Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility & Planning Study Final Report 2011Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility and Planning Study FINAL REPORT September 15, 2011 Project Sponsors: ALASKA — ENERGY AUTHORITY y North Slope Borough Prepared by: ® Leland A Johnson & Associates | Atqasuk Transmission Line Feasibility and Planning Study FINAL REPORT September 15, 2011 Project Sponsors: = ALASKA Gli ~ ENERGY AUTHORITY 2 North Slope Borough Prepared by: ® Leland A Johnson & Associates Report of Findings Table of Contents Page Table of Contents i List of Figures vi List of Tables vii 1. Executive Summary PRS = SUNTUM GAY aesrsistoriseos wis noscoastecs we vs sata sect oo swiss Ponto od nei dent oalasicna oUt clopineladlie bw oy ba tet eae el 2. Introduction PR BACK GR OUNNG rr screeners svete simon ostn snr smtp sop aye AT ETS Sos ea Gerona os vaescesnesacevsstssi ostuouseeeereuay B. Project Sponsors and Organization... C. Project Objectives..... D. Project Description ............... 3. Engineering Design Basis & Performance Criterion A. Project Design Engineering Scope Description Bie Rotite: Descriptor tect ccc tite, ss crcrecncte ccessscvadac (tte, soccece’<<os' ev entzssitas ebesentar ce eeerseseren ane eae U B.1 Atqasuk Power Transmission ROW WR-1 and ER-2 C. Recommended Structures Di Electrical LOaling sccs.sccrccscvsnctszccessecsesssvacecsstvictinesessetetercotesacecsisve E. Transmission Line Components — Basis & Performance Criterion .................:ccceseeeeee 8 ESR SUMCtUNGMIY DOS reeneccntar etree een se ttrineneree rr epee E.2 Weather Data Parameters 2 CO oe a eee E.4 Aeolian Vibration Seek a Perr re es ee Te E.6 Loading & Overload Factor .. E'72- GTOUNG: CIGANAN CO isa .cicccs sxe vcsne Suse a os esos setae sgsac eo evened oe eee E28: Load Flow: Reportiat:34:S kV AC orconcccacteteccececnasscocteceesedactestuheces tac satesensa} -seusosersisas a E.9 Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC... E.10 Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC foam Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table of Contents E14 Load Flow Report: at'50 KW DC rrcrcencecces- cst ccccssevocsovesnsage ueceusvsssunevacrirarscverecreeserasasteer.- 11 E.12 One-Line Description for AC Operation............ccececeeseeeecsseeseceecesceseceaeeaeeseeeeeeseneenes 11 E.13 One-Line Description for DC Operation... 0.0... 2... cee cee cess cee eee eeeeeeeeeeeee 42 E14 IVD: EValuetlom scisse tcc g ccemer acs repmemces ene tre paetiseo-lonernnrenereatlat rus cetlstoise ao commenetaes mone 4. Geotechnical Engineering — Review & Commentary As PUNDOSE SIODIOCHVES texan onus ssn noone saneeld-c pny un snenesepno acer etcuert rrureetsnrenrorimenncs cee toons 16 PTE ROI so ener ccrmeenatrnecinmanenp eens 0 RE hemes ene ene ny RENEE 16 C. Geologic & Geotechnical Findings/Considerations .. ato C.1 Surface & Shallow Subsurface Geology ............. 16 C.2 Routing: Geologic Considerations...... woe 10 G3 Geos Zar’ sreaitezcenesrrems ses i2c soca sicncsencenorvonceonnceseilesecvignsa 10 aepen suuaessuortoeanvancrevistemsaventsns 17 D. Geotechnical Considerations for Timber, Steel, & Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Poles E. Geotechnical Considerations & Recommendations . i20 Ex “Alignment:Routing .-.-.---.--o.28-tscssseesasersenssn 20 E.2 Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Structures............ccccccceseeseeecsteeeseeeeteceeeeeeneeeneeneeee 21 5. Constructability Analysis, Technical Feasibility, & Cost Estimates A. Purpose, Objective, & Scope of Work.. B. Physical Description ..............000:00 C. Basis of Estimate D. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate .........0... ee 23 D.1 Barrow Substation — ER2 0.0... cc eeceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeseenseeesneeenneees D.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment ER2 — Length: 5.8 Miles D.3 South Pad to Atqasuk ER2 - Overhead (OH) Line Segment — Length: 62.6 Miles ... 24 D.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field to ER2 Segment — Length: 6.2 Miles D:5Atqasuk Substation) ER2..........c:22.c-0s.<-+-cncoonsno--cevesgereyyesseueserecusentncatsucevts crgesterseescrenas E. Western Route 2 (WR1) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate E.1 Barrow Substation Western Route 1 (WR1)...........:ccsccssessesseeesseeesseesaeeseseeeeenererenes E.2 South Pad Line Segment WR1 — Length: 5.8 Miles ....0...... ccc ceceeeeeeeteeeeeeeneeeneeeee E.3 South Pad to Walapka Segment on VSM's, WR1 — Length: 18.8 Miles E.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field Segment, WR1 — Length: 0.2 Miles .............0 eee E.5 Walapka to Atqasuk, Overhead (OH) Line Segment, WR1 — Length: 48.8 Miles E.6 Atqasuk Substation Western Route 1 (WR1) F. Residence & Facility Heating Conversion in Atqasuk — From Diesel to Electric H. Review of Items Covered in Initial Matrix - Cost Per Mile J. Recommendations — Routing & Construction Methods ..............ccccecceseeeeeceeeeeeseeseseeee J.1 Best Route Recommendation —Eastern Route 1, AC Power Supply J.2 Western Route is Not Recommended as the Best - Reasons ..............:ceeeeeereeees J.3. Other Report Data Utilized (AC Power Supply) — Polar Consult Report.. J.4 Maintenance Requirements — AC Power Supply Sys Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table of Contents K. Estimate Basis Issues that Need Clear Understanding. ..............::cccsceeseseseeeeteeteeeseeees 32 6. Environmental Considerations A. Introduction... Pra; Raine DN; 2 2st noice abchicakcdcelnk sbeebs dieiabeabaa a Be nn sesrsenieuebidaetaicininintotuininininininiigeldibiabdiabshitmsisininiidicbeb pinball 34 B.2 Mapping Spectacled Eider Breeding Habitats 0.0... ee ee csecseseeceeeneeeeeteeceeeeaeenes 35 CHARestilts iS DISCUSSION eeosucyorcatenta eecutcs sactcscesear ane tueeeose pete cate et cotes cto taees eer norte soae ceca 36 C.1 Avian Resources...... ... 36 C.2 Spectacled Eider... Oe C.3 Steller’s Eider........ 180 C.4 Yellow-billed Loons ......... Oo Ci5 Other Species! of COMCOMN case. saccsccacacete ness cececsseeet tes cerecesasereesesa ates otsecescneceicecctacseesawccae 39 D. Spectacled Eider Habitats in the Project Area ooo... ee eeeseeseesecsesseceeceeetneeeeeeaeeatenes 40 E. Potential Affects of Power Lines on Birds at the North Slope ................cccccceeeeeeeeseeees 41 OF a i cc chaceka ike 5 aka aia heen aaticinbacebaiciniecnseeaes 41 ee: IU: caeceteintoteininireabanetanahiabs jadeinaiinbeiuiabak AiS%A dd nampsisinintsicinciniaticiamtepapaaempmeeeinibl 42 ON FE LN iki si tatteckcetictvaetmvtebeatesietn nie ebeteteinicnnieneieohnichanimiebalbaiihdetcistotntaraniabcies: 42 E.4 Increased Predation Due to Habitat Enhancement.................cceeeeseeeeeees F. Wildlife and Habitat Related Regulations Affecting the Proposed Power Line G. Recommendations for Power Line Alignment: Re: Birds & Wetland Habitats ea LSPLEIStOF Extilits) Oty FIQUieS yaeccsncce tcc cs cet caste sete ceca <- sac seencetectetcetteertaeetcesnns at sates seme cccedat 44 7. Permitting Considerations = Sar saci ishkschchcdsdchcdeichdcdeinded ielahaadeiebed elababaininbibebababainiaibebcl dabaidcdelss tt cneiciciatas FB FE RIG Pent Naish scisind cdiedinddnte ninin sa ainds- ch deirieicintctrinieenennacmnnll C. State Permits & Authorizations ............0.ee D E . North Slope Borough Permits & Authorizations teh Permitting Stippont — EMGIN@@NiAg so vccce1se cess ca ceersearscsien tone coriiatises ter vanieonissleieeeosiseci'oloed 8. Economic Analysis BB FACE OBIeCtIVe bese Seer ae eee rae tie be B. Methodology & Assumptions C. “Without Project” Case: Diesel-Based Power Generation & Heating System.............. 63 C.1 Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs............: cc eeeseseecesceseeesereeneeesseeene C.2 Replacement & Overhaul Costs for Diesel Generation Units ee C.3 Summary of Cost Flows Associated with Existing Diesel-Based Power & Heating... 66 D. Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives: “With Project Case”... 0.0... eee 68 D.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Intertie Project ... ies D:2-Gostsiof Purchasing Electricity from) Bart Ow i ssccxcescxccsccezccccc-t2-so0cs-pent--sccaccc-caceatecnusves ass Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table of Contents D.3 Electric Power Only Scenario...........cccccccccccceseescessessessceseenee D.4 Electric Power & Heat Scenario...... D.5 Annual O&M Costs of Atqasuk Facilities... D.6 Capital Costs of Electric Heating Conversion . D.7 Cost Flows for Project Alternatives .............0..cccceeeeeee E., Financing COStS sxccasecacssecesceacseevecteecesceossnceceenensonsosevnetis ue ones E.1 Results for NPV of Cost Savings After Financing Costs ........ E.2 Sensitivity Analysis .............. cc eesecssecesecesseceeceseeesscessecessees Fy ECONOMIC SUMMA rece cezccssecrccl So acaepeccrvecerscoese--sccetececesceveseeeess 9. Conclusions & Recommendations Py CONCIUSIONS yacrecrcns) erate oeeves-cecseee. cuss seessvcesvet svecuseseoreseacrseereenesar Bs Recommendations yes ccc cease corstissecsccouess acs oe se nimocisee dp caer pyveeseesee) sweremstgb ys Gbu peremorans or ere O53 FRETEFENCES! << aecsaes << aera tee ses oes open -+oetied-< 7 -ecbeasioesescuoment Appendix A_ Design Engineering EXHIBIT 1 - Structure Types EXHIBIT 2 - Weather Data Parameters EXHIBIT 3- Recommended RUS Conductor Tension EXHIBIT 4 - Aeolian Vibration EXHIBIT 5 - Conductor Sag and Tension EXHIBIT 6 - Conductor Loading and Overload Factors EXHIBIT 7 - Conductor Ground Clearances EXHIBIT 8 - Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC EXHIBIT 9 - Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC EXHIBIT 10 - Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC EXHIBIT 11 - Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC EXHIBIT 12 - One-Line Description for AC Operation EXHIBIT 13 - One-Line Description for DC Operation EXHIBIT 14 - High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Evaluation Appendix B Geotechnical Engineering EXHIBIT 1 — RS Group FRP Utility Pole Product Literature Appendix C Constructability Analysis & Cost Estimates WaPUUVUSETS ASUS TET deseecetsabaceens 84 . 86 EXHIBIT 1 - Eastern Route 2, ER2 Cost Estimate - AC Power Transmission, All Overhead EXHIBIT 2 - Western Route 1, WR1 Cost Estimate - AC Power Transmission, All Overhead Iv Saas Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table of Contents Appendix D Environmental Considerations Figure 1 - Western Spectacled Eider Observations: 1992 to 2005 Figure 2 - Spectacled Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 3 - High-value Breeding Habitats - Spectacled Eiders Figure 4 - Steller’s Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 5 - Yellow-Billed Loon Observations: 1950 to 2010 Ces Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Tabi ni List of Figures Figure1 Atqasuk Transmission Line Routes..................cccccecesse see eee cee seers cee esee D Figure 2 Schematic for DC Operation... 1s penemueies 53 Vee asemmmner es caRpRES Pee 4 Figure 3. Net Present Value of Cost Bevngs by Project Alterristien vee neeee 60 Figure 4 Variable Costs per KWH, Current Situation vs Project Alberiatives oe 61 Figure 5 NPV of Cost Savings with Financing Costs.............. 000.2 ccc cee eee ee eee BF vi fous Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 List of Tables Table 1 Threatened and Candidate Bird Species Listed Under the ESA.......... Table 2 Identification of High - value Nesting Habitat Table 3 Classification Crosswalk Table Between NWI Wetland Types and Wildlife Habitat Types... fe Table 4 Net reser Vesielot Cosh Bevis: aejemaioes was daetewenlbo bate seas aya a weteweises see SiAcait od oe woeieemed Table 5 Benefit - Cost Ratio of the Propoaed Intertie Project Al Alternatives... Sctearens aeetisvmaah es OO Table6 Barrow Gas Field Gas Reserves... seems sn i sleet NL I? age Table 7 Diesel Fal Gonsuniption Atqaeile FiccaF Yer 2010... i ba setters ge aD Table 8 Annual O&M Costs of NSB Power and Fuel Facilities, Fiscal Yeur 2010... Table 9 Annual Cost Incurred in Selected Future Years Under the "Without Project" Case..........67 Table 10 Estimated Capital Costs of the Intertie... 0.00... cee cee cee cee cee cee eee see eee eee eee ene eee 108 Table 11 Annual O&M Costs of the Intertie... Bears see saneetes sesias ses ead tenet ies He eNOS Table 12 Annual Electricity Requirements andl Cost a Purchaead Electricity a Beaaall ..--.69 Table 13 Estimated Annual Fuel Costs for Power and for Heating Under Various Scone; Table 14 Estimated Annual Non-Fuel Costs for Utility O&M Facilities under various Scenarios 70 Table 15 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with AC for Power and Heat... ..................6....72 Table 16 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with AC for Power Onlly............ 0.0.0. ceeeeeeee ne ZS Table 17 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power and Heat...................00.....74 Table 18 Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power Onlly.... 15 Table 19 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power and Heat.........................76 Table 20 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power Onlly...............0...:::0cee 77 Table 21 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power and Heat.........................78 Table 22 Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power Only.................::0:: eee 79 Table 23 Annual Financing Costs for Project Alternatives...... .80 Table 24 Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Eastern Route Alternatives. .......0.... 0c cee terre eee ee BS. Table 25 Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Western Route Alternatives.......... 22.2.2... cee cece eee ee eee 8S. vii yfiezs Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 1.- Executive Summary The North Slope Borough is seeking to reduce its dependency on the use of high priced and unstable cost of imported diesel fuel to meet its energy needs in its Villages. Atqasuk is one of the most expensive Borough villages to supply with imported fuel oil. This study investigates the concept of connecting Barrow and Atqasuk with a 70 mile transmission line and using electricity produced in Barrow from its local natural gas supply to displace fuel oil used in Atqasuk to meet both power and space heating requirements in the village. The results of the study found that the project: * Provides significant cost savings over the continued use of diesel fuel in Atqasuk ¢ Provides stable energy costs for the village of Atqasuk ¢ Is technically feasible ¢ Is feasible to construct * Has apredictable outcome * Minimizes the impact to the North Slope environment ¢ Will provide broadband capabilities to Atqasuk Economic Analysis Eight project alternatives were evaluated and all are economically feasible compared to the current diesel-based system for power generation and heating. The economics of the alternatives are summarized in the following table. Net Present Value of Cost Savings of the Intertie Project Alternatives Eastern Route Western Route AC current DC current AC current DC current Power Only $35,324,295 $27,156,697 $17,246,575 $15,621,944 Power and Heat $50,675,352 $42,507,754 $32,597,631 $30,973,001 The above analysis assumes a 35 year life. Project Concept The recommended Power Line, as a result of this study is Eastern Route 2 (ER2), at approximately 68 miles in length and at an estimated cost of $16.7MM. This route utilizes existing infrastructure, avoids lakes and significant surface water, avoids existing Native Allotments, is the shortest and most economic route, minimizes river crossings and to the best extent possible avoids dense avian nesting areas and populations. AC versus DC Evaluation Alternating Current AC has emerged as the recommended power type selection. This option has lower initial capital costs, has greater reliability, better equipment availability, and has a proven track record for this type of commercial application. DC conversion technology in the size required is not mature enough to be considered for this project. yan 1 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Structures The recommended structure for this application is a 69 kV Transmission Line Structure, the TP-69. The Typical pole selected, for most of the line, is a 65 foot long Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pole. This structure proved to be the most economic alternative compared to other structures. The light weight, strength and sectional single pole structure allows for ease of installation and spans of 700 feet. Project Delivery Schedule Construction should occur during the winter season, to prevent damage to the tundra flora, enable ad- freeze pile installation, enable tundra access for logistical support, and minimize impact to migratory avian populations. Based on the demand impact on the BUECI power plant system, the Transmission line should be installed in stages. The first phase would begin in 2013 and would involve connecting the transmission line to the Village power system only. The second phase would begin in 2015 and would involve the conversion of residential homes to electrical space heat. Non-residential space heating load is significant enough however to require the conversion of non-residential space heating loads to be brought on as the BUECI power facility improves its power capacity. The increase in gas consumption in Barrow by the addition of the electrical load or both the electrical and heating load from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the overall Barrow Gas Field production rate and reserves. Recommendations * Conduct a field reconnaissance trip to evaluate and “field adjust” the selected ROW alignment. ¢ Perform land surveys, soil sampling, river crossing site evaluations, etc. ¢ Along the proposed routes, determine ice jam issues, snowdrift zones, probe guy and anchor locations and do geotech explorations at long spa areas as the preliminary engineering effort develops. * Study and determine power line height vis-a-vis eider collision hazard in Alaska. ¢ Perform tests on FRP poles to confirm their suitability for use in the permafrost soils that will be encountered on this project. ¢ Determine the equipment and installation requirements to convert the heating systems in residences and other buildings in Atqasuk from fuel oil to electric. Because each conversion would be unique in some way, site visits would be required to every heated structure. ¢ Update the economic analysis. ¢ Investigate financial incentives including grants, low-interest loans, tax credits, depreciation deductions and other types of federal, state or private financial assistance that may be available. Gia 2 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 2. - Introduction A. Background The North Slope Borough (NSB) is aggressively exploring ways to provide heat and power to the NSB villages but reduce its dependence on costly and unstable price of diesel fuel which is currently barged or flown to NSB villages. A previous feasibility study evaluated a wide range of energy resources and technologies for the purpose of reducing energy costs in Atkasuk. Atkasuk is one of the most expensive villages to energize because of its inland location and the associated extra cost of overland fuel delivery. The previous study concluded that electricity produced in Barrow using natural gas and transmitted via overhead power lines to Atkasuk was the most economically attractive alternative. This is potentially the first phase of a planned expansion of electrical support to other villages on the North Slope of Alaska. A power line to Wainwright is the logical next step. The added electrical load for such an extension was considered in the design of certain power transmission components in this study. This project would also reduce the carbon “footprint” for these communities, which ultimately will be beneficial to the health of the residents and for wildlife populations. There are some potential negative benefits to endangered avian species and waterfow! habitats in the project area. An assessment of these potential costs and mitigation means are also an important focus of this report. B. Project Sponsors and Organization The NSB acquired an Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Grant to study the possibility of providing a more economic power supply to the village of Atqasuk. The village is located approximately 65 miles southwest of Barrow, on the Arctic Coastal Plain. Power would be provided via a new power transmission line that would link existing gas fired power generation capacity at Barrow with the power needs at Atqasuk. North Slope Borough (NSB) stakeholders, and their assigned representatives, have commissioned this effort. A Steering Committee was convened to ensure that community and borough objectives are being adequately addressed and the project remains under control. These responsibilities were carried out by performing the following functions: * Control project Scope by ensuring that scope of work aligns with the requirements of project sponsors, AEA and key stakeholder groups, City of Atqasuk and NSB. ¢ Keep community informed of project activities and findings. ¢ Provide input on Project scenarios and evaluation criteria. ¢ Providing assistance to the project when required. ¢ Attend/participate in Steering Committee and Project monthly meetings, including conference calls, workshops, and other meetings as needed. * Acceptance of project deliverables The Steering Committee established appropriate screening criteria for the power transmission system. * Technical support and local control. A measure of the degree to which the start up and fia 3 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings operation of an energy concept would require outside technical support; a high level of local control is ideal. * Technology maturity or readiness. A measure of the degree to which an energy concept has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. * System reliability. A measure of the absence of service interruption to a customer or group of customers and of the degree to which a power supply is free of significant frequency deviations, voltage flicker, and sags and surges. ¢ Environmental considerations. How secure are the poles going to be in differing permafrost conditions along the route. The NSB Steering Committee was staffed with the following key personnel. ¢ Doug Whiteman, Atqasuk Vice Mayor ¢ Fred Kanayurak, Atqasuk Lead Power Plant Operator * Max Ahgeak, Division Manager, Power & Light ¢ Kent Grinage, Division Manager, Fuel & Natural Gas The NSB Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study, was lead by Kent Grinage, as the NSB Project Administrator, and was managed by Lee Johnson, PE of Leland A. Johnson & Associates (LAJA). Specialty services were provided by the following Team: ¢ Sakata Engineering - Electrical Engineering, Albert Sakata EE PE * NORCON - Construction Feasibility, Method, and Cost Estimate, Eric Worthington, EE EA ¢ DEB Services & CE - Route Location, Right of Way and Report Compilation, David Bristow, CE PMP ¢ Golder & Associates - Geotechnical Engineering, Richard Mitchells, PE ¢ ABR - Environmental Considerations, Bob Ritchie, Principal/Senior Scientist ¢ Northern Economics Inc., - Economic Analysis, Leah Cuyno, PhD. ¢ Solstice Alaska Consulting Inc., - Permitting Considerations, Robin Reich, PE The NSB, the Project Administrator and the NSB Steering Committee were instrumental in supporting this effort by providing information and insight into the existing power generation and transmission facilities located at Barrow and Atqasuk. The LAJA Team would like to express it’s appreciation for the cooperation and assistance provided by all participating entities. C. Project Objectives The objective of the Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study is to determine the most feasible system for transmitting power from Barrow to Atqasuk. Alternative power line routes (corridors) were identified considering the following criteria. * Maximizes use of existing infrastructure ¢ Minimizes power line corridor length ¢ Avoids geotechnical hazards ¢ Avoids native allotments aan 4 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings * Is compatible with the most economically viable construction methods * Provides least environmental impact to migratory waterfowl nesting areas ¢ Minimizes environmental impact to tundra and inland watersheds, Transmission system design alternatives were produced considering the following parameters. ¢ Power-only and power-plus-heat village demand senarios ¢ AC versus DC line voltage * Composite poles versus wood and steel * Construction methods * Construction and operating costs ¢ Environmental Issues ¢ Geotechnical engineering constraints ¢ Permitting requirements ¢ Life cycle cost analysis (economics) D. Project Description The project entails a design engineering, permitting, and construction effort that will provide a new power transmission line from Atqasuk to Barrow. Several routes have been studied in preparation for the selection of the most environmentally friendly, economically viable, and technically feasible route that does not impact native allotments. The following routes were selected after exhaustive alternative analysis of other conceptualized routes. They are as follows: Western Route 1 (WR1) — length of route, approximately 74 miles. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) — length of route, approximately 68 miles. Western Route 1 Both WR1 and ER2, from Barrow to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad, utilize existing road infrastructure (to Cake Eater Rd.) to facilitate construction, and uses/modifies the existing power line support structures along this road. WR1 then proceeds south and utilizes the existing 6” gas line Vertical Support Members (VSM) to support the power line from the Barrow Gas Field South Pad to the existing Gas Line terminus. The final leg of WR1 travels along a new cross-country route, on 65’ tall, overhead power poles. Drill and slurry ad-freeze embedment is the construction method that will be used to install the power poles, during winter season. WR‘1 will require two river crossings (Meade & Inaru Rivers) and will be directionally drilled below the riverbed to minimize impact. This route was conceptualized in a similar manner to the existing ROW’s established during oil development on the North Slope. This method was employed due to the successful record of the ROW’s and their minimal impact to the environment. WR1 route ends at the Atqasuk Power Substation. face 5 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eastern Route 2 Both WR1 and ER2, from Barrow to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad, utilize existing infrastructure. ER2, at the Barrow Gas Field South Pad travels further to the east, along a new cross-country route, on 65’ tall, overhead power poles. Drill and slurry ad-freeze embedment is the construction that will be used to install the power poles, during winter season. ER2 will also require two river crossings (Meade & Inaru Rivers) and will be directionally drilled below the riverbed to minimize impact. This route was also conceptualized in a similar manner to the existing ROW’s established during oil development on the North Slope. This method has been successfully employed for many years on the North Slope. The ER1 route ends at the Atqasuk Power Substation. Both routes are designed to minimize infringement upon known, densely populated, avian nesting areas. Both avoid established native allotments. Both routes avoid installing VSM’s at lakes, surface ponds, and river drainages (as possible). WR1 and ER2 also provide power to the remote Walapka Gas Field, although ER2 is connected via an intertie shown as Route 2A. Ofiaua 6 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 3. — Engineering Design Basis & Performance Criterion A. Project Design Engineering Scope Description: * Evaluate and select from the power transmission options currently being studied. They are High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) vs. 3-Phase Alternating Current (AC), and are analyzed via comparative technical and economic viability and system reliability. ¢ Provide design engineering to select the line parameters that can provide the least environmental impact to avian populations and also determine the most economic transmission line from Barrow to Atqasuk. ¢ Minimize footprint of new facilities and utilize as much existing infrastructure as possible to avoid impact to sensitive flora. * Determine design parameters for wind and ice loads in arctic conditions. ¢ Develop the design of a power transmission system that will serve Atqasuk and also facilitate a future expansion to Wainwright. ¢ Produce transmission line concept designs to the Preliminary Engineering phase or sixty percent (60%) of overall design completion. ¢ Assess both power-only and power and heat demand scenarios. B. Route Description There are two proposed Right-of- Ways (ROW) that were studied for this effort. They are shown on Figure 1, Atqasuk Transmission Line Routes. They are Western Route 1 (WR1) and Eastern Route 2 (ER2). Both line routes traverse south of Barrow over terrain that is mostly flat with not much change in elevation. Adjacent to, and along the proposed line routes, are many shallow lakes surrounded by typical tundra, low-lying vegetation. The route has no roads but there are some existing snowmobile trails. The total lengths of each proposed route are as follows: ¢ WR1 - Approximately 74 Miles ¢ ER2 - Approximately 68 Miles C. Recommended Structures As part of this design effort support structures for the transmission line have been identified and selected. The recommended structure for this application is a 69 kV Transmission Line Structure, the TP-69 as shown in the attached drawing, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 1 —- Structure Types. The Typical pole selected, for most of the line, is a 65 foot long Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pole, with required sub-grade embedment determined to be 11.3 feet in depth. This structure consists of two offset high strength fiberglass insulators mounted on either side of the pole and a single vertical high strength insulator mounted at the top of the pole. This structure is capable of supporting transmission lines that approach the structure at small angles, with the provision of a side guy wire retaining anchor. This structure proved to be the most economic alternative compared to other structures since it is easier to construct and is less costly than H-frame arrangements. The line could operate at 34.5 kV initially and later would operate at 69 kV. Insulators for this line are to be 115 kV type to avoid flashover from salt contamination. yaa 7 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING go GAS LINES Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur . Western Route 1 4 (RT.1) ott Base Case Western Route 1 Eastern Route 2 ------ Walakpa Power Line Spur Route 2A at ahr ewer nee ue Eastern Route 2 Existing Gas Lines a (RT.2) Be] Native Allottment 1.) AERIAL IMAGERY DOQ DATED AUGUST 2005 WAS PROVIDE BY USGS AND DISTRIBUTED BY ALASKA GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CENTER (GINA) SCALE AS SHOWN ae ATQASUK TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES Peete. Anchorage, Alaska FILE No. Atqasuk.dwg PROJECT No. 103-95558 DATE -g/IB/NA G Leland A. Johnson & Associates FIGURE REV. 0 | Anchorage, Alaska 99511 1 Report of Findings D. Electrical Loading & Line Loss As determined from previous load study information, and updates provided by stakeholders, Atqasuk has a current peak load demand of 603 kW; with average daily demand of 384 kW. The peak electrical load for Atqasuk is estimated to increase to 1.0 to 2.0 MW when considering adding the heat load to the power load caused by the conversion of residences and facilities from diesel heating to electric heating. If power is extended to Wainwright, for power load only (no heating load), the peak load would be increased by 1.0 MW extended in the future. The proposed line, sized for 69 kV, can carry a total of 10 MW of power, and will have less than 3.8 % power loss, which is an adequate/acceptable voltage drop for this scenario. E. Transmission Line Components — Basis & Performance Criterion 1 -— Structure Types As determined from the available historical weather data, the isokeraunic levels are low, so the design does not require the use of any overhead ground wire for lightning protection. As a result, the design will utilize a single pole structure, Type TP-69, and occasionally, the H-Frame Type TH-1. These two types of structures will be installed for use by the AC Power Line Transmission scenario. Type TP-69 structure, with only two top insulators, will be installed for use in the DC Power Line Transmission scenario. Also, the structures will have sub-grade embedment with a design allowance of +10% in additional length plus 5 feet, to achieve greater pole stability. Compacted backfill, when ad-freeze slurry cannot be employed, will be used to aid in providing lateral and uplift resistance of the poles. There is considerable information available regarding jacking and creep that occurred on the GVEA Lattice Intertie from Healy. While jacking and creep are two issues requiring regular maintenance review, in the cold permafrost, north of the Brooks Range, over-drilling has worked well to nearly eliminate this problem. The method was instituted to place the power pole supports well below the active layer at the NSB power grids. The following material selections were considered and evaluated, as a cost basis, for the overhead transmission line portion of the design: ¢ Wooden Poles, Full Length Pressure Treated, Douglas Fir. Pressure treated per REA 1728F- 700. * Steel Poles, with similar strength properties as wooden poles; with a provision for ground fault protection. ¢ Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Poles. ¢ Insulators - the 69 kV Structures will utilize 115 kV Insulators to avoid potential flashover caused by in-situ or coastal salt contamination. 2 - Weather Data Parameters Based on research of the available historical weather data, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 2, Weather Data Parameters, the following design criterion (cases) are applied for the conductor loading and anchoring design: yee 8 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings * Per NESC, Heavy Loading District Condition - Load = 0.5” ice with 4 Ibs./sf. Wind Load = 40 mph on the exposed conductor. ¢ Wind Load = 110 mph or 31 Ibs/sf with no ice on the exposed conductor. * Wind Load on Insulator Swings = 49 mph or 6 lbs/sf with no ice on the exposed conductor, for use as basis in horizontal clearance calculations. 3 - Conductors Selection of the conductor is one of the most important design decisions made, as it is the critical component of any power transmission system. A large group of candidates were reviewed for selection as the design and cost basis for this project. The following conductors were considered during the process: « ACSR « ACSR/AW * ACSS/AW * 1350 Aluminum Conductor « AAC 6201 « ACAR « AWAC « ACSR/SD * T2 The factors considered when determining the conductor selection are as follows: * corrosion considerations — resistance or allowance ¢ material strength * voltage drop properties - resistance ¢ thermal capability * economics of use As determined during the selection process the recommended conductor is the Hawk/Aw 477.0 MCM ACSS/AW which has the adequate resistance properties, has adequate strength, and exhibits good corrosion resistance. The T2 type conductor will also be used at selected locations, as needed. T2 is a pair of stranded aluminum, steel reinforced conductors twisted around each other at nine foot intervals. They differ from standard conductor that has a smooth appearance and is not twisted. The twisting provides light reflections allowing birds to see the conductor eliminating conductor-bird collisions. The recommended, applied tension to the conductor, are per the RUS Table 9-2 found in Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 3, Recommended RUS Conductor Tension. 4 - Aeolian Vibration There are two types of Aeolian Vibration to be considered during the design effort. They are Aeolian Vibration and Galloping Vibration. Occurrence of Aeolian vibration is typically encountered in high- tensioned power lines. Per the design, this type of vibration is not expected, but as a precaution Armor Grip Suspension (AGS) will be installed on all conductor attachments to minimize the potential for this problem. It should be noted that this project will not utilize high-tensioned power lines. yaa 9 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings To address Galloping Vibration, which is expected, the longest spans will be designed to be no longer than 700 feet in length, installed at Single Poles, and no longer than 1200 feet in length, installed at the H-Frame Structures. The conductors will be subjected to Double-Loop Galloping Vibration where the required clearance is maintained. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 4, Aeolian Vibration, Required Clearance. 5-Sag and Tension Conductor Sag and Tension Data, per NESC Load Cases: ¢ Span Basis - 700 feet and 1200 feet respectively. ¢ Conductor Basis - 477 MCM ACSS/AW. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 5, Conductor Sag & Tension Resultant Calculation With the conductor temperature at 60 F, at a 700 foot span, the resultant sag is expected to be 14.72 feet, and expected NESC Load Case tension equaling 7,004 Ibs. With the conductor temperature at 60 F, at a 1200 foot span, the resultant sag is expected to be 43.83 feet, and expected NESC Load Case tension equaling 7,448 Ibs. If conductor temperature is -50 F, the resultant sag is 36.40 feet and the tension is 28% of ultimate strength. The 60 F criteria therefore controls. E.6 - Loading and Overload Factor The power line will be designed per NESC Heavy Loading District, applying REA Grade B Overload Capacity Factors, for Poles, Cross-arms, Guy Assemblies, and Insulators as shown on Table 11-3. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 6, Conductor Loading and Overload Factors. E.7 - Ground Clearances The line will be designed for 69 kV Power Transmission capacity so the expected conductor ground clearances, when the conductor temperature is 90F, at full load, will be per the RUS Table 4-1. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 7, Conductor Ground Clearances. It is recommended that 21.6 feet of vertical clearance from conductor to ground, is maintained, for most locations, when the line conductor temperature is 60 F. 8-Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC Case At 75 miles in length, under a 2 Mw load, and using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is 2.8% with a 4.66% voltage drop. Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 8, Load Flow Report at 34.5 kV AC. 9 - Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC Case Gea 10 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, and at 67 miles in length (to Wainwright) under a 3 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected overall loss is 2.02%; with a 0.15% voltage drop for Atgasuk and 0.95% voltage drop for Wainwright. Case At 67 miles in length (from Junction), under a 2 Mw load at Atqasuk, and under a 6 Mw load at Wainwright, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected overall loss is 3.28%; with a 1.0% voltage drop for Atqasuk and 1.96% voltage drop for Wainwright. Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 9, Load Flow Report at 69 kV AC. 10 -Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC Case At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is 9.12%; with an 8.36% voltage drop. Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 10, Load Flow Report at 30 kV DC. 11 -Load Flow Report at 50 kv DC Case At 75 miles in length (to Atqasuk), under a 2 Mw load, using a 477 MCM conductor, the expected loss is 8.98%; with an 8.24% voltage drop. Case information as provided in the referenced EDSA Report. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 11, Load Flow Report at 50 kV DC. 12 -One-Line Description for AC Operation The BUECI feeder circuit from the power plant will be configured to provide power and power plus heat and will include a dedicated 4160V Breaker. From the breaker it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA Transformer will be located there with a 34.5 kV Re-closer, installed at the Barrow and Atqasuk ends of the power line. When using the 69 kV option, 69 kV SF6, Low Profile Type Breakers will be considered for installation. Atqasuk will be configured with a 2 MVA Transformer, a 4160V Re- closer, as well as a 34.5 kV Re-closer. See the referenced One-Line Diagram for clarity. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 12, One-Line Description for AC Operation. At the Atqasuk Power Plant a new 2MVA Transformer will be installed on a pad configured in a similar manner to the existing 1 MVA Transformer located there. Both the 34.5 kV feeder circuit and the 69 kV feeder circuit option will use a re-closer for protection, and an SF6 Low Profile Circuit Breaker. The 4160V Stepped-down voltage will be routed through a re-closer that should connect to TIP2 or B1L2P as is needed or convenient. See Figure 2 for clarity. am 14 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings POWER HOUSE (NOTE 7) NC. 4500 AT | 1000 KVA-PAD-MTD ~ 1600 3440A_ TIP sen} 7-0 US oe— 480-4160v/2400V | 3KV 4 —_— = oY NOTE6 * 450KW G) tN stoKw @— 480-4160Y/2400V 3-140A__ TIP7 TIP3 T6-BP1 rh “N oo. 910KW G)- 3 HOH +4 I oO 1000 KVA-PAD-MTD _L 3KV NOTES NO 3x15 AN TIPS 1x Figure 2 Schematic For AC Operation — Step Down Transformer & Protection 13 -One-Line Description for DC Operation The BUECI feeder circuit from the power plant will be configured to include a dedicated 4160V Breaker. From the breaker it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA or 5 MVA Transformer will be located at the South Pad and will step down voltage to 480V, and, with a separate breaker will provide power to the inverter modules. These modules will convert 480V AC to 1500 V DC. This DC output will be connected in series to achieve the desired 30 kV or 50 kV DC result. Line Protection will be by provided by installing one 30 KV or 50 KV DC Breaker at Barrow and another at Atqasuk. The DC converters, located at Atqasuk and Barrow, will require installation in weather-proof enclosures for protection. At Atqasuk the 480V AC output from the DC Converters can be tied-in to the power plant main bus through a 2500A 480V Breaker. Another feasible option explored is to step-up the 480V AC output from the DC Converters with a 2 MVA Step- up Transformer, and tie-in to the power plant system through a re-closer; that should connect to TIP3 or B1L2P2 as is needed or convenient. It should be noted that the proposed line configuration is the bipolar type, utilizing similar structures as the AC line except that of the three conductors provided, only two are used. See Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 13, One-Line Description for DC Operation, the referenced One-Line Diagram, for more detailed information regarding the DC Power Line. yee 12 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 14 - High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Evaluation DC Converter Technology As a part of this study, significant effort was expended researching the possibility of utilizing a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) “light” line feed for power transmission. As a result, two principal suppliers of HVDC equipment, were identified. They are Siemens and ABB. Unfortunately both companies do not offer equipment sized for the load capacities discussed in this study. They do offer equipment rated at 10 MW at 140 kV capacities, however if this equipment were utilized as estimate basis, it would increase the project cost by approximately $10.0MM; not including the cost impact associated with a Walapka Power Line Tie-in. Company representatives did not seem too enthusiastic and indicated they believed this was “not a good fit for their equipment’. Although the cost of the HVDC transmission line was found to be less than the AC transmission line, the converter technology made the overall HVDC system less cost effective. No current or past project effort could be found that has utilized HVDC systems with power loads of similar size, as compared to this project's requirements. Tier Electronics, a manufacturer of smaller HVDC systems, did provide an attractive initial price offering for 2 MW units, but after further review of the company, and no response to additional requests for project history of the units they manufacture, it was determined that this equipment source will require further verification. The initial quotation was used in this budgetary estimate, and a request for a written quotation was promised at a later date. Tier Electronics did indicate that they can provide training and technical support, but did not include the cost in their original proposal. It should be noted that Tier Electronics technical personnel advised that the increased load resulting from electric heating, would require utilizing their 4 MW capacity units. They also indicated that their equipment is more “load sensitive” than a transformer, and some increased capacity is required to address this. Tier Electronics HVDC equipment is manufactured and rated to withstand -40 Deg. C temperatures, but additional heating capacity will be required for temperatures below -40 Deg. C. The Denali Commission recently completed a review of HVDC technology for an Alaskan application and they endorsed the suggestion to provide a third power conductor. It was also suggested that power transformers should be pre-positioned to provide a “backup transition” to an alternating current (AC) system. DC Converter Costs The DC Converter cost quotations are provided by Tier Electronics, an electronics manufacturer located near Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is the only vendor that provided converter costs. The two DC Converter options offered are as follows: * Two each, 480 VAC to 30 kV DC converters, with one located at Barrow and another located at Atqasuk. This equipment will provide 2 MW of capacity. Cost: $ 1.9 MM US, for two converters. ¢ Two each, 480 VAC to 50 kV DC converters, with one located at Barrow and another located at Atqasuk. This equipment will provide 5 MW of capacity. Cost: $ 3.985 MM US, for two converters. Pia 13 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings It should be noted that ABB was approached to provide a proposal, since they have a previous track record of completing many projects in Europe, but in their response the only offering was for equipment capable of providing 80 kV DC of conversion capacity with a power rating of 40 MW. The two converters were quoted at $30MM to $35MM US which included the associated DC/AC Switchyards. For more detailed cost information, see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 14, DC Converter Costs. DC Converter Reliability The life span of this electronic equipment is measured in “mean time between failures” (MTBF). This MTBF is normally high for a single converter and the equipment could be expected to experience some potential component failure. Due to the Converter MTFB, it should be considered that the Converter Components Plan, a scenario that would require having 20 to 40 converters installed in series, would only allow for a minimum of one or two acceptable failures. If more failures occurred, the whole system would fail, and not provide the adequate, reliable DC voltage output. Maintenance expertise is not readily available and there are not adequate training opportunities provided or available, in the remote communities where this equipment is being considered for use. With these issues the actual reliability that the proposed converters will provide should be questioned. The proposed converter equipment will be factory tested at the Northrop facility near Milwaukee, but this equipment has never been utilized for a similar commercial application. There is no proven track record of performance for this application since it would be a “first” for TIER Electronics. In consideration of the foregoing facts, we must conclude that a DC system is not viable for our situation. HVDC Conclusions ¢ For the advantages of HVDC vs AC power see Appendix A, Design Engineering, Exhibit 15, Advantages of HVDC vs AC Power. ¢ It is not the least cost option. The cost estimate was based on the written quote received for a 4 MW HVDC system. The quote indicated that a third conductor for a ground would be required. The requirement for a third conductor was not utilized for this estimate as it is not a HVDC design requirement. ¢« HVDC Equipment sources are not readily available. Tier Electronics, is only known source of HVDC equipment with the capacity required by the project found. Tier’s equipment does meet the project performance criterion of 2 MW - 4 MW of power at 40 kV to 70 kV. A“10 MW minimum and 110kV minimum” equipment was proposal provided by ABB and Siemens. They provide the bulk of the equipment, for the HVDC transmission market, and although HVDC is suggested for this project, it was indicated that their gear is not a good fit for this project; $10MM for the equipment without any provision to tie to Walapka Gas Field. ¢ Polar Consult Alaska, Inc, a group funded by the Denali Commission, is developing HVDC technology, and was studied for potential use in this project. It was found that the technology they are developing is still in the prototype stage and is sized well below the design requirements for this project. It was also indicated they realize the need for 50kV 100 kW to 5 MW capacity HVDC units but there are no current plans for further development. ¢ The use of a Single Wire Earth Return (SWER) is advocated by the Denali Commission report findings, but as the authors indicate, “the SWER is rarely used because it induces modest ground currents and voltages that can rapidly corrode some buried metals”. Conventional HVDC is yao 14 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings defined as using two wires to prevent a ground return and is required to protect the NSB gas field infrastructure per the current electrical codes. ¢ HVDC utilizes technology not common in the region, nor can manufacturers with similar design requirements be located. HVDC system theory appears to be well founded. However, the lack of information for similar systems does not allow a viable review of durability and economics associated with HVDC systems, and, at this time would not be the proper choice for this project’s use. In short, HVDC technology maturity is too low to be considered for this project. ea 15 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 4. — Geotechnical Engineering — Review & Commentary A. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this work was to review existing geotechnical and near surface geologic data along two transmission line alignment corridors developed in conjunction with other members of the design team. The purpose of the data review was to determine if significant geotechnical hazards could be anticipated along the proposed alignments. The work relied on existing publically accessible geotechnical literature and imagery augmented with our general geotechnical knowledge and experience in the area. A site reconnaissance or subsurface exploration program was not included under this scope of services. The project objectives are to provide a narrative of reasonably expected geotechnical issues along the proposed alignments and provide conceptual level geotechnical design considerations for the transmission structures. A discussion of potential geotechnical issues for fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) transmission poles in cold climate/permafrost areas is also included. Identification and discussion of potentially significant geotechnical hazards and design considerations that may severely impact project costs is also provided. Design-level geotechnical engineering recommendations were not included under this scope of services. B. Prior Work Environmental and engineering analysis for a power line between Barrow and Atqasuk was completed in the early 1980’s by Jack West Associates and others. This report included power lines between Barrow, Atgasuk, and Wainwright with the Barrow to Atqasuk alignment approximately 70 miles long. The West report provided limited geotechnical field data along the proposed routes. Subsequent to the West report, the North Slope Borough (NSB) has considered several alternate alignments between Barrow and Atqasuk. C. Geologic and Geotechnical Findings/Considerations A variety of options were considered for the conductors and support structures. Details of the proposed alignment and utility pole geometry are provided by other members of the team. At this time the preferred option for the vertical supports are monopole structures with structure adjustments for longer spans over lakes and drainages. Golder was tasked with three geotechnical items for conceptual-level engineering: + Summary discussion of reasonably expected shallow subsurface geology and thermal states along the proposed alignments. * Summary discussion of potential geo-hazards related to the transmission line construction and operation and maintenance (O&M). * Geotechnical considerations related to use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) utility poles in lieu of conventional timber or steel transmission pole structures. C.1 - Surface and Shallow Subsurface Geology The proposed Barrow to Atqasuk power line will lie entirely within the Teshekpuk Lake section of the Arctic Coastal Plain, See Figure 1. This is an area with little topographic relief. Occasional pingos and tundra-covered sand dunes provide the only break in an otherwise flat horizon. The Meade River, near Atgasuk, and scattered tributary streams, incised a few feet into the plain, provide the only drainage for much of the area. Poorly developed drainage ways flow toward the coast at the northern end of the project area. yer 16 Atgqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings The entire coastal plain is underlain by permafrost with a seasonal thaw depth of up to a few feet in undisturbed, windswept areas. Permafrost will extend deep in the project area, in excess of 1,000 feet, which is not uncommon. Deeper seasonal thaw may be encountered along drainages, under areas with deeper snow cover, and where the tundra mat has been disturbed. As a result the region is poorly drained and very marshy in the summer. A network of ice-wedge polygons covers the coastal plain and elongated thaw lakes are common. The lakes are generally shallow and range in length from a few feet to several miles in length. These lakes have been reported to expand by as much as three (3) feet per year and several generations of drained lakes have been identified. Beneath the tundra cover, a sequence of Quaternary Age marine sediments are present over nearly flat, coal bearing, Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. Wahrhaftig reported in USGS Professional Paper 482 (1962) that the overlying unconsolidated sediments range from 10 to 150 feet in thickness. The coal bearing rocks are exposed in the banks of the Meade River which is in the vicinity of Atqasuk, but are much deeper to the north. These rocks are composed of silty sandstone and limey siltstone with shale- like inter-beds. The more durable sandstone units observed near Atqasuk were generally about 2 to 4 inches in thickness. C.2 — Routing: Geologic Considerations There are few geologic conditions that will significantly impact the route for the power line. The following conditions, however, should be considered as the route is finalized. Additional discussion is presented under following Geo-hazards section. ¢ Avoid locating structures immediately adjacent to the migrating lakes, with special attention given to the ends of the larger lakes ¢ Avoid locating structures in or immediately adjacent to small streams especially at stream junctions where seasonal aufeis (overflow ice) may occur * Shallow rock may be encountered at the southern end of the line. Drilling in the rock may be difficult with conventional disc-type auger commonly used for foundation installation in the area, but the banded nature of the material suggests that it may be possible to penetrate. Based on our review of the proposed alignments identified on the attached imagery, several key areas of geologic concern are identified. Key areas of concern include: ¢ River Crossings — Two (2) Ea. along Right of Way and rock strata encountered. - Inaru River - Meade River ¢ Ice Rich Permafrost — can be mitigated with field adjusted embedment length of VSM; commonly practiced and known as “pupping’. C.3 - Geo-hazards As discussed above, ice-rich permafrost under the tundra surface is expected along the transmission line corridors. Both alignments will traverse areas with large numbers of surface water bodies. Thus, the alignments are expected to require numerous guy anchorages. The active layer, or depth of seasonal thaw, is expected to be 1 to 3 feet where the surface vegetation is intact. Deeper seasonal thaw and potentially degrading permafrost can be expected in areas with damaged surface vegetation, along a larger surface drainages, near a larger surface water bodies, and in areas with significant snow drifting. ye 17 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings In general, the shallow soils 15 to 20 feet below the tundra mat will be ice rich organic silt with the potential for thick sequences of massive ice. Geotechnical work form the early 1980s conducted approximately 10 to 15 miles westerly of the proposed alignments encountered a live tundra mat with an underlying peat and organic silt layer to 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface. In general, icy mineral silt was encountered below the organic silt with occasional layers of silty clay to approximately 20 feet below grade, the limit of the explorations. Soil moisture, as a percentage of dry weight, ranged from 200 to 500 percent within the uppermost 5 to 7 feet decreasing to 50 to 70 percent to 12 feet below grade further decreasing to approximately 25 to 35 percent of dry weight below 12 feet. Within the upper 10 to 12 feet below grade, soil moistures in excess of the dry soil weight should be expected. As discussed in the Geology section, the soils near Atqasuk are re-worked wind deposits, generally considered dune deposits. The shallow subsurface soils near Atqasuk are generally fine sands to coarse silt by particle size and will typically have lower soil moisture contents, roughly slightly above thawed state saturation concentrations. In Atqasuk the near surface sandier soils generally have fewer massive ice layers; however, massive ice can be expected in areas with more silty and organic soil deposits. Pore water salinity is prevalent in the permafrost throughout the Barrow area and should be expected along most of the proposed alignments, with a reduction in pore water salinity near Atqasuk. Pore water salinity will depress the freezing point of the permafrost. Near Barrow, pore water salinities have been encountered at concentrations resulting in un-bonded permafrost at ground temperatures near 25° F within foundation pile embedment depths, 15 to 30 feet below grade. In general, pore water salinities up to 8 to 18 parts per thousand (ppt) should be anticipated along the alignment at depths commonly expected for utility pole embedment. However, larger pore water salinity concentrations up to and exceeding 35 ppt have been encountered near Barrow and should be expected along the proposed alignments. Shallow ground temperatures have been measured in Barrow and Atqasuk over the past 30 years on numerous construction projects. In general, ground temperatures near 20° to 25° F at 15 to 20 feet below grade can be expected near Barrow. At the base of the active layer, the ground temperatures will increase to 32°F and ground surface temperatures will vary in response to annual air temperature variations. Permafrost temperatures will vary depending on local conditions, including albedo, snow drift, slope orientation, vegetation and other factors. Engineering climate indices including average thaw and freezing indices (ATI and AFI, respectively) indicate a warming trend from the 1950-1978 period to the 1978-2004 period. The Barrow area average climatic indices are summarized below. 1950-1980 1980-2004 Average Air Temperature: 75 °F 11.2°F Average Thawing Index: 400 *F-days 670 *F-days Average Freezing Index: 8,700 °F-days 8,240 °F-days As noted, the Barrow area has experienced a general warming trend with potential impacts to longer design life facilities. This general warming trend should be expected along the transmission line corridors and throughout the design life for the structures. fia 18 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Along the proposed alignments, several geo-hazards should be anticipated: Ice-rich Permafrost - Ice rich permafrost may experience additional creep under sustained load, particularly for lateral load conditions such as guy anchors. Also, deeper thaw into the underlying permafrost may occur if the tundra surface is damaged. Deeper thaw may result in a deeper point of fixity for lateral load analysis. Elevated Pore Water Salinity - Pore-water salinity will depress the freezing point in the permafrost. In addition, conventional drill and slurry ad-freeze foundation systems may experience accelerated creep under moderate to light loads in higher salinity permafrost, particularly for steel piles. Snow Drift - In areas subject to deeper snow drifting, the ground surface will be insulated from winter cooling air temperatures with a potential for warming or degrading permafrost. As permafrost warms, a reduced ad-freeze bond capacity and reduced lateral resistance should be expected. Seasonal Lake Ice - The larger water bodies may have water sufficiently deep to not freeze to the mud line. If so, permafrost degradation may be occurring. In general, the lateral extent of the permafrost degradation will be limited, particularly if the shoreline is wind swept during the winter. However areas along the shorelines adjacent to deeper water should be checked for potentially deeper thaw or warming permafrost. Larger Surface Drainages - Several geo-hazards should be considered along larger surface drainages. First, seasonal ice jams have occurred along larger drainages with the potential for damage to pole structures. Second, the larger drainages may have deeper thaw channels and oxbows or channel meanders may have unfrozen soil states, depending on localized hydraulics, vegetation, and river geometry. Third, the larger drainages may have significant snow drift conditions that may alter the thermal regime along the banks. Fourth, channel migration and erosion are active geomorphic processes that may impact structures adjacent to active drainage channels. Lake Shoreline Erosion - The larger lakes along the proposed alignments have a noted NW-SE elongation orientation. This orientation is related to the prevailing winds and some thermal degradation and erosion may occur along the northern and southern margins of these lakes. Vertical members planned along larger lakes should consider the potential for shoreline migration over the project design life. D. Geotechnical Considerations for Timber, Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Poles It is understood that the vertical support members will be direct-buried using conventional drill and slurry construction practices. In Barrow, it is understood that BUECI traditionally re-uses the auger cuttings as slurry aggregate with potable water. Pole embedment depths by BUECI are generally 10 feet. BUECI reports few problems related to utility pole performance in Barrow, however isolated utility poles have experienced problems in Barrow near surface drainages or along roadway shoulders where permafrost degradation may have occurred. Axial and lateral design loads for the transmission system have not been developed at this conceptual level, but it is reasonable to assume that if larger spans are utilized, this will result in installing taller poles along the transmission alignment, and significantly greater lateral loads should be expected. Lateral loads will be developed normal to the conductor alignments due to wind an ice loadings and along tangents where conductor directions change. At these tangent points, it is understood that guy anchors will be required and a free-standing monopole structure is not feasible for the expected design loads. ie 19 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Timber drill and slurry ad-freeze foundations have a successful performance record, in the Barrow area, installed in higher pore-water saline permafrost. Nearly all conventional timber ad-freeze piles in permafrost areas are specified as untreated, rough cut material. Utility poles are generally treated, but limited axial or lateral loading problems are apparent due to the preservative treatment along the embedded pole sections. Steel piles have experienced accelerated axial creep in higher salinity permafrost in Barrow, even under relatively low sustained axial loads (wrt to buildings and structures). Lateral creep has also been reported along guy anchors for communication towers in the Barrow area, resulting in loss of tension and repeated operations and maintenance cost for guy cable re-tensioning. Very little performance data are available in the literature or through field performance for FRP pole structures in icy permafrost conditions. The ad-freeze capacity should be determined for FRP materials and potential creep related variables. Field and/or laboratory bench testing can be conducted to estimated ad-freeze capacity. Likewise, the robustness of FRP poles to transport and handling should be considered. If the FRP products are sensitive to handling and transport relative to timber or steel products, the impacts due to handling and transport should be determined. All FRP manufacturers contacted make full length FRP utility poles. Golder personnel were able to locate only one manufacturer for nested or sectional FRP utility poles, RS Group in Calgary, Alberta. Based on preliminary discussions with RS Group, they have installed their FRP products in areas with seasonal frost but not in permafrost conditions. Based their literature, the cold regions FRP installations have performed as designed. For more information see Appendix B, Geotechnical Engineering, Exhibit 1, RS FRP Pole Structure Examples. E. Geotechnical Considerations and Recommendations Based on review of existing geologic and geotechnical literature along the proposed transmission line alignments (WR1/ER2) and our current understanding of the project, we offer the follow geotechnical considerations and recommendations at the conceptual planning and development level: E.1 - Alignment Routing Along the proposed alignment routes, the following elements should be considered as the conceptual level effort develops: ¢ Terrain unit mapping based on existing data sources should be conducted along the preferred route(s) for possible field assessment of shallow subsurface conditions. * Coupled with local resident knowledge and experience, ice jam issues along drainages should be monitored during breakup to assist with route selection. ¢ Late spring flyover should also map relict snow drift zones for future thaw probing ¢ At the end of the fall season, hand thaw probing should be conducted at potential areas of deeper thaw at proposed pole and guy anchor structures yee 20 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings ¢ Geotechnical explorations should be considered at the longer span areas if larger tension loads are expected Potential slurry aggregate sources along the alignment(s) should be identified to reduce aggregate transportation costs. Likewise potential slurry water sources should be identified to reduce water handling and transportation costs. E.2 - FRP Structures Since limited performance data are available for FRP structures in permafrost using drill and slurry ad- freeze design, we recommend considering laboratory and field-testing with the planned FRP products to determine basic geotechnical design parameters. This effort should include determining sustained ad- freeze bond capacities, pore water salinity influence on ad-freeze bond strength, lateral load and deformation behavior, and basic handling and constructability considerations. The University of Manitoba has published and unpublished structural performance data on FRP structures. Coordination with Dr. Dimos Polyzios, at the University of Manitoba, Department of Civil Engineering should be considered. Golder established preliminary discussions with Dr. Polyzios for this submittal and additional effort is recommended to follow up with his research and findings. ye 21 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 5. — Constructability Analysis, Technical Feasibility, & Cost Estimates A. Purpose, Objective, & Scope of Work The project scope of work included developing a construction method, material selection, and representative cost estimate for a new power transmission line from Barrow to Atqasuk; that addresses the environmental considerations for executing a power line construction project in an area where endangered avian populations are present. The construction method and material selection for installation, were crucial choices, bearing in mind the potential environmental consequences, so “minimal impact” was a significant part of this effort’s mission goal. The construction basis and feasibility, technical feasibility of chosen construction method/materials, and budgetary costs developed for a feed to the electrical distribution grid at Atqasuk were the primary deliverables. Also included in the scope of work was a tie-in to the Walapka Gas Fields so it can be provided with power from low-cost power generation in Barrow; on a least cost basis. This is possible due to the development of Eastern Route 2, whose alignment would make the Walapka Gas Field tie-in possible. See Figure 1, Atqasuk Transmission Line Routes: Western Route 1, WR1 and Eastern Route 2, ER2. B. Physical Description The Construction Cost Estimate is based upon on procuring and constructing a new power transmission line capable of supplying power from Barrow to Atqasuk, Alaska; located approximately 65 miles SSW of Barrow. These villages possess minimal existing infrastructure, and only winter trails currently exist between their locations. Some of these winter trails are near the proposed power line alignments. The proposed right-of-ways or alignments, WR1 and ER2, are located near critical nesting areas for the Steller’s Eider, Spectacled Eider, and Brant Goose, of which the Steller’s Eider has been classified as an endangered species. The estimate is based upon on an assumed maximum load of 608 Kilowatts (KW) power load supplied by the BUECI power-plant in Barrow. It should be noted that review of the anticipated heating loads indicate that the stated 2 MW requirement may be low, but the change in cost is not significant, as a function of initial project cost. However, related upgrades to the Atqasuk distribution system, including transformers, electric drop services, metering, and installation of electric powered heating equipment may ultimately produce a required power load approaching 2.5 MW. To address this increase in load, while addressing potential line loss, the design promotes conductor and structure material strengths that maximize span lengths. This serves to reduce costs, while applying allowed NESC and IEEE design parameters, which would allow a much larger power load increase without significant cost increases. The changes to the “step-up” and “step-down” power transformers would typically be the only item required for the increased loads. It should be noted that the load increase is caused partially by low ambient temperature which allows an increased load on the transformer. A requirement for a 100 Kilowatt (kW) Tie-in at the Walapka Gas field, is also included in the estimate, and that load has been taken into account. Cc. Basis of Estimate ¢ Estimate is based upon historical data and recent material vendor quotes. ¢ Assumed labor costs are based upon Davis/Bacon or Union Scale pay rates, per the Fall 2010 Rate Schedules. Accuracy should be within a -10% to +25% of cost certainty. It should be noted that several industrial commodities’ costs, especially copper, have escalated substantially since the quotes were received, and should be indexed, during the next estimate effort. ¢ No allowance is provided beyond installing switching and controls, for an electronic interface between the existing powerhouses. The NSB power loads and equipment costs, for any additional connections, should be minimal but the BUECI power and control interface may be a bigger issue Gia 22 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings since it is not just required to find a working solution, but one that BUECI concurs with. For example their equipment may require upgrades and a solution to enable matching signal inputs to older existing technology. * No allowance for Right of Way (ROW) or land acquisition is incorporated and is assumed to be provided by others. ¢ Labor Productivity Rates are based on trained, craft personnel and other Direct Costs are based upon the assumption that construction effort will be one year in duration. ¢ The Construction Schedule is heavily dependent upon a one-time, on-time, comprehensive, material delivery via Bowhead Barge Service, which occurs annually. There are other options available, but there would be significant cost impact if utilized. ¢ The estimate is based upon constructing a power transmission line with 2 Megawatt (MW) operating load at 69 kilo-volts (kV), designed with 110 kV spacing/insulation on overhead (OH) segments that comply with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). ¢ — Itis planned to tie into the existing control system with a Fiber Optic Cable (FOC) circuit through a Supervisory Control And Dada Acquisition (SCADA) system. A side-benefit to installing this link is broad band access will be available between Barrow and Atqasuk. * Provision for utilization of reflective conductors to prevent bird strikes is included in the estimate, as a protective measure, but permitting issues may require additional items with undefined procurement and construction costs. D. Eastern Route 2 (ER2) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate D.1 Barrow Substation — ER2 ¢ The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output at 34.5 kV; achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer. ¢ An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between the BUSCI and the NSB facilities. While an important and vital part of the system, the differences between the as-bid and the as-found condition are not expected to cause significant cost impact. ¢ No underground (UG) cable is not utilized in this power line cost estimate. No reactors are required to offset the capacitive reactance. ¢ It is assumed that there is adequate space available at BUECI, to allow for the required transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. ¢ This work is assumed to be in the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material order lead time. ¢ Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. D.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment ER2 - Length: 5.8 Miles ¢ This work is assumed to be performed during the summer season, and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway, for an existing power line. During the construction effort personnel will iam 23 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings install new 78’ tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13’ feet in depth, along the existing ROW. This work, especially in Barrow area, will be performed with the system energized. The existing 4160 volt circuit conductors will be relocated to new poles. An allowance is provided for all new dead end and angle structures. Approximately 50% of the tangent structures to be provided are required per National Electric Safety Code (NESC) clearances. Some transformers and cut-outs will also be relocated to new structures. Short outages for transfer of the services will be required on this segment, but timely warning to the affected consumers should not be an issue. Additional ROW footprint may be required, for guy anchor installation, due to the taller poles requiring longer guy leads. Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. D.3 South Pad to Atqasuk ER2 — Overhead (OH) Line Segment — Length: 62.6 Miles This work is assumed to occur during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction, installing typical 63’ RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, embedment at approximately 12’ feet in depth. Sand-slurry will be utilized to backfill the drilled excavation and will also be placed inside the bottom section to address the issue of the pole hollow core strength, if required. Additional pole sections will be carried by crew to modify pole length if required due to terrain or ice lenses encountered during excavation. A Cat Train Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. ROW alignment was chosen to avoid long water crossings and selected native allotments. ROW alignment was chosen to minimize Eider impact as shown on ABR’s Eider Density map. ROW alignment was chosen to minimize transmission line length. D.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field to ER2 Segment — Length: 6.2 Miles This work is assumed to occur during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction, installing typical 63’ RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment at approximately 12’ feet in depth. The cost estimate includes OH Power Feed to the Barrow Gas Field with distribution poles and step- down transformer bank at the gas line terminus. Route length may vary slightly, depending upon further study of existing gas field infra-structure and terrain. It was problematic locating a route that avoids the significant surface water and lakes. Fused taps are utilized to provide protection and isolation for loads. Similar Structure can be provided for small cost impact for the future Western Tie-in. Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. fiona 24 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D.5 Atqasuk Substation ER2 E The cost estimate is predicated on the power transmission line feeding the existing 4160 Volt Power Line from a tie-in to a 2 MVA transformer located at the power house. An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between NSB facilities. It is assumed the existing power plant will be retained as emergency back-up power, but it may be advantageous to provide remote control of that plant at Barrow. It is assumed that there is adequate space available at the Atqasuk Power Plant, to allow for the installation of the transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. This work is assumed to occur during the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. Placing the order in time to utilize ice roads for the delivery of heavy electrical equipment, is the assumed basis. Existing support facilities in Atqasuk are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. Western Route 1 (WR1) — Physical Description & Basis of Estimate E.1 Barrow Substation Western Route 1 (WR1) The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output at 34.5 kV; achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer. An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between the BUSCI and the NSB facilities. While an important and vital part of the system, the differences between the as-bid and the as-found condition are not expected to cause significant cost impact. Underground (UG) cable is used for a significant part of the line, so approximately 4 MVAR’s of Reactors, to offset the capacitive reactance, will be required and result in about $453K of cost impact to correct the issue. An issue requiring clearer definition is the location of the substation that feeds the Power Transmission Line at the BUECI site; and/or to provide an allowance for a connection to this site from the power line feed location. It is assumed that there is adequate space available at BUSCI, to allow for the required reactors, transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances. Additional footprint is required at the substation due to the required reactors and their breakers. This work is assumed to be performed during the summer season and it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. E.2 Barrow to South Pad Line Segment, WR1 — Length: 5.8 Miles. Common to Both Routes This work is assumed to be done during the summer season, and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway for an existing power line. This construction effort will install new 78’ tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13’ feet in depth. Oficezm 25 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings This segment is assumed to be installed during the summer season; and is predicated upon utilizing the existing ROW/roadway for an existing power line. This construction effort will install new 78’ tall RLS Single Composite Pole Structures, with embedment of approximately 13’ feet in depth. This work, especially in Barrow area, will be performed with the system energized. The existing 4160 volt circuit conductors will be relocated to new poles. Allowance is provided for all new dead end and angle structures. Approximately 50% of the tangent structures to be provided are required per National Electric Safety Code (NESC) clearances. Some transformers and cut-outs will also be relocated to new structures. Short outages for transfer of the services will be required on this segment, but timely warning to affected consumers should not be an issue. Additional ROW footprint may be required, for guy anchor installation, due to the taller poles requiring longer guy leads. Existing support facilities in Barrow are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. E.3 South Pad to Walapka Segment on VSM’s, WR1 — Length: 18.8 Miles This work is assumed to be done during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for the installation of a steel messenger cable on the existing VSM’s. A bolted support assembly, to attach the messenger cable to the VSM is the basis of the estimate, and it is planned to install the 3-phase, jacketed, medium voltage cable, (Okonite CLX) and the FOC ina1% inch HDPE duct; carried in CAD clamps which is typical construction method at the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, Additional anchors will be required to resist the imposed strains. A Cat Train Man Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. The ROW Alignment is the existing 6” Gas Line VSM routing. Cable Insulation will be limited to the 35 kV Conductor, due to cost and constructability constraints. There will be a step-down transformer bank located at the Barrow Gas Field terminus to enable the tie-in to the existing grid. Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. The cost estimate includes an OH Power Feed to the Barrow Gas Field with distribution poles and step-down transformer bank at the gas line terminus. E.4 Tie-in for Walapka Gas Field Segment, WR1 — Length: 0 .2 Miles This work is assumed to be done during the winter season and is predicated on utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction, utilizing the current maintenance facility as a connection point. There will be a step-down bank at that gas field terminus to tie into the existing grid Further work and discovery may determine that circuit switches, with SCADA control, might be required with a cost impact of approximately $82K additional cost. ya 26 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings E.5 Walapka to Atqasuk Western Route, Overhead (OH) Line Segment, WR1 — Length: 48.8 Miles * This work is assumed to be performed in the same manner as the Eastern Route with installation occurring during the winter season and utilizing low ground pressure equipment for that construction. Typically 63’ RLS single composite pole vertical support structures will be embedded to twelve (12) feet in depth. * Route will start at the southern terminus of the Walapka gas field VSM's and follows the Eider friendly route originally identified. * — Slurry will be utilized to backfill the drilled excavation and will also be placed inside the bottom section with a “fly bucket” to deal with issue of hollow core strength if required. * Additional pole sections will be provided, for construction personnel to modify pole length if required, due to terrain or ice lenses encountered during drilled excavation. ¢ ACat Train Man Camp will provide support services including housing and meals for the crew. ¢ Should it be determined that circuit switches with SCADA control are needed, that potential cost impact has been identified and would result in approximately $82K of additional cost. E.6 Atqasuk Substation Western Route 1 (WR1) * The construction estimate is predicated on the power transmission line tying into the existing 4160 volt power line, with a drop to the substation at that same voltage, and the power feed output achieved by routing through a 2 MVA transformer ¢ An issue requiring resolution is the basis for the power and control interface between NSB facilities. It is assumed the existing power plant will be retained as emergency back-up power, but it may be advantageous to provide remote control of that plant at Barrow. ¢ — It is assumed that there is adequate space available at the Atqasuk Power Plant, to allow for the installation of the transformer, breakers, switches, control module, or other required appurtenances; with no additional cost impact. ¢ This work is assumed to occur during the summer season although it should be noted that the substation equipment has the longest material lead time. Placing the order in time to utilize ice roads for the delivery of heavy electrical equipment, is the assumed basis. ¢ Existing support facilities in Atqasuk are expected to be utilized for housing and meals. F. Residence & Facility Heating Conversion in Atqasuk — From Diesel to Electric * It has been clearly identified that the conversion of residential and NSB facility heating systems, from oil-fired to less expensive electric heat, is the most likely source of significant power load escalation, but it is a more economic solution to the villages’ heating needs. The current heating source is heating oil or diesel fuel, which is flown in and is extremely costly. Utilizing electricity would decrease current heating costs by approximately 30%, as well as decrease the carbon footprint of the community. * To provide a more accurate cost estimate, it would require site visits to every heated structure and an analysis of the waste heat system. xiao 27 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings o If there is adequate space for the installation, a separate electric boiler would probably be the least cost option. A control box, to retain the existing boiler capacity for back-up, could be installed for approximately $2500 per residence. It is estimated the service requirements are to provide a 9 KW 31,000 BTU heating source, per residence. o Electric baseboard or radiant heat is another option that may be preferred. The cost is dependent upon the routing for the power supply feed, as well as the equipment locations. Costs would be similar to the boiler as indicated in the heating unit described above. o Atthe other end of the spectrum, as a worst case scenario, some residences may require changing their existing distribution transformer, upgrading their electrical service, increasing existing load center capacity from 100 amps (typ.) to 200 amps; as well installing a larger electric boiler or other electric heating equipment. There exists potential to overload the current service configurations with this load. For example a 68,000 BTU boiler, as reviewed, requires a 240 volt, 80 amp breaker with a #2 copper power feed from a source located at the opposite side of the building. This conversion could cost on the order of $12K to $25K, depending on circuit routing and structural/architectural restoration costs. o The conceptual cost estimate (+/- 50% cost certainty) for residential heat conversion is approximately $1.072MM, and does not allow for remodeling costs or items required, beyond the basic conversion. The estimate is based upon a performance requirement that the conversion matches the current heating equipment BTU rating. The estimate does not allow for upsizing transformers, services, load centers, or installing electric boilers, and strip heaters. This work could be performed by local maintenance personnel to potentially reduce costs. NSB maintenance personnel have indicated they are available to perform that scope of work, but there is no agreed-to budget established within the estimate that reflects NSB feedback on productivity or labor rates. This should be accomplished during the next estimate effort. o Aconcern that arose during this study is that if the existing, back-up oil-fired equipment, required in the event of a power line outage, does not receive regularly scheduled maintenance, doubts would arise as to the reliability of the back-up equipment, during an outage, and the fear is that many of the “original oil-fired heaters” will not be operational when needed. o The conceptual cost estimate (+/- 50% cost certainty) for NSB Facilities heat conversion, including utilizing the available waste heat, is approximately $.88MM. Oil-fired boilers are in place as emergency back-up, but it should be noted that the existing heat exchangers should be replaced with commercial grade electric boilers. Review and discussion of this issue should be accomplished during the next estimate effort. o NSB maintenance personnel who have indicated they are available to perform that scope of work, have presented a reasonable way forward, and further NSB input is required to establish it as a project basis. Another opportunity to explore this will occur if the power transmission line is built. ¢ From a preliminary review of the economics of residential and NSB Facility heat conversion, utilizing the estimated budgets required for completing the work, it would appear there is a comparatively short payback period required, as a result of doing this work. A potential increase in cost to the base proposal may occur as a result of increasing the size of the “step-up” and “step-down” transformers at existing units with new ones rated for 3 or 4 MVA. That additional cost is approximately $50K. Given the number of variables, at this point in the project development effort, it is difficult to foresee if this will be required. Since the heating loads are highest when the ambient temperatures are lowest, the transformers may not require upgrade due to fact that the transformer core is cooled by those lower ambient temperatures. Gis 28 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings H. Review of Items Covered in Initial Matrix To review, the estimate is based on using the following: * Structures - RUS standard pole-line, single pole, and H-Structure type construction, using the least cost option for pole height that complies with NESC design requirements, i.e. ground clearance and phase clearance criterion. Costs are shown for each type of structure identified during this study, and are expressed below as the supply and installation cost per mile for the support type used, as follows: o Treated Douglas Fir Poles, H-Structure ~ $318,212 per mile. o Treated Douglas Fir Poles, Single Pole Structure ~ $223,876 per mile. o Direct Embedded Steel H-Structures, supplied by Valmont ~ $232,102 per mile. o Direct Embedded Steel Single Pole Structures, supplied by Valmont ~ $192,446 per mile. o Composite Poles, H-Structures, supplied by RLS ~$236,735 per mile o Composite Single Pole Structures, supplied by RLS ~$172,788 per mile ¢ Use of the existing 6” VSM’s (gas line VSM's), with 25 foot spacing, to support the cable with a messenger cable, typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 35 kV cable ~$660,140 per mile ¢ Use of the existing 6” VSM’s (gas line VSM’s), with 25 foot spacing, to support the cable with a messenger cable, typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 15 kV cable ~$388,989 per mile ¢ Installing new 6” VSM’'s with 45 foot spacing to support the cable with a messenger typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 35 kV cable ~$995,946 per mile ¢ — Installing new 6” VSM’s with 45 foot spacing to support the cable with a messenger typical to the methodology used on oil field projects with 15 kV cable ~$742,180 per mile, ¢ Trenching through ice road on tundra and installing 35 kV CLX cable ~$1,576,912 per mile * Trenching in road from Barrow to South Pad and installing 35 kV CLX cable ~$1,407,185 per mile ¢ Using, as cost basis, Standard Alternating Current AC Power Transmission at 24.9 kV, 34.5 kV, 69 kV and 110 kV. ¢ Using, as cost basis, High Voltage Direct Current Transmission at 30kV and 50kV. * Review of connection requirements to provide cost basis for power feeds required for the planned loads. J. Recommendations — Routing & Construction Methods ¢ Assignificant portion of the costs for this project are driven by the logistics required to perform construction on the North Slope. No road system exists and access is assumed to be permitted only on a winter trail, with low ground pressure equipment. Our estimates do not include an ice road. An ice road would be required to support winter trenching activity to prevent damage to the tundra; that would take many years to re-vegetate. Seca 29 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings The primary focus of the power line routing involved avoidance of the high-density, nesting areas utilized by endangered N. Slope bird species: Steller’s Eider, Spectacled Eider and Brant Geese. J.1 - Best Route Recommendation Eastern Route 2 (ER2), AC Power Supply, due to the following: Has the lowest total installed cost: $16,577,142. Is the route with the least potential impact to the endangered bird species. Is the shortest, most viable route given the information provided, avoiding lakes and river crossings to the greatest degree possible. Construction methodology has a proven track record in the arctic environment. Materials or alternates are available from multiple sources Poles chosen for use are reported to get stronger in a colder environment and have a 40 year warranty; which is two times the warranty duration period provided by steel manufacturers. Their lighter weight allows for the use of small helicopters to install the assembled structure and allows air transport of much taller poles. Less field assembly is required. Uniform manufacture allows defining the exact requirements for connection hardware installation. This is not offered or possible with typical wood structures. See Appendix C, Constructability Analysis and Cost Estimates, Exhibit 1 - Eastern Route — ER2 Cost Estimate J.2 - Western Route 1 (WR1) is not recommended as the best route due to the following: Route crosses some of the more dense nesting areas encountered during the study. Route has considerably more cost: $31,787,570, or almost two times the installed cost of ER2, due to the 35 kV cable cost impact, a rapidly escalating cost element, due to correction caused by HV cable construction capacitive reactance mitigation. Route would be more difficult to maintain or repair. The capacitive reactance created by the cable is about 4 MVARs which would need to be offset, which is technically complex and difficult to do. Material Pricing for this estimate was completed during the Fall of 2010. It should be noted that certain commodities prices, including copper, have escalated since completion of the estimate. Material costs should either be indexed for the cost escalations over time, or re-priced. Retrofit of an existing VSM takes more time and varied resources to complete the work. This segment of the of the route would take a comparatively longer period of time to construct as opposed to typical overhead line structure installation. See Appendix C, Constructability Analysis and Cost Estimates, Exhibit 2— Western Route — WR1 Cost Estimate J.3 - Other Report Data Utilized (AC Power Supply) — Polar Consult Report, August 2009, Denali Commission The Polarconsult report defines AC line cost as $296,000 per mile with a range of $140,000 to $400,000 per mile. The $296,000 per mile cost is in agreement with the Napakiak value used AGieees 30 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings earlier in their report and seems reasonable as we understand the project actual cost was a little higher. The reason for this is that H-piles were used for pole foundations in an area that is very susceptible to frost jacking. This constituted a significant part of that project’s cost. These values also serve to validate our cost estimate. * The report proposed long span, tall pole, installations with SWER HVDC system construction. We concur but maximizing span lengths has always been considered one of the economic design solutions for both AC and 2-Wire, and conventional HVDC lines. NESC clearance issues, caused by Aeolian vibration and Galloping vibration are the primary reason that a SWER HVDC could achieve longer span lengths. ¢ The report proposed alternative utilizes hollow fiberglass poles, similar to the composite poles used in this project's estimate basis. They are proposed for similar reasons except that the composites required (and those are currently in production) are stronger and have a longer installation history. J.4 - Maintenance Requirements — AC Power Supply ¢ Tracking Review via over-flights or from a snow machine, where detecting hot spots with an infrared spotter, should reveal any problem areas well in advance of a failure caused by tracking. Tracking surveillance should occur the first year after construction and about once every three years thereafter. One reason a coastal route was avoided is that it would add salt spray to the power line, causing a tracking problem. ¢ Dampener or bird diverters, if installed, should be visually inspected yearly, as well as checked for vandalism. Damage to conductors or insulators, from firearms, is one of the most common causes of damage. ¢ Changes in river or stream flow should be reviewed to confirm that no structural foundations are being adversely impacted by the waterway channel change. ¢ Spot checking the tension on bolts, perhaps every 20 structure, on a regular, basis per a structured maintenance program is advised, even though it is uncommon for lock washers and pal nuts to allow the structural hardware to loosen. ¢ Anchor creep or structural jacking mitigation will be required, especially if the Western Route 1 with it’s many VSM’s, is chosen. The forces imposed by a pipeline and by a messenger strand supported cable are not usual, so an inspection of the support members and anchors should occur yearly. ¢ Equipment required for maintenance should be defined and it is assumed that some of the equipment required for construction should be transferred to the line maintenance crew or contractor for use. These items are as follows: o low ground pressure man-haul o aman-lift mounted on a flex track piece of equipment o adrill mounted on a flex track piece of equipment © a 20 ton boom crane on tracks similar to a Grove CN20. Those costs are in the Maintenance budget assuming that at least half the cost goes to the construction budget and the value for demobilization of that equipment is transferred to the maintenance budget. fea 31 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings ¢ Estimated maintenance costs include a basic O&M cost of $1,315 per mile for all alternatives, an annual cost of $50,000 for VSM inspection for the Western Route alternatives, and $50,000 for converter inspections for the DC alternatives. K. Estimate Basis - Issues That Need Clear Understanding It should be noted that “economies of scale” can be achieved as a result of employing standard types of design and from permitting requirements; if the majority of the design is standardized and repeatable, and the volume of repeatable work resulting from permitting requirements is larger enough. Although costs will be affected by the final route location, and some costs could change significantly, the estimate cost certainty should be maintained at the -10%/+25% range. The estimated project cost is based on un- escalated costs for materials, labor, equipment, quoted or assumed construction costs, and the proposed construction methodology appears to meet the project requirements. The construction schedule is heavily dependent upon material deliveries via a barge that completes one delivery per year to Barrow, and is this cost is included in the estimate. Market demand may escalate material costs included in the current cost estimate. Qiao 32 Atgqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 6. — Environmental Considerations A. Introduction The goal of this project is to lessen North Slope community dependence on economically and environmentally costly diesel fuel which currently is barged to the communities annually. The project would also represent a reduction in the carbon “footprint” for these communities, which ultimately will be beneficial for wildlife populations, but the implementation of the projects comes with some potential costs for wildlife, especially bird populations. The evaluation of the avian resources and waterfowl habitats in the project area, as a precursor to an assessment of the potential costs for birds from implementation of the proposed power line from Barrow to Atqasuk, is the focus of this report section. The proposed power line would run from the gas processing plant in Barrow south approximately 129 km (80 miles) to the village of Atqasuk on the Meade River. Currently the NSB is proposing two alternative routes for the power line (a Western Route [Base Case] and an Eastern Route [Preferred Alternative]; see Appendix D, Figures 1 to 5). During initial planning for the sighting of these two alternative routes, environmental concerns (e.g., avian occurrence and avian habitat information) were included in discussions to try to reduce the potential for impacts on threatened bird species and bird species of conservation concern. A route previously envisioned (during the early 1980s) for a power line from Barrow to Atqasuk was rejected at an early stage in planning because it ran close to the coast and likely would have necessitated more maintenance due to corrosion from salt spray. A power line along this coastal route also may have represented more of a collision hazard for migratory birds because of the prevalence of coastal fog and its effects on visibility of the power line. Of the two alternative routes selected, the northernmost section of the Western Route would follow existing power lines and gas pipelines associated with the Barrow gas fields south to Walapka; where possible, the power line would be laid alongside gas pipelines and would be connected to existing vertical support members (VSMs). The majority of the Western Route for the proposed power line, however, would be OH from Walapka south to Atqasuk. The OH portion of the line would involve single-pole construction and support poles would be spaced from 700 to 1200 feet apart. The power line would be elevated approximately 60 feet off the ground. The proposed Eastern Route power line would be all OH and the pole spacing and line elevation would be as noted for the Western Route. Because formal design plans and routing of the proposed power line also depend on engineering and economic concerns, environmental analyses represented only one set of concerns discussed during the planning phase. Factors such as cost (buried versus OH), location of private lands, location of existing infrastructure, and human health and safety were evaluated. Finally, environmental mitigation measures deemed feasible at this stage of design, including the possibility of using reflective wire (T2) to increase visibility for birds and placing some portions of the power line along existing gas pipelines, as proposed for the Western Route, were considered. Overhead power transmission lines can result in direct effects on birds through injury or mortality due to collision or electrocution (e.g., Manville 2005). Although no comprehensive estimate of annual mortality of birds in North America is available, mortality rates can be substantial (Day et al. 2007). The few comprehensive studies in Alaska suggest that although most birds do avoid collision with power lines, many collisions and consequently fatalities do occur (Anderson and Murphy 1988, Shook et al. 2009). Many factors such as weather, migratory patterns, season, and behavior patterns unique to individual bird species can affect mortality rates. Birds also can be affected indirectly by the construction of power lines (e.g., creating perches for avian predators and the displacement birds from important habitats). Important environmental features of interest included two threatened eider species (Spectacled and Steller’s Eider) both protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other sensitive, closely related resources (e.g., wetlands and avian habitats). To accomplish the evaluation of this environmental information, ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research & Services (ABR) reviewed available literature and unpublished data available on these threatened eider species, as well as other species of conservation aca 33 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings concern (e.g., Yellow-billed Loons, a candidate species under the ESA, and Brant, a species of conservation concern), mapped important wetland habitats used by the most common threatened species in the area (Spectacled Eider), and briefly summarized known and potential impacts of overhead power lines on birds in northern Alaska. This report provides a summary of those resources and potential impacts related to the proposed power line. Because engineering plans for this project are preliminary, we limited our presentation to the power line itself and did not discuss any associated facilities that may be required. B. METHODS B.1 Avian Resources We first identified all endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species listed under the ESA that occur in the Barrow—Atqasuk region, as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010a), and all bird species of conservation concern likely to occur regularly in tundra habitats the Barrow—Atqasuk region (Table 1). To identify bird species of conservation concern, we used the conservation concern lists from organizations that have specialized experience with various bird species groups in Alaska, including Water bird Conservation for the America’s North American Water bird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002 and 2006), Alaska Shorebird Group’s Conservation Plan for Alaska Shorebirds (ASG 2008), and Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group's Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions (BPIFWG 1999). In addition, we use the conservation concern lists from management agencies in Alaska that are likely to be involved in the permitting process for this project, including USFWS’s Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008), Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Species of Special Concern (ADFG 1998) and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ADFG 2006), and the Bureau of Land Management's Special Status Species List for Alaska (BLM 2005). We then focused on collecting information on the occurrence of four water bird species (Spectacled Eider, Steller’s Eider, Yellow-billed Loon, and Brant) for which detailed observational data are available from aerial survey work; this information was displayed in map form to help in developing the two proposed alternative alignments. Primary sources of information on these water birds species included unpublished databases on bird observations in northern Alaska developed from broad-scale aerial survey programs managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (e.g., the North Slope Eider Survey and Arctic Coastal Plain breeding pair survey), as well as information from more localized aerial surveys during the breeding season by ABR, USFWS, and the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management in the Barrow region. We also mapped more site-specific information on water birds (e.g., Yellow-billed Loon nests and Brant nesting colony locations) using USFWS and ABR generated databases. In addition to the information on water birds, we acquired and presented GIS data on the location of native allotments, which were important to avoid in designing the alignment for the proposed power line. Although a jurisdictional wetland determination will eventually be required during the Section 404 wetland permitting process for the project, we only mapped those wetland habitats in the region that were known to be of high value for breeding Spectacled Eiders (see below). The wetland habitats preferred by Spectacled Eiders also are used by other waterfowl species on the North Slope, so this mapping provides some information on the occurrence of breeding habitats for a larger set of waterfowl species. From the scientific literature, we summarized natural history information on habitat use, timing of use, and history of collisions with power lines for each threatened or candidate species, especially in northern Alaska, to help assess the potential for these species to collide with OH power transmission lines on the North Slope. Gbeum 34 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Finally, in June 2010, we conducted an aerial survey along the original (coastal) power line route that was envisioned in the 1980s to assess waterfowl habitats and record the presence of Steller’s and Spectacled Eiders in that area. The observations from that survey are displayed in Appendix D, Figures 1, 2, and 4. B.2 Mapping Spectacled Eider Breeding Habitats High-value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat was mapped for the project area between Barrow and Atqasuk using existing, publicly available National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland mapping available digitally from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010b). The NWI mapping available for the project area was prepared using aerial photography obtained in 1979 and 1985. The mapping of breeding habitats was used to help identify potential power transmission line routes that would cross fewer areas of high-value breeding habitats for eiders and other waterfowl species. Breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders are roughly representative of breeding habitats used by other waterfowl species on the coastal plain, and especially the water body/wetland complexes used during brood-rearing by species such as Long-tailed Duck and Northern Pintail. The approach used to map high-value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat (a combination of nesting and brood-rearing habitats) was based on first identifying preferred nesting and brood-rearing habitats and then equating or “cross-walking” those habitats to the available NWI wetland types in the project area. The polygon boundaries for Spectacled Eider breeding habitats are based on the NWI wetland map boundaries and because the NWI mapping is coarse scale, the final map of breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders also is coarse scale. The identification of preferred nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders was based on information collected during field surveys in the Colville River Delta (Johnson et al, 2004), the Kuparuk oilfield (Anderson et al. 2009; Stickney et al. 2010), and the Prudhoe Bay oilfield (Warnock and Troy 1992) (see Table 2). The technique to map preferred nesting habitat involves identifying suitable nesting habitats that fall within 100 meters of aquatic marshes and open water bodies because Spectacled Eiders most often nest in proximity (usually <100 meters) to water bodies and especially wetland/ water body complexes (Anderson et al. 2009; Stickney et al. 2010; see Schick et al. 2004 for more information on the identification and mapping of high-value Spectacled Eider nesting habitat). In the area mapped for this study, five broad habitat types were considered high-value for nesting and/or brood-rearing (Tables 2 and 3). The NWI wetland types mapped in the region of the proposed power line were cross-walked and classified into eight wildlife habitat types (Table 3). Five habitats were treated as high-value nesting and/or brood-rearing habitats, two represented large open water bodies, and one represented lacustrine barrens (Table 3). High-value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders were delineated using a GIS by buffering out 100 meters from the edges of high-value brood-rearing and all open-water habitats and then selecting all high-value nesting habitats that occurred within those buffer areas. High-value breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders then were assembled by combining the high-value nesting habitat polygons (within the 100-meter buffer areas above) with the polygons representing high-value brood- rearing habitats. Large open water lakes (> 20 acres in area) were not considered high-value brood- rearing habitats, but preferred nesting habitats within 100 meters of the shorelines of large lakes were considered high value for nesting. Habitat selection and geo-processing were done using Arc G/S 10.0. The assessment of the habitats present in the region of the proposed power line and the cross-walking with the NWI types previously mapped were conducted using color infrared (CIR) imagery for the project area acquired during summer 2002 (2.5-meter pixel resolution; supplied by Golder Associates Inc.). Saas 35 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings c. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C.1- Avian Resources Approximately 70 species of birds commonly occur in the Barrow area (Pitelka 1974). Additional species will occur in the project area because of the additional inland habitats found near Atqasuk (e.g., riparian scrub and foothill scrub habitats), which are not found on the Arctic Coastal Plain near Barrow. The project area’s avian communities are dominated by water bird species including loons, waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, and jaegers. The diversity of passerine and raptor species (including owls) is far lower than water birds in the area. Roughly half of the birds recorded regularly breed in the area, while others are rare breeders or migrants (Pitelka 1974). Nearly all birds using the study area are present during the spring, summer, and fall (May to early October). Based on the set of eight bird conservation concern lists noted above in Methods, 21 of the 70-plus species that occur in the project area currently are considered species of conservation concern and three are listed as threatened or candidate species under the ESA (Table 1). Most breeding birds on the North Slope arrive on their tundra nesting habitats in late May and early June and begin to nest as soon as suitable tundra nesting habitats are snow-free. After nesting, departure is highly variable among species, but most shorebirds and passerines have left the area by late August or early September, while the larger migratory waterfowl and loon species, which have longer developmental periods, linger into October and November. Ptarmigan, Gyrfalcons, Snowy Owls, and Common Ravens may occur in the project area during the winter months. Three features of the bird community are most important in discussing the development of OH power lines in the region. First, 24 species of conservation concern breed in, or migrate through the region (Table 1). Two of those 24 species (Spectacled and Steller’s Eider) are classified as threatened under the ESA, while a third species (Yellow-billed Loon) has been identified as a candidate for listing under the ESA. The presence of the two threatened species in the project area will necessitate Section 7 consultation under the ESA to evaluate the expected impacts on those threatened species from construction and operation of the proposed power line. Candidate species also are sometimes considered in Section 7 consultations. Second, raptors also are often associated with power lines and are known to use power line poles as perches, although most raptor species nest in the foothills of the Brooks Range rather than on the coastal plain. Juveniles of some species, however, including Golden Eagles, do use coastal plain habitats in the study area (Ritchie et al. 2003), and migrant adult and immature birds of other species such as Peregrine Falcons also occasionally occur on the coastal plain. Golden Eagles receive special protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Third, Point Barrow is one of the most prominent locations in the migration pathways of water birds in spring and fall in North America. During spring migration (May), hundreds of thousands of water birds pass Point Barrow following early season, near shore leads in the ice (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Many species also may fly inland of Point Barrow as indicated by telemetry studies and visual observations (e.g., Troy 2003, J. Schmutz, USGS, pers. comm.). Fall migration past Point Barrow occurs in early July through October or November (Suydam et al. 2000). Additionally, near shore marine waters, including Elson Lagoon, east of Point Barrow and Ledyard Bay west of Barrow, are important for staging and molting water birds in the region (Fischer and Larned 2004, Lysne et al. 2004). teres 36 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings C.2 Spectacied Eider Spectacled Eiders occur in disjoint coastal breeding populations in arctic Russia, western Alaska, and northern Alaska (Petersen et al. 2000). The subpopulation in western Alaska has undergone severe declines in abundance (Kertell 1991, Stehn et al. 1993) and this precipitated listing the species as threatened by the USFWS in 1993. Historical records of Spectacled Eider abundance in northern Alaska are less certain, but some data suggests recent declines in numbers (Warnock and Troy 1992, TERA 1993, Peterson et al. 2000). The USFWS suggests that the Arctic Coastal Plain in northern Alaska now supports the main breeding population of Spectacled Eiders in Alaska (USFWS 1996, Larned et al. 2009), with a relatively stable population between 5,000-7,000 breeding pairs (Larned et al. 2009). Spectacled Eiders arrive on the tundra in the study area in late May or early June (Johnson and Herter, 1989, USFWS 1996). Nesting begins by mid-June and eggs start hatching in mid-July (Warnock and Troy 1992, Anderson and Cooper 1994). Although specific nesting studies have not occurred near Barrow, studies in the oilfields of northern Alaska show Spectacled Eiders use a variety of habitats for nesting, including salt-killed tundra, aquatic sedge with deep polygons, and non-patterned wet meadow within drained lake complexes (Warnock and Troy 1992, Johnson et al. 2000, Bart and Ernst 2005, Anderson et al. 2009). Nests are often on small islands, peninsulas, and pond shorelines usually within a meter of water (Anderson et al. 1999, Bart and Ernst 2005). These habitat types occur between Barrow and Atqasuk and breeding pairs of Spectacled Eiders are regularly recorded there (Larned et al. 2009, Obritsekewich and Ritchie 2009; see Appendix D, Figures 1 and 2). During brood-rearing (mid-July to early September), Spectacled Eiders use a variety of aquatic habitats including water bodies with emergent vegetation on their margins, basin wetland complexes, and occasionally deep open lakes (Warnock and Troy 1992, Anderson and Cooper 1994, Johnson et al. 2000). When young are capable of flight, Spectacled Eiders move to near shore marine waters, and then depart the coastal plain, usually by mid-September. After leaving breeding areas, Spectacled Eiders move to molting areas along the western coast of Alaska (Ledyard Bay, Norton Sound) and the eastern coast of Russia (USFWS 1996). Spectacled Eiders are found concentrated during winter in polynas of the Bering Sea near (Petersen et al. 1999). Within weeks of females nesting, male Spectacled Eiders depart the coastal plain. Most males (71%) outfitted with satellite transmitters in the Prudhoe Bay region did not stopover along the Beaufort Sea Coast, but took more inland flights to molting areas in the Chukchi Sea (TERA 1993). Females, however, flew to coastal waters and followed a more marine route to the Chukchi Sea during their outbound migration (TERA 1993). During the molt and non-breeding season, Spectacled Eiders are primarily benthic feeders that prefer deeper marine waters where crustaceans and mollusks are available as a food source, but during the breeding season, they forage for crustaceans and other invertebrate prey in shallower ponds and lakes (USFWS 2006). In 1993, the Alaska breeding population of Spectacled Eider was listed as threatened. Although critical wetland habitats were proposed for Spectacled Eiders on the North Slope by USFWS, none was designated because nesting habitat was not considered to be limiting for this species. Only Ledyard Bay in the Chukchi Sea was delineated as critical marine habitat for molting eiders (USFWS 2001). Spectacled Eiders regularly occur as nesting birds in the project area and are widely distributed from Barrow to Atqasuk (Appendix D, Figures 1 and 2). The maps on Figures 1 and 2 display observations of males made during aerial surveys in the pre-nesting period (the presence of a male is often, though not always, associated with a nest nearby). Concentrations of observations of males during the pre-nesting period are variable depending on the years of survey data being evaluated and consistent spatial patterns in occurrence generally are lacking (compare Figures 1 and 2). Nesting habitats preferred by Spectacled fia 37 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eiders are widely distributed in the project area (see Appendix D, Figure 3 and text below) and this explains, at least in part, the wide distribution of Spectacled Eider observations in the area. C.3 Steller’s Eider Most of the world population of Steller’s Eiders breeds in arctic Russia and winters in northern Europe or along the Alaska Peninsula (Pacific population) (Frederickson 2001; USFWS 2002). The Alaska breeding population of Steller’s Eider occurs in two regions, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta) and near Barrow in northern Alaska. Once a common breeder on the Y-K Delta (Kertell 1991), nests are rarely reported there now (Flint and Herzog 1999). Similarly, although their former nesting range in arctic Alaska extended from Wainwright to Cape Halkett, the Steller’s Eider currently is an uncommon breeder there (Johnson and Herter 1989, Frederickson 2001), with the greatest frequency of birds nesting within ~20 km (12 miles) of Barrow (Quakenbush et al. 2002; see also Appendix D, Figure 4). Aerial surveys support this northern concentration of eiders as sightings of Steller’s Eider pairs decline south of Barrow (USFWS, unpublished data; Obritsekewich and Ritchie 2009), although pairs are observed as far south as the Atqasuk area (USFWS, unpublished database; ABR, field survey data, 2010; see Appendix D, Figure 4). The population size of Steller’s Eiders breeding on the Arctic Coastal Plain, including Barrow, is difficult to determine because of the variability of sightings among years and low numbers of birds recorded during annual aerial surveys (e.g., Larned et al. 2010, Ritchie and King 2004). The recovery plan for Steller’s Eiders estimated the breeding population in northern Alaska at hundreds to low thousands (USFWS 2002). Steller’s Eiders arrive in pairs on the coastal plain near Barrow in late May to early-June, often concentrating in wetland areas along Gaswell Road and Footprint Lake (e.g., Quakenbush et al. 1995, 2000; Obritschkewitsch and Martin 2002; Obritschkewitsch et al. 2001; Rojeck and Martin 2003, Rojek 2008). Pairs start to scatter across the tundra, and begin to nest in mid-June soon after tundra habitats are snow free (Obritschkewitsch and Martin 2002; Quakenbush et al. 2004). The preferred habitats of Steller’s Eiders near Barrow are water bodies with pendant grass (Arctophila fulva), but streams and Carex ponds are also used during summer (Quakenbush et al. 2000). Importantly, whether they breed in a given year in the Barrow area is influenced by the occurrence and abundance of lemmings and their predators such as Snowy Owls (Quakenbush and Suydam 1999). Nesting has been verified for Steller’s Eiders at Barrow in only 10 of 17 years since 1991 (Rojek 2008). After hatch in late June through mid-July, Steller’s Eider broods use tundra ponds, often with Arctophila vegetation, within 1 km of natal ponds until fledging (~40 days; Quakenbush et al. 2000). Failed and post- breeding birds also use water bodies with Arctophila present, but have been recorded in larger lakes, lagoons, and near shore waters of the Chukchi Sea (Quakenbush et al. 2000). Steller’s Eiders actually spend most of the year in shallow coastal habitats, especially in the littoral zone and coastal lagoons where they feed on mollusks and other benthic invertebrates (Fredrickson 2001). Most of the Russian-Pacific population, including the Alaska breeding population, of Steller’s Eiders move to near shore habitats along the Alaska Peninsula, where they undergo a flightless molt for about three weeks (Jones 1965, Petersen 1980). Some eiders remain in these molting areas through the winter, but many move to wintering areas on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula from Cook Inlet through the Aleutians (USFWS 2002). In 1997, the Alaska breeding population of Steller’s Eider was listed as threatened based on the contraction of the Alaskan breeding range and resulting increased vulnerability of the remaining population to extirpation (62 FR 31748; USFWS 2002). Critical habitat has been designated for Steller’s Peace 38 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Eiders only in western Alaska (66 FR 8850); no critical habitat has been designated in northern Alaska including the Barrow area. As noted above, the nesting of Steller’s Eiders on the Arctic Coastal Plain currently is concentrated in the region surrounding Barrow. The frequency of nesting by Steller’s Eiders (as indicated by observations of pre-nesting males) declines as one moves south of Barrow towards Atqasuk (Appendix D, Figure 4). Other spatial patterns in nesting are generally lacking and the species has been found to breed throughout the northern portion of the project area. It should be noted that surveys for this species generally have not been conducted south to Atqasuk (with the exception of the 2010 surveys by ABR along the original coastal alignment for the proposed power line). The frequency of nesting of this species in the Atqasuk area, however, is expected to be lower than in the northern portion of the project area. C.4 Yellow-billed Loons Yellow-billed Loons are uncommon breeders on the Arctic Coastal Plain of Alaska (Johnson and Herter 1989, Earnst 2004), but concentrations of nesting birds occur in some areas such as the Colville River Delta and between the Meade and Ikpikpuk Rivers (Earnst et al. 2005, J. Schmutz, USGS, pers. comm.). They occur in low densities between Barrow and Atqasuk (<1 bird/259 km? or 100 mi’), and increase in densities along the Meade River (Earnst 2004). Few nests of Yellow-billed Loons have been recorded in the project area (Appendix D, Figure 5). Yellow-billed Loons arrive on the breeding grounds in northern Alaska in the last week of May and early June (Earnst 2004). Nest initiation begins by mid-June, hatching occurs in mid-July, and broods usually are raised in the nesting lake (Earnst 2004). Nests are built on peninsulas, shorelines, islands, or in emergent vegetation, usually in or adjacent to large deep, fish-bearing lakes, often with complex shorelines (Earnst et al. 2006). Although few Yellow-billed Loons nest in the study area, they regularly use the Chukchi and Beaufort coastlines near Barrow during migration in spring and fall (North 1994). In spring they will follow leads in the ice north and east and in fall they migrate west along the coast. Peak migration occurs before late August, while some birds linger in coastal areas into late October (North 1994). Generally considered coastal during migration, many birds migrate overland (Anaktuvuk Pass: Irving 1960). Recent telemetry studies show birds banded east of Barrow flying overland through the study area (J. Schmutz, USGS, unpublished data). Currently, the Yellow-billed Loon is classified as a candidate species under the ESA (72 FR 31256; USFWS 2010a). The ESA does not provide any statutory protection, but the UFSWS does encourage cooperation with other state and federal agencies and industry to limit detrimental effects of activities on this species. Rather few observations of either Yellow-billed Loons or nests of Yellow-billed Loons have been recorded in the project area, but there is a notable concentration of observations to the east of Atqasuk and east of both of the proposed power line alignments (Appendix D, Figure 5). C.5 Other Species of Concern Twenty-one other bird species of conservation concern occur in the area (Table 1). All of these species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One of those 21 species (Brant, a small arctic-nesting goose) nests in small colonies near the proposed power line alignments in the project area (Ritchie 1996; see Appendix D, Figure 5), and is valued as a subsistence resource on the North Slope. Brant ye 39 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings populations throughout North America have declined substantially because of habitat changes on their wintering grounds (Reed et al. 1998). Two additional species (Golden Eagle and Rough-legged Hawk) are noted here because of their history of, or potential for, electrocution at OH power lines. The Golden Eagle is considered a species of conservation concern but the Rough-legged Hawk is not (Table 1). Both Golden Eagles and Rough- legged Hawks breed in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range (Kochert et al. 2002, Bechard and Swem 2002), while Golden Eagles, primarily sub adult birds, occur on the coastal plain in low numbers (Ritchie et al. 2003). D. SPECTACLED EIDER HABITATS IN THE PROJECT AREA A total of 110,102 hectares (272,067 acres) of high-value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat was identified in the region surrounding the proposed power line project between Barrow and Atqasuk (Table 3, Appendix D, Figure 3). The majority of the breeding habitats in the mapped area were nesting habitats (65% of the total mapped area). Nesting habitats were represented by seven NWI wetland types, which roughly correspond to two broad wildlife habitat types (Patterned and Non-patterned Wet Meadows) identified as nesting habitats in other studies (Tables 2 and 3). Brood-rearing habitats accounted for the remaining 35% of the mapped area and were represented by 21 NWI types. These 21 NWI types were interpreted as three broad habitat types (Shallow Open Water without Islands, Sedge Marsh, and Grass Marsh). Deriving wildlife habitat types from existing NWI maps was effective in identifying general areas with a high density of preferred breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders, but there were limitations in equating NWI wetland types to water bird breeding habitats. The primary limitation was developing a “clean” crosswalk between NWI types and wildlife habitat types. NWI wetland types are classified based on vegetation structure and hydrology whereas wildlife habitats, as mapped by ABR, are classified based on geomorphology, surface form, vegetation structure, and disturbance (see Burgess et al. 2003; Schick and Davis 2008). The effect of this likely would be an overestimation of the amount of preferred breeding habitats in the mapped area because the NWI classification does not differentiate wetland types based on landscape variables such as geomorphology and local-scale variables such as surface form. Additionally, because the NWI mapping for the region was completed over 25 years ago, with aerial photography dating from 1979 and 1985, there may be errors in habitat determinations due to landscape changes over time and also due to variations in the NWI mapping techniques used across the mapped area. Nevertheless, with the understanding that the amount of high-value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat may be overestimated in the mapping area, the Western Route for the proposed power line was sighted to try to avoid crossing large concentrations of high-value Spectacled Eider breeding habitat as much as possible (Appendix D, Figure 3). This effort was challenging, however, given the widespread occurrence of high-value habitats in the project area. au 40 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings E. POTENTIAL AFFECTS OF POWER LINES ON BIRDS AT THE NORTH SLOPE E.1 Collisions The greatest environmental concern for birds associated with the development of OH power lines is the potential risk of injury or mortality caused by collision with overhead wires, including any guy wires. For the Barrow—Atqasuk power line, the primary periods of concern for bird collisions would be spring (May— June) and fall (August—October). A few species (ptarmigan, Snowy Owls, and possibly Gyrfalcons and Common Ravens) may winter in the area and they would be at risk throughout the year. Estimates of mortality rates of birds at power lines are quite variable (e.g., Day et al. 2007), but when it occurs mortality can be substantial (Manville 2005). Although information on bird mortality at power lines in Alaska generally is limited, some studies in northern Alaska have been conducted. In the Prudhoe Bay area, species involved in fatal collisions with OH power lines included Pacific Loon, unidentified Eider, White-fronted Goose, Long-tailed Duck, Northern Pintail, shorebirds, and passerines (Anderson and Murphy 1988). Four non-fatal collisions of waterfowl species, including a male King Eider, also were recorded. In 3 of the non-fatal 4 collisions, the birds flew up into wires after being disturbed by vehicles or humans on the ground. The estimated annual mortality of birds at the Lisburne power line in Prudhoe Bay was 2.7-19.9 birds/km/year (Anderson and Murphy 1988). In Barrow, most records of dead birds found beneath power lines were recorded during USFWS ground- based surveys for nesting Steller’s Eiders; often data on these specimens are incomplete or anecdotal (USFWS unpublished database, Fairbanks, AK). However, during specific power line surveys in Barrow between 2007 and 2009, 43 dead birds were located during searches of 1190 km of power lines; 25% percent of all birds found were waterfowl (NSB 2010). Limitations of this study included the absence of estimates of the detectability of carcass and estimates of the level of predator scavenging, and the authors believed their counts were underestimates of the actual number of bird collisions with the power lines. Note that the NSB (2010) report is in draft form only, and hence any conclusions should be considered preliminary at this time. Importantly, however, eider mortalities due to collisions at power lines were documented in the NSB study. Bird flight diverters were installed on some segments of the Barrow power transmission lines studied. In the USFWS data on mortality of ESA-listed species (USFWS, unpublished database, Fairbanks, AK), four Steller’s Eider power line collision records are present, including two recorded during NSB surveys near Barrow (NSB 2010). Only one Spectacled Eider was found during power line searches near Barrow (NSB 2010). Steller’s Eiders also have been recorded colliding with OH wires at Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula (USFWS, unpublished database, Fairbanks, Ak). On the other hand, no eiders have been recorded during mortality monitoring of OH power lines in western Alaska (Stebbins to Saint Michael and Nelson Island; Gall and Day 2007, 2008), although the power lines studied occur in areas where eiders are known to migrate and breed. Other species, particularly ptarmigan, were recorded as collision victims in the western Alaska studies. Portions of the Nelson Island power line studied did have bird flight diverters installed (Gall and Day 2008). Although power line monitoring studies in interior Alaska (generally a forested landscape) pose issues of comparability with tundra habitats on the coastal plain in northern Alaska, they offer valuable insights into some of the species groups most vulnerable to collision with OH power lines. Intensive monitoring of the 230 kV GVEA Northern Intertie transmission line on the Tanana Flats revealed that numerous species collided with the power line (Shook et al. 2009). Prominent species included water birds in the Tanana Flats section of the Intertie: in decreasing order of occurrence, Mallard, Northern Shoveler, and Green- ies 41 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings winged Teal, were identified during ground-based surveys (Shook et al. 2009). In upland portions of the Intertie route, where collision rates were greater, passerines and galliform birds (especially ptarmigan) were commonly found (Shook et al. 2009). A corrected estimate for collisions ranged from 11 to 15 birds/km of power line per year for the entire line; the variation in collisions was substantial, however, resulting in large confidence intervals for the estimated collision rates (Shook et al. 2009). E.2 Electrocutions Power lines also pose a risk of mortality to birds by electrocution, particularly for larger perching birds like raptors when they ground themselves landing or departing from cross beams at the tops of power line poles (APLIC 2006). Golden Eagles, Rough-legged Hawks, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrine Falcons, all summer residents in northern Alaska, would be at the greatest risk. This risk can be mitigated substantially, however, if raptors are considered in the design of wire junctions at poles. Perch guards, for example, can deter landings on power poles (APLIC 2006). E.3 Habitat Loss Direct loss of wildlife habitats associated with the construction of a power line from Barrow to Atqasuk probably would be minor and is unlikely to substantially affect bird populations in the area. However, some additional functional loss/alteration of avian habitats in the vicinity of the proposed power line from disturbance and associated infrastructure construction could occur. The amount of habitat loss expected can be calculated after final engineering design work for the project has been completed. E.4 Increased Predation Due to Habitat Enhancement The increasing number of towers, utility poles, and other man-made structures in northern Alaska have become a concern to the USFWS because this infrastructure provides potential perches and nesting platforms for predatory and scavenging birds, particularly the Common Raven, which preys on threatened eiders and other birds species (largely by taking eggs during nesting). Raptorial birds, including Peregrine Falcons and Gyrfalcons, also will use man-made structures as nest platforms (Ritchie 1991) and Golden Eagles will undoubtedly use power poles for perches from which to hunt, increasing the potential for these birds to prey on tundra-nesting birds and increasing the level of bird predation in the region. As noted above, perch guards on power poles can help to deter the use of power poles as perches by predatory and scavenging birds. F. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT RELATED REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PROPOSED POWER LINE Several federal environmental laws and regulations related to wildlife and wildlife habitats will be pertinent to the development and operation of the proposed power line and its associated facilities, including the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Water Act (Section 404). The Endangered Species Act will affect the proposed power line project because of the presence of the two threatened eider species and the candidate species (Yellow-billed Loon) in the project area. Consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA will be required to determine the potential for take of these species under the ESA; Section 7 consultation should begin as soon as final alignment ee 42 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings designs are developed because the consultation process can be lengthy. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act will apply if the removal of Common Raven nests, for example, is requested by the USFWS; this species, like all migratory birds, is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. According to the act, all native birds are considered migratory, even if they may be resident in a particular region. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides specific protections for Golden Eagles, which can be vulnerable to electrocutions at OH power lines. The National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental analyses such Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements for actions by federal agencies, will apply to the Barrow—Atqasuk power line because federal lands (e.g., the NPRA) under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management will be affected. The Clean Water Act requires a Section 404 permit for any dredging and/or filling of wetlands, which will occur during drilling foundations for power poles, gravel filling at associated facilities, and road construction. G. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POWER LINE ALIGNMENT: IN REGARDS TO BIRDS AND WETLAND HABITATS Based on the information gathered to date and knowledge of potential collisions risks for threatened species using the project area, any OH power line developed will cross through high-value breeding habitats used by the two threatened eider species, the candidate loon species, and other water bird species. In addition to breeding-bird considerations, the study area also is used by birds migrating between the Arctic Coastal Plain in the western Beaufort Sea area and the Chukchi Sea to the west. Most migration of water birds, however, probably takes place along the coast outside of the project area. The USFWS has concerns about OH power lines and their potential impacts on birds, particularly threatened eiders in northern and western Alaska. Required operating procedures listed in the Record of Decision for the Northeastern NPRA EIS (BLM 2008) state that: “to reduce the possibility of Spectacled and/or Steller’s Eiders colliding with above-ground utility lines, such lines shall either be buried in access roads or suspended on vertical support members except in rare cases, which are to be few in number.” The procedures go on to note exceptions, which include: “overhead power lines may be allowed when engineering constraints at the specific and limited [emphasis added] location make it unfeasible to bury or connect the lines to a VSM.” With these points in mind, the Western Route for the proposed power line was designed with eider and other water bird resources considered. In particular, the Western Route was designed to (1) follow existing power lines and gas pipelines (connected to VSMs) south from Barrow to Walapka; (2) avoid high-value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders as much as possible (see Figure 3); (3) cross areas of the coastal plain with lower densities of Yellow-billed Loons and traditionally used Brant colonies (see Appendix D, Figure 5); (4) avoid crossing the main channel of the Meade River; and (5) maintain a relatively short route for economic and engineering reasons. Avoiding areas of concentrated nesting of the two threatened eider species was difficult to accomplish in the design of the Western Route because both eider species are widespread in the project area with no clear spatial patterns of occurrence (see Appendix D, Figures 1, 2, and 4). Because burying the entire power line is not an economically viable option, hanging the power line on the VSMs of the gas pipeline south to Walapka would reduce the amount of OH power line and reduce collision potential accordingly. Importantly, the existing gas pipeline in the project area crosses the most important breeding habitats for Steller’s Eider (immediately south of Barrow), so using any portion of the gas pipeline infrastructure could reduce collision potential with this species. The design of the Western Route only took into consideration possible breeding habitat for Spectacled Eiders, but similar habitats are used by other water bird species during breeding on the North ys 43 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Slope. Additionally, other water bird species use these same habitats during migration in terrestrial and freshwater areas. Using reflective power transmission line cable (e.g., T2) may help minimize collision hazard for birds. Another option to increase the visibility of power lines to birds is to install bird flight diverters. Bird flight diverters have been shown to reduce avian interactions with power lines (Day et al. 2007), however they have not been found to weather arctic environments well (Gall and Day 2008) and therefore may have limited utility for this project. Although the height of power lines may result in different effects on birds depending on flight behavior (e.g., lower local flights versus higher migratory flights, power line height and collision hazard has not been adequately studied in Alaska. It is possible, however, that higher pole heights could reduce the number of poles needed and reduce perch and electrocution potential, especially for raptors. In addition, higher line height might reduce the number of collisions of breeding birds when making local flights, as their local-flight altitudes may generally be lower than during longer migratory movements. L. List of Exhibits or Figures See Section 9. List of Exhibits or Figures — Environmental Considerations Figure 1 - Western Spectacled Eider Observations: 1992 to 2005 Figure 2 - Spectacled Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 3 - High-value Breeding Habitats - Spectacled Eiders Figure 4 - Steller’s Eider Observations: 1999 to 2010 Figure 5 - Yellow-Billed Loon Observations: 1950 to 2010 yey 44 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 1. Threatened and candidate bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and bird species of conservation concern likely to occur regularly in the Barrow—Atgasuk region, North Slope, Alaska. Conservation status categories are shown for each species and listing organization. Species USFWS* BLM? ADFG® wca‘ ASG* BPIF* Brant LLig Sensitive Jal = (Branta bernicla) species i “| Steller’s Eider Threatened Species of is ! species under — special _— — — (Polysticta stelleri) ESA pean Spetasled Fides Threatened Species of ( uc fischeri) species under _— special _— _— -— ESA concern King Eider Li Sensitive ae in da (Somateria spectabilis) species pe ‘ a conservation Common Eider Bl I bisa re). on aa Ad (Somateria mollissima) P ; conservation Long-tailed Duck hel Sensitive patie be a - (Clangula hyemalis) species ete ted Red-throated Loon see a Sensitive sheen eerie ae J conservation i species for high —_ _— (Gavia stellata) species . concern conservation concern Pacific Loon oe im rea ad a ae (Gavia pacifica) conservation Yellow-billed Loon cena Sensitive ee Species ct Gavia adam) species for aaccies species for high — — Ce erase ESA P conservation concern Northern Harrier oll i Poa | ple Le (Circus cyaneus) F : conservation Golden Eagle VL Ah irae ele el ae (Aquila chrysaetos) eateet ation, Gyislecn Featured Priority ( 7 too vuptiootan) — _ species for — —_ species for conservation conservation Peregrine Falcon Species of Featured (Falco pereginus ssp. conservation _ species for — —_ — tundrius) concern conservation American Golden-Plover II A Ae le Tes, = an (Pluvialis dominica) e concern 45 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Species USFWS" BLM? ADFG* wca‘ ASG‘ BPIF* Whimbrel Species of Species of (Nimennis phaeopus) conservation — — _ high _ concern concern Barctailed Godwit Species of Species of . . conservation _— _ _ high — (Limosa lapponica) concern concern Western Sandpiper = _ = _ ar = = (Calidris mauri) 8 concern Dunlin Species of Species of (Calidris alpina ssp. conservation — _— _— high — arcticola) concern concern Buff-breasted Sandpiper Species of Sensitive Eestuted epecies = (Tryngites subruficollis) consecvauon species Species ” — high — concern conservation concern , Species of Featured Species of ae disaea) conservation — species for high _— — oe concern conservation concern Snowy Owl Featured Priority ( Sam evacus) _ — species for — — species for conservation conservation Short-eared Owl = _ ei _ _ _ (Asio flammeus) conservation oe Species of Featured Priority Hseiayen conservation _— species for — _ species for P concern conservation conservation Hoary Repl ee en ee (Acanthis hornemanni) P 5 conservation a. USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Birds of Conservation Concern (for Bird Conservation Region 3, Arctic Plains and Mountains) (USFWS 2008); and Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, and Delisted Species in Alaska (USFWS 2010a). b. BLM: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List (BLM 2005); sensitive species only are shown, threatened and candidate species listed by BLM duplicate the listings by USFWS 2010b. c. ADFG: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species of Special Concern (ADFG 1998) and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ADFG 2006). d. WCA: Water bird Conservation for the Americas, North American Water bird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002 and 2006); species in the higher concern classes only, species of moderate and low concern are not shown. e. ASG: Alaska Shorebird Group, Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan Version II (ASG 2008); species of high concern only, species of moderate and low concern are not shown. f. BPIF: Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group, Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions (BPIFWG 1999). g. Dash indicates the species is not listed or its conservation ranking is below the threshold for inclusion in this study (see notes d and e above). fou 46 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 2. Identification of high-value nesting habitats for Spectacled Eiders in the Barrow— Atqasuk region, North Slope, Alaska. Only coarse-scale habitats were identified as derived from National Wetlands Inventory mapping of the area (see Table 3). Regularly Used Habitats Equivalent Wildlife Habitat on the North Slope* Source? Type in Project Area Salt-killed Tundra 2 No equivalent type Aquatic Sedge with Deep Polygons 2 Sedge Marsh Sedge Marsh 1 Sedge Marsh Carex Ponds 8 Sedge Marsh Old Basin Wetland Complex 1 Patterned and Non-patterned Wet Meadow Patterned Wet Meadow 2 Patterned Wet Meadow Non-patterned Wet Meadow eS Non-patterned Wet Meadow * When in proximity (usually <100 meters) to water, including water bodies and aquatic marsh habitats (see text). > 1 =Kuparuk oilfield (Stickney et al. 2010; Anderson et al. 2009); 2 = Colville River Delta (Johnson et al. 2004); 3 = Prudhoe Bay oilfield (Warnock and Troy 1992). Gia 47 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Table 3. Classification crosswalk table between National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland types and wildlife habitat types. Acreages represent the areas of each wetland type illustrated on the map of high-value Spectacled Eider habitats (see Figure 3). Breeding Use NWI Code* Wildlife Habitat Type by Spectacled Eiders Acres L2USA Lacustrine Barrens None n/a L2USC Lacustrine Barrens None n/a LIUBH? Shallow and Deep Open Water without Islands Low value brood-rearing n/a L2UBH° Shallow Open Water without Islands Low value brood-rearing n/a PUBF Shallow Open Water without Islands Brood-rearing 9 PUBH Shallow Open Water without Islands Brood-rearing 24,986 PEM1/UBH Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 14,436 PEM1/UBF Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 23,016 PUB/EMIF Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 172 PUB/EM1H Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 3,033 PEM1/2F Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 1,265 PEM1/2H Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 1,239 PEM1H Sedge Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 1,873 L2EM2/UBH _ Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 2,920 L2EM2/UBF Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 37 L2EM2F Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 164 L2EM2H Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 6,987 L2UB/EM2H _ Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 7,168 PUB/EM2H Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 507 PEM2/1F Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 2,003 PEM2/1H Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 2,165 PEM2/UBF Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 36 PEM2/UBH Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 1,073 PEM2F Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 120 PEM2H Grass Marsh Nesting and brood-rearing 2,676 PEM1/2E Non-patterned Wet Meadow Nesting dh PEMIC Non-patterned Wet Meadow Nesting 10,432 PEMIE Non-patterned Wet Meadow Nesting 30,451 PEMIF Non-patterned Wet Meadow Nesting 41,040 PEM1/SS1F Patterned Wet Meadow Nesting 70,248 PEM1/SS1E Patterned Wet Meadow Nesting 24,004 Total Acreage of High-value Nesting and Brood-rearing Habitats 272,067 * NWI codes used on publicly available wetland maps for the Barrow—Atqasuk area from USFWS (2010b); codes follow the classification described in Cowardin (1979). > NWI code refers to large lakes (>20 acres in area) following Cowardin (1979). 48 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 7. — Permitting Considerations A. Objective Solstice Alaska Consulting, Inc (Solstice) was engaged to determine potential permit requirements for the construction of a proposed electrical intertie between Barrow and Atqasuk, Alaska. Our assumptions for the intertie are as follows: . The intertie would be overhead and approximately 60 to 70 miles long. . The utility poles would range in height from 40 feet to 80 feet tall. . The intertie alignment would cross wetland complexes and anadromous streams. ° The project could cross property owned by the State of Alaska, the Federal government, the North Slope Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Below is a list of potential permits and authorizations that could be required for the project, based on current understanding and knowledge of the project. B. Federal Permits and Authorizations Wetlands (Section 404 and Section 10) Permit It is likely that a wetland permit would be required for this project because utility poles would be placed in wetlands under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Also, a wetlands permit would be required if any poles were placed below ordinary high water of any navigable stream. Responsible Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Statutes: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1977) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1890) Rationale: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under ordinary high water of any navigable water of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Timing: Permits are issued following a Coastal Consistency Determination by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) (see below for timing). Contact: Section USACE, Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Phone: 907.753.2724 Fax: 907.753.5567 49 a Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Consultation There is the potential to find cultural or historic resources in the Barrow - Atqasuk Intertie project area. To make the permitting process more efficient, consultation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should occur during the permitting process. The project could wait for the permitting agencies to complete this consultation as a part of their process; however, Solstice has found that completing the NHPA consultation with the SHPO helps to move the permitting process forward. Responsible Agency: ADNR SHPO Statute: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) Rationale: Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The project must consult the SHPO regarding potential impacts to cultural and historic resources in the vicinity of the project. Timing: SHPO is required to respond within 30-days of the submittal of a findings letter. If no response is received, the project can assume there would be no impacts to historic properties. Notes: The SHPO could request a field survey for cultural resources, which could increase the timing on this process. The SHPO could also find that the project could impact cultural resources. If this is the case, further consultation would be needed. Contact: Judith Bittner, State Historic Preservation Officer 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1380 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907.269.8721 Fax: 907.269.8908 judy_bittner@dnr.state.ak.us 50 me Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Endangered Species Act Clearance Spectacled eider and the polar bear, both listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), may be found in the Barrow - Atqasuk Intertie project area. (Polar bears are also regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has separate consultation requirement, which could occur concurrently with this process.) To make the permitting process more efficient, consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding impacts to listed endangered species assist in moving the permitting process forward. The project could wait for the permitting agencies to complete this consultation as a part of their process; however, Solstice has found that completing the ESA consultation helps to move the permitting process forward. Responsible Agency: U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Statutes: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) Rationale: A consultation required by Section 7 must be performed for any activities that may affect species formally listed as threatened or endangered. Timing: The USFWS has 30 days to respond to a findings letter. Notes: The USFWS could request additional information on the project or species and could require a field survey, which could increase the timing on this process. The USFWS could also find that the project could impact ESA-listed species. If this is the case, formal consultation with the USFWS would be needed and could take additional time. Contact: Ted Swem, Branch Chief Endangered Species Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101 12th Ave., Room 110 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907-456-0441 Fax: 907-456-0208 ted_swem@fws.gov Cc. State Permits and Authorizations Coastal Consistency Determination Most of the intertie project would occur within the North Slope Borough Coastal Management District; therefore, it is subject to review under the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Although the North Slope does not have a final coastal management plan in place, a consistency determination with the State’s coastal zone enforceable policies would be needed. 51 Pa Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Responsible Agency: Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) Statute: Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), Alaska Statute (AS) 46.40 (Water, Air, Energy, and Environmental Conservation; The Alaska Coastal Management Program) Rationale: Using the statewide standards and local enforceable policies established by a local coastal planning board, the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) evaluates the effects a project within coastal zone boundaries will have on coastal resources and uses. Timing: The coastal zone review process begins after a Coastal Project Questionnaire is submitted and approved and after the USACE has issued their Public Notice. After initiated, and if the process is not paused after a request of additional information or elevated because of major issues, the process takes 60 days to complete. Within this 60 day process, there is a 30 day public comment period. Contact: Christine Ballard, Project Review Assistant DNR, Division of Coastal & Ocean Management 550 West 7" Ave., Ste. 705 Phone: 907.269.7478 Fax: 907.269.3981 christine.ballard@alaska.gov Fish Habitat (Title 16) Permit Because the Barrow — Atqasuk Intertie could involve crossing anadromous fish (salmon) streams, it is likely that a Fish Habitat Permit would be needed. A Fish Habitat Permit is needed for any work in an anadromous stream, including crossing an anadromous fish stream during the winter on ice. Responsible Agency: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Habitat Statutes: AS 16.05.841-871 (Fish and Game, Fish and Game Code) Rationale: Any activity or project that is conducted below the ordinary high water mark of an anadromous fish stream requires a Fish Habitat Permit. ADF&G has statutory responsibility for protecting freshwater 52 = Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings anadromous fish habitat and providing free passage for anadromous and resident fish in fresh water bodies. Timing: The Fish Habitat Permit cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency Determination. It is reasonable to expect this permit to be issued within five days of the issuance of the Coastal Consistency Determination. Contact: Mac McLean, Regional Supervisor Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat 1300 College Rd Fairbanks, AK 99701-1599 Phone: 907.459.7281 Fax: 907.459.7303 mac.mclean@alaska.gov State of Alaska Land Use Permit Because the Barrow —Atqasuk Intertie would cross land owned by the State of Alaska at the crossing of the Meade River, and potentially at the crossing of the Inaru River, a land use permit would be needed. Responsible Agency: ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) Statutes: 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 96.010 Rationale: Land use permits are authorizations issued to use State land, on a temporary basis, for a variety of purposes. The permits range in duration from one to five years. They are intended for temporary, non- permanent uses. Land use permits are also issued for most activities in navigable waters because the State owns most land below the ordinary high water. Timing: The Land Use Permit application requires a 30-day public review. The Land Use Permit cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency Determination. It is reasonable to expect this permit to be issued within five days of the issuance of the Coastal Consistency Determination. Notes: A $100.00 non-refundable filing fee is required by regulation (11 AAC 05.010(5)(B)). Checks should be payable to the "State of Alaska". Contact: Alexander Wait 53 > Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings DNR, DMLW, Northern Region Lands Section 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Phone: 907.451.2777 Fax: 907.451.2751 aj.wait@alaska.gov State of Alaska Easement Because the Barrow — Atqasuk Intertie would cross land owned by the State of Alaska, a permanent utility easement could be needed. Responsible Agency: ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) Statutes: AS 38.05.850 (Public Land, Alaska Land Act, Permits) Rationale: Easements are issued on state land for uses including telephone or electric transmission and distribution lines. Timing: The easement application requires a 30-day public review. The easement cannot be issued until DNR DCOM issues the Coastal Consistency Determination. After the public and agency notice, a written decision document will be completed and an Early Entry Authorization (EEA) is issued for construction and survey. Once construction is completed and an approved as-built survey is received, a legal easement is issued and recorded. Notes: A $100.00 non-refundable filing fee is required by regulation (AS 38.05.850). Checks should be payable to the "State of Alaska". Contact: Dianna Leinberger DNR, DMLW, Northern Region Lands Section 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709-4699 Phone: 907. 451-3014 Fax: 907. 451.2751 dianna.leinberger@alaska.gov 54 = Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D. North Slope Borough Permits and Authorizations North Slope Borough (NSB) Land Use Permit All projects occurring within the NSB outside of a village must acquire a NSB Land Use Permit. Because most of the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie area would be on NSB managed lands, a Land Use permit would be required. It is likely that the project would be administratively approved by the Borough. Responsible Agency: NSB Statutes: NSBMC Title 19 Rationale: All conditional development or uses and master plans must receive approval prior to commencement. Timing: Approximately 35calendar days from the time of permit acceptance to obtain an approved permit, assuming the review is not paused for additional information or elevated. Notes: There is a $1.500 fee for an Administrative Approval and a $3,000 fee for a Conditional Development Permit. Contact: Susan Kittick-Atos Planning and Community Services Department North Slope Borough P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 55 = Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Form 700-Village District Permit All projects occurring within the NSB within a village district require Village District Permit. Because a portion of the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie area would be in the Atqasuk Village District and likely the Barrow Village District, a village district permit would be required. Responsible Agency: NSB Statutes: North Slope Borough Municipal Code (NSBMC) §19.30.070, NSBMC §19.40.060, NSBMC §19.40.110, NSBMC §19.50.030 Rationale: The NSB requires permits for all use and development (as defined in the NSBMC §19.20.020), including residential, commercial and public structures, operations, and facilities in Village Districts. This permit application must be used to obtain approval for uses and development in Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk, Nuigsut, Anaktuvuk Pass and Kaktovik. There is a separate Barrow Zoning District Application. Timing: Approximately 35calendar days from the time of permit acceptance to obtain an approved permit, assuming the review is not paused for additional information or elevated. Notes: A $200 permit application fee is required. Checks should be made out to the North Slope Borough. Contact: Susan Kittick-Atos Planning and Community Services Department North Slope Borough P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 56 le Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Form 500-Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/ Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance Because the Barrow-Atqasuk Intertie project would be seeking a NSB Land Use Permit, a Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance could be required from the NSB. Responsible Agency: NSB Statutes: NSBMC§2.16.110, NSBMC §19.50.030(F) and §19.60.040(K) Rationale: All projects seeking a new Land Use Permit from the NSB for industrial/commercial development in a Resource Development, Conservation, Scientific Research, and Transportation Corridor District for a use or development that consists of an earth-moving activity, ice road, or seismic survey that has not already been issued a Certificate of Inupiat History, Language and Culture/ Traditional Land Use Inventory (IHLC/TLUI) Clearance. According to the NSB, while Applicants are required to obtain clearance from the SHPO to obtain state permits, SHPO clearance alone may not be sufficient to ensure that sites listed in the NSB’s TLUI are protected. The IHLC clearance process is to protect TLUI sites. Timing: Timing for this process is unclear. The approved Certificate of IHLC/TLUI Clearance should be submitted with the NSB Land Use application. Notes: A $100 permit application fee is required. Checks should be made out to the “North Slope Borough.” Contact: North Slope Borough Department of Planning and Community Services lfiupiat History, Language & Culture Division, IHLC Coordinator P.O. Box 69 Barrow, AK 99723 Phone: 907.852.0422 Fax: 907.852.4224 Ee: Permitting Support - Engineering Should the need arise, or if there is a continuation of this effort, engineering will provide technical support to personnel charged with examining and identifying the permitting requirements for this project. Information developed during this phase of the project will be secured and provided to the relevant personnel upon client request. Providing accurate design engineering and project basis information to a permitting effort is considered a priority support function for our Team members. Successful debrief of 57 > Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings the accurate project design basis project in support of the permitting effort, can be instrumental in making interested permitting agencies aware that due diligence has been done; development of a project capable of being successfully permitted 58 pe Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 8. — Economic Analysis A. Objective This section presents the economic analysis of the proposed electric power transmission line? (intertie) between Barrow and Atqasuk. The economics of the proposed project is evaluated by estimating the net present value (NPV) of the cost savings associated with the proposed intertie project. The cost savings are measured by comparing the costs associated with the existing power generation and heating system in Atqasuk (“without project” case) against the costs associated with the proposed project. The NPV of cost savings (present value of the net benefits of the project) provides an estimate of the economic feasibility and informs the choice between alternative project options; the best option is the one with the highest NPV. This approach follows the same analytical framework used by the Alaska Energy Authority in evaluating the economics of Renewable Energy Fund Grant applications. Estimating the monetary value of reducing outages or other potential (social and environmental) benefits is outside the scope of this study. This study evaluates a number of options as shown below (more detailed description of these options is provided in a prior section of this report): 1. The Western Route (WR1) versus the Eastern Route (ER2); 2 An Alternating Current (AC) line versus a High Voltage Direct Current (DC) line; 3. Electrical generation for Power only versus Electrical generation for Power and Heat. Eight configurations arise from the combination of these options for route (Western vs. Eastern), current type (AC vs. DC), and electric usage (for power only vs. for power and heat). 4 and Figure (enclosed in this section for clarity) show the net present value of the cost savings for each project alternative. The results of the economic analysis indicate that the intertie option through the Eastern Route with AC current used for power and heat has the highest net benefit with an NPV of cost savings of $50.7 million. In general, a higher NPV is achieved with the Eastern Route than with the Western Route, with the AC type of current than with the DC type of current, and with the use of electricity for power and heat rather than for power only. Hence, the option with the least estimated capital costs and the highest possible fuel displacement (power and heat) make the most economic sense based on measuring the net present value of the cost savings. 5, on the other hand, shows the calculated benefit-cost (B/C) ratios of the different project alternatives. As shown in the table, all eight project alternatives provide positive B/C ratios and therefore are all economically better compared to the “without project” case (that is, the existing power generation and heating system in Atqasuk, given the base case assumptions used in the analysis). Table 4 .Net Present Value of Cost Savings of the Intertie Project Alternatives Eastern Route Western Route AC current DC current AC current DC current Power Only $35,324,295 $27,156,697 $17,246,575 $15,621,944 Power and Heat $50,675,352 $42,507,754 $32,597,631 $30,973,001 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 1B lectric transmission lines are interconnections between electrical utility systems permitting exchange or delivery of power between those systems. They can transfer electricity from a centralized power plant that produces low cost energy to high cost areas. 59 ~ Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Figure 3. Net Present Value of Cost Savings by Project Alternative $60 $50 " » o $ millions aA © 35 An N oO $10 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. Table 5. Benefit-Cost Ratios of the Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives Eastern Route Western Route AC current DC current AC current DC current Power Only 3.35 2.25 1.58 1.51 Power and Heat 4.00 2.80 2.00 1.94 4 shows the results from a cost-effectiveness perspective, measured in terms of variable cost per kWh given current price and cost levels. The total variable cost of diesel generated power under the current situation is 72 cents per kWh. As shown in Figure , the variable cost per kWh under any of the project alternatives would be considerably lower at 20 cents per kWh if electricity is used for power only and 11 cents per kWh if electricity is used for power and heating. While the North Slope Borough currently incurs the cost of 72 cents to generate a kilowatt-hour of electricity in Atqasuk, the electric rate per kWh paid by customers of electricity is much lower. The electric rate in Atqasuk has not changed since 1984: residential customers only pay $0.15 per kWh for the first 600 kWh (and $0.35 per kWh for every kWh over 600), the aged and handicapped are not charged for the first 600 kWh of consumption (and $0.35 per kWh for every kWh over 600), and commercial customers 60 ~~ Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings pay $0.20 per kWh for the first 1,000 kWh, $0.30 per kWh for consumption up to 10,000 kWh, and $0.35 for every kWh of consumption over 10,000. The North Slope Borough would potentially realize a significant benefit from reducing the cost of electric generation through the proposed intertie project and the homeowners and commercial users would benefit from the added safety and security associated with a more stable energy system Figure 4. Variable Costs per kWh, Current Situation versus Project Alternatives $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 +— $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $- Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat Diesel Generated Power Source: Northern Economics, Inc. The figure above calculates the cost per kWh of the different scenarios given current price and cost levels, if however all the future stream of fuel and non-fuel costs are considered (including repair and replacement costs of existing facilities) the estimated cumulative variable cost per kWh (in real terms, undiscounted) would be as follows: 4 Electric Power Only: $0.20 per kWh; 2. Electric Power and Heat: $0.11 per kWh; Se Diesel Generated Power: $0.72per kWh. B. Methodology and Assumptions On one hand, an intertie would provide benefits (cost savings) achieved through the offset of diesel generation costs at the Atqasuk facilities. On the other hand, the construction and the operation and 61 ae Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings maintenance of an intertie would involve costs. The net benefit of each alternative compares the costs of the existing power generation and heating system (without project situation) with the costs associated with the proposed project alternatives (with project scenarios). This economic analysis determines if the benefits to be realized with the intertie are greater than its costs. The benefits of the project are savings in fuel and non-fuel O&M costs at the Atqasuk facilities (“without project” situation). The costs of the project are the costs related to the development and construction of the intertie, annual costs for O&M of the intertie, costs for electric generation and transmission of electricity from Barrow to Atqasuk, and costs for conversion to electric heating systems at facilities and residences in Atqasuk. The following are the main assumptions used in the economic analysis: ° The economic analysis covers the period between the years 2011 and 2049. . All the costs are reported in real terms and expressed in constant 2010 dollars. . All cost flows (future stream of costs) are discounted to their present values using a 3 percent annual discount rate (same discount rate used in the evaluation of AEA Renewable Energy Fund Grant applications). ° The analysis assumes that the additional natural gas usage and generation capacity at BUECI required to meet the Atqasuk demand —even during peak load- is sufficient to avoid imposing additional costs in the system at Barrow. ° The analysis does not include cost of land, right of way costs, or salvage value at the end of the study period. ° Only direct quantifiable monetary economic costs are considered. The rest of this section is organized in the following order: ° An analysis of the existing diesel-based system for power generation and heating in Atqasuk, i.e. the “without project” situation; . An analysis of the eight proposed projects alternatives, i.e. the “with project” situations; . A comparison of the economics of the “without project” case with the “with project” alternatives; . Estimates of potential financing costs associated with the project alternatives; ° A sensitivity analysis considering changes in key assumptions; and ° Conclusions. 62 “4 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings C: “Without Project” Case: Diesel-Based Power Generation and Heating System The transmission line concept impacts directly several utilities and municipal services in both Barrow and Atqasuk. This section will provide an overview of the following existing facilities BUECi, Barrow Utilities Electric Coop Facilities, the NSB Barrow Gas Fields; and the NSB Atqasuk P&L Electric Power Facilities and Fuel Tank Farm. Description of existing Barrow electric power facilities Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop Inc. (BUECI) is a member-owned cooperative (not-for-profit organization). It is governed by a nine member board of directors. The utility cooperative was established in 1964 providing electricity, natural gas, water and sewer services to this community of approximately 4,500. BUECI operates a total of seven generators using high-pressure natural gas or diesel fuel when needed for temporary back-up. Five generators are turbine engines manufactured by (2 Solar each SMW Tarus Gas Turbines and 3 each 2.5 MW Centaur Gas Turbines), and two are reciprocating generators from Caterpillar. The BUECI Power Plant has a maximum generating capacity of 20,500 kilowatts (20.5 megawatts). In FY 2010 BUECI generated 51,391,520 kWH. The average daily demand was 5,867 kWH and had a peak load of 8,400 KWH. Description of existing Barrow Gas Fields The Barrow Gas Fields consist of three fields. The South Barrow Gas Field, developed in 1949, is located four miles south of Barrow. The East Barrow Gas Field, discovered in 1974, is located seven miles east of South Barrow Gas Field and the Walakpa Gas Field, discovered in 1980, is located 15 miles south of Barrow. In 1984 management of the Barrow Gas Fields was transferred from the federal government to the North Slope Borough with the passage of the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984. This Act also gave the Borough the permission to extend the natural gas to surrounding North Slope Villages of Atqasuk and Wainwright via gas pipeline or electric transmission from Barrow. From the last reserve analysis report performed by PRA in 2006. The reserves of the Barrow Gas Fields are presented in the Table 6 below. Table 6: Barrow Gas Field Gas Reserves Gas Field Reserves South Barrow gas Field 8 to 9 billion cubic feet East Barrow Gas Field 5 tol 0 billion cubic feet Walakpa Gas Field 150 to 240 billion cubic feet Total 163 to 259 billion cubic feet 63 aa Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings The City of Barrow consumes about 1.5 Billion Cubic Feet a year. At this annual consumption rate the Walapka Gas Field alone has a 100 to 160 year reserve capacity. Description of Existing Power and Heating System in Atqasuk Atqasuk is an inland community in the North Slope Borough located 60 miles south of Barrow along the banks of the Meade River. Atqasuk’s 2010 estimated population was 247. The community's power requirements are provided by the Atqasuk Power & Light (ATQP&L), an enterprise formed under the North Slope Borough (NSB). Currently, 100 percent of the power is generated by diesel fuel. The community's heating system is also primarily based on diesel fuel. The heating equipment in each residential and non-residential building is typically boiler-based hydronic or forced air. The price of diesel fuel delivered to Atqasuk in FY 2010 was $5.16 per gallon, consisting of $2.99 per gallon of landed fuel in Barrow plus $2.16 per gallon of delivery cost of fuel from Barrow to Atqasuk. The City of Atqasuk is challenged in that the community is isolated without waterways or roads that lead to the village; the cost of fuel delivery is therefore relatively high. The journey to get fuel into Atqasuk starts with the delivery of a one year supply of fuel to Barrow’s Tank Farm in late summer. Throughout the year, fuel is transported from Barrow to Atqasuk by airplane owned by Everts Air Fuel or driven overland by Crowley's CATCO All Terrain vehicles. The Atqasuk fuel facilities are currently operated by the NSB Public Works Department. The current system consists of five 17,000-gallon tanks (total storage capacity of 85,000 gallons) at the power plant and two 250,000 gallon-tanks (total storage capacity of 500,000) at the Atqasuk tank farm dispensing station. The quantity of diesel fuel consumed for power generation and heating in Atqasuk during FY 2010 is shown in Table 7. The power plant consumed 250,238 gallons of diesel fuel for power generation and a variety of users consumed about 216,000 gallons for space/water heating. Out of theestimated466,238 gallons of total fuel consumption for energy, the majority was used by the power plant (54 percent), followed by 22 percent corresponding to the NSB Departments (including NSBPW, Health, P.S.O., Fire Department, and Mayors Department). The school and residential users accounted for 10 percent each and commercial users for the remaining 3 percent. In FY2010, the power plant used 250,238 gallons of diesel fuel to generate 3,269,832 kWh of electricity. During the same period, the community's electric power load (total sales or demand) was 2,916,985 kWh for 57 residential customers, 2 community facilities, 41 commercial customers and one federal customer. Generation and distribution losses account for roughly 12 percent of the power generation. 64 > Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 7. Diesel Fuel Consumption in Atqasuk, Fiscal Year 2010 Diesel Fuel Consumption (Gallons) Percentage Power Generation Power Plant 250,238 54% Diesel used for Power: 250,238 54% Heating Commercial 15,480 3% Residential 48,833 10% School 47,893 10% NSB Departments 103,795 22% Diesel used for Heating 216,000(*) 46% Total Diesel for Power and Heat 466,238 100% Source: North Slope Borough Fuel Division (*) Note: According to NSB Fuel Division records, the total fuel consumption of the community was 490,148 gallons. The power plant used 250,238 gallons, leaving a balance of almost 240,000. It is estimated that 10 percent of this balance was used by vehicles, hence the diesel fuel consumption for heating is inferred to be 216,000 gallons. C.1 Annual O&M Costs In FY 2010, the total costs of operating and maintaining the NSB power and fuel facilities amounted to approximately $3.65 million, with $2.40 million for fuel costs and $1.25 million for non-fuel costs (Table 8). Fuel costs accounted for 68 percent of the cost of providing power generation and heating to the community. About $1.29 million was spent on fuel for the power plant and $1.11 million for heating fuel (Table 8). Non-fuel costs in FY 2010 consisted of $1.07 million for power and $0.18 million for heating (Table 8). Non-fuel costs include staff, inspections, equipment maintenance, and other miscellaneous costs. Table 8. Annual O&M Costs of NSB Power and Fuel Facilities, Fiscal Year 2010 O&M Cost Component FY 2010 ($) Power Fuel Costs $1,290,327 Non-Fuel Costs $1,070,104 Sub-total: $2,360,431 Heating Fuel Costs $1,113,785 Non-Fuel Costs $179,488 Sub-total: $1,293,273 Total: $3,653,704 Source: North Slope Borough, Fuel Division 65 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Future O&M costs were estimated for the existing system assuming that the intertie is not built (“without project” situation).Future fuel costs are determined given the current fuel consumption for power and heat and projected diesel fuel prices. The quantity of fuel consumed in future years is assumed to stay at the current consumption levels. This assumption is based on the forecast of zero percent growth of Atqasuk’s population (Alaska Department of Public Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics). The prices of diesel fuel in future years are projected as follows. The price of fuel delivered to Atqasuk consists of the price of landed fuel in Barrow plus the delivery cost from Barrow to Atqasuk. Half of the delivery cost is assumed to be a fixed cost and is projected to remain constant in real terms. The other half of the delivery cost as well as the landed fuel price in Barrow are both assumed to follow the trend in crude oil fuel prices under the Energy Information Administration’s mid-case projections (Annual Energy Outlook). These projections are available until 2030; fuel prices for the years beyond 2030 were extrapolated by assuming the same trend as the previous 10 years (2021-2030). Based on these assumptions, the price of diesel fuel landed in Atqasuk is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. Future non-fuel O&M costs are assumed to stay constant in real terms, which would be equivalent to assuming that they increase in nominal terms at the inflation rate. C.2 Replacement and Overhaul Costs for Diesel Generator Units The ATQP&L power house has five diesel generator units with the following capacity: two 450 kilowatt generators, one 580 kilowatt generator, and two 910 kilowatt generators. The total generation capacity of the power plant is 3,300 kilowatts, more than sufficient to meet the average and peak loads of the community during the study period. The study assumes a one time replacement (over the period of analysis) of the five existing generator units at an estimated cost of $7 million, including the cost of shipping and installation in Atqasuk. For the three largest generators, the study also assumes major overhaul costs of $330,000 every 5 years and top end overhaul costs of $180,000 every 2 years. These costs are based on information provided by NC Machinery, the local distributor for Caterpillar diesel generators, and cost information from similar projects experienced in other North Slope communities. Note that the costs for minor overhauls are already included in the above mentioned annual O&M costs. C.3 Summary of Cost Flows Associated with the Existing Diesel-Based Power and Heating System (“Without Project” Case) Table 9 shows some of the future annual costs for Atqasuk power generation and heating if the proposed intertie project is not built (the “Without Project” Case). Projected annual costs for the years 2011 (start year of the analysis), 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2049 (end year of the analysis) are shown in the table. The estimated present value of all the annual future costs from 2011 through 2049 is approximately $118.5 million. 66 = Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 9. Annual Costs Incurred in Selected Future Years under the “Without Project” Case ($ millions) Cost Item: 2011 = 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2049 O&M Costs 3.633 4.203 4.520 4.699 4.897 5.104 5.759 Fuel Costs 2.383 2.953 3.271 3.450 3.647 3.854 4.510 Fuel Cost for Power Generation 1.279 1.585 1.755 1.851 1.957 2.069 2.420 Price ($/gallon) 5.11 6.33 7.01 7.40 7.82 8.27 9.67 Gallons (in thousands) 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 Fuel Cost for Heating 1.104 1.368 1.515 1.598 1.690 1.786 2.089 Price ($/gallon) 5.11 6.33 7.01 7.40 7.82 8.27 9.67 Gallons (in thousands) 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 0.216 Non Fuel Costs 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 1.250 Power Generation 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 1.070 Heating 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 Scheduled Repair and Replacement Costs - 0.510 0.330 7.510 0.330 0.510 - Replacement of diesel generators (in 2025) - - - 7.000 - - - Top End Overhaul(every 2 yrs starting in 2013) - 0.180 - 0.180 - 0.180 - Major Overhaul (every 5 yrs starting in 2015) - 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 - Total Costs 3.633 4.713 4.850 12.209 5.227 5.614 5.708 PV of Costs (2011-2049), 3% discount rate 118.534 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 67 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D. Proposed Intertie Project Alternatives: “With Project” Case D.1 Costs Associated with the Proposed Intertie Project For all project alternatives, the environmental studies are assumed to take place during 2011 and 2012 at an estimated cost of $60,000, including the environmental assessment and possible Section 7 consultations.2 Construction of the intertie is assumed to take place over a 2-year period, with capital costs varying by alternative as shown in Table10. The corresponding supporting engineering and construction management activities also occur during the same period and are estimated to be about 12 percent of the capital cost. The operation of the proposed intertie begins in 2015 and lasts 35 years. The annual operation and maintenance costs for the intertie vary by project alternative as shown in Table 11. These costs include a basic O&M cost of $1,315 per mile for all alternatives, an annual cost of $50,000 for VSM inspection for the Western Route alternatives, and $50,000 for converter inspections for the DC alternatives. Table 10. Estimated Capital Costs of the Intertie (2010 $) Year Eastern Route Western Route AC Dc AC Dc Environmental Studies 2011-2012 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Construction Cost 2013-2014 15,123,237 22,029,108 31,430,744 32,047,314 Engineering &Construction Management (12%) 2013-2014 1,814,788 2,643,493 3,771,689 3,845,678 Source: Estimates are based on information provided by consulting engineers for this project. Table 11. Annual O&M Costs of the Intertie? (2010 $) Year Eastern Route Western Route AC bc AC Dc Intertie O&M 2015-2049 89,946 89,946 96,521 96,521 VSM Inspection 2015-2049 50,000 50,000 Converter Inspection 2015-2049 50,000 50,000 Total O&M: 89,946 139,946 146,521 196,521 Source: Estimates are based on information provided by AEA program managers and consulting engineers for this project. 2 The cost of a potential EIS process is not included since at this time it has not been determined as required. 3 The estimated O&M cost per mile was determined in consultation with AEA program managers, Jim Strandberg and Chris Mello. VSM and converter inspection costs are based on estimates from the project’s consulting engineers. 68 rad Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D.2 Cost of Purchasing Electricity from Barrow The annual cost of purchasing electricity from BUECI depends on the price of electricity in Barrow and the quantity of electricity required to meet Atqasuk’s needs. The future costs of electricity purchased from BUECI are projected assuming that the quantity is the same for all future years and that the price remains constant in real terms. For the price of electricity, this analysis assumes BUECI’s E-10 rate for electricity of $0.0846 per kWh plus the annual fixed charge of $4,164 (or a monthly fixed charge of $347). The quantity of electricity varies depending on the scenario considered-- electric power only or electric power and heat (see Table 12). D.3 Electric Power Only Scenario The actual electric power sold in Atqasuk (based on FY2010 data) is 2,916,985 kWh. This electric power demand is increased by 15 percent to account for 12 percent distribution and transmission losses in Atqasuk plus 3 percent transmission losses through the intertie. Hence, the annual electric power requirement in Atqasuk assumed in this analysis is 3,354,533 kWh. The corresponding cost of purchasing electricity for power is $287,957 (=3,354,533 kWh* $0.0846/kWh+$4, 164) (see Table 12). D.4 Electric Power and Heat Scenario Under the alternative scenario of electric power and heat, the estimated quantity of electricity is significantly higher. The community would require additional purchases of 8,895,101 kWh to meet Atqasuk’s requirements for heating. This amount was determined by multiplying 216,000 gallons of fuel consumed under the existing diesel-based heating system by a factor of 130,500 BTU/gal and by a factor of 97 percent for the assumed efficiency of the heaters. The resulting quantity in kWh is 8,013,604. This amount is increased by 11 percent to take into account electric heating distribution losses in Atqasuk (8 percent) plus transmission losses through the intertie (3 percent), which results in the estimated 8,895,101 kWh electric heating requirement. The corresponding cost of purchasing electricity for the combined power and heating scenario is estimated to amount to $1,040,483(= 12,2249,634 kWh* $0.0846/kWh+$4, 164); see in the following Table 12. Table 12 .Annual Electricity Requirements and Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow Scenario Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat Quantity of Electricity Required (kWh) 3,354,533 12,249,634 For Power 3,354,533 3,354,533 For Heating 8,895,101 Cost of Electricity ($) $287,957 $1,040,483 For power $287,957 $287,957 For heating $752,526 Source: Estimates based on information provided by NSB Fuel Division D.5 Annual O&M Costs of Atqasuk Facilities With the intertie and without the need to operate their diesel generators except in emergency situations, the Atqasuk power utility should be able to realize significant cost savings in both fuel and non-fuel O&M costs. Table 13 summarizes the estimated annual fuel costs for power and for heating under the two electric usage scenarios. It is assumed that the utility will purchase one month’s worth of fuel supply (equivalent to 20,853 gallons for power and 18,000 gallons for heating) to be kept in storage as backup. Since the 69 ’ Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings fuel cost per year will vary depending on the projected price of fuel, the table below shows the estimated annual fuel costs given the current fuel price of $5.156 per gallon as well as the estimated average annual fuel costs given the projected average fuel price over the 35-year period. Table 14 shows the estimated annual non-fuel costs for power (Atqasuk power plant) and for heating (primarily related to the tank farm/dispensing station operations) associated with each of the scenarios. The estimated annual non-fuel costs for the power only scenario represent about 36 percent of the total non-fuel cost currently incurred by the utility ($1.25 million); a reduction in cost of about 64 percent. For the power and heat scenario, the estimated non-fuel costs represent 29 percent of the current total non- fuel cost of the utility; a 71-percent reduction in annual non-fuel cost. In addition to offsetting fuel and non-fuel O&M costs, ATQP&L would benefit from the extension in operating life of its existing generators if the intertie is constructed. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that with the intertie, ATQP&L would be able to avoid replacement and major overhaul costs during the study period. Table 13. Estimated Annual Fuel Costs for Power and for Heating under Various Scenarios Scenario Cost Item 5 Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat Current Fuel Price Ave over 35 years Current Fuel Price Ave over 35 years For Power 107,527 167,527 107,527 167,527 For Heating 1,113,785 1,735,269 92,815 144,606 Total: 1,221,312 1,902,796 200,342 312,133 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates based on information from the North Slope Borough, Fuel Division Table 14. Estimated Annual Non-Fuel Costs for Utility Operations and Maintenance Facilities in Atqasuk under Various Scenarios Cost Item Scenario Electric Power Only Electric Power and Heat For Power 268,457 268,457 For Heating 179,488 89,744 Total: 447,945 358,201 Source: Estimates are based on information obtained from the North Slope Borough, Fuel Division D.6 Capital Costs of Electric Heating Conversion Under the scenario of electric power and heat, the existing diesel oil fired boilers and furnaces in buildings would be replaced by electric heat. Residential buildings would likely have base-board heaters in each room. In the larger non-residential buildings (i.e., school), the central heating boiler or furnace may be converted or replaced with an electric unit. The existing heat distribution system may be usable in these cases. The capital costs for the conversion to electric heating systems in residences and Borough facilities are estimated at $1,952,000. These costs would take place in 2013 and are estimated at $880,000 and $1,072,000 for facilities and residences, respectively. 70 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings D.7 Cost Flows for Project Alternatives The costs described in the previous subsections are reflected in the next eight tables (15-23) that show detailed future stream of annual costs (for selected years) associated with each of the proposed intertie project alternatives. The last rows of each table show the estimated NPV for the cost of the alternative, as well as the NPV of the costs savings compared to the case without project shown previously in Table 9. 71 ed Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 15. Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with AC for Power and Heat ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 7.562 7.562 Engineering and Construction Mgt 0.907 0.907 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 0.604 0.631 0.646 0.662 0.734 Fuel Cost 0.246 0.273 0.287 0.304 0.376 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 0.114 0.126 0.133 0.141 0.174 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion 1.952 Residential 1.072 Borough Facilities 0.880 Total Costs With Project 3.662 14.584 12.586 1.735 1.761 1.776 1.793 1.864 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 67.859 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -10.421 -8.469 2.978 3.089 10.433 3.434 3.895 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 50.675 72 fam Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 17. Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power and Heat ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 11.015 11.015 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.322 1.322 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 0.604 0.631 0.646 0.662 0.734 Fuel Cost 0.246 0.273 0.287 0.304 0.376 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 0.114 0.126 0.133 0.141 0.174 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion 1.952 Residential 1.072 Borough Facilities 0.880 Total Costs With Project 3.662 18.452 16.454 1.785 1.811 1.826 1.843 1.914 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 76.026 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -14.288 12.336 2.928 3.039 10.383 3.384 3.845 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 42.508 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 74 as Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table18. Cost Flows With Project - Eastern Route with DC for Power Only ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 11.015 11.015 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.322 1.322 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 1.948 2.109 2.200 2.301 2.739 Fuel Cost 1.500 1.661 1.752 1.853 2.291 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 1.368 1.515 1.598 1.690 2.089 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion nla Residential n/a Borough Facilities nla Total Costs With Project 3.662 16.500 16.454 2.376 2.537 2.628 2.729 3.167 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 91.377 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -12.336 12.336 2.337 2.313 9.581 2.498 2.592 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 27.157 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 75 am Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 19. Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power and Heat ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 16.024 16.024 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.923 1.923 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 0.604 0.631 0.646 0.662 0.734 Fuel Cost 0.246 0.273 0.287 0.304 0.376 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 0.114 0.126 0.133 0.141 0.174 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion 1.952 Residential 1.072 Borough Facilities 0.880 Total Costs With Project 3.662 24.062 22.064 1.841 1.868 1.883 1.899 1.971 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 87.561 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -19.898 17.946 2.872 2.982 10.327 3.328 3.788 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 30.973 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 76 Offa Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 20. Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with DC for Power Only ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 16.024 16.024 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.923 1.923 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.197 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 1.948 2.109 2.200 2.301 2.739 Fuel Cost 1.500 1.661 1.752 1.853 2.291 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 1.368 1.515 1.598 1.690 2.089 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion nla Residential n/a Borough Facilities nla Total Costs With Project 3.662 22.110 22.064 2.433 2.594 2.685 2.785 3.223 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 102.912 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -17.946 -17.946 2.280 2.256 9.524 2.442 2.536 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 15.622 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 77 Sam Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table 21. Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power and Heat ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 15.715 15.715 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.886 1.886 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 1.013 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 0.732 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 0.604 0.631 0.646 0.662 0.734 Fuel Cost 0.246 0.273 0.287 0.304 0.376 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 0.114 0.126 0.133 0.141 0.174 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion 1.952 Residential 1.072 Borough Facilities 0.880 Total Costs With Project 3.662 23.717 21.718 1.791 1.818 1.833 1.849 1.921 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 85.936 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -19.553 -17.601 2.922 3.032 10.377 3.378 3.838 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 32.598 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 78 Sta Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings Table22. Cost Flows With Project - Western Route with AC for Power Only ($ millions) 2011 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2049 Environmental Studies 0.030 Capital Costs of the Intertie 15.715 15.715 Engineering and Construction Mgt 1.886 1.886 Annual O&M of the Intertie 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 Cost of Purchased Electricity from Barrow 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Power 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 0.281 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cost of Transmission Losses 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Power 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 for Heat 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O&M Costs of Atqasuk Utility and Fuel Facilities 3.632 4.163 4.117 1.948 2.109 2.200 2.301 2.739 Fuel Cost 1.500 1.661 1.752 1.853 2.291 For Power 0.132 0.146 0.154 0.163 0.202 For Heat 1.368 1.515 1.598 1.690 2.089 Non-Fuel O&M Cost 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 0.448 Power Plant 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 0.268 Fuel Operations 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 Capital Cost for Electric Heating Conversion nla Residential nla Borough Facilities nla Total Costs With Project 3.662 21.765 21.718 2.383 2.544 2.635 2.735 3.173 NPV of Costs with Project (2011-2049) 101.287 Total Cost Savings -0.030 -17.601 -17.601 2.330 2.306 9.574 2.492 2.586 NPV of Costs Savings (2011-2049) 17.247 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates 79 taza Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings E Financing Costs The NPV results from the previous section are equivalent to a baseline scenario where the project is financed with 100 percent equity and no debt. In this section we consider four alternative financing schemes with varying debt-equity ratios (see Table 23). For all project alternatives, the annual financing costs are calculated assuming that the intertie capital costs will be financed through bonds. The study assumes a 5 percent interest rate on the annual bond coupon payments plus annual deposits to a reserve fund (earning 3 percent interest) to cover the debt at the end of the 20-year term. As shown in Table, the financing costs for the power transmission line vary depending on the project alternative and depending on the debt to equity ratio. Project alternatives with higher capital costs and larger percentage of debt imply higher financing costs. For example, the annual financing costs of the Eastern Route with AC current are estimated at $659,492 assuming that 50 percent is financed with debt through bonds and 50 percent with equity. Table23. Annual Financing Costs by Project Alternative Eastern Route Western Route AC DC AC DC Power only 50 percent debt 659,492 960,642 1,370,627 1,397,515 70 percent debt 923,289 1,344,899 1,918,878 1,956,520 20 percent debt 263,797 384,257 548,251 559,006 100 percent debt 1,318,984 1,921,284 2,741,255 2,795,029 Power and Heat 50 percent debt 744,614 1,045,765 1,455,750 1,482,637 70 percent debt 1,042,460 1,464,071 2,038,050 2,075,692 20 percent debt 297,846 418,306 582,300 593,055 100 percent debt 1,489,229 2,091,529 2,911,500 2,965,274 Source: Northern Economics estimates. 80 , Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings E.1 Results for NPV of Cost Savings After Financing Costs The previous subsection described the cost saving flows of the project before financing, which are the flows used in most benefit-cost analysis. These flows reflect the expected outcomes of the project itself and contain no information about the way the project might be financed. Any given project can, in theory at least, be financed in many different ways, involving different possible combinations of debt and equity finance, and, different debt arrangements. Different arrangements in rates of interest and/or maturities will generate different financing costs for the project's owners. The NPV of cost saving after debt financing costs determines whether the investor will be willing to participate in the project on the conditions offered to him. The NPV after financing should not determine which project alternative to choose; this decision should be driven by the NPV of cost savings from the project itself calculated in the previous subsection. Otherwise, a “bad” project could look good simply by virtue of its sponsors having access to concessional funding on terms more favorable than what the financial markets offer. Conversely, a “good” project may look “bad” only because its sponsor is unable to secure more favorable loan conditions available elsewhere in the market. For this reason it was important to first consider the project's economic feasibility before financing cost. Figure 5 shows the NPV of cost saving after debt financing costs for the eight project alternatives, considering different percentage of debt. The results show positive measures for all Eastern Route alternatives, indicating that the Eastern intertie would be attractive regardless of the percentage of debt required. The results for the Western Route are mixed; the DC option and the AC option with electric power only would not be attractive under very conservative assumptions (i.e., highest financial costs due to 100 percent of debt required). Figure 5. NPV of Cost Savings with Financing Costs 60 2 2 = a -10 -20 > - © S$” S| *™” S}™} S| X X & Xe oe é w ww & § S£ S& ¥§ & ¥§ & @ RD g RS ge Ff FF eS Fe Ff SF & ee 9? ee @ =20percentdebt @50percentdebt ™®7Opercentdebt 100 percent debt Source: Northern Economics, Inc. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Qa 81 Report of Findings E.2 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was conducted to establish the extent to which the NPV results are sensitive to the values assumed for certain key parameters. The NPV of each of the eight project alternatives are re-estimated by modifying one assumption at a time while maintaining the rest of the assumptions as in the base case. Each of the key assumptions is modified into a favorable and an unfavorable scenario as follows. ¢ Price of diesel fuel landed in Atqasuk: — The favorable scenario for the project consists of high diesel fuel prices. In this sensitivity scenario, fuel prices are assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent. This rate is consistent with the trend in crude oil prices projected by EIA in its high case scenario. — The unfavorable scenario for the project consists of low diesel fuel prices. In this sensitivity scenario, fuel prices are assumed to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent. This rate is consistent with the trend in crude oil prices projected by EIA in its low case scenario. ¢ Electric load requirements: — The favorable scenario for the project consists of a high electric load. In this sensitivity scenario, the quantity of electricity purchased from Barrow is assumed to increase at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. This rate is consistent with the high growth rate population forecast for Atqgasuk (NSB 2011). — The unfavorable scenario for the project consists of a low electric load. In this sensitivity scenario, the quantity of electricity purchased from Barrow is assumed to decrease at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent. This rate is consistent with the low growth rate population forecast for Atqasuk (NSB 2011). ¢ Real discount rate: — The favorable scenario for the project assumes a low discount rate of 2.3 percent (i.e. 0.7 percent points lower than the baseline case). The 2.3 percent corresponds to the real discount rate for projects that last more than 20 years recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A-94. — The unfavorable scenario for the project assumes a high discount rate of 3.7 percent. This rate was chosen to be the symmetric opposite from the unfavorable scenario since it assumes a discount rate 0.7 percent higher than in the base case scenario. Table 24 and Table 25 summarize the results of the sensitivity analysis for the Eastern Route and the Western Route alternatives, respectively. The results indicate a positive NPV of cost savings in all cases under the Eastern Route. Under the Western Route however, the analysis shows negative NPVs under low electric loads for the Power only scenario. ee Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 82 Report of Findings Table 24. Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Eastern Route Alternatives East Route —- AC East Route - DC Power Power and Heat Power Power and Heat Baseline - Mid case for all 35,324,295 50,675,352 27,156,697 42,507,754 Fuel Price - High 63,400,756 97,542,322 55,233,158 89,374,724 Fuel Price - Low 20,895,076 20,133,290 12,727,478 11,965,692 Load - High 19,219,446 36,317,913 11,051,848 28,150,315 Load - Low 13,112,155 26,920,865 4,944,557 18,753,267 Real Discount Rate — High 29,702,117 42,930,688 21,765,906 34,994,477 Real Discount Rate — Low 42,001,258 59,890,001 33,579,242 51,467,985 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates Table 25. Sensitivity Analysis of NPV for Western Route Alternatives West Route - AC Power Baseline - Mid case for all 17,246,575 Fuel Price - High 45,323,035 Fuel Price - Low 2,817,355 Load - High 1,141,726 Load - Low -4,965,565 Real Discount Rate — High 12,034,086 Real Discount Rate — Low 22,394,380 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. estimates FE. Economic Summary Power and Heat West Route - DC Power Power and Heat 32,597,631 15,621,944 30,973,001 79,464,601 43,698,405 77,839,971 2,055,570 1,192,725 430,939 18,240,192 -482,905 16,615,562 8,843,144 -6,590,196 7,218,514 25,262,657 10,531,342 23,759,913 41,372,876 21,717,290 39,606,033 In conclusion, the best alternative appears to be the Eastern Route with AC current used for electric power and heat, both from an economic feasibility point of view and from the project's owner point of view. All the eight project alternatives are economically feasible as they have a positive NPV of cost savings compared to the current diesel-based system for power generation and heating. The intertie project appears to be cost effective as the cost per kWh seems reasonable in magnitude and is significantly lower than the equivalent cost per kWh of the existing system. The proposed project would stabilize the cost of energy in the community of Atqasuk and the North Slope Borough would benefit from potential significant cost savings resulting from the proposed project intertie. Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2014 Report of Findings 9. — Conclusions and Recommendations A. Conclusions The proposed project would stabilize the cost of energy in the community of Atqasuk and the North Slope Borough would benefit from potential significant cost savings resulting from the proposed project intertie. The project appears to be cost effective as the cost per kWh is reasonable in magnitude and is significantly lower than the equivalent cost per kWh of the existing system. All eight project alternatives are economically feasible compared to the current diesel-based system for power generation and heating. The best alternative appears to be the Eastern Route with AC current used for electric power and heat, both from an economic feasibility point of view and from the project's owner point of view. The materials used on the pole line are less susceptible to price increases compared to the material used on the VSM’s on the Western Route. HVDC is more expensive due to the high cost of the converters and technology that is not mature enough for this size of application. Other notable benefits of the power line would be community access to broadband communications and the reduction of emissions from local power generation would be reduced to near zero. * ROW- The most attractive Power Line ROW is Eastern Route 2 (ER2), at approximately 68 miles in length and at an estimated cost of $16.7MM. This route avoids dense avian nesting areas and populations, utilizes existing infrastructure, avoids lakes and significant surface water, avoids existing Native Allotments, ties into the Walapka gas field power plant, is the shortest and most economic route, and minimizes river crossings. This route was conceptualized in a similar manner to the existing ROW's established during oil development on the North Slope. This method was employed due to the successful record of those ROW’s and their minimal impact to the environment. ¢ Geotechnical Issues — The geotechnical review did not reveal any issues than are not manageable given appropriate attention during the preliminary and later engineering phases. ¢ Construction Schedule - The construction execution should occur during the winter season, to prevent damage to the tundra flora, enable ad-freeze pile installation, support access for logistical support without building roads, and minimize impact to migratory avian populations. * AC vs. DC Power Selection — Alternating Current AC has emerged as the power type selection. This option has lower initial capital costs, has greater reliability, better equipment availability at anticipated loads, and has a proven track record for this type of commercial application. ¢ Structures — The selected structure for this application is a 69 kV Transmission Line Structure, the TP- 69. The Typical pole selected, for most of the line, is a 65 foot long Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) pole. This structure consists of two offset high strength fiberglass insulators mounted on either side of the pole and a single vertical high strength insulator mounted at the top of the pole. This structure is capable of supporting transmission lines that approach the structure at small angles, with the provision of a side guy wire retaining anchor. This structure proved to be the most economic alternative compared to other structures since it is easier to transport and install and is less costly than H-frame arrangements. ¢ Environmental Issues - Spectacled and Steller’s Eiders are threatened bird species that populate the area between Barrow and Atkasuk. They are protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Environmental Research & Services (ABR) reviewed available literature and unpublished data available fez Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings on these threatened eider and other species and summarized known and potential impacts of overhead power lines on birds in northern Alaska. Although no eiders have been recorded during mortality monitoring of OH power lines in western Alaska areas where eiders are known to migrate and breed, the power line route, pole spacing, line height and use of bird diverters were applied as mitigation measures. Although the height of power lines may result in different effects on birds depending on flight behavior (e.g., lower local flights versus higher migratory flights) power line height and collision hazard has not been adequately studied in Alaska. ¢ Barrow Gas Fields and BUECI Power Capacity - The power and residential electric heat load requirements will not impact the existing BUECI power system in Barrow nor the flow of natural gas from the Barrow Gas Fields. With the addition of the Atqasuk electrical power load, the Barrow gas consumption would increase by 12,000,000 Cubic Feet or 0.8%. If both the power and heating loads where supplied via the transmission line, gas consumption in Barrow would increase by 44,000,000 Cubic Feet or 3% a year. The increase in gas consumption in Barrow by the addition of the electrical load or both the electrical and heating load from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the overall Barrow Gas Field production rate and reserves. Although there are sufficient reserves in the Barrow Gas Fields to satisfy the demand requirements of Barrow for many decades, additional development wells are now required to stay up with future demand and field pressure declines. In 2010 the North Slope Borough authorized initial funding of the Barrow Gas Fields Well Drilling Program. This Program, estimated at $89 million is planned to start in the fall of 2011 ending in 2012. It will involve the drilling of six horizontal production wells giving the Borough an increase in delivery capacity to meet the projected demand beyond the target year 2026 Currently the Barrow Gas field demand peaks at 7,000 MCF. The current capacity of all the producing wells is 8,750 MCF. The addition of the peak demand of the Atqasuk Electrical Load will increase the peak demand of the Barrow Power Plant by 6% or 210 MCF. Both electrical and heat would increase the Barrow Power Plant by 24% or 840 MCF. The increase in peak gas load in Barrow by the addition of either the electrical peak or both the electrical and heating peaks from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the existing Barrow Gas Field delivery capacity. However the increase of 24% to the peak power kW at the power plant would stretch the power plant firm capacity of 10,000 kW to its limits. ¢ Phased Installation - Based on the demand impact on the BUECI power plant system, the Transmission line should be installed in stages. The first phase would begin in 2013 and would involve connecting the transmission line to the Village power system only. The second phase would begin in 2015 and would involve the conversion of residential homes to electrical space heat. The non-residential space heating load is significant enough, however to impact BUECI's double firm capacity policy during peak periods and would stretch the power plant firm capacity to its limits. Because of this the BUECI power plant may require additional capacity. Additional capacity is currently being considered in the development of their ten-year capital plan for their power system. Future conversion of non-residential space heating loads to electric power can be brought on as the BUECI power facility improves its power capacity. The increase in gas consumption in Barrow by the addition of the electrical load or both the electrical and heating load from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the overall Barrow Gas Field production rate and reserves. The increase in peak gas load in Barrow by the addition of either the electrical peak or both the electrical and heating peaks from Atqasuk would have a minimal impact on the existing Barrow Gas Field delivery capacity. Although there are sufficient reserves in the Barrow Gas Fields to satisfy the demand requirements of Barrow for many decades, additional development wells are required to stay up with future demand and field pressure declines. esa Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 85 Report of Findings B. Recommendations The winning feasibility concept should now enter the preliminary engineering phase. The purpose of the preliminary design is to further define and validate the project. The following steps are recommended: ° Conduct a field reconnaissance trip to evaluate and “field adjust” the selected ROW alignment. * Perform land surveys, soil sampling, river crossing site evaluations, etc. ¢ — Along the proposed alignment routes, the following geotechnical elements should be considered as the preliminary engineering effort develops: — Terrain unit mapping for possible field assessment of shallow subsurface conditions. — Ice jam issues along drainages should be monitored during breakup. — Late spring flyover to identify snow drift zones — Hand thaw probing in late fall should be conducted at potential areas of deeper thaw at proposed pole and guy anchor structures -— Geotechnical explorations should be considered in longer span areas if larger tension loads are expected ° Study and determine power line height vis-a-vis eider collision hazard in Alaska. ° Perform a field test on FRP poles to confirm their suitability for use in the permafrost soils that will be encountered on this project. ° Determine the equipment and installation requirements to convert the heating systems in residences and other buildings in Atqasuk from fuel oil to electric. Because each conversion would be unique in some way, site visits would be required to every heated structure. ¢ Validate the feasibility study result by confirming and adjusting the original assumptions as necessary. . Re-confirm material, labor and equipment pricing. ° Update cost estimates. ¢ Update the economic analysis. ° Investigate financial incentives including grants, low-interest loans, tax credits, depreciation deductions and other types of federal, state or private financial assistance that may be available. Oyama Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 Report of Findings 10. References ABR, Inc.—-Environmental Research and Services. 2003. Update of Yellow-billed Loon registry. Final report, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK. 16 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2006. Our wealth maintained: a strategy for conserving Alaska’s diverse wildlife and fish resources. Juneau, Alaska. Available online: http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/ (accessed May 17, 2010). Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1998. State of Alaska species of special concern (November 27, 1998). Available online: http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/esa/species_concern.php (accessed May 17, 2010). Alaska Shorebird Group (ASG). 2008. Alaska shorebird conservation plan. Version II. Anchorage, AK. Anderson, B. A., and S. M. Murphy. 1988. Lisburne Terrestrial Monitoring Program, 1986 and 1987: the effects of the Lisburne power line on birds. Unpubl. Report prep for ARCO Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by Alaska Biological Research, Inc. Fairbanks, AK. 60pp Anderson, B. A., and B. A. Cooper. 1994. Distribution and abundance of Spectacled Eiders in the Kuparuk and Milne Point oilfields, Alaska, 1993. Report for ARCO Alaska, Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by Alaska Biological Research, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 71 pp. Anderson, B. A., A. A. Stickney, T. Obritschkewitsch, P. E. Seiser, and J. E. Shook. 2009. Avian studies in the Kuparuk Oilfield, Alaska, 2008. Report for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.. 48 pp. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. PIER Final Project Report CEC-500-2006-022. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC, and California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 207. Bart, J., and S. L. Earnst. 2005. Breeding ecology of spectacled eiders, Somateria fischeri, in northern Alaska. Wildfowl 55: 83-98. Bechard, M. J. and T. R. Swem. 2002. Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 641. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (BPIFWG). 1999. Landbird conservation plan for Alaska biogeographic regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. Burgess, R. M., C. B. Johnson, B. E. Lawhead, A. M. Wildman, P. E. Seiser, A. A. Stickney, and J. R. Rose. 2003. Wildlife studies in the CD South study area, 2002. Third annual report. Final report preapred for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. by ABR Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 93 pp. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Special status species list for Alaska. Instruction Memorandum No. AK 2006-03. U.S. Department of the Interior, Anchorage, AK. Available online: http://www.bIm.gov/nhp/efoia/ak/2006im/im06-003.pdf (accessed November 13, 2007). Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. Day, R. 1998. Predator populations and predation intensity on tundra-nesting birds in relation to human development. Report to Northern Alaska Ecological Services, USFS, Fairbanks. ABR, Fairbanks, AK. Day, R. H., A. K. Prichard, L. B. Attanas, J. E. Shook, and B. A. Anderson. 2007. Mortality of birds at power lines: a guide for studies in northern Alaska. Unpublished report prepared for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc.—Environmental Research and Services, Fairbanks, AK. 136 pp. yes Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 87 Report of Findings DOI. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Steller’s eider. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 17. USFWS. Earnst, S. L. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5258. 42 pp. Earnst, S. L., R. M. Platte, and L. Bond. 2006. A landscape-scale model of Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii) habitat preferences in northern Alaska. Hydrobiologia 567: 227-236. Earnst, S. L., R. A. Stehn, R. M. Platte, W. W. Larned, and E. L. Mallek. 2005. Population size and trend of Yellow-billed Loons in northern Alaska. Condor 107:289-—304. Fischer, J. B., and W. W. Larned. 2004. Summer distribution of marine birds in the western Beaufort Sea. Arctic 57: 143-159. Flint, P.L., and M.P. Herzog. 1999. Breeding of Steller’s eiders, Polysticta stelleri, on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 113:306-308. Fredrickson, L.H. 2001. Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 571. The Birds of North America, Philadelphia, PA. Gall, A. E., and R. H. Day. 2007. Movements of birds near a proposed power line corridor and windfarm sites at St. Michael, Alaska, summer and fall 2006. Unpublished report prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 36 pp. Gall, A. E., and R. H. Day. 2008. Monitoring bird interactions and bird flight-diverters along a power line and at a windfarm on Nelson Island, Alaska, 2006-2007. Unpublished report prepared for Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc., Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 23 pp. Johnson, C. B., R. M. Burgess, A. M. Wildman, A. A. Stickney, P. E. Seiser, B. E. Lawhead, T. J. Mabee, J. R. Rose, , and J. E. Shook. 2004. Wildlife studies for the Alpine Satellite Development Project, 2003. Report prepared for ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Anchorage, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 155 pp. Johnson, C. B., J. R. Rose, J. E. Roth, S. F. Schlentner, A.A. Stickney, and A. M. Wildman. 2000. Alpine avian monitoring program, 1999. Final report, prepared for ARCO Alaska, Inc., and Kuukpik Unit Owners, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. Johnson, S. R., and D. R. Herter. 1989. Birds of the Beaufort Sea. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, 1989. 372 pp. Kertell, K. 1991. Disappearance of the Steller’s eider from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Arctic 44:177-187. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 684. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, |. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Conservation for the Americas: the North American water bird conservation plan, Version 1. Water bird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp., M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, |. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2006. Conservation status assessment factor scores and categories of concern for solitary-nesting water bird species. Addendum to Water bird Conservation for the Americas: North American Water bird Conservation Plan, Version 1, April 17, 2006. Water bird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC. pen Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 88 Report of Findings Larned, W., R. Stehn, and R. Platte. 2006. Eider breeding population survey, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Unpublished report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. 56 pp. Larned, W., R. S. Stehn, and R. M. Platte. 2008. Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey. Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Waterfowl Management Branch, Soldotna and Anchorage, Alaska. Lysne, L. A., E. J. Mallek, and C. P. Dau.2004. Nearshore surveys of Alaska’s Arctic Coast, 1999-2003. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. North Slope Borough (NSB). 2010. Restoration and enhancement of habitat adjacent to Barrow II (REHAB ll). Draft report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, by North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management. Private Stewardship Grant FWS #701817G432. 9 pp. Manville, A. M. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science—next steps toward mitigation. Pages 1051-1064 in C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings of the 34d International Partners in Flight Conference , 2002. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. North, M. R. 1994. Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 121. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Obritschkewitsch, T., and P. D. Martin. 2002. Breeding biology of Steller's eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2002. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 33 pp. Obritschkewitsch, T., P. D. Martin, and R. S. Suydam. 2001 Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1999-2000. Technical Report, NAES-TR-01-04, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, and North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK. 113 pp. Obritschkewitsch, T., and R. J. Ritchie. 2009. Steller's Eider survey near Barrow, Alaska, 2008. Report prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, AK, and ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 15 pp. Petersen, M. R., P. L. Flint, W. W. Larned, and J. B. Grand. 1999. Monitoring Beaufort Sea waterfowl and marine birds. Annual Progress Report prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Biological Science Center, Anchorage, AK, 1999. pp. 33. Pitelka, F. A. 1974. An avifaunal review for the Barrow region and the North Slope of arctic Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 6: 161-184. Quakenbush, L., and R. Suydam. 1999. Periodic nonbreeding of Steller’s eiders near Barrow, Alaska, with speculation on possible causes. Pages 34-40 in R.|. Goodie, M.R. Petersen, and G.J. Robertson, editors. Behavior and ecology of sea ducks. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 100. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Quakenbush, L., R. Suydam, and T. Obritschkewitsch. 2000. Habitat use by Steller's Eiders during the breeding season near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1996. Unpublished report by University of Alaska Fairbanks, North Slope Borough, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK. 45 pp. Quakenbush, L. T., R. S. Suydam, K. M. Fluetsch, and C. L. Donaldson. 1995. Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1994. Technical Report NAES-TR-95-03, by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Alaska Ecological Services, Fairbanks, AK, and North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK. 53 pp. Quakenbush, L., R. H. Day, B. A. Anderson, F. A. Pitelka, B. J. McCaffrey. 2002. Historical and present breeding season distribution of Steller’s Eiders in Alaska. Western Birds 33: 99-120. Quakenbush, L., R. Suydam, T, Obritschkewitsch, and M. Deering. 2004. Breeding Biology of Steller’s Eiders (Polysticta stelleri) near Barrow, Alaska, 1991-1999. Arctic 57: 166-182. fiom Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 89 Report of Findings Reed, A., D. H. Ward, D. V. Derksen and J. S. Sedinger. 1998. Brant (Branta bernicla). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., The Birds of North America, No. 337. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Ritchie, R. J. 1996. Aerial surveys for nesting and brood-rearing Brant and other geese, Kasegaluk Lagoon to Fish Creek, Alaska, 1995. Unpublished report for North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management, Barrow, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 28 pp. Ritchie, R. J. 1991. Effects of oil development on providing nesting opportunities for Gyrfalcons and Rough- legged Hawks in northern Alaska. Condor 93: 180-184. Ritchie, R. J., R. M. Burgess, and R. S. Suydam. 2000. Status and nesting distribution of Lesser Snow Geese, Chen caerulescens caerulescens, and Brant, Branta bernicla nigricans, on the western Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 114: 395-404. Ritchie, R. J., and J. G. King. 2004. Steller’s Eider surveys near Barrow, Alaska, 2004. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, AK; North Slope Borough, Barrow, AK; and Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 15 pp. Ritchie, R. J., A. M. Wildman, and D. A. Yokel. 2003. Aerial Surveys of Cliff-nesting Raptors in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, 1999, with comparisons to 1977. Technical Note 413. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. BLM/AK.ST-03/016+6501+023. 66 pp. Rojek, N. A., and P. D. Martin. 2003. Breeding biology of Steller's Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2003. Technical Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Office, Fairbanks, AK. 42 pp. Rojek, N. A. 2008. Breeding biology of Steller’s Eiders nesting near Barrow, Alaska, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Fairbanks, AK. Technical Report. 45 pp. Schick, C. T., and W. A. Davis. 2008. Wildlife habitat mapping and evaluation of habitat use by wildlife at the Stewart River Training Area, Alaska. Final Report, prepared for Alaska Army National Guard, Fort Richardson, AK, by ABR, Inc., Anchorage, AK. 54 pp. Schick, C. T., G. V. Frost, and R. J. Ritchie. 2004. Spectacled and Steller’s eiders surveys and habitat mapping at U. S. Air Force radar sites in northern Alaska, 2003. Prepared for U. S. Air Force, 611th Civil Engineering Squadron, Environmental Planning, Elmendorf AFB, AK, by ABR, Inc. Environmental Research & Services, Fairbanks, AK. 56 pp. Schoen, J., and S. Senner. 2002. Alaska’s Western Arctic: A summary and synthesis of resources. Unpublished report by Audubon Alaska, Anchorage, AK. (Available on CD). Shook, J., R. H. Day, J. Parrett, A. Prichard, and B. Ritchie. 2009. Monitoring interactions of birds with the northern Intertie Power line, Interior Alaska, 2004—2006. Unpublished Report prepared for Golden Valley Electric Association and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK. 71 pp. Stehn, R. A., C. P. Dau, B. Conant, and W. |. Butler, Jr. 1993. Decline of Spectacled Eiders nesting in western Alaska. Arctic 46: 264-277. Stickney, A. A., B. A. Anderson, T. Obritschkewitsch, P. E. Seiser, and J. E. Shook. 2010. Avian studies in the Kuparuk Oilfield, Alaska, 2009. Report for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., and the Kuparuk River Unit, Anchorage, AK, by ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, AK.. 41 pp. Troy Ecological Research Associates (TERA). 2003. Molt migration of Spectacled Eiders in Beaufort Sea region. Report for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, by Troy Ecological Research Associates, Anchorage, AK. 17 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS). 1996. Spectacled Eider recovery plan. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, 1996. 157 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Steller’s Eider recovery plan. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, AK. 27 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Alaska’s threatened and endangered species. Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office, Anchorage, Alaska. yf Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study September 15, 2011 LIST OF MATERIALS DESCRIPTION ITEM] DET. | CODE No. ITWSULATOR. | INSULATOR VERTICAL POST .W/CLAMPEHDWR NOTES: 1, Metal shims should be to adjust _post_insulator when brackets are located on uneven pole surfaces. 2. Strength limitations of insulator posts: + mm load IS « 8: RSKIMR VETS food” han Ube: (Loads a and b are simultaneous) 3. Drawing TE-2 gives guidance to subassembly alternatives. » p ag serge eras 3 staking sheets.” BREE ano | | 1 { { | | { { | { ! { | ( ! & ————— L | TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURE TANGENT HORIZONTAL LINE POST (69_kv MAXIMUM) SadAL FaNLONULS T LIGGHXa s— | ee LoD lL ee eee ee ae eae ee | ' 1 1 | | | ! ! | | 1 | | ' 1 1 | { 1 | | u F ! 1 ' ; 22 IIo Fira a LIST OF MATERIALS rew|_oex_| cove we. | = DESCRIPTION BEE X 8 3/8" x 22°-0 Grounding Assembly Plate, X-Arm Reinforcing 3/4" Bolt, Machine. by req'd length Washer, Flat, 4"sq.x 3/16", 13/16" hole 13/4" Locknut, MF Type 1/2" Locknut, MF Typ INSULATOR ASSEMBLY, TANGENT OHGW ASSEMBLY. TANGENT FELT ee LT Felsl=lelelel lol l+fs E + Maximum vertical load at any conductor position is iimited to 5000 Ibs. Strenotn tpitat ions of overhead ground wire support are given on 3. Drawing TE-1 gives guidance to subassembly alternatives. The following materials are to be specified on plan and profile drawings: stak sheets: S, POLE. GROUND . ¥> ANY ‘ABBErt ROUNDING oR POLE FOONDATION DATS TRANSMISSION LINE STRUCTURE TANGENT H- FRAME (69 kV MAXIMUM) 125° 1922 1152 110° 195° 100° 95° 90° ase 80° 75° 70° 65° [fe 6 Sean = - = = pen ; ne ie 30 , \ E> ag \ ’ ! Falls oy ' teat Fang Williston: ee atone 1 45° 45 ‘ana I ‘a NSS 0Ula— ne 340 Lake Superior \ \ LS oro + e Matre "26 ismarck—— Far h, iting Duluth. 2 Mug j= == / . 40, Y let Morte a Minneapots: ee ms ‘40: +5 — Green Bay: oY | tell, Rand Cy) Huron Evrokg —- Lander: wm e aot io J Mem a | om = 140 ae oe uc t Dubug Es a heyenhe, jes Moines eae en.) righ "9 = st Lake Cuyf TP, fl 250. ancoln /* 50 North Platte om 2 fan A Tonop, t aa 4 i‘ 2 mat Lineal pert — eS a { aL hs Y Kansas City St Louis 364 eS Be Cay { . See o Sp ee toe hf ™ os S > 1 uae S . ' Nashwille on s \ = ‘ Mempts, wr iv —_ — 5 1 pas aE T Vagara Scams 7°60 ' ee =f fav minghonid cnariestony x, LEGEND 7 Fort Worth -- 0 t =a 20 40 Pensacoiy Hapstoh eens erie aH ‘Det Rio: | 710 ' g0 ss fi 40-60 fan Antopo 60 \ TampaRy ‘50 100 eo-a0 25) 40 25" 30 30 Mame 100 9 80 73 <a — Gur oF MEXICO | 20° 3 OVER 100 , 10. —t—, ——— 4. , Give By. | J Henotte Gal dees teen oe 0 $0 1 200 40 wn! somes i ALES FOUL STANDARO PARALLELS ps ANCA PROLEC TiOn 29 AND 45 To 7 7 Ta we “LESS THAN 1 IN 2 YEARS | 15" 110" 705° 30" 35" 30" 75 SUALANVaUVd VIVO WAHLVAM ¢ LIGGHXa Isokeraunic Levels for the United States Reproduced from IEEE Std. 62.41-1991, IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Voltages in Low-Voltage AC Power Circuits, Copyright @1991 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., with permission of the IEEE. Annual Extreme Wind in mph 30 feet Above Ground 10 Year Mean Recurrence Interval “GLNOD) 7 LIGA Xa FAG, 2. ~ ISOTACH 9.10 QUANTILES, IN MILSS PER HOUR, ANNUAL EXTRE/AE-MILE 30 FT ABOVE GROUND, 10-YR MEAN RECURRENCE INTERVAL, Reprinted from page 6 of Conference Preprint 431 - "New Distribution of Extreme Winds in the United States” by H.C.S, Thom ASCE re February 6-9, 1967 Annual Extreme Wind in mph 30 feet Above Ground 100 Year Mean Recurrence Interval FIG. 5, - ISOTACH 0.02 QUANTILES, 1N MILES PER HOUR. ANNUAL EXTREME -MILE 30 a ABOVE GROUND, 100-YR MEAN RECURRENCE INTERVAL, Reprinted from page 9 of Conference Preprint 431 - "New Lie..ibusion of Extceme Wiads in the Uniced States oy H.C.S, Thom ASCE o+ February 6-9, 1967 “GINO)D) T LIGTHXa “GINOD) @ LIST Xa inear interpolation between wind speed contours is acceptable. 3. Caution inthe use of wind speed contours in mountainous regions of Alaskais advised. _l \ = = = — Basic Wind Speed (mph) Reproduced from ANSI/ASCE Standard 7-88, ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Copyright 1990, with permission of ASCE. EXHIBIT 2 (CONTD. Wind at Barrow Alaska - Data sources Hourly data from the NWS (1945 - 2002). When the data was collected with greater frequency, only one observation was taken per hour. Daily statistics - To summarize the hourly data on a daily basis, the following statistics were used. Maximum daily wind-speed 75th percentile daily wind-speed. Since periods with sustained winds appear to cause the greatest damage, this was done to capture days with a greater duration of high winds. Wind Speed Barrow, Alaska 75" Percentile Daily Wind speed — max monthly values 75th Quantile Daily Values 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 EXHIBIT 3 - Recommended RUS Conductor Tension TABLE 9-2 RECOMMENDED REA CONDUCTOR AND OVERHEAD GROUND WIRE TENSION AND TEMPERATURE LIMITS* EXHIBIT 4 AEOLIAN VIBRATION A. TP-69 STRUCTURE with 700 RS PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 1:21:29 AM Sunday, October 10, 2010 Sakata Engineering Services Project Name: 'h:\barrow-atgasuk line asrc\sag and tension\barrow_atgasuk.loa' Criteria notes: Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis "B! # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (£E) 2 L 700.0 16.65 0. 2 i 700.0 16.65 0. 3 a 700.0 16.65 0 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) Led 221 3:1 WNR PRE ° o rs i) a ° Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Left Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis ‘B* # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (fit) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (ft) (EE) 1 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 1 700.0 16.65 0. 1 700.0 16.65 0. Wn ww ab nN N wo a 0) oo Re ob Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) Let 232 Si 0.81 4.52 1.89 WNH Ree ° «© f 4.52 1.89 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis “BD! # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (£t) (ft) (deg) (deg) (£t) (it) (£t) 2 Z 700.0 16.65 O.0 =22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 2 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 3 x 700.0 16.65 0.0 -22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) Tea 2:1 Sek ats J, 0.04 4.99 2:1 0.04 2.60 3:1 4.99 2.60 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Left Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis EBr # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (£t) (ft) (£t) = x 700.0 16.65 0 6.9 4.9 1.4 2 1 700.0 16.65 0.0 22.9 6.9 4.9 1.4 3 if 700.0 16.65 0.0 6.9 4.9 1.4 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) sce 23 Se a cah 0.81 4.52 aa 0.81 1.89 3 il 4.52 1.89 B. TH~1 STRUCTURE with 1200 FT RS PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 1:42:10 AM Sunday, October 10, 2010 Sakata Engineering Services Project Name: 'h:\barrow-atqasuk line asrc\sag and tension\barrow_atqasuk.loa' Criteria notes: Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis ‘Be # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (£t) (£t) (ft) a. 1 1200.0 46.40 QO. . 8.1 3.5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 -22.9 17.5 8.1 ind 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 8.1 3.5 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) ais. 21 3:1 1:1 2.24 12.64 234. 2.24 2.24 oe 12.64 2.24 Double loop galloping with wire spacing at one quarter of span between structures # and # with wind from Left Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis “BE # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (£t) (ft) (deg) (deg) (£t) (£t) (£t) i 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22-9 17.5 8.1 3.5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22.9 17.5 8.1 30) 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 2259 ives 8.1 Sao Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) Iza Ze Sek 1 2.24 12.64 ot 2.24 2.24 1 12.64 ZeoA Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Right Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis oy # # Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (ft) (ft) (deg) (deg) (EE) (ft) (£t) al! 1 1200.0 46.40 0. 0) 221.9 LT. 9) 8.1 3.5 2 1 1200.0 46.40 0-0) =225.9 ayieo) 8.1 8.5 3 2) |21200.10 46.40 0.0 =22.9 175 8.1 seo Minimum clearances between ellipses ellipses intersect) isi 2 si ed 2.24 Zen 2.24 sca 12.64 2.24 Sea. 12.64 2.24 (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means Double loop galloping with wire spacing at three quarters of span between structures # and # with wind from Left Structure Ahead Mid Insul Span Major Minor Dist. Set Phase Span Span Swing Swing Axis Axis EBe # = Len Sag Angle Angle Len. Len. Len. (Ee) (ft) (deg) (deg) (ft) (EC) (ft) 1 1 1200.0 46.40 0.0 22.9 1.9 8.1 35 i 1 1200.0 46.40 oO. 22.9 a het) 8.1 3-5 3 1 1200.0 46.40 0 22.9 17.5 8.1 355 Minimum clearances between ellipses (Set:Phase) (0 clearance means ellipses intersect) Lisp 2:1 St Al; 2.24 12.64 1 2.24 2.24 1 12.64 2.24 EXHIBIT 5 CONDUCTOR SAG AND TENSIONS PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 8:08:35 AM Saturday, September 25, 2010 Sakata Engineering Services Project Name: 'g:\plscad\examples\projects\barrow_atqasuk.LOA' Criteria notes: Cable 'c:\pls cadd files\southwire\acss_aw\hawk_acss_aw.wir', Ruling span (ft) 700 Sagging data: Catenary (ft) 7372.98 Condition I Temperature (deg F) 60.0001 Weather case for final after creep BARE 60 Weather case for final after load NESC HEAVY Ruling Span Sag Tension Report ---Weather Case-- | --Cable Load-- | ----R.S. Initial Cond.--- | --~--- R.S. Final Cond.---- | ----- R.S. Final Cond.---- | I | eae After Creep------~ | sseosnne, After Load------- Il # Description | Hor. Vert Res. | Max. Hori. % R.S. | Max. Hori. % R.S. | Max. Hori. % R.s. | | onee- Load-~--- |Tens. Tens. UL c Sag |Tens. Tens. UL c Sag |Tens. Tens. UL c Sag | | ~--(1bs/£t)-~- | (lbs) (lbs) (ft) (ft) | (lbs) (1bs) (ft) (£t) | (lbs) (lbs) (ft) (£t) | 1 NESC HEAVY 0.62 1.47 1.89 7004 6973 47 3682 16.65 7004 6973 47 3682 16.65 7004 6973 47 3682 16.65 2 COLD -20 0.00 0,62 0.62 5440 5435 37 8712 7.03 5440 5435 37 8712 7.03 3777 3771 25 6044 10.14 3 BARE 0 0.00 0.62 0.62 5237 5233 35 8387 7.30 5237 5233 35 8387 7.30 3392 3385 23 5425 11.29 4 BARE 30 0.00 0.62 0.62 4929 4924 33 7892 7.76 4929 4924 33 7892 7.76 2943 2935 20 4704 13.03 5 BARE 60 0.00 0.62 0.62 4605 4600 31 7373 8.31 4605 4600 31 7373 8.31 2607 2598 17 4164 14.72 6 BARE 90 0.00 0.62 0.62 4267 4261 29 6830 8.97 3856 3850 26 6171 9.93 2351 2341 16 3752 16.34 7 BARE 120 0.00 0.62 0.62 3915 3909 26 6265 9.78 3287 3280 22 5257 11.66 2151 2140 14 3429 17.88 8 BARE 167 0.00 0.62 0.62 3363 3355 23 5378 11.39 2674 2665 18 4272 14.35 1912 1899 13 3044 20.14 9 HOT 212 0.00 0.62 0.62 2888 2879 19 4615 13.28 2290 2280 15 3654 16.77 1742 1728 12 2770 22.14 Tension Distribution in Inner and Outer Materials ---Weather Case-~ | --Initial Condition- | --Final After Creep- | --Final After Load-- | | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | # Description | | | { | Total Core Outer | Total Core Outer | Total Core Outer | 1 NESC HEAVY 6973 4579 2394 6973 4579 2394 6973 4579 2394 2 COLD -20 5435 3173 2262 5435 3173 2262 3771 3448 322 3 BARE 0 5233 3010 2223 5233 3010 2223 3385 3433 -48 4 BARE 30 4924 2774 2150 4924 2774 2150 Z935 3450 ~515 5 BARE 60 4600 2549 2051 4600 2549 2051 2598 3503 -905 6 BARE 90 4261 2344 1917 3850 2471 1379 2341 3582 -1241 7 BARE 120 3909 2166 1743 3280 2450 830 2140 3678 -1538 8 BARE 167 3355 1958 1397 2665 2506 159 1899 S853 =1953 9 HOT 212 2879 1860 1020 2280 2625 -345 1728 4038 -2310 EXHIBIT 5 (CONT. CONDUCTOR SAG AND TENSIONS PLS-CADD Version 6.33L 1:25:47 PM Saturday, October 09, 2010 Sakata Engineering Services Project Name: 'h:\barrow-atqasuk line asrc\sag and tension\barrow_atqasuk.loa' Criteria notes: Cable 'c:\pls cadd files\southwire\acss_aw\hawk_acss_aw.wir', Ruling span (ft) 1200 Sagging data: Catenary (ft) 5569.8 Condition I Temperature (deg F) 60 Weather case for final after creep BARE 60 Weather case for final after load NESC HEAVY Ruling Span Sag Tension Report ---Weather Case-- | --Cable Load-- | ----R.S. Initial Cond.--- | | | | # Description | Hor. Vert Res. | Max. Hori. % R.S. | Max. Hori. % R.S. | Max. Hori. % R.S. | | ----- Load---~- |Tens. Tens. UL Cc Sag |Tens. Tens. UL Cc Sag |Tens. Tens. UL c Sag | | ---(1bs/f£t)~-- | (lbs) (lbs) (£t) (£t) | (1bs) (lbs) (ft) (ft) | (lbs) (lbs) (ft) (ft) | 1 NESC HEAVY 0.62 1.47 1.89 7448 7360 50 3887 46.40 7448 7360 50 3887 46.40 7448 7360 50 3887 46.40 2 COLD -20 0.00 0.62 0.62 3969 3952 27 6334 28.44 3969 3952 27 6334 28.44 2944 2920 20 4679 38.52 3 BARE 0 0.00 0.62 0.62 3846 3828 26 6135 29.36 3846 3828 26 6135 29.36 2844 2819 19 4518 39.90 4 BARE 30 0.00 0.62 0.62 3666 3647 25 5846 30.82 3666 3647 25 5846 30.82 2711 2685 18 4303 41.90 5 BARE 60 0.00 0.62 0.62 3495 3474 23 5569 32.35 3495 3474 23 5569 32.35 2594 2567 17 4114 43.83 6 BARE 90 0.00 0.62 0.62 3332 3311 22 5306 33.96 3269 3248 22 5205 34.62 2491 2462 17 3947 45.70 7 BARE 120 0.00 0.62 0.62 3179 3157 21 5060 35.62 3078 3055 21 4897 36.81 2398 2368 16 3796 47.51 8 BARE 167 0.00 0.62 0.62 2960 2937 20 4707 38.29 2832 2807 19 4499 40.07 2271 2240 15 3590 50.25 9 HOT 212 0.00 0.62 0.62 2777 2752 19 4410 40.88 2640 2613 18 4189 43.04 2167 2134 15 3420 52.76 Tension Distribution in Inner and Outer Materials ---Weather Case-- | --Initial Condition- | --Final After Creep- | --Final After Load-- | | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | Horiz. Tension (lbs) | # Description | | I | { Total Core Outer | Total Core Outer | Total Core Outer | WDMIDTLWNPK S ico] a ° w rs ae) os Rh ~ no oO b a = o w » x es Bb ~ nN oO Rh x a @ nN a oy si w ~ N ix) ‘ Be B uo a EXHIBIT 6 CONDUCTOR LOADING AND OVERLOAD FACTOR TABLE 11-3 REA GRADE B (NEW CONSTRUCTION) RECOMMENDED OVERLOAD CAPACITY FACTORS TO BE APPLIED TO NESC LOADING DISTRICTS LOADS EXHIBIT 7 - CONDUCTOR GROUND CLEARANCES TABLE 4-1 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF CONDUCTORS-TO-GROUND IN METERS (FEET) TABLE 4-1 (CONT.) RECOMMENDED MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF CONDUCTORS-TO-GROUND IN METERS (FEET) EXHIBIT 8 LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 34.5 KV AC Basis - Information from the following EDSA Report : Line Length - 75 Miles @ 2 Mw Load. Using 477 MCM wire produce the following: 2.8% losses and 4.66% voltage drop. Project No. EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 : Page 3 Project Name: Date E Title Time Drawing No. : Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: barrow test Check by : Scenario Ee Date System Information Base KVA = 100000 (kva) Frequency = 60 (HZ) Unit System = U.S. Standard MaxIterations = 1000 Error Tolerance 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 (pu), ©.0100 (%) # of Buses entered = 2 § of Active Buses = 2 # of Swing Buses = 1 # of Generators = 0 # of Loads = iL # of Shunts = 9 # of Branches entered = uf # of Transformers 0 # of Reactors = 0 # of C.B. = 0 Abbreviations 2-W xfmr = 2-winding transformer None = None contributing 3-W xfmr 3-winding transformer P_Load = Constant power load Autoxfmr = Autotransformer PhS xfmr = Phase-Shift Transformer DReactor = Duplex Reactor SeriesC = Series Capacitor F_Load Functional load Shuntc = Shunt Capacitor FeederM = Feeder in Magnetic Conduit ShuntR = Shunt Reactor Gen = Generator 2_Load = Constant impedance load I_Load = Constant current load Ref °C = Reference Temperature Power Flow By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 3 EXHIBIT 8 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 34.5 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70 Project No. : Page a2 Project Name: Date : 10/06/2010 Title : Time >: 04:38:50 am Drawing No. : Company : Revision No Engineer : Jobfile Name: barrow test Check by : Scenario Se Date : Summary of Total Generation and Demand P(KW) Q(KVAR} S(KVA) PE(%) Swing Bus(es): 2055.590 187.805 2064.152 99.59 Generators e 0,000 9.000 0.000 0.00 Shunt FE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Static Load : 2000.000 1000.000 2236.068 89.44 Motor Load 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.00 Total Loss : 52.921 -806.641 Mismatch 2 2.670 -5.555 Bus Name Type PB Q Cc (KW) {KVAR) (KVAR) Barrow Swing 34500 Atqasuk P_Load 34500 Total Generating Sources Total Bus Loads -2000 -1600 Branch Data Branch Name c# Type Library CodeName R x B/2 {Ohms } (Ohms ) (Mhos) 101001 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 133503 44.0933 0.000432 40.0 EXHIBIT 8 (CONT. LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 34.5 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70 Project No. : Page 24 Project Name: Date : 10/06/2010 Title : Time : 04:38:50 am Drawing No. : Company =: Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: barrow test Check by : Scenario tl Date : Bus Voltage Results Bus Name (KW) Barrow Swing 34500 0.00 0.0 2056 188 99 Atqasuk P_Load 32892 4 1 -2000 -1000 89. Branch Name cH -> To Flow To -> From Flow (KVAR) (KW) (KVAR) 101061 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 2056 188 -2003 -994 53 -807 EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5 Project No. : Page pat Project Name: Date 10/06/2010 Title 3 Time 04:38:50 am Drawing No. : Company =: Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: barrow test Check by : Scenario ist at | ae Date Branch Current Flow Values Branch Name cH Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading {A) {Deg} {A) (%) 101001 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 35 =Se2 530 6% EXHIBIT 9 LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page A Project Name: Date 01/09/2011 Title 3 Time : 06:00:27 pm Drawing No. : Company Revision No.: Engineer Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69._ 10-22-10 Check by Scenario i= Date : System Information Base KVA = 100000 (kva) Frequency = 60 (HZ) Unit System = U.S. Standard MaxIterations = 1000 Error Tolerance = 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 (pu), 0.0100 (%) # of Buses entered = 5 # of Active Buses 4 # of Swing Buses = 1 # of Generators 9 # of Loads 7 2 # of Shunts = 9 # of Branches entered 4 # of Transformers 1 # of Reactors = ° # of C.B. = Oo 2-W xfmr = 2-winding transformer None = None contributing 3-W xfmr = 3-winding transformer P_Load = Constant power load Autoximr = Autotransformer PhS xfmr = Phase-Shift Transformer DReactor = Duplex Reactor SeriesC = Series Capacitor F_Load = Functional load Shuntc Shunt Capacitor FeederM = Feeder in Magnetic Conduit ShuntR Shunt Reactor Gen Generator 2_Load Constant impedance load I_Load = Constant current load Ref °C = Reference Temperature Power Flow By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 4 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page amg Project Name: Date : 01/09/2011 Title e Time : 06:00:27 pm Drawing No. : Company : Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69. 10-22-10 Check by : Scenario .f Date : Summary of Total Generation and Demand P(KW) Q(KVAR) S(KVA) PF(%) Swing Bus(es): 5100.561 -797.748 5162.570 98.80 Generators : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Shunt 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Static Load =: 5000.000 2500.000 $590.170 89.44 Motor Load 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 Total Loss : 99.823 -3314.608 Mismatch : 0.739 16.860 Bus Name Type eB Q ic. (KW) (KVAR) ({KVAR) Barrow Swing 4160 0 0 0 Atqasuk P_Load 69000 0 -2000 -1000 Junction None 69000 ° 9 O Wainwright P_Load 63000 0 -3000 -1500 Total Generating Sources 0 oO 0 Total Bus Loads -5000 -2500 Branch Data Branch Name cH Type Library CodeName R x B/2 (Ohms ) (Ohms ) (Mhos) Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 6.2937 20.7868 0.000102 Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 7.0566 23.3064 0.000114 Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 12.0153 39.6840 0.000194 Transformer & Line Voltage Regulator Data Branch Name cH x F_Tap T_Tap {$) {PU) (PU) Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 0.6000 6.9700 1.000 1.000 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page : 3 Project Name: Date : 01/09/2011 Title g Time : 06:00:27 pm Drawing No. : Company : Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69. 10-22-10 Check by : Scenario . 2 = Date a Bus Voltage Results Bus Name Type Vv DROP ANG = Q PE (VOLTS) (%) (DEG) (KW) (KVAR) (%) Barrow Swing 4160 -0.00 0.0 5101 -798 98.80 Atqasuk P_Load 68897 O.1S 24.0 -2000 -1000 89.44 Junction None 69239 -0.35 24.4 5032 251 99.88 Wainwright P_Load 68345 O95 23.1 -3000 -1500 89.44 Branch Power Flow Values Branch Name c# Type Library CodeName From -> To Flow To -> From Flow Losses (KW) (KVAR) (KW) (KVAR) (KW) (KVAR) Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 2006 51 -2001 -1004 6 - 953 Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 5069 —t173 -5031 200 38 = 973 Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 3025) -254 -3001 -1507 24 = 1760 Barrow Ximr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 5101 -798 -5069 1189 32 aye. Branch Current Flow Values Branch Name CH Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading (A) (Deg) (A) (3) Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 ad 23.0 590 3 Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 43 38.9 590 7% Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 25 2.2 590 4% Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 716 8.9 oltage Regulator Loadin Branch Name CH Type Library CodeName Capacity Loading F_Tap T_Tap (KVA) (KVA) (8) (PU) (PU) Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 5000-3-L 6100 5163 85% 1.000 1.000 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC EDSA Advanced Power Flow Program V5.70.00 Project No. : Page 21 Project Name: Date : 01/11/2011 Title : Time : 01:49:38 am Drawing No. : Company : Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69. 10-22-10 Check by Scenario 2: 1- Date System Information Base KVA = 100000 (kva) Frequency = 60 (HZ) Unit System = U.S. Standard MaxIterations = 1000 Error Tolerance 10.000 (kva), 0.000100 (pu), 0.0100 (%) # of Buses entered = 5 # of Active Buses = 4 # of Swing Buses = 1 # of Generators = 0 # of Loads = 2 # of Shunts = oO # of Branches entered = 4 # of Transformers = 1 # of Reactors = 0 # of C.B. = 0 Abbreviations 2-W xfmr = 2-winding transformer None = None contributing 3-wW xfmr = 3-winding transformer P_Load = Constant power load Autoxfmr = Autotransformer Phs xfmr = Phase-Shift Transformer DReactor = Duplex Reactor SeriesC = Series Capacitor F_Load = Functional load Shuntc = Shunt Capacitor FeederM = Feeder in Magnetic Conduit ShuntR = Shunt Reactor Gen = Generator Z_Load = Constant impedance load I_Load = Constant current load Ref °C = Reference Temperature Power Flow By Fast Decoupled CONVERGED Iteration: 5 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC Project No. Project Name Title Drawing No. Revision No Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w 69. 10-22-10 Check by Scenario += Swing Bus(es): Generators : Shunt 2 Static Load Motor Load Total Loss : Mismatch e Barrow Atqasuk Junction Wainwright Summary of T Page 12 Date : 01/11/20 Time s: 01:49:38 Company : Engineer Date otal Generation and Demand P (Kw) 8262.924 0.000 0.000 8000.000 0.000 261.396 Swing P_Load None P_Load Total Generating Sources Total Bus Loads Branch Name Q(KVAR) S (KVA) 1417.423 8383.615 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4000.000 8944.272 0.000 0.000 -2588.178 5.601 Bus Data ibe am PF(%) 98.56 0.00 0.00 89.44 0.00 B/2 Ref °C (Mhos) Atqasuk Fdr Junction Fdr Wainwright Fdr Branch Name 1 Feeder 1 Feeder 1 Feeder 4160 0 -0 69000 0 -2000 =%9) 69000 0 =0 69000 0 -6000 -30 0 -8000 -40 Branch Data Library CodeName R x (Ohms } (Ohms } ACSR 477-4 .69 6.2937 20.7868 ACSR 477-4.69 z 23.3064 ACSR 477-4.69 12.0153 39.6840 Transformer & Line Voltage Regulator Data 0.000102 40.0 -000114 40.0 0.000194 40.0 x F_Tap T_Tap (%) (PU) (BU) 1 2-w xfmr 7500-3-L 0.5700 Barrow Xfmr 7.4700 1.000 1.050 EXHIBIT 9 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 69 KV AC Project No. : Page 23 Project Name: Date : 01/11/2011 Title : Time : 01:49:38 am Drawing No. : Company : Revision No.: Engineer : Jobfile Name: brw to atq_awi_w_69. 10-22-10 Check by : Scenario ie ee Date > Bus Name Type Vv DROP ANG P Q PF (VOLTS) (%) (DEG) (KW) (KVAR) (8) Barrow Swing 4160 -0.00 0.0 8263 1417 98.56 Atqasuk P_Load 69691 -1.00 22.7 -2000 -1000 89.44 Junction None 70025 -1.49 23.2 8117 1536 98.26 Wainwright P_Load 67649 1.96 20.6 -6000 -3000 89.44 Branch Power Flow Values Branch Name cH Type Library CodeName From -> To Flow To -> From Flow Losses (KW) (KVAR} KW) {KVAR) (KW) (KVAR} Ataqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 2007 25 -2001 -1001 & = 976 Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 8208 716 —BiL2 -1538 96 - 921 Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 6111 1511 -6004 -3002 106 = 1491 Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L 8263 1417 -8210 =—7L) Ss 700 Branch Current Flow Values Branch Name C# Type Library CodeName Current Angle Ampacity Loading (A) (Deg) (A) (%) Atqasuk Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 alg 22.4 590 3% Junction Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 67 20.3 590 11% Wainwright Fdr 1 Feeder ACSR 477-4.69 52 9.3 590 9% Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L 1164 “957 Branch Name CH Type Library CodeName Capacity Loading F_Tap T_Tap (KVA) (KVA) (%) (PU) (PU) Barrow Xfmr 1 2-W xfmr 7500-3-L 9150 8384 92% 1.000 1.050 BIT 10 LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 30 KV_DC EDSA DC Load Flow Program V6.10.0 Project No. Project Name Title Drawing No. Revision No. Jobfile Name: barrow to atqasuk dc Number of Buses Number of Branches Number of Rectifiers Number of Inverters Number of Batteries Number of Dc/Dc Converters BaseKW Default voltage Periods Tolerance Iterations Low voltage limit °C Batt D switch De Gen De/de F_Load I_Load Invert LF Ref Mstart tobi ded bao See) IE) a) 5) Ce? ia) hs <a: <9] “00-8 Page Date Time Company Engineer Check by Date System Information 00 kw 50 v RNROOOORN 0 ik 08/11/2010 08:27:44 pm 0.00010 pu 0.010 kw 0.010 % 20000 90 % Abbreviations Temperature in °C Battery Dynamic switch De generator De/de converter Functional load Constant I Inverter Load flow reference Motor starting load None P_Load Rect Res RX1 RX2 SplitL splitu Z_Load horde nnoe None contributing Constant P load Rectifier Resistence Double circuit resistence Single circuit resistance Battery split lower bus Battery split upper bus Constant Z load = EXHIBIT 10 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 30 KV_DC Bus Input Data # Bus Name emv RatedV Lo. ) 1 101010 (period: 1) 30000 2 LOL0TS P_Load 30000 30000 (period: 1) 2000.00 (Feeder Resistances in editor are at 25.0 °C) # Branch Name Description RX2(ohms) LF Ref °C 1 101013 34.4785 90.0 7 # Branch Name From Bus Name To Bus Name 1 101013 101010 101013 DC Load Flow Results Period : 1 DC load flow converged ! Max mismatch : 0.000001 pu 0.000 kw at bus: 101013 Total time : 30.00 min Time for the period: 30.00 min Bus Result in Period 1 # Bus Name Type Vv Vv Load x LowVFlag (v) (pu) (kw) (A) 1 101010 2 101013 ter 1 101013 De Gen 30000.0 1.0000 2182.48 12205 P_Load 27491.7 0.9164 2000.00 72.78 Loss Voltage (KW) Drop (Vv) Feeder 12-95 2182.475 182.475 2508.28 EXHI LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 50 KV_DC Project No. Project Name Title Drawing No. Revision No.: a EDSA DC Load Flow Program V6.10.00 Jobfile Name: barrow to atqasuk dc Number of Buses Number of Branches Number of Rectifier Number of Inverters Number of Batteries Number of Dc/Dc Converters BaseKW Default voltage Periods Tolerance Iterations Low voltage limit rc: Batt D switch De Gen De/de F_Load I_Load Invert LF Ref Mstart s oir d ene ee Page Date Time Company Engineer Check by Date System Information 08/11/2010 09:06:53 pm 0.00010 pu 0.010 kw 0.010 % 20000 90 % N on ° < Abbreviations Temperature in °C Battery Dynamic switch De generator De/de converter Functional load Constant I load Inverter Load flow reference Motor starting None P_Load Rect Res RX1 RX2 SplitL Splitu Z_Load inden don None contributing Constant P load Rectifier Resistence Double circuit resistence Single circuit resistance Battery split lower bus Battery split upper bus Constant Z load EXHIBIT 11 (CONT.) LOAD FLOW REPORT AT 50 KV_DC Description (Feeder Resistances in editor are at 25.0 °C) # Branch Nam: Description RX2 (ohms) LF Ref °C 1 T Line Barrow Atqasuk Period : 1 DC load flow converged ! Max mismatch : 0.000001 pu 0.000 kw at bus: Atgasuk Total time : 30.00 min Time for the period: 30.00 min # Bus Name Type Vv Vv Load E LowVFlag 1 Atqasuk P_Load 45882.1 0.9176 2000.00 43.59 2 Barrow De Gen 50000.0 1.0000 2179.50 43.59 Branch Result in Period 1 # Branch Name Type === Loading------ Loss Voltage x, (Amps) (KW) (KW) Drop (Vv) 1 T Line Feeder 43.59 2179.500 179.500 4117.91 EXHIBIT 12 ONE LINE DESCRIPTION FOR AC OPERATION The BUECI feeder circuit from the power plant will be configured utilizing a 4160V Breaker and from there it will be routed to the Barrow Gas Field South Pad. A 2 MVA Transformer will be located there with a 34.5 kV Re-closer installed at the Barrow and Atqasuk ends of the power line. When using the 69 kV option, 69 kV SF6, Low Profile Type Breakers will be considered for installation. Atqasuk will be configured with a 2 MVA Transformer, a 4160V Re-closer, as well as a 34.5 kV Re-closer. See the enclosed One-Line Diagram. One-Line Diagram — AC Operation EXHIBIT 12 (CONT.) ONE LINE DESCRIPTION FOR AC OPERATION At the Atqasuk Power Plant a new 2MVA Transformer will be installed on a pad configured in a similar manner to the existing 1 MVA Transformer located there. Both the 34.5 kV feeder circuit and the 69 kV feeder circuit option will use a re-closer for protection, and an SF6 Low Profile Circuit Breaker. The 4160V Stepped-down voltage will be routed through a re-closer that should connect to TIP2 or B1L2P as is needed or convenient. See the following schematic for clarity. POWER HOUSE (NOTE 7) NC X BILaPt 1 | | 1500AT | br KVA-PAD-MTD | 1600AF_ | [ | 3440A_ TIA | 450Kw @——~ O43 Crt PL © BiLzrs | ft | | ~~ 4804160vr2400v | 3KV | \ a2skw @— ~~ | NOTE 6 ~ 1 we | | | ptuape | mm | 480V, | o | 650KW G—— 7 | mm | a10KW © — | 480-4160Y/2400V | ; | | 34408 TIP7 TIP3 TEBP1 % | rn 910KW G)—— foHo~ —O——0-———— >< | 1500AT. | 3 l if NO | TSQAF | 1000 KVAPAD-MTD 3KV a a] NOTE 6 3x15 Axo TIPS 4x | | Schematic For AC Operation — Step Down Transformer & Protection EXHIBIT 13 ONE LINE DESCRIPTION FOR DC OPERATION See the following One-Line Diagram for clarity. Barrow ‘we: 30000 V 5 MVA Xin A ~ Barrow Conw Ms: FO00L bc $ 101016 Sz010L ‘Wstakpa ws: Sonn 101039 Wietips Conv \e: 80 2 = z 181925 Watslpa load Vs: 120 = i Ss s & 2 z 101058 101060 Paqasuk Conw Ve: 480 V Wwizinwright Coro we: 480 = = S s 2 3 101045 101046 Aeqasuk ra Aeinwright Nee. 4160 V5: 12470 V One-Line Diagram — DC Operation EXHIBIT 14 HIGH VOLTAGE DIRECT CURRENT EVALUATION DC CONVERTER COSTS A TIER QUOTE — 480VAC TO 1500VDC SCENARIO . Gma | | Albert T Sakata <atsakata@gmail.com> byGoogle Change from 15kW to 30kw 1 message Jeff Reichard <jar@tellc.com> Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM To: Albert T Sakata <atsakata@ gmail. com> New cost is $1,900,100 for the system. It will be the same physical size but each module will be 480VAC to 1500VDC for a +/-15KV output (S0k¥ total). The added costs are for a higher level of isolation, higher voltage / number of IGBT's and the transformer size will increase slightly. The transformers are in the enclosures. So it is a 480'VAC to 30kVDC system with 2 identical converter assemblies, one for each end. Jeff Reichard jar@tellc.com Tier Electronics LLC www.TierElectronics.com 262-251-6900 Fax 250-1999 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) DC CONVERTER COSTS Gma i | Albert T Sakata <atsakata@gmail.com> by Googk: HV system 3 messages Jeff Reichard <jar@tellc.com> Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM To: Albert T Sakata <atsakata@ gmail. com> The 30kV system could be easily made as large as SMW \f we went to SOKV we could also go to SMW but that would be higher in cost than the 30kKV SMW system Jeff Reichard jar@tellc.com Tier Electronics LLC www.TierElectronics.com 262-251-6900 Fax 250-1999 Albert T Sakata <atsakata@gmail.com> Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:37 PM To: Jeff Reichard <jar@telle.com> Bee: Albert Sakata <atsakata@gci.net> Jeff How much the cost will be for the 50 kV with SMW. Thanks Albert T. Sakata Sakata Engineering Services 907-351-5532, 907-344-6508 fax [Quoted text hidden] Jeff Reichard <jar@tellc.com> Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:25 AM To: Albert T Sakata <atsakata@ gmail com> $3,985,000 for the 50kV 5MW system that consists of 40X modules for each side stacked to make the 50KVDC This is a 480VAC to SOKVDC design consisting of 2 AC to DC corwerter assemblies. This system has an AC disconnect per converter module. Thank you Jeff Reichard jar@telic.com Tier Electronics LLC www. TierElectronics.com 262-251-6900 Fax 250-1999 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) . Gma | | Albert T Sakata <atsakata@gmail.com> wy Google DC transmission system 1 message Jeff Reichard <jar@tellc.com> Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:28 AM To: Albert T Sakata <atsakata@gmailcom>, “Albert T. Sakata" <atsakata@gcinet> The HV transmission system consists of: Each side has 20 units that are in parallel for the AC side and operate at 480VAC and in series onthe DC side and operate at 750VDC each The 20 units are broken down into 2 sets of 10 to form a +4 7.5k¥ line (15k¥ total), center DC grounded thru resistance Allthe units are bi-directional so they can be set to push power into the grid or pull power fromthe grid On the opposite side there are 20 more units configured the same way One side is set to deliver power the other side set to supply power Allthe blocks are the same for the power cubes Each set of 20 power cubes has a single master controller If one power cube fails then the system can keep running with slightly lower power until the cube is replaced All power cubes have over voltage protection onthe DC side Fiber optics are used for isolation to insure safe operation To build a higher power system the number of cubes could be doubled to make a 4MW +/-15k¥ system Spare power cubes can be ordered and kept on hand for rapid field replacement and minimum down time Allthe power cubes and their software is identical Power cubes have simple status lights (Running / Fautted) Available options are: Touch screen display System circuit breaker Fiber Optic to Ethemet interface Energy storage units Added VAR capability for poor loads EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Note: We will be final testing this unit at a Northrop Grumman Facility so you can witness the system in operation Jeff Reichard jar@telic.com Tier Electrorics LLC www. TierElectronics.com 262-251-6900 Fax 250-1999 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD. DC CONVERTER COSTS — CONVERTER ARCHITECTURE in| —— 4-4 ir ir I I BQ) RR9] S98] | SIS) |a99) [aes] |e) [eee] | eee) [eee PHT | PTE Ea ay ay yaya yaya z a> $8] 8a) [8 a} jh 8] ld a] laa} [aa] faa) je al fae 1 8 Lo & 8) Jd a] [8 a] fd a] fad] Jad} jaa} jaa} fag] jaa 2 i SHAT EET PPPEP TEL SEL aE ay aay ya § BQO) [GUI] R99) [S98] |B99) [RNs] |aey) /e8e) |s8s) /aae = | Tt ir LI L 4 4 - . i T I I a 23) [ava] [eva] [ava] [axa] [ova] [ava] fava] fava] [axe Oat la hala ati ati hay i i am PPPEP TEP TEEPE ITT ETE Te i 2 88] la dja} a] fa a] lad) fe al faa] fea) [eal lad ] Sal laa] [8a] fda] jaa] ja al Bal laa] leat lee HTT ETE EE PLE TET TET er ayer ay dala BER] 899] [989] [299] [299] [as] [e9s) |aeg) |e8s) /a99 ft fl fT Ht I { i EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) ABB HVDC Budgetary Quotation From: "Huntley & Associates" <huntley_&_associates@us.abb.com> To: atsakata@gci.net Date: 09/29/2010 02:30:26 AKDT Subject: HVDC Light -- Transmission Line Albert | received this response while we were on the phone: amazing ! Christer is very familiar with Alaska as we've had many discussions over the past several years. As for the ABB HVDC technology, he is the Busines Development Manager for ABB HVDC in North America and has been with ABB for 45 years; how about that? He is available for further discussion regarding HVDC. | think he is clear on where the areas of opportunity exist. We can discuss further on Friday - BR/Chuck Chateter erbcsson TR aU STRAABB: To Huntley & Associates/Field_MarketingJUSTRANONABB ce 09/29/2010 12.06 PM ‘Subject HVDC Light — Transmission Line Chuck, in reference to email from Mr Albert Sakata of Sakata Engineering Services, dated 9/8/2010, | would like to clarify where we stand today regarding the our HVDC Light technology with respect to low power application. The techrical papers that Mr Sakata refers to in his email were written in the late 1990's to early 2000's. These papers describe some of the early efforts of ABB to get the HVDC Light to market and are indeed discussing systems of relatively smail capacity ( 3MW - 50 MW). The technology as described in these papers has evolved, but the fundamentals are the same. The original intent of the HVDC Light was to cover the lower range of HVDC transmission projects (> 300 MW), however the market has driven the development in the opposite direction, due to the flexibility and black start capability of the technology. Therefore we are now offering HVDC Light systems for 1100 MW at a transmission voltage of +/- 320 KV. In discussing the Barrow to Atqasuk transmission project, the lowest DC voltage, we are able to offer today is 80 KV DC and with a power rating 40 MW. Converters of this size cost in the order of US $ 30- 35 million total for the two converters and associated DC/AC switchyards. No transmission line cost included. Therefore, at first glance, it appears that a 115 kV AC line woud be more cost effective, however, if there are other circumstances, such as you have to underground the transmission for some considerable distance, we do not see the economics in using our HVDC Light technology. Having said, this, | would be happy to continue the discussion concerning this and other possible HVDC Light applications, via email or in person here in the Pacific NW or in Alaska during my next visit. Best Regards, Christer Eriksson EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Vs: 30000 V SMVAXIne A wer Barrow Conw AL / |v 50000 v oc 101016 9z0Lol sun Junction | vs: 60000 V a | | | 2 3 s i & i 2 { i ° | | ? 9 r 101088 101060 LI EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Advantages of HVDC over AC transmission The advantage of HVDC is the ability to transmit large amounts of power over long distances with lower capital costs and with lower losses than AC. High-voltage direct current transmission allows efficient use of energy sources remote from load centers. In a number of applications HVDC is more effective than AC transmission. Examples include: * Undersea cables, where high capacitance causes additional AC losses. * Endpoint-to-endpoint long-haul bulk power transmission without intermediate 'taps', for example, in remote areas * Increasing the capacity of an existing power grid in situations where additional wires are difficult or expensive to install * Power transmission and stabilization between unsynchronized AC distribution systems ¢ Connecting a remote generating plant to the distribution grid. « Stabilizing a predominantly AC power-grid, without increasing short circuit current ¢ Reducing line cost. HVDC needs fewer conductors as there is no need to support multiple phases. Also, thinner conductors can be used since HVDC does not suffer from the skin effect + Facilitate power transmission between different countries that use AC at differing voltages and/or frequencies * Synchronize AC produced by renewable energy sources Disadvantages of HVDC over AC transmission The disadvantages of HVDC are in conversion, switching, control, availability and maintenance. HVDC is less reliable and has lower availability than AC systems, mainly due to the extra conversion equipment. Single pole systems have availability of about 98.5%, with about a third of the downtime unscheduled due to faults. Fault redundant bipole systems provide high availability for 50% of the link capacity, but availability of the full capacity is about 97% to 98%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC - cite_note-15#cite_note-15 The required static inverters are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances the losses in the static inverters may be bigger than in an AC transmission line. The cost of the inverters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss. In contrast to AC systems, realizing multiterminal systems is complex, as is expanding existing schemes to multiterminal systems. Controlling power flow in a multiterminal DC system requires good communication between all the terminals; power flow must be EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) actively regulated by the inverter control system instead of the inherent impedance and phase angle properties of the transmission line. Multi-terminal lines are rare. High voltage DC circuit breakers are difficult to build because some mechanism must be included in the circuit breaker to force current to zero, otherwise arcing and contact wear would be too great to allow reliable switching. Operating a HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes faster. Line Configurations Monopole and earth return DC line In a common configuration, called monopole, one of the terminals of the rectifier is connected to earth ground. The other terminal, at a potential high above or below ground, is connected to a transmission line. The earthed terminal may be connected to the corresponding connection at the inverting station by means of a second conductor. If no metallic conductor is installed, current flows in the earth between the earth electrodes at the two stations. Therefore it is a type of single wire earth return http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_wire_earth_ return. The issues surrounding earth- return current include: ¢ Electrochemical corrosion of long buried metal objects such as pipelines. ¢ Underwater earth-return electrodes in seawater may produce chlorine or otherwise affect water chemistry. * An unbalanced current path may result in a net magnetic field, which can affect magnetic navigational compasses for ships passing over an underwater cable. * Permafrost ground resistivity can be very variable. These effects can be eliminated with installation of a metallic return conductor between the two ends of the monopolar transmission line. Since one terminal of the converters is connected to earth, the return conductor need not be insulated for the full transmission voltage which makes it less costly than the high-voltage conductor. Use of a metallic return conductor is decided based on economic, technical and environmental factors. EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) Most monopolar systems are designed for future bipolar expansion. Transmission line towers may be designed to carry two conductors, even if only one is used initially for the monopole transmission system. The second conductor is either unused, used as electrode line or connected in parallel with the other. Bipolar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hvdc_bipolar_schematic.svg In bipolar transmission a pair of conductors is used, each at a high potential with respect to ground, in opposite polarity. Since these conductors must be insulated for the full voltage, transmission line cost is higher than a monopole with a return conductor. However, there are a number of advantages to bipolar transmission which can make it the attractive option. ¢ Under normal load, negligible earth-current flows, as in the case of monopolar transmission with a metallic earth-return. This reduces earth return loss and environmental effects. ¢ When a fault develops in a line, with earth return electrodes installed at each end of the line, approximately half the rated power can continue to flow using the earth as a return path, operating in monopolar mode. * Since for a given total power rating each conductor of a bipolar line carries only half the current of monopolar lines, the cost of the second conductor is reduced compared to a monopolar line of the same rating. + In very adverse terrain, the second conductor may be carried on an independent set of transmission towers, so that some power may continue to be transmitted even if one line is damaged. A bipolar system may also be installed with a metallic earth return conductor. Bipolar systems may carry as much as 3,200 MW at voltages of +/-600 kV. Submarine cable installations initially commissioned as a monopole may be upgraded with additional cables and operated as a bipole. EXHIBIT 14 (CONTD.) A bipolar scheme can be implemented so that the polarity of one or both poles can be changed. This allows the operation as two parallel monopoles. If one conductor fails, transmission can still continue at reduced capacity. Losses may increase if ground electrodes and lines are not designed for the extra current in this mode. To reduce losses in this case, intermediate switching stations may be installed, at which line segments can be switched off or parallelized. EXHIBIT 1 - RS FRP Pole Structure Examples Exhibit 1— RS Fiber Reinforced Sectional FRP Utility Poles, are Manufactured by Polymer (FRP) Utility Pole Structure RS Group, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Examples & Product Applications KONO) Figure 2 — Sectional, Single Pole structure assembled at site and erected. Light weight and simple connections make site assembly less complex; which equates to lower field costs Figure 1 - Sectioal Poles transported to site are shipped in a configuration that optimizes logistics costs. FRP Utility Poles, H-Structures Figure 3 — Sectional, H-Structure Transmission Pole, Figure 4 - Sectional, H-Structure Transmission Pole installation completed, with guy anchors and conductors in place. utilizing Boom Truck. Light Weight assembly optimizes lifting equipment. EXHIBIT 1 - RS FRP Pole Structure Examples FRP Utility Poles, Single Pole Structures att igure 6 - Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Transmission Pole — Figure § — Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Transmission installation utilizing Boom Truck; optimized lifting equipment. Pole, completed, with conductors in place. Ma bole ered \ PY F Figure 8 — Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Installation near or at existing infrastrucutre. Light weight allows easy install at areas with multiple interference. Figure 7 — Sectional, Single Pole Structure: Transmission Pole, completed, with guy anchors and conductors in place. Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 Barrow Cost Estimate For Connection 34.5 kV w/ OH Feed in/out Unit Components Description Unit# Units Cost Total Cost Labor ie Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Hours 2 MVA Transformer 4160 to 34500 volts 35 kV Breaker 4160 V breaker ect for tie to ATQ Grid $75,000 $75,000.00 36 $3,510.00 $78,510.00 $78,510.00 $72,000 $72,000.00 60 $5,850.00 $77,850.00 $77,850.00 $28,000 $28,000.00 32 $3,120.00 $31,120.00 $31,120.00 SCADA link $68,000 $68,000.00 200 $19,500.00 $87,500.00 $87,500.00 Platforms $4,800 $14,400.00 80 $23,400.00 $12,600.00 $37,800.00 Fence $6,000 $6,000.00 300.000 $29,250.00 $35,250.00 $35,250.00 Shipping Misc above to ped 60,000 $0.43 $25,800.00 0.006 $35,100.00 $1.02 Mob & Demob 1 IANNIS TTC MEET I TTC CUCL gn S283, 200,00) 1252.0 $63,960.00 $462,770.00 Cost / each 1 Each 462,770.00 1 { 1 Grounding 1 $1,500 $1,500.00 24 $2,340.00 $3,840.00 $3,840.00) 1 3 1 Nea EXHIBIT 1 Atqgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 1 of 6 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 Barrow-South Pad Cost Estimate on 78' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Components Description Unit # Units Cost Total Cost Unit Labor Hours. Total Labor Total Labor Cost Hours Unit Cost Total Cost 477 MCM cable ACSR -5.8 miles Shipping above cable (Ibs) 78' Class 1 Poles Shipping above Poles (Ibs) Tangent Assembly Angle Assembly Dead-end Assembly Anchors Relocate #2 ACSR Underbuild Dead-end Assembly Anchors Shipping Misc above to ped ADSS all Diaelectric 24 Strand SM FOC FOC pole Attachments Splice FOC Mob & Demob 94,700 42,615 94 113,364 75 9 28 98 126,200 75 9 28 98 121,740 32,600 99 3 Lot $0.75 $0.43 $3,859.00 $0.43 $1,022.00 $745.00 $686.00 $145.00 $0.35 $1,022.00 $745.00 $686.00 $145.00 $0.43 $1.28 $124.00 $980.00 $71,025.00 $18,324.45 $362,746.00 $48,746.52 $76,650.00 $6,705.00 $19,208.00 $14,210.00 $44,170.00 $76,650.00 $6,705.00 $19,208.00 $14,210.00 $52,348.20 $41,728.00 $12,276.00 $2,940.00 0.038 0.002 15.500 0.020 8.200 9.800 14.400 8.800 0.042 8.200 9.800 14.400 8.800 0.024 0.016 7.400 18.500 $350,863.50 $8,309.93 $142,057.50 $221,059.80 $59,962.50 $8,599.50 $39,312.00 $84,084.00 $516,789.00 $59,962.50 $8,599.50 $39,312.00 $84,084.00 $284,871.60 $50,856.00 $71,428.50 $5,411.25 $4.46 $0.63 $5,370.25 $2.38 $1,821.50 $1,700.50 $2,090.00 $1,003.00 $4.45 $1,821.50 $1,700.50 $2,090.00 $1,003.00 $2.77 $2.84 $845.50 $2,783.75 $421,888.50 $26,634.38 $504,803.50 $269,806.32 $136,612.50 $15,304.50) $58,520.00) $98,294.00 $560,959.00) $136,612.50 $15,304.50) $58,520.00) $98,294.00) $337,219.80 $92,584.00 $83,704.50 $8,351.25 $150,000.00 ee ee oe 2OTTS S205 563.08 [33.073 473.25) 5.8 Miles ost/ mile Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 2 of 6 529,898.84) EXHIBIT 1 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 South Pad-Atqasuk Cost Estimate on 63' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Components Description 477 MCM cable ACSR -62.6 miles Shipping above cable (Ibs) 63' Class 1 Poles Shipping above Poles (Ibs) Tangent Assembly Angle Assembly Dead-end Assembly Anchors Shipping Misc above to ped DSS all Diaelectric 24 Strand SM FOC FOC pole Attachments Splice FOC Mob & Demob Cost / mile Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Unit # 1,021,400 459,630 458 388,384 422 9 28 98 435,775 350,700 482 21 Lot Units Cost Total Cost $0.75 $766,050.00 $0.43 $197,640.90 $2,687.00 $1,230,646.00 $0.43 $167,005.12 $1,022.00 $431,284.00 $745.00 $6,705.00 $686.00 $19,208.00 $145.00 $14,210.00 $0.43 $187,383.25 $1.28 $448,896.00 $124.00 $59,768.00 $980.00 $20,580.00 62.6 Miles 3 of 6 Unit Labor Hours 0.028 0.002 13.5 0.020 8.2 9.8 14.4 88 0.024 0.016 74 18.5 Total Labor Hours 28599.2 919.3 6183.0 7767.7 3460.4 88.2 403.2 862.4 10458.6 5611.2 3566.8 388.5 Total Labor Cost $2,788,422.00 $89,627.85 $602,842.50 $757,348.80 $337,389.00 $8,599.50 $39,312.00 $84,084.00 $1,019,713.50 $547,092.00 $347,763.00 $37,878.75 Unit Cost Total Cost pn $3.48 $0.63 $4,003.25 $2.38 $1,821.50 $1,700.50 $2,090.00 $1,003.00 $2.77 $2.84 $845.50 $2,783.75 $3,554,472.00 $407,531.00 $58,458.75 $600,000.00 AE ATP 8 ey 683084 $6,060,072 90 $10,809,440.17 172,674.91 EXHIBIT 1 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 Atqasuk Cost Estimate For Connection Unit Total Labor i Components Description Unit# UnitsCost Total Cost Labor Hours Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Tota Cost Hours 2 MVA Transformer 4160 to 34500 volts 35 kV Breaker 4160 V breaker ect for tie to ATQ Grid Risers/Conduit Platforms $75,000 $75,000.00 36 36.0 $3,510.00 $78,510.00 $78,510.00 $72,000 $72,000.00 60 60.0 $5,850.00 $77,850.00 $77,850.00 $28,000 $28,000.00 32 32.0 $3,120.00 $31,120.00 $31,120.00 $6,000 $12,000.00 40.000 80.00 $7,800.00 $9,900.00 $19,800.00 $4,800 $14,400.00 80 240.0 $23,400.00 $12,600.00 $37,800.00 $80,000 $80,000.00 420.000 420.00 $40,950.00 $120,950.00 $120,950.00 $68,000 $68,000.00 60.000 60.00 $5,850.00 $73,850.00 $73,850.00 $26.75 $13,375.00 0.080 40.00 $3,900.00 $34.55 $17,275.00 $4,800 $14,400.00 80 240.0 $23,400.00 $12,600.00 $37,800.00 Grounding $5,000 $5,000.00 60 60.0 $5,850.00 $10,850.00 $10,850.00 Shipping Misc above to ped 120,000 $0.43 $51,600.00 0.006 720.00 $70,200.00 $1.02 $121,800.00 Mob & Demob Lot $150,000.00 a $1,988.00 $193,830.00 $777,605.00) Cost/ each 1 Each 777,605.00 Power Plant Modifications for DC Equip SCADA/Metering link Shielded 500 mcm 35 kV Cables Platforms =o 8o20n5o a2 ro} EXHIBIT 1 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 4o0f6 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost rsumate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 Wapaka to East Route Cost Estimate on 63' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Unit Components Description Unit# Units Cost Total Cost Labor Hours Total Labor Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Hours — 477 MCM cable ACSR -6.2 miles 101,200 $0.75 $75,900.00 0.028 2833.6 $276,276.00 $3.48 $352,176.00 Shipping above cable (Ibs) 45,540 $0.43 $19,582.20 0.002 91.1 $8,880.30 $0.63 $28,462.50 63' Class 1 Poles 47 $2,687.00 $126,289.00 13.5 634.5 $61,863.75 $4,003.25 $188,152.75) Shipping above Poles (Ibs) 39,856 $0.43 $17,138.08 0.020 797.1 $77,719.20 $2.38 $94,857.28 Tangent Assembly 39 $1,022.00 $39,858.00 8.2 319.8 $31,180.50 $1,821.50 $71,038.50 Angle Assembly 3 $745.00 $2,235.00 9.8 29.4 $2,866.50 $1,700.50 Dead-end Assembly 6 $686.00 $4,116.00 14.4 86.4 $8,424.00 $2,090.00 Anchors 54 $145.00 $7,830.00 8.8 475.2 $46,332.00 $1,003.00 Shipping Misc above to ped 55,200 $0.43 $23,736.00 0.024 1324.8 $129,168.00 $2.77 ADSS all Diaelectric 24 Strand SM FOC 34,800 $1.28 $44,544.00 0.016 556.8 $54,288.00 $2.84 FOC pole Attachments 51 $124.00 $6,324.00 74 377.4 $36,796.50 $845.50 Splice FOC 3 $980.00 $2,940.00 18.5 55.5 $5,411.25 $2,783.75 . Mob & Demob Lot $15,000.00 SETH SEED ED REE PE EEE ENCE | ESS OU 22 7581.6 $739,206.00 $1,124,698.26 Cost / mile 6.2 Miles $181,402.95 ; i EXHIBIT 1 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 5 of 6 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost rsumate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route 2 Walakpa Cost Estimate For Connection Unit Components Description Unit# UnitsCost Total Cost Labor Hours Total Labor Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Tota Cost Hours 50 kVA Transformer Pole Mount 34.5 kV to 480 volts 3 35 kV Fuses 3 $3,850 $11,550.00 65 19.50 $1,901.25 $4,483.75 Platform work/ATS ql $32,000 $32,000.00 320.0 320.00 $31,200.00 $63,200.00 1 1 1 $18,000 $54,000.00 26.0 78.00 $7,605.00 $20,535.00 Risers/Conduit $6,000 $6,000.00 40.000 40.00 $3,900.00 $9,900.00 Power Plant Modifications $80,000 $80,000.00 320.000 320.00 $31,200.00 $111,200.00 " SCADA/Metering link $24,000 $24,000.00 60.0 60.00 $5,850.00 $29,850.00 $29,850.00 Shipping Misc above to ped 25,000 $0.43 $10,750.00 0.012 300.00 $29,250.00 $1.60 $40,000.00 $218,300.00 $1,137.50 $110,906.25 $329,206.25 Cost / each $329,206.25 Preferred Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route Barrow Cost Estimate For Connection 34.5 kV w/ OH Feed in/out Barrow-South Pad Cost Estimate on 78' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures South Pad-Atqasuk Cost Estimate on 63' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Atqasuk Cost Estimate For Connection Subtotal- Barrow to Atqasuk paka to East Route Cost Estimate on 63' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures 'Walakpa Cost Estimate For Connection i Subtotal- Walakpa to Eastern Route $1,453,904.53 Preferred Case Using All Overhead Eastern Route Total $16,577,141.95 EXHIBIT 1 Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 6 of 6 Eastern Route, ER2 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 Barrow Cost Estimate For Connection 34.5 kV w/ OH Feed in/out Unit Components Description Unit# UnitsCost Total Cost Labor Hours Total Labor Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Hours 2 MVA Transformer 4160 to 34500 volts $75,000 $75,000.00 36 $3,510.00 $78,510.00 $78,510.00 1 MVAR Reactor 34.5Kv $60,000 $240,000.00 36.000 $14,040.00 $63,510.00 $254,040.00 35 KV Breaker/Switchers $46,000 $184,000.00 38.000 $14,820.00 $49,705.00 $198,820.00 35 kV Breaker $72,000 $72,000.00 60 $5,850.00 $77,850.00 $77,850.00 4160 V breaker ect for tie to ATQ Grid $28,000 $28,000.00 32 $3,120.00 $31,120.00 $31,120.00 Grounding $1,500 $1,500.00 24 $2,340.00 $3,840.00 $3,840.00 SCADA link $68,000 $68,000.00 200 $19,500.00 $87,500.00 $87,500.00 11 $4,800 $14,400.00 80 $85,800.00 $9,109.09 $100,200.00 1 $6,000 $6,000.00 300.000 $29,250.00 $35,250.00 $35,250.00 Shipping Misc above to ped 60,000 $0.43 $25,800.00 0.006 $35,100.00 $1.02 $60,900.00 Mob & Demob 1 $50,000.00) $283,200.00 2188.0 $63,960.00 $978,030.00 Cost / each 4 Each $978,030.00 EXHIBIT 2 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study 1 of 6 Western Route, WR1 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 Barrow-South Pad Cost Estimate on 78' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Unit Total Labor Components Description Units Cost Total Cost Labor Hours Total Labor Cost Unit Cost Total Cost Hours 477 MCM cable ACSR -5.8 miles 94,700 $0.75 = $71,025.00 0.038 $350,863.50 $4.46 $421,888.50 Shipping above cable (Ibs) 42,615 $0.43 $18,324.45 0.002 $8,309.93 $0.63 $26,634.38) 78' Class 1 Poles 94 $3,859.00 $362,746.00 15.500 $142,057.50 $5,370.25 $504,803.50 Shipping above Poles (Ibs) 113,364 $0.43 $48,746.52 0.020 $221,059.80 $2.38 $269,806.32 Tangent Assembly 75 $1,022.00 $76,650.00 8.200 $59,962.50 $1,821.50 $136,612.50) Angle Assembly 9 $745.00 $6,705.00 9.800 $8,599.50 $1,700.50 $15,304.50 Dead-end Assembly 28 $686.00 $19,208.00 14.400 $39,312.00 $2,090.00 $58,520.00) Anchors 98 $145.00 $14,210.00 8.800 $84,084.00 $1,003.00 $98,294.00) Relocate #2 ACSR Underbuild 126,200 $0.35 $44,170.00 0.042 $516,789.00 $4.45 $560,959.00 Tangent Assembly 75 $1,022.00 $76,650.00 8.200 $59,962.50 $1,821.50 $136,612.50 Angle Assembly 9 $745.00 $6,705.00 9.800 $8,599.50 $1,700.50 $15,304.50) Dead-end Assembly 28 $686.00 $19,208.00 14.400 $39,312.00 $2,090.00 $58,520.00 Anchors 98 $145.00 $14,210.00 8.800 $84,084.00 $1,003.00 $98,294.00) Shipping Misc above to ped 121,740 $0.43 $52,348.20 0.024 $284,871.60 $2.77 $337,219.80 DSS all Diaelectric 24 Strand SM FOC 32,600 $1.28 $41,728.00 0.016 $50,856.00 $2.84 $92,584.00 FOC pole Attachments 99 $124.00 $12,276.00 7.400 $71,428.50 $845.50 $83,704.50 Splice FOC 3 $980.00 $2,940.00 18.500 $5,411.25 $2,783.75 $8,351.25 Mob & Demob Lot $150,000.00 $887,850.17 20877.6 $2,035,563.08 $3,073,413.25 Cost / mile 5.8 Miles $529,898.84 EXHIBIT 2 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study 2 of 6 Western Route, WR1 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 South Pad-Walakpa Cost Estimate on Existing VSM at 25 foot Spacing with 35 kV AC CLX Components Description 35 Kv CLX 350 MCM cable 3/c 420 mill EPR 18.8miles Shipping above cable (Ibs) 35 Kv Pedestal 35 Kv Terms Shipping above pedestal (Ibs) VSM Pole Stubs 20° (12' buried) Shipping above Pole Stubs Bracket cable suport Strain Support Cable CAD cable suport Clips Anchors Shipping Misc above to ped 1 1/2" HDPE for FOC for SCADA 24 Strand SM FOC Splice FOC Mob & Demob | Unit# Units Cost 102,300 1,199,102 110 660 18,268 2,273 1,136,667 2,273 102,300 68,200 341 136,400 102,300 $0.68 105,400 $1.04 7 $980.00 Lot $0.43 $2,850.00 $435.00 $0.43 $420.00 $0.43 $75.00 $0.60 $8.30 $145.00 $0.43 Total Cost $45.54 $4,658,946.60 $515,613.92 $313,500.00 $287,100.00 $7,855.18 $954,800.00 $488,766.67 $170,500.00 $61,380.00 $566,060.00 $49,445.00 $58,652.00 $69,564.00 $109,616.00 $6,860.00 ce nce eee Cost / mile 18.8 Miles Atgasuk Power Line Transmission Study 3 of 6 Unit Labor Hours 0.132 0.002 48.000 4.000 0.005 12.400 0.005 0.450 0.028 0.200 8.800 0.005 0.018 0.016 18.500 Total Labor Hours 13,503.60 2,398.20 5,280.00 2,640.00 91.34 28,189.33 5,683.33 1,023.00 2,864.40 13,640.00 3,000.80 682.00 1,841.40 1,686.40 129.50 $82,653.31 Total Labor Cost $1,316,601 .00 $233,824.92 $514,800.00 $257,400.00 $8,905.58 $2,748,460.00 $554,125.00 $99,742.50 $279,279.00 $1,329,900.00 $292,578.00 $66,495.00 $179,536.50 $164,424.00 $12,626.25 $8,058,697.75 Unit Cost $58.41 $0.63 $7,530.00 $825.00 $0.92 $1,629.00 $0.92 $118.88 $3.33 $27.80 $1,003.00 $0.92 $2.44 $2.60 $2,783.75 Western Route, Total Cost $5,975,547.60 $749,438.84 $828,300.00 $544,500.00 $16,760.76 $3,703,260.00 $1,042,891 .67 $270,242.50 $340,659.00 $1,895,960.00 $342,023.00 $125,147.00 $249,100.50 $274,040.00) $19,486.25 $600,000.00 | $16,077,357.11| 903,050.91 EXHIBIT 2 WR1 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 Walakpa-Atqasuk Cost Estimate on 63' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures Components Description 477 MCM cable ACSR -48.8 miles Shipping above cable (Ibs) 63' Class 1 Poles Shipping above Poles (Ibs) Tangent Assembly Angle Assembly Dead-end Assembly Anchors Risers/Conduit Shipping Misc above to ped ADSS all Diaelectric 24 Strand SM FOC FOC pole Attachments Splice FOC Mob & Demob Unit # 796,200 358,290 458 388,384 422 9 28 98 2 435,775 273,400 482 17 Lot Units Cost $0.75 $0.43 $2,687.00 $0.43 $842.00 $645.00 $586.00 $145.00 $6,000 $0.43 $1.28 $124.00 $980.00 Total Cost $597,150.00 $154,064.70 $1 230,646.00 $167,005.12 $355,324.00 $5,805.00 $16,408.00 $14,210.00 $12,000.00 $187,383.25 $349,952.00 $59,768.00 $16,660.00 Unit Labor Hours 0.028 0.002 13.5 0.020 8.2 9.8 14.4 8.8 40.000 0.024 0.016 74 18.5 Total Labor Hours 22293.6 716.6 6183.0 7767.7 3460.4 88.2 403.2 862.4 80.00 10458.6 4374.4 3566.8 314.5 Total Labor Cost $2,173,626.00 $69,866.55 $602,842.50 $757,348.80 $337,389.00 $8,599.50 $39,312.00 $84,084.00 $7,800.00 $1,019,713.50 $426,504.00 $347,763.00 $30,663.75 Unit Cost Total Cost $3.48 $2,770,776.00 $0.63 $223,931.25 $4,003.25] $1,833,488.50 $2.38 $924,353.92 $1,641.50 $692,713.00 $1,600.50 $14,404.50 $1,990.00 $55,720.00 $1,003.00 $98,294.00 $9,900.00 $19,800.00 $2.77| — $1,207,096.75 $2.84 $776,456.00 $845.50 $407,531.00 $2,783.75 $47,323.75 $600,000.00 a ESS ETAL 605604 $5,005512.60 $0,671,888.67 Cost/mile 62.6 Miles Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study 4 of 6 $154,503.01 EXHIBIT 2 Western Route, WR1 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 Atqasuk Cost Estimate For Connection Components Description Unit # ofan 2 MVA Transformer 4160 to 34500 volts 35 kV Breaker Platforms 4160 V breaker ect for tie to ATQ Grid Risers/Conduit Power Plant Modifications SCADA/Metering link Shielded 500 mcm 35 kV Cables Grounding Shipping Misc above to ped Mob & Demob a ao A} — 6) —< —« So 120,000 Lot Units Cost $75,000 $72,000 $4,800 $28,000 $6,000 $80,000 $68,000 $26.75 $5,000 $0.43 Total Cost $75,000.00 $72,000.00 $14,400.00 $28,000.00 $12,000.00 $80,000.00 $68,000.00 $13,375.00 $5,000.00 $51,600.00 Unit Labor Hours. 36 60 80 32 40.000 420.000 60.000 0.080 60 0.006 Total Labor Hours Total Labor Cost $3,510.00 $5,850.00 $23,400.00 $3,120.00 $7,800.00 $31,200.00 $5,850.00 $3,900.00 $5,850.00 $70,200.00 Unit Cost $78,510.00 $77,850.00 $12,600.00 $31,120.00 $9,900.00 $111,200.00 $73,850.00 $34.55 $10,850.00 $1.02 Tota Cost $78,510.00 $77,850.00 $37,800.00 $31,120.00) $19,800.00) $111,200.00 $73,850.00 $17,275.00 $10,850.00 $121,800.00) $150,000.00 pd $283,200.00 1648.0 $63,960.00 $730,055.00 Cost/ each fl Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Each 5 of 6 730,055.00 EXHIBIT 2 Western Route, WR1 Cost Estimate Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study Alternating Current (AC) Case Using All Overhead, Western Route 1 Walakpa Cost Estimate For Connection Components Description 300 kVA Transformer 34.5 kV to 480 35 kV AC Fuses SCADA/Metering link 35 Kv Pedestal 35 Kv Terms Shipping Misc above 35 kV Fuses Risers/Conduit Platform work SCADAVMetering link Shipping Misc above Cost/ each 1 Units Cost $18,000 $8,800 $24,000 $2,850.00 $435.00 $0.43 $3,850 $6,000 $20,000 $68,000 $0.43 Each Total Cost $18,000.00 $8,800.00 $24,000.00 $2,850.00 $2,610.00 $10,750.00 $11,550.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $68,000.00 $17,200.00 $189,760.00 Unit Labor Hours 26.000 36.000 60.000 48.000 4.000 0.012 65 40.000 320.0 60.0 0.020 Total Labor Hours 26.00 36.00 60.00 48.00 24.00 300.00 19.50 40.00 300.00 60.00 800.00 $1,713.50 Total Labor Cost $2,535.00 $3,510.00 $5,850.00 $4,680.00 $2,340.00 $29,250.00 $1,901.25 $3,900.00 $29,250.00 $5,850.00 $78,000.00 $167,066.25 Unit Cost #DIV/0! $12,310.00 $29,850.00 $7,530.00 $825.00 $1.60 $4,483.75 $9,900.00 $49,250.00 $73,850.00 $2.38 Alternating Current Case Using Western Route on Existing VSM's South Pad to Walakpa Tota Cost $20,535.00 $12,310.00 $29,850.00 $7,530.00 $4,950.00) $40,000.00) $13,451.25 $9,900.00 $49,250.00 $73,850.00 $95,200.00 Barrow Cost Estimate For Connection 34.5 kV w/ OH Feed in/out Barrow-South Pad Cost Estimate on_78' pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures South Pad-Walakpa Cost Estimate on Existing VSM at 25 foot Spacing with35 Kv AC CLX South Pad-Atgasuk Cost Estimate on 63’ pole RLS Composite Single Pole Structures qasuk Cost Estimate For Connection Subtotal- Barrow to Atqasuk $978,030.00 $3,073,413.25 $16,977,357.11 $730,055.00 $31,430,744.03 \Walakpa Cost Estimate For Connection $356,826.25 Subtotal- WalakpaTap $356,826.25 Alternating Current Case Using Western Route on Existing VSM's South Pad to Walakpa $31, 787,570.28) EXHIBIT 2 Atqasuk Power Line Transmission Study 6 of 6 Western Route, WR1 Cost Estimate Me Spectacled Eider Observation, 7 vn USFWS 1992-2005 Spectacled Eider Density “ye Spectacled Eider Observation USFWS 1992-2005 ABR 1999-2010 Surveys (Birds per km’) Spectacled Eider Observation _ . ... ABR 2010 Survey for This Project 0- 0.034 North Slope Borough Native Allotments >0.034 - 0.146 Existing Roads and Gas Lines GB >0.146-0.255 Proposed Transmission Routes @B >0255-0.409 Western Route 1 GB >0.409- 1.248 Easter Route 2 Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur * This coverage contains relative density polygons showing predicted distribution of Spectacied Eiders within the North Slope eider survey area on the arctic coastal plain of Alaska. This distribution was interpolated from observations collected on annual aerial surveys from 1982-2005 (North Slope Eider Survey and Arctic Coastal Plain breeding pair survey). Birds per square kilometer of area searched was calculated for grid cells of 36 square kilometers covering the survey area. A triangulated irregular network was formed from these density points, which was then sampled to a grid with points every 100 meters. Finally, the grid was converted to a polygon coverage portraying 5 density classes. Data from an unpublished database used with permission from USFWS Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. a (enn *Terminus Area Not aan yey *byiMgR astse ek) are) Figure 1. Spectacled Eider observations (1999-2010) and predicted density polygons (1992-2005) in the Barrow—Atqasuk region. Spectacled Eider Observation USFWS 2007-2010 Spectacled Eider Density . ‘ USFWS 2007-2010 Spectacled Eider Observation 2 ABR 1999-2010 Surveys Birds per km Spectacled Eider Observation 0-0.028 ABR 2010 Survey for This Project North Slope Borough Native Allotments Existing Roads and Gas Lines @® 0111-0236 Proposed Transmission Routes GB >0.236- 0.425 >0.425 - 0.817 >0.028 - 0.111 Western Route 1 Eastern Route 2 Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur * This coverage contains relative density polygons showing predicted distribution of Spectacied Eiders within the North Slope eider survey area on the arctic coastal plain of Alaska. This distribution was interpolated from observations collected on annual aerial surveys from 2007-2010 (North Siope Eider Survey and Arctic Coastal Piain breeding pair survey). Birds per square kilometer of area searched was calculated for grid cells of 36 square kilometers covering the survey area. A triangulated irregular network was formed from these density points, which was then sampled to a grid with points every 100 meters. Finally, the grid was converted to a polygon coverage portraying 5 density classes. Data from an unpublished database used with permission from USFWS Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK. Area Not Surveyed by ABR Figure 2. Spectacled Eider observations (1999-2010) and predicted density polygons (2007-2010) in the Barrow—Atqasuk region. Legend ‘> High-value Spectacied Eider Breeding Habitat Wil North Slope Borough Native Allotments Existing Roads and Gas Lines Proposed Transmission Routes Western Route 1 Eastern Route 2 Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur High-value Spectacied Eider habitats were derived from a USFWS. NWI wetiands map layer by ABR. High-value breeding habitats are a combination of areas assessed to be of high value for nesting and brood-rearing (see text) Background images: Digital Ortho-Quad acquired July 2005 at 2.5m resolution with CIR film supplied by Golder Associates, INc., and imagery acquired online in ArcGIS: (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Map Projection Alaska State Plane Zone 6, NAD83, feet. ry ee on) od Geni eat r} j OS Flic] Figure 3. High-value breeding habitats for Spectacled Eiders in the Barrow—Atqasuk region. Legend Steller's Eider Observation ABR 2010 Survey for This Project Steller's Eider Observation ABR 1999-2010 Surveys Steller's Eider Observation © —_usFws 1992-2010 ee North Slope Borough Native Allotments Existing Roads and Gas Lines Proposed Transmission Routes Western Route 1 Eastern Route 2 Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur Gasline Oo iia) ee Pon 1 J} od Ld ® Figure 4. Steller’s Eider observations (1999-2010) in the Barrow—Atqasuk region. Yellow-billed Loon Nest, Yellow-billed Loon Registry, 1950-2007 Yellow-billed Loon Observation Yellow-billed Loon Registry, 1950-2007 Yellow-billed Loon Observation, USFWS 1992-2010 Brant Colony, ABR 1994-2006 Yellow-billed Loon Density ey Obes USFWS 1992-2005 © ABR 2000-2003, 2009-2010 (Birds per km’) Wl North Slope Borough Native Allotments 00.034 ~~ Existing Roads and Gas Lines >0.034 - 0.146 Proposed Transmission Routes Bz >0.146 — 0.255 —— Wester Route 1 GB >0.255- 0.409 Eastern Route 2 GBD >0.409- 1.248 Route 2a - Walakpa Power Line Spur This coverage contains relative density polygons showing predicted distribution of Yellow-billed Loons within the North Slope eider survey area on the arctic coastal plain of Alaska. This distribution was interpolated from observations collected on annual aerial surveys from 1992-2005 (North Slope Eider Survey and Arctic Coastal Piain breeding pair survey). Birds per square kilometer of area searched was calculated for grid celis of 36 square kilometers covering the survey area. A triangulated irregular network was formed from these density points, which was then sampled to a grid with points every 100 meters. Finally, the grid was converted to a polygon coverage portraying 5 density classes. Data from an unpublished database used with permission from USFWS Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, D Xteeet Figure 5. Yellow-billed Loon observations (1950-2010) and predicted density polygons (1992-2005), and Brant observations (1994-2010) in the Barrow-Atqasuk region.