Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
S Intertie RUS Delay 1996
coRulay Dams © OME August 19, 1996 Vong Ms. Dora Gropp a em) fi Show Manager, Transmission & Special Projects Oe Chugach Electric Association 5601 Minnesota Drive, Building A ape Anchorage, AK 99519-6300 Project : 120376-01 Southern Intertie Project Chugach Contract # 95-208 Subject: Scheduling Implications of RUS Delay as Lead Agency Dear Ms. Gropp, The purpose of this letter is to outline the impact of continued delay from RUS agreeing to be the Lead Federal Agency for the Southern Intertie Project. The issues associated with not having a lead agency at this time include: e A lead federal agency is required in order to issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) and hold Public Scoping Meetings. These meetings are important to the process of confirming alternatives and identification of issues. e Delays in establishing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) [between RUS and cooperating agencies] and delays in the establishment of an Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) are requiring informal communication with agency representatives in order to confirm our field investigation approaches. Our schedule as submitted with our proposal assumed that scoping meetings would be held by October, and that MOUs would be developed through November after public scoping. If RUS formally becomes a lead agency by mid-September, public scoping could be conducted in late October, and we could maintain our schedule. However, if delays continue beyond mid-September, and public scoping does not occur before mid-November, we will have completed our inventory and will begin the impact _assessment of alternatives without formal agency direction. In addition, we will also be proceeding with public involvement through a community working group without a formal tie to scoping and the ID Team. 4134 The risk of not having the lead agency, cooperating agencies, MOUs, and scoping prior to TF pam nition get HLY 23-324 POWER Engineers, Incorporated oo \Deu W4 3040 Glenbrook Dr. * P.O. Box 1066 Phone (208) 788-3456 Hailey. Idaho 83333 Fay (208) 788-2082 5 : i i August 19, 1996 Chugach Electric Association Page 2 ¢ as we proceed, there is always the chance that additional alternatives could surface, e additional data could be required, and e the process will lose credibility. In summary, our recommendation is to strongly encourage the Borrowers, Homer Electric and Golden Valley, to firmly request funding in order to establish a definite “Action” with RUS by the end of August. This should satisfy the RUS requirements and allow RUS to become the Lead Federal Agency for the Southern Intertie Project by mid-September. Please contact Tim Tetherow at Dames and Moore or myself for further discussion concerning this important issue. ae Zz Randy Pollock, PE Project Manager cc: Tim Tetherow - D&M Mike Walbert - PEI Project File ti TENGINEERS Fl 5o € ’ . then Gubte dre RUBINI & REEVES 601 WEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 500 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE (907) 258-6866 TELECOPIER (907) 258-6721 JONATHAN B. RUBINI OF COUNSEL TO SUSAN E. REEVES FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN THOMAS P. AMODIO ECEIVE JUL 30 i896 Alaska Industriel Development VIA FAX 269-3044 and Export Mr. Dan Beardsley port Authority AIDEA 480 West Tudor Anchorage, AK 99503 Lia) Dear Mr. Beardsley: July 29, 1996 I quickly reviewed your letters to CEA regarding the release of grant funds for the Southern Intertie, and I offer several comments: a) Paragraph 2 should make explicit that interest earnings are also dedicated for project purposes. (E.qg. The funds and any interest earnings may only be used....). b) While I recognize that the release make obvious business sense, and that oversight controls are in place, I observe that the funding methodology is different than that envisioned under Section 4.03 of the Grant Administration Agreement (which contemplates payment upon review of invoices). As I don’t recommend a formal (and permanent) amendment to the Grant Administration Agreement, one option to consider is for the letter to specifically state that the "advance release" procedure established for this immediate scope of work does not constitute a waiver of the general procedure established in Section 4.03. Please call if you would like to discuss this any further. JBR:ljs CHUGACHh ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. JUL 26 1998 July 24, 1996 striat Development VIA Fax Line: (907) 474-0549 Alaska Indu Alaska Electric Generation & and Expo Transmission Cooperative, Inc. 1018 Galena Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 rt Authority Attention: Mr. Robert Hufman, Executive Manager Subject: Southern Intertie, Preliminary Engineering and NEPA Process System Studies - Meeting on August 6, 1996 Dear Mr. Hufman: Enclosed is a copy of topics our consultants would like to discuss at our August 6 meeting. Please, review these as well as the scope of work now included in the contract (copy attached). Steve Hagenson has provided comments on the pre and post contingency transfer limits, which I have also included for your information. The meeting is scheduled from 10:00-12:00p in Chugach's Building G Training Room. A business lunch will be brought in. We may want to discuss the level of detail to be addressed and investigated at this stage. We are still dealing with 3 - 4 alternative routes with 2 different termination points on Kenai and 5 possible termination locations in the Anchorage area. The first studies indicated, that the electrical performance of the routes was not significantly different. If we take into consideration that the preferred/proposed route will be determined by the NEPA process over a time period of about 2 years, we may want to give preference to determination of transfer capacity and compensation type and location rather than the development of precise design data for all possible alternatives. If you would like to discuss any of the topics prior to our meeting with the consultants, please, let me know. You can reach me __ by telephone (907) 762-4626, facsimile (907) 562-0027 or by E-mail addressed to dora_gropp@chugachelectric.com. Sincerely, Dora L. Gropp, P.E. A Shs, pike Pie na Manager, Transmission DLG/ahw (C\ANNALISA\WPDOCSE939008 | \PHIB\TECOMOL LTR Enclosures Cs Dennis McCrohan, AIDEA Moe Aslam, AML&P 5601 Minnesota Drive * PO. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 --- ANT £49 FWaNA ~ CAV ANT_FAYD NNYT Southern Intertie Route Selection Study - Phase 1B W.0.#E9590081 Subject: System Studies - Meeting on August 6, 1996 Preceding letter addressed and sent to IPG Technical Committee as follows: Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc. Attention: Mr. Robert Hufman, Executive Manager 1018 Galena Street Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Anchorage Municipal Light and Power Attention: Mr. Tim McConnell, Power Management Manager 1200 East First Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 City of Seward Light & Power Division Attention: Mr. Dave Calvert, Utility Manager P.O. Box 167 Seward, Alaska 99664 Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System Attention: Mr. Frank Biondi, General Manager P.O. Box 72215 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Attention: Mr. Steve Haagenson, Manager, Engineering Services P.O. Box 71249 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707 Homer Electric Association, Inc. Attention: Mr. Don Stead, Manager of Power Production 3977 Lake Street Homer, Alaska 99603 Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. Attention: Mr. Jim Hall, Staff Engineer P.O. Box 2929 Palmer, Alaska 99645 Tale 9A 100K Task 7 Studies Objective: Determine system components and operating limits for two (2) additional end-points in Anchorage, three (3) battery energy storage (BES) alternatives, and application of transfer tripping of Bradley Lake to improve system stability. Approach: In order of priority: The following tasks are prioritized from the most important to the least important. Tasks will be accomplished in the order of priority. If additional study is required to complete a higher priority task, the effort on lower priority tasks may be reduced or eliminated at that time, if the information is not critical to completion of the study and EIS. 1. Perform steady-state power flow analysis of the existing 115kV intertie at 10MW load increments above 70MW (up to 120MW) to determine reinforcement requirements and evaluate secure and pre-contingency emergency transfer limits. 2. Prepare a working Battery Energy Storage (BES) model and perform dynamic stability analysis to evaluate the use of this technology to increase power transfers on the existing 115kV intertie. 3. Evaluate the use of transfer tripping or frequency tripping of one Bradley Lake unit to improve system stability with increased power transfers over the existing intertie and alternatives to add a second intertie. 4. Analyze the Quartz Creek-Bird Point 138kV alternatives, using steady-state power flow software, with two additional endpoints in Anchorage to determine secure transfer limits. 5. Perform N-1 outage analysis of the two additional endpoints to establish pre- contingency secure and post-contingency emergency transfer limits. 6. Prepare a supplemental systems study report to summarize the analysis, equipment requirements and conclusions. Subtask 7.1 Alternate Load Studies Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Pre-contingency secure and emergency transfer limits for the existing intertie, alternative endpoints and BES alternatives. Description: Continue steady-state analysis of alternatives from the previous study. 28 - WORK PLAN HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (6/10/96) ab Refine the system models to reflect established ‘normal’ generation dispatch for the Railbelt system. Schedule and attend a one day meeting with IPG representatives to agree on generator dispatch schedules and operating issues to reflect how the system will actually be operated with and without the improvements. Generator dispatch should reflect practical aspects of dispatch based on the economics of operation. Evaluate and comment on how the ‘normal’ dispatch compares with generation schedules used in the previous analysis. Perform load flow runs to evaluate terminating the Quartz Creek alternatives at ML&P Plant 2 and APA Anchorage Substation. Alternative analysis will be performed for 138kV and 230kV. Other alternatives will not be evaluated since the endpoints will not change. Evaluate the impacts to the parallel route alternatives transfer limits for constructing the overhead portions of the line at 230kV spacing with the lines energized at 138kV. Define steady-state transfer limits of the existing 115kV intertie with incremental improvements to increase power flow from 70MW to the maximum amount practical. Increments will be evaluated in 10MW steps to determine required equipment improvements to increase the power flow. Evaluations will include incremental reinforcements and losses. Re-evaluate and refine ratings of reactive compensation required for the alternatives. Revise equipment requirements for the reactive compensation and develop preliminary equipment requirements for installing a transfer trip scheme to Bradley Lake Hydro. Subtask 7.2. System Outage (N-1) Responsibility; POWER Deliverable: Existing intertie, alternative endpoint and BES alternative pre- contingency and post-contingency emergency transfer limits Description: Perform N-1 contingency analysis for incremental reinforcements of the existing 115kV intertie and the Quartz Creek alternatives with the two additional endpoints to determine steady-state performance under single contingency outage conditions. Single contingency outages will be limited to the contingencies evaluated in Phase | of this study. Evaluate N-1 cases with power transfers at the pre-contingency limits to determine bus voltages and line loading. Increase power transfers for the most severe HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (06/10/96) ab WORK PLAN - 29 component outage case to determine the post-contingency transfer limit to remain with the ASCC voltage criteria. Subtask 7.3 Dynamic Stability Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Additional dynamic stability analysis Description: Perform dynamic stability analysis of the existing intertie with the incremental power flow increases to determine the dynamic response to the disturbances evaluated in Phase 1. This evaluation will include detailed analysis of the use of transfer trip of one Bradley Lake unit to balance Kenai generation and load during loss of the existing intertie with high power transfers. Consult with PTI to get the BES models included with PSS/E version 23 to operate properly for multiple BES installations. Perform analysis of the Railbelt System with additional BESs located on the Kenai and in Anchorage. Battery Energy Storage will be evaluated at three points on the Kenai and at one point in Anchorage. Kenai BESs will be located at or near Soldotna, Bradley Lake and Kasilof. BESs in Anchorage will be located at International Substation. ML&P Plant 2 is not considered due to possible control interaction with the proposed Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage System (SMES) system to be installed at that location. Budgeting Basis: We have budgeted up to a maximum three days of PTI time to assist in getting the BES models functioning correctly. Subtask 7.4 Supplemental Studies Report Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Draft and final report section to summarize the methodology, analysis, findings and conclusions of the additional power flow, dynamic stability and system operation studies. Predecessors: | Subtasks 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 Description: Prepare narrative, tables, one-line diagrams and cost estimates to summarize the transfer ratings and analysis for: 30 - WORK PLAN HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (6/10/96) ab - e Two additional endpoints in Anchorage for the Quartz Creek — Bird Point alternative at 138kV and 230kV e Increases of the power transfer over the existing intertie in 1|OMW increments from 70MW to 120MW e BES alternatives at three locations on the Kenai and one location in Anchorage e Transfer tripping on Bradley Lake unit to enhance system stability on loss of the intertie e Operational issues regarding generator dispatch and system configuration Budgeting Basis: e POWER will issue 10 copies of the draft report for the IPG review and comment. IPG comments will be discussed in a teleconference, agreed items will be revised in the report, and a final report section issued as an addendum to the route selection study report. Subtask 7.5 Inductive Coordination Studies Responsibility: POWER Deliverables: e Inductive coordination summary report of calculations and findings e Recommended design parameters Description: Contact each pipeline, utility and/or communications utility along the proposed routes. Determine the amount of interference allowable and accordingly the required separations to pipelines or other utility facilities. Develop a summary study report that outlines recommended design parameters and practices. Budgeting Basis: ¢ Contact with the pipeline and other entities will be handled via telephone. No site visits or trips to pipeline companies or foreign utilities’ offices will be required. HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (06/10/96) ab WORK PLAN - 31 Subtask 7.6 EMF Calculations Responsibility: POWER/ENERTECH Deliverable: EMF data consisting of EMF models, text and graphs or charts for inclusion in the EIS, and RFI/TVI and audible noise analysis. Predecessors: e Overhead line preliminary designs e Underground line preliminary designs e System studies Description: Prepare 2-D EMF models for overhead and underground lines. Prepare text and supporting graphs or charts for inclusion in the EIS. Also included will be radio interference/TV interference, and audible noise analysis. Budgeting Basis: e Analysis will be done for up to three current levels at 138kV and 230kV for the following (a total of up to 54, 2-D EMF calculations): - overhead lines using guyed X structures - wood pole H frame structures - wood pole H frame structures parallel to the Quartz Creek line - single pole, single circuit structures - single pole, double circuit structures (if needed) - single pole, single circuit structures with distribution underbuild (if needed) - single pole, single circuit structures next to underground (if needed) - underground lines - Bird Point to Girdwood lattice structures Up to nine supporting graphs or charts for inclusion in the EIS Up to four full size drawings for public meeting exhibits Attendance by Mike Silva at one set of three public hearings Preparation of text for EIS presentation Subtask 7.7. — Cathodic Protection Responsibitity: POWER/Cathodic Protection Services Deliverable: ¢ Cathodic protection summary report and findings e Recommended design parameters 32 - WORK PLAN HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (6/10/96) ab Description: Contact each pipeline company in the area of the proposed routes and determine type of cathodic protection used on facilities, location of anode beds or other grounding methodologies. Determine minimum acceptable spacing from pipe line based on protection requirements for overhead line, land cable and submarine cable. Compile and summarize findings and recommended methods of mitigation to existing cathodic protection facilities. Budgeting Basis: e No time or expenses have been budgeted for office visits to the associated pipeline offices outside of Anchorage. Additionally, no budget has been allocated for fees that may be imposed by the pipeline companies in researching files, reproducing information or mailing data. HLY 55-0510 120376-01 (06/10/96) ab WORK PLAN - 33 SINT BY: 7-23-96 ; 3:40PM ; POWER ENGS ‘*'NEX~ 907 562 0027;# 1/ 8 c QRDOMWER ENGIN EEFIS Facsimile Cover Sheet Project No.: 120376-01-23-07-01 Original To Follow Via U.S. Mail: Yes 3 NoO Total Number Of Pages, Including This Page: 7 July 23, 1996, 03:14 PM To: Ms. Dora Gropp - Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Fax No.: 907-562-0027 Subjcct: Southern Intertic - IPG Studies Meeting Agenda Please call me at (208)788-0353 with any questions or clarifications regarding this agenda. Regards, =G53005 A 18 Ron Beazer ce: Randy Pollock, Mike Walbert, Jerry Johnson PLEASE CALL THE FOLLOWING NUMBER IF FACSIMILE |S INCOMPLETE OR ILLEGIBLE: (208) 788-0353 POWER Engineers, Inc, + 3940 Glenbrook Drive - P.O. Box 1066 - Halley, Idaho 83333 (208) 788-3456 - Fax: (208) 788-2082 = SOUTHERN INTERTIE ROUTE SELECTION STUDY - PHASE 1B SYSTEM STUDIES MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 6 & 7 1996 Our meeting to discuss System Study Issues is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, August 6th and the morning of Wednesday, August 7th, if required. The following issues need to be clarified prior to continuing with the Southern Intertie System Studies: 1. Discuss and receive direction from all IPG member engineering staff regarding proposed generation scheduling for the system models in PTI. To this point, the generation schedules for the Railbelt were arbitrarily modified to achieve the expected transfer of 12SMW from the Kenai to Anchorage, and to determine the intertie transfer limits if all available generation on the Kenai was transferred to Anchorage. At this time, we need to form a consensus of which generation in Anchorage or Fairbanks would be backed off to allow the available capacity on the Kenai to be transferred north. Attached are the generation schedules that were used in the PTI databases provided to POWER and the proposed generation schedules to be used in the continuing studies, 2. Discuss the ASCC transfer criteria to determine how the Pre-contingency and Post- contingency limits arc applied to the system for this study. The pre-continyency transfer limits considered both the existing and the ncw interties in service while the post-contingency transfer limits only include the existing intertie remaining in servicc. Is this acceptable to all parties or are there other configurations which should be considered? 3. Discuss and agree on proposed locations in Anchorage and on the Kenai for construction of the proposed Battery Energy Storage systems. Could there be benefits of locating the BES closer to Homer rather than Soldotna, considering line loading? Where is real estate readily available for the installation? 4. Discuss and agree on sites to consider for the additional / alternate endpoints for the interties in Anchorage. These are presently considered to be the ML&P Plant 2 bus and APA Anchorage 11SkV bus. 5. Discuss the application of a transfer trip scheme to trip one Bradley Lake generator unit in the case that the new intcrtic opens under heavy load. What should be done to establish trip conditions at this time? Do we look at light/medium/hcavy loading and stability at this time, or should that be done once an alternative is selected? What are the potential pros and cons of communications paths? HLY 23-288 (7/23/96) 120376-01/th 07/23/96 TUE 02:03 [TX/RX NO 7143] Area Bus Name North FORT W. 1 (Fairbanks) |FORT W. 3 ORT W. 5 EIELSON.1. IELSON 3 IELSON 4 OF A1 OF A2 OFA3 CJeye]my mim Feat Tt N ELUGA3: ELUGA4G' 1; HLY 23-288-C (7/23/96) 120376-01/rh RAILBELT GENERATION 1997 AND 2015 CASES Page 1 R: (CHUGACH/EXCELL/GEN. XLS :A@ LNSS : WdT#:€ ! 96-€%-_ +XSN., SONI YaMOd 8 /€ #:21200 79S 206 96/72/20 £0:20 aNL [eel ON Xu/XL) RAILBELT GENERATION 1997 AND 2015 CASES J fae ees ane STIEQ7. SAV STIE1S.SAV Area__| Bus Name PMA] MW] MAR [MW] van [nn] MAR BELUGATG aa] aso] — 7500] 3708] — ro] 724] — 75.00 41.89 BELUGABG at raglan 50 —ananl sess) stan — sa sa sal — 30.00] —20 sof 2700] —ta 39| 27 on] — 13 30 ages eel Ona eazes oe aa a RADLYIG Laat esol —eogol ie 7ot se ool Zool as ool a7 praocvas | —— soa —“in0| — saan] — ol —ra | at] | sso) 29 D eoore | at aa eal 800] Pot 8 0of 0st al cours {ral 42] hal aan] 735] eof 07] — go 0 Tesonore| — sei] aioe — sail sol taal “are sg if a ae |_ 35.00] _ 1.90) Transfer for Original 1997 PTI STIE97.SAV case was 29.6MW Transfer for Original 2015 PTI STIE15.SAV case was 67. 4MW HLY 23-286-C (7/23/96) 120376-01/rh Page 2 R: ICHUGACH/EXCELL/GEN.XLS . Bus Name Bus # North FORT W. 1 121 (Fairbanks) [FORT W. 9 121 FORT W. 4 FORT W. 5 121 is EIELSON 3 UOFA4 154 4.16 4.88{ 1.50] 0.80]___1.00) UOFA2 JUOFAZ | _154{ at] 12.50] 10.00 ICHENASG | __213) CHENA 6G EKLUT2G | 24 EKLUT 1G ELUGA1 ELUG. BELUGA3! o Qo & alalo ELU! BELUGAT! BELUG. F HLY 23-288-D (7/23/96) 120376-01/th PROPOSED GENERATION SCHEDULE FOR 1997 -125MW TRANSFER Voltage kV 9.8) 2:20.65 3.8 71.89 3: Es) N. POLE 1G 210] 13.8] 77.89[ 62.00] 34.80] as ale ain = ok Sad} ca} & 3 00}: O;D0}2:: a0 o.oo aod apo 68.89) 75.00 37.05 Page 1 4):0.00 20.00 RACHUGACH/EXCELL\IPROGEN97.XLS *A@ LNAS ‘ Wd@b:€ $ 9g-Ez-L ©XAN» SONS YaMOd 8 /S #!2200 29S L0G ee PROPOSED GENERATION SCHEDULE FOR 1997 -125MW TRANSFER Voltage STIE97.SAV_ | ____sNEW97__| Gen. Change __JSpinning | ava [| ee | ea te ST eee PLNTZ 36 oo etal eo tot aes Pat oso at LNT26G [601] 13.8] 38.82[36.00f 20.50] 27.00] 13.32{ 20.00] 13.32] -7.00]_ 16.00) LNT2 7G eT ese sea 8 19a ae ade fy PUNT 8G eS eee G3} is 8 i RADLYIG Sot tea —saoel cecal ta70l 8.00] zoo sooo 2001} toto RADLY2G SS ee ee ee BOO read rere RTE Too esc [a7] eal svat ao] —tg0o|__rono] amet zon] oo] sent 0m IBERN4G | 68] 13.8] 29.60] 26.00] 13.90] 0.00] [coopic —|_7a] 42] 6.33] 6.00} 7.33] 600] 0.57 00] 0.57] jcoop2G | 7a] 4 t8.33] oof 7.33] oo] o.57] Of 57] peooRore | eet _2sa} sa} oof gots tool 375t__tof ISOLDOTIG | 9994] 13.6{ 45.29 36.00] 19.70) tt |__| roms a aaa Faitbeniy ff | teas 7} 300.bat 210.82} 103.30] 39.62{ 183.20) 90.02 |__ 30.64} anchorage [|__| __{ _|_a71 13} 905.00] 416.62} 474.08 474,09] 99.67| 378.59] 99.67 | __ 190.44) |__ 44.25] | _ 232.30) es a a 273.12| 249.00] 114.08[ 419.75] 14.71 210.75 1471 SYSTEM [$s sara 741.60[ 777.14] 154.19] 781.64] 154.19) Transfer for Original 1997 PTI STIES7.SAV case: 29.80 MW New expected (transfer = 129.60 MW MLY 23-268-D (7/23/96) 120376-O01/rh Page 2 R:A\CHUGACH/EXCELL\PROGENS7.XLS :490 INAS 96-€Z-2 ! WdeP:e : -XANNV-SONZ WaMOd 8 /9 #:!L200 z9S 206 PROPOSED GENERATION SCHEDULE FOR 2015 -125MW TRANSFER J Voltage [sated =~] SCSTIEMS.SAV = NEWS7 [| Gen. Change | q | wea | auename | ous | “ww” [aR [Add _| Reserve | Noth [FORTW.1 | 121] 12.4] 6.25 276] 450] 1.34450] 1.94 ary (Fairbanks) |FORTW.3 [| 121} 12.4] 6.25] i FORTW.4 | 121 12.4] 6.25] FORTW.5 | 12i{ 12.4] 6.25) EIELSON 33 2 a 12.4 aE z, 7 CHENA 6G ;HENA 3 23 6 CHENA 36 : 88) p. 18Of se 7.12 00} 0.00 HEALY1G [37i{ 13.8] 29.44] 27.00] 15.50] 27.00] 4.82] HEALY 2G 38.40 |__ 13.53] PUMP RE SET enOo[ FEF 00 | FHFO.0 a 027, 3} 0) 00 00/8182 50:00} aMule! | 95005] 138] 570, ‘|_| _-2.00] P—0.09] femitia2—[—s6014| 13.8] 570] | | 200] 340} 2.00] sao] | |_| EKLUT2G_| 24] 6.8] 16.67] 16.00] 727] 16.00] 3.85] 1600] 3s] | J 000 EKLUT1G_| 26] 6.9 1667] 16.00] 7.27] 16.00] 3.65] 16.00] 3.85] | | 0.09 IBELUGAIG | tf 13.8 IBELUGA2G |_| 13.8) IBELUGA3G [13.83 [BELUGA4G: [2 4f) : 405 B50] 228225. : Rei eeH tH § BELUGASG | S| 13.8] 68.89] 68.00] 33.00] 65.00] 8.83] 52.50) BELUGAGG | 6] 13.8] 85.00] 75.00] 37.05] 75.00] 11.27] 75.00) IBELUGA7G [713.8] 85.00] 75.00] 37.05] 75.00 BELUGABG [8] 13.8] 68.89] 54.00) 30.03] 54.00] 9.99] 54.00) RACHUGACH\EXCELLIPROGEN15.XLS HLY 23-288-E (7/23/96) 120376-01/rh Page 1 :Ad@ INAS + 96-€Z-L ‘ : Wdbd:€ ~ONA YSMOd -XANN . 8 /L #:4Z00 Z9S L0G 96/£2/L0 £0:20 ANL [eptlL ON XY/XLI PROPOSED GENERATION SCHEDULE FOR 2015 -125MW TRANSFER i STIE15.SAV |_—_Newe/__|_Gen. Ghange_{Spinning_ | pee! OO} 850,00]: 0.005: a ET VTA RC CE PUNT26G | 601, 13.8] -38.82| 36.00[ 20.50] 27.00) PLNT27G | 602] 13.8] 110.56] 85.00] 49.70] 60.00) pxiea | oe el eam mallee puniot aie eto a 19.70{ 45.00] RADLYZG sel — iol sao som — 7] spool 2 cool 2 “ko sewvse—|67| ts | 29.60 26.00] 13.00] 2500), BERN 4G | 68] 13.6] 29.60] 26.00] 13,90] couric [ral 4 a3a| 00] 733] 00] o9[ 00] a 2.00] 733 eon] 08] 00]. TesoROTE| to [375] 150] 375180 7a] — 35] tof — saan} 0 Transfer for Original 2015 PTI STIE15.SAV case : 67.40 am New expected transfer = 127.40 MW HLY 23-288-E (7/23/96) 120376-01/rh Page 2 RACHUGACH\EXCELLIPROGEN15.XLS some. SUN 25 796 11:42AM GVEA INEERING P.1/7 GOCDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION INC. Box 71249, Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-1249, Phone 907-452-1151 TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL aa DATE: ne 2 199 TELECOPIER NUMBER: 907 62=- 7 PLEASE DELIVER TO: Dora_ Gropp a COMPANY : Chugach Ele¢etric TELEPHONE NUMBER: (907) 563-7494 FROM: Steve Haagenson PAGES TO FOLLOW: 6 (EXCLUDES THIS COVER SHEET) REE EEE EEE EEE EEE EE EEE EEE EEE EER KEKE AKER KE KEK IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THIS TRANSMITTAL, PLEASE CALL: LORA BUNTZMAN, (907) 452-1151, EXTENSION 241 BERK EEE EEE HE KEE KEE EEE EEE EEE KE EEE EEE ERKEEREEEEEKEEEEEEEEEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE REPLY TO: ENGINEERING TELECOPIER (907) 451-5638 GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. June 25, 1996 TO: Dora Gropp FROM: Steven Haagenson RE: Southern Intertie - Scope Comments Here are some thoughts on the Power Engineers Scope for the Southern Intertie. Task 7 - Studies: Steady State load flows are not adequate for determination of secure transfers on the Railbelt system. Attached is a April 4, 1994 memo from John Doudna which may help define the appropriate system conditions for the transfer limits. Generally all emergency limits can be determined by load flow models, and all secure limits are determined by transient analysis, with verification of the transient solution with post disturbance load flows. N-1 analysis must be conducted using transient analysis, and show the loss of the device or line, and the system response from N to N-1 condition. This is how you determine if the system response is stable, up to the secure transfer limits. Tripping of a Bradley unit for over frequency excursions assumes that the both units are running, and that the remaining unit can respond to the remaining load after the first unit has tripped. All these conditions need to be analyzed under transient conditions. 06/24/96 MON 23:41 [TX/RX NO 6568] PR-14 -Q7UNTeS, 96 _ 14: 4280) cVRA”“INEERING FAX NO. 918 "*" 2086 B37 POWER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Westem Office FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 775 Sunrise Avenue Fax #: (916) 783-2086 Suite 210 Total Pages: 39 Roseville, CA 95661 Tel #: (916) 783-2081 TO: Steve Haagenson COPIES TO: FROM: John Doudna DATE: April 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Study Results Attached al some summaries, power flow and dynamic simulation results for Healy- Fairbanks-Intertie Options 2a, 5 and 7. This material identifies the system additions and compensation considered in each option and indicates the transfer capability of each option. The transfer capability provided by each option is given in the following form: ° Steady-state, system-intact, emergency limit . Pre-contingency, secure limit for Fairbanks import - Post-contingency, steady-state emergency limit for Fairbanks import - Pre-contingency, secure limit for Healy import ° Post-contingency, steady-state emergency limit for Healy import The pre/post-contingency limits for the Fairbanks import are based on the loss of the proposed Healy-Fairbanks line. The pre/post-contingency limits for the Healy import are based on the loss of the proposed HCCP unit at full output. The limits identified are based on assumed parameters and characteristics for the various system equipment additions. Thus, these results should only be considered preliminary. As plans are solidified, specific equipment additions identified and more detailed analysis is performed, these identified limits may vary to some degree. Please advise if you have any questions concerning these latest results or would like to discuss them in more detail. 7 - aos ites vy cuuy aoe, Summary of Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Capability Option 2a Additions & Compensation ° -10/+60 Mvar SVC at Sub X (Wilson) ° -10/+60 Mvar SVC at Sub Y (south of Cantwell) ° 100 MVA 230/138 EV transformer at Teeland - +25 Mvar tertiary-connected shunt capacitor at Teeland Capability e Steady-state, system-intact, emergency import limits of 184 MW into Fairbanks and 129 MW into Healy based on network solution limitations. 2130 MW pre-contingency, secure Fairbanks import limit based on loss of Healy- Sub X line with all generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. 131 MW post-contingency, emergency Fairbanks import limit after loss of Healy-Sub X line with all generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. 57 MW pre-contingency, secure Healy import limit based on loss of HCCP unit with only Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. 130 MW post-contingency, emergency Healy import limit after loss of HCCP unit with only Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. 06/24/96 MON 23:41 [TX/RX NO 6568] PR-L4-QUN'BS YBE? if zeit ve] *HYINEERING FAK NO, 9°" "2086 POY 4 Summary of Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Capability Option 5 Additions & Compensation . 40 MVA (4-quadrant) battery energy storage unit at Sub X (Wilson) Capability ° Steady-state, system-intact, emergency import limits of 153 MW into Fairbanks and 94 MW into Healy based on voltage limitations at Douglas. ° 140 MW pre-contingency, secure Fairbanks import limit based on loss of Healy- Sub X line with all generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. . 823 MW post-contingency, emergency Fairbanks import limit after loss of Healy-. Sub X line with BES at 40 MW output, but all other generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. ° 79 MW pre-contingency, secure Healy import limit based on loss of HCCP unit with only Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. ° 92 MW post-contingency, emergency Healy import limit after loss of HCCP unit with BES at 40 MW output and Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. ACD LP JUN CD SD 11°4SHI' GVEH CINCLYCEKLING PARA lu “"N ‘Hh LZU50 reprtay a4 Summary of Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Capability Option 7 Additions & Compensation ° -10/+60 Mvar SVC at Sub X (Wilson) ° New 230 kV line from Teeland to Douglas e Douglas to Healy line operated at 230 kV 8 280/138 kV transformer at Healy Capability ° Steady-state, system-intact, emergency import limits of 185 MW into Fairbanks and 130 MW into Healy based on network solution limitations. . 130 MW pre-contingency, secure Fairbanks import limit based on loss of Healy- ‘Jub X line with all generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. = 133 MW post-contingency, emergency Fairbanks import limit after loss of Healy-Sub X line with all generation in the Fairbanks area off-line. . 79 MW pre-contingency, secure Healy import limit based on loss of HCCP unit with only Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. ° 135 MW post-contingency, emergency Healy import limit after loss of HCCP unit with only Chena 5 on-line in the Fairbanks area. 06/24/96 MON 23:41 [TX/RX NO 6568] JUN 25 796 11:43AM GVER “'SINEERING HF138ONE.XLS PCat NORTHERN INTERTIE Suostation and Reactive Compensation Option List Battery Rating Original Storage DGS to Wilson Option #6b MVA | Base Case } Option #5 230 KV 230 KV OGS to HLS Option #6c $5.000 $6,438 Ft. Wainwright Sub. [te $489 Static Var System 40 $3,565 Wilson Sub. $4,000 Static Var System 60 Battery Energy Storage 40 $24,000 xfmr Reoctor Gold Hill Sub. SVC Control Change INKL Nenana Sub fo Static Var System 40 Mini-comp 3 Healy Sub $3,625 SVC Control Change Static Var System $5.463 Iii xfmr $1,000 Cantwell Sub — xfmr $800 $800 Igloa‘Sub i Static Var System 60 Stevens Sub | xfmr $800 $800 Minl-comp Douglas Sub. $875 $875 x Estimated Construction Costs | 21.505 | s28.489 [$19,738 | TRANSFER LIMITS 1 Steady State Emerg. Into Fbks (MW) 183 - 165 2 Steady State Emerg. into Healy (MW) 94 - 103 3. Pre-contingency. Secure into Foks (MW) 125 x 140- 125- 4 Post-contingency. Emerg. Into Foks (MW) 89 132 § Pre-contingency, Secure Into Healy (MW) 100 x 79- 65 6 Pcst-contingency, Emerg. Into Healy (MW) 92 104 x=non-secure ** Losses for Transfer Limits (MW) into Healy ee. 4.6 1.8 Losses for Transfer Limits (MW) north of Heo! 4.5 6.0 2.4 *"Losses are estimated at the Pre-contingency Secure Transfer Levels Option Ranking by Engineering Committee 1 2 0 Teeland Sub Static Var System aa $11,499 Fixed Copacitor Bank fr Page 5 ee fmr I Min-comp nag nse Pn ao Loe | $18,538 162 103 125 129 57 104 1.3 3.2 3 Gre fee CHUGACn ELECTRIC > ASSOCIATION, INC. ae . EGEIVE/) June 12, 1996 JUN LE °2o “Via Fax Line: (907) 269-3044 Alaska Industria! Developmef#ardcopy to follow, U.S. Mail) and Export Authority Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie, Engineering Services Funding of Environmental Investigations and Preliminary Engineering Dear Mr. Snell: We understand that AIDEA’s Board of Directors has approved continued funding of the engineering services associated with the NEPA process for the Southern Intertie. On June 11, 1996 the IPG has authorized Chugach Electric to negotiate an amendment to its contract with Power Engineers for the performance of the work. With the 1996 field work as the most urgent tasks, we have authorized Power Engineers to proceed with the work under the terms of the existing contract, while amendment details are being finalized. We are confident that all documents will be in place within the next 4 to 6 weeks. Cash flow requirements for the remainder of 1996 have been estimated at: $1,011,724 for the period from July 1 to September 30, 1996, and $ 859,553 for the period from October 1 to December 31, 1996 $1,871,277 for the remainder of 1996 We request that sufficient funds be advanced to Chugach to cover these anticipated expenditures. Sincerely, Ue rea PO ecg a 2 A Dx ane Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager /ENB:ahw c:\ General Managers, IPG Lee Thibert Mike Massin oe Griffith Mike Cunningham W.O. E9590081, Sec., 2.1.1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive « PO. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 1 oo. 06/11/96 TUE 17:05 FAX 7624693 CEA ENGINEERING . _ CHUGACH ELECTRIC aS June 11, 1996 VIA Fax Line: (208) 788-2082 (Hardcopy to follow, U.S. Mail) POWER Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1066 Hailey, Idaho 83333 Attention: Mr. Randy Pollock, P.E. Subject: Southern Intertie - Chugach Contract #95-208 Environmental and Preliminary Engineering Work Dear Mr. Pollock: This letter will serve to notify you that Chugach intends to negotiate an amendment to subject contract for work described in your proposal of April 15, 1996. The amount authorized by the IPG for this amendment is not to exceed $3,043,423. We expect to work out the details of this amendment within the next few weeks, but understand that critical activities for this summer have to be initiated now. We therefore authorize you to | proceed with these activities immediately under the terms of the contract presently in force. nag ae i TO: IPG Utility General Managers June’ 11, 1996 ofa wy N. Bjornstad = General Manager ARGST R. Hofman {907} 474-0536 AML&P T. Stahr 263-5204 EN nah Seward D. Calvert (907) 224-4038 EMUS F. Biondi (907) 451-4410 5 - « “Gera Mages 10 ee we William Snell, AIDEA MEA W. Carmony (907) 745-9328 Bob Martin Mike Cunningham Lee Thibert AIDEA W. R. Snell 269-3044 Mike Massin Dora Gropp W.O. E9590081, Sec. 7.1.4.1 RF \ 5601 Minnesota Drive » P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 » FAX 907-562-0027 [6/11/96 5:15p @oo1 06/11/96 TUE 17:05 FAX 76 33 CEA ENGINEERING 5 a ) cosets eee el IN June 11, 1996 VIA Fax Line: (208) 788-2082 (Hardcopy to follow, U.S. Mail) POWER Engineers, Inc. P.O. Box 1066 Hailey, Idaho 83333 Attention: Mr. Randy Pollock, P.E. Subject: Southern Intertie - Chugach Contract #95-208 Environmental and Preliminary Engineering Work Dear Mr. Pollock: This letter will serve to notify you that Chugach intends to negotiate an amendment to subject contract for work described in your proposal of April 15, 1996. The amount authorized by the IPG for this amendment is not to exceed $3,043,423. We expect to work out the details of this amendment within the next few weeks, but understand that critical activities for this summer have to be initiated now. We therefore authorize you to proceed with these activities immediately under the terms of the contract presently in force. Sincerely, Conen~ \. a i: TO: IPG Utility General Managers June'11, 1996 Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager ARGET R. Hufman (907) 474-0536 | AML&P T. Stahr 263-5204 EN sahw Seward D. Calvert (907) 224-4038 | FMUS F. Biondi (907) 451-4410 | 5 -' c: “General Managers, IPG A i Beocy eorhemeaets William Snell, AIDEA MEA W. Camony (907) 745-9328 Bob Martin Mike Cunningham Lee Thibert AIDEA W. R. Snell 269-3044 | Mike Massin | Dora Gropp W.O. £9590081, Sec. 7.1.4.1 RF a . ee ! 5601 Minnesota Drive » P.O. Box 196300 + Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 CHUGACi1 ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ¥Y 23 1995 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority May 21, 1996 VIA Fax Line: (907) 269-3044 (Haracopy to follow) Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie - Funding for the NEPA Process Dear Mr. Snell: The route selection effort, which we began in November 1995 with our consultants POWER Engineers and Dames & Moore is coming to its conclusion with the preparation of final reports due in early June. The studies performed so far will serve as a base for the upcoming EIS preparation. Continuation of the project will now lead to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Some major tasks to accomplish this include: . Determination of a Lead Agency - Formation of the Inter Agency Team - Scoping Meetings . Field Work to supplement the Environmental Inventory - Hydrograhic Field Work and Studies to verify the feasibility of Submarine Crossings . Prepare Draft and Final EIS POWER Engineers/Dames & Moore have submitted a proposal for this work in response to a request by the IPG. Costs are estimated at $3,347,765. This proposal was presented to you and your staff on April 16, 1996. Overall costs of this phase of the work are estimated at $4,200,000 and include an update of the economic analysis of the project originally prepared in 1991 as well as project management costs and a 10% contingency for all activities through the completion of the EIS process. A Record of Decision (ROD) is anticipated between September 1998 and February 1999 if full use can be made of the 1996 summer field season. Any delays in these critical activities are expected to postpone the ROD by a full year. 5601 Minnesota Drive « PO. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 Southern Intertie - Funding for the NEPA Process May 21, 1996 Page 2 of 2 A more detailed cost estimate and cash flow projection is attached and we request that funding be made available for the activities described. The work will not proceed until the IPG has concurred. We have scheduled an IPG meeting for May 23, 1996, where POWER’s proposal and contractual matters pertaining to it will be discussed. At this meeting we would like to be able to advocate approval to the participant’s governing bodies for work contemplated with the assurance that AIDEA will make the necessary funds available. Sincerely, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. TA aecue conntt General Manager ENB/DLG:ahw Attachment: Cost estimate. c: Dennis McCrohan, AIDEA General Managers - IPG Michael Massin Lee Thibert Joe Griffith John Cooley Dora Gropp W.0.#E9590081, Sec., 2.2.1.1 RF SOUTHERN INTERTIE - EIS FUNDING |SOUTHERN INTERTIE - EIS FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AND CASH FLOW |, FUNDING REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTIACTIVITY START FINISH COST CONTINGENCY TOTAL NEPA PROCESS 5/1/96 9/14/98 $3,043,423 $304,342 $3,347,765 LEAD AGENCY 6/1/96 9/14/98 $100,000 $10,000 $110,000 ECONOMIC FEASIBIL. 6/1/96 10/1/96 $200,000 $20,000 $220,000 PROJ. MANAGEMENT 5/1/96 12/31/98 $400,000 $40,000 $440,000 TOTAL $3,743,423 $374,342 $4,117,765 Il, CASH FLOW CONTRACTIACTIVITY TOTAL CONTINGENCY 1996/3 1996/4 1997/1 1997/2 1997/3 1997/4 1998/1 1998/2 1998/3 1998/4 NEPA PROCESS $3,347,765 $304,342 $821,724 $669,553 $456,513 | $304,342 | $243,474 | $182,605 | $152,171 | $121,737 | $60,868 | $30,434 LEAD AGENCY $110,000 $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ECONOMIC FEASIBIL. $220,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PROJ. MANAGEMENT $440,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 TOTAL $4,117,765 $374,342 $1,011,724 $859,553 $496,513 | $344,342 | $283,474 | $222,605 | $192,171 | $161,737 | $100,868 | $70,434 Page 1 05/21/96 08:15 FAX 907 562 6994 CEA EXECUTIVE Ob (3 oo CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. May 21, 1996 VIA Fax Line: (907) 269-3044 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie - Funding for the NEPA Process Dear Mr. Snell: The route selection effort, which we began in November 1995 with our consultants POWER Engineers and Dames & Moore is coming to its conclusion with the preparation of final reports due in early June. The studies performed so far will serve as a base for the upcoming EIS preparation. Continuation of the project will now lead to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Some major tasks to accomplish this include: . Determination of a Lead Agency - Formation of the Inter Agency Team - Scoping Meetings . Field Work to supplement the Environmental Inventory - Hydrograhic Field Work and Studies to verify the feasibility of Submarine Crossings . Prepare Draft and Final EIS POWER Engineers/Dames & Moore have submitted a proposal for this work in response to a request by the IPG. Costs are estimated at $3,347,765. This proposal was presented to you and your staff on April 16, 1996. Overall costs of this phase of the work are estimated at $4,200,000 and include an update of the economic analysis of the project originally prepared in 1991 as well as project management costs and a 10% contingency for all activities through the completion of the EIS process, A Record of Decision (ROD) is anticipated between September 1998 and February 1999 if full use can be made of the 1996 summer field season. Any delays in these critical activities are expected to postpone the ROD by a full year. 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 [5/21/96 8:24a 05/21/96 08:15 FAX 907 562 6994 CEA EXECUTIVE ooz Southern Intertie - Funding for the NEPA Process May 21, 1996 Page 2 of 2 A more detailed cost estimate and cash flow projection is attached and we request that funding be made available for the activities described. The work will not proceed until the IPG has concurred. We have scheduled an IPG meeting for May 23, 1996, where POWER’s proposal and contractual matters pertaining to it will be discussed. At this meeting we would like to be able to advocate approval to the participant’s governing bodies for work contemplated with the assurance that AIDEA will make the necessary funds available. Sincerely, Eugene (DQ pjomaad General Manager ENB/DLG:ahw Attachment: Cost estimate. c: Dennis McCrohan, AIDEA General Managers - IPG Michael Massin Lee Thibert Joe Griffith John Cooley Dora Gropp W.0.4E9590081, Sec., 2.2.1.1 RF 5/21/96 8:24a SOUTHERN INTERTIE - EIS 5/16/96 FUNDING SOUTHERN INTERTIE - EJS [ FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AND CASH FLOW ‘s |. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS c CONTRACTIACTIMITY START FINISH cost CONTINGENCY TOTAL amy NEPA PROCESS 5/1/96 9/1478! $3,043,423 r $304,342 $3,347,765 = ia LEAD AGENCY GH1I96 9/14/98 $100,000 | $10,000 $110,000 {— ECONOMIC FEASIBIL. 66 10/1796 $200,000 $20,000 [ $220,000 PROJ. MANAGEMENT EEA 12/31/98 $400,000 $40,000 $440,000 1 4. TOTAL ; $3,743,423 | $374,342 $4,117,765 1 i 4 + + E i, CASH FLOW | | CONTRACTIACTIVITY TOTAL, CONTINGENCY 1996/3 1996/4 1997/1 1997/2 | 19973 | 1997/4 | 19981 | iSser2 | 199873 | 1998/4 INEPA PROCESS 33,347,765 C $304,342 $821,724 $669,553 $456,513 | $304,342 | $243,474 | $182,605 | $152,171 | $121,737 | 360,868 $30,434 LEAD AGENCY $710,000 | $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ECONOMIC FEASIBIL. ‘$220,000 $20,000 $100,000 $100,000 | # 30 $0 30 $0 30 30 $0 PROJ. MANAGEMENT $440,000 $40,000 $40,000 | $40,000 $40,000 | $40,000 | "$40,000 |” $40,000 [$40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 |" $40,000 TOTAL $4,117,765 $374,342 $1,011,724 $659,553 | $496,513 | $344,342 | $283,474 | $222,605 | $192,171 | $161,737 | $100,868 | $70,434 Page 1 96/12/80 F669 29¢ 406 XV4 ST:80 HALLNOSXA VAO s00R Dhoune tiie , “ CHUGACh ELECTRIC y Gis 3 N ASSOCIATION, INC. kectric 4% int eee 0) VIA Fax Line: (907) 561-8998 iaska a Development Hardcopy to follow, U.S. Mail) and Export Authority April 18, 1996 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie - Aerial Photography Additional Work Dear Mr. Snell: Power Engineers/Dames & Moore have submitted a proposal to perform the engineering and environmental services necessary to prepare an EA/EIS in compliance with the NEPA process. This proposal with an overall budget of $3,347,765 was presented to you on April 16, 1996, and is being transmitted to the IPG today. As we discussed, it will be important to move ahead with the work under consideration so we can make full use of this summer for the necessary field work. During our analysis of the work required it became evident that aerial photography must be completed before the leafs come out. Utility and AIDEA approvals are not anticipated to be given in time to perform this work in a timely manner and we therefore propose to add the photography to the route selection work presently under way. Aerial photography and contact prints are estimated to cost $30,000 and would be reimbursed from the allocated contingency fund for the Power Engineers contract ($45,000 left). A budget increase will not be necessary. In order to allow Power to schedule the flights and take advantage of the short time available, we would need to authorize this work within the next few days. Your approval and response via FAX is therefore appreciated. I have already obtained verbal approval from AEG&T, HEA, MEA, ML&P, SES and FMUS. I have anticipated GVEA will concur. CONCURRENCE: ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PORT ORITY William R. Snell, Executive Director Date 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 * FAX 907-562-0027 April 18, 1996 Page 2 of 2 Concur in using approximately $30,000 from contingency funds of Power Engineers’ contract to accomplish aerial photography and contact prints for the Southern Intertie proposed routes. IPG CONCURRENCE: ALASKA ELECTRIC GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE, INC. Robert Hufman, Executive Manager Date ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT AND POWER Thomas R. Stahr, General Manager Date CITY OF SEWARD, LIGHT AND POWER DIVISION Dave Calvert, Utility Manager Date FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYSTEM Frank Biondi, General Manager Date GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Michael P. Kelly, General Manager Date HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Norm Story, General Manager Date MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Wayne D. Carmony, General Manager Date We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Sree Mb ett General Manager ENB:DLG/ahw Ce e Thibert Michael Massin Dora L. Gropp IPG W.O. E9590081, Sec., 2.1.2.1, RF x x x X x x x x X x x x x x ODDO ROO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OCA OOOO OO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOK X XK ; POL x TRANSACTION REPORT x a APR-18-96 THU 15:37 x x SEND (M) x x DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP x or) OMT ES Be inisid a nS NIN NISLANe aE lerSeaee k APR-18 15:36 95620027 57” | 3 SEND (M) OK 062 —x m x TOTAL 57S PAGES: 3 x x SOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO COO OOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO OOOO KK XK ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT * AN eran aneonery /=, ALASKA ME ENERGY AUTHORITY Time: 2S _D-m. Number of pages including cover page: ies Tranemittal Contents: 480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 269-3000 FAX 907 / 269-3044 Facsimile Transmittal fy zt . TO: Jer. ) hel U Fax #: DOGR-OOR anya); fp From: ilo le HS he Date: = 1£ -96 i ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY =_ ALASKA @@m_ ENERGY AUTHORITY 480 WEST TUDOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 907 / 269-3000 FAX 907 / 269-3044 Facsimile Transmittal 4 ‘ 2 oe TO: Ya ] a A A Leal Fax #: DGR-O0OLT AT Tiel ||| oe y From: ta fee ui pae € Date: J-/£-96 9 Time: reese Number of pages including cover page: Ute Transmittal Contents: Comments: Notice: This facsimile may contain confidential information that is being transmitted to and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. Reading, disclosure, discussion, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information by anyone other than the named recipient or his or her employees or agents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately destroy it and notify us by telephone, (907) 269-3000. H/all/cheryl/fax/one.doc 20:6 96/ee/ | 4 GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Office of the General Manager P. O. Box 71249 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-1249 FAX: 907-451-5633 PHONE: 907-452-1151 EACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: April_22, 1996 PLEASE DELIVER TO: SEA MEE ee erg a go ORGANIZATION: __ ATDRA FAX # 269-3044 PHONE # FROM: __Mike Kelly NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 Please ¢all (907)452-1151, Ext. 203 if you do not receive the number of pages listed. E/t*d NOILYSLSINIWGb BSAD We6Pi2B 96. de Udd 820%6 96/22/47 | U4716/96 “LHL 14:55 FAL 76286 CBAI RNGINERRING muUuz ANA eee CHUGACH ELECTRIC Gin ASSOCIATION, INC. keine é 00: Alb tte. Sdaage? Lslerae/ April 18, 1996 (a3 VIA Fax Line: (907) 561-8998 a to fellow, U.S. Mail) Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Auchorage, Alaska 99503 cy sy a AGES ; Attention: Mr. William R, Snell, Executive Di a <2/) es Subject: Southern Intertie - Aerial Photography ; th Additional Work Dear Mr. Snell: Power Enginsers/Dames & Moore have submitted a proposal to perform the engineering and environmental services necessary to prepare an BA/BIS in compliance with the NEPA process. This proposal with an overall budget of $3,347,765 was presented to you on April 16, 1996, and is being transmitred to the IPG today. As we discussed, it will be important to move ahead with the work under consideration so we can make full use of this summer for the necessary field work. During our analysis of the work required it became evident that aerial photography must be completed before the leafs come out. Utility and AIDEA approvals are not anticipated to be given in time to perform this work in a timely manner and we therefore propose to add the photography to the route selection work presently umder way. Aerial photography and contact prints are estimated to cost $30,000 and would be reimbursed from the allocated contingency fund for the Power Engineers contract ($45,000 left). A budget increase will not be necessary. Tn order to allow Power to schedule the flights and mke advantage of the short time available, we would need to authorize this work within the next few days. Your approval and response via FAX is therefore appreciated. 1 have already obtained verbal approval from AEG&T, HEA, MEA, ML&P, SES and FMUS. I have anticipated GVEA will concur. CONCURRENCE: ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY William R. Snell, Executive Director Date 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 * Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-663-7494 » FAX 907-562-0027 Ev2*d NOILYSLSINIWds USA WH6Ps2G 96. 22 Ydb £2076 96/22/97 ae wersaree mu AS eRe Pee ade QU a ave April 18, 1996 Page 2 of 2 Concur in using approximately $30,000 from contingency funds of Power Engineers’ contract to accomplish aerial photography and contact prints for the Southern Imertie proposed routes. IPG CONCURRENCE: ALASKA ELECTRIC GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE, INC. Robert Hufmen, Executive Manager Date ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL LIGHT AND POWER ee Thomas R. Stahr, General Manager Date CITY OF SEWARD, LIGHT AND POWER DIVISION Dave Calvert, Utility Manager Date FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES SYSTEM Frank Biondi, General Manager Date Norm Story, General Manager Date MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Wayne D. Carmony, General Manager Date We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. podour. Michael Massin Dora L. Gropp IPG ——-W.O. E9SPOOB2, Sees, 2.1.2.1, RF EvE*d NOILYYLSINIWGY YSA9 WHaSs24G 96. 22 Ydd To: Wilson HUGHES From: CICE | fax: 258-9614 2/9/96 11:05:21 Page 1 of2 Shasnr- Ky, ‘ - . 4 frahe a co Dan 6 /emaneite +91" 2; KAW David Rametrr ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS of ALASKA 4041 B STREET ¢ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 P.O. BOX 240609 « ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99524-0609 TELEPHONE (907) 561 5354 * FAX (907) 562-6118 This letter was sent to all boardmembers February 6, 1996 — | of electric utilities in the railbelt. aa ~ | ee ieee Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Anchorage, AK 93 Re: Norther and Souther INTERTIE PROJECTS f Dear AGC of Alaska is a non-profit organization that serves 550 contractors and associates in Alaska. One of our most important principles is the use of OPEN COMPETITIVE BIDDING for construction projects. We are aware of the upcoming INTERTIE PROJECTS in which 7 utilities, including your own, are involved. | think that everyone agrees that such construction projects should show the best cost/benefit ratio possible, and that the consumer’s/owner’s interest is the most consequential aspect of any decision reached by a Board or Assembly. It is therefore, very important which method of contracting is used. There is no doubt that open competitive bidding is the best way to ensure the lowest cost with the best achievable quality. The owner has the right to define all details and standards of work, methodology and progression and to remain in control during the whole project duration. Competence of a potential contractor can be established through a pre-qualification process based on experience, bonding capability, state licensing and use of state licensed electricians and technicians. Davis-Bacon wages ensure that the workers receive fair pay and benefits. Also, work conditions, and health and safety requirements are guaranteed through Dept. Of Labor regulations. There is extensive information to show that competitive bidding is the best way to get top value. Before us now are some provisions in a “Memorandum of Understanding’ in regard to a “PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT." AGC of Alaska has and is in opposition to such PLAS because they create a monopoly which in effect eliminates free open bidding and therefore competition. Without doubt this creates higher costs. It also raises the question of fairness among the trade unions. Should one union have exclusive rights over others? The present provisions do exactly that and cross the traditional labor jurisdictional lines. FAIRBANKS SOLDOTNA P.O. BOX 60005 « FAIRBANKS, AK 99706 P.O. BOX 350 * SOLDOTNA, AK 99669 (907) 452-1809 (907) 262-2485 —$——————— $e To: Wilson HUGHES From: CICE | fax: 258-9614 2/9/96 11:06:37 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 The issue of “Local Hire” is often stated as a great benefit resulting from PLAs. Regardless if a PLA exists or not, there is every incentive for a contractor to hire qualified local residents. Generally they are less expensive, since travel and living expenses are not necessary compared with. non-Alaskans. In addition, all electricians and plumbers have to be licensed by the State of Alaska in order to work in these trades. Our membership is not anti-union; in fact our members are close to 50/50 “open shop” and union. | am fully aware of the pressure you are under and | do not need to remind you of your sworn duty as a member of the governing body to uphold the rights and interests of the consumers. You have to act prudently and in a case like this, seriously consider the established principles | of free enterprise and competition. If you fail to do so you may expose the utility and yourself = personally to the consequences of liability. Another matter of concern is the “anti-trust” implication in such a case. Since this is primarily a legal matter | am sure you can get sufficient advice from your attomey. Our members want to see these projects go into construction and are looking forward to participating as competing contractors. If you have any questions or would like to have additional information or details, please call me. Sincerely, ey Heinrich Springer Executive Director ------ wae ee rete wy vu ACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. G January 11, 1996 2) > Alaska Industrial Development B . L Et / and Export Authority pee 480 West Tudor a Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Dire. ior Subject: Southern Intertie - Audit Requirements Dear Mr. Snell: Section 5 of the Intertie Grant Administration Agreen _nt of August 30, 1994, requires that the Participating Utilities, through the IPG, perform an a. .ual audit on recipients of grant funds. For the Southern Intertie, the first audit would be for %¢ 1995 calendar year and a report would be due by April 15, 1996. Audit costs are estimated at about $3,000 to $8,00C . ~ we assume that the costs would be covered by grant funds. The provisions of 2 AAC +. .010 apply to expenditures or reimbursements of $150,000 or more within one ycar Grant funds were transferred to us on January 10, 1996, and the first draw was not made . _! that time. At year end total expenditures were just under $72 0° ) out of which $43,000 represents the first consultant invoice, Due to the late start and low .penditure level of this project during the past year I am requesting a waiver of the audit re. \irement for 1995 on behalf of the IPG. Sincerely, Eugene N. Biornais ¢ General Manager ENB/ rahw c:\a\wydocs\E9 59008 ! \audit. itr cc: Robert Hufman, AEG&T Thomas Star, AML&P Dave Calvert, City of Seward Frank Biondi, FMUS Michael Kelly, GVEA Norm Story, HEA Wayne Carmony, MEA Mike Massin Mike Cunningham Dora Gropp W.0.E9590081, Sce., 2 2.: RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O, Box 196300 « Archorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Pnone 907-563-7494 e FAX ‘ 27-562-0027 a ga es | ASSOCIATION, INC. gach ASSOCIATION, INC. January 3, 1996 “VIA Fax Line: (907) 561-8998 (Hardcopy to follow, U.S. Mail) Alaska Industrial Development Alaska industria! Development and Export Authority and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie - Route Selection Services Bird Point Crossing Alternative Dear Mr. Snell: During our last meeting on December 6, 1995, we briefly discussed an alternative route for a new transmission line, which would cross Turnagain Arm between Sunrise and Bird Point. We have asked Power Engineers to investigate the impact on the present scope of work and the project budget if we add this alternative to the ones originally identified. Power estimates that for an additional $30,183 they can include the route with the crossing in the selection study and environmental report. Additional time will not be necessary if we can authorize them to proceed by January 10, 1996. We could add this alternative to the scope of work if the IPG members agree to the additional cost. It would demonstrate that the alternative has been dealt with when the final selection is made. Please, indicate your agreement with the proposed action by signing on the appropriate line and returning a FAX copy of the authorization. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our Project Manager, Dora Gropp. Dora can be reached at 762-4626. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, CONCURRENCE: Cie iets eh William R. Snell, Executive Director Date General Manager ENG/DI/G:ahw c:\a\wpdbcs\E959008 | \enb1296.wpd ce: Lee Thibert Michael Massin W.O.#E9590081, Sec., 2.1.2.1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 ¢ FAX 907-562-0027 CHUGACH, ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Cikin ASSOCIATION, INC. November 17, 1995 D CPR AWE Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority ig 480 West Tudor Road Alaska Industrj Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6690 and Export "velooment Avitha,; YInority Attention: Mr. William R. Snell, Executive Director Subject: Southern Intertie - Route Selection Dear Mr. Snell: The Intertie Participants Group authorized Chugach Electric at its meeting on November 6, 1995, to enter into a contract with Power Engineers to perform route selection services for the Southern Intertie for an amount not to exceed $754,812. The scope of work was modified from that proposed by Power to include an Environmental Report. Power has assured us that additional funding will not be necessary for this report. We are presently in the process of preparing the contract documents for execution, but have authorized Power Engineers to proceed with preliminary work to allow early completion of the determination of suitable alternatives. It is our understanding that AIDEA has approved the increase in funding needed to $900,000 to allow these studies to go forward as contemplated. We would like to thank you for your cooperation in these matters and request that AIDEA coordin r. e funds with our Comptroller, Mike Cunningham. Sincerely, Se MN ewe Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager ENB/DE.G:ahw c:\a\wpdogs\dlg\intertie\aideaenb.wpd Attachment: Scope of Work cc: W.O.#L9400625, Sec., 2.2.1.1 RF 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 © FAX 907-562-0027 i Ill. WORK PLAN Introduction This section contains our Work Plan prepared specifically for the Southern Intertie Route Selection Study. The Work Plan provides a detailed breakdown of the tasks required to complete the work. It explains how we intend to accomplish the work and what deliverables will be provided. Our Work Plan serves as the foundation for project scheduling, budgeting and control. It organizes the work into discrete, well defined elements, which allows Chugach Electric and POWER to effectively track and manage the project. The Work Plan is organized into tasks consisting of related units of work. The tasks are further broken down into subtasks, each of which contains a specifically defined unit of work. A description of the tasks and subtask organization follows: Task components e Objective: A brief statement of the objective of the task. e Approach: Key points which summarize the approach taken to performing the work included in the task. Subtask components Responsibility: Indicates the firm and individual who is responsible for the work to be performed under the subtask. Often the responsibility for a subtask is shared, and if so relevant parties are listed. Deliverables: Summarizes the drawings, reports, documents, or permits that result . from the subtask. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 1 Predecessors: Lists the task or subtasks that must be performed, the deliverables that must be completed, or information that must be acquired before the subtask can be performed. Predecessors that are common to all subtasks are listed here rather than repeated in each subtask. These are: — A signed contract and written notice to proceed. — Chugach Electric Association-approved project plan, consisting of work plan, schedule and budget This category is omitted from the subtask if no predecessors in addition to those listed above are required. e Description: Provides additional information about the deliverables to be provided and how we will accomplish the work. e Budgeting Basis: Describes the budgeting premises for the subtask. Variations from these premises may necessitate revisions to the project budget to reflect changes in the scope of work and/or level of effort required. Budgeting bases that are common to all subtasks are listed here rather than repeated in each subtask. These are: — Deliverables will be provided as listed under Deliverables and as described under Description in the subtask write-up. — The project schedule will be in conformance with the schedule contained in this document. — All documents and drawings will be in POWER’s standard format and use POWER’s typical details unless otherwise noted, or as mutually agreed with Chugach. This category is omitted from the subtask if no budgeting bases in addition to those listed above are required. Work plan review We invite you to review and discuss any desired revisions of this document with us before the project starts. This joint review will provide an opportunity to modify the work plan to best suit your project needs and will enhance coordination among all involved parties as the project progresses. 2- WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Task Outline Task Subtask Task Subtask Task Subtask 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 et 1.2 r3 1.4 1e5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 aot 22 2.3 2.4 2:5 2.6 Qe 2.8 ZS) 2.10 Zalil 212 2.13 2.14 Project Management Project Supervision Project Procedures Manual Project Control Document Control Project Reporting Project Review Meetings System Studies Data Acquisition Planning Criteria System Computer Model Alternative System Analysis System N-1 Outage Analysis Dynamic Stability Analysis Alternative Criteria Draft System Studies Section Report Final System Studies Section Report Preliminary Design Data Acquisition — Overhead Lines Design Criteria - Overhead Lines Preliminary Design — Overhead Lines Data Acquisition - Submarine/Underground Cables Design Parameters and Criteria — Submarine/ Underground Cables Prelim Investigation — Submarine/Underground Cables Data Acquisition — Substations Design Criteria — Substations Preliminary Design — Substations Data Acquisition — Reactive Compensation Design Criteria — Reactive Compensation Preliminary Design — Reactive Compensation Draft Design Section Report Final Design Section Report BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN - 3 Task Subtask Task Subtask Task Subtask Task Subtask Task Subtask 3.1 3.2 33) 3.4 3:5 3.6 3.7: 3.8 4.1 42 43 4.4 SEL Sz 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 4—WORK PLAN Environmental Study Start-up Study Area Inventory Siting Criteria Alternative Corridors Route Alternatives Corridor Analysis Draft Environmental Section Report Final Environmental Section Report Lands Rights/Regulatory Analysis Regulatory Analysis Right of Way and Permit Acquisition Draft Land/Regulatory Section Report Final Land/Regulatory Section Report Public Meetings/Agency Briefings Agency Contact Program/Agency Briefings Public Open Houses/Meetings Cost Estimates Cost Estimates — Overhead Line Cost Estimates — Submarine/Underground Cables Cost Estimates — Substations Cost Estimates — Reactive Compensation Cost Estimates — Right-of-Way Costs Draft Economic Section Report Final Economic Section Report Final Report Final Report BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pc Task 0 Project Management Objective: To facilitate completion of the project within Chugach’s budget, schedule, technical, and quality requirements. Approach: e Determine, with Chugach, an appropriate level of formal project reporting and management. e Select and maintain a project team that communicates freely and proactively with all project participants. e Develop a clearly defined, Chugach-approved project work plan, schedule, budget, procedures and communications protocol. e Document and implement a project management/control process. e Monitor project progress and coordinate/prioritize/redirect resources as required. e Identify and document potential work scope, deliverable, budget, or schedule variances and bring them to the attention of Chugach for discussion and resolution. e Provide support for design and field activities. Subtask 0.1 Project Supervision Responsibility: POWER (Randy Pollock) Deliverable: Project Supervision Description: Provide project supervision and coordination of project participants. Monitor the progress of the work, enforce compliance with procedures, require timely task completion, review status reports, and expedite the work by coordinating, allocating or redirecting resources. Require project execution in accordance with Chugach technical, quality, schedule, and budget objectives, the project plan and procedures manual, applicable codes, and POWER’s internal document and drawing standards. Identify risks, anticipate problems, and propose and implement plans to minimize negative impacts to the project. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 5 Provide general project administration, including clerical support as required to support and complete the project. Implement the agreed-upon project review, reporting, correspondence and general procedures. Solicit Chugach input on activities that affect the project or POWER’s performance. Conduct internal POWER project control and design review meetings as needed. Subtask 0.2 Project Procedures Manual Responsibility: POWER ( John McGrew) Deliverable: Project-Specific Procedures Manual Description: Revise POWER’s Standard Procedures Manual and develop an Chugach-approved, project-specific procedures manual. Establish the drafting and design procedures, contact and correspondence lists, and communications protocols. Include fiscal tracking and reporting procedures and control, quality assurance, administrative, communications and document flow protocol to be followed in all phases of the project for which POWER is responsible. Update the procedures as required to maintain current status. Subtask 0.3. Project Control Responsibility: POWER (John McGrew) Deliverable: Project Control Documentation Predecessors: e Chugach-Approved Project Procedures Manual 6 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Description: Develop and maintain the following project control documentation: e Project Plan: Chugach-approved and, if necessary, updated project plan consisting of a work plan, schedule and budget. e Budget Status: Monthly status reports providing summary and detail information on hours charged, expenses incurred, labor and expense costs, and percent of budget expended. e Deliverables Tracking Matrix: Spreadsheet style document to track deliverable progress and completion. Monitor tasks, subtasks, deliverables, action items, responsibilities, procedures, schedule and budget. Analyze project status. Subtask 0.4 Document Control Responsibility: POWER (John McGrew) Deliverable: Document Control System Description: Revise POWER’s standard document control system and develop an Chugach-approved project-specific system. Develop and maintain the following document control documentation: ¢ Document Control Policy: Procedure for handling, tracking and archiving project documentation contained in the project procedures manual. ¢ Document Log: Log incoming and outgoing documents in POWER’s computer database. e Document Archive: Archive original documents in a secure, fire-resistant room. e Project Record: Working file containing a chronological history of project progress, including status reports, correspondence, transmittals, phone and meeting documentation and other project-relevant records. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -—7 Subtask 0.5 Project Reporting Responsibility: POWER (John McGrew) Deliverable: Status Reports Predecessors: e Chugach-approved Project Procedures Manual e Project Control Documentation Description: Prepare monthly status reports. Summarize the previous month’s progress of the work, deliverables, schedule, costs, and major work items expected to be accomplished in the next month. Address problems, trends and/or delays, and the actions being taken to bring those areas back on schedule or budget. Submit monthly reports to Chugach and file the status reports in the project record and document archive. Subtask 0.6 Project Review Meetings Responsibility: POWER (Randy Pollock) Deliverable: Meeting Documentation Predecessors: e Chugach-approved Project Review Meeting schedule Description: Conduct Project Initiation Meeting involving Chugach, POWER, and other appropriate project participants. Establish communication protocol for all parties involved in the project, review project goals, identify areas of responsibility and obtain clarification in applicable areas. Schedule and conduct periodic Project Review Meetings with Chugach to review technical, project control, and community relations aspects of the project. Conduct informal POWER-Chugach telephone conferences on an as-required basis. 8 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Prepare agenda for each scheduled meeting, and compile and distribute telephone conference or meeting documentation. Follow up on action items. Develop action item lists to schedule completion of items not resolved at the meetings or during telephone conferences. Budgeting Basis: e Four project review meetings in Chugach’s office. e First meeting will be the Project Initiation Meeting and will be attended by the Project Manager and Contract Manager. Each of the three subsequent meetings will be attended by the Project Manager. e Project duration from November, 1995 to June, 1996. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 9 Task 1 System Studies Objective: Evaluate the existing interconnected Railbelt Transmission system and alternative routes for the new transmission tie line to the Kenai peninsula. Determine technically feasible alternatives for further consideration in the EA/EIS process. Approach: e Gather data required for the study. e Establish the alternative routes to be evaluated in consultation with Chugach. e Validate the existing 1997 and 2010 system data bases. e Evaluate the existing system to determine steady state power transfer capacities. e Model up to six new Southern tie line alternatives and determine the steady state performance, to include the necessary reactive compensation. e Evaluate the tie line alternatives to determine the steady state effects of single contingency line outages on the modified system. e Perform dynamic (transient) stability analysis to determine the system response to selected line faults and the associated line outage. e Summarize the data and analysis in a Study Section Report for review and ultimately approval by Chugach. Subtask es Data Acquisition Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Required Data Checklist Predecessors: e Notice to Proceed Description: POWER will prepare data request letters to itemize the data required to perform the load flow and dynamic stability study. The data request will be transmitted to Chugach within two working days after notice to proceed. Information required for detailed engineering analysis will include, but not be limited to, the following: 10 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe NE on 10. . Railbelt Transmission System PTI Data base (Power Flow, Dynamic Stability, and Results One-Line Diagram) Railbelt Transmission System One-Line Diagrams, marked-up to show the normal system switching configuration Results of recent voltage and current investigations Existing substation loading and power factor Chugach system load projections through 2015 by substation Substation one-line drawings, marked to show present status and equipment ratings Most recent three-year transmission line outage data with cause, if known Data regarding known transmission system modifications and time-frame Data regarding known weak links or choke points in the transmission system that should be considered in the analysis Locations and switching control parameters for shunt reactive elements within the Chugach system Review and become familiar with data provided by Chugach and others. Develop a filing system for the data. Determine if the data received is sufficient to perform the engineering analysis. If required, initiate requests for clarification or for additional data. It is strongly suggested Chugach collect this data prior to the contract award so the data can be made available to POWER immediately after written notice to proceed is issued. Work cannot begin until the data is delivered to POWER. Budgeting Basis: Data acquisition will be conducted by telephone, mail and during the Kick-Off Meeting. Power Flow and Dynamic (Transient) Stability data bases for the Railbelt Transmission System will be provided by Chugach in Power Technologies, Incorporated’s PSS/E format on 3-1/2 inch floppy disk. Subtask 1.2. Planning Criteria Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Planning Criteria BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN - 11 Predecessors: e System Data Description: Prior system studies will be reviewed and evaluated to assist in selecting alternative routes and areas to be included in the study. Develop up to six routes to be considered in the study, to include terminal substations, and the desired power transfer. Determine peak load and power factor projections for each substation, generation station, and the system. Review load projections for the study area and annual increases to be considered for future cases. Establish transmission line and power transformer loading and voltage criteria for normal and emergency operation. Establish criteria for analysis of N-1 (single contingency outage) cases. Discuss other criteria, such as application of reactive compensation, switching speed, and use of new technologies in system stability equipment (such as battery banks). Budgeting Basis: e Planning Criteria will be discussed and agreed to prior to performing the engineering studies. e One Senior Engineer will attend the one day kick-off meeting at Chugach’s offices, with a second day allocated for data gathering. Subtask 1.3. System Computer Model Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Verified PTI PSS/E data bases and results One-Line Diagram Predecessors: e PTI Data bases from Chugach e Existing System Diagrams e Known system upgrades e System Data Description: POWER will load the Railbelt Transmission System 1997 and 2010 data bases onto POWER’s in-house computer. We will then run the data bases and select the results to be output to the One-Line Diagrams. We will compare the model with the system data provided by Chugach to verify that all important lines and loads are properly represented for the normal system configuration. Finally, 12-— WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe the Southern Intertie alternatives will be modeled and added to the data bases. The 2010 data base will be particularly reviewed to verify that it accurately represents the future system. At each step along the way, the computer data bases will be logged and saved to disk to form a complete record of the cases analyzed. Case descriptions and identifiers will be documented for easy future reference. Budgeting Basis: ¢ POWER will load the data bases and run the existing system power flow using the 1997 system data base. e One run of the 2010 data base will be compared with the 1997 study case and data provided by the interconnected utilities to determine whether the database accurately reflects the future Railbelt Transmission System. e Once the future data base is verified to be accurate, we will add the Southern Intertie lines and update the system loads to reflect the 20 year future system. Subtask 1.4 Alternative System Analysis Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Alternative System Analysis Predecessors: e System Data e Verified Databases e Planning Criteria Description: POWER will model up to six alternative interties, to include upgrades to the existing system, and perform case runs to analyze the alternative’s technical performance. Sufficient ‘what if runs will be analyzed for each alternative to establish the required major equipment criteria and the resulting power flows, bus voltages and necessary reactive compensation to achieve a feasible system. Budgeting Basis: e We will analyze the steady state performance for up to six alternative routes or voltage classes for the Southern Intertie. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN - 13 e All pertinent transmission circuits and substation transformers will be evaluated for loading and voltage drop/rise. e Railbelt system loads will be as determined in the Planning Criteria. Subtask 1.5 System N-1 Outage Analysis Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: System N-1 Outage Analysis Predecessors: e Alternative System Analysis e Planning Criteria Description: POWER will perform steady state analysis of the six Southern Intertie alternatives to determine the resulting power flows, bus voltages and line/equipment loading during the “single contingency outage condition.” Up to twenty cases will be run with selected transmission lines and/or equipment removed from service to evaluate the system response to outage conditions. Note: These cases will need to be discussed and agreed to with Chugach, based on the alternative system configuration during the Kick-off meeting. Budgeting Basis: e POWER proposes to run twenty single contingency outage cases for analysis of the Southern Intertie alternatives. e Line outage cases will be determined from review of the critical areas found in the previous studies and from the Planning Criteria. Subtask 1.6 | Dynamic Stability Analysis Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Alternative System Stability Analysis 14 —WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Predecessors: e Alternative System Analysis e Alternative N-1 Outage Analysis Description: Selected Intertie alternative power flow cases will be supplemented with the Dynamic Stability data bases to evaluate the system response immediately following a disturbance. Output plots will be analyzed to determine whether the alternative remains stable with respect to the operating criteria requirements and whether generators connected to the system remain in synchronism with each other. Determine system improvements required to maintain overall system dynamic stability. Budgeting Basis: e A maximum of sixty dynamic stability cases will be analyzed for the Southern Intertie alternatives. e Plots will be output to illustrate relative generator phase angle and frequencies, selected bus voltage magnitudes, and megawatt/megavar flows immediately following system disturbances. e Cases analyzed will consider line outage contingencies, variations in fault clearing times, reactive compensation magnitudes and switching times, and generation scheduling. Subtask 1.7 Alternative Criteria Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Alternative Criteria Predecessors: e Alternative System Analysis e Dynamic Stability Analysis Description: Develop screening level tabulations of the equipment and transmission line required to construct each of the technically feasible Southern Intertie alternatives from the six studied. Equipment and material will be determined from the analysis and through discussion with Chugach/IPG staff. Prepare a single line diagram and two terminal general arrangement diagrams for each alternative to illustrate the equipment required. Equipment tabulations and . BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 15 diagrams will be used by POWER’s transmission and substation design groups to develop the Basic Design Criteria. Budgeting Basis: e Basic equipment and transmission line requirements will be determined from the system analysis of the six alternatives. e Required equipment will be determined for use in developing the Basic Design Criteria for construction of the alternatives. Subtask 1.8 Draft System Studies Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Draft System Studies Section Report Predecessors: e Planning Criteria e Alternative System Analysis e Dynamic Stability Analysis e Equipment Criteria Description: Prepare a Draft System Studies Section Report that includes all the analysis and studies performed in Task 1. Submit the Draft System Studies Report to Chugach and the IPG for review and comment. Budgeting Basis: e POWER will provide 29 copies of the Draft Studies Section Report for review and comment. e Report formats will be similar to that in reports previously submitted to Chugach and AEA on Intertie Studies. Subtask 1.9 Final System Studies Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Ron Beazer) Deliverable: Final System Studies Section Report 16 - WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Predecessors: e Draft System Studies Section Report comments Description: After receiving and reviewing the draft report comments from Chugach and the IPG, conduct a review of the Draft Design Section Report with Chugach and IPG to discuss and agree on modifications to the draft. Modify the draft, as required, to reflect agreed upon changes. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final System Studies Report Section of the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e Draft review will be via teleconference. e Draft review comments will be addressed in letter format within two weeks of receipt of the Chugach/IPG comments. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 17 Task 2 Prejiiminary Design Objective: Prepare a preliminary design to allow the comparative evaluation of the costs and impacts of the transmission corridor alternatives. Approach: e Collect the available data for use in developing the design criteria and preliminary designs for the transmission corridors. The transmission systems that will be studied for the transmission corridors include overhead lines, submarine/underground cable lines, substations and reactive compensation. e Develop and obtain approval of the design criteria for each of the transmission systems which will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. e Develop and obtain approval of the preliminary designs for each of the transmission systems that will be used to establish the feasibility of the transmission corridors. Subtask al Data Acquisition — Overhead Lines Responsibility: Dryden & LaRue (Del LaRue) Deliverable: Organized Data Description: Collect available data and reports to be used in developing design criteria and performing preliminary design. Data collected will include the following, some of which exists in house at Dryden & LaRue and POWER : e Cost Estimate Kenai/Anchorage and Healy/Fairbanks 138kV Transmission Line Interties - Alaska Energy Authority - Dryden & LaRue, March 1991 e Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study — Alaska Power Authority - POWER Engineers, May 1987 e Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt — Decision Focus, Inc., December 1989 e Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study —- Alaska Energy Authority, March, 1991 18 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pc e Rebuild of University to Quartz Creek 115kV Transmission Line — Chugach Electric Association — Basic Design Manual - Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, February 19, 1993 e Basic Design Data — 138kV Transmission Line, Beluga Project — Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1966 e Basic Design Review Report Beluga No. 1 Transmission Line Upgrade 138kV to 230kV - Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, December 1986 e Knik Arm Transmission Line Upgrade Design Review Report — Morrison- Knudsen Engineers, December 1986 e Knik Arm Transmission Line Upgrade Design Review Report — Morrison- Knudsen Engineers, April 1985 and May 1985 e Geological Reconnaissance of the Beluga Transmission Line — Chugach Electric Association — Alaska Geological Consultants, September, 1966 e Basic Design Data Report Including An Alternate Design Study for Knik Arm Project 138kV Transmission Line — Chugach Electric Association - Robert W. Retherford Associates, April, 1974 e Summary of Basic Design Data 138kV Transmission Line Beluga — International No. 2 — Chugach Electric Association, Tipett & Gee, July 1970 e Beluga Transmission Line Survey Investigation — Chugach Electric Association — Dryden & LaRue, January, 1992 In addition to the specific study reports listed above the following generally available information will be obtained: e NASA High Altitude False Infrared Photography e Various Low Altitude Aerial Photography e Interview Chugach Operations Personnel e Review Chugach Outage Records for Existing Facilities e Interview Chugach Engineering Personnel e Potential corridor locations from the corridor study task e Any additional information which may be identified that will aid in the preliminary engineering Review, organize, and file the information for use by the project team. Subtask 2.2. Design Criteria - Overhead Lines Responsibility: POWER/Dryden & LaRue (Larry Henriksen/Del LaRue) BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 19 Deliverable: Preliminary Overhead Line Design Criteria Report Predecessors: e Organized data from data acquisition subtask e Preliminary information from system studies task e Preliminary information from corridor studies task Description: Prepare a preliminary overhead line design criteria report which will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. Apply engineering judgment to the data gathered in the data acquisition subtask, geographical areas (based on preliminary selection of corridors) identified in the corridor studies task, and systems information developed in the system studies task. Geographical areas are areas which have similar meteorological and terrain characteristics, and therefore will have the same design criteria. Examples may include coastal mountains and high elevation mountains. Develop initial design criteria intended for use in developing preliminary designs for corridor evaluation, and for use as the basis for development of the final design criteria. Final design criteria will be developed when the transmission line is designed for construction. Solicit input from Chugach in order to create more realistic and reasonable design criteria for the geographic areas identified in the corridor evaluation subtask. Consider other sources of information such as the NESC, existing meteorological data, previous design data, and existing geotechnical information. Obtain Rich Richmond’s review of meteorological assumptions for reasonableness. Obtain Golder Associates review of foundation selections for reasonableness. Include the following into the preliminary report: e Project Description e Grounding e Applicable Geographical Area e Guying and Anchoring e Terrain e Conductor e Elevation e Insulation Levels e Weather Conditions e Structure Type and Material e Controlling Codes e Structure Families e Electrical Loading e Material Types e Mechanical Loading e Foundations 20 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe e Electrical Clearances e Accessories e Operating Voltage e Existing Geotechnical Data (as e Contamination available) Include the preliminary overhead line design criteria report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). Budgeting Basis: e Conventional wood or steel structure transmission line design e Five geographical areas Subtask 2.3 Preliminary Design — Overhead Lines Responsibility: POWER/Dryden & LaRue (Larry Henriksen/Del LaRue) Deliverable: Preliminary Overhead Line Design Report Predecessors: e Design Criteria e Alternative Corridors Description: Develop preliminary overhead transmission line designs for corridors identified in the corridor studies task. Base the preliminary design upon the design criteria established in the design criteria subtask and specific corridor information from the data acquisition subtask. The preliminary design will be used to establish feasibility of the corridor, assist in assessing impacts of the construction and operation of the transmission line in the corridor, and develop cost estimates for construction. The preliminary design will establish: Anticipated span lengths Anticipated structure types, heights, material and weights Structure geometry Insulator type and rating Anticipated structure mix Typical foundations Conductor size, type, and sag tension e Anticipated construction practices BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 21 e Anticipated maintenance practices e Summary of anticipated construction and maintenance impacts The preliminary design will be prepared using the same computer programs as will be used for final design, however design parameters which are anticipated from the previous work, published data, and experience will be used in lieu of the specific survey and geotechnical data, which will be available for final design. Conductor size and type will be chosen based upon discussion with Chugach and engineering judgement applied to the minimum requirements for ampacity and impedance levels anticipated to be required. An economic conductor selection study will not be performed. A typical mix of structures for each combination of structure family and geographic area will be developed through a combination of experience and, if necessary, trial spotting using USGS mapping data. This information will be used to arrive at typical designs for the structure family and geographic area. These typical designs will be used to develop cost estimates. Include the preliminary overhead line design report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13) Budgeting Basis: e Conventional wood or steel structure transmission line design e A maximum of eight combinations of structure families and geographical areas Subtask 2.4 Data Acquisition — Submarine/ Underground Cables Responsibility: POWER/BC Hydro International/Jacobson International Deliverable: Organized Data Predecessors: e Previous IPG/Chugach Studies Description: Collect available mapping data and reports to be used in developing design parameters and criteria and performing preliminary investigation. Anticipated data to be collected include the data outlined in Subtask 2.1. In addition to the specific study reports and sources of information outlined in Subtask 2.1, an effort will be made to obtain available information relative to: 22 - WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe e Local pipeline company experience with submarine pipe study area e¢ Underwater profile and bottom topography e Surface and subsurface currents e Water temperatures and bottom soil thermal characteristics e Manmade facilities (past, present, future) in corridors e Ship traffic and commercial fishing activities e Underwater and shore environmental sensitivity e Tides, weather and seasonal constraints Review, organize, and file the information for use by the project team. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final System Studies Report Section of the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e Draft review will be via teleconference. e Draft review comments will be addressed in letter format within two weeks of receipt of the Chugach/IPG comments. Subtask 2.5 Design Parameters and Criteria — Submarine/Underground Cables Responsibility: POWER (Jack Hand) Deliverable: Preliminary Submarine/Underground Design Parameters and Criteria Report Predecessors: e Documents from Chugach, as stated in RFP e Preliminary information from system studies task e Data Acquisition Description: Prepare the initial design parameters and criteria, that will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. 1 (/1113/95)pe WORK PLAN - 23 Collaborate with BC Hydro, Jacobson International and Power Delivery Consultants to develop design criteria. Apply engineering judgment to the data gathered in the data acquisition subtask, geographical areas (based on preliminary selection of corridors) identified in the corridor studies task, and systems information developed in the system studies task. Develop initial design criteria intended for use in developing preliminary investigations for corridor evaluation, and for use as the basis for development of the final design criteria. Final design criteria shall be developed when the transmission line routing is finalized. Include the following into the preliminary report: e Project Description e Applicable Geographical Area e Tidal Conditions (from existing reports) e Controlling Codes, AEIC, NEMA, ICEA, etc. e Cable Construction —Conductor type/material —Sheath —Armor —Insulation e Termination Requirements e Sheath Grounding Requirements e Accessories e Geotechnical Data (as available) e Cable System Requirements —Voltage —Load Factor —Ampacity « Emergency * Maximum Steady State e Installation —Methods —Parameters e Cable Systems —Constructability —Reliability —DMaintenance —Public Impacts —EMF, if applicable 24 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Include the Preliminary Submarine/Underground Design Parameters and Criteria Report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). Budgeting Basis: e Three submarine crossings e Underground cable in five locations Subtask 2.6 Preliminary Investigation — Submarine/ Underground Cables Responsibility: POWER/Jacobson Intl./BC Hydro Intl./PDC Investigations Deliverable: Preliminary Submarine/Underground Investigation Report Predecessors: e Design Parameters and Criteria e Alternative Corridors Description: Perform a preliminary underground and submarine cable investigation for corridors identified in the corridor studies task. Base the preliminary investigation upon the design criteria established, and specific corridor information from the data acquisition. The preliminary investigation will be used to establish feasibility of the corridor, assist in assessing impacts of the construction and operation of the transmission line in the corridor, and develop cost estimates for construction. The preliminary investigation shall initially develop: e Initial Cable conductor sizing e Anticipated Burial depths e Open circuit sheath voltages e Insulation type e Charging current e Reactive compensation requirements (System reactive compensation will be determined from the system studies.) e Pumping plant requirements (SCFF, if applicable) e Anticipated maintenance practices e Summary of anticipated construction and maintenance impacts e Installation guidelines BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 25 The preliminary investigation will be prepared through a combination of collaboration with cable manufacturers and POWER’s design team. It shall be based on design parameters established from previous work, published data, and experience in lieu of the specific ocean surveys and geotechnical data which will be available for final design through the actual completion of these work items. A preliminary investigation report will be prepared that includes general descriptions of the underground and/or submarine cable installations, assesses the technical feasibility of the installation, and contains the specific design parameters developed in the preliminary investigation. Include the Preliminary Submarine/Underground Investigation Report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). Budgeting Basis: e Self Contained Fluid-Filled (SCFF), or solid dielectric cable e A maximum of three submarine crossings e A maximum of five underground land segments, each of which will be less than three miles in length Subtask 2.7. Data Acquisition — Substations Responsibility: POWER/Dryden & LaRue (Stan Sostrom/Del LaRue) Deliverable: Organized existing substation data and documentation for affected facilities. Description: Gather and review available existing project data. Review existing studies and reports furnished by Chugach and other participating IPG members and conduct additional research to identify and confirm the facility modifications. Coordinate with IPG members via Chugach to ensure compatibility with the existing system. Gather information required for preliminary engineering. Include the following, as available: e Meteorological information e Existing reports or studies concerning the project 26 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe e Chugach’s and other affected IPG members preferred materials and designs e Chugach’s and other affected IPG members operating constraints and practices that may influence the project design(s) e Any additional information that will aid in design Chugach, affected IPG, and agency specifications and requirements Project Maps Environmental Data Existing substation drawings Review, organize and file the information for use by POWER’s project team. Budgeting Basis: e Chugach will provide and coordinate with other IPG members to obtain One- Line and General Arrangement drawings for each of the substation facilities that may require modification for our use. Subtask 2.8 Design Criteria — Substations Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Preliminary Substation Design Criteria Report Predecessors: e Organized Data From Data Acquisition Subtask Description: Prepare an preliminary substation design criteria report which will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. Review available data, and compile and issue the basic design criteria for Chugach’s review, revision and approval. Summarize proposed analysis and design procedures and criteria. Include the following at a minimum: e General Description e Number of Terminals e Site Modifications e Structure Types e Controlling Codes e Insulation Levels e Access Requirements e Shielding e Electrical Loading e Foundation Types e Mechanical Loading e Operating Voltages BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 27 e Major Equipment e Control House Requirements e Communications Additions e Metering Locations e AC Station Service Modifications SCADA DC Station Service Modifications Protective Relaying Systems Oil Containment Include the Preliminary Substation Design Criteria Report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13) Subtask 2.9 Preliminary Design — Substations Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Preliminary Substation Design Report Predecessors: e Design Criteria e System Studies Report Description: Modify the existing one-line diagram for up to four substations. Identify areas of required modifications or additions such as protective relaying, SCADA, and communications. Illustrate the general bus arrangement and required additional major equipment, such as transformers, circuit breakers, disconnect switches etc. Identify major equipment ratings on the drawings. Modify the existing general arrangement plans for up to four substations. Depict the physical bus arrangement and configuration, line entries and exits, transformer, circuit breaker and switch locations, any major site modifications, access roads, control building, etc. Identify and note bus connections and phasing on the drawing. We have anticipated showing drawing modifications on CADD, provided the existing originals are furnished to us in a suitable electronic format. If the existing drawings are hand drawn mylars, we anticipate modifying the drawings manually. Prepare a Preliminary Substation Design Report and include in the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). 28 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Budgeting Basis: e Two scenarios for each of the four substations will be reviewed as a result of this study. e Drawing modifications will be on CADD provided the existing originals are furnished to us in a suitable electronic format. e Drawing modifications will be by hand, on any hand drawn mylars provided. Subtask 2.10 Data Acquisition — Reactive Compensation Responsibility: POWER/Dryden & LaRue (Stan Sostrom/Del LaRue) Deliverables: Index of Acceptable Reactive Compensation Methodologies. Description: Prepare an index of reactive compensation devices that will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. Review existing Chugach practices and applications for reactive compensation. Incorporate applicable limitations and operating experience into the system studies. Budgeting Basis: We anticipate limiting the options to commercially available devices. Subtask 2.11 Design Criteria — Reactive Compensation Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Preliminary Reactive Compensation Design Criteria Report Predecessors: Organized Data from Data Acquisition Subtask Description: Prepare a preliminary design criteria report which will guide the preliminary design necessary for corridor evaluation. Provide input to the system studies to incorporate achievable reactive compensation limits based on the particular reactive compensation device being studied. Review available IPG data BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 29 and incorporate vendor input. Summarize proposed analysis and device application size and location criteria. Consider the following: e System Support Requirements e System Connection Points e Operations and Maintenance e Operating History Requirements e Commercial Availability e Response Time Requirements e Environmental Limitations Include the Preliminary Reactive Compensation Design Criteria Report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). Subtask 2.12 Preliminary Design — Reactive Compensation Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Preliminary Reactive Compensation Design Report Predecessors: e Design Criteria e System Studies Report Description: Provide Site Plans of the reactive compensation options. Depict any major facilities such as buildings, capacitors or reactor areas, power transformers, etc. on the site plan. Show system site improvements necessary to accommodate the reactive compensation. In conjunction with the Preliminary Design Subtask for Substations, modify the existing One-Line Diagrams for the Substations if applicable. For facilities at a completely new site provide information to depict system location electrically. Identify and indicate reactive compensation ratings. 30 —- WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Include the Preliminary Reactive Compensation Design Report into the Draft Design Section Report (Subtask 2.13). Budgeting Basis: e Prepare four installations of reactive compensation scenarios to support the requirements of the system study. e Provide “footprint” type of plan drawings for each installation indicating required area and support facilities. Subtask 2.13 Draft Design Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Larry Henriksen) Deliverable: Draft Design Section Report Predecessors: e Preliminary reports developed in Task 2 Description: Prepare a Draft Design Section Report that includes all the preliminary design criteria, investigation and design reports for overhead lines, submarine/underground lines, substations and reactive compensation. Submit the Draft Design Section Report to Chugach and the IPG for review and comment. Budgeting Basis: e POWER will prepare 29 copies of the Draft Design Section Report. Subtask 2.14 Final Design Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Larry Henriksen) Deliverable: Final Design Section Report Predecessors: e Draft Design Section Report comments Description: After receiving and reviewing the draft report comments from Chugach and the IPG, conduct a review of the Draft Design Section Report with Chugach and IPG to discuss and agree on modifications to the draft. Modify the ° BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (1113/95)pe WORK PLAN - 31 draft, as required, to reflect agreed upon changes. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final System Studies Report Section of the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e Draft review will be via teleconference. e Draft review comments will be addressed in letter format within two weeks of receipt of the Chugach/IPG comments. 32 - WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Task 3 Environmental Study Objective: To select alternative corridors for a transmission tie between the Anchorage Area and the Kenai peninsula. Approach: The environmental study will integrate the relevant findings of the system studies, design parameters, land rights and permits review, public meetings/agency briefings, and economic analysis/cost analysis to select alternative corridors for a transmission tie between the Anchorage Area and the Kenai Peninsula (Southern Intertie). The approach for the environmental study is consistent with the Rural Utility Service Guidelines for a Macro Corridor study. The flow chart illustrates how the Task 3 studies will incorporate the results of the Phase I studies (Tasks 1 through 6) through the following series of seven subtasks: Syl Start-Up 3.2 Study Area Inventory 3.3 Siting Criteria 3.4 Alternative Corridors 3.5 Route Alternatives 3.6 Corridor Analysis 3.7. Environmental Report The Environmental Study Approach flow chart shows how the roles of Chugach Electric as the project proponent, POWER as the project engineers, Dames & Moore as the environmental consultant, along with the public involvement program, will be combined as a team to select alternative corridors through the seven step process. The scope of the Task 3.0 Environmental Studies has been designed to provide the basis for the subsequent preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as shown on the EA/EIS Process Flow Chart. (See the Study Approach Section of the EA/EIS Process.) Subtask 3.1 Start-Up Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN -— 33 Deliverables: Orientation meeting/reconnaissance trip, base map, study area criteria and boundaries, aerial photography, preliminary agency contact list. Description: The purpose of this subtask is to establish a common understanding of the Phase I study process, and the respective roles of the study team, as illustrated on the study approach flow chart. Primary work activities will include establishing a study area for the environmental study, including the criteria and rationale; identifying available data and data gaps; and initiating the process of identifying issues. A preliminary study area boundary is shown on the project study map in the RFP. It is important to establish a study area that contains all of the potential opportunities for alternative corridors, in order to establish a credible foundation for the Phase 1 route selection studies. The initial review of available data will be coordinated with the Task 5 agency contact program. In parallel with the other start-up activities, initial issues will be identified relative to environmental and regulatory constraints. A combined ground and aerial reconnaissance of the study area is anticipated for key members of the study team and Chugach to confirm the study area, and existing conditions. While the Anchorage — Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study provides a valuable perspective for the Phase 1 Southern Intertie Project, we are proposing a fresh look at the project, in order to establish a credible foundation for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the preparation of an EIS. Starting with the study area definition, agency contact program, and issue identification, the purpose of the environmental study start-up task is to ensure that an independent and objective study is conducted. Subtask 3.1 activities will be coordinated with the initiation of Task 1 System Studies, Task 2 Preliminary Design, and Task 5 Public Involvement activities. Budgeting Basis: e Four round trips for one Dames & Moore project team member to travel to Anchorage from lower 48. 34 —-WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Subtask 3.2 Study Area Inventory Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverables: Resource inventory maps: e Human Resources land jurisdiction general land use and recreation linear features (transmission line, pipelines, and roads designated scenic roads and other visually sensitive areas e Natural Resources slopes geologic Hazards climatic hazards (high winds and icing) avalanche hazards tidal hazards (currents and ice scouring) e Surface water/major wetlands e Biological resources (sensitive habitats) e Marine resources (sensitive habitats) e Cultural Resources listed historic and archaeological sites Predecessors: e Start-up activities (subtask 3.1) Description: Existing data most pertinent to the identification of alternative transmission corridors will be compiled and mapped at a scale to be determined (1:100,000 would be considered a suitable scale for Phase 1 corridor selection). Maps will be prepared in ARCInfo Geographic Information System (GIS) format. Mapping in the Anchorage and Soldotna/Kenai areas will be supplemented at a more detailed scale due to urban siting requirements. Budgeting Basis: e Only secondary source data will be used in this study. e Two round trips for one Dames & Moore team member from lower 48 to Anchorage, one round-trip for one Dames & Moore team member from Anchorage to Juneau, one round-trip for one Dames & Moore team member Anchorage to Kenai. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 35 Subtask 3.3. Siting Criteria Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverables: Opportunity and constraint criteria and maps Predecessors: Subtasks 3.1 and 3.2, Task 4, and Subtasks 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 Description: The concept of establishing criteria for facility siting revolves around interpreting human, natural, and cultural resources for: (1) potential opportunities to locate new transmission lines in compatible areas, and thereby minimize environmental impacts, as well as (2) constraints to locating new lines in areas where there is a high probability of resulting environmental impact. Criteria for siting opportunities include: construction access, existing rights-of- way, transmission lines, and other linear features such as pipelines or roads. The inventory of linear features from Subtask 3.2 will be interpreted for the degree of opportunity for the proposed Southern Intertie line to parallel existing roads, transmission lines or pipelines; utilize existing access; and share existing rights-of- way. The opportunity to parallel existing transmission lines of similar structure types is often the highest level of opportunity to minimize environmental impacts. Criteria to interpret constraints are a measure of how sensitive a resource would be to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. Resource sensitivity is an indication of probable adverse response to the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Criteria used in this determination will include: Resource Value: A measure of rarity, intrinsic worth, singularity, diversity, or productivity of a resource within an area. Protective Status: A measure of the formal concern expressed for a resource, either through legal protection or by designation of special status. Present _and Future Uses: A measure of the level of conflict based on policies of land management and/or use. 36 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Hazards: A measure of the degree to which a resource represents a significant hazard to construction and/or operation of the proposed project. Using the criteria as a framework, mapped regional inventory data from Subtask 3.2 will be categorized according to the relative sensitivity to the introduction of the proposed transmission line. Resource opportunity and constraint maps will be produced to provide a rational basis for selection of alternative corridors. The degree of constraint will be dependent of the assigned resource value, protective status, present and future use conflict, and/or hazard. The regulatory constraint analysis (Task 4) will provide a formal avenue for agency input to the development of the siting criteria. Opportunities for public input to proposed siting criteria will be gained through public meetings and open houses (see Task 5). Budgeting Basis: e Only secondary source data will be used in this study. Subtask 3.4 Alternative Corridors Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow)/POWER Deliverables: Alternative Study Corridors Predecessors: Subtask 3.3 Description: Through an interpretation of the opportunities and constraint mapping, a workable set of alternative study corridors will be selected between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. The width of the corridors will range from one or more miles, depending on the nature of the specific opportunities and constraints associated along each alternative. Based on the Anchorage — Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, there is the potential for up to 400 miles of alternative corridors. Budget Basis: e One round trip for one Dames & Moore team member from lower 48 to Anchorage. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. 1 (/1413/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 37 Subtask 3.5 Route Alternatives Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow)/POWER Deliverable: Alternative route(s) within each Study Corridor Predecessors: Subtask 3.4 Description: Alternative routes will be identified within each alternative corridor, based on a combination of paralleling siting opportunities, and the ability to mitigate or avoid constraint areas within the macro corridors with local alternatives. The alternative routes will be organized into a network of links, each with an individual code (identification number). The various combinations of links will be combined to create complete routes between each substation involved in the Southern Intertie Project. This process will provide the basis to confirm that there is a viable route(s) within each corridor, and establish parameters for environmental and costs analyses. Budget Basis: e One round-trip for one Dames & Moore team member from lower 48 to Anchorage. Subtask 3.6 Corridor Analysis Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverable: Review of environmental opportunities and constraints for each alternative corridor. Predecessors: Subtasks 3.1 through 3.5 Description: The purpose of this subtask is to provide the basis to clearly define the differences between alternative corridors, and incorporate the economic evaluation results from Task 6. Environmental and economic data, documented regulatory constraints, and a summary of the specific opportunities and constraints associated with each alternative corridor will be compiled and presented in a tabular format. 38 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Subtask 3.7. Draft Environmental Section Report Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverable: Draft Environmental Section Report Predecessors: Results of Tasks | to 6 Description: The Draft Environmental Section Report will include the following contents: Executive Summary Purpose and Need Project Description Study Approach Description of study area Study Area Inventory Corridor siting criteria Alternative corridor and route selection results Alternative corridor analysis Inventory maps Opportunity and constraint maps Alternative corridor and route maps The Draft Environmental Section Report will be provided to Chugach and the IPG for review and comment. Budget Basis: e Dames & Moore will prepare 29 copies of the Draft Environmental Section Report for review and comment. Subtask 3.8 Final Environmental Section Report Responsibility: Dames & Moore/POWER (Tim Tetherow) Deliverable: Final Environmental Section Report BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN - 39 Predecessors: e Draft Environmental Section comments Description: After receiving and reviewing the draft report comments from Chugach and the IPG, conduct meetings with Chugach and the IPG to review the Draft Environmental Section Report. Discuss and agree on modifications to the draft. Modify the draft, as required, to reflect the agreed changes and issue the revised draft document as the Final Environmental Section Report. Budgeting Basis: e Three round trips for one Dames & Moore project team member from lower 48 to Anchorage to review the development of the draft report and the Final Environmental Section Report with Chugach and the IPG. 40 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Task 4 Land Rights/Regulatory Analysis Objective: Identification of regulatory and land right constraints, development of the description and location of land ownership, identification of all permit application requirements for the alternative corridors. Approach: e Develop agency and land ownership constraint information from agency contact and letter documentation. e Assemble land ownership data and agency permit application requirements from the applicable agencies. SUBTASK 4.1 Regulatory Analysis Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverables: Regulatory constraint analysis Predecessors: Task 5— Public Meetings/Agency Briefings Description: Regulatory Constraint Analysis The Preliminary Agency Contact List, included in the appendix, provides an initial list of anticipated regulatory constraint analysis contacts that will be made to establish a comprehensive list of laws, ordinances, regulations and standards associated with the alternative corridors within the study area. Through a combination of letter documentation, and agency contacts, a table of each applicable regulation that would place limitations, restrictions or stipulations on the construction, operation, or maintenance of the proposed project; or that would preclude the construction of the project within an alternative corridor will be prepared. Any specific "fatal flaw" associated with an alternative corridor will be identified through this process. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/1113/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 41 Budget Basis: e One round-trip for one Dames & Moore team member from Anchorage to Juneau. SUBTASK 4.2 Right of Way and Permit Acquisition Responsibility: POWER (Frank Rowland)/Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverable: Right-of-Way Acquisition Procedures and Work Plan Predecessors: Description and location listing of land ownership along each alternative route and for each alternative substation site. Listing by alternative route and substation site of all permit application requirements. Description: Assemble land ownership data and agency permit application requirements for each of four previously identified alternative transmission line corridors, and for each of four alternative substation sites. Meet with Chugach Right-of-Way personnel to determine existing easement acquisition policies and procedures, and to develop project-specific procedures. The right of way acquisition and permit application process will include the following elements: Permits: e Permit required and sample application e Agency contact person, address and telephone e Application process, required attachments (if any), conditions and stipulations e Permit conditions monitoring e Permit acquisition time line Right-of-Way Acquisition: e Chugach Policies and Procedures e Property Acquisition e ROW Acquisition Staffing Plan e Easement and Property Negotiations e Status Report Format e ROW Agreement Conditions and e Title Search Stipulations 42 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe e Right of Entry Procedure and Support ¢ Condemnation Support for Field Studies and Surveying e Construction Support and Damage e Easement Document and Plat Claim Settlement e Easement Valuation Budget Basis: e One round trip for one POWER team member from lower 48 to Anchorage to meet with Chugach’s right-of-way personnel. Subtask 4.3. Draft Land/Regulatory Section Report Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Draft Lands/Regulatory Section Report Predecessors: Subtask 4.1 and 4.2 Description: Prepare a Draft Lands/Regulatory Section Report that includes the identification of regulatory and land right constraints, development of the descriptions and location of land ownership, identification of all permit application requirements for the alternative corridors. Submit the Draft System Studies Report to Chugach and the IPG for review and comment. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final System Studies Report Section of the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e POWER will provide 29 copies of the Draft Studies Section Report for review and comment. Subtask 4.4 Final Land/Regulatory Section Report Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Final Land/Regulatory Section Report Predecessors: Draft Land/Regulatory Section Report BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pc WORK PLAN -— 43 Description: After receiving and reviewing the draft report comments from Chugach and the IPG, conduct a review of the Draft Design Section Report with Chugach and IPG to discuss and agree on modifications to the draft. Modify the draft, as required, to reflect agreed upon changes and issue the revised draft document as the Final Land/Regulatory Section Report. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final Land/Regulatory Section Report that will be included in the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e Draft review will be via teleconference. e Draft review comments will be addressed in letter format within two weeks of receipt of Chugach and IPG comments. 44 —- WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Task 5 Public Meetings/Agency Briefings Objective: To obtain public and agency input into the selection process for alternative corridors for a transmission tie between the Anchorage area and the Kenai peninsula. Approach: The public involvement program will be integral to the Task 3 Environmental Study, and will involve two subtasks: Subtask 5.1 Agency Contact Program/Agency Briefings Subtask 5.2 Public Open Hours/Meetings The role of the Public Involvement Program during Phase | Studies, is illustrated on the Environmental Study Approach flow chart, which shows the relationships between public involvement activities and Task 3 Environmental Activities. The Task 3 and Task 5 activities have been coordinated at three strategic stages: (1) during project start-up allow for early communication prior to any decisions; (2) during development of siting criteria to allow for meaningful public input prior to selecting alternative corridors; and (3) following the selection of alternative corridors, provide a clear path of communication prior to preparing the Draft Environmental Report. Subtask 5.1. Agency Contact Program/Agency Briefings Responsibility: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow) Deliverable: Agency Documentation Description: A study area map and project fact sheet will be prepared to facilitate early communication. An initial list of public agencies to be contacted has been prepared (see Preliminary Agency Contact List below). These agencies will be contacted by letter to introduce the project and formally request regulatory input. A series of meetings will be conducted with each agency to introduce the project, BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (1113/95)pc WORK PLAN -— 45 establish a working relationship, and gather any available data. All meetings and communication will be documented. Input from the agencies will be used to conduct the Task 4, Regulatory Constraint Analysis, and provide an initial basis for siting criteria. Once alternative corridors and routes have been located and an analysis of the alternative has been completed, there will be a briefing provided for the agency representatives. Preliminary Agency Contact List Southcentral Regional Office Lands Department Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conserv. Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Anchorage Anchorage National Wildlife Refuge Planning Director Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Kenai Peninsula Borough Soldotna Soldotna _| Engineering Manager Community Planning Department Enstar Natural Gas Company Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Habitat Division Pipeline Engineering Department Alaska Department of Fish & Game Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company Anchorage Anchorage Southcentral Division of Land & Water Regulatory Branch Management U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska Department of Natural Resources Anchorage Anchorage Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer | Ecological Services Office of History & Archeology US. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation | Soldotna Alaska Department of Natural Resources Anchorage Alaska Energy Authority National Marine Fisheries Service Anchorage Anchorage Division of Governmental Coordination Chugach National Forest Alaska Office of Management and Budget | U‘S. Forest Service Anchorage Anchorage Alaska Railroad Corporation Alaska Department of Labor Anchorage _ ___| Anchorage National Park Service Anchorage _ 46 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Budget Basis: ¢ Two round trips for one Dames & Moore team member from Anchorage to Juneau and one round trip for one Dames & Moore team member from lower 48 to Anchorage. Subtask 5.2 Public Open Houses/Meetings Responsibilities: Dames & Moore (Tim Tetherow)/POWER Deliverable: Public Meeting Documentation Description: A media package will be prepared to announce the project and introduce the public to a series of meetings that will be held in Anchorage and Soldotna. The media package could include press releases, paid advertisements and radio announcements. In addition, there could be project announcements included in monthly utility bills to insure the broadest possible announcement of the project to the public. Two meetings will be held during Subtask 3.3, Siting Criteria, one would take place on the Kenai peninsula and the other in the Anchorage area. Materials for these meetings will include descriptions of the project need, proposed facilities, construction requirements, inventory maps, and proposed siting criteria (opportunities and constraints). The format of the meetings will combine an informal public house format with formal presentations to allow for open ended discussions between the study team and members from the public. It will also present a concise and consistent explanation for the project while soliciting formal comments. Results from the open house and all meetings will be documented and used to formalize the criteria for corridor selection, insuring that public comments have been considered early in the process. Upon completion of the Final Environmental Report, there will be (1) a general media announcement, (2) newsletter sent to individuals identified on earlier mailing lists, and (3) an executive summary of the report that will be made available to those requesting this information. Budget Basis: e Two round trips for one Dames & Moore team member from lower 48 to the Anchorage area. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN - 47 Task 6 Cost Estimates Objective: Preparation of preliminary cost estimates for use in evaluating corridor study alternatives. Approach: e Prepare preliminary cost estimates for overhead lines, submarine/underground lines, substations, reactive compensation, and right-of-way costs. e Base the cost estimates on the approved criteria, designs, investigations, and studies developed for the final section reports. e Use Alaskan resources to help develop, check and finalize the cost estimates. Subtask 6.1 Cost Estimates — Overhead Line Responsibility: POWER/Dryden & LaRue (Larry Henriksen/Del LaRue) Deliverable: Cost Estimates Predecessors: e Final Design Section Report e Selected Alternative Corridors Description: Prepare preliminary estimates of probable construction costs and material costs for transmission line preliminary designs for selected corridors. Obtain two verbal budgetary quotes on major materials (transmission line structures, conductor, insulators). Use single verbal budgetary quotes or results from recent procurements for other material items. Discuss construction costs with two line contractors as well as bid information from other projects to arrive at estimates of construction labor and contractor provided materials for each geographic area and structure type from the preliminary design subtask. Adjust costs through use of a “difficulty factor’ to take into account the specific conditions anticipated for each line segment. Copies of quotes and discussions with manufacturers, and a brief narrative of the process used in preparing the cost estimates, and the assumptions and 48 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe qualifications applicable to the cost estimates and the cost estimates shall be included in the Draft Economic Section Report (Subtask 6.6). Budgeting Basis: A total of four separate corridors totaling a maximum of 400 miles will require estimates. Subtask 6.2. Cost Estimates - Submarine/ Underground Cables Responsibility: POWER/Jacobson Intl. (Jack Hand/Alan Jacobson) Deliverable: Cost Estimates Predecessors: e Final Design Section Report e Selected Alternative Corridors Description: Prepare preliminary estimates of probable construction and material costs for the underground or submarine cable segments which selected. Obtain two written budgetary quotes on the cable system from at least two cable manufactures. Tabulate construction labor, material costs, and quantities. Include estimates of costs for engineering, procurement, and construction management to arrive at a total project cost estimate for each underground or submarine cable segment. Copies of quotes and discussions with manufacturers, and a brief narrative of the process used in preparing the cost estimates, and the assumptions and qualifications applicable to the cost estimates and the cost estimates shall be included in the Draft Economic Section Report. .Budgeting Basis: e Cost estimates for the selected initial corridors e Reactive compensation stations will be estimated in the reactive compensation cost estimate subtask. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. 1 (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 49 Subtask 6.3 Cost Estimates — Substations Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Cost Estimate Predecessors: e Final Design Section Report e Alternative Substation Sites Description: Prepare preliminary estimates of construction costs and material costs for the substation scenarios for which preliminary designs were prepared. Include unit prices for labor and material. Develop an extension based on the quantity required for each unit. Discuss construction costs with two qualified substation contractors to verify construction estimates. Incorporate data into appropriate scenario mixes for the transmission lines and reactive compensation facilities. Copies of quotes and discussions with manufacturers, and a brief narrative of the process used in preparing the cost estimates, and with the assumptions and qualifications applicable to the cost estimates and the cost estimates will be included in the Draft Economic Section Report. Budgeting Basis: e Cost estimates for the selected alternative substation sites Subtask 6.4 Cost Estimates — Reactive Compensation Responsibility: POWER (Stan Sostrom) Deliverable: Cost Estimate Predecessors: e Final Design Section Report 50 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Description: Prepare preliminary estimates of probable construction costs and material costs for the reactive compensation scenarios based on the preliminary designs. Prepare the Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate for the four reactive compensation scenarios, also based on the preliminary design report. Include unit prices for labor and material for conventionally switched devices. Compile and review data collected from vendor support for non-conventionally switched installations such as SVC’s or BESS. Copies of quotes and discussions with manufacturers, and a brief narrative of the process used in preparing the cost estimates, in addition to the assumptions and qualifications applicable to the cost estimates and will be included in the Draft Economic Section Report. Budgeting Basis: e For conventionally switched reactive compensation, use POWER’s Estimating Data Base and historical construction data to provide estimates. e For non-conventionally switched reactive compensation (thyristor controlled devices), use POWER’s extensive experience with and exposure to major vendors (i.e. ABB, Siemens, GE, GEC, etc.) to solicit turnkey pricing data. Subtask 6.5 Cost Estimates — Right-of-Way Costs Responsibility: POWER (Frank Rowland) Deliverable: Cost estimates Predecessor: Identified alternative transmission line corridors Description: Analyze alternative corridor and substation site land ownership status (data acquired from previous substasks). Determine number of miles of private and government agency lands for each alternative. Review Chugach right-of-way acquisition policies and procedures to determine their effect upon right-of-way acquisition costs. Review Public and agency issues and concerns and assess probable controversy that may affect the right-of-way acquisition and permitting effort. BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. | (/11/13/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 51 Develop cost estimates for securing easements and permits for a route within each of four alternative transmission line corridors and for acquiring substation sites. Budgeting Basis: e Develop right-of-way and permit cost estimates for each of the four transmission line corridors and four substation sites. e Develop cost estimates on a per mile basis. Subtask 6.6 Draft Economic Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Larry Henriksen) Deliverable: Draft Economic Section Report Predecessors: e Cost estimates from 6.1 through 6.5 Description: Prepare a Draft Economics Section Report that includes all the cost estimates, vendor quotes, analysis and studies performed in Task 6. Include all copies of quotes and discussions with manufacturers, and a brief narrative of the process used in preparing the cost estimates, with the assumptions and qualifications applicable to the cost estimates. Submit the Draft System Studies Report to Chugach and the IPG for review and comment. Budgeting Basis: e POWER will provide 29 copies of the Draft Economic Section Report for review and comment. Subtask 6.7 Final Economic Section Report Responsibility: POWER (Larry Henriksen) Deliverable: Final Economic Section Report Predecessors: Draft Economic Section Report comments 52 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe Description: After receiving and reviewing the draft report comments from Chugach and the IPG conduct a review of the Draft Economic Section Report with Chugach and IPG to discuss and agree on modifications to the draft. Modify the draft, as required, to reflect agreed upon changes. Review comments will be addressed in letter format prior to issuing the Final Report in May. Review comments will also be incorporated into the Final System Studies Report Section of the Final Report. Budgeting Basis: e Draft review will be via teleconference. e Draft review comments will be addressed in letter format within two weeks of receipt of the Chugach/IPG comments. BD 1-20-2983 CHUGACH VOL. | (/1113/95)pe WORK PLAN -— 53 Task 7 Final Report Responsibility; POWER Objective: To develop a Final Report that will meet the requirements of the IPG and Chugach. Approach: e Include the approved final section reports into the Final Report. e Develop a summary section for the Final Report to discuss the findings of the study to supplement the approved final section reports. SUBTASK 7.1 Final Report Responsibility: POWER Deliverable: Final Report Description: Compile and include all the approved final section reports into the Final Report. The final section reports include: e System Studies e Design Criteria and Parameters e Corridor Identification & Ranking e Land Rights and Regulatory Constraints e Economic Evaluation Each of the final section reports shall include all documentation necessary to verify assumptions, calculations, contacts made with agencies and land owners as well as maps and drawings used. Sections including introduction, summary and recommendations will be developed for the Final Report. It will summarize the findings of the individual final section reports and outline the recommendations for the next phase of the project. Budget Basis: e Prepare 50 copies of the Final Report. 54 — WORK PLAN BD 1-20-293 CHUGACH VOL. (11/13/95)pe CHUGAC\, ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ach Cire ASSOCIATION, INC ee Dvm Des dex rofe]a5 OwS wes October 4, 1995 o Hi \ a, rami | i | PVs yay Mr. Riley Snell, Executive Director \\A ocr -8 1995 L/ Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority ai 480 West Tudor Road laska Industrial Developme Anchorage, AK 99503-6690 a eeend Export Authority Reference: Southern Intertie/Funding Increase Dear Mr. Snell: At the direction of the Intertie Participation Group, Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach) has proceeded with securing proposals for the Southern Intertie Route Selection Study, Phase IA, under Chugach RFP 95-039. Invitations went to 14 local/state/national firms and the request for proposals were advertised in Anchorage, Seattle and Denver newspapers. Fifteen firms attended the preproposal conference. Power Engineers out of Hailey, Idaho furnished the only response. Two firms cited insufficient time to respond. The others indicated other time commitments or inability to form a project team. Power Engineers’ proposal is in the amount of $754,812, which is above the amount authorized by AIDEA. Chugach’s staff has reviewed the Power Engineers’ proposal and finds it to be very detailed, thorough and responsive to all aspects of the RFP. A review of the proposal with the intent of reducing it to allow Chugach in-house activity as well as professional services activity to proceed under the constraints of the $500,000 approved by AIDEA on July 14, 1995 leaves Chugach with concern that the studies cannot be completed without compromising the route selection process. As such, I am recommending that AIDEA review the initial $500,000 funding authorization and increase it as follows: Funding For Power Engineers’ Study $750,000 Chugach In-House Activity/Concurrent $70,000 With Study Effort Contingency @ 10% $82,000 Recommended Revised Funding $900,000 (Round From $902,000) 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 ¢ Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 ¢ FAX 907-562-0027 Mr. Riley Snell Page 2 Southern Intertie/Funding Increase October 4, 1995 Chugach is proceeding to place the professional services contract on the Wednesday, October 18, 1995 Board of Directors agenda. I would appreciate your efforts to increase the funding so that this initial critical effort can be completed as anticipated by the IPG. Sincerely, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. “mes “ol General Manager REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO PERFORM ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES FOR THE ANCHORAGE TO KENAI TRANSMISSION FACILITIES PHASE | CHUGACH W. O. L9400625 CONTRACT 95-XXX C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. GENERAG fege oe dee ae ee ie ie aed e sees im oer rece ae eee c 1 A. PUMDOSG Nace alee cirri iearraciionieicreniee: fl B. Backgrounds eerie ace roeeernner 2 C. Requirements .. 0.0... 0... cee eee eee 2 Il. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULES ............................ = A. Services ...... 20... cece cence eee n neces 4 B. Schedulesmcr ia aoe reir rina ee tertile emo 7 il. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS .................0 0000s cece cece eee 8 A. General Requirements ..........0...0 0000000 e cece eee eee 8 B. Format and Contents ......... 0.0... cece eee eee 9 C. Project Team and Experience ................. 0-0-0 eee 10 DS Resumés and Brochures .......... 2.0.0.0 cece cece eaee 11 E. Qualifications .........: Seen eee alee lo aerieas af ene as 11 FE Evaluation Criteria 22... 0... eee ee 11 IV. COMPENSATION SUMMARY ............... 0.00.0 cece cece ene eee 12 APPENDIX A - Architect’s and Engineer’s Qualifications APPENDIX B - Project Area APPENDIX C - Professional Engineering Services Contract C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd - Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 i Work Order #9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | GENERAL A. Purpose This RFP will provide interested firms the opportunity to submit proposals for services required for the identification of macro corridors, determination of design parameters and budgetary costs of a transmission tie between the electric transmission systems on the Kenai Peninsula and in the Anchorage Area. The successful firm will be expected to execute the enclosed Professional Services Contract for this work. The scope of work includes, but is not limited to: . Identification of Macro Corridors and Project Alternatives to satisfy NEPA EIS requirements . Review of Land Rights and Regulatory Constraints . Obtaining public input . Performance of Electrical System Studies and Recommendation of Design Criteria for all Facilities . Preparation of Conceptual*Designs ° Determination of technical requirements and budgetary costs of alternatives Future Phases of the project may include work necessary for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the final route selection. Funding is only available for the work described herein and other (future) work cannot proceed without separate authorization. All work is to be performed in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices. Prudent Utility Practice means at a particular time any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electric utility industry at such time, or which, in the exercise of reasonable judgement in light of facts known at such time, could have been expected to accomplish the desired results at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and reasonable expedition. Prudent Utility Practice is not required to be the optimum practice, method or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to be a spectrum of possible practices, methods or acts which could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at the lowest reasonable cost consistent with reliability, safety and expedition. Prudent Utility Practice includes due regard for C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 1 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | manufacturer's warranties and the requirements of governmental agencies of competent jurisdiction and shall apply not only to functional parts of the Project, but also to appropriate structures, landscaping, painting, signs, lighting and other facilities. B. Background The electric transmission systems in South Central Alaska are interconnected with a 138 and a 115 kV transmission line respectively. To strengthen these ties additional transmission lines have been proposed to be constructed between Healy and Fairbanks (Northern Intertie) and Anchorage and Kenai (Southern Intertie). The following prior studies will be available to the successful Proposer: “Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study’, May 1987, Alaska Power Authority. “Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt’, December 1989, Decision Focus, Inc. “Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study’, March 1991, Alaska Energy Authority. Chugach is the Construction Manager for the “Southern Intertie” for the Owner electric utilities represented by the Intertie Participants Group (IPG). Chugach’s ability to make commitments is governed by the “1993 Alaska Intertie Project Participants Agreement” dated January 24, 1994, “Grant Administration Agreement” dated August 30, 1994, and the “Memorandum of Understanding in Aid of Beginning Activities to Build the Southern Intertie” dated June 8, 1995. These documents are available for review at the Project Manager's Office. All contracts, route and design selections are subject to approval by the Construction Manager and the IPG. Cc. Requirements To be considered for selection, Proposers are expected to demonstrate their qualifications and approach to successfully carry out the entire route selection process involving an environmental assessment and/or impact statement, investigation of alternatives and all appropriate public and agency interactions as well as system studies and economic evaluations. Proposers shall indicate recent experience in: C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 2 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | Environmental and economical evaluation of routing and design alternatives for transmission lines, submarine cables and substations. Successful completion of a transmission or subtransmission project in Alaska and/or in a similar environment, which includes route selection. Preparation of environmental assessments/impact statements, associated archaeological, geotechnical and alternative action investigations, including field work. Agency and public interaction to achieve the necessary consensus for constructing transmission facilities. Determination of design criteria for overhead transmission lines, submarine cables, substations and reactive compensation. Emphasis in the selection will be placed on: 6. Proven success of the Proposer in selecting transmission route(s) acceptable to system owner/operators, governing agencies, public and private land owners. Ue Demonstrated ability of the Proposer to manage and control the various tasks associated with the route selection process and associated environmental, technical and economic evaluations. 8. Ability to establish design criteria and preparing designs for transmission lines/submarine cables, associate terminals and substations in subarctic environments and the terrain under consideration. 9. A clear demonstration of how the schedule will be met. 10. The extent of work to be performed in Alaska. 11. | The amount of similar, recent work the Proposer has performed. 12. Availability and involvement of key personnel. C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 3 Work Order #9400625 C:\wpwin6O\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Revised: August 22, 1995 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | SCOPE OF SERVICES AND SCHEDULES A. Services 1: Determine Design Parameters The performance of the existing facilities is to be evaluated, with consideration of present and future load transfer and reliability requirements. A review of the appropriate voltage and insulation level and design criteria to be used for a possible upgrade of the existing as well as a new tie, terminal facilities and reactive compensation is to be included here. a. System Studies - Utilizing the existing electrical system data base (verification will be necessary) and improvement plans for the next 20 years the addition of the facilities associated with a new tie and/or upgraded existing facilities shall be evaluated in regard to load flow, stability and dynamic system response. The studies will result in determination of technically viable alternatives as well as equipment needs and electrical parameters for all components of the tie. Basic Design Criteria - Determine design features of transmission line components, submarine cables and terminals, substation equipment, reactive compensation as well as protection and control in accordance with the system study results and standard equipment used in the existing system(s) for approval by Chugach and the IPG. This task will result in Design Data (Criteria) Summaries for all components of the proposed improvements, which will allow future detail design. Preliminary Design - Services will be required for the preliminary design of overhead, submarine, substation and reactive compensation facilities for alternatives of the Southern Intertie. Preliminary designs shall be detailed enough to allow environmental, geotechnical and ROW/permit and cost impacts to be assessed for various alignments. Contract #95-XXX 4 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | d. Documents and Drawings - All documents and drawings shall be produced in electronic media with hard copy in a format compatible with the Owners’ systems. Drawing protocol(s) shall be established in cooperation with Chugach and the IPG. 2. Macro Corridor Studies One or more “Macro” corridors with various route segments shall be identified in the study area and presented to Chugach, the IPG, agencies involved and the public. Existing information is to be researched and used for this study. Extensive field surveys, geotechnical and archaeological field work are not part of the work under this phase. Requirements for such future work shall be determined and noted. Criteria for the evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action on the route segments identified shall be developed as well as methods for ranking them. The ranking method(s) must be acceptable to Chugach and the IPG, agencies and public. 2 The.existing transmission line and previously identified “routes” shall be part of the macro corridors investigated. This task will result in the identification of one or more routes with the least cumulative adverse impact. The findings shall be summarized in a report and be suitable for subsequent preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Preparation of the EIS itself is not included. 3 Land Rights and Permits Land ownership and regulatory constraints shall be reviewed for all alternative corridors and substation/terminal sites as well as a process determined for acquisition of the necessary ROWs, permits and agency agreements. 4. jomic ion Budgetary estimates shall be provided for the identified alternatives as an aid in the decision-making process. Assumptions and parameters used for these evaluations shall be developed by the Consultant for approval by Chugach and the IPG. Sena eee ee ee ee eee eee nena ee een eee ee ————————— C:\wpwin6O0\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 5 Work Order #9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | 5: lic tings/Agency Briefin During the macro corridor identification process public and agency briefings shall be held to aid the scoping process. Frequency and location of these meetings shall be determined by the Consultant and approved by Chugach and the IPG. 6. — Reports The following section reports shall be prepared within the scope of work described: System Studies Design Criteria and Parameters Macro Corridor Identification and Ranking Land Rights and Regulatory Constraints Economic Evaluation Reports described under a. and b. above shall be certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Alaska. oanoD All reports shall be submitted to Chugach and the IPG for approval prior to finalization. A single final report shall combine all section reports. The section reports shall include all documentation necessary to verify assumptions, calculations, contacts made with agencies and land owners as well as maps and drawings used. Three copies of each section report shall be made available to Chugach and each Owner (26). Fifty copies of the final report shall be prepared for Chugach’s and the IPG’s use. 7. Project Management The Proposer shall prepare monthly project status reports indicating cost/schedule performance based on predetermined measurement C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 6 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | criteria. Format and distribution of these reports/schedules shall be developed by the Proposer for approval by Chugach and the IPG. 8. er ice Services which may be required and shall be performed in accordance with the Engineering Services Contract included in Appendix C. B. Schedules The following schedule is anticipated for the described engineering services: Item Date Submittal of Proposal & Work Plan 09/15/95 Selection of Successful Engineers 10/10/95 Preparation & Approval of Engineering 11/07/95 Services Contract System Studies and Design Parameters 01/15/96 Land Rights/Regulatory Report 02/16/96 Economic Evaluation 02/16/96 Macro Corridor/Alternatives Report 03/15/96 Final Report and Recommendations 05/31/96 The above dates are tentative and a Schedule must be submitted with the Proposal showing individual tasks, their performance time frame and cash flow requirements. The Schedule adopted for the contract will be subject to the approval of Chugach and the IPG. C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 7 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS A. General Requirements Ten (10) copies of each complete Technical and Compensation proposal and contract form must be received by Chugach no later than 4:00 p.m., ADST, on September 15, 1995, at the following address: Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Mailing: P.O. Box 196300, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300) 5601 Minnesota Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Attention: Mr. Bob Martin Manager, Administrative Services Questions relating to this request should be directed to: Ms. Dora Gropp Manager, Transmission Projects Proposals should be clearly marked on the outside of the package with the following language: "Southern Intertie - Proposal to Perform Route Selection Services - Qualifications", and a second sealed envelope marked "Southern Intertie - Proposal to Perform Route Selection Services - Compensation". A pre-proposal conference will be held September 6, 1995 at 2:00 p.m., ADST, at Chugach's office in the Engineering Conference Room. This Request for Proposal does not obligate Chugach to pay any costs incurred in the preparation or submission of the Proposal, or to enter into a Contract or Agreement with any Proposer. NEE C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 8 Work Order #9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | B. Format and Contents Proposers are encouraged to follow the guidelines given in this section when preparing their submittals. Information should be presented in a brief form, but be accurate. it Qualifications . Cover Sheet . Table of Contents . Identification of Proposer(s) This section should briefly describe the proposed project team(s), subcontractor(s) and the geographic location of project offices involved in the work. The proposal should clearly identify the qualifications of each of the project team members and their experience relative to the proposed work. . Licensing In this section, the Proposer shall list the following information, both for itself and for its subcontractor(s), if applicable: . Alaska Business License (No. & Expiration Date) . Professional Engineer's License(s) in the State of Alaska of those individuals who will be responsible for the work on the project. Corporations shall provide evidence of having licenses to practice engineering in the State of Alaska. . Project Approach and Work Plan A brief discussion of the Proposer's understanding of the project(s) and the steps required to accomplish the project goals should be presented in this section. 25 Compensation Proposal (Separately Sealed Envelope) ° Cover Sheet C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 9 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | . Cost Summary (Section IV of this RFP) . Contract Form The Proposer will be paid in accordance with provisions in the Contract which is included in Appendix C. Costs associated with the individual tasks shall not be exceeded without prior approval of Chugach and the IPG. Compensation proposals will be opened only for those firms qualified. Cc. Project Team and Experience The Proposer shall identify the persons responsible for: management and quality control administrative and contractual management, if different individual tasks of this project Recent experience in the areas of expertise relevant to the completion of this project shall be discussed. Examples of projects completed during the last 5 years, which are similar in scope and magnitude to the effort required for Chugach, shall be listed with the following information: Date of completion Description of Project Project construction cost Engineering costs Client reference (name and current telephone number) oaoom 2. The Proposer shall describe the involvement of personnel intended for work on the Chugach project(s) in the experience record listed above and address their present assignments. 3. Work performed recently in Alaska shall be described and related to the efforts necessary in performing this project. 4. The Proposer shall list similar projects presently under design and/or construction and include the estimated time to completion. C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 10 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | D. Resumés and Brochures Resumés of all proposed project managers and engineers in responsible positions shall be provided. Company and project brochures may be included. E. Qualifications Form - Architects and Engineers Qualifications (Appendix A) shall be completed/filled out by the Proposer for individual and principal project staff. F. Evaluation Criteria All proposals will be evaluated and rated with the weighted criteria listed below: Exnentise ie. se rntriicts cere 60 percent Project Management....*......... 15 percent Availability and Response ......... 25 percent TOTAL 100 percent Following their technical evaluation, the compensation proposals for each of the qualified firms will be considered. Evaluation results are confidential and will not be discussed with the proposers. Proposers, whose technical qualifications have been accepted may be requested to attend a meeting at Chugach's headquarters to discuss their proposal. ea a a ee a ee ee eee C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 11 Work Order #9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | IV. COMPENSATION SUMMARY Task ID A | A | B Cc D poe F G Description System Studies Design Parameters Macro Corridor Studies Land Rights/Regulatory Public Meetings/Agency Briefings Economic Analysis/Cost Estimates Final Report C:\wpwin60\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Revised: August 22, 1995 Manhours Costs($) [| — _| TOTAL 0 $0.00 Contract #95-XXX 12 Work Order #L9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | APPENDIX A Architect’s and Engineer’s Qualifications C:\wpwin60\wpdocsidig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 Work Order #9400625 ROUTE SELECTION SERVICES - ANCHORAGE TO KENAI, PHASE | APPENDIX B Project Area C:\wpwin6O\wpdocs\dig\intertie\rfpeng2.wpd Contract #95-XXX Revised: August 22, 1995 Work Order #L9400625 NR WL SUBSTATION g WY @ ‘ GENERATING PLANT LE a By Q N 118 KV SEGA Cla e weKy “he if “VSOLDOTNA ( EA) 7.2/2.8 KV Cea SOLDOTNA ee GEN 5 0 5 10 - ) ———— W.0. # SOUTHERN INTERTIE 5601 Minnesota Drive PROJECT AREA P.0. Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Pe KEN2—RW-0001 0 on Sonk wa Re 09 &/I0O/Fs CHUGAC, 1 ELECTRIC eng ASSOCIATION, INC. the EUGENE N. BJORNSTAD, P.E. E ¢ E [ V E | General Manager Hgaa ASSOCIATION, INC. June 12, 1995 JUN 15 1995 Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority Mr. William R. Snell Executive Director Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Reference: Southern Intertie Dear Riley: Chugach and the other participants in the Intertie Agreement have signed a memo of understanding which will allow Chugach to begin work on environmental concerns and routing choices for the Southern Intertie. This memo is intended to be the building block for a construction management agreement which addresses the concerns of all the participants. I have attached a copy for your review. Chugach is ready to initiate work while the negotiations continue on the construction management agreement and is optimistic that all the parties can come to final approval by the end of 1995. We are prepared to go forward if AIDEA finds the memo of understanding satisfactory with respect to the enabling legislation and existing agreements between the parties. I hope you will be able to review and comment positively on the memo. If you need more information please give me a call at 762-4708. Sincerely, SM Yo eat Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager 95001.wpd (ENB/co) 5601 Minnesota Drive ¢ P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 # FAX 907-562-0027 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IN AID OF BEGINNING ACTIVITIES TO BUILD THE SOUTHERN INTERTIE The undersigned Parties are currently negotiating a _ full Construction Management agreement to govern construction of the Southern Intertie. However, in order to expedite construction, the Parties wish to memorialize this temporary agreement that, consistent with the Participants Agreement, Chugach, as agent of the Parties, shall begin to perform the following tasks which the Parties recognize as reasonably necessary to begin building the Southern Intertie: Preliminary Environmental Assessment Preliminary Geotechnical and Archaeological Investigation Preliminary Easement Investigation Identify Corridors, Determine Alternate Route Alignments Prepare Route Selection Report The parties understand that Chugach is willing to perform the Construction Management duties for the benefit of all of the Parties as well as its own members but that Chugach does not earn a profit from these activities. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that (except for gross negligence and willful misconduct) Chugach should be protected from any harm resulting from its activities as Construction Manager except for Chugach's own percentage share of Project Costs on the same basis as other Parties. The Parties also agree that under no circumstance will Chugach, in its role as Construction Manager, have to advance its own funds toward the Project. The Parties contemplate that most of the work will be done under contracts approved by the Parties and overseen by the Construction Manager. Chugach is not authorized to let any contracts until 1) prior approval has been given by the Parties under the procedures set out in the Participants Agreement and 2) AIDEA has issued assurance that it will advance grant funds in the full amount reasonably estimated by Chugach as needed to pay a) all contract costs, b) Chugach costs permitted under the Participants Agreement, and c) 10% of the estimated amount for contingency. Amounts received from AIDEA will be held by Chugach in a_ segregated interest bearing account for use solely on the Southern Intertie Project. So long as the contractor proceeds in accordance with the contract terms and schedule Chugach shall be permitted to pay the contractor without further approvals although Chugach will promptly Page 1 of 4 provide the varties with documentation of the invoice and supporting information reasonably required by the Intertie Participants Group (IPG). Any invoices not consistent with the contract, such as requests for additional payment shall be brought to the Parties for approval before payment. The Parties agree that since each contract and schedule of Chugach internal work will be separately approved by the Parties, Schedule A-2 of the Grant Administration Agreement will adequately satisfy the budgeting requirements set out in the Participants Agreement for the limited phase of the Project. By this Memorandum of Understanding, the Parties intend to outline in a very abbreviated form a temporary arrangement by which efforts to construct a Southern Intertie can be started. This memorandum should be read in conjunction with all the other agreements relating to the Southern Intertie. This agreement should not be construed to prejudice the Parties' positions in negotiations toward a full Construction Management Agreement. Chugach agrees to perform the construction management duties described herein as agent for the Parties, subject to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding. The Parties hereby authorize Chugach to perform the tasks set out above as their agent according to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding. All contracts, obligations, liabilities, and duties entered, incurred, undertaken, or suffered by Chugach in carrying out the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, shall be entered, incurred, undertaken, or suffered solely as agent for the Parties and not for its own account. All contracts shall be entered in the name of the Parties acting by and through their agent Chugach. Chugach shall carry out its duties hereunder in the best interests of the Parties and in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices. The Parties shall timely and definitively decide all requests for approvals and authorizations so as to avoid (1) delaying the Project, (2) unnecessarily increasing its costs, and (3) exposing Chugach to unreasonable and unanticipated demands on its management personnel with respect to carrying out the terms of this Memorandun. As between Chugach, as the Construction Manager, and the Parties, the ultimate financial responsibility for all amounts incurred, obligated, or suffered, arising out of the Project shall be that of the Parties. This Memorandum of Understanding is intended to cover only work which is entirely funded by grant monies and is conditioned on the Parties obtaining sufficient advances of grant funds to fund each portion of the tasks set out above. The Parties are not obligated by this Memorandum of Understanding as to work for which sufficient grant funds are not available. The Parties do not contemplate any work on tasks not fully funded by Grant Funds. The Parties shall also have the ultimate responsibility to secure Page 2 of 4 the approval of AIDEA for any necessary authorizations to proceed with the Project and for the advances from amounts available under the above referenced legislative grants; provided that Chugach, on behalf of the Parties, may communicate with and provide information to AIDEA in order to facilitate such approvals and grant disbursements. In accordance with section 6 of the Intertie Grant Agreement dated October 26, 1993 and section 6 of the Participants' Agreement dated January 24, 1994, the Parties have designated and authorized the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) to carry out certain powers and exercise certain rights, responsibilities, and duties with respect to this Memorandum of Understanding. The term of this agreement shall begin when last executed and shall end on the sooner of: (a) the execution of a Construction Management Agreement; (b) the completion of the contract work authorized by the IPG; (c) Eighteen (18) months from commencement of the Memorandum of Understanding; or (d) Removal or withdrawal of the Construction Manager under the Participants Agreement. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. By I Date "CONSTRUCTION MANAGER" ALASKA ELECTRIC GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE, HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. INC. By RS By Zz Its : Its Date_§- ay -F = Date Page 3 of 4 MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. » Its Date By MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS d/b/a FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL UTILITY SYSTEM py Pa tyr~ Its___(0 _Wnaye ee _ Date = ty 4g THE CITY OF SEWARD d/b/a SEWARD ELECTRIC SYSTEM CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE d/b/a MUNICIPAL LIGHT & POWER "PARTIES" 1:\1995\sintd.22 cc: W. Stewart J. Griffith Page 4 of 4 L. Thibert J. Borden Bob Dickson ce: DwB CHUGAC,, ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ASSOCIATION, INC. Ce. Ton Kobra, EUGENE N. BJORNSTAD, P.E. General Manager wilt Kerth Lavfer OVS ovm November 10, 1994 Ae William R. Snell, Executive Director Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Anchorage, Alaska 99503 RE: Southern Intertie Construction Management Agreement Dear Riley: Enclosed is a draft of the Construction Management Agreement for the Southern Intertie. While not entirely different in concepts from the draft for the Northern Intertie, you will note some variation. This draft emphasizes that the Construction Manager (CM) acts solely as the agent for the Participants so as to minimize "us versus them" issues. The draft provides substantial review and approval authority for the Participants acting through the IPG on budget, scope, and major construction contracts, but once the approval is given, the CM may operate freely within the scope of the approvals already given by the Participants. We have also provided for a different leeway for the CM in approving change orders. A rolling six month working capital account and time constraints for decisions by the Participants are key components in the draft. It also provides for a dispute resolution panel to resolve any disputes between the Participants and the CM. We have tried at all times to be fair to Participants while setting up a structure within which Chugach could act as the Construction Manager of the Southern Intertie. I hope the Participants will find this approach acceptable so we can clear the way to begin work on this project. Sincerely, Free Dyn el Eugene N. Bjornstad General Manager 5601 Minnesota Drive * P.O. Box 196300 « Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 Phone 907-563-7494 ¢ FAX 907-562-0027 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT This Construction Management Agreement is entered into this ____- day'_-—s off , 1994, by and between Chugach Electric Association, hereinafter referred to as Construction Manager or Chugach, and the Municipality of Anchorage d/b/a Municipal Light & Power, the Municipality of Fairbanks d/b/a Fairbanks Municipal Utility System, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System, Alaska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc., Homer Electric Association, Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and Chugach Electric Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Participants or Participating Utilities. PREAMBLE WHEREAS, effective August 11, 1993, the Legislature of the State of Alaska enacted 18 Ch. SLA 1993 relating to, among other things, the financing of certain electric power projects within the State of Alaska; and WHEREAS, effective the same day, the State of Alaska enacted Ch. 19 SLA 1993 which, among other things, appropriated $46,800,000 to the Department of Administration for payment of a grant under AS 37.05.316 to Chugach Electric Association for the benefit of all utilities participating in the design, construction, and operation of a power transmission intertie of at least 138 kilovolts between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula (hereinafter the Project); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ch. 19 SLA 1993, the above referenced parties executed an INTERTIE GRANT AGREEMENT dated October 26, 1993, the purpose of which was to satisfy the conditions stated in §§ 2(b) and (c), Ch. 19 SLA 1993; and WHEREAS, effective November 5, 1993, the above referenced parties, the Department of Administration, and the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority entered a GRANT TRANSFER AND DELEGATION AGREEMENT under which the duties, responsibilities, and control of the above referenced grant were transferred from the Department of Administration to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, and under which the above referenced grant was made to Chugach Electric Association pursuant to the statute; and WHEREAS, effective January 24, 1994, the above described Participants entered a PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT under which they agreed to carry out the terms of the statutes and prior agreements with respect to the Project; and WHEREAS, effective August 30, 1994, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority ("AIDEA") and the above referenced Participants executed a GRANT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT under which the above referenced parties and AIDEA agreed on the manner in which the grant would be administered by AIDEA; and WHEREAS, in order to carry out the obligations of the above referenced parties under the above referenced statutes and agreements, the parties now desire to enter into a CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT between Chugach and the other Participants providing for Chugach's construction management responsibilities, rights, and authorities for accomplishing, on behalf of the Participating Utilities, the design and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, currently the parties contemplate, but have not finally decided, that the Project shall be divided into the following phases, subphases, and segments after the development and approval of a Project Design Team: Phase I - Route selection & preliminary design (a) Preliminary environmental assessment (b) Preliminary geotechnical and archaeological investigation (c) Preliminary easement investigation (d) Identification of corridors and alternate route alignments (e) Route selection report (£) Investigation of design alternatives (g) Approval of line route end points and preliminary design (h) Development of Phase II budget, schedules, and cash flow projections for IPG approval Phase II - Final design and construction A. Phase IITA Final Design (a) Final environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological investigations (b) Selection of specific locations of facilities (c) Procurement of easements (d) Preparation of final design drawings and specifications for (i) Modifications to Bernice Lake Substation, if any (ii) Submarine cable termination stations, if any <2 (iii) Submarine cable crossing, if any (iv) Transmission line materials, equipment, and construction (e) Preparation of construction and material and equipment acquisition contracts (f£) Development of Phase IIB budgets, schedules and cash flow projections for IPG approval B. I : , ; ear carey ate ee TTT TT TTT (a) Right-of-way clearing (b) Modification of Bernice Lake Substation (c) Submarine cable terminal stations (d) Submarine cable crossing (e) Transmission line construction (i) South Kenai line (ii) North Kenai line (iii) Anchorage line (£) Commissioning and project closeout NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that: nes GENERAL AY Chugach agrees to perform the construction management duties described herein as agent for the Participants identified above, subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract. The Participants hereby authorize Chugach to perform the construction management duties described herein as their agent according to the terms and conditions of this Contract. All contracts, obligations, liabilities, and duties entered, incurred, undertaken, or suffered by Chugach in carrying out the terms of this Contract, shall be entered, incurred, undertaken, or suffered solely as agent for the Participants and not for its own account. All contracts shall be entered in the name of the Participants acting by and through their agent Chugach. Chugach shall carry out its duties hereunder in the best interests of the Participants and in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices. The Participants shall timely and definitively decide all requests for approvals and authorizations so as to avoid (1) delaying the Project, (2) unnecessarily increasing its costs, and (3) exposing Chugach to unreasonable and unanticipated demands on its management personnel with respect to carrying out the terms of this Contract): B. As between Chugach, as the Construction Manager, and the Participants, the ultimate financial responsibility for all amounts incurred, obligated, or suffered, arising out of the Project shall be that of the Participants. The Participants shall also have the ultimate responsibility to secure the approval of AIDEA for any necessary authorizations to proceed with the Project and for payments of all amounts available under the above referenced legislative grants; provided that Chugach, on behalf of the Participants, may communicate directly with and provide information directly to AIDEA in order to facilitate such approvals and grant disbursements. Ce In accordance with section 6 of the Intertie Grant Agreement dated October 26, 1993 and section 6 of the PARTICIPANTS ' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994, the Participants hereby designate and authorize the Intertie Participants Group (IPG) to carry out their powers and exercise their rights, responsibilities, and duties under this agreement. The Participants shall be bound by all actions, inactions, decisions, and conduct of the IPG in carrying out their powers and exercising their responsibilities and duties under this agreement. D. Subject to all of the provisions of the this contract regarding approvals necessary for the entering of contracts, Chugach is hereby authorized to perform any of its duties described in this contract through its own forces or through independent contractors specifically retained for that purpose. The determination of whether a particular function shall be performed by Chugach's employees or through an independent contractor shall be in the sole discretion of Chugach. II. DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF DESIGN TEAM A. Chugach shall develop a contract form for design services, including a description of the scope of the design work to be performed for the Project, which scope of work shall be structured according to the phases and segments of the design and construction of the Project. The contract with its description of the scope of work shall be submitted to the IPG for approval in accordance with Article VII below. Chugach shall also submit for approval by the IPG a plan for acquisition of the necessary design and study services for preliminary and final design of the Project. B. Upon approval by the IPG of a design services contract, including a description of the scope of work and the plan for acquisition of design services, Chugach shall select a Mai design engineering firm in accordance with the approved plan. At the conclusion of the selection process, Chugach shall submit to IPG for approval in accordance with Article VII below a report of the process conducted and the recommended design engineering firm. Upon approval by the IPG of a design engineering firm and the contract to be entered with said firm, Chugach shall be authorized to enter said contract on behalf of the Participants. ah Chugach shall prepare, as it deems appropriate in the best interests of the Participants, a scope of work for one or more subconsultants necessary to assist Chugach, as Construction Manager, and the design engineer. Chugach shall submit for approval by the IPG in accordance with Article VII below proposed contracts including descriptions of the scope of work for such subconsultants as Chugach deems appropriate. Upon approval by the IPG, Chugach shall be authorized to retain such subconsultants as are approved on contracts approved by the IPG. III. OVERALL PLAN FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT A. Plan. With the assistance of the design engineer and other subconsultants as needed, Chugach shall develop an initial overall plan for the design and construction of the Project. This plan shall include a budget, a schedule, and cash flow projections for the overall Project. The plan shall address the appropriate sequencing of the various segments and tasks as well as appropriate lead times for the orderly design and construction of the Project in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices. The plan need not conform exactly to the task descriptions and sequencing currently set out in the Schedule A-2. of the GRANT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT. The purpose of the initial overall Project plan shall be to establish basic Project order of sequence and ranges of magnitude upon which Chugach will be able to rely in carrying out the subsequent steps of the Project. B. Schedules. The initial overall Project plan shall include a schedule dividing the Project into phases, subphases, and segments as shall best facilitate the orderly design and construction of the Project, including appropriate points where approval of the IPG will be sought. The schedule shall include the initial preliminary estimates of starting dates, ending dates, and durations for the various phases, subphases, segments, tasks, and resources; and shall also identify major milestones to facilitate evaluating progress of the Project. ae Cc. Budget. The initial overall Project plan shall include a budget broken down by phase, subphase, and segment, which budget shall state the then best estimates of all Project costs. DS w Proj i 4 Chugach shall develop as part of the initial overall Project plan a cash flow projection broken down by phase, segment, and to the extent reasonably feasible, by quarterly or monthly increments based upon the initial overall Project schedule and budget. E. Approval of IPG. Upon development of the initial overall Project plan, schedule, budget, and cash flow projections, Chugach shall submit them to the IPG for approval in accordance with Article VII below. Upon approval by IPG of the overall Project plan, schedule, budget, and cash flow projections, or upon approval as they may be revised by IPG, Chugach shall proceed with Phase I route selection and preliminary design as described in Article IV below. Iv. PHASE I - ROUTE SELECTION & PRELIMINARY DESIGN A. Development and Approval of Phase I Plan, Budget, as Chugach, with the assistance of the design engineer and other subconsultants as needed, shall develop a Plan for Phase I route selection and preliminary design. The Plan shall identify and describe each of the major segments with subsegments and tasks in as much detail as is appropriate and feasible. The Plan shall include a description of the work for each segment and the method of acquisition of services for the described work. In conjunction with the development of the Plan, Chugach shall also develop a budget, time schedules, and cash flow projections for Phase I broken down by segment and such smaller increments as may be reasonably feasible. The schedule shall include calendar start and end dates and shall reflect the proposed sequencing of the various segments of Phase I. The cash flow projections shall be broken down by segment and such smaller increments as may be reasonably feasible and shall also show total cash requirements on a quarterly or monthly basis for the duration of the Phase I as scheduled. PAG Chugach shall submit to the IPG the Phase I Plan, budget, schedules, and cash flow projections for approval in accordance with the procedures of Article VII below. Upon approval of the Plan, budget, schedules, and cash flow projections, or upon approval as they may be revised by the IPG, Chugach shall proceed to execute the Plan as approved. B. Ex i P O Ane Upon approval of the Phase I Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections by the IPG in accordance with procedures in Article VII below, Chugach, in conjunction with the advice of the design engineer and other subconsultants as needed, shall enter contracts, on behalf of the Participants, for the acquisition of the necessary services and work to be performed under Phase I. As long as the contracts are within the approved budget and the scope of services of each contract is reflected in the description of the work of the approved Plan, Chugach may, but is not required to, obtain additional authorization to enter each contract for executing Phase I. aie Under Phase I, Chugach shall cause to be prepared a route selection report and a report exploring alternative design criteria, all of which criteria shall be feasible and in accordance with Prudent Utility Practices. The route selection report shall recommend a specific line route, including end points, and shall provide appropriate substantiation for the recommendation, including an explanation of the choice of the line route recommended over alternate routes. The report on alternative design criteria shall recommend preliminary design criteria and provide appropriate substantiation for the recommended design criteria, including the basis for their choice over alternatives. 3% Under Phase I, Chugach shall cause to be prepared a budget, schedule, and cash flow projections for Phase II based upon the information developed under Phase I, including the recommended line route, and preliminary design criteria. The budget, schedule, and cash flow projections shall be broken down between Phase IIA and Phase IIB, as outlined herein. The parties acknowledge that the estimated budget, schedule, and cash flow projections for Phase IIA are likely to be more precise than those for Phase IIB. The budget, schedule, and cash flow projections shall be broken down by segment within each phase and by such smaller increments as may be reasonably feasible. The schedule shall reflect sequencing of the various segments, start dates, end dates, and durations of all planned tasks. The cash flow projections shall be broken into quarterly or monthly increments in addition to increments by ay segment. Chugach shall also prepare a Phase IIA Plan which shall describe the organization of the work to be accomplished under Phase IIA including a description of the method of selecting the contractors and vendors necessary to complete Phase IIA, a description of each of the segments and sub-tasks to be accomplished in achieving the final design, their relative sequencing, and a description of the nature of the contracts proposed to be used. 4. Upon completion of Phase I, Chugach shall submit to the IPG for approval in accordance with the procedures in Article VII below, the Phase IIA Plan, budgets, schedules, and cash flow projections for both Phase II in total and, separately, for Phase IIA, as well as the route selection report, and the report on alternative design criteria. Chugach shall also submit to IPG for its approval a recommended Phase II ceiling that IPG may submit to AIDEA. Chugach shall not be obligated to proceed with Phase II unless and until IPG has approved, the Phase IIA Plan, the respective budgets, schedules, and cash flow projections for both Phase II in total and, separately, for Phase IIA, the line selection report and recommendation, and the preliminary design criteria. Vv. PHASE II FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION A. Phase IIA Final Design. ie Upon approval by the IPG of the Phase IIA Plan, the respctive budgets, schedules, and cash flow projections, for both Phase II in total and, separately, for Phase IIA the route selection report and recommendation, and preliminary design criteria, Chugach shall proceed to execute the Phase IIA Plan in accordance with the approved budget, schedules, and cash flow projections. Chugach shall prepare final design contracts in accordance with the Plan, _and select professionals and contractors in accordance with the selection process outlined in the approved Plan. As long as the scope of work, amount, and duration of each contract, are within the approved Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections for Phase IIA, Chugach may, but is not required to, obtain specific approval for each such contract. 25 The segments to be completed under Phase IIA shall include the final environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological investigations, selection of specific locations of facilities, procurement of easements, the final design of (1) the modifications to the Bernice Lake Substation, if any; (2) the submarine cable terminal stations, if any; and (3) the submarine cable crossing specifications, if any; and the preparation of the drawings, specifications and contract -~8- documents for right-of-way clearing, construction, and material and equipment acquisition contracts. oe Based upon the information gathered in Phase IIA, the location of the facilities, and the preparation of all final design documents, Chugach shall, in conjunction with the design engineer and other subconsultants as needed, prepare for Phase IIB (1) a plan of procurement for acquisition of all material and equipment, right-of-way clearing, and construction required for the Project; (2) a budget for the material and equipment acquisition and the construction, (3) a schedule for the same; and (4) cash flow projections for the same. Chugach shall submit for approval to the IPG in accordance with the procedures of Article VII below, the Plan for Phase IIB construction and acquisition of equipment and materials, the proposed budget, schedule, and cash flow projections. Chugach shall not be obligated to proceed with Phase IIB unless and until IPG has (1) approved the Phase II Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections for Phase IIB; and (2) obtained all approvals which the Participating Utilities may be obligated to obtain under any governing agreement, law, or regulation before proceeding with Phase IIB. Chugach shall also not be obligated to proceed with Phase IIB unless and until arrangements satisfactory to Chugach have been reached that assure it that the Participating Utilities can and will make timely payment for all Phase IIB Project costs, including the costs of commissioning of the Project and its transition to operational status. 4. The limited automatic rights of withdrawal described in section 4(b)(3) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994, shall be exercised in conjunction with the IPG's approval of the Phase IIB Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections. As between the Participating Utilities and Chugach as Construction Manager under this agreement, it shall be the sole responsibility of the Participating Utilities to assure that all requirements of section 4(b)(3) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994, with respect to the exercise of rights of withdrawal have been met by the time the IPG approves the Phase IIB Plan, estimated budget, estimated schedule, and estimated cash flow projections for Phase IIB. VI. PHASE IIB CONSTRUCTION A. Upon Chugach's receipt of satisfactory assurances of timely payment of Phase IIB costs, and upon approval by the IPG of the Phase IIB Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections, and receipt by Chugach of the IPG's advices that (1) it has received the approval of any other agencies whose =9= approval the Participating Utilities may be obligated to obtain, and (2) all issues regarding the exercise of rights of withdrawal have been resolved, Chugach shall be authorized to execute the approved Phase IIB Plan in accordance with the approved budget, schedules, and cash flow projections and the terms of this agreement. Chugach shall be authorized to enter into the various construction contracts and the acquisition of materials and equipment contracts in accordance with the approved Plan subject to the requirement that upon Chugach's selection of a proposed contractor, that contractor shall be submitted to IPG for approval in accordance with the provisions of Article VII below. In conjunction with the submittal for approval of the contractor, Chugach shall also submit the contract amount, schedules, and cash flow projections pertinent to that particular contract. Upon IPG's approval, Chugach shall be authorized to enter into the contract as agent for the then Participating Utilities. Chugach shall not be obligated to proceed with any contract unless and until the IPG has approved the identity of the contractor, scope of work, the contract amount, the contract schedule, and the cash flow projections based thereon. As each contract under Phase IIB is submitted to IPG for approval, Chugach shall also submit an updated overall Project budget, schedule, and cash flow projection, reflecting the effect of the proposed contract on the overall Project budget, schedules, and cash flow projections. B. Upon approval of each contract, Chugach shall manage and perform the approved contracts in accordance with the approved budgets, schedules, and cash flow projections and the terms of this agreement. VII. IPG APPROVAL A. General Procedure. Whenever the approval of the IPG is required hereunder or otherwise sought by Chugach, Chugach shall submit in writing to the IPG the request for approval along with all documentation reasonably required for the IPG to act upon the request. The writing shall include a specific and definitively stated recommendation, and shall specify a date by which a decision of the IPG is required in the judgment of Chugach. Copies of the written request and supporting materials shall be mailed to each member of the IPG no less than 10 days before the time when a decision is required; subject to the provisions below regarding an emergency decision in paragraph B. Upon receipt of a written request for an approval or authorization, the IPG shall meet and reach a decision in accordance with section 6(d) and (e) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994. 10> B. Emergency Decision. If an approval or decision of the IPG is required, and either to maintain the schedule or to avoid substantial extra costs from being incurred a decision is needed in less than 10 days, Chugach is authorized to communicate with the chairman of the IPG advising of the nature of the emergency, the decision needed, the date by which it is needed, and the reason it is needed by that date. Chugach shall cooperate with any reasonable request of the chairman of the IPG to disseminate the necessary information to the members of the IPG. The Chairman of the IPG shall convene the IPG which shall meet and reach a decision in accordance with section 6(d) and (e) of the PARTICIPANTS AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994. Ce Approval. Provided that Chugach has followed the procedures stated above in paragraph A or in paragraph B, as the case may be, if the IPG has not affirmatively rejected the recommendation in accordance with the procedures of section 6(e)(3) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT by the date designated in the request, the IPG shall be deemed to have approved Chugach's recommendation. If the IPG rejects the recommendation as submitted by Chugach, Chugach may, but shall not be required to, revise the recommendation and resubmit it as revised for approval. The IPG shall not, without the consent of Chugach, modify the recommendation. Dr Binding Effect. As between the Participating Utilities and Chugach as Construction Manager under this agreement, once the IPG has approved or is deemed to have approved the recommendation or requested action, said approval shall be binding as among the Participating Utilities, the IPG, and Chugach, and may not be revised, modified, or amended without the consent of Chugach. VIII. IPG APPROVAL OF DISBURSEMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS --— WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT A. Pursuant to the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT of January 24, 1994, the GRANT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT of August 30, 1994, and other applicable agreements previously entered and governing the disbursement of grant funds for this Project, upon approval by the IPG of the Overall Project Plan, budget, schedule, and cash flow projections pursuant to Article III above, the IPG shall authorize and direct AIDEA to disburse, pursuant to section 8 of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT of January 24, 1994, funds to a WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT sufficient to meet the first six months cash flow requirements as provided in the then approved cash flow projections. The WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT thus established shall be an account or accounts with financial institutions approved by IPG, the meee balance of which shall be available for disbursement to meet contract obligations and permitted project expenses upon approval by Chugach, in accordance with the procedures stated herein. B. When Chugach receives a pay request from the project engineer, or subconsultants, or during Phase IIB, from contractors and vendors, Chugach shall determine whether the request is in accordance with all applicable contractual requirements. Provided the pay request is in accordance with all applicable contractual requirements, within the IPG approved budget, the contractor is on schedule according to the approved schedule, and the pay request is within the approved cash flow projection for that contract, Chugach shall be authorized to disburse from the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT sufficient funds to pay the pay request. Chugach shall submit all such pay requests covered by this paragraph with all substantiating documentation supporting Chugach's action with respect to each such pay request to the IPG for transmittal to AIDEA. Cc. If the pay request is deemed By Chugach to be in accordance with contract documents and is otherwise earned, but for any reason payment of the amount would exceed the approved budget or cash flow projections for the work involved, Chugach shall submit to the IPG for approval, a recommendation regarding that portion of the pay request that would exceed the approved budget or cash flow projection. Upon approval by the IPG of the excess amount, Chugach shall pay the excess amount from the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. Chugach shall in any event be authorized to pay from the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT that portion of the pay request which is in accordance with all applicable contract requirements and which does not exceed the applicable budget or cash flow projection. D. If Chugach determines for any reason that a question exists as to whether any pay request is in accordance with the respective contract documents or is otherwise due the contractor or vendor, Chugach shall submit to the IPG for approval a recommendation regarding the pay request. Upon approval by the IPG of the pay request or any portion thereof, Chugach shall pay the approved amount, if any, from the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. E. With respect to any pay request submitted to the IPG by Chugach under paragraph B above, IPG shall be deemed to have approved such pay requests. With respect to any pay requests submitted to the IPG under paragraph C or paragraph D above, Chugach shall submit such pay requests with all substantiating documentation supporting Chugach recommendation with respect to each such pay request to the IPG for approval. Se The IPG shall promptly, and in any event no later than 30 days after submittal to it, act on such request for approval. The IPG shall be deemed to have approved such recommendation submitted under paragraph C or paragraph D above upon the earlier of an affirmative approval by the IPG or the expiration of 30 days after submittal without any action taken by the IPG. Upon the IPG's approval of pay requests or recommendations, either by such approval being so deemed, by affirmative action, or by failure to act, AIDEA shall be and hereby is authorized by the IPG to disburse from the grant funds into the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT, pursuant’ to section 8(a) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994, and § 4.03 of the GRANT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT, sufficient funds to meet the pay requests or recommended amounts. Chugach as Construction Manager is hereby authorized to coordinate directly with AIDEA all documentation, information, or other assistance helpful to AIDEA to facilitate disbursement of the Grant Funds into the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. Article VII regarding IPG approval shall apply to the submittal of pay requests and recommendations by Chugach to IPG under this article. With respect to a recommendation regarding a pay request submitted to the IPG by Chugach under paragraph C Or paragraph D above, if the IPG rejects the recommendation, Chugach shall not pay the pay request. Chugach may, but is not required to, submit a revised recommendation with respect to any such pay request or recommendation rejected by the IPG. F. In the event that additional financing for the Project is required pursuant to section 8(b) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT, the Participants, pursuant to section 8(b)(4) of that agreement, shall pay into the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT sufficient funds to meet the approved pay request, pro rata based on project shares. Said payments shall be made sufficiently timely to permit the orderly meeting of all obligations of the Participating Utilities with respect to the Project. G. The IPG and Chugach anticipate that at all times the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT will have a balance sufficient to cover anticipated disbursements for the following six months. The parties anticipate that the period of six months will be adequate to obtain the necessary approvals, pursuant to the Grant Administration Agreement of August 30, 1994, the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT of January 24, 1994, and all other contracts and agreements governing the disbursement of design and construction funds for the Anchorage Kenai Intertie Project. In the event that those approvals take longer and thus require a greater balance in the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT, the Participating Utilities shall cause sufficient additional funds to be deposited into the WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT, pro asc rata based on project shares, to cover the anticipated cash flow needs of the Project in accordance with approved budgets, schedules, and cash flow schedules in order to accommodate the longer than anticipated approval time. Chugach shall not be required to expend at any time for any purpose any of its own funds in carrying out its obligations hereunder except those amounts that it expends for its own personnel costs incurred pursuant to section 7(c) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT, which costs are reimbursable under said provision. IX. MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Chugach as Construction Manager shall develop, implement, administer, and manage the Anchorage Kenai Intertie Project as Construction Manager on behalf of the Participating Utilities, which construction management services’ shall include, but not be limited to: l. Administer and manage the procurement of all Project needs including but not limited to all design and professional services, equipment, materials, and construction services required. 2. Administer and manage all Project activities including but not limited to all design and professional service contracts, all equipment and material acquisition contracts, and all construction services contracts for the Project. as Prepare, evaluate, and update schedules in sufficient detail to adequately and effectively evaluate progress on the Project, and to identify delays in sufficient time to minimize their effect. 4. Prepare such financial cast accounting records as may be necessary and appropriate, including the above referenced budgets and cash flow projections, to appropriately track costs, evaluate whether the Project is within budget, and to identify costs that exceed the budget in sufficient time to permit adequate procedures to minimize and eliminate to the extent possible costs greater than those budgeted. a. Prepare monthly reports updating all information concerning progress on the Project, including comparisons between the cost incurred to date and the budget and cash flow projections to date as well as to the overall budget and cash flow projections, comparisons between the progress of the work accomplished to date and the then approved schedule; and comparisons between cash flow needs and those projected according to the then approved cash flow projections. These -14- monthly reports shall include projections of work progress and cash flow requirements at the next month, next three months, and next six month intervals, all in accordance with section 7(g) of the PARTICIPANTS' AGREEMENT dated January 24, 1994. 6. Develop, implement, and enforce effective quality control/quality assurance procedures through its own personnel or through appropriate subconsultants, to assure that all services, materials, equipment, and construction work are in accordance with the respective applicable contracts, including providing for appropriate inspection services where appropriate. US Develop, implement, and enforce adequate procedures to assure proper review of all design "deliverables," to assure the reliability of the work product of the design professionals and other professional service contracts, and to properly evaluate all contractor and vendor submittals. 8. Develop, implement, and enforce effective controls for assuring that design and other professionals meet the time and work product requirements of their respective contracts, and that the clearing and construction work performed by construction contractors is performed according to the contract specifications including schedules and budgets. Cy Implement such procedures and take such steps as is necessary and appropriate to assure the reasonable reliability of all cost estimates prepared for project planning and execution purposes, but Chugach shall bear no liability towards the IPG or the Participating Utilities for the failure of actual costs as incurred to fall within approved cost estimates, budgets, or cash flow projections. 10. Organize and maintain sufficient record keeping systems for the route selection, preliminary design, final design, and construction of the Project to assure adequate control and substantiation for all decisions made and actions taken. 11. Establish and implement procedures under which all changes proposed by contractors, the design engineers, IPG, or Chugach are properly evaluated and resolved, either in appropriate contract modifications or otherwise as may be appropriate. Chugach shall evaluate all requests’ for additional compensation or additional time from any contractor for the purpose of determining whether the contractor is entitled to either the additional time or the additional money under the contract documents and applicable legal principles. =S— Chugach shall have authority to determine on behalf of the Participating Utilities all proposed change orders or claims for extra time or money that (1) do not exceed, in the aggregate, 5% of the respective original contract amount; (2) once the threshold of 5% of the respective original contract amount in the aggregate is reached, do not exceed individually the amount of $100,000 per contract; (3) do not materially, in the judgment of Chugach, affect the overall Project schedule; (4) do not result in the increase of any budget previously approved by the IPG; and (5) do not result in any changes to design criteria, line routes, end points, or other material aspects of the previously-approved scope of the Project. Any requested change orders or claims for extra money or time for amounts exceeding these limits of Chugach's authority shall be submitted to the IPG for approval in accordance with the provisions of Article VII above. All change orders, whether prior IPG approval is required or not, shall be reported and explained to the IPG in the next regular monthly report to the IPG following the finalization of the change order. 12. Develop and maintain a current set of contract specifications and drawings which reflect all changes from the original design as drawn and specified. The current set of contract specifications and drawings shall reflect accurately all construction details as performed by the contractors. 13. Appear at all meetings of the IPG to brief the IPG on progress, schedules, financial aspects, and other issues that may be appropriate for IPG consideration and review. 14. Plan, provide LOR and manage all pre-commissioning and commissioning activities. 15. Provide for appropriate programs to train permanent Project operating and maintenance personnel. 16. Prepare final Project completion documentation and such other reports and procedures for transitioning the Project from construction to operation. x. INDEMNITY The Participants shall indemnify and hold Chugach harmless from all claims, liabilities, damages, and costs which arise out of or in connection with the Project excepting only 6s any judgments that are based exclusively and solely upon Chugach's intentional misconduct or "gross negligence." If any claims are made against Chugach, the IPG, or the Participating Utilities arising out of or in connection with the Project, Chugach shall arrange for defense of all parties as their interests may require and all such defense costs, regardless of the allegations made by the claimants, shall be considered Project costs for which the Participating Utilities shall indemnify Chugach. Chugach shall not be obligated to expend or advance any of its own funds on such defense costs. XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. Among Other Parties. Chugach may insert in all contracts entered with respect to the Project provisions to allow for alternate dispute resolution methods to be used to resolve disputes among the design engineer, other consultants, material or equipment vendors, and construction contractors, or between any of them and Chugach, the IPG, or the Participating Utilities. Such methods may, but are not required to, include a Project Dispute Resolution Panel, the costs for which would be a Project cost. Chugach may establish other appropriate provisions within the contracts and other procedures to achieve resolutions of disputes in the least expensive and time consuming manner. B. im: i I P. ici in Utilities. In the event that any claims by other parties are made against Chugach, the IPG, or the Participating Utilities, or any combination of them, arising out of the Project, Chugach shall defend itself, the IPG, or the Participating Utilities or any combination of them. Chugach shall have the responsibility to resolve all claims against itself, the IPG, or the Participants asserted by others and arising out of the Project, either by alternate dispute resolution, settlement or judgment, and shall have the responsibility to solely control the defense of any such claims. However, subject to Article X, any and all defense costs including attorney's fees, as well as any agreed settlements or judgments rendered against any of them, shall be lie satisfied by the Participating Utilities according to their respective interests in the Project. c. Disputes Between Chugach and IPG or Participating ii Any disputes arising out of the performance of this Construction Management Agreement between Chugach on the one hand as the Construction Manager and the IPG or Participating Utilities on the other hand, shall be resolved by submission of the dispute to a panel of three persons whose identities shall be agreed upon by Chugach on the one hand and the IPG on the other simultaneously with the signing of this contract. One of the three persons shall be an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Alaska experienced in construction litigation, one shall be a person experienced in the design and construction of transmission lines of the size and nature involved in this Project; and one shall be experienced in the financing of electrical utility operations and construction, including the financing of construction of transmission lines similar in size and nature as this Project. None of the three persons shall have any economic or professional relationship with any of the Participating Utilities at the time this document is signed nor at any time thereafter for the duration of the Project including the rendition of any decisions by the panel after the completion of the Project. None of the three persons shall have participated in any way on behalf of any of the Participating Utilities with respect to this Project or the Northern Intertie Project being managed by GVEA. The intent of the parties is that the individuals selected shall be free of any bias towards or against any of the Participating Utilities including Chugach; and that the stature of each of them in their respective profession is accepted by each of the Participating Utilities. 24 Also simultaneously with the signing of this contract, the IPG and Chugach as the Construction Manager shall jointly agree on the identities of three additional persons to serve as. alternates. Each of the three alternates, respectively, shall have the same qualifications as each person or the panel of three persons selected under paragraph C.l. above. If at any time one or more of the original three panel members is unable or unwilling to serve, or becomes for any reason disqualified from serving as a panel member, the wee alternate whose qualifications match the original person whose service on the panel is ending will replace the original panel member. The alternates shall not be consulted or become involved in any disputes unless and until they replace one of the original panel members. Ba In the event any disputes covered by this paragraph arise, Chugach and IPG shall each respectively prepare a written statement of their position of the dispute indicating what facts are not disputed and which facts or conclusions are disputed. The panel of five shall hold at least one conference in which Chugach and the IPG shall present orally their respective positions along with any witnesses or documents desired by either. The panel may hold more than one conference if in its discretion it determines such would be productive to reaching a decision. After reviewing all written comments and oral presentations, the panel shall meet out of the presence of the parties and render a written decision resolving the dispute in its entirety. The panel may secure consultation from those disinterested and impartial professionals that it, in its discretion, deems appropriate in order to assist it to reach a decision. The decision shall be rendered in accordance with (1) Prudent Utility Practice, (2) the terms of the statutes and various contracts applying to the project, and (3) in general with Alaska law. The decision thus rendered by the panel shall be binding on both Chugach and the Participating Utilities. All costs incurred by the parties and the panel itself shall be considered Project costs. XII. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS A. This Contract shall be interpreted and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of Alaska. B. The parties hereto do not intend to create any rights, interests, immunities, or privileges with respect to any entity not a party signing this Contract. Cr If any portion of this agreement is deemed unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions of the Contract shall remain in effect. D. This Contract may not be modified or amended other than by a written document signed by all parties hereto. -19- E. Terms defined in any of the agreements identified in the Preamble above shall have the same meaning when used in this Contract, unless such terms are defined differently in this Contract. Mee With respect to the construction management rights and duties of Chugach hereunder, where the terms of this Contract differ from any other prior contracts between the Participating Utilities and Chugach, the terms of this Contract shall govern with respect to the parties hereto. This agreement is intended to constitute the full agreement between the parties relative to the construction management rights and duties of Chugach for the Anchorage Kenai Intertie Project and all prior oral negotiations between the Participating Utilities, the IPG, and Chugach relative to the construction management activities of the Anchorage Kenai Intertie are hereby merged herein. CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION By. tis “CONSTRUCTION MANAGER” ALASKA ELECTRIC GENERATION HOMER ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION AND TRANSMISSION COOPERATIVE, ENG? By. By. Its BEES) MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION By. By. Its Its 0 MUNICIPALITY OF FAIRBANKS GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC d/b/a FAIRBANKS MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, INC. UTILITY SYSTEM By. By. Its Les THE CITY OF SEWARD THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE d/b/a SEWARD ELECTRIC SYSTEM d/b/a MUNICIPAL LIGHT & POWER By. By. Its Its “PARTICIPANTS” PSA94:477/4343.19 l=