 © 0.0} 0.0 0.9 © 0.0 25.4 2.4 1.019 1.012 12h? 1.017 4 3.2} V0.6 2.4 1.013 0.0 7.5 ! WRANG SW om By 69.2 1100 jr bln 1.003 aD TYEE L 1.0812 25.3 ae mee fe on, ALP MILL 23.0 17016 jo 28 0.0 1103. == 10.6) © 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 0.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR 35 ,£69 ,@138 |EQUIPMENT - MW/MVAR CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. INITIAL CONDITIONS WED, MAY 27 1992 09:43 KV: N. POINT 33.5 1015 SWAN L 2180 0.970 ld alo KETCHIKN SHOOP ST 4.0 TOTEM 1G 453 1.015 2171 1.043 452 TOTEM B ["/t sis . 1.020 2170 ojo 0.982 1 f= 14\52) lw ko 1.020 alo SILVIS 1.0000 34.9 2900 30}.0 1.013 PORT TAP Cn 34.2 of 2300 he 0.991 are tit KPC 1-36] S/F AIP PH NIO 14,1 faite 2161 slo 1.020 no HERRING BETHE fas 34.2 2700 KPC TAP ''|é are 2200 io 0.992 2160 a 0.988 1 TI = ol” BAILEY Ped Wo 2100 34.9 1.011 0 ee c BAIL162G 4.1 BAILEY3 4.1 2.4 2102 0.993 2103 0.994 “020 ojo 4.0}]-4.3 olo =1.0]/0.9 34.1 0.989 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 100% RATEA BUS - VOLTAGE (KV/PU) 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. Q.950 UV 1.050 OV |BRANCH - MW/MVAR INITIAL CONDITIONS WED, MAY 27 1992 09:43 KV: $35 ,$69 .€138 IEOUIPMENT — MW/MvaAR CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 5m 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE He TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 3 FILE: CASE3A.CHN my M1 aV ae 2 “i S ° 90.000 =~ >> SF 10.00 g & 90.000 sain iesleheealenton e -10.00 g iy 90.000 — >= ST -10.00 a | 90.000 a TT T% T ' z i 1 IS 1 " "3 7 a) = 1 e; o i : ' + ' 5 ' x t a \ u + % 3 ' Bs § \ a fe ' he ! il ' a ‘ 4 ' i) t * \ " o ; " #3 : ; * \ g / % a . & A o . a ‘ 3 vy, * " ‘ u ‘ ‘s g : So a ———_—_55 — = <— 65.000 65.000 65.000 65.000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3A.CHN Recegncs 55.000 FSS 00 Sesss2=- + 55.000 a eae 55.000 =———*___ 55.000 17 FREQUENCIES MAY 27 1992 01 WED, 10.000 9.0000 6.0000 8.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 2.0000 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. “un 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE ets] TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 29 - FILE: CASE3A.CHN g . N bras — rosea ¥ Trae 3a 3 1.2500 Woes a] “an 1.2500 == ———* 0.75000 ¢ B 1.2500 Goeeecses ° 0.75000 > U) 1.2500 = > ST 0-75000 } TYEE LAKE 69KV (PU) age | 1.2500 ay 0.75000 s. 3 é : si re 3 lS 0 ga 2 a 5 so s iS 3 3 3 3 : a 3 a le S if CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. o 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT WRANGELL SWITCHYARD ON 69KV LINE s TO PETERSBURG. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 2 FILE: CASE3A.CHN 1.2000 FISTS F—s70000] a 1.2000 0.20000] 6 Nn 1.2000 = => = =F 0.20000 g 1.2000 = => 9.20000 d 1.2000 = TF 1.20000 1.2000 a 0.20000 T Tl T al T UR 8 . 1 ! ' s Pre rot 3 | a ri : : 1 ! 7 | | a ai] - ° . ! + . ' J a oo g a Et ie! | ' | a ' ; Lis 1 | 5 veri 1 on ' \ a van: g eee 1 + ; { as ia ; one 1 i | 9 | \ 3 a ee I ! - \ + 8 1 ' ae } af 1 : ) tt ne . ' \ ar ! ’ 8 5G eet! 3 / Oc iy es ae \ # ; vos mis 3 ai 1 le? a Sere, w —S SS i! ® io ! ee eee | ! | 7 MECHANICAL POWERS TIME (SEC) CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3B.CHN 90.000 aeok Ss Sh 8 See id 10.00 90.000 oi St es Sheie ce x 10.00 90.000 = eee 10.00 90.000 a aka > 10.00 90.000 pee cee ee 10.00 90.000 a ne 10.00 22 3 wo ah a ge 4 8 a Yn fq 4 oO a TIME (SEC) 65.000 65.000 65.000 65.000 65.000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3B.CHN Weresers X $5.00 -S——t wee S=ss=S== 755.000 Ss ———s 66.008 19 o1 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 WED, MAY 27 1992 FREQUENCIES CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3B.CHN 1.2500 Prcesee => 0.75000 U0 1.2500 " x 0.75000 Vv 1.2500 eee 6 0.75000 1.2500 a -¢* 0.75000 1.2500 oo 0.75000 1.2500 “= 0.75000 - re en SE : | a 5.0000 7.0000 9.0000 © TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 19 BUS VOLTAGES MAY 27 1992 01 WED, 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 69KV LINE TO WRANGELL. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3B.CHN er =" 0.20000 ronerereresese ® 9.20000 Se 0.20000 ea ee ° 0.20000 eo 0.20000 —— 0.20000 ] | | } ] | \ ) \ / \ Us > 219 01 WED, MAY 27 1992 MECHANICAL POWERS 10.000 9.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 3.0000 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 2.0000 1.0000 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3C.CHN if CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 90.000 ee eee > 10.00 90.000 2 ee x 10.00 90.000 =e -10.00 90.000 SS =10.00 90.000 pee 10.00 ' ' 1 ~e s am oto 5 oe ok Ze a 8 a n fy 4 o a TIME (SEC) ff 65.000 65.000 65.000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3C.CHN Woe ¥ > +----=== 7 -—=— -< ——s 20 FREQUENCIES MAY 27 1992 01 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. gn 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. s 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE Sf] 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT TYEE LAKE ON 115KV LINE = TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 29 TO SWAN LAKE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 2 FILE: CASE3C.CHN g FILE: CASE3C.CHN Nn 1.2500 roe =* 0.75000 3 A] [2000 FSS *— 0.200001 & ! 28 3 1.2500 WITS % 9.75000] + 7.2000 Wes %9,20000] " N n Nn beater - ==> =F 0.75000 zDD baer - === =F 0.20000 g sa Lecauer ess =SSe 0.75000 - lL eaees F===S=Se 7 saa : 9) 1.2500 = FT 775000 5 1.2000 == =F _ 0.20000 1.2500 ————+ 0.75000 1.2000 — _0.20000 + + Perri an UT LCT tl ae ' e is ' Be oa: 3 1 8 i 3 ! e i iy ls g \ 3 : 3 1 S tots le ' \e dt: \ at i 1 Ms 3 \ ¢ aon 5 \ fe eae 1 ne s t 3 t s ' 8 eo ' ie Y t é 3 o \ 3 o a a I an é a > 3° ‘ hon ‘ g H # ge ‘ go8 s \ 8 ~ a ‘ < ; ‘ \ 3 L ' 3 8 8 a a } 3 8 i L * : i ? : ‘ S 3 DS 3 a - a =e a ll | ei MECHANICAL POWERS CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. am 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. no 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE Se 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE Sy TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 3 TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. se “FILE: CASE3D.CHN 3 FILE: CASE3D.CHN 2 oe : S i a a a a S) pen ens ey go 5 5 90.000 a eT) 3 B ¢ fy . ij =<sss--2 n fa i z 7.0000 TIME (SEC) TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. qa 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. yn 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE % fy 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT SWAN LAKE ON 115KV LINE alee TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. Zo TO BAILEY. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 2 fa FILE: CASE3D.CHN g FILE: CASE3D.CHN 5 1.2500 posse 75000] S| [ra000 > 7.700001 SA s 2 ar! ohenen =o 0.75000] 1.2000 Meese ees 0.20000] = ag 2 'U, 1.2500 SSS 0.75000 3 B 1.2000 === —* 0.20000 g H SWAN LAKE 115KV brass a eosSSSe 7 7.75000 é 1.2000 e=====Se 7.200001 q 8 oO 1.2500 => T_1.75000 T2000 = ST 0.20000 a 1.2500 ——— 0.75000 1.2000 -————* _ 0.20000 q i Ss ' Is ' g : g é ' é ' ' ' 8 ' 3 8 ' 8 ie 1 le 1 + ' g 3 ® ' « ' 1 8 ' 3 8 ' 8 ry ‘ ' rs = ' ' ~ o ‘ 1 o i vf ig 8 L : é s ' \l g a g a . ' \ H B a N ge io el ' o . : y ' < out i us 1 7 8 1 3 Is i * < ! o / 1 t 8 be ' 8 iS ' i et ed / \ i ’ i a ¢ a = 1 ! , | | | | iS | CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. gm 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. an 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE oie 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE Nfl TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 3 10 BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. gH FILE: CASE3E.CHN 3 FILE: CASE3E.CHN 2 Tere Sa S fa m Fy aD “8 “a 30.000 Woe x =0.001 5 $5.00 Te % 5.000} 5 30.000 -- >? 10.00 g Fi] [és-000 -————* 55,000 g fy d iJ $5,000 ess s=SSe 735.000 d besrase => ae n kc 65.000 ——————a__ 35.000 g g s s 3 3 8 a é 8 3 8 3 fs fs 8 g 8 3 fe e 8 8 S s ls is o o g4 g8 ate 2 g = pF pF ¢ : g 3 8 é 2 8 is 8 is ei 8 3 3 3 3 5 le le je je CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. Qn 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE mf] 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BAILEY ON 34.5KV LINE TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. Ho] TO BETHE. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3E.CHN sg FILE: CASE3E.CHN V_ (PU Nn 0} 1.2500 ese * 0.75000 a8 1.2000 r= =* 0.20000 5KV_(PU, git 3 (PU) 1.2500 Were * 0.75000] 1.2000 Wieisiewiere * 0.20000 , u | »2 } K 3 1.2500 === = =F 0.75000] dD 1.2000 =— === =F 0.20000 a PU} 1.2500 F==s= === * 0.75000] 0 E 1.2500 === T__ 0.75000 1.2000 == =f 0.20000 PU. 0} 1.2500 =———*__0.75000 1.2000 =———— __ 0.20000 8 TT Wes Tt Rg Oe ! . 1 fe Une i | +: i . ® ' E ‘4 le a 1 | os H 3 | re 1 8 20 t eS tos ‘ . . ' \ vi E | can ' 4 s oe i - | ie ‘ 38 id su \ Ue ! o~ ni ie ‘ g iy ! g 8 \ i i S Oe \ ~ { te ) 4 t : : 8 q FE: \ \ ’ vd x g } 2 \ ‘ iw SS “ Za D g j , S Ca ee “ ~ ae oa _-_ lc js | {I L ! {| __J 2 TIME (SEC) 10.000 9.0000 8.0000 7.0000 2.0000 4.0000 3.0000 1.0000 223 01 MAY 27 1992 MECHANICAL POWERS WED, CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 2 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3a 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE % ate 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE Sf TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. = TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. 3H FILE: CASE3F.CHN 5 FILE: CASE3F.CHN 8 Ss: 90.000 Pale ees *=10.00 3 & 3 8 R_FALLS = 9 "oO 90.000 cle tellelel ee * 10.00 c 65.000 Br eisicisis e * 55.000 i 8 N N ° col 90.000 = === =F __=10.00 g Ei] [es-000 ne ene fa eA Re a . - fg €5.000 = 735.000 d B 90.000 eS ST _~10.06 wy| [00 eS STi. 000 i 65.000 =——s__55.000 Se cnc T T T T cin T T B mg 4 Hg 8 8 e -- e le 3 3 s 8 le fe 7 - : 8 8 is 8 S a ls o 0 is ig “ Tr ” 5 2 BH 8 & g is S 3 3 8 8 4 a é 8 : a : y i i a a a 3 Eee ee | ! 2 eee 3 1.2500 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.5KV LINE TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3F.CHN 1.2500 1.2500 1.2500 1.2500 Sse > 0.75000 0.75000 SF 0.75000 a * 0.75000 = T7975000 SS 0.75000 10.000 9.0000 8.0000 6.0000 2.0000 0.0 7.0000 5.0000 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 24 BUS VOLTAGES MAY 27 1992 01 WED, 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT KETCHIKAN LAKES ON 34.SKV LINE TO SHOOP STREET. TRIP LINE & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3F.CHN ---- ¥ 0.20000 [eee * 0.20000 = ————F 9.20000 Soo * 0.20000 ——=T 9.20000 rine 0.20000 24 MECHANICAL POWERS 5.0000 i i 7 ier or WED, MAY 27 1992 01 TIME (SEC) 1.0000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. =m 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 2u 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA oe 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA % fl TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. 2 TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. gH FILE: CASE3G.CHN a FILE: CASE3G.CHN 2 Nn N = ——=10.00| SE a 8 a 9 a8 Teese * 10,00] & 65.000 oi * $5,000} x ° aes 8 = es — > fy = + =t0-00] 5.000 + s5.0001 F==S==== *_=10.00 d iJ 5.000 f= == =55 * 55.000 é edo 0O wn] [6-000 [i a BOs OOO) A 65.000 -———*__ 55.000 z Hy fe iS j i i i é « + x 3 i s a a i i i " fe 5 i " Ns 5 on 3 ‘ a o : 8 a8 ‘t 3 it g g a 86 s le 3 3 a a 3 iS a i 3 g a a =, le io 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3G.CHN if CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. ta — BEAVER FALLS 34. 5KV_(PU) | 1.2500 oa evr erento) — 0.75000 1.2500 a akon Or ek oxerm % 0.75000 1.2500 ee 0.75000 1.2500 = Sela e. 0.75000 1.2500 — = —T 0.75000 Vv 1.2500 -———s 0.75000 10.000 9.0000 KO ee ae es eee 6.0000 “ct ener 4.0000 7.0000 5.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 01:25 BUS VOLTAGES MAY 27 1992 WED, = 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 1.2000 CASE 3. TYEE-SWAN SYSTEM W/TYEE-SWAN 115KV TIE. WINTER PEAK. 1-TYEE & 2-SWAN UNITS. 3MW TRANSFER FROM SWAN-TYEE. 3-PHASE, 6-CYCLE FAULT AT BALEY ON 34.5/4.16KV, 10MVA TRANSFORMER. TRIP TRANSFORMER & CLEAR FAULT. FILE: CASE3G.CHN ---- => 0.20000 Noses eee * 0.20000 = TF 7.20000 e------— * 0.20000 — = 0.20000 — 0.20000 ee me a a etal arte ny ate Le ere fare few > (mew las Oe = at Sl 4l..- [ 10.000 9.0000 4.0000 2.0000 5.0000 7.0000 TIME (SEC) 3.0000 1.0000 25 MECHANICAL POWERS MAY 27 1992 O01 WED,