The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSwan Lake - Lake Tyee Intertie Transmission Line Structure Study Report Contract No. 94-51 February 1996K/(27 2110 Raytheon Engineers & Constructors Transmission Line Structure Study Report ot x 4 Swan Lake - Lake Tyee Intertie Contract No. 94-51 City of Ketchikan d/b/a Ketchikan Public Utilities Submitted by Raytheon Infrastructure Services Incorporated February 1996 CITY OF KETCHIKAN d/b/a KETCHIKAN PUBLIC UTILITIES SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE INTERTIE TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURE STUDY REPORT Prepared By: A. Beloff A. Kay Collaboration By: _D. Scott (Commonwealth Associates, Inc.) Reviewed By: J. Paine Approved By: R. Weronick RAYTHEON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCORPORATED FEBRUARY 1996 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Table of Contents Introduction Purpose and Scope Structure Types 3.1 Wood and Steel Pole H-Frame 3.2 Lattice Pole H-Frame 3.3 Single Steel Pole 3.4 Self-Supporting Lattice Tower 3.5 Guyed Steel Structures Foundation Types for the Low Altitude Line Section Conductor Data Loading Conditions for the Low Altitude Line Section Electrical Design Parameters 7.1 Insulation 7.2 Clearance to Structure 7.3. Clearance to Ground 7.4 Shielding Structure Design Parameters 8.1 Wind and Weight Spans 8.2 Conductor Tension Limitations 8.3 Structure Height 8.4 Pole and Phase Spacing 8.5 Structure Series 8.6 Structure Make-up 8.7 Structure Loading 8.8 Longitudinal Unbalance Load 8.9 Foundations 8.9.1 Constructability 8.9.2 Economics 8.9.3 Adaptability Economic Data 9.1 Material 9.2 Labor 9.3. Foundation Costs Page No. NN NANNY © 0 OO O & CO CO OO ~) — Nr oO ee ee WWNN Table of Contents (Cont'd) Page No. 9.4 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 14 9.5 Right-of-Way Costs 14 9.6 Financial Parameters 14 10.0 Discussion of Results 14 10.1 | Economic Comparison 14 10.2 Aesthetics 15 10.3 Reliability 16 10.4 Constructability 16 10.5 Maintenance 16 11.0 Conclusions 16 12.0 Recommendations 17 12.1. Low Altitude Line Section 17 12.2 Long Span-High Altitude Line Section 17 Appendices A Structure Types B Foundation Types Cc Clearance to Structure D Structure Loadings E Material Cost Sources and Data F Financial Parameters G Cost Comparison H Life-Cycle Cost Analysis KPU-ALASKA SWAN LAKE-LAKE TYEE 138 kV TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STRUCTURE STUDY ve INTRODUCTION The proposed transmission intertie will connect the electric power systems operated by Ketchikan Public Utilities, Wrangell municipal Light and Power and Petersburg Municipal Power and Light. The interconnection will extend from the switchyard at Lake Tyee Hydroelectric Plant, where the existing 138 kV Tyee-Petersburg- Wrangell transmission line originates to the switchyard of the Swan Lake Hydro Plant, which serves as the northern terminus of the existing Swan Lake-Ketchikan 115 kV transmission line. System studies indicated an operating voltage of 115 kV and possibly 138 kV with initial operation at 69 kV. Based on these studies the proposed transmission intertie will be designed and built to 138 kV standards. The proposed new transmission will be a single circuit unshielded overhead line carrying three conductors with a length of approximately 57.0 miles. Owing to the unusually heavy ice and wet snow loads the selected conductor is a special high strength 397.5 kcmil 30/7 AACSR, a modified conductor made of 6201-T81 aluminum alloy outer wires and high strength ASTM B606 galvanized or aluminum-clad steel core, denominated “LARKSP”. For the majority of the route the line will traverse heavily wooded areas located on steep and rugged mountain terrain frequently spanning streams and valleys including four (4) long span water crossings. Snow and earth avalanches are a concern in some areas with steep slopes where tall trees are also carried away. Because of topography and the requirement to maintain a fairly level structure profile within elevations ranging 200-900 ft the line route is contouring mountain slopes that result in @4 large number of angles (approximately one angle per mile on an average, or about 17 percent of total number of structures). This is not considered a disadvantage for this line exposed to heavy ice/wet snow accumulations since angles provide structure stability under unbalance loads preventing possible cascading failures. Notwithstanding, a section of about 5.7 miles of the proposed line out of Tyee will be located at elevations of 1000 ft and above where it will run parallel to the existing Tyee-Wrangell line. This section because of the high altitude coupled with very long span construction and larger ice/wet snow loads, will require a differentiated treatment for conductors and structures. Filename: KPUSTR13 Thus, two distinctive type of construction designs are envisioned for the proposed transmission line depending on the geographic location, terrain topography and weather related loads as follows: a)Medium Span Low Altitude Section This section extends approximately 48.0 miles from Eagle Bay to Swan Lake and comprises about 84.2 percent of the total line length. Normal transmission spans ranging 400 to 1400 ft and structure heights of 50 to 85 ft will be applied. Ice and wet snow accumulations are 1.5-in radial and 3.3-in radial, respectively. Conductor is 397.5 kcmil 30/7 AACSR having a rated strength of 27,500 lb. Wood vs. Steel construction is considered. b)Long Span High Altitude Section This section extends approximately 6.0 miles from Tyee Lake to Eagle Bay and comprises about 10.5 percent of the total line length. Span lengths vary from 800 to 6500 ft. Ice and wet snow accumulations are 1.5-in and 3.8-in radial, respectively. Conductor is 37 No. 7 AWG aluminum-clad steel having a minimum rated strength of 100,700 1b. only steel structures are considered because of the extreme loading. c)Long Span Water Crossings There are four (4) significant water crossings totaling about 3.0 miles or 5.3 percent of the total line length. Conductors crossing the Eagle river, Behm Canal, Bell Arm and Shrimp Bay, with spans ranging 2000 ft to 7400 ft will be supported on steel A-type structures. Conductor will be the same as for the long span high altitude line section. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study is to provide the basis for selecting the structure type that will be used in the final design of the transmission intertie and that will compare favorably to other structure types for reliability, economy and aesthetics as well as it must satisfy the criteria of easy constructability, maintainability and proven design. The study was conducted on typical tangent structures with a mix of line angles and deadends. The latter represent about 13 percent of the total number of structures and it is considered that their influence in the results of the comparison may not be negligible. The results and recommendations contained in this study do not intend to establish the final criteria for structure design, although a good approximation has been used based on the current definition of project parameters. The generalized application of the recommended structure type will not preclude the use of other types at specific locations during the design phase of the project. Filename: KPUSTR13 2 Se STRUCTURE TYPES Structure types and materials considered for comparison were those selected among an array of well known designs that, through long term experience and similarity of application, were thought good candidates having no clear reasons for immediate rejection. 3.1 Wood and Steel Pole H-Frame The two existing Swan Lake-Bailey and Tyee-Wrangell transmission lines provided the two basic types to be considered, that is, wood pole H-frame and steel X-pole designs, respectively. However, the Swan Lake-Bailey wood pole H-frame line has more Similarity with the Medium Span Low Altitude section than the Tyee-Wrangle steel X-pole line which on the other hand duplicates the similar conditions found with the Long Span High Altitude section. For that reason and based on the discussion that follows steel pole H-frame construction was thought to be a competitive candidate to the wood pole H-frame design for the Medium Span Low Altitude section. 3.2 Lattice Pole H-Frame Among the metal variations of an H-frame construction the lattice type column in lieu of tubular poles have been tried either with structural steel members and with high strength aluminum alloy shapes. Aluminum alloy has the advantage of its low weight and excellent corrosion resistance, but have not been extensively applied to transmission structures because of their high inherent cost. The use of standard steel members lends to the convenience of shop welding and/or bolting of column sections which are easy to transport and field-assembly. All three (3) H-frame structures made of wood poles, steel poles and lattice steel members provide the benefit of a plane type structure with two foundations working in uplift-downthrust mode with limited lateral soil pressure when X-bracing is applied, @ very desirable design concept for the soil properties existing along the proposed line. 3.3 Single Steel Pole Single steel pole construction has been successfully used in northern Alaska, i.e., the Kodiak Island-Terror Lake 138 kV transmission line, with a single reinforced concrete pier and pad foundation anchored to relatively shallow rock in most cases. However, two important adverse factors are: 1) the necessity to haul large volumes of aggregate materials by helicopter which is expensive and 2) the overturning effect of a single foundation developing high soil lateral reactions not available with the type of soil properties existing along the proposed route. Another, anc not less important setback for the single pole construction, is that two conductor phases are positioned vertically, one on top of the other. The problem of sudden shedding of ice/wet snow of the Filename: KPUSTR13 3 &} bottom the conductor will cause conductor jumping that may short the top conductor. For these reasons single pole construction is ruled out for general application to the proposed line. ' 3.4 Self-Supporting Lattice Tower Self-supporting square or rectangular base steel lattice towers have been widely used for a variety of topography and soil conditions, from flat to mountain terrain in poor, good and rock soils. They are four-legged requiring four (4) individual foundations spread apart, generally made of drilled reinforced concrete caissons or steel grillages set on excavated soil and then backfilled and tamped. Because of the large area required to install four individual foundations, the difficulty of leveling the legs in very steep terrain, the degree of terrain disturbance, the large volume of aggregate to be hauled to each site, poor aesthetics, and costly field assembly in such a remote site this concept was not considered. 3.5 Guyed Steel Structures Guyed structures are generally compared to self-supporting structures. This concept is addressed in this particular study. The steel X-pole structure used in the existing Tyee-Wrangell line has two legs fastened to the foundation top through a pin connection that allows the structure to rotate around its transversal axis. Longitudinal restrain is provided by two sets of guys and anchors one each side of the structure. The two foundations provide transverse stability in the same fashion as the H-frame structure. This concept is well suited to the terrain topography, soil conditions and high conductor loads of the Long Span High Altitude section. The rocky soil in this area makes it ideal for the transfer of large loads to the ground through economical pile foundations and the ease of rock drilling for construction of guys and anchors, specially for the high unbalanced tensions of the long span all steel conductors. As a variation of the steel X-pole, but keeping the same concept of pole to foundation pin connection and longitudinal structure restrain through the use of guys and anchors, a steel pole H-frame hinged and guyed structure is being considered. This is an easier structure to design, fabricate and erect than the steel pole x- brace, it has inherently better torsion capabilities, it maintains the same pole and foundation separation for any structure height and it can be internally strengthened with the addition of one or two standard steel X-braces. Neither the steel X-pole nor the steel H-frame hinged and guyed structure concepts have been considered for the Medium Span Low Altitude section. The reason for this is that the longitudinal unbalance loads in the low altitude section will be limited to the longitudinal capabilities of the self-supporting H-frame tangent structures through the use of shorter spans and lower conductor tensions. In addition the use of longitudinal guys’ will unnecessarily increase the area exposed to terrain and snow Filename: KPUSTR13 4 avalanches. Also, the elimination of large amounts of drilling for the setting of longitudinal anchors will be a factor in construction cost, construction progress and in future ‘guy maintenance costs. In summary the structure types considered were as follows: a)Medium Span-Low Altitude Section 1. Wood pole H-frame 2. Steel pole H-frame 3. Steel lattice pole H-frame b) Long Span-High Altitude Section 1. Steel pole H-frame Hinged and Guyed 2. Guyed Steel X-Pole Note: This two structure concepts are very similar, therefore they will not be evaluated in this study. Depending upon the major technical benefits derived from the use of one or the other concept it may be advantageous to take competitive bids from the steel pole suppliers in the procurement phase of the project. c)Long Span Water Crossings 1. Steel A-frame Conceptual outline dimensions of the structure types above are shown in Appendix A in Figures 1 through 9. 4, FOUNDATION TYPES FOR THE LOW ALTITUDE LINE SECTION Similarly as with structure types, the foundation designs successfully applied to existing transmission lines in Southeast Alaska provided the basis for the selection of foundation concepts to be considered in conjunction with the structure types under study. Detailed soil investigation of the preferred route have not been carried out yet. However, preliminary soil investigation of this route were made and reported in the R. W. Beck, 1992 Report, entitled “Feasibility Study for the Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie”. A total of 37 borings were performed and analyzed and the investigation concluded that bedrock is underlying the entire length of the corridor, indicating that soil cover over bedrock is thin (less than 7’) and consists of organic material, mainly peat. Three foundation design alternatives were identified therein and Type I-bedrock anchors was believed to be suitable to cover about Filename: KPUSTR13 5 cm 90 percent of the 51.0 mile between Swan Lake and the Bradfield Canal (Eagle Bay), that is, the Medium Span Low Altitude section. The rock soil condition was also typical of the existing Swan Lake-Bailey transmission line where an application of pile and anchor foundations with a pole support assembly was_ used throughout the line to set the wood pole H-frame structures. An illustration of this type of foundation assembly is shown in Appendix B, Figure 1. This foundation type is based on the same rock anchoring concept described as Type I-bedrock anchors discussed above. The type of pole base used for the Swan Lake-Bailey line as exemplified in Figure 1 shows a steel sleeve attachment where the wood pole is inserted and secured by mean of throughbolts. Similarly, a steel attachment can be made for fastening a steel pole in the manner of a bolted or welded steel sleeve or base plate where the pole can be inserted or bolted. In the case of a lattice steel column the attachment detail can be modified to permit the bolting of a base plate in turn bolted to the anchor assembly in a similar fashion as with the steel poles. Thus, for the purpose of the structure evaluation the foundation type was assumed the same and the common cost of foundations was considered as a constant adder to all three structure types, therefore foundation costs were developed for typical tangent structures and for angle and terminal guyed structures. Gs CONDUCTOR DATA The selected conductors for the Medium Span-Low Altitude and for the Long Span-High Altitude line sections have the following properties: Line Code Strand Material OzDs Weight RTS Section Name (in) (lb/ft) (1b) Low-Alt “LARKSP” 30/7 AACSR 0.8060 0.5849 27,500 High-Alt eS 37 No. 7 Al-Clad 1.0100 1.3980 100,700 Steel 6. LOADING CONDITIONS FOR THE LOW ALTITUDE LINE SECTION The “following loading conditions have been applied to calculate conductor sags and tensions and to develop structure loads: a) NESC, Heavy Loading District b) 1.5-in radial Heavy Ice, 4.0 psf wind, 30° F c) 3.3-in radial Extreme Wet Snow(0.4 g/cm* density, non-uniform span load model)’, 4.0 psf, 30° F Filename: KPUSTR13 6 d) 100 mph High Wind (26 psf on cylindrical shapes), no ice, 40° F e) 40° F Everyday Normal, no ice, no wind (*)The wet snow span load model assumes the conductor span is loaded as follows: 33.3% maximum 3.3-in radial accumulation, 56.7% is uniformly tapered from maximum to zero, 20% is bare. The equivalent uniform ice and wind pressure on the full span are: 1.47-in radial ice(0.92 g/cm®) and 4.0 psf. 7.0 ELECTRICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS 7.1 Insulation Use of free swinging single insulator strings were considered on all conductor phases, including the center phase. “V” string suspension is not standard practice at 138 kV operation and economies would be marginal, if any. The length of insulation (56 inches) is predicated on a 710 kV BIL (Positive 50 $% Critical Impulse Flashover). Insulators are made of composite polymer/fiberglass core, 25000 lb and 50000 1b rated strength for suspension and deadend applications, respectively. 7.2 Clearance to Structure A minimum air gap clearance to structure of 40 inches from the conductor when displaced under a 6.0 psf moderate wind for switching and impulse, and 27 inches under 13.0 psf wind (26 psf maximum wind pressure with reduction factor 0.5) for power frequency were provided as illustrated in the attached clearance diagram in Appendix C. 7.3 Clearance to Ground A ground clearance of 23.0 ft at 120° final sag or at maximum loaded sag was considered for determination of structure height. The 1993 Edition of the NESC requires 20.6 ft. The extra 2.4 ft was provided to allow for survey errors and for construction tolerances. 7.4 Shielding No shielding was considered because of the low incidence of lightning activity in the area as observed in the operation of existing transmission lines in Southeast Alaska. Those particular projects were constructed without shield wires and have operated for the last 12 years with excellent outage rates. Additionally, given the large accretions of ice and wet snow loads, the installation of shield wires would cause difficult mechanical performance and high construction and maintenance costs. 8.0 STRUCTURE DESIGN PARAMETERS The following structure design parameters have been considered: Filename: KPUSTR13 ie 8.1 Wind and Weight Spans The wind span initially adopted for the study was 800 ft for ‘the normal tangent wood pole H-frame structure and 1000 ft for the equivalent steel structure, based on the requirement to maintain a low profile line with structure heights ranging 40-85 ft height. Subsequently, due to the high cost of foundations that would unduly penalized the shorter spans of the wood pole construction, it was decided to use 1000 ft spans for both wood and steel poles. The weight span bears a relationship to the wind span and terrain topography. For hilly terrain it is usual to design the weight span at 1.30-1.50 times the wind span. In this case 1500 ft was adopted for both the wood and steel pole H-frame structures. The initial 800 ft wind span in conjunction with a 1200 ft weight span is about the limiting load for a Class 2 wood pole H-frame structure, considering the vertical duty imposed by the heavy ice and extreme wet snow accretions on conductors and its effect on column loading. The finally selected 1000 ft wind span and 1500 ft span is about the limiting load for a Class 1 wood pole H-frame structure for the same reasons. 8.2 Conductor Tension Limitations The following tension limitations were applied for determination of conductor sag and tensions and structure loads: e Heavy Ice and/or Extreme Wet Snow, 60 % RTS, initial e N.E.S.Code, 50 % RTS, final ° Everyday, 16 $ RTS’, final (*) Controlling condition 8.3 Structure Height For purpose of cost analysis the adopted height for the wood and steel structures is 65 ft to the crossarm. This is based on the summation of ground clearance, conductor sag and insulator string length. The wood pole structure has a total height of 75 ft because of the top Vee and Knee bracing system necessary to support the heavy vertical loads acting on the crossarm. That is not required for the steel pole construction and the steel crossarm height is the total structure height for all practical purposes. 7 8.4 Pole and Phase Spacing Pole and conductor phase spacing are tied together when considering an H-frame pole structure. In this particular case based on the requirement to maintain the minimum conductor clearance to structure the pole and phase spacing is 15’-6” as shown on the attached conceptual outline sketches in Appendix A. Filename: KPUSTR13 8 8.5 Structure Series The structure series consist of the various types of supports required to carry different load duties, such as: light and heavy angles, in-line deadend and terminals, in addition to long and normal span tangent structures. On a project of this nature the tangent and small angle structures (up to 3°) comprise about 83 % of the total number of structures. For this reason those other structures that comprise 17 % of the total were considered in the economic comparison since they could influence the results. 8.6 Structure Make-up The study assumed that in an ideal mile of transmission line the structure series will be distributed according to the following ratios: ° Tangent & Small Angle - 83 % e Medium Angle - 14 % e Terminal & Heavy Angle - 3 % 8.7 Structure Loading The governing loading applicable to the typical tangent structure is the one that produces the largest transverse effect. The maximum transverse loading is produced by the 100 mph high wind loading condition which results in 26.0 psf pressure on a cylindrical area. An overload factor of 1.10 is considered for this type of loading when applied to a steel pole and 1.50 when applied to wood. Structure loads were developed for the design and costing of the proposed structure concepts as shown in Appendix D. 8.8 Longitudinal Unbalance Load Longitudinal unbalance loads were assumed in conjunction with wet snow and ice loadings. A 500 lb unbalance load per conductor was specified for this condition which occurs when long and short spans intermix, thus causing longitudinal displacement of the suspension insulator strings. 8.9 Foundations Several types of foundations were investigated for the intertie line transmission towers. The foundation alternatives were looked at from the point of constructability, economics and adaptability to the expected terrain. The following will further discuss the characteristics of different foundations for each of these categories. Filename: KPUSTR13 9 oe 8.9.1 Constructability Summary Accessibility is a big concern because of the remote construction site. There are no roads in the region of the proposed transmission line and project economy and environmental concerns prohibit the building of any roads. Therefore, transportation of any machinery or material is restricted to what can be flown in economically by helicopter. This quickly limits the choice of building materials, with steel being the most economical. Cast-in-place Concrete Foundation Cast-in-place concrete construction by helicopter would be prohibitively expensive and, because of the length of line, the logistics of setting up concrete batch plants at several locations would not be economical or practical. Also, construction of a concrete footing in an area with bedrock close to or on the surface would require large amounts of drilling and/or blasting to produce a level working surface. On steep hillsides the amount of cut required could be substantial. Precast Concrete Foundation The feasibility of constructing precast concrete footings was investigated. Construction savings and efficiency would only be realized if one size footing was used for the majority of the pole foundations. The size of footing required to meet the worst soil bearing conditions was too large to warrant any further consideration. Also, the same ground preparation such as drilling and blasting would be required to produce a level working surface in an area with surface bedrock. Steel Foundation A steel foundation has the advantage of prefabricating most of the pole support assemblies in an assembly plant and flying several in at a time to the remote installation sites. The backbone of the chosen foundation system lies in two side-by-side driven H-piles transverse to the conductor direction. Two piles were used in order to resolve transverse tower base moments into an uplift and downthrust axial force so the piles would not have any moment induced in them. Resistance to uplift forces and moment induced in the longitudinal direction is provided by 4 rock anchors attached to the baseplate. In areas where the piles would not reach bedrock, the piles were designed as friction piles to resist the maximum downward thrust imposed by the loads. Based on knowledge about the previous available equipment for driving piles in this region, the size chosen, HP 10 x 42, was determined to be the largest pile which could be accommodated. A smaller H-pile, an HP 8 x 36, was tried in an attempt to decrease the weight of steel. However, the smaller cross section available required a longer pile to develop Filename: KPUSTR13 10 the friction and consequently the smaller pile weighed more than the heavier section. Pile driving usually results in less than exact placement of the piles. Misalignment of the piles can be minimized by the use of pile driving templates. Also, the main foundation baseplate which seats on top of the pile pair will have bolt mounting holes slotted transversely in the connecting stiffener plates to allow transverse adjustment of the baseplate up to 3/4 to 1 inch in either direction. Another feature designed into the steel foundation system is a detachable pole baseplate. A circular bolted flange would allow removal of the pole without disturbing the integral pile/rock bolt foundation unit. The detachable flanged baseplate would be welded on the bottom of a steel pole or, in the case of a wood pole structure, a pole shoe assembly with a flanged baseplate would be bolted and grouted to the wood pole. 8.9.2 Economics Summary Steel is by far the most economical material to use in remote regions. The cost of concrete batch plant setup and material stock piling is quite large. Materials for concrete production are generally not locally available and large transportation costs would be associated with it. Concrete - Cast-in-Place The installation cost of concrete and constructability concerns out weighs the advantages of the relatively maintenance free foundation. As mentioned before additional cost is immediately noticed in foundation preparation. Also, quality control of concrete batch plant mixes adds additional inspection and repair costs associated with any foundation found to be installed out of spec. Installation time is definitely longer than the steel foundation and reuse of form material would require extensive site preparation to make each foundation identical. Also, a 30 day waiting period for concrete strength development would be required for each foundation before a tower structure could be erected on top of it. Concrete - Precast A precast concrete footing would weigh in excess of 50,000 pounds and be 15 feet square by 1.5 feet minimum thick. The transportation cost alone makes this alternative uneconomical. Steel Fabrication of the foundation assemblies would be quick and efficient in an assembly line setup. The advanced siting of the tower structures would indicate the required length of piles. Assembly of the base plate assembly on top of the piles is Filename: KPUSTR13 ae a moderately labor intensive. After driving the piles, the piles would be cut off to the correct height and holes drilled in the flanges to accommodate the baseplate assemblies. 8.9.3 Adaptability Summary A steel foundation requires the least amount of ground preparation versus a cast-in-place or precast concrete foundation. Cast-in-Place or Precast Concrete In either a cast-in-place or precast concrete foundation the ground must be level. In the case of a precast concrete foundation, pressure grouting may still be required under the foundation in order to create a uniform bearing surface. Steel The steel foundation does not need any special ground preparation, only identifying the approximate pile length required. 9.0 ECONOMIC DATA 9.1 Material Preliminary cost data were obtained for the material components of wood and steel structures from reputable manufacturers and vendors in the USA and Canada. A list of manufacturers that supplied major components information is shown below: 1. Thomas & Betts - Lattice Steel 2. Hughes Brothers - Wood Pole Hardware 3. Valmont Industries, Meyer Industries - Steel Poles 4. Ohio Brass, Reliable and Silec - Insulators 5. Anderson Electric - Line Hardware 6. Alcoa/Fujikura - Aluminum-Clad Steel Guys 7. A. B. Chance Company - Anchors 8. Timberwork Oregon - Wood Poles Material cost sources and data are shown in Appendix E. Note: Material components that were common to the various types of structures, such as conductors were not evaluated. Filename: KPUSTR13 12 9.2 Labor Unit labor and equipment costs for the comparison estimates were established for all-helicopter construction methods following the conclusions of the Raytheon Study Report on the Access Road/No Road Construction Costs issued in April 1995"). The following assumptions or sources were the basis used: 1. A typical work week of six-ten hours days was considered 2. Labor and Current Wage Rates in Alaska of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 3. Equipment Costs as per the “Rental Rate Blue Book for Construction Equipment” 4. Helicopter costs from information submitted by Erickson Air Crane,Inc. and Columbia Helicopter, both from the West Coast Costs were used for a typical crew on a crew-hour basis for each construction phase, including foundations, structure assembly, guy and anchor installation and structure erection as developed for the earlier study report. 9.3 Foundation costs Foundations are the single costliest item of the transmission intertie and special effort has been placed in the selection of the concept and its design. Foundation reactions were calculated in house for the wood pole H- frame structure and were obtained from a steel pole supplier for the steel pole H-frame structure based on the structure loads developed by Raytheon. Both the wood and steel structures have in common the same foundation concept, that is, a rock bolted H-beam steel pile successfully applied on the Swan Lake-Bailey wood pole H-frame and other steel pole lines in the region. Material, labor and transportation costs were developed for this type of foundation and compared to previous known cost data from the Swan Lake-Bailey line. Because of the use of costly foundations the traditional economic benefits of wood construction, based on direct pole embedment, were not available and the cost of the steel pole alternative compared very closely to wood. To illustrate the impact of foundations on cost an initial comparison was made assuming wood poles with 800 ft span (6.6 structures per mile) vs. steel poles with 1000 ft span (5.28 structures per mile). This resulted in a overall cost differential of 10% in favor of steel poles due to the relatively fixed cost of foundations applied to a higher number of wood structures, on a Filename: KPUSTR13 13 we per mile basis. Here, during design stage, it was found that because of minimum size piling required for construction the same size and design had to be used for all foundation loads. ' A second and final cost comparison was made assuming both alternatives having the same number of structures per mile (based on 1000 ft span) which showed wood poles slightly more economical (less than 1% of total cost) than the equivalent steel poles. 9.4 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Structures made up of steel are considered to have a service life of 50 years. Wood Pole H-Frame structures are considered to have a 33-1/3 year service life. Costs were developed for a life cycle of 100 years to provide comparative costs of steel vs. wood structures. Therefore, during the 100 year life of the transmission line, it will be necessary to replace the steel structures once and the wood structures twice. 9.5 Right-of-Way Costs Costs of Right-of-Way were not considered since the width will be the same and common to all considered structure types. 9.6 Financial Parameters All financial parameters, including escalation rate, annual fixed charge rate, present worth discount rate, full life-cycle fixed charges and Operation and Maintenance costs, that are common to all structures are shown in Appendix F. 10.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The economic comparison of structure types as well as their merits and disadvantages in regard to aesthetics, reliability, constructability and maintenance are discussed below as follows: 10.1 Economic Comparison For 1000 ft span the wood pole H-frame construction was found to be the lowest cost on a first cost basis. This was followed very closely by the steel pole H-frame with the steel lattice H-frame in third place as follows: Structure Type Cost $/mile Wood Pole H-frame 350, 386 Steel Pole H-frame 352,386 Steel Lattice H-frame 365,251 The analysis of the results in the above table are shown in Appendix G for the three types of structures. Filename: KPUSTR13 14 ~~ ry The results of the life cycle-cost analysis show the economic advantage of steel pole construction over wood poles. The position of the three types of construction is as follows: : Structure Type Cost $/mile Wood Pole H-frame STi, 102 Steel Pole H-frame 468,116 Steel Lattice H-frame 503,797 The details of the results in the table above are shown in Appendix H. Above totals are the present worth values on a 100 yr-life cycle applied to the structures only, assuming that wood structures will be replaced 3 times and steel structures will be replaced 2 times, not including maintenance costs. Inspection of the tabulated values above show that steel poles and lattice steel are more economical than wood poles on a life-cycle cost analysis. If maintenance costs were not included these results would not be substantially altered due to their low impact in the overall comparison. 10.2 Aesthetics From aesthetics and visibility point of view steel pole construction is frequently considered more appealing than wood and lattice construction, specially for the wood pole H-frame construction where the wood crossarm top assembly makes for a taller, more obtrusive structure as compared with the clean design of the steel pole H-frame construction. The disadvantage of steel poles are the reflecting and shinning characteristics of the protective zinc coating. This condition can be mitigated to a great extent by dulling the zinc coating after galvanizing at some nominal extra cost. In addition, weathering of the zinc coating with time exposure to the natural environment will help to further diminish the visibility of the poles. There is another method of creating a non-reflecting surface that can better blend with the surroundings which is the factory application of tinted epoxy paint. This process is more expensive, requires extra care in the handling, transportation and erection of the pole and may require some maintenance during the lifetime of the pole. Another way of coping with pole surface treatment is to use high strength uncoated self-weathering steel, “Corten”, which produces a self-healing non-reflecting rust surface when subject to appropriate weather elements. However, the climate conditions in the area with frequent cyclic changes of wet and dary air conditions may not successfully produce the self-healing rust and Filename: KPUSTR13 25 the corrosion action may continue until the material is completely sacrificed. 10.3 Reliability Steel construction, using either poles or lattice, is more reliable than wood pole construction specially when longitudinal strength is required. Longitudinal strength can be added to wood structures by adding guys attached to the poles, however, little improvement can be done with the wooden crossarms unless specially designed steel crossarms are used. On the other hand steel pole and lattice structures can be easily designed for the required loads. 10.4 Constructability Steel poles generally result in lighter structures than equivalent strength wood poles. This is noted in this study and the heavier wood poles will be somewhat more cumbersome to handle, transport and erect than steel poles. In addition galvanized steel poles come in 30-40 ft sections which are assembled together at site by means of slip joints that make their handling and erection easier. 10.5 Maintenance Maintenance costs of wood is generally regarded as higher than steel. Wood poles require to have a frequent inspection program to ascertain from time to time the degree of decay caused by rotting, fungus and woodpecker action. Corrosion of steel is more predictable and less frequent inspections are made mainly to assertain the integrity of the surface coating that protects against material exposure. Climbing of steel poles is made by means of detachable step bolts that can be left permanently on the pole except for the first 10 ft from the base to avoid climbing by unauthorized persons. This means that a number of detachable step bolts will have to be carried and installed by the maintenance crew every time it is required to climb a pole. To minimize carrying weight the step bolts may be made of high strength aluminum alloy as an option to steel. Climbing of wood poles on the other hand is made with standard utility tools in the form of a spiked device attached to the lineman shoe. 11.0 CONCLUSIONS Steel pole H-frame construction is favored for this project. On a first cost basis, steel poles while slightly higher compared extremely close to the cost of wood poles, the difference being approximately $2,000 per mile (or less than one percent of the total installed cost) more than wood. On a life-cycle cost analysis steel poles are decidedly more economical than wood poles. In addition there are advantages of aesthetics, constructability, reliability and maintenance that favors steel poles over wood. Filename: KPUSTR13 16 a 12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Low Altitude Line Section Based on economics, enhanced aesthetics, added reliability, better constructability and lower maintenance costs, steel pole H-frame construction is recommended for the low altitude section of the 138 kV Lake Tyee-Swan Lake Transmission line Intertie. 12.2 Long Span-High Altitude Line Section Steel pole hinged H-frame preferably, and Steel X-pole structures in second place are viable options for the long span-high altitude line section out of Tyee. Both are hinged at the base and guyed longitudinally. In order to establish the most economical and better technical design it is recommended that bids be obtained on both design concepts during the procurement effort. Filename: KPUSTR13 Li APPENDIX A Structure Types 80 FT Class 2 DF POLE CTYP.) RAYTHEON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCORPORATED SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE INTERTIE PROJECT TYPICAL WOOD H-FRAME STRUCTURE TANGENT TYPE INSTALL GUYS ALONG BISECTOR LINE { x { i SURVEY | CONOUCTOR | MENSION | SUSPEN i vanes OE co ASSEMBLY AN & DETAIL"A® all aa | NY (re 3 PLCS) BEDS | Lae Le NK \ NN | 1 1 1 INSTALL net GuY i CLASS ) OF |i Pore (TyP.) , li SL HS TPH MEASURES RAYTHEON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCORPORATED SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE INTERTIE PROJECT TYPICAL WOOD LIGHT ANGLE STRUCTURE |: Filia. 2 QSTRUCTURE CONDUCTOR SUSPENSION ASSEMBLY OE TAIL“ A ee (TYP 3 PLCS) CLASS | DF PoLe (TYP.) RAYTHEON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCORPORATED SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE INTERTIE PROJECT TYPICAL WOOD MEDIUM ANGLE STRUCTURE FIiG.3 INSTALL DOUBLE > BRIDLE GUYS.1/2 HSGS CLASS H-| DF Fore (TYP.) SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE INTERTIE PROJECT TYPICAL WOOD HEAVY ANGLE STRUCTURE | acne ERD Rtn i Ie LIOR ON Fia. 4 Form 5007 (Rev. 4/93) Engineers & Constructors cman carne RN] Sour] Sw FAG A PRELIM FINAL, DATE o 4/95 SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE ne INTERTIE PROJECT SUBJECT TANGENT <TRUCTURE (STEEL Pole) TYPICAL STEEL POLE H-FRAME STRUCTURE GROUND LINE |- TANGENT STRUCTURE Fia. & Form 5007 (Rev. 4/93) Engineers & Constructors CALCULATION SET NO ea SWAN LAKE - LAKE TYEE PROJECT INTERTIE PROJECT ee eet] oF SUBJECT ANGLE STRUCTURE (STEEL POLE) UNE ANGE (TYP) STRUCTURE Il - ANGLE STRUCTURE FIG. G COMP. BY (TYP 3 PLCS) “ AY VOURLeE BeRwte A@UYs (TyP.) GROUND LINE Line, for nleore foe PTE R ONE oeT % (IYR) a ill - DEAD END AND 90 DEG ANGLE STRUCTURE SECTION VIEW A-A (270d 13319) BANLINUS FIDNV Ob ANY INa-gyzZq L03rEns 193°0ud 193fOud 3LLY31NI 33AL 3NV1 - SVT NVMS 2 ssc0urbuZ, ON 13S NOLWINDWS fa oma [waco ae (C6'p “A@Y) 2005 Wace Form $0G7 (Rev. 4.93) Raytheon GENERAL Engineers & Constructors = COMPUTATION SHEET SWAN LAKE-LAKE TYEE PROJECT INTERTIE calcucvon sero [ aay] cow wy] ovo wr] FAC PRELIM void OATE 12/19 (9S SHEET OF SUBJECT TANGENT STRUCTURE TYPICAL STEEL X- POLE STRUCTURE (LONG SPAN-HIGH ALTITUDE) Fia, & APPENDIX B Foundation Types WOOO POLE TOP OF FON. OPTIONAL ~~ , FLEXIBLE i COLLAR W/ q BAND CLAMPS i GROUT OR w THRU BOLTS “POLE -SeT" 220.0, b STL. PIPE int 5 GROUT CAN in b I= DRAIN HOLE eee POLE SHOE ELEVATION . H-PILES ONLY MUSKEG 0 : ss MPNONA2 ML a ANDO GRANULAR SOILS TYPICAL POLE SHOE Is a eae POLE Shot J a ett il il © a 2 H Ble TYPICAL ROCK ef. Pa) ot ag ANCHOR ; ; J NSTALLATION a att TSX WT, — 2 ‘7 \% = olz i ASING a= itr Maan, af TYPICAL ROCK ANCHOR NSTALLATION W/CASIN EPOXY ; GRO UT a . << - — INSTALLATION “fi i he “QA 4 KB eel Tee Raita Y A (A RESIN “\ IEW Ts* = - ROCK ORSCREW ANCHOR a us 9 al FIGURE | Rock oRsckew ANCHOR, cee ELEVATION KPU TRANSMISSION LINE H-PILE WITH ROCK ANCHORS “STRUCTURE, WOOD POLE AND POLE SHOE RAYTREON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE ir : A AZ ‘ . \ ° . PEAN aha q om H wer oh a Te) SAS Rt Aly a ad oo in rE ae Reet OT aT See A Tf EL “ELEVATION reteateen ey ee oe eer XPOTRANSMISSION CINE TNPICACWINSTALLATION. ow ALTITUDe TANGENT STRUCT) HiDILE=STRR POLES STE RANTREON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES IN oe 7 “” ter. | IS TYPICAL. INSTALLATION. H=PILE. ONLY W/ POLE SHOE” SO ine eee ' Dao a ee Pe a gat Lata) ee Pa Lana FIGURE 4 l =EEEVATION — PU TRANSMISSION. LINE TYPICAL. INSTALLATION -2wacraupe ANGLE. Suen BeOILE=STSRL. POLES oo. eee BBL POLE ~ RANTREON INFRASTRUCTURE eenvicas INC He alae ' AE 3 , se nS ate ee rs TYPICAL INSTALL ATION _ B= PILE - HINGED STEEL PLE ‘KEY TRANSMISSION LINE HIGH ALTITUDE HINGED STRUCTU STEEL POLE RAYTHEON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INC. Bn GUY TACK. WELD . HUT To BOLT. —~ ANCHOR SHACKLE SOYANCHOR ATTACHMENT § FORW1 ROCK ANCHOR SLYROCK ANCHOR NEROXY RESIN. OR... —BROUT. OO A STALCATIONWITAZASING aBUY. TYPICAL. ANCHOR SHACKLE . NCHOR ATTACHMENT. -~ ITROCK ANCHOR. j BPOxY RESIN OR GROUT TYPICAL INSTALLATION WITHOUT CASING FIGURE ¢ GUY ANCHOR _TYPE A=! (ROC _KPU TRANSMISSION LINE TYPICAL GLY AUCHOR AGE JERASTRUCTURE SERVICES. INC RAYTHEON | APPENDIX C Clearance to Structure 16-Jan-96 _ Project: KPU - ALASKA Task No. 6.6.1¢ Subject 138 KV Lake Tyee-Swan Lake Trans Line intertie By: A Meehan Reviewed By: A i LOW ALTITUDE SECTION Insulator Swing Clearances Tangent (0 Degree) Structure Maximum Allowable Angles 64.2 degrees max 27 inches Approx. 62 inches 46.5 degrees max, 44 inches 7'. 4" AVAILABLE Centerline Insulator to Pole Surface ~ MINIMUM AIR GAPS: Switching Surge - 44 inches (at rest) Loading Condition: no wind, 40 degrees F Switching Surge - 40 inches (moderate wind) Loading Condition: 6 psf wind, 40 degrees F Power Frequency - 27 inches (High Wind) Loading Condition: 26 psf, 40 degrees F Wind Reduction Factor. 0.5 Filename KPI INS APPENDIX D Structure Loadings SUMMARY OF STRUCTURE LOADS Client: KPU - Alaska By:FAC Project: Swan Lake-Lake Tyee 138kV Transmission Intertie Chkd.by:AB Subject: Structure Loads - Wood Pole H-Frame Construction Date: 1/4/96 Task: 6.06.01f Conductor Characteristics: Type: “LARKSP" - 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR (6201.T81 AL Alloy) oD: 0.8060 Wt: 0.5849 Area: 0.3849 RTS: 27500 Design Parameters: Max. Wind Span: 800 ft Max. Wt. Span: 1,200 ft | - Tangent Structure ( 0 - 3 deg.) Vv T L Wp Vertical Transverse Longitudinal Wind Pressure {Ibs) {lbs) {lbs) on Structure(psf (6) 1) NESC - HLL. 3,909 2,964 - 16.0 2) Heavy ice 8,948 2,750 500 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 8,695 3,048 500 6.0 4) High Wind 1,203 2,812 - 39.0 ll - Angle Structure ( 30 deg. Running Corner) 1) NESC - H.L. 3,909 12,186 - 16.0 2) Heavy Ice 8,948 13,659 500 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 8,695 13,886 500 6.0 4) High Wind 1,203 9,177 - 39.0 Ill - Dead End and 90 deg. angle Structure 1) NESC - HLL. 5,009 1,926 (5) 19,820 (4) 16.0 2) Heavy Ice 9,698 1,522 (5) 23,447 (4) 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 9,445 1,828 (5) 23,295 (4) 6.0 4) High Wind 1,953 2,096 (5) 13,680 (4) 39.0 NOTES: 1) All loads have OL factors included. 2) NESC OL factors are: 4.0 for Transverse loads due to Wind. 2.0 for Transverse loads due to Tension. 2.2 for Vertical loads. 3) Heavy Ice, Extreme Wet Snow and High Wind OL factor is 1.50 applied to all loads. 4) Maximum Tension applied to each conductor attachment. 5) Horizontal Wind load perpendicular to each conductor. 6) Values for cylindrical surfaces. 7) See attached sketches for outline dimension and load application. LRKSP-WP.XLS SUMMARY OF STRUCTURE LOADS Client: KPU - Alaska By:FAC Project: Swan Lake-Lake Tyee 138kV Transmission Intertie Chkd.by:AB Subject: Structure Loads - Wood Pole H-Frame Construction Date: 1/4/96 _ Task: 6.06.01f Conductor Characteristics: Type: “LARKSP" - 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR (6201.T81 AL Alloy) op: 0.8060 Wt 0.5849 Area: 0.3849 RTS: 27500 Design Parameters: Max. Wind Span: 1,000 ft Max. Wt. Span: 1,500 ft | - Tangent Structure ( 0 - 3 deg.) Vv Ul [5 Wp Vertical Transverse Longitudinal Wind Pressure {lbs) {Ibs) {tbs) on Structure(psf (6) 1) NESC -H.L. 4,831 3,446 - 16.0 2) Heavy Ice 11,148 3,131 500 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 10,831 3,505 500 6.0 4) High Wind 1,466 3,336 - 39.0 Il - Angle Structure ( 30 deg. Running Corner) 1) NESC -H.L. 4,831 12,668 - 16.0 2) Heavy Ice 11,148 14,040 500 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 10,831 14,343 500 6.0 4) High Wind 1,466 9,701 - 39.0 lll - Dead End and 90 deg. angle Structure 1) NESC -H.L 5,931 2,408 (5) 19,820 (4) 16.0 2) Heavy Ice 11,898 1,903 (5) 23,447 (4) 6.0 3) Extreme Wet Snow 11,581 2,285 (5) 23,295 (4) 6.0 4) High Wind 2,216 2,620 (5) 13,680 (4) 39.0 NOTES: 1) All loads have OL factors included. 2) NESC OL factors are: 4.0 for Transverse loads due to Wind. 2.0 for Transverse loads due to Tension. 2.2 for Vertical loads. 3) Heavy Ice, Extreme Wet Snow and High Wind OL factor is 1.50 applied to all loads. 4) Maximum Tension applied to each conductor attachment. 5) Horizontal Wind load perpendicular to each conductor. 6) Values for cylindrical surfaces. 7) See attached sketches for outline dimension and load application. LREWPIXLS SUMMARY OF STRUCTURE LOADS Client: KPU - Alaska By: F A Chen Project: Swan Lake-Lake Tyee 138kV Transmission Intertie Chkd. by:A. Beloff Subject: Structure Loads - Steel H-Frame Construction Date: 12/14/95 Task: 6.06.01f Conductor Characteristics: Type: “LARKSP" - 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR (6201.T81 AL Alloy) OD: 0.8060 Wt 0.5849 Area: 0.3849 RTS: 27500 Design Parameters: Max. Wind Span: 1,000 ft Max. Wt. Span: 1,500 ft 1 - Tangent Structure ( 0 - 3 deg.) Vv T L Wp Vertical Transverse Longitudinal Wind Pressure wi (Ibs) (Ibs) (ibs) on Structure(psf (6) 1) NESC - H.L. 3,294 2,361 - 10.0 2) Heavy Ice 8,175 2,296 500 4.4 3) Extreme Wet Snow 7,943 2,570 500 4.4 4) High Wind 1,075 2,446 - 28.6 ll - Angle Structure ( 30 deg. Running Corner) 1) NESC - HLL. 3,294 9,969 - 10.0 2) Heavy Ice 8,175 10,296 500 4.4 3) Extreme Wet Snow 7,943 10,519 500 44 4) High Wind 1,075 7,114 - 28.6 Ill - Dead End and 90 deg. angle Structure 1) NESC - H.L. 4,044 1,505 (5) 16,352 (4) 10.0 2) Heavy Ice 8,725 1,396 (5) 17,194 (4) 4.4 3) Extreme Wet Snow 8,493 1,676 (5) 17,083 (4) 4.4 4) High Wind 1,625 1,921 (5) 10,032 (4) 28.6 NOTES: 1) All loads have OL factors included. 2) NESC OL factors are: 2.50 for Transverse loads due to Wind. 1.65 for Transverse loads due to Tension. 1.50 for Vertical loads. 3) Extreme Wet Snow, Heavy Ice and High Wind OL factor is 1.10 applied to all loads. 4) Maximum Tension applied to each conductor attachment. 5) Horizontal Wind load perpendicular to each conductor. 6) Values for cylindrical surfaces. For flat surfaces multiply by 1.6 shape factor. 7) See attached sketches for outline dimension and load application. LARKSP. XLS APPENDIX E Material Cost Sources and Data COST DATA ITEM UNIT WEIGHT} UNIT COST (LB) ($) A. STRUCTURES - 75 ft. Class 1 D/F Pole complete structure with top 3,688 double-arm assembly & 2-Xbraces #1042 - 65 ft. Class 1 D/F Pole (@ pole) 2,860 1,171 - 65 ft. Class H-1 D/F Pole (@ pole) 3,260 1,212 - 65 ft. Galv. Steel Pole complete structure with 6,650 6,400 X-brace, crossarm and base plate - 65 ft. single Steel Pole complete with guy and 2,450 2,400 cond attach's and base plate (@ pole) (running comer) - 65 ft. single Steel Pole complete with guy and 2,550 2,300 cond attachments and base plate (@ pole) (dead-end) - 65 ft. Galv Lattice Steel Pole, complete structure with 6,000 6,000 X-brace, crossarm and base plate - 65 ft. single Steel Lattice Pole, complete with guy 2,000 2,000 and cond attachments and base plate (@ column) B. INSULATORS AND HARDWARE - 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 10 130 - Insulator & Conductor Susp. Hardware (Tangent) 30 80 - Insulator & Conductor Susp. Hardware (runn. cr-wood) 40 100 - Insulator & Conductor Susp. Hardware (dead-end-wood) 360 100 - Insulator & Conductor Susp. Hardware (runn. cr-steel) 50 100 - Insulator & Conductor DE Hardware (steel) 60 100 - 56" Ig x 50000 Ib Polymer insulator 15 200 - 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Line Post Polymer insulator 25 260 C. FOUNDATIONS - Rock-bolt Foundation - Case I] (Tangent-wood) 3,640 6,638 - Rock-bolt Foundation - Case II (runn.cr & dead-end - wood) 3,316 6,314 - Rock-bolt Foundation - Case Il (Tangent steel) 3,403 6,164 - Rock-bolt Foundation - Case II (runn. cr & dead-end - steel) 3,079 5,840 D. MISCELLANEOUS - Pole band with links & rollers for conductor & guys 50 260 - Wood cross tie & cond & guy attachments 150 960 - #6 Guy Anchor-25 ft Ig, 18 ft embedment Type A-1 27 27 - Single Guy Assembly 50 100 - Double Guy Assembly 100} 200 KPU-COST.XLS # To: Mr. Amado Beloff From: F, Michael Banat Date: January 8, 1996 Subject: KPU - Alaska 138Kv Intertie Dear Amado: I finished working on the first segment of this line, this nvolves the Tangent H-Frames, the 30 degrees guyed poles and the 90 degrees guyed poles. The approximate weight and prices are shown in the table below. The prices are FOB factory: I will try to get you the next segment of the line in the near future. Sincerely, Sapo F, Michael Banat CC: Randy Wagner Dick Durina Facsimile Cover Sheet To: MR. AMADO BELOFF Company: RAYTHEON Phone: 201-460-6118 Fax: 201-480-6203 From: F. MICHAEL BANAT SYSTEMS ENGINEER Company: Valmont Industries, Inc. Phone: (800) 345-6825, EXT. 3856 Fax: (402) 359-5803 Date: 01/11/96 Pages including this cover page: 1 Comments: DEAR AMADO: THIS IS A FOLLOW UP FAX TO THE FAX THAT | SENT YOU ON 1/8/96, AS A CLARIFICATION, THE WEIGHT & PRICES | LISTED IN THE TABLE FOR THE 30 AND 90 DEGREE POLES ARE A PER SHAFT WEIGHT & PRICES. YOUR DIAGRAM SHOWS THREE- POLES PER STRUCTURES, SO IN ORDER TO GET THE STRUCTURE COST (THREE POLES) YOU NEED TO TRIPLE UP THE WEIGHT & PRICES THAT | GAVE YOU IN THE TABLE. | APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION, PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANKS BANAT To: Mr. Amado Beloff From: F. Michael Banat Date: February 1, 1996 Subject: KPU - Alaska 138Kv Intertie-Long Spans Dear Amado: I completed the design analysis for the "LONG SPAN" structures. Attached is a copy of the design calculations. The approximate weight and prices are shown in the table below. The prices are FOB factory: STRUCTURE TYPE 12350#_ | $14100___— 45 Degrees-D.E. 5160#/Leg $5700/Leg I hope this information will help you complete the evaluation of this project. We are looking forward to working together with you on this project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, F. Michael Banat Systems Engineer CC: Randy Wagner ae Thomas & Betts Corporation Meyer Industries/Lehigh Ph: 715-792-2811 Fax: 715-792-5321 Thomas & Betts FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: 1-15-96 Total no. of pages _1__ (Including cover sheet) TO: AMADO BELOFF, COMPANY: RAYTHEON ENG. & CONSTR. FAX NUMBER: 201 - 460 - 6203 FROM: STEVE MOLINE, THOMAS & BETTS - MEYER RE: ESTIMATE FOR KPU - ALASKA (KETCHIKAN) T&B ESTIMATE NO. 2514A-0 This is in response to your fax to Joe Hassell dated 12-21-95 requesting estimating information for steel pole and lattice H-frame structures. This memo will address the steel pole estimate only. Please check with Joe Hassell regarding the lattice estimate. The H-frame design weighs approx. 5200 Ibs. and the est. price is $6900 each delivered to Ketchikan. The 3-pole angle structure weighs approx. 6100 Ibs. and the est. price is $8300. The 3-pole deadend structure weighs approx. 6300 Ibs. and the est. price is $8700. The base reactions are as follows: Structure Type Axial Force Shear Force Moment H-frame 33.5kips 3.7 kips 113.6 fi-kips 3-Pole Angie 20 kips 2.0 kips 122 ft-kips 3-Pole Deadend 28.9 kips 1.5 kips 25.5 ft-kips We are not able to address your question regarding the cost of the base assembly detail. The estimates shown above include a directly embedded section for each pole. Current leadtimes are running approx. 16 weeks for shipment after receipt of an order and final design information. You should assume approx. 3 weeks enroute to Ketchikan. Should you have any questions, please call. Thanks & regards, Steve Moline cc: Joe Hassell BY £.. THOMAS & BETTS Date : Pages : To g Fax Phone : From 3 Subject : January 16, 1996 1 Amado Beloff Raytheon/Ebasco Division Lyndhurst, NT 201-460-6203 Joseph E. Hassell T&B ~~ Steel Structures Pennsauken, NJ KPU Alaska (Ketchican) Tubular Steel Pole Estimate T&B Estimate No. 2514A-0 Dear Mr. Beloff, As a follow-up to your question regarding our estimate for tubular steel poles for the project listed above, I spoke with Steve Moline. He indicated if base plates and anchor bolts were substituted for the embedded portion of the poles as we originally quoted, you should add between 5-10% to the estimate. Best Regards, CO toe Hassell HIUNHES BROTHERS .O. BOX 159 @ 210 NORTH 13TH STREET @ SEWARD, NEBRASKA 88434 @ PHONE 402/643-2991 @ FAX 402/643-2149 January 8, 1996 Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Ebasco Division 160 Chubb Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-3517 Att: Amado Beloff Dear Amado: Attached are span charts for the structure with two 1042 style X-braces per your request. Also included are tables using the slightly Stronger 2094 style, and the stronger yet 2121 style. The 2121 fully uses the strength of the poles. To figure estimated costs of these structures with one or two ( braces, you can use my original quote, and add or subtract the following as needed: 1 - 1042 X-brace : $260.00 each 1 - 2094 X-brace : $305.00 each 1 - 2121 X-brace: $460.00 each Sincerely, G THERS, INC. andgrgriend, P.E. rofect Engineer ce:D'Ewart Representatives © Manutacturer of Transmission and Distribution Material tor the Electric Utility Industry since 1921. KPU-Alaska/Raytheon 1-8-1996 iar fll I \ Maximum Theoretical Spans 0 2 X-Braces X-Brace: 1042 Wind Load = 4 Ibs Fiber Stress = _8000_ psi, pole Radial ice= 0.5 in Safety Factor = 4 Crossarm Ht= 7.25 ft # of Conductors x 3 Ys 8 ft # of Shield Wires = 0 Pole Spacing = 15.5 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 in Conductor : 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire Diameter = 0 in Shield Wire : none Transverse Wire Load = 3,112 Ib (from line angle of 3 degrees) includes 2.0 OCF X-Brace height = 3.375 in . X-Brace width = 5.375 In Crossarm Height Tensile strength = 20,000 Ib ws : Crom freamsen 18, a pes ia C 1042 style X-braces Pole Class ae aes P1967" | 1977-| 1986" | 1995" | 2005" | 1901 | Pizer | 177i= | 1782" | 1793" | 1805~| 1817~| ("15087 [1611 [1e22- | 1696" 1646" 162" | Fizess [zee | ipoe"[ tars] tags] 4350 4477" | 1197" | 1216" | 1232° | 1254" | | 1.1103° | 1123" | 1743" | 1164" | 1186" |. | | 1051° | 1072" | 1091" | 1114" | 11387]. | ; |991* | 1014" | 1038"| 1059" | 108s" | - | pete 937° | 962° | 988" | 1011" [ 1039" | TS * Denotes X-brace controlling Pole Length a. 1-8-1996 BROTHERS Maximum Theoretical Spans X-Brace =z 2094 Wind Load = 4 {bs Radial lce = 0.5 in Fiber Stress =_ 8000 psi Safety Factor = 4 # of Conductors = 3 Crossarm Height = 7.25 ft # of Shield Wires= 0 Ye 8 ft Pole Spacing= 15.6 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 in Shield Wire Diameter = 0 in Conductor : 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire : none Transverse Wire Tension = 3,112 Ibs (from line angle of 3 degrees) includes 2.0 OCF X-Brace Height = 3.75 in X-Brace Width = 5.75 __in Tensile Strength = 25,000 Ibs 2 26,300 An 2094 style X-brace | Crossarm Height | th = 2191" | 2199" | 2209" eer 2227° Seon E | 2058" | 2068" 3 | 169° | 1884" | 1901° | 1806 | 1385 | 1779° | 1797" | 1811 | 1830° | 1560 | 1187 | rO= 1602°| 1622° eeeeai 1540" | 1575- | 1598 | +382 | yo77 | - | Eia7e[1490"| 1s20°| 12251 e161] ] fy 1431* | 1460° | 1490°[ 1142 [850 | - | Pole Height “DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING KPU-Alaska/Raytheon 1-8-1996 7 AGNES BROTHERS Maximum Theoretical Spans 6 2 X-Braces X-Brace: 2094 Wind Load = 4 Ibs Fiber Stress = 8000 _ psi, pole Radialice= 0.5 in Safety Factor = 4 Crossarm Ht= 7.25 ft # of Conductors = 3 Ye 8 ft # of Shield Wires = 0 Pole Spacing = 15.6 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 in Conductor : 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire Diameter = 0 in Shield Wire : none Transverse Wire Load = 3,112 Ib (from line angle of 3 degrees) includes 2.0 OCF nN X-Brace height= 3.75 __in X-Brace width = _5.75__in Crossarm Height Tensile strength = 25,000 Ib J BY C 2094 style X-braces Pole Class — esate Bree 400 | 2477 | eessr | 2502" | 5058 | | 2140" | 2158" | 2175° | 2191" | 2208" | ed 1740" | 1764" | 1784" | 1809 | 1693 | i663" | 1689° | 1716" 1739" | 1530 | - etre 1595" | 1623° | 1653" | 1678" | 1396 |. Estee 1540" | 1565" | 1597" [ 1625" ] 1285 [| \ * Denotes X-brace controlling Pole Length — se. 1-8-1996 Maximum Theoretical Spans X-Brace = 2121 Wind Load = 4. Ibs Radial ice = 0.5 in Fiber Stress = 8000 psi Safety Factor = 4 # of Conductors = _—3 Crossarm Height = 7.25 ft # of Shield Wires = 0 Ys 8 ft Pole Spacing = 15.5 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 in Shield Wire Diameter = 0__in Conductor : 397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire : none Transverse Wire Tension = 3,112 Ibs (from line angle of 3 degrees) includes 2.0 OCF X-Brace Height = 5.125 in 74 X-Brace Width= 6 in | Crossarm Height _ Tensile Strength » 35,000 Ibs + ley __ 2121 style X-brace —. Pole Class 9 fee eee Foes Psebex 3297° = ie 2 ae eOban 2344" | 2022 | 1576 “ poms 2206" [1805 [1517 | 1142 | eee cies | 1786 | 1427 | 1071 ~ OK ~ “DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING ae KPU-Alaska/Raytheon 1-8-1996 Maximum Theoretical Spans BROTHERS 2 X-Braces X-Brace: 2121 Wind Load = 4 Ibs. Fiber Stress = 8000 psi, pole Radial Ice= 0,5 in Safety Factor = 4 Crossarm Ht= 7.25 ft # of Conductors = 3 Ye 8 ft # of Shield Wires = 0 Pole Spacing = 15.5 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 _in Conductor : 397.5 kemil. 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire Diameter = 0 _in Shield Wire : none Transverse Wire Load = 3,112 Ib (from line angle of 3 degrees) includes 2.0 OCF X-Brace height = 5.125 in X-Brace width = 6 _in Crossarm Height | IN, in Tensile strength = 35,000 Ib { . al 2121 style X-braces Pole Class FeeS—-4 2932" | 2960° | 2983" | 2611 -[ 2116 | | pest0meea 2719" | 2746" | 2601 | 2161 | 1693 | - | |.2618° | 2648° | 2508 | 1959 {| 1530 |. | stipes 2531" | 2563" | 2302 [| 1794 | 1396 | - * Denotes X-brace controlling Pole Length «e TOTAL PAGE aS 4+ : HUGHES Q BROTHERS P.O. BOX 159 @ 210 NORTH 13TH STREET @ SEWARD, NEBRASKA 68434 @ PHONE 402/643-2991 @ FAX 402/643-2149 December 28, 1995 Raytheon Engineers and Constructors Ebasco Division 160 Chubb Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-3517 Att: Amado Beloff Dear Amado: Enclosed please find our price estimates for the KPU-Alaska 138kV transmission line. The tangent structure estimate reflects the cost of an H-frame similar to an REA TH-10V4X structure, without the shield wire support. ( The arm I have quoted is a 3-1/8" x 9" laminate, and the X-brace is our 1042 style. I have also included a span table showing spans for a structure with these components. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this information. Sincerely, BROTHERS, INC. Md “ HUG! Vangérgriend, P.E. Hior Prdject Engineer cc:D'Ewart Representatives Manufacturer of Transmission and Distribution Material for the Electric Utility Industry since 1921. alls ei 4 “"Frorpox 153 Box 159 Seward, NE 68434 Ph:(402)643-2991 Fax:(402)643-2149 QUOTATION | - Quotation No.: N/A } Date: 12/28/95 TO: Raytheon Inq #: Time Required to ship: 8 Wks ARO RE: KPU - Alaska Approx. shipping weight: 350,000# Price FOB: Destination, Frt.. PPD & Allowed ESTIMATE ONLY : Terms: Net 30 Days Shipment to: As Directed Item Qty Description Price Ie 280 Hughes Material for 138 KV Tangent H-Frame a Per Raytheon drawing Includes: 1 - 3-1/8 x 9 x 32'-0" Double Arm Assembly, ry Laminate, with 3414 Adj. Spacers } 1 - 1042-15-6 X-Brace, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 Wood Size 4 - 2025 Vee Braces, 3-3/8 x 5-3/8 Wood Size All mounting hardware for above. $1,180.00/Ea. 2. 33 Hughes Material for 138 KV Medium Angle Structure, Per Raytheon drawing includes: 6 3 - 3107.7 Pole Bands with 3157 Links and . 28083 Roller 260.00/Ea. 3. 17 Hughes Material for 138 KV Heavy Angle Structure, Per Raytheon drawing includes: 2 - 3-5/8 x 9-1/2 x Req'd Length Crossarm 6 - TG-25D Guy Assembly Mounting hardware for above. 940.00/Ea. wi GENERAL NOTES: All estimates include freight to jobsite. ; tt Quotation By ° al anddrgrjénd,P.E. Sr. Project ineer KPU-Alaska/Raytheon 12-28-1995 oll BROTHERS Maximum Theoretical Spans X-Brace = 1042 Wind Load= 4 _ ibs Radial Ice = 0.5 in Fiber Stress = 8000 psi Safety Factor = 4 # of Conductors = 3 CrossArm Height = 7.25 ft # of Shield Wires= 0 Y= 8 ft Pole Spacing = 15.5 ft Conductor Diameter = 0.806 _in Shield Wire Diameter = _0 in Conductor397.5 kemil, 30/7 AACSR Shield Wire: none Transverse Wire Tension = 3,112 Ibs X-Brace Height = 3.375 in =|— tas X-Brace Width = 5.375 in Crossarm Height X-Brace Strength = 20,000 Ibs y 1042 X-brace Pole Class | 1427" | 1436" | 1444° | 1452" | 1461" | |.1319° | 1329° | 1339° | 1349° | 1359° | 1370" | | 1008" | 1023* | 1043* | 1060° | 1078" | 917 | _{ 966° | 984° | 1002" | 1021" | 1045"| 821 | | 922° [| 946° | 966° | 983° | 009°] - | 886° | 907° | 930° | 953° | 977° | - | =) 859° | 882° | 902" | 927° | 916 | - | | 824° | a49° | 875° | go8* | 850 | - | | 792° | ei9* [ 947° [ e7i* | 794 | - | | 766° | 790° [ e20° | 847° [| 745 | - | *DENOTES X-BRACE CONTROLLING Pole Height inborn. mCCn 1 ___ VIA FAX 1 201-460-6203 SUSAN STATZ RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS WE CAN QUOTE FOB DOCK KETCHIKAN, ALASKA AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 24 1996 DOUGLAS FIR POLES TO ANSI SPECS, PENTACHLOROPHENOL TREATED TO AWPA REQUIREMENTS INDEPENDENT INSPECTION OR GROUNDLINE DRILLING NOT INCLUDED 26 EACH CLASS 2 - 50’ @ $537.00 EACH 6 EACH CLASS 1 - 50’ @ $615.00 EACH 6 EACH CLASS H1 - 50’ @ $683.00 EACH 26 EACH CLASS 2 - 55’ @ $598.00 EACH 30 EACH CLASS 1 - 55’ @ $698.00 EACH 42 EACH CLASS Hi1 - 55’ @ $782.00 EACH 76 EACH CLASS 2 - 60' @ $720.00 EACH 9 EACH CLASS 1 - 60’ @ $927.00 EACH 15 EACH CLASS H1 - 60’ @ $978.00 EACH 258 EACH CLAS 2 - 65’ @ $890.00 EACH 3 EACH CLASS 1 - 65' @ $1171.00 EACH 3 EACH CLASS H1 - 65’ @ $1212.00 EACH 78 EACH CLASS 2 - 70’ @ $1039.00 EACH 3 EACH CLASS 1 - 70’ @ $1289.00 EACH 3 EACH CLASS H1 - 70’ @ $1374.00 EACH 26 EACH CLASS 1 - 75’ @ $1124.00 EACH 16 EACH CLASS 2 - 80’ @ $1333.00 EACH 10 EACH CLASS 2 - 85’ @ $1553.00 EACH SHIPMENT CAN START IN APPROX. 3 WEEKS FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF ORDER AND COMPLETE IN 45 DAYS THEREAFTER. TERMS: 1% 10, NET 30 DAYS ON APPROVED CREDIT. THAN FOR THIS VALUED INQUIRY. BLONDHEIM P.O, Box 3955 * Portland, Oregon 97208 * (503) 492-3089 * FAX: (503) 492-0998 THOMAS & BETTS Date t January 16, 1996 Pages: 2 To : Amado Beloff Raytheon/Ebasco Division Lyndhurst, NJ Fax Phone : 201-460-6203 Fron : Joseph E. Hassell T&B == Steel Structures 5434 King Ave., Suite No. 102 Pennsauken, NJ 08109 Phone! 609-663-7747; Pax! 609-663-4222 Subject. : KPU Alaska (Ketchican) Pricing Estimate for Steel Lattice Structures Dear Mr. Beloff ¢ As requested, here is the information we discussed regarding a price estimate for galvanized lattice steel structures for the project listed above. We've roughly estimated this lightly loaded lattice structure to weigh approximately 5,000 lbs. This is the weight regardless of the ulimate design -- H-Prame, Guyed Structure, or typical lattice self-supporting structure. We estimate these structures te cost §1/lb. This assumes efficient truckload shipment of structural members broken down into bundles. Add an additional -30/Lb should you require pre-assembled, welded sections, to cover the additional labor and freight. To get a more accurate comparison, the structures should be designed. Our cost to do this would range between $2,000 and $5,000 per structure, depending on complexity and the number of structure designs required. Leadtime is similar to tubular steel poles <-- Structures can at approximately 16 weeks after receipt of an order and final pm gn information (The final design assumes detailing has been one). Should you require additional information on this estimate, feel free to contact me. I've included Page 2 which includes information on where to send pricing inquiries for upcoming projects. ~ Best Regards, Joe Hassell we Page 2 Letter to A.Beloff January 16, 1996 Just as a reminder, all marketing responsibilities for Thomas & Betts Steel Structure products are now located in the T&B corporate office located in Memphis, TN. Please forward all requests for pricing to the attention of the appropriate contact at the following address: Thomas & Betts Corporation Steel Structures Marketing 1888 Lynnfield Road, Building "c" Memphis, TN 38119 © MEYER and POWER STRUCTURES Products (4.@. Tapered, tubular steel transmission and substation structures) Contact: John Jongbloed, Manager - Engineered Products Phone No: 800/888-0211, x 3350 Facsimile: 800/888-0690 © LEHIGH Products (i.e. Steel lattice towers, steel lattice substations, standard structural shapes for low-profile substation structures) Contact: Lindsay Esterhuiezen, Lattice Product Manager Phone No: 800/888-0211, x 3483 Facsimile: 800/888-0690 Please update your records to reflect these changes. Feel free to contact Bob, John or myself should you have any questions regarding this change. 516-424-7788 KK: eeler-Miller Associates Fax $16-424.7808 ROBERT A KEELER, INC. SEDIVER 746 NEW YORK AVENUE ¢ P.O. BOX 992 ¢ HUNTINGTON. N.Y. 11743-0992 February 2, 1996 Ms. Arleen Meehan Raytheon Constructors, Inc. 160 Chubb Avenue Lyndhurst, NJ 07071-3586 RE: Alasku Project Dear Aricen, Please accept this proposal to supply Sediver polymer suspension insulators for the above project. 915 Each 25000 # insulators, type YB 120XF035, #102035060 @ $84.80 net each. 189 Each 50000 # insulators, type 220 XW YB 039, 4050035060 @ $156.90 net each. 84 Each 80000 # insulators, type 360 X EE 021, #060025000 @ $244.80 net each. Shipment .- 18-20 Weeks ARO. F.O.B. York, South Carolina prepaid and allowed. Terms - Net 30 Days. Arleen, a drawing of YB 120 XF 035 is attached. Drawings of the others are not available, however the following electric characteristics apply: 220 XW YB 039 360 X EE 021 Positive Critical Impulse Flashover 710 640 60 Hertz Flashover, dry 450 410 = “ “wet 380 335 7" Keeler- Miller Associates SEDIVER Ms. Arieen Meehan February 2, 1996 Raytheon Constructors, Inc. RE: Alaska Project . Page -2- Leakage Distance 118.6 110.2 Max. Length 57.9 55.3 Note that the 80,000 # insulator has eye-eye hardware only. The Y-Clevis/Ball hardware configuration is not suitable for this strength and attachment to yoke plates. The material on this proposal carries a 25 year product warranty. Please let me know how I can be of service. f- Robert C. Miller RCM:hw attached SENT BY: @2-22-36 11:470M 25 Reliable Power Products A Mac Lean - Fogg Company 11411 Addison Street - Franklin Park, lifnols 60131 - (708)458-0014 - FAX (708)458-0029 c Duncan QUOTATION quoTanions_76Q/2369 ss CUST. REFERENCE DATE Afra me Se 11) IIL) | pp moment a erga | 11!//! COMABANS | Jerre UIE) Ve enemies 1 | ede eels ELTA) : & OnETARY -VALIDITY. 3 Days OB Rrankdin Park I. aTTenTion Anite} TRS Net 30 Day END USER ELA Atesle—___.Q007D BY___MICHELLE VITTORIO _ FAX#( ) Freight allowed on shipments over $2000.00, [OTF TASC ORT | TCEITON TPCT eA O1 [285 |segosevxce | | P89 | Blo er ere eae aN o8 [So [sspenemen| e-em | @-i0 Pe re eres mee meee raee aes hand asaya mee Wetec are subject to prior sale 46am 2-22-96 11: 3 SENT DEVI OL fe biauis pure: pruy. Catalog Number: $198056VX06 Date: 01/23/96 END FITTINGS / MATERIAL 66 IN Tower End Fitting: Eye (167.6 MM Line End Fitting: Ball (ANS! 52-5) Corona Ring (tower): none Corona Ring (line): none Number of Sheds: 16. Weight Estimate: 9.5 Lbs 4.3 kg DIMENSIONAL VALUES Section Length [A): 56 In 1,422 mm Shed Diameter (B): 5.1 In 129 mm Shed Spacing (C): 2.75 In 70 mm Dry Arc Distance: 45 In 1,152 mm Leakage Distance: 106 In 2,692 mm ELECTRICAL VALUES 60 Hz Dry F.O.(Min. Withstand): 446 kV (415 kv) 60 Hz Wet F.0.[Min. Withstand): 399 kV (347 kV) } CWO + (Min. Withstand): 737 kV (663 kV) CIFO - (Min. Withstand): 790 kV (717 kV) c MECHANICAL VALUES Specified Mech. Load (SML): 25,000 Lbs 117 KkN Ty. Routine Test Load (RTL): 12,500 Lbs 56 kN 50 IN 27.0 4D a “T= ove ye 5) L 5 Power Products 11411 Addison St, Franklin Perk, It 60131 (708) 455-0014 24 IN <620 MM) Silicone Rubber Sheath & Sheds Compkes with applicable ANSI and IEC standards. ISO 9002 Certified Supplier 2.0 IN 30.8 MM) Q1-31-36 12:41PM Catalog Number: Date: —_sCdENDD FITTINGS / MATERIAL Tower End Fitting: Ry Power Products) 11411 Addison St, Frankiin Park, i. 60131 (708) 455-0014 $298062BX00 01/23/96 Line End Fitting: Ball (ANSI 52-8/11) Corona Ring {tower): Corona Ring {lina}: none none Corona Rings are recommended for appiications of 230 kV and above Number of Sheds: Weight Estimate: 17.7 Lbs DIMENSIONAL VALUES Section Length {A): 62.0 In Shed Diameter {B): 5.5 In Shed Spacing (C): 2.56 In Dry Arc Distance: 48 In Leakage Distance: 115 In —_— ELECTRICAL VALUES 60 Hz Dry F.0.{Min. Withstand): 467 kV 60 Hz Wet F.0.(Min. Withstand): 417 kV CIFO + {Min. Withstand): FIZ kV CIFO - (Min. Withstand): 826 kV MECHANICAL VALUES Specified Mech. Load {SML): 50,000 Lbs Routine Test Load (ATL): 25,000 Lbs Approved S7908gO828x _powe r pects Rubber Sheath & Sheds 7.B kg 1,575 mm 138 mm 565 mm 1,208 mm 2,927 mm (434 kV) (363 kV) {695 kV) (743 kV) 222 KN 117 KN mplias with applicable ANSI! and IEC standards. ISO 9002 Certified Supplier APPENDIX F Financial Parameters FINANCIAL PARAMETERS ESCALATION RATE FOR CAPITAL INVEST: 3.00% ESCALATION RATE FOR OPER & MAINT: 3.00% PRESENT WORTH DISCOUNT RATE: 5.00% OPER & MAINT FOR WOOD POLE LINE: 1.00% OPER & MAINT FOR STEEL POLE LINE: 0.75% LIFE-CYCLEFIXED CHARGE RATE - Transm Facilities Wood Steel Depreciation 3.03% 2.00% Levelized Return 7.62% 7.62% Income Tax 0.00% 0.00% Property Tax 0.00% 0.00% Insurance 0.17% 0.17% Injuries & Damage 0.43% 0.43% Subtotal 11.25% 10.22% Gross Receipts Tax 0.00% 0.00% Life-CycleFixed Charge Rate 11.25% 10.22% NOTE: Depreciation rate is based on 33 1/3 years life and 50 years life for wood and steel structures, respectively. ALSTROPT.WBI1 APPENDIX G Cost Comparison 23-Feb-96now KPU-ALASKA Pag 1/3 STRUCTURE STUDY -COST ANALYSIS A_ WOOD POLE H-FRAME CONSTR 1000 FT SPAN ITEM DESCRIPTION LABOR |TRANSP] TOTAL [#STRJ TOTAL | % cost | cost | cost | PER | COST |TOTAL $ ($8) ($)__| MILE | (s/ml)_ | CosT 1. Tangent Structure 75 ft, Class 1 D/F Pole 2,248 23,500 5,140 30,888 Top double-arm ass'y & 2-Xbraces #1042 1,440 1,440 Grounding 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 30 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 90 240 2,570 2,810 7700 7280 7280 Total Structure Weight Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II Total Foundation Weight 6,638 | 13,276 9,120 4,040 26,436 63,254 4.16] 263,137 0.75 2. Medium Angle 30 deg (Running Corner) 65 ft, Class 1 D/F Pole 8580} 1,171 3,513 13,500 5,140 22,153 Pole band with links & rollers for cond & guys 150 260 780 780 Single Guy assembly 150 100 300 300 Grounding 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 30 130 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 120 100 300 2,570 2,870 Total Structure Weight 9030 #6 Guy Anchor-25 ft Ig, 10 ft embedmt Type A-1 81 27 81 6,840 6,921 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II Total Foundation Weight 9948 10029 6,314 | 18,942 13,680 6,060 38,682 73,386 0.92} 67,515 0.19 3. Heavy Angle 0-90 deg & Dead End 65 ft, Class H-1 D/F Pole 9780} 1,212 3,636 19,800 5,140 28,576 Wood cross tie & cond & guy attachments 150 960 960 960 Double Guy assembly 600 200 1,200 1,200 Grounding 0 0 0 56" Ig x 50000 Ib Polymer insulator 90 200 1,200 5,130 6,330 56" Ig x 25000 Ib line post Polymer insulator 75 260 780 2,570 3,350 Insulator & Conductor Dead End Hardware 2160 100 600 5,130 5,730 Total Structure Weight 12855 #6 Guy Anchor-25 ft Ig, 10 ft embedmt Type A-1 162 27 162 13,680 13,842 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II 9948] 6,314] 18,942 13,680 6,060 38,682 Total Foundation Weight 10110 98,670 0.20] 19,734 0.06 Cost Breakdown (%) ° Materials 101,049 0.29 TOTAL STR COST PER MILE 5.28} 350,386 1.00 Labor 198,604 0.57 Cost of Structures & Appurtenances 162,433 0.46 Transport 50,733 0.14 Cost of Anchors & Foundations 187,952 0.54 23-Feb-96now KPU-ALASKA Pag 2/3 STRUCTURE STUDY -COST ANALYSIS B. STEEL POLE H-FRAME CONSTR 1000 FT SPAN ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL | UNIT MAT LABOR | TRANSP| TOTAL |#STR J TOTAL % QTY JWEIGHT | WEIGHT | COST | COST COST cost COsT PER COST }| TOTAL (LB) (LB) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)__| MILE | ($/Ml)_ | CosT 1. Tangent Structure 65 ft, Galv Steel Pole, complete with X-brace, crossarm and base plate 6650 6650] 6,400 6,400 22,510 5,140 34,050 Grounding 0 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 10 30 130 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 30 90 80 240 2,570 2,810 Total Structure Weight 6770 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II 3403 6806] 6,164 12,328 9,120 4,040 25,488 Total Foundation Weight 6806 64,028 | 4.16] 266,356 0.76 2. Medium Angle 30 deg (Running Corner) 65 ft, single Steel Pole, complete with guy and cond attachments and base plate 2450 7350} 2,400 7,200 11,390 5,140 23,730 Single Guy assembly 50 150 100 300 300 Grounding 0 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 10 30 130 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 50 150 100 300 2,570 2,870 Total Structure Weight 7680 #6 Guy Anchor-25 ft embedment Type A-1 27 81 27 81 6,840 6,921 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II 3079 9237] 5,840] 17,520 13,680 6,060 37,260 Total Foundation Weight 9318 72,761 0.92] 67,231 0.19 3. Heavy Angle 0-90 deg & Dead End 65 ft, single Steel Pole, complete with guy & cond attachments and base plate 2550 7650} 2,300 6,900 15,190 5,140 27,230 Double Guy assembly 100 600 200 1,200 1,200 Grounding 0 0 0 56" Ig x 50000 Ib Polymer insulator 15 90 200 1,200 5,130 6,330 56" Ig x 25000 Ib line post Polymer insulator 25 75 260 780 2,570 3,350 Insulator & Conductor Dead End Hardware 60 360 100 600 5,130 5,730 Total Structure Weight 8775 #6 Guy Anchor-25 ft embedment Type A-1 27 162 27 162 13,680 13,842 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II 3079 9237} 5,840] 17,520 13,680 6,060 37,260 Total Foundation Weight 9399 94,942 0.20] 18,799 0.05 Cost Breakdown (%) . Materials 109,976 0.31 TOTAL STRCOST PER MILE| 5.28] 352,386 1.00 Labor 191,655 0.54 Cost of Structures & Appurtenances 156,972 0.45 Transport 50,755 0.14 Cost of Anchors & Foundations 195,415 0.55 23-Feb-96now KPU-ALASKA Pag 3/3 STRUCTURE STUDY -COST ANALYSIS C. STEEL ICE H-FRAME CONSTR 1000 FT SPAN ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT | TOTAL MAT LABOR | TRANSP | TOTAL QTY |WEIGHT | WEIGHT COsT LB) (LB ($) 1. Tangent Structure 65 ft, Galv Lattice Steel Pole, complete with 6000 6000 6,000 X-brace, crossarm and base plate Grounding 0 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 10 30 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 30 90 240 2,570 2,810 Total Structure Weight Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II Total Foundation Weight 6120 6806 6806 12,328 9,120 4,040 25,488 66,618 | 4.16] 277,131 2. Medium Angle 30 deg (Running Corner) 65 ft, single Steel Lattice Pole, complete with guy and cond attachments and base plate 2000 6000 6,000 14,400 5,140 25,540 Single Guy assembly 150 300 300 Grounding 0 0 0 56" Ig x 25000 Ib Polymer insulator 30 390 1,290 1,680 Insulator & Conductor Susp Hardware 150 300 2,570 2,870 Total Structure Weight 6330 Guy Anchor-10 ft embedment Type A-1 81 81 6,840 6,921 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II 9237 17,520 13,680 37,260 Total Foundation Weight 9318 74,571 | 0.92] 68,904 3. Heavy Angle 0-90 deg & Dead End 65 ft, single Steel Lattice Pole, complete with guy and cond attachments and base plate Double Guy assembly Grounding 56" Ig x 50000 Ib Polymer insulator 56" Ig x 25000 Ib line post Polymer insulator Insulator & Conductor Dead End Hardware Total Structure Weight Guy Anchor-10 ft embedment Type A-1 Rock-bolt Foundation -Case II Total Foundation Weight 2000 6,000 18,200 5,140 29,340 100 200 1,200 1,200 0 0 1,200 5,130 6,330 780 2,570 3,350 600 5,130 5,730 15 25 60 200 260 100 75 360 7125 162 9237 9399 Cost Breakdown (%) Materials 107,025 0.29 Labor 207,471 0.57 Transport 50,755 0.14 27 3079 27 5,840 162 13,680 13,842 17,520 13,680 6,060 37,260 97,052 19,216 TOTAL STRCOSTPERMILE}] 5.28] 365,251 ; Cost of Structures & Appurtenances 156,972 0.43 Cost of Anchors & Foundations 208,279 0.57 APPENDIX H Life-Cycle Cost Analysis PROJECT COSTS 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURE OPTIONS LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS - SUMMARY COST ITEM Structures Wood Cost Steel Cost Lattice permile H-Frame permile H-Frame per mile Structure costs Tangent Structure $32,328 $134,484 $34,050 $141,648 $36,640 Medium Angle $22,933 $21,098 $23,730 $21,832 $25,540 Heavy Angle $29,536 $5,907 $27,230 $5,446 $29,340 Total costs $161,490 $168,926 O&MCosts % of Wood % of Steel % of totalO&M O&M Costs totalO&M O&MCosts total O&M Conductor 20% 0.20% 20% 0.15% 20% Misc (insulators, Hardware, etc.) 20% 0.20% 20% 0.15% 20% Structure 60% 0.60% 60% 0.45% 60% Foundation 0% 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0% Total (% of installed ) 100% 1.00% 100% 0.75% 100% Total evaluated costs ($/mi) $571,762 $468,116 NOTE: Total costs are for structures only (conductors, foundations & misc materials excluded) ALSTROPT.WB1 Cost per mile $152,422 $23,497 $5,868 $181,787 Lattice O&M Cost: 0.15% 0.15% 0.45% 0.00% 0.75% $503,757 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE WOOD STRUCTURES | LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS Economic Data Cost Item Structure Cost Structure Cost Structure Cost Escalation O&M O&M (Escalation) Fixed Year Costs 1 $18,168 2 $18,168 3 $18,168 4 $18,168 5 $18,168 6 $18,168 7 $18,168 8 $18,168 9 $18,168 10 $18,168 11 $18,168 12 $18,168 13 $18,168 14 $18,168 15 $18,168 16 $18,168 17 $18,168 18 $18,168 19 $18,168 20 $18,168 21 $18,168 22 $18,168 23 $18,168 24 $18,168 25 $18,168 26 $18,168 27 $18,168 28 $18,168 29 $18,168 30 $18,168 31 $18,168 32 $18,168 33 $18,168 34 $48,617 35 $48,617 36 $48,617 37 $48,617 38 $48,617 39 $48,617 40 $48,617 41 $48,617 42 $48,617 43 $48,617 ATSTROPT WRI Cost Data Year 1 33.3 66.6 3.0% per Mile $161,490 $432,141 $1,156,392 Fixed Charge Rate 11.25% 11.25% Cost $18,168 $48,617 11.25% $130,098 0.60% of Const Cos PW Rate 3.00% per year O&M Costs $969 $998 $1,028 $1,059 $1,091 $1,123 $1,157 $1,192 $1,227 $1,264 $1,302 $1,341 $1,381 $1,423 $1,466 $1,510 $1,555 $1,602 $1,650 $1,699 $1,750 $1,803 $1,857 $1,912 $1,970 $2,029 $2,090 $2,152 $2,217 $2,283 $2,352 $2,422 $2,495 $2,570 $2,647 $2,726 $2,808 $2,893 $2,979 $3,069 $3,161 $3,256 $3,353 Total Costs $19,137 $19,166 $19,196 $19,227 $19,259 $19,291 $19,325 $19,360 $19,396 $19,432 $19,470 $19,509 $19,550 $19,591 $19,634 $19,678 $19,723 $19,770 $19,818 $19,867 $19,918 $19,971 $20,025 $20,080 $20,138 $20,197 $20,258 $20,320 $20,385 $20,451 $20,520 $20,591 $20,663 $51,187 $51,264 $51,344 $51,425 $51,510 $51,596 $51,686 $51,778 $51,873 $51,970 Economic life Capital Rec Factor PW PW Factor Cost 0.95238 $18,226 0.90703 $17,384 0.86384 $16,582 0.82270 $15,818 0.78353 $15,090 0.74622 $14,396 0.71068 $13,734 0.67684 $13,103 0.64461 $12,503 0.61391 $11,930 0.58468 $11,384 0.55684 $10,864 0.53032 $10,368 0.50507 $9,895 0.48102 $9,444 0.45811 $9,015 0.43630 $8,605 0.41552 $8,215 0.39573 $7,843 0.37689 $7,488 0.35894 $7,149 0.34185 $6,827 0.32557 $6,519 0.31007 $6,226 0.29530 $5,947 0.28124 $5,680 0.26785 $5,426 0.25509 $5,184 0.24295 $4,952 0.23138 $4,732 0.22036 $4,522 0.20987 $4,321 0.19987 $4,130 0.19035 $9,744 0.18129 $9,294 0.17266 $8,865 0.16444 $8,456 0.15661 $8,067 0.14915 $7,696 0.14205 $7,342 0.13528 $7,005 0.12884 $6,683 0.12270 $6,377 5.00% 33 years 0.06249 Cum PW $18,226 $35,610 $52,192 $68,010 $83,100 $97,496 $111,229 $124,333 $136,836 $148,765 $160,149 $171,013 $181,380 $191,275 $200,719 $209,734 $218,339 $226,554 $234,396 $241,884 $249,033 $255,860 $262,380 $268,606 $274,553 $280,233 $285,659 $290,843 $295,795 $300,527 $305,049 $309,370 $313,500 $323,244 $332,537 $341,402 $349,859 $357,925 $365,621 $372,962 $379,967 $386,650 $393,027 ” 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 95 96 97 98 99 100 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $48,617 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 $130,098 ALSTROPT.WB1 $3,454 $3,557 $3,664 $3,774 $3,887 $4,004 $4,124 $4,248 $4,375 $4,506 $4,642 $4,781 $4,924 $5,072 $5,224 $5,381 $5,542 $5,709 $5,880 $6,056 $6,238 $6,425 $6,618 $6,816 $7,021 $7,231 $7,448 $7,672 $7,902 $8,139 $8,383 $8,635 $8,894 $9,161 $9,435 $9,719 $10,010 $10,310 $10,620 $10,938 $11,266 $11,604 $11,953 $12,311 $12,680 $13,061 $13,453 $13,856 $14,272 $14,700 $15,141 $15,595 $16,063 $16,545 $17,041 $17,553 $18,079 $52,071 $52,175 $52,281 $52,391 $52,504 $52,621 $52,741 $52,865 $52,992 $53,124 $53,259 $53,398 $53,541 $53,689 $53,841 $53,998 $54,159 $54,326 $54,497 $54,673 $54,855 $55,042 $55,235 $136,914 $137,118 $137,329 $137,546 $137,769 $138,000 $138,237 $138,481 $138,732 $138,991 $139,258 $139,533 $139,816 $140,108 $140,408 $140,717 $141,036 $141,364 $141,702 $142,050 $142,409 $142,778 $143,158 $143,550 $143,954 $144,370 $144,798 $145,239 $145,693 $146,161 $146,643 $147,139 $147,650 $148,177 0.11686 0.11130 0.10600 0.10095 0.09614 0.09156 0.08720 0.08305 0.07910 0.07533 0.07174 0.06833 0.06507 0.06197 0.05902 0.05621 0.05354 0.05099 0.04856 0.04625 0.04404 0.04195 0.03995 0.03805 0.03623 0.03451 0.03287 0.03130 0.02981 0.02839 0.02704 0.02575 0.02453 0.02336 0.02225 0.02119 0.02018 0.01922 0.01830 0.01743 0.01660 0.01581 0.01506 0.01434 0.01366 0.01301 0.01239 0.01180 0.01124 0.01070 0.01019 0.00971 0.00924 0.00880 0.00838 0.00798 0.00760 $6,085 $5,807 $5,542 $5,289 $5,048 $4,818 $4,599 $4,390 $4,191 $4,002 $3,821 $3,648 $3,484 $3,327 $3,178 $3,035 $2,899 $2,770 $2,646 $2,528 $2,416 $2,309 $2,207 $5,209 $4,968 $4,739 $4,521 $4,312 $4,114 $3,925 $3,744 $3,573 $3,409 $3,253 $3,104 $2,962 $2,827 $2,698 $2,575 $2,458 $2,347 $2,240 $2,139 $2,042 $1,950 $1,862 $1,778 $1,698 $1,622 $1,549 $1,480 $1,414 $1,351 $1,291 $1,234 $1,179 $1,127 Life-Cycle Present Worth Cost Per Mile $399,112 $404,919 $410,461 $415,750 $420,798 $425,616 $430,215 $434,606 $438,797 $442,799 $446,620 $450,268 $453,752 $457,080 $460,258 $463,293 $466,192 $468,962 $471,608 $474,137 $476,553 $478 862 $481,068 $486,277 $491,246 $495,985 $500,506 $504,818 $508,932 $512,857 $516,601 $520,174 $523,582 $526,835 $529,939 $532,901 $535,728 $538,426 $541,001 $543,460 $545,806 $548,046 $550,185 $552,227 $554,177 $556,039 $557,817 $559,515 $561,137 $562,687 $564,167 $565,581 $566,932 $568,223 $569,456 $570,635 $571,762 $571,762 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE STEEL STRUCTURES | LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS Economic Data ATSTROPT WRI Cost Data Cost Item Year per Mile Structure Cost 1 $168,926 Structure Cost 50 $740,554 Escalation 3.0% O&M 0.45% of Const Cost O&M (Escalation) 3.00% per year Fixed O&M Total Year Costs Costs Costs A $17,264 $760 $18,024 2 $17,264 $783 $18,047 3 $17,264 $806 $18,071 4 $17,264 $831 $18,095 5 $17,264 $856 $18,120 6 $17,264 $881 $18,145 7 $17,264 $908 $18,172 8 $17,264 $935 $18,199 9 $17,264 $963 $18,227 10 $17,264 $992 $18,256 11 $17,264 $1,022 $18,286 12 $17,264 $1,052 $18,316 13 $17,264 $1,084 $18,348 14 $17,264 $1,116 $18,381 15 $17,264 $1,150 $18,414 16 $17,264 $1,184 $18,449 17 $17,264 $1,220 $18,484 18 $17,264 $1,256 $18,521 19 $17,264 $1,294 $18,558 20 $17,264 $1,333 $18,597 21 $17,264 $1,373 $18,637 22 $17,264 $1,414 $18,678 23 $17,264 $1,457 $18,721 24 $17,264 $1,500 $18,764 25 $17,264 $1,545 $18,809 26 $17,264 $1,592 $18,856 27 $17,264 $1,639 $18,904 28 $17,264 $1,689 $18,953 29 $17,264 $1,739 $19,003 30 $17,264 $1,791 $19,056 31 $17,264 $1,845 $19,109 32 $17,264 $1,900 $19,165 33 $17,264 $1,957 $19,222 34 $17,264 $2,016 $19,280 35 $17,264 $2,077 $19,341 36 $17,264 $2,139 $19,403 37 $17,264 $2,203 $19,467 38 $17,264 $2,269 $19,533 39 $17,264 $2,337 $19,602 40 $17,264 $2,407 $19,672 41 $17,264 $2,480 $19,744 42 $17,264 $2,554 $19,818 43 $17,264 $2,631 $19,895 44 $17,264 $2,710 $19,974 Fixed Charge Rate Cost 10.22% $17,264 10.22% $75,685 PW Rate Economic life Capital Rec Factor PW PW Factor Cost 0.95238 $17,166 0.90703 $16,369 0.86384 $15,610 0.82270 $14,887 0.78353 $14,197 0.74622 $13,540 0.71068 $12,914 0.67684 $12,318 0.64461 $11,749 0.61391 $11,208 0.58468 $10,691 0.55684 $10,199 0.53032 $9,730 0.50507 $9,283 0.48102 $8,857 0.45811 $8,451 0.43630 $8,065 0.41552 $7,696 0.39573 $7,344 0.37689 $7,009 0.35894 $6,690 0.34185 $6,385 0.32557 $6,095 0.31007 $5,818 0.29530 $5,554 0.28124 $5,303 0.26785 $5,063 0.25509 $4,835 0.24295 $4,617 0.23138 $4,409 0.22036 $4,211 0.20987 $4,022 0.19987 $3,842 0.19035 $3,670 0.18129 $3,506 0.17266 $3,350 0.16444 $3,201 0.15661 $3,059 0.14915 $2,924 0.14205 $2,794 0.13528 $2,671 0.12884 $2,553 0.12270 $2,441 0.11686 $2,334 5.00% 50 years 0.0547767 Cum PW $17,166 $33,535 $49,145 $64,032 $78,229 $91,770 $104,684 $117,002 $128,752 $139,959 $150,650 $160,850 $170,580 $179,864 $188,721 $197,172 $205,237 $212,933 $220,277 $227,286 $233,976 $240,361 $246,456 $252,274 $257,828 $263,131 $268,195 $273,029 $277,646 $282,055 $286,266 $290,288 $294,130 $297,800 $301,307 $304,657 $307,858 $310,917 $313,840 $316,635 $319,306 $321,859 $324,300 $326,634 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87° 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ALSTROPT.WB1 $17,264 $17,264 $17,264 $17,264 $17,264 $17,264 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $75,685 $2,791 $2,875 $2,961 $3,050 $3,141 $3,235 $3,332 $3,432 $3,535 $3,642 $3,751 $3,863 $3,979 $4,099 $4,222 $4,348 $4,479 $4,613 $4,751 $4,894 $5,041 $5,192 $5,348 $5,508 $5,673 $5,844 $6,019 $6,199 $6,385 $6,577 $6,774 $6,977 $7,187 $7,402 $7,625 $7,853 $8,089 $8,331 $8,581 $8,839 $9,104 $9,377 $9,658 $9,948 $10,247 $10,554 $10,871 $11,197 $11,533 $11,879 $12,235 $12,602 $12,980 $13,370 $13,771 $14,184 $20,055 $20,139 $20,225 $20,314 $20,405 $20,500 $79,017 $79,117 $79,220 $79,326 $79,435 $79,548 $79,664 $79,783 $79,906 $80,033 $80,163 $80,298 $80,436 $80,578 $80,725 $80,877 $81,032 $81,193 $81,358 $81,528 $81,703 $81,884 $82,070 $82,262 $82,459 $82,662 $82,871 $83,087 $83,309 $83,538 $83,773 $84,016 $84,266 $84,524 $84,789 $85,062 $85,343 $85,633 $85,931 $86,239 $86,555 $86,881 $87,217 $87,563 $87,920 $88,287 $88,665 $89,054 $89,455 $89,868 0.11130 0.10600 0.10095 0.09614 0.09156 0.08720 0.08305 0.07910 0.07533 0.07174 0.06833 0.06507 0.06197 0.05902 0.05621 0.05354 0.05099 0.04856 0.04625 0.04404 0.04195 0.03995 0.03805 0.03623 0.03451 0.03287 0.03130 0.02981 0.02839 0.02704 0.02575 0.02453 0.02336 0.02225 0.02119 0.02018 0.01922 0.01830 0.01743 0.01660 0.01581 0.01506 0.01434 0.01366 0.01301 0.01239 0.01180 0.01124 0.01070 0.01019 0.00971 0.00924 0.00880 0.00838 0.00798 0.00760 $2,232 $2,135 $2,042 $1,953 $1,868 $1,788 $6,562 $6,258 $5,968 $5,691 $5,428 $5,176 $4,937 $4,709 $4,492 $4,285 $4,087 $3,899 $3,720 $3,549 $3,386 $3,231 $3,083 $2,942 $2,808 $2,680 $2,557 $2,441 $2,330 $2,224 $2,123 $2,027 $1,936 $1,848 $1,765 $1,686 $1,610 $1,538 $1,469 $1,403 $1,340 $1,281 $1,224 $1,169 $1,118 $1,068 $1,021 $976 $933 $892 $853 $816 $781 $747 $714 $683 Life-Cycle Present Worth Cost Per Mile $328,866 $331,001 $333,043 $334,996 $336,864 $338,652 $345,214 $351,472 $357,440 $363,131 $368,558 $373,735 $378,672 $383,381 $387,873 $392,157 $396,244 $400,144 $403,863 $407,412 $410,799 $414,029 $417,113 $420,055 $422,862 $425,542 $428,099 $430,540 $432,870 $435,094 $437,218 $439,245 $441,181 $443,029 $444,794 $446,480 $448,089 $449,627 $451,096 $452,499 $453,839 $455,120 $456,344 $457,513 $458,631 $459,699 $460,720 $461,696 $462,630 $463,522 $464,375 $465,191 $465,972 $466,718 $467,433 $468,116 $468,116 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE LATTICE STRUCTURES LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS Economic Data —___CostData____ _ Fixed Charge __ Lost Item Year per Mile Rate Cost Structure Cost 1 $181,787 10.22% $18,579 Structure Cost 50 $796,938 10.22% $81,447 Escalation 3.0% O&M 0.45% of Const Cost PW Rate 5.00% O&M (Escalation) 3.00% per year Economic life 50 years Capital Rec Factor 0.0547767 Fixed O&M Total PW PW Cum Year Costs Costs Costs Factor Cost PW 1 $18,579 $818 $19,397 0.95238 $18,473 $18,473 2 $18,579 $843 $19,421 0.90703 $17,616 $36,089 3 $18,579 $868 $19,447 0.86384 $16,799 $52,887 4 $18,579 $894 $19,473 0.82270 $16,020 $68,907 5 $18,579 $921 $19,499 0.78353 $15,278 $84,186 6 $18,579 $948 $19,527 0.74622 $14,571 $98,757 7 $18,579 $977 $19,555 0.71068 $13,898 $112,655 8 $18,579 $1,006 $19,585 0.67684 $13,256 $125,910 9 $18,579 $1,036 $19,615 0.64461 $12,644 $138,554 10 $18,579 $1,067 $19,646 0.61391 $12,061 $150,615 11 $18,579 $1,099 $19,678 0.58468 $11,505 $162,121 12 $18,579 $1,132 $19,711 0.55684 $10,976 $173,096 13 $18,579 $1,166 $19,745 0.53032 $10,471 $183,568 14 $18,579 $1,201 $19,780 0.50507 $9,990 $193,558 15 $18,579 = $1,237 $19,816 0.48102 $9,532 $203,090 16 $18,579 $1,274 $19,853 0.45811 $9,095 $212,185 17 $18,579 = $1,313 $19,891 0.43630 $8,679 $220,863 18 $18,579 $1,352 $19,931 0.41552 $8,282 $229,145 19 $18,579 $1,393 $19,971 0.39573 $7,903 $237,048 20 $18,579 $1,434 $20,013 0.37689 $7,543 $244,591 21 $18,579 $1,477 $20,056 0.35894 $7,199 $251,790 22 $18,579 $1,522 $20,100 0.34185 $6,871 $258,661 23 $18,579 $1,567 $20,146 0.32557 $6,559 $265,220 24 $18,579 $1,614 $20,193 0.31007 $6,261 $271,482 25 $18,579 $1,663 $20,242 0.29530 $5,977 $277,459 26 $18,579 $1,713 $20,291 0.28124 $5,707 $283,166 27 $18,579 $1,764 $20,343 0.26785 $5,449 $288,614 28 $18,579 $1,817 $20,396 0.25509 $5,203 $293,817 29 $18,579 $1,872 $20,450 0.24295 $4,968 $298,786 30 $18,579 $1,928 $20,506 0.23138 $4,745 $303,530 31 $18,579 $1,986 $20,564 0.22036 $4,532 $308,062 32 $18,579 $2,045 $20,624 0.20987 $4,328 $312,390 33 $18,579 $2,107 $20,685 0.19987 $4,134 $316,525 34 $18,579 $2,170 $20,748 0.19035 $3,950 $320,474 35 $18,579 $2,235 $20,813 0.18129 $3,773 $324,247 36 $18,579 $2,302 $20,881 0.17266 $3,605 $327,853 37 $18,579 $2,371 $20,950 0.16444 $3,445 $331,297 38 $18,579 $2,442 $21,021 0.15661 $3,292 $334,589 39 $18,579 $2,515 $21,094 0.14915 $3,146 $337,735 40 $18,579 $2,591 $21,169 0.14205 $3,007 $340,742 41 $18,579 $2,668 $21,247 0.13528 $2,874 $343,617 42 $18,579 $2,749 $21,327 0.12884 $2,748 $346,365 43 $18,579 $2,831 $21,410 0.12270 $2,627 $348,992 44 $18,579 $2,916 $21,495 0.11686 $2,512 $351,504 ALSTROPT.WBI1 3 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 ATCOCTDNADT WD1 $18,579 $18,579 $18,579 $18,579 $18,579 $18,579 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $81,447 $3,003 $3,094 $3,186 $3,282 $3,380 $3,482 $3,586 $3,694 $3,805 $3,919 $4,036 $4,157 $4,282 $4,411 $4,543 $4,679 $4,820 $4,964 $5,113 $5,266 $5,424 $5,587 $5,755 $5,927 $6,105 $6,288 $6,477 $6,671 $6,872 $7,078 $7,290 $7,509 $7,734 $7,966 $8,205 $8,451 $8,705 $8,966 $9,235 $9,512 $9,797 $10,091 $10,394 $10,706 $11,027 $11,358 $11,698 $12,049 $12,411 $12,783 $13,167 $13,562 $13,968 $14,388 $14,819 $15,264 $21,582 $21,672 $21,765 $21,861 $21,959 $22,060 $85,033 $85,141 $85,252 $85,366 $85,483 $85,604 $85,729 $85,858 $85,990 $86,126 $86,267 $86,411 $86,560 $86,714 $86,872 $87,034 $87,202 $87,375 $87,552 $87,736 $87,924 $88,118 $88,319 $88,525 $88,737 $88,956 $89,181 $89,413 $89,652 $89,898 $90,152 $90,413 $90,682 $90,959 $91,244 $91,538 $91,841 $92,153 $92,474 $92,805 $93,145 $93,496 $93,858 $94,230 $94,614 $95,009 $95,416 $95,835 $96,266 $96,711 0.11130 0.10600 0.10095 0.09614 0.09156 0.08720 0.08305 0.07910 0.07533 0.07174 0.06833 0.06507 0.06197 0.05902 0.05621 0.05354 0.05099 0.04856 0.04625 0.04404 0.04195 0.03995 0.03805 0.03623 0.03451 0.03287 0.03130 0.02981 0.02839 0.02704 0.02575 0.02453 0.02336 0.02225 0.02119 0.02018 0.01922 0.01830 0.01743 0.01660 0.01581 0.01506 0.01434 0.01366 0.01301 0.01239 0.01180 0.01124 0.01070 0.01019 0.00971 0.00924 0.00880 0.00838 0.00798 0.00760 $2,402 $2,297 $2,197 $2,102 $2,011 $1,924 $7,062 $6,734 $6,422 $6,124 $5,841 $5,571 $5,313 $5,068 $4,834 $4,611 $4,398 $4,196 $4,003 $3,819 $3,644 $3,477 $3,318 $3,166 $3,021 $2,884 $2,752 $2,627 $2,507 $2,394 $2,285 $2,182 $2,083 $1,989 $1,899 $1,814 $1,732 $1,655 $1,581 $1,510 $1,442 $1,378 $1,317 $1,258 $1,203 $1,150 $1,099 $1,050 $1,004 $960 $918 $878 $840 $803 $769 $735 Life-Cycle Present Worth Cost Per Mile $353,906 $356,203 $358,400 $360,502 $362,512 $364,436 $371,498 $378,232 $384,654 $390,779 $396,620 $402,190 $407,503 $412,571 $417,404 $422,015 $426,414 $430,610 $434,613 $438,432 $442,076 $445,553 $448,870 $452,036 $455,058 $457,941 $460,694 $463,320 $465,828 $468,221 $470,507 $472,688 $474,771 $476,760 $478,660 $480,474 $482,206 $483,861 $485,441 $486,951 $488,393 $489,772 $491,089 $492,347 $493,550 $494,699 $495,798 $496,849 $497,853 $498,813 $499,732 $500,610 $501,450 $502,253 $503,022 $503,757 $503,757