Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance 1994 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy Submitted by J.C. Bradford & Co. - Financial Advisors to the Division of Energy May 3, 1994 Tables Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Table of Contents Introduction Financing Issues Cost of Power Discussion Appropriation for State Loan Cases to be Examined Four-Dam Pool Power Sales Agreement and Impact on Allison Lake Alternative Bond Financing Not Eligible for Tax-Exemption Availability of Financing for Thirty-Year Term Financing Assumptions Hypothetical Financing Conditions Scenario Without State Assistance Scenarios Minimum State Assistance Scenarios Estimated Interest Rate Assumed, All Scenarios Consideration of Possible Funding Sources 1. Issuance of Revenue Bonds Considerations for Utilizing the AEA or AIDEA as Issuer of the Bonds The Capital Reserve Fund Feature General Obligation Bonds or Bonds Guaranteed by the State of Alaska Appropriation from the General Fund Loan from the General Fund Financing Arrangements with Other Entities Assistance from any Federal Agency Loan from Power Project Fund Any Combination of Sources to On Cre Conclusion REA Most Cost Effective Market Alternative No Financial Feasibility Without State Loan _ NIAAA 10 il 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy Submitted May 3, 1994 by J.C. Bradford & Co. - Financial Advisors to the Division of Energy Introduction The State of Alaska Legislature in 1993 appropriated $35 million to the Power Project Fund to provide for a contemplated 50-year zero-interest loan for the proposed Copper Valley Intertie, "contingent upon the completion of a feasibility study and a plan of finance satisfactory to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs as set out in former AS 44.83.181." The Power Project Fund is now administered by the Division of Energy of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs of the State of Alaska (the "Division" or the "Division of Energy"). This Plan of Finance has been prepared in response to the requirement that a finance plan satisfactory to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs ("DCRA") be completed. According to former AS 44.83.181, a plan of finance must include recommendations of the most appropriate means to finance a project, after consideration of the following possible funding sources: (1) issuance of revenue bonds of the authority, (2) issuance of general obligation bonds of the state or revenue bonds of the authority that are guaranteed or partially guaranteed by the state, (3) an appropriation from the general fund, (4) a loan from the general fund, (5) financing arrangements with other entities using leveraged leases or other financing methods, (6) assistance from any federal agency such as the REA, (7) a loan from the power project fund under AS 44.83.170(a) or (8) any combination of financing arrangements listed above. Further directives in development of a plan of finance are found in 3 AAC 94.065 which states that a plan of finance should be prepared for any new power project identified in a feasibility study as the most feasible alternative for development. It further provides: "The purpose of the plan of finance is to present various alternatives available to finance the power project and to identify the most appropriate means to achieve the lowest cost electric power for consumers while minimizing the amount of state assistance required.” When state assistance is required to meet financial feasibility criteria, 3 AAC 94.065 provides that the proposed cost of power must be analyzed for the base case (diesel) and for the most feasible alternatives as follows: A. Projects are financed based on “hypothetical financing conditions:" Be Projects are financed based on the most advantageous market financing but without any State financial assistance; and Cc. Projects are financed with a combination of the most advantageous market financing and the minimum level of State assistance needed to achieve financial feasibility. The required Feasibility Study has been prepared by R.W. Beck of Seattle. The two most feasible alternatives to diesel generation identified in the study are the proposed Copper Valley Intertie Project ("Intertie") and the proposed Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project ("Allison Lake"). Under all but the low-load case, the Feasibility Study identified either the Intertie or Allison Lake as the most economical scenario over the long-run, in terms of cumulative present value of Comparable System Costs (see Table I-5 in the Feasibility Study). Therefore, the cost of power will be analyzed in this Plan of Finance for the diesel case, the Intertie case and the Allison Lake case. We have concluded in this Plan of Finance that a loan or guaranty from the Rural Electrification Administration (the ''REA"'), even under its most expensive program, would be the least costly financing alternative for those funds required in excess of the state loan. All financing alternatives assume no tax- exemption will be possible under current law. The project will benefit primarily the Copper Valley Electric Association ("CVEA"), a rural electric cooperative which does not enjoy the ability to finance its projects on a tax-exempt basis. Even the two-county rule, a federal exemption for certain projects, is unavailable because of the various public entities within the service territory of CVEA (the City of Valdez, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the unincorporated areas). For purposes of this Plan of Finance, an interest rate of 72% is assumed for all funds required above those provided by the proceeds of any State loan. This rate is the projected rate (including guaranty fee) for a loan from the Federal Financing Bank ("FFB") which would be guaranteed by the Rural Elecwification Administration . Of all financing alternatives available, this one is considered to be the least costly, other than of course the State Loan. The actual rate of the FFB loan will be determined when loan advances are made and will correspond directly with the long U.S. Treasury bond market at the ime of each advance. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 2 Financing Issues Cost of Power Discussion In the Feasibility Study, "cost of power" was defined as the nominal cost per kWh to CVEA of generating and/or purchasing power supplemental to the production from Solomon Gulch, excluding costs that are common to all scenarios such as certain depreciation and labor costs as well as purchase costs for Solomon Gulch energy. For example, in the Feasibility Study, the "cost of power" for the diesel case was calculated by dividing the estimated amount of diesel energy into the estimated incremental costs of diesel generation. For this Plan of Finance, the definition of “cost of power" has been changed in one respect: the cost of purchasing power from the Solomon Gulch project as presently configured is blended into the "cost of power" estimates in each case. Using the diesel example once again, the "cost of power" in the diesel case is calculated by dividing the total energy requirement for the CVEA system into the sum of incremental diesel costs and Solomon Gulch purchase costs. This produces a number that more closely approximates the blended power production cost for each scenario and that provides for a more useful comparison among cases. A specified difference in the cents per kWh outcome between two cases shown in this Plan of Finance also represents the estimated absolute difference in retail rate requirements between the two cases. For the Intertie and Allison Lake cases, it will be assumed that financial feasibility is achieved if the cost of power, as defined above, expressed in nominal cents per kWh, is equal to the cost of power in the base case (diesel) in the first full year of project operation. In other words, each project is assumed to be financially feasible in this analysis if no rate increase relative to the base case (diesel) is required in the initial year of operation (assumed to be the year 2000 for uniformity). The first step in the analysis required by this section of the regulations will be to estimate the cost of power for the base case (diesel), the Intertie case and the Allison Lake case for the initial full year of project operation assuming no State financial assistance. This conforms with item "B" above. For information purposes, cost of power will also be estimated for the year 2010 to show the expected long-term cost trend for each scenario. The next step will be to estimate the levels of State assistance needed for the Intertie case and for the Allison Lake case such that the cost of power in the initial project year is equal to the esumated cost of power in the base case (diesel) for the same year, assuming no State financial assistance for the diesel alternative. Stated another way, how much State assistance would be needed for the Intertie case and, alternatively, for the Allison Lake case for each project to come on line without causing rates to exceed what they would have been in an unassisted diesel case. This conforms with item "C" above. Finally, in accordance with item "A" above, the cost of power for the Intertie case, the Allison Lake case, and the diesel base case must be analyzed under "hypothetical financing conditions." There is no guidance in the regulations to help define what these hypothetical financing conditions are intended to be. The approach taken here is to define the hypothetical financing conditions as follows: 1 For both the Intertie and Allison Lake, a $35 million, zero-interest, 50-year loan is applied to the capital cost, supplemented by the most advantageous market financing as necessary. N For the base case (diesel), zero-interest 20- year loans are used to finance new diesel capacity as needed through the year 2010. Twenty-year maturities are used to conform with the expected life of the diesel generators. The total amount of diesel capacity loans over the period would be less than $35 million. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 3 Appropriation for State Loan As noted earlier, the 1993 Alaska legislature appropriated $35 million for a zero-interest, 50-year loan to participating utilities for the design and construction of the proposed Copper Valley Intertie. The appropriation is conungent upon completion of a feasibility study and plan of finance satisfactory to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Intertie advocates have suggested that illustrating the effect of applying the $35 million loan to Allison Lake should not be included in the “hypothetical financing" cases because, according to the language of the appropriation, such application is not possible. While the object of the appropriation is clearly specified as the Intertie project, re- appropriation is legally possible at the discretion of the Legislature and the Governor, and there is considerable precedent in recent Alaska history for re- appropriating capital funds to other projects and purposes. The only basis for excluding the possibility of re-appropriation would be a political judgment about possible outcomes in the Alaska political process. Whatever the current political realities or future political possibilities might be, such judgments are outside the proper scope of this analysis. While we realize such state loan may not be made available to alternatives other than the Intertie Project, we view our role as financial advisors to independently and objectively compare alternatives using "“apples-to-apples" calculations whenever possible. Aside from avoiding political judgments, a goal of this analysis is to provide the maximum amount of information that would be useful in comparing the financial implications of the most feasible alternatives. This is consistent with the intent of the plan of finance regulations. Application of the $35 million zero-interest loan not only to Allison Lake but also to acquisition of new diesel capacity is therefore considered under "hypothetical financing conditions." The reader should be cautioned, however, that such inclusion is meant to imply nothing about political probabilities. Cases to be Examined In summary, both the Intertie and Allison Lake cases are examined: is Without State assistance; N With State assistance in the form of a $35 million, zero-interest, 50-year loan; and 5s With the minimum level of State assistance needed to achieve financial feasibility. The minimum level of State assistance will be expressed as the required amount of State loan issued at zero interest with a repayment of principal spread evenly over 50 years. The base case (diesel) is examined: 1. Without State assistance; and N With State assistance in the form of zero- interest, 20-year loans as needed to replace diesel generating capacity. The Plan of Finance will also estimate the present value cost to the State of Alaska for the level of state assistance which is assumed in the Plan of Finance, all in accordance with 3 AAC 94.065. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 4 Four-Dam Pool Power Sales Agreement and Impact on Allison Lake Alternative In the proposed Allison Lake Project alternative, a question arises in the interpretation of resulting power costs of electricity generated by Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric project and sold to Copper Valley Electric Association ("CVEA"): "What rate will CVEA pay under its power sales agreement with the State of Alaska (Alaska Energy Authority) for additional power generated by Solomon Gulch from water supplied through a tunnel from Allison Lake to the Solomon Gulch Reservoir?" The answer impacts the CVEA and the State of Alaska as well as the other participating utilities in the Four-Dam Pool (the Cities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell and Kodiak Electric Association). The agreement does not provide for a situation such as Allison Lake whereby a participating utility does something to increase the generation potential of one of the projects. All the cost allocations were based on expected output of the projects in 1984 when the agreement was negotiated. If CVEA were to pay the Four-Dam Pool wholesale power rate for the additional power generated by Solomon Gulch from Allison Lake waterflow, it makes the projected cost of power under the Allison Lake scenario somewhat less than the proposed Copper Valley Intertie under certain scenarios (assuming the state loan is made available to Allison Lake). Without any payment for the power produced from the Allison Lake watertlow into Solomon Gulch, and assuming the same state loan, the cost of power under the Allison Lake scenario is projected to be substantially less than the cost of power under the Intertie scenario, except in the high load growth scenarios. At this early stage of consideration, there is insufficient basis to narrow the range of possibilities on this question. A compromise settlement might occur in the interest of all parties; i.e. a negotiated price somewhere between zero and 6.4 cents per kWh. There is precedent for the Four Dam Pool adopting negotiated rates in instances not dealt with explicitly in the initial agreement, such as rates for interruptible sales. For purposes of analysis, the Division of Energy has concurred that three power rates be analyzed for the power generated from the waterflow of Allison Lake into Solomon Gulch. These three rates are the full 6.4 cents per kWh presently being charged to the Four-Dam Pool members, zero cents and an assumed rate of 3.2 cents per kWh. In both cases where a rate is charged, the operation and maintenance component would be escalated for inflation. Bond Financing Not Eligible for Tax-Exemption The principal beneficiary of the contemplated financing, whether the Intertie or Allison Lake is the financed project, will be the Copper Valley Electric Association, a rural electric cooperative that serves the Glennallen and Valdez areas. Under current tax law, any project for the benefit of such a cooperative (as opposed to a municipally-owned utility) is not considered a public purpose project unless an exception is met. Specifically, the two-county rule is an exception which sometimes is possible for gaining tax-exempt status. The two-county rule provides when all the output of a project is used within what is defined as a "two-county area", the project may qualify for tax- exempt financing. For purposes of this rule, incorporated cities and counties within the service area of a project each constitute a "county." In the case of Alaska, a borough is considered a county as Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 5 is the unorganized borough. In the case of the CVEA specifically, customers reside in Valdez, an incorporated city, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the unorganized borough. Thus, three "counties" are involved, even in the case of Allison Lake. In evaluating the Intertie, it is possible that even more “counties” would be involved, considering the profit margins in the sale of power that would benefit other uulities and any ancillary benefits to others from an enlarged power grid. Those familiar with the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project near Homer may recall the project was built by the AEA and the power is being sold to four electric cooperatives and two municipalities. This project was financed with tax- exempt revenue bonds because Bradley Lake received special legislative designation as a two-county rule project. In this instance, short of similar legislative assistance in the U.S. Congress, no tax-exemption will be possible. Because the chance of receiving such an exemption is remote, taxable financing rates have been assumed. Availability of Financing for Thirty-Year Term This Plan of Finance assumes the avail- ability of financing for a full thirty-year term from the start of commercial operation of either the Intertie or Allison Lake. The REA (or any lender of funds supplemental to the State loan) may consider the allowable term of the loan in light of the anticipated economic life of the Alyeska pipeline and associated facilities as well as the prospects for additional loads. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 6 Financing Assumptions Hypothetical Financing Conditions Scenarios In addition to the assumption that the financing will not enjoy the benefits attributable to tax-exemptin, the following assumptions have been made with respect to the /Aypothetical financing scenarios: 1. The State of Alaska $35 million zero-interest loan is assumed to be available for any of the alternatives considered. It is recognized that the authorizing legislation for the state loan presently refers only to the Intertie as previously discussed. N The $35 million loan from the State of Alaska will be at zero-percent interest and will be repaid over the first fifty years of operation of the project. Such repayment is assumed to be in fifty equal annual amounts of 2% per annum ($700,000 per annum). 3. The proceeds of the $35 million loan will be expended first, before the proceeds of any other financing, in an effort to minimize capitalized interest during construction. The State would release loan proceeds as needed, with the project receiving no interest earnings on the funds. 4. The issuance of any bonds or other financing instuments will be delayed as long as possible, consistent with complying with state law and good business practice (making sure adequate funding is on hand or assured before entering construction contracts). 5s The long-term interest rate is assumed to be 72% for bonds with a term of thirty years from the date of commercial operation. Debt service is assumed to be level as to total principal and interest each year. 6. Costs of issuance are assumed to equal one- half of one percent of the total par amount of bonds issued (minimum of $100,000). Without State Assistance Scenarios With respect to the without state assistance scenarios, assumptions | through 4 above would not apply and assumptions 5 and 6 would apply. Minimum State Assistance Scenarios With regard to scenarios using the minimum State assistance required, all of the above six points would apply, but the loan from the State of Alaska would be reduced if possible. The loan would be computed to be that amount needed to reduce the cost of power from the project to a level competitive with diesel. For purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that from the first year of commercial operation there would be no increase in the retail cost of power over what the cost of the base case power would have been. Estimated Interest Rate Assumed, All Scenarios Under current market conditions, FFB loans are being made at approximately 744%. With the REA guaranty fee of /s% added, the current cost to a REA borrower is approximately 7%. The FFB rate is tied to the U.S. Government long bond (30-year) rate. The 72% rate used in this Plan of Finance is consistent with what seems to be a consensus view of interest rate forecasters that interest rates in the next few years will be at or near this level for the U.S. Government long-term borrowing. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 7 There are many opposing views on interest rate forecasts, particularly in light of market volatility in recent weeks. No forecast can be guaranteed. For purposes of analysis of rate sensitivity, we will compare costs of power at 642% and 82%, which is 1% higher and 1% lower than the assumed rate, to gain perspective on the magnitude of interest rate sensitivities. On such capital intensive projects, interest rate fluctuations can dramatically impact the outcome when comparing to the diesel alternative, a very low-capital power source when viewed next to hydroelectric or long-line Intertie projects. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 8 Consideration of Possible Funding Sources The legislation appropriating $35 million to fund a loan for the Copper Valley Intertie requires compliance with former AS 44.83.181 in preparing the financing plan for the project. The statute lists eight categories of project financing for consideration: 1. Issuance of Revenue Bonds Considerations for Utilizing the AEA or AIDEA as Issuer of the Bonds There are notable advantages and disadvantages of issuing bonds through the Alaska Energy Authority ("AEA") as compared to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority ("AIDEA"). Although the functions of the AEA have been greatly diminished by recent legislation, the AEA remains a legal entity with legal authority to finance projects under certain conditions and advantages may exist in so doing. The principal considerations in comparing AEA to AIDEA as issuer of the bonds are as follows: A. Ability to secure the bonds with the state's capital reserve fund - both AEA and AIDEA have the ability to accomplish this on an Intertie project, but only AEA has the ability to accomplish it on Allison Lake. B. AIDEA can use its general obligation to give marketability to any feasible project, but in so doing, that project must show 1.50 times coverage of debt service to comply with AIDEA's bond resolution. This requirement exceeds market requirements for power revenue bonds and would raise power rates unnecessarily. iC. While APUC approval of use agreements would probably be required under either AIDEA or AEA financings, AIDEA financings would also require municipal approvals. AIDEA must secure approval from any municipality in which a project is located if the project cost exceeds $6 million. D. AEA may not be the owner of any project for which it issues bonds but it may be the issuer for conduit financings. It is apparent that the use of the capital reserve fund of the State of Alaska will help provide the lowest cost of power for any bond financing alternative. This would be accomplished by lowering debt service coverage requirements and by maximizing market acceptance of the bond issue. We have assumed the issuer which is chosen, if bond financing were utilized, will be one that is able to utilize the capital reserve fund as one of the security features of the bond issue. While this feature does not create a legal obligation on the State to make up shortfalls, the capital reserve fund is commonly referred to in the municipal bond industry as a "moral obligation" of a state. In the case of the proposed Copper Valley Intertie project, the capital reserve fund security feature could be provided by either AIDEA or AEA. However, in the case of the proposed Allison Lake project, only AEA could provide this benefit because AIDEA's legislation only permits the use of the capital reserve fund for Intertie projects. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 9 The Capital Reserve Fund Security Feature The Capital Reserve Fund feature refers to what is commonly known and thought of in the municipal bond industry as a “moral obligation” ot the state in which the project is located. The language in the state legislation simply provides that if the capital reserve fund is drawn upon and therefore on January 1 of any year has a shortfall in its required balance, the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate will be notified of such shortfall. The State may, at its option, replenish the shortfall. While this creates no legal liability for the State, the State of Alaska (and most issuers in the nation) have historically honored such obligations. The bond market, for the most part, as well as credit rating agencies and bond insurance companies, has confidence that "moral obligations" will be honored so that the issuers involved may protect their excellent credit reputations. The State of Alaska has a history of utilizing the "moral obligation" feature on many of its agencies’ debt and has on occasion been presented the opportunity to make good on these obligations and has done so. The rating agencies have taken the position that so long as the project appears feasible (and therefore the likelihood of calling on the "moral obligation" is low), that the bond issue should generally be rated no worse than a full letter grade below the state's general obligation bond rating. In the case of Alaska, this enables the "moral obligation" financing to obtain an "A" rating on its own merit and makes the financing attractive for bond insurance which allows the bonds to be marketed with a "AAA" rating. It is our opinion that the use of the Capital Reserve Fund feature is critical to assuring marketability for this financing if revenue bonds are utilized because of the relatively small size and remoteness of the Copper Valley Electric Association in terms of the municipal bond market. It not only assures marketability, but reduces debt service coverage requirements and lowers interest rates. This technique has been utilized by the Alaska Energy Authority on its interim and permanent financing for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project as well as its interim financing for the Swan, Terror and Tyee Hydroelectric Projects. The Capital Reserve Fund has commonly been used by the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. In short, the market is familiar with and accepts the "moral obligation" of the State of Alaska as a meaningful credit enhancement for bonds of its agencies. Revenue bonds issued on a taxable basis in today's market would bear interest at a rate of approximately 82% and no significant change in rates is expected by many interest rate forecasters. We have therefore used the REA approach as the best hypothetical financing, assuming a 742% rate. If tax exempt financing were available for this project or any alternative, revenue bonds would be the least costly financing other than a financial hardship loan from REA, if available. 2. General Obligation Bonds or Bonds Guaranteed by the State of Alaska For over a decade, the State of Alaska has made every attempt to minimize its issuance of general obligation bonds or guarantees. The State has also been extremely cautious in extending maturities of any of its debt because of the declining oil revenues projected with the Prudhoe Oil Curve. This financing will be one of a very long term and one which can be accomplished without the general obligation support of the State of Alaska. It is however very important to note that the use of the Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 10 capital reserve fund, if revenue bonds are issued, accomplishes much of the same benetit for the project. As discussed earlier, this technique invokes the "moral obligation" of the State. 3. Appropriation from the General Fund We assume the Legislature has previously addressed this question in its decision to conditionally offer a zero-interest fifty-year loan in support of the Intertie Project. 4. Loan from the General Fund This source has in effect been considered in #7 below, inasmuch as the loan from the Power Project Fund would be made from appropriations from the Legislature. 5. Financing Arrangements with Other Entities No other financing source was identified which would offer a more cost-effective financing than financing available through the REA discussed immediately below. In our review of REA alternatives, we also discussed financing arrangements available through both the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation ("CFC") and the National Bank for Cooperatives ("CoBank"). Both expressed interest in either making a loan to CVEA (either project would be eligible if feasible in their judgment) or in participating in a REA loan on a concurrent basis. While there are differences in loan rates and conditions between the two organizations, the loan rate from either would reflect market rates on long U.S. Treasury obligations and would probably range 14% to 134% above such Treasury rates in any given market. Both organizations are cooperatives and require membership. We understand CVEA presently belongs to CFC. 6. Assistance from any Federal Agency As a rural electric cooperative, CVEA is an eligible borrower from REA. As a cooperative qualifying for a financial hardship status (with per kWh retail rates exceeding 15 cents), CVEA would qualify for all three REA loan programs: A. 5% fixed rate for the entire project; or B. a concurrent financing with REA participating with CFC or Co-Bank on a 70/30 basis (or up to 90% by REA in certain case). REA interest rate is tied to 20-year municipals, currently about 614% and the other participant is currently about 834% for a blended rate of about 7%; or (e; a FFB loan (fixed at long U.S. Treasury rates) with a REA guaranty (%% guaranty fee), producing a total cost of approximately 7% in today's market. As stated earlier, this is consistent with long-term rate forecasts (we are using 7'/2% for analysis purposes). If CVEA were to not qualify at the time of the loan for financial hardship status, CVEA would only be able to access the FFB program because of the nature of the project. Only distribution or sub- transmission programs can qualify for the other less expensive programs. There is also concern that the lower cost programs will be the most in jeopardy in the Federal budgetary process. Because of these uncertainties, the FFB approach is utilized in this Plan of Finance, although in actual practice, any lower cost alternatives which may then be available — will certainly be explored as the actual financing is undertaken, Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 11 7. Loan from Power Project Fund This funding source has, of course, been considered, not only for the Intertie but also for Allison Lake and the base case (diesel), both of which would require additional legislation. We have considered not only a full $35 million zero-interest loan for fifty years, but also whether a smaller loan could sull accomplish financial feasibility. 8. Any Combination of Sources The Plan of Finance scenarios listed above consider combinations of participauon in REA programs by CVEA and loans from the Power Project Fund which would be made possible by appropriations from the General Fund. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 12 Conclusions REA Most Cost Effective Market Alternative Of all the alternatives available for borrowings in excess of available state loans, the REA is clearly the least costly. As explained earlier, there are three possible programs within REA, depending on the nature of the loan and the status of the borrower. Even if the most expensive program must be utilized (a FFB loan guaranteed by REA), the cost of funds would still be attractive under current market conditions. CVEA would be allowed to borrow at a rate only marginally higher than — the long-term rate at which the Federal government borrows. The recommended financing alternative for the financing of the proposed Copper Valley Intertie Project is a REA loan to CVEA or guaranty. Even in the highest cost program of REA, that of a FFB loan which is guaranteed by REA, the cost under current market conditions is less than 7/2% per annum for a loan amortized over the first thirty years of the life of a project. In the event the Allison Lake Project is selected (provided a state loan were made available), REA would also be the preferred alternative for financing in our opinion. In addition, if for any reason the REA programs were not available, the revenue bond approach is likely to be a viable alternative, although a considerably higher interest rate (about 1% higher) would result. This approach would require the moral obligation of the State of Alaska as previously discussed. Use of CFC or CoBank as a lender might also be attractive in such event, since CVEA would be the borrower and no moral obligation of the State of Alaska would be involved. No Financial Feasibility Without State Loan No project reviewed has financial feasibility without a state loan, This is based on the definition of financial feasibility stated previously: No rate increase relative to the base case (diesel) in the year 2000, the assumed first year of operation, is allowed. Further, depending on the scenario being depicted, both the Copper Valley Intertie Project and the Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project could be placed into commercial operation at power rates competitive with the diesel base case. This would be possible even with fifty-year zero interest state loans of less than $35 million as shown on the tables which follow. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance May 3, 1994 Page 13 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Projected Cost of Power Tables (Nominal Cents / kWh) Table I Medium-High Scenario Medium Load Growth / High Fuel Cost Escalation Table II Medium-Low Scenario Medium Load Growth / Low Fuel Cost Escalation Table III High Scenario High Load Growth / High Fuel Cost Escalation Table IV Low Scenario Low Load Growth / Low Fuel Cost Escalation Tables I through IV follow. Each was prepared by R.W. Beck, at the direction of J.C. Bradford & Co., utilizing the data base compiled as part of their Feasibility Study. However, such Tables reflect the assumptions provided R.W. Beck by J.C. Bradford & Co. which are detailed in this Plan of Finance. Case 1 - No State Assistance 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Case 2 - Minimum State Assistance ($000)(5) 7.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 6.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) Case 3 - Hypothetical Financing(7) 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) (1) Medium-high scenario assumes medium load growth and high fuel cost escalation through 2010. Includes assumed inflation at 3.5% per year. Table 1 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Cost of Power Analysis Projected Cost of Power (Nominal Cents/kWh) (Medium-High Scenario)(1) 2000 2010 Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) 94 11.8 11.6 11.1 10.6 12;7' 13.1 13:3 12a7 12.1 93 11.1 iin 10.5 10.0 12.6 12.5 12.8 2 11.6 9.6 12.6 12:3 7, PLZ 12.8 13.8 13.9 13.3 12.7 94 $25,000 $22,000 $16,500 $11,000 5 $21,200 $18,600 $14,000 $9,300 9.3 $22,000 $20,000 $13,500 $7,000 a $18,600 $16,900 $11,400 $5,900 9.6 $27,000 $23,000 $17,500 $13,000 : $22,800 $19,500 $14,800 $11,000 8.8 8.5 8.3 78 7.3 12.0 10.1 10.3 97 | 8.8 8.3 8.3 77 We 12.0 9.9 10.2 9.6 9.0 8.8 8.8 8.4 19 74 12.0 10.3 10.3 98 9.2 - $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 - - (2) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at 7.1 cents/kWh in 2000 and 8.3 cents/kWh in 2010, both in nominal dollars. Includes inflation on O&M component of cost. (3) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at one-half the rate assumed in the previous case, i.e. 3.55 cents/kKWh in 2000. (4) Assumes additional generation at Solomon Gulch has no charge. (5) Estimated state loan required to provide first year cost of power the same as for diesel case in that year. (6) State loan amount less present value of loan payments. Assumes 8.5% discount rate. (7) Assumes $35,000,000, zero interest, 50-year, state loan available for Intertie and Allison Lake. In the Diesel Case, zero interest, 20-year, state loans are assumed to be available to fund diesel capacity additions. Prepared by R.W. Beck 5/3/94 Case 1 - No State Assistance 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Case 2 - Minimum State Assistance ($000)(5) 7.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 6.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) Case 3 - Hypothetical Financing(7) 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) (1) Medium-low scenario assumes medium load growth and low fuel cost escalation through 2010. Includes assumed inflation at 3.5% per year. Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Cost of Power Analysis Table 2 Projected Cost of Power (Nominal Cents/kWh) (Medium-Low Scenario)(1) 2000 2010 Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) 92 11.7 11.6 11.0 10.5 11.7 12.6 12.9 12.3 11.7 9.1 11.0 11.0 10.4 99 11.6 11,9) 12.3 11.8 11.2 9.3 125 12.2 11.6 14 11.8 13:3 135 12.9 12:3 92 $26,000 $24,000 $18,000 $10,000 $22,000 $20,300 $15,200 $8,500 9.1 $23,000 $22,000 $15,500 $9,000 $19,500 $18,600 $13,100 $7,600 9.3 $28,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $23,700 $21,200 $16,900 $12,700 8.5 8.4 8.3 ood D2 11.0 9.5 9.8 9.2 8.7 35 8.2 8.2 77 TA 11.0 9.3 97 92 8.6 8.5 8.6 84 78 13 11.0 97 9.9 93 8.8 - $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 - - - - - (2) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at 7.1 cents/kWh in 2000 and 8.3 cents/kWh in 2010, both in nominal dollars. Includes inflation on O&M component of cost. (3) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at one-half the rate assumed in the previous case, i.e. 3.55 cents/kWh in 2000. (4) Assumes additional generation at Solomon Gulch has no charge. (5) Estimated state loan required to provide first year cost of power the same as for diesel case in that year. (6) State loan amount less present value of loan payments. Assumes 8.5% discount rate. (7) Assumes $35,000,000, zero interest, 50-year, state loan available for Intertie and Allison Lake. In the Diesel Case, zero interest, 20-year, state loans are assumed to be available to fund diesel capacity additions. Prepared by R.W. Beck 5/3/94 Case 1 - No State Assistance 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Case 2 - Minimum State Assistance ($000)(5) 7.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 6.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) Case 3 - Hypothetical Financing(7) 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) (1) High scenario assumes high load growth and high fuel cost escalation through 2010. Includes assumed inflation at 3.5% per year. Table 3 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Cost of Power Analysis Projected Cost of Power (Nominal Cents/kWh) (High Scenario)(1) 2000 2010 Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) 933 2 11.5 11.0 10.5 133 12.3 13.8 123, 12.9 9.2 10.6 10.9 10.5 10.0 1382 11.8 13.4 12.9 12.4 9.4 11.9 12.0 11.5 11.1 13.4 12.9 14.3 13.8 13.3 9.3 $21,000 $24,000 $18,000 $12,000 - $17,800 $20,300 $15,200 $10,200 9.2 $18,000 $23,000 $16,000 $10,000 s $15,200 $19,500 $13,500 $8,500 94 $24,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 - $20,300 $21,200 $16,900 $12,700 8.7 8.2 8.5 8.0 7.6 12.6 9.9 Li 10.9 10.4 8.7 8.0 8.4 vo da 12.6 9.7 1s 10.8 10.3 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.1 76 12.6 10.0 114 11.0 10.5 - $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 - - (2) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at 7.1 cents/kWh in 2000 and 8.3 cents/kWh in 2010, both in nominal dollars. Includes inflation on O&M component of cost. (3) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at one-half the rate assumed in the previous case, i.e. 3.55 cents/kWh in 2000. (4) Assumes additional generation at Solomon Gulch has no charge. (5) Estimated state loan required to provide first year cost of power the same as for diesel case in that year. (6) State loan amount less present value of loan payments. Assumes 8.5% discount rate. (7) Assumes $35,000,000, zero interest, 50-year, state loan available for Intertie and Allison Lake. In the Diesel Case, zero interest, 20-year, state loans are assumed to be available to fund diesel capacity additions. Prepared by R.W. Beck 5/3/94 Case 1 - No State Assistance 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Case 2 - Minimum State Assistance ($000)(5) 7.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 6.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) Case 3 - Hypothetical Financing(7) 7.5% Interest Rate 6.5% Interest Rate 8.5% Interest Rate Net PV of State Loan (6) Table 4 Copper Valley Intertie Plan of Finance Cost of Power Analysis Projected Cost of Power (Nominal Cents/kWh) (Low Scenario)(1) (1) Low scenario assumes medium load growth and low fuel cost escalation through 2010. Includes assumed inflation at 3.5% per year. (2) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at 7.1 cents/kWh in 2000 and 8.3 cents/kWh in 2010, both in nominal dollars. Includes inflation on O&M component of cost. (3) Assumes all additional generation at Solomon Gulch priced at one-half the rate assumed in the previous case, i.e. 3.55 cents/kWh in 2000. (4) Assumes additional generation at Solomon Gulch has no charge. (5) Estimated state loan required to provide first year cost of power the same as for diesel case in that year. (6) State loan amount less present value of loan payments. Assumes 8.5% discount rate. (7) Assumes $35,000,000, zero interest, 50-year, state loan available for Intertie and Allison Lake. In the Diesel Case, zero interest, 20-year, state loans are assumed to be available to fund diesel capacity additions. Prepared by R.W. Beck 2000 2010 Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Allison Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) Diesel Intertie Lake(2) Lake(3) Lake (4) 8.4 127, 11.7 Hist 10.5 10.7 14.2 13.0 123 115 8.3 11.9 11.1 10.5 98 10.6 13.3 12.4 11.6 10.9 8.5 13.6 12.4 11.8 11.1 10.7 15 13.7 13.0 12.2 8.4 $40,000 $29,000 $23,000 $17,000 = $33,800 $24,500 $19,500 $14,400 8.3 $39,000 $29,000 $22,000 $15,000 = $33,000 $24,500 $18,600 $12,700 8.5 $40,500 $30,000 $24,500 $19,000 $34,300 $25,400 $20,700 $16,100 79 8.9 79 73. 6.6 10.1 10.2 9.1 8.4 716 19 8.6 78 V2 6.6 10.1 10.0 9.0 8.3 73 79 91 19 m3. 67 10.1 10.5 9.2 8.4 dd - $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 $29,600 - - - - 5/3/94