The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS Intertie Status report 7-1997CHUGAC,. ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. EGEIVE July 11, 1997 JUL 16 1997 Alaska Industrial Development Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Mr. Dennis V. McCrohan, P.E., Deputy Director, Energy Subject: Southern Intertie - Status Report Dear Mr. McCrohan: In response to your letter of June 20, 1997, we have prepared the enclosed status report for the Southern Intertie. Please, review the document and let us know, if additional information is required. If you so desire, Dora Gropp, our Project Manager, is prepared to make a brief presentation and/or is available to answer questions at AIDEA’s Board of Directors meeting. Please, contact her direct at 762-4626, or e-mail to dora_gropp@chugachelectric.com to discuss her participation. Sincerely, dpa EA Sr Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager i Enclosures C3 IPG Utility General Managers, w/ Steve Haagenson, GVEA, w/ Lee Thibert, w/ Mike Massin, w/ Dora Gropp, w/ Don Edwards, w/ W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.2.2.1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 Il. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Anchorage, Alaska July 11, 1997 SOUTHERN INTERTIE W.O. E9590081 STATUS REPORT INTRODUCTION The Southern Intertie is a new proposed transmission line between the Anchorage area and the Kenai Peninsula. Chugach Electric began project activities on behalf of the Intertie Participant Group (IPG) in mid 1995 with a Route Selection Study. This study was performed by Power Engineers with Dames and Moore as a sub contractor for environmental work and completed in June of 1996. It resulted in the identification of three possible corridors for the proposed transmission line, but did not establish a preferred route. The IPG then authorized Chugach Electric to take the project to the environmental permitting phase with the originally selected consultants. The Rural Utility Services (RUS), as the federal lead agency, published a Notice Of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project in October 1996. Scoping meetings were held in Anchorage, Kenai/Soldotna, and Cooper Landing in November 1996 and Community Working Groups were formed in Anchorage and on the Kenai Peninsula to assist with impact assessment, mitigation and route selection. Other agencies with jurisdiction over various aspects of the project were invited to join RUS in the EIS process. The EIS preparation is now under way with RUS as the lead agency and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the US Forest Service (USFS) as cooperating agencies. Chugach’s consultant will prepare an Environmental Analysis (EVAL), which RUS - most likely with assistance from a consultant - will use to prepare the EIS. We expect that a preferred alternative will be selected by September of this year. Extended review and public comment periods between the release of the draft EIS (DEIS) and the final decision are required by the various agencies involved. The final EIS and a Record Of Decision (ROD) are therefore not expected to be available before February of 1999. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Route Selection Studies identified three corridors for the new transmission line. These corridors,” Tesoro”, “Enstar” and “Quartz Creek” as well as a sub-alternative within the Quartz Creek corridor, “Hope”, are shown on the map below: CADATA\ANNALISA\WPDOCS\E9550061 \PHIBKAIDASTAT. WFD SOUTHERN INTERTIE STATUS REPORT Page 2 of 4 July 11, 1997 ROUTES: pCHORAGE GENERATION ~ 806M T - Tesoro mn E - Enstar Q - Quartz Ck H - Hope SOLDOTNA KENAI GENERATION 244.N Estimated construction costs for these routes at two different voltage levels and two different submarine cable configurations are shown in the following table: Cost - 1996 $ Quartz Creek’ 138kV $108-$126' $96-$107! $$ millions $85 to $95 $89 to $104? $85 to $917 230kV $$ millions $120 to $139 $109 to $119 $100 to $116 Line Length Base Route 62 miles 77 miles 140 miles Note 1: Submarine Cable: 4 - 1 phase SCFF Note 2: Submarine Cable: 2 - 3 phase Flat SCFF Note 3: Includes Hope Route Alternative Major project facilities consist of overhead lines, underground and submarine cables with the associated terminal stations. Refinements are still under way as to structure types to be used as well as cable design. IDATA\ANNALISA\WPDOCS 9590081 PHI BAIDASTAT.W SOUTHERN INTERTIE STATUS REPORT Page 3 of 4 July 11, 1997 The final route selection will be greatly influenced by reliability considerations and regulatory constraints. The Quartz Creek Route is the only all overland route and follows the existing transmission line. It traverses the Chugach National Forest and Chugach State Park. Reliability concerns associated with simultaneous avalanche and other hazard exposure of two transmission lines and regulatory constraints in regard to rights of way may make this route not viable. The ENSTAR Route follows the existing pipeline and traverses the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. It will have to be permitted under ANILCA regulations. Routing in the Anchorage area leads through residential and commercial neighborhoods and will require special consideration in regard to alignment and structure configuration and placement. It also includes about 9 miles of submarine and 5 to 6 miles of underground cable, which increase construction costs. The general location of the submarine crossing has been investigated and found to be feasible. The TESORO Route follows the pipeline corridor near the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula. This corridor traverses Captain Cook State Park, private and state lands as well as a native allotment. The submarine crossings from Pt. Possession to Pt. Campbell/Pt. Woronzof is 13 to 14 miles long and makes up 50% of the overall construction costs. These submarine cable portions would be located in a zone of very high tidal currents and rocky bottom conditions and difficult to protect from environmental hazards. lil. BUDGET Costs to complete the EIS process are estimated at $5,009,916, of which $2,760,091 have been spent as of June 1997. Funds for the project are presently committed as follows (without allocated contingencies): Task Commi Spent Routing Studies (complete) $ 814,995 $ 814,995 Environmental Analysis (55% spent) $3,146,470 $1,762,822 Agency Reimbursements (22% spent) $ 155,554 $ 34,954 Economic Feasibility Update (0% spent) $ 45,000 $ 0 Project Management (33% spent) $ 440.000 $ 147.320 Total $4,602,019 $2,760,091 (CNDATA\ANNALISA\WPDOCS\ESS90081\PHIE\AIDASTAT. WPD SOUTHERN INTERTIE STATUS REPORT Page 4 of 4 July 11, 1997 IV. SCHEDULE The project phases are anticipated to be accomplished according to the following milestones: Environmental Process 1996 to 1999 Pre-Construction Activities 1999 to 2001 Construction 2001 to 2003 In Service 2004 A more detailed schedule, which shows the major tasks associated with the EIS process is attached. (CNDATA\ANNALISA\WPDOCS\E9S50081 PHIBAIDASTAT. WFD. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTERTIE 6/20/97 PHASE IB 1995 1996 [ 1997 1998 1999 2000 1D__| Task Name % Comp. | Act. Cost ar res [aa a2TasTa4]arfa2[as[a4s{arfaz[as[as ai [a2Tas[a4[ai[a2 esloul ct 1 | ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEE 38% | $2,749,112.84 i i 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 20%| $80,005.50 3 ROUTE SELECTION STUD 100% | $871,650.00 4 EIS & PREL.ENGINEERIN 50% | $1,762,503.34 5 SCOPING 97%| $364,715.78 6 INVENTORY 90%| $608,790.98 7 IMPACT/MITIGATION 62%| $374,486.81 a0 | an 8 ALTERN.SELECTION 12%| $36,414.49 an a 8/29 9 DRAFT EIS 9%| $36,689.76 " é : 10 FINAL EIS 0% $0.00 "1 STUDIES 58%| $62,069.07 12 ENG.FIELD WORK 91%| $184,406.25 13 PREL. ENGINEERING 50%| — $94,930.20 4 AGENCIES 20%| $34,954.00 15 USFS 20%| $34,954.00 16 USFWS 20% $0.00 Task Summary Qe olled Up Progress Project: ANCHORAGE - KENAI INTE a Date: 6/20/97 Progress Rolled Up Task Milestone a Rolled Up Milestone <> C:\WINPROJ\SOUTHTIE\PH_IB.MPP Page 1