Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS Intertie report 2-2000CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. gaat ASSOCIATION, INC. ore February 28, 2000 A) Sroore fer Gee Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. Randy Simmons, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie Monthly Report for February 2000 W.0.#4E9590081 Dear Mr. Simmons: Please find enclosed | (one) copy of the Southern Intertie Report for the Month of February 2000. If there are any questions, please contact Dora Gropp, (907) 762-4626. Sincerely, iL fhlor Eugene N. Bjornstad 22 General Manager ENG: cah Enclosures: 1 (one) copy of Southern Intertie Monthly Report Cc Lee Thibert Michael Massin Dora Gropp Jim Borden Mike Cunningham Don Edwards W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.3 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 FAX 907-562-0027 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. D ) ( March 2, 2000 i MAD 03 2999 LE Via fax line: 202 720 0820 Hardcopy to follow. Rural Utilities Service = Alaska industrial! Developmen 1400 Independence Ave., and Export Authority Stop 157 Washington, DC 20250-1571 Attention: Mr. Larry Wolfe, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist Subject: Southern Intertie Project - NEPA/ANILCA Process, EIS Schedule Dear Mr. Wolfe: It has been a great disappointment to find out during our voice mail message exchange February 16/17, 2000 that the agreed upon schedule for the EIS preparation is slipping severely. The schedule had been agreed upon during our meeting with the other federal agencies involved in the project on December 14, 1999. According to that schedule a draft of the PDEIS should have been available last week. At no time were we informed of the delays. The EIS schedule is determined from the regulations governing the ANILCA process under 43 CFR Part 36. We filed our application on August 5, 1999 and it was accepted by all federal agencies involved on October 5, 1999. The ANILCA regulations require that a DEIS be published within 9 months of the date an application is filed. While we agreed to delay the start until the application had been accepted, it was understood that the DEIS was to be published in June 2000. RUS’ contractor for the EIS preparation, Mangi, has been under contract since 1997 and would be expected to be fairly familiar with the project and the work performed so far. The comprehensive EVAL submitted with the application was expected to make it fairly easy to hold to the schedule. We also provided additional funding for Mangi for another review of the EVAL in August 1999. That review has resulted in 55 pages of comments, which we received on February 23, 2000. The magnitude of the comments is somewhat surprising considering that Mangi has been involved in reviews throughout the preparation of the EVAL and that the document was accepted by all agencies as being adequate and covering the issues. We must insist on closer tracking of Mangi’s work and progress. 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 Southern Intertie Project - NEPA/ANILCA Process, EIS Schedule March 2, 2000 Page 2 of 2 We understand now, that Mangi may be able to produce a draft of the PDEIS by May 12, 2000 if Mangi devotes its undivided attention to this task. Even if Mangi achieves this goal, May 12 represents a delay of 11 weeks and entails additional costs not only for RUS’ third party contractor, Mangi, but also for our consultants who have to provide information. We are aware of no reasoning for this delay that would be considered “good cause” under ANILCA. We are committed to have the DEIS published as early as possible and request that the agencies and consultant commit the necessary resources. We also request a new schedule with the following milestone dates: - PDEIS (Draft) - PDEIS (Revised) - DEIS (Camera ready) This new schedule should comply with ANILCA as closely as possible. Review periods should also be indicated and the cooperating agencies requested to afford this EIS priority in order that ANILCA’s requirements may be complied with. We ask to be notified immediately of any further delays and request biweekly updates of the status of the work. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to help keep this project on schedule. Sincerely, boa ©. xy Dora L. Gropp, P.E. Manager, Transmission & Special Projects DLG/ah tice dic des de Cc: Brian Anderson, USFWS, 786-0820 Jack Hewitt, COE, 753-5567 IPG General Managers W.0.#E9590081, Sec.5 RF CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska SOUTHERN INTERTIE Phase IC — EIS MONTHLY REPORT for February 2000 5601 Minnesota Drive P.O. Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 II. Ill. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY FINANCIAL gi Bank Statement of January 2000 2. Chugach Statement for January 2000 3! Total Project Expenditures, Inception Through January 2000 4. Chugach Activity Summary for January 2000 SCHEDULE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION de 2: 3: POWER Engineers Monthly Report dated February 17, 2000 COE letter of February 7, 2000 Project Summary SUMMARY A meeting with state and local agencies has been scheduled for February 24, 2000. It is hosted by the State Department for Governmental Coordination (DGC) and about 50 members of various agencies are expected to attend. The purpose for the meeting is to reaquaint the agency staff with the project, provide an update on status and determine permitting requirements. The meeting will be held at the Loussac Library in Anchorage from 1:30pm to about 6:00pm. Members of the project team have met with representatives from the Corps of Engineers to urge the agency to participate in the NEPA process as a cooperating agency. It appears now, that the agency will participate and we are encouraging the lead agency, RUS, to extend a formal invitation as well as modify the MOU to reflect changes requested by the COE. Preparation of the DEIS is delayed. RUS will update the schedule. Funding for the printing and distribution of the DEIS is presently not in place and needs be secured from AIDEA. Expenditures for Phase IC (EIS) of the project stand as follows: DESCRIPTION POWER /|COE/USFWS/| CHUGACH TOTAL ENGINEERS RUS ORIG. BUDGET $389,547 $160,000 $100,000 $649,547 ALLOCATED $38,955 $0 $0 $38,955 CONTINGENCY TOTAL $428,502 $160,000 $100,000 $688,502 AMENDMENTS $0 $0} $0 $0: TOTAL $428,502 $160,000 $100,000 $688,502 COMMITMENT SPENT TO DATE $31,062 $99,034 $22,935 $153,031 % OF TOTAL 7% 62% 23% 22% Total Project expenditures as of February 18, 2000 are $5,257,331. II. FINANCIAL ne Bank Statement of January 2000 2! Chugach Statement for January 2000 3) Total Project Expenditures, Inception Through January 2000 4. Chugach Activity Summary for January 2000 vey ve vy Favei 7 DATE: 01/31/00 ACCOUNT: 4110003 First National Bank Matai Member FDIC CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION I TOTAL CREDITS (22) 82,829.33 TOTAL DEBITS (1) 13,563.71 INTEREST THIS STATEMENT 2,829.33 INTEREST PAID 2000 2,829.33 INTEREST PAID 1999 19,242.66 - END OF STATEMENT - vvy va vu rece s - DATE: 01/31/00 ACCOUNT: 4110003: ) First National Bank of Anchorage Neem ant CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION I 7-390 PO BOX 196300 0 ANCHORAGE AK 99519-6300 0 MAIN BRANCH TELEPHONE: 907-777-4362 PO BOX 100720 ANCHORAGE AK 99510-0720 NON FEDERALLY INSURED REPURCHASE AGREEMENT ACCOUNT 41100033 DESCRIPTION DEBITS CREDITS DATE BALANCE BALANCE LAST [STATEMENT [eo simclecis s siciele © + sieiee s) sicicis s Seisicienis L2/30/99 538,404.28 INTEREST 81.32 01/01/00 538,485.60 INTEREST 163.58 01/03/00 538,649.18 INTEREST 82.27 01/04/00 538,731.45 INTEREST 82.29 01/05/00 538,813.74 INTEREST 82.30 01/06/00 538,896.04 TRANSFER FROM BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 80,000.00 01/07/00 618,896.04 INTEREST 94.53 01/07/00 618,990.57 INTEREST 281.38 01/10/00 619,271.95 INTEREST 92.33 01/11/00 619,364.28 INTEREST 92.34 01/12/00 619,456.62 INTEREST 92.36 01/13/00 619,548.98 INTEREST 92.37 01/14/00 619,641.35 INTEREST 371.58 01/18/00 620,012.93 INTEREST 94.48 01/19/09 620,107.41 INTEREST 94.49 01/20/00 620,201.90 INTEREST 94.51 01/21/00 620,296.41 TRANSFER TO BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 13,563.71 01/24/00 606,732.70 INTEREST 282.12 01/24/00 607,014.82 INTEREST 93.11 01/25/00 607,107.93 INTEREST 93.13 01/26/00 607,201.06 INTEREST 93.14 01/27/00 607,294.20 INTEREST 93.16 01/28/00 607,387.36 INTEREST 282.54 01/31/00 607,669.90 BALANCE ‘THIS STATEMENT ¢¢ cicicc oicis seic = siseis vinciccsewesssicss OL/31/00 607,669.90 ws *2 *s CON TiN U ED) ® « « a LENDER Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Southern Intertie Activity Summary December, 1999 Beginning Grant Chugach Ending Bank Funds Interest Invoices Bank Year Balance Received Earned Paid Balance 1996 0.00 2,771,277.00 40,361.59 (1,440,252.89) 1,371,385.70 1997 1,371,385.70 1,346,934.00 67,734.96 (2,421,276.94) 364,777.72 1998 364,777.72 525,214.00 19,424.02 (732,050.23) 177,365.51 1999 177,365.51 988,194.64 19,242.66 (646,398.53) 538,404.28 2000* 538,404.28 80,000.00 2,829.33 (13,563.71) 607,669.90 Total 5,631,619.64 146,763.23 _(5,239,978.59) * Through January, 2000 bank statement (does not include Chugach invoices for charges incurred in January 2000) Southern Intertie AIDEA mtg.xls 02/28/2000 CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 02/28/00 TO: Dora Gropp - Manager, Transmission & Special Projects FROM: Debra Williams, Plant Accountant SUBJECT: 9590081 - Southern Intertie Route Selection Study You had previously requested establishment of this work order to study route selection for the Southern Intertie for the Intertie Participants Group. The Association will be reimbursed for charges to this work order. The following charges occurred during January 2000. Direct Labor 2,673.00 Indirect Labor 1,219.65 Sub-Total $3,892.65 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) 19.46 Total Charges $3,912.11 Please review the attached backup and indicate your concurrence below if you are in agreement that these charges are correct for this work order and time period. As per your request, | will keep the original in the work order file. Concur: Boe ¥ Kp _4 a/b0 Signatufe Date djw WOfiles/E9590081 Attachments CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Southern Intertie Transactions Inception Through January 31, 2000 Project Expenditures Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/99 01/01/2000 01/31/2000 Through 01/31/2000 Direct Labor $161,821.62 $0.00 $2,673.00 $164,494.62 Indirect Labor 61,566.25 0.00 1,219.65 62,785.90 Power Engineers 4,719,774.90 0.00 0.00 4,719,774.90 Miscellaneous 308,282.24 0.00 0.00 308,282.24 Total $5,251,445.01 $0.00 $3,892.65 $5,255, 337.66 Gene eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEeE—— ee Grant Fund Expenditures Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/99 01/01/2000 01/31/2000 Through 01/31/2000 Direct Charges that Chugach has been Reimbursed for $5,251,445.01 $0.00 $3,892.65 $5,255, 337.66 Plus General, Administrative & Construction Overhead 26,257.22 0.00 $19.46 26,276.68 Total Amounts Paid to Chugach $5,277,702.23 $0.00 $3,912.11 $5,281,614.34 cc: Dora Gropp Kathy Harris 02/28/2000 99-00Sinterti.xls Southern Intertie Grant Fund Bank Account Activity Summary January, 2000 December Ending Balance Forward Total Deposits Total Withdrawals Interest Earned Balance Jan 31, 2000 Southern intertie bank activity.xls $538,404.28 $80,000.00 ($13,563.71) $2,829.33 $607,669.90 02/28/2000 Il. SCHEDULE CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE Fri 02/18/00 PHASE IB 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ID | Task Name % Comp. 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING 77% 2 ~ PROJECT MANAGEMENT 72% 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUDIES 100% 4 EVAL & PREL.ENGINEERING 100% 5 | EIS PREPARATION 11% 6 DEIS OO 15% 7 COMMENT PERIOD 0% 8 ~ FEIS ~ t 0% 9 | AGENCIES 50% | 10 USFWS 31% 1 RUS a 50% 12 | USFS 100% 13 | ROD 0% Task |_| Rolled Up Task ee Project Summary Qa Project: ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTE | Progress MEE Rolled Up Milestone Split Date: Fri 02/18/00 Milestone &€ Rolled Up Progress C/N = Rolled Up Split Summary Le External Tasks Bee PH_IC.MPP Page 1 IV. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. VI. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. POWER Engineers Monthly Report dated February 17, 2000 2; COE letter of February 7, 2000 3; Project Summary #) LIME SLM, roe FRECEIVER) FEB Ms. Dora Gropp 18 2009 Chugach Electric Association TRANSMISSION & 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A SPECIAL PROJECT Anchorage, AK 99518 Subject: POWER Project #120376 EIS & Preliminary Engineering Chugach Contract No. 820, Monthly Status Report No. 13 For Period January 2 — February 12, 2000 Dear Dora: This report summarizes the activities completed during January 2000 for Task 10. During the reporting period, our activities included project reporting and coordination of activities between the project team. In addition, the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) was contacted and a permit pre-application meeting was scheduled for February 24, 2000. The list of required permits (other than NEPA and ANILCA) will be reviewed at that meeting. A project summary was prepared and an estimated scope and cost for providing the EVAL in a CD format was provided. The attached Project Summary Report spreadsheet is based on the Amendment No. 2 authorized budget. Included with this monthly status report are Daily Activity Logs for each person with time to the project for this invoicing period. The Environmental Planning Group (EPG) has also submitted activity logs that are included with this report. This report includes the following attachments: 1) Overall Financial Project Summary 2) Project Summary Report by Task 3) Daily Activity Logs Schedule: At the Agency DEIS Coordination Meeting with RUS, USFWS and the COE on December 14, 1999 in Anchorage, a schedule was agreed to and attached to the signed MOU. The schedule indicates that the DEIS will be completed by June 2, 2000. The Record of Decision is scheduled for January 2, 2001. RUS’s third party contractor is currently preparing the DEIS. HLY 23-054 POWER Engineers, Incorporated 0 RAE 3940 Glenbrook Dr. + P.O. Box 1066 Phone (208) 788-3456 Hailey, Idaho 83333 Fax (208) 788-2082 Chugach Electric Association February 17, 2000 Page 2 Budget: Task 10 Budget Task 10 Expended Through Previous Invoice Task 10 Expended This Period Task 10 Actual Remaining Project Budget Total Budget Expended Through Previous Invoice Expended This Period Actual Remaining Project Budget $389,547 $ 24,853 $6,210 $358,484 $4,300,741 $3,921,617 $6,210 $ 372,914 Dora, should you have any questions about this report or any of the backup, please do not hesitate to contact Mike Walbert or me. Sincerely, POWER Engineers, Inc. RAf Lack Randy Pollock, P.E. Project Manager RP/Ik Enclosures cc: PROJECT TEAM HLY 23-054 GE LOWER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 F waa RECEive Regulatory Branch South Section 2-991212 FEBRUARY 0 7 2000 FEB 9 -u00 TRANSMISSION SPECIAL PROJRGT : Mr. Lawrence Wolfe United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Stop 1571 : Washington, DC 20250-1571 Dear Mr. Wolfe, This is in reference to the December 14, 1999 letter from Chugach Electric and the Memorandum of Understanding for the Southern Intertie Project, The memorandum identifies the entities involved in the preparation and review of the Environmental Impact Statement for the electric transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The file has been assigned number 2-991212, Turnagain Arm 45, which should be referred to in all future correspondence with this office. We have decided that we will not sign the MOU as written and have returned it to Chugach Electric, Inc., who represents the Intertie Participant Group, the applicant for the proposed project. The reasons for this determination are as follows: a. The MOU lists the Federal Agencies and the applicant as participants in writing and reviewing the EIS document. The agreement also identifies the applicant’s responsibilities in preparing the EIS. Among those duties listed is the applicant assisting in the preparation of responses to the EIS comments and incorporation of them into the Record of Decision. The Corps does not believe the applicant should be involved in this capacity. b. The MOU cover letter, printed on the applicant’s letterhead and signed by their representative, did not identify Rural Utilities Service (RUS) as the lead agency. We consider the RUS to be the primary point of contact for the Federal agencies involved in this process. Therefore, we believe that any MOU document should originate with the lead agency, not the applicant. c. The Corps is required by public law to participate in the review of this project. We have jurisdiction over the proposed project in accordance with 33 CFR, Part 320, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; 43 CFR, Part 36, Transportation and Utility Systems In and Across, and Access Into, Conservation System Units in Alaska; and may also have jurisdiction under 33 CFR, Part 320, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These regulations identify the Corps role in processing applications, coordinating agency reviews, preparing NEPA documents, and making a final permit decision. We are not required to enter into an MOU in order to carry out our mission, nor are we relieved from our responsibilities by not entering into an agreement. We understand any difficulty you may have in coordinating the review process from a distance. We also appreciate the role you have undertaken and the work you have accomplished. If we can be of any additional assistance please don’t hesitate to let us know. If you have any questions please contact me at (907) 753-2724, toll free in Alaska at (800) 478-2712, or by mail at the letterhead address. Sincerely, apoul } Ma Mifrian Magwoo! Section Chief Enclosures is, ‘ ak a wd ~ Avalanche Paths along Seward Highway CHICKALOON BAY Southern Intertie {""™" 7 Study Area. LY OUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Y <hr Cg PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Set ats Prepared for the Intertie Participants Group ane by Power Engineers, Inc. 5 conus “NS February 2000 — Palmer INTRODUCTION / PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The Applicant proposes a second transmission line in Southcentral Alaska to increase the Railbelt Electrical System’s reliability and increase the capability for energy transfer between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The Applicant is the Intertie Participants Group (IPG), which consists of six utilities. These are Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach), Municipality of Anchorage-Municipal Light and Power, City of Seward-Seward Electric System, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and Homer Electric Association, Inc. Figure | shows the service areas of these utilities. Chugach is the construction manager for the Project. The Project is needed because the existing Railbelt Electrical System is deficient and needs reinforcement. The Railbelt system is a power grid that electrically connects Southcentral Alaska from Homer to Fairbanks. The Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area are connected by one transmission line known as the Quartz Creek 115-kilovolt (kV) Line. As Alaska has grown, so has the need for transmission line interconnections between load areas to efficiently utilize generating plants across the system, and to reliably distribute that power to the load centers. The Quartz Creek Line is the sole path for coordinating operation of Kenai Peninsula generation with Anchorage area generation. The line is also used to provide backup power during system outages. The location of the Quartz Creek Line causes it to be unreliable. It is subject to outages from ice, wind, and snow loading, and is routed across known and historically active avalanche areas. Recent outages caused by avalanche damage demonstrate the need for the Project. An estimated dozen transmission structures on the Quartz Creek Line were downed or seriously damaged by the January and February 2000 avalanches near Bird Flats, Kern Creek, and Summit Lake. This cut the delivery of power to the distribution stations serving Girdwood, Portage, Whittier, Summit Lake, and Hope, and stopped power transfers between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage area. It is estimated that the cost of restoring power and repairing damage will be over two million dollars. Also, the limitations of the Quartz Creek Line have not allowed the increased generating capacity from the Bradley Lake Project, added in 1991, to be used to full potential. This has resulted in operation of the Railbelt Electrical System in a less than optimum manner and at higher costs than if a second line were constructed between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. See Figure 2, Generation and Transmission System — Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage Area. A second transmission line would correct existing system deficiencies. Specifically, the line would: e increase reliability of the overall Railbelt Electrical System and the power supply to consumers on the Kenai Peninsula and in Anchorage by providing a second path for the power during an interruption of the existing Quartz Creek Line, and reduce load shedding requirements in case of system disturbances; Southern Intertie Transmission Line 1 Project Description February 2000 2 ~ afin, % yop “~e River y 4 a Nenana (GVEA, roposed Intertie etween Healy and Fairbanks antwell (AEA) mm VICINITY MAP Junction PAILBELT ANCHORAGE Mi. CHUGACH ELEC FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL GOLDEN V4.LEY Eu! Railbelt Utilities System Southem Intertie Project Proposed Anchorage To Kenai Peninsula Transmission Project Figure 1 e COMMUNITIES @wiiow pA WASILLA @ SUTTON a GENERATION PLANTS PALMER TOTAL EXISTING GENERATION CAPACITY SHOWN y IN MEGAWATTS (MW) BELUGA (CEA) 387 MW BERNICE LAKE (CEA) 70 MW COOPER LAKE HYDRO (CEA) 16 MW EKLUTNA HYDRO (APA) 32 MW OS ene ee 9 SOLDOTNA(AEG&T) 38 MW BRADLEY LAKE (AEA) 120 MW ' 7 i ad eeiaiaia ta PLANT 1 (AML&P) 92 MW je; eee eae ame ys) INTERNATIONAL (CEA) 46 MW ey ait Ske : GIRDWOOD PLANT 2 (AML&P) 249 MW es ‘ i oh A & o TOTAL ANCHORAGE AREA GENERATION - 806 MW ‘ i 3 TOTAL KENAI PENINSULA AREA GENERATION - 244 MW aS ss “Ke Pa SUBSTATIONS pf” WHITTIER; ANCHOR POINT (HEA) @ NIKISKI Quartz Creek Line DAVES CREEK (CEA) J D DIAMOND RIDGE (HEA) B Os SOLDOTNA DOUGLAS (MEA) a FRITZ CREEK (HEA) GIRDWOOD (CEA) HOPE (CEA) INDIAN (CEA) KASILOF (HEA) LAWING (SES) y PORTAGE (CEA) a! KASIOE QUARTZ GREEK (CEA) ; ( SOLDOTNA (HEA) TEELAND (CEA) O'NEILL (MEA) vee > SUMMIT LAKE (GEA) i SNUG SEWARD (SES) bane Te RAY PT. WORONZOF saenieenayyss TRANSMISSION LINES DESIGNED Ounaw oon > OPNMMAOND= ess Peninsula BAUBZHaS BRADLEY JUNCTION B 230kV Cc 138kV D 115kV E 69kV ~~» QUARTZ CREEK LINE N CENTRAL ALASKA KENAI: ; NE AND TNCHOBAGE. AREA Source: Chugach Electric f Association. 1995 * " Figure 2 e increase electrical transfer capability of the transmission system between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage from 70 megawatts (MW) to 125 MW to allow use of existing generation resources more economically and reduce operating costs, reduce system requirements for spinning reserves (such as the gas turbines at Bernice Lake generation plant), and improve electrical system stability; e reduce transmission line losses and maintenance costs on the Quartz Creek Line; and e provide adequate access to power entitlements from the Bradley Lake hydroelectric generating station for the utilities north of the Kenai Peninsula, allow the Bradley Lake generation to be more fully utilized to reduce system operating costs through increased hydro-thermal coordination, and provide additional spinning reserves to the system north of the Kenai Peninsula. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project would consist of a 138 kV transmission line and associated facilities, following the Enstar Pipeline Route between Soldotna on the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The proposed route is shown on Figure 3, Alternative Routes and Applicant’s Proposal, and on Figure 4, Anchorage Area Alternative Routes. On the Kenai Peninsula, the route begins with an overhead transmission line at the existing Soldotna Substation and parallels an existing 69 kV line route south and east to the Enstar Pipeline. It then parallels the Enstar Pipeline northeastward through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (K NWR) to the north coast of the Kenai Peninsula near Burnt Island on the east side of Chickaloon Bay. Submarine cables then cross the Turnagain Arm to Oceanview Park in Anchorage. In Anchorage, underground cable parallels the Alaska Railroad north to 120" Avenue. From that point, overhead lines continue to parallel the Alaska Railroad to the existing International Substation. The overall length of the proposed Enstar Route is 73.4 miles. Figure 5, a representative route profile, illustrates general facility locations. Southern Intertie Transmission Line 4 Project Description February 2000 Alternative Routes and Applicant’s Proposal SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Ten Legend === Applicant’s Proposed Route ===" Enstar Route Options ==" Tesoro Route Options “= Anchorage Area Route Options ‘Comour tntervak: 15.24 meters (50 feet) Contour Labeling in feet TeN TaN General Reference Features “7 Study Area Boundary VJ Altemative Route (ROW not to scale) “Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Boundary 74 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Boundary a “vy + hee Refuge Boundary * Link Terminus Existing Substations @ _ Proposed Transition Facility Siting Arca GD Proposed Substation Siting Area 7S Pipeline /V/ Transmission Line ’ Quartz Creek Transmission Line AY Railroad Rivers and Sueains “Recreation Trails A Oil Platform - Cook Inlet. — —— i ——— —_} InlevLakes wh, of > ‘Mites D = ___ a 5 or , s 10 Kasemeners Base Map Sources: = Mi of Anchorage (1994). Strive Figure 3 Kenai Peninsula (1994), USGS 163.360 and 1:35,000 Quadafiicon hipleval1 1x1 7edbori21_£09203/008/01/10400 | Anchorage Area Alternative Routes and Applicant’s Proposal SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Legend N Applicant’s Proposed Route (Route Option Q) Anchorage Area Route Options ANCHORAGE ~~ COASTAL WILDLIFE FUGE General Reference Features “ of ~A0 Re (ai mu - eee han Ug /‘¢ Alternative Route Af Study Area Boundary (ROW notto scale) are 3 \/__ Rivers and Streams Existing Substations | Lakes/Inlet Proposed Transition Facility Siting Area a Pipeline Railroad ng Transmission Line d A w” Quartz Creek Transmission Line 0 Base Map Sources: Municipality of Anchorage (1994). Chugach National Forest (1995), Kenai Peninsula Borough (1994), Fi gure 4 USGS 1:63,360 and 1:25,000 Quads. etepeennnennentnennderenapenranennanfananennanscnan | /falcon7/projects/sipeval2/1 1x17s/dora22.aml ENSTAR ROUTE KENAI PENINSULA TURNAGAIN ANCHORAGE ARM 3 TS a BURNT ISLAND NAPTOWNE 2 SIR ee Om mS Re ae UG INTERNATIONAL SOLDOTNA F peeeeeeet esses stees cet etes st ee sste — SUBSTATION SUBSTATION ENSTAR PIPELINE E soon AIRSTRIP. SUBSTATION “Shore-tail” Embedded ALASKA RAILROAD Cable Embedded “Shore-tail” Cable Embedded Cable LEGEND-FACILITY TYPES OH - OVERHEAD LINE UG - UNDERGROUND LINE SUBM - SUBMARINE CABLE TS - TRANSITION STATION SS - SUBSTATION NOT TO SCALE ROUTE PROFILE SOUTHERN INTERTIES PROJECT Proposed Anchorage to Kenai Peninsula Transmission Line Figure 5 The Project would require the following facilities. 61.3 miles of overhead transmission lines with conductors supported on steel or wood structures are proposed for portions of the Kenai Lowlands and the Anchorage area. 0.5 miles of underground lines are proposed for locations in the Anchorage area. Underground lines are high-voltage transmission line cables, insulated and buried below ground surface. 11.6 miles of submarine cable are proposed for crossing the Turnagain Arm. Submarine cables are specially constructed to operate in a marine environment and are more rugged than the cables used on land. Transition stations would be required near the landfalls for the submarine cable. A transition station is equipped to change a transmission line from one type to another. Transitions from overhead lines to underground or submarine cable, or from underground cable to submarine cable would be required. Terminal facilities for the submarine cables are included in the transition stations. Modifications to existing substations would be required at the International Substation in Anchorage and the Soldotna Substation on the Kenai Peninsula. A new substation would be required near Naptowne, northeast of Soldotna. A substation is an electrical transmission system component with the capability to route and control electrical power, and to transform power to a higher or lower voltage. Substations are located at the ends of transmission lines and at generation plants, and are the points at which the electrical system is joined together to form a network. Reactive compensation would be added at the International Substation in the Anchorage area, and the new substation that would be built near Naptowne on the Kenai Peninsula. Reactive compensation also would be added at the Dave’s Creek Substation, northeast of Cooper Landing. Reactive compensation is required to provide system support to maintain transmission system voltage stability and facilitate power transfers. Reactive compensation required for the Project would be provided by specific equipment, such as reactors or capacitors with associated controls, located within a substation or transition station. The project is expected to cost $90.2 million to build, and $99.6 million over its life cycle. The benefits resulting from the Project are expected to be $143.5 million over the life cycle of the Project. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public meetings were held in November 1996 in Cooper Landing, Soldotna and Anchorage, and written comments on the Project were solicited. An interagency meeting was held on November 6, 1996, in Anchorage. Two community working groups (CWGs) were assembled, one on the Kenai Peninsula and the other in Anchorage. The CWGs consist of residents, property owners, realtors, municipal and borough government, special-interest groups, representatives from Southern Intertie Transmission Line 8 Project Description February 2000 community councils, area school districts, and Native American groups. The IPG made sixteen presentations to community councils and other community groups in 1996 and 1997. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED A broad range of alternatives was considered. These were established through a comprehensive review of Project documentation and emerging energy systems to determine the suitable alternatives to meet the Project’s purpose and need. Through a comprehensive screening process, each alternative was assessed for its ability to meet the stated purpose and need, and as a result, some alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. The following summarizes the alternatives studied. The no-action alternative does not address any of the system deficiencies related to the Project’s purpose and need. It was evaluated in electrical system studies to determine the limitations of the existing Quartz Creek Line. If no action is taken, the right-of-way for the Project would not be acquired and the transmission line would not be built. Advantages would include saving of new facilities construction costs and the preclusion of associated environmental impacts. If the Project is not constructed, however, the system deficiencies would not be corrected and the system would continue to operate less reliably and at a higher cost than if the Project were constructed. Also, the Project benefits, estimated at $143.5 million dollars (Decision Focus, Inc. 1998), would be lost and would continue as costs embedded in electricity rates. Alternatives to a second transmission line were eliminated from further study. The following alternatives were analyzed, but were eliminated as viable alternatives because they did not meet the Project’s purpose and need. Battery energy storage systems Demand-side management New generation Wind generation Fuel cells Increasing spinning reserves A transmission system alternative, upgrading the existing Quartz Creek Line, was analyzed and eliminated. Upgrading the existing Quartz Creek Line by converting the operating voltage from 115 kV to 138 kV or 230 kV and the addition of reactive compensation were analyzed. While an upgrade of the existing line would increase the power transfer capability, there would still be only one transmission line interconnection between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The existing problems associated with system reliability and stability would become worse. An upgrade to the line to achieve higher power transfer levels would aggravate the problems associated with Southern Intertie Transmission Line 9 Project Description February 2000 these issues, and would make system-wide blackouts and load shedding more likely for an outage of the line. As a result, the alternative of upgrading the existing line was eliminated. An alternative transmission route, the Quartz Creek Route, was studied and eliminated. The line route would be sited adjacent to the existing Quartz Creek 115 kV transmission line. This alternative was eliminated because it would not meet the purpose and need for the Project and would increase costs so that the Project would not be economically feasible. The primary purpose and need for constructing an intertie is to increase the reliability and electric transfer capability of the Railbelt Electrical System by establishing a second tie between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage independent of the existing Quartz Creek Line. A parallel line would be vulnerable to the same weather and avalanche-caused outages, and would only marginally increase reliability. Mitigation measures such as undergrounding the line through avalanche zones and through Chugach State Park would increase the cost, making the Project economically infeasible. The only alternative that meets the system deficiencies related to the Project’s purpose and need is a second transmission line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage, which follows a different route than the existing line. The two alternative transmission line routes retained for detailed study were the Tesoro and the Enstar. As shown on Figures 2 and 3, various alternative routes were studied as part of the Tesoro and Enstar alternatives. Base routes were then selected for comparison. The process used to study the alternative transmission routes included scoping, issues and resource inventory, and impact assessment. The initial corridors were defined based on a Route Selection Study - Phase I-Environmental Section Report (Dames & Moore 1996) (see Figure 6, Study Area and Alternative Route Progression), then reviewed by the public and relevant agencies. Issues and concerns were identified that could help focus the further evaluation of alternatives. A number of environmental issues were identified that influenced the direction of the analyses. Once data were compiled, the environmental resource data were assessed to determine the potential impacts that could result from implementing the Project. During impact assessment and mitigation planning, initial impacts of the Project on each resource were identified, measures to effectively mitigate the impacts were recommended, and residual impacts (those that remain after mitigation) were determined. Through a systematic analysis, all of the alternative routes were screened and compared, based on potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and key issues. The Tesoro Route was studied in detail. On the Kenai Peninsula, the Tesoro Route begins at the existing Bernice Lake Substation with an overhead transmission line, and proceeds northeastward along the east side of the Kenai Spur Road to the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (SRA). The line would be undergrounded at two airports and through the Captain Cook SRA. North of the Captain Cook SRA, the line would again be overhead and would parallel the Tesoro Pipeline. The submarine crossing of the Turnagain Arm extends from Point Possession on the Kenai Peninsula to Point Campbell. The line then travels underground to the existing Point Woronzof Substation. Southern Intertie Transmission Line 10 Project Description February 2000 Initial Regional Route Selection Study Area Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Substations: 1- Bernice Lake 2-Soldotna 3- Point Woronzof 4- International 5- University Regional Route Selection Study Area and Alternative Study i Corridors — Witte Reage xe oS RS Substations: 1- Bernice Lake 2-Soldotna 3- Point Woronzof 4- International 5- University, APA, or Power Plant #2 Study Area and Proposed Route ==° Altemative Teansosiall Line Corridors == Existing ‘Transmission Line Substations: 1- Bernice Lake 2-Soldotna 3 - Point Woronzof 4 - International STUDY AREA AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PROGRESSION SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT Figure 6 The overall length of the Tesoro Route would be 62 miles, including 38.0 miles of overhead transmission lines, 9.1 miles of underground lines, 14.9 miles of submarine cables, transition stations, substations and reactive compensation. The expected costs of the Tesoro Route are $99.5 million constructed, with a total life cycle cost of $114.5 million. The benefits resulting from the Project are expected to be $143.5 million over the life cycle of the Project. The IPG proposes the Enstar Route because it is the more economical alternative and because the submarine cable crossing along the Enstar Route is a shorter and better submarine cable route. (The proposed route was described earlier.) The submarine cable can be embedded for the entire Enstar crossing, resulting in a longer life for the submarine cable. The Tesoro submarine cable route is longer, subject to more severe tidal currents, and cannot be embedded for the entire length of the route. APPROVALS / PERMITS Because federal lands and/or federal financing assistance may be required, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is triggered. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is the lead agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is a cooperating agency for the NEPA process. An environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared in compliance with NEPA, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), RUS environmental policies and procedures (7 CFR Part 1794), and the relevant USFWS regulations. Both agencies will issue Records of Decision. A third-party contractor is preparing the EIS under the direction of the agencies. To facilitate the environmental review process, the IPG prepared an Environmental Analysis (EVAL) pursuant to RUS regulations. The anticipated schedule is for the Draft EIS to be available in mid 2000 followed by a public review period. The Final EIS would then be expected in late 2000 with Records of Decision in early 2001. Construction is planned to begin in 2002/2003, and energization is planned for 2005. IPG’s proposed route would cross the KNWR, a designated conservation system unit under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (P.L. 96-487). Therefore, regulations implementing Title XI of ANILCA apply to the entire Project (43 CFR Part 36). A Title XI Transportation/Utility Systems Permit Application was filed on August 5, 1999, with RUS, USFWS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and was found to be complete. The USFWS must respond to this application. In addition to the above, all other applicable federal, state and local permits must be obtained. Rights of way need to be acquired. Final design and construction can then begin. Southern Intertie Transmission Line 12 Project Description February 2000