Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS Intertie report 7-2000 CHUGASn POWERING ALASKA'S omy D D) AIP A oy J it July 28, 2000 || ‘ “2 = 4 2000 Alask Ivete: od E wsirial De eveloome ) Xport Authority Mr. Keith Laufer ') Ye th Executive Director ’ Alaska Industrial Development a) Nalorie and Export Authority » Shauna for (tee 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Subject: Southern Intertie Monthly Report for July 2000 W.0.#E9590081 Dear Mr. Laufer: Enclosed is 1 (one) copy of the Southern Intertie Report for July 2000. If there are any questions, please contact Dora Gropp, (907) 762-4626. Sincerely, Eugene-N2Bjorstad General Manager Enclosures: 1 (one) copy of Southern Intertie Monthly Report Cc: Lee Thibert Michael Massin Dora Gropp Jim Borden Mike Cunningham a Don Edwards W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.3 RF gach Electric Association, Inc *” CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 5601 Minnesota Drive / 99518 P.O. Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Il. Ill. SUMMARY FINANCIAL i 2. 3. 4. SCHEDULE TABLE OF CONTENTS Bank Statement of June 2000 Chugach Statement for June 2000 Total Project Expenditures, Inception through June 2000 Chugach Activity Summary for June 2000 1. Project Schedule ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. 2. POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report dated July 19, 2000 Letter to AIDEA of June 21, 2000 SUMMARY The draft of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) has been received from RUS/Mangi on June 13, 2000. The document, based on the Environmental Analysis submitted by our consultants, identifies numerous areas, where additional information may be needed. Review meetings are scheduled for August 2 to 4, 2000 in Seattle to deal with these issues and determine how they should be resolved. Impacts of the outcome of these meetings on budget and schedule cannot be fully addressed until the lead and cooperating federal agencies have agreed on how to finalize the DEIS. At this time we do not anticipate the DEIS to be published until October or November of this year or later. We have requested release of additional funds in the amount of $1,600,000 for the EIS support work from AIDEA on June 21, 2000, but have not yet received a response. After the DEIS is published and public comments are received, additional work may be required for the preparation of the final EIS (FEIS). Funding for that effort is presently estimated to require another $800,000, bringing the total for the environmental work to about $7,500,000. 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 CONTINGENCY $38,955) $0 $0 $38,955 TOTAL $428,502 $160,000) $100,000 $688,502 AMENDMENTS $0) $0 $0) $0 a $428,502 $160,000) $100,000) $688,502 COMMITMENT i t f : SPENT TO DATE $265,887 $99,034 $60,308) $425,229 % OF TOTAL 62% 62% 60% 62% Total Project expenditures, as of 07/18/00 are $5,529,529. Il. FINANCIAL 1. Bank Statement of June 2000 de Chugach Statement for June 2000 35 Total Project Expenditures, Inception through June 2000 4. Chugach Activity Summary for June 2000 000 01 00 PAGE: O) DATE: 06/30/00 ACCOUNT: 411000 Tiere) sells SL. Dent” weet AS naa a CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Tr 30 PO BOX 196300 ANCHORAGE AK 99519-6300 oo MAIN BRANCH PO BOX 100720 ANCHORAGE AK 99510-0720 DESCRIPTION DEBITS CREDITS DATE BALANCE * (BALANCE LAST STATEMENT sic s cies occ ce elise veneers se cssee O5/31/00 563,585.23 INTEREST 91.76 06/01/00 563,676.99 INTEREST 91.78 06/02/00 563,768.77 INTEREST 276.54 06/05/00 564,045.31 INTEREST 93.00 06/06/00 564,138.31 INTEREST 93.01 06/07/00 564,231.32 INTEREST 93.03 06/08/00 564,324.35 INTEREST 93.04 06/09/00 564,417.39 INTEREST 278.79 06/12/00 564,696.18 TRANSFER TO BUSINESS ACCOUNT 1106061 ~ 58,404.38 06/13/00 506,291.80 INTEREST 83.13 06/13/00 506,374.93 INTEREST 83.14 06/14/00 506,458.07 INTEREST 83.16 06/15/00 506,541.23 INTEREST 83.17 06/16/00 506,624.40 INTEREST 248.29 06/19/00 506,872.69 INTEREST 81.96 06/20/00 506,954.65 INTEREST 81.97 06/21/00 507,036.62 INTEREST 81.99 06/22/00 507,118.61 INTEREST 82.00 06/23/00 507,200.61 INTEREST 245.93 06/26/00 507,446.54 INTEREST 81.94 06/27/00 507,528.48 INTEREST 81.96 06/28/00 507,610.44 INTEREST 81.97 06/29/00 507,692.41 INTEREST 81.98 06/30/00 507,774.39 BALANCE THIS STATEMENT isis « cjc- « cicieie oieisie ee sieleisisis © els «sees OG/30700 507,774.39 caver wousa LENDER 000 01 00 PAGE: O) DATE: 06/30/00 ACCOUNT: 411000: First National Bank of Anchorage Ayes CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION TOTAL CREDITS (22) 2,593.54 TOTAL DEBITS (aly) 58,404.38 INTEREST THIS STATEMENT 2,593.54 INTEREST PAID 2000 17,205.07 - END OF STATEMENT - Pom LENDER CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska 07/13/00 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 June 2000. Direct Labor 956.95 Indirect Labor 486.15 Power Engineers - Invoice 820 21,384.17 Sub-Total $22,827.27 General, Administrative & Construction Overhead (0.5%) 114.14 Total Charges $22,941.41 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: bo X. Lipp Y/ ( ¥/ oo Signature * Date djw Attachments CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Southern Intertie Transactions Inception Through June 30, 2000 Project Expenditures Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/99 06/01/2000 06/30/2000 Through 06/30/2000 Direct Labor $161,821.62 $13,188.94 $956.95 $175,967.51 Indirect Labor 61,566.25 6,400.04 486.15 68,452.44 Power Engineers 4,719,774.90 109,669.86 21,384.17 4,850,828.93 Miscellaneous 308,282.24 4,344.40 0.00 312,626.64 Total $5,251,445.01 $133,603.24 $22,827.27 $5,407,875.52 Grant Fund Expenditures Year to Date Month Inception Through Ended Inception Through 12/31/99 06/01/2000 06/30/2000 Through 06/30/2000 Direct Charges that Chugach has been Reimbursed for $ §,251,445.01 $ 133,603.24 $ 22,827.27 $ 5,407,875.52 Plus General, Administrative & Construction Overhead $ 26,257.22 $ 668.01 $ 114.14 $ 27,039.37 Total Amounts Paid to Chugach $ §,277,702.23 $ 134,271.25 $ 22,941.41 $ 5,434,914.89 07/13/2000 99-00Sinterti.xIs Southern Intertie Grant Fund Bank Account Activity Summary June 2000 May Ending Balance Forward Total Deposits Total Withdrawals Interest Earned Balance June 30, 2000 Southern intertie bank activity.xls $563,585.23 $0.00 ($58,404.38) $2,593.54 $507,774.39 07/13/2000 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Southern Intertie Activity Summary June 2000 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 1,346,934.44 67,734.52 (2,421,276.94) 364,777.72 1998 364,777.72 525,214.00 19,424.02 (732,050.23) 177,365.51 1999 177,365.51 985,191.00 19,246.30 (643,398.53) 538,404.28 2000* 538,404.28 100,000.00 17,205.07 (147,834.96) 507,774.39 Total 5,728,616.44 163,971.50 (5,384,813.55) * Through June 2000 bank statement (does not include Chugach invoices for charges incurred in June 2000) Southern Intertie AIDEA mtg.xls 07/13/2000 Revised 7/11/00 Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Southern Intertie Activity Summary May 2000 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 1,346,934.44 67,734.52 (2,421,276.94) 364,777.72 1998 364,777.72 525,214.00 19,424.02 (732,050.23) 177,365.51 1999 177,365.51 985,191.00 19,246.30 (643,398.53) 538,404.28 2000* 538,404.28 100,000.00 = 14,611.53 (89,430.58) 563,585.23 Total 5,728,616.44 161,377.96 (5,326,409.17) * Through May 2000 bank statement (does not include Chugach invoices for charges incurred in May 2000) CO acgou INDUSTRI TION SUR . FAIR@ANKS Al A ( alia (907) 456-4414 277- 800-770-44; (Ss (5 an amended Summary for May 2000. Chinstet Petty at MDE A a le small CPT. Kathy csted we fo forward this ee ACTIVE AS ALASKA Southern Intertie AIDEA mtg.xls 07/13/2000 wy, Invoice Month Date Incurred Costs OH Total Jan-00 Dec-99 13,496.23 67.48 13,563.71 Feb-00 Jan-00 3,892.65 19.46 3,912.11 Mar-00 Feb-00 9,362.97 46.81 9,409.78 Apr-00 Mar-00 41,813.83 209.07 42,022.90 May-00 Apr-00 20,419.98 102.10 20,522.08 Jun-00 May-00 58,113.81 290.57 58,404.38 Jul-00 Jun-00 22,827.27 114.14 22,941.41 Aug-00 0.00 Sep-00 0.00 Oct-00 0.00 Nov-00 0.00 Dec-00 0.00 Year to Date 169,926.74 849.63 170,776.37 Life to Date 5,380,715.59 27,039.37 _5,407,754.96 Inception-to-Date Charges 5,250,542.30 5,254,454.41 5,263,864.19 5,305,887.09 5,326,409.17 5,384,813.55 5,407,754.96 5,407,754.96 5,407,754.96 5,407,754.96 5,407,754.96 5,407,754.96 USFS Reimbursement is not included in total Grant Fund Expenditures portion of Transaction Spreadsheet. 99.NNSintarti vic Ill. SCHEDULE i Project Schedule CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE Wed 7/19/00 PHASE IC 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ID_|Task Name % Comp. | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | QI | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3} Q4 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q1] Q2]Q3 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING 81% 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 78% 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUDIES 100% 4 EVAL & PREL.ENGINEERING 100% 5 EIS PREPARATION MN% 6 DEIS 55% wz COMMENT PERIOD 0% 8 FEIS 0% 9 |AGENCIES 54% 10 USFWS 47% 11 RUS 60% 12 USFS 100% 13 COE 10% 14 ROD 0% Task eee Rolled Up Task hae Project Summary Qaarmy) Project: ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTE Progress Rolled Up Milestone © Split Date: Wed 7/19/00 Milestone Rolled Up Progress NNN = Rolled Up Split Summary FeyrqY-J External Tasks —-Saee] PH_IC.MPP Page 1 IV. ITEMS FOR APPROVAL None. Vv. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION None. VI. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 1. POWER Engineers’ Monthly Report dated 2. Letter to AIDEA of June 21, 2000 OWER July 19, 2000 R Etr ive dD JUL « Ms. Dora Gropp ooo 2000 Chugach Electric Association TRANS M 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A SPECIAL PROUA & Anchorage, AK 99518 JECT Subject: POWER Project #120376 EIS & Preliminary Engineering Chugach Contract No. 820, Monthly Status Report No. 18 For Period June 11 — July 8, 2000 Dear Dora: This report summarizes the activities completed for Task 10 during the reporting period. Activities this reporting period included review of the PDEIS, received on June 14, 2000, and organizing and preparing responses to comments by Mangi outlined in the PDEIS. Work completed this period also included our coordination of activities between the project team and project reporting. 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. The Environmental Planning Group (EPG) has also submitted activity logs that are included with this report. We received an invoice and activity logs for Michael L. Foster and Associates (MLFA) with this months EPG invoice, covering the period through April 30, 2000 in the amount of $95,098.57. This MLFA invoice is for the labor MLFA expended through the first round of comment responses, which were completed in April. This report includes the following attachments: 1) Overall Financial Project Summary 2) Project Summary Report by Task 3) Daily Activity Logs Schedule: The schedule for completion of the DEIS is being dictated by RUS. A PDEIS review meeting is scheduled for August 2 through 4 in Seattle, Washington to discuss the PDEIS with the agencies. At that time the schedule for completion of the DEIS will be discussed and we will report on the results in next months report. POWER Engineers, Incorporated HLY 23-300 (ggg oo team ea 2804 Longhorn Blvd. Phone (512) 837-6428 Austin, TX 78758 Fax (512) 837-5500 Chugach Electric Association July 19, 2000 Page 2 Budget: Task 10 Budget $389,547 Task 10 Billed Through Previous Invoice $155,907 Task 10 Billed This Invoice $109,981 Task 10 Remaining Project Budget $123,659 Total Budget $4,300,741 Billed Through Previous Invoice $4,052,671 Billed This Period $ 109,981 Remaining Project Budget $ 138,089 The above cost summary has all charges for PEI and EPG through July 8, 2000, except for MLFA. We have not yet received an invoice from MFLA for the period May 1 to July 8. That cost is estimated to be about $6500, according to MFLA. While committed, it is not included in the above summary. 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. fale Nae Randy Pollock, P.E. Project Manager RP/Ik Enclosures cc: PROJECT TEAM i) HLY 23-300 m MER coca SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY - PHASE 1 - 120376 PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY = JULY, 2000 INVOICE Task 1 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Project Total Base Not to Exceed Budget $351,050 | $303,475 $402,570 $247,616 $101,480 $202,655 $189,861 $3,043,423 CWG Contract Amendment No. 4 $23,789 $32,866 $4,904 N/A N/A NA N/A $103,046 DFI Contract Amendment No. 5 N/A N/A NA $45,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A $45,000 DFI Contract Amendment No. 6 N/A N/A N/A $11,400 N/A N/A N/A $11,400 DFI Contract Amendment No. 7 N/A N/A N/A $3,502 N/A N/A N/A $3,502 DFI Contract Amendment No. 8 N/A N/A N/A $89,487 N/A N/A N/A $89,487 Task 5&6 Reallocation * N/A N/A N/A $194,150 ($194,150) N/A N/A $0 Contract © Amendment No. 9 N/A N/A N/A $31,926 N/A N/A N/A N/A $31,926 Contract © Amendment No. 11 NA N/A N/A $118,193 N/A N/A N/A $118,193 Contract 820, Amendment No. 1 N/A NA N/A $465,215 N/A N/A N/A N/A $465,215 Contract 820 Amendment No. 2 NA N/A =a N/A N/A N/A NA | N/A N/A $389,547 $389,547 Total Not to Exceed Budget $374,839 $679,591 $336,341 $1,366,349 $101,480 $202,655 $189,861 $389,547 $4,300,741 Actual Budget Expended Through Previous Invoice $374,839 $679,583 $336,315 $1,353,299 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $155,907 $4,052,671 Current Invoice Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,981 $109,981 Actual Budget Expended Through Current Invoice $374,839 $679,583 $336,315 $1,353,299 $101,476 $202,610 $189,852 $265,888 $4,162,652 Remaining Budget $0 $8 $26 . Task 5 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 820, Amendment No. | funds. ¢ Task 10 budget amount reflects the addition of Contract No. 820, Amendment No. 2 funds. HLY 23-300 $13,050 $4 $45 $9 $123,659 $138,089 7/19/00 Page 1 of 3 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: 07-08-00 10-1 Tech/Environmental Support 4TH QUARTER 1999| 1ST QUARTER 2000 2ND QUARTER 2000 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 10-2 Actual % Work Completed* 0%! 2% 11%) 14%) 29% Planned % Complete $ (to date) Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 38% 67% 38%| 67% Planned $ (this period) Actual $ Expended (this period $366 | $3,903 | $15,627 $3,982 | $27,330 | $14,804 | $52,203 | $19,732 | Planned $ (todate) “Actual $ Expended (to date $366 | $4,269 | $19,896 | $23,878 | $51,209 | $66,013 [$118,216 $: Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 $175,265 $175,265 |$175,265 |$175,265 [$175,265 Actual Remaining Task Budget Public Involvement $174,899 | 59 |$151,387 |$124,056 $109,252 $57,049 10-3 Actual % Work Completed Planned % Complete $ (to date) — Actual % Expended $ (to date) Planned $ (this period) Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 Planned $ (to date) _ Actual $ Expended (to date) gol go] = $0, =~ 80,80 $o| $0 $22,703 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 Actual Remaining Task Budget Mailing List $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 | $88,603 $88,603 $65,900 Actual % Work Completed Actual % Expended $ (to date) Planned % Complete $ (to date) | Planned $ (this period) Actual $ Expended (this period) $0 Planned $ (to date) 11/08/99 Contract 820 Amendment No. 2 HLY 23-300a Actual $ Expended (to date) go; «$0 $0 $0, $0 $0 $0 $403 | Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 Actual Remaining Task Budget | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19,040 | $19, 040 | $19,040 7/19/00 ” SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: Page 2 of 3 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 07-08-00 4TH QUARTER 1999 1ST QUARTER 2000 2ND QUARTER 2000 3RD TASK' MONTH| NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR | MAY JUN JUL 10-4 |Print & Distribute DEIS/EIS NOT APPLICABLE AT THIS TIME | Actual % Work Completed {| | df 7 -_ _ oe | Planned % Complete $ (to date) | ft _ fe P Actual % Expended $ (to date) ___ Planned $ (this period) — - _ [oo - = | Actual $ Expended (this period) | | ___ Planned$(todate) | ft ~ Actual $ Expended (to date) [ | _Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 _ | Actual Remaining Task Budget ; 7 fp UO 10-5 |PM & Schedule Admin. | ___ Actual % Work Completed _ 3%| She) 6% 9% 11%] 13%] 16% | 18%| 20% Planned d % Complete $ (to date) _ f fo _{ Pl fe | Actual % Expended $ (to date) 3% 5% 6% 9% 11% 13% 16% 18% 19% Planned $ (this period) _ _ -_ . | fo a tf Actual $ Expended (this period) | $2,260 | $1,686 | $1,010| $2,228 $1,551| $1,167] $2,486) $1,652] $548 | ; Planned $ (to date) oe fo oe a ft - ~ Actual $ Expended (to date) $2,260) $3,946] $4,956| $7,184 | $8,735| $9,902 | $12,388 | $14,040 | $14,588 | Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 | $76,935 Actual Remaining Task Budget | $74,675 | $72,989 | $71,979 | $69,751 | $68,200 | $67,033 | $64,547 | $62,895 | $62,347. 10-6 |Update MOU | Actual % Work Completed _ 0% | _ O%| 50% _ 50% — 50%! = 50%) — | Planned % Complete $ (to date) | | fo jo] Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 0% 0% 0% 31% 31% ___ Planned $ (this period) _ fp | - | Actual $ Expended (this period) | $0 | $0} _—$0 $0 | $3,917 $0 | ___ Planned $(todate) | | | ee a Sen [eee Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,917 | $3,917 f Contract No. 820, Amend. No.2 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 Actual Remaining Project Budget] $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $12,501 | $8,584| $8,584| $8,584 | $8,584| $8,584 | 11/08/99 Contract 820 Amendment No. 2 HLY 23-300a ” 7/19/00 SOUTHERN INTERTIE PROJECT THROUGH PERIOD ENDING: Page 3 of 3 PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT 07-08-00 4TH QUARTER 1999 1ST QUARTER 2000 | 2ND QUARTER 2000 L 3RD TAS { MONTH| NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR _ MAY JUN JUL 10-7 Brief Corps of Engineers | Actual % Work Completed 0%! 0% = 50% = 50% 50%| 100%| 100%| 100% Planned % Complete $ (to dat date) | | - a / — oe _ Actual % Expended $ (to date) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% a 0% _Planned$(thisperiod) {| | J _ ee ee ee Actual $ Expended (this period) | $0 | $0 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $0 $0 ___ Planned $ (to date) _ : at 7 ; rf a ff ._ i Actual $ Expended (to date) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0. $0 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 Actual Remaining Task Budget | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 | $17,203 PHASE 10 TOTAL Actual % Work Completed _ 35% 68% Planned % Complete $ (to date) Actual % Expended $ (to date) 35% | Planned $ (this period) __ ‘Actual $ Expended (this period) Planned $ (to date) _ 71 | $54,689 | § Actual $ Expended (to date) _ st sia eo 7 $31,062 | $63,861 | $79,832 |$134,521 |$155,905 |$265,887 Contract No. 820, Amend. No. 2 $389, 547 $389,547 $389,547 |$389,547 |$389,547 |$389,547 [$389,547 [$389,547 [$389,547 Remaining Phase 10 Budget [$386,921 |$381,332 |$364,695 |$358,485 |$325,686 |1$309,715 |$255,026 |$233,642 |$123,660 = _|Notes: * The Actual Percent complete is the same as the Actual Percent Expended because the work scope is reactive to requests from RUS for support to the preparation of the DEIS, rather than for a specifically defined scope of work. 11/08/99 Contract 820 Amendment No. 2 HLY 23-300a CHUGAG —_"— Eugene N. Bjornstad, PE. POWERING ALASKA’S FUTURE General Manager June 21, 2000 Mr. Randy Simmons Executive Director Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Subject: Southem Intertie Project - NEPA/ANILCA Application EIS Process Funding Requirements Dear Mr. Simmons: This is a request on behalf of the Intertie Participant Group (IPG) to increase the funding for Phase I of the Southern Intertie Project to $7,500,000 in accordance with Paragraph 4.02.a of The Grant Administration Agreement. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project is being prepared by an independent consultant under the direction of the federal lead agency, the Rural Utility Service (RUS) and in conjunction with the cooperating agencies, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (COE). The IPG, as the Applicant, is obligated to pay for efforts undertaken on the Project’s behalf by the agencies and provide technical assistance to the agencies and their contractors. Funding originally allocated to this phase of the project has been exhausted over the past 5 years in the preparation of a Routing Study and an Environmental Analysis (EVAL) to assist the federal agencies in their EIS preparation. Extensive public involvement and work performed at the direction of federal agencies have resulted in higher than anticipated costs for these efforts. Recent experience on similar projects leads us to believe that even higher costs should be anticipated when the agencies deal with the comments to the Draft EIS (DEIS) after the public review period and challenges to the Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). An application for a special use permit in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) for the project has been filed with three federal agencies (Rural Utility Services - RUS, Fish and Wildlife Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 5601 Minnesota Drive, PO. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 © (907) 563-7494 Fax (907) 562-0027 © (800) 478-7494 www.chugachelectric.com ¢ info@chugachelectric.com Mr. Randy Simmons, Executive Director Page 2 of 2 June 21, 2000 Service - USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers - COE). The application was made in August of 1999 under ANILCA provisions. It included submittal of the EVAL. The analysis was made in close cooperation with RUS and USFWS/KNWR and encompasses all information considered necessary to allow the agencies conversion of the document into an EIS with minimum effort and delay. RUS, the lead agency for the EIS preparation, has hired an independent consultant, Mangi Environmental, to prepare the documents from the EVAL. Mangi has had numerous requests for additional information and clarifications related to the EVAL. The IPG’s consultants have answered most of the requests, but funding intended to lead to the completion of the DEIS has paid for these efforts. RUS/Mangi have issued a draft of a preliminary Draft EIS for agency review without resolving all issues raised. Outstanding issues will be addressed during review meetings between the agencies and the respective consultants. We estimate that additional work in the amount of $1,000,000 may be required just to complete the Draft EIS to the agencies’ satisfaction. Project expenditures stand at approximately $5,500,000 and funding is authorized to $5,900,000. The first increase of $800,000 over the original Phase I allocation of $5,100,000 was approved in June of 1998. As you may recall, the Phase I funding figure was an estimate made six years ago. The effort required to assist the agencies in completing the NEPA process to the ROD after the DEIS is published is now estimated to cost an additional $1,000,000. That leaves a shortfall of $1,600,000. A summary of expenditures to date and anticipated funding needs is attached. In the Grant Administration Agreement Schedule A-2, route selection is required. We are not yet at that point. The IPG has authorized us to request $1,600,000 to assist in the NEPA related work for the project and we ask that the spending limit for Phase I of the Southern Intertie Project be amended accordingly and the funds be released. The fact that the additional environmental studies could not be accurately anticipated in the Phase I funding ceiling should be considered a significant factor in this sagem Disapproval will seriously impact the progress and completion of Phase I. Should you have any questions, please contact me or our Project Manager, Dora Gropp at 762-4626. Sincerely, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. SM Gott General Manager CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SOUTHERN INTERTIE CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS |. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS (PHASE 1) CONTRACT /ACTIVITY cost cost cost CONTINGENC TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES AS OF 5/00 ROUTE NEPATOEVAL NEPA-EISTO —-NEPA-EISTO SELECTION (TO 9799) ROD ROD (TO 6/96) (TO 06/01) (To 07/01) PROJECT PHASE PHILA PHI-B PHI-C PHI-C PH LA $893,889 CORRIDOR STUDY PHB $4,215,406 EVAL CONSULTANT $814,794 $3,891,368 $1,700,000 $170,000 $6,576,162 PH EC $379,552 NEPA AGENCIES TOTAL $5,488,847 RUS/Mangi $0 $80,793 $200,000 $20,000 $300,793 USFWS $0 $45,916 $30,000 $10,000 $85,916 USFS $0 $7,854 $0 $0 $7,854 CEI $o $0 $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $79,095 $189,475 $200,000 $20,000 $488,570 TOTAL $893,889 $4,215,406 $2,160,000 $230,000 $7,499,295 Il. CASH FLOW (ENTIRE PROJECT) CONTRACT /ACTIVITY TOTAL 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 PHASE | - AUTHORIZED $5,100,000 $196,275 $1,761,159 $2,007,375 $850,000 $285,191 AMENDMENT 6/98 $800,000 $450,000 $350,000 TOTAL AUTHORIZED $5,900,000 $196,275 $1,761,159 $2,007,375 $850,000 $735,191 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o (CUMMULATIVE) $196,275 $1,957,434 $3,964,809 $4,814,809 $5,550,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 $5,900,000 TOTAL PROJECTED $196,275 $1,761,159 $2,007,375 $850,000 $735,191 $1,000,000 $450,000 $3,500,000 $20,000,000 $34,000,000 $38,000,000 (CUMMULATIVE) $196,275 $1,957,434 $3,964,809 $4,814,809 $5,550,000 $6,550,000 $7,000,000 $10,500,000 $30,500,000 $64,500,000 $102,500,000 TOTAL ACTUAL $56,420 $1,774,604 $2,153,070 $650,980 $596,671 (CUMMULATIVE) $56,420 $1,831,024 $3,984,094 $4,635,074 $5,231,745 St$sched.xisNEPA BUDGET Page 1 6/16/00 ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 16, 1998 — 10:00 a.m. Anchorage and Juneau, Alaska, and Goshen, Indiana Verbatim Excerpt 7. NEW BUSINESS 7E. Resolution No. G98-08. A Resolution of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Authorizing the Disbursement of a Portion of Grant Proceeds in Connection with a Proposed Intertie Between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, and Taking Related Actions Related to Intertie Projects. Mr. Gene Bjornstad: I’m representing the Intertie Participants Group today for the Southern Intertie. We had a meeting yesterday with the Intertie Participants Group and passed a motion to go forward and request AIDEA to release some additional funds for the Southern Intertie. | have Dora Gropp here today, she is the project manager that is employed by Chugach, but she is representing the Intertie Participants Group today. This is an update. We are still in the first phase of the Southern Intertie where we are doing the environmental impact work. Dora will give you the background on where we are at and then tell you what our timetable is in the future. Ms. Dora Gropp: Thank you. | do have handouts of the slide presentation because it has a graph and there are some numbers you will not be able to read. The Southern Intertie is a proposed transmission line between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. Let me bring you up to speed. We have done broad selection studies, which were completed in 1996 and they resulted in three feasible alternative routes. The end of the handout has a map and | have one here that | can put up real quick (indicating to the slide presentation). The corridors you see there are the identified feasible routes. One follows the existing transmission lines down Turnagain Arm around through Turnagain Pass and ends up at Soldotna. The other one follows the Enstar pipeline and comes across at Potter Marsh. The third one starts up at Nikiski follows the coastline and comes across to Pt. Campbell or Pt. Waronzof. When we were done with those route selection studies it was decided to proceed with what we call the NEPA process: the environmental process. It was decided that this project needed an environmental impact statement: we began that in October 1996 and are still in it. RUS (Rural Utilities Services) which is the former REA, is the lead agency for the NEPA process and that is primarily caused by Homer Electric participants and Golden Valley RUS borrowers, and need their consent to either spend money or borrow more money. With the involvement with the Forest Service versus the Chugach National Forest and the Enstar route goes through the Kenai Wildlife Refuge, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, these two agencies became cooperating agencies. Having three agencies and trying to get them to do one environmental impact statement has proved to be somewhat difficult. They have to agree on how, within their own regulations, they can accomplish this. That took quite a bit of time. We went through fourteen drafts of the memorandum of understanding of how this would be done and finally agreed in July 1997 on how it would be done. In the meantime, of course, we kept pressing forward and gathered the data necessary and started preparing our documentation. What was eventually decided to do, what RUS calls an environmental analysis, which is in other words an EIS with a different title. This environmental analysis will be submitted to RUS so they can turn around and prepare an environmental impact statement from that. But, in the investigations for that analysis we found that the Quartz Creek route was not a viable route, primarily based on putting another route parallel to the existing line which is prone to avalanche, icing, and high winds, would not get us to the goal. We wanted more reliability for service between the Kenai and Anchorage. It also included Chugach State Park which will force us to place the route underground and that increases the price tag by about $20 million. So, the environmental analysis and subsequently the EIS will only include the Enstar and the Tesoro route. What are the costs of these? The Tesoro route is about $10,000,000 (indiscernible). The benefit cost ratios range from $1.25 to $2.72. The difference between the two routes and whether you count the state grant into it or not. So without the grant are the lower ratios and with the grant are the higher ratios (indicating to the slide presentation graph). Before we finalized our environmental analysis and for the work, the Intertie Participant Group had to propose one of these two routes. Due to costs and other considerations they proposed to go Enstar. The route for that would be a Soldotna substation in Homer's service territory, and an International Airport substation which is in the Chugach territory. In order to follow this through and flush it out we need to file an application for rights-of-way through the National Wildlife Refuge on the Kenai. There are very strict provisions on what and what cannot be built in a wildlife refuge and again, an environmental impact statement will help to flush it out. We are now, at this time, after IPG has decided, we are going to go Enstar and we are going to apply for that we will file this application. Again, all three agencies are still in the process and have agreed by a memorandum of understanding that one environmental impact statement will be prepared that fulfills all agencies needs. Expenditures to date: We started in December 1995, where you have that little saddle there is where the route selection study was terminated which was just under $1,000,000 and we are now spending at, as of May, we have $4.2 million spent on this process. Where we go to finish the eval year is that environmental analysis that will be submitted to RUS and will be used to be attached to the ANICLA application because they do need all that data too. When we are done with that we think we will have spent $4.5 million. This gives you a little run down of where it went. (referred Board members to the slide chart for the breakdown of the numbers.) The funding under Phase | of this project that was agreed on in the grant administration agreement allowed $5.1 million to be spent under Phase | which was called preliminary activities leading to the construction. We pretty much have fulfilled everything in there, but originally thought that we could finish the entire environmental impact process (NEPA) with that money. As you can see after we are done with this we still have $539,000 left over. Why am | here? Because of what still needs to be done. The environmental impact statement needs to be prepared. RUS, by law, is obliged to do so. RUS informed us that they would not be able to do that with the staff they have on board and wanted to hire a consultant, and guess who gets to pay for that? The applicant does. So they hired Mangi Environmental, an outfit out of Virginia, to prepare the PDEIS and the draft environmental impact statement from the environmental analysis that the applicant would submit. Again, this is a paper process trying to find out whether everything is in the environmental analysis that they would like to see. Then we go through a public comment period before the final EIS is prepared. This includes public meetings in Washington, D.C. and in Alaska. Again, the Kenai Wildlife Range permit application (ANICLA application) goes parallel and it has those public hearings and they will serve all sides for the same process. Then we have to prepare the final EIS and go through reviews and appeals on that as they apply to any which agency. Finally, arrive at a Record of Decision where each of the three agencies says yes we agree, no we don’t agree, go ahead do it but put this or that into the process. Now, in order to get from where we are now to where this would finally end, we need the following: Our consultants will need about $800,000; RUS and their consultant want $165,000. The Fish and Wildlife steps up and needs another $33,000; and Chugach Electric, as Project Manager, will have to get more involved in that final process so | figured it would be almost $300,000 there. So that totals $1.3. So we are short about $765,500 and we are asking to allow us to transfer $800,000 from page two to page one of the project to complete the NEPA process. You will ask why the extra cost and how come we thought we could do it for the $5.1 million. Here’s a little bit of it. Those 14 attempts at the memorandum of understanding didn’t come for free. When RUS decided they needed a third party, another consultant to finish their work that added another $160,000. Fish and Wildlife service really did not follow through on an agreement made earlier that we are going to do the following work to prepare this analysis. They came up with additional requirements for additional studies which at that time required field work and | think you all understand that takes more money. The ANICLA application was not thought to be necessary through the NEPA process but in order to determine everything the Fish and Wildlife Service has to do we need to file that application now. Which again, adds money. That's really why we need that money now. It needs to be understood that the original schedule had in Phase II, final environmental work, which we consider this to be, so there is a little overlap that maybe is the reason for this change also. You're probably curious as to how long this is going to take. Right now, we think the environmental analysis will go to RUS in July at the same time we will file the ANICLA application. We will have a draft EIS in February 1999 with a 60 day review or comment period. Then we take the comments and incorporate them into the final EIS which will then be out towards June 1999. Now, all three agencies can really pick whatever time is for their regulations. This represents the longest times which is associated with the Fish and Wildlife Services (indicating to slide). They have from the date we filed to November 1999 to do their record of decision. Beyond that, this is what can happen. Once we have a record of decision it will say yes that it can go, no we won't let you. Depending on what that is this marks what is called a decision point in the utility agreements governing our present board. Are we going to proceed if Enstar gets turned down? It’s really not an appeal process except go for Presidential appeal. That is a decision that will have to be made then. Assuming we get favorable decision somewhere along the line, this is how it could shape up (indicating to slide). If we get a decision by the end of 1999 we are going to have final right of way applications, design, etc. 1999 to 2001 the first construction will most likely occur and then in stages go through 2003. The line could be in service in 2004. That is all we have right now. Mr. Gene Bjornstad: Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation. If you have questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Chairman Hughes: Questions from the Board? Randy, questions from staff? Mr. Randy Simmons: Dennis would you like to add anything? Mr. Dennis McCrohan: Only that this $800,000 brings the total commitments from the grant to a total of $5.9 million. The resolution before you asks for you to give the Executive Director authority to disburse that additional $800,000 basically at his discretion as Chugach’s needs arise during this time. Mr. Randy Simmons: Yes. Mr. Chairman, also to update the history a bit, the original grant was for $46.8 million for the Southern Intertie. That amount with interest now is up close to $56 million. Before the Board is Resolution No. G98-08. Chairman Hughes: Gene, before you go | had a question. Number one, did you consider the route of coming directly across the inlet from Beluga? Was that an option? Mr. Gene Bjornstad: That was an early option. That was considered but | believe the submarine cable crossing was practically difficult or impossible. Ms. Dora Gropp: It would have eaten up $150 million without building any line and everybody involved considered that to be very unreliable because of the currents in there and the problems that other’s have experienced with facilities in the Inlet. It is expected to lead to early failures of the cables. Chairman Hughes: At the $150 million could you have built the reliability that would have been necessary or even at that number you couldn't have built the reliability? Ms. Dora Gropp: That would be questionable, because what you cannot guarantee is that what you bury at the bottom of that inlet will remain buried and if it does not remain buried it is subject to whatever comes up or down that inlet. Mr. Gene Bjornstad: | think the tidal velocities in Cook Inlet itself were a lot higher than this crossing we are talking about coming across on the Enstar line. Chairman Hughes: | still leave with the question in mind that there are petroleum — there’s either gas or crude oil lines that run that same route. Is that correct? Ms. Dora Gropp: That's correct, but for some reason their commodity can afford a lot more money to maintain itself. I’ve talked to the people. They send divers down almost every fall to do a hand over hand inspection of their pipes. We cannot afford that. Chairman Hughes: | see. Thank you. Second question; Gene when would you anticipate that you would have an agreement in place among the intertie participants to where — My concern, and | believe part of the Board’s concern, is that we go through the process and obviously Phase Il and the expense there and then come up against the problem of the agreement among the utilities. When would you anticipate having that agreement in place? Mr. Gene Bjornstad: Well, we’ve got an agreement with the utilities right now to proceed. What Dora referred to was a decision point, at that point or before the utilities that are involved have to decide whether they are going to continue to participate or not go forward. When we get through with this environmental process and impact statement, at that point the utilities are going to have to step up to the plate and say we are going forward or no it’s not feasible to go for a Presidential appeal on the Enstar route. We'll know within a year what the utilities are going to do. Chairman Hughes: If |’m interpreting you right, we have the $800,000 in front of us now, but next time you come for additional funds we would have that agreement in place? Mr. Gene Bjornstad: Yes. The next time we would come to you would be everybody is lined up and ready to go forward and we'll start doing this detailed design and getting the rights- of-way and everything else and we will be on into Phase II construction. Chairman Hughes: That would say that the percentage of partnerships, the commitments, all the way down would be totally resolved at that point. Mr. Gene Bjornstad: That's correct. Mr. Randy Simmons: Yes, that’s correct, Mr. Chairman. The Board has taken previous action as it relates to releasing further monies into the Phase II. There is about three outstanding requirements that the grant administration has to be fulfilled by the participants before additional monies will be released. Chairman Hughes: Gene, thank you. Mr. Robert Loescher: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move Resolution No. G98-08. Deputy Commissioner Kinney: Second. Chairman Hughes: We have a motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Robert Loescher: Question. Chairman Hughes: Question has been called for. Mr. Simmons will you take the vote. MOTION: Mr. Loescher moved to approve Resolution No. G98-08. Seconded by Deputy Commissioner Kinney. There being no discussion, the question was called. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.