Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFiber Optics ROW Permits 199627 Network Technologies Marvin N. Swink Right-of-Way/Permit Supervisor MFS Network Technologies, Inc. 4300 Boniface Parkway Suite 203 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 TEL (907) 338-9034 FAX (907) 338-9726 BIMFS ‘Network Technologies MEFS Network Technologies, Inc. 4300 Boniface Parkway, Suite 203 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 TEL (907) 338-9034 . FAX (907) 338-9726 Fue RURTAP-343 December 2, 1996 Mr. Clayton Hurless General Manager Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. P. O. Box 45 Glennallen, Alaska 99588 Subject: MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (MFSNT) Fiber Optic Cable Project Dear Mr. Hurless: MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (MFSNT) is in the process of obtaining right-of-way (ROW) and permits to install a fiber optic cable from Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s (APSC) Pump Station 1 (PS-1) to the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) in Valdez, Alaska. A copy of the Project Description is attached for your information. In obtaining ROW for the cable and from reviewing Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA) system drawings, it has been found that MFSNT’s ROW/easements will parallel or cross CVEA’s ROW/easements at various locations within CVEA’s area. MFSNT is requesting a letter of non-objection from CVEA for paralleling or crossing the CVEA ROW/easement along with any stipulations or conditions for paralleling or crossing the CVEA ROW/easement. Should you have any questions, or need more information, please call me or Marvin Swink at (907) 338-9034. Sincerely, forth ¥ Lede Ronald L. Roberts Engineering Manager RLR/maw cc: w/o enclosures Joe Sullivan ADNR Paul Salvatore BLM Frank Colucci MFSNT Marvin Swink MFSNT Kim Young MFSNT File GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION INC. Box 71249, Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-1249, Phone 907-452-1151 January 9, 1997 Ronald L. Roberts MEFS Network Technologies, Inc. 4300 Boniface Parkway, Suite 203 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Dear Mr. Roberts: This letter shall serve as GVEA’s non-objection to the MFS Network Technologies, Inc. proposal as outlined in your letter dated November 26, 1996. (Copy attached) This letter is provided per your request and is contingent upon the following guidelines and conditions: Please be advised that GVEA does not assign or transfer any rights, title or interest to any easements acquired for the benefit of the Co-op or it’s members. Therefore, this letter does not constitute authorization to utilize any GVEA easement for the right to construct, operate or maintain the proposed fiber optic facilities across public or private property. By this letter, it is understood that MFSNT must procure it’s own easements, permits or leases as appropriate for crossing any public lands or private property. When crossing GVEA’s right-of-way easement or paralleling the power line centerline, we request that no pedestals or above ground obstructions be placed on or within 10 feet of any pole location. Underground cable installation must maintain a distance of 5 feet from any pole location to eliminate potential conflicts with GVEA anchors and other supportive devices. Upon completion of the project, please provide as-built drawings detailing the location of the fiber optic cable and related facilities. If you have any questions, please call me at 451-5641. Thank you. Sincerely, <a D. Hill Right-of-Way Agent MFS Network Technologies, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable Project Description MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (MFSNT) is a subsidiary of MFS Communications Company, Inc. with headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. MFSNT is the leading global provider of large-scale networks and systems for communications, transportation and security applications and provides services to government agencies, private industry, public utilities, cable operators and telecommunication companies. MFSNT, with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) as the primary customer, is currently in the process to design, install, own and operate a new communications system for control of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The new fiber optic digital communications system will replace the present microwave system for control of the TAPS. The fiber optic cable will be installed from APSC Pump Station-1 (PS-1) at Prudhoe Bay to the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) with a Network Operations Center (NOC) located in the Fairbanks area. The fiber optic cable will be installed underground at a depth of approximately 3-4 feet along most of the route between PS-1 and VMT. Where the cable crosses rivers or large streams, the cable will either be attached to highway or pipeline bridges or VSMs or the cable may be installed under the streams by means of directional boring techniques. In some cases, the cable may be strung or attached to existing powerline poles. Future plans include an Enhanced Digital Access Communications Systems (EDACS) which is planned to be installed at selected Pump Stations and in the vicinity of selected Remote Gate Valve (RGV) sites. EDACS consist of a shelter for the electronics equipment, a self-supporting transmission tower and, where needed, optical regeneration equipment will be co-located with the EDACS equipment. The EDACS shelter is approximately 12’ wide, 32’ long and 9" high. There will be a ramp with stairs and the total footprint of the shelter will be approximately 12’ wide and 36’ long. The shelters will be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) when necessary. The transmission tower associated with the EDACS shelter will be located within 50’ (maximum) of the shelter. The transmission tower will be up to 150’ high and the triangular base of the tower will be approximately 20’ on each side. The total footprint for an EDACS site at the RGV will be approximately 72’ wide and 270’ long. This footprint will include the existing TAPS facilities at the RGV site. EDACS located at the selected pump stations will be installed within the boundaries of the pump stations. The routing of the fiber optic cable will be such that the cable will be either in the TAPS right-of-way (ROW), Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT & PF) highway ROW, Municipality (Borough) ROW or other existing utility ROW. The ROW width for the cable installation will be 15’ wide except where a greater width is needed for the accessories for the cable (i.e. EDACS and tower sites). In no case is it planned to place the cable in previously undisturbed areas. The cable will be placed inside a 1'/," diameter, high density polyethylene (HDPE) innerduct except where the cable is attached to highway bridges. When the cable is attached to highway bridges, the HDPE innerduct and cable will be placed inside of a 2” diameter steel pipe. The HDPE innerduct will be installed by either trenching or plowing and the fiber optic will be installed after the HDPE innerduct is in place. The cable will be installed in the innerduct with splice points as required. The splice points will be located in a handhold approximately 3’ wide, 4’ long and 3’ deep. Each handhole will have a minimum of 18 inches of cover and be located out of the way of traffic as much as possible. The cable will be terminated at each Pump Station, RGV, and other service points. Road crossings will be accomplished using directional boring techniques or other methods, or in the areas where the pipeline crosses under the road on VSMs, the cable will be attached to the VSMs for the length of the road crossing. Permits and ROW for the installation of the fiber optic cable will be obtained from all Federal, State, and Borough agencies as well as private land owners. MFS Network Technologies, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable Project MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (MFSNT) is a subsidiary of MFS Communications Company, Inc. with headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. MFSNT is the leading global provider of large-scale networks and systems for communications, transportation and security applications, and provides services to government agencies, private industry, public utilities, cable operators and telecommunication companies. MFSNT, is in the process of constructing a fiber-optic communication system along the length of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The design approach is to provide a completely digital transport system capable of transparently carrying voice, data, video, and other traffic. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) is the anchor customer for this project and the new fiber optic digital communications system will replace the present microwave system for control of the TAPS. The fiber optic cable will be installed from APSC Pump Station-1 (PS-1) at Prudhoe Bay to the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT) with a Network Operations Center (NOC) located in the Fairbanks area. The fiber optic cable will be installed underground at a depth of approximately 3-4 feet along most of the route between PS-1 and VMT. Where the cable crosses rivers or large streams, the cable will either be attached to highway or pipeline bridges or VSMs, or the cable may be installed under the streams by means of directional boring techniques. In some cases, the cable may be strung or attached to existing powerline poles. The routing of the fiber optic cable will be such that the cable will be either in the TAPS right- of-way (ROW), Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT & PF) highway ROW, Municipality (Borough) ROW, other existing utility ROW, or private property easements. The ROW width for the cable installation will be 15’ wide except where a greater width is needed for the accessories for the cable. The cable will be placed inside a 1'/,” diameter, high density polyethylene (HDPE) innerduct except where the cable is attached to highway bridges. When the cable is attached to highway bridges, the HDPE innerduct and cable will be placed inside of a 3” diameter steel pipe. The HDPE innerduct will be installed by either trenching or plowing, and the fiber optic will be installed after the HDPE innerduct is in place. The cable will be installed in the innerduct with splice points as required. The splice points will be located in a handhole approximately 2’ wide, 3’ long and 18” deep. Each handhole will have a minimum of 18 inches of cover and be located out of the way of traffic as much as possible. The cable will be terminated at ‘each Pump Station, RGV, and other service points. Because of the unique social and business environment in Alaska, we believe that this infrastructure should be locally owned. Very simply, Alaskans should benefit from an Alaskan resource. MFSNT and it’s Native-Alaskan partners: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Ahtna Regional Corporation, and Chugach Alaska Corporation have formed an ia. new company named Kanas Telecom, Inc. which will independently own this communications system. Kanas has signed a 15 year service agreement with APSC to provide communications services on the Network. The system will provide answers to these critical issues: Provide improved capacity and capability. Provide high system availability and reliability. Be maintainable in the Alaska environment. Become a platform capable of supporting future applications and technology. Provide communications coverage over a wide area critical to the safety of the pipeline, the people, and the environment. This is a unique opportunity for Alyeska to be the impetus for developing a new communications infrastructure which can benefit not only Alyeska, but many other Alaskans. Kanas is creating a resource which will, like the pipeline project itself has done, become an indigenous asset to Alaska which can improve the quality of life for many Alaskans. The fiber optic system proposed will inherently have considerable more capacity than Alyeska requires. While Alyeska will be the impetus for the system to be built, many Alaskans can benefit from the excess capacity the system will ofter. There are many services and applications otherwise unobtainable which will be possible with this system. These services will be offered completely independent of the critical monitoring and control circuits with no effect on Alyeska’s system performance, control, availability, or security. A few examples of the many potential benefits to Alaskans include: e Full motion, fully interactive video for applications such as: distance learning, telemedicine, teleconferencing, travel avoidance, etc. e High speed computer communications which would allow connection between public agencies, schools, public libraries, and provide access to public services such as the Internet. e High quality voice circuits throughout the system. e High speed, secure communications for the military and other users. Offering modern communications to regions of Alaska where it does not currently exist, will also create many business opportunities and therefore jobs for Alaskans. At the beginning of the project, MFSNT was fully aware of the Alaska Statutes and regulations that would govern the issuance of ROW/easements and permits necessary to install the fiber optic cable. MFSNT has been abiding by these statutes and regulations and have already received various ROW/easements and permits from State, Federal and local agencies as well as private landowners. On July 2, 1996, MFSNT applied for the first, of many, permits to the ADOT&PF and these permits were issued on July 16, 1996. In an effort to insure the timely issuance of permits from ADOT&PF, MFSNT requested that ADOT&PF provide a full-time ADOT&PF employee, at MFSNT’s expense, to assist MFSNT in selecting the best routing for the cable when the cable was located within the ADOT&PF ROW. ADOT&PF agreed to this request on July 31, 1996. With this agreement in place, MFSNT and ADOT&PF surveyed the cable routing north of the Yukon River and determined the best routing for the cable within the ADOT&PF ROW. After the routing was selected, MFSNT submitted permit applications to the ADOT&PF beginning on September 30, 1996 for permits north of the Yukon River along the Dalton Highway ROW. On October 4, 1996, MFSNT was notified by the ADOT&PF Northern Region Office that all MFSNT permit applications were put on hold at the direction of the Commissioner's Office in Juneau. The reason given for placing these permit applications on hold was that a “utility fee re-structuring was taking place at headquarters.” MFSNT started this project based on the statutes and regulations in effect at that time and which are in effect at the present time, and set the budget for ROW/easements and permits accordingly. It now appears that the ADOT&PF wants to stop all progress on the project until the statutes and regulations can be revised. The revision of statutes and regulations is a time consuming process and because of this, it does not appear that the project can obtain the necessary ADOT&PF permits in a timely manner to complete the project on schedule. ADOT&PF permits do not grant a company an exclusive area within the ADOT&PF ROW or any title to the property, and should the ADO1&PF require the relocation of the cable due to highway relocation or routing, the cable will be relocated at the company’s expense. Also, the company must reimburse the ADOT&PF for any expenses incurred by the ADOT&PF while inspecting the installation of the cable to ensure that the stipulations of the permit(s) are met. A permit differs greatly from a ROW/easement or lease in the fact that a ROW/easement or lease allows the lessee the first right to the use of the ROW/easement or lease while a permit does not. The right to have first use of the ROW/easement or lease is the reason that a one time fee or annual rental is paid for the ROW/easement or lease. MFSNT feels very strongly that ADOT&PF permits should be issued under the present statutes and regulations until the statutes and regulations are revised or amended at some future date. Once the statutes or regulations are amended, MFSNT will abide by the revised statutes and regulations. FAX TO: RileySneiT From: Tom Davidson MFS Network Technologies Ph: (805) 736-9711 FAX: (805) 736-8350 Pages: 2 (Including Cover) Note: Riley: | thought you would be interested to see the response | received from Clayton Hurless. We also discussed the plans and profile prints for the Glennallen to Valdez line and Clayton said that they could bring them to Anchorage to be copied if need be. Thank you for your help in this matter. 831/95 15:02 ID:Copper Valley Electric FAX :907-822-5586 PAGE @ ~ COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 45, GLENNALLEN, ALASKA 99588 (907) 822-3211 FAX 822-5586 VALDEZ (907) 835-4301 Fax 835-4328 August 31, 1995 Mr. Tom Davidson, Regional Manager MFS Network Technoloyics 7320 Santos Road Lompoc, California 93436 Subject: MFS letter of August 29 Dear Mr. Davidson: | appreciate receiving the proposal sct forth in your August 29 lettcr and look forward to working with you to further develop the terms of a mutually beneficial relationship. Your letter requests our response by Scptemher 8. ‘The only response we are able to provide in this short time is that we are very interested in pursuing this proposal but are not yet able to comment on the terms that we would find acceptable. 1 have talked bricily with a consultant and with our attomey and um eager to meet with you and share the information that would allow us to determine (1) the impacts your proposal would have on our system, (2) the opportunitics it would offer to Copper Valley Liecctric Association (CVIEA) and the communities we serve, and (3) appropriate compensation to CVERA for the use of our system. It is our clear intention to cooperate with your project and be flexible in mecting your needs. We simply need additional information and understanding before we can commit to any proposal. Please contact me to arrange a mecting al your curliest convenience. Yours truly, Cafu Ala Clayton I lurless Gencra] Manager w:\word\cdh\95-138jw.doe Serving the Copper River Basin and Valdez muy-va- se Beeson rs SG oNceweF KR PoOUNMmu Uy ISS Veyvy fou eyes NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES August 29, 1995 Mr. Clayton Hurless General Manager Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. P.O. Box 45 Glennallen, AK 99588 Dear Clayton: As you are aware, MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (MFSNT) is interested in installing a fiber optic cable on the utility line managed by CVEA between Valdez and Glennallen. The purpose of this project would be to provide improved communications for a number of potential users including the Alyeska Pipeline Services Company. The benefits to the area of such an installation are many. It would greatly increase the quality and reliability of the communications for control of the Alyeska Pipeline and therefore lower the potential environmental risks. The system would also include sufficient excess capacity to offer new, enhanced services and improved quality communications for the region. This could include such services as: video conferencing for distance learning, telemedicine, travel avoidance, etc. as well as improved computer and voice communications. In addition, the system would have capacity to provide internal communications functions for CVEA such as substation monitoring, remote power systems monitoring and control, and voice/data communications. The following are the general parameters that MFSNT would propose for the installation of a fiber optic cable on this existing transmission line: MFSNT will be responsible for the costs of installation. e MFSNT will coordinate the technical specifications with and comply with the requirements of CVEA and other responsible agencies to include as a minimum: type and specifications of the fiber optic cable installation technique and placement of the cable tower loading cable/conductor loading ¢ MFSNT will coordinate the implementation schedule to minimize the impact on the line. e MFSNT will comply with CVEA labor practices. « MFSNT will develop a mutually acceptable maintenance plan with CVEA. MFSNT will obtain all necessary construction permits/approvals. 1200 Landmark Center Suite 1300 Omaha, NE 68102-1841 Tel. 402/233-7700 Fax 402/233-7650 rave meg Sse Tey 44-6 S SN NS Ne ow RR PeUw rUYy te > evo 7 297-S35DU rF.USs i aa oe . Mr. Clayton Hurless August 29, 1995 Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. Page 2 e In exchange for the right to install the cable on this facility, MFSNT will provide a mutually agreeable number of fibers for CVEA's exclusive internal use. We recognize that this project would require the approval of other agencies and that CVEA cannot solely approve the project. However, as the utility responsible for the management of the line, MFSNT would like to request a response from CVEA on the above described proposal and whether CVEA would be in support of such a project. Could you also address the process for formal approval of such a project. We respectfully request this response by September 8, 1995 to comply with our deadline commitments to Alyeska. Very truly yours, Tom Davidson Regional Manager Network Systems TD:jm FIBER OPTICS RIGHT OF WAY ISSUES The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has received a request to install, operate and maintain a fiber optics cable within the Intertie Right of Way. That request raises a number of issues with respect to the AEA’s easement rights.' The ultimate issue is: do the easements granted to the AEA allow the installation, operation and maintenance of a fiber optics cable? In the event the easements do allow installation of the cable, are there any contractual or regulatory prerequisites? If AEA does not have the right to install the cable, a number of corollary issues arise: e What rights must be obtained? e Who should obtain them? e How will they be obtained? e What authority is required if the owner will not voluntarily convey? e What will the acquisition cost and how long will it take? The right to install issue must be addressed in the context of whether the underlying ownership is private, borough, state, federal or Alaska Native allotment. I: PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: For purposes of this analysis the private property owners include: individuals, native corporations, and electric cooperatives. With one exception? the ease- ments have the same purpose clause: i All of the easement rights were acquired prior to July 1, 1989 when the corporate name was changed from Alaska Power Authority to Alaska Energy Authority. For consistency AEA will be used throughout this document unless APA is used in quoted material. ' Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) granted six easements for different parcels. The applicable easement language is as follows: ...for the construction, maintenance and operation of one or more electrical transmission lines with voltage capacities not to exceed 345 KV, including structure foundations, guy anchors and all other necessary facilities appurtenant thereto. Any other use by the APA, its agents or assignees shall constitute a breach of the conditions of this easement, causing an automatic termination of the easement and reversion of title to CIRI. ---APA shall have the right... to enter upon the permanent easement for the purpose of construction, maintenance, repairs, alterations, or reconstruction of said transmission line or lines without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefore.... Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 1 DRAFT - 11/29/96 a perpetual right-of-way and easement to survey, erect, construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain, . replace and remove electrical transmission and/or distribution lines, including but not limited to, foundations, towers, wires, cables, and appurtenant fixtures upon, over, under, and across the following lands owned by the Grantor.... Except for the right to cross other lands owned by the grantor to access the easement, the right to remove danger trees from the owner’s adjacent land and the right of AEA to remove the improvements, the easements do not grant any other specific rights. However, two of the owners, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and AHTNA, Incorporated, did include clauses pertaining to a 345 kilovolt limitation.* The issues relating to private property are broken down into three areas: A. Right to Install Without Obtaining Additional Rights, B. Prerequisites to Installation Without Obtaining Additional Rights, and C. Acquisition Requirements. CIRI’s counsel drafted the CIRI easements subject to review by AEA and the Attorney General’s Office. Typically doubts or ambiguities in an easement are construed against the drafter and in favor of the non-drafting party. Wessells v. State, 562 P.2d 1042, 1048 (1977). In addition, the public trust exception applies. Under the public trust exception, the court would construe the instrument in favor of the public and against the private party. See State of Alaska Department of Highways v. Green, 586 P.2d 595, 603 (Alaska 1978) footnote 24: “As a general rule, where the language of a public land grant is subject to reasonable doubt such ambiguities are to be resolved strictly against the grantee and in favor of the government.” CIRI’s strongest argument is the agreements are not ambiguous and should be limited solely to the specific rights granted by the document itself. 7 For the CIRI limitation see footnote 2. AHTNA granted two easements. Paragraph number 6 of both easements states: The easement granted herein is for the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie, a transmis-sion line designed and constructed to transmit electricity at a voltage up to 345 kilovolts. AHTNA is the owner of a cable company and CIRI’s subsidiary owns television and radio broadcasting stations. Both may argue that the easement use is limited to electric transmission line(s) up to 345 kV, and that AEA must acquire additional rights for the cable. The issues raised by the language of the easements granted by these two owners will be addressed in each of the three issue sections. In addition to paragraph 6, the AHTNA easement differs from the CIRI and most of the other private easements by virtue of the fact that the width of the easement was limited to 170 feet wide, which is only wide enough to accommodate one 345 kV electric transmission line. CIRI and most of the other private owners granted easements 400 feet wide which could accommo-date up to two additional 345 kV lines. This would support an argument on AHTNA’s behalf that the easements it granted are more narrowly defined. In this instance AEA drafted the easements, however, AHTNA was ably assisted by counsel, and the public trust exception mentioned in footnote 2 applies. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 2 DRAFT - 11/29/96 A. Right to Install Without Obtaining Additional Rights There are three different legal approaches under which AEA may claim the right to use the existing private property easements without obtaining additional rights from the owners: 1. shield wire replacement, 2. operate and maintain, and 3. incidental use. 1. Shield Wire Replacement As currently proposed, the plan is to replace the existing shield wire with fiber optic cable. The shield wire itself is an existing integral part of the transmission line, or an appurtenant fixture. According to the project as-built drawings, shield wires traverse the entire project. Assuming that OPGW cable is used, * which can function as a shield wire, the existing shield wires can be replaced with fiber optic cable. With respect to replacement of the shield wire with the fiber optic cable, the key words in the purpose clause are: “reconstruct, operate, maintain, replace and remove... wires, cables, and appurtenant fixtures”. Use of the words “recon- struct” and “replace” are particularly significant in that they convey a broad right to make changes in the transmission line facilities.” Those broad rights establish a strong basis for the position AEA has the right to replace the shield wire without obtaining additional private property rights.° Zz; Operate and Maintain A secondary, but less powerful position applies to AEA’s right to “operate” and “maintain” “wires, cables and appurtenant fixtures”. The right to “operate and maintain” gives AEA the right to enter and maintain the easement and make those improvements reasonably necessary for its use and enjoyment of the easement.’ Installation of the fiber optics cable will provide revenues, improved SCADA and other communications-dependent improvements such as weather monitoring, and . Power Engineers’ report indicates that an ADSS-dispersion shifted cable which is proposed for the Alaska Intertie portion is non-conductive; however, the OPGW cable which is being proposed for the Northern Intertie does perform as a shield wire. 7 See Lower Colorado River Authority v. Ashby, 530 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. Civ. App. 1975); Strauch v. Coastal States Crude Gathering Co., 424 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1968). : The shield wire is an integral part of the 345 kilovolt intertie. The purpose clause of the easement specifically allows AEA to “reconstruct, operate, maintain, replace and remove... wires, cables, and appurtenant fixtures” the 345 kilovolt line. Paragraph 6 of the AHTNA agreement is not inconsistent with the purpose clause of the easement and does not create an ambiguity. ’ See Section 7.09, Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, Bruce & Ely, Warren Gorham & Lamont, 1988. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 3 DRAFT - 11/29/96 shared operation and maintenance efforts such as line surveillance which will reduce project costs. If the specifications for installation of the cable require repositioning the sag wire structure, installation of the fiber optics will reduce an existing operational outage problem caused by sagging, ice-loaded shield wires faulting the conductor.® Making changes to the shield wire assembly would be particularly important if the ADSS cable is used, since the ADSS cable does not perform the function of a replacement shield wire.° 3: Incidental Use A third position is that installation of fiber optics cable is an incidental use of the right of way by AEA. The emerging trend in the United States is that telecom- munications cables installed in electric transmission and distribution systems are an incidental use and within the scope of the rights granted in an electric transmission/distribution easement.'° This position would apply equally to cable attached to the structures or buried within the right of way. Under AS 42.05.311(a) a public utility is required to permit other regulated utilities to utilize its rights of way for payment of a reasonable fee.'' By virtue of a statutory exemption, AEA is not subject to APUC jurisdiction.'* Notwithstanding s During snow and ice loading conditions, the, load on the shield wire causes it to sag more than the conductor. In some areas of the intertie, the increased sag of the shield wire and contact or proximity to the conductor results in an outage. Repositioning the structure holding the shield wire will reduce the occurrence of outages. ; ; With respect to the AHTNA and CIRI easements, if the cable is not a shield wire, it will be incumbent on AEA to make a supportable finding that there are operational and maintenance benefits that outweigh the cost of installation of the cable, any additional project operation and maintenance costs associated with the installed cable and any increase in liability to AEA. 10 See C/R TV, Incorporated, v. Shannondale, Incorporated, 27 F.3d 104, (4 Cir. 1994) and Centel Cable Television Company of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 567 N.E.2d 1010 (Ohio 1991). " AS 42.05.311 promotes joint use and interconnection for public utilities “when the public convenience and necessity require this use and the use will not result in substantial injury to the owner (utility)....”. If AEA were not exempt from the provisions of Title 42, the joint use and interconnected provisions would apply to the Intertie. AS 42.05.311. Joint use and interconnection of facilities. (a) A public utility having sewers, conduits, utilidors, poles, pole lines, pipes, pipelines, mains or other distri- bution or transmission facilities shall, for a reasonable compensation, permit another public utility to use them when the public convenience and necessity require this use and the use will not result in substantial injury to the owner, or in substantial detriment to the service to the customers of the owners. The cost of modifications or additions necessary to a joint use shall be at the expense of the public utility requesting the use of the facilities. 7 AS 44.83.090\(b). Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 4 DRAFT - 11/29/96 the exemption, it is likely, due to broad legislative policy advocating multiple or joint use of public utility easements,'* that a court would determine the fiber optics cable is an incidental right or use of AEA’s electric transmission/distribution line easement. As an incidental use, unless the fiber optics cable creates an “undue burden” on the underlying owner's rights,’ installation would not require acquisition of additional rights from the underlying owner. In regards to the “undue burden” issue, the equities are in AEA’s favor. With the exception of the utility cooperatives’ lands, the private lands are virtually all unimproved or low density use lands. Installation of the cable on the structures above a reasonable clearance height, or burial below a reasonable depth to accommodate other utilities, should impose no additional burden on the owner.'® Furthermore, AEA usually paid 90% of the fee simple value for the easement interest plus any damages to the remainder, indicating the rights or usage potential retained by the owner were limited.'® ” In addition to AS 42.05.311(a) other examples of legislation relating to utility use of public rights of way are: AS 19.25.010 - highway rights of way, AS 35.10.210 - public facilities, and AS 42.05.251 municipal streets, alleys and other public ways. As to incidental utility use of a high- way see Fisher v. Golden Valley, 658 P.2d 127, 129 (Alaska 1983). According to the Alaska Supreme Court in Fisher, there are four differing views on incidental utility use of public highway rights of way and it adopted the most expansive view which is “[t]he easement acquired by the public in a highway includes every reasonable means for the transmission of intelligence, the conveyance of persons, and the transportation of commodities which the advance of civilization may render suitable for a highway.” Fisher, supra at 129. The Fisher language quoted fits with the trend to allow cable as a “technological improvement.” C/R TV, Incorporated, supra, at 107. % Fisher, supra, at 129. 7 Shallow burial or above ground installations that are low enough to interfere with access across the easement would present a problem. This issue can easily be avoided through appro- priate permitting stipulations. An issue limited to the CIRI lands arises: with burial of the cable. CIRI granted APA an easement across the “surface estate” for lands granted under the Alaska Native Claims Settle-ment Act (ANCSA). Delineation of surface and subsurface rights is limited at best, the act does not define surface or subsurface. See Chugach Natives, Inc. v. Doyon, Ltd., 588 F.2d 723, (9th Cir. 1978). See also Koniag, Inc. v. Koncor Forest Resource, 39 F.3d 991 (9" Cir. 1994). Burial on CIRI lands should be avoided. AHTNA also received its lands under ANCSA; however, the local village corporation which owned the “surface estate” merged with AHTNA which owned the “subsurface estate” conse- quently AHTNA owns the entirety and the easement to APA does not limit the grant to the surface estate. ° As to the AHTNA easements, this position is the weakest. None of the other easements have a paragraph limiting the usage to the 345 kilovolt Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie transmission line (singular). Accordingly, AHTNA is in a position to ask a court to find this easement is specific rather than a general unlimited grant. Under a specific easement, AHTNA can argue that AEA is Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 5 DRAFT - 11/29/96 The policy implications arising from AEA claiming incidental use of its right of way should be examined before taking this position. If AEA is allowed to install a publicly regulated utility in its right of way as an incidental use, other publicly regulated utilities may claim that, even though AEA is exempt from APUC regulation, AEA is acting in proprietary, or private capacity, rather than governmental capacity and its easements are therefore subject to use by regulated utilities. Such a position may be persuasive in light of the broad legislative policy for joint use of public easements. Joint use may be in the state’s best interest; however, the ramifications of the policy should be analyzed before proceeding. '’ B. Prerequisites to Installation Without Obtaining Additional Rights None of the private easements place obligations on AEA to notify the owner of repairs, replacements or alterations. If AEA chooses a course of action that does not require the purchase of additional rights from private property owners, from a contractual standpoint, no notification is required. Electrical substation opera- tional criteria at both the Golden Valley Substation and the MEA substation, the northern and southern ends respectively, will require coordination, however, both utilities are aware of potential for addition of the cable and will be involved long before construction. From a policy perspective, it is advisable to notify the owners prior to commence- ment of the work. Due to the limited number of private owners, 17 original owners including native allottees, the notice effort should be minimal. All regulatory requirements must be reviewed to determine if existing permits are sufficient to allow work to take place on the project. Cc. Acquisition Requirements In the event acquisition of the private interests is required (this analysis will also include the Alaska Native Allotments), no federal funds are involved, so the Uni- permitted to only construct, operate, maintain, etc., one 345 kV electric transmission line, and that any additional or incidental rights were not contemplated or granted and must be acquired. "7 Whether AEA or a third party owns the cable may play a role in the final decision if installation is contested. AEA as owner of the cable can more strongly defend each of the three positions on the premise that the installation is beneficial to AEA and is a secondary or incidental use of its own right of way. On the other hand, if the cable is owned by a third party and installed via an attachment agreement or joint use agreement, the underlying owner can raise the argument that the third party does not have a title interest in the easement. Since AEA’s easement rights are ostensibly not a public right of way under the APUC jurisdiction, this situation may be distinguishable from cases involving use of regulated utility rights of way. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 6 DRAFT - 11/29/96 form Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Act of 1970, as amended, does not apply.'® Therefore, the acquisition process is a matter of state policy. Should AEA pursue acquisition, there are approximately 1,250 acres of private and native allotment lands. Of that acreage, two owners, CIRI with 467 acres and AHTNA with 552 acres, own all but 230 acres. Most acquisition took place in 1983. The average price paid per acre was $1,900; prices ranged from $245 to $5,435. A conservative cost to acquire the an additional right to install telecommunications cable is estimated to range from $1,000,000 to $1,650,000. The principal problem with acquisition will be lack of AEA authority to condemn the property of an owner that will not voluntarily sell.‘ AEA as an exempt entity without a certificate of public convenience and necessity or statutory authority cannot condemn additional rights. Without the right of eminent domain, the potential exists for a single owner to require relocation of a portion of the line. In several instances that relocation would be lengthy and the cost would be significant.*° A separate opinion is required as to whether AEA can acquire additional rights through another state agency with the power to condemn. However, a regulated public utility may exercise the right of eminent domain for its own use.*' An alternative to AEA’s acquisition of additional rights would be to permit a cable utility to attach to the transmission line structures through a joint use agreement or attachment agreement, and require the utility to acquire rights from the underlying owner.”? DOTPF takes a similar position for utility use of its rights of way.”* s This was the position of AEA in the original acquisition, however, AEA did appraise the individual properties before proceeding with acquisition and generally met the Uniform Act's requirements. ad The 1993 legislation, Section 10, Chapter 18, SLA 1993, repealed former section AS 44.83.080(15) which gave AEA the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. = AHTNA has a large contiguous ownership. One of the theories they advanced during negotiation of the Intertie was the “opportunity cost doctrine” or the easement value is $1 less than the cost to go around the property. Such a position could result in several miles of reroute. Several other owners own as much as one-half mile of right of way. a AS 42.05.631. 2 The concern which arises here again goes back to the question of AEA’s right, or need, and the public policy as to control the right of way. If another utility obtains a right of way across the same lands, AEA cannot object to subsequent users unless their use interferes with AEA’s prior easement rights. = A rate structure and regulations will need to be established if AEA follows this approach. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 7 DRAFT - 11/29/96 Ul. MATANUSKA SUSITNA BOROUGH RIGHTS OF WAY The Matanuska Borough grant by the same easement document as the other private owners, however, certain legal principles that apply to private owners are not applicable to governmental entity. Although not a likely proposition, in the event the Matanuska Susitna Borough objects to installation of the fiber optics cable within the easements it granted, the potential issues involve grant interpre- tation, authority to convey other than express uses, and the right of eminent domain in the event AEA seeks to obtain interests involuntarily. A. Grant Interpretation In disputes with private owners, AEA can argue the position that the instrument should be construed in its favor under the public trust doctrine.** However, against the Mat-Su Borough, another public entity, the standard rule of grant interpretation that doubts are to be construed against the drafter and in favor of the non-drafting party”® will more likely apply. B. Authority to Convey other than Express Uses The Assembly, in authorizing the Borough Mayor to sign the easement passed a resolution. Unless the resolution expressly granted the additional rights, which it did not, borough ordinances may make the grant of additional rights ultra vires and void as to the borough. Research of the borough ordinances will be required to determine if their is a limitation that any conveyance of a real property right must be expressly granted, similar to AS 38.95.010.”° Cc. Eminent Domain Assuming that AEA or a regulated public utility exercises the right to condemn the property, such effort is subject to a finding that the use the property is being condemned for is “a more necessary purpose than that to which it has already been appropriated.””’ 24 State of Alaska Department of Highways v. Green, 586 P.2d 595, 603 (Alaska 1978). * Wessells v. State, 562 P.2d 1042, 1048 (1977). i AS 38.95.010 specifies that: “No title or interest to land under the jurisdiction of the state may be acquired by adverse possession or prescription, or in any other manner except by conveyance from the state.” 2 AS 9.55.260(3). Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 8 DRAFT - 11/29/96 Ill. STATE RIGHT OF WAY AEA has an “exclusive private easement” across State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land Management (DNR) lands granted by a right of way permit. The applicable language of the permit is as follows: [A] right of way... for an electric transmission intertie.... [I]t is under- stood and agreed by the permittee herein that, as a condition to the granting of the right-of-way applied for, the land covered by said right-of-way shall be used for no purpose other than the location, construction, operation and maintenance of the said right-of-way... as further described by attached as-built survey made a part hereof.... Limitation on Rights Granted In comparison to the private easements, the permit does not specifically grant the right to “replace and remove electrical transmission and/or distribution lines, including but not limited to, foundations, towers, wires, cables, and appurtenant fixtures....” By defining the easement rights by reference to the as-built drawings, the permit limits the rights to the facilities actually constructed.”° Arguably, AEA may seek to replace the shield wire and make revisions for maintenance and operation purposes and be within the scope of the existing easement. However, since the permit does not contain the same rights to “replace and remove” “wires, cables, and appurtenant fixtures” as the private easements, AEA’s rights under this permit are significantly weaker. Furthermore, the public trust doctrine expressly applies to all lands under DNR’s jurisdiction” therefore, any doubts between AEA’s “exclusive private easement” and DNR’s rights would be adjudicated in DNR’s favor. In addition AS 38.95.010 requires a_ specific conveyance of a State land interest. Due to the weakness of AEA’s rights and the fact there is no fee, an amendment to the permit may be the best alternative. The costs for a permit amendment should be principally administrative costs associated with modifying the permit. a See Section 7.04,pp. 7-27 and 7-28, Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, Bruce & Ely, Warren Gorham & Lamont, 1988: “When precise language is employed to create an easement, such terminology governs the extent of usage.” [Citations omitted.] = AS 38.05.502. Property of the people. Subject to valid existing rights of applicants for land, upon February 21, 1983, all land in the state and all minerals not previously appropriated are the exclusive property of the people of the state and the state holds title to the land and minerals in trust for the people of the state. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 9 DRAFT - 11/29/96 IV. FEDERAL RIGHT OF WAY For purposes of this discussion, the federal right-of-way refers to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grant and amendment to APA. Individual Alaska Native allotments subject to the federal trust obligations imposed on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by Title 25 of the U.S. Code will be addressed separately. 43 CFR 2800 Right of Way Grant AEA applied for a right of way under 43 CFR 2800 to construct a 345 kV power transmission line. Section 2801.1-1(4) applies to “[slystems for generation, transmission and distribution of electric energy”. Section 2801.1-1(5) applies to “[slystems for transmission or reception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph and other electronic signals, and other means of communications.” The application was made under subsection (4). APA subsequently received a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right of Way Grant, Serial Number AA-44361, for a 170 foot wide right of way across all lands under BLM’s jurisdiction.*° Under the terms of the grant, prior to any modification of the existing facilities or addition of new facilities not already authorized by the grant, AEA must obtain written authorization to proceed from BLM.*' The key issue is whether installation of fiber optics cable constitutes a modification to existing facilities or is to be considered a new facility not authorized by the grant. If BLM does not concur that the cable installation is not an authorized modification to an existing facility, a notice to proceed will not be issued until an application is made for a separate telecommunications grant. On the other hand, if the installation is considered to be a modification of the existing facilities and BLM agrees with that position, it appears that the only property requirement will be to obtain a notice to proceed from BLM. Since the regulations have different subsections for electric transmission and communications systems, and the cases on incidental use of rights of way on federal lands typically preclude uses not specifically within the grant,*? a new application is anticipated. A new application will require an environmental analysis.** - The grant was originally made on June 17, 1983. It was subsequently amended on July 22, 1983 to include the lands within an unapproved native allotment. ” General Stipulation 3.9.6: After construction of the granted right-of-way facilities, the modification or relocation of these facilities, or the addition of new facilities not authorized under the provisions of this grant or of any other agreement, permit, or authorization that shall have been duly approved, issued or granted by the Secretary or his delegate in connection with all or any part of the granted right-of-way is prohibited, unless approved, in writing by the Authorized Officer. 7? U.S. v. Gates of the Mountains, 732 F.2d 1411 (1984). Cf. U.S. v. Oklahoma Gas, 318 U.S. 206 (1943), where federal law (25 U.S.C. § 311) specifies the grant of a highway right of way Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 10 DRAFT - 11/29/96 V. ALASKA NATIVE ALLOTMENTS With the consent of the three allottees,** the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) made a 50 year Grant of Easement for Right of Way to AEA. A fourth allotment was unapproved at the time of the BLM right of way grant and was therefore included in the amendment to the BLM right of way grant. The applicable purpose language from each of the three BIA grants is: The right, easement, and priviledge of placing, erecting, constructing, repairing, replacing, maintaining, and using lines of poles with wires suspended thereon and all necessary and proper guys, anchorage, crossarms, braces and other fixtures for use in connection therewith, as may be necessary for electrical transmission and/or distribution lines or systems, and to cut back and trim such portion of the branches and tops of the trees now growing or that may hereafter grow upon the herein described premises, as may extend over said right-of-way, so as to prevent the same from interfering with the efficient maintenance and operation of said electrical lines or systems, including incidental purposes consistent therewith as may be necessary, together with the right of ingress and egress when necessary for the purposes above mentioned on, over, under and across the land embraced within the right-of-way.... Federal Jurisdiction Under Title 25 U.S.C. the Alaska Native Allotments are trust lands under the jurisdiction of the United States, Bureau of Indian Affairs. With the exception of highway grants which do allow the application of state law to the highway rights, the trust lands themselves do not come under the jurisdiction of the State of Alaska.*° across an Indian allotment is subject to state law. See also U.S. v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co.,434 F.Supp. 625 (1977). = 43 CFR 3802.4(d)(1). - Parcel Allottee 410.5 Maggie Oliver 410.1 Estate of Alfred Tansy 410.1A Jake Tansy 36 See Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., supra; Gates of the Mountains, supra; Oklahoma Gas, supra; 25 U.S.C. § 311. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 11 DRAFT - 11/29/96 BIA has the authority to issue rights of way for telephone and telegraph lines, 25 U.S.C. 8319, and “Rights-of-way for all purposes across any Indian lands”, 25 U.S.C. 8323. The regulations promulgated for issuance of rights of way have different sections for telephone and telegraph lines, 25 CFR 8169.26, and power projects, 25 CFR 8169.27. AEA’s right of way application for electric transmission lines was under the regulations for power projects under 25 CFR 8169.27. With the specific statutory and regulation sections, a court will most likely determine the easement does not grant AEA the right to install the telecommunications cable across the Alaska Native Allotments. Such a determination will require a new application under 25 U.S.C. 8319 and 25 CFR §169.26 and all of the obligations that are’ required under those sections. Fiber Optics Right of Way Issues Page 12 DRAFT - 11/29/96 Fax Sheet Date 9-23-96 | Number of Pages (includes cover page) 3 Message To ; p ; [Name _. Dave Germer/Stan Sieczkowski Telecopy number called 1907}. 269-3044. z [Fim Alaska Energy Authority peep see es City___Anchorage State AK lf you do not receive all the pages, please call 402-399-4997 as soon as possible. From Name _ Bill Koogler | Department Electrical | Telephone (206) 450-6225 | Job Number 5290 Subject: Project AEA 95-011, Task Order No. 2 Alaska Intertie Transmission Line Fiber Optic Cable Addition Per our recent telephone conversation, I understand that you would like information on the following: (1) Loss of lightning protection is not acceptable north of Cantwell. What would the additional costs be: to use OPGW instead of ADSS cable for the portion of the line north of Cantwell? (2) Will the addition of the fiber cable at one shield wire position only, cause an unbalanced loading condition o Goh : towers? Will this cause tower rotation under heavy ice conditions? (3) What is the order of magnitude cost in going from 24 fiber pairs to a 48 pair cable? Please find our response in the attached document. HDR Engineering, Inc. 500 - 108th Avenue N.E. Telephone Suite 1200 206 453-1523. Bellevue, WA Fax” 98004-5538 306-453-7107. E/T 'd TULVAS HOH WdEZ:20 96. EZ das 1) E72"d Project AEA 95-011, Task Order No. 2 Alaska Intertie Transmission Line Fiber Optic Cable Addition Additional Information Loss of lightning protection is not acceptable north of Cantwell. What would the’ additional costs be to use OPGW instead of ADSS cable for the portion of the line .. north of Cantwell? The distance between Cantwell and Healy is approximately 35 miles. This represents approximately 20% of the Douglas to Healy section. Based on the report numbers, the OPGW cost is approximately $845/mile more costly than the ADSS cable.’ Using : 35. miles and $845/mile the additional cost would be approximately $30,000. The increase in cost at $845/mile is insignificant relative to the total project costs. This leads to the question of whether the use of ADSS is the right choice for this line section. As the report states: “ADSS has two primary advantages. First the purchase price of the ADSS is approximately 5-10% less than the purchase price of OPGW. Second, the ADSS Cable is non-conductive so that under unusual environmental loading conditions there is no electrical flashover when the ADSS Cable comes in close proximity ty the a eens conductor.” The 5-10% cost saving in material is reduced to a cost savings of less than 2% wha labor and other associated costs are considered. The existing overhead shield wire is conductive and apparently functions satisfactory. It would appear that an OPGW cable could be installed without adverse problems with flashover. The report continues to state: “ADSS Cable also has three disadvantages when compared to OPGW.... . ADSS Cable applies larger loads to the structure than the OPGW..... . ADSS Cable has not been used on a large number of long span projects and its long-term performance under: these parameters is somewhat unknown. .... . ADSS Cable by its very nature, will not intercept lightning strikes and protect the underlying circuit.” Sf loa aie 4 the ability of this line to handle the increased loading from an OPGW or ADSS shield wire will have a large influence on the cost of the installation. If many of the structures on this transmission line require structural modification, the installation: of the fiber optic line becomes extremely expensive and impractical.” We are not overly concerned with the structures ability to handle the increased loading because as the report indicates, the increased loading is relatively small, However, we believe that the reduction in lightning performance is significant and that the cost savings of ADSS is insignificant relative to the cost potential of structure modifications, © , ATILLYAS YH Wdb2:28 96. E2 3S 2) 3) EvE*d In conclusion, unless their is some unstated reason that the OPGW will not: work, we would suggest that OPGW be used not only for the Cantwell to Healy section but for the Re: entire Douglas to Healy section. Will the addition of the fiber cable at one shield wire position only,. cause an unbalanced loading condition on the towers? Will this cause tower rotation woler heavy ice conditions? : The addition of a different size cable on one side of the structure will result in unsymmetrical loading. However, the unsymmetrical loading by itself should not have any negative impacts on the structure stability. Changing the cable size on one side of the structure would not cause rotation of the structure under heavy ice conditions. Structure rotation is typically caused by unbalanced tensions which can occur. due, to a : broken cable or unbalanced ice loading. As the ice starts to unload (fall off the’ cable) some unbalanced loading would occur, however, it would not be expected to be any greater than that which would occur if the cables were the same ‘size on both sides of the structure, The specifics of the new cable (i.¢., diameter, weight, strength, sag under various loading. cases and resistance to breaking) is of greater concern than the fact that it is not identical to the cable iristalled on the opposite side of the structure. Equally important to tower loading is how the sag of the overhead cable interfaces with the conductor sag. Contact and/or flashover between the conductor.and the overhead. . cable will impact the operation of the line and could result in cable damage or failure. In the case of an ADSS cable the loss of lightning protection needs to be carefully ‘considered. What is the order of magnitude cost in going from 24 fiber pairs to a 48.pair cable? The report used a 24 fiber ADSS-dispersion shifted cable for the cost estimate for segment 6A-2, the Douglas to Healy AEA line. The Supporting Data document: shows a cost of $2,79/foot for this cable. There is also physical information for the single-mode fiber option of this cable which is: O.D, of 0.59 in., Weight of 784 Ibs/mile, and: anes : strength of 11,650 lbs. We called Alooa and got the following values for a similar cahle with 48 pairs: OD= TS Senate cau Mae Dee eee ‘——o owe 0.661, Weight = 963 !bs/mile and B.S.=12,400 lbs. Cost =$4.73/ft. Since “the: physical attributes are fairly close to the 24 pair cable, it appears appropriate to assume that the structures would require about the same amount of modifications whether a 24 or 48 pair cable was used. ’ Assuming that the report’s cost estimate considered structure modifications, the major cost difference in going to the 48 pair cable would be in the cost of the cable. This indicates an approximately 25% to 30% cost increase in line construction taking hardware, . splices, and misc. costs into account. ATULYSS YH Wdr2:20 96. E2 das August 29, 1996 Mr. David E. Germer AUG 29 ig2¢ Lt) Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Industria 480 West Tudor Road and Ex : Developmen; Anchorage, AK 99503 Port Authority Subject: Project AEA 95-011, Task Order No. 2 Alaska Intertie Transmission Line Fiber Optic Cable Addition Dear Mr. Germer: Under HDR Alaska’s on-call services contract with the Alaska Energy Authority, our staff has completed the review of the “Anchorage to Fairbanks Fiber Optic Feasibility Study,” prepared by Power Engineers, Inc. This work is depicted as Task 1 of NTP No. 2. I have enclosed a final report that summarizes our findings for your review. We would be pleased to provide AEA with our services to obtain the additional information that we have mentioned in our report as being required for your review and final decision-making process. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 274-2000. Sincerely, Sal INC. Duane Hippe, P.E. Contract Manager Attachment HDR Alaska, Inc. 2525 C Street Telephone Suite 305 907 274-2000 Anchorage, Alaska Fax 99503-2639 907 274-2022 Review of the “Anchorage to Fairbanks Fiber Optic Feasibility Study” Background The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) owns approximately half of the transmission line from Anchorage to Fairbanks and is considering the addition of a fiber optic cable on this line that wil! use existing structures located on existing rights-of way (ROW). A detailed study, including an estimated cost for this proposed work, was prepared by Power Engineers, Inc. (PEI) of Hailey, Idaho, under contract to General Communication Corp. (GCI) of Anchorage, Alaska. HDR, under contract to AEA, has conducted a review the PEI report. This letter summarizes HDR’s observations and findings related to the subject report. Scope HDR’s scope of work involved review of the following documents: 1. “Anchorage to Fairbanks Fiber Optic Feasibility Study,” prepared by PEI. for GCI, dated March 1996, and the Supporting Data booklet. Please note: No maps, tower configurations, or calculations of tower strength were included with the above data. HDR was to provide observations and findings regarding the adequacy of the analysis performed, identification of omissions, and identification of potential risks to AEA of the proposed configurations. Summary of Findings The majority of PEI’s work was in the preparation of detailed cost estimates for the project. This work is summarized in the above-referenced feasibility study. PEI’s recommendations and cost estimates are reasonable and consistent with industry standards. However, it should be noted that it is difficult to assess the viability of the information completely, since PEI did not include calculations, drawings, or other backup information to support the assumptions included in the cost estimates. Without the aid of detailed structure drawings and design calculations to support PEI’s assumptions, HDR can not support or dispute PEI’s conclusions that only minor modifications will be needed to the existing structures. Depending upon the type and number of structures affected, any modifications could contribute significantly to the total cost of the project. The report indicates that some coordination will be required through the Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) in order to secure the final design and scheduling approval, yet this issue was not pursued as part of this study nor were any costs presented for this effort. If there are significant issues and concerns with the IOC regarding this project, these issues should be brought to light before the design effort and cost estimates are fully developed. HDR Engineering Review 1 8/29/96 The estimated costs are based on 1996 dollars and do not reflect the life-cycle costs of the proposed work, including maintenance and anticipated improvements over the life of the project. Total life-cycle costs should be developed and included in the feasibility analysis cost estimates. Costs should also be developed and included for attachment or rental fees with other utilities. Finally, it is unclear as to how permitting and ROW activities might impact the overall project. The anticipated duration for these various activities do not reflect the range of potential impacts to the project or its schedule. The cost estimates should include expected permitting costs. Recommendations Page 1, Paragraph 2: In general, we agree with the Alternative Route A selection. The risks and cost impacts that will be avoided by selection of Alternative A should be discussed in further detail. Page 2, Paragraph 3: The Douglas Station to Healy segment of the project is the longest piece of the project and represents approximately one-half the cost of the entire project. Data/calculations/sag charts should be provided in this report to show that one of the existing shield wires can be replaced with an all dielectric self-supporting (ADSS) cable. The issue of lightning protection reduction, due to replacement of the metallic shielded wire with the ADSS cable, is one that might have an effect on the long-term reliability of the line for AEA. The reliability question has not been specifically addressed in the report. Even with a low isokeraunic level, the removal of one static wire will increase the number of breaker operations on this line over the long term. Also, during line-to-ground faults, the static wires carry a certain amount of fault current. With one static being removed, the remaining static wire should be evaluated for operation during faults. The report states ADSS cable is “relatively unproved” for this type of construction (e.g., long spans, cold climates) and AEA would assume some additional risk for this major segment of the line. The level of anticipated risk and the associated cost impacts to AEA should be addressed in the report. References should be made to similar applications which have utilized this type of construction in cold climates. Technical Issues Page 7, Paragraph 3: We question the comment, “GCI should not expect any of the fiber optic cable system in this study to require periodic maintenance.” Any system installed outdoors will require some periodic inspection or maintenance. The responsibility for the maintenance and the costs associated with it will be real and should be addressed in any contract developed with AEA. Page 10, 24 Fibers versus 48 Fibers: The cost estimates were prepared assuming installation of 24 fibers. The report mentioned the possible installation of 48 fibers. This option would add more stress to the existing structures due to added weight and increase the unit price for the cable itself. The report should fully evaluate the trade-off between the increased cost of installation and structure modifications to the existing transmission system against the potential for additional revenue with the higher capacity fiber. HDR Engineering Review 2 8/29/96 Page 11, Optical Repeater Siting: The report did not identify specific repeater sites. Four to eight sites could be expected along a line like this, depending on the type of cable and equipment being used. Each repeater site would require electrical service and access for maintenance. It is not clear, in review of the report, whether this information has been included in the estimated costs. Route/Segment Descriptions No comment Cost Estimates Cost estimates appear to be reasonable. However, there is no information, such as design drawings and calculations, to support the cost tables. It appears that no costs were included for attachment/rental fees with other utilities. We assume that the costs are presented as 1996 dollars, which suggests that the report’s evaluation is based on the ‘first cost’ of construction. It is difficult to assess these estimates as they relate to the true economic viability of the project and comparison of alternatives, since the estimates represent different technologies, different construction techniques, and different assumptions for risk and expected life. There should be a life-cycle evaluation conducted to represent the long-term revenue as compared to the long-term cost and maintenance impacts of the project. This evaluation should provide assumptions for material and labor escalation over the life of the project financing, in addition to the weighted cost of capital funds which will be used for design and construction. Project Schedule An abbreviated schedule was included in the report that was reviewed by HDR. Schedule information has been summarized in the text, but has not been fully developed to show potential activity interrelationships and impacts of certain “critical” tasks. As an example, the report suggests that the “permitting activities can involve a significant amount of time.” The assumed permitting windows range from 3 months to 30 months, which will greatly impact the scheduling of design and construction activities. We understand that review of permitting was not part of this report scope, but permitting issues could significantly impact the construction of the project, and the relationship to the different phases of construction should be accounted for in the schedule. Technical Evaluation of Alternatives Page 31, Optical Overhead Ground Wire (OPGW) versus ADSS Cable as a Shield Wire: We agree with the advantages and disadvantages of each. No sag information was provided on the ADSS cable. Even with a non-conductive cable, the design should maintain a certain distance from the phase wires. Span lengths, total weight, installation techniques, etc., should be clarified in the text. HDR Engineering Review S 8/29/96 Analysis and Comments The specific information and assumptions that went into the replacement power cost estimates should be provided so that the accuracy and application of the assumptions can be verified. Page 35, Paragraph 1: The report should include calculations or drawings to support the statement, “The increased load from the OPGW or ADSS shield wire is less than 3% of the entire load on the structure.” Page 35, Paragraph 5 (continued on page 36): Because OPGW or ADSS conductor is generally larger or heavier than a shield wire it replaces, it will have a higher tension. This will impact all angle and dead-end structures (specials). In the cost estimates, extra guy and anchoring was included on guyed wood structures, but no modification costs were included for the self- supporting structures. Calculations and drawings should be provided to support these assumptions. Page 36, Paragraph 2: The study assumes only minor modifications will be needed to the structures to support the new fiber optic cable. However, the report also indicates that detailed analyses of all structures will be required during the engineering design phase. The report has not provided information as to how this contingency is addressed in the cost estimates and what the expected ranges of design costs are. Appendix: Right-of-Way and Permitting Issues The following observations have been made regarding this section: e Page 1, under study objectives, states that certain costs such as permit acquisition and obtaining ROW have not been included in the cost estimate. We would recommend that some effort be put toward estimating those costs because of the time and expense often associated with permit acquisition and ROW approvals. e Page 28, under project schedule, the timing window looks appropriate. It may be necessary, however, to limit work in some areas well before mid-June to reduce project impacts. An analysis of the areas that should be avoided after spring breakup will help limit impacts to those areas that may otherwise require permits. For example, if work can be conducted while the ground is frozen or there is substantial snow cover, much of the work may not require permit authorization. e The first section on land ownership excludes the U.S. Army base of Fort Richardson, which we believe may be impacted. Also, the document lists “Alaska Native Claims Lands” as a category ,but these areas would be subsumed in the “private” lands category. e Also, on the first page of this section, the area of construction is described as 200’ X 200’ at each set-up site. How many such sites are there likely to be? This information should be relatively easy to derive and has a substantial bearing on permit acquisition time and budget, in addition to the required ROW activities. HDR Engineering Review 4 8/29/96 ¢ The second page of this section lists the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as the contact for waterways and wetlands. Actually, the primary responsibility for any work in wetlands or waters is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All areas potentially impacted by the project should be reviewed for potential impacts to wetlands and waters. We would suggest using National Wetlands Inventory mapping as a first step in determining the need for Corps Section 404 permitting for the project. ADEC is the appropriate agency to list for any 401 Certification that may be needed. Any work in navigable waters will also require authorization from the Corps under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. ¢ The study should also note that the project falls within the Alaska Coastal Boundary and may require a consistency determination from the Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination. The need for such a determination is usually set by the other permitting requirements of the project. e The study states that compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for work on Fort Richardson or Elmendorf Air Force Base will be an issue. The requirement for NEPA compliance should be verified. e The study should list the need for a construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) if the total area impacted by the project is 5 acres or greater. This plan is normally provided by the contractor. Summary In summary, the “Anchorage to Fairbanks Fiber Optic Feasibility Study” provides a detailed cost estimate as requested by GCI, based on technical assumptions made by PEI. Detailed engineering analysis of the existing structures was to be completed during the design phase and is not included in this report. If this detailed analysis shows that a number of the self-supporting structures need to be modified or changed, the overall cost estimates will need to be increased. AEA should recognize that the addition of any fiber optic cable to an existing transmission line will generally reduce the Overload Capacity Factor of the structures in that line. t:\4anch\4hippe\fiber1.doc HDR Engineering Review 5 8/29/96