The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFeasibility Study Kake Petersburg Intertie 1996Feasibility Study Kake-Petersburg Intertie State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy June 1996 IaH Feasibility Study Kake-Petersburg Intertie State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy June 1996 aR KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION saat ratatedeetectnatadadatadecdsseh ade htttatetadegtatallaeseetodteettaleeasleaeedea 1-1 STUDY METHODOLOGY..............445 1-2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........::0008 1-2 Route oo... cece 1-2 DeSign .......csssssssssescscecsessesssseesssrenensseneneeecacessenerseseseonees® 1-3 ESTIMATED GOST aatcictettitectctacieststatedscteustdeaot stos iatesseaseusst 1-5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.......- 1-6 COST OF POWER ANALYSIS.......::cescceseeeseeeceeeereeeseeceeseeesaeceseecssecesesssesessenseensees 1-8 Section 2 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND eeaiicictcctedectet od baeetcebet edentettpauctattsatesicesuctodoreeeahatessupestiepatetacnaatns 2-1 PURPOSE OF STUDY 2oocincc ces csscssccsescesccesecssceeconssssestcconoesecernteaseceascesecsonesntrennte 2-2 STUDY METHODOLOGY. 2-3 FORMAT. OF REPORT. .1.0).:csessesessserssectespcserscrssusrosanetoaseesessoeesoasessccnnessaceetereneesses 2-4 Section 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS TRANSMISSION INTERTIE, KAKE-PETERSBURG, A RECONNAISSANCE REPORT, JANUARY 1981 ........ccceccescesceseeseeesseseeseeseesenseeseseeeaeeneenaeeeseasensensenseees 3-1 TYEE-KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT, DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, FINAL REPORT, VOLUMES | AND Il, MARCH 1984........ccccceseeeeeteeeeeeteeeeneens 3-3 SOUTHEAST ALASKA TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STUDY, HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY, OCTOBER 1987 .......::::cceeeeeteeteeteteeneeeee 3-6 KAKE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT, APRIL 1984 ......cscsssesessescesssseseseeeseesesecsesecsenseneeserscsenesseeesseessessesessesssessasseeeeaes 3-10 DKP_INT.DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 4 ROUTE SELECTION INTRO DW GU ION srscsvssece vac cevecccceccccesuctectceeccastis cat vasscuetcesteeccssetessss<edostsassesoeszeseoe 4-1 PREVIOUS STUDY FINDINGS ON ROUTE SELECTION .......ceeeeseeeeseesseenseeeeees 4-1 ROUTE ALIGNMENT CRITERIA ........::::cceeeeeseeceeeeseeeeeetseeeeeeeenees 4-3 A DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES. .........::0:0000 .4-3 Southern Route Alternative (46.7 miles)........... -4-4 Northern Route Alternative (59.9 miles) .......c:c:ccccceeseeeseeseesseeeseeeseeeeseeeneeenee 4-5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .........cc:cccceeesesceeeeeceeeeeeeeneecesesnseeeceeeesenessseseeseeesaes 4-7 Introduction «0... Northern Route ... Southern Route ... Consultation ..........:eeeceereeeeees Permits and Approvals Required. Environmental Considerations . DISCUSSION ......cccceeeseeeeseeeeesecesseeceeseceeseecesseeeeesseseeeenseeetaeees 4-9 Conclusions and Recommendations ............:::scecceeeeeees 4-10 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0.0... cccceccccccecceeceeceecceeesssssssaeasssaeeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeneaaees 4-10 Section 5 SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN INTRODUCTION .........c:cccccccssseccceeseseeeceeesseeeceeesseeeeeeseeeecesesseseeeessaeeeeeeeeneeaeeees 5-1 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONCEPTS ......cscccceseeeeesseesseeeseeeessesesseseeseeeesasesesseeeesees 5-1 LOAD FLOW STUDIES .........ccccccceeseeceseecessecesseeeseeessceceasessaeeeeseecesseeeeeaeeeeseaeeese 5-2 Load Flow Analysis ..........::+0++++ . 5-2 Evaluation Criteria ............eceee 5-3 Modeling/Study Assumptions... 5-3 Load FOrecast ........ccccsccescessceeseeeseeseeseeeeeeessecseeasesseeseees .. 5-8 Study Evaluation and Results ..........ccscsccsesesecsseseseeneseseeseeeeeseeeeetenssssteeensasenees 5-9 FINCingS ........ccecceeseeseeeeseeee we 5-12 SELECTED SYSTEM CONCEPTS ........ccccesseeeeseeeeeseeeeeceseeceseecessesecsssesesseeeesseeeses 5-12 Construction Plans .........ccccccccscseseeseseeeseeseeseeseseeseeseesecsesseesesseesseeaseseesseneeeees TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN wee Introduction and Background .........ccccceecsesseseseeseneseteseseseseseseenseseeeeseeeteeees 5-14 Physical Loading .........sccesssesessesesesneseseenenesesneeneneeeseseesnsseensnesssesssseeceseseeesees 5-14 Structure TYPe@ ......ceeeeeerees 5-15 Electrical Clearances to Grade .......ccscecescesseseescsscseeseceesseseeeeaseseeaeeneeneensenes 5-16 Conductor Selection ........ccccccscescesseseesceseeseeeeescesceceeesesscsscsecesseseesseeesseeaees 5-17 Right-of-Way Width and Typical Span Lengths .. SUBSTATION DESIGN .......ceceeceseeseseeseeeeeeeeetenenees Option 1, 69-kV Intertie ... es Option 2, 24.9-kV Intertic cece eeteeteeeeneeessestenssseesesessseneneesseenens 5-19 Page ii DKP_INT.DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 6 COST ESTIMATES INTRODUCTION ........ cece cceceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeesenenseneseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeneeneneennneeeagaees TRANSMISSION LINES ......ccsccesseceeeteeceeeeeeeeeeessaeecesseeeceesscesesseeesseeeseeeenseeenteeeenae 69-kV/138-kV H-Frame Construction... 24.9/34.5-kV Single Pole Construction .. SUBSTATIONS ......ccccccescceescccesseeeeesecesaeeceneeeeseseecesseeccessueseeseseesseeeeseeesseseeteesenaee Section 7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION .u....cceceesceescesscesscesscessecesecseeenseeeeecsasecesecesesesssesseesaseseeeseeeneessnes 7-1 POWER REQUIREMENTS ......cccecesesesescesesesescsseesscseeeesesescessenenseseaeneeeseceeeseesecaees 7-2 DIESEL GENERATION ALTERNATIVE. ........:cescescesseesceseseseeseesees 7-4 INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE .....c.cccccceceeeeceeceeeceseeeseeeseesseeenseseseenes 7-5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS .. 7-5 RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ......0ceeeccesseeseeeesseesseeseseesesseesseseeeeeeee 7-6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .........0.0cccceeeeeeeeeeeeesesseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeneeennenenenegs 7-8 APPENDICES A EBASCO DETAILED ROUTE MAPS B SEALASKA LANDS AND MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LANDS Cc AGENCY AND PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE D COST ESTIMATE BACKUP E ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OUTPUT F COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE AGENCY REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R. W. Beck constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. Copyright 1996, R. W. Beck, Inc. All rights reserved. File: 3931/11-00145-10101-0101 DKP_INT.DOC Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .......ccesceeseeseeseeeesseseeesseeseceseeeseeaeeessessseenseesseeees 1-5 TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF COMPARABLE COSTS OF POWER........::::065 1-7 TABLE 1-3 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BENEFIT/COST RATIOS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS. .......:c:escesceseeeseeeeeeeeeseeseeees 1-8 TABLE 1-4 KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF COST OF POWER ANALYSIS COMPARABLE ANNUAL COST OF POWER .......::csscseeseeseeseeseescesceseesesseesseseseseesees 1-9 TABLE 5-1 PEAK LOAD PROJECTIONS vee TABLE 5-2 LOAD FLOW CASE DESCRIPTION........:.::cesceseesseesetesseeeseeeseeeseeeees 5-9 TABLE 5-3 LOAD FLOW RESULTS SUMMARY ........cccesseseesceeceseesesesseseeseeeeees 5-11 TABLE 5-4 PHYSICAL LOAD CRITERIA TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF COSTS TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........- 6-2 TABLE 7-1 KAKE ELECTRIC LOAD FORECAST ........c:ccccessesesseeseesceseeessesseseeneseaes 7-3 TABLE 7-2 PETERSBURG AND WRANGELL ELECTRIC LOAD FORECASTS MID-CASE SCENARIO ........:cc:cessceseeeseeeseteseeerseeeseeeeeenes 7-4 TABLE 7-3 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF COMPARABLE COSTS OF POWER. ........::0+5 7-7 TABLE 7-4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BENEFIT/COST RATIOS.OF.ALTERNATIVE-SCENARIOS . sssssssessscsssssssseeveseneesucereseoeses 7-8 TABLE 7-5 KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF COST OF POWER ANALYSIS COMPARABLE ANNUAL COST OF POWER.........:::csesseeseeeseesseesseeseceeeseseesseenseene 7-10 Page iv DKP_INT.DOC TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FIGURE 2,3 SYSTEMLAYOUT AND IMPEDANCES FIGURE 4 TYPICAL H-FRAME 69/138 KV TANGENT STRUCTURE FIGURE 5 TYPICAL ROW FOR 69/138 KV CONSTRUCTION FIGURE 6 TYPICAL 34.5 KV TANGENT STRUCTURE FIGURE 7 TYPICAL ROW FOR 34.5 KV CONSTRUCTION FIGURE 8 TYPICAL SUBMARINE CABLE CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 9 PETERSBURG MAIN SUBSTATION LAYOUT DKP_INT.DOC Page v Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY aa Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Alaska Energy Authority conducted a reconnaissance study in 1987 of several possible transmission interconnections in Southeast Alaska. The reconnaissance study evaluated various transmission alternatives and estimated costs of development and construction for each of the alternatives. One of the intercon- nections identified in the 1987 study was a transmission line between Kake and Petersburg (the “Intertie” or the “Project”). The potential long-term benefits of the Intertie would be to use surplus generation from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project to offset diesel generation in Kake. The electrical output of the Lake Tyee project is presently available only to the communities of Petersburg and Wrangell. In light of certain changes since 1987, the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy (the “Division”) retained R. W. Beck, Inc., to conduct a feasibility study of the Intertie. This report summarizes the analyses and findings of the feasibility study. Kake is a community with a population of approximately 700 people located on the northwestern tip of Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska. Electricity is presently supplied to the community by the Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority (THREA) using diesel generators. THREA’s electric system in Kake is isolated and is not interconnected with any other communities. In 1994, the peak demand of the Kake electric system was 1,020 kilowatts (kW) and total energy generation was 4,248 megawatt-hours (MWh). The total capacity of the diesel generators installed in Kake is presently 2,230 kW. The 20,000 kW Lake Tyee project is estimated to have an average annual energy generation capability of 134,400 MWh. Since its completion in 1984, the full annual energy generation capability of the Lake Tyee project has never been realized because of insufficient interconnected loads. At present load levels, it is estimated that there is approximately 91,000 MWh annually of surplus Lake Tyee generation capability. Presently, power is sold exclusively to Petersburg and Wrangell from the Lake Tyee project pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Four Dam Pool Power Sales Agreement. The potential interconnection of Ketchikan to the Lake Tyee project has not been considered in this study as directed by the Division. Section 1 STUDY METHODOLOGY Because several alternative studies concerning the Intertie or other related issues had been prepared previously by others, it was necessary initially to obtain and review these previous studies. To the extent possible, our efforts have been to expand upon the previous work rather than start all analyses anew. Of principal interest with regard to the previous studies of the Intertie were the two primary route alternatives previously identified. These two route alternatives formed the basis for the routes included in this current study. In addition to the evaluation of Intertie route alternatives, other primary tasks of the feasibility study included: = Development of a load flow analysis of the potentially interconnected electric systems. = Establishment of a conceptual design for the Intertie at two alternative voltage levels. = Conducting of a “fatal flaw” environmental review related to construction of the Intertie. = Development of a feasibility cost estimate for the Intertie at two alternative voltage levels. = Development of an economic and financial analysis comparing the costs of power supply in Kake with the Intertie to power supply costs with diesel generation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ROUTE The alternative routes selected for evaluation in the present study were the Northern and Southern Routes as generally defined in previous studies. These routes are shown in Figure 1, based on mapping furnished by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Petersburg Ranger District. It should be pointed out that the route alternatives shown on Figure 1, are subject to adjustment in final design to take advantage of road systems, to mitigate environmental impacts, and to avoid muskeg or rocky terrain. The Northern Route begins at an existing substation south of Petersburg at Blunt Point. It parallels an existing transmission line into Petersburg, crosses Wrangell Narrows via underwater cable east of Sasby Island, and then continues northward along the steep, forested slope adjacent to Frederick Sound before turning westward into the Twelve Mile Creek drainage. There it follows rolling, lowland areas adjacent to existing logging roads, for the most part, to Kake. The total length of the Northern Route alternative is 59.9 miles, including 0.9 mile of underwater cable. 1-2. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southern Route begins at a new substation to be located about five miles south of Blunt Point along the Mitkof Highway. The line would exit to the west, cross the Wrangell Narrows via underwater cable, and then continue northwest- ward along an unnamed creek drainage paralleling existing logging roads to Duncan Canal. After crossing Duncan Canal via a second underwater cable, the route follows relatively flat terrain northward to the pass separating the Duncan Canal drainages to the east and those flowing west to Hamilton Creek. The route follows a previously recommended alignment in the area west of Duncan Canal to minimize impacting muskeg areas. West of the pass, the route parallels existing logging roads to Kake. The total length of the Southern Route is 46.7 miles, including 2.4 miles of underwater cable. Based on public comment, agency comment, previous study findings and our engineering and environmental judgment, the Southern Route is preferred. Both routes pass through the environmentally sensitive Duncan Canal-Portage Bay waterfowl migratory path and fisheries zone and for these reasons a full environmental study of the routes should be undertaken before a final decision is made to adopt the Southern Route: The Southern Route, originally recommended by public agencies [1] has clearly engendered the least agency opposition due to occupying lands already disturbed by extensive logging operations or planned for timber sales in the Tongass Forest Land Management Plan. Following the Southern Route would also result in a more reliable transmission link due to its shorter length, absence of steep slopes, extensive roaded areas, and submarine cable crossings less prone to anchoring events and dredging operations. DESIGN This feasibility study was charged with evaluating a system at 138kV and the lowest practical voltage capable of serving Kake load. Based on previous studies and our engineering judgment we focused on a 69-kV option and a line constructed at 34.5-kV standards and initially operated at 24.9kV (the “24.9/34.5-kV” option) as the most practical voltage choices for serving Kake load in the near term. In Kake, THREA operates a 12.47/7.2-kV distribution system while Petersburg Municipal Power & Light (PMP&L) operates a 24.9/14.4-kV system, with a 69-kV (upgradable to 138kV) interconnection to the Tyee- Wrangell-Petersburg (TWP) system. Some transformation will be required to interconnect the PMP&L and Kake systems. Evaluation of the load flow analysis indicates that a 69-kV Intertie will provide Kake with adequate voltage levels throughout the duration of the twenty-year planning horizon and should provide the Kake system with the opportunity to increase load without requiring an upgrade to 138 kV. If use of the Intertie as part of a greater Southeast Intertie is contemplated, the line might be constructed to 138-kV standards at the outset and converted to 138-kV operation when needed. Because of the initial definition of 138 kV for the Intertie, our 69-kV option has DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 1-3 Section 1 included the costs of constructing overhead portions of the Intertie to 138 kV standards (the “69/138-kV option’). The 24.9-kV alternative is the minimum voltage scenario that could reliably support Kake forecasted load growth. Since it provides no future flexibility for sudden increased commercial/industrial load it is considerably less attractive from an electrical feasibility standpoint than a 34.5-kV line initially operated at 24.9 kV or the 69-kV option. The line operated at 69 kV will easily serve all foreseeable loads in Kake without reactive compensation for voltage control or support. The line operated at 24.9kV will adequately handle Kake present peak load (1.07 MW) and load growth to an estimated 1.5 MW before conversion to 34.5kV is necessary. Addition of shunt capacitors or voltage regulation in Kake may defer the need to upgrade to 34.5 kV. Based on the above, the low-voltage option for the Intertie would be constructed to 34.5-kV standards, requiring only transformation in Petersburg and modifica- tion of transformation in Kake. The Kake transformer(s) could have a dual rated primary to facilitate conversion. It would be imprudent in our judgment to construct the line for maximum 24.9-kV operation. The basic tangent structure type selected for the 69/138-kV design alternative is a wood H-frame structure. This structure has performed well on the Swan Lake 115-kV line since it went into service in 1983. All distances between conductors will be greater than 60 inches, a distance considered safe for eagles and other large raptors. Pole tops will extend approximately 18 inches above the H-frame’s cross arm to provide a preferred raptor perch. For the 24.9-kV alternative, single-pole structures and horizontal line post insulators would be employed again with an extended pole top for a raptor perch. Right-of-way will be based on reliability and access for maintenance. Since clearing and maintaining the right-of-way will be a major expense for the Intertie, considerable effort should be made in the final design phase to find an optimum balance between right-of-way width and the maximum distance between transmission poles and structures (span length). Longer span lengths will reduce structure costs but will increase clearing costs. A typical right-of-way width for the 69-kV construction proposed for the Intertie is about 100 ft. Required right-of-way width would increase for longer spans and decrease for shorter spans. Average span length for the 69/138-kV alternative is estimated to be 800 ft. For the 69-kV option, a new switching station located at or close to the tap point on the existing TWP line will be needed. It will consist of a circuit breaker with isolating switches, revenue metering equipment, underground power cable terminations and associated surge arresters. The Intertie will be connected to the 12.47-kV system at Kake through a 1000/1500 kVA step-down transformer to be 1-4 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY located in a new substation in Kake. The station will be located adjacent to the power plant and occupy a chain link-fenced area of approximately 60 ft x 70 ft. For the 24.9/34.5-kV option, the Intertie will be connected to the 24.9-kV bus in the Petersburg substation. We have assumed that the 24.9- kV bus in Petersburg can be extended with one bay within the existing fenced area. Our review of plan and profile drawings for line facilities along Mitkof Highway indicates that space may not exist for a second 24.9/34.5-kV circuit. This situation may require other reconstruction of this line segment or construction of a new line in difficult terrain. ESTIMATED COST All previous studies prepared cost estimates for construction of the Intertie for the purposes of evaluating economics and feasibility of alternative projects. In the present feasibility study we included cost estimates for right-of-way easements, permitting, right-of-way clearing, construction costs, engineering and construc- tion management services, owners’ administration, and timber sales credits. We only developed a new, independent cost estimate for the 69-kV option using H- frame structures. For the other alternatives, for which previous studies included a greater field reconnaissance and preliminary design effort, we adjusted previous study construction assumptions and cost estimates based on engineering judgment and certain cost escalation indices. Specific adjustments included acknowledgment of expanded and planned USFS roads in the vicinity of the Intertie route. The estimated costs of construction for the various Intertie alternative configurations are summarized in the table below: Table 1-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 1996 Dollars Route Estimated Case | Alternative Voltage Construction Cost 1__| Southern | 69-kV/138-kV (1) H-frame, 1-3/c cable (2) $19,735,000 2 | Southern 24.9-kV/34.5-kV (3) Single-pole, raptor proof $15,800,000 3 | Southern 24.9-kV/34.5-kV (3) Single-pole, standard $15,710,000 4 | Southern | 138-kV H-frame, 3-1/c cable, shunt $34,953,000 (1) Overhead portions of the Intertie are constructed to 138-kV standards. Submarine cable and substation facilities are constructed to 69-kV standards. (2) Design implements one, three conductor cable for submarine crossings ((1-3/c”). (3) All portions of the Intertie are constructed to 34.5 kV standards except transfor- mation facilities in Kake and Petersburg which could be upgraded in the future as necessary. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 1-5 Section 1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS An economic analysis has been conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the potential development of the Intertie alternative. The economic analysis compares the cost of developing the Intertie and purchasing power for use in Kake to the cost of power production with diesel generation, Kake’s primary source of generation at the present time. Diesel generation is also the expected alternative to power purchases over the Intertie in the future. An important factor to consider in the economic analysis is that any energy purchased by Kake from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project is assumed to be purchased at no cost. This assumption is consistent with previous studies and is based on the fact that there is essentially no additional cost associated with additional energy production at Lake Tyee. It is further acknowledged that Petersburg and Wrangell would have first rights to power generated at Lake Tyee and only power surplus to the forecasted needs of Petersburg and Wrangell is available to Kake. The potential interconnection of Ketchikan to the Lake Tyee project has not been considered in this analysis as directed by the Division. Although transmission lines have proven to be highly reliable they can and do fail periodically and are occasionally temporarily removed from service for maintenance and other purposes. If the Intertie were developed, power purchased over the line would be subject to interruption if the Intertie were to be unavailable for any reason. Consequently, the Intertie will not reduce the need to maintain generation capacity in Kake to supply backup power. Power requirements for Kake used in the analysis were projected by ISER and presented in their report entitled “Electric Load Forecasts for Haines, Chilkat Valley, and Kake, Alaska”, dated August 11, 1995. ISER provided low, medium and high load growth scenarios for Kake based on alternative assumed economic conditions in Kake. We have used the ISER load forecasts for Kake directly except that computational errors in the medium and high cases were identified and appropriate corrections were made. Diesel generators presently supply the power requirements of Kake and it is presumed that without the Intertie, diesel generation will continue to supply the local power requirements. Without the Intertie, diesel generating capacity in Kake is projected to be expanded and replaced as needed to supply all power requirements. As an isolated electric system it is also necessary for Kake to maintain excess generating capacity in reserve. At the present time, the generating capacity in Kake is approximately double the peak demand. We have assumed that under all future circumstances the local generating capacity in Kake will exceed the peak demand by at least the capacity of the largest generating unit. For the Intertie alternative it is assumed that the Intertie will be constructed and become operational in 1999. Energy will be purchased by THREA from the Lake Tyee project for delivery over the Intertie to Kake. Diesel generation will be 1-6 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY maintained in Kake as backup to the Intertie, however, it would not be necessary to maintain as much local diesel generation in reserve if the Intertie were constructed. The existing and planned diesel generating capacity in Kake is expected to be sufficient under all load growth scenarios to provide backup capacity in Kake throughout the study period. The results of the economic analysis are summarized in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3. Table 1-2 shows the cumulative net present value of comparable power costs for the Diesel Case and for the two Intertie scenarios, 24.9/34.5kV and 69/138 kV. Alternative load growth and fuel cost scenarios have been developed for each of the resource scenarios to determine the sensitivity of the results to variance in these key input assumptions. The results shown in Table 1-2 should be compared across each line of the table because the varying load growth and fuel cost scenarios are mutually exclusive of each other. The benefit/cost ratios shown in Table 1-3 are calculated as the cumulative net present value of the Diesel Case divided by the cumulative present value of the Intertie cases. The benefit of all the cases is defined as the offsetting of the diesel case. A benefit / cost ratio greater than 1.0 for an alternative indicates that the benefits of the alternative exceed its costs. Table 1-2 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF COMPARABLE COSTS OF POWER (January 1996 $000) Intertie Intertie Scenario Diesel Case | (24.9/34.5-kV) | (69/138-kV) Medium Load Forecast, Low Fuel $10,022 $16,619 $19,957 Price Escalation Medium Load Forecast, High Fuel $11,493 $16,654 $19,991 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, Low Fuel $13,874 $16,741 $20,078 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, High $16,022 $16,778 $20,115 Fuel Price Escalation DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 1-7 Section 1 Table 1-3 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BENEFIT/COST RATIOS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS (1) Intertie Intertie Scenario Diesel Case | (24.9/34.5-kV) | (69/138-kV) Medium Load Forecast, Low Fuel Price 1.00 0.60 0.50 Escalation Medium Load Forecast, High Fuel 1.00 0.69 0.57 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, Low Fuel 1.00 0.83 0.69 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, High Fuel 1.00 0.95 0.80 Price Escalation (1) The benefit/cost ratio is calculated as the cumulative net present value for the Diesel Case divided by the cumulative net present value of the specific Intertie Case. Benefit/cost ratios are calculated within each row of the table only. A benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that benefits exceed costs for the specific scenario. COST OF POWER ANALYSIS In order to evaluate the short-term impacts of the resource alternatives, a financial analysis has been performed. This analysis projects the annual comparable wholesale cost of power that Kake would realize under hypothetical financing conditions for the two primary resource alternatives, diesel generation and the Intertie. Costs of power production that are common to both resource alternatives, such as depreciation on existing equipment, are excluded from this analysis. For example, the cost of power for the Intertie alternative for each year is calculated as the summation of Intertie debt service, Intertie O&M, and supplemental diesel generation (if any) divided by the total energy requirements of Kake in that year plus the cost of power purchased from the Lake Tyee project ona cents per kWh basis. The results of the cost of power analysis are shown in Table 1-4 for both medium and high load scenarios. As can be seen in this table, the cost of power with diesel generation in all years, 1999 through 2015 is less than the cost of power for the Intertie cases where no State grant is applied toward construction costs. The amount of State grant necessary to produce “first year” power costs with the Intertie equal to diesel power costs has been estimated. These State grant amounts are $10,800,000 and $15,650,000 for the medium load/low fuel cost scenario without and with the charge for Lake Tyee power, respectively. State 1-8 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY grants of $9,500,000 and $15,050,000 are estimated to be needed for the high load/high fuel cost scenario without and with the charge for Lake Tyee power, respectively. Table 1-4 KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF COST OF POWER ANALYSIS COMPARABLE ANNUAL COST OF POWER (Nominal ¢/kWh) Medium Loads, Low Fuel High Loads, High Fuel Intertie 24.9-kV Intertie 24.9-kV No Power Cost (1) ADP Power Cost (2) No Power Cost (1) 4DP Power Cost (2) Diesel _No Grant _Grant(3) No Grant_Grant(4) Diesel_No Grant _Grant(5 No Grant_Grant(6 1996 91 91 91 91 91 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 1997 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.9 99 9.9 1998 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 1999 10.2 27.5 10.2 34.6 10.2 10.6 24.2 10.6 31.3 10.6 2000 10.5 27.4 10.2 34.5 10.2 10.9 21.2 9.4 28.3 10.2 2001 10.7 27.4 10.2 34.5 10.3 11.2 20.4 9.0 27.5 10.1 2002 11.0 27.3 10.2 34.4 10.3 11.6 20.3 9.0 27.4 10.1 2003 11.2 27.2 10.2 34.3 10.3 12.1 20.1 8.9 27.2 10.1 2004 115 27.1 10.2 34.2 10.4 12.5 20.0 8.9 27.1 10.1 2005 11.8 27.1 10.2 34.2 10.4 12.9 19.8 8.8 26.9 10.2 2006 12.1 27.0 10.2 34.1 10.5 13.4 19.6 8.8 26.7 10.1 2007 12.4 26.9 10.2 34.0 10.5 13.9 19.2 8.6 26.4 10.1 2008 12.7 26.9 10.3 34.0 10.5 15.2 18.9 8.5 26.0 10.1 2009 13.0 26.8 10.3 33.9 10.6 15.7 18.5 8.4 25.6 10.1 2010 13.3 26.8 10.3 33.9 10.6 16.3 18.2 8.3 25.3 10.1 2011 13.6 26.7 10.3 33.8 10.7 16.8 18.0 8.2 25.1 10.1 2012 14.0 26.6 10.3 33.7 10.7 17.4 17.8 8.1 24.9 10.1 2013 14.3 26.5 10.3 33.6 10.8 18.0 17.6 8.0 24.7 10.1 2014 14.7 26.4 10.3 33.5 10.8 18.7 17.4 8.0 24.5 10.1 2015 15.0 26.3 10.3 33.4 10.9 19.3 17.2 79 24.3 10.1 (1) Assumes power purchased from the Lake Tyee project for Kake has no cost. (2) Assumes power purchased from the Lake Tyee project for Kake is priced at a fixed rate of 6.6 cents per kWh. (3) Assumes a State grant of $ 10.8 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (4) Assumes a State grant of $ 15.65 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (5) Assumes a State grant of $ 9.5 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (6) Assumes a State grant of $ 15.05 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 1-9 Planned Road .-. : 33 ae te ee Eu C:\11X17 12-15-95 PEninat LEGEND: Bs : es ee aes) y . eS ! a : ; FIGURE 1 STATE OF ALASKA Route Alternative 1, Southern Route - - Route Alternative 2, Northern Route DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS Route Variations, Technically Feasible- - t 7s - ; Submarine Cable Crossings ------- : te eit i Ef i Y ma et : } i : “ ; ; Existing U.S. Forest Service Road te “ Se , wae DIVISION OF ENERGY For ac Planned U.S. Forest Service Road - - - fe io ff : (ak : = 1 KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE oe WotePont vee ee eee) : ~ ROUTE MAP ae Aaa os The base map was furnished by the jales .... ue reese Service, Fatersbtirg Ranger istric nic R Section 2 INTRODUCTION ra Section 2 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Alaska Energy Authority conducted a reconnaissance study in 1987 of several possible transmission interconnections in Southeast Alaska. The reconnaissance study evaluated various transmission alternatives and estimated costs of development and construction for each of the alternatives. One of the intercon- nections identified in the 1987 study was a transmission line between Kake and Petersburg (the “Intertie” or the “Project”). The potential long-term benefits of the Intertie would be to use surplus generation from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project to offset diesel generation in Kake. The electrical output of the Lake Tyee project is presently available only to the communities of Petersburg and Wrangell, however, the City of Ketchikan is presently pursuing the installation of a transmission line between the Lake Tyee project and Ketchikan. This inter- connection, if developed, would make surplus Lake Tyee power available to Ketchikan. Since completion of the 1987 study, the power supply requirements in Kake have increased and additional logging roads have been constructed in the vicinity of the proposed Intertie route. Both of these factors would affect the evaluation of the costs and benefits of the Intertie. In light of these recent changes, the Division retained R. W. Beck, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study of the Intertie. This report summarizes the analyses and findings of the feasibility study. Kake, Alaska is a community with a population of approximately 700 people located on the northwestern tip of Kupreanof Island in Southeast Alaska. Electricity is presently supplied to the community by THREA using diesel generators. THREA’s electric system in Kake is isolated and is not interconnected with any other communities. In 1994, the peak demand of the Kake electric system was 1,020 kW and total energy generation was 4,248 MWh. The total capacity of the diesel generators installed in Kake is presently 2,230 kW. Petersburg is located on Mitkof Island and is approximately 39 miles east- southeast of Kake. The electrical requirements of Petersburg are served by PMP&L. In 1994, PMP&L sold 32,531 MWh of electrical energy to its 1,180 residential, 290 commercial and 338 other electric customers and had a peak demand of approximately 8,500 kW in the summer of 1995. At the present time, PMP&L’s installed generation capacity includes 2,000kW of PMP&L-owned hydroelectric generation and 5,600 kW of diesel generation. In addition, PMP&L is electrically interconnected with Wrangell Municipal Light & Power and to the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project. Section 2 The 20,000 kW Lake Tyee project is estimated to have an average annual energy generation capability of 134,400 MWh. Since its completion in 1984, the full annual energy generation capability of the Lake Tyee project has never been realized because of insufficient interconnected loads. At present load levels, it is estimated that there is approximately 91,000 MWh annually of surplus Lake Tyee generation capability. Power is sold to Petersburg and Wrangell from the Lake Tyee project pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Four Dam Pool Power Sales Agreement. Except for approximately 10,000 MWh annually of PMP&L-owned hydroelectric generation, the total energy requirements of Petersburg and Wrangell are provided by the Lake Tyee project. Previous studies of the Kake Intertie have included the concept of eventual extension of the Intertie beyond Kake to other communities as part of a proposed Southeast transmission grid. This current feasibility study has only considered a direct interconnection between Petersburg and Kake with no provision for extension of the line. Alternative voltage levels have been considered in the evaluation, however, with higher voltages being more appropriate for greater power flow over the Intertie. As such, if the Intertie were constructed for higher voltage levels, there may be the potential for extension of the Intertie at some time in the future. PURPOSE OF STUDY This study was prepared at the direction of the Division and was intended to define the design and routing criteria and estimated costs of the Intertie, provide a brief environmental review and to assess the economic and financial feasibility of the Intertie compared to diesel generation. It is assumed that the Intertie will be a three-phase, overhead system with submarine crossings of major water bodies. The feasibility study includes the following primary activities: 1. Obtain information on load forecast, operational and maintenance concerns of the Kake and Petersburg utilities, electrical modeling data and previous interconnection studies. 2. Perform system modeling and load flow analysis to confirm voltage and conductor selection and determine any reactive power compensation that would be required with the Intertie. 3. Determine a preferred overhead Intertie route by reviewing pertinent and available information obtained from maps, earlier studies, public resources, discussions with the local utilities, and federal, state and local government agencies. 4. Establish a conceptual design for two Intertie alternatives, namely, a system designed and constructed for 138-kilovolt (kV) operation but initially operated at a lower voltage and a system designed and operated at a minimum voltage necessary to serve the 20-year forecasted electric load of Kake. 2-2 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC INTRODUCTION 5. Identify principal landowners and right-of-way agreements and permits required for the Intertie route. 6. Provide a “fatal flaw” review of the environmental effects associated with construction of the Intertie. 7. Provide a feasibility cost estimate for the two alternative Intertie systems, i.e. 138-kV and a lower voltage. 8. Provide an economic analysis comparing each of the two Intertie alternatives to the base (diesel) case and provide a financial analysis indicating short-term impacts on the cost of power in Kake that would result from installation of the Intertie. 9. Provide a draft report and final report summarizing the methodology, assumptions, analysis and conclusions of the feasibility study. During the course of the study it became apparent that a 138-kV transmission line would be inappropriate to serve just the Kake load. Consequently, the study was focused on 69 kV and 34.5 kV operated at 24.9 kV (“24.9/34.5”) alternatives. A cost estimate was prepared for a 138 kV Intertie, however, for comparison purposes. STUDY METHODOLOGY Because several alternative studies concerning the Intertie or other related issues had been prepared previously by others, it was necessary initially to obtain and review these previous studies. To the extent possible, our efforts have been to expand upon the previous work rather than start all analyses anew. Of principal interest with regard to the previous studies of the Intertie were the two primary route alternatives previously identified. These two route alternatives formed the basis for the routes included in this current study. The preferred route alternative was selected based on an apparent consensus from results of previous studies, comments received from agencies as part of this study and a lower apparent environmental impact. After review of the previous studies, the electric system modeling data was obtained for the electric system analysis. The results of the electric system analysis were used in establishing the design criteria for the Intertie. The environmental review was conducted primarily through consultation with various federal, state and local agencies. Results of the environmental review were then used as appropriate in identifying the preferred route for the Intertie. The cost estimate was prepared for the 24.9/34.5 kV configuration by adjusting Ebasco’s 1984 cost estimate to 1995 dollars and by applying new information concerning various aspects of the line and its construction such as an expanded road system. A detailed cost estimate for the 69 kV alternative was developed as part of this feasibility study. The estimated cost of the 138-kV alternative was developed by adjusting and escalating the estimate presented in Harza’s 1987 study. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 2-3 Section 2 The economic analysis was conducted upon completion of the Intertie cost estimates. Relatively recent forecasts of power requirements prepared by others were used as the basis for the economic analysis. The economic analysis estimated the cumulative present value of the projected annual power supply costs for Kake with and without development of the Intertie. The analytical procedures used for both the economic and financial analyses are the same as used by the Division in previous transmission line feasibility studies with which we are familiar. In addition to the various state, federal and local governmental agencies consulted as part of the environmental review, both THREA and PMP&L were consulted during the course of this study. These two utilities assisted primarily with regard to the location and specification of existing electric system facilities as they pertain to the Intertie. THREA also provided information concerning the Kake electric system used in the power supply and economic analyses. It is important to note that no field work or visits to the general project area were conducted as part of this feasibility study. FORMAT OF REPORT This report includes the description of the work undertaken, discussion of evaluations conducted and a summary of the findings for the various components of the feasibility study. Section 3 provides an overview of previous studies and reports reviewed as part of this study. Section 4 describes the alternative routes considered for the Intertie, the evaluation of the alternative routes and the description of the preferred route alternative. The environmental review is also provided as a subsection of Section 4. The basic alternative design concepts for the Intertie system and the transmission line and substation designs are described in Section5. Also included in this section is the description and results of the load flow studies. Section 6 addresses the cost estimate of the Intertie system. Section 7 presents the economic analysis and financial analysis. Several appendices are included in the report to present certain technical and other information either used in the study or developed during the course of the study. 2-4 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC Section 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS rag Section 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS The intertie between Kake and Petersburg has been the subject of three engineering studies conducted in the 1980's. In 1981, Robert W. Retherford Associates prepared a report for the Alaska Power Authority (“APA”) entitled Transmission Intertie, Kake-Petersburg, A Reconnaissance Report [1]. This was followed in 1984 by a more detailed study conducted by EBASCO, Inc. (“Ebasco”) for the APA entitled Tyee-Kake Intertie Project, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Volumes I and II [2]. In 1987, Harza Engineering Company (“Harza”) included the Petersburg to Kake interconnection as one link in its Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study [3], also for the APA. In addition to the engineering studies cited above which covered the intertie specifically, in 1984 Quadra Engineering and R.W. Pavitt & Associates teamed to produce the “Kake Coastal Management Program-Public Hearing Draft” for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Below we summarize the pertinent scope, methodology and key findings of these resources. TRANSMISSION INTERTIE, KAKE-PETERSBURG, A RECONNAISSANCE REPORT, JANUARY 1981 This study prepared a load forecast for Kake indicating peak loads in the year 2000 of 1,328 kW and 1,016 kW with and without the Kake Cold Storage facility respectively. On this basis, two types of transmission lines (i.e., standard three phase overhead construction and single wire ground return construction (‘SWGR’)), four different voltage levels (i.e., 24.9kV, 34.5 kV, 69kV and 40 kV line to ground), and four route alternatives were investigated. To our knowledge, no detailed field investigations were made as part of this project. The report evaluated a 47-mile interconnection capable of delivering 1,350 kW with load power factor of 0.9 and voltage drop of no more than 10%. A 4/3 Alumoweld/Aluminum conductor was selected to stretch out spans. All voltage and construction options were evaluated to have acceptable minimum electrical performance, with voltage regulation varying from 0.6% (69 kV) to 7.7% (24.9 kV). Basic cost estimates were prepared ranging from $53,000/mile for the 40 kV SWGR A-frame construction to $97,000/mile for single pole 69kV construction. The standard 24.9kV and 34.5kV overhead construction costs were estimated at $90,000 and $91,000 per mile respectively. Standard REA’ construction units were used for the overhead 3-phase transmission segments. The Rural Electrification Administration (“REA”) has changed its name to the Rural Utility Service (“RUS”). Section 3 This report went to some lengths to develop a least cost concept for the intertie with their selection of the 4/3 AWAC conductor and 40 kV SWGR A-frame structure system. The report mentions a pilot SWGR system being installed at the time in Bethel, Alaska. We do not know how this system has operated to date. Because the National Electrical Safety Code (“NESC’) now prohibits using “the earth normally as the sole conductor for any part of the circuit [Rule 215 B.5]”, with an exception for short-term operation of DC systems in a monopolar mode with ground return, it appears the SWGR system might not be in compliance with the NESC. Four routes were studied and evaluated [1, Figure 3.1]. All routes and concepts begin in Petersburg. = Route 1 (47miles) essentially followed the present Southern Route Alternative, crossing Wrangell Narrows near the Alaska Experimental Fur Farm, following logging roads through an unnamed gap, crossing Duncan Canal just south of Mitchell Slough, continuing to the Pass about 13.5 miles due west of Duncan Canal, then heading northwest to Kake. Route 1 was recognized as the route which would engender the least amount of agency or public opposition, mainly because it traverses areas which have been subject to some disturbance already. It would also avoid special land use areas. This was cited as the preferred USFS route based on the other routes, with overhead construction, presenting unacceptable hazards to air traffic and bird life in the Duncan Salt Chuck area. = Route 2 (50miles) essentially followed the present Northern Route Alternative heading north across Wrangell Narrows and skirting the bank on Lindenberg Peninsula along Frederick Sound before turning west at Twelve Mile Creek and heading to Kake. The report cites the parallel of Frederick Sound and potentially unmitigatable visual impacts as making this route less desirable than Route 1. = Route 3 (45 miles) crosses Wrangell Narrows at the latitude of Duncan Creek, passes through the Duncan Canal Portage to the canal, then heads north northwest between Portage and Kupreanof Mountains, before heading due west to Kake. This route was recommended by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). However, the route passes through what is now the Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area and would require an act of Congress to permit siting of the transmission line within its boundaries. = Route 4 (43 miles) follows Route 3 to Duncan Canal, but turns northwest at the top of McDonald Arm, continuing west northwest to south of Towers Lake, then through the Hamilton Creek drainage and then parallel to Route 1 for the last 9-10 miles. Route 4 was included as the shortest practical route 2 Concerns with the SWGR system, raised in another report [2, p. 4-21], include the detrimental effects on interconnected generators due to the electrical unbalances caused by a large single phase load. 3-2. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS between Petersburg and Kake consistent with terrain constraints. It was recognized that Route 4 traverses several environmentally sensitive areas. The reconnaissance study concluded that Route 1 would be preferred and that the system should be configured as either (1) a 3-phase system constructed to 34.5 kV standards but operated at 24.9kV initially, or (2) a SWGR 40 kV system with A-frame structures. The 24.9 kV system would have to be converted to 34.5 kV for load growth much beyond the study figure of 1,350 kW. The 34.5 kV system was evaluated to be the most cost effective solution. The 69 kV option was dismissed as not well-matched to the transfer requirement of 1,350 kW. The benefits of connecting at 24.9 kV include the availability of 24.9 kV bus in Petersburg [planned at the time of study, now existing] and the potential to tap the Crystal Lake line, thus obviating the need to run the 24.9kV circuit approximately 5 miles to Petersburg. However, it was later pointed out that tapping the Crystal Lake line would require agreement with the City of Petersburg for power purchases, rather than with the State for the purchase of Lake Tyee power [2]. If the 24.9 kV line needs to originate in Petersburg, it has been assumed in other studies [2] that it could be strung on the joint Tyee Lake 69/138 kV and Crystal Lake 24.9 kV single pole structures. The total costs were estimated to be (1) $5.185 million for the 34.5 kV construction and (2) $3.130 million for the 40 kV SWGR system, both in 1981 dollars. In 1995 dollars at 5% escalation, this would be (1) $10.27 million and (2) $6.197 million. The study was not based on any detailed layout or construction plan and did not consider the effects of siting the line adjacent to existing or planned logging roads. This could increase or decrease the cost estimates. The report cites the most likely candidates for ownership and operation of the intertie as THREA or the APA, indicating a logical preference for THREA. TYEE-KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT, DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, FINAL REPORT, VOLUMES | AND II, MARCH 1984 Following the 1981 reconnaissance study, this work comprised a detailed feasibility investigation for the Intertie. Four separate interim reports were prepared including a Routing and Environmental Report (Nov. 1982), a Cost and Engineering Report (Nov. 1982), an Overhead/Underground Reconnaissance Report (Nov. 1983), and the Supplementary Draft Feasibility Report (Jan 1984). The project expanded the work of the reconnaissance study to include extensive field reviews, development of a construction plan, consideration of other relatively uncommon Alaskan designs (aerial cable and underground cable) to cut 3 Review of Lake Tyee 138 kV transmission line project plan and profile drawings indicates that to determine if available space or clearance for a second 24.9 kV/34.5 kV underbuild circuit is adequate would require a detailed engineering study. Our preliminary judgment is that adequate space on the existing line does not exist. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 3-3 Section 3 costs, and detailed investigation of the crossing of Duncan Canal and the pass area about 13 miles west of the canal. Detailed route maps were developed for planning (Appendix A). The study considered the use of five construction types in an effort to minimize the high costs of right-of-way clearing. The five alternatives included (1) 25-kV aerial cable, (2) 24.9kV standard RUS overhead three-wire construction with 266.8 kemil ACSR, (3) 34.5kV standard RUS overhead three-wire construction with 266.8 kcmil ACSR, (4) 40 kV SWGR with 3/0 AWG wire, and (5) underground 25 kV cable. Based on a High Growth scenario, the year 2005 hourly peak load was forecast to be 1,157 kW. They escalated annual load growth at 3% to obtain a peak load in 2015 of 1,554kW. The intertie was designed for a 1.8 MVA load based on 1,600 kW at 0.9 power factor. Essentially the same range of voltages was studied as in the case of the reconnaissance study. Voltage selection was based on the REA MW-mile methodology and subject to the criterion of voltage regulation being less than 10% between full and no load conditions. The study evaluated two conductors for each voltage, 266.8 kcmil and 3/0 AWG ACSR, except the 13.8 kV option for which 556 kcmil ACSR was selected. A line length of 54 miles was assumed for the voltage selection study, originating in Petersburg Substation. The study findings closely paralled those of the reconnaissance study. The 13.8 kV alternative was found insufficient to transfer the 1.8 MVA and the 69 kV alternative was determined to be over-designed for the requirements of the Kake load alone. The study found the options of 24.9kV (266.8 kcmil, 1.9 MVA), 34.5kV (3/0 AWG, 2.4 MVA) and 40kV SWGR (3/0 AWG, 2.6 MVA) to be appropriately sized for the Kake loads. Operational issues were discussed. The 24.9kV option would become feasible without additional transformation once Crystal Lake were to come on line and 24.9 kV would become a standard Petersburg system voltage. The 24.9 kV system was found to be well suited to the projected Kake load even with the Cold Storage Facility load. For the 69kV option a direct tap of the Tyee Lake line is feasible until operation is switched to 138 kV. Operation at 24.9kV, 40 kV SWGR or 69 kV are all possible without transformation, at least until the TWP system converts to 138kV. However, the 40kV option is judged to be undesirable because of reliability questions, only marginal cost savings on clearing, and the detrimental effects of a large single phase load on the Tyee Lake and Crystal Lake generators. 4 We note that, if at the time 138kV operation is started, the Kake load is still within the serviceable limits of 24.9kV, the 69kV circuit could be energized at 24.9kV until such time as load requires conversion to 69 kV. This would require specifying either a dual 69/24.9-12.5 kV transformer at Kake or changing out Kake’s transformer. If the 69 kV line were tapped near the Alaska Experimental Fur Farm, operation at 24.9 kV would require constructing a 24.9 kV circuit 5 miles north to Petersburg Substation and reconfiguring the tap. 3-4. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS The study determined that a 24.9 kV system with 266.8 kcmil conductor would be the best overhead transmission option and that two designs used in tandem would provide the lowest cost. The two designs include bundled aerial cable to be used in roadless areas requiring only 20 ft right-of-way clearing and standard 24.9 kV overhead construction along existing roads where half the required 55 ft right-of-way is cleared. It was assumed in the study that the 24.9 kV line would originate at the Petersburg Substation and would be underbuilt on the Tyee Lake 138 kV/Crystal Lake 24.9 kV single wood pole structures. [See Note 3, page 3-3.] Two route corridors, North and South, were studied [2, Figure 4-1]. Based on routing objectives of siting near existing or planned roads for good access, avoiding deep muskeg areas with overhead construction, siting submarine cables crossing at locations unlikely to need dredging, and avoiding steep slopes, the South corridor was determined to be preferred. Two areas of special routing concern were studied in detail: (1) the submarine cable crossing and west shore exit at Duncan Canal [2, Figures 4-3 and 4-4, included in Appendix A] and (2) the pass at 13 miles west of the canal [2, Figure 4-5, included in Appendix A]. The crossing of Duncan Canal and exit route were discussed with the USFS and other agencies, and the Route 2 option selected as preferred. Foundations were evaluated in some detail. Soil maps were generated for this purpose. From Petersburg to the east shore of Duncan Canal (mile 0-15.7) soils are mostly glacial till and marine deposits where standard direct embedment can be used, although small pockets of shallow muskeg may be expected. From the west shore of Duncan Canal to the pass (mile 15.7-30) areas of deep muskeg will require special designs, including 15 ft x 6 ft rafts and stabilizing guys with log or deep screw anchors. From the pass to Kake (mile 30 - 53.7) soil is characterized by glacial till and colluvial soils with 0-5 ft peat overburden, with possibly unavoid- able pockets of deep muskeg west of the pass to the beginning of the logging roads. Access was evaluated. From Scow Bay (site of Petersburg Substation) to Wrangell Narrows, the Mitkof Highway will serve as good access to the Lake Tyee line. The stretch from the west shore of the Wrangell Narrows to Duncan Canal follows logging roads for 8.5 miles to within 1.5 miles of Duncan Canal. The route in this area encounters 0.5 mile of muskeg. From the west shore of Duncan Canal to the pass is a roadless stretch of 13.5 miles, of which one mile is in muskeg near the canal. The lack of access led Ebasco to cost out construction from a floating camp in Duncan Canal with material hauling along the right-of-way with helicopter support. From the pass to the end of the logging road near Hamilton Creek for a distance of 7 miles, there are no roads and construction would be Existing USFS Road No. 6328 now extends to within 1-2 miles of the Pass and planned roads (e.g. No. 6314) extend to the east side of and over the pass, leaving only about 13 miles of unroaded areas west of Duncan Canal. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 3-5 Section 3 based in Kake and along the right-of-way. The remaining stretch from Hamilton Creek into Kake (approximately 19 miles) would be along existing roads. Based on a detailed construction plan for a 24.9kV system originating in Petersburg Substation, the study estimated the cost of construction to be $9,840,000 (1983 dollars) [2, Table 4-2]. The study indicates the 34.5 kV construction would cost $10,000-$20,000 per mile more, than the 24.9 kV system, principally because of the greater clearing requirements. In its cost benefit analysis this study set the scenario of continued reliance on Kake diesel generation at 1.0 and determined the option of the transmission intertie to have a cost/benefit ratio of 0.96 to 0.91. The study concluded there was no compelling reason at the time to construct the intertie, although a change in assumptions could easily change the outcome. Among the key assumptions which might affect the outcome are connection of the Kake Cold Storage Facility load, load growth on existing customer base, and use of the low cost option for interconnection at Petersburg and timber removal from USFS lands. SOUTHEAST ALASKA TRANSMISSION INTERTIE STUDY, HARZA ENGINEERING COMPANY, OCTOBER 1987 The Kake-Petersburg intertie was studied as one link in several expansion plans to interconnect many communities in Southeast Alaska. In particular, it was included as a 138 kV link with possible continuations from Kake at 100 kV DC to either Sitka or Snettisham. The study evaluated several expansion plans and determined that Expansion Plan B would be the most economic plan. While this Expansion Plan B did not include a Kake-Petersburg interconnection, it pointedly concluded that the plan, terminating in Sitka, would be compatible with further connections to the Tyee Lake system via Kake, as well as other communities, should load growth warrant the interconnection. This study used a 20 year planning horizon to year 2006. In this year the study forecasted High , Medium, and Low growth scenario peak loads for Kake of 1,130 KW, 860 kW and 640 kW, respectively. These are consistent with forecasted peak loads in the present study, 1.2 MW in year 2015, indicating relatively flat load growth curve. This study opted to site the transmission line immediately adjacent to existing roads, judging that the many benefits of good access and shared right-of-way outweigh the more complicated and costly designs required along curvy logging roads. Some key cost estimating assumptions have changed since 1984, including a more extensive road system along the Southern Route. Also, the Lake Tyee line is now operational and pursuant to the 1987 Study, submarine cable lengths have changed. 8 This cost difference seems excessive and is not consistent with estimates made earlier [1]. Raptor proofing structures will likely dictate phase spacing and right-of-way clearing requirements. Insulation is only marginally affected. The greatest cost difference will be in aerial cable manufacturing costs. 3-6 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS As part of the 1987 study, bathymetric surveys were conducted by Harding Lawson Associates of the submarine cable crossings of Wrangell Narrows [3, Segment 6.1] and Duncan Canal [3, Segment 6.5]. These crossings are used in the present feasibility study for the Southern Route Alternative. The 1987 study characterized the Wrangell Narrows crossing as 1.5 km in length and technically feasible, and the Duncan Canal crossing as 1.7km in length and technically feasible but with a steep east shore landing. Additional submarine surveys were recommended for the Duncan Canal crossing. No bathymetric surveys were undertaken for crossings associated with the Northern Route Alternative or route variations crossing due east of Petersburg. Pirelli Cable Corporation provided preliminary cable designs and cost estimates for the submarine cable crossings. For the Kake-Petersburg crossings they proposed the use of a single, 3-conductor (phase) 138 kV cable, using EPR solid dielectric insulation, with an outside diameter of 7.2 inches, a unit weight of 30.2 lb/ft, a conductor cross sectional area of 240 mm” (approximately 473 kcmil), and single wire armoring all in accordance with IEC standards. The authors of the report questioned the use of EPR unsheathed cable at 138 kV, citing the lack of known experience, the relatively high dielectric losses of EPR insulation, and the use of IEC standards which allow thinner insulation levels than AEIC standards generally. They recommended that alternative cable designs be considered in final design, including self-contained fluid filled cables (SCFF, similar to cables on the Tyee Lake system), cross-linked polyethylene cables (XLPE), fluid- impregnated paper insulated cables and polypropylene laminated paper (PPLP) cables all with lead sheaths. We note that the use of EPR insulated cables at 35 kV , in accordance with AEIC standards, is acceptable for the low voltage option for the intertie. Many of the recommendations of the 1987 study were focused on long cable crossings where cable losses are high due to the relatively high dielectric dissipation factors of EPR and standard oil-impregnated paper insulation. These losses depend on the square of line voltage and length of cable. They will not be a major factor for the relatively short cable crossings on the Kake-Petersburg intertie, especially at 35 kV. Pirelli estimated the total installation costs of the two crossings at $2.41 million and $2.59 million (1987 dollars) for the Wrangell Narrows and Duncan Canal crossings respectively. These costs included $1.35 million for mobilization and demobilization for each crossing” * and prorated costs for cable manufacturing at $105,000 per 1,000 ft and installation of a single cable at $82,000 per 1,000 ft. In 9 Discussions with Pirelli in 1996 indicate that the construction of a single 3/c 138 kV cable is not practical with the result that three 1/c cables would be required. They could be bundled and laid at the same time or separated and laid in three passes. This will depend on the depth of the submarine cable crossing. 10 Only one mobilization/demobilization cost would be required for installing the two crossings in the same time frame, preferably in summer, between May and September. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 3-7 Section 3 addition, they included $50,000 for engineering and $70,000 for surveying on each crossing. For their overhead transmission line preliminary designs, the study assumed an everyday temperature of 40°F, extreme ice of 1.5 radial inches, and extreme sustained wind of 120 mph. They specified a 397.5 kcmil conductor for use in the study and recommended that no conductor smaller than 336 kcmil be considered. Their designs assumed direct embedded structures with provisions for raft supports, log anchors and other special means in deep muskeg areas, similar to earlier studies. A keraunic (incidence of thunderstorms) level of 1-2 was cited as justification for omitting a shieldwire, except for the last mile from terminals. The basic clearance was taken as 23 ft above an accumulation of 7 ft of snow. For the 138kV lines a braced H-frame structure, with no shieldwires, typically 60 ft in length was selected as the basic structure. This required a 70 ft right-of-way, based on maintaining NESC required blowout clearances to the edge of right-of-way. Harza estimated the cost of the 138 kV wood pole H-frame construction for the Northern Route at $23.6 million and for the Southern Route at $26.5 million in 1987 dollars[3, Table 6-6]. The Northern Route’s lower cost is due principally to the shorter length of submarine cable crossings and lower AC terminal costs, since the Southern Route was assumed to require a new 138kV substation at the junction with the Tyee Lake line. For the Southern Route the cost was based on 45 miles of overhead construction, of which 15 miles were roadless and 9 miles were in potential muskeg areas, and 1.7 miles of submarine cable. A breakdown of the costs in 1987 dollars as included in the 1987 study is given below for the Southern Route: 1 Submarine Cable 1.7 miles $ 3,530,000 2 Overhead/Normal @$148k/mi., 30.4 miles $ 4,499,000 3 Overhead/Rock @$178k/mi., 5.6 miles $ 997,000 4 Overhead/Muskeg @$192k/mi., 9 miles $ 1,728,000 5 ROW Clearing @$85k/mi., 45 miles $ 3,828,000 6 Helicopter Construction @$20k/mi., 15 miles $ 300,000 7 AC Terminal, 138 kV $ 3,980,000 8 Contingencies $ 3,500,000 9 Eng., Admin., Land, CM $ 4,090,000 Total $26,452,000 The use of 336 kcmil is acceptable for 69 kV operation and conductor stranding can be selected to withstand the loading conditions of the project site. However, we agree that 397.5 kcmil would be desirable for operation at 138 kV. 12 The use of station and line surge arresters near the terminals can effectively protect the system from dangerous overvoltages without the need for shieldwires and taller structures. 3-8 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS The cost of the overhead portion of the line, exclusive of contingencies, AC terminal and miscellaneous costs (lines 7, 8 and 9) is $14,382,000 (1987 dollars). Escalated at 3% this cost would be $19,415,700 in 1996. Average unit costs for 138kV H-frame wood pole overhead lines was $155,700/mile which were broken down into $101,700/mile for labor and equipment and $54,000/mile for materials, for 65/35 labor/material percentages of total costs. The total cost per mile is a melding of costs for normal, rock and muskeg soil conditions in a 75/15/10 percentage distribution. They estimated a cost for clearing a 138 kV H-frame right-of-way at $85,000/mile. No account of timber credits was made. Two principal routes were investigated based on earlier studies, Alternative A, the Northern Route, 53.6 miles long, and Alternative B, the Southern Route, 46.7 miles long. Route variations passing through the Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area were eliminated from consideration. Several study comments on the route alternatives are pertinent. The Southern Route was cited as being the superior choice from an engineering and reliability standpoint due to a lack of steep terrain, better access and more reliable submarine cable locations. The Northern Route has 4 miles of steep slope (along Frederick Sound), 5.5 miles more roadless areas, and its submarine cable crossing (which is unsurveyed) is located in an area of active shipping subject to regular channel dredging and anchoring, both posing potential cable risks. From an environmental and social impact perspective the Southern Route was judged to have greater potential impacts on aquatic resources and waterfowl and lower impacts on eagle nests, social resources and land use than the Northern Route. The Northern Route passes along Frederick Sound and, being difficult to conceal, will likely be visible to travelers on the Alaska Marine Highway (AMH). The Northern Route also crosses several anadromous streams as it passes south of Portage Bay and Goose Cove, cited as being a major waterfowl migration path leading south to Duncan Canal. There is significant concern that transmission line overhead crossings in this area would pose hazards to eagles and other birds attracted to spawning salmon. The Kupreanof Island side of the Wrangell Narrows crossing is the site of commercial shrimp and crab fisheries and the tide flat is used extensively by feeding migratory waterfowl and for subsistence or recreation by residents. The Southern Route is presented as the preferred route for the 1987 study, absent detailed environmental analysis. It too passes through environmentally sensitive areas including Wrangell Narrow (shellfish and shrimp fisheries, migratory waterfowl), Duncan Canal (one of the major waterfowl concentrations in Southeast Alaska, major shrimp fishery), and both the Hamilton Creek and Big John Creek areas (major anadromous streams, feeding source for eagles). The DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 3-9 Section 3 report emphasizes the need to conduct environmental studies prior to selection of a route. KAKE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT, APRIL 1984 Following passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Program in 1977, the City of Kake began development of its own district coastal program to manage its coastal resources within the Guidelines and Standards established by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council. Quadra Engineering et. al. were selected to assist the City of Kake in completing its district coastal program. This report states many pertinent objectives which engineering design and construction of the transmission line should take into account. Among these are minimizing the negative impacts of logging activities, preserving archaeological, historical and cultural resources, protecting fish and wildlife habitat, encouraging the development of the fish processing and wood processing industries, and development of marine repair facilities. Further objectives include a dependable and economic electric power supply and development of an all-weather road to Petersburg. Map 2.1 shows “extraterritorial areas” the use, protection and conservation of which were deemed to be “of genuine concern” to Kake residents. * Climatologi- cal information of interest (based on 1924-1935 recording period) includes a lowest temperature of -14°F in (typical 0°F to -5°F in January/December), highest temperature of 88°F (typical 60-65°F in June/July), and greatest snow depth of 23 inches. Limestone deposits in the Kake vicinity are cited as being an excellent source for shot rock road building with good success on USFS roads. A severe shortage of acceptable aggregate, however, has made concrete structures costly in the Kake area. The Big John Bay/Rocky Pass area is cited as being considered one of the premier rest-stops for migrating waterfowl in Southeast Alaska according to the USS. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Eagles and nests abound in Kake and the 330 ft protected radius within nests will apply. The report cites the occurrence of muskeg on the whole of Western Kupreanof Island at 47% of total acreage. Forest resources around Kake are stated as mostly western hemlock and Sitka spruce, with occasional stands of other species. USFS estimates” of commercial forest resource densities show 62% of acreage in the 8,000-20,000 bf/acre range 13 These areas are predominantly coastal zones. They include Portage Bay (in Kake), Hamilton Bay (fed by Hamilton Creek), and the Rocky Pass/Big John Bay area, all of which the proposed intertie will circumvent. Although the intertie is planned to be at some distance from the concerned area coastal zone, care must be taken during engineering and construction to assess and mitigate impacts as expressed by the City of Kake. 14 Based on sampling efforts for Western Kupreanof Island related to the Tongass Land Management Plan developed by the US Forest Service, in 1978. 3-10 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC PREVIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS and 26% in the 20,000-30,000 bf/acre range. Bid dates were indicated for the South Irish Creek Timber Sale (1994), Bohemia Sale (1986), and Bohemia Mountain Sale (1992). The Kake Coastal Management District is bounded by the corporate limits of Kake and managed by the City of Kake. The report proposes an implementation plan whereby proposed projects are to be submitted to the Mayor of Kake for evaluation by the Kake Planning Commission as to consistency with the coastal management plan. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 3-11 Section 4 ROUTE SELECTION rag a Section 4 ROUTE SELECTION INTRODUCTION The feasibility study was charged with evaluating two route alternatives, beginning with the work which was done by the Southeast Intertie Transmission Study (1987) [3]. All previous studies [1][2][3] performed route selection evaluations to some degree. As part of their work over the period of 1981 to 1987, the study preparers contacted agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over the intertie corridor lands and gathered public comment. The 1987 study has the most complete and extensive compilation of public and agency comments, but they are not necessarily focused on the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. Its principal contributions to the body of available information were the bathymetric surveys for the two submarine cable crossings. The work done by Ebasco in 1982-1984 [2] included fairly extensive field work and analysis of construction conditions for the Southern Route. This section includes a summary of previous study findings, a description of the two route alternatives, an environmental “fatal flaw” analysis of the routes, and a recommendation for the preferred route. PREVIOUS STUDY FINDINGS ON ROUTE SELECTION The 1981 Reconnaissance Report [1] investigated four route alternatives, including Route 1, essentially equivalent to the present study Southern Route, and Route 2, essentially equivalent to the Northern Route. Its Routes 3 and 4 were included for completeness, but since these routes passed through portions of the current Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area and other environmentally sensitive zones, they were abandoned. The study selected Route1 for the purposes of its reconnaissance level work. No extensive field studies were undertaken to support this selection. The 1982-1984 Feasibility Study [2] investigated two distinct corridors, a south and north corridor, avoiding the most direct routes to Kake through the Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area. Based on routing objectives of siting near existing or planned roads for good access, avoiding deep muskeg areas with overhead construction, siting submarine cable crossings at locations unlikely to need dredging, and avoiding steep slopes, the south corridor was determined to be preferred for the study purposes. The study included extensive field work for the routing. Specific routing at Duncan Canal and the Pass at 13.5 miles west of the canal were studied. Significant agency input was obtained and confirmed the selection of the south corridor. The study also concluded that siting the line Section 4 (24.9 kV) adjacent to existing roads would minimize clearing requirements and offer the benefits of good access and shared right-of-way. No cross-country routes were contemplated, except in roadless areas, primarily from the west shore of Duncan Canal to the Pass 13.5 miles west of the canal. The 1987 Southeast Intertie Study [3] also began with studying four route alternatives similar to [1]. However, route alternatives through the Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area were abandoned as candidates for further screening, as in earlier studies. This study considered a 138 kV intertie and assumed straight line cross-country routes for most its route segments. Two route alternatives, Alternative A (Northern Route) and Alternative B (Southern Route) were evaluated. Significant public and agency comment was obtained. Several of the 1987 Study findings on the route alternatives are pertinent. The Southern Route was cited as being the superior choice from an engineering and reliability standpoint due to a lack of steep terrain, better access and more reliable submarine cable locations. The Northern Route has 4 miles of steep slope (along Frederick Sound), 5.5 miles more roadless areas, and its submarine cable crossing - unsurveyed - is located in an area of active shipping subject to regular channel dredging and anchoring, both posing potential cable risks. The routes were evaluated with regard to potential environmental impacts generally as follows: The Northern Route: This route passes along Frederick Sound and, being difficult to conceal, will likely be visible to travelers on the AMH. The Northern Route also crosses several anadromous streams as it passes south of Portage Bay and Goose Cove, cited as being a major waterfowl migration path leading south to Duncan Canal. There is significant concern that transmission line overhead crossings in this area would pose hazards to eagles and other birds attracted to spawning salmon. The Kupreanof Island side of the Wrangell Narrows crossing is the site of commercial shrimp and crab fisheries and the tide flat is used extensively by feeding migratory waterfowl and for subsistence or recreation by residents. The Southern Route: This route is presented as the preferred route for the 1987 study purposes, absent detailed environmental analysis. It too passes through environmentally sensitive areas including Wrangell Narrows (shellfish and shrimp fisheries, migratory waterfowl), Duncan Canal (one of the major waterfowl concentrations in Southeast Alaska, major shrimp fishery), and both the Hamilton Creek and Big John Creek areas (major anadromous streams, feeding source for eagles). The 1987 Study report emphasizes the need to conduct environmental studies prior to selection of a final route. 4-2, DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC =) ROUTE SELECTION ROUTE ALIGNMENT CRITERIA The following route selection criteria should be adopted in the selection of a final route alignment as a minimum. Avoid degradation of scenic viewsheds Maintain 300 ft minimum distance to major streams Maintain 330 ft minimum distance to known eagle nests 1 2 3 4. Mitigate damage to and disruption of fisheries or marine traffic 5. Generally parallel existing roads to the maximum extent 6 Select reliable submarine cable crossings not subject to frequent dredging or having major rock outcrops N Avoid known muskeg areas 8. Cross anadromous streams perpendicularly as far upstream as practical and consistent with routes 9. Prevent erosion and sedimentation of water bodies. A DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES The alternative routes selected for evaluation in the present study were the Northern and Southern Routes as generally defined in previous studies. These routes are shown in Figure 1, based on mapping furnished by the USFS, Petersburg Ranger District. The figure contains circled, numbered nodes used in the following discussions as purely points of reference. In addition to the Northern and Southern Routes, Figure 1 depicts a few alternative route variations which might be considered if service to the City of Kupreanof is adopted as an objective. No evaluation of these alternatives was attempted in the present study. However, these route variations were examined in the 1984 Ebasco work [2] and eliminated from consideration because of (1) disruption of Wrangell Narrows boat traffic, (2) recreation use in the vicinity of Ohmer Slough, and (3) potential obstruction hazards to small aircraft using the pass. By far the most detailed investigation of routes was undertaken by the Ebasco 1982-84 Feasibility Study [2] and this was focused on the Southern Route. Because of the detail of its drawings, that study’s route maps [Appendix A] are included for reference in this study. Below we describe the two route alternatives. It should be pointed out that the route alternatives shown on Figure 1, are subject to adjustment in final design to take advantage of road systems, to mitigate environmental impacts, and to avoid muskeg or rocky terrain. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 4-3 Section 4 SOUTHERN ROUTE ALTERNATIVE (46.7 MILES) Origination in Petersburg will depend on operating system voltage. If the system is designed for and operated at 69 kV/138 kV, the origin would be a tap of the existing Lake Tyee transmission line in the vicinity of the Alaska Experimental Fur Farm, about 5 miles south of Petersburg Substation at Scow Bay/Blunt Point. After a switching station, the line would head directly to a submarine crossing of Wrangell Narrows. The cable termination facilities would be combined in the switching station. A line switch would be installed at the tap for isolation of the Kake intertie. This is a short segment, approximated at 500 ft,” from the tap to the cable termination facility. Access to this segment is considered excellent, via Mitkof Highway. Soils are predominantly glacial till and marine deposits, suitable for standard overhead line construction techniques and design. This first submarine cable crossing location in Wrangell Narrows was surveyed for the 1987 study [3] and found to be technically feasible. This segment would extend between cable terminations, which would be set back from the shoreline to make them less visible to boat traffic in the Wrangell Narrows, part of the AMH. The western shore landing would be south of the abandoned Tonka Log Transfer facility. The length of this first cable crossing is approximately 1.5km (0.94 mi.). This crossing point is not prone to sedimentation and is not regularly dredged. Cable laying operations will have to deal with swift currents, AMH boat traffic and fishery activity. The most favorable time for cable installation will be from May to September. The next segment between Nodes 2 and 3, extends 10.3 miles through USFS land in an unnamed, heavily logged gap on Lindenberg Peninsula. The segment starts at the western Wrangell Narrows cable termination and then follows existing USFS roads to within 1.5 miles of the segment’s end at the cable termination on the eastern shore of Duncan Canal, near Mitchell Slough. Access along this segment is deemed very good for construction and maintenance along existing roads. Soils are reported to be mostly glacial till and marine deposits with occasional pockets of shallow muskeg. The area around Mitchell Slough is roadless and contains about 0.5 miles of muskeg conditions. The second submarine cable crossing in Duncan Canal is about 1.3 miles long between terminals. This crossing was studied in detail by others [2] and a preferred route (Route 2) selected in concert with regulatory agencies (see Figures 4-3 and 4-4 in Appendix A). A bathymetric survey of the crossing was undertaken in 1987 [3] and, although it was deemed technically feasible, a steep eastern shore landing was noted as well as the need for further studies. Construction of this crossing will have to be coordinated with shrimp fishery activity in Duncan Canal. 15 More detailed study of TWP drawings indicate that this distance may be closer to 1,000-1,500 ft. 4-4 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC 4 ROUTE SELECTION = West of Duncan Canal the line route would traverse approximately 13 miles of unroaded USFS land to an unnamed pass (El 700) , the maximum elevation on the route. Existing roads now extend from Kake to about 1 mile west of the pass and planned timber sales [Shamrock Timber Sale, Record of Decision pending] would extend the road system to about 1.5 miles east of the pass. The vicinity just west of the crossing has extensive muskeg deposits. An alternative route around these deposits was proposed in 1982-84 [2], as shown in Figure 4-4 of Appendix A. The routing shown on Figure 1 would be modified to follow the routing shown in Appendix A, except that the line would be sited so as to preserve a forested visual barrier between it and the shoreline. Significant deposits of muskeg will be encountered and access is non-existent. Construction might most efficiently be conducted from a barge camp [2] in Duncan Canal with helicopter support and special soft-terrain equipment. Alternatively, construction could also proceed from the terminus of the road system in the pass and may even be preferable if a staging area and camp is established out on the road system, as opposed to solely in Kake. m= The pass was the subject of detailed field reviews [2] and a proposed route shown in Figure 4-5 in Appendix A. The routing in Figure 1 would be adjusted to follow this alignment. = From the pass to a new Kake substation near the power house, the line will travel west northwest approximately 33.9 miles, essentially following the existing road system. The soils are generally glacial till and colluvial, acceptable for standard overhead line construction. Peat overburden of 0-5 ft is common and deep muskeg pockets will occasionally be encountered. The incidence of these conditions may be reduced significantly by following existing roads. Figure 1 shows cross-country routing, not necessarily adjacent to roads. This would apply to higher voltage options using H-frame structures, so that longer spans can be used. The cost of clearing will be high but may be overcome by well-coordinated logging and timber sales. For the lower voltage options, single pole construction along the roads is deemed the most desirable alternative, although it could be used for 69kV and 138 kV construction also, albeit with much shorter spans than possible with H-frame structures. The majority of right-of-way is on USFS lands (29.2 miles) with the remainder on Sealaska lands (4.75 miles). The Sealaska lands will require negotiation of property lease and trespass agreements. m= The entrance to Kake will be from the west, penetrating the Kake boundary near the new power house. A small substation would be planned next to the powerhouse interfacing with the existing 12.5kV bus. This segment would traverse a combination of city and private lands. NORTHERN ROUTE ALTERNATIVE (59.9 MILES) = The Northern Route originates at the Petersburg Substation for either the 69 kV/138 kV or 24.9 kV voltage options. No detailed route studies to get the DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 4-5 Section 4 line from the substation into Petersburg and to a submarine cable terminal have been made. The location of the cable terminals are also unidentified.” m The only submarine cable crossing on this Northern Route is across the mouth of Wrangell Narrows where it meets Frederick Sound, in Petersburg. No firm cable landing sites have been identified and to our knowledge, no bathymetric surveys have been conducted for this crossing. This crossing has been described as a reliability concern for the intertie because of active shipping and channel dredging operations. The use of the tide flats for subsistence and recreation shellfish gathering has also been raised as a concern, although the cable would in all likelihood be buried to considerable depth and the route marked in the tideland area. It is probable that the cable route would pass northeast of Sasby Island, similar to the route assumed in the 1987 study [3]. and land on the non-Mental Health Trust Land parcel just north of Sasby Island. m= The next segment between Nodes 15 and 16, stretches north from the northern cable termination to Twelve Mile Creek, a distance of 11.7 miles. This segment includes a 4-5 mile section in steep, forested and unroaded terrain, along the shoreline parallel to Frederick Sound, a portion of which has been designated a scenic viewshed. A line in this area will be costly to construct, difficult -- and perhaps impossible -- to conceal from the AMH travelers, and will come in conflict with several known eagle nests. The entire segment is unroaded and access will be difficult, perhaps requiring substantial support of helicopters. Soil condition would be expected to be suitable for standard embedment construction. At Twelve Mile Creek the route turns west to Kake. m= The next segment between Nodes 16 and 17 is 7.5 miles long, and parallel to existing USFS roads. This segment lies entirely on USFS lands. m= The segment, 14.8 miles long between Nodes 17 and 18, passes south of Portage Bay and Goose Core, lying entirely on USFS land . This area has been described as a major Southeast Alaska waterfowl migration staging ground and the destination of frequent float plane traffic. Concern that overhead lines in this zone would present serious hazards to waterfowl and air traffic has been voiced [3, ADF&G letter dated February 23, 1987, included in Appendix C for reference]. This part of the route passes between Kupreanof Mountain and Bohemia Mountain. The route passes within a quarter mile of 16 Public comment has raised the possibility of following a proposed Scow Bay bypass running south of the airport to a cable landing on Frederick Sound [Appendix C, letter from E. Blender, undated, circa 12/1995]. Several issues would have to be resolved if this were to happen. The most critical impact of this route segment would be to lengthen the cable route at great expense. Proximity to the airport might pose unacceptable obstruction hazards to air traffic, although mitigation of such hazards is usually practical and not considered a fatal technical flaw. The letter implies a benefit from locating the line ina proposed commercial/industrial zone. There would be benefits in terms of more compatible land use, but electrical service to this zone would remain the responsibility of PMP&L. 4-6 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ' ROUTE SELECTION the northern border of the Petersburg Creek Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area and is not strictly subject to the restrictions of that designation. m= The segment from Node 18 to Node 8 takes the line from Portage Bay to Kake for a distance of 21.2 miles. Of this distance, 17 miles is in USFS land, 4.2 miles in Sealaska land, and 0.2 mile in the City of Kake. The Sealaska lands will require negotiation of property lease and trespass agreements. m= The entrance to Kake is from the west, penetrating the Kake boundary near the new power house. A small substation would be planned next to the powerhouse interfacing with the existing 12.5 kV bus. This segment would traverse a minimum combination of city and private lands. Alternatively the line could be overbuilt on reconstructed Kake 12.5kV lines or follow the existing road system in Kake. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION A preliminary environmental analysis was prepared for two potential routes, the Northern Route and the Southern Route. The purpose of this preliminary environmental analysis was to determine whether an environmental issue of such magnitude exists that would preclude construction altogether, even with reasonable mitigation. For example, a route through the Petersburg Creek- Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area is not feasible because this tract is managed to preserve land essentially unaffected by human use that can provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, primitive recreation, and scientific and educational uses. Roads are not permitted and the use of mechanical transport and motorized equipment is limited. Much of the remainder of the land through which a potential route might be located has been designated for timber production, except for a parcel of land directly east of the wilderness area which is designated scenic view shed. Activities within this designation must be managed so that they are not obvious when the landscape is viewed from land or marine travel routes. Roads (and power lines) are limited by the landscape’s ability to visually absorb such activity. Lands at the Kake end of the route are under the jurisdiction of the Sealaska Corporation and the Kake Village Corporation. Some Mental Health Trust Lands are located on Mitkof Island and along the northern end of Kupreanof Island adjacent to Wrangell Narrows. NORTHERN ROUTE The Northern Route begins at an existing substation south of Petersburg at Blunt Point. It parallels an existing transmission line into Petersburg, crosses Wrangell Narrows via underwater cable, and then continues northward along the steep, DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 4-7 Section 4 forested slope adjacent to Frederick Sound before turning westward into the Twelve Mile Creek drainage. There it follows rolling, lowland areas adjacent to existing logging roads, for the most part, to Kake. The total length of the Northern Route alternative is 59.9 miles, including 0.9 miles of underwater cable. SOUTHERN ROUTE The Southern Route begins at a new substation to be located about five miles south of Blunt Point along the Mitkof Highway. The line would exit to the west, cross the Wrangell Narrows via underwater cable, and then continue northwest- ward along an unnamed creek drainage paralleling existing logging roads to Duncan Canal. After crossing Duncan Canal via a second underwater cable, the route follows relatively flat terrain northward to the pass separating the Duncan Canal drainages to the east and those flowing west to Hamilton Creek. The route follows a previously recommended alignment in the area west of Duncan Canal to minimize impacting muskeg areas. West of the pass, the route parallels existing logging roads to Kake. The total length of the Southern Route is 46.7 miles, including 2.4 miles of underwater cable. CONSULTATION A preliminary project description and request for comments was sent out to eleven federal, state and local agencies and interest groups on September 29, 1995. Of the eleven groups contacted, nine provided responses. In addition, one inquiry and response was received from a private individual. Comments received to date indicate either a decided preference for the Southern Route or a statement that the selected route have the least environmental impact and the lowest cost. An example of the letter requesting comments and the comment letters received are included in Appendix C. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED Several permits and approvals will be required to construct the project, regardless of which route is finally selected. These requirements include the following: FEDERAL Corps of Engineers Individual Section 10 Permit for each crossing of Section 10 waters (e.g., Wrangell Narrows, Duncan Canal). USFS Special Use Permit to construct and operate the transmission line on National Forest lands. 4-8 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ROUTE SELECTION STATE Any State permits required will be identified as part of the Consistency Review under the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The initial step in this review process is the completion of a Coastal Project Questionnaire and its submission to the southeast Regional Office, Division of Governmental Coordination. TRIBAL A lease agreement will have to be negotiated with Sealaska Corporation to cross corporation lands and a similar arrangement must be made with the Kake Village Corporation to cross lands selected by the village. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The mitigation of certain impacts can be performed using good engineering practices and proven technology during design and construction. The following measures will be undertaken to prevent or reduce adverse construction/operation impacts wherever possible: 1. The line will be designed to prevent electrocution of eagles and other large birds as per guidelines set forth in Suggested Practices For Raptor Protection On Power Lines, Raptor Research Report No. 4, Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 1981. 2. Anadromous fish streams will be crossed at right angles wherever possible to minimize bank disturbance and riparian cover removal and structures will be placed no closer than 100 ft from any stream or river bank. Construction equipment will not be operated in, through, or across any anadromous fish stream. 3. Cable crossings will be buried through the intertidal zone to a point at least 100 ft inside the forest line before elevating conductors to above-ground structures to reduce the visual impact. The right-of-way (ROW) at crossings visible from marine routes will be angled and other measures taken to reduce impacts to the viewshed wherever possible. 4. Other conditions may be applied as necessary, based upon provisions of the Special Use Permit issued by the USFS and the requirements set forth in other agency permits or approvals. DISCUSSION A review of past reports [2][3], current comments and prior experience in the area formed the basis of our environmental assessment. The USFWS provided information on the distribution and density of nesting bald eagles along coastlines in the vicinity of the two routes and the USFS provided mapping indicating streams and rivers selected for Wild & Scenic designation. The segment of the DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 4-9 Section 4 Northern Route bordering Frederick Sound parallels a shoreline heavily used by nesting eagles. In addition, potential adverse impacts to the scenic quality along this route are much greater than for the Southern Route. The Southern Route, as presently defined, does cross over Hamilton Creek, a stream designated by the USFS in its Tongass Land Management Plan as a candidate for Scenic River status under the Wild and Scenic River program. Even if selected, however, scenic status does not preclude a transmission line crossing. There have been no environmental issues raised to date that would preclude building either route. The Southern Route, however, appears to have a significantly lower potential for adverse environmental impacts. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no environmental issues that would prevent constructing and operating a transmission line along either route. From an environmental perspective, however, the Southern Route is preferred based on all available information. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on public comment, agency comment, previous study findings and our engineering and environmental judgment, the Southern Route is preferred. Both routes pass through the environmentally sensitive Duncan Canal-Portage Bay waterfowl migratory path and fisheries zone and for these reasons a full environmental study of the routes should be undertaken before a final decision is made to adopt the Southern Route. The Southern Route, originally recommended by public agencies [1] has clearly engendered the least agency opposition due to occupying lands already disturbed by extensive logging operations or planned for timber sales in the Tongass Forest Land Management Plan. Following the Southern Route would also result in a more reliable link due to its shorter length, absence of steep slopes, extensive roaded areas, and submarine cable crossings less prone to anchoring events and dredging operations. 4-10 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC Section 5 SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN raga Section 5 SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN INTRODUCTION This section of the report discusses the various system configurations and components which are necessary to serve the Kake load. The alternative system concepts are largely defined by Kake forecasted electrical load demand (kW) and the available voltages on the PMP&L grid (24.9 kV and 69 kV). Load flow analyses were performed for 69 kV, 24.9 kV and 34.5 kV transmission lines. Previous studies [1][2] have studied a range of system voltages from 13.8 kV to 69kV, including a 40kV SWGR (derivable from the TWP 69kV three phase circuit). The 13.8 kV option was found to be undersized for Kake load [2] and the 69 kV system overmatched to the Kake requirements [1][2]. The 40 kV SWGR system was proposed [1] as a means to greatly reduce the cost and increase the feasibility of the intertie. This type of system was, however, deemed unworthy of further consideration based, among other factors, on the potentially large single phase load creating damaging unbalanced loading of the TWP system [3]. The previous studies focused on the 24.9 kV/34.5 kV range of voltage for an intertie to serve Kake load only [1][2] and 138kV as part of an overall Southeast Alaska Intertie [3]. This present study was charged with evaluating a system at 138 kV and the lowest practical voltage capable of serving Kake load. Based on previous studies and our engineering judgment we focused on the 69kV option and the 24.9/34.5 kV option as the most practical voltage choices for serving Kake load in the near term. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM CONCEPTS Several system concepts are possible. The choice of voltage, line terminal in Petersburg, planning for future voltage conversion, operating issues, and design choices all play a part. In Kake, THREA operates a 12.47/7.2 kV distribution system while in Petersburg PMP&L operates a 24.9/14.4kV system, with a 69kV (upgradable to 138 kV) interconnection to the TWP system. These voltage levels are beyond the standard ranges of regulation and some transformation will be required to interconnect systems. An intertie at 69 kV is a logical choice since the TWP system currently operates at 69 kV. A 69kV intertie could tap the TWP system near the Alaska Experimental Fur Farm, saving approximately 5 miles of line to the Petersburg Substation on the Section 5 Southern Route. A switched line tap and a small substation containing metering, interrupting devices and cable termination equipment would be required. For the Northern Route the line tap would occur at the Petersburg Substation. It is not known if sufficient space exists at the Petersburg Substation for this modification. Any 69 kV alternative would have to consider that the TWP system could convert to 138 kV operation, although this does not seem imminent within the planning horizon for this study. In that case, if the line is not designed to 138 kV standards, a 69 kV/138 kV substation would be required to serve the Intertie. If the line is designed to 138 kV standards and the TWP system converts to 138 kV operation, either a new or dual primary voltage transformer and associated 138 kV designs would be required in Kake. Initial construction of the overhead portion of the Intertie for ultimate 138-kV operation is an option. Installation of a shunt reactor for voltage control and a 3-1/C 138-kV submarine cable crossing would be deferred until needed. A 24.9kV interconnection is also a logical choice since the Crystal Lake line is operated at 24.9kV and a 24.9kV bus is available at the Petersburg Substation. Although attractive at first glance, connection to the Crystal Lake line near the Fur Farm would entail interconnecting with PMP&L. We do not know whether PMP&L would allow this interconnection. In all previous studies it has been typically assumed that the 24.9 kV option would originate, for any route, at the Petersburg Substation. For the Southern Route it has further been typically assumed that the 24.9kV line would be underbuilt on the existing joint line carrying the 69 kV/138 kV Lake Tyee line and the 24.9 kV Crystal Lake line. Our review of TWP drawings indicated that a detailed engineering study of as-built structures would be required to determine the extent of modifications required to accommodate a second 24.9-kV/34.5-kV circuit. It is possible that the 138 kV/24.9 kV line along Mitkof Highway would have to be reconstructed to a significant extent. LOAD FLOW STUDIES LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS A load flow analysis has been used to simulate an interconnection of the Kake system with the existing TWP system for two separate routing alternatives, the Southern Route and the Northern Route. The purpose of this Intertie is to provide the Kake system with power available from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project. In the evaluation, system modeling and load flow analysis were used to examine two separate operating voltage levels, proposed at 69kV and 24.9kV, and conductor selection, proposed at 336 kcmil ACSR/AW and 4/0 AWG ACSR/AW, respectively. The analysis also indicated if and when reactive power compensa- tion would be required to maintain adequate voltage levels for the intercon- 5-2. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN nection over the 1999 to 2019 twenty -year planning horizon. No stability analyses were performed as part of this feasibility study. EVALUATION CRITERIA The following planning criteria were used in evaluating the electrical feasibility of the Kake - Petersburg Intertie. = Substation bus voltage levels should remain above the minimum voltage criteria of 90% during normal conditions. m Substation bus levels should not exceed a maximum voltage limit of 110% under normal conditions. = During normal operation, transformer loading should not exceed 100% of nameplate value. = During normal operation, conductor loading should not exceed 100% of rated capacity. MODELING/STUDY ASSUMPTIONS The load flow study was completed using General Electric’s (GE) EPC PSLF Version 8.02 program using the following assumptions. m The system benchmark load flow cases were created from the PTI load flow database used in the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study [4] to which we added the new Kake transmission interconnection as shown in figures on pages 5-5 to 5-7 of this Section for the Southern and Northern Routes, respectively. m= The Kake system load has been modeled at a single 69 kV (Alternatives 1 and 2) or 24.9kV (Alternative 3) bus on the Kake side of the new transmission intertie. m= The escalation factor for the Kake load was assumed to be 0.61% per year, derived from the 1994 to 2004 load projections provided by THREA. m= The PMP&L load escalation rate was taken from the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, but the base load for 1995 was based on PMP&L’s actual 1995 summer peak load of 8.5 MW as obtained from PMP&L. m= Wrangell Municipal Light & Power (WML&P) loads were taken from the Base Case of the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study shown on Table IX-1 of that document. = For the Benchmark Cases, the Kake system load was assumed to be at a 90% power factor. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-3 Section 5 m ~The Kake load in the Sensitivity Cases is increased by 2 MW, representing the addition of an assumed new commercial/industrial load. m For the Sensitivity Cases, the power factor for the Kake system was set at 95 % since it was assumed that a new commercial/industrial load would provide its own reactive compensation. = In all cases, both PMP&L and (WML&P) loads had a power factor of 98% based on the PTI model used in the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study. = All Kake generating units will remain off-line throughout the duration of the twenty year planning horizon unless needed for voltage support. m The hydroelectric generating stations, Lake Tyee Units 1 & 2 and the Crystal Lake units were on-line in all cases. The two Crystal Lake units generated 0.5 MW and 2 MW respectively in all cases, and the Tyee units’ outputs were adjusted to meet the remainder of the interconnected system load level up to their 20 MW combined capacity rating. m When load levels exceed the capability of the hydro stations (22.5 MW), Petersburg diesel generators were brought on-line to produce the additional needed energy up to the currently installed capacity of 7.5 MW. m The shunt reactor modeled in the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study PTI load flow case was switched on and off as necessary to limit voltage rise. = A 69KV transmission interconnection was the highest voltage level studied unless that voltage level failed the evaluation criteria listed previously. = For the 69kV interconnection alternatives, only the 69kV system was monitored for voltage and line loading, assuming any resulting overloads to or at lower voltages would be addressed by the applicable utility. = It was assumed that 1999 would be the initial year of service for the Kake - Petersburg interconnection, and thus the first year of the twenty year planning horizon. R. W. Beck has used the transmission models on the following pages to separately evaluate each of the routing alternatives. The first alternative represents a transmission line model following the Southern Route at 69 kV, the second alternative, the Northern Route at 69kV and the third, the Southern Route at 24.9 kV. 5-4 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN SOUTHERN ROUTE MODEL DESCRIPTION Alternative 1: Interconnection substation: New Kake 69 kV Tap Approximate distance from interconnection substation: 46.7 miles Base Quantities: 69 kV, 100 MVA New Kake 69 kV Substation Existing Petersburg 69 kV Substation 5 Submarine Cable Sections 3 mi Existing 69 kV Segment 1: Overhead Length: 500 ft line New Kake Tap Substa. Segment 4: Submarine Conductor: 336 ACSR Length: 1.3 mi age Conductor: 3-4/0 Cu a Characteristics: Ch teristics: Existing R = 0.000587 pu aracteristics: 69 kV R = 0.0094 pu line X = 0.001639 pu B = 0.000025 pu x= ore “ P B = 0.0050 pu Segment 2: Submarine To Tyee Segment 5: Overhead Length: 1.1 mi Length: 33.93 mi Conducen = ots Conductor: 336 ACSR Characteristics: a Characteristics: R = 0.0079 pu R = 0.1993 pu X = 0.0062 pu B = 0.00426 pu X = 0.5563 pu P B = 0.0088 pu Segment 3: Overhead Length: 10.26 mi Conductor: 336 ACSR Characteristics: R = 0.0603 pu X = 0.1682 pu B = 0.00265 pu DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-5 Section 5 NORTHERN ROUTE MODEL DESCRIPTION Alternative 2: Interconnection substation: Existing Petersburg 69 kV Approximate distance from interconnection substation: 59.9 miles Base Quantities: 69 kV, 100 MVA New Kake 69 kV Substation Segment 1: Overhead Length: 3.87 mi Conductor: 336 ACSR Existing Characteristics: eae R = 0.0227 pu a X = 0.0634 pu B = 0.000999 pu Segment 2: Submarine Length: 0.87 mi Conductor: 3-4/0 Cu Characteristics: R = 0.0063 pu X = 0.0049 pu B = 0.0034 pu Segment 3: Overhead Length: 55.16 mi Conductor: 336 ACSR Characteristics: R = 0.3241 pu X = 0.9043 pu B = 0.0142 pu 5-6 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN SOUTHERN ROUTE MODEL DESCRIPTION Alternative 3: Interconnection substation: Petersburg 24.9 kV Approximate distance from interconnection substation: 49.6 miles Base Quantities: 24.9 kV, 100 MVA New Kake 24.9 kV Substation Segment 1: Overhead Length: 3 mi Conductor: 4/0 ACSR Characteristics: R = 0.007350 pu X = 0.012085 pu B = 0.000003 pu Segment 2: Submarine Length: 1.1 mi Conductor: 3-4/0 Cu Characteristics: R = 0.1199 pu X = 0.0468 pu B = 0.000598 pu Segment 3: Overhead Length: 10.26 mi Conductor: 4/0 ACSR Characteristics: R = 0.754098 pu X = 1.23987 pu B = 0.000395 pu Sections Segment 4: Submarine Length: 1.3 mi Conductor: 3-4/0 Cu Characteristics: R = 0.1417 pu X = 0.0553 pu B = 0.000707 pu Segment 5: Overhead Length: 33.93 mi Conductor: 4/0 ACSR Characteristics: R = 2.493815 pu X = 4.100273 pu B = 0.001307 pu Submarine Cable Existing Petersburg 24.9 kV Substation 3 mi New 24.9kV line DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-7 Section 5 LOAD FORECAST Based on the previously stated assumptions, we have prepared and used the following load forecast in performing the load flow evaluation of the Kake - Petersburg Intertie. This load forecast varies somewhat from the forecast used for the economic analysis described in Section 7. Since the proposed Intertie connects to the existing TWP system at or near Petersburg Substation, we have developed two separate load scenarios for the Petersburg system so that we can evaluate the maximum voltage drop to Kake. The Benchmark Cases use the average load growth escalation for both Kake and the Wrangell/Petersburg systems as defined in the assumptions. However, since the actual Petersburg 1995 summer peak is more in line with the high growth scenario from the 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, we have also developed a load forecast based on the 1992 high growth scenario which is used in the High PMP&L Cases. Table 5-1 PEAK LOAD PROJECTIONS Forecasted Load Growth(1) Kake Sensitivity(2) High(4) PMP&L High PMP&L Summer Growth Case Peak |” Kak Kake {Other | Total | Year_| (MW) | (MW). (MW) | (MW) (MW) | (MW) _| (MW) | (MW) | (MW) 1999 | 107 5 127 | 13.77 | 107 | 133 ' 1437 | 307 2 133 | 1637 209 | 11 | 142 © 153 | 11 |) 180, 194 31 : 180 © 211 wig | 12: 172 | 14 | 12) 246 | 258 | 32 | 246 | 278 (1) All cases assume a Kake system load escalation factor of 0.61% per year derived from data provided by THREA. (2) Assumes an additional 2 MW of industrial/commercial load has been added to the existing Kake system. (3) PMP&L load escalation rate of 1.5% for 1995 - 1999 and 1.6% from 1999 - 2019 was taken from 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Table IX-1, but loads were based on actual 1995 summer peak load obtained from PMP&L. WML&P loads were taken from 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Table IX-1. (4) PMP&L load escalation rate of 3% for 1995 - 1999 and 3.7% from 1999 - 2019 was taken from 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Table IX-3, but loads were based on actual 1995 summer peak load obtained from PMP&L. WML&P loads were taken from 1992 Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, Table IX-1. (5) “Other” is comprised of the combined PMP&L and WML&P peak load data. 5-8 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN STUDY EVALUATION AND RESULTS We have performed load flow analysis on the following list of cases and evaluated the results based on the defined evaluation criteria. Since the new Intertie results in a radial feed to Kake, no contingency analysis has been performed. Table 5-2 LOAD FLOW CASE DESCRIPTION Intertie Diesel Shunt Case Voltage Load Generation Reactor Name (kV) Year Units On Status Southern Route - Alternative 1 (69 kV) Benchmark Load 99ben_s 69 1999 none on 09ben_s 69 2009 none on 19ben_s 69 2019 none off High PMP&L Load 99high_s 69 1999 none on O9high_s 69 2009 none off 19high_s 69 2019 Petersburg off Kake Sensitivity 99sen_s 69 1999 none on 09sen_s 69 2009 Petersburg off 19sen_s 69 2019 Petersburg off Northern Route - Alternative 2 (69 kV) Benchmark Load 1 99ben_n 69 1999 none on Kake Sensitivity 1 19sen_n 69 2019 Petersburg off Southern Route - Alternative 3 (24.9 kV) Benchmark Load 1 99ben_s1 24.9 1999 none on Kake Sensitivity 1 99sen_s1 24.9 2019 Petersburg off 1 99sen_s2 24.9 2019 Petersburg off As shown in Table 5-2 above, nine load flow cases were run using the Southern Route - Alternative 1 transmission Intertie model, two for the Northern Route - Alternative 2 and three for the Southern Route - Alternative 3. Although the Northern Route is a longer physical line, the length difference between the two routes does not result in a large electrical impedance differential. Instead of repeating all of the case runs, we evaluated the Northern Route under the lightest and heaviest load cases and assumed that if the voltage and line criteria were met DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-9 Section 5 in these cases, the criteria would also be met for the remainder of the load conditions. The same assumption was assumed for Alternative 3, the Southern Route 24.9 kV Petersburg - Kake interconnection. For each of the eleven case runs for Alternatives 1 and 2, there were no line loading, voltage drop or voltage rise problems on the TWP or Kake systems. Because of the small magnitude of the Kake load, even loss of the load results in less than a 1% voltage rise across the new Petersburg - Kake 69 kV Intertie. In addition, the evaluation at 69 kV showed that there is little difference between the two routing alternatives in either voltage drop, voltage rise or line loss. The evaluation of Alternative 3, an interconnection between Kake and Petersburg at 24.9 kV, showed that the interconnection was marginally adequate for the Kake benchmark loads, derived from the load forecast provide by THREA. Without any additional voltage support, the voltage drops approximately 7% from Petersburg to Kake for the benchmark loads. This drop is acceptable assuming PMP&L regulates its 24.9 kV bus to at least 0.97 per unit. Additionally, the line losses over the new 24.9 kV interconnection are close to 5%. This level, although higher than average for a transmission line, is not excessive and possibly could be made up in lower construction costs. However, once the Kake load exceeds about 2 MW as was assumed in the sensitivity cases, the voltage decays and the line losses climb to an unacceptable level of over 16%. With a 2400kVAr shunt capacitor added to the 24.9 kV bus at Kake for voltage support, the Kake voltage returns to an acceptable level, but the line loss drops only to about 13%. The 24.9 kV alternative is marginally adequate for transmission of the Benchmark loads throughout the 20-year planning period. Using a larger conductor, such as the 266.8 kcmil ACSR assumed in [2], would provide somewhat better performance. The most attractive option, balancing the uncertain needs for future load growth and low initial costs, would be a system constructed to 34.5 kV standards but initially operated at 24.9kV. The 4/0 conductor - 34.5 kV line will marginally support the 3.2 MW sensitivity load in Kake resulting in approximately 7.25% losses and 9.5% voltage drop without shunt reactive compensation in Kake for voltage support. Using 266.8 kcmil conductor would improve this performance at some increase in construction cost. We recommend that an energy loss cost analysis be undertaken as part of the confirmation of voltage selection and conductor size. 5-10 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN The following Table 5-3 summarizes the results: Table 5-3 LOAD FLOW RESULTS SUMMARY Case(1) Kake- TWP | Kake | Substation Bus Voltage | Line Loss(2) Line Voltage(3)| Load | Kake : Petersburg (kW) % (kV) (MW) |_(pu) (pu) Southern Route - Alternative 1 99ben_s 69 955 09ben_s 69 .924 19ben_s * 69 -980 . Ieee ET Se air Tee ies O9high_s * 69 951 19high_s * 69 .976 iil fl oeeceae eit eae ni mai in 09sen_s * ¢ 69 977 29.2 0.93 19sen_s* ¢ 69 956 31.5 | 0.97 Northern Route - Alternative 2 99ben_n 69 110. .953 955 49 | 0.54 19sen_n * ¢ 69 3.20 .956 972 40.2 1.24 Southern Route - Alternative 3 99ben_sl * 24.9 1.07 | 955 1.02 50.8 | 4.54 19sen_s1 *$ 24.9 3.20 .796 1.02 619.6 16.3 19sen_s2(4)*+ 24.9 3.20 .931 1.01 465.6 | 12.8 * support. Status of existing shunt reactor to limit voltage rise is off (see Assumptions at beginning of Section). $¢ Additional generation brought on line at Petersburg. (1) Case descriptions are provided in Table 5-2. (2) Losses over the new Petersburg - Kake interconnection line. (3) Nominal voltage, phase to phase. (4) A 2400 kVAr shunt capacitor was added to Kake 24.9 kV bus for voltage DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-11 Section 5 FINDINGS Evaluation of the load flow analysis indicates that either routing alternative will provide Kake with adequate voltage levels at 69 kV throughout the duration of the twenty year planning horizon. As discussed elsewhere, the 69 kV voltage level may not be well matched to the Kake load. In general, for the 69kV option both routes result in only a slight voltage differential between Petersburg and Kake for both the Kake forecasted load growth and the Kake Sensitivity growth. Therefore, if the existing TWP systems utilize the assumed voltage criteria in operating their systems, the Kake system should not require reactive compensation to either increase voltage or limit voltage rise. Also, as shown by the sensitivity case runs, the proposed 69 kV line design should provide the Kake system with the opportunity to increase load without requiring an upgrade to 138 kV. If use of the intertie as part of a greater Southeast Intertie is contemplated, the line might be constructed to 138 kV standards at the outset and converted to 138 kV operation when needed. The approximate incremental cost for this expansion plan is discussed in Section 6. The 24.9kV alternative is the minimum voltage scenario that could reliably support Kake forecasted load growth. Since it provides no future flexibility for sudden increased commercial/industrial load it is considerably less attractive from an electrical feasibility standpoint than a 34.5 kV line initially operated at 24.9kV or the 69 kV option. The 24.9 kV only alternative would have a lower construc- tion cost, but would inhibit virtually any Kake system load growth of more than 1 MW. Therefore, many of the benefits of a new interconnection with Petersburg could be lost due to the extremely low transfer capability of the line. SELECTED SYSTEM CONCEPTS Summarizing, we selected two system concepts for evaluation: (1) a line constructed to 138 kv standards ‘, but operated at 69 kV and (2) a line constructed to 34.5kV standards and operated initially at 24.9 kV. The line operated at 69 kV will easily serve all foreseeable loads in Kake without reactive compensation for voltage control or support. The line operated at 24.9 kV will adequately handle Kake present peak load (1.07 MW) and load growth to an estimated 1.5 MW before conversion to 34.5 kV is necessary. Addition of shunt capacitors or voltage regulation in Kake may defer the need to upgrade to 34.5 kV. We recommend that the 34.5kV line be considered for construction with minimum 266.8 kcmil conductor. Assumes 69 kV submarine cable and substation facilities, and no shunt reactors. 18 Excluding 34.5/24.9 kV transformation in Petersburg and 34.5/12.47 kV transformation in Kake. 5-12 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN CONSTRUCTION PLANS For each of the two alternatives the project would have to determine the extent of building to the higher voltage standards, which in turn involves assumptions about when voltage upgrading would take place. 69 KV/138 KV OPTION The incremental cost to construct an overhead line to 138 kV standards versus 69 kV standards, using the same basic designs, would be no more than 10-20%. It would be prudent to size conductor, insulation and ground clearances for 138 kV operation, since the incremental costs of these items versus the 69 kV requirement is such a small part of the overall project and the cost to upgrade them in the future would be quite high. This would certainly apply to single pole construc- tion along existing roads, and will likely hold true even for H-frame construction. However, a more significant cost difference will be in the submarine cable and substation costs. The incremental cost to construct a 138 kV cable crossing (three single-conductor cables, EPR) versus a 69 kV cable crossing (one three-conductor cable, EPR) is estimated to be $2.7 million. We would recommend that the initial submarine cable crossings and substation/terminal equipment be constructed at 69 kV to reduce initial construction costs. The 69 kV system will suffice into the indefinite future. 24.9 KV/34.5 KV OPTION The incremental cost to construct the bare wire overhead portion at 34.5 kV versus 24.9 kV standards is estimated to be less than 2% for a variety of reasons. A larger cost difference, estimated at 15-25%, exists in the case of aerial cable sections proposed for use in roadless areas [3]. The cost for a 34.5 kV 1-3/c cable submarine cable crossing is within an estimated 5% of the cost of a 24.9kV 1-3/c cable crossing, due principally to the marginal insulation increase and the dominant mobilization and demobilization costs. Installation costs are virtually the same. The total cost difference is estimated to be less than 10%. The 24.9kV option will support Kake load growth up to an estimated 1.5 MW with marginal but acceptable electrical performance. At this point in load growth, interim shunt capacitors or voltage regulation could be used to support voltage until conversion to 34.5 kV is warranted although line losses would continue to be high. Serious consideration should be given to 34.5 kV operation at the time load grows to this level. It is difficult to predict when Kake load would grow to this level or higher and operational flexibility is built into the system if designed to handle 34.5 kV. In Section 6 we develop cost estimates for 24.9kV options and 34.5kV options. It should be pointed out that a cable designed for 35 kV operation will have a substantial margin of extra reliability (insulation) when operated at 24.9 kV. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-13 Section 5 The above discussion for the low voltage option applies to the Southern Route. Because the Northern Route is longer and has less cable capacitance for reactive VAr support, the limits of Kake load triggering conversion to 34.5 kV will be smaller and will occur sooner. Based on the above we recommend that for the low voltage option the entire line be constructed to 34.5 kV standards, requiring only transformation in Petersburg and modification of transformation in Kake. The Kake transformer(s) could have a dual rated primary to facilitate conversion. It would be imprudent in our judgment to construct the line for maximum 24.9 kV operation. TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The following basis of feasibility design sets forth and discusses typical design criteria upon which construction cost estimates for transmission lines and substations are based. The basis was developed after consideration of design and operating experience of similar projects in Southeast Alaska. PHYSICAL LOADING Physical loading design criteria for transmission lines consist of several different cases of ice, snow, wind, and temperature combinations. It is recommended that a meteorological review of the Intertie route be performed in the final design phase to evaluate climatic conditions and mean recurrence intervals of extreme conditions and to identify route segments that may be subject to exceptionally severe climatic conditions, such as pass and coastal areas. Typical loading criteria and associated overload capacity factors for transmission lines occupying the lowlands of Southeast Alaska consist of load combinations similar to the following: 5-14 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN Table 5-4 PHYSICAL LOAD CRITERIA Load Case Load Combination Overload Capacity Factors Steel Struct., Guys Anchors Wood Struct. and Foundations. 1 National Electric Safety Code (NESC)- Transverse: 4.00 2.50 Heavy Loading Zone: 4 psf (40 mph) Vertical: 2.20 1.50 wind, 1/2-inch ice at 0°F, k factor = 0.3. Tension: 2.00 1.65 2 Extreme Wind - 26 psf (100 mph), 1.30 1.10 no ice, 40°F. 3. Extreme Ice - no wind, 1 1/2-inch 1.30 1.10 radial ice, 30°F. 4 Extreme Combined Snow and Wind - 1.30 1.10 2.3 psf (30 mph) wind, 2-inch radial wet snow, 30°F. Ice loads are based on a ice density of 57 lb/ft, whereas wet snow loads are based on a snow density of 37 lb/ft. STRUCTURE TYPE The basic tangent structure type selected for the 69/138 kV design alternative is a wood H-frame structure as shown in Figure 2. This structure has performed well on the Swan Lake 115 kV line since it went into service in 1983. All angle and deadend structures would be guyed. Large angle and deadend structures would use three poles each. All distances between conductors will be greater than 60 inches, a distance considered safe for eagles and other large raptors. Pole tops will extend approximately 18-inches above the H-frame’s cross arm to provide a preferred raptor perch. For the 24.9 kV alternative, Ebasco’s 1984 [2] study was based on using single pole structures and vertical post insulators, one on the pole top and the other two ona wood cross arm. However, this structure configuration is not raptor safe if the structure’s metal hardware is grounded, which is recommended. A raptor attempting to perch on this structure’s insulators or crossarm will be exposed to conductors and grounded parts that are much less than 60 inches apart. Electrocution will likely occur should an energized conductor and grounded part be touched simultaneously with fleshy body parts or with wet feathers. Since eagles prefer the firmer footing of wood cross arms to conductors or insulators, DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-15 Section 5 the raptor will also have to fly between two conductors to perch on this structure’s cross arm. For a more raptor safe 24.9/34.5kV structure, we recommend a single pole, armless configuration as shown in Figure 4. This structure provides an open pole top for perching with all conductors and grounded parts at least 60 inches away. This structure will require 10 ft to 15 ft taller poles than the structure assumed for the 1984 Study, but will require a few less feet of right-of-way width. Vertical phase spacing will be controlled by differential ice loading. Adequate spacing must be provided in order to maintain clearance between the upper conductor sagging under heavy ice and the lower conductor not loaded with ice or “jumping” after it has dropped its ice. If the upper conductor is framed 10 feet above the lower conductor, the maximum span for a 34.5 kV line designed for 1-1/2-inch differential ice is approximately 450 ft as determined using RUS guidelines. Pole sizes and framing dimensions will be essentially the same whether the line is constructed for 24.9kV or 34.5kV maximum operation, the only difference being a slightly longer insulator if designed for eventual 34.5 kV operation. Maximum spans as controlled by differential ice loading and right-of- way width may be a few feet less for the 34.5 kV line than for the 24.9 kV line due to 34.5 kV requiring a few more inches of clearance. Foundations for the wood pole structures are anticipated to be standard direct pole embedment except in muskeg or other poor soil areas, which will require special foundations. Possible muskeg foundations include stabilizing rafts combined with guys for single poles and cross bracing for H-frame structures, or driven H-piles supplemented with pole-shoes and where required, rock bolt anchors. ELECTRICAL CLEARANCES TO GRADE The NESC requires electrical conductors maintain minimum clearances over grade depending on the line’s voltage and use of the land underneath the line. These clearances must be maintained under final condition with the conductor sagging at its maximum operating temperature (120°F minimum) or, for heavy loading district, 1/2-inch radial ice at 30°F, whichever is greater. The vertical clearance for 24.9 kV and 34.5 kV are identical, e.g. 18.5 ft above roads and lands traversed by truck traffic. A 69kV line and a 138kV line would require approximately 8 and 25 more inches, respectively. Engineering judgment should be used to determine if clearances in addition to the minimum required by the NESC should be applied to a specific project. Due to the meteorological conditions and anticipated snow recreation activities in the area of the Intertie, a clearance criteria similar to maintaining 15 ft above five feet of ground snow under a 2-inch radial wet snow condition seems appropriate. Detailed clearance criteria should be developed with the aid of a meteorological review of the line route during final design. 5-16 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN In addition, a plotting margin, e.g. 4 ft, in excess of the design clearance should be applied above the surveyed ground elevations to compensate for conductor blow out on sidehills, survey and plotting inaccuracies, changes during construction, and other contingencies. CONDUCTOR SELECTION Conductor selection was based on criteria cited earlier, and conductor types and sizes in use Southeast Alaska. An appropriate conductor for the 69 kV alternative was found to be 336.4 kcmil 30/7 ACSR/AW (Oriole/AW). For the 24.9/34.5kV alternatives, 4/0 AGW 6/1 ACSR/AW (Penguin/AW) was evaluated to be an adequate conductor for basic minimum project load forecasts. ACSR/AW is stranded aluminum conductor reinforced with aluminum-clad steel (alumoweld) core. We recommend that a 266.8kcmil conductor be installed for the 24.9/34.5-kV alternative to help electrical performance under the sensitivity load cases. RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND TYPICAL SPAN LENGTHS Right-of-way will be based on reliability and access for maintenance. Since clearing and maintaining the right-of-way will be a major expense for the Intertie, considerable effort should be made in the final design phase to find an optimum balance between right-of-way width and maximum span length. Longer span lengths will reduce structure costs but will increase clearing costs. A typical right-of-way width for the 69 kV construction proposed for the Intertie is about 100 ft (see Figure 3). The maximum span length that will remain within a 100 ft wide right-of-way for a 69 kV H-frame line under extreme wind loading is about 850 ft. For a line designed to operate at 138 kV, the maximum span for this right-of-way is approximately 810 ft. Required right-of-way width would increase for spans longer than these and decrease for shorter spans. Average span length for the 69/138 kV alternative is estimated to be 800 ft. The 69/138 kV route will attempt to use more of a cross country alignment, i.e. longer tangent sections, than the single pole 24.9/34.5 kV alternative, yet still remain close to existing roads as much as possible. It is possible, and under further review could be deemed less costly, to construct the 69/138-kV option along roads as well using single pole construction. The 1984 Ebasco Study assumed a 55 ft right-of-way width for the 24.9 kV single pole, three-conductor alternative. See Figure 5. This construction was assumed to be used where the alignment followed existing roads. The study assumed an average width of 25 ft would have to be cleared on one side of the road. This structure type and right-of-way width would allow about a 500 ft maximum span to remain within the right-of-way while being blown-out by an 100 mph wind. Average span length would be around 300 ft, or about 18 structures per mile. Following existing roads will reduce clearing and access costs while making future DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-17 Section 5 maintenance easier, but will require a high percentage of angle structures, thus increasing guying and anchoring costs. As previously mentioned, using raptor safe, armless construction will require less right-of-way width. Using armless construction and a 50 ft right-of-way width will result in similar span lengths. For portions of the alignment not accessible by road, the 1984 Study proposed using special overhead cables to reduce the right-of-way clearing. The three insulated cables and one support wire would not require electrical clearances to each other, the structure or to adjacent vegetation, thus reducing the required right-of-way width. The study assumed a right-of-way width of 20 ft would be required for construction and maintenance operations in unroaded areas, estimated to occupy approximately 21.9 miles of the route in 1983. Additional roads along the proposed alignment have since been built or are planned to be built for timber harvest. From information obtained from the USFS, we estimate that only approximately 14 miles of the alignment will be inaccessible from existing roads if the Intertie is constructed in the next few years. The resulting decrease in overhead cable requirements reduces the attractiveness of using such special materials, although our estimates still assume they will be used for these 14 miles. SUBSTATION DESIGN OPTION 1, 69-KV INTERTIE SWITCHING STATION AT PETERSBURG TAP POINT This will be a new switching station located at or close to the tap point on the 69- kV line. It will consist of a circuit breaker with isolating switches, revenue metering equipment, underground power cable terminations and associated surge arresters. Distance relaying will protect the intertie and prevent outages on the 69-kV line to Petersburg for faults on the intertie. Station service power will be supplied from a 69-kV power voltage transformer. The relaying and metering equipment will be housed in a small outdoor enclosure. The station will require an area approximately 60’ x 70’ and will be enclosed by a chain-link fence. A ground grid will be installed extending about 3’ outside the fence line and a layer of crushed rock surfacing will be added to reduce step and touch potentials to within safe limits. SUBSTATION AT KAKE The intertie will be connected to the 12.47-kV system at Kake through a 1000/1500 kVA step-down transformer. The transformer will be protected on the high side by a circuit switcher and on the low side by a circuit breaker (outdoor, metal-clad type). Protective relaying and ancillary equipment will be housed in the switchgear enclosure. Station service power will be supplied from a pole- 5-18 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC SYSTEM CONCEPTS AND DESIGN mounted distribution transformer connected to the 12.47-kV bus at the powerplant. The station will be located adjacent to the powerplant and occupy a chain link-fenced area of approximately 60’ x 70’. A ground grid and crushed rock surfacing will be provided to bring touch and step voltages to within safe limits. OPTION 2, 24.9-KV INTERTIE PETERSBURG SUBSTATION The Intertie will in this option be connected to the 24.9-kV bus in Petersburg substation through a recloser with disconnects and a fused, recloser bypass disconnect. Revenue metering will be provided. We have assumed that the 24.9-kV bus can be extended with one bay within the existing fenced area. Such a future bay is indicated on IECO drawings TY-57-250 through TY-57-255 furnished to us by PMP&L. SUBSTATION AT KAKE The configuration of the substation will be similar to that in Option 1, but the step-down transformer will be provided with dual voltage, switchable between 24.9 kV and 34.5 kV. Furthermore, the transformer will be protected by a recloser on the high side. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 5-19 24’ TYP FOR 69KV 28’ TYP FOR 138KV DIRECT POLE EMBEDMENT IN POLE SHOE/H-PILE = FOUNDATION IN NON—MUSKEG SOILS MUSKEG/POOR SOILS ~ Wy Li TH" TRANSMISSION LINE ime FIGURE 2 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE TYPICAL WOOD H-FRAME 69/138KV TANGENT STRUCTURE S.C.S_K: \AAVO!\AAVOI0O! 1-16-96 @ 17:03 S.C.S K: \AAVOI\AAVOIOOS 1-10-96 © 14:35 DANGER TREE TO BE CLEARED (IF IT FALLS, WOULD CONTACT TRANSMISSION LINE) RIGHT—OF—WAY CLEARING 70-150 FT _ | 100 FT TYPICAL STABLE LOW GROWTH VEGETATION CAN REMAIN TYPICAL H—FRAME STRUCTURE FIGURE 3 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE TYPICAL 69/138KV RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION i [| - GROUNDWIRE WOOD RAFT STABILIZER IN MUSKEG/POOR SOIL USED WITH GUY ANCHORS FIGURE 4 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE TYPICAL 24.9/34.5KV ARMLESS TANGENT STRUCTURE S.C.S K: \AAVOI\AAVO1004 1-16-96 @ 17:12 CLEARING CLEARING ¢ ROAD | wee ip ba) « ; x SPECIAL OVERHEAD CABLE (UNROADED AREAS) FIGURE 5 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE TYPICAL 24.9/34.5KV RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION i“ S.C.S K: \AAVO!\AAVOI002 1-17-96 @ 08:55 S.C. K: \AAVOI\AAVO1006 1-16-96 @ 17:15 3.5 TO 4.0 INCHES SOURCE: Hubbell/The Kerite Company, 1992 COPPER CONDUCTOR INSULATION SYSTEM PERMASHIELD KERITE INSULATION PERMASHIELD KERITE INSULATION INSULATION SHIELD _ SEMICONDUCTING TAPE | 10 MIL COPPER TAPE ) ~~ 95 mi pvc JACKET BEDDING _____ STEEL ARMOR WIRES 140 MIL PVC JACKET FIGURE 6 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 138KV SUBMARINE CABLE Section 6 COST ESTIMATES rag Section 6 COST ESTIMATES INTRODUCTION This section addresses the cost estimates for the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. The two system concepts identified in Section5 were estimated as well as some variations. A summary of total project costs is presented in Table 6-1. All previous studies prepared cost estimates for construction of the Intertie for the purposes of evaluating economics and feasibility of alternative projects. In the present feasibility study we include cost estimates for right-of-way easements, permitting, right-of-way clearing, construction costs, engineering and construction management services, owners’ administration, timber sales credits and possible credits for road construction. We only developed a new, independent cost estimate for the 69 kV option using H-frame structures. For the other alternatives we adjusted previous study construction assumptions (e.g., an expanded, available USFS road system) and cost estimates based on engineering judgment and the cost escalation indices produced by Handy-Whitman [5]. In using this index for cost escalation we make the assumption that the extra costs for Alaskan construction projects are built into the original estimate. TRANSMISSION LINES 69-KV/138-KV H-FRAME CONSTRUCTION An estimate of costs for the 69 kV transmission line option was made based on major material cost quotes and crew make up and productivity rates. The cost table is included in Appendix D. Contingencies of 10% on design variations, 20% on material costs and 30% on labor costs were applied to appropriate elements of the project. Submarine cable installation costs were discussed with Pirelli Cable Company. A mobilization cost of 5% was applied due to the need to mobilize from different camps and location. Engineering costs (7%), construction management (5%), and owner's costs (5%) were included as a percentage of construction costs. A timber credit of $1.68 million was based on a yield of 20 mbf of merchantable timber per acre and market price of $200/mbf. Other details are shown in Appendix D. 24.9/34.5-KV SINGLE POLE CONSTRUCTION Our estimates for this construction were based on the 1982/84 Ebasco Study [2] and updated information for a more extensive road system. We assumed that, for Section 6 the purpose of this study, USFS roads shown as part of the Shamrock Timber Sale, would be available for intertie construction. The Handy-Whitman ind ex [5] was used to escalate the 1983 costs to 1996 cost levels. In addition, we applied an extra 10% contingency based on our level of confidence of the construction cost. We also added permitting ($350,000), owner's costs at 5% of construction costs, and a timber credit at $4,000/acre. Detailed cost sheets are included in Appendix D. Table 6-1 SUMMARY OF COSTS TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Basis Route Estimated (See Case Alternative Voltage Construction Cost Notes) 1 Southern 69-kV/138-kV _ H-frame, 1-3/c cable $19,735,000 1 2 Southern 24.9-kV/34.5-kV_ Single-pole, raptor proof $15,800,000 2 3. Southern 24.9-kV/34.5-kV_Single-pole, standard $15,710,000 3 4 Southern 138-kV H-frame, 3-1/c cable, shunt $34,953,000 4 Basis 1. R. W. Beck 1996 estimate. 2. 1983 Ebasco estimate, updated, Handy-Whitman Index escalation factor of 1.45, raptor-proof structure, 4/0 ACSR, 34.5-kV. 3. 1983 Ebasco estimate, updated, Handy-Whitman Index escalation factor of 1.45, standard RUS construction, 4/0 ACSR, 34.5-kV 4. 1987 Harza estimate, escalated at Handy-Whitman Index escalation factor of 1.35, planning level estimate. SUBSTATIONS Substation costs were estimated based on preliminary engineering judgment (69 kV option) and escalation of prior study costs (24.9/34.5 kV options) pending receipt of major equipment manufacturer input. 6-2. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC Section 7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Section 7 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION An economic analysis has been conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the potential development of the Intertie alternative. The economic analysis compares the cost of developing the Intertie and purchasing power for use in Kake to the cost of power production with diesel generation, Kake’s primary source of generation at the present time. Diesel generation is also the expected alternative to power purchases over the Intertie in the future. The economic analysis includes a review of the power supply needs of Kake over the next 20 years based on the load forecast developed by the University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) for Kake in 1995. The power supply analysis determines which generating resources are used in each year of the study period. The economic analysis then projects the comparable costs of power production in each year of the analysis, discounts these costs to January 1996 price levels and sums the present value costs into a single value, the cumulative present value, which can be readily compared between cases. Fixed costs of power production such as capital recovery of the existing generation system in Kake are not included in the analysis since these costs are expected to be the same whether or not the Intertie is developed. Projected costs included in the analysis have no inflation applied to them and an inflation free discount rate of 3.0% has been used. An important factor to consider in the economic analysis is that any energy purchased by Kake from the Lake Tyee hydroelectric project is assumed to be purchased at no cost. This assumption is consistent with previous studies and is based on the fact that there is essentially no additional cost associated with additional energy production at Lake Tyee. It is further acknowledged that Petersburg and Wrangell would have first rights to power generated at Lake Tyee and only power surplus to the forecasted needs of Petersburg and Wrangell is available to Kake. The potential interconnection of Ketchikan to the Lake Tyee project has not been considered in this analysis as directed by the Division. Although transmission lines have proven to be highly reliable they can and do fail periodically and are occasionally temporarily removed from service for maintenance and other purposes. If the Intertie were developed, power purchased over the line would be subject to interruption if the Intertie were to be unavailable for any reason. Consequently, the Intertie will not reduce the need to maintain generation capacity in Kake to supply backup power. Section 7 POWER REQUIREMENTS Power requirements for Kake used in the analysis were projected by ISER and presented in their report entitled “Electric Load Forecasts for Haines, Chilkat Valley, and Kake, Alaska”, dated August 11, 1995. ISER provided low, medium and high load growth scenarios for Kake based on alternative assumed economic conditions in Kake. We have used the ISER load forecasts for Kake directly except that computational errors in the medium and high cases were identified and appropriate corrections were made. The forecast of peak demand and total energy requirements for Kake for the low, medium and high growth scenarios as used in the analysis are shown in Table 7-1. Although the power requirements of Kake are relatively small, it was necessary to determine the surplus generating capacity of the Lake Tyee project after power sales to Petersburg and Wrangell. For this purpose, the future power requirements of Petersburg and Wrangell as forecasted by ISER in its report entitled “Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010”, dated June 25, 1990 were used. We have only used the medium scenario (base case) of load growth for this purpose. The forecast of power requirements, both peak demand and total energy requirements, for Petersburg and Wrangell are shown in Table 7-2. 7-2. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Table 7-1 KAKE ELECTRIC LOAD FORECAST (1) Low Case Mid Case High Case Peak Energy Peak — Energy Peak Energy (KW)___ (MWh) (KW) (MWh) __ (KW) (MWh) 1996 1,190 4,806 1,550 5,770 1,560 5,861 1997 1,200 4,850 1,560 5,880 1,800 6,594 1998 1,200 4,835 1,570 5,963 1,820 6,741 1999 1,190 4,818 1,580 6,055 1,840 6,887 2000 1,190 4,798 1,580 6,077 1,850 7,870 2001 1,190 4,771 1,590 6,099 1,890 8,169 2002 1,180 4,749 1,590 6,131 1,900 8,248 2003 1,180 4,736 1,590 6,166 1,910 8,329 2004 1,180 4,726 1,600 6,188 1,920 8,411 2005 1,180 4,716 1,600 6,215 1,930 8,497 2006 1,180 4,705 1,600 6,249 1,950 8,622 2007 1,180 4,694 1,610 6,278 1,970 8,781 2008 1,170 4,684 1,610 6,303 1,990 8,964 2009 1,170 4,678 1,610 6,330 2,020 9,172 2010 1,170 4,672 1,610 6,355 2,040 9,336 2011 1,170 4,669 1,620 6,387 2,060 9,478 2012 1,170 4,669 1,640 6,421 2,080 9,618 2013 1,170 4,670 1,640 6,459 2,100 9,753 2014 1,170 4,676 1,650 6,502 2,120 9,888 2015 1,170 4,682 1,660 6,545 2,140 10,025 Average Annual Increase (1996-2015) -0.1% -0.1% 0.4% 0.7% 1.7% 2.9% (1) Source: Electric Load Forecasts for Haines, Chilkat Valley and Kake, Alaska, prepared by ISER dated August 11, 1995. Values for the Mid Case scenario are adjusted for computational error included in the source report. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 7-3 Section 7 Table 7-2 PETERSBURG AND WRANGELL ELECTRIC LOAD FORECASTS (1) MID-CASE SCENARIO Petersburg Wrangell Peak Energy Peak Energy KW MWh (KW) (MWh) 1996 6,400 32,600 3,500 17,260 1997 6,500 33,050 3,500 17,440 1998 6,600 33,510 3,600 17,650 1999 6,700 34,040 3,600 17,900 2000 6,800 34,580 3,700 18,150 2001 6,900 35,060 3,700 18,380 2002 7,000 35,440 3,700 18,560 2003 7100 35,850 3,800 18,740 2004 7,100 36,320 3,800 18,960 2005 7,300 36,900 3,900 19,230 2006 7,400 37,560 4,000 19,540 2007 7,500 38,290 4,000 19,880 2008 7,700 39,070 4,100 20,250 2009 7,800 39,830 4,200 20,600 2010 8,000 40,540 4,200 20,940 2011 8,120 41,130 4,250 21,210 2012 8,240 41,750 4,310 21,490 2013 8,360 42,390 4,360 21,790 2014 8,500 43,050 4,420 22,100 2015 8,630 43,720 4,480 22,410 Average Annual Increase (1996-2015) 1.6% 1.6% 1.3% 1.4% (1) Source: Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska: 1990-2010, prepared by ISER, dated June 25, 1990. DIESEL GENERATION ALTERNATIVE Diesel generators presently supply the power requirements of Kake and it is presumed that without the Intertie, diesel generation will continue to supply the local power requirements. Without the Intertie, diesel generating capacity in Kake is projected to be expanded and replaced as needed to supply all power requirements. As an isolated electric system it is also necessary for Kake to maintain excess generating capacity in reserve. At the present time, the generating capacity in Kake is approximately double the peak demand. We have assumed that under all future circumstances the local generating capacity in Kake 7-4. DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS will exceed the peak demand by at least the capacity of the largest generating unit. THREA indicates that it is planning to replace the 500-kW diesel generator in Kake with a new or refurbished 855-kW diesel generator at sometime in the near future, possibly in 1996. Based on the power requirements of the medium and low growth scenarios the existing and planned generating capacity in Kake will be sufficient to supply all power requirements in Kake for the duration of the study period. For the high case, an additional diesel generator would be needed in 2008 to maintain sufficient resources. We have specified this additional generator to be a new 800-kW generator for the purpose of this analysis. INTERTIE ALTERNATIVE For the Intertie alternative it is assumed that the Intertie will be constructed and become operational in 1999. Energy will be purchased by THREA from the Lake Tyee project for delivery over the Intertie to Kake. Diesel generation will be maintained in Kake as backup to the Intertie, however, it would not be necessary to maintain as much local diesel generation in reserve if the Intertie were constructed. The existing and planned diesel generating capacity in Kake is expected to be sufficient under all load growth scenarios to provide backup capacity in Kake throughout the study period. At the present time, THREA indicates that there are two powerplant operators in Kake. With the Intertie, THREA expects that only one operator would be needed in Kake. A reduction in powerplant labor costs has consequently been assumed when the Intertie becomes operational. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS Several assumptions have been used in the economic analysis. The principal assumptions are summarized as follows: 1. The analysis period is the assumed economic lifetime of the transmission facilities of 30 years. All escalation in fuel costs and electric load growth is held constant after 20 years. 2. All costs are in uninflated 1996 dollars and are assumed to have 0% real annual escalation applied to them except fuel costs. 3. Fuel prices are escalated at two-thirds of the real annual escalation in oil prices as projected in the Alaska Department of Revenue’s Spring 1995 forecast. Resulting annual oil price increases are -1.18% and 0.45% per year for the low and high fuel cost scenarios, respectively. The initial fuel price is $0.80 in 1995 dollars. 4, Estimated future annual costs are discounted to January 1996 using an inflation-free discount rate of 3%. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 7-5 Section 7 5. New diesel generation capacity is estimated to cost $470 per installed kW and is added as needed in 800 kW increments. The capital costs of new diesel additions are to be recovered over a 20 year period at a real annual interest rate of 3%. 6. The operations and maintenance costs of diesel generation are 2.0 cents per kWh variable (approximating THREA system average variable costs for 1995) and $12.00 per kW fixed. Fixed O&M costs are applied to new diesel generators only since fixed costs related to existing generators will be incurred regardless of which scenario is actually implemented. 7. For the Intertie scenario, powerplant operator labor costs in Kake are assumed to be reduced by $40,000 in 1996 dollars, representing approximately 40% of total current labor costs, when the Intertie becomes operable. 8. Capital costs of the two Intertie alternatives (Southern Route Alternatives) are as shown in Table 6-1 for Alternative 1, $19,735,000 (69/138-kV construction), and for Alternative 2, $15,800,000 (24.9/34.5-kV raptor-proof construction), and are assumed to be recovered over a 30 year period at a real annual interest rate of 3%. 9. For the Intertie alternative, the Intertie becomes operational in 1999. 10. Annual operating costs for the Intertie are assumed to be $100,000. The operating costs would include O&M primarily but would allow some provision for insurance and interim replacements. 11. Average fuel consumption of Kake’s diesel generators is 12.5 kWh per gallon for existing generators and 13.5 kWh per gallon for new generators. 12. Annual average energy generation capability of the Lake Tyee project is 134,000 MWh. Average annual energy generation of PMP&L-owned hydroelectric resources is 10,000 MWh. 13. THREA will maintain sufficient diesel generation capacity in Kake to supply the peak demand and will maintain a generating reserve equal to the largest generating resource for the Diesel Case. With the Intertie, THREA would maintain diesel capacity in Kake to supply the peak load. RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The results of the economic analysis are summarized in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. Table 7-3 shows the cumulative net present value of comparable power costs for the Diesel Case and for the two Intertie scenarios, 24.9/34.5-kV and 69/138-kV. Alternative load growth and fuel cost scenarios have been developed for each of the resource scenarios to determine the sensitivity of the results to variance in these key input assumptions. The results shown in Table 7-3 should be compared across each line of the table because the varying load growth and fuel cost scenarios are mutually exclusive of each other. 7-6 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS As can be seen in Table 7-3, the Diesel Case would provide the lowest cumulative net present value over the 30-year analysis period for all load growth and fuel cost escalation scenarios except the high load growth with high fuel cost escalation case. For this case, the 24.9/34.5-kV Intertie scenario provides the lowest cumulative net present value. For all cases, the 69/138-kV Intertie alternative provides a higher cumulative net present value of comparable costs than the other two resource alternatives. The benefit/cost ratios shown in Table 7-4 are calculated as the cumulative net present value of the Diesel Case divided by the cumulative present value of the Intertie cases. The benefits of all the cases is defined as the offsetting of the diesel case. A benefit / cost ratio greater than 1.0 for an alternative indicates that the benefits of the alternative exceed its costs. In reviewing the results of the economic analysis it is important to note that the economic analysis as provided in this report evaluates the cost of power over an extended period of time. The near-term rate impacts of the alternative scenarios has been considered in the financial analysis. Table 7-3 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF COMPARABLE COSTS OF POWER (January 1996 $000) Intertie Intertie Scenario Diesel Case | (24.9/34.5-kV) | (69/138-kV) Medium Load Forecast, Low Fuel $10,022 $16,619 $19,957 Price Escalation Medium Load Forecast, High Fuel $11,493 $16,654 $19,991 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, Low Fuel $13,874 $16,741 $20,078 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, High $16,022 $16,778 $20,115 Fuel Price Escalation DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 7-7 Section 7 Table 7-4 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS BENEFIT/COST RATIOS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS (1) Intertie Intertie Scenario Diesel Case | (24.9/34.5-kV) | (69/138-kV) Medium Load Forecast, Low Fuel Price 1.00 0.60 0.50 Escalation Medium Load Forecast, High Fuel Price 1.00 0.69 0.57 Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, Low Fuel 1.00 0.83 0.69 Price Escalation High Kake Load Forecast, High Fuel 1.00 0.95 0.80 Price Escalation (1) The benefit/cost ratio is calculated as the cumulative net present value for the Diesel Case divided by the cumulative net present value of the specific Intertie Case. Benefit/cost ratios are calculated within each row of the table only. A benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that benefits exceed costs for the specific scenario. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS In order to evaluate the short-term impacts of the resource alternatives, a financial analysis has been performed. This analysis projects the annual comparable wholesale cost of power that Kake would realize under hypothetical financing conditions for the two primary resource alternatives, diesel generation and the Intertie. Costs of power production that are common to both resource alternatives, such as depreciation on existing equipment, are excluded from this analysis. For example, the cost of power for the Intertie alternative for each year is calculated as the summation of Intertie debt service, Intertie O&M, and supplemental diesel generation (if any) divided by the total energy requirements of Kake in that year plus the cost of power purchased from the Lake Tyee project ona cents per kWh basis. For the purpose of this analysis, the cost of power purchased by Kake from the Lake Tyee project has been estimated to be at either no cost (0.0 cents per kWh) or 6.6 cents per kWh, the current rate paid by the Four Dam Pool members for power purchases from the Four Dam Pool projects. The cost of power estimates have been developed using nominal costs (ie. including inflation) as opposed to the use of constant dollar costs as used for the economic analysis. The cost of power includes all related fuel, O&M, applicable 7-8 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC ECONOMIC ANALYSIS purchased power costs, and annual debt service on new generation and transmission projects. Debt service for the new projects is calculated using assumed financing and repayment parameters applied to the total financing requirement of the specific project. The cost of power has been calculated for the first ten years of Intertie operation, 1999 through 2008. The analysis further estimates the amount of State grant, or equivalent, that would be needed in order to reduce the financing requirements of the Intertie to produce a cost of power equal to equivalent diesel generation in the first year of Intertie operation. Several assumptions have been used in the preparation of the financial analysis. Many of these assumptions are the same as for the economic analysis. The primary assumptions that differ from those used in the economic analysis are as follows: 1. General inflation of 3.5% per year is applied to all costs. 2. Financing of diesel generator additions is assumed to be accomplished by THREA through loans with an interest rate of 8.0% and a 20-year repayment. 3. The Intertie is assumed to be financed through the issuance of debt at an 8.0% interest rate and with terms of a 30-year repayment period. 4. Interest during construction is accrued over the 24-month construction period of the Intertie and applied to the total financing requirement of the Intertie. 5. No financing costs associated with debt issuance are included in the total financing requirements of the Intertie or diesel generation. The results of the cost of power analysis are shown in Table 7-5 for both medium and high load scenarios. As can be seen in this table, the cost of power with diesel generation in all years, 1999 through 2015 is less than the cost of power for the Intertie cases where no State grant is applied toward construction costs. The amount of State grant necessary to produce “first year” power costs with the Intertie equal to diesel power costs has been estimated. These State grant amounts are $10,800,000 and $15,650,000 for the medium load/low fuel cost scenario without and with the charge for Lake Tyee power, respectively. State grants of $9,500,000 and $15,050,000 are estimated to be needed for the high load/high fuel cost scenario without and with the charge for Lake Tyee power, respectively. DKP_INT.DOC R. W. Beck 7-9 Section 7 KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY Table 7-5 SUMMARY OF COST OF POWER ANALYSIS COMPARABLE ANNUAL COST OF POWER (Nominal ¢/kWh) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 91 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.5 10.7 11.0 11.2 115 11.8 121 12.4 12.7 13.0 13.3 13.6 14.0 14.3 14.7 15.0 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Intertie 24.9-kV No Power Cost (1 Diesel No Grant_Grant(3) 91 98 10.0 27.5 27.4 27.4 27.3 27.2 27.1 27.1 27.0 26.9 26.9 26.8 26.8 26.7 26.6 26.5 26.4 26.3 91 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 91 9.8 10.0 34.6 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.1 34.0 34.0 33.9 33.9 33.8 33.7 33.6 33.5 33.4 4DP Power Cost (2) No Grant_Grant(4) 91 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.9 9.2 9.9 10.2 10.6 10.9 11.2 116 121 125 12.9 13.4 13.9 15.2 15.7 16.3 16.8 17.4 18.0 18.7 19.3 High Loads, High Fuel No Power Cost (1 Diesel No Grant _Grant(5)_ 9.2 9.9 10.2 24.2 21.2 20.4 20.3 20.1 20.0 19.8 19.6 19.2 18.9 18.5 18.2 18.0 17.8 17.6 17.4 17.2 (1) Assumes power purchased from the Lake Tyee project for Kake has no cost. (2) Assumes power purchased from the Lake Tyee project for Kake is priced at a fixed rate of 6.6 cents per kWh. (3) Assumes a State grant of $ 10.8 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (4) Assumes a State grant of $ 15.65 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (5) Assumes a State grant of $ 9.5 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. (6) Assumes a State grant of $ 15.05 million is applied toward construction costs of the Intertie. Intertie 24.9-kV 9.2 9.9 10.2 10.6 94 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 4DP Power Cost (2) No Grant_Grant(6)_ 9.2 9.2 9.9 9.9 10.2 10.2 31.3 10.6 28.3 10.2 27.5 10.1 27.4 10.1 27.2 10.1 27.1 10.1 26.9 10.2 26.7 10.1 26.4 10.1 26.0 10.1 25.6 10.1 25.3 10.1 25.1 10.1 24.9 10.1 24.7 10.1 24.5 10.1 24.3 10.1 7-10 DCRA-Division of Energy DKP_INT.DOC BIBLIOGRAPHY ag ae BIBLIOGRAPHY {1] Transmission Intertie, Kake-Petersburg, A Reconnaissance Report, prepared by Robert W. Retherford Associates for the Alaska Power Authority, January 1981. [2] Tyee-Kake Intertie Project, Detailed Feasibility Analysis, Volumes I and II, prepared by EBASCO, Inc. for the Alaska Power Authority, 1984. [3] Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study, prepared by Harza Engineering Company for the Alaska Power Authority, 1987. [4] Lake Tyee to Swan Lake Transmission Intertie Feasibility Study, prepared by R. W. Beck for the Alaska Energy Authority, 1992. [5] Handy-Whitman. DKP_INT.DOC Appendix A EBASCO DETAILED ROUTE MAPS aa m—_—S Ae 7 em ae en = ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY L TYEE — KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT y .. | DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RNA DUNCAN CANAL CROSSINGS FIGURE 4-3 EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MITCHELL SLOUGH ihe TREES : NS , 3 : ea LINDENBERG PENINSULA IN CENTERLINE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE CLEAR-CUT AREA ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TYEE ~ KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ROOKERY ISLAND ! DUNCAN — CANAL CROSSING FIQURE 4- A SCALE IN MILES EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE 4 > ROUTE THROUGH PASS BETWEEN DUNCAN CANAL AND HAMILTON CREEK ais 29 MILE EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE | FIGURE -4-6A EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED a : Cf AC eS ee = ST <B Z \ rN OT —- = ; S SL ys GZ vd ie fi - . D&S AON? Sh > \ TYEE — KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OVERHEAD “ TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE FIGURE 4-6C EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED o w 2 z z bad 2 9 @ KAKE INTERTIE PROJECT | DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS | ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY TYEE OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE FIGURE 4-6D EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED Appendix B SEALASKA LANDS AND MENTAL HEALTH TRUST LANDS aaa TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 400 WILLOUGHBY AVENUE, SUITE 400 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99801 RECEIVED SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE Fax. ——_fo07) 586-2054 Vv ocT 3.0 1995 DIVISION OF LAND RW. BECK SEATTLE, WA ro / G3) } a ( Jt ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO: October 26, 1995 | File sae ter atejet—cle2 ods 104 David Hoopes RW Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue. Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Re: Mental Health Land Dear Mr. Hoopes: Enclosed are three copies of our status plats in the vicinity of your proposed cable crossing. The areas shaded in orange are mental health trust land. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Andrew W. Pekovich, Regional Manager ey, BLL Bob Palmer Retained Lands Officer Enclosures 10-J35LH pert 22,76 7% Pwin oni yaa NAIR mye ve oo. eee eee ly STATUS PLAT (SUPPL.) DETAIL hs beea Oi 54 eu st cry gor UPR ANOF SCALE uPRE eee 4 WINEH ALIENS APTECTING DISPOSAL Om USE OF S*ATE (ANOS TwP PART SUR, ALL SECS 22, 27-29, 32-34, FRAC SECS 18, 21, 26, 35,36, PLAT Y PVE 10/28/29 SUPPL SUR SEC 29, PLAT A Pet 6. 1/53 USS 16% #LAT BPFVO $82 USS 1.32. FLAT ASP aCEN9 USS e8r4, PLAT apply. 11/847 ATS 9% FLAT SPOKE 3/158. ATS 184, AAD APE areas? ATS 182 AA PD #2063 ATS 250, PLAT MPPYD B/3/64 ATS 496, PLAT API ~a/IY/CO DETAIL Sosby Island - aco 4 ATS st, FLAT aD eset 40206. Tro. AUN TO CITY OF PETERSAURG SUBD OF ATS-9 ane AIS £17 Prot Arsed 1/20/77 Uae | ieee OLE Cheng #2, 6/50/79 ATS 519 Prot Filed U/ 3/81 SCALE MS e 9-FEe Loe tt A mipet Ot 8,85 88; eee Pee 3 fuer 2719783 Setersburg Chy Bdy Per Cectiticate Dated 4/11/78 wipreonet Oty By Por Certificate Dotes 9/5/73 et tt 2 choine = tin (ATTENTION: MENTAL HEALTH LAND INFORMATION __ Camignatad Mental Heart Trust Land pursuant to seca. 4 and 5, ch. 1, SSSLA 1994, Consut US for turtrer information. Original Maraat Heakn Grant Lana (MI) not shown as Meckal Henke Trust Land is recasgnated as Generel Grart Land pursuant to s8cs. 6 and 7, ch. 1, SSSLA 1994 Const LAS for turthes iformanon. ci USS 1282-A ‘Subd. TOLS ADDN, (OSL -403 TO CITY OF PETERSBURG LOT T-zol SEE DETAIL “8” REUPANN “7S ‘ PETERSBURG * i {SNe per Vil Aeln 4 Les Secs 77,27 TOV'NSHIP 59S RANGE 79c AF THE COPFER RIVER MERIDIAN, ALASKA , n m Q nN ol ses ee mer TENTED ol 6 BS SUEYEY ests LAP eto foier US SOREN ZEEE, TSM, ACCERTEL C- 19-41 Raplot of Sec. to's 3-7 Sec. 22, & Sec. lot 5 Sec. 23, Craonny tracts 1-12; Plat Agpud 10/21/69, Fle # 36-18 2. Entiraly w/in Perarsburg Cty Bdy Per Certificate Doted 4/11/78 ATTENTION: MENTAL HEALTH LAND INFORMATION ® Designated Mental Heath Trust Lard pursuant wo secs. 4 and 5, ch. 1, SSSLA 1994 Consult US for turtrer information. Original Morea Heath Grant Land (MH) oot shown as Mental Heath Trust Land is redesignated 1s General Gram Land pyrsuant to secs. 6 and 7, ch. 1, SSSLA 1994. Consult LAS for furter formation. CL Grave 5€-80-018 NOTE ORIGINAL MYLAR NOT FILMASLE APERTURE CARO MADE FROM A | XEROX copy H kse ore ~ 19 + SBP 10559 a . 44 Lori” noReeie MecKeo By YUN GRE p"sccenea iy Eo TOWNSHIP SECTION MASLS 79-182 59S RANGE 79E v cry gov 2 104903 PeTEPS8URG CF T ‘OPPER RIVER MERIDIAN, TAI 027 c/-Grabr Sé-80-0/5 1234437 unm 64 Tre AW 0.80 e/w Mithol way. 44 05:3 s0ze2ie 1a Por 46° Vosr3 ALASK4 “Ss STATUS = PLAT (SUPPL.) vaverec SECS P58 AT ACCEPTED 8, PLAT ACCES TEC 2-2 CEFTED 8-19-41 ATS HMR PLAT keeROVED 9~ 4-62 Replat of Sex ler $-7, See 22 @ See. Ker 5, See 2%, Creating tracts 1-12; Plat. Aawd w/2i/63, File 36-102 USS 2464 SUPPL PLAT ACCEPTED 5/3/61 Peversburg Cty Bdy Per Certiticote Dated 4/1:/78 "ATTENTION: MENTAL HEALTH LAD INFORMATION Designated Maren Health Trsst Land pursuart fp sect. 4 and §, ch 1, SSSLA 1994 Conwutt US for further information Original Mental Hearth Grant Land (MH) not srown as Mental Health Trust Land is redessgnaied as General Grart Land pursuant to secs 6 and 7, cn 1, SSSLA 1994 Consuut LAS for further information. wye ae HOT FILMABLE ECARD MADE FROM A xEROX COPY | cweenes omy paps fid HO J.A.W. K:\AAVOI\AAVO1007 1-17-96 @ 11:00 aL iy) 21 0 0.5 1 SCALE IN MILES LEGEND: SEALASKA SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE 7 SEALASKA SUBSURFACE ONLY PRIORITY 1A SELECTION PRIORITY 3 SELECTION PRIVATE OWNERSHIP KEKU ISLETS ;— ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2, NORTHERN ROUTE }— ROUTE VARIATION, t— ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1 SOUTHERN ROUTE NOTES: 1. DIGITIZED FROM “SEALASKA CORPORATION, KAKE WITHDRAWAL”, MAP DATED JULY 10, 1995. 2. THIS MAP ONLY SERVES TO GENERALLY INDICATE THE LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON THE NORTHWEST TIP OF KUPREANOF ISLAND RELATIVE TO SEALASKA LANDS. THIS MAP IS NOT AN AUTHORITIVE DOCUMENT AS THE EXTENT OF SEALASKA OR ANY OTHER LANDS. TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE FIGURE B-1 STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY . AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF ENERGY KAKE TO PETERSBURG INTERTIE KAKE MAP SEALASKA KAKE WITHDRAWAL Appendix C AGENCY AND PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE OTH TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 400 WILLOUGHBY AVENUE, SUITE 400 ras er SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE FAC. —fe0r) 586-2084 DIVISION OF LAND October 3, 1995 David Hoopes RW Beck 2101 Fourth Ave., Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Mr. Hoopes: I have made a preliminary review of your proposed routes and found that the majority of the routes will be on federal land and we have no comments concerning the environmental conditions. My only concern is the potential crossing of Mental Health Trust land. The litigation of these lands has been resolved and you should identify those lands early on so that you can begin to discuss your proposal with the trust. If you need assistance in identifying Mental Health Trust lands, please let me know. Sincerely, Andrew W. Pekovich, Regional Manager ey, BLIA_ Bob Palmer Retained Lands Officer 10-J35LH TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 3601 C STREET, SUITE 1278 DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION oe OFFICE OF HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY FAX: (807)762-2628 October 19, 1995 File No.: 3130-2R DCRA Subject: . Petersburg-Kake Intertie; Route Selection David T. Hoopes R. W. Beck 2101 Fourth Ave., Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Mr. Hoopes; Thank you for your letter on the referenced project. A few historic and archaeological sites have been added to our inventory in the general project area since the 1987 feasibility study. We are not transmitting specific information on them at this time because the route map provided is of poor quality and at a scale that is incompatible with our inventory maps. It will be provided when the route is planned at a level that allows mapping on a finer scale, preferably 1:63,360 (1" = 1 mile). This should not present a problem relative to the feasibility of the project. It is our experience that transmission line routing is sufficiently flexible to avoid historic and archaeological sites. Numerous archaeological surveys have been done in the general project area, mostly related to timber sales. Some additional survey may be necessary in the future, but it is not expected to be extensive. Please contact Tim Smith at (907) 269-8722 if there are any questions or if we can be of further assistance. rely, w ONS Zee Judith E. Bittner State Historic Preservation Officer JEB: tas 1970 - 1995 Celebrating 25 Years of Alaska State Parks U.S. Department Commander P.O. Box 25517 of Transportation Seventeenth Coast Guard Juneau, Alaska 99802-5517 District Staff Symbol: oan United States Phone: (907)463-2245 Coast Guard 16590 NOV 6 |995 Mr. David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. R. W. BECK 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Mr. Hoopes: In regards to your recent letter, the Coast Guard does not regulate aerial power transmission lines that cross navigable waters. Therefor, a permit will not be required for your proposed electric transmission line interconnection between Petersburg and Kake, Alaska. Regulatory authority for this activity rests with the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the Waters and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (U.S.C. 401 and 403). The Coast Guard does, however, regulate highway bridges, railroad bridges, foot bridges, aqueducts, aerial tramways, conveyors, pipelines, gauging cables and similar structures of like function. If you have any questions, please contact me at 463-2248. Sincerely, Sime lam J. N. HELFINSTINE Chief, Bridge Section, Aids to Navigation & Waterways Management Branch U. S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commander Copy: (1) Alaska District Corps of Engineers UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMER National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio National Marine Fisheries Service P.O. Box 21668 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668 October 11, 1995 David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Sal — Dear Dr. Hoopes: This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1995, regarding the Petersburg-Kake Intertie. You requested information about permits related to the proposed project. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not issue permits for any aspect of this type of construction project. The species present in the general vicinity of Behm Canal subject to consultation with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are listed below: Endangered Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Snake River sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Threatened Snake R. fall chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Snake R. spring/summer chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus None of the above species are known to frequent the Frederick Sound waters more than occasionally. Sighting of humpback whales and Steller sea lions are known through anecdotal reports. We compared the sketch of the two possible routes to a map of known high-use Steller sea lion haulout areas. There are no mapped Steller haulout areas along the route. Work not involving marine waters is unlikely to affect these species, but if interactions are suspected, the federal agency authorizing or constructing the intertie must provide a determination as to the nature and extent of the action's impacts on listed species. x Sincerely, etE Steven T. Zimmerman Chief, Protected Resources Management Division re oe i 7 « nme es “erent o al United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Southeast Alaska Ecological Services 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801-7100 IN REPLY REFER TO: October 19, 1995 Mr. David T. Hoopes R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121-2375 Re: Petersburg - Kake Intertie; Route Selection Dear Mr. Hoopes: By letter dated September 29, 1995, you requested our comments on the subject project. A review of our files indicates that in 1983 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service preferred the southern route over the northern route. The map provided with your letter shows alternative routes similar to those referred to in our 1983 response to the Alaska Power Authority. Therefore, if the routes have not changed significantly, the Service continues to support the southern route. The southern route will have fewer adverse impacts on those fish and wildlife resources which fall under our purview than the northern route. Sincerely, Nevin D. Holmberg Field Supervisor United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Migratory Bird Management-Raptors 3000 Vintage Blvd., Suite 240 IN REPLY REFER TO: Juneau, Alaska 99801-7100 David T. Hoopes October 20, 1995 Environmental Coordinator R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Mr. Hoopes: This is in reply to your letter of 9/29/95 regarding the Petersburg-Kake Intertie. The potential for electrocution and aerial strikes of bald eagles and other large birds can be a serious problem on poorly designed and located powerlines. In general, powerline corridors should be located away from the coastal shoreline habitat used by bald eagles. Powerlines adjacent to the coast are incompatible with bald eagles because of the obstruction of flight paths to feeding areas and the potential for aerial strikes. Powerlines that cross anadromous streams which seasonally provide an abundant food supply for eagles are also hazardous. A protective buffer zone of at least 330 foot radius should be Maintained around bald eagle nest trees. I have placed the number and general location of known bald eagle nests on a copy of the Route Alternatives diagram (enclosed). Unmarked areas have not been surveyed for eagle nests. As this project gets closer to reality, we can provide guidelines for activities such as blasting and aircraft use that may occur near eagles and their nests. Please contact me or Phil Schempf at (907)586-7243 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Thike peter Mike Jacobson Eagle Management Specialist PREFERAED ROUTE ane WILDERNESS BOUNDARY “ALTERNATIVE: poms EXISTING T/LINE ROUTES ELIMINATED ‘teamed EXISTING/PLANNED ROADS: EROM FURTHER SCREENING tatty SPETENSHUN his Aaophega PI se : o i 3 . . $ é A us bees ok SOUTHEAST INT ERTVE PROVECT Sette SE Bs Bob ae donna peer aan HARE A ERGINELIUNG COMPANY October 24, 1995 Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1276 (907) 586 - 1512 FAX (907) 586 - 1826 David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Dr. Hoopes: Sealaska Corporation is in receipt of your September 29, 1995 letter to Johan Dybdahl regarding the Petersburg-Kake Intertie. Future correspondence on this project should be sent directly to my office. Sealaska's policy is to cooperate in energy development projects whenever it will benefit Sealaska, our shareholders, or ANCSA Village and Urban Corporations. An intertie from Petersburg to Kake, that can provide reliable power at rates that are competitive and will not harm current utility providers, will clearly benefit the community of Kake. It appears from the maps in your letter that the utility corridor will cross Sealaska lands. I have enclosed maps showing property ownership in the Kake area. To gain unrestricted access it will be necessary that R.W. Beck enter into a trespass agreement with Sealaska. If the project is feasible, a property lease for the transmission line will be required. We have negotiated similar lease agreements with other utility providers. The rates developed in these agreements would be a useful starting point as you evaluate project feasibility. Sealaska has additional data that might benefit your project including: e GPS control digital orthogonal photographs (1991 photography) R.W. Beck Page 2 e Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) e It is possible to acquire DTMs at 10' contour intervals from the 1991 photography. If you might need these data sets please contact us. We look forward to cooperating on this project. Sincerely, SEALASKA Ti Robert W. Cher Executive Wice President cc: Harris Hillman Dybdahl Bob Martin, THREA Lonnie Anderson, Mayor Kake Gordon Jackson, Kake Tribal Corporation Albert Kookesh RWL/RPH:mlh tlincit & halda REGional electrical authority PO. Box 210149 © Auke Bay, Alaska 99821 ¢ (907) 789-3196 November 2, 1995 David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator RW Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121-2375 Dear Dr. Hoopes: Re: your letter of September 29, 1995 regarding the Petersburg- Kake Intertie. Tlingit Haida Regional Electrical Authority (THREA) is entirely in favor of the project and supports the project whole-heartedly. As the major purchaser of energy over the proposed intertie, we favor the route which offers the least cost from an operational basis, and we believe that would be with a route which has the greatest percentage of associated roads. Second, we would favor a line with the lowest capital cost. If you have not yet done so, I would encourage you to contact both Sealaska Corporation and Kake Tribal Corporation, both of which own surface and subsurface lands in the areas traversed by the proposed line. While I do not anticipate any opposition, both corporations are very sensitive to any proposed activity on their lands. Sealaska also maintains an extensive computer mapping system and may be able to provide copies to you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, | Robert Martin, Jr., PE General Manager C0: Sentse lo CITY OF PETERSBURG P.O. BOX 329 * PETERSBURG, ALASKA 99833 TELEPHONE (907) 772-4511 TELECOPIER (907) 772-3759 October 23, 1995 David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Dear Dr. Hoopes: Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1995, requesting input from the City of Petersburg regarding the feasibility of an electric transmission interconnection between Petersburg and Kake. The City Council considered and discussed the potential corridors currently being examined. The Council concurred that I should contact Mayor Anderson of Kake directly, requesting Kake’s route preference and their concerns regarding environmental and land use issues that may affect the selection of one route over the other. Mayor Anderson, at this time, simply requested support from the City of Petersburg for the project without identifying one route over the other. By this letter, please be advised the City of Petersburg supports the project in concept and appreciates your efforts to keep the city informed as to the progress of the project. ity of Petersburg Larry Roberts S- Emmalee Blender Rocking 2 BS B on beautiful Yupreanof /sland Prost Office Box 1175 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Optervlainarluta ——Vup ik (Always Getting 2eady —£skimo) Peter Freer SERO Supervisor Department of Community and Regional Affairs Post Office Box 112100 Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100 Dear Mr. Freer: A news report on KFSK last Monday stated that R. W. Beck is updating the Petersburg-Kake electrical power intertie route selection for DCRA. Only two routes are being studied. The southern route is preferred for the ease of engineering and is located at a great distance from the City of Kupreanof. The northern route, while closer, also appears to be located as far as possible from the Kupreanof city limits. My husband and | are residents and landowners in the City of Kupreanof. Along with Mr. and Mrs. Harold Bergmann, we have been actively pursuing a project to have the City of Petersburg construct a power line extension to our two households. There have been at least two other households in the city limits that have also expressed an interest in obtaining power. The line extension project would involve obtaining various federal and state permits to complete an underwater crossing. In addition, the City of Kupreanof would have to give permission to the City of Petersburg to supply electricity. The City of Petersburg would also need to modify an ordinance and would have some changes to make in the service area limits. The City of Petersburg has been very helpful during this process. However, the various facets of the project such as engineering design, power line location, permits and construction appears to be overwhelming for some of the Kupreanof council members. Certainly funding for the project is a significant concern. The Kupreanof city council has been discussing the proposed line extension from Petersburg since February 1995. | anticipate the discussion will continue for several more months. The Kupreanof Policy Plan (1985) indicates the City of Kupreanof does not plan to supply any essential services (such as potable water, fire protection and electricity). However, the document states that permission would be granted to all people seeking to obtain power from the electrical grid. At this point in time, | am not sure permission will be granted for the line extension. The most vocal objects of the power line are from the Kupreanof city council and the Narrows Conservation Coalition. | understand the major objection of the power line project is the completion of the Forest Service road system from Kupreanof to Kake. These groups appear to believe the environmental damage and negative social changes from connecting the cities with a logging road are greater than the advantages of not having power. While | am neutral on the issue of the road, | believe that most of the effects can be mitigated with open and complete discussions between the communities. | believe the majority of residents of Kupreanof will desire electricity in the near future. This will most certainly be true if the Petersburg-Kake intertie is constructed. | feel strongly that if the Petersburg-Kake intertie is not located in such a manner to allow an economical Kupreanof connection, this will be unfortunate for the entire area. Electricity for the residents of Kupreanof is essential for the economy, environment and well being of the citizens. Also, | have a great respect for the City of Kake and understand their need and desire for a steady and affordable power supply. | support any effort made in that regard, even if it means leaving the City of Kupreanof in the dark ages. Sincerely, Enmalec, london Emmalee Blender Cc: David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator, R. W. Beck Linda Snow City Manager, City of Petersburg Lonnie Anderson Mayor, City of Kake Robin Taylor Senator, State of Alaska Ben Grussendorf Representative, State of Alaska Emmalee Blender on beautiful Yupreanof /sland Prost Office Box 1175 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 Opterrlainarluta —Var ik (Always Getting 2eady —--£skimo) David T. Hoopes, Ph.D. Environmental Coordinator R.W. Beck 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98121-2375 Subject: Petersburg-Kupreanof-Kake Intertie; Route Selection Dear Mr. Hoopes: After our telephone conversation on 170CT95, | received a copy of the interested parties letter from you. | shared the letter and map with the Kupreanof city council at their November meeting. Mr. Dennis Lewis, City of Petersburg Power and Light Superintendent also made a short presentation and answered questions on the possibility of obtaining power from the City of Petersburg. This can be accomplished with either a line extension or taking advantage of the Petersburg-Kake intertie. Mr. Lewis pointed oui that the ieast costly instailation for Kupreanof would probably be to do it when the Petersburg - Kake intertie was constructed. The route of the intertie received much interest. The Kupreanof city council doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a feasibility and actual design. They wanted much more detail that was available. Mr. Lewis surmised that for the north route, the cable would be laid underwater from where it leaves Mitkoff Island (about 3 miles south of Blunt Point) to a location on Kupreanof Island (about 5 Mile). This raised a lot of questions with no answers. Mrs. Sprague was very interested in the possibility of the cable being underwater near her home on Sasby Island. Mr. Lewis also thought that if the southern route was taken, it would go up the Duncan Canal side of the Lindenburg Peninsula and be at most five or six miles from City of Kupreanof. If the city ever wanted electricity, a transmission line could be extended to the city limits. Where the funds would come from was a question. Mr. Lewis left the council with the idea that the City of Kupreanof would probably be forced (by State and Federal agencies) to obtain power in order to meet environmental requirements. And that at that point, upgrading the living conditions of the current residents would be a secondary benefit rather than the motivating factor. | was wondering why the north route didn’t take off from the treatment plant on the northwest side of Mitkoff Island, go underwater to Prolewy Point on Kupreanof Island. (See enclosed map.) | know that the City of Petersburg’s long range plan is to construct a vehicle bypass route between Scow Bay and the airport. (The area around the airport has been proposed for commercial and industrial zoning.) With the bypass constructed, the transmission line could be extended along that route to the existing treatment plant. At the same time, the City of Petersburg could move the extremely noisy diesel generators from the current downtown location to a substation on the transmission line. After Mr. Lewis left, there was further discussion on this subject. Mrs. Sharon Sprague, Chair of Planning and Zoning, stated that the City would only change when forced to change. The reason stated is that electricity will bring development and more people. This appears to be an undesirable state for her and her husband. (An aside note: Even though the Sprague household has had the benefit of a hydroelectric plant for many years, Dr. and Mrs. Sprague appears to be unwilling to allow other Kupreanof residents to also have that standard of living.) Even with all the apparent negative attitude towards getting grid electricity from Petersburg, the Kupreanof council passed a resolution to further explore the possibility of obtaining power for all residents. | told them that | would write to you and ask if you had more detailed information on the actual locations of the power line as it lands on the shores of Kupreanof Island. Do you have any more details on the two routes? If you do, could you send it to us? The next council meeting won't be until early January 1996. It probably would be best to send it to the council at the address below. Thank you for your time. Getting electricity from the grid is a very important step to helping reduce or eliminating some environmental concerns as well as increasing the living conditions to the residents of southeast Alaska. I’m hopeful that the council will change its stand. Sincerely, Ex Blinder Emmalee Blender Dave Beebe, Mayor Sharon Sprague, Chair, Planning and Zoning City of Kupreanof Post Office Box 50 Petersburg, AK 99833 TERSBRURS CRE PE AB 3 Re PE VERSAURG ee FOREST oe DEPARTIIENT OF FISH AND GAME = °:,°: = * February 23, 1987 RECEIVER 27, , -~ Ocon Ferdney vas PEI Consultants -1225 Tongass Avenue 37 ren 4 AN 23 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Bear Don: RE: Southeast Intertie The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has revieved preliminary routes which have been identified as potential alternatives for the southeast intertie electrical grid system. It is our understanding final alignments may vary as much as 5 to 10 miles from the alternatives presented on the maps. In response to a previous letter from Rick Reed, Habitat Division. Regions!) Supervisor in Juneau, we understand you are preparing master maps which incorporate dsta fram our Habitat Management Guides and Anadromous Waters Catalog. This information needs to be included in environmental disclosure documents which will need to be prepared for all portions of this intertie. This Department has identified the following additional conflicts or concerns which need to be addressed before finalizing the route for the intertie: 1. Underwater lines may conflict with commercial bottom fisheries. Areas used to longline for halibut, black cod, rockfish or other species and for commercial trawling should be avoided in selecting the underwater routes. Final alignments should be thoroughly reviewed by, representatives of the Commercial Fishing industry. 2. Underwater lines should avdid anchorages and sites used for mariculture activities. 3. Surface lines need to avoid aerial crossing of estuaries, wetlands and intertidal areas freauented by uaterfoul, shorebirds, eagies and other evian species. &. Surface lines need to avoid crossing productive portions of anadromous fish streams which gre frequented by eagles and other birds which feed an salmon or their eggs. Use of Fluorescent of colorec balls on povres may reduce this problem. Ib Don Fordney --2- Febrcary 23, 19287 ai) 5S. Timber cut for right-of-say clearing adjacent to anadromous fish streams needs tao be felled avay from the watercourses. Preferred crossing sites will be in upper portians of streams in areas with lover volume class timber with lesser value riparian habitat. 6. Extensive spans across valleys used by migratory birds pose a navigational hazard te both birds and man. Such spans should be avoided. 7. Surface lines need to be spaced to preciude electrocution of eagles when they spread their wings. 9. Routes need to avoid high use recreation areas such &§ Forest Service cabins, and hunting and fishing areas where individuals are seeking quality recreational experiences, ' 10. The project should consider and be phased into other plans for the area including the Forest Service's . Revilla Island Plan, fhe Prince of Wales Area Plan and Local Coastal Management Programs. 11. Legal and other concerns regarding the impacts of the project on established wilderness area which will be affected by the intertie need tao be addressed, In addition. we have the following site specific comments which are identified by map number: 1. Skaguay (B-1) Powerline supports should avoid materials sale sites along the Skagway River. A route which parallels the highway or railroad will have less additional impact on habitat than one sited guay from these transpartation corridors. This portion of the route needs to avoid mountain goat habitat and productive portions of anadromous fish streams including Pullen Creek where eagles and other birds will concentrate. 2. Skagway (C-1) This portion of the route should be located to avoid areas used by mountain goats and important salmon spauning areas where eagles and other bird species concentrate. 3. Juneau (C-3) Following the Glacier Highway route would Jessen impacts which would result if a second “transportation" corridor is developed further inlend but may conflict with a number of eagle nesting sites. The inland route would impact wettands along the interior corridor as well as adversely affecting recrestiona] experiences on the Windfall - Montana Creek Tradl. This is a high-use recreational area. A || \ ; Con Fordney -3- Febcuary 23, 1927 Forest Service cabin 36 located on Uindfall Lake. The crossing af the Herbert River - Eagle River - Uindfall Laxe valley bottom is an extensive wetland high in fish and wildlife values. Eagles concentrate in this area in response to salmon spauning activity. Any road constructed in conjunction with the intertie would have edverse impacts on the wetlands. We recommend extension of the submarine cable along the Juneau C-3 map portion of the route. Juneau (B-3) A number of trails including the Windfall — Montana Creek Trail are Jocated along this portion of the proposed route. Recreational experiences would be adversely affected by construction of the powerlines through this high use area, A submarine cable usuld be preferable in order to avoid wetlands. A second best alternative would be to follow the Glacier Highway along this section of the route. Juneau (B-2) We recommend this portion of the intertie avoid Montana Creek Wetlands including the Wincfall - Montana Creek Trail. This wetlands within Brotherhood Park located downstream from the junction of Montana Creek with the Mendenhall River should alsc ba avoided because of high recreation values. Juneau (A-3) The portion of the sine to the Greens Creek Mill on Admiralty Island reaches the shore approximately a mile and a quarter north of the terminus of the road to the Greens Creek Cannery. The line then uses a separate corridor up Fowler Creek and - ends at the cannery site. It would seem more logical te follow the roadway and continue to the Greens Creek Mill. The underuater cable crossings af Chatham Strait and Stephens Passage need to avoid conflicts with black cod and ether longline fisheries. Sumdum (A-6) This portion of the route needs to avoid important salmon spawning habitat with consequent eagle concentrations in lower Schooner Creek and Point White Creek. Portions of the route in the Gunnuk Creek oo, cross the watershed for the City of Kake water supply. Petersburg (D-6) Construction of portions of the line paralleiing Gunnuk Creek needs to consider maintenance of water quality in tha City of Kaké’s water supply. The line needs to avoid crossing lower Gunnuk Creek where large number of salmon attract eagles anc other birds. Hib Den Fordney -a- February 10. Portions of the line in this area should foliow USFS logging roads rather than crossing overland. & crossing of the Hamilton River will be of particular concern, This is a major salmon stream along which eagles and ether avian species concentrate during the salmon spauning season. Petersburg (D-5) The Tine could follow existing and proposed roads over a portion of this route. Towers Lake and Towers Arm are important waterfoul concentration areas which should be avoided» A number of salmon spawning areas and wetlands are crossed in this section of the route. Attention needs to be paid to minimize impacts on migrating waterfowl, eagles and other birds. : Petersburg (D-4) All proposed routes across the narrow neck of land between upper Duncan Canal and Portage Bay cross a major waterfow! migration path. This partion of the route should avoid large open areas. The upper route crosses anadromous fish streams at the head of Portage Bay in close proximity to their mouths. This is the type of anea in which eagles and other birds are attracted to concentrations of spauning salmon. Again, such areas should be avoided. . The middle route crosses the lover portion of the tributary to the Duncan Canal Salt Chuck where eagles are also expected to concentrate. This portion of this alternative needs to consider impacts on eagies and other birds. The lower route across the entrance to the Duncsen Canal Salt Chuck is unacceptable unless the line can be fully buried because of extremely high waterfow!] and human recreational use» This portion of the route may need to be designed to- minimize impacts on wilderness values of the Petersburg Creek - Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Area> A proposed crossing of Tuelvemile Creek needs to be moved upstream away from high value salmon spawning areas which will attract concentrations of eagles anc other avian species. ‘Petersburg (C-4) Lower portions of salmon streams alons Duncan Canal need tc be avoided to protect eagles. A crossing of Duncan Cana! is totaljy unacceptable unless it 4s completely submerged including the e ‘F sive intertidal areas. This is one of| the malo aterfaoul \fi He Don Fordney S- Februery 23. 1987 [concentration areas in southeast Alaska. Ouncan Canal is / siso the location of a shrimp trau) fishery which precuces [as much as 80 percent of the total shrimp catch in !" Southeast Alaska. Representatives of the commercial! shrimp V trawl fishery should be contacted regarding potential conflicts with use of this site. f it ff 12, Petersburg (€-3) A Tine across Wrangell Narrows would i] have to be buried or submerged from tree line to tree ‘ Tine in order ta avoid conflicts with large concentrations of migrating and overwinterins uaterfou]. This area also supports important commercial erab and pot shrimp fisheries, 14. Petersburg (0-3) A line crossing Fivemile Creek would need to be located further upstream to avoid extensive Salmon spawning areas with consequent hish use by eagles and cther birds. A crossing of Urangel] Narrows in this area would need to be submerged and buried to avoid impacts on a major waterfowl and shorebind migration and overwintering ares. Many thousands of birds travel up and down UWrange!! Narrows across this route several times a day from October through early April. Tideflats on the Kupreansf side of the Narrows are usec extensively by feeding waterfoul and for recreational and subsistence purposes by grea residents. The portion of the line across these flats would also need to be buried. 15. Sitka (A-3) The route needs tc address the private j property at Manleyville (Baranof Warm Springs) and the? idantified hatchery site on the south side af the bay- The route from Takatz should follow the proposed cross Baranof route for the Takatz hydro plent, (and il associated road). The residents of Manteyville have i expressed concerns over the aesthetic problems of ‘| constructing @ pipeline corridor and may have major ~ 4 problems with this project as proposed. The option of 1 going ashore at Takatz should be explored. a 16. Sitka (A-4) The route needs to gc around Green Lake. 17. Bradfield Canal (A-5) This portion of the route needs to maximize the distance between the line and Eagle River. This system supports a building run of: chinook egalmon and habitat degradation by cutting the ROW close to the stream needs to be avoided. A Forest Service cabin on Eagle Lake should also be completely avoided to protect its recreational values. Don 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 2c, Fordney -6- Feoruarty 23. 1927 Craig (B-1) The south end of the Kasaan Peninéula is 6 major trclling area. doth for commercial and sport fishing purposes. Craig (C-2) The proposed portions of the route at the heads cf Tolstoi Bay and Windfall Harbor cross the mouths of several anadromous fish streams. These are high-use areas for bald eagles and other birds which need to be avoided. Ketchikan (C-2) The line needs to avoid the mouth of Calamity Creek because of eagie and other bird concerns associated with mouths of anadromous fish streams. Ketchikan (B-4) The proposed middle route crosses through the Gokachin Lakes area which has particularly high recreational values: We recommend against selecting this alternative in this portion of the intertie. Ketchikan (B-3) The portion af the route on the east side of Short Pass needs to be aligned to avoid conflicting with a good bottom fishery. Bringing the line ashore further inside Smeaton Bay rather than at Point Trollup will have Tess serious impacts on wilderness values of Misty Fiords National Monument. Ketchikan (B-2) The crossings of bath the Wilson and Blossom Rivers are in high value salmon spawning areas with consequent high use by eagles and other avian species. The specific site of this crossing and method of crossing will naed to be closely cogrdinated with ADF&G. The crossing of the Keta River will also need to be considered. The proposed route crosses the Keta in an area with a braided channele It may be preferable to cross this river where the watercourse is confined in a single channel. The portion of the route between the Quartz Hill Mine and the Keta River is along @ mountainside which supposediy could not be used for an access road to the mine as ADF&G recommended because of high avalanche danger» This hazard needs to be considered. Ketchikan (B-1) The route ciosely follows Tombstone River before crossing it near the River’s mouth. This is a particularly important salmon stream which needs to be avoided slong its entire length» This would be an undesirable location for such a crossing: It may be more desinable ta avoid crossing this system entirely and enter Portland Canal on the north side of the Tombstone River. Don Fordney -?- February 22, i987 Please recagnize that the abcve comments, which have been assembled on short notice, are in respanse to a recent verba: request regarding initial scoping for the project. As such, these comments are of a very preliminary nature and do not constitute a full or detailed review of the environmental concarn$ which may be associated with the intertie, This Department needs to be involved during planning for construction of each phase of the intertie. During the review of EIS’s and ACMP consistency determinations we vill have more datailed site specific comments. Fish habitat permits will need to be issued for crossings of anadromous fish streams and may prescribe timing for activities within the wstercourses, as well as limit other inuater activities. Ue look forward to participating in planning phases throughout the development of the Southeast Intertie. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, iin Comclie a: Don Cornelius ¢ Area Habitat Biolbgist ce: R. Reed, ADFS. Juneau J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan . Hardy, ADFG, Sitka » Hall, AOFG, Juneau » Mayer, DGC, Juneau . Petrie, APA, Anchorage volnD United States Department of the Interior RECeive, IAN oa --. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE YAN 23 Ye; Raptor Management Studies PE; IN REPLY REFER TO P.O. Box 021287 Consultants, ing. Juneau, Alaska 99802-1287 (907) 586-7243 Don Fordney January 20, 1987 PEI Consultants, Inc. 1225 Tongass Avenue Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Dear Mr. Fordney: I appreciated the opportunity to attend the Juneau meeting 1/15/87 concerning the Southeast Intertie Study. I have some general comments to make which may be useful in your planning efforts: Powerline corridors should be located landward of shoreline bald eagle nesting habitat. Powerlines adjacent to the coast are incompatible with bald eagles because of the obstruction of flight paths to the eagles' feeding areas and the potential for aerial strikes. Powerlines across streams are hazardous to eagles during salmon spawning when eagles concentrate in large numbers and flight paths along the stream are perpendicular to the powerlines. Preferred nesting areas are prominent points, small islands, narrow passages with tidal currents, and shorelines exposed to large bodies of water, especially those facing into the predominant winds. Clearcut logging should not occur along the shoreline in these areas. The heads of bays and backwater sloughs with little or no tidal current are used by fewer eagles for nesting. Clearcuts. adjacent to shorelines destroy bald eagle nesting habitat for at least 200 years. Timber harvest within 1/8 mile of the beach is not recommended. A protection zone should be maintained around bald eagle nest sites. All land use activities should be excluded within 330 feet of an eagle nest. Ninety-two percent (92%) of bald eagle nests in Southeast Alaska are within 100 yards of the coastline. The average distance from nest to shoreline is 40 yards. If the upland terrain is relatively flat, the nests will tend to be close to the shoreline. If the terrain is steep, the nests may be located up to 600 feet in elevation. Helicopters should not hover within 1500 vertical or horizontal feet of occupied nests- Please let me know if you would like additional information. Sincerely, Vi ih partis VV Mike sacenoll Eagle Management Specialist 11-K58LH a eee € Trial cr! (iG 1S \ STEVE COWPER, GOVERNOR 1 ey Hite L Wb LAA is WU DEPART MENT OF FISH AND GA ME P.O. BOX 667 PETERSBURG, AK 99833-0667 PHONE: (907) 772-3801 July 17, 1987 Donald L. Shira _- : Director/Program Development, ,.. RE-FIVED e Alaska Power Authority P.O. Box 190869 —— Anchorage, AK 99579-0869 7 §L 24 AIC 5 Dear Mr. Shira: The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft Southeast Alaska Transmission Intertie Study prepared by Harza Engineering Company. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft copy of this document. We note that this study is primarily an economic and engineering analysis which only lightly touches an environmental concerns and effects on southeast Alaska resource user groups. On page 1-2, Task Description 5 included environmental investigations as part of this study. The only discussion of what impacts may result was a brief section on portions of pages 6-3 and 6-4. Elsewhere in the document references to environmental effects merely said they would occur. There was no real comparison of magnitude of these impacts. In section 6 the document often states that one alternative is preferred over another for environmental reasons, but these reasons are not substantiated. In comparing numbers of anadromous streams crossed, minor streams that may only support small runs of salmon are rated equally with major spawning systems. In reality one crossing close to the mouth of a major system could have far more impact than a number af crassings at preferred sites further upstream. Anticipated environmental impacts from the intertie will occur in the construction and maintenance of the line as well as from the physical presence af the poles and conductors. Activities including equipment access, water withdrawals, camp and staging area location, blasting, slope cuts, slope stabilization, clearing/brushing of the right-of-way, slash burning, helicopter disturbance and submarine cable placement all have impacts on fish and wildlife and users of these resources. Each affected habitat; streams/lakes, wetlands, estuaries, tidal areas, steep hillsides and old growth forest has its particular group of species which may be affected and needs tao be considered. Donald L- Shira -2- July 17, 1987 On page 1-1 the document refers ta the "need to establish criteria ta guide development of future segments" of an intertie- Our concern is that this guidance is occurring without fully considering effects of the project on fish and wildlife and consequently, on individuals who use and depend on these resources. Decisions regarding route locations or even if lines will be built will be made based upon this study before these issues are even addressed. We do not feel this study is adequate to determine environmentally preferred routes for this project. We trust that environmental impact studies far each portion of the project will be completed before selection of final route locations can be made. The Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Forest Service all have a great deal of resource information which needs to be collected and analyzed in these EIS’s. Throughout the document there are references to cast/benefit ratios, but nowhere is it stated who pays the costs and who benefits. Cost/benefit ratios need toa include casts to resource user groups, including decreased benefits to users of fish and wildlife, in order to be meaningful. Many of these costs are ongoing and should be considered as permanent. One item with which we do not agree was a statement an page 6-4 that collisions of waterfowl with conductors is not expected to be significant. This does nat take into consideration that much of the intertie route is frequently shrouded in fog or low clouds which may obscure visibility for waterfowl. This combines with the fact that many waterfowl] movements occur in early morning and late evening under poor lighting conditions and that major migrations frequently occur at night. An example which demonstrates our concern occurred locally when two trumpeter swans were killed when they struck the transmission line from the Crystal Lake Power Project which had been suspended across Blind Slough, an important waterfowl concentration area. We believe the statement made in the document regarding this issue is not entirely correct. Another potential problem area which is not adequately addressed is the effect of submerged cables on longline and crab fisheries. This conflict will be more extreme in areas where the submerged line will span underwater pinacles.- Generally rock fish harvest areas will be lacated in shallower waters (20-80 fathoms), halibut at mid depths (40-100 fathoms) and sablefish and king crab in deep areas Donald L- Shira -3- ‘ July 17, 1987 (king crab at 100-150 fathoms and sablefish fram 150-500 fathoms). A major area of concern is the deep water to the north of Kupreanaf Island where 10 to 20 percent of the northern southeast Alaska sablefish catches are made. Conflicts with fisheries would be less severe in cases where bottom contours are flat, but in instances where "seamounts" are spanned by submarine cables, conflicts detrimental to the fishing industry with consequent long term casts may be expected. An item of concern is the discounting of agency suggested routes based on incomplete studies. For example, it may cost $14 million to construct an underwater route between Bridget Cove and Juneau (over 2 1/2 times the cost of a surface route). However, the document states that changing technology may change the economic picture, but this document “guides development" away from a submarine cable. Resource and social considerations may be sufficient to warrant extra expenditures in this portion of the route and we are concerned that alternatives are being prematurely discounted. We note that segment 14, the Hawk Inlet to Hoonah to Sitka route, had a negative recommendation. We concur with that recommendation. This route includes the environmentally sensitive Kadashan drainage as wel] as a USFS LUD II area next to Lake Eva. Canstruction of an overhead transmission line in these areas would have biological impacts that would be of concern to this Department. Route alignments need to consider policies for al] LUD II areas which may be impacted and the public provided the opportunity to comment. The only discussion of siltation impacts refers to the effect of burial of the line across intertidal areas adjacent to submarine cable entry paints. Another area of concern is that, in essence, each line segment is ane long clearcut logging unit. A number of environmental impacts to both fish and wildlife are associated with removal of timber from these areas and need to be addressed. Removal of this timber needs to be conducted in a manner to preclude lagging across numerous anadromous fish streams and their tributaries. Streambank integrity needs to be protected both during and after the construction. We also have the following specific comments: 1. Table 6-1: The biolagical constraints should include mountain goat kidding and wintering areas and longline Donald L. Shira -4- July 17, 1987 pelagic fish harvest areas. A habitat quality and resource quantity factor needs to be included in these evaluations. 2. Page 6-4, paragraph 1: The 200 foot setback from streams should be increased to at least 300 feet, but will be limited by geographical constraints. Tributaries to anadromous fish streams important for water quality also need to be protected. 3. Page 6-4, paragraph 2: The reference to turbidity needs to include streams where the effects can be more lang lasting. 4. Page 6-4, paragraph 5S: Muskeg/wetlands also provide important habitat for deer, bear, moose, shorebirds and other terrestrial and avian species with recreational, subsistence and non-consumptive values. 5. Page 6.1-2, last paragraph: This is the only mention of mountain goats which are very susceptible to disturbance, particularly by helicopters. 6. Page 6-2-3, paragraph 3: Waydeleigh Creek is also a designated anadromous fish stream. 7. Page 6-2-3: The Selection/Recommendations do nat compare long term losses to the resources with: short term economic gains. This is an example of the reference to cast/benefits covered in our general discussion. 8. The Skaguay-Haines-Juneau portion of the route passes through important mountain goat habitat in Echo Cove as well as several wetland/salmon stream complexes. Again, we recommend the submarine cable route be selected in preference to the overland routes along this section of the line. Finally, ADF&G staff made a number af comments in our letter of February 23, 1987 which is included in appendix D- We would like to reiterate our comments in that letter and are enclosing an additional copy of that letter with these comments. This Department feels that given the magnitude and potential impacts of this project, that far more biological data needs to be evaluated before any decisions are made. Given the apparent time which is available before any segments will be Donald L- Shira =- July 17, 1987 constructed we urge the Alaska Power Authority to begin collection of relevant data early in the planning process so that it is available for inclusion in necessary environmental impact statements. Thank you for the opportunity ta comment. We look forward to working with your staff and their consultants in this important planning effort. Sincerely, Qh. Onn On Don Cornelius Area Habitat Biologist ec: R. Reed, ADFG, Juneau J. Gustafson, ADFG, Ketchikan D. Hardy, ADFG, Sitka J. Hall, ADFG, Juneau Appendix D COST ESTIMATE BACKUP TABLE D-1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE 24.9/34.5 kV OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE 1983 UNIT ITEM UNIT QNTY COST TRANSMISSION PLANT Land and Land Rights Structures and Improvements Substation and Related Equipment Roadside Clearing (includes removal) Right-of-way Acres 77.36 $4,664 Danger trees Trees 2545 $46.64 Unroaded Clearing costs only Right-of-way Acres 67.73 $7,462 Danger trees Trees 4384 $46.64 Removal Costs (0-2 miles off road) Right-of-way Acres 15 $13,992 Danger trees Trees 1200 $116.60 Subtotal Wood Poles and Fixtures Roadside (REA Type) Each 457 $2,214 Unroaded (for aerial cable) Each 260 $2,006 Wood Plank Stabilizers (muskeg areas) Each 31 $6,017 Subtotal Conductor, Cable and Devices ACSR Conductor (266.8 kemil) Mile 91.17 $8,441 Overhead Cable (266.8 kcmil, Al. cable, Mile 21.92 $65,581 conductors, support wire and access.) Underground Conductor and Devices Submarine Cable Mile 1.59 $573,987 End Terminals (two sets of surge LS arrestors and potheads) Subtotal INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS Temporary Construction Facilities LS Construction Equipment LS Camp and Commissary LS Superintendance, Timekeeper, Clerk, etc. LS Insurance w/wage rates Mobilization widirects Subtotal SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Contingencies Design Engineering and C.M. LS Subtotal ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY PERMITTING OWNERS ADMINISTRATION TIMBER CREDIT TO PROJECT acres TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ROUNDED AMOUNT NOTES: Adjusted for 1983 to 1995 escalation factor = 1.45 Adjusted for additional existing roads adjacent to alignment. Adjusted for use of smaller (4/0 ACSR) conductor. 1983 COST $360,807 $118,699 $505,401 $204,470 $209,880 $139,920 $1,011,798 $521,560 $186,527 $769,566 $1,437,536 $912,639 $65,300 $135,300 $317,200 $906,700 $28,000 $886,000 $860,000 1983 TOTAL$ QNTY COST $18,700 $30,800 $211,700 $1,539,177 $1,719,885 $3,185,041 $1,387,200 $8,092,503 $1,746,000 $9,838,503 $9,840,000 1995 UNIT 1995 $27,115 $100,000 $306,965 101.15 $6,763 $684,057 3330 $68 $225,201 43.51 $10,820 $470,774 2814 $68 $190,305 15 $20,288 $304,326 1200 $169 202,884 $2,077,548 575 $3,225. $1,854,548 167 = $2,909 $485,753 31 $8,725 $270,464 $2,610,765 114.72 $11,016 $1,263,699 14.07 $95,092 $1,337,951 1.99 $832,281 $1,656,239 $94,685 $4,352,574 $196,185 $459,940 $1,314,715 $40,600 $2,011,440 $11,486,406 $1,284,700 $1,247,000 $2,531,700 10% $1,148,641 1 $350,000 $350,000 5% $775,837 145 $4,000 + —- ($580,000) $15,712,584 $15,710,000 Increased for modifing 5 miles of Tyee-Petersburg 138 kV line to accomodate second 24.9 kV underbuild circuit. 1. 2. 3. 4. Increased submarine length per 1987 bathymetric surveys. 5. 6. Increased for 34.5 kV insulation. TOTAL $ NOTES 1 5 1 12 12 12 12 1 1 126 12 123 12 1A Ree TABLE D-2 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE 24.9/34.5 kV OVERHEAD "RAPTOR PROOF" TRANSMISSION LINE nn rrT/tsEE-a=v<—-aInEnnnEINSnW<¥<>--SInnIREREI Orc? <—nnnnRInE Ore 7 c= COREE Fs Vs aa 1983 UNIT 1983 1983 1995 UNIT 1995 ITEM UNIT QNTY _ COST COST TOTAL$ QNTY COST TOTAL$ NOTES TRANSMISSION PLANT Land and Land Rights $18,700 ~ $27,115 1 Structures and Improvements $30,800 $100,000 5 Substation and Related Equipment $211,700 $306,965 1 Roadside Clearing (includes removal) Right-of-way Acres 77.36 $4,664 $360,807 91.03 $6,763 $615,618 = 1,2,7 Danger trees Trees 2545 $46.64 $118,699 3330 $68 $225,201 12 Unroaded Clearing costs only Right-of-way Acres 67.73 $7,462 $505,401 43.51 $10,820 $470,774 12 Danger trees Trees 4384 $46.64 $204,470 2814 $68 $190,305 1,2 Removal Costs (0-2 miles off road) Right-of-way Acres 15 $13,992 $209,880 15 $20,288 $304,326 1 Danger trees Trees 1200 $116.60 $139,920 1200 $169 $202,884 1 Subtotal $1,539,177 $2,009,108 Wood Poles and Fixtures Roadside (REA Type) Each 457 $2,214 — $1,011,798 575 $3410 $1,960,923 1,268 Unroaded (for aerial cable) Each 260 $2,006 $521,560 167 $2,909 $485,753 «1,2 Wood Plank Stabilizers (muskeg areas) Each 31 $6,017 $186,527 31 $8,725 $270,464 1 Subtotal $1,719,885 $2,717,140 Conductor, Cable and Devices ACSR Conductor (266.8 kcmil) Mile 91.17 $8,441 $769,566 114.72 $11,016 $1,263,699 1,23 Overhead Cable (266.8 kemil, Al. cable, Mile 21.92 $65,581 $1,437,536 14.07 $95,092 $1,337,951 1,2 conductors, support wire and access.) Underground Conductor and Devices Submarine Cable Mile 1.59 $573,987 $912,639 1.99 $832,281 $1,656,239 1A End Terminals (two sets of surge LS $65,300 $94,685 1 arrestors and potheads) Subtotal $3,185,041 $4,352,574 INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS Temporary Construction Facilities LS $135,300 $196,185 1 Construction Equipment LS $317,200 $459,940 1 Camp and Commissary Ls $906,700 $1,314,715 1 Superintendance, Timekeeper, Clerk, etc. LS $28,000 $40,600 1 Insurance w/wage rates - - Mobilization w/directs = - Subtotal $1,387,200 $2,011,440 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $8,092,503 $11,524,342 Contingencies $886,000 $1,284,700 1 Design Engineering and C.M. LS $860,000 1,247,000 1 Subtotal $1,746,000 $2,531,700 ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY - 10% $1,152,434 PERMITTING - 1 $350,000 $350,000 OWNERS ADMINISTRATION - 5% $777,924 TIMBER CREDIT TO PROJECT acres - 135 $4,000 ($540,000) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $9,838,503 $15,796,399 ROUNDED AMOUNT $9,840,000 $15,800,000 NOTES: 1. Adjusted for 1983 to 1995 escalation factor = 1.45 2. Adjusted for additional existing roads adjacent to alignment. 3. Adjusted for use of smaller (4/0 ACSR) conductor. 4. Increased submarine length per 1987 bathymetric surveys. 5. Increased for modifing 5 miles of Tyee-Petersburg 138 kV line to accomodate second 24.9 kV underbuild circuit. 6. Increased for 34.5 kV insulation. 7. Adjusted for narrower right-of-way. 8. Adjusted for taller poles. TABLE D-3 ROUTE: Southern Route TYPE ESTM: Feasibility FILE: D\AKAKE\SRWHF.XLS Conductor: ORIOLE ESTM: PED PROJ: KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE, 69 KV (CHECKED: GDH PSA: 11-00145-10101-0102 APPROVED: CONST: 69-kV Wood H-Frame Construction LABOR ALL DOLLARS AS OF: 12/195 ROW_:__ USFS, Tongass, Petersbury Ranger District CREW 1 CREW 2 Line No. Description Qty Unit Unit Cost | CREW] rate/yhr] Hrs [CREW] ratehr] Hrs | Unit Cost Extended Extended Subtotal Material PU PU Labor Material Labor Line length is 4620 mi | | 1 69-k V WOOD POLE HFRAME 2 Structures pole cost str 3 TAN 65/2 600 u ea $1,200 STR2] $686] 6.0 $4,114 $13,200 $45,256 $58,456 4 HFI 70/2 700 22, ea $1,400 STR2| $686] 6.0 $4,114 $30,800 $90,511 $121,311 5 2 75 825 144 ea $1,650 STR2| $686] 6.0 $4114 $237,600 $592,439 $830,039 6 80/1 950 22 ea $1,900 STR2} $686 | 65 $457 $41,800 $98,054 $139,854 7 85/1 1,300 15 ea $2,600 STR2| $686] 7.0 $4,800 $39,000 $71,998 $110,998 8 90/1 1,750 7 ea $3,500 STR2] $686] 7.0 $4,800 $24,500 $33,599 $58,099 9 LA 65/1 650 1 ea $1,300 STR2] $686] 6.0 $4,114 $1,300 $4114 $5,414 10 GHF 70/1 750 3 ea $1,500] STR2] $686 | 6.0 $4114 $4,500 $12,342 $16,842 1 2 75/1 825 19 ea $1,650] STR2] $686} 6.0 $4114 $31,350 $78,169 $109,519 12 80/1 950 3) ea $1,900 STR2] $686] 65 $4,457 $5,700 $13,371 $19,071 13 85/1 1300 2 ea $2,600 | STR2| $686] 7.0 $4,800 $5,200 $9,600 $14,800 14 90/H1 2000 1__ea $4,000] STR2] $686] 7.0 $4,800 ‘$4,000 $4,800 $8,800 15 MA 65/1 650 1 ea $1,950 STR2| $686] 6.0 $4,114 $1,950 $4,114 $6,064 16 3P 70/1 750 3 ea $2,250 STR2} $686} 6.0 $4,114 $6,750 $12,342 $19,092 17 3 75/ 825 19 ea $2475] STR2| $686 | 6.0 $4,114 $47,025 $78,169 $125,194 18 80/1 950 3 ea $2,850 STR2] $686] 65 $4,457 $8,550 $13,371 $21,921 19 85/1 1300 2 ea $3,900 STR2] $686] 7.0 $4,800 $7,800 $9,600 $17,400 20 90/H1 2000 1 ea $6,000 STR2| $686] 7.0 $4,800 ‘$6,000 $4,800 $10,800 21 DE 65/1 650 1 ea $1,950 STR2] $686] 6.0 $4114 $1,950 $4,114 $6,064 22 3P 70/1 750 2 ea $2,250 STR2] $686] 6.0 $4,114 $4,500 $8,228 $12,728 23 3 75 825 10, ea $2,475 STR2] $686] 6.0 $4,114 $24,750 $41,142 $65,892 a 80/1 950 2 ea $2,850 STR2| $686] 6.5 $4,457 $5,700 $8,914 $14,614 25 85/1 1300 1 ea $3,900 STR2] $686] 7.0 $4,800 $3,900 $4,800 $8,700 26 90/1 2000 oO ea $6,000 STR2] $686] 7.0 $4,800 $0 $0 $0 7 Framing 28 HF Tangent 221 ea $635 | CON3} $509] 2.0 $1,019 $140,335 $225,118 $365,453 29 HF Light Angle 29 ea $915] CON3} $509] 2.0 $1,019 $26,535 $29,540 $56,075 30 3P Running Angle 29° ea $900 | CON3} $509] 2.0 $1,019 $26,100 $29,540 $55,640 31 3P Deadend 16 ea $2,385 | CON3] $509} 8.0 $4,075 $38,160 $65,192 $103,352 32, Grounding 295 ea $100 STR2] $686] 0.3 $171 $29,500 $50,570 $80,070 33 Foundations M4 Select Backfill 1A75 y $3 FDE1] $658] 0.1 $66 $4425 $97,095 $101,520 35 HP Footings 59 ea $1,750 FP1] $440} 4.0 $1,759 $103,250 $103,766 $207,016 36 Guys and Anchors 37 Guys 372 ea $125} ANCI] $298] 0.5 $149 $46,525 $55,443 $101,968 38 Anchors (Log) 314__ea $150] ANC1}] $298] 15 $447 $47,130 $140,409 $187,539 39 ‘Conductor 1 Cts $1.60 40 336 ACSR 30/7 0.4951 462° ckt-mi $10,661 | CON1} $3,014 4 $12,057 $492,538 $557,022 $1,049,560 41 Sagging and Clipping 462 ckt-mi $150 | CON2] $1,008] 16 $16,121 $6,930 $744,787 $751,717 42 Dampers 89 ea $60 | CON3} $509} 0.5 $255 $5,310 $22,537 $27,847 43 Aerial Marker Balls 20 ea $200 | CON2} $1,008] 1.0 $1,008 $4,000 $20,151 $24,151 44 Line Arresters 21__ea $350 | CON3}] $509] 05 $255 $7,350 $5,348 $12,698 45 Right-of-Way 46 100 Clearing 75% 420 ac $100 |] ROWC} $350 | 12.0 $4,200 $42,000 $1,764,000 $1,806,000 47 Slash Treatment 420 ac $100 | ROWS] $350] 4.0 $1,400 $42,000 $588,000 $630,000 48 0 Main Roads - Terrain I 50% 0 mi $1,500 FDE1| $658] 48 $31,597 $0 $0 $0 49 0 Main Roads - Terrain IV 50% 0 mi $750 FDE1] $658] 24 $15,799 $0 $0 $0 50 0 Access Roads -Primitive 50% 0 mi $750 FDE1] $658] 24 $15,799 $0 $0 $0 51 Construction Surveying 462 mi ‘$50 SU1] $169 | 12.0 $2,024 $2,310 $93,500 $95,810 52 Helicopter Pads 0 ea $2,000 STR1] $601] 80 $4,805 $0 $0 $0 53 Submarine Cable 69 kV Option 1/16/96 5:16 PM COST_EST.XLS Southern Route Estimate 69 kV 1 TABLE D-3 ROUTE: Southern Route TYPE ESTM: Feasibility FILE: D\KAKESRWHF.XLS Conductor: ORIOLE ESTM: PED PROJ: KAKE-PETERSBURG INTERTIE, 69 KV CHECKED: GDH PSA: 11-00145-10101-0102 APPROVED: CONST: 69-kV Wood H-Frame Construction LABOR ALL DOLLARS AS OF: 12/195 ROW _: _ USFS, Tongass, Petersbury Ranger District CREW CREW? Line No. Description Gy Unit] Unit Cost | CREW | ratehhr] Firs | CREW] ratelhr] Hrs | UnitCost ] Extended Extended Subtotal Material PU pu_| Labor | Material Labor 4 1-369 KV Cable EPR, Armor Tt mit $120,000 | SPECI] $5,000 | 6.0 $30,000 $1,320,000 $330,000 $1,650,000 55 Potheads, 69 kV 12 ea $750 | sPEC1| $5,000] 05 $2,500 $9,000 $30,000 $39,000 56 Arresters, 40 MCOV 12 ea $300} sTRi] $601] 10 $601 $3,600 $7,207 $10,807 57 Support Structures 4 ea $1,000] sTRi] $601] 80 $4,805 $4,000 $19,218 $23,218 58 Bathymetric Surveys 2 ea $0] spEc2| $800 | 80.0 $64,000 % $128,000 $128,000 59 Civil Works Terminals 4 ea $25,000] sTRi| $601 | 32.0 $19,218 $100,000 $76873 $176,873, 60 Special Mobilization TT $0 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 61 Submarine Cable 35 kV Option 62 1-3/c 35 KV Cable EPR, Armor 0 mif $31,000 | sPEci] $5,000] 8.0 $40,000 %0 0 $0 63 Potheads, 35 kV 0 ea $350 | speci] $5,000] 15 $7,500 $0 %0 90 64 Arresters, 20 MCOV 0 ea $200] sTRi} $601} 1.0 $601 %0 90 %0 65 Support Structures 0 ea $750| sTRi} $601} 8.0 $4,805 %0 %0 %0 66 Bathymetric Surveys 0 ea $0| sPEc2}] $800 | 80.0 $64,000 %0 %0 $0 67 Civil Works Terminals 0 ea $15,000 STRI $601 | 24.0 $14,414 $0 $0 $0 68 Special Mobilization 0 Is $0 $450,000 $0 $0 69 Substations 70 Tap to 69-KV Line Switch 1 6b $15,000] sTRi] $601 | 16.0 $9,609 $15,000 $9,609 $24,609 val Tap Station at 69-kV Line 1 Is $100,000 STRI $601 | 40.0 $24,023 $100,000 $24,023 $124,023 n Petersburg Sub Mod o ob $75,000} sTRi} $601 | 60.0 $36,034 %0 %0 90 2 Kake Substation 69 /12.47kV 1 bs $175,000] sTRi| $601 | 60.0 $36,034 $175,000 $36,034 $211,034 74 Kake Substation 24.9/12.47, 0 Is $125,000 STRI $601 | 60.0 $36,034 i) $0 $0 75 Additional 76 Special Helicopter Assistance 48 day $0 HEL1 $559} 1.0 HEL3} $4,170 6.0 $25,581 9 $1,227,901 $1,227,901 7 Floating Camp, Duncan ao, $50,000 %0 $50,000 $50,000 78 24.9 KV Line Extension to Petersburg Omi $50,000| stri) $601] 120] CON2} $1,008} 24.0 $96,250 $0 90 90 79 Subtotal $3,348,823 $8,524,731 $11,873,554 80 _ Freight Allowance 10% $334,882 $0 $334,882 81 Mobilization 5% cu $426,237 $426,237 82 Subtotal $8,950,967 | __ $12,634,673 83 Design Allowance 10% d it ~__ $1,263,467 84 Contingency Labor 30% 85 Contingency Material 20% 86 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE > , 87 ENGINEERING 7% $1,212,412 88 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5% $866,009 89 TIMBER CRUISE $100,000 90 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $50,000 a1 PERMITTING $1,000,000 92 OWNERS ADMINISTRATION 5% $866,009 93 TIMBER CREDIT TO PROJECT BOJACRES AT [200]mbffac AND $200 per mbf ($1,680,000) 94 ROAD CONSTRUCTION CREDIT TO PROJECT 0 |miles AT $150 — per 0.001 mi 90 95 __ TOTAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COST [19,734,600] 1/16/96 5:15 PM COST_EST.XLS Southern Route Estimate 69 kV Appendix E ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OUTPUT aaa LisT OF TABLES APPENDIX E E-1 E-2 E-4 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9 E-10 E-11 E-12 E-13 E-14 E-15 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power Kake Loads and Resources, Medium Loads, Diesel Alternative Economic Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Diesel Alternative Kake Loads and Resources, High Loads, Diesel Alternative Economic Analysis, High Loads, High Fuel, Diesel Alternative Kake Loads and Resources, Medium Loads, Intertie 25/35 kV Economic Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV Kake Loads and Resources, High Loads, Intertie 25/35 kV Economic Analysis, High Loads, High Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV Cost of Power Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Diesel Alternative Cost of Power Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV, No Grant, Tyee at No Cost Cost of Power Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV, $10.8 M Grant, Tyee at No Cost Cost of Power Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV, No Grant, Tyee at 6.6 cents/kWh Cost of Power Analysis, Medium Loads, Low Fuel, Intertie 25/35 kV, $15.65 M Grant, Tyee at 6.6 cents/kWh Cost of Power Analysis, High Loads, High Fuel, Diesel Alternative | All Intertie Cases Medium Loads Table E-1 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power Capacity Requirements (KW) Wrangell Peak Load 3,500 3,500 3,600 3,600 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,800 3,800 3,900 Petersburg Peak Load 6,400 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,800 6,900 7,000 7,100 7,100 7,300 Total 9900 10,000 10,200 10,300 10500 10,600 10,700 10,900 10,900 11,200 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 _—20,000 _20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee 7,900 8,000 8,200 8,300 8,500 8,600 8,700 8,900 8,900 9,200 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 12,100 12,000 11,800 11,700 11500 11400 11,300 11,100 11,100 10,800 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 17,260 17440 17,650 17,900 18,150 18,380 18,560 18,740 18,960 19,230 Petersburg 32,600 33,050 33,510 34,040 34580 35,060 35,440 35,850 36,320 36,900 Transmission Losses 830 840 860 870 880 890 900 910 930 940 Total 50,690 51,330 52,020 52810 53,610 54,330 54,900 55,500 56,210 57,070 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 134,400 134,400 134400 134,400 134,400 134,400 134,400 134,400 134,400 _ 134,400 Total 144,400 144400 144,400 144400 144,400 144,400 144400 144,400 144400 144,400 Surplus Tyee Energy (MWh) 93,710 93,070 92,380 91,590 90,790 90,070 89,500 88,900 88,190 87,330 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/25/96 | All Intertie Cases Table E-1 Medium Loads Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Derivation of Surplus Lake Tyee Power Capacity Requirements (KW) Wrangell Peak Load 4,000 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,200 4,250 4,310 4,360 4,420 4,480 Petersburg Peak Load 7,400 7,500 7,700 7,800 8,000 8,120 8,240 8,360 8,500 8,630 Total 11400 11,500 11,800 12,000 12,200 12,370 12,550 12,720 12,920 13,110 Capacity Resources (KW) Petersburg Hydro 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Petersburg Diesel 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600 Wrangell Diesel 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,400 Lake Tyee 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 _20,000 ~_—20,000__—20,000 Total 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 +~—- 36,000 Net Demand on Lake Tyee 9,400 9,500 9800 10,000 10,200 10,370 10,550 10,720 10,920 _—i11,110 Surplus Lake Tyee Capacity 10,600 10,500 10,200 10,000 9,800 9,630 9,450 9,280 9,080 8,890 Energy Requirements (MWh) Wrangell 19,540 19,880 20,250 20,600 20,940 21,210 21490 21,790 22,100 22,410 Petersburg 37,560 38,290 39,070 39,830 40,540 41,130 41,750 42,390 43,050 43,720 Transmission Losses 960 970 990 1,010 1,030 1,050 1,060 1,080 1,090 1,110 Total 58,060 59,140 60,310 61440 62510 63,390 64,300 65,260 66,240 67,240 Energy Resources (MWh) Petersburg Hydro 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Tyee 134,400 134,400 134,400 134400 134400 134,400 134,400 134,400 134,400 134,400 Total 144,400 144,400 144,400 144400 144400 144400 144,400 144,400 144400 144,400 Surplus Tyee Energy (MWh) 86,340 85,260 84,090 82,960 81890 81,010 80,100 79,140 78,160 77,160 R.W. Beck Page 2 1/25/96 Case 1A - Diesel Table E-2 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Diesel Alternative Loads and Resources 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) 1,550 1,560 1,570 1,580 1,580 1,590 1,590 1,590 1,600 1,600 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 New Diesel - 855 855 855. 855 855. 855 855 855 855 Total Resources 2,230 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 Reserve Capacity (KW) 680 1,525 1515 1,505 1,505 1495 1495 1495 1485 1485 Reserve Requirement (KW) 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) (420) 425 415 405 405 395 395 395 385 385 Energy Requirements (MWh) 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 1.9% 14% 1.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel 0 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 Existing Diesel 5,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Energy Resources 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/25/96 | Case 1A - Diesel Table E-2 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Diesel Alternative Loads and Resources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) 1,600 1,610 1,610 1,610 1,610 1,620 1,640 1,640 1,650 1,660 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 New Diesel 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 Total Resources 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 Reserve Capacity (KW) 1485 1A75 1475 1A75 1475 1465 1,445 1445 1,435 1425 Reserve Requirement (KW) 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 385 375 375 375 375 365 345 345 335 325 Energy Requirements (MWh) 6,249 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6,421 6,459 6,502 6,545 Increase Over Previous Year 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 04% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel 6,249 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 621 6,459 6,502 6,545 Existing Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Energy Resources 6,249 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6,421 6,459 6,502 6,545 R.W. Beck Page 2 1/25/96 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Diesel Alternative Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate 0.00% Interest Rate 3.00% Discount Rate 3.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Case 1A - Diesel Table E-3 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.988 0.977 0.965 0.954 0.942 0.931 0.920 0.909 0.899 0.888 0.878 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.70 $ 387 $ 361 $ 361 $ 363 $ 360 $ 357 354 352 349 347 344 122 125 126 128 129 129 130 131 131 132 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 $ 509 $ 523 $ 525 $ 529 $ 526 $ 524 521 520 517 516 514 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 509 $ 523 $ 525 $ 529 $ 526 $ 524 521 520 517 516 514 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 6509 $ «4523 $ 525 $ 529 $ 526 $ 524 521 520 517 516 514 Cumulative Net Present Value to Jan. 1996 20 Years (1996 through 2015) $ 7,660 10 Years (2016 - 2025) with no additional growth 2,362 Total Cumulative Net Present Value $ 10,022 Page 1 1/25/96 Case 1A - Diesel Medium Loads, Low Fuel Diesel Alternative Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate Interest Rate Discount Rate Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) Real Fuel Escalation R.W. Beck 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.80 -1.18% Page 2 a = an wp Table E-3 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.867 0.857 0.847 0.837 0.827 0.817 0.808 0.798 0.789 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 342 339 337 334 $ 332 330 328 326 324 133 134 134 135 135 136 137 138 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 512 510 508 506 $ 505 503 502 501 500 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 512 510 508 506 $ 505 503 502 501 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 512 510 508 506 $ 505 503 502 501 500 1/25/96 Case 1D - Diesel Table E-4 High Loads, High Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Diesel Alternative Loads and Resources 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) 1,560 1,800 1,820 1,840 1,850 1,890 1,900 1,910 1,920 1,930 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 15.4% 11% 1.1% 0.5% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 New Diesel - 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 Total Resources 2,230 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 Reserve Capacity (KW) 670 1,285 1,265 1,245 1,235 1,195 1,185 1,175 1,165 1,155 Reserve Requirement (KW) 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) (430) 185 165 145 135 95 85 75 65 55 Energy Requirements (MWh) 5,861 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8A11 8,497 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 12.5% 2.2% 2.2% 14.3% 3.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel 0 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8411 8,497 Existing Diesel 5,861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Energy Resources 5,861 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8 All 8,497 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/25/96 [ Case 1D - Diesel High Loads, High Fuel Diesel Alternative Table E-4 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) 1,950 1,970 1,990 2,020 2,040 2,060 2,080 2,100 2,120 2,140 Increase Over Previous Year 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 New Diesel 855 855 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 1,655 Total Resources 3,085 3,085 3,885 3,885 3,885 3,885 3,885 3,885 3,885 3,885 Reserve Capacity (KW) 1,135 1,115 1895 1,865 1,845 1,825 1,805 1,785 1,765 1,745 Reserve Requirement (KW) 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 35 15 795 765 745 725 705 685 665 645 Energy Requirements (MWh) 8,622 8,781 8,964 9,172 9,336 9,478 9,618 9,753 9888 10,025 Increase Over Previous Year 1.5% 18% 2.1% 2.3% 18% 1.5% 15% 14% 14% 14% Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transmission Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Diesel 8,622 8,781 8,964 9,172 9336 9,478 9,618 9,753 9888 10,025 Existing Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Energy Resources 8,622 8,781 8,964 9172 9336 9478 9,618 9,753 9,888 10,025 R.W. Beck Page 2 1/25/96 Case 1D - Diesel High Loads, High Fuel Diesel Alternative Table E-5 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inflation Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.005 1.009 1.014 1.018 1.023 1.027 1.032 1.037 1.041 1.046 1.051 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 399 $ 418 $ 429 $ 440 $ 506 $ 527 535 542 550 558 569 Variable O&M 124 140 143 146 167 173 175 177 178 180 183 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&M (New Units) 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Capital Cost (New Units) 0 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 Total Diesel Costs $ 6523 $ 595 $ 609 $ 623 $ 710 $ 737 747 756 766 775 789 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Power Costs $ 523 $ 595 $ 609 $ 623 $ 710 $ 737 747 756 766 775 789 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $ ©6523 $ #595 $ 609 $ 623 $ 710 $ 737 747 756 766 775 789 Cumulative Net Present Value to Jan. 1996 20 Years (1996 through 2015) $ 11,425 10 Years (2016 - 2025) with no additional growth 4,597 Total Cumulative Net Present Value $ 16,022 Inflation Rate 0.00% Interest Rate 3.00% Discount Rate 3.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation 0.45% R.W. Beck Page 1 1/25/96 Case 1D - Diesel High Loads, High Fuel Diesel Alternative Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate 0.00% Interest Rate 3.00% Discount Rate 3.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation 0.45% R.W. Beck Table E-5 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.055 1.060 1.065 1.070 1.074 1.079 1.084 1.089 1.094 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 582 597 $ 614 627 $ 640 $ 652 $ 664 676 689 186 190 194 198 201 204 207 210 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 27 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 805 859 $ 880 897 $ 913 $ 928 $ 943 958 973 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 805 859 $ 880 897 $ 913 $ 928 $ 943 958 973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 805 859 $ 880 897 $ 913 $ 928 $ 943 958 973 Page 2 1/25/96 [ Case 2A - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) Increase Over Previous Year Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases Existing Diesel New Diesel Total Resources Reserve Capacity (KW) Reserve Requirement (KW) Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Increase Over Previous Year Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases Transmission Losses New Diesel Existing Diesel Total Energy Resources R.W. Beck Table E-6 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1,550 1,560 1,570 1,580 1,580 1,590 1,590 1,590 1,600 1,600 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 - 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 2,230 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 680 1,525 1515 1,505 1,505 1,495 1,495 1495 1,485 1485 1,100 1,100 1,100 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 (420) 425 415 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 985 985 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 0.0% 1.9% 14% 1.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0 0 0 6,518 6,542 6,566 6,600 6,638 6,662 6,691 0 0 0 (463) (465) (467) (469) (472) (474) (476) 0 5,880 5,963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 Page 1 1/26/96 [Case 2A - Intertie 25/35-kV Table E-6 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study $15.8 M Capital Cost Loads and Resources Tyee Power at No Cost 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) 1,600 1,610 1,610 1,610 1,610 1,620 1,640 1,640 1,650 1,660 Increase Over Previous Year 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 New Diesel 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 Total Resources 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 Reserve Capacity (KW) 1,485 1A75 1475 1475 1475 1,465 1445 1,445 1435 1425 Reserve Requirement (KW) 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) 985 975 975 975 975 965 945 945 935 925 Energy Requirements (MWh) 6,249 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6421 6,459 6,502 6,545 Increase Over Previous Year 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases 6,727 6,759 6,785 6,815 6,841 6,876 6,913 6,953 7,000 7,046 Transmission Losses (478) (481) (482) (485) (486) (489) (492) (494) (498) (501) New Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Diesel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Energy Resources 6,249 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 621 6,459 6,502 6,545 R.W. Beck Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2A - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate 0.00% Interest Rate 3.00% Discount Rate 3.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Table E-7 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.988 0.977 0.965 0.954 0.942 0.931 0.920 0.909 0.899 0.888 0.878 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.70 $ 387 $ 361 $ 361 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 122 125 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 $ 6509 $ 523 $ 525 $ (3) $ (3) $ (3) $ (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 906 906 906 906 $ 6509 $ 523 $ 525 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 903 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 509 $ 523 $ 525 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 903 903 Cumulative Net Present Value to Jan. 1996 20 Years (1996 through 2015) $ 12,353 10 Years (2016 - 2025) with no additional growth 4,267 Total Cumulative Net Present Value $ 16,619 Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2A - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate Interest Rate Discount Rate Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) Real Fuel Escalation R.W. Beck 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.80 -1.18% Table E-7 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 2007-2008 = 2009 = 2010-2011 S012, 201320142015 1000 1000 1000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1000 1.000 — 1.000 0.867. 0.857. (0.847, «0.837,S «0.827, «0.817, «(0.808 (0.798 (0.789 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 $ oF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 $6 63) $ «=6(3) $ «= 38) $ 6B) $F OB) S$) OB) $B) $B) $B) $ Of OF OF OF OF OF OF OF 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2D - Intertie 25/35-kV High Loads, High Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) Increase Over Previous Year Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases Existing Diesel New Diesel Total Resources Reserve Capacity (KW) Reserve Requirement (KW) Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Increase Over Previous Year Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases Transmission Losses New Diesel Existing Diesel Total Energy Resources R.W. Beck Table E-8 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1,560 1,800 1,820 1,840 1,850 1,890 1,900 1,910 1,920 1,930 0.0% 15.4% 1.1% 1.1% 0.5% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 - 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 2,230 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 670 1,285 1,265 1,245 1,235 1,195 1,185 1,175 1,165 1,155 1,100 1,100 1,100 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 (430) 185 165 745 735 695 685 675 665 655 5,861 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8A11 8,497 0.0% 12.5% 2.2% 2.2% = 14.3% 3.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0 0 0 7A14 8,472 8,794 8,879 8,967 9,055 9,147 0 0 0 (527) (602) (625) (631) (638) (644) (650) 0 6,594 6,741 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,861 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8411 8,497 Page 1 1/26/96 | Case 2D - Intertie 25/35-kV High Loads, High Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Kake Loads and Resources Capacity Requirements (KW) Increase Over Previous Year Capacity Resources (KW) Intertie Purchases Existing Diesel New Diesel Total Resources Reserve Capacity (KW) Reserve Requirement (KW) Capacity Surplus (Deficit) (KW) Energy Requirements (MWh) Increase Over Previous Year Energy Resources (MWh) Intertie Purchases Transmission Losses New Diesel Existing Diesel Total Energy Resources R.W. Beck Table E-8 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Loads and Resources 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1,950 1,970 1,990 2,020 2,040 2,060 2,080 2,100 2,120 2,140 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 2,230 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 855 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 3,085 1,135 1,115 1,095 1,065 1,045 1,025 1,005 985 965 945 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 635 615 595 565 545 525 505 485 465 445 8,622 8,781 8,964 9,172 9,336 9,478 9,618 9,753 9,888 10,025 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% 1.8% 15% 1.5% 14% 14% 14% 9,282 9,453 9,650 9874 10,051 10,204 10,354 10,500 10,645 10,792 (660) (672) ~~ (686) ~—«(702)-~—S (715) ~— (726) += (736) += (747)—~—Ss«(757)~—s«(767) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,622 8,781 8,964 9,172 9,336 9,478 9,618 9,753 9888 10,025 Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2D - Intertie 25/35-kV High Loads, High Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate 0.00% Interest Rate 3.00% Discount Rate 3.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation 0.45% R.W. Beck Table E-9 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.005 1.009 1.014 1.018 1.023 1.027 1.032 1.037 1.041 1.046 1.051 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 $ 399 $ 418 $ 429 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 124 140 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 $ 523 $ 595 $ 609 $ (3) $ (3) $ (3) $ (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 906 906 906 906 $ 523 $ 595 $ 609 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 903 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 6523 $ 595 $ 609 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 903 903 Cumulative Net Present Value to Jan. 1996 20 Years (1996 through 2015) $ 12,511 10 Years (2016 - 2025) with no additional growth 4,267 Total Cumulative Net Present Value $ 16,778 Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2D - Intertie 25/35-kV High Loads, High Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Inflation Rate Interest Rate Discount Rate Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) Real Fuel Escalation R.W. Beck 0.00% 3.00% 3.00% 0.80 0.45% Table E-9 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Economic Analysis Page 2 ($000) 2007-2008 = 2009 2010S 2011. S012, 2018, 20142015 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1055 1060 1065 1.070 1.074 1.079 1.084 1.089 = 1.094 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0 0 $ 0 0$ Oo O¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) (40) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 (3) (3) $ (3) 3) $ @)$ @)$ @) (3) (3) 0 0$ 0 0$ O0%$ O$¢ 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 806 906 906 $ 906 906 $ 906 $ 906 $ 906 906 906 903 903 $ 903 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 903 903 $ 903 903 $ 903 $ 903 $ 903 903 903 1/26/96 Case 1A - Diesel Medium Loads, Low Fuel Diesel Alternative Table E-10 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inflation Factor 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1.411 1.460 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.023 1.046 1.070 1.094 1.119 1.145 1.171 1.198 1.225 1.253 1.281 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel 400 $ 386 $ 401 $ 416 $ 427 $ 439 $ 451 $ 464 $ 476 489 503 Variable O&M 127 134 140 147 153 159 165 172 179 186 193 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&M (New Units) 0 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Capital Cost (New Units) 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 619 $ 636 $ 655 $ 673 $ 694 $ 713 733 755 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 Total Power Costs 527 $ 575 597 $ 619 $ 636 $ 655 $ 673 694 $ 713 733 755 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 619 $ 636 $ 655 $ 673 $ 694 $ 713 733 759 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 6,249 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 91 98 10.0 10.2 10.5 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8 12.1 Inflation Rate 3.50% Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Interest Rate 8.00% Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Discount Rate 8.00% Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 6.60 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $ 40,000 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWhygal) Intertie Finan. Req. $ - Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant $ - New Diesel Units 13.5 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/26/96 Case 1A - Diesel Medium Loads, Low Fuel Diesel Alternative Inflation Factor Purchase Power Escalation Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) Cost of Power (¢/kWh) Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Table E-10 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1.511 1.564 1.619 1.675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.310 1.340 1.371 1.402 1.434 1.467 1.500 1.534 1.569 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 517 531 $ 545 $ 560 $ 575 $ 592 $ 609 627 645 201 209 217 226 235 244 254 265 276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 778 800 $ 823 $ 847 $ 872 $ 899 $ 926 956 985 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 778 800 $ 823 $ 847 $ 872 $ 899 $ 926 956 985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 778 800 $ 823 $ 847 $ 872 $ 899 $ 926 956 985 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6,421 6,459 6,502 6,545 12.4 12.7 13.0 13.3 13.6 14.0 14.3 14.7 15.1 Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2A1 - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost, $0 Grant Table E-11 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at No Cost ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inflation Factor 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1411 1.460 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.023 1.046 1.070 1.094 1.119 1.145 1.171 1.198 1.225 1.253 1.281 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 400 $ 386 $ 401 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Variable O&M 127 134 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 (46) (48) (49) (51) (53) (55) (56) (58) Fixed O&M (New Units) 0 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Capital Cost (New Units) 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs $ 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 10 $ 9 $ 7 $ 6 $ 5 $ 3 $ 2 $ 1 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 O&M 0 0 0 115 119 123 127 132 136 141 146 Capital Costs 0 0 0 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 Total Intertie Costs $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1655 $ 1659 $ 1663 $ 1667 $ 1,671 $ 1676 $ 1681 $ 1,686 Total Power Costs $ 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 1664 $ 1667 $ 1670 $ 1673 $ 1676 $ 1680 $ 1,683 $ 1,686 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 1,664 $ 1667 $ 1,670 $ 1673 $ 1,676 $ 1680 $ 1,683 $ 1,686 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 6,249 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 91 98 10.0 27.5 27.4 27.4 27.3 27.2 27.1 27.1 27.0 Inflation Rate 3.50% Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Interest Rate 8.00% Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Discount Rate 8.00% Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 0.00 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $ 40,000 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWlvgal) Intertie Finan. Req. $ 17,334 Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant $ - New Diesel Units 13.5 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2A] - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost, $0 Grant Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Purchase Power Escalation Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) Cost of Power (¢/kWh) Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Table E-11 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 2007-2008 = 2009 2010S 2011 —S 2012, 2013 — 20142015 1511 1564 91.619 = 1675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 1.000 1.000 1000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1310 1340 1371 1402 1434 1467 1.500 1534 — 1.569 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 $ Of OF OF OF OF OF OF OF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (60) (63) (65) (67) (69) (72) (74) (77) (80) 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 $ M$ CS 4S 6 $ (8) $ (9) $ (I) $ (13) $ (15) $ OF OF OF OF OF OF OF OF 0 151 156 162 168 173 179 186 192 199 15401540 1540 154015401540 154015401540 $ 1691 $ 1696 $ 1,702 $ 1,707 $ 1,713 $ 1,719 $ 1,725 $ 1,732 $ 1,739 $ 1690 $ 1694 $ 1697 $ 1,701 $ 1,706 $ 1,710 $ 1,714 $ 1,719 $ 1,724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 1690 $ 1694 $ 1697 $ 1,701 $ 1,706 $ 1,710 $ 1,714 $ 1,719 $ 1,724 6278 6,303 6330 6355 6387 6421 6459 6502 6,545 26.9 26.9 26.8 26.8 26.7 26.6 26.5 26.4 26.3 Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2A2 - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost, $10.8M Grant Tyee Power at No Cost Inflation Factor Purchase Power Escalation Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) Cost of Power (¢/kWh) Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Table E-12 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1411 1.460 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.023 1.046 1.070 1.094 1.119 1.145 1.171 1.198 1.225 1.253 1.281 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 400 $ 386 $ 401 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 127 134 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (46) (48) (49) (51) (53) (55) (56) (58) 0 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 10 $ 9 $ 7 $ 6 $ 5 $ 3 2 $ 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 115 119 123 127 132 136 141 146 0 0 0 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 0 $ 0 $ 0 608 $ 612 $ 616 $ 620 $ 625 $ 630 634 $ 639 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 618 $ 621 $ 624 $ 627 $ 630 $ 633 636 $ 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 618 $ 621 $ 624 $ 627 $ 630 $ 633 636 $ 640 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 6,249 9.1 98 10.0 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 0.00 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $ 40,000 Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWh/gal) Intertie Finan. Req. $ 5,553 Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant $ 10,800 New Diesel Units 13.5 Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2A2 - Intertie 25/35-kV Table E-12 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study $15.8 M Capital Cost, $10.8M ¢ Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at No Cost ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Inflation Factor 1.511 1.564 1.619 1.675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.310 1.340 1.371 1.402 1.434 1.467 1.500 1.534 1.569 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Variable O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie (60) (63) (65) (67) (69) (72) (74) (77) (80) Fixed O&M (New Units) 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 Capital Cost (New Units) 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs $ (1) (3) $ (4) $ (6) $ (8) $ (9) $ (11) $ (13) $ (15) Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 O&M 151 156 162 168 173 179 186 192 199 Capital Costs 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493, 493 Total Intertie Costs $ 644 650 $ 655 $ 661 $ 667 $ 673 $ 679 $ 686 $ 692 Total Power Costs $ 643 647 $ 651 $ 655 $ 659 $ 663 $ 668 $ 672 $ 677 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $ 643 647 $ 651 $ 655 $ 659 $ 663 $ 668 $ 672 $ 677 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6A21 6,459 6,502 6,545 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2A3 - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel $15.8 M Capital Cost, $0 Grant Table E-13 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at 6.6 ¢/kWh ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inflation Factor 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1411 1.460 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.023 1.046 1.070 1.094 1.119 1.145 1.171 1.198 1.225 1.253 1.281 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 400 $ 386 $ 401 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Variable O&M 127 134 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 (46) (48) (49) (51) (53) (55) (56) (58) Fixed O&M (New Units) 0 il 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Capital Cost (New Units) 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs $ 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 10 $ 9 $ 7 $ 6 $ 5 $ 3 $ 2 $ 1 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 430 $ 432 $ 433 $ 436 $ 438 $ 440 $ 442 $ 444 O&M 0 0 0 115 119 123 127 132 136 141 146 Capital Costs 0 0 0 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 Total Intertie Costs $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 2085 $ 2,090 $ 2,096 $ 2,103 $ 2,110 $ 2,116 $ 2,122 $ 2,130 Total Power Costs $ 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 2,095 $ 2,099 $ 2,103 $ 2,109 $ 2,114 $ 2,119 $ 2,124 $ 2,130 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 2,095 $ 2,099 $ 2,103 $ 2,109 $ 2,114 $ 2,119 $ 2124 $ 2,130 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 6,249 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 91 98 10.0 34.6 34.5 34.5 34.4 34.3 34.2 34.2 34.1 Inflation Rate 3.50% Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Interest Rate 8.00% Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Discount Rate 8.00% Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 6.60 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $ 40,000 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWhvgal) Intertie Finan. Req. = $ 17,334 Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant $ - New Diesel Units 13.5 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2A3 - Intertie 25/35-kV Table E-13 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study $15.8 M Capital Cost, $0 Grant Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at 6.6 ¢/kWh ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Inflation Factor 1.511 1.564 1.619 1.675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.310 1.340 1.371 1.402 1.434 1.467 1.500 1.534 1.569 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Variable O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie (60) (63) (65) (67) (69) (72) (74) (77) (80) Fixed O&M (New Units) 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 Capital Cost (New Units) 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs $ (1) $ (3) $ (4) $ (6) $ (8) $ (9) $ (11) $ (13) $ (15) Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 446 $ 448 $ 450 $ 452 $ 454 $ 456 $ 459 $ 462 $ 465 O&M 151 156 162 168 173 179 186 192 199 Capital Costs 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 Total Intertie Costs $ 2,137 $ 2,144 $ 2,151 $ 2,159 $ 2,167 $ 2,175 $ 2,184 $ 2,194 $ 2,204 Total Power Costs $ 2,136 $ 2,141 $ 2,147 $ 2,153 $ 2,159 $ 2,166 $ 2,173 $ 2,181 $ 2,189 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $ 2,136 $ 2,141 $ 2,147 $ 2,153 $ 2,159 $ 2,166 $ 2,173 $ 2,181 $ 2,189 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 621 6,459 6,502 6,545 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 34.0 34.0 33.9 33.9 33.8 33.7 33.6 33.5 33.4 Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Page 2 1/26/96 Case 2A4 - Intertie 25/35-kV Medium Loads, Low Fuel Table E-14 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study $15.8 M Capital Cost, $15.65M Grant Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at 6.6 ¢/kWh ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Inflation Factor 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1411 1.460 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.023 1.046 1.070 1.094 1.119 1.145 1.171 1.198 1.225 1.253 1.281 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel 400 $ 386 $ 401 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 Variable O&M 127 134 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 (46) (48) (49) (51) (53) (55) (56) (58) Fixed O&M (New Units) 0 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 Capital Cost (New Units) 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 10 $ 9 $ 7 $ 6 $ 5 $ 3 2 1 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 430 $ 432 $ 433 $ 436 $ 438 $ 440 442 444 O&M 0 0 0 115 119 123 127 132 136 141 146 Capital Costs 0 0 0 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 Total Intertie Costs 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 607 $ 613 $ 619 $ 625 $ 632 $ 638 645 652 Total Power Costs 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 617 $ 622 $ 626 $ 631 $ 637 $ 642 647 653 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power 527 $ 575 $ 597 $ 617 $ 622 $ 626 $ 631 $ 637 $ 642 647 653 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 5,770 5,880 5,963 6,055 6,077 6,099 6,131 6,166 6,188 6,215 6,249 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 91 98 10.0 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.5 Inflation Rate 3.50% Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Interest Rate 8.00% Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Discount Rate 8.00% Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 6.60 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $ 40,000 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWh/gal) Intertie Finan. Req. $ 703 Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant $ 15,650 New Diesel Units 13.5 R.W. Beck Page 1 1/26/96 Case 2A4 - Intertie 25/35-kV Table E-14 Medium Loads, Low Fuel Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study $15.8 M Capital Cost, $15.65M Cost of Power Analysis Tyee Power at 6.6 ¢/kWh ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Inflation Factor 1.511 1.564 1.619 1.675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.310 1.340 1.371 1.402 1.434 1.467 1.500 1.534 1.569 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 $ 0 Variable O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O&M Reduction w/Intertie (60) (63) (65) (67) (69) (72) (74) (77) (80) Fixed O&M (New Units) 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 Capital Cost (New Units) 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 Total Diesel Costs $ (1) (3) $ (4) $ (6) $ (8) $ (9) $ (11) (13) $ (15) Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 446 448 $ 450 $ 452 $ 454 $ 456 $ 459 462 $ 465 O&M 151 156 162 168 173 179 186 192 199 Capital Costs 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 Total Intertie Costs $ 660 667 $ 674 $ 682 $ 690 $ 698 $ 707 717 $ 726 Total Power Costs $ 659 664 $ 670 $ 676 $ 682 $ 689 $ 696 703 $ 711 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $ 659 664 $ 670 $ 676 $ 682 $ 689 $ 696 703 $ 711 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 6,278 6,303 6,330 6,355 6,387 6A21 6,459 6,502 6,545 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 10.5 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.9 Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation -1.18% R.W. Beck Page 2 1/26/96 High Loads, High Fuel Diesel Alternative Inflation Factor Purchase Power Escalation Fuel Escalation Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Diesel Generation Costs Fuel Variable O&M O&M Reduction w/Intertie Fixed O&M (New Units) Capital Cost (New Units) Total Diesel Costs Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power O&M Capital Costs Total Intertie Costs Total Power Costs Less: Surplus Sales Net Cost of Power Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) Cost of Power (¢/kWh) Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation 0.45% R.W. Beck Case 1D - Diesel ] Table E-15 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.035 1.071 1.109 1.148 1.188 1.229 1.272 1.317 1.363 1411 1.460 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.040 1.081 1.124 1.168 1.215 1.263 1.313 1.365 1.419 1.475 1.534 0.83 0.86 0.90 0.93 0.97 1.01 1.05 1.09 1.14 1.18 1.23 413 $ 448 $ 476 $ 505 $ 600 $ 648 $ 680 $ 714 $ 750 $ 787 $ 831 129 150 158 168 198 213 222 233, 243 254 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 0 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 542 $ 653 $ 690 $ 728 $ 854 $ 917 $ 959 $ 1,004 $ 1,051 $ 1,100 $ 1,157 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 542 653 $ 690 $ 728 $ 854 $ 917 $ 959 $ 1,004 $ 1,051 $ 1,100 $ 1,157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 542 $ 653 $ 690 $ 728 $ 854 $ 917 $ 959 $ 1,004 $ 1,051 $ 1,100 $ 1,157 5,861 6,594 6,741 6,887 7,870 8,169 8,248 8,329 8411 8497 8,622 9.2 9.9 10.2 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.6 12.1 12.5 12.9 13.4 Diesel Cap. (95 $/kW) 470.00 Diesel O&M Diesel Repay Years 20 Variable (95 ¢/kWh) 2 Intertie Repay Years 30 Incr. Fixed (95 $/kW) 12 Purch. Pwr. (96c/kWh) 6.60 Fixd Reduc. (95$) $40,000 Diesel Station Service 6.00% Heat Rate (kWh/gal) Intertie Finan. Req. - Existing Diesel 12.5 State Grant - New Diesel Units 13.5 Page 1 1/26/96 Case 1D - Diesel High Loads, High Fuel Diesel Alternative Table E-15 Kake - Petersburg Intertie Feasibility Study Cost of Power Analysis ($000) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Inflation Factor 1.511 1.564 1.619 1.675 1.734 1.795 1.857 1.923 1.990 Purchase Power Escalation 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Fuel Escalation 1.595 1.658 1.724 1.792 1.863 1.937 2.014 2.094 2.177 Fuel Cost ($/gallon) 1.28 1.33 1.38 1.43 1.49 1.55 1.61 1.67 1.74 Diesel Generation Costs Fuel $ 880 $ 934 $ 993 $ 1,051 $ 1,109 $ 1,170 $ 1,234 $ 1,300 $ 1,371 Variable O&M 281 297 315 332 348 366 384 403 423 O&M Reduction w/Intertie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fixed O&M (New Units) 16 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 40 Capital Cost (New Units) 44 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Total Diesel Costs $ 1,221 $ 1366 $ 1444 $ 1520 $ 1596 $ 1676 $ 1,759 $ 1,845 $ 1,937 Intertie Related Costs Purchased Power $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 O&M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Intertie Costs $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Total Power Costs $ 1221 $ 1,366 $ 1444 $ 1,520 $ 1596 $ 1676 $ 1,759 $ 1845 $ 1,937 Less: Surplus Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Cost of Power $ 1,221 $ 1,366 $ 1444 $ 1520 $ 1596 $ 1676 $ 1,759 $ 1845 $ 1,937 Total Energy Reqs. (MWh) 8,781 8,964 9,172 9,336 9,478 9,618 9,753 9,888 10,025 Cost of Power (¢/kWh) 13.9 15.2 15.7 16.3 16.8 174 18.0 18.7 19.3 Inflation Rate 3.50% Interest Rate 8.00% Discount Rate 8.00% Fuel Cost (95 $/gal) 0.80 Real Fuel Escalation 0.45% R.W. Beck Page 2 1/26/96 Appendix F COMMENTS FROM OUTSIDE AGENCY REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT oe ive GS Tt MAK ZE tus JIVISION OF Ei gy March 26,1 996 Suite 400 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1276 (907) 586 - 1512 FAX (907) 586 - 1826 Mr. Bert Tarrant, Project Assistant State of Alaska Dept. of Community & Regional Affairs Division of Energy 333 West Fourth Avenue - Suite 220 Anchorage, AK. 99501-2341 Dear Mr. Tarrant: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft feasibility study for the Kake/Petersburg Intertie. Sealaska Corporation has previously indicated our support for the intertie project if it will provide economical and reliable energy to the community of Kake. e Sealaska Corporation would like to indicate its support for the southern route. e We commend the Department of Community & Regional Affairs for recognizing the potential growth in Kake by planning for 69 KV line. e We would also support any state grant that would make this project more economically feasible. The transmission line either northern or southern routes will cross Sealaska’s property. Sealaska is agreeable to allow the line to cross its property upon the ratification of a lease agreement with the power provider. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project, if we can provide any information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, SEALASKA]CORPORATION 7 Robert WJ Loescher Executive Vice President Resource Management cc: Leo H. Barlow Lonnie Anderson Gordan Jackson Bob Martin RWL/RPH/jh Tarrant oan Fores MEMORANDUM February 29, 1996 To: Kake/Petersburg intertie feasibility study file From: Bert Tarrant, project manager Re: Comments on draft feasibility study by Robert Martin, General Manager, Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Association. Mr. Martin left me a voice mail message this morning, Feb. 29, 1996. He said THREA would have no comment on the draft feasiblity study other than to say that he believed the approach taken in the study was reasonable. Mr. Martin said the draft probably overestimated the medium load in Kake which he said starts at about 1 million kilowatt hours per year. He said the study probably underestimated the diesel generation cost per kilowatt hour. Mr. Martin said these two factors are not significant and would tend to cancel each other out. This would not affect the overall conclusion that the line is not economically feasible, he said. cc: John Heberling, R.W. Beck MEMORANDUM February 22, 1996 To: Kake/Petersburg intertie feasibility study file ) From: Bert Tarrant er Re: Substance of remarks made by Dennis Lewis, General Manager, Petersburg Municipal Power and Light, 772-4203, in telephone conversation Mr. Lewis supports construction of the intertie. He said he had no problems with the technical aspects of the report including preferred routing, size, scope, etc. He said the report should at least mention that Kupreanof represents an additional load (approximately 30 homes) that could be serviced by the line. He said this would be very controversial, even among residents of Kupreanof. MEMORANDUM February 21, 1996 To: Kake/Petersburg intertie feasibility study file From: Bert Tarrant Re: Substance of comments made on draft study by Lonnie Anderson, Mayor, City of Kake, 785-3804, in a telephone conversation. Mr. Anderson reviewed the comments and approved them (March 6, 1996). “T am very disappointed with the study,” Mr. Anderson said. The cost estimates, which are prohibitive, for the various options are out of perspective. Inadequate consideration was given to having the intertie follow roads which have been constructed since the previous studies were made in 1981/82. It was then anticipated that construction of these roads would reduce the cost to construct the intertie by about one-third. Instead, this new study has increased the costs by one- third. This has resulted in a project that could not be justified in order to deliver electricity to the 850 residents of Kake. The persons involved in the study did not visit Kake to talk with residents. We had telephone conversations with them but no on-site visits. It appears that this draft study merely pro-rated the cost estimates from the old Ebasco Services Inc. proposal of the early 1980s, and do not reflect new road construction. It also appears that the cost of the submerged portion of the intertie is too high and that O&M costs were not costed out properly. Kake is a growing community with a growing economic base. The local cold storage/fish processing industry has grown from processing 1.5 million pounds of fish only a few years ago to processing about 6.8 million pounds this most recent year. Cheap energy, especially for fish-related industries, is necessary if Kake is to survive and prosper. The aforementioned fish processing concern paid $250,000 over a three-month period for fossil fuel energy. The City of Kake last year spent $650,000 for fossil fuel. If the Power Cost Equalization program ends as is predicted, Kake residents can expect to pay up to 36 to 38 cents per kilowatt hour (this compares to a current residential rate of approximately 14.3 cents per kwh). A Kake/Petersburg intertie would be a valued segment of a regional energy grid that could include Sitka and tap under-utilized power produced by the Tyee Lake hydroelectric project.