Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation 1981
bot JUNEAU-HOONAH TRANSMISSION LINE Reconnaissance Evaluation December 1981 MARY COPY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION PROPERTY OF: Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave, ‘nchorage, Alaska 99501 a, _ —" = " = - = Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation December 1981 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION ABSTRACT In 1979 Alaska Power Administration (APA), in response to Hoonah, Alaska, community interest in alternatives to present diesel fueled electric power generation, made a rough analysis of Snettisham Project power delivery to Hoonah. The analysis was part of APA's continuing program to efficiently utilize the Snettisham Project power production. While analysis results were unfavorable, results indicated electric power costs might be favorable if the Noranda mining development on Admiralty Island materialized and Hoonah loads increased. This reconnaissance study was prepared by APA solely for the purpose of determining if more detailed and _ expensive feasibility level investigations are warranted--this report presents study findings. Elements evaluated included the power market and generation requirements, load resource analysis, project description and cost, economic analysis, environmental considerations, sensitivity analyses, alternatives, and subsequent feasibility investigation activities. Study results suggest a 50.4 mile-long 69-kV a.c. transmission line from North Douglas Island, across Stephens Passage, Admiralty Island, and Chatham Strait to Chichagof Island and Hoonah, coming online about 1986 with an investment cost of $20.6 million (1981 cost level). Potential cost savings would exceed project costs by $2.6 million annually and should reduce long-term average power costs in Hoonah by 5¢/kWh during the 25-year project life. Feasibility depends on the Noranda mine load and recognizes users satisfying their share of project costs. Alternatives were considered and diesel-electric generation was identified as the only alternative to interconnection with Juneau. Based on study results, APA recommends a two-year feasibility study to meet State Policy criteria that would cost about $750,000, and be based on Hoonah loads updated at the time of study. Focus should be on industrial power requirements, large fluctuating industrial loads, forest road location and scheduling, submarine line route conditions, Admiralty Island management plans, review of alternatives, and environmental considerations--with early and continuing public participation. PART CONTENTS ABSTRACT... es cece cece cece ceneee eer cccccccccees seeseescces INTRODUCTION... cece cece ec cc reece cece ene eccereeeeeeece oe A. BaCkground......eeec cece ecc eres ereeecee ot ececces . B. Scope and Acknowledgements ec c cece ence nescence ceees POWER MARKET AND REQUIREMENTS ....-.seeeeeceecee eee ccccece A. HOOMAN.L oc eee ccc cc eee cece cere cence een eeeeeee . B. Noranda......eeeeeeeecees ec cc cc ccecee ccc ccccccees . C. Total Project... cece cece cece cree cence eerececes LOAD/RESOURCE ANALYSIS.....+++eeeeeees eee cree cece cecccee PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST.....-seeeeeeeeee cece eens eos A. Description....... acc c cree cee ceceees auccoee eeccces B. Capital COStS......eeeeeeeeeerecr er eeeeereeececces 1. Comstruction COSt...eeeeeeceeeeeeecee eesece 2. Investment COSt... cece eeecereeecesecesece C. Annual COStS.... cece eee eee ee ween eee e ec eeccccce eee 1. Generation Cost..... ec cc ccccccccccccs eecces 2. Wheeling Cost..... ecrccccece ee ccccccccceces 3. Maintenance Cost........- ecccccces eccccccce D. Operating Responsibility..........-- ecccccce . ee ECONOMIC ANALYSIS... .. cece cere cre ceccceece eee ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS... ..seeeccececcceeecceee wee A. FeAatureS... cee cece cece cece cece eee e een ence eeeeees B. CONCEINS. ce eee cece cere cece e ence ee seeeesecccee C. Conclusions.......ceeeeeeececee ec ccccccccccccccces SENSITIVITY ANALYSES... 2. cece ccc ccce cc ecerececcecvcccrcce A. Alternative Routing.........sseeeeeeees cecccces a B. 34.5 kV from Noranda to Hoonah..........--- ec cccee C. Lesser Designs Standards........-+sseeeeees wcccccce D. Alternative Technology...... eee cc ccc ccccees sesece E. Service to Hoonah Only.....e.eeeececeeeeees ecesces F. Service to Noranda Mine Only......-..--++++- eeeescle G. Load Variation... cc ccee cece e cee r eee cceceececcece os ii Be our w 14 14 14 14 17 17 17 19 21 21 21 21 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 CONTENTS PART PAGE NO. 8 ALTERNATIVES... 2... cc eeeee Cece ccc cnc cccccsvcs cece ccccces 27 A. Hoonadh..... sce w cee cece eee eceee ere denccccccccecs 27 l. Hydro..... tise on eee secede oC eeneenpasecaevene 27 2. WOOd Fuel... .ccccccccccccvcccccccccccsccece 28 3. Other..... otneaacesdeeaguss Bwereceseceyenes 29 B. Noranda......... cece esc ccercscescesccscseonsecscss 30 9 FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION. ......cccccccccccccccccccccecee 31 10. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION. .....--200- occ cccccncccccccone 33 A. SUMMATY. 2 oder cscccccccccscccccs nove @hsctvesowecess 33 B. Review Comments........cceccceccee Cee eT eee cece eee 36 C. Recommendation...........ee0- eee c eset cee oben cccces 37 ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS..... ere cr ccc ccc ccc cece cece ccccecccceececce 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY... ..cccccccccccccccccece Soceseweeccesscce eee 40 TABLES 1. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED HOONAH ELECTRIC POWER REQUIREMENTS BY VARIOUS STUDIES.......----ee- eccee 4 2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ..... ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc cc ccccccee 6 3 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS VS HYDRO ENERGY AVAILABILITY..... 8 4. CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY... 2... ccc cece cece cece eences 15 5. ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST.......... coc c cc cccccccccccce ee 16 6. EQUIVALENT FUEL COST SAVINGS. emcee ccc ccewsscccene 19 iii CONTENTS PART PAGE NO. TABLES (continued) 7. UNIT COST SAVINGS ..... cece eee r eee e rene ce nce eeecceecs 20 8. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SERVICE TO HOONAH ONLY AND NORANDA MINE ONLY... .- eee cecrececceescerccceeesceee 25 9. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS WORK ITEMS AND COSTS.....--++-++ 32 FIGURES 1. ROUTE LOCATION... cece cece eee c cece cece rc ccccece ccceee 10 2. PROPOSED ONE-LINE DIAGRAM. ....---eeeeeececeeceereccce 11 3. ‘IMPEDANCE DIAGRAMS... cee eee eee e cece ee ececeecese ceeee 12 4. CHATHAM STRAIT CROSSING - NOAA DATA (PROFILE) ......-- 13 APPENDICES I. REVIEW COMMENTS (DRAFT REPORT, MAY 1981) .....--++eeeeeeeee 41 il. HOONAH WOOD GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Galliett and Associates, and five other firms for Alaska Power Authority; December 1980........-- talel elie ae 69 III. JUNEAU-HOONAH TRANSMISSION LINE RECONNAISSANCE Alcat Engineering, Inc. for Alaska Power Administration; March 1981... cece cc wc ccc ce eee nee n ence eee ceseesecsecees 75 iv INTRODUCTION Doogoodooadgoagoaaaaadtantataduoe PART 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents a reconnaissance level evaluation of a potential transmission line to provide electric power from the Snettisham Project to the community of Hoonah on Chichagof Island and to a potential Noranda Exploration (Noranda) mining operation near Hawk Inlet on Admiralty Island. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if a detailed feasibility level investigation of the potential transmission line is warranted. Background In 1979 Alaska Power Administration (APA) made a rough analysis of Snettisham power delivery to Hoonah [4]* based on present residential and commercial power requirements. While analysis results were not favorable, distribution of project costs over more kilowatt hours might be favorable if the Noranda development materialized and Hoonah loads increased. At the time of the rough analysis an evaluation of the small Gartine Creek hydro potential was underway for the Alaska Power Authority (APAt) [5]. A 1980 APAt and Forest Service study of wood as a power generation energy source for Hoonah acknowledged that wood fuel technology should work but was not proven for this application--economics would depend on competing wood product markets. The study also recognized a transmission line from Juneau as a promising possibility. Noranda plans became more definite in 1980 with projection of energy requirements for their mining operation located on Admiralty Island near a logical transmission line route from the Juneau area to Hoonah. With 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, P.L. 96-487 (ANILCA), timber harvesting plans and associated processing power requirements for Hoonah area became more definite. Scope and Acknowledgments Scope of the evaluation was a reconnaissance of transmission system designs and costs, power requirements, and alternatives based on previous studies by APA and others. Cost estimates were based on a reconnaissance design and construction cost estimate prepared by Alcat Engineering, Inc. (Alcat) for APA with subsequent estimate of investment and annual costs by APA. Projected power requirements for Hoonah were provided by Tlingit-Haida Regional Electical Authority (THREA) based on a 1980 investigation of wood generation by Galliett and Associates. Noranda provided mining power requirements. Timber harvest, road construction, and related plans were provided by Sealaska and the Forest Service. *Bibliography reference Work not included in this evaluation which would be done in a feasibility investigation includes more thorough analysis of load projections and scheduling, transmission system location and design, cost estimates, operation arrangements, alternatives, and industrial power marketing policy and repayment options. The evaluation is not intended to meet all of the State criteria for reconnaissance or feasibility analysis as defined by Alaska statutes. The evaluation also does not re-analyze potential power source studies previously done by others but does include APA's opinion of those study results. Retail power rates cannot be determined from this evaulation. Distribution system fixed and variable costs and appropriate operation margin must be added to the wholesale cost estimate to arrive at projected retail customer rates. The following individuals have been especially helpful in providing information and assistance for this evaluation: Bill Corbus Alaska Electric Light & Power Company Alfred Moody Alcat Engineering Everett Harrington Alcat Engineering Jerry Wruck Channel Flying Doug Trapp Cochran Electric Company, Inc. J.S. Dreschler, Jr. Noranda Exploration Doug Smith Noranda Exploration Robert W. Loescher Sealaska Corporation Robert Martin, Jr. Formerly with Tlingit-Haida REA Mike Henry Tlingit-Haida REA Ken Vaughan Forest Service, Region 10 Fred Glenn Forest Service, Juneau District Admiralty National Monument Cdr. Ned Austin NOAA vessel Davidson and crew POWER MARKET AND REQUIREMENTS NO0OO0O 0c aaa anonogonoooaaanaSDo PART 2. POWER MARKET AND REQUIREMENTS The potential transmission line project power market includes the present residential and light commercial requirement in Hoonah--including anticipated growth, projected timber handling and processing industrial requirements in Hoonah, and projected Noranda mining near Hawk Inlet. Hoonah The present Hoonah requirement is now served by THREA's diesel engine 1.2 MW plant and has been fairly steady at 2,300 to 2,500 MWH annually. This includes retail sales of slightly more than 2,000 MWH, street lights at a fixed rate, system losses, and station service. Four studies have been published on potential electric power alternatives for Hoonah since 1975 and all have included power requirement projections. Each study projected substantial load growth during the late 1970's and early 1980's which has not materialized-—-probably because of delayed resolution of P.L. 96-487 (ANILCA). This is also reflected in the load projection variation. These projections are summarized in the first four columns of Table l. The most recent projection, included in a 1980 analysis of the potential of wood fuel generation by a joint venture of Galliett and Associates and five firms for APAt [7], is based on meeting anticipated increased needs at Hoonah resulting from long-range ALP timber harvesting plans. Basing this evaluation on the maximum projections facilitates comparison with the wood generation study (which includes additional verifications such as continued use of diesel generation) and gives a basis for judging the effects of changes in estimated power requirements. Power projections begin in 1986 with 13,400 MWH, increase to 16,600 MW in 1992, and are constant thereafter. Demand begins at 4,000 kW and increases to 4,800 kW (Table 1). Projections are shown in Exhibit 19 of the wood generation study [7], reproduced in Appendix II. Requirements would not be expected to hold constant, but the increase due to "normal" non-industrial activities would be relatively small. For this analysis Hoonah power projections were reduced to a simple annual average over the 25 year project life of 16,300 MWH annually. In addition to the 67 percent demand and 55 percent energy requirement associated with the timber industry, the powerflow effect of large motors is of concer. A 2,000 hp (1.5 MW) chipper motor is planned which would cause significant but tolerable voltage fluctuation on a 69 kV system. The operating characteristics and effects of individual large motors would have to be analyzed in a more detailed work. 1980 1983 1985 1986 1988 1990 1992 1993 1995 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED HOONAH ELECTRIC 1975 R.W. Beck for —THREA _ Kw MWH Kw MWH 1,106 1,247 1,348 POWER REQUIREMENTS BY VARIOUS STUDIES 1977 R. Retherford Assoc. for APAt 1,106 4,263 1,247 4,808 1,348 5,198 1,401 5,406 1,515 5,847 1,640 6,324 1,772 6,840 1,844 7,114 1,994 7,694 1979 Harza Engr. for APAt 730 2,880 840 3,330 980 3,850 1980 Galliet et al for APAt 618 2,470 2,874 9,627 3,789 12,825 3,944 13,438 4,668 15,873 4,787 16,346 4,841 16,565 4,841 16,565 4,841 16,565 (continue constant) 1981 APA Recon. Eval. Assump. 4,000 13,400 4,700 15,900 4,800 16,300 4,800 16,600 4,800 16,600 4,800 16,600 (continue constant) Noranda Noranda mine loads are based on development during the mid-1980's with progressive proving-up of mineral resources and development of acceptable Operation plans for administrative approval by government regulating agencies prior to that time. The planned mining operation life is in the 25-year range. Peak demand would total 5.0 MW with a constant 33,200 MWH per year-- 76 percent plant factor--and would be comprised of 4.3 MW peak for mineral handling and processing at the Greens Creek site and 0.7 MW for community facilities at Hawk Inlet with an average 3.5 MW and 0.29 MW respectively. Large motors are not planned to have rapidly varying loads which would cause unacceptable voltage fluctuations on the line. Total Project For this evaluation assumption was made that project service to both Hoonah and Noranda would begin in 1986. Schedules for both developments should become more definite in 1982 and 1983. Energy requirements were assumed to total a simple average of 49,500 MWH annually rounded to 50,000 MWH, with 9,500 kW demand--Table 2. Project life is assumed to be 25 years, based on expected submarine electric cable life which corresponds with life of the mine operation and foreseeable timber operation. Assumption of a longer project life would have negligible effect on the evaluation results. TABLE 2. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Hoonah 1/ Noranda Total Residential Industrial Total Mine & Commercial Peak Demand - KW 1,500 3,000 4,500 5,000 9,500 Average Demand - KW 750 1,050 1,750 3,790 7,340 Energy - MWH/yr 2/ Maximum 7,400 9,200 16,600 33,200 49,800 25 Year Project Total MWH 180,100 228,400 408,500 830,000 1,238,500 Average MWH/yr 7,200 9,100 16,300 33,200 49,500 1/Hoonah Wood Generation Feasibility Study (7J. 2/Typical annual energy requirement after loads have increased to maximum. LOAD/RESOURCE ANALYSIS ooepoaaedad@adaedagaogonaoadatlt PART 3. LOAD/RESOURCE ANALYSIS Hoonah and Noranda power requirements would become a part of the total Juneau market area requirements. The combined Hoonah-Noranda loads would be roughly 15 percent of the projected Juneau area load in 1990-- 351 MWH/yr. As the Juneau area loads continue to increase, the Hoonah-Noranda percentage would decrease because the loads are constant. Renewable hydro generation resources available to the area during the late 1980's and early 1990's are the present Snettisham Project, the planned Crater Lake unit, the potential Long Lake dam addition, and present and planned refurbished AELSP hydro plants. These will total about 376,000 MWH/yr for 1990. Recent APA load forecasts [6] for the Juneau area show that present Snettisham Project and scheduled Crater Lake division can provide for the total area needs through the 1980's even with somewhat high load growth rates, and addition of Long Lake dam can supply the area into the 1990's. Beyond that time other projects such as Lake Dorothy and Sweetheart Lake in the Juneau-Snettisham vicinity are potentially available. Table 3 presents a comparison of Juneau area energy requirements with firm renewable hydro availability. This information is presented to indicate that sufficient hydro potential is available to meet an optimistic (high) set of load growth conditions that include service to Hoonah and Noranda. Available power will probably exceed loads for the following reasons. oO Juneau area load growth includes a fairly rapid buildup of electric heat requirements in the early 1980's, oO Hoonah and Noranda loads are probably optimistic in terms of both timing and magnitude, and ° Hydro energy availability is based on firm production capability of all projects while average capability is roughly 20 percent greater for the three units of the fully developed Snettisham Project. In addition, other technological, social, or administrative changes could occur that would change the outlook of local project development in the next 30 years. In summary, all of the future Juneau area loads including Hoonah and Noranda can be supplied by present, planned and potential resources. Service to Hoonah and Noranda may have the effect of requiring earlier construction of scheduled projects. TABLE 3. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS VS HYDRO ENERGY AVAILABILITY (1000 MWH/yr) Year Energy Requirements Firm Energy Availability Juneau Hoonah + Total AEL&P Snettisham (Hydro) Total Area 1/_ _Noranda Hydro Long Crater long Other 2/ Lake Lake Dam Hydro 1980 157 157 37 168 205 1986 268 47 315 45 168 106 319 1990 351 50 401 45 168 106 57 376 1995 450 50 500 45 168 106 57 150 526 2000 538 50 588 45 168 106 57 275. 651 1/Area energy requirements based on medium load growth case with electric heat (from Juneau Area Power Market Analysis (5]). 2/Lake Dorothy 150; Sweetheart Lake 125. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST GBeoaeeasesoegaeogeeagdgagse& ea sf PART 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST This transmission line project would include all facilities necessary to provide transmission from the Thane Substation to delivery points near the Noranda mine at Hawk Inlet, and to the THREA substation at Hoonah. Project analysis includes consideration of project investment and annual costs but does not include cost of local Noranda and Hoonah distribution systems or any other items that would be similar in another alternative such as reserve diesel engine generation investment. Description The transmission system would be 69 kV, 60 hertz a.c., three-phase, single circuit aerial and submarine cable line with necessary switchyards, substations, transformers, and related items. Assumptions for this analysis are power wheeled from Thane Substation to the north end of Douglas Island at Fish Creek over existing and planned AEL&P lines, then a new line constructed from there to Hawk Inlet and Hoonah. The 50.4 miles of new construction would begin by paralleling North Douglas Highway for 7.6 miles from Fish Creek to the end of the road, enter Stephens Passage for 6.1 miles of submarine line to Admiralty Island, use 10.1 miles of conventional single wood pole aerial line on Admiralty Island through the western part of the Young Bay and Hawk Inlet areas, cross Chatham Strait with 12.0 miles of submarine line from near Hawk Point to Whitestone Harbor, then parallel planned timber operation roads on Chichagof Island with 14.6 miles of aerial line to Hoonah. This route is shown on Figure 1. A one-line diagram, impedance diagram, and Chatham Strait profile are shown on Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Capital Costs Assumptions are that access would be available on Chichagof Island from a planned timber access road, right-of-way easement at no cost for private land on Douglas Island 1/ and Chichagof Island, and National Forest land on Chichagof and Admiralty Islands. If these assumptions change, significant cost increase would result. The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, P.L. 94-579) may require a small fee for right-of-way administration on National Forest land. The routing is assumed for the purpose of establishing a reliable reconnaissance grade cost estimate. The routing provides a system that would be logical and technically feasible. Feasibility analysis should include evaluation of other efficient routing alternatives, design parameters based on load characteristics, and preferred wheeling arrangements in the AEL&P service area to optimize effectiveness. 1/Assumed that present and future utility right-of-way on Douglas Island and in Hoonah would be sufficient. T aandld OT ‘ 1s pps ey radcr wes Ae! AE SEALE 1 250.000 i. JUNEAU. ALASKA-CANADA f say Wh Mn yea : 1962 ob " “THREA", SUBSTATION "= Death . “2 Valley Je Sinnis Mtr ‘ rare (- fey Av 8 ae zt ple Bullard 2 Bulla seotdeian MEP Take L Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line ROUTE LOCATION U.S. Department of Energy Alaska Power Administration April 1981 PROPOSED ONE-LINE DIAGRAM FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO SERVE HOONAH AND NORANDA EXPLORATION CANNERY TAP HOONAH FISH CREEK 69 KV TO AEL &P SYSTEM DOUGLAS IS. CIRCUIT SWITCHER ~~~ 5,000 KVA 12.5 MVA 3 PHASE REACTOR 12.5 KV BUS AT HOONAH NORANDA 5,000 KW pu a TTT IMPEDANCE DIAGRAMS JUNEAU - HOONAH LINE 14.6 Ml. 2.95 Mi. 7.15 Mi. 7.6 Mi. 1.30+J2.25 3.15+ J 5.44 3.34+J35.78 6.42 + JIL - J2900 | -J290 5.95+ 2.99 CANNERY TAP 5 3.00 + J 1.51 a -si464 TL ~J1464 ‘a 5000 KW O.95PF = = HOONAH = CHATHAM ST. = STEPHENS PAS FISH CREEK 4500 KW 0.95 PF 34.5 KV SYSTEM : Y wy H a & 14.6 ML. 2.95 Ml. 7.15 Ml. 7.6 Mi. ba 6:42 +J12.1 1.304 392.45 3.15 +J5.94 3.34 + 36.32 Ce - JIO16 -J2013 K ale 6.77 + J 2.90 TT CANNERY TAP T 3.424 S146 on CHATHAM ST. STEPHENS PAS. FISH CREEK 69 KV SYSTEM HOONAH OH 34.5 KV, 4/0 ACSR, Z=.440 +J.761 OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE NEGLECTED CABLE 34.5 KV, 2/0 CU, Z?.495 + J.249 OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE 8800 OHMS/MI. OH 69KV, 4/0 ACSR, Z=.440 + J. 83! OHMS/MILE, SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE NEGLECTED CABLE 69 KV, 187 MCM AL, Z=.563 + J.241 OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE 6110 OHMS/MI. a NEAR PT. AUGUSTA SEA LEVEL DEEPEST POINT, 2200 FT \ 4 / [ L MAX. SLOPE 36° a ; NEAR MIDCHANNEL SEA LEVEL enear HAWK INLET 4 wana ww \ “— NEAR MIDCHANNEL €T 2.27 NAUTICAL MILES ios L - CHATHAM STRAIT CROSSING-NOAA DATA DAAWN BY RT SCALE: APPROX i"2\800' RECORDED BY VESSEL DAVIDSON, OCTOBER 24, 1980 ALCAT ENGINEERING 117 PRINTED OM MO. 1000 a CLEARPMINT FADE OUT Project description and capital costs are a summary of reconnaissance level designs and estimates by Alcat Engineering, Inc. with some APA modification, and addition of interest during construction. Annual costs were developed by APA. Construction Cost The construction cost of the 69 kV transmission system from Fish Creek on Douglas Island to Hoonah, based on January 1981 price levels, is estimated to be $19 million and is summarized in Table 4. Cost estimates are included of major material and installation items prepared by Alcat plus an allowance of $200,000 by APA for remotely controlled motor operated disconnects to expedite line sectionalizing for fault clearing. Also included is an allowance of 20 percent for engineering and overhead and 25 percent for contingencies. Alcat's report, including detailed cost estimate, is presented in Appendix III. Investment Cost Total investment required is estimated to be $20.6 million consisting of $19.0 million construction and $1.6 million for, interest during construction. Interest is based on two years for procurement and construction at the F.Y. 1981 Federal interest rate of 8.5 percent with equal annual expenditures. Annual Costs Total annual cost of Snettisham Project power made available by the transmission system is estimated at $3.8 million including $2.01 million for investment amortization, $1.29 million for generation (wholesale purchase at Thane Substation), $0.30 million for wheeling over the AEL&P system or equivalent, and $0.23 million for maintenance. No allowance was made for construction cost escalation and costs are summarized in Table 5. Generation Cost The wholesale cost of power obtained at the Thane Substation for this analysis was based on the most recent power repayment studies for the Snettisham Project. This includes repayment of expended investment costs as established by statute and annual operating costs. The unit cost of energy on this basis is 2.6¢/kwh [6] in the mid to late 1980's. Long-term costs will gradually increase due to inflation but at a slower rate than inflation. Total annual generation cost for the transmission line project's 49,500 MWH would be $1.29 million--Hoonah $430,000, and Noranda $860,000. This would include the Noranda and Hoonah loads plus transmission line losses less periods of expected system outage. Line losses and system outage were both estimated to be slightly more than 3 percent and cancel for this analysis. Alcat estimated transmission losses from Fish Creek to Hoonah to total about 3 percent--this does not include Thane to Fish Creek losses. Alcat also estimated Fish Creek to 14 TABLE 4. CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY ($1,000--January 1981 Prices) ARerial Lines Douglas Island 7.6 mi. Admiralty Island 10.1 mi. Chichagof Island 14.6 mi. Mobilization & Demobilization Subtotal Submarine Cables Stephens Passage 6.1 mi. Chatham Strait 12.0 Subtotal Substations Fish Creek Noranda Hoonah Subtotal Total Construction Cost 15 $1,200 1,700 2,800 1,500 $3,500 6,700 $ 200 1,020 380 $7,200 $10,200 $ 1,600 $19,000 TABLE 5. ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COST ($1,000--January 1981 Prices) Investment Construction Cost Overhead Line $ 7,200 Submarine Cable 10,000 Substation 1,600 $19,000 Interest During Construction (2 years @ 84 percent) $ 1,600 Total $20,600 Annual Costs Annual Equiv. of Invest. (25 years @ 8% percent) $ 2,010 Snettisham Project Energy (49,500,000 kWH @ 2.6¢ 1,290 Wheeling (Thane-Fish Creek) 300 Maintenance 230 Total $ 3,830 Round $ 3,800 Annual Equivalent Cost of Power $3,800,000/49,500,000 KWH = 7.68¢/KWH 16 Hoonah outages to total an equivalent of 153 hours per year. APA estimates Snettisham Project outages to be about 1.5 percent (131 hours), and Thane to Fish Creek outages to be 23 hours annually. These three outages total 306 hours per year, or 3.5 percent. Wheeling Cost The assumption is made for this evaluation that wheeling from Thane Substation to Fish Creek would be over the existing and planned AEL&P system. Various possibilities of extension and upgrading are available ranging from additional conductors on existing structures to a totally new line. Construction costs could range from about $1.5 million to $4 million, resulting in annual wheeling costs fram $160,000 to $425,000. A cost of $300,000 is assumed which could provide for independent project construction. Maintenance Cost Annual maintenance of the transmission system is the only recurring cost included in this evaluation. Operating items of the Snettisham Project or the THREA distribution system would normally be accomplished by APA or THREA independent of the transmission project. A replacement fund was not included because project facilities were evaluated with a 25-year project life. The aerial line and substations would actually have longer life, but the economic effects are not significant. Alcat estimates total maintenance for the Fish Creek to Hoonah line to be $179,000 per year. APA estimates that additional allowance for Thane to Fish Creek maintenance should be about $50,000 making a rounded annual total of $230,000. The Thane-Fish Creek component would allow for an independent project. Arrangements with AEL&P would include this in wheeling and should result in less cost. Operating Responsibility Operating responsibility for a transmission system was not addressed in this evaluation since it was not considered critical to the decision for further studies. A feasibility level analysis would more appropriately consider various options available. One option should be for AEL&P ownership and operation of all lines on Douglas Island. 17 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Doooooadoaoaoaanuoanatnandadn sa PART 5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Hoonah and Noranda would receive non-firm electric power through the transmission line project and the benefit would be the value of fuel that would be displaced from diesel engine generation and associated operating expense savings. Both Hoonah and Noranda would need to provide appropriate generation capability to supply firm needs during periods of transmission project outage--roughly 3 percent of the time. The value of reduced fuel use was computed by assuming 12 kWh per gallon generation for both Hoonah and Noranda, a 1981 cost of $1.10 per gallon escalated at a rate of three percent greater than inflation for the 25-year project life, and amortized at 8.5 percent interest rate. The present THREA Hoonah plant generation rate is about 10.6 kWh/gal. which would likely increase with addition of larger units and plant and distribution system efficiency upgrading to meet near-term power requirement increases in the absence of the transmission project. Diesel engine generation plants in the 5 MW range needed at both Hoonah and Noranda have typical generation rates of 12 kwh/gal. Annual equivalent fuel cost savings are estimated to total $6.2 million, computed in Table 6. TABLE 6. EQUIVALENT FUEL COST SAVINGS Hoonah Noranda Total Electric Energy MWH/yr 16,300 33,200 49,500 Fuel 1000 gal/yr 1,360 2,770 4,130 Fuel 1000 gal/25 yrs 34,000 69,200 103,200 Fuel Value $1006/yr 2,000 4,200 6,200 THREA estimates that operating costs could be reduced by retaining one operator/mechanic at Hoonah instead of the present three. The same reduction is assumed for Noranda because the plant sizes are similar. These simplified assumptions do not consider other potential savings such as reduced maintenance supplies and parts for the engines and generators and extended machinery life. Such items are not critical to economic justification but could be included in a feasibility analysis. Estimated fuel savings would total 4.13 million gallons annually (98,000 bbl) at an annual equivalent value of $6.2 million. Operating cost reduction is estimated to be $200,000. Comparing estimated costs with expected value of fuel and operation reduction shows net benefits of $2.6 million per year, or 5.3¢/kWh ($2.6 million divided by 49,500 MWH). The effective impact would reduce costs of power from diesel generation. 19 Energy cost savings in the early project years would be substantially less than the annual equivalent savings over the project life because of less than average energy use and assumed fuel cost escalation. Unit cost savings during the first five years are shown in Table 7. TABLE 7. UNIT COST SAVINGS C/KWH Year Hoonah Noranda Total 1986 1.9 1.4 1.5 1987 2.3 1.9 2.0 1988 2.6 2.3 2.4 1989 2.9 2.6 2.7 1990 3.2 2.9 3.0 Ann. Equiv. 25-yrs. 5.5 5.2 5.3 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Doooodoaoaoandooaadgandnaadadtadeda ao PART 6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Features The project area involves portions of Douglas, Admiralty, and Chichagof Islands and connecting sea waters of Stephens Passage and Chatham Strait in Southeast Alaska. Natural resources of the area include clean air, clear fresh and salt water, dense spruce-hemlock forests, and a variety of fish, shellfish, sea mammals, big game, birds, and other wildlife. The area plays an important role in recreation for the Juneau area. Sightseeing, sport fishing and hunting, boating, sailing, scuba diving, and skiing are popular activities. The area also makes a significant contribution to water-born shipping and to the commercial fishing industry for salmon, halibut, herring, and crab. In addition, the mineral and forest resources offer attractive development potentials that would enhance employment opportunities of the area. Concerns A draft of this evaluation was published in May 1981 and distributed to several agencies and individuals for review and comment. Many comments received expressed concern about project impacts on the natural resources of the area. Most concern focused on the need for early public participation and coordinated project planning to minimize impacts and detailed environmental evaluations of the proposed project and alternatives, potential impacts on the aesthetics from North Douglas Island, eagles and eagle trees in Hawk Inlet--particularly on the west side of the Inlet, and use of timber and mining access routes. Conclusions Several concerns have been expressed about potential impacts the project might have on the natural resources of the area. Because of these concerns, those agencies and individuals with environmental information should analyze the information--with public involvement--to identify alternatives that would minimize adverse environmental impacts prior to route selection and project activities. An important part of such analysis would be the substantial environmental work already done by the Forest Service and Noranda Exploration and the initial feasibility work by the Alaska Power Authority. 21 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES DoooodadgoaongaoaaaaaaaaAd a PART 7. SENSITIVITY ANALYSES Variations of the basic plan of a 69-kV transmission line to provide 49,500 MWH total average annual energy to Hoonah and Noranda include the following. a. Alternative routing b. 34.5 kV from Noranda to Hoonah c. Lesser design standards d. Alternate technology e. Service to Hoonah only f. Service to Noranda only g. Variation to load Alternative Routing One major and several minor routing alternatives identified by Alcat would provide various benefits and trade-offs and should be considered during a feasibility analysis. No routing alternative would change the basic outcome of this evaluation. The major routing alternative would cross Gastineau Channel south of Juneau from Thane Substation to Douglas Island with a submarine line, proceed around the south end of the island to Point Hilda, cross Stephens Passage to Point Young in a submarine line, then proceed along the south side of Young Bay and across Admiralty Island to Hawk Inlet and then follow the original routing. Advantages would include using two miles less submarine line, not wheeling power through presently developed urban areas, and reducing the cost to Noranda of a Hawk Inlet crossing (about $1 million). Disadvantages would include 16 miles more aerial line, several miles of construction on Douglas Island, and additional costs of about $4 million. Possible minor routing modifications are discussed in the Alcat report, Appendix III. 34.5 kV from Noranda to Hoonah Most of the Hoonah requirement could be provided by a 34.5-kV line, but cost savings would be less than 10 percent. Powerflow characteristics would not be acceptable and the economic benefits less than with a 69-kV line. Large timber processing motors would cause unacceptable voltage fluctuations if served by 34.5 kV. 23 Lesser Design Standards Design criteria of the aerial sections could be reduced by slightly reducing span length and using lighter load insulators and deadends, and narrower right-of-way clearing (25 ft. instead of 50 ft.). The construction cost would be reduced about $800,000, but outage time and maintenance requirements would probably increase. Alternative Technology Direct current, low frequency alternating current, and single phase alternating current might be considered as options for this project but are not judged to be practical. If the total load was a single point service for a 48-mile line, d.c. might be appropriate. Low frequency a.c. has been proposed but not actually tested for other projects where long distance and low loads exists. Single phase a.c. could be practical for small loads, but most of the cost reduction would be offset by phase converters and controllers, and cable installation cost would not be reduced. In general, it appears the project conditions are well suited to a 69-kV a.c. system. Service to Hoonah Only Under normal loading conditions the 4.8-MW peak demand at Hoonah could be supplied by a 34.5-kV line. Reconnaissance powerflow analysis, however, indicates that a planned 2,000 hp chipper motor would cause unacceptable voltage fluctuation and a 69-kV line would be required. This voltage fluctuation should be carefully analyzed during a feasibility investigation. Service to only Hoonah with a 69-kV line would reduce the construction cost by $1 million (the cost of a substation for Noranda) and would result in a total annual cost of $2.8 million with potential savings of $2.1 million (Table 8). If a 34.5-kV line were determined to be acceptable and the full amount of energy delivered, the construction cost would be reduced by only $300,000 and annual costs reduced by $30,000--negligible for this level of estimate. Service to Noranda Mine Only The Noranda load alone could also be serviced with a 34.5-kV line and the project would be economically justifiable with the assumptions of this evaluation. Annual fuel generation cost would be reduced $4.1 million 24 TABLE 8. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS SERVICE TO HOONAH ONLY AND NORANDA MINE ONLY ($1000) Hoonah Only Demand Peak MW 4,840 Energy MWH/yr 16,300 Line Voltage KV 69 Distance (from Fish Creek) mi. 48 Investment Construction $18,000 T.DeC. 1,500 Total $19,500 Annual Costs Ann. Equiv. of Invest. 1,910 Wheeling (Thane-Fish Creek) 280 Maintenance 230 Snettisham Project Energy 420 Total $2,840 Round $2,800 Cost Reduction Fuel 1000 Gal/yr 1,360 Fuel Value $2,000 Operating Costs 100 Total , 100 Round 2,100 Net Annual Cost Savings ¢/KWH (4.3)1/ Noranda Only 5,000 33,200 34.5 23 1/Annual equivalent cost of hydro energy would exceed cost of diesel generation by $700,000/yr. or 4.3¢/kWh. 25 and would exceed project costs by $2.0 million. Factors likely to favor this conclusion but not included in this evaluation are reduced lubricants and parts and increased engine life. Factors that would be adverse to the conclusion are reduced energy use and higher interest rates if commercially financed. Load Variation Within the assumptions used in this analysis, potential cost reduction exceeds annual expenditures by $2.6 million or 68 percent. The total energy requirement of the combined Hoonah and Noranda loads could be reduced to about 29,200 MWH annually (fram 49,500 MWH) and still result in an econamically justifiable project with an annual cost of $3.2 million or 11¢/kWh. Other factors mst be considered, however. A reduction in demand of the planned total of 9.8 MW may make a 34.5-kV line technically adequate. Powerflow characteristics (voltage fluctuations caused by large motors) would have to be analyzed. A 34.5-kV line would reduce costs by less than 10 percent of the 69-kV system. 26 ALTERNATIVES 0O0O0o cae adcanoaogaaaaaaadadrae PART 8. ALTERNATIVES Hoonah There have been several attempts during the past decade to locate power supply alternatives for Hoonah. They have focused on hydro and more recently on wood for both gassification and steam generation. The more appealing hydro sites are Gartina Creek and Game Creek--no others exist on this part of Chichagof Island. Results of alternative studies have been uniformly disappointing. Available hydro projects are of relatively poor quality, small capacity, high cost, and serious environmental problems in the case of Game Creek. This lack of alternative prospects leads to evaluation of wood generation in anticipation of forest byproducts from logging operations. Lack of small scale application, uncertain fuel type and availability, and doubtful economics lead to a recommendation not to pursue this technology. Wood generation might be appropriately re-analyzed during a feasibility level investigation. By that time the type, quantity, quality, and market value of wood products or by-products available from timber operation would be better known and a smaller scale application could be studied specifically. Other "state of art" technologies such as wind, tide, and solar have not been specifically investigated. Based on regional characteristics and knowledge of the local area, these technologies are impractical due to a lack of resources and near-term technology for reliable economic generation. Increasing energy efficiency through space heating with engine jacket cooling water might be considered but should not be viewed as an alternative. Lack of alternatives to diesel generation in the Hoonah area leads to consideration of a transmission line from the Snettisham hydro based Juneau area. Hydro Gartina Creek - The potential Gartina Creek hydroplant site is located three miles Southeast of Hoonah and was most recently evaluated in 1979 by Harza Engineering Company for APAt [5]. The project would have an installed capacity of 450 kW and could produce 2,170 MWH annually, approximately equivalent to 225 kW operating continuously. This capacity is about one-third of the present THREA capability and about 12 percent of the projected non-industrial demand for the late 1980's and early 1990's. 27 Gartina construction cost was estimated to be $4.9 million on a September 1979 price level. The resulting wholesale energy cost would be 23.7¢/kWh assuming a 50-year repayment period and 5 percent financing rate. Game Creek - A potential hydro site on Game Creek, about five miles southwest from Hoonah, has been briefly discussed in previous reports. It was dismissed from further consideration because of substantial salmon spawning which was documented by field observation and presented in a 1977 preliminary appraisal by Robert W. Retherford Associates for APAt [3]. The conclusion was that, "In accordance with the criteria set forth, this fishery eliminated Game Creek from further consideration." Small Creeks - Two reported small hydro plants were installed in Hoonah in the 1930's and 1940's [1]. The streams are not of significant size for utilization. A 1.5-kW generator supplied by a 1,386 foot-long penstock on Steve Kane Creek provided power for the old post office and residence of Mr. Kane. The FPC license application was received in 1936 and the plant and residence/post office were destroyed in the great Hoonah fire of 1944. Shotter Creek was diverted to supply water and power for the Shotter Sawmill. The 23-horsepower powerplant, a few hundred feet above the creek mouth, was supplied by a 270-foot penstock and was last reported operational in a 1947 report by the FPC and FS [1]. Wood Fuel Wood fuel thermal generation for both steam and gas were evaluated for APAt in 1980 by Galliett and Associates and others [7]. The study examined the technologies under three possible scenarios of timber harvest and other econamic activity, investigated the types and availability of wood product needed for fuel, and evaluated several non-technical parameters. Gartina Creek hydro and continued diesel generation were compared. A brief discussion of a transmission line and possible service to Noranda was added late in the study. The report indicates that a small scale steam system would probably be the most appropriate wood fuel technology. Both small scale steam and wood gas are high technology generation methods in terms of needing well controlled design conditions, fuel sources, and operational attention. The competing economic market value of wood fuel is not easily definable and is subject to fluctuation. Known technology, fuel availability, and costs do not indicate that wood fuel generation is a likely, desirable power source. A comparison of present worth energy costs was presented for seven variations of single and combination technologies based on a high load growth case. The plans with diesel, and Gartina hydro plus diesel, are roughly three times as costly as transmission from Juneau, and wood gas 28 or steam roughly twice as costly as transmission. Although the analysis of a transmission line was very brief, the order of magnitude difference in power costs between the various plans gives support to further investigation of this plan. That is part of the reason for undertaking this reconnaissance evaluation. APA does not consider that wood fueled generation is a practical long-term power source for Hoonah--first on the basis of the uncertainty of a sustained fuel resource and second because of cost. More specific evaluation may be in order during a feasibility study as a result of timber harvest plans being better defined than at the time of the APAt report. If undertaken, this should include a long-term projection of types, quantities, and specific procurement and handling methods of fuel and effects of competing markets and possible changes in assumed supply methods. Other Wind - Wind powered generation has not been specifically explored for Hoonah but is not considered to be a primary alternative based on available data and terrain characteristics. Wind has not been mentioned as warranting investigation by those familiar with and investigating energy resources for the Hoonah area. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas for Alaska [8] characterizes upland areas of Chichagof Island and the exposed areas of Cross Sound and Icy Strait as Class 3 wind energy areas based on very limited data and utilizing modeling techniques. Class 3 (12.5 mph) is the lower range of sustained average annual velocity generally accepted as necessary for econamic wind powered generation. Topographic irregularities (ridges, sheltered bays, and open areas) along the Hoonah area shoreline are considered to have significantly less potential than the open areas. Wind generating systems are at best limited to much less than half of the requirements of a diesel system when integrated and would be substantially less effective in a non-sustained wind resource area such as Hoonah. Tide - Small scale tidal powered generation is not a practical near-term technology and there are no reported high candidate sites for using conventional hydro machinery. Solar - Solar generation is not applicable on a community scale, especially in the northern latitudes. 29 Noranda Alternative power sources for Noranda were not investigated in this analysis. In APA's judgment the only alternative is onsite diesel engine generation as planned by Noranda in lieu of a transmission line. This reasoning is based on no hydro being available on or near the north end of Admiralty Island and wood, wind, tide, solar and other exotic resources being impractical because of technology limitations. 30 FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION Oooaqoagoaoaooadaoaaanaaadnoea a PART 9. FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION Transmission of Snettisham Project power to Hoonah and the Noranda mine shows sufficient promise to warrant feasibility analysis in anticipation of power needs in the 1986 time frame. Several items should be better defined before a firm reconmendation for construction is made. The following are particular items that should be addressed in a feasibility analysis. ° Determination of timber industry power requirements at Hoonah and Noranda projection of power needs. ° Character of loads--especially large, rapidly changing motor loads and their effect on and compatibility with residential and conmercial use. ° Location and schedule plans for a road from Hoonah to Whitestone Harbor for transmission line construction access and right-of-way. ° Physical characteristics of Stephens Passage and Chatham Strait for selection of submarine line routing. ° Onsite line location and construction techniques planning for environmental, forest, and marine management compatibility. A detailed list of technical tasks necessary for feasibility analysis, design data acquisition, and design is presented on pages 11-12 of the Alcat report, Appendix III. This includes submarine route investigation, right-of-way procurement, specification preparation, and bid evaluation. Estimated costs are $996,000, with the majority of two-years time necessary. Results would be design documents and bid evaluation. APA estimates that detailed feasibility level analysis could be accomplished in two years for about $750,000. Summer field route surveys should occur early in the schedule. Work items, required time (not additive), and costs are listed in Table 9. 31 TABLE 9. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS WORK ITEMS AND COSTS 1/Investigation planning & agency commitment 1 month $ = -0- Load requirements 1 month 10,000 Line sizing analysis 1 month 10,000 Alternative route & design criteria studies Line routing selection Environmental studies Right-of-way identification Aerial line design data (field surveys) Aerial line design and costs Submarine cable design data (field sonar surveys) Submarine cable design and costs Terminal, substation, accessory electrical months 50,000 month 10,000 months 30,000 month 10,000 months 50,000 months 30,000 WNHrRWEHEN months 320,000 months 20,000 mW equipment design & costs 2 months 30,000 Economic analysis 2 months 10,000 2/Environmental report 2 months 10,000 2/Feasibility report 2 months _ 20,000 Subtotal 30 months $610,000 Miscellaneous & Contingencies - 10 percent 60,000 Administration and Overhead 80 ,000 Total $750 ,000 These costs should be adequate with either 1981 or 1982 start. 1/In-house by lead and participating entities. 2/Out-of-house work. Lead agency should finalize reports, allowing 1 month each for draft, and 2 months each for review, revision, and final. A feasibility analysis would require a well scheduled, coordinated, and managed effort to effectively utilize and include the several entities interested and involved in the project. This is particularly necessary in the selection and evaluation of alternative routings. Products of the feasibility investigation would be costs and benefits based on designs identifying major cost items, overland and submarine route field surveys, powerflow analysis, basic performance specifications, and an environmental report. Submarine field data and most of the overland field data would be adequate for design documents. 32 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION BSBGoucouocpOose ae Baawpopeaesnut PART 10. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This study was based on current available information and an assumed line routing. Final routing and design criteria would be developed based on feasibility study findings. Summary Hoonah electric power requirements are now met by a 1.2 MW THREA diesel engine generating plant averaging about 2,400 MWH annual generation. Alaska Lumber & Pulp Co. (ALP), Huna Totem Corporation, and Sealaska timber harvesting plans are scheduled to begin in the early 1980's with related industrial loads being placed online by 1986. Power loads are projected to increase from 13,480 kwh at project start-up in 1986 to about 16,600 MWH in 1992 and demand will increase from 4.0 MW to 4.8 MW during this period. These requirements are based on projections in a 1980 analysis of the feasibility of wood generation by Galliett and Associates for APAt [7]. The requirements are a maximum, or "high" case selected to determine the merits of an optimum project and to facilitate comparison. Loads for Noranda mine operation and domestic community needs are estimated to be 33,200 MWH annually--5.0 MW demand--after coming online in the 1985-1987 period. These requirements are based on data provided by Noranda. Both Hoonah and Noranda loads are subject to variation in timing, life, and amount. This evaluation assumed project power available for transmission in 1986 with 25-year life and steady loads--49,500 MWH and 9.8 MW peak--after 1992 and corresponds with mid-1980's start-up for timber harvest, mine and transmission line submarine cable life, and general mine operation life. Estimated investment costs total $20.6 million including interest during construction. Annual costs total $3.8 million and include investment amortization, projected Snettisham Project generation costs of 2.6¢/kWh, an allowance for wheeling over the AEL&P system from Thane Substation to Fish Creek, and maintenance. In addition to project costs, Hoonah and Noranda would have to provide for appropriate reserve generation. The value of project power would be the equivalent cost of diesel generation fuel displaced plus savings in operating expense. Displaced fuel would total 4.13 million gallons per year (1.36 million for Hoonah and 2.77 million for Noranda - 98,000 barrels per year total), with an annual equivalent value of $6.2 million. Operating costs would be reduced about $0.2 million with total savings being $6.4 million. 33 Potential cost savings would exceed project costs by $2.6 million, or 5.3¢/kWh. This means that long-term average power costs in Hoonah and at the Noranda mine should be about 5¢/kWh lower with the transmission interconnection than with power supplies from diesel plants. Most of the indicated savings are as a result of an assumed future fuel cost escalation. Separate analyses indicate that 1986 savings might be about 1.5¢/kWh with an increase to about 3¢/kwh in 1990. The project area contains a variety of important natural resources including fish and wildlife, dense forests, clear water, clean air, minerals, and quality scenery. Concerns have been expressed over potential environmental impacts. Because of these concerns, coordinated analyses of environmental information should be completed with public participation to identify alternative components which are least harmful to the environment. Prime importance is attached to environmental analysis prior to route selection and project activation. Central to the analysis would be the extensive environmental information already developed by the Forest Service and Noranda in the initial feasibility work. Hoonah and Noranda power requirements would become part of the total Juneau area requirement pool and would be 15 percent of the projected Juneau needs about 1990. The total area power requirements could be met by hydro resources--present, planned, and future projects. Since the Hoonah and Noranda loads would be a relatively small part of the total, interconnection should not result in major changes in hydropower supply plans. Project construction would include a 50.4-mile long 69-kV akc. transmission line beginning at Fish Creek on the north end of Douglas Island--three aerial segments totaling 32.3 miles and two submarine cables totaling 18.1 miles. The route would proceed along the North Douglas Highway to the end, cross Stephens Passage to Admiralty Island and Hawk Inlet (6.1 miles submarine cable), cross Chatham Strait from Hawk Point to Whitestone Harbor (12.0 miles submarine cable to 2,200 feet deep), and parallel a planned timber access road on Chichagof Island to Hoonah. Necessary breakers, transformers, and substations would be included and construction could be accomplished in two years. A reconnaissance design and cost estimate was prepared by Alcat for APA which included consultation with a submarine cable installation company. Routing assistance was provided by the Forest Service and Sealaska. APA made minor adjustments to Alcat's construction cost estimate and prepared estimates of annual cost. Economic evaluation was based on reconnaissance level cost estimates using January 1981 prices without future inflation, amortization of costs at the F.Y. 1981 Federal interest rate of 8.5 percent over a 25-year 34 life, and initial year fuel cost of $1.10/gal escalated at 3 percent annually above inflation. Estimates also assumed right-of-way at no cost and access from a planned timber road on Chichagof Island. Sensitivity analyses indicate the following. a. Alternative routing around the south end of Douglas Island would eliminate wheeling through the developed Juneau area but would cost $4 million more than the basic plan. Minor routing alternatives could be evaluated in other areas. b. A 34.5 kV line fram Noranda to Hoonah would reduce costs less than 10 percent, but powerflow characteristics would not be acceptable because of a large (2000 hp) chipper motor. c. Lesser design standards would reduce construction costs about $800,000 (4 percent), but would increase outage time and maintenance costs. d. Alternative technology such as d.c., or low frequency or single phase a.c., are not needed--requirements are well within the parameters of three phase, 60 hertz, a.c. e. Service to only Hoonah is not economically justified. A 34.5 kv line could carry projected loads to Hoonah but the chipper motor would cause unacceptable voltage fluctuation. A 69 kV line would dampen the fluctuation. Both plans have a somewhat lower investment cost than the basic plan, but power costs would be higher than for diesel generation (annual savings would be only 75 percent of costs). f. Service to only Noranda could be provided by a 34.5 kV line based on Noranda information that motor loads would be reasonably steady. Savings would be 195 percent of costs ($4.1 million vs $2.1 million). g. The project would be economically justifiable if energy requirements were reduced to about 60 percent of the assumed projections (29,200 MWH annually). However, at this level of use, power costs in early project years would be more than with diesel generation. Project economics would be more favorable if loads are greater than projected. Based on other studies for the area, APA considers diesel-electric generation as the only alternative to interconnection with Juneau and power supplies from hydro projects. Transmission interconnection feasibility is dependent on the Noranda mine load. ‘There is some concern about interconnection ability to service the Hoonah timber industry loads (characteristics of machinery for a chipping plant). If Hoonah loads are materially less than estimated, then savings 35 to Hoonah power consumers could decrease very rapidly, and the cost of power would be much greater. In APA's view, the results of this reconnaissance level work are sufficiently favorable to proceed with feasibility level investigations. Review Comments A draft report was distributed to interested agencies for review in May 1981. Camments received were about items which should be considered during a feasibility analysis. The subject areas of comment include the following. ° Appropriate pricing policy for power supply to private (industrial) customers, ° Availability of lower cost alternatives, ° Power requirement projections, ° Environmental analysis, ° Future development plans on Douglas Island, and ° Route alternatives. Letters of comment and APA's responses are included in Appendix I. The report has also been modified to include a summary of environmental considerations, more complete exploration of current information on available alternatives, and more specific recommendation of items for a feasibility study. Power marketing policy for industrial consumers and alternative power supply sources are the two items of major concern. The most likely method of near future funding would be Alaska Legislature appropriation via the Alaska Power Authority. The Governor's office raised a very important point with respect to industrial power supply from publicly funded facilities. This is an area where State power marketing policies are not yet complete and one that will also be of potential concern for other State funded power projects. Under the assumption of the APA analysis, approximately 85 percent of the power delivered over the Juneau-Noranda-Hoonah line would be sold to industrial customers and 15 percent would be normal community loads at Hoonah. APA's analysis assumes full repayment of project costs including interest (84; percent) over a 25-year payout period. The result is that average savings would be roughly 5¢ per kilowatt hour over the 25-year period which indicates good likelihood of project feasibility. If a rate 36 structure was designed under similar criteria it would apportion the industrial customers a fair share of project costs. Other marketing methods which could be considered follow. l. Limiting sales to industrial customers to power supply that is surplus to normal utility requests. 2. Share-the-savings methods which would set rates between the actual cost of providing the service and the most likely (higher) cost alternative. 3. Allocation of project costs to the various classes of customers. APA has received several indications that potential industrial customers desire to pay a fair share of project costs. The marketing policies would need to be worked out and agreed to prior to project construction. APA and others have made several efforts to identify lower cost alternatives for Hoonah--results have not been favorable. Small hydro and wood have been the primary resources considered. Hydro sites are too small, wood generation economics and fuel supply are dependent on the timber market and technology is generally not applicable on this small scale. While solar, wind, and other "state-of-the-art" technologies have not been quantified, they are not practical. Continued diesel generation is the only reliable near-term alternative power source and there is probably opportunity for improved efficiency which is assumed in crediting fuel savings benefits in this evaluation. Recommendation Alaska Power Administration recommends that a feasibility analysis be undertaken of a potential transmission system to make Snettisham Project energy available to the planned Noranda mine near Hawk Inlet on Admiralty Island and to Hoonah community and industrial timber uses on Chichagof Island. The study would require about years and could be accomplished for about $750,000. Approximately 45 percent of the cost would be for submarine cable route investigation. The study product would be a construction decision document sufficient for legislative or Congressional authorization and appropriation and should include performance criteria and routing, costs estimates, alternative analysis, update of Hoonah loads, and environmental analysis. The study could include further evaluation of alternatives concentrating on wood as a fuel and necessary items to assume long-term possibility. The study would not include field data sufficient for design of aerial line segments but should include sufficient field data for submarine cable design. Items that should be given particular attention during a feasibility evaluation include Noranda and Hoonah industrial power requirements, large rapidly fluctuating industrial loads, location and scheduling of a 37 road from Whitestone Harbor to Hoonah, submarine cable route conditions in Stephens Passage and Chatham Strait, Admiralty Island management plans, and environmental considerations. Goldbelt development on the west side of Douglas Island will be better defined in the near future and may have a bearing on routing. At the time of completion of this evaluation the Alaska Power Authority F.Y. 1982 program included scoping a feasibility study workplan. An early item would be an assessment of the availability of environmental information already assembled for Admiralty Island and Chichagof Island in conjunction with, Noranda's mineral potential and ALP's timber sale operating plan, and identification of additional necessary environmental work. A specific coordination effort is recommended to most effectively assimilate the concerns and expertise of the resource management agencies, and utilize existing information. 38 ABBREVIATIONS AEL&P Alaska Electric Light and Power Company Alcat Alcat Engineering, Inc. ALP Alaska Lumber and Pulp Campany ANILCA Public Law 96-487, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, December 2, 1980 APA Alaska Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy APAt Alaska Power Authority FLPMA Public Law 94-579, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, October 21, 1976 FPC Federal Power Conmission FS Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture hp Horesepower kV Kilovolt Kw Kilowatt kwh Kilowatt hours MW Megawatt MWH Megawatt hours NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Noranda Noranda Exploration Sealaska Sealaska Corporation THREA Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority 39 i1] {2] [3] [4 [5 [6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Water Powers of Southeast Alaska; Federal Power Commission and the Forest Service, U.S.D.A., 1947. Report on Establishment of Consolidated Operations, Projected Operating Results and Recommended Form of Rates; for Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority, by R.W. Beck, December 1975. Preliminary Appraisal Report, Hydroelectric Potential for Angoon, Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Kasaan, Klawock, Klukwan, Pelican, Yukatat; for Alaska Power Authority by Robert W. Retherford Associates, 1977. "Tetter report to Mr. Miles Murphy, Mayor, Hoonah," from Alaska Power Administration. June 25, 1979. Gartina Creek Project, A Reconnaissance Report; for Alaska Power Authority by Harza Engineering Company, October 1979. Juneau Area Power Market Analysis; U.S. Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration, September 1980. Hoonah Wood Generation Feasibility Study; for Alaska Power Authority by a joint venture of Galliett and Associates and five other firms, December 1980. Wind Energy Resource Atlas: Volume 10--Alaska; prepared for Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory by Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, December 1980. Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line, Reconnaissance Analysis; for Alaska Power Administration, by Alcat Engineering, Inc., March 1981. 40 APPENDICES Gam sg APPENDIX I REVIEW COMMENTS (Draft Report, May 1981) A. Office of the Governor B. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cc. Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development D. Alaska Power Authority E. Alcat Engineering F. Noranda Exploration G. Tlingit & Haida Regional Electrical Authority H. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I. U.S. Forest Service 41 | JOD ec cy? fy JAY §. HAMMOND, Governor be Be I iit / RECEIVED ed =f Ss une, Alaska OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. : DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING / — OUbwhdwiraS orb 1: 24 / JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811 GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION UNIT, PUONE F907) 485-7562: - ote iy LINE ING ALASKA POWER ADM July 31, 1981 Yel Mr. Robert Cross woo . Administrator Alaska Power Administration a0 Department of Energy P.O. Box 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: This is in response to your July 22, 1981 letter to Bruce Baker concern- ing the draft report on the "Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line-Reconnaissance Evaluation." When our division received your earlier (June) letter requesting comments on the draft report it was treated strictly as informational since we understood that the State would have the opportunity to review later, more significant, stages of the proposal. Consequently, no State position was formulated on this draft through our State-federal clearinghouse mechanism. We simply ensured that the draft got an adequate distribution. However, we can offer you our understanding of the situation. Apparently this project would provide Hoonah with much more power than they actually need or would need in the near future. The Noranda project on Admiralty Island would use the extra power, deriving a substantial private benefit from State monies. This is not consistent with public service policy. Consequently, this proposal was set aside until other energy alterna- tives are considered by the Alaska Power Authority (APA) for the Hoonah community. We suggest that you stay in close touch with the APA in regard to Hoonah's power requirements. Sincerely, ames M. Cag Director APA response to the Office of the Governor, letter dated July 31, 1981 As described in Part III, Power Market and Requirements, the power market conditions assumed for this analysis are projected scenarios based on mid-1980's timber handling and processing and industrial loads at Hoonah and mineral mining industrial loads near Hawk Inlet, in addition to Hoonah community growth. The resulting energy requirements are approximately 18 percent Hoonah industrial (timber), 67 percent mining (Noranda Exploration), and 15 percent Hoonah community (residential and commercial). These assumptions were made on the rationale that community requirements alone are not sufficient to economically justify a viable transmission line, and there is reasonable likelihood of the industrial loads developing. The concepts were concurred in by the Alaska Power Authority, Tlingit-Haida Regional Electrical Authority, Sealaska Corporation, Noranda Exploration, and Alaska Electric Light and Power Company. This approach was taken solely to determine whether a potentially justifiable plan does exist, as an indicator of whether more detailed analysis is warranted. Economic and sensitivity analyses show that industrial loads must be included in a justifiable project, and that some lesser level of energy requirement would be sufficient to maintain economic justifiability. This study is not intended to imply that industrial uses should or should not receive a financial State "subsidy." APA fully supports the concept that investment of public resources for benefit of the private sector be appropriately reimbursed. Because a definitive State policy does not exist, APA has chosen to maintain economic evaluation on the basis of the Federal F.Y. 1981 interest rate of 8% percent. Marketing methods which could be considered and which are in use elsewhere are listed below. 1. Limiting sales to industrial customers to power supply that is surplus to normal utility requests. 2. Share-the savings methods which would set rates between the actual cost of providing the service and the most likely (higher) cost alternative. 3. Allocation of project costs to the various classes of customers. ree JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor hu / 230 Franklin Street \ LU ‘ Juneau, Alaska 99801 DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME / PHONE: 465-4290 fd June 30, 1981 Robert J. Cross Wee / Administrator Alaska Power Authority Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: RE: Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the draft of the Juneau- Hoonah Transmission Line Feasibility Evaluation. Although we have no objections to your recommendation to undertake a feasibility analysis of the project, we do feel however that the environmental costs of the project must be evaluated and made an intricate part of any future analysis. We also feel the following points must be addressed early in the analysis of the project: (1) Amore clear discussion of the costs and benefits of the project is needed. To whom will the benefits accrue and who exactly will be bearing the costs? (2) Detailed environmental evaluations of the proposed and alternative routes need to be conducted. This Department should be involved as early as possible in any such evaluation. (3) More information is needed on the right of way clearing. How large will it be? How will it be done (i.e. helicopters, balloons etc.)? How will the logs be handled? Will camps be necessary and if so, where will they be located? (4) How does the proposed Tenakee Hydroelectric project on Indian River relate to this project? (5) There have been concerns expressed over the development of a log transfer facility at Whitestone Harbor. If a facility is not developed there, what effect would this have upon the proposed routing of the transmission line? (6) We feel there may be more public concern expressed regarding the visual impacts of the line in the Juneau area than the draft - document suggests. This could be especially true along the highly popular glacier viewpoint on north Douglas. Island. 45 R. Cross -2- June 30, 1981 (7) The development scenario as outlined in the draft report appears quite optimistic. More emphasis needs to be placed upon other development levels. In conclusion, there may be authorization required from this Department for instream activity pursuant to Alaska Title 16 and we can't emphasise enough the need to involve this Department, as well as other resource agencies, early in your planning process if the project is continued. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and hope they prove useful. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Kae SO A Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor Habitat Division cc: D. Hardy-ADFG, Sitka 46 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 02 Juneau, Alaska 998 July 6, 1981 Mr. Richard D. Reed Regional Supervisor Habitat Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game 230 Franklin Street Juneau, AK 99802 Dear Mr. Reed: Thank your for your review of the draft report Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. This letter is in response to your comments of June 30. Both letters will be included in the final report for consideration by future users. 1. Project benefits would accrue to electric power users serviced by the transmission line. This would be the present THREA customers, and anticipated new customers in Hoonah (residential, commercial, and industrial) and the anticipated Noranda mine industrial load. Gross benefits would be the value of a similar amount of power generated by diesel fuel. With a Federally financed project, as assumed, all costs would be repaid by the users. Other repayment arrangements may be possible with alternative financing, such as by.State appropriation. 2. We agree that detailed environmental evaluations of the proposed and alternative routes need to be conducted. These would logically come during feasibility level investigations. Early involvement of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) will be an important part of these evaluations. 3. Specific construction practices and constraints would be identified during the feasibility investigations. Assumptions used in this evaluation, as presented in the Alcat Engineering, Inc. report in Appendix III, are as follows. The aerial line sections would require 50-foot right-of-way clearing, and would utilize 380 foot spans with oversized post-type insulators so as to minimize the number of poles. Construction on Douglas Island would be from the existing highway, on Admiralty Island from barges and with helicopter, and on Chichagof Island adjacent to 47 planned timber access roads. Log disposition was assumed to be removal by contractor. The Douglas Island and Chichagof Island sections would be accessible from towns by road and would not require camps. The Admiralty Island section could utilize limited barge camps in Hawk Inlet or use of Noranda facilities, or possibly daily float-plane access from Juneau. This has not been identified, and limitations or conditions should be specified during the feasibility analysis. 4. There is no relation between this project and the small Indian River project near Tenakee under investigation by the Corps of Engineers. Certainly service to Admiralty and Chichagof Islands leads to thoughts of service to other communities. However, a transmission line is not justified on the basis of fairly large loads for Hoonah alone, and very small loads elsewhere requiring several miles of line are not viable under conventional financing mechanisms. 5. Transmission line routing is assumed to utilize timber access roads on Chichagof Island, whether at Whitestone Harbor or not. 6. There could well be more public concern over visual impacts of the line in the Juneau area than is expressed. This report does not address all factors. Active public participation is needed to make sure these and other concerns are considered in feasibility investigation activities. As you conclude, we certainly agree that ADF&G should be involved early in the project planning process. The State of Alaska has funded further feasibility studies of the project through the Alaska Power Authority. We suggest getting in touch with that agency about the project. 7. This evaluation is based on power requirements furnished by THREA and Noranda. We agree that a feasibility analysis should include studies of power requirements, and additional sensitivity analysis of load scenarios. As stated the Alaska Power Authority has programmed a feasibility investigation for this project to begin within the next few months. We are making available all of our information to them, with the recommendation of an early meeting of the several interested agencies so that all needs can be identified and investigation plans coordinated. Thank you for your review. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator 48 IG PELL yh ik? i 4\ / JAY S HAMMOND Ir lial? Ny ial (oh / Governor ee ts PM i I f DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & i ; 7ELOPMENT / TUE DENALISTREET. oS ECONOMIC DEVE i i ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 DIVISION OF ENERGY & POWER DEVELOPMENT PHONE: (907) 276-0508 July 10, 1981 Yur 15 We Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Alaska Power Administration P.0. Box. 50 Juneau, AK 99802 Dear Bob: We are in receipt of the draft copy of the Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. We are distributing the draft in-house and any appropriate comments that come from that review we will forward on to you as soon as possible. Again, thanks for keeping us informed. Sincerely, Lloyd M. Director LMP:vir 49 APA response to Division of Energy and Power Development, letter dated July 10, 1981. No further comments received from DEPD. 50 ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY 333 WEST 4th AVENUE - SUITE 31 - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 Phone: (907) 277-7641 (907) 276-2715 July 2, 1981 i Mr. Robert Cross fos Alaska Power Administration Post Office Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Dear Bob: We are pleased to provide comments on your agency's report entitled, "Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluations". Your con- sultant and staff have done an excellent job of covering items in a compre- hensive and detailed manner at the reconnaissance stage. We concur in your conclusion that cost savings over diesel generation are significant. We also concur in your recommendation to proceed with a detailed feasibility level study. We offer the following comments, most of which can be addressed at the feasibility stage. 1. At the feasibility level an update of power market forecasts from the Galliett study should be conducted to ascertain the long term market trend for Hoonah. Since your draft report was released, we are aware that Noranda has completed their bulk sampling program and are moving forward with their next stage of analysis. This is a positive trend toward long term viability of the Hoonah interconnection. 2. At the feasibility level we recommend examination of an additional route around the north end of Douglas Island, crossing to Young Bay, then following the south shore of Hawk Inlet to Chatham Strait and across to Chicagof Island. We feel such a route would make the best use of existing access corridors on Douglas Island. Also, since the mining operation at Hawk Inlet would be on the south side of the Inlet, it would seem appropriate to route the line along access corridors used by the mining operation in order to minimize clearing. 3. Based on our discussions with cable laying firms, we do not feel that the submarine route survey needs to be as detailed or as costly as pro- posed. The cable contractor will conduct his own prelay survey anyway to attain accurate current information and bottom feature location. At the feasibility level we would recommend the survey of submarine routes based on the optimum location of overland routes. The feasibility surveys should include side-scan sonar surveys and samples of bottom material to determine bottom contours and thermal dissipation character of the muds. Some current information can be obtained while the sled and tools are over the side of the vessel, but tidal currents and strength will likely be different at the time of a cable lay and will be a concern that the contractor will investigate in detail on his own. 51 Mr. Robert Cross July 2, 1981 Page Two At the present time, the Legislature has approved funds to the Power Authority for the detailed feasibility study. If these funds remain intact through the Governor's budget review, we look forward to working with you on this worthwhile project. Sincerely, Eric P. Yould Executive Director 52 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 July 17, 1981 Mr. Eric Yould Executive Director Alaska Power Authority 333 West 4th Ave., Suite 31 Anchorage, AK 99501 Dear Mr. Yould: Thank you for your comments on our draft report on the "Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation." Your letter will be reproduced in the final report to assure consideration of the items by subsequent users. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator 53 ALCAT ENGINEERING, INC. Electric Utility Engineers ee Lota _ Power Generation, Transmission, Distribution Iee- Wife COC JUN ¢5 i¥ei ne 12, } June 12, 1981 K Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 : ~¢ Juneau, Alaska 99802 72O-: “ Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation Att] Robert J. Cross, Administrator Dear Mr. Cross, Thank you for sending us the preliminary copy of the subject report. We have only a few minor suggestions. At the bottom of page 39 it states "A detailed list of technical tasks necessary for feas- ibility analysis and design is presented in the appended Alcat report (page 11-12). Note the addition of the words “and design". The estimate Alcat gave was meant to include the complete engi- neering design of the system. On page 40, we suggest eliminating item 6 "aerial line design data" and.combining it with item 9 under the heading "@erial line preliminary design and cost data......6months.....$80,000." These changes are meant to indicate that only a preliminary line design should be in the feasibility study. The final design engineering should not be done till the project is authorized for construction. We also suggest on page 40 changing item 7 to read "Submarine cable, sonar route surveys......3 months.....$315,000",. The only significant change in cost estimates is to reduce the overhead line preliminary design expense (because much of it was already done by Alcat) and to increase the alternative route study allowance. We suggest the latter because of routing pro- blems brought about by trying to run the line down the east side of Hawk Inlet (possibly through part of the Monument) and the alternative route around the south end of Douglas Island. Both of these alternatives involve substantial additional time and expense if detailed investigation is deemed necessary. Note that the above changes do not change your total of $610,000 which we feel is adequate. Very truly yours, 54 Aw, Ya nel 12°98 - 210th Pl. S.E.. laseauah, WA 88027. Tel [206] 255-0350 CHAPTER IX. FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION Transmission of Snettisham Project power to Hoonah and the Noranda mine shows sufficient promise to warrant feasibility analysis in anticipation of power needs in the 1986 time frame. Several items should be better . defined before a firm recommendation for construction is made. Particular items. that should be addressed in a feasibility analysis are: o Definiteness of timber industry power requirements at Hoonah, and Noranda projection of power needs. ° Character of loads (especially large rapidly changing motor loads. and their effect on and compatability with residential and commercial use). ° Location and scheduling plans for a road from Hoonah to Whitestone Harbor for transmission line construction access and right-of- way. ° Physical characteristics of Stephens Passage and Chatham Strait for selection of submarine cable routing. ° Onsite line location and construction techniques planning for environmental, forest, and marine management compatability. amd Léon A detailed list of technical tasks necessary for feasibility analysis, is presented in the appended Alcat report (page 11-12). This includes sali design. submarine route investigation, right-of-way procurement, specification preparation, and bid evaluation. Estimated costs are $996,000, with the majority of two-years time necessary. The results would be design documents and bids. APA recommends that feasibility level decision in+\sis could be accomplished with about $750,000, and one year time. A summer .i+ld survey should 39 55 occur early in the schedule. Work items, required time (not additive), and costs would include: L/ Investigation planning & agency committment 1 month $ -0- Load requirements 1 month 10,000 Line sizing analysis 1 month 10,000 Line routing selection 1 month 20,000 Environmental studies : 3 months 30,000 6 soaker + EE ESi yee. 2 aenthewe==—-=56; 000 7 Submarine cable destgerdeta penad aout. ane 3 months segpees. 3/5 \0°7 % Right-of-way identification 1 month 10,000 -¢ 4 aerial liné“design and costd 4-40 4 # wonths $R,366 > - 26 Submarine cable design and costs l 3 months 20,000 Terminal, substation, accessory electrical equipment design and costs 2 months 30,000 Alternative route and design studies analysis 2 months deseo 425 Economic analysis 2 months 10,000 2/ Environmental report 2 months 10,000 2/ Feasibility report 2 months 20,000 Subtotal 30 months $610,000 Miscellaneous & Contingencies - 10 percent 60,000 Administration and Overhead : 80, 000 Total $750,000 / In-house by lead and participating entities. In Ie ~ Out of house work. Lead agency should finalize reports, allowing 2 months each for draft, and 2 months for review, revision, and final. These costs should be adequate with 1981 or 1982 start. 40 56 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 July 9, 1981 Mr. Alf Moody Alcat Engineering, Inc. 12225 - 210th Pl. S.E. Issaquah, WA 98027 Dear Mr. Moody: Thank you for your comments on the draft report Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. The editorial changes will be made in the final report. We have changed (and slightly reorganized) the feasibility analysis cost estimate (p. 40) to increase $30,000 for Alternative Route and Design Criteria Studies (moved from item 12 to item 4), decrease $10,000 for Line Routing Selection, and decrease $20,000 for Aerial Line Design and Costs. This is to allow more effort for investigation of route alternatives (administrative, environmental, and social as well as design considerations) , which should be followed by straight forward final route selection and feasibility level design and costs reflecting your previous work. The total direct cost estimate is unchanged at $610,000. Thank you for your review and personal involvement in this work. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator 57 APA response to Alcat Engineering, letter dated June 12, 1981. Recommended changes were discussed by telephone with Mr. Moody and appropriate modifications made. APA note on verbal comment by Noranda Exploration, June 25, 1981. Noranda Exploration indicated that estimated power generation fuel use for the mining operation has recently been updated to about 5 million gallons per year. This compares with 2.77 million gallons estimated by APA based on earlier energy (kWh) requirements estimated by Noranda. Associated cost savings are not revised in the report because the basic conclusion that a feasibility analysis is justified would not be changed. This amount of fuel use solely for power generation is not consistent with expected generation capacity or energy. Subsequent work needs to determine whether other fuel consumption uses are possibly included, or whether power requirements have substantially increased. 59 Jou tlingit & haida REeGional electrical authority P.O. Box 2517 @ Juneau, Alaska 99803 @ (907) 789-3196 etn Kee ) ( i KF: K C od te YUN 12 198) June 1l, 1981 Mr. Robert J. Cross, Administrator Alaska Power Administrator P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the draft reconn- aissance evaluation of the Juneau-Hoonah Transmission line. Our only concern for this level of study is that the 1981 fuel cost is listed at $1.10/gal and future projections start from that figure. Our most recent purchase (today's) showed a cost of $1.196 per gallon. For the next level of studies, we request that the following be considered: 1. Goldbelt,Inc. has plans for significant development on West Douglas Island. Since underwater construction is estimated at $500 k/mi and overhead at $187 k/mi, I believe that a line crossing between Pt. Hilda and Pt. Young would save enough in underwater construction costs to merit consideration of the longer overhead line from Outer Point. Benefits would be increased by serving future development on Douglas Is., but costs would not differ. This could be a significant increase in benefit/cost ratio. hm Similarly, I believe it is advantageous to begin the process of discuss- ing location of line on the south shore of Hawk Inlet. This has several benefits. First, there will be no need for underwater crossing of Hawk Inlet to serve Noranda's operation. Second, there is a potential for a two-fold decision in underwater construction by crossing Chatham Straights at a narrower point. 3. Only a few very large construction companies can do underwater cable. It may be well to investigate the advantages/disadvantages of having separate contracts for underwater and overhead construction. Most local or regional firms could not possibly fix the entire job but could be very compettitive on the overhead construction. I am positive there is potential for savings. 60 Mr. Robert J. Cross, Administrator June 11, 1981 -page 2- 4. Using the State financing plan, I would like to see the project consider- ed with the plan of immediate construction to serve Hoonah only with a follow-on project to serve Noranda. This is an alternative to waiting for definite action from Noranda. I believe the low-cost financing available from the State, increased benefits to AEL&P and Goldbelt, and the proposed Sealaska industrial development in Hoonah are enough to justify construc- tion, even though Noranda is the key for ultimate benefits. We will be happy to cooperate with you in any way to move this project forward. Sincerely, Liked hale a Robert Martin, Jr., P.E. General Manager cc: Frank See R.W Loescher Eric Yould Bec: Goldbelt 61 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 July 9, 1981 Mr. Robert Martin, Jr., P.E. General Manager Tlingit & Haida Regional Electrical Authority P. 0. Box 2517 Juneau, AK 99803 Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your review of the draft report Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. This letter is in response to your comments of June 11. Both letters will be included in the final report for consideration by future users. Economic evaluations were prepared in the early spring of 1981, and the fuel cost of $1.10 per gallon was the most recent THREA information available at that time. This is escalated at 3 percent annually. Higher fuel costs, or a greater escalation rate would increase the savings or "benefits" due to the project. 1 & 2. We concur with the need for evaluation of alternative routing on Douglas and Admiralty Islands so as to maximize use of a transmission line where appropriate. Development plans on Douglas, Admiralty, and Chichagof Islands should be more specific in 1981-1982 so as to allow evaluation of routing alternatives. 3. Construction could be accomplished by multiple contract, or a single contract with subcontracts. The underwater section requires substantial preconstruction time for investigation, design, and cable manufacture. Present repair capability is in Seattle, and not likely to change. These factors should be considered during a feasibility evaluation. 4. Service to Hoonah only, or a basic plan to serve Hoonah following addition of Noranda, should be explored during a feasibility analysis. 62 Several financing plans for power projects were under consideration by the State legislature during preparation of this evaluation, and as such, are not presented. Specific available financing mechanisms should be evaluated during the feasibility analysis. We appreciate the help of you and your staff in providing information during this investigation. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator 63 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: 1011 E. TUDOR RD. _ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 Jul 20 1981 (907) 276-3800 16 JUL 1981 Mr. Robert J. Cross Administrator Alaska Power Administration P. O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Re: Draft Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation Dear Mr. Cross: The U. §. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Draft of the Juneau- Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. Our comments and recommendations address only the environmental questions relating to routing, construction and maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way (ROW's). We have not addressed alternatives and methodologies beyond those associated with the basic objectives of this project. Project Description This project would provide AC transmission of Snettisham hydropower to the Noranda Mine on Admiralty Island and the village of Hoonah on Chichagof Island. The proposed route would parallel established transmission along the north side of Douglas Island, span Stephens Passage by submarine cable from Middle Point to Young Bay, traverse Admiralty Island with suspended lines along the west side of Hawk Inlet with a submarine or aerial auxiliary line across the inlet to Noranda at Hawk Inlet cannery. The main line would depart Hawk Point and span Chatham Strait by submarine cable to Whitestone Harbor where suspended transmission lines would follow logging roads to the terminus at Hoonah. General Concerns Aerially suspended transmission lines have been well documented as a hazard to numerous avian species, particularly waterfowl and raptors. Transmission line installation in woodland areas requires right-of-way (ROW) clear-cutting. The resulting slash and logs may obstruct the movements of large mammals and block fish passage in streams. Management of ROW's can also be environmentally critical, even along routes of lesser habitat value. Specific Concerns We concur with the preferred routing along the North Douglas Highway. This route avoids pioneering a ROW through previously unimpacted areas to the 64 2. south. Furthermore, the south and west shores of Douglas Island support large numbers of established bald eagle nests which are best avoided. We recommend that the transmission lines across Admiralty Island be routed to avoid the west shore of Hawk Inlet. The preferred alternative, as described in your report, would intrude on waterfowl habitat at the head of the inlet, a high concentration of eagle nest trees along the west shore, and a very high concentration of eagle nest trees and roost trees at Hawk Point. Furthermore, if suspended lines across Hawk Inlet were required to supply Noranda, an extreme collision hazard would result for the large numbers of birds which utilize the inlet. We would prefer that transmission lines be routed east of Hawk Inlet, well back from the shoreline, and possibly along proposed mining access roads. The submarine cable spanning Chatham Strait should depart from a point on the south side of Hawk Inlet's entrance. Alternatively, a submarine cable might be routed down the length of Hawk Inlet and continue across Chatham Strait, thereby avoiding having transmission lines on either side of the inlet. The section from Whitestone Harbor to Hoonah presents no obvious problems; however, Whitestone Harbor and Young Bay are popular fishing and hunting areas. Both areas support relatively large populations of deer. Routing of transmission ROW's and clearing and maintenance of ROW corridors should be carefully coordinated with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. We recommend that the following standards be established for all transmission ROW's for protection of fish and wildlife resources: 1. Lakes, ponds, inlets and shoreline areas be avoided. 2. Valleys, drainages and ridges identified as high use avian migration routes should be avoided. 3. Eagle nest trees and eagle roost trees should be avoided by a distance of 200 yards. 4. Heavy slash and logs along ROW clearings, if not removed, should be consolidated into windrows transverse to the ROW to facilitate movement across the ROW by large mammals. 5, Buffers retaining natural vegetation should be retained along streams, and stream banks should be protected from disturbance to prevent erosion and siltation and blockage of stream flow by slash. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft reconnaissance evaluation. Also, we suggest that you investigate the feasibility of a transmission link to Tenakee Springs as an alternative to local hydropower development for that community. We look forward to cooperating with your agency as this project proposal becomes more finalized and detailed environmental studies are undertaken. Sincerely yours 65 7 SG AS Yerion” Acting = Assistant Régional Director APA response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter of July 16, 1981. No specific response prepared. Major items of concern summarized in Part 6, Environmental Considerations, for information for subsequent users. 66 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Tongass National Forest-Chatham Area - ° Post Office Box 1980 Ht ae Sitka, Alaska 99835 o Me 1950 June 18, 198 sez a Mr. Robert J. Cross haSe i 72 Department of Energy U 444 81 Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Dear Mr. Cross: We received and have reviewed the Draft Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line Reconnaissance Evaluation. This project would affect the Juneau and Hoonah Ranger Districts and the Admiralty Island National Monument. We are currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the Noranda Development proposal. Our schedule is to have a final EIS by fall, 1982. This appears to be about one year ahead of a decision on the powerline. Upon review of the draft report, we noticed that no costs have been included for preparation of the environmental documents necessary for Forest Service decision-making relative to issuance of the special use permit for location on National Forest land. We do not have an environmental analysis project budgeted for 1982 or 1983. We suggest that the Department of Energy take the lead responsibility in the environmental analysis and preparation of environment documents. The Forest Service, Chatham Area will work with the Department in order to meet our statutory requirements. We also suggest that the costs associated with preparation of environmental documents be included in the design costs to cover DOE and USDA-Forest Service costs. We appreciate having the opportunity to review this draft report. If you have any questions concerning our response, please call Drew Bellon, Recreation and Lands Staff Officer (907) 747-6671. Sincerely, | ister rb bee WILLIAM P. GEE Forest Supervisor 67 Department Of Energy Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 July 6, 1981 Mr. William P. Gee Forest Supervisor Tongass National Forest Chatham Area P. 0. Box 1980 Sitka, AK 99835 Dear Mr. Gee: We have your recent letter about the proposed Juneau-Hoonah Transmission Line evaluation and appreciate your taking the time to review the draft report and offer your comments. As discussed with Mr. Drew Bellon, the State of Alaska, through the Alaska Power Authority, has funded the next step feasibility studies, and will become the focal point of project activities. We will alert them to your interest in the project. At the present time, it appears that their schedule would reach environmental considerations sometime in 1983, which would provide some lead time to the Forest Service for budgeting necessary environmental activities. While our report includes estimates of $30,000 for “outside agency" environmental studies and $10,000 for the lead agency, we recognize they are preliminary and subject to change after identification of specific work items. Sincerely, Robert J. Cross Administrator 68 APPENDIX II HOONAH WOOD GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Galliett and Associates, and five other firms for Alaska Power Authority December 1980 A. Load Projection Table B. Alternative Energy Cost 69 FINAL DRAFT HOONAH WOOD GENERATION FEASIBILITY STUDY HOONAH, ALASKA PREPARED FOR THE ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY ERIC P. YOULD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 333 W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 31 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 AND THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE KENNETH A. KILBORN, FOREST PRODUCTS SPECIALIST 2221 E. NORTHERN LIGHTS BOULEVARD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 PREPARED BY HAROLD H. GALLIETT, JR. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR GALLIETT & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA FORESTS NORTH, LTD. DRYDEN & LA RUE . CONSULTING FORESTERS CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA STEFANO & ASSOCIATES, INC. GENE RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS PACIFIC POLAR RIMS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA HOWARD J. GREY & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOLOGISTS-ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA A JOINT VENTURE CONTRACT NO. CC 08-0395 71 DECEMBER 1, 1980 Scenario C - Wood-Gas Generation, Dual-Fuel Engines 1981 1980 1982 1983 1984 Type of Generation Diesel* Dfesel* Dual-Fuel - - Location Existing Existing New : - Acreage Required - - 2.1 3.9 3.9 Installed Capacity, MW 1.7 1.7 2.7 4.7 4.7 Additions To Capacity, MW - - 1.0 2.0 0.0 Deductions From Capacity, MW - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ordinary Annual Increase, % 3.0 7.0 12.0 18.0 25.0 Ordinary Peak Demand, Kw 618 661 741 874 1,092 Industrial Peak Demand, Kw - - 0 2,000 2,000 Station Service Peak Demand, Kw : : 500 500 500 Total Peak Demand, Kw 618 661 1,241 3,374 3,592 Ordinary Average Demand, Kw 282 2 338 399 499 Industrial Average Demand, Kw - - 0 700 700 Net Average Demand, kw 282 302 338 1,099 1,199 Station Service Average Demand, Kw - - 17 55 60 Gross Average Demand, kw 282 302 355 1,154 1,259 Net Generation, MWH 2,470. 2,646 2,961 9,627 10,503 Station Service Generation, MWH - - 149 482 526 Gross Generation, MWH 2,470 2,646 3,110 10,109 11,029 Wood Used, Tons As Received 0 0 4,976 16,174 17,646 Diesel Fuel Used, 1,000 Gal 247 265 31 101 110 Lube 011 Used, Gal 1,235 1,323 1,244 4,044 4,412 ¥2~- b00's FE 1- 500 ** Retire diesels. cL 6f LIIHX4 22,581 141 5,645 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1,574 1,668 1,735 1,787 1,827 1,841 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 500 500 500 500 500 5,074 5,168 5,235 5,287 5,327 5,341 719 762 792 816 832 841 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,769 1,812 1,842 1,866 1,882 1,891 88 91 92 93 94 95 1,857 1,903 1,934 1,959 1,976 1,986 15,496 15,873 16,136 16,346 16 ,486 16,565 m7 797 806 B15 823 832 16,267 16 ,670 16,942 17,161 17,309 17,397 26,027 26 672 27,107 27,458 27,694 27,835 163 167 169 172 173 174 6,507 6 ,668 6,777 6,864 6,924 6,959 “90 Cents/Kwh 80 70 60 ol oO > oO 20 10 Scenario C High Economic Factors 5% Interest Rate All-Diesel Wood-Gas —-—-— — Wood-Fired Steam: Large Smal] Gartina Hydro & Diesel ---------- EXHIBIT 42 APPENDIX III JUNEAU-HOONAH TRANSMISSION LINE RECONNAISSANCE Alcat Engineering, Inc. March 1981 A. Report B. Appendix I - 69 kV Line Cost C. Appendix II - Alternate Overhead Line Cost 75 JUNEAU-HOONAH TRANSMISSION LINE RECONNAISSANCE ANALYSIS Prepared for: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION A.P.A. ORDER NO. A-8] -062 March 18, 1981 E. J. HARRINGTON P.E. A. W. MOODY P.E. ALCAT ENGINEERING INC. 12225 - 210th Place S.E. Issaquah, Washington 98027 77 3. 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Loads and Load Factors Voltage Choice Primary Routes Overhead Line Terrain Discussion of Overhead Line Features Summary of 69 KV Overhead Line Costs Discussion of Cable Routes Type of Cable Substations Diesel Generator Back-up for Line Outages Cost of Maintenance Cost of losses Fuel Cost of Replacement Power Alternative Routes Cost of System to Serve Hoonah Only Advanced Technology Advanced Planning Conclusion Tables Summary of 69 KV Transmission Line Costs Alternative Overhead Transmission Line Cost Calculations Electric Power Transmissions Costs Figures Proposed One-Line Diagram for Transmission System to Serve Hoonah and Noranda Exploration Impedance Diagram for 34.5 and 69 KV System Chatham Strait Crossing Profile Map of Transmission Line Route Map of Alternative Transmission Line Route 78 ooarnoananuws® PB Ww wWNH NF FP 10 11 13 14 18 19 - 12 - 17 JUNEAU-HOONAH TRANSMISSION SYSTEM RECONNAISSANCE ANALYSIS Introduction. The village of Hoonah is dependent on diesel engine generated electric power. Hydro power is available in Juneau and would save money and conserve oil if it could be transmitted to Hoonah. This analysis, authorized by APA, was made to determine the cost of a suitable transmission system and the cost per KWh of electric energy transmitted. In addition to the load at Hoonah, Noranda Exploration is consid- ering a mining operation on Hawk Inlet on Admiralty Island which is near the middle of the proposed transmission line. The mine load was included in this cost analysis. The loads, load factors, land use and other input data were sup- plied by APA, then further discussed and modified at a meeting in Juneau January 7, 1981. The following organizations were repre- sented at the meeting: Alaska Power Administration Noranda Exploration U. S. Forest Service Tlingit-Haida REA Alaska Electric Light and Power Co. Sealaska Corp. Alcat Engineering From other similar studies it is known that the most economical solution to the electric power supply problem is to build a single circuit, non-redundant transmission line and back it up with diesel generators at the load, which run only when the line is out of service. Thus no attempt was made to design a transmission line with more than normal reliability. Load values and Load Factors. The following loads were used in calculating the capacity, losses and voltage drop for the trans- mission system proposed in this report. Hoonah Noranda Mine Domestic Industrial Peak Load (KW) 1500 3000 5000 Average Load (KW) 750 1050 3790 Load Factor 50% 35% 75 .8% The total peak load is 9500 KW and the total average load is 5590 KW 79 4. Section 2 (continued) for the system. The load factor is 58.8%. The annual energy con- sumption for the entire system is 48,968,00 KWh. The load factor of the combined domestic and industrial loads at Hoonah is 40%. The total annual energy requirement at Hoonah is 15,768,000 KWh. Voltage Choice. Loads of the magnitude of those at Hoonah and the Noranda Mine could be served at 34.5 KV or 69 KV. At 34.5 KV the voltage regulation would be in the order of 15%, thus requiring step voltage regulators or regulating transformers at both Fish Creek and the Cannery Tap. For this reconnaissance study, both the 69 KV and the 34.5 KV transmission systems were assumed to be using 4/0 ACSR for the overhead and 2/0 copper equivalent for the submarine cable. Impedance diagrams for both systems are shown in Fig. 2. The losses at 69 KV come to about 171 KW or 1.8%. At 34.5 KV they would increase to about 7%. At 34.5 KV the system would be approaching its upper limit of load carrying capability. At 69 KV the load carrying capability would be at least double that at 34.5 KV and as much as four times if adequate conductors were used. The 2000 HP chipper proposed for use at Hoonah could not be run from the power system at 34.5 KV without causing excessive voltage fluctu- ation and hence, light flicker. At 69 KV, the chipper could be supplied and probably without excessive light flicker. The flicker problem should be investigated further when all the parameters are known. It was decided to use 69 KV as the transmission voltage for this analysis. Primary Route. As shown on the map, Fig. 4, the transmission line was assumed to start at the end of a future 69 KV transmission line in the vicinity of Fish Creek on the north end of Douglas Island. A circuit breaker would be installed at this point and the line would follow the present highway R.O.W. to the end of the road. At this point the line would proceed to the water's edge and enter a 3 conductor sub- marine cable under Stephens Passage to Admiralty Island. The cable would terminate on the shore of Admiralty Island north of Youngs Bay. A 69 KV overhead line would cross the narrow isthmus opposite the head of Hawk Inlet. From here the line would proceed along the west side of Hawk Inlet to a point opposite the old cannery site located on the east shore. Switchgear to sectionalize the line and permit a tap to the Cannery site (mine load) would be installed at this place. The 80 6. Section 4 (continued) line would then proceed along the west side of Hawk Inlet to the ness at the mouth on Chatham Strait. At this point it would enter a sub- marine cable which would terminate on Chichagof Island at Whitestone Harbor near the mouth of Suntaheen Creek. Here, a 69 KV overhead line would begin and after a short roadless stretch, follow the plan- ed logging road. (See "The ALP 1981-86 Timber Sale Operating Plan Final E.1.S.", U. S. Forest Service). The line would terminate in the vicinity of the airport at Hoonah. Overhead Line Terrain. As near as could be determined from the air, the line route selected traversed terrain where the following comments apply: Footings (Pole holes) Muskeg - backhoe excavation required Rock under shallow soil - blast and hand dig Top soil, machine inaccessable - hand dig Soil (roadless) - auger Rock (roadside) - blast and auger Clearing Muskeg - little to no clearing Timber, machine inaccessable - helicopter Timber (roadside) - assumed only minor clearing Chichagof Island - assumed all clearing by lumber company Discussion of Overhead Line Features. For the purpose of this study it was assumed R.O.W. clearing involved falling and helicopter clean- up on Admiralty Island. On Douglas Island R.O.W. was assumed to follow the edge of the road and only minor clearing would be necessary except for a short portion from the end of the road to the shoreline. On Chichagof Island, except for a short piece of muskeg at Whitestone Bay, all R.O.W. was assumed parallel to a road to be constructed in connec- tion with logging operations. Furthermore, it was assumed that R.O.W.. clearing for the road would be of sufficient width to accomodate the transmission line. From the air, the quality of the muskeg areas could not be deter- mined but it has been assumed that they can be traversed by backhoes mounted on wide tracked vehicles. The backhoes would excavate the pole holes and backfill around steel culvert casings inside which the pole will be placed by helicopter. The space between pole and casing would be filled by helicopter transported rock. Detailed design after on-the-ground surveys may dictate some other type of structure, such as a swamp frame, but cost should be less in such cases. 81 Section 6 (continued) For cost estimates it was assumed that this line would be designed for energy transmission only. During outages the replacement capa- city would be furnished by diesel generators. While good design practices were followed as to the terrain traversed and weather ex- posure, no extra features, such as danger tree removal, access roads, etc. were included in the estimate. This means that the line may be subject to outages during windstorms, snow and icing conditions. On Douglas and Chichagof Islands the line will be essentially road accessible, so repairs should be easily and quickly accomplished. On Admiralty Island no access roads were included in the estimate. All maintenance there would be by heli- copter, float-plane or boat to the shoreline and by foot from there to the R.O.W. Outages on this section could be quite long. Outage time on the Admiralty Island section could be shortened to the equivalent of that in the other portions by construction of an access road along the route. Forest Service estimates for mad costin such terrain are $150,000 to $250,000 per mile. This would be offset somewhat by reduced line construction and maintenance costs. Summary of 69 KV Overhead Line Cost. Included in Table 1. are the primary design cost figures for the 69 KV overhead line used in this report. This 69 KV design utilized 380 foot spans, 50 foot R.O.W. and oversized post type insulators. The conductor was priced at a value more conservative than necessary. An alternative lower cost design utilizing 350 foot spans, 25 foot R.O.W., standard 69 KV post type insulators, up-dated hardware costs and a reduced conductor price is included as Table 2. of the report. The more conservative cost figures of Table 1. were used in all the calculations. The alternative design would result in a cost about 11% below that utilizing the primary design. Discussion of Cable Routes. The Stephens Passage and Chatham Strait cable routes have already been described under the heading "Primary Route". Before finally selecting the entry points and exact loca- tion of the proposed cables, a sonar route survey including TV monitoring, bottom sampling and precise location methods must be made of the two crossings. It is extimated that such a survey would require two weeks of vessel time at $12,000 per day. In- cluding administration and overhead this survey of both crossings would cost $250,000. The Chatham Strait crossing involves laying cable at depths as great 82 9. Section 8 (continued) as 2200 feet. Neither cable manufacturers nor the cable laying firms expressed any great concern over this. It is pointed out that it is important that a route be selected (aided by the route survey) that is free of underwater cliffs or sharp ridges in the cable path. The profile of a possible cable route across Chatham Strait from Hawk Point to Point Augusta has been included as Fig. 3 of this re- port. The fathometer readings used for this profile were taken by NOAA on the vessel Davidson October 20, 1980. The route is a little to the south of the proposed cable crossing especially at the Pt. Augusta end but it gives a good idea of the actual conditions in Chatham Strait. The maximum slope measured on the fathometer pro- file was 36 degrees. It is proposed to bury the underwater portion of the line ends out to a depth of at least 30 feet at low tide. The shore ends will also be buried up to a location well above the high tide line. Here the cable will emerge from the ground and go up a wood pole structure supporting a 3 conductor pot head. Also located on this structure will be 3 station type surge arresters to protect the cable from over voltage. In the alternative routes the cable crossings across Gastineau Channel and Hawk Inlet will be treated the same as the longer cross- ings described above, except that it is proposed to bury the under- water portion to a depth of 3 or 4 feet for the entire crossing. Type of Cable. The 69 KV cable price used in this study covers a paper insulated, oil filled, lead covered, 72 KV (rated), 3 x 95 mm cable with 42 single layer steel armour wire each 5.6 mm diameter. The 95 mm* conductor is aluminum and is equivalent to 187.4 MCM in U. S. units. The resistance of .51 ohms per mile is equivalent to a copper conductor between 1/0 and 2/0 in size. This 3 conductor cable weighs 14.8 lbs./foot. Its current rating is 230 amps in 15° C soil. This is equivalent to 27,500 KVA at 69 KV. Its shunt capacitance is .434 mfd./mile. The cable has an outer covering of polypropylene yarn and asphalt. The outer diameter is 3.66 inches. Single phase cable could be used for these crossings instead. The installed cost of 3 single phase cables would be in the order of 25% more than the 3 phase. If 4 single phase cables (1 spare) were installed the cable crossings would cost approximately 65% more than the 3 phase. Since this transmission system does not provide firm power with four single phase cables, it does not seem worthwhile to pay extra for the spare or the single phase option. When a more reliable source of power is required a second three phase cable could be laid and either one could carry up to 27.5 MW continuously. 83 10. ll. Section 9 (continued) Polyethelene type of insulation could be used for these cables at some reduction in cost but until it is more thorougly proven, the paper and lead type is preferred by many engineers. At 34.5 KV, polyethelene insulated cables are more generally accepted and would cost only about 65% as much as the paper and lead insulated cable described above for 69 KV service. If paper and lead cable is specified for 34.5 KV it would cost approximately 85% as much as the 69 KV cable described above. For the line to serve Hoonah only, (described later in this report) it was assumed that paper and lead cable would be used for 34.5 KV at 85% of the 69 KV cable cost. Substations. The l-line diagram, Fig. 1 shows the transformers, switchgear and reactors planned for the substations. Table 1 gives the estimated installed price of the major items in the substation. Note that a 12,500 KVA shunt reactor has been shown at the Cannery Tap substation along with a circuit switcher to remove it from the line without shutting down the system. The shunt capacitance of all the 69 KV cables used in the primary plan supplies 13,659 KVAR of reactive power to the system. This will cause about 5% rise in the voltage at Hoonah under no load without the shunt reactor. With the reactor, there will be almost no voltage rise on the line at no load. The voltage regulation with the specified loads at 69 KV is so low that no voltage regulating devices should be needed. The standard transformer taps should be adequate to set the voltage at the desired level. Diesel Generator Backup for Line Outages. Previous work has indicated that it is less costly to obtain a reasonably reliable power supply by providing local backup generator capacity than by adding addi- tional lines. The forecasted peak load for Hoonah is 1500 KW domestic and 3000 KW industrial. The present generator capacity is under- stood to be 1700 KW. The proposed industrial load includes a 2000 HP chipper. This type of machine is subject to wide fluctuations in load, possibly from zero to 2500 KW. It is not possible to supply such a load from a diesel power plant of matching size without irritating light (voltage) flicker. For this reason it is assumed in this study that no diesel generating capacity will be provided for supplying the chipper during such times as the transmission system is out of service for repairs. The Hoonah domestic load of 1500 KW plus 1000 KW of the industrial load remains to be supplied by local diesel capacity. The present 1700 KW of diesel capacity would then have to be augmented by about 1000 KW of additional capacity. The cost of a 1000 KW diesel gener- ating plant delivered in Seattle is about $200/KW. The Hoonah plant 84 12. Section 11 (continued) has space for such a unit and it is estimated that the installed cost is $400/KW for a total of $400,000. It was assumed that Noranda Exploration would provide its own emer- gency generators if shut downs are costly enough to justify the expense. The cost of the added generating capacity at Hoonah is not included in the transmission cost analysis in Table 3. Cost of Maintenance. For this study the overhead line outage rate was assumed to be the same as the Snettisham-Juneau line (after the relocation) which is .178 outages per mile per year. For 30 miles of line there would be 5.34 outages per year. Assuming $22,000 as the average cost to repair an overhead line failure, the maintenance cost would be $117,000/year. For submarine cable, the outage rate was assumed to be the same as for DC submarine cables for which reasonably good outage data is avail- able.* This rate developed is .24 outages per 100 miles per year.** Since the cable considered here is 3 conductor cable the outage rate has been arbitrarily doubled to .48. For 18.1 miles of cable we might expect 18.1 x .48/100 = .087 failures per year, or one failure every 11.5 years. If the average cable repair time is estimated to require one month the cost would be about $475,000 per repair.** The annual cost of cable maintenance would be .087 x $475,000 = $42,000. It is estimated that substation maintenance plus annual inspections and testing would add another $20,000 per year. The estimated cost of maintenance for the system is then: Overhead lines $117,000 Submarine cable 42,000 Substations 20 ,000 Total Maintenance cost $179,000/year * Cigre Paper 14-08 " A Survey of the Performance of HVDC Systems Throughout the World during 1975 - 1978." ** See "Snettisham-Ketchikan Transmission System" March 1980 by Harstad Associates, Pages 18 - 19. 85 13. 14. Cost of Losses. To approximate the transmission losses on this system it was assumed that all loads operated at 0.95 power factor and that line charging current could be ignored. The estimated losses follow: As To Line Section Load Amps Ohms Peak % % Eff. KW Res. KW Load Loss Loss Loss Factor Factor KW Fish Creek to Cannery Tap 9500 83.7 9.91 208.3 58.8 40 83.3 Cannery to Hoonah 4500 39.6 14.49 68.3 40 23 15.7 Total effective line loss 99.0 shown above, the effective line loss for the whole line is 99 KW. this must be added the losses in the transformer at Hoonah and the shunt reactor at the Cannery Tap. The transformer would have a total los 12 s of about 50 KW and an effective loss at 40% load factor of about KW. Adding an estimated 60 KW continuous loss for the 12,5000 KVA shunt reactor brings the estimated total loss to 171 KW. If we assume the cost of fuel oil in 1981 to be $1.25/gal. and diesel generator output of 12 KWh/gal. then the fuel to generate a KWh would be about 10.4¢. The annual cost of 171 KW of average loss would then be 171 Fue the to Min for x 8760 x $.104 = $156,000. 1 Cost of Replacement Power. During the portion of the year that transmission system is shut down for repairs it will be necessary run the diesel generators to supply power at Hoonah and the Noranda e. These loads and outage times should be analysed separately but this reconnaissance study a brief analysis on the system as a whole was made. Ove rhead line, estimated .178 outages/mile/year: 30 miles x .178 = 5.34 outages/year for system 5.34 x 13 hours/outage = 70 hours/year For the submarine cable the estimated outage rate is .24/100 miles/year for single phase and .48/100 miles/year for 3 phase cable. It was further assumed that each cable outage required 30 days to repair. The The The The 10. -48/100 x 18 miles x 30 days x 24 hours = 63 hours/year. estimated outage time for the substations is 20 hours per year. total annual outage time is then 70 + 63 + 20 = 153 hours. annual energy consumption of the system is 48,968,000 KWh. cost of replacement energy would, then, be the difference between 4¢ KWh for diesel fuel cost and the cost of power at Fish Creek (assumed to be 3¢/KWh) times the KWh used during the outage: 48,968,000 x (153/8760) x (.104 - .030) = $64,000/year for the fuel cost of replacement power. 86 15% Alternative Routes. A great many major and minor route variations were considered during the analysis. One which involves running the line down the east side of Hawk Inlet would not add much distance and would save Noranda Exploration the cost of a cable or overhead crossing of Hawk Inlet. The preliminary maps of the Monument indicate that such a power line would cross a portion of the Monument non-wilderness area and possibly a corner of the wilderness area too, if it con- tinued down the east shore of Hawk Inlet to Chatham Strait. It might be possible to run the line down the east side of Hawk Inlet and enter the water just north of the Monument entrance without going through any part of the Monument. If this could be done, the cable would probably have to be buried in Hawk Inlet till it reached deeper water in Chatham Strait. The cost of burying about two miles of cable is not known. If it saved a cable crossing of Hawk Inlet it would be worth investigating after the Monument limitations are precisely known, Since it could be a more economical approach. A second alternative route involves running the line from Fish Creek, on Douglas Island, past the end of the road to the vicinity of Middle Point, thence to Youngs Bay on Admiralty Island via cable. This could shorten the cable route by as much as 1.5 to 2 miles and leng- then the overhead route by about the same amount. Since the cable cost is about $500,000 per mile, (neglecting the terminations) and the overhead line, in roadless areas, around $250,000 per mile there should be a modest saving by doing this. It has the disadvantage of using up more forest land for R.O.W. or possibly creating an eye sore if the overhead portion is run along the shore. A third alternative is to start the Hoonah line at Thane Substation rather than Fish Creek. (See map Fig. 5). From here it would go overhead directly to Gastineau Channel. It should be buried under water in the channel. After leaving Gastineau Channel it would follow the shore around the south end of Douglas Island to Pt. Hilda where it would go via cable to Pt. Young on Admiralty Island. On Admiralty Island an overhead line would follow the shore generally, to one of the passes over the isthmus to Hawk Inlet, then down the east shore to the Cannery Substation, and across Hawk Inlet to the original route. This alternative route around the south end of Douglas results in 16 miles additional overhead line and 2 miles less submarine cable. The total added cost is about $3,950,000. It results in two major advan- tages as follows: A. Eliminates wheeling charge over the AEL&P system. B. Serves the mine load on the east side of Hawk Inlet without requiring Noranda to provide its own cable crossing of Hawk Inlet. The estimated cost of a 69 KV, 2/0 cable across Hawk Inlet is $1,100,000. In the primary route study where the line went down the west side of Hawk Inlet it was assumed that Noranda would pay for this 87 9 16. 17. Section 15 (continued) crossing to the east side. This third alternative route around the south end of Douglas Island eliminates this added cost for Noranda because the overhead line across Admiralty Island goes down the east side of Hawk Inlet right past the old cannery. The added cost of $3,950,000 would result in an increase of about 0.8¢ per KWh at the interest rate of 8.5%. Cost of System to Serve Hoonah Only. A very short investigation was conducted to determine the approximate reduction in total transmission system cost if only the Hoonah load was to be served. A modest cost reduction would result from reducing the transmission voltage to 34.5 KV. Elimination of the Cannery Tap substation would further reduce the cost. The addition of a 69/34.5 KV transformer would be required at Fish Creek to reduce the voltage to 34.5 KV. The estimated total project cost would be reduced from $20,427,000 to $17,554,000 including interest during construction at 8.5%. The Hoonah load used for this study is 4500 KW at 40%load factor or 15,768,000 KWh per year. Sub- tracting the energy generated by local diesel generators during 153 hours of estimated line outage time results in a total energy transmitted of 15,493,000 KWh. The resulting cost of energy transmission from Fish Creek on north Douglas Island to the Village of Hoonah is 12.6¢ per KWh including carrying charges on the investment, maintenance, cost of losses and replacement power during line outages. Advanced Technology. For a 50 mile transmission line (with 18 miles in submarine cable) connecting two 60 Hz power systems, it is felt there is presently no economic competitor to the conventional AC transmission tie. If the line were all in cable and all going to the same place a DC tie would no doubt save money. Non-conventional low frequency AC tie lines have been proposed by some, but the authors are convinced that a new system such as this, requiring converters at each end, could not pay off. Single phase tie lines might be considered for small loads, but for loads this size single phase to 3 phase converters would have to be added at each end. The cable laying cost using single phase cable would not be significantly lower than 3 phase. If a DC system is later built in S. E. Alaska the proposed AC Juneau- Hoonah tie line could be integrated with it. The two systems are compatible even to the extent of paralleling a DC and an AC trans— mission tie line as is done on the Pacific Intertie. In conclusion, it appears that the conventional 3 phase, 60 Hz, AC system is the most economical choice. 10 88 18. Advanced Planning, Following is a schedule of tasks necessary for a detailed technical feasibility investigation and design, including estimated time schedules and costs. It should be noted that the time schedules could be overlapping and that some tasks should be done in the summer. 1. Overhead line environmental information to be collected. A. Wind velocities B. Ice and snow loads C. Temperature extremes D. Contamination effects Time: 1 month $ 20,000 2. Line routeing A. Layout proposed route and discuss with all concerned. B. Tentative agreement with land owners C. Environmental report preparation D. Permits and license applications as required. E. On site check of route. Time: 2 months $ 50,000 3. Surveys (land portion) A. Survey and stake route. B. Make plan and profile maps. C. Stake pole locations. Time: 2 months $230,000 4. R.O.W. Procurement A. Easements and/or title aquisition Time: 6 to 12 months $ 30,000 5. Line design A. From environmental information, route information, experience of others and construction experience in similar areas, select the line mechanical parameters. B. From load flow,loss and voltage regulation studies select the line electrical parameters. C. On basis of selected parameters: Locate structures on plan and profile map Prepare material list Prepare stringing, sag information etc. Time: 4 months $100,000 6. Procurement information (Overhead lines) A. Material list B. Material specifications C. Construction specifications Time: 6 weeks $ 30,000 89 11 Section 18 (continued) 7. Cable Routing A. Terminal site selection B. Terminal land surveys C. Bottom survey (both crossings) D. R.O.W. easements for cable E. Permits as required Time: 3 months $315,000 8. Cable procurement A. Determine suitable cable design B. Write procurement specification Time: 1 month $ 10,000 9. Cable terminations A. Pothead specifications B. Terminal station design C. Installation specifications Time: 1 month $ 10,000 10, Cable laying A. Job specifications Time: 1 month $ 10,000 11. Bid evaluation on all jobs Time: 2 months $_ 25,000 Subtotal $830,000 Contingencies @ 20% 166,000 Total $996,000 The above steps are proposed for the complete transmission system engineering and design. Construction, construction supervision and inspection services are not included. It is estimated that construction of the entire transmission system would require the better part of 2 years. The clearing for the overhead line and the underwater route survey (if not already completed) could be done during the summer of the first year. The building of the overhead line and the laying of the cables could be done simultaneously during the good weather portion of the second year. If APA wished to reach a final decision as to feasibility without financing the complete system engineering and design at $996,000 the authors suggest that the cable route survey is probably all that is required. This survey is discussed in Section 8, "Discussion of Cable Routes", and would cost about $250,000. 12 90 19, Conclusion 4. 5. The recommended voltage for this transmission system is 69 KV. At 34.5 KV (the next lower standard voltage) the 2000 HP chipper load would undoubtedly cause voltage fluctuations and irritating light flicker. The higher voltage also makes possible substantial future load growth without any major system modifications. The route as shown in Fig. 4 is close to the optimum route which completely avoids the Monument. When Monument boundaries are accurately known and the pos- sibility of running a line through the non-wilderness area of the Monument is known, it may be more economical to run the transmission line down the east shore of Hawk Inlet. The alternative route around the south end of Douglas Island, shown in Fig. 5, will not be economically attractive unless wheeling charges are greater than expected. The total cost of the transmission system is estimated at $20,427,000 using an 8.5% interest rate. The average cost of transmitting electric energy over the proposed system is 4,.98¢per KWh. This is based on a 25 year system life and an 8.5% interest rate. Costs for other interest rates are included in Table 3. The estimated cost of a transmission line to serve Hoonah only (without the Noranda mine) is $17,554,000 including interest during construction at 8.5%. The cost of transmitting energy to Hoonah is approximately 12.6¢ per KWh. 13 91 Table I SUMMARY OF 69 KV TRANSMISSION LINE COSTS Submarine Cables Stephens Passage From Douglas Island South of Outer Point to Admiralty Island just north of Youngs Bay. Distance 6.07 miles Using 69 KV, 3 conductor armored cable 187.5 MCM conductor, paper and lead insulated suitable for 230 amps in 15° C ambient, including freight from Oslo, Norway to Juneau, Alaska at $28,333.00 per mile of cable shipped. Cable cost, 6.07 miles of cable @ $245 ,000/mile $1,487,000 Installation cost 671,000 Cable termination cost (installed) including surge arresters 120,000 Subtotal 2,278,000 Engineering and administration @ 20% 456,000 Subtotal 2,734,000 Contingencies @ 25% 683,000 Total cost for Stephens Passage crossing Chatham Strait From Hawk Point on Admiralty Tsland to Whitestone Harbor on Chichigoff Island. Distance 12.02 miles Using same 69 KV Cable as was used for Stephens Passage Cable cost 12.02 mi at $245,000/mile $2,945,000 Installation cost 1,329,000 Cable termination cost (installed) including surge arresters 120,000 Subtotal 4,394,000 Engineering and administration @ 20% 879,000 Subtotal 5,273,000 Contingencies @ 25% 1,318,000 Total Cost for Chatham Strait Crossing 14 92 $6,591,000 Table 1 (cont) Overhead Transmission Line Voltage: 69 KV, 4/0 ACSR Conductor, 380' span. Single wood pole, standoff insulators with extra creep. R/W = 50° 14 poles/mi., H Frame Dead Ends, Length: 30 miles. Surveys Design Materials: Poles Crossarm & Hdwr. Conductor Conductor Hdwr. Insulators Guys & Anchors Misc. Materials Stores Exp. Total: Materials Construction: Pole Excavation Pole Setting Stringing Guy & Anchor Inst. Inspection Subsistence Exp. Equip. Rental Total: Construction Land Clearing & Access Roads Subtotal Administration & Overhead @ 22% Subtotal Contingency @ 25% Mobilization & Demobilization Total Line Cost 15 93 $260,400 28,319 365,904 35,772 259,056 25,267 50,000 70,000 $464,160 383,525 547,912 35,245 250,000 270,000 268,160 $3,756,000 4,583,000 $ 238,000 104,000 $1,095,000 $2,219,000 0 $ 100,000 827,000 1,146,000 1,500,000 $7,229,000 Table 1 (cont.) Substations Fish Creek 1- 69 KV oil circuit breaker complete with overhead structure, disconnects, relays, station service supply, surge arresters. Installed price including fence and ground mat. $ 130,000 Cannery Tap (Noranda Mine) 3- 69 KV oil circuit breakers complete with overhead structure, disconnects, relays, station service supply, surge arresters. Installed price including fence and ground mat. $ 320,000 1- 12,500 KVA, 3 phase, outdoor oil filled shunt reactor, installed 300,000 1- 1200 amp, 3 pole, 69 KV Circuit Switcher, installed 60,000 Total for Cannery Tap Sub 680,000 Hoonah Sub J- 5000 KVA, 3 phase, 69 KV to 12.5 KV LTC Transformer, installed 200,000 1- 15 KV, 1200 amp outdoor OCB with accessories 50,000 Total for Hoonah Sub 250,000 Substation Summary Materials and Installation Cost (Fish Creek, Cannery Tap, Hoonah) 1,060,000 Engineering and Administration @ 20% 212,000 Subtotal 1,272,000 Contingencies ¢ 25% 318,000 Total Substation Cost $1,590,000 16 94 Table 1 (cont.) Project Cost Summary Stephens Passage Cable Crossing Chatham Strait Cable Crossing Overhead Lines (Douglas Island, Admiralty Island and Chichagof Island) Substations (Douglas Island, Cannery Tap, Hoonah) Grand Total 95 17 $ 3,417,000 6,591,000 7,229,000 1,590,000 $18,827,000 Table 2 Alternate Overhead Transmission Cost Calculations Line Voltage: 69 KV, 4/0 ACSR Conductor, 350' span Single wood pole, standoff insulators R/W = 25' 17 poles/mi., 1 deadend & 1 angle pole/mile. Single pole dead ends Length: 30 mile Surveys $ 250,000 Design 125 ,000 Materials: Poles $329,310 Crossarms & Hardware 38,288 Conductor 176,850 Conductor Hardware 10,930 Insulators 98,220 Guys & Anchors 8,340 Misc. Materials 50,000 Stores Expense 50,000 Total: Materials $ 762,000 Construction: Pole Excavation $279,865 Pole Setting 328,972 Stringing 628,419 Guys & Anchors 85,742 Inspection 198,449 Subsistence Exp 180,000 Equipment Rental 300,000 Total Construction $2,001,000 Land 0 Clearing & Access Roads $100,000 Subtotal $3,238,000 Administration & Overhead @ 22% 712,000 Subtotal $3,950,000 Contingency @ 25% 988,000 Mobilization & Demobilization 1,500,000 Total Line Cost $6,438,000 18 96 Table 3 ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION COSTS Load at Noranda Mine 5000 KW @ 75.8% load factor Load at Hoonah 4500 KW @ 40% load factor Sum of the Mine and Hoonah loads 9500 KW @ 58.8% load factor Total transmission system capital cost $18,827,000 (Plus interest during constr.) Annual energy transmitted* 48,113,000 KWh Interest Rate : 5% 8.5% 12% System Life 25 years 25 years 25 years Capital Recovery Factor 07095 09771 12750 Interest during Construction $ 941,000 $1,600,000 $2,259,000 Investment (Capital + I.D.C.) $19,768,000 $20,427,000 $21,086,000 Annual Charges on Investment $1,403,000 $1,996,000 $2,688,000 Annual Cost of Maintenance 179,000 179,000 179,000 Annual Cost of Losses 156,000 156,000 156,000 Annual Cost of Replacement Power 64,000 64,000 64,000 Total Annual Cost $1,802,000 $2,395,000 $3,087,000 Cost per KWh (transmission only) 3.74¢ 4.98¢ 6.42¢ * The forecasted load for the entire system is 48,968,000 KWh as stated in Section 2. The energy transmitted is obtained by subtracting the make-up energy generated by local diesel standby plants during the 153 hour outage time forecasted in Section 14, The make-up energy is equal to 153 x 5590 KW average load or 855,000 KWh. 19 97 Nugget. Creek inc” Nugget Mti ¢ “ € 1 False Pty. 57 Sa Pt Louisa Rereat 2” Gat 4% NOSE i \ eK '\4e 4 Straiss Rh Xe we \ Coghlan. if %, Island 54°, 5 P. Portland Spun "BSS sets sisiena 8d ing Station aS Pt Hilda ‘Scull gyScull island 2 TRANSMISSION LINE ff Diz ie ROUTE (We NONE / SCALE 1: 250,000 ERK , ane JUNEAU, ALASKA-CANA N5800 - W13400/60x120 1962 2 REV 7 ALTERNATIVE LINE ROUTE on THANE TO HAWK INLET SCALE 1: 250,000 JUNEAU. ALASKA-CANADA N5800 - W13400/60X120 1962 MINOR REVISIONS 1971 PROPOSED ONE-LINE DIAGRAM FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO SERVE HOONAH AND NORANDA EXPLORATION CANNERY TAP FISH CREEK HOONAH 69 KV OOT CIRCUIT SWITCHER TO AEL &P SYSTEM 5,000 KVA 12.5 MVA DOUGLAS IS. 3 PHASE REACTOR NORANDA 5,000 KW 12.5 KV BUS AT HOONAH FIG. | i IMPEDANCE DIAGRAMS JUNEAU - HOONAH LINE 7.6 Mi. 2.95 Mi. 7.15 Mi. : 3.34+J5.78 3.1543 5.44 6.424 Jill 4 "T - J2900 5.95+U2.99 CANNERY TAP T 3.00+ JI.51 + -yises LT ~ J1464 = 5000 KW 0.95 PF = = HOONAH al CHATHAM ST. = STEPHENS PAS FISH CREEK 4500 KW 0.95 PF 34.5 KV SYSTEM bE oO - 14.6 Ml. 2.95 MI. 7.15 MI. 7.6 Mi. 3.34 + 36.32 1304+/2.45 3.15 +U5.94 6.42 +J12.1 - JIOI6 -J2013 E - ylol6 7 677+ 12.90 7P CANNERY TAP T 3.42 + J1.46 T HOONAH CHATHAM ST. STEPHENS PAS. FISH CREEK 69 KV SYSTEM OH 34.5 KV, 4/0 ACSR, Z2 .440 +J.76! OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE NEGLECTED CABLE 34.5 KV, 2/0 CU, Z=.495 + J.249 OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE 8800 OHMS/Mi. OH 69KV, 4/0 ACSR, Z=.440 + J. 83) OHMS/MILE, SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE NEGLECTED CABLE 69 KV, 187 MCM AL, Z?.563 + J.241 OHMS/MI., SHUNT CAPACITIVE REACTANCE 6110 OHMS/MI. FIG. 2 a NEAR PT AUGUSTA SEA LEVEL ) DEEPEST POINT, 2200FT ‘ ! Z - ° — MAX. SLOPE 36 C_WNEAR MIDCHANNEL 2 wean HAWK INLET wo \ “WW _ NEAR: MIDCHANNEL 2.27 NAUTICAL MILES CHATHAM STRAIT CROSSING-NOAA DATA RECORDED BY VESSEL DAVIDSON, OCTOBER 24, 1980 ALCAT ENGINEERING VEIT PRINTED OM MO. 1000M 8 CLEAMPRINTT FADE OUT ‘e ALCAT ENGINEERING, IAic.. Electric Utility Engineers ~~ “ower Generation, Transmission, Distribution -. March 14, 1981 Mr. Floyd R. Summers Alaska Power Administration P.O. Box 50 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Juneau-Hoonah Line Dear Mr. Summers, Enclosed please find the following 2 documents: Appendix 1 - Primary 69 KV OVerhead Line Cost Appendix 2 - Alternate Overhead Transmission Cost Calculation The summary (lst page) of each of these was included in our formal report dated March 18, 1981. These appendices show. the details of how these costs were obtained. Mr. Harrington advised me some time ago that the conductor cost used in Appendix 1 was too high and that Appendix 2 had the correct conductor cost value. Since this error caused less than 1% increase in the project cost and since the error made the cost higher we decided to ignore it. In general Appendix 1 is the more conservative and was used for the analysis. We believe that with good management the costs of Appendix 2 could be achieved. Very truly yours, ALCAT ENGINEERING INC. Oud. merdy A. W. Moody P.E. cc: &. J. Harrington AWM/om 103 IRARS - 210th Pi. S.=., lssaquah, WA S38027. Tal (205j 255-0350 Appendix I PRIMARY 69 KV OVERHEAD LINE COST Summary Line Voltage: 69 KV, 4/0 ACSR Conductor, 380" span. Single wood pole, standoff insulators with extra creep. R/a = 50° l4poles/mi., H Frame Dead ends, Length: 30 miles Surveys $ 238,000 Design 104,000 Materials: Poles $260,400 Crossarm & Hdwr. 28,319 Conductor 365,904 Conductor hdwr. 35,772 Insulators 259,056 Guys & Anchors 25,267 Misc. Materials 50,000 Stores Exp. 70,000 Total: Materials . $1,095 ,000 Construction: Pole Excavation $464,160 Pole Setting 383,525 Stringing 547,912 Guy & Anchor Inst. 35,245 Inspection 250,000 Subsistence Exp. 270,000 Equipment Rental 268,160 Total: Construction $2,219,000 Land 0 Clearing & Access Roads $ 100,000 Subtotal $3,756,000 Administration & Overhead @ 22% 827,000 Subtotal 4,583,000 Contingency @ 25% 1,146,000 Mobilization & Demobilization 1,500,000 Total Line Cost . $7,229,000 —— 104 Terrain Assumptions Chichagof Is. - No clearing Roadless Muskeg - 1.6 miles Roadside Muskeg = 35.07" "ll Soi Hi) aS #1) Rock IP laeee Suit Total 14.6 miles Admiralty Is. - 6.65 miles clearing Roadless Muskeg - 2.2 miles " Soil tlhe >I: a Rock - 5.1 i Total 8.85 miles Douglas Is. 1.5 miles clearing Roadless Soil - 0.36 miles Roadside Soil - 2.0 i Roadside Rock ee rs Total 6.36 miles Total Miles Muskeg 8.8. miles Other 21.01 i Total R/W Miles = 29.81 miles 29.81 + 10% Total Conductor Miles = = 33 miles Total Miles Clearing 8.15 miles Page 2 105 Cost Breakdown Material Costs Poles: Single Pole Line 14 poles/mi x 500/pole x 30 mi. = $210,000 H Frame (Deadends) 14 poles/mi x 30 mi x .1 x $1200/ H Frame = 50,000 Conductor: 4/0 ACSR 34501bs./mi $0.70/Ft. 30 mi x 1.1 for Sag x $0.70 x 3 cond. x 5280 = $365,000 Insulators: Assume 10% dead ends, 10% angle poles Standoff ins. $230, suspension ins.= $18/bell, 4 bells/phase Tangent Poles = 30 x 14 x 0.8 = $336 Angle Poles = 30x14x0.1 = 42 H-Frame = 30 x14x 0.1 = 42 Tangent Poles = 336 x 3 x $230 = $231,840 Angle Poles = 42x 4x3 x $18 = 9,072 H-Frrame = 42x 4x 372 x $18 = 18,144 Total : $259,056 Guys & Anchors Muskeg 3.8 mi 2 $1200/mi = $10,560 Other 21.01 mi @ 700/mi = 14,707 Total : . 3 25,267 Conductor Hardware 29.381 mi x $1200/mi $ 35,772 Crossarms & Hardware 29.81 mi x $950/mi $ 28,319 Material Cost Assumptions a-Frame = 2 pole + 2 cross braces =$1200/frame + crossarm Single Poles-- 50’ = $500 each = $500 x 14 = $7000/mi ‘Conductor - 4/0, ACSR, 3450 lbs./mi, Ampacity = 480 R = .278 ohms/mi cost $ 0.7/ft Cost = 5280' x $0.7/ft x 3/mile = $11,088/mi. Insulators - Post Type, extra creep (Salt spray area) = $230 ea. Suspension type $18/each, 4 bells/phase . 7 Cost: Tangent Pole = 3 x 230 = $690 each Angle Pole = 3 x 4 x 13 = $216 edeh. H-rrame =6x4x18 = $432 each Suys & Anchors - Assume 10% H-Frame DEs + 10% angle poles Average construction $700/mi Muskeg (206) $1200/mi Conductor Hdwr. $1200/mi Surveys $8000/mi Design $3600/mi Crossarms & Hdwr. @ $950/mi clearing Cost Assumptions Fallers: R/W width 50' - Timber removed Area = 50 x 5280/43,560 = 6.06 acre/mi 1/2 acre/Faller/day x 6 acre/mi = 12 man days/mile $30/hr + Subsistence $30 x 8 t $80 = $320 day Faller $320/day x 12 man days/mile = $3840/mile Choker Setters 3 setters/Helicopter x 3 Heli = 9 setters 2 mi/day = 4.5 man days/mi $30/hr x 38hrs + $80 sub = $320 day $320 x 4.5 = $1440/mi Helicopters 2 - Hughes 500 4% $450/hr + $40/hr Fuel 3980/hr for two 1 = 3ell 205 32 $850/hr + $70/hr Fuel Assume 12 acres/6hr. helicopter day ($980/hr + $920/hr) x 6 hrs = $11,400/day/12 acres $11,400/(12 acres/day // 6 acres/mi) = $5700/mile $490/hr each $920/hr Total Clearing Cost Fallers = $3840/mi Choker Setters = $1440 Helicopter = $5700 Total = $10,980/mile Note: This assumes timber removal only No slash clean-up No piling or burning For complete clean-up use factor of 3 Page 4 107 Pole Setting Cost Assumptions . Labor Muskeg - 3 poles/crew/day Rock and Earth - 5 poles/crew/day $ 2320/3 3 775/pole Muskeg Rock and Earth $2320/5 $ 465/pole Stringing - Includes stringing, sagging and clipping in. Assume 1 mile/day/6 crews 32320/day x 6 crew/day Labor = $13,920/mile Equipment $200/crew/day = $1200/mile Helicopter = 1 mile/day x $10,500/day = $10,500/mile Total = $24,420/mile with helicopter $15 ,120/mi_w/o Helicopter Anchor and Guy Installation -- Labor Assume: Sulphured rock anchors in rock Screw anchors in earth Buried Log dead men in Muskeg Guys and Rock anchors 1.5 poles/crew day Guys and Screw anchors 4 poles/crew day Guys and Muskeg anchors 1 polefcrew day Rock: Air Comp. $150/day Crew 2320/day $2470/1.5 = $1647/pole Sarth: Squipment $200/day Crew 2320/day $2520/4 = $630/pole Muskeg: Backhoe $300/day Crew 2320/day $ 2520/1 = 32520/pole Page 5 108 Pole :xcavation Costs Rock Earth Muskeg Rock Soil Muskeg Drill, blast and hand dig 2 holes/crew/day Air Compressor Crew Hand dug 4 holes/crew day $2320/4 holes = $ 150/day =__2320/day $2470/2 = $1250/hole $ 600/hole Assumes track mounted backhoe Excavation and backfill around 2 holes/crewMay Backhoe Crew culvert casing $ 300/day $2320/da $ 2620/2 = $1310/hole Say $1400/hole Road Accessible Blast and Auger Auger Air Compressor Crew 10 holes/day Auger crew 4 holes/day un tw holes/day $ 200/day 150/day $2320/da) $2670/3 holes = $890/hole $ 200/day 2320/da: $2520/10 holes $250/hole $700/hole Page 6 109 Line Section Costs Clearing: Douglas Island 1.5 miles clearing 1.5 mi x 6 acre/mi = 9 acres Fallers = 18 man days Choker setters = 7 man days 1.5 mi 2 $10,980/mi = $16,470 Admiralty Island 6.65 mi clearing 6.65 mi x 6 acre/mi = 40 acres Fallers = 80 man days Choker setters = 30 man days 6.65 mi @ $10,980 = $73,017 Chichagof Island No cdearing Total clearing cost = 389,487 Pole Holes: Douglas Island Soil - Augered 2 mi x 14 x 1.1 = 31 holes (3 crew days) 31 x $250 $7750 Soil - Hand dug = .5 mi = 7 poles (2crew days) 7 x $600 = $4200 Rock - Blast & Auger 4mi x14 xl.1 = 62 holes (21 crew days) 62 x $890 = $55,180 Total = $67,130 26 crew days Admiralty Island Roadless Muskeg - 2.2 mi x 14 x 1.1 = 34 holes (17 crew days) 34 x $1400 = $47,600 Roadless Soil - 1.55 mi x 14 x 1.1 = 24 holes (6 crew days) 24 x $600 = $14,400 Roadless Rock - S.1lmixi14x 1.1 = 79 holes (40 crew days) 79 x $1250 = $98,750 Helicopter to move comp. = l= 3ell 205 at $980/hr +14 x 6 hr. days $980 x 6hr. x 14 days = $82,320 Total = $243,070 63 crew days 110 Page 7 Line Section Costs (cont.) Pole Holes: Chichagof Island Roadless Muskeg - 1.6 mix 14 x1.1 = 25 holes (12.5 crew days) 25 x $1400 = $34,500 Soil - 4.5 mix 14 x1.1 = 70 holes (7 crew days) 70 x $250 = $17,500 Rock- Blast & Auger- 3.5 mi x 14x 1.1 = (18 crew days) 54 x $890 = 348,060 a4 -hobes Roadside Muskeg -5 mix 14x 1.1 = 77 holes (18 crew days) 77 x $700 = $53,900 Total = $153,960 55.5 crew days Setting Poles: Douglas Island All roadside 6.36 miles 5 poles/day/crew = 98 poles 6.36 x 14 x 1.1 x $2320/5 = 345,472 (20 crew days) Equipment $300 x 98/5 = 5,880 Total = $51,352 20 crew days Admiralty Island All roadless 8.85 2.2 mi Muskeg - 3 poles/day = 34 poles (12 crew days) 6.65 mi Soil and Rock - 5 poles/day = 103 poles (21 crew days) Muskeg - 2.2 x 14 x 1.1x $2320/3 = $26,200 Helicopter $10,500 x 2.2 x 1.1 = 25,410 Equipment $200/day x 10 days = 2,000 subtotal $53,610 Soil & Rock - 6:65 x 14 x 1.1 x $2320/5 = $23,759 Helicopter $10,500 x 6.65 x 1.1 = 78,807 Equipment $200/day x 21 days = 4,200 subtotal $106,766 Total = $160,376 (33 crew days) page 8 lil Line Section Costs (cont.) Setting Poles (cont.): Chichagof Island 14.6 miles Roadless Muskeg: 1.6 mi x 14 x 1.1 = 25 poles ( 8 crew days) 25 x $2320/3 = $19,334 Helicopter $10,500 x 1.6 x 1.1 = $18,430 Equipment $200 x § days = 1,600 subtotal = $39,414 Roadside Muskeg: 5 mi x 14 x 1.1 x $2320/3 359,547 (26 crew days) Equipment $300 x 26 days = 7,300 subtotal = $67,347 Roadside Soil & Rock: 8 mi = 124 poles 124 x $2320/5 = $57,536 (25 crew days) Equipment $300 x 25 days = 7,500 subtotal = $65,036 Total = $171,797 59 crew days Guy & Anchor Installation - 10% Dead End + 1/2 remaining Douglas Island 2.36 mi soil, 4 mi rock Soil Dead Ends = 2.36 x 0.1 x 2 = .472 poles Single poles= (2.36 -.472)/2 = ,944 poles : 1.5 poles say 2 poles 2 x $630 =$1260 (0.5 crew days) Rock 4x01 x2 = .8 (4 = .8)/2 = 1.6 2.4 poles say 3 poles 3 x $1647 = $4941 (2 crew days) Total = $6,101 2.5 crew days Admiralty Island 2.2 muskeg, 1.55 soil, 5.1 rock Muskeg 2.2 x 0.1 x 2 = 0.44 (2.2 - 0.44)/2 = 0.88 . 1.32 say 2 poles 2 x $2520 = $5,040 (2 crew days) Soil 1.55 x 0.1 x 2 = 0.31 (1.55 - 0.31)/2 © = 0,62 93 say 1 pole 1 x $630 = $ 630 (1 crew day) Rock 5.1 x 0.1 x2 = 1.02 (5.1 -1.02)/2 | = 2.04 . 3.06 say 3 poles 3 x $2470 = $7,410 (2 crew days Total 112 = $13,080 5_crew days Page 9 Line Section Cost (cont.) Guy & Anchor Installation (cont. Chichagof Island i Muskeg 6.6 miles $10,880 4 crew days Soil 4.5 miles 1,890 1 crew days Rock 3.5 miles 3,294 2 crew days Total $16,064 7_ crew days Total all Guy & Installation $35,245 14 crew days Stringing Costs Douglas Island 6.36 mi roadside x $15,120/mi = $ 96,163 Admiralty Island 8.85 mi roadless x $24,420/mi = $216,117 Chichagof Island 1.6 mi roadless x $24,420/mi = $ 39,072 13 mi roadside x $15,120/mi = 196,560 subtotal $235,632 Total all Stringing Costs $547,912 Crew Days Clearing 400 Faller days Choker Setters 153 cs days Line Crews (1 foreman, 3 journey men, 1 grunt) Pole Excavating 145 crew days Pole Setting 132." i Anchor & Guy 14 " , Stringing 179 _ =" i 450". " 6 crews’ = 450/6 = 75 days Page 10 113 179 crew days Line Section Costs (cont.) Subsistence @ $30/man day 400 Faller days; 153 choker setters; 5 x 450 Total man days = 2,803 + 20% 2250 linesmen 3364 man days $80 x 3,364 = $270,000 Helicopter costs for moving compressors on Admiralty Island for drilling rock anchors and pole holes. Pole holes: 2 holes/crew/day x 6 crews = 12 holes/day Rock Anchors: 1.5 poles/crew/day x 6 crews = 9 poles/day Poles: 5.1 mix 14 K1.1 = 79/12 = 7 days Anchor Poles . 6/9 = 1 day 85 = 8 days Assume 1 Helicopter can handle 2 $920/hr $920 x 6 hr. x 8 days = $44,160 Equipment Costs 2 Barges $400/day x 30 days =$64,000 . 2 Tags 3600/day x 30 days ° = 36,000 2 Cranes $300/day x 40 days = 24,000 . subtotal $124,000 Plane rental etc $100,000 Total $224,000 Plus extra Heli. time 44,160 Total $268 ,000 Line Crew Assumptions Crew Composition 1 Foreman @ $39/hr + Subsistence 3 Journeymen 2 $35/hr + Subsistence 1 Grunt 3 $30/hr + Subsistence 10 hour day 6 days/wk Double Time for O.T. $39 + 3 x 35 + 30 $174/hr straight time $348/hr O.T. 40 hr/wk straight time = 40 x $174 = $6960 20 hr/wk O.T. = 20 x $348 = $6960 $13,920/wk $13,920/6 days/wk = $2320/day Ave + Subsistence Page ll 114 Single wood pole, standoff insulators Length: 30 mile Surveys Design Materials: Poles Crossarms & Hardware Conductor Conductor Hardware Insulators Guys & Anchors Misc. Materials Stores Expense Total: Materials Construction: Pole Excavation Pole Setting Stringing Guys & Anchors Inspection | Subsistence Exp Equipment Rental Total; Construction Land Clearing & Access Roads Subtotal Administration & Overhead @ 22% Subtotal | Contingency @ 25% Mobilization & Demobilization Total Line Cost R/W = 25' 17 poles/mi., 1 deadend & 1 angle pole/mile. APPENDIX II Alternate Overhead Transmission Cost Calculations Line Voltage: 69 KV, 4/0 ACSR Conductor, 350° span $329,310 38,288 176,850 10,930 98 ,220 8,340 50,000 50,000 $279,865 328 ,972- 628,419 85,742 198,449 180,000 300,000 $3,238,000 $3,950,000 115 Single pole dead ends $ 250,000 125 ,000 $ 762,000 $2,001,000 0 $100,000 712,000 988,000 1,500,000 $6,438,000 —————_—_——- Roadless - Rock 5.1 miles 5.1 mi. Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Clearing Total Roadless-Earth 1.55 mi Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Clearing Total Roadless - Muskeg 3.8mi Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Clearing : Total Road Side - Rock 7.5 mi Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Clearing Total Road Side - Earth 6.86 mi Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Clearing Total Road Side - Muskeg 5 mi Pole Holes Setting Poles Guys and Anchors Stringing Total Labor Costs/mile 116 $13,898/mi. 16,660 7,969 27,900 $66 ,427/mile $ 4,382 16,660 906 27,900 $49,848/mile $11,900 25,432 4,920 27,900 $70,152/mile $ 9,078 5,780 2,469 17,400 $34,727/mile $ 4,284 5,780 945 17,400 $28 ,409/mile $11,900 7,700 2,620 17,400 $39,620/mile $70,880 84,966 40,642 142,290 $ 6,792 25 ,823 1,404 43,245 $45,220 96 ,642 18,696 106,020 $68,085 43,350 18,517 130,500 $29,388 39,651 6,483 119,364 $59,500 38,500 13,100 87,000 69 KV Line 350° Span, 17 Poles/mile 1 deadend/ mile and 1 angle pole/mile 17 poles @ $587 x 1.1 (70' poles) Material Breakdown - Alaska 45 69 KV post type insulators @ $53.24 45 4s 45 54 6 9 1200' #4 stranded copper bonding wire @ 40¢ S¥g machine bolts @ $1.02 x 1.1 3/4 machine bolts @ $1.13 x 1.1 = $646 x 17 = x 1.1 = $58.56 x 45 = 45 x $1.12 45 x $1.25 4/0 preformed armor rod @ $3.82 x 1.1 susp. Ins, (36/dead end, 18/angle) @ $10.75 x 1.1 = 54 x $11.82 639 4/0 deadend clamps @ $10 x 1.1 = 6 x $11 = 5"/8 eye bolts @ $1.66 x 1.1 = 6 x $1.77 = x21 6 guy attachments @ $4.00 x 1.1 = 6 x $4.40 6 x $1.25 = $7.67 = $6.50 = $4.40 = 6 3"/4 machine bolts @ $1.13 x 1.1 = 6 3"/4 anchor rods @ $6.97 x 1.1 = 6 x 6 crossplate anchors @ $15 x 1.1 = 6 x 6 preformed wraps @ $4.00 x 1.1 = 6x 6 strandvise clamps @ $11 x 1.1 = 6x $12. 10 = 45 x $4.20 = = 1200 x .44 17,424" 4/0 ACSR 6/1 conductor @ $.28 x 1.1 =$0.308 x 17,424 3 4/0 compression sleeves @ $28.71 x 1.1 = 3 x $31.58 Total material cost/mile in regular terrain/mile Adders for Muskeg 1- 6' long x 3' dia. Gal Steel culvert @ 1.5 yd crushed rock @ $20 2" x 8" x 8' Treated Fir @ $600/mbf 2" x 10" x 16° ” w 2" x 12" x 3 " " 3'/4 machine bolts @ $1.25 Washers and nails 17 x $203 (Per mile) Less 6 crossplate anchors @ $6.50 Plus 6 deadman anchors (10' treated) @$100 Per mile adder Per Pole $13.75 $600 $600 $600 Total Material Cost in Muskeg/mile 3 117 x x x 1.15$15 x 6= 43/1000 54/1000 24/1000 $10,977 2,635 50 56 190 66 ul 528 26 8 46 99 26 7 - 5,367 * 95 $20,892 90 30 26 32 15 5 $ 203 $ 3,451 600 $3,952 Labor and Materials Chichagof Island Labor - Roadless Muskeg 1.6 mi @ $70,152 $112,243 Road side Muskeg 5 mi @ $39,620 198,100 " "Soil 4.5 mi @ $28,409 127,840 " "~~ Rock 3.5 mi @ $34,727 121,545 Total $559,728 Material -Regular Terrain 8 mi @ $20,892 167,136 Muskeg 6.6 mi @ $24,844 163,970 Total 311,106 Total Labor & Materials $870,834 Admiralty Island Labor - Roadless Muskeg 2.2 mi @ $70,152 $154,334 Roadless Rock 5.1 mi @ $66,427 338,778 Roadless Earth 1.55 mi @ 49,848 77,264 Total $570,376 Materials-Regular Terrain 6.65 mi @$ 20,892 $138,932 Muskeg 2.2 mi @ 24,844 54,657 NS Total $193,589 Total Labor & Materials $763,965 Douglas Island Labor - Road side Rock 4 mi @ $34,727 $138,908 Road side Earth 2.36 mi @ 28,409 67,045 Total $205 ,953 Materials-Regular Terrain 6.36 mi @ $20,892 $132,873 Total Labor & Materials $338,826 _ Total Line Labor & Materials $1,973,362 4 118 Single Wood pole, no H-Frames, 25' R.O.W. with 50" at pole sites Timber removed Clearing Costs: Area = 25' x 5280' + 25'x 25' x 17 = (13,200 + 10,625) /43,560 = Hole Digging: Roadless Roadside Labor Figures 3.27 acre/mile 1/2 acre/day/Faller $30/hr + subsistence $320/day/Faller x 6.5= Choker setters @ 4.5 man days/mi $320/day x 4.5 3- Helicopters (2 Hughes, 500, 1-Bell 205) $11,400/day/12 acres $11,400 x 3.27 acres/mi/12 acres/day Total Clearing Cost/mile Hand dug - Rock (Drill, blast, hand dig) 5 holes/crew day Air Comp. $150/day Crew 2,320/day : $2,470/day/5 = .$494/hole 17/mi x $494= $8,398 + $5,500 heli = Hand dug - Earth (9 holes/day) $2,320/9 = $258/hole 17 x $258 = Augered - Rock - 5 holes/day Auger $200/day Air Comp. 150/day Crew 2,320/day $2,670/5 = $534/hole 17 x $534 = Augered - Soil - 10 holes/day Auger © $ 200/day Crew 2,320/day $2,520/10 = $252/hole 17 x $252 ® Muskeg 4 holes/day $700/hole 17 x $700 = 119 3.27/5 = 6.5 faller day/mile $ 2093/mi 1440/mi $3,107 /mi $6,640/mi $13,898/mi $4,382/mi $9,078/mile $4,284/mi $11,900/mi Setting Poles Roadless Road side Stringing Roadside Labor Figures (continued) Muskeg - 5 poles/crew/day Crew $2320/day Heli (Bell 205) 5520/day $7840/5 17 x $1496 = Rock or Earth - 8 poles/day Crew $2320 Heli $5520 $7840/8 17 x $980 = Muskeg - 6 poles/day Crew $2320/day Equip. 400 $2720/6 17 x $453 = Soil or Rock - 8 poles/day Crew $2320/day Equip. 400 $2720/8 17 x $340 = 0.8 mi/day/6 crews $1496/pole $ 980/pole $ 453/pole $ 340/pole $2320/day/crew x 6 crews/0.8 = Road side per mile Roadless _Add Helicopters @ 1 mi/day @ $10,500 = 120 Roadless/mile $25 ,432/mi ——— $16 ,660/mi $ 7,700/mi $5780/mi_ $17,400/mi $27,900/mi Labor Figures (continued) Anchor & Guy Installation Roadside , Rock (3 sets/crew/day) Air Comp. $150 Crew 2320 $2470/3 $823/set 3 x $823 = Earth (8 sets/crew day) Equip. $ 200/day Crew $2320 $2520/8 $315/set 3.x $315 = Roadless Rock Add Heli @ $5500/mi 2469/mi Earth (screw anchors) 8 sets/day . Equip. $ 100/day Crew $2320 : $2420/8 $302/set 3 x $302 = Roadside Muskeg ( 3 sets/crew day) Backhoe $ 300/day Crew $2320 $ 2620/3 $873/set 3 x $873 = Roadless Muskeg Add $2300/day Heli $2300 + 2620 = 121 $2469/mile $ 945/mile $7969/mi $ 906/mile $2620/mile $4920/mile Alaska Power Authority 334 W. 5th Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501