HomeMy WebLinkAboutS Intertie Grant 1996Southern Intertie
Environmental Budget
Power Engineers
Chugach Electric
Federal Lead Agency
Feasibility Analysis
Total
Base
Amount
$3,043,423
400000
100000
200000
$3,743,423
Sheet1
Contingency
$304,342
$40,000
$10,000
$20,000
$374,342
Page 1
Total
$3,347,765
$440,000
$110,000
220,000
$4,117,765
Dhavne
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. G96-09
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
WHEREAS, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority ("Authority") is administering grants made available
for the development of the power transmission intertie between
Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula (the "Southern Intertie") ;
WHEREAS, in Resolution G95-20 the Authority approved
the disbursement of up to $900,000 of grant funds for certain
preliminary project development tasks ("Phase I Work") ;
WHEREAS, Chugach Electric Association, on behalf of the
participating utilities, has completed the Phase I Work
contemplated under Resolution G95-20 and is now requesting
funding to proceed into the Environmental Impact Statement
analysis and preliminary engineering with respect to the Southern
Intertie ("Phase II Work") ;
WHEREAS, the Authority has reviewed the Phase I Work
and found it to be complete;
WHEREAS, the Authority recommends, and the
participating utilities concur, that the analysis for the
Environmental Impact Statement should include a cost-benefit
analysis of the proposed Intertie;
WHEREAS, the Authority estimates the cost of the work
proposed by Chugach Electric Association for the next phase of
project development will be $4,200,000;
WHEREAS, the Authority finds it reasonable and in the
public interest to release an additional $4,200,000 in grant
funds, subject to such reasonable terms and conditions the
Authority may impose, to facilitate continued development of the
Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
a The Executive Director is authorized to release up
to $4,200,000 of grant funds to undertake Phase II Work,
providing that the participating utilities agree in writing that
the Environmental Impact Statement analysis will include a cost-
benefit evaluation of the Southern Intertie.
au The Executive Director may impose reasonable terms
and conditions relating to the release of the Phase II funds
authorized in Section 1.
Ce The Executive Director of the Authority is
directed to monitor progress of the utilities with respect to the
RESOLUTION NO. G96-09 PAGE 2
resolution of the core development issues related to the Intertie
Projects and report to this Board with respect to such progress.
4. The Executive Director is authorized and empowered
to take any and all actions appropriate and consistent with this
Resolution.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 21st day of May, 1996.
ea es
Chairman
(S E A L)
ATTEST
Secretary
PAGE 3 RESOLUTION NO. G96-09
Quality § vives
) (907) 274-1056
Date 2 4 4986
PENINSULA CLARTON
Client No.__ eA
More reliable power goal of intertie plan
AICE 302 ¥2I0A
By KIRSTEN SCHULTZ
Peninsula Clarion
A plan to connect Anchorage
and Kenai Peninsula electric utili-
ties will raise rates, but the projec-
t's managers say it should eliminate
some outages and keep costs down
in the long run.
The Southern Intertie Project,
which has been in the works since
1993, would connect Homer
Electric Association customers
with those in Anchorage and the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley.
It's designed to improve electri-
cal service by sharing power
between those areas. If Chugach
Electric Association’s Beluga
Power Plant goes down, for exam-
ple, then the HEA-operated
Bradley Lake hydroelectric facility
near Homer could pick up the slack.
There already is a transmission
line connecting the peninsula to
Anchorage, but it was built more
than 30 years ago and only can carry
about 70-or-so megawatts. The new
intertie would bump that total up to
120 megawatts.
Phil Steyer, a spokesperson for
Chugach Electric, compares the
intertie with an extra car idling in
the driveway for back up.
“We need to strengthen that elec-
trical structure,” Steyer said. “The
power line between the Kenai and
Southcentral is not that reliable.”
The current line was constructed
in areas prone to avalanches, and so
sometimes goes down in the winter.
The new intertie would take
advantage of an abundance of.
power on the Kenai Peninsula. The
peninsula is home to four different
power plants, which are able to pro-
duce 247 megawatts of electricity.
So far, the line to Anchorage hasn't
been strong enough to run any high-
er than 75 megawatts and there
aren’t enough HEA customers on
the Kenai to use the difference.
“We've got extra power ava
able here that we can’t run,” Stey
said. “We're constrained in o
ability to use power.”
The intertie, said Steyer, wou
beef up Anchorage’s ability to dre
on peninsula power — two of t
four peninsula power plants a
owned by Chugach’s 54.000 mer
bers.
But what about customers her
Most outages on the Keni arer
See INTERT :k pa q) VAAN neyuniT \
...Intertie 210E 392 Y2dA
Continued from page 1
caused by disconnections in the line
from Anchorage. They're caused
by something much less technical
— falling trees.
According to Don Stead, man-
ager of power production with
HEA, the majority of peninsula out-
ages over the last year were caused
by trees or branches falling on or
touching power lines.
There are some cases where a
stronger intertie would have been
helpful. In October of 1992, for
example, a heavy snowstorm cut
the peninsula off from Anchorage,
causing brown-outs here.
Steyer said the new intertie
wouldn’t guarantee outage-free ser-
vice, but it would help stop certain
types of outages. “It will reduce out-
ages related to the existing intertie.”
The new intertie also will improve reliability on the Kenai,
Steyer said. Power can flow either
way, so ifthe Kenai does experience
a shortage of some kind, more elec-
tricity from Anchorage can be shut-
tled down here.
“That same power line can just
as easily flow south,” he said. What’s. more important, Steyer
said, is HEA’s ability to buy power
at cheaper rates.
HEA buys almostall ofits power
from Chugach, but gets electricity
at different rates depending on
where it comes from. Sometimes,
Steyer said, getting power from
Chugach’s Beluga plant north of
Tyonek isa better deal for HEA than
buying it down the road from
Chugach’s Bernice Lake facility
north of Nikiski.
Even though rates will go up ini-
tially, power bills will be lower in
the long run, said HEA board mem-
ber Ron Rainey.
“T think it’s very good for HEA,”
he said. “It ties resources together.”
If everyone is linked, Steyer
said, everyone is sharing the cost of
infrastructure. If the peninsula was
separate from everyone else, power
costs would be much higher.
“Putting the line in ultimately
keeps costs lower,” Styler said.
While rates definitely won’t go
down, the intertie should keep rates
from rising as quickly.
But because the project still is in
the planning stages, there are sever-
al unknowns. Planners say they
aren’t sure how much the project
will cost, exactly how much it will
raise rates or even where the line
will be built.
Customers of the participating
electric cooperatives, including
HEA, will end up paying for some
of the project. The state is kicking in $46.8 million, but project man- agers won’t know the total bill until
a site for the intertie is selected. Some site ideas for the
Anchorage-peninsula: intertie
should be picked by the end of June.
According to Dora Gropp, man-
ager of transmission and special
projects at Chugach, the intertie’s
three-year construction schedule should start in 1999 at the earliest.
Currently, the intertie project
committee, made up of representa- tives from seven different utilities, is taking public comment before it
draws up a list of possible routes. A public meeting will be held
from 5:30 to 9 p.m. on Feb. 1 in Soldotna in the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly chambers. The
event will include an open house, in
which engineers and utility repre-
sentatives will answer questions. A
formal presentation will be at7 p.m.
Tim Tetherow, project manager with Dames & Moore, the intertie’s
engineering firm, said he is looking for ideas on where the line should
be built and what obstacles the
intertie should avoid.
The intertie itself won’t have
“big lattice tower structures,”
Tetherow said. -
Instead, it will have either 80-by-
60-foot steel towers, which look
like an “X,” or 20-by-50-foot wood-
en frames, in the shape of an “H.”
Tetherow said the committee is
trying toconsider the recreation and
visual impacts of the intertie. It is
looking at running the intertie along
already existing structures, like
pipelines.
But where the line actually runs
isn’t up to the utilities. A federal
agency, which has yet to be namc
will oversee the project and ma
the final decision. A similar project, connecti
Healy with Fairbanks, is furth
along.
Its budget is ‘set at $70 millic
including a $43.2 million gra
from the state.
Fairbanks Municipal Utiliti
also won’t know how much mon will be added to 4 typical cu
tomer’s monthly bill until a budg
is worked out before constructi:
starts next fall, at the earlie:
Participating cooperatives ha
until right before construction
decide if they want to sign on to tl
project.
Once the Fairbanks-"" * ' inte tie and the Anchorag ‘insu
intertie have both been vusn, mo
residents in Alaska would be co
nected to the same power grid.
Cope fae Ts
anDi™M .
Dew G. € — Bee oe ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
> AND EXPORT AUTHORITY {= ALASKA
Me ENERGY AUTHORITY
480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 269-3000 FAX 907 / 269-3044
July 31, 1996 Qcop eed Se
ea
Eugene N. Bjornstad fF @ [E " VW f D
same, 1 osc
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. r
P.O. Box 196300
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Alaska Industria! Development
and Export Authority
Subject: Southern Intertie Funding Conditions
Dear Gene:
As previously discussed AIDEA will release grant funds for the Southern Intertie to
Chugach Electric Association (CEA) in advance of expenditures under certain
conditions. Those conditions are as follows:
1. CEA will document the reasons for, the amount requested and the
cash flow needed for release of grant funds. AIDEA, in its sole
discretion and subject to Board approval, will determine the timing
and amounts of any release of grant funds.
2: All grant funds shall be segregated from other CEA funds by placing
the grant funds in separate specified interest bearing accounts
(“grant accounts”). The funds and interest earned on the funds may
only be used for project expenditures.
3. All earnings on the grant funds shall remain in the grant accounts and
shall not be disbursed without prior budget approval by AIDEA. CEA
shall provide monthly reports on the grant accounts’ activity,
including interest earned, amounts expended and available balances.
4. The funds shall be invested to earn the maximum interest possible
considering the project cash flow needs.
Eugene Bjornstad
July 31, 1996
Page 2
5. CEA shall monthly provide reports on the scope of work, project
budget, expenditures, progress, schedules and any exceptions to the
budget and schedules. (Updates in the format of those reports
currently being provided to AIDEA will satisfy these requirements.)
AIDEA approval is required prior to the expenditure of funds in excess
of budgeted amounts or use of contingency funds.
The audit requirements of 2 AAC 45.010 apply. The audit for each
preceding calendar year shall be submitted to AIDEA no later than
April 15 each year.
In the event the project is terminated and funds remain, the funds
shall be returned to AIDEA.
The release of funds under this procedure does not constitute a
waiver of the general procedure established in Section 4.03 of the
Gran Administration Agreement.
If the above conditions are acceptable to CEA, please note your acceptance in the
space provided below and return a signed copy to AIDEA. AIDEA will wire funds
to the grant account(s) designated by CEA based on approved individual requests.
Sincerely yo 1
William R. Shell
Executive Director
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. agrees to the above conditions.
=
Eugene
Mpc
jornstad
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
4 ~ SENT’ BY: 8-15-96 + 9:24AM ; CHUGACH ELEC XY f i#1/ 93
) wes a, Dgin I G, Chugach Electric Assn. PO Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Z
Date: 08/15/96
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
FAX
Valerie Walker
Phone; 907-269-3000
Fax phone: 907-269-3044
CC:
Phone: 907-762-4778
Fax phone: 907-562-0027
REMARKS: ®& Urgent O Foryourreview [] Reply ASAP OO Please comment
Valerie,
Attached is a signed copy of the agreement for release of the Southern Intertie Grant Funds. The
agreement was signed approximately 10 days ago, but evidently got lost in the mail.
R¢gards,
ike Cunnin;
Controller
SENT’ BY: 8-15-96 ; 9:24AM ; CHUGACH ELEC" 'C> 1# 2/3
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ‘call > 4 Re ee = ee
i ENERGY AUTHORITY
480 WEST TUDOR
July 31, 1996
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA. 99503 907 / 269-3000 FAX 907 / 269-3044
Eugene N. Bjornstad a fl
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 196300
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300
Subject:
Dear Gene:
Southern Intertie Funding Conditions
As previously discussed AIDEA will release grant funds for the Southern Intertie to
Chugach Electric Association (CEA) in advance of expenditures under certain
conditions. Those conditions are as follows:
Ue CEA will document the reasons for, the amount requested and the
cash flow needed for release of grant funds. AIDEA, in its sole
discretion and subject to Board approval, will determine the timing
and amounts of any release of grant funds.
All grant funds shall be segregated from other CEA funds by placing
the grant funds in separate specified interest bearing accounts
(“grant accounts”), The funds and interest earned on the funds may
only be used for project expenditures.
All earnings on the grant funds shall remain in the grant accounts and
shall not be disbursed without prior budget approval by AIDEA. CEA
shall provide monthly reports on the grant accounts’ activity,
including interest earned, amounts expended and available balances.
The funds shall be invested to earn the maximum interest possible
considering the project cash flow needs.
SENT BY:
for
8-15-96 ; 9:24AM ; CHUGACH ELE™™""C>
Eugene Bjornstad
July 31, 1996
Page 2
Ss CEA shall monthly pravide reports on the scope of work, project
budget, expenditures, progress, schedules and any exceptions to the
budget and schedules. (Updates in the format of those reports
currently being provided to AIDEA will satisfy these requirements.)
AIDEA approval is required prior to the expenditure of funds in excess
of budgeted amounts or use of contingency funds.
The audit requirements of 2 AAC 45.010 apply. The audit for each
preceding calendar year shall be submitted to AIDEA no later than
April 15 each year.
In the event the project is terminated and funds remain, the funds
shall be returned to AIDEA.
The release of funds under this procedure does not constitute a
waiver of the general procedure established in Section 4.03 of the
Gran Administration Agreement.
lf the above conditions are acceptable to CEA, please note your acceptance in the
space provided below and return a signed copy to AIDEA. AIDEA will wire funds
to the grant account(s) designated by CEA based on approved individual requests.
Sincerely yo
William R. Shell
Executive Director
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. agrees to the above conditions.
Eugen
ey Gee
ornstad
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, inc.
1# 3/3
April 29, 1996
Southern Intertie Status
The 1993 legislation appropriated $46,800,000 as a grant for the Southern Intertie.
Subsequently, AIDEA authorized by Resolution GS 95-20, $900,000 of the grant funds for
Route Selection studies.
Phase 1A Route Selection of the Southern Intertie is essentially completed. A Final Report will
be issued in May 1996. The prime participants in the work were Chugach Electric Association
(CEA), Power Engineers, and Dames and Moore. The objectives of Phase 1A were to identify
the most viable routes for the Intertie, the most significant environmental constraints, and
major technical concerns. These objectives have been accomplished. Public meetings have
been held with effected communities. The work is within budget and expected to be
completed for a total cost of less than $900,000. The major results of Phase 1A were:
ils The three (3) most viable routes were identified. These are the Tesora Corridor,
the Enstar Corridor, and the Quartz Creek Corridor. Each has minor variations
to the routing.
2 The estimated cost of the total project, depending upon the final routing, varies
from $85 to 135M.
3. The major technical issue appears to be the feasibility and location of a
submarine cable crossing of the Turnagain Arm or Cook Inlet, depending on the
route selection. The termination facility for the submarine cable of the Intertie in
the Anchorage Bowl and subsequent routing to the connecting substation is of
lesser technical and economic importance but raises considerable local
Anchorage concern.
CEA is now proposing to start the next phase which includes the environmental impact
statement and preliminary engineering. The next phase is to analyze the three routes using
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. CEA has assumed that an EIS will be
required. All three routes will be analyzed in parallel. This is a conservative and reasonable
approach. It is anticipated that the Rural Utility Service (RUS) will be the lead review agency
for the EIS. The preliminary engineering include system and configuration studies,
hydrographic and geotechnical studies, preliminary engineering of the submarine cables, cable
transition site selection, and substation design. This stage is anticipated to start in May 1996.
The completion milestone would be the receipt of the EIS Record of Decision (ROD) for the
preferred route. This is scheduled for June 1998.
Funding for this phase will be provided by the State grant and is estimated to be about
$3,500,000. A new AIDEA resolution will be required to authorizing use of these grant funds.
Considerations include:
1. For some AIDEA projects a reimbursement agreement is required which
requires the developer to refund all State moneys if the project does not
proceed. Since the project is funded by a State grant and since there was no
reimbursement agreement on the Northern Intertie, it would seem unreasonable
to impose such a reimbursement requirement on the Southern Intertie.
However, the Southern Intertie will be controversial due to Federal and State
land and National Wildlife crossings. Due to the nature of the Southern Intertie
project, project completion is not assured. Significant grant funds would be at
risk.
2s AIDEA must release the $3,500,000 funding prior to start of this stage in May
1996. While it might be prudent to release the funds in stages, depending upon
completion of milestones, the project approach is not conducive to a definitive
scope with milestones. The plan must be flexible and easily altered so as to be
responsive to the environmental concerns raised in the review and hearing
processes. Ultimately the only milestone of consequence is the ROD.
3. During the public meetings there were several comments regarding the
feasibility of the Intertie and what effect it would have on rate payers, particularly
in the CEA territory. While this was addressed in the late 1980’s and early
1990's in several reports, these reports and the data base used for the reports
is considerably out of date. AIDEA suggested to CEA that such an economic
feasibility analysis be added to this next stage to reaffirm the project viability.
CEA agreed to consider this request.
4. The 1993 legislation contemplated a Southern Intertie ownership structure
where the Intertie would be owned by CEA for the benefit of the participating
utilities. Subsequently, the Participating Utilities agreed that both the Northern
and Southern Intertie ownership would be shared. Ownership agreements were
formed but many issues remain unresolved. While the Northern Intertie has
completed most of their environmental work and preliminary engineering,
ownership issues including cost and benefit sharing remain to be resolved.
AIDEA placed a condition that no funds for procurement or construction would
be released on the Northern Intertie until these issues were resolved. On the
Southern Intertie, the ownership issues will not arise until the Northern Intertie
ownership is resolved. There currently are no significant ownership issues but
may arise once procurement and construction starts or if the Northern Intertie
ownership structure changes. AIDEA should decide an approach on the
Southern Intertie regarding the timing for a resolution of ownership issues.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed.
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
% AND EXPORT AUTHORITY =, ALASKA
im ENERGY AUTHORITY ———————————————— _—_
480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 269-3000 FAX 907 / 269-3044
MEMORANDUM
TO: William R. Snell
Executive Director
FROM: Dennis V. McCrohan, P. WA
Deputy Director - Energy
DATE: April 15, 1996
SUBJECT: Southern Intertie Stage 2
| have reviewed the Southern Intertie status for the upcoming meeting. The objectives
of the next stage of the project are to obtain the ROD, define a preferred corridor,
develop a reasonable cost estimate but not necessarily a definitive construction cost
estimate, and develop an implementation schedule. The status is:
1. Power is asking to proceed with the full EIS analysis for all three favored
corridors. These are Turnagain Arm/Bird Point, Enstar Corridor, and
Tesora Corridor.
2 Environmental activities will include the field reconnaissance data
collection. No met stations or permanent facilities are envisioned. The
environmental work will be data review and correlation, analysis, and
modeling of impacts.
3. Preliminary engineering is expected to be limited to underwater cable
routing and associated geotechnical analysis and drilling, and some
definition of onshore facilities such as underground corridors in Anchorage
and onshore underwater cable terminals. Preliminary engineering would
be providing a definition for the environmental analysis and to produce a
conceptual cost and schedule for each corridor.
4. Anticipated schedule for this stage is 30 months commencing in June
1996. The estimated cost is $3.5M which is consistent with the overall
project budgets.
Memorandum
April 15,1996
Page 2
5. The EIS scope includes the scoping meetings with the agencies and the
numerous general public information and comment meetings.
6. Land acquisition activities are limited to definition of land parcels and
requirements to gain access for necessary environmental reconnaissance
work.
The scope of work appears quite reasonable and prudent for this stage of the project.
While the release of funds might be staged, the scope does not lend itself to interim
measurable milestones nor staging. The only possible reduction could be the
elimination of a corridor such as the Turnagain Bird Point corridor. So, | believe that a
full release of the $3.5M is appropriate. Any reimbursement agreement would be
contrary to policies set for the Northern Intertie and might be opposed by the IPG on the
grounds of fairness.
My main concern which is not related to the environmental current scope comes from
the comments in the Anchorage public meeting on the Southern Intertie, our HCCP
experience relative to project benefits, and our experience on the Sutton Glennallen
Intertie. In simple terms, the first attack of the opponents to the Intertie was that the
Intertie is not justified economically. The impacts to the ratepayer are not quantified.
There is no clear reason why the Intertie is being built. These criticisms will persist and
cannot be solved by environmental studies.
In my review of the past reports it is evident that the Southern Intertie achieves its
economic benefits from reliability considerations such as reduced outages and reduced
spinning reserve which the utilities tend not to carry anyway. These are qualitative and
very subjective. The capital cost estimates thus have a very large effect on the benefit
cost ratio of the project. Some of the previous reports show benefit cost ratios as low
as .6 for the Southern Intertie. These reports are outdated. The fact is that no recent
assessment of benefit costs has been made. | believe CEA is greatly exposed to
criticism that the Intertie will not provide any benefits and will simply add cost to the
CEA ratepayers. | would strongly recommend that an economic benefit cost review be
undertaken as soon as possible on the project.
In private discussions with Power Engineers, they concur that the economic benefits
must be re-done and had recommended a new analysis to CEA. To date, CEA has not
responded but Power feels that the IPG opposes such evaluation.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed.
cc: Daniel W. Beardsley
DVM:ks
h\all\dvm\aidea\ceat
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT * oo = ALASKA
@@E _=ENERGY AUTHORITY
480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 561-8050 FAX 907 /561-8998
January 18, 1996
Mr. Eugene N. Bjornstad
General Manager
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 196300
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300
Subject: Southern Intertie Audit
Dear Mr. Bjornstad:
As requested by your letter of January 11, 1996 AIDEA, as the grant administrator
for the Southern Intertie, waives the requirement for Chugach Electric Association
to obtain an audit under the terms of the Grant Administration Agreement, Section
5, 2 AAC 45.010 and AS 37.05.030. Staff consulted with the Department of
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget concerning the
applicability of a waiver. Since Chugach only expended $72,000 within calendar
year 1995, and AIDEA did not make any reimbursement for those expenditures
within that calendar year, the grant expenditures and disbursements for the
Southern Intertie did not exceed $150,000, the threshold for an audit.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
WRS:bijf
h:all\beardsle\dword\aea\ipglt002.doc
cc: Gary Anderson, Office of Management & Budget
Dave Calvert, IPG Chairman
bec: Dennis V. McCrohan, Deputy Director - Energy
Valorie F. Walker, Deputy Director - Finance
Dan Beardsley, Contracts Manager
Why an Intertie? 3) Slo LV
The electric utilities serving the interior and southcentral ari
Jntertie Participants Group (IPG). The seven utilities that f 4) Fda
connected to provide efficient service to customers in the region. The proposed Soutnern
Intertie will provide an additional connection between IPG utilities to improve reliability of
service and efficient distribution of power.
Project Overview
The existing transmission line between Kenai and Anchorage is prone to outages and is limited
in its capacity to transfer energy; installation of a second line will improve reliability and
increase the transmission capability of the electrical system. The proposed Southern Intertie
Project will specifically provide a more efficient distribution of electricity between the Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project on the Kenai Peninsula and the rest of the Alaska Railbelt.
Study Approach
On behalf of the IPG, Chugach Eleccric Association is
directing engineering and environmental studies for the
proposed project. These studies are being performed by
POWER Engineers, Dames & Moore and other local
consultants. The project team is beginning a
transmission line siting study, and input from the
public, special interest groups, and public agencies is a
critical part of the planning process. This is the first of
several opportunities for public involvement in a two
part process. Two open houses will be held to explain
the project and the process (see schedule below). At the
same time, the public will have an opportunity to comment
on che values and criteria that will be used to help identify route alternatives that will be studied
during the next step of the planning process, The next step is to conduct engineering and
environmental studies to determine the feasibility of alternatives indentified.
Siting Process
Open House
You are invited to open houses at the locations listed below. Representatives from Chugach Electric
Association, POWER Engineers and Dames & Moore will be available to answer questions and
describe the project in detail. In addition, a formal presentation will be conducted at 7:00 p.m.
which will focus on the current phase of the project.
Anchorage Soldotna
Loussac Library Kenai Peninsula Borough
Assembly Chambers Assembly Chambers
3600 Denali Street 144.N. Binkley Road
January 31, 1996 February 1, 1996
5:30 - 9:00 PM 5:30 - 9:00 PM
If you have any comments or questions, or know of someone who would like more information on the project please contact:
Dora Gropp Niklas Ranta
Chugach Electric Association Inc. or Dames & Moore
800-478-7484 800-909-6787
907-762-4626 907-562-3366
7 = len, DON 06.. 4