HomeMy WebLinkAboutTranscript Alaska Energy Authority Public Hearing December 6, 199110
pi
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 8 &S 8 B
Zee — (gee “bnrest ie
TRANSCRIPT
Alaska Energy Authority Public Hearing
Held in Petersburg City Council Chambers
7:00 P.M. - December 6, 1991
My name is Dick Emerman from the Alaska Energy Authority, this is
Ed Johnson from Dames and Moore, he is going to be working with us
subject of this Public Meeting is the proposed Tyee-Swan Intertie
and the reason we called the meeting was to let you know that we
now have authorization, as of about a month ago, and are just now beginning a formal feasibility study of the proposal. And in line
with that we want to let you know and to first of all come around
and give a little background on the process that we are going
through and were we stand on that process and also to solicit
whatever comments and questions people have at this phase thing
that maybe we should be looking at more carefully as we get int
the feasibility study things that we should be aware of - so that'
the purpose of it. My job at the Authority is an economist my rol
in this is the project manager of the feasibility study. And w
have awarded the contract for the study to the:-RW Beck an
Associates, backed by -- sub-contracted by Dames and Moore fo
the environmental analysis portion of the study. And Ed Johnso
will be the lead in doing that environmental analysis portion.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g & 8 B
guess with that - I guess the way I thought we'd do it is I'll give
you a little basic description of the intertie proposal. Many of
you were in Wrangell last spring and we went through it in some
detail, I won't go into that detail now unless you want me to with
guestions and so on, and I'll then tell you a little about the
process we are required to go through in order to build the project
like this and then that will lead into Ed who will have some
comments to make about the environmental issues that appear to be
most significant at this time and then that will lead into I
suppose general questions and comments that anybody might have.
So with that let me just say that the thumbnail sketch of the
intertie proposal hasn't changed from what we described last
spring, we're proposing and looking at a 138 KV line that would
start at Swan Lake and presumably end at the mouth of Eagle River
where we would expect to connect it with the existing Tyee line,
four or five miles West of the project. The most recent cost
update that we had on it was last spring, again, and that was on
the order of 40 million dollars, roughly a third of which was
clearing costs. You are all familiar with the basic rationale of
the project the 13@ million or so kilowatt hour annual protectual
energy from TYEE and the existence of about 90 million kilowatt
hours annual surplus from that is combined annual demand of
Wrangell and Petersburg is on the order of 40 million. So we have
that surplus energy resource sitting there and are expecting it to
be there for quite some time. Ketchikan on the other hand has been
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® F 8 B
growing and they are expected soon to be maxing out their local
hydro resources including Swan Lake and assuming that expectation
is borne out in the future then they will be in the position to
probably be buying diesel generators to meet their loads. So the
concept is simply a matter of tying them together and using this
surplus from TYEE to serve that portion of the Ketchikan load
that will otherwise be served by diesel. The overall concept again
that we looked at talked about in Wrangell eight months ago if your
familiar with, the concept has been around a long time, is to build
a complete Southeast intertie grid that would connect all the major
load centers in supply resources and ultimately hook into the
Canadian system. Much of that may be beyond our planning horizons
what we want to do is address those pieces of that ultimate grid
system that seems to be achievable in near terms. The most recent
study that looked at that entire grid concept was done for us in
1987 by Harsan Engineering and they identified two segments of that
grid that appeared to be most promising had the best economics
supporting it. One is the Tyee/Swan connection and the other is
a project that we are also currently looking at, pursuing, is a
connection between Juneau and the Greens Creek Mine. In both cases
we are talking about the existence of a substantial hydro surplus
and a nearby relatively nearby load that would otherwise be served
by diesel power. The process that we have to go through according
to our statutes, to actually construct one of these things -- is
number one we have what we call a reconnaissance study which is a
general overview of regional alternatives that
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg S 8 B
seeks to identify what the most promising options are, and we have
also -- that 87 study that I just described is what served as the
reconnaissance study for this project. Second we have to do, after
that is done, according to our statutes is a feasibility study
that focuses on the engineering, economic and environmental aspects
of the project and makes a determination of feasibility. And also
we have to do a plan of finance which looks at all the financing
alternatives and makes recommendations what the best approach would
be. Following all that - you take all that to legislature, once
the legislature has that the system envisions that given favorable
or acceptable outcomes on these studies the legislature can
authorize a project and provide any necessary funding and once they
authorize to provide funding then we can go forward. In this case
the first step in going forward would be, as far as we can tell
proceeding would be application to the Forest Service for a special
use permit for the right-of-way which then kicks in the, what we
assume will be an EIS process. We go through the EIS, assume we
get the special use permit, so on and so forth then we are ina
position to proceed to designing and construction. I omitted we
also to the extent that there is financing involved in terms of
plans to issue bonds, we have to also, before we can go forward to
actual design and construction negotiate contracts that are going
to enable us to provide for a repayment string for the debt
service. So where we are at right now is we sought -- let me just
go back a little bit again, we had the 87 reconnaissance study, we
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g & 8S B
had a load forecast update in 1999 that seemed to validate or at
least to date the load growth expectations we did a preliminary
financing study issued in March of 91 March of this year that
overall in general suggested that probably in terms of overall
magnitude out of the 46 million dollars for the project perhaps 26
million dollars could be financed with revenue bonds which would
be repaid by the City of Ketchikan through power sales over the
line. The other 20 million dollars probably have to come from
somewhere else. Somewhere else is generally considered to be, or
assumed to be the State. There are other funding mechanisms I
don't know what they are but nobody is closing out other
alternatives. At this point that is the way it appears and the
reason that the line appears to be or the forecast is, that at this
is point the line is economical in the long term, based on a
forecast that power sales will continue to grow in Ketchikan. At
the present time however the Ketchikan local hydro resource covers
all their load. So if the line were built in the near term the
transfers over that line in the early years would be relatively
low. The forecasts is that as they continue to grow the line would
ultimately repay itself but because of the relatively low transfers
in the early years that limits the amount that you would reasonably
expect Ketchikan to be willing to pay in debt service and that in
turn limits the amount of debt it appears that we could issue to
finance the project. So we looked at that in early '91 so that we
would go into it with our eyes open about what the financial
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
requirements of the thing might be. Since that time we have sought
and have now recently received a funding to go ahead with the
feasibility study phase of it and our schedule is to complete the
draft of the feasibility study by the end of February. A nice
tight time frame, the reason for that is we didn't have a 30 day
comment period that would enable us if things go well and according
to plan to issue a final feasibility study in April, perhaps a
month before the end of the legislative session. And of course the
reason for that schedule is we want to be able to bring together
for the legislature in advance of their adjournment the materials
they would need to authorize to the fund the project should they
decide to do so. So we want to be in a position to request
authorization in funding during this session. So, as I say, if the
legislature does that then it is our intention would be to go
forward with the environmental permitting studies that would then
validate the next phase and that kind of leads into what Ed had to
say about the environmental issues that currently appear to be
paramount. Now I'll let Ed continue talking.
ED JOHNSON: Thanks Dick, given that kind of time frame the
environmental feasibility study is not a detailed environmental
analysis sort of impact statement. What it will be is a review of
the existing literature data, stuff that the agencies have on hand
that we can access readily. And local knowledge that we can find
by talking to people and this is one of the main reasons we are
here tonight. The sources of data are usually in places like
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g & 8 B
Forest Service files, or Fish and Game files or other agencies.
Therefore we've been meeting with the Forest Service and we're
planning to contact other State agencies to help us in this. The
result we expect would be a description of the kind of
environmental effects that you can anticipate from constructing an
intertie. And those effects are fairly limited, you're all
familiarized I would imagine with the Tyee line and you know what
that looks like and how it was built. This is proposed to be built
with helicopter construction. Probably very similar to what you
saw with Tyee (indiscernible - cough) the route that follows lower
elevations, the valley that passes through here crosses Lynn Canal,
Bell Island, and this saltwater channel, up to Eagle Lake and down
Eagle Creek Valley to where it would tie in with a switching
station of some type. Either at one side or the other at the mouth
of Eagle River. I am told that there are about four areas that are
particularly sensitive environmentally to all of this. So whether
there would be an adverse effect is yet to be determined by me.
But the head waters of Carroll Inlet down here is a waterfowl area,
salmon stream and wildlife, and fairly diverse wildlife habitat in
that area. The area around Orchard Lake and the stream that runs
into Orchard Lake, Orchard Creek, is a waterfowl area and is also
a sport fishing spot, scenic. This area next to Bell Island has
several resorts and good saltwater King Salmon fishing and so I
suppose the visual affects of crossing here might be important to
some interests. There is a question to be answered yet whether
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
this should be a submarine cable here, and here (indicating on map)
or whether it should be an over water cable. They would have
different effects. Eagle Lake, I understand, is a good sport
fishing area and the Forest Services has cabins there and so in
view of this power line from the lake and from the cabins could be
very important. And then I understand this is a salmon or a
steelhead stream or a portion of it is a steelhead area, and
popular fishing area. As proposed now, I believe this crosses the
creek one or two times and that may cause some concern from
aircraft they obviously don't like cables hanging from the sky or
anywhere around so we need to look at that issue. The main
environmental effects of this are the clearing of the right-of-way,
or whatever effects that has on wildlife habitats, when you go
through heavily forested areas clearing out 160 - 2@@ and some
feet, more depending on the shape of the ground. The placement of
the towers, each one occupies a relatively small area, they should
have limited environmental effects. The spans are expected to be
an average of 300 feet though they can be considerably longer.
Engineers, I think, prefer to have them closer together if they
have their choice. They need to avoid landslides, avalanche areas,
and for the most part this route does that with one or two
exceptions. And those exceptions I think stand (indiscernible -
fades out) so far . So that's kind of thumbnail sketch of what -
- well, one other point that I recently come into and want to talk
about is the Forest Service in its planning has designated this
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19 ® & 8 RB
route as a transportation corridor and a transmission line intertie
corridor in their land management plans, in the draft plans of the
Tongass National Forest as of now. Which would be compatible land
use zone. However Eagle Creek is evidently eligible for wild and
scenic river status. I'm not sure but I suspect Carroll River is
also eligible for wild and scenic river status. To the best of my
knowledge no decision has been made by the Forest Service as to
what status they expect to give that in their plan. But that would
have -- could have an effect on the feasibility. Wild and scenic
river corridors are a quarter of a mile on either side of the
stream and I think wild status is very restrictive as to what you
can do, scenic is much less so, and I think there is another
recreation river which is more available for this kind of
development. So that is -- It would be possible even with one of
those categories listed to still build this intertie but the
position of the intertie in relations to river would have to be
adjusted considerably and may have significant impact on costs and
economic and engineering feasibility. That is a whole lot of
talking about something I know very little so I'd like to open this
up to discussion, comments and questions that you might have
particularly relevant to the environmental concerns that I have
just mentioned but I think Dick probably would entertain questions
on other aspects of this if you have some. Sammy is making a
record for us, keeping notes there and we would appreciate it if
you would speak up so she gets a good clear record and won't have
10
lu
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg & 8 B
to try scratch all my notes down. If you'd introduce yourself as
you speak that would help too. So with that if you have questions
or comments floor is open. Sir?
DENNIS:
EDWARD:
DENNIS:
EDWARD:
DENNIS:
Dennis Lewis, with Power and Lights Superintendent here
in Petersburg. One thing you mentioned was on Span
lengths. You are talking about 300 foot span lengths.
Have you seen a design from the engineer firm that is
what they are sort of proposing?
No I haven't. No I have not seen a design. The reason
why I have a conceptual thing only.
And the reason why I have asked the question is that
between Tyee and Petersburg there are span lengths in
excess of ten thousand feet.
I understand.
There are also some I don't think there is span length
less than three hundred feet with in the whole
transmission system. It is a concern that there are
certain towers in certain areas because of environmental
issues. You can extend those span lengths to goa little
bit further. My other concern is right there at the
mouth of Eagle River. Eagle River crossing goes from
point to point - from peak to peak - and looking at a
switch yard at that location, I'm talking about the
design of the project do you feel like they will be going
back up to another area or valley, I know that it's not
10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® SF 8 B
ED:
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
feasible.
I was told they will need a switching installation near
where ever this connection is made - other than leaving
that wide open so it may make a difference if we are
required to stay on one side of the stream all the way
or the other then this might become limiting if there is
only a place on one side or the other, we've got to be
on the right side of the stream when we get there.
.... approximately from the floor to the transmission line
is 3000 feet. Your going peak to peak. The other
question I have concerning debt. I might address this
to you (Dick) it is my understanding that you are
planning for Ketchikan to pay half of the debt and the
State to absorb the other half with no debt being
required from Petersburg and Wrangell?
There is no plan’ or scenario that I am aware of that
would involve any payment coming from Petersburg or
Wrangell. The idea would be that a wheeling charge would
be assessed on power sales and Ketchikan would pay that
wheeling charge.
Do you feel that Petersburg and Wrangell because of the
way the long term power sales agreement is written will
have an opportunity to express their feelings during the
Neyotlation between the State and Ketchikan?
I don't know much about the power sales agreement or
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 R F§ 8 RB
initial agreement- I haven't been involved with it much
so I don't know what the language in that agreement would
imply. But I would think that Wrangell and Petersburg
would have interests in this whole thing that would be
relevant and would lead to your input one way or another.
For example one of the questions that will be important
I think is the issue of, as you know Wrangell and
Petersburg have priority right to all of your firm power
requirements. The question the power that will be sold
to Ketchikan will be surplus and interruptable at least
to the extent that your firm power requirements will come
first. One of the questions that will - it seems to me
arise - and that will require involvement of Wrangell and
Petersburg will be, what if you want, after the
construction of this intertie to enter into a
interruptable power sale, for some amount of surplus|
power with an existing or future industrial concern i
Wrangell or Petersburg.How will that sale or propose
sale stand in the priority order compared with Ketchikan?
Will it be on equal footing or will Ketchikan'
interruptable sale follow in the line of priority an
then in other words precede in the order of priority som
future interruptable sale you might want to make. Ho
would that work out? That was an issue that came up i
our public meeting in Wrangell the other day, two day
ne
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g & 8 B DENNIS:
ago, and I don't have and answer to that. It seems that
is something that will need to be negotiated. On the one
hand, I think that this is an issue that was raised the
letter the City of Wrangell had prepared by their lawyer
Eric Redman last spring at the time we met last - in
order for Ketchikan to agree to pay a certain amount of
debt service on this line I would - you would expect they
would want some sort - I don't know how to say it, some
sort of not guarantee but assurance that they will have
some reasonable level of access to the power, they
understand that they are going to stand behind the firm
power requirements of Wrangell and Petersburg. On the
other hand if their interruptable sales are to be placed
on an equal footing with any other interruptable sales
that might come up, they might not find that acceptable
we don't know, we have to discuss it with them, if you
don't the deal might be off. If Wrangell and Petersburg
want the line to be built then you might have an interest
in allowing Ketchikan's sales to come second after your
firm requirements and any other interruptable sales to
come third. It is a complex issue and I haven't thought
it through, but I can see how the issue like that would
involve Wrangell and Petersburg in the negotiations.
I guess my third question when we are talking about this
situation is if the intertie goes into the service
aS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg SF 8 B
DICK:
Ketchikan because Swan Lake is tapped out, and all the
capacity is used, if that is tapped out and if we are
looking at interruptable sales to our own consumers in
Petersburg and Wrangell which we have preference rights
to all the power on that project first the third turbine
that there is room to put in at the Tyee project for
spinning reserve or whatever it may be - what is your
feelings on who is going to absorb that debt for the
third turbine?
As who is going to absorb the debt I don't have any
feelings or thoughts, I can tell you that in our
feasibility study contracts we have told Beck included
in the scope, I have direction for them to look at the
cost and economics and justification for a third turbine
and the impact of the intertie on the justification for
a third turbine. I don't know in what depth we will get
an answer from them but they are being directed to
explore that question. It is also an issue came up at
Wrangell so one of the things they are going to be doing
is telling Beck of our concerns about the issue perhaps
stronger that might appear in the scope of work. What
we heard from Beck in a quick and dirty way back in March
when they did their financial study was that overall they
have estimate of about five and a half million dollars
in '91 dollars to install a third turbine. It is my
14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg & 8 B
DAVE:
understanding or it has been anyway - you put in a third
turbine, it doesn't increase the annual energy it has
other effects - reliability, spinning reserve, the
ability to meet peaks. Putting a figure on the value of
that is going to be important in the extent that we seek
any legislative funding for that third turbine in
conjunction with the intertie. So the only decision that
has been made by the Authority is to look at it in
conjunction with the feasibility study. Where that we
were of course aware of the resolutions from Wrangell and
Petersburg that supported it and I believe tie the
supports for the intertie to the third turbine. Beyond
that there hasn't been any thinking or even discussion
that I am aware of as to how it would be paid or who
would pay it.
(City Council Member and also Thomas’ Bay Power
commissioner) Dick you mentioned that in view of the
factors and why you might want to consider a third
turbine and I just thought I would express to you my
feelings and my main concern about needing the third
turbine is the peaking, not only the reliability but the
peaking. I think Wrangell, Ketchikan and Petersburg
probably peak about the same time. Same time of year,
we're fishing communities and probably the same time
today. And it would be nice if you could run Tyee at
15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
23
DICK:
DAVE:
DICK:
a 130 million kilowatt hours. We only need 15 megawatts|
is all you need to do that. If you run twenty four hours
a day, that isn't the case. You know, we're going tq
be like this (demonstrated) up and down and up and dow
and somebody I also suspect that when Ketchikan's al
to need the most power will probably going to be a tim
in the middle of summer when it hasn't rained for d
days. Swan (Lake)losses water in a hurry, then they ar
going to want to come on Tyee.which is going to tap #
more ‘course it's not going to rain in Tyee either, sq Tyee does have a.....
I don't know I think the authority is going to do som
stream gauging or perhaps try to figure out what wate
is being spilled (indiscernible)
I think it is important to know just how that power i
going to be usea because it will be a peaking facility
I don't know how you are going to get around it if - i
you have other ideas how we are going to peak please le
us know we certainly don't want to be in a position her
where we have to start cranking on our diesels.
Well I guess one thing that I would say I agree, as
mentioned before, that certainly you add the thir
turbine you have increased capability to meet a peak loa
clearly there is a value attached to that. The onl
other thing that I would mention is the priority of
16
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g & 8 B
DENNIS:
DICK:
Wrangell and Petersburg for the offer of the project also
means that you have priority at any time. So if you need
to take twenty for your firm requirements - you get
twenty at that time, (indiscernible) Ketchikan will not
be able to cut into your ability to get the full 206
megawatts for Wrangell and Petersburg's firm
requirements. I understand what you are saying we will
be looking at that. What impact the third turbine would
have and what value it would have in increased capability
to the combined Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg peaks.
Dick I had one other question. When we are talking about
firm commitments of Wrangell and Petersburg and whatever
the power that is sold to Ketchikan be it interruptable
or firm or whatever the negotiations ends up with.
Looking at the overall picture, especially between the
Swan Lake and Tyee project can RW Beck study -- are they
including a situation where dispatching of all that power
will be from one location so that everybody knows where
the power is at and where its coming from. Right now
there are two separate locations on dispatching. Woul
dispatching become a portion of that study -_ to look
at who's getting what and where its coming from etcetera?
I don't believe there is anything in our scope at 4
present time that talks about dispatching. The issue of
combined dispatch came out a couple nights ago in
17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 R & 8 B
DENNIS:
DICK:
Wrangell. And in the form of concern expressed that
Ketchikan was going to take over dispatching Tyee and
they -- there would be a loss of control. And in
response to that 1 told them that we would have, tell me
if I'm wrong, seems to me we must have it in the notes
but it seems to me I told them that we would have Beck
look at, gee I wish I could remember, what did I tell
them, seems to me I said we would look at what the
possible impact in terms of the possible savings might
be operational savings in terms of combined dispatch so
that we had some basic information to go on as to what
it might look like. That's the extent that we said
anything on the subject.
From my perspective as the Power Superintendent of
Petersburg, I personally feel, that it is more
economically feasible to dispatch all the generation from
one location. I want to make that a public statement as
far as I'm concerned. What other concerns are there it's
irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, but I feel it is more
economically feasible to dispatch both generation sites
from one location.
If my recollection is correct, then one of things even
if I didn't say it before, I'll say it now, that if we
construct that and we should because the subject keeps
coming up to at least make an effort to define what the
18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
savings would likely be from combined dispatch. And
we'll do that.
There is one other thing when we are talking about
dispatch and it goes a little bit further than just the
Tyee and Swan project, but in order to pay for a portion
of a salary to dispatch Thayer, Gravity, Solomon Gulch,
Tyee, Swan, all from one central location would be more
expensive for a (indiscernible) but at the same time you
could dispatch all five of your hydro projects from one
location also. Doesn't matter where you're at -- you
might want to take a look at that in your study.
That sounds like something that is going to be outside
the scope of a 9@ day study.
I understand that. But that's something down the pike
that AEA might want to look at.
I'll ask about that when I get back to the office
Thank you, I guess my main concern is my rate payers and
I'm looking at what is most economically beneficial to
all the rate payers and if somebody gets the axe .....
that's life.
Yeah, we had this discussion in Wrangell about the on one
hand it's a savings -- the complaint was loss of a job
or two and loss of control on the other hand presumably
if it were to happen -- if we -- it would also mean
lower costs, lower rates..
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® F 8 B
DENNIS:
ED:
DAVE:
ED:
DICK:
DICK:
DAVE:
I'm looking mainly at what my rate payers are paying.
And if my wholesale rate goes above 6.4 cents which it
is right now, they'll be pretty upset, especially when
Gravity is paying 3.9 for their total? and debt.
Any other comments - questions?
I assume that someone is going to update a load forecast
for Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg.
I would think that that needs to be done in order to
figure up the end balance.
We had a load forecast prepared in 1999 and I know that
the subject came up in Wrangell and I offered to send
them some additional copies since a lot of people had
never seen it. This is it (held up copy of report) Done
by the ISER, University of Alaska.
No, we did not include going through another load
forecast we just did it a year ago. Because of the
limited time and budget, its always nice to get more, but
no it's not part of the plan. The plan is to do the
study and the economics based on looking at both the base
and the high forecast for Wrangell and Petersburg, in
terms of determining or estimating Tyee surplus
availability in the future. And we'd be looking at the
Ketchikan base forecast as the mid-range feasibility
study.
I have another question that ties right into that. When
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg F& 8 BR
DICK:
DAVE:
or who will do the work will be determining how Tyee and
Swan will be operated? I don't assume you're go to have
Ketchikan and in the best interest draw down Swan to
uotning, ana then just takes a little bit of power out
at Tyee as needed and I don't think that is very wise.
Somewhere along the line you've got to coordinate two
projects to run the most efficiently.
In terms of the feasibility study - a detailed
operational question like that is not going to be a
determining factor in whether it is worth building or
not. We don't have plans to look at that question. The
closest to that that we're proposing or determining to
look is what I just mentioned. Having a given estimate
of what the savings would be from combined dispatched.
But the detailed operational questions -- unless Beck
gets into it because they find in reviewing this that
they need to, I don't expect that it will
I don't expect this to be -- for what you're doing now -
- I don't expect that to be done either, but it seems
like in the past a lot of the things that probably be
looked at before you get a project built usually aren't
and I know we are in the preliminary stages but hopefully
as this thing progress at some time before’ the
construction crew is on the ground, the Authority really
does take look at that, because we can get hit with all
2A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Rg & 8 B
DICK:
DAVE:
DAVE:
DAVE:
kinds of surprises. You know the Authority built the four
projects, Tyee included, and then came to the communities
and tried to negotiate a power sales agreement and that
didn't work out very well for them obviously there we
just don't want to repeat it.
Yeah I understand. My reaction, what I'm thinking when
I hear you say that is that I would expect that there
would be substantial negotiations the way things look now
with Ketchikan and also involving Wrangell and Petersburg
as I was talking about in fact having to do with the
wheeling rates and the priority for interruptable sales,
what the priority order will be. It would seem to me
that in that context those questions of operations would
arise and could be dealt with at that time.
I guess that I should make one last point, I personally
don't believe this but there is a perception, some
perception within this community that if you build a line
to Ketchikan, by god Ketcnikan eventually is going to get
that project. Now I don't believe that.....
the Tyee project?
a} atta tart the Tyee in other words when push comes to shove
Ketchikan will being the bigger community and having more
growth or clout will get the power. I personally don't
believe that but I just want to make you aware that that
perception does indeed exist, I guess I am just
22
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg SF 8 B
DICK:
DAVE:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
cautioning you to be up front with the communities of
Petersburg and Wrangell, keep the two communities
involved in what you are doing like you're doing tonight,
I think that would be very beneficial and keep some nasty
things from happening down the road.
I appreciate the advice. I don't know, do you have any
suggestions what to do about it. I hear that and I say
well the contracts don't see any loop holes, the lawyer
assures you etc. and I don't know what more to do.
It is a perception. You know Petersburg was drug through
the mud literally with this long term power sales
agreement and we don't want to loose what we have. I am
just telling you what is out there and I certainly don't
believe - I think our contract is legitimate ... but put
two attorneys in a room and you know what is going to
happen. I think that our contract is pretty iron clad
- with a few loop holes that have to be worked out.
It seems as though a wheeling agreement with Ketchikan
at such time as it was negotiated could strengthen that -
with some explicit language.
Dick, right now this evening all you're specifically
talking about is strictly the intertie between Tyee and
Swan Lake. Is that correct? No other intertie, no other
transmission lines.
Well that is all that this study that prompts this
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
meeting is about.
So I'll save my comments.
If it is something relevant.....
Varehy a well Bradfield and that transmission line going up
possibly to B.C. the mining area and possibly the
intertie with the B.C. hydro grid. That is an ideal
location to tie into -- go about eighteen miles away from
the mine area. They're not fighting that and it should
transpire that would give us our tie into that grid -
it's a long range policy - so just- but for stability
right now on generation I can tell you right now the way
the frequency is running for the voltage run at and to
stabilize the bars on the right now for example
Petersburg is loosing X amount of kilowatts out of
Crystal Lake because we are supporting the bars on the
Tyee system. If you intertie both the Tyee and the Swan
Lake together then there would be support on the bars,
where as right now we've sort of -- on a mutual agreement
are supporting the bar activity on the Tyee system with
our Crystal Lake. And at the same time what is happening
there we are loosing our kilowatt usage out of Crystal.
That is a subject that has me confused I have talked with
Ansel Conn our electrical engineer about that and I'm
still confused. We will go from there. That will help
stabilize the system.
24
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg & 8 B
BOB SCHWARTZ: of the Petersburg Utility Board: at what stage of
DICK:
BOB:
DICK:
this development is this situation going to be taken up
with Ketchikan as far as what is going to transpire in
a usage of that line. What stage of your programming?
We were not able to meet with the -- to hold a public
meeting in Ketchikan this trip because their City Council
is wrapped up in budget meetings so now we are now
scheduling a public meeting similar to this for Ketchikan
the week of January 20th. ere pees | eee ae
interaction with a gathering in the city. I don't know
if that is what you meant?
Well) | no |\what)|I|\wae |) wondering) is)|in) regards) |\to the
agreement to who is going to get the power. At which
stage in this development do we start working on that
idea "who's going to get how much power" and what the
price is going to be and the benefits of it or whatever
the case may be - at what stage in this development is
this going to take place?
I would think - not having discussed with anyone, but I
would think that we would not get into negotiations with
KPU on the wheeling agreement at least until such time
as we have a project authorization and what appears to
be sufficient funding from the legislature to make the
thing go!) Once) thats) done)/I)/-- it) seems to) me that it
would be well to begin at that point the negotiations on
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg & 8 B
BOB:
DICK:
BOB:
DENNIS:
DICK:
a wheeling agreement. That would specify a formula on
whatever it is - what rate they would buy power delivered
to Ketchikan and all of these other issues that you have
been talking about the order of priority. So I wouldn't
anticipate that would happen at least until authorization
and funding - probably while these environmental studies
are going on we would be initiating those negotiations
that would be my best guess.
We would be notified though?
Oh yeah.
And have plenty of time to gather some ammunition and
what not.
Dick, this is Dennis again, speaking. I guess this
evening we are mainly looking at the environmental issues
and -- on this particular portion of the study, I guess
my problem as everyone else here, we are more or less
getting into the operation portion of that and also
negotiations of the wheeling agreement, more than we are
mainly the environmental issue. I guess rom my
perspective the specific environmental issues - I don't
see any, but I can specifically see is the operational
situation and negotiation with our wheeling agreements
and how (indiscernible)
Well that's fine that's basically what I see this
evening. However, we're here to talk about anything.
26
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® SF 8 B
DENNIS:
ED:
I think I can still catch a steelhead in Eagle River if
we build transmission lines. They are going to be high
enough when I cast (small talk and laughter back of room)
A lot of it 3000 feet over should be high enough.
I guess from what I have heard not here this evening so
much but what I heard from the Forest Service and a
little bit from Fish and Game, I don't know at this
moment of any environmental issue that would preclude
that line. That very early at saying that but there
isn't any red flag jumping up that are real obvious.
There are some concerns but they seem to all have
engineering answers, there are ways to get around the
environmental problem or to minimize the environmental
problem that's the advice that I have been getting so
fan.
PAUL ANDERSON: (City Council) Basically I think there is more
ED:
PAUL:
DICK:
environmental concerns in the Ketchikan area than there
is up here in Wrangell and Petersburg area. I know you
haven't had a meeting...
I have not talked to the Forest Service down there, we
talked on the telephone but I haven't had a chance to sit
down with them and spend any time on that yet.
And do you foresee joint meetings with Wrangell,
Ketchikan and Petersburg at all?
Not for this study - no.
27
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 SRI eH MES
PAUL:
DICK:
PAUL:
DICK:
ED:
DICK:
But there will be public meetings if anyone would like
to fly from here to Ketchikan. Well, we got this.....
What we tried to do is schedule a public meeting in each
of the three communities and so.....
The reason I said that you said there were different
concerns in Wrangell and Petersburg and these concerns
may not be the same as the concerns that they have down
in Ketchikan. Rather than reading them in the paper, it
could be nice to hear what their concerns are.
One of the things that we are doing is we are preparing
a synopsis or summary of each of these public meetings
and sending that to whoever signs in. The Wrangell
summary was going to be sent to the Wrangell list and the
Petersburg summary was going to be sent to the Petersburg
lasts But I don't know of any reason why we couldn't
send all of them to everyone, do you?
No
So lets do that
MAX WORHATCH: ..... I would like to ask a guestion about your
DICK:
environmental thing. Through your past history if you
are doing a 90 days study how much static do you get from
the environmentalist you probably don't get any in this
stage yet do you?
It is hard to say - I was involved in a study of a
proposed power line from Palmer out to Glennallen along
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
DENNIS:
DICK:
ED:
MAX:
DICK:
the Glenn Highway and we got in real hot water, real fast
with the people along the roads.
Sheep Mountain?
Sheep Mountain and Barnes, and .. so sure you never know.
Of course in that case the line was going to go past
communities and residences and what not, so it is
somewhat different but, you just don't know.
If somebody's favorite place is somewhere along that red
line that really doesn't want to have this disturbance
in their favorite place I am sure that we're going to
hear from them somewhere along the line.
You haven't heard anything from Wrangell yet and you
haven't heard anything from Petersburg?
No - nobody came to - City Council No nobody came.
BRIAN LYNCH: Yeah I'm Brian Lynch, also a member of City Council,
ED:
BRIAN:
I also work for the Fish and Game. And your study --
we will see that. And we will be reviewing on the study
itself.
Right
now its somewhat from our stand point it's somewhat
premature -- other than getting some basic input in there
and we will be looking at this from my daily work . I
will hand see to things too with the jobs which you are
probably going to see. In much greater comment on
getting entries during the fill out that channel if that
29
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg SF 8 B
ED:
DAVE:
DAVE:
there in Carroll.....
I talked to Jack Gustofson on the phone the other day and
he was the one who alerted me to some of the water fowls
concerns that evidently these things have if they are not
engineered right not set on the ground properly have the
ability to interfere with bird migrations and that kind
of thing. He didn't say he couldn't do it it was just
some thing to think about and in sight so that you avoid
this problem. But that's wasn't why I called a adverse
comment it was what I would call some pretty technical
advise. We will also meet with I assume with the Fish
and Game office in Juneau when we meet with the State
agencies in Juneau next fall we may get some direction
there. Question?
You know the Ketchikan Borough I believe is in the
process or has done a study during the transmission
corridor which would include the transmission line and
also a the road. Have you had any interface with them -
- is this study interfacing with their study at all? Or
are they just going off in separate directions?
Here's what's been done. It says the City or Borough
whichever of Ketchikan was granted a Hundred Thousand
Dollars to Alaska DOT fund to do a road reconnaissance
study. As I understand it DOT Fund issued using that
money using a Fifty Thousand Dollars contract by R & M
30
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Rg S 8 B
Engineering. To basically come up with a good selection
and cost estimate a reconnaissance level design. R&M
Engineering was supposed to issue their report by the end
of this month. We were aware of that and one of the
things that we did was since R & M was out there poking
around in this corridor as soon as we got the money for
the feasibility study the energy authority entered a
contract with R & M to go out and do some geo-technical
surveys along that same corridor before the weather
closed in, which they did so we were able to use the fact
that they were out there in the field and use their
knowledge of the corridor to get some geo-technical data
and to get some maps so there is three maps up there on
the wall that are from R & M Engineering and they show
what at the time their plans are proposed road routes and
the intertie corridor as it is contemplated now. So we
kind of piggy backed a little bit on the fact that
there's this road study going on. Also we had set in our
scope of work for this intertie study that Beck was to
review whatever this study is that comes out through R
& M. In their proposed road route, recommended road
route is significantly different from the intertie
corridor that we've been looking at in the past we wanted
to take a look at that alternative to see if that
provided any advantages that we should be aware of. It
OL
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 & & 8 BS
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
DENNIS:
DICK:
ED:
DICK:
DAVE:
appears however that the recommended route will be the
same, basically the same. So that is kind of the extent
of it.
This is Dennis, were you aware that KPU also put ina
contract with RW Beck to look at the route and
(indiscernible)
I'm aware that KPU gave Beck a contract more or less,
again eight months ago something like that, and Beck
produced a thin report is that what you're referring to?
Small, thin mainly a maintenance road-type situation you
know in conjunction with the transmission line can not
be the type of road - intended.
Yes that type of road, again it is my understanding there
was not a maintenance road that was associated with the
intertie was viewed as a -- basically a recreation road
and a path for people to assume there is a Bradfield road
and get back and forth to Canada.
That was zoned?
No that was (indiscernible simultaneous talking)
There were two different studies to my knowledge that one
was RW Beck employed by Tyee and the other was R&M
Engineering employed by Ketchikan Borough.
Well R&M was funded by the Ketchikan Borough through DOT
fund was $3,000. We're aware of them both.
But this proposal here - and I think this is worth
32
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
DICK:
ED:
DICK:
restating - states that helicopter type of construction
with no -- whatever kind of road you want to call - is
that correct?
What we have directed Beck to do is come up with a cost
estimate for the intertie assuming no road -- but we have
also asked them to estimate what capital cost savings
there would be if a road were built along the same
corridor. If a road were built before intertie
construction there would be some minor capital cost
savings and whenever it were built there might or might
not be significant O and M savings depending on
assumptions as to whether the thing were maintained i
the winter and how close it was to the line and all pi
estimates of those possible impacts. But the proposal
that we're pursuing is intertie only there will be n
environmental analysis of the road, there'll be
sorts of thing but in any event we've asked them to i
economic analysis of the road. It's not part of ou
scope.
Just one other little minor item, we're looking a
Forest Service transportation plan if the have planne
any logging roads in this area.....
Yes that's a separate issue. We're asking the Fores
Service whether they have any plans to construct loggin
roads particularly on Revillia Island we understand fro
33
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 ® & 8 B
our meetings with them in Wrangell and Petersburg that
there are no plans for logging roads along Eagle River
valley.
ED: Any more questions, comments, concerns?
DAVE: Don't designed, the transmission line like you did
(indiscernible mumble)
DICK: What do you have in mind? What do you want us to avoid?
DAVE: Frying some poor fisherman with a conductor when he's
trying to fly fish
(laughter)
DAVE: Maybe you're not aware of the problem here but our lines
are faulting out on the ground
DICK: Well actually I have heard that - I'm not really aware
of it - I just hear it in the halls
DAVE: That's true
ED: That the Tyee lines out there? Is that because the lines
are too close to the ground in some way or what?
DAVE: The initial design -- the designed it for no loading I
guess they figured down in the lower 48 you've got to be
above 30060 feet before you have to put in an ice loading
factor in there. And they didn't take that into
consideration -- we have considerable icing problems here
the lines load up with ice
DICK: The icing situation caught them by surprise and I know
that I've mentioned that - icing and the whole
34
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 g &S& 8 B
ED:
DICK:
DAVE:
DICK:
climatological thing to Beck a number of times as
something to cautioned about that
Is that one of the reasons we want a lower elevation
route -- I'm sure part of it
Absolutely
You also got memo that Dryden Larue report on what their
planning on doing with the transmission line here and its
got a lot of information in it
Actually AEA has it but I hadn't thought about providing
it to Beck - I'll make a note, Dryden LaRue Report - Tyee
line report get them a copy of that. Are we talked out
or what?
(Genial conversations started between attenders)
End Meeting
35
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 ® & 8 B
COESRIL) Ey Cla Er
STATE OF ALASKA )
) ss.
First vuuiclal District }
I, Sammy Parker, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Alaska, residing at Petersburg, Alaska, do hereby certify that
the herein transcript of the Public Meeting taken at the request
of the Alaska Energy Authority, was taken before me on the 6th
day of December 1991, having assembled at the hour of 7:00 P.M.
thereof, at the City Council Chambers, Petersburg, Alaska;
I further certify that this transcription was by me
personally, electronically recorded from the said Public Meeting,
and in the presence of the Attenders;
I further certify that the original cassette tape recording
of this transcription has been retained by me;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
my official seal this 13th day of December, 1991.
Notary Publye for the Sta of Alaska
My commissfon expires: @2/18/92