Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Alaska Energy Authority Kenai Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Final Report 1991
Alaska Energy Authority RAILBELT INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT March 1991 RAILBELT INTERTIE FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared by Alaska Energy Authority March 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Tet 1.2 13 1.4 Objective ‘ Background... a Feasibility Study Overview ; Conclusions . : ENGINEERING AND DESIGN Zell 22 23 2.4 29 Southern Line: Route Selection and Right-of-Way . 2.1.1 Description of Enstar Route. 2.1.2 Enstar Route Right-of-Way Issues 2.1.3 Description of Tesoro Route. 2.1.4 Tesoro Route Right-of-Way Issues Northern Line: Route Selection and Right-of-Way . 2.2.1 Description of "South Route" 2.2.2 Description of "North Route" 2.2.3 Right-of-Way Comparison -- "South" vs. "North" Route : Note on Mental Health Lands Elements of Project Design . 2.4.1 Overview of Southern Line (Enstar Route) 2.4.2 Overview of Southern Line (Tesoro Route) 2.4.3. Overview of Northern Line (Both Routes) Summary of Project Impact . 2.5.1 Southern Line -- Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses . 2.5.2 Northern Line -- Impact on ‘Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses ons ; CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3.1 Capital Cost Estimates . 3.1.1 Southern Line: "Enstar" Route . 3.1.2 Southern Line: "Tesoro" Route. . 3.1.3 Northern Line (Including SVS Additions). 3.2 Operating Cost Estimates 3.2.1 Southern Line: "Enstar" Route . 3.2.2 Southern Line: "Tesoro" Route. 3.2.3 Northern Line ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . 4.1 4.2 Southern Line: Enstar and Tesoro Routes 4.1.1 Air Quality . 4.1.2 Water Quality . 4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife. . 4.1.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status . 4.1.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands) 4.1.6 Recreation Resources . ‘ 4.1.7 Visual Impacts Northern Line: "North" and "South" Routes 4.2.1 Air Quality . 4.2.2 Water Quality . 4.2.3 Fish and Wildlife. . 4.2.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status. 4.2.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and reine 4.2.6 Recreation Resources . * | |e) || 4.2.7 Visual Impacts ECONOMIC PARAMETERS . 5.1 5.2 5.3 Fuel Price Forecasts Electricity Demand Forecasts 5.2.1 Railbelt Population and Employment Forecasts 5.2.2 Railbelt Electricity Demand Forecasts Discount Rate 6. PROJECT BENEFITS ed et pel the yet i) yh) tee tae | | pose 6.1 Benefits ofKenai-Anchorage Line . . . . . . 61 6.1.1 ReliabilityBenefits . . iii innhO=2 6.1.2 Generation Dispatch and Efficiency . nae nO=7 6.1.3 Generation Reserve Requirements . ; 6-9 6-1 6.1.4 Benefit Summary: Kenai-Anchorage Line -10 6.2 Benefits of Healy-Fairbanks Line Sse eciinlcinniar sania caiman O=s11 6.2.1 Reliability Benefits. 6-12 6.2.2 Economy Energy Benefits: ‘Substitution of Gas for Oil . 6-13 6.2.3 Capacity Sharing Benefits. . ot) et) | la) | 36-16 6.2.4 Benefit Summary: Healy-Fairbanks Line. eile tOz16 APPENDIX A. Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study: List of Volumes APPENDIX B. Railbelt Reliability Assessment: North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) APPENDIX C. Comments on Draft Report APPENDIX D. Independent Cost Estimate: Dryden & LaRue, Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this document is to review the feasibility of two 138 kV intertie projects: one between Soldotna and Anchorage, the other between Healy and Fairbanks. These projects are identified in Ch. 208, Sec. 159, SLA 1990, which appropriated $100 million plus interest earnings to a Railbelt intertie reserve. This is intended to comply with the project review requirements contained in AS 44.83.181. 1.2 BACKGROUND The Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study was completed by the Alaska Energy Authority (the "Authority") and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in 1989. Among the projects evaluated, three are of particular relevance to this feasibility study: 1) construction of a new 230 kV transmission line between Soldotna and Anchorage; 2) full upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie, including a new 345 kV line between Healy and Fairbanks plus a new 345 kV line south of Willow; 3) limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consisting only of electrical equipment to allow a limited increase in transfer capacity over the existing line. For each of these intertie projects, the reconnaissance study provides preliminary engineering and design, environmental impact analysis, and construction cost estimates. Also provided are fuel price forecasts, electricity demand forecasts, and economic evaluation of each project. Among the conclusions of the economic analysis were the following: 1) The proposed 230 kV intertie between Soldotna and Anchorage and the proposed full upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie to 345 kV are not economically feasible; i.e. projected costs exceed estimated benefits for both projects. 2) The limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie is economically feasible. As these findings emerged, the Railbelt electric utilities proposed two scaled-down intertie alternatives that had the potential to capture most of the benefits of the larger projects but at reduced cost. These scaled-down alternatives are the subject of this feasibility study and are described as follows: 1-1 1) A new intertie between Soldotna and Anchorage constructed at 138 kV (instead of 230 kV as initially proposed); 2) Upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consisting of a new 138 kV line between Healy and Fairbanks, plus electrical equipment needed for increased transfer capability. The Railbelt utilities then sponsored an economic analysis of the scaled-down alternatives, which concluded that both proposals are economically feasible. This analysis was adopted as an addendum to the Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study by the Authority Board of Directors in February 1990. Appendix A contains a complete list of volumes included in the reconnaissance study. 13 FEASIBILITY STUDY OVERVIEW Essentially all of the information required for a feasibility study is also needed to produce a reconnaissance study, specifically: preliminary engineering and design of proposed projects; capital and operating costs of proposed projects; : environmental impact analysis; . other parameters needed for economic assessment including fuel price forecasts, electricity demand forecasts, and discount rate; . benefit/cost analysis. The approach adopted here is to use information developed for the reconnaissance study as much as possible, supplementing where necessary within time and funding constraints. The main subjects of the feasibility study are covered as follows: Engineering and Design This category includes specification of physical design, route selection and right-of- way, and definition of project capability. In other words, the purpose of this section is to describe what the project is, where it is intended to go (including associated right-of-way issues), and what effect it is expected to have in the areas of power transfer capability and transmission losses. For the southern line (i.e. between Soldotna and Anchorage), most of the information for this section is drawn from prior studies. For the northern line (i.e. the Anchorage-Fairbanks upgrade that includes a new Healy-Fairbanks line), additional work has been performed for this feasibility study to better define the electrical equipment required for the upgrade and the impact of the upgrade on power transfer capability. Capital and Operating Costs Cost estimates were developed in the reconnaissance study for the southern 230 kV line and for the northern 345 kV upgrade, and were subsequently adjusted as the project definition evolved. A capital cost estimate for the scaled-down alternatives was most recently prepared by the Authority in February 1990. However, a cost estimate from an independent source must also be prepared according to the project review requirements in AS 44.83.185. This has now been completed and represents the most recent and thorough cost estimate available regarding the scaled-down alternatives. As a result, the independent estimate of construction cost is presented in this feasibility study and is recommended for project planning. Projected operating and maintenance costs have been reviewed by Authority staff and re-estimated for this study. Environmental Impact Analysis All of this section is taken directly from the reconnaissance study. Economic Parameters Fuel price forecasts, electricity demand forecasts, and discount rate are also taken directly from the reconnaissance study. Project Benefits There was substantial investment during the reconnaissance study in the attempt to quantify the benefits of these transmission projects, and there was substantial debate about the results as well. Much of the benefit for these projects falls into categories where quantification is difficult: e.g. improved reliability, improved system coordination, removal of certain operating constraints, increased access to Bradley Lake spinning reserve. An attempt could be made to sharpen these benefit estimates if funds were committed for additional system modeling and analysis. However, funds for more economic studies have not been made available; and even with additional studies, a clear resolution of these issues might not be achieved. The basic approach of this document is to present and discuss the benefit assessments included in the reconnaissance study, supplemented by comments subsequently made by outside observers regarding the overall adequacy of the Railbelt transmission system. This discussion provides the basis for the Authority’s conclusions on project feasibility. 1.4 CONCLUSIONS The estimated project costs are as follows: ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS (Millions of January 1991 Dollars) Annual Present Value Construction O&M of Total Cost Cost Cost Soldotna-Anchorage 138 kV $75.1 $0.3 $81.5 ("Enstar" route) Soldotna-Anchorage 138 kV $84.1 $0.4 $91.5 ("Tesoro" route) Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV $77.6 $0.2 $80.9 (incl. SVS additions) Represents levelized annual cost. Annual O&M costs are expected to increase over time, as described in Chapter 3. Includes present value of O&M costs for 40 years for the Soldotna- Anchorage line, and for 50 years for the Healy-Fairbanks line. The expected value of benefits previously developed for the Soldotna-Anchorage line ranges from $63.9 million to $125.5 million in January 1991 dollars! This implies a benefit-cost ratio for the "Enstar" route ranging from .8 to 1.5; and for the "Tesoro" route ranging from .7 to 1.4. The expected value of benefits previously developed for the Healy-Fairbanks line (including electrical equipment) is $108.2 million in January 1991 dollars, ! which implies a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. As discussed in Chapter 6, the ranges of these estimates are due in large part to the nature of the benefits that the studies attempt to quantify. The Authority has not adopted or rejected any specific benefit estimate or numerical benefit-cost ratio. Overall, however, the Authority’s conclusion is that the life-cycle benefits for each project will exceed project costs based on the following considerations: 1 Based on 1990 dollar estimates presented in Chapter 6, escalated by 2.25% to convert to January 1991 dollars for consistency with project costs. If $29.6 million in additional benefits due to reconstruction of the existing line were included, the benefit-cost ratio would increase to 1.7. These benefits are discussed on pages 6-17 and 6-18. 2 For the Soldotna-Anchorage line, benefit-cost ratios above and below 1.0 have been estimated in a context of uncertainty. These ratios are based on a corresponding range of benefit estimates. In view of the arguments presented, the assumption adopted here is that the value of quantified benefits will fall somewhere between the upper and lower estimates that have been developed. In addition, an overall perspective on transmission system adequacy must be factored in to the judgment on the merits of the proposed intertie. As reported in Chapter 6, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) has stated the following: "The existing single line transmission [interconnection] between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl ... pose[s] a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages... In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed Soldotna-[Anchorage] 138 kV transmission line ... is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Fairbanks area." Also reported in Chapter 6 are remarks prepared by Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI), technical consultant to the Authority on transmission issues: "At 75 MW export, the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design. Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line... A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system." Beyond the quantified benefit estimates, then, these observations make it clear that a second line between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage is necessary to meet prevailing industry standards of transmission reliability. The economic studies summarized above combined with these observations are the basis for the Authority’s conclusion that life-cycle benefits of the proposed Soldotna-Anchorage intertie will exceed project costs. For the Healy-Fairbanks transmission proposal, the benefit estimate developed earlier suggests a substantial excess of benefits over costs. As discussed in Chapter 6, alternative assumptions are possible (such as treatment of the "North Pole operating constraint") that could reduce the benefit estimate. There are also compensating factors not considered in the analysis (such as continued Fairbanks access to power from the south during reconstruction of the existing line) that could increase the benefit estimate. After review of these competing arguments, the Authority’s conclusion is that the overall benefit-cost ratio reported above is a reasonable indicator of project economics, and that any net downward adjustment that might result 1-5 from further analysis is unlikely to reverse the favorable outcome of the assessment. An alternative framework for evaluating the project is to consider the electrical equipment as a separable first stage of the upgrade, and to then assess whether the incremental benefits of a new Healy-Fairbanks line exceed the incremental costs of the line. The analysis to date suggests that the incremental benefit-cost ratio for the line itself is close to 1.0. However, there are factors in addition to those considered in the prior analysis that would produce a more clearly favorable outcome: a. As noted above and in Chapter 6, there will be a program of reconstruction of the existing Healy-Fairbanks line that would be expected to cause extensive interruption of power flow to Fairbanks from the south. Construction of a second line as proposed would produce significant savings by allowing reconstruction of the existing line without power flow interruption. b. Again, an overall perspective on transmission system adequacy is provided by NERC and PTI. The NERC conclusion is as follows: "The proposed Healy-[Fairbanks] 138 kV transmission line is needed for the reliability of electric supply to the Fairbanks area... [BJased on traditional planning criteria, the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area. In fact, under traditional reliability criteria, a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required..." PTI adds the following comment on Fairbanks reliability assuming a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is constructed at Healy as presently planned: "New generation at Healy combined with a new line between Healy and Fairbanks may raise reliability of electrical service in the Fairbanks area nearly to that presently available in the Anchorage area. With a second line between Healy and Fairbanks, and a system design that will withstand loss of a 50 MW unit at Healy or [loss of] a line from Healy to Fairbanks, blackouts in the Fairbanks area should be far less frequent than at present." The quantified results of the prior benefit assessment combined with these important perspectives form the basis for the Authority’s conclusion that life- cycle benefits will exceed project costs for the overall Healy-Fairbanks project (including electrical equipment) and for the Healy-Fairbanks line itself. 1-6 2. ENGINEERING AND DESIGN This section includes an overview of route selection and right-of-way issues, basic elements of project design, and a summary of project impact on power transfer capability and transmission losses. Supporting details on routing, right-of-way, and design are provided in Volumes 5 and 6 of the Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study, and in the independent cost estimate included in this volume as Appendix D. Details on project impact are provided in the following documents: "Kenai Export Limits With and Without a New Line and With and Without Additional Compensation," Power Technologies, Inc., December 4, 1989. "Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Upgrade Screening Study," Power Technologies, Inc., November 23, 1990. "Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt," (addendum to Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study), Decision Focus, Inc., December 21, 1989. 2.1 SOUTHERN LINE: ROUTE SELECTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The map in Figure 2.1 displays the two route alternatives that are under consideration for the southern line. The preferred route (called the "Enstar route") generally follows the same path as the existing Enstar pipeline right-of-way through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The alternate route (called the "Tesoro route") follows along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula near the existing Tesoro pipeline right-of-way. (Also shown on the map is the proposed "Beluga route," which was considered and rejected during the reconnaissance phase due to the severe difficulty of a submarine crossing at this location. The existing transmission line route is shown as well.) There are a number of differences between the Enstar and Tesoro routes, including the following: . The submarine crossing of Turnagain Arm is 9.1 miles for the Enstar route and 13.7 miles for the Tesoro route. The shorter crossing is an advantage in terms of cost and reliability for the Enstar route. The overall length of new construction is 59 miles for the Tesoro route and 68 miles for the Enstar route. However, the connection between Soldotna and Anchorage via the Tesoro route includes 24 miles of existing line, which increases the length of the Soldotna-Anchorage connection via the Tesoro route to 83 miles. The shorter overall length of the Enstar connection between Soldotna and Anchorage is an advantage in terms of reliability and system performance (e.g. transmission losses). Anchorage/Kenai Transmission Intertie Route Alternatives Seward/Sterling Highway (Existing) Route Tesoro Products Line Route Enstar Gas Pipeline Route West Forelands-Beluga Station Route seat 1250.00 ‘ "Titernatiogal.| "Substation toon tebe . The overall cost of the Enstar route is lower primarily due to the shorter submarine cable requirements. : In the reconnaissance study, both routes were judged to have comparable reliability overall. The disadvantage identified for the Tesoro route was exposure of the overhead line to higher wind and icing conditions along the Kenai Peninsula west coast. The compensating advantage identified for the Tesoro route was the deeper water it offers for the submarine crossing, and what appeared to be its reduced exposure to tidal currents and ice flows despite its greater length. There is debate on this, however, and the relative exposure of the Enstar and Tesoro submarine crossings to these hazards remains an unsettled issue at this time. 2.1.1 Description of Enstar Route Beginning at the Soldotna substation, the new line goes north across the Sterling Highway, then generally northeast to the boundary of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The line then turns east and follows along the Refuge border until it rejoins the Enstar pipeline corridor, which it follows into the Refuge and then generally northeast to Chickaloon Bay. The line is buried for the last five miles across Chickaloon Flats. The submarine portion of the line extends from the east side of Chickaloon Bay to a point approximately one-half mile south of the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range, and remains buried in the railroad right-of-way until it is north of Potter’s Marsh. From that point, two alternatives have been identified for bringing the line into the existing Anchorage grid. The shorter alternative is to extend the line east to Elmore Street, then north along Elmore and Bragaw Streets to the Huffman substation on Huffman Road. The Huffman alternative is preferred because right-of-way problems in the Anchorage area may be fewer for the shorter route. The longer route is to extend the line north along the Old Seward Highway to O’Malley Road, and then west and north along Minnesota By-Pass to the International substation near International Airport Road. 2.1.2 Enstar Route Right-of-Way Issues At this stage, there appear to be two major right-of-way issues with respect to the Enstar route: access through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (the "Refuge"; and access into Anchorage. A discussion of access through the Refuge requires some background. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 established the Refuge, designated 1.35 of its 1.97 million acres as wilderness, and required preparation of a "comprehensive conservation plan" (ccp).1 The CCP was intended to serve as a land management plan and also as a vehicle by which the Secretary of Interior and the President would recommend additional wilderness designations within the Refuge to Congress. The CCP was adopted in 1985. The map in Figure 2.2 can be used to point out the land use designations adopted by the 1985 CCP that are of relevance to the Enstar transmission line route. The thin finger extending north almost to Turnagain Arm is a 1 mile wide corridor that is designated as a "moderate management" area. According to the CCP, transmission lines and pipelines can be placed in a moderate management area "on a site-specific basis subject to restrictions on road access and methods of transmission/pipeline placement." The area surrounding this mile wide corridor in the northeast portion of the map, including a four mile stretch between the end of the corridor and Turnagain Arm, is designated as a "minimal management" area where, according to the CCP, electrical transmission lines are not permitted. The preliminary design anticipates that the line would be buried through this four mile area though a terminal station would be placed near the shore for coupling the underground cable with the submarine cable. The "minimal management" areas identified in the 1985 CCP constitute the Secretary of Interior’s recommendations for additional wilderness designations within the Refuge. However, these recommendations have not been acted upon. There have been no additions to the wilderness system within the Refuge since enactment of ANILCA in 1980. An appropriate land use classification such as "moderate management" is a pre- requisite for gaining access through the Refuge. However, assuming either that a buried line and associated terminal station would be allowed within the "minimal management" area or that the CCP could be amended to allow it, a right-of-way application would still have to be submitted and approved by Federal agencies under Title XI of ANILCA. In rendering a decision on the right-of-way application, Title XI of ANILCA states that the Federal agency: "shall consider, and make detailed findings supported by substantial evidence with respect to ... alternative routes and modes of access, including a determination with respect to whether there is any economically feasible and prudent alternative to the routing of the system through or within a conservation system unit ... and, if not, whether there are alternative routes or modes which would result in fewer or less severe adverse impacts upon the conservation system unit." Most of what is now the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge was first set aside as the Kenai National Moose Range in 1941. 2-3 Point Possession We “- Mystery “Creek “Muiderness- ‘Unit we Nee FIGURE 2.2 The Tesoro route does not involve any new construction on Refuge lands. As a result, it appears that a central issue for Federal determination will be whether the Tesoro route is prudent and economically feasible. If the Federal agencies conclude that it is, then right-of-way along the Enstar corridor could be denied on that basis regardless of the land use designation within the CCP. Transmission line access into developed areas always has the potential to create problems for affected property owners and users. From the north end of Potter’s Marsh, the Huffman alternative extends 3 miles to the Huffman substation, while the International alternative extends 8.4 miles to the International substation. As noted above, it is assumed that right-of-way would be less difficult to acquire for the Huffman alternative due to its shorter length. The cost estimate is therefore based on the Huffman alternative. 2.1.3 Description of Tesoro Route The existing 115 kV line between the Soldotna substation and the Bernice Lake substation would continue to be operated at 115 kV and would not require modification. From Bernice Lake, a new 138 kV line would be constructed following North Kenai Road to the Captain Cook State Recreation Area. It is anticipated that the line would be buried for the four mile crossing of the Recreation Area, and then continue overhead following the Tesoro pipeline right-of-way along the coast to Point Possession. The submarine crossing would begin at a point just west of the Refuge boundary at Point Possession and would end at a terminal station on the Anchorage side at Point Campbell. The line would continue underground to the northeast until it is past the east-west airport runway, and then continue overhead to Point Woronzof. There are existing underground cables that extend from Point Woronzof to International substation and also across Knik Arm to Point MacKenzie. As a result, the Tesoro route terminates at Point Woronzof without any additional line extension required into the Anchorage area. An alternative approach is described in the reconnaissance study for bringing the line from Point Campbell into Anchorage. Essentially, the line would extend east along Raspberry Road and Jewel Lake Road, eventually crossing Connor’s Bog and terminating at the International substation near International Airport Road. However, this report and the independent cost estimate included in Appendix D assume that the first option extending northeast from Point Campbell to Point Woronzof would be selected. The main reason for this assumption is the higher level of difficulty anticipated in routing the line through more heavily developed areas. Prior to this report, the Tesoro route had been considered only in the context of 230 kV, not 138 kV, construction and operation. As a result, there are two significant differences between the Tesoro route as defined above vs. the Tesoro route defined in the reconnaissance study: : The earlier version included 24.2 miles of new 230 kV overhead line between Soldotna and Bernice Lake, including a 4 mile segment across a corner of the Refuge. At 138 kV, this new construction is not necessary. . The earlier version included 6 miles of new 230 kV underground cable between Point Woronzof and International substation. At 138 kV, this new underground cable is not necessary. 2.1.4 Tesoro Route Right-of-Way Issues Right-of-way issues for the Tesoro route are associated with passage through Captain Cook State Recreation Area, with privately owned parcels of land along the west coast of the Kenai Peninsula, and with access into Anchorage from Point Campbell to Point Woronzof. It appears that access through Captain Cook State Recreation Area can be gained provided that the line is buried through this 4 mile segment as planned. In addition, securing a right-of-way through the Recreation Area may require allocation of funds for replacement with lands of equal value, which would require National Park Service approval under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. Between Bernice Lake and Point Possession, right-of-way acquisition would be necessary across an estimated 227 parcels of private _land. This includes land adjacent to North Kenai Road as well as parcels north of Captain Cook State Recreation Area. Right-of-way acquisition for this large number of private parcels is expected to be time-consuming but achievable. From a terminal station at Point Campbell, the line would be buried in Kincaid Park along the coast and would be routed through the woods on X-frame overhead structures between the east-west runway and Point Woronzof. Access difficulty through these areas will depend on the extent to which conflicts with Kincaid Park and the coastal trail south of Point Woronzof can be minimized. 2.2 NORTHERN LINE: ROUTE SELECTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The map in Figure 2.3 displays the two route alternatives that have been developed for the northern line (ie. the new line between Healy and Fairbanks). These alternatives are labeled the "North Route" and the "South Route." The "North Route" bends around the north side of Fairbanks until it eventually connects with the Ft. Wainwright substation on the southeast side of town; while the "South Route" follows a more direct path to the Ft. Wainwright substation by coming up through the Ft. Wainwright Military Reservation. Prior to the reconnaissance study, it was assumed that a new line into Fairbanks would deliver power to the Ester substation on the west side of town. At the time of the study, however, Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) expressed a strong DATA SOURCES - USGS 1:63,000 Topographic Maps LEGEND Major Highways & Roads a Existing Transmission Lines Hore Railroad NORTH SCALE IN MILES = = Mi. McKinley’ Za Ti28 Scale in Miles ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY po North Study Area Healy Subarea FIGURE 2.3 Tas TSs T38 SCALE IN MILES 1 DATA SOURCES - USGS 1:63,000 Topographic Maps - Utilities LEGEND Major Highways & Roads Intertie wore Enstar Gasline Existing Transmission Lines Railroad YL OS LH NORTH SCALE IN MILES ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY North Study Area Fairbanks Subarea FIGURE 2.3 ——_ (continued) APPROVED DATE Scale in Miles preference for delivering power to its Ft. Wainwright substation instead. According to the reconnaissance study: "... current load patterns and the difficulty in transmitting the power through the town have indicated that the Ft. Wainwright delivery point is more desirable." (p. [V-1, Vol. 6) The "South Route" is identified in the reconnaissance study as the preferred alternative primarily for two reasons: it is about 18 miles shorter than the "North Route" and traverses less land that is privately owned. Asa result, it is expected that the construction cost would be lower for the "South Route" and right-of-way would be less difficult to acquire. 2.2.1 Description of "South Route" Beginning at the Healy substation, the new line extends north to the Nenana area, generally remaining several miles east of the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway. The Tanana River is first crossed about 5 miles east of Nenana. The line then turns toward the east and generally parallels the Tanana River to the eastern edge of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest, about 6 miles southwest of the Fairbanks International Airport. At this point, the line re-crosses the Tanana River and enters the Fort Wainwright Military Reservation, where it proceeds northeast until it is about 3 miles due south of the International Airport. From there, two alternative "subroutes" have been defined to bring the line back across the Tanana River to GVEA’s Ft. Wainwright substation. As shown on the map, one subroute heads north directly across the river and then east to the substation. The other "subroute" continues to the east within the military reservation for several more miles, then crosses the river about 1 mile due south of the substation. 2.2.2 Description of "North Route" Beginning at the Healy substation, the line extends north to the Nenana area remaining generally close to the Alaska Railroad and the Parks Highway for most of the way. It first crosses the Tanana River about 3 miles east of Nenana and continues to the Little Goldstream Creek valley, where the route joins the existing GVEA transmission line corridor. It then parallels the GVEA route almost to the west edge of the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest where it diverges from the GVEA line, crosses to the north side of the Parks Highway and enters the Goldstream Creek valley. As shown on the map, the route then circles around the north and east sides of Fairbanks and terminates at the Ft. Wainwright substation. The last 9 miles of the proposed corridor skirts the edge or goes through residential and commercial/industrial areas. 2-6 2.2.3 Right-of-Way Comparison -- "South Route" vs. "North Route" Table 2.1 below provides a comparison of land ownership along the two routes as of August 1987, the date of issuance for Volume 6 of the reconnaissance study: TABLE 2.1 COMPARISON OF LAND OWNERSHIP North Route South Route* (miles) (miles) Native/Private 19.9 3.5 Federal/State Going Private 2537 28.7 Borough/Municipal 2.4 0.0 Federal 13.75 23.5 State 52.6 40.6 TOTAL 114.4 96.3 * This is based on the southern "subroute" leading out of the Ft. Wainwright Military Reservation. The other "subroute" is 0.5 miles longer, and includes less Federal land but more State land. Aside from its greater length, the main disadvantage of the North Route is that it passes through significantly more private and developed land, especially to the north of Fairbanks. The South Route is preferred as a result. However, the South Route traverses about 12-15 miles of land within the Ft. Wainwright Military Reservation, including land which is presently used for bombing practice and related activities. A key issue for the preferred South Route will be to negotiate an acceptable right-of- way agreement with the military. 23 NOTE ON MENTAL HEALTH LANDS State "Mental Health Lands" have been identified in the vicinity of all proposed routes, though closer examination would be needed to determine the extent of impact. Whether this issue becomes significant will depend on the timing of a resolution to the Mental Health Lands issue. See letter from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources included in Appendix C. 2.4 ELEMENTS OF PROJECT DESIGN The purpose of this section is to convey a basic sketch of project structures and equipment. Project details are available in the reconnaissance study, the independent cost estimate, and in other supporting documentation. 2.4.1 Overview of Southern Line (Enstar Route) The 49.9 miles of overhead line extending from the Soldotna substation into the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge consists of weathering steel X-frame structures. A terminal station is located 5.1 miles south of Turnagain Arm to interconnect the overhead line with the underground cable section that extends through Chickaloon Flats. The 5.1 miles of underground construction consists of 4 oil-filled underground cables. These are connected at a terminal station located near the shore with 4 oil-filled submarine cables that extend for 9.1 miles across Turnagain Arm. On the Anchorage side, the submarine cables are buried in the railroad right-of-way for an additional 0.8 miles until past Potter’s Marsh. A terminal station is located north of Potter’s Marsh to interconnect the submarine cable with the overhead line that extends into Anchorage. The overhead line extending 3 miles to Huffman substation consists of weathering steel single pole structures. Substation expansion and modification would also be necessary at Soldotna and at Huffman. 2.4.2 Overview of Southern Line (Tesoro Route) The existing 115 kV line extending 24.2 miles between Soldotna substation and Bernice Lake substation would continue to be operated at 115 kV and would not require modification. For 11.5 miles from Bernice Lake to the Captain Cook Recreation Area, the new 138 kV line consists of weathering steel single pole structures following the route of North Kenai Road. Oil-filled underground cable is then buried for 4 miles through the Recreation Area, with terminal stations placed at either end to connect the underground and overhead segments. For the next 24.75 miles from the north end of the Recreation Area to Point Possession, the new line consists of weathering steel X-frame structures. A terminal station would be located west of the Refuge boundary at Point Possession, which would connect the overhead line with 4 oil-filled submarine cables. These cables would extend for 13.7 miles across Turnagain Arm to a terminal station at Point Campbell. Oil-filled underground cable would then extend for 2.2 miles to the northeast until it is past the east-west airport runway. The final 2.4 miles to Point Woronzof consists of overhead line supported by weathering steel X-frame structures. 2-8 Substation modifications would be necessary at Bernice Lake and Point Woronzof. 2.4.3 Overview of Northern Line (Both Routes) The project referred to as the "Northern Line" consists of a new 138 kV intertie between Healy and Fairbanks (which would supplement the existing 138 kV line) plus a significant amount of electrical equipment needed for increased transfer capability. Project design has not been developed in the same detail as the southern line, but construction of the transmission line itself (excluding the electrical equipment) is expected to be much less complex. The northern line does not include any submarine crossings nor are any underground segments presently anticipated. Overall, it is expected that nearly all of the towers will consist of weathering steel X- frame structures. All river crossings will be accomplished with overhead spans. Substation modifications to accommodate the new intertie will be needed at Healy and at Ft. Wainwright. The electrical equipment will consist of SVS (static var) additions that would be installed at the Healy, Ft. Wainwright, and Teeland substations according to the preliminary design. The reconnaissance study envisioned heavy reliance on series capacitors rather than SVS to increase the stability limit for intertie transfers. However, due in part to evidence that has since emerged on the potential for sub- synchronous resonance problems associated with their use in the Railbelt, series capacitors have been eliminated from the proposal. Comparable impact can be achieved with SVS additions, but the SVS approach is more expensive. There is no single level of SVS addition that is necessarily associated with the intertie upgrade. Up to a limit, more SVS will buy more transfer capability. The upgrade proposal defined in this study includes as much SVS capacity as is considered practical by the Authority’s consultant on the subject, Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI). SVS additions above this level will not provide appreciable increases in the stability limit for intertie transfers. Overall, the proposal includes the addition of roughly 200 MVar of SVS capacity to the existing 77 MVar now installed between Teeland and Fairbanks, at a capital cost of roughly $20 million. 2.5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACT Presented below are estimates of the impact of each project on power transfer capability and transmission losses. 2.5.1 Southern Line -- Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses There are several factors that can place a limit on the transfer capability of a transmission line. The thermal limit refers to the maximum level of transfer that a line can tolerate without conductor damage from too much heat. The stability limit typically refers to the maximum level of transfer above which system disturbances 2-9 can produce instability and associated widespread outages, as well as a risk of equipment damage.” High transfers can also result in unacceptably low voltages at customer sites along a transmission line. For the existing Kenai-Anchorage line, the thermal limit is expected to be about 145 MW when planned reconductoring of certain segments is completed.” However, the stability limit will remain much lower. Stability will be improved with the addition of two SVS (static var) units that will be installed on the Kenai Peninsula transmission system as part of the Bradley Lake project. These enhancements have been designed to provide a stability limit of 75 MW over the existing Kenai-Anchorage line for normal operation. This limit could be increased with the purchase and installation of additional stability enhancements. However, as discussed below, both reliability and transmission loss considerations would weigh against the idea of increasing transfers substantially above 75 MW over the existing line. With the addition of a second Kenai-Anchorage line assuming the same SVS enhancements are installed, the stability limit would be roughly 90 MW for normal operation. A second line would increase reliability, reduce transmission losses, and substantially increase the thermal transfer limit as well. As a result, the 90 MW stability limit for the two-line scenario could be readily increased with additions or modifications to the planned stability enhancements should regular transfers above 90 MW prove valuable at some point in the future. Table 2.2 below shows estimated transmission losses between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula with and without a second line for a range of transfer levels. Additional losses between Bradley Lake and Soldotna are not included. 2 Instability is defined as a loss of synchronism among interconnected 3 generators. While conductor damage may not occur until 145 MW is reached, increased power transfer produces more heat which causes additional sag in the line. For the existing Kenai-Anchorage line, transfers much above 9) MW may cause sufficient line sag to reach minimum ground clearance at a number of locations. This would place another limit on transfer capability. 2-10 TABLE 2.2 TRANSMISSION LOSSES BETWEEN ANCHORAGE AND THE KENAIT PENINSULA Transmission Losses Transfer Level With Second Line Without Second Line MW MW % MW % 40 tal 2.8% 3.6 9.0% 60 2 4.2% 6.9 11.5% 75 3.9 5.2% 10.1 13.5% 90 5.6 6.2% *14.5 *16.1% 110 8.3 71.5% F217) 1937 Note: * denotes losses at transfer levels that exceed planned transfer limits. Incremental losses refer to the amount of loss incurred as a result of the last MW of transfer. For example, without a second line, an additional 4.4 MW is lost when the transfer level is increased by 15 MW from 75 MW to 90 MW. In other words, incremental losses average 29.3% (4.4 divided by 15) for the existing line when transfers are increased marginally above 75 MW -- nearly 1 MW is lost for every 3 MW of additional transfer at this level. With a second line, incremental losses between 75 and 90 MW are 11.3% -- about 1 MW lost for every 10 MW of additional transfer. The gap in incremental losses (29.3% vs. 11.3% between 75 and 90 MW) grows wider as transfer levels are increased above 90 MW. The high level of incremental losses for the existing line is one of the significant reasons for leaving the stability limit at 75 MW for normal operation. There is little incentive to invest in additional stability enhancements for the existing line when normal operation above 75 MW will be burdened with these high incremental losses. Another significant reason is reliability. According to PTI: "There are two reasons reliability will fall when the system is designed for higher transfers [without a new line]. One is that as the number of stability aids increases, the prospects of one or more of them not responding or not responding properly when a disturbance occurs is higher. The second reason is that equipment such as line conductors, switchgear, transformers, and 2-11 protection in substations is stressed more heavily, and is thus more prone to failure or misoperation." (Kenai Export Limits, page 8) Further, as transfer levels are increased over a single line, the probability and extent of a power outage due to transmission failure are both increased. Heavier dependence on a single line, particularly one with a relatively poor reliability history,* makes the system more vulnerable to outages caused by individual events. The conclusion adopted here is that increasing the normal transfer limit for the existing line substantially above 75 MW would not be advisable from a reliability standpoint nor desirable from the standpoint of transmission losses. With a second line, however, the normal transfer limit would be about 90 MW initially with the planned stability enhancements, and could be further increased in the future if desired. During emergency situations, utilities may be willing to exceed the normal transfer limits for brief periods of time. If additional system disturbances occur while the normal limits are exceeded, the resulting system outages could be severe. Though transfers above the normal limit are unusual for this reason, the potential for higher transfers during emergency conditions is still valuable. The emergency transfer limit for the southern line is dictated by low voltage levels. Given planned stability enhancements, the emergency transfer limit for the existing line is 117 MW: above this level, steady state voltages along the line are unacceptably low. With a second line the emergency transfer limit is 250 MW. The transfer limits for the two scenarios are summarized in Table 2.3 below: TABLE 2.3 TRANSFER LIMITS BETWEEN ANCHORAGE AND THE KENAI PENINSULA With Second Line Without Second Line Normal Operation 90 MW 75 MW Emergency Operation 250 MW 117 MW Note: Assumes planned stability enhancements associated with Bradley Lake See Section 6, Project Benefits, for discussion on reliability. 2-12 As discussed above, the transfer limit for normal operation can be increased in the future for the two-line case, but is unlikely to be increased for the single-line case. 25:2) Northern Line -- Impact on Transfer Capability and Transmission Losses The reconnaissance study reported that Fairbanks can receive about 62 MW over the existing Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie when 70 MW is input from Anchorage, assuming the existing 25 MW Healy coal plant is in operation at the time. This is consistent with existing operating practice; however, operation of the intertie at these limits exceeds the stability criteria adopted for this study. In other words, the stability limit for transfers over the existing transmission system is lower than the 70 MW transfers that presently occur. There are events ("single contingencies") that could occur that would result in system instability when transfers are at 70 MW. According to PTI, the maximum amount of Anchorage power that could presently be brought into Healy without exceeding stability limits is about 54 MW under specific, favorable conditions. (After losses, the delivery into Fairbanks would be somewhat less than that.) This could be considered the "secure" transfer limit. The "emergency" limit for transfers into Healy under favorable conditions is estimated at 77 MW. In the absence of a new Healy coal plant, the proposed upgrade would allow an estimated 94 MW to be brought into Healy from Anchorage within "secure" stability limits, and up to 127 MW within the "emergency" limit. These figures are presented in Table 2.4 below: TABLE 2.4 MAXIMUM TRANSFER OF ANCHORAGE POWER INTO HEALY With Upgrade Without Upgrade Normal Operation 94 MW 54MW Emergency Operation 127 MW 77 MW Note: Assumes no new Healy coal plant; existing plant on-line. Because the scenarios in Table 2.4 assume that the existing 25 MW coal-fired power plant at Healy is operating at full output, the amount of power flowing north out of Healy is 25 MW higher than the figures shown above. Table 2.5 displays the maximum flow of power out of Healy by making this 25 MW adjustment: 2-13 TABLE 2.5 MAXIMUM FLOW OF POWER NORTH OUT OF HEALY With Upgrade Without Upgrade Normal Operation 119 MW 79 MW Emergency Operation 152 MW 102 MW Note: Assumes no new Healy coal plant; existing plant on-line. The SVS component of the upgrade is primarily responsible for increasing the stability limit for transfers between Anchorage and Fairbanks. As discussed in the reconnaissance study, an "equipment only" upgrade would be possible that would, by itself, provide a useful increment of increased transfer capability. A second line between Healy and Fairbanks would have the following additional impacts: Substantial reduction in transmission losses between Healy and Fairbanks. . Modest additional increase in transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Significantly increased reliability. Table 2.6 shows the impact of the new line on transmission losses between Healy and Fairbanks for selected levels of power flowing north out of Healy: TABLE 2.6 IMPACT OF A SECOND LINE ON TRANSMISSION LOSSES BETWEEN HEALY AND FAIRBANKS Healy-Fairbanks Transmission Losses (MW) Power Flow North Out of Healy (MW) With Second Line Without Second Line 50 8 1.8 70 1:5 3.5 90 2.4 6.2 110 3.6 9.3 130 52 13.4 150 6.9 18.7 2-14 If a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is built at Healy, a significant amount of additional SVS capacity will be needed simply to operate the Healy coal facilities at full capacity and stay within stability criteria adopted for this study. This is due primarily to the need to maintain stability for sudden loss of the new 50 MW Healy unit. The impact of a second line in the context of a new Healy coal plant will be consistent with the above discussion on transmission losses, but will be especially pronounced in the area of reliability. These issues are further discussed in Chapter 6, "Project Benefits." 2-15 3. CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 3.1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES As noted in the Introduction, an independent cost estimate for the two intertie proposals in conformance with AS 44.83.185 has now been prepared by Dryden & LaRue, Inc. The full text of the Dryden & LaRue report is included in Appendix D. This represents the most recent and thorough cost estimate prepared for the 138 kV lines and associated equipment, and is adopted in this feasibility report for project planning. Summaries of the capital cost estimates are provided below. Seek Southern Line: "Enstar" Route Link 1 16.10 Miles Steel X-Structures $4,698,120 Link 2 33.75 Miles Steel X-Structures $10,404,345 Link 6 2.95 Miles Steel Single Pole $953,690 Soldotna Substation $1,719,800 Huffman Substation $678,200 Subtotal $18,454,155 Right-of-Way $2,500,000 Design 4% $738,166 Construction Mgmt 4% $738,166 Subtotal 1 $22,430,487 Link 3 5.10 Miles Underground Cable $10,457,341 Link4&5 9.90 Miles Submarine Cable $34,548,140 Subtotal 2 $45,005,481 Contingency 10% (Sub1&2) $6,743,597 Utility Admin 1% (Sub 1&2) $674,360 AEA Admin $250,000 Estimated Total $75,103,925 3-1 3:12) Southern Line: "Tesoro" Route Link 3.2A 11.50 Miles Link 3.3. 24.75 Miles Link 3.10 2.40 Miles Bernice Lake Woronzof Link 3.2B 4.00 Miles Link 3.4 13.65 Miles Link 3.9 2.20 Miles Steel Single Pole Steel X-Structure Steel X-Structure Substation Substation Subtotal Right-of-Way Design 4% Construction Mgmt 4% Subtotal 1 Underground Cable Submarine Cable Underground Cable Subtotal 2 $3,392,736 $9,210,447 $791,367 $2,300,000 $406,350 $16,100,900 $2,700,000 $644,036 $644,036 $20,088,972 $8,073,954 $42,915,640 $4,465,948 $55,455,542 Contingency 10% (Sub1&2) $7,554,451 Utility Admin 1% (Sub 1 & 2) AEA Admin Estimated Total 3-2 $755,445 $250,000 $84,104,411 S13 Northern Line (Including SVS Additions) Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Healy Wainwright 26.00 Miles 29.50 Miles 27.00 Miles 12.50 Miles 5.50 Miles Steel X-Structures Steel X-Structures Steel X-Structures Steel X-Structures Steel X-Structures Substation Substation Subtotal Right-of-Way Design 4% Construction Mgmt 4% Subtotal 1 Healy SVS Wainwright SVS Teeland SVS Subtotal 2 $11,682,101 $12,721,443 $11,487,410 $7,950,747 $2,384,193 $406,350 $406,850 $47,039,094 $460,000 $1,881,564 $1,881,564 $51,262,222 $4,904,000 $3,200,000 $10,322,000 $18,426,000 Contingency 10% (Sub1&2) $6,968,822 Utility Admin 1% (Sub 1 & 2) AEA Admin Estimated Total 3.2 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES This category is intended to cover costs for both operations and maintenance of the proposed projects (i.e. "O&M costs"). These annual costs were estimated in the earlier studies by applying a percentage factor ranging from .5% to 1.5% to the project capital cost. This "rule of thumb" method can be misleading especially when, as in this case, the project provides a second circuit between two areas that are already interconnected. While additional maintenance costs will be incurred for the $696,882 $250,000 $77,603,926 second line, there may be little or no increase in system operating costs. 3-3 aa The O&M costs outlined below are based on itemized estimates specific to each line rather than application of a percentage rule of thumb. No increase in cost for system operations is anticipated. Included are all costs estimated to keep the projects in sound condition throughout the period of analysis adopted for the benefit assessment: 40 years for the southern line and 50 years for the northern line. The 40 year period of analysis for the squthen line was based on a presumed 40 year life for wood pole transmission towers.! The 50 year period of analysis for the northern line was based on a presumed 50 year life for steel towers. STL: Southern Line: "Enstar" Route Inspection Repair & and Replacement: Submarine Routine Overhead Cable Years Maintenance Line Replacement Total 1-5 $55,000 0 0 $55,000 6-30 $70,000 $50,000 0 $120,000 31-40 $70,000 $50,000 $2,100,000 $2,220,000 Inspection and Routine Maintenance: For years 1 through 5, these costs include aerial and ground inspections of overhead line plus inspection and routine maintenance of submarine terminals. Added cost in years 6-40 is for climbing inspection of towers -- 20% climbed per year. Repair and Replacement -- Overhead Line: This is the estimated average annual cost for significant repair to overhead transmission facilities. No significant costs are anticipated in years 1-5. Submarine Cable Replacement: The preliminary design includes double-armored submarine cable for the crossing of Turnagain Arm. Although the economic life of the cable could equal or exceed 40 years, the risk of earlier damage or failure of the cable is significant and warrants recognition in the long-term cost projection. This estimate assumes that the cable will require replacement after 30 years. The 1991 dollar cost for replacing the submarine cable is estimated at $34.5 million. The annual replacement cost in years 31-40 is based on this estimate annualized over 30 years at 4.5%. 1 Although the updated design presented in this report includes all steel towers for the southern line, the earlier concept included roughly 34 miles of wood pole construction for the "Enstar" route. As a result, the benefit estimate developed in earlier studies was based on an economic life consistent with wood towers. See Southern Line: "Tesoro" Route Inspection Repair & and Replacement: Submarine Routine Overhead Cable Years Maintenance Line Replacement Total 1-5 $55,000 0 0 $55,000 6-30 $70,000 $50,000 0 $120,000 31-40 $70,000 $50,000 $2,600,000 $2,720,000 All estimates are the same as described above for the "Enstar" route, except that the submarine cable replacement cost is higher due to the longer submarine crossing for the "Tesoro" route. The 1991 dollar estimated replacement cost for submarine cable on the Tesoro route is $42.9 million. 32-3) Northern Line Inspection Repair & Major and Replacement: Electrical Routine Overhead Equipment Years Maintenance Line Insurance Total 1-5 $60,000 0 $50,000 $110,000 6-50 $85,000 $50,000 $50,000 $185,000 The explanations for these estimates are comparable to those above except that: 1) Submarine cable is not part of the northern line, and 2) Although insurance is not purchased for facilities such as transmission towers or conductor, it would be purchased for major electrical equipment to be installed as part of the northern project, specifically the SVSs. 3-5 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT For both reconnaissance and feasibility studies, Alaska Energy Authority regulations require environmental assessment in the following areas: : air quality; water quality; fish and wildlife impact; land use impact and ownership status; terrestrial impact (vegetation and wetlands); : recreation resource value; visual impact. A summary of these impacts by category was prepared for the reconnaissance study in Volume 11 ("Benefit/Cost Analysis"), Section 12, and is reproduced below with minor modifications. Substantially more detail is available in the reconnaissance study from the following two sources: Volume 5 ("Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project"), Part One, Section 7 ("Environmental Evaluation"), and also in Part Two. Volume 6 ("Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project"), Chapter VI ("Environmental Evaluation of Alternative Routes"). 4.1 SOUTHERN LINE: ENSTAR AND TESORO ROUTES 4.1.1 Air Quality Impacts of construction and operation of the Kenai-Anchorage intertie on air quality would be confined to locally generated equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. Air quality impacts would be negligible in magnitude for both routes. 4.1.2 Water Quality Since there would not be access roads installed along either corridor, neither route alternative would substantially affect water quality. The Enstar route has a larger number of significant stream crossings in areas not served by existing public highways 4-1 (i.e. about 13) than does the Tesoro route (about 4). Although these areas may require short access spurs from existing access roads, development and use of access areas would result in a low level of impact on water quality. There are two streams along the Enstar route in the Chikaloon Flats area that would require trenching. The extent of use of the lower reaches of these streams by important anadromous fish species is unknown; however, some use by salmon is reported in both Burnt Island and Little Indian creeks. The effects on water quality of the crossing of Turnagain Arm by the buried submarine conduit on either route would be low and would not differ between routes. The effects of crossing mud flats on either side of Turnagain Arm would also differ little between alternatives although the distance traversed would be greater for the Enstar route. Silt resulting from trenching would be temporarily suspended, but would not result in a significant increase in turbidity due to the normally high level of suspended solids in the waters of Upper Cook Inlet. Similarly, trenching to bury the line along the Arm side of the railroad tracks would not significantly affect water quality. Both alternatives on the north side of the Arm are rated as having a low impact potential on water quality. In summary, overall effects on water quality are rated as low for both the Enstar and Tesoro routes. 4.13 Fish and Wildlife The potential effects of each route alternative on fish resources on the Kenai Peninsula would be proportional to the potential effects on water quality since effects on fish result primarily from water quality degradation. One exception would be in Big and Little Indian creeks, where trenching across streams could interfere with spawning habitat, if present. Impacts to fish on the Kenai Peninsula leg are thus considered generally low for the Enstar route, with a potential for a localized moderate impact, and low for the Tesoro route. Primary wildlife concerns along the Enstar route are waterfowl and swan use along the Moose River, Chickaloon Flats and other smaller streams and lakes, as well as use by moose, and perhaps caribou (primarily in the segments within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge). Potential impacts to eagle nesting areas would likely be mitigated by routing adjustments. During construction, impacts to wildlife on the Kenai Peninsula would be slightly greater for the Enstar route than the Tesoro route because of disturbances on Chickaloon Flats and because the route lies across likely migration corridors between the mountains to the east and the flats to the west. Animals such as moose, and possibly caribou, that move from high hillsides in the summer to the lowland winter range may frequently cross the route, although this would not constitute a significant impact after the initial period of construction activities. The area of the Enstar route within the Refuge would remain a high use and high success area for moose hunting since management practices and public access to the area would not be altered. Impacts to wildlife on the Kenai Peninsula leg are considered low for both routes. 4-2 On the Anchorage side of Turnagain Arm, neither of the alternatives or their optional routings would have a significant impact on fish, assuming that trenching across Rabbit Creek would not occur during periods of anadromous fish usage. Potential wildlife concerns on the north side of the Arm focus on the Potter’s Marsh area for the Enstar route where nearby overhead line would have some potential for bird collisions. However, the alternative entry to Anchorage for the Enstar route along Old Seward Highway is not likely to be in a heavily used flight path because of the high terrain immediately to the north and existing vegetation between the marsh and the line. Other impacts on wildlife would be relatively minor. Overall, the impacts are classified as low for both routes. 4.1.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status Both the Enstar and Tesoro routes pass through a variety of land ownerships including some private, borough, state, and Native lands. As discussed in Chapter 2, a major portion of the Enstar route lies within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, paralleling the existing Enstar gas pipeline right-of-way. The major non-utility related use of the lands along this route is for hunting which would not be unduly affected by establishment of the transmission line. The impact of the Enstar route on land use on the Kenai Peninsula would be low to moderate. The Tesoro route follows North Kenai Road between Bernice Lake and the Captain Cook State Recreation Area (CCSRA), but requires widening of the existing right- of-way. Between the CCSRA and Point Possession, the route traverses primarily borough land and private land. Within the CCSRA, securing a right-of-way may require allocation of funds for replacement with lands of equal value which would require National Park Service approval under the Federal Land and Water Conservation Act. The impact of the Tesoro route on land use on the Kenai Peninsula is considered low to moderate. North of Turnagain Arm, the Enstar route options would avoid direct passage through sensitive public land use areas including the Potter Section House State Historic Site, Potter Marsh State Game Refuge, and the Rabbit Creek Rifle Range. The majority of the route under both options (to the Huffman or International substation) would parallel existing rights-of-way. The impact of the Enstar route on land use in the Anchorage area would be low. However, impacts may increase above this level in localized residential areas, with the level of impact dependent on the final alignment and the proximity of residences. North of Turnagain Arm, the Tesoro route would avoid extensive routing through sensitive land use areas. The majority of the route would parallel existing rights-of- way, though it would infringe to some degree on Kincaid Park. The line would be buried in the park and opposite the east-west runway but would be in the woods on X-frame steel towers along the coastal trail extension south of Point Woronzof. The 4-3 impact of the Tesoro route on land use in the Anchorage area is judged to be generally low to moderate. This impact level may be reduced to low if conflicts with Kincaid Park and the coastal trail can be eliminated. Overall, the impact of each route on land use is expected to be low to moderate. 4.1.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands) Substantial clearing of overstory vegetation would be required for either route. However, since understory and shrub vegetation would be unaffected over most of the rights-of-way, the impact would be negligible. Potentially serious infestations by spruce bark beetles that could begin in trees cleared along the right-of-way would be mitigated by removal or burning of cut timber from the area. Wetlands disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection, minimizing access, careful tower placement, construction timing, and mitigation developed in concert with state and federal agencies. With the mitigation measures that are included in both alternatives, the impacts to terrestrial resources would be, at most, low. 4.1.6 Recreation Resources The primary recreational uses of areas along the alternative routes on the Kenai Peninsula are hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing, skiing, and snowmobiling. Although there could be interference with some of these activities during construction, this disruption would be short term and restricted in geographic area at any one time. Construction in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge would be timed to minimize conflict with moose seasons and access would be allowed for hunters along the present right-of-way. Initial plans would allow continued recreational use of the right-of-way; however, if increased recreational activity adversely affects the available resources, some areas might require grating. North of Turnagain Arm, the primary recreational activities are nature observation (at Potter’s Marsh), and skiing, walking, or running on the coastal trail along Knik Arm. Construction activities on the Enstar route could temporarily interfere with the enjoyment of natural features and wildlife in the vicinity of Potter’s Marsh. Construction along the Tesoro route would temporarily diminish enjoyment of recreation along the coastal trail. Following construction, transmission line facilities might be visible from place to place along the coastal trail, especially in winter, and could reduce enjoyment of recreational activities. Overall, the Enstar route would have a low level of impact on recreational resources. The Tesoro route would have a low-to-moderate impact because of the potential disturbance to recreation along the coastal trail, especially during construction. 4-4 4.1.7 Visual Impacts Most of the first 18 miles of the Enstar route would be near (e.g. within 1 to 2 miles) existing residential areas and would be in existing rights-of-way. However, some new right-of-way would be required and overhead lines in these areas would be visible from residential properties. From the Refuge boundary to the north side of Turnagain Arm, the Enstar route would not be visible from residences or from public roadways. Increased right-of-way width and the transmission lines would be visible to some air travelers. The terminal stations constructed on the north and south edges of Chickaloon Flats may be relatively inconspicuous to air travellers in and out of Anchorage depending on final site selection. The Tesoro route from Bernice Lake to Captain Cook State Recreation Area (CCSRA) is near existing development and/or within existing rights-of-way. The line is buried through CCSRA. From there to Point Possession, overhead line follows the coastline and would be visible to Kenai-Anchorage air traffic. The terminal/station building also would be visible to air travelers leaving or approaching Anchorage International Airport from the south and to air traffic between Anchorage and Kenai. North of Turnagain Arm on the Enstar route, the buried cables on the Arm side of the railroad would have no adverse aesthetic impacts, and the terminal station would be outside the Potter’s Marsh viewing area. North of Potter’s Marsh, the Enstar route would parallel existing roads and would be within existing rights-of-way through mostly residential areas with existing power lines. New installations at the Huffman or International substations could intrude on the viewsheds of some area residents. North of Turnagain Arm, portions of the Tesoro route might be visible to users of the coastal trail extension. Overall, the Enstar route would have a low level of impact on visual resources. The Tesoro route would have a low-to-moderate impact unless screening can be provided to minimize the impact on the aesthetic values of the coastal trail. 4.2 NORTHERN LINE: "NORTH" AND "SOUTH" ROUTES 4.2.1 Air Quality Impacts of construction and operation on air quality would be limited to locally generated equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. These impacts will be largely temporary and localized during construction, and are considered negligible. 4-5 4.2.2 Water Quality Impacts on water quality are expected to be low, and are primarily associated with construction of short access spurs from existing roadways to the corridor. 4.23 Fish and Wildlife The effects on fish resources would be proportional to the effects on water quality since impacts on fish result primarily from degradation of water quality. Thus, impacts to fish are expected to be low. The intertie would traverse caribou migration routes and winter range, and cross wetlands used for waterfowl, trumpeter swan, and raptor nesting areas. Habitat used by moose, black bear, and brown bear would be affected. Between Healy and Nenana, both the North Route and the South Route cross similar forest and wetland habitats and each option has a similar potential to affect swan and raptor nesting areas. From Nenana to Fairbanks, the two options differ in that the North Route traverses more forest habitat which includes areas of black bear concentrations. The South Route remains more in the Tanana River Flats and therefore has a greater potential to affect swan and raptor nesting areas. Selection of tower sites that avoid critical nesting areas could minimize this impact. The South Route also has a greater risk of bird collisions. Overall, the impacts to wildlife are considered low. 4.2.4 Land Use Impacts and Ownership Status Land use patterns favor the South Route between Healy and Nenana because it encounters fewer landing strips and airports and less residential land. The South Route from Nenana to Fairbanks is also favored from a land use perspective because the majority of the route crosses public and undeveloped lands. It does, however, pass through Fort Wainwright, and agreements would need to be negotiated with the U.S. Army to ensure the transmission lines do not conflict with normal operations in order to obtain easements. 4.2.5 Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands) In forested areas, substantial overstory clearing would be required. However, since understory and shrub vegetation would be unaffected over most of the rights-of-way, the impact would be low. Wetlands disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection, minimizing new road construction, careful tower placement, construction timing, and mitigation developed in concert with state and federal agencies. Terrestrial effects overall are expected to be low. 4.2.6 Recreation Resources The primary recreational uses of the route areas include hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, canoeing, skiing, and snowmobiling. Although there could be interference with some of these activities during construction, this disruption would be short term and localized at any one time. Increased human access could lead to increased hunting, trapping, and fishing pressure in some areas. All designated state and federal recreation areas would be avoided by all route alternatives thus minimizing impacts in these areas. 4.2.7 Visual Impacts Visual resources along the Healy to Fairbanks segment are considered to be of moderate to high quality, and tourist use of the Parks Highway and the Alaska Railroad is very high during the summer. Between Healy and Nenana there is a view to the east of the Alaska Range from the railroad and the highway. As the highway descends into the Tanana Flats, the primary views are to the north and east across the Tanana River Valley. There are also views into the Tanana River Valley from the highway in the foothills between Nenana and Fairbanks. In this area the valley is sufficiently distant from the highway to minimize the potential view impairment if the transmission line were to follow the valley route. The visual impact of the North Route in this area would be greater since the transmission line would be visible from the highway and would cross the highway. Placement of the route to the east and south of the highway and railroad would minimize visual impacts in this area. In general, it may be possible to minimize visual impacts for either route through careful line placement. Since a detailed visual assessment would be expected at the time the required right-of-way permits were sought, an acceptable mitigation program could be developed at that time. Overall, the likely visual impacts are rated as low to moderate. 4-7 5. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS This section presents a summary of the fuel price forecasts, electricity demand forecasts, and discount rate that were used in the intertie economic analysis. Supporting detail for the fuel price forecasts is provided in the reconnaissance study in Volume 4 ("Fuel Price Outlooks: Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil") and in Volume 11, Appendix B ("Benefit/Cost Analysis -- Fuel Price Forecasts"). Supporting detail for the electricity demand forecasts is provided in the reconnaissance study in Volume 2 ("Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region: 1988-2010") and in Volume 11, Appendix C ("Benefit Cost Analysis -- Demand Forecasts"). 5.1 FUEL PRICE FORECASTS Consistent sets of price forecasts were developed for crude oil, natural gas, fuel oil, and coal. 5.1.1 Crude Oil The crude oil price forecast is the main driver for the natural gas and fuel oil price forecasts, and is an important input to the electricity demand forecasts. Table 5.1 displays the 3 crude oil price forecasts considered in the economic analysis, expressed both in 1990 dollars and in nominal dollars: TABLE 5.1 CRUDE OIL PRICE FORECASTS (Saudi Light Delivered to U.S. Gulf) Low Mid High 1990 Nominal) 1990 Nominal) 1990 Nominal Year Dollars Dollars} Dollars Dollars} Dollars Dollars 1990 $16.05 $16.05 | $20.64 $20.64 | $22.93 $22.93 1995 18.35 22.86 24.08 30.00 28.67 35.72 2000 20.64 32.05 27.52 42.74 34.40 53.42 2005 21.79 42.16 30.96 59.91 40.13 77.65 2010 22.93 55.26 34.40 82.90 45.86 110.52 5-1 In the reconnaissance study, these price forecasts were expressed in 1987 dollars. To arrive at the numbers in Table 5.1 and elsewhere in this report, general inflation is assumed as follows: 1987-88: 4.1% 1988-89: 4.8% 1989-90: 5.1% After 1990: 4.5% annually In 1988, the Energy Authority Board of Directors considered these three crude oil price scenarios and adopted a set of probabilities for each as follows: Low Scenario: 60% Mid Scenario: 30% High Scenario: 10% The outcome of the economic analysis conducted for the reconnaissance study reflects these probabilities. For this reason, the probability weighted crude oil price forecast is presented in Table 5.2, again in both 1990 dollars and nominal dollars: TABLE 5.2 PROBABILITY WEIGHTED CRUDE OIL PRICE FORECAST" 1990 Nominal Year Dollars Dollars 1990 $18.12 $18.12 1995 21.10 26.29 2000 24.08 37.39 2005 26.38 51.03 2010 28.66 69.08 ” Reflects probabilities adopted in 1988 by AEA Board 5-2 5.12 Natural Gas Recent contracts provide the best available indication of the current value and long- term price outlook for Cook Inlet natural gas. Two such contracts had been recently negotiated at the time the reconnaissance study was prepared: 1) Contract between Marathon Oil Company and Enstar Natural Gas Company covering an initial 456 Bcf, with options for additional commitments in the future. 2) Contract between Marathon Oil Company and Chugach Electric Association covering an initial commitment of 215 Bcf, with options for additional commitments in the future. Each contract specifies a base price plus a periodic price adjustment factor. For the Enstar contract, the adjustment is based on changes in the price of crude oil. For the Chugach contract, the adjustment factor is based on price changes for crude oil, (refined) fuel oil, and natural gas in the lower 48. Because fuel oil and lower-48 natural gas prices are expected to follow a path roughly similar to crude oil prices over the long term, a simplified adjustment factor was assumed in the reconnaissance study consisting of crude oil prices only. Table 5.3 shows the wellhead price projections that result when the above-described crude price scenarios are applied according to contract terms. TABLE 5.3 COOK INLET WELLHEAD NATURAL GAS PRICES* (1990 Dollars per MMBtu) Chugach Chugach Chugach Enstar Enstar Enstar Year Low Mid High Low Mid High 1990 $1.46 $1.64 $1.72 $1.64 $1.83 $1.94 1995 1.50 1.94 2.27 1.77 2.27 2.65 2000 1.69 2.21 2.73 1.89 2.49 3.06 2005 1.80 2.49 3.18 1.71 2.36 3.02 2010 1.89 2.76 3.63 1.79 2.61 3.45 * Note that the Chugach prices do not account for blending in remaining quantities of lower priced, "old" Beluga gas. The Enstar prices, however, represent the blended acquisition cost to Enstar from its two main contracts (primarily the new Marathon contract), exclusive of any distribution margin to customers such as Anchorage Municipal Light & Power. For the reconnaissance study analysis, the Chugach prices were used for the Beluga and Bernice Lake generating plants, while the Enstar prices were used for all Anchorage Municipal Light and Power plants and the Soldotna plant. 5.13 Fuel Oil The fuel oil price forecast of primary interest for the intertie analysis is the price of No. 4 distillate fuel oil purchased by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) in Fairbanks for use in power generation. GVEA has a contract with the State that extends through 1995 for the purchase of royalty oil from the North Slope. The royalty oil purchased by GVEA is assigned to the Mapco refinery in Fairbanks for processing, and the refined product (i.e. No. 4 fuel oil) is sold back to GVEA at a reduced margin. It is assumed in this forecast that future prices to GVEA will conform generally to this price-setting mechanism, the main elements of which are the wellhead price of crude oil on the North Slope and the TAPS tariff. The resulting price forecast is shown in Table 5.4. TABLE 5.4 PRICE OF NO. 4 FUEL OIL TO. GVEA (1990 Dollars per MMBtu) Year Low Mid High 1990 $2.87 $3.66 $4.06 1995 3.26 4.22 4.98 2000 3.66 4.77 5.88 2005 3.86 5.33 6.81 2010 4.06 5.88 7.74 * Note that 1 gallon equals approx. 0.144 MMBtu 5.1.4 Coal It is assumed that minemouth coal prices will be based on the cost of production and that the cost of production will not increase in real terms over the long run. The relevant constant dollar cost assumptions, expressed in 1990 dollars, are as follows: 1) Healy coal at minemouth, supplied to existing 25 MW Healy power plant: $1.49/MMBtu. 2) Healy coal delivered to Fairbanks for supplying existing coal-fired generation at Chena plant: $2.89/MMBtu. 5-4 3) 50/50 blend of Healy standard coal and waste coal, supplied to proposed new 50 MW plant at Healy: $0.97/MMBtu. 5.2 ELECTRICITY DEMAND FORECASTS 5.2.1 Railbelt Population and Employment Forecasts Electricity demand is dependent on the forecasts of population, households, and employment in the study area. A range of forecasts was developed based on alternative assumptions and varying combinations of assumptions. Using probabilities adopted by the Authority Board, a "low," "middle," and "high" case was identified, each of which is judged to be equally probable. Neither the low nor the high case is intended to represent a boundary (i.e. a "worst" or "best") case. Table 5.5 shows a summary of the three population forecasts for the Railbelt. Table 5.6 shows a breakdown of the middle case into the three main regions selected for purposes of the intertie analysis. TABLE 5.5 RAILBELT POPULATION FORECASTS (thousands) Low Middle High 1987 388.0, 388.0, 388.0 1990 385.6 383.9 389.5, 1995 399.4 405.4 418.3 2000 416.7 436.5 465.9 2005 445.7 479.7 527.1 2010 480.3 538.7 586.7 * The selection of cases was determined by the number of households and level of employment in the year 2010. As a result, there can be overlap among the selected cases in the initial years. TABLE 5.6 MIDDLE CASE -- RAILBELT POPULATION FORECAST (thousands) Anchorage Fairbanks and Kenai North Mat-Su Peninsula Star , Boroughs Borough Borough 1987 268.6 39.6 79.8 1990 262.1 39.7 82.2 1995 277.4 41.3 86.8 2000 300.2 44.4 91.9 2005 333.3 47.7 98.6 2010 378.5 52:3 107.9 * Includes the Southeast Fairbanks census area. Several different combinations of assumptions produced population forecasts near the middle of the probability distribution. The particular set of assumptions selected as being representative of the middle case included the "Low" oil price forecast shown in Table 5.1, which was assigned a 60% probability by the Energy Authority Board. This and other important assumptions underlying the selected middle case are briefly summarized below. The price of oil expressed in 1990 dollars was assumed to trend upwards from $16.05 in 1990 to $22.93 in 2010 (or to $55.26 in nominal dollars -- see Table 5.1). Production from existing fields continues, and technological advances combined with cost control allow the West Sak field on the North Slope to come into production after 2000. Production falls off from a peak of 723 million barrels in 1989 to 411 million in 2000 and 265 million in 2010. Frontier areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, are not developed because sufficiently large discoveries are not made and the cost of development of small fields cannot be recovered due to the low price. In spite of the decline in production, however, total employment in the industry does not fall because of the increasingly labor intensive nature of the process of extracting the maximum amount of oil out of currently producing fields. It is assumed that a trans-Alaska gas line from the North Slope is not built within the forecast horizon (i.e. prior to 2010). The federal government role as a basic industry remains constant with the exception of the deployment of the Light Infantry Division in Fairbanks. Tourism expansion continues at a rate of 20,000 additional tourist visitors annually. The mining industry grows in the late 1980s and 1990s at a rapid rate with the development of the Red Dog, Greens Creek, and U.S. Borax projects, a new coal facility for export in the Railbelt, and other unspecified activities projected to increase at three percent annually. The timber industry expands into the early 1990s, at which time further growth is constrained by the size of the resource base, except in Southcentral Alaska where a modest industry develops in the 1990s. The traditional commercial fishery is constrained by the size of the resource base, but the bottomfish industry expands over time, centered in the southwestern part of the state, but with additional activity in the Southern Railbelt and Bristol Bay. State government contracts gradually through the 1990s in spite of revenue augmentation measures, including the use of Permanent Fund earnings beginning in 1992, the reimposition of the personal income tax in 1996, and the elimination of the Permanent Fund dividend in 1999. State petroleum revenues decline in real terms to $1241 million in 2000 and $842 million in 2010. The Permanent Fund real rate of return averages only three percent annually. Government expenditures are concentrated on the operating budget, leaving little for capital expenditures. In spite of wage levels held constant in nominal dollars for several years, government employment levels fall over time due to revenue constraints. The Railbelt economy continues to be the support center for the majority of the state. Its economy grows in response to basic sector growth, which occurs largely outside the boundaries of the Railbelt, and also in response to per capita income growth, which is assumed to resume in the 1990s. 5.2.2 Railbelt Electricity Demand Forecasts Again, a range of forecasts was developed based on alternative assumptions and varying combinations of assumptions, including the following: 1) Population, households, and employment. 2) Energy prices. 3) Consumer discount rates (for modeling consumer purchase choices). 4) Technological change (e.g. possible change in efficiency options and costs). 5) Southern Railbelt natural gas market penetration (i.e. different expansion scenarios for the natural gas distribution system). Using probabilities adopted by Authority staff, "low," "mid," and "high" cases were selected from the distribution such that each of the three is judged to be equally probable (i.e. the low represents the bottom third of the distribution, the mid represents the middle third, and the high represents the top third). Table 5.7 shows these three forecasts aggregated for the entire Railbelt. Table 5.8 shows a further breakdown of the mid case for each of three main Railbelt regions. Following these tables is a description of further adjustments that were then made to the forecasts. 5-7 TABLE 5.7 RAILBELT ELECTRIC DEMAND FORECAST” (total energy, GWh) Low Mid High 1987 3305 3305 3305 1990 3237 3225 3269 1995 3153 3271 3432 2000 3156 3395 3675 2005 3289 3641 4058 2010 3495 4053 4427 * Weather adjusted. Excludes transmission losses and other adjustments described below. TABLE 5.8 MID CASE ELECTRIC DEMAND FORECAST” (three Railbelt regions, GWh) Anchorage Kenai Fairbanks and Mat-Su Peninsula North Stay, Boroughs Borough Borough 1987 2262 455 588 1990 2189 438 598 1995 2219 430 622 2000 2306 442 646 2005 2493 462 685 2010 2805 497 752 * Weather adjusted. Excludes transmission losses and «« other adjustments described below. Includes Southeast Fairbanks census area. Residential electricity sales are forecast to grow more slowly than the stock of occupied housing due to higher efficiencies for new equipment (which in part reflects implementation of new federal appliance efficiency standards), assumed increase in average electricity prices due largely to the expiration of existing contracts for "old" Beluga gas supplied to Chugach Electric Association, and continued erosion of electric market share to natural gas particularly in the category of space heat. 5-8 Commercial electricity sales are forecast to grow more slowly than commercial floorstock due primarily to higher efficiencies for new equipment, particularly in the lighting sector. Implementation of new federal standards for fluorescent ballasts contributes to this outlook. The relatively low level of electric space heat is expected to decline further, while miscellaneous equipment per square foot is expected to grow. For the industrial forecast in the mid case, the Tesoro refinery on the Kenai Peninsula is projected to reduce its purchases from Homer Electric from 89.3 GWh in 1987 to 59.5 GWh in all subsequent years as a result of increased self-generation at the refinery. In the low case, Tesoro purchases from Homer Electric decline to zero in 1995 and beyond consistent with 100 percent self-generation. For the entire Railbelt, Table 5.9 shows the total industrial demand for the three selected cases. TABLE 5.9 RAILBELT INDUSTRIAL DEMAND FORECAST" (total energy, GWh) Low Mid High 1987 256 256 256 1990 244 244 244 1995 172 252 311 2000 174 263 327, 2005 176 270 364 2010 178 278 380 . Utility supplied, includes no self-generation. Presently, the military bases in the Fairbanks area and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks supply nearly all of their own electric power requirements by operating cogeneration plants that supply both electricity and heat to their respective facilities. Cogeneration facilities efficiently produce electricity and heat in particular proportions. If electricity needs outstrip this balance, the additional electricity is more costly to produce. Particularly for the military bases, there is evidence that electrical needs beyond the balance point could be supplied more efficiently by a local utility. Table 5.10 presents these potential purchases by the military above the cogeneration balance point. TABLE 5.10 POTENTIAL PURCHASES OF CIVILIAN ELECTRICITY BY THE MILITARY IN THE FAIRBANKS AREA (GWh) Year Eielson Wainwright Greely Total 1990 12.4 14.0 16.2 42.6 2000 15:1 17.0 16.9 48.9 2010 172, 19.3 19.2 S5a7. The estimated peak purchase in 1990 consistent with these potentials would be approximately 9.5 MW, and would occur during the summer season. Potential sales to the University of Alaska at Fairbanks were also considered, though the estimate is only 2 GWh per year due to the specific characteristics of the University plant and load. Except for sensitivity testing, the intertie analysis assumed that the potential power sales to the military and the University would occur. These loads were therefore added to the Fairbanks area load forecast for purposes of the system modeling. Another adjustment was to reduce the load forecast by the amount of self-generation (ie. commercial and industrial cogeneration of power and heat) estimated to occur over the next 20 years and not already accounted for in the industrial forecast. Table 5.11 shows a summary of this adjustment. TABLE 5.11 ADJUSTMENT FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SELF-GENERATION (annual GWh reduction) Anchorage Kenai & Mat-Su Peninsula = Fairbanks 1995 12.4 0.8 1.4 2000 29.0 2.8 5.0 2005 45.6 4.9 8.5 2010 62.2 6.9 12.1 Table 5.12 presents a summary of the energy and peak demand forecasts input to the simulation model. Included are the base forecasts (presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8) plus the estimated increments of military and University load in Fairbanks, minus the 5-10 self-generation adjustment. Also included is an adjustment to reallocate a small fraction of the Anchorage load to the Kenai Peninsula, where it physically belongs. Finally, because the simulation model uses a curved representation of the load forecast rather than precise year-by-year input, the figures in Table 5.12 are not precisely equal in any given year to the base forecast net of adjustments. TABLE 5.12 SUMMARY OF ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND FORECASTS INPUT TO THE SIMULATION MODEL Anchorage Kenai & Mat-Su Peninsula Fairbanks GWh_ MW GWh_MW GWh_ MW LOW 1994 2068.9 374.3 413.9 72.0 665.5 126.8 2010 2229.1 403.3 428.9 74.6 749.6 142.9 MID 1994 2087.3 377.6 475.5 82.7 657.2 125.2 2010 2617.4 473.5 549.8 95.7 792.0 150.9 HIGH 1994 2184.2 395.1 498.9 86.8 695.6 132.6 2010 2823.4 510.8 608.3 105.9 896.7 170.9 53 DISCOUNT RATE Regulations of the Authority require adoption of a discount rate for project evaluation based on the estimated long-term real cost of money. The "real cost of money" (i.e. the real interest rate) for high grade, long term taxable securities was estimated by reference to a broad sampling of published opinion on future interest and inflation rates. This led to adoption by the Authority Board in December 1988, and again in October 1989, of a 4.5% real discount rate for projects that do not qualify for tax exempt financing. The 4.5% rate was used in the intertie economic analysis. 5-11 6. PROJECT BENEFITS As noted in Section 1, there has been substantial prior effort and debate on the estimated benefits of the proposed transmission projects. The first major effort was undertaken by Decision Focus, Inc. (DFI) on contract to the Authority, and is presented in detail in Volume 11 of the reconnaissance study. This will be referred to as the Initial DFI Report for the balance of this chapter. As the findings from this initial report emerged, the transmission proposals were scaled back to their present, 138 kV configuration. A revised assessment of benefits was then prepared by DFI on contract to the Railbelt electric utilities, and is presented in detail in the Addendum to the reconnaissance study. For the balance of this chapter, this will be referred to as the 138 kV_DFI Report. There have been critiques of both reports and corresponding replies. These are included in the appropriate volumes of the reconnaissance study, and will also be drawn upon in this chapter. 6.1 BENEFITS OF KENAI-ANCHORAGE LINE The expected value of total benefit in the Initial DFI Report, expressed in 1990 dollars, is $62.5 million. In the 138 kV DFI Report, the expected value of total benefit is $122.7 million. These expected values are distilled from a range of cases examined in each report. The lowest case examined in the Initial Report indicates a total benefit of $40.1 million, while the highest case examined in the 138 kV Report shows a benefit of $158.7 million. And because all of these cases share certain assumptions that are subject to debate, such as the impact of the new intertie on Railbelt outage frequency and duration, the range of possible benefit estimate could be still wider. The main reason for this broad range of benefit estimate has very little to do with the usual sources of uncertainty such as the outlook for fuel prices or electricity demand. These are not the dominant factors in determining the outcome. The main problem is in trying to quantify certain impacts of a second transmission line that are unusually difficult to predict and evaluate, especially the impact on reliability, generation dispatch and efficiency, and generation reserve requirements. Though essential numbers underlying the benefit/cost analysis will be reviewed, the quantitative detail that accompanies debate in these areas is available in the reconnaissance study and will not be reproduced or further extended here. The purpose of this section is to present the range of conclusions by major benefit area and to discuss the main issues that underlie the assessment. Includes $8-9 million assuming existing line is out of service for extended periods due to long-term maintenance requirements. 6-1 6.1.1 Reliability Benefits The 1987 study by Power Engineers on the Kenai-Anchorage intertie (Volume 5 of the Reconnaissance Study) states the following: "The reliability of the existing 115 kV Kenai intertie was addressed in a report prepared by Dryden & LaRue Consulting Engineers dated January 23, 1984. In the Dryden & LaRue study, it was reported that 12 to 100 breaker operations occur annually due primarily to high winds and avalanches. Avalanches were found to account for 75% of the outage hours. Based upon these findings, the existing Kenai Intertie would not be considered very reliable. Improving the avalanche problem by burying or rebuilding in avalanche prone areas should greatly improve outage hours and reliability, but the major number of breaker operations were attributed to high wind. A breaker operation of the intertie during maximum transfer of 125 MW would more than likely cause a separation of the Kenai, resulting in power outages cascading though Anchorage to Fairbanks. Therefore, for reliable transfer capability, the number of breaker operations due to wind must also be reduced if the existing route is to be utilized." (page 3-2) Short circuits on the existing Kenai intertie are caused primarily by wind (for example, by causing two conductors to slap together) or by avalanches. A "breaker operation" will then occur as discussed in the passage above -- i.e. a circuit breaker along the line will open. If the short circuit is momentary and the amount of power on the line is not too high, then usually the circuit breaker will immediately reclose and no power outage will occur. This is a common outcome for wind-induced breaker operations. If the fault is not momentary (for example, an avalanche brings down the line) or if transfers are sufficiently high at the time of the fault, then the circuit breaker will not reclose successfully and a power outage may well occur. What the passage points out is that the number of breaker operations on the existing Kenai-Anchorage line has historically been very high and that most of these were caused by high wind, though most of the hours that the line has been out of service were attributable to avalanches. While the passage clearly indicates a high potential for system disruption due to problems with the existing line, it does not tell us how many consumer outages have resulted from these events. During preparation of the Initial DFI Report, the owner of the existing line (Chugach Electric) was asked to estimate how many consumer outages have been caused by failure of the existing Kenai-Anchorage line. Chugach reviewed their records for five years, 1984-1988, and concluded that the average number of consumer outages attributable to Kenai-Anchorage line failures was about 3 per year during that period.“ It is not clear how this matches up with the 2 The prevailing industry standard for transmission line outages is 1 outage per year per 100 miles of line. To meet this standard, outages on the existing Kenai-Anchorage line should average no more than 1.25 per year, rather than the 3 per year estimated by the Chugach review. 6-2 Dryden & LaRue figures on "breaker operations," since the Dryden & LaRue report was issued in January 1984 and the Chugach consumer outage figures begin in 1984. Further, Chugach did not include a number of outages that were associated with breaker operations on the line, but for which the ultimate cause was a disturbance elsewhere in the system. This points to a remaining uncertainty that will be brought up again later in this section, specifically: are there additional outages that occur in the present system for which the initial cause is something other than failure of the existing line, but which would be reduced or avoided if the transmission system were strengthened by the addition of a second Kenai-Anchorage line? The reliability analysis in both the Initial DFI Report and the 138 kV DFI Report is based to a significant extent on the estimate that, in the absence of a new line, consumer outages would occur 3 times per year on the average due to failure of the existing line. Because the system modeling suggested that power would flow to Anchorage from Kenai roughly 40% of the time in the future, the analysis further assumed that the existing line would fail 1 to 2 times annually during Anchorage import conditions. This is the situation that creates the greatest concern among electric utilities in Anchorage and to the north. Historically, power has flowed primarily from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula over the existing line in order to supply the Kenai Peninsula with the greatest generation efficiency. If the existing line fails under these conditions, Anchorage is rarely affected though the Kenai Peninsula would generally suffer a substantial outage. After Bradley Lake is completed, however, utilities in Anchorage and to the north expect to import a substantial amount of energy over the existing Kenai line, and therefore will become far more vulnerable to outages caused by failure of the line. This introduces a significant new contingency into these systems that reduces their reliability. A major part of the issue is therefore: (1) how much will reliability be reduced for Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks, and (2) what is it worth to bring reliability in these systems back up to (and perhaps beyond) the standard realized before the reversal of power flow over the Kenai-Anchorage line induced by Bradley Lake? The DFI analysis assumed that each failure of the existing line would result in a 30 MW outage in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area. This is roughly 10% of average demand and 5% of peak demand. DFI further assumed that power would be restored to customers in one hour. Overall, then, the DFI analysis assumed that Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks would suffer 1 to 2 outages per year due to failure of the existing line, each time resulting in a loss of power for 5% to 10% of their systems for one hour. If a second intertie were built between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, it is assumed that these outages would not occur. While this alone is a significant loss of reliability, there is concern among these utilities that their exposure could be greater than the DFI analysis implies. Among the reasons for this concern are the following: : The average of 3 outages per year over the 5 year period reviewed by Chugach includes a low year of 0 outages and a high year of 8 outages. The 6-3 potential for disruption in any given year is therefore well above 3 outages, and the long-term average might not be apparent in the 5 year sample. The much higher number of "breaker operations" reported by Dryden & LaRue in 1984 raises concern that the potential for disruption may be higher than indicated by the Chugach outage review. Because breaker operation is more likely to result in an outage if the transfer level is high, increased transfers over the line in the future could lead to a higher outage incidence than previously experienced. : Depending on future dispatch patterns, import of power into Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula could occur substantially more than the 40% fraction of time suggested in the DFI analysis. This would further increase the outage exposure in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area. On the other hand, the argument has been raised that the outage experience in Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks may be considerably less than the DFI assumption depending on the level of import into Anchorage from the Kenai Peninsula, and on the amount of spinning reserve available in the Anchorage area. The DFI analysis implies that the average level of import into Anchorage over the existing line that is justified by system economics will be about 30 MW. Assuming that spinning reserve is available in Anchorage area gas units while these imports occur, then the actual outage resulting from line failure could be substantially less than 30 MW. The utilities, however, maintain that the benefit of higher imports from the Kenai Peninsula has been underestimated, and that spinning reserve alone does not offer secure protection against transmission induced outages. Though it is difficult to define the extent to which reliability may decline in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area after imports begin from the Kenai Peninsula, it is even more difficult to estimate how much it would be worth to remedy a given decline. The approach taken by DFI was to estimate how much consumers would be willing to pay to avoid outages that would occur with the existing line, but would not occur if a second line were built. This is then taken as the measure of reliability value for the proposed new line. There is not much reason for confidence in the estimates that have been developed on consumer willingness-to-pay to avoid outages, although a better approach to valuing reliability remains elusive. These estimates are primarily based on surveys that either ask consumers directly what they would be willing to pay to avoid an outage, or (especially in the case of commercial and industrial customers) ask them to estimate what costs they would incur due to outages of various durations. Presumably, these latter customers would be willing to pay up to the amount of these costs in order to avoid the outage. The Initial DFI Report relied on residential survey results from around the world obtained by researchers prior to 1983, and on commercial and industrial survey results obtained in a study by Ontario Hydro in 1980. The 138 kV DFI Report uses higher estimates that, for the residential sector, reflect more recent studies and, for the commercial and industrial sector, reflect a revised interpretation of the original 1980 Ontario Hydro results. These changes 6-4 alone resulted in an increase in reliability value for the new intertie of roughly $25 million. These survey results and their interpretation can be debated and support can be found for a considerable range of conclusions. Overall, a judgment is also needed on the applicability of this information to reliability value in Alaska today and in the future. One argument is that reliability in Alaska during the winter tends to be more valuable than in most other areas because of the climate; a contrary argument is that the consequences of an outage in cities such as Chicago or New York are likely to be more severe because of their higher level of dependence and expectations. One issue on which there may be general agreement, however, is that reliability expectations are higher today in Alaska and elsewhere than they used to be, and these expectations are likely to continue to grow. This implies that people would most likely be willing to pay more today to avoid an outage than they were in 1980, and that the perceived value of reliability is likely to be still higher 10 years from now. Thus far, the discussion has focused mainly on outages in the Anchorage/Mat- Su/Fairbanks area. The other area in which reliability would be affected by a new intertie is the Kenai Peninsula. The DFI system modeling suggested that power in the future will flow north from the Kenai Peninsula roughly 40% of the time, and south to the Kenai Peninsula roughly 60% of the time. For Anchorage and points north, the impact of the existing line on reliability is a concern primarily when power is flowing north into Anchorage. If power is flowing south and the line fails, Anchorage area generation is expected to adjust quickly such that no outage occurs in the Anchorage/Mat-Su/Fairbanks area. For the Kenai Peninsula, however, failure of the existing line creates a risk of outage regardless of the direction of power flow. When power is flowing south to the Kenai Peninsula over the existing line alone, failure of the line is expected to cause an outage on the Kenai Peninsula that is somewhat greater in magnitude than the amount of power that is being imported. If imported power over the single line were supplying more than about 50% of Kenai Peninsula power requirements at the time of line failure, then a blackout on the Kenai Peninsula would be the likely result. It is not anticipated that any spinning reserve will be carried on the Kenai Peninsula that, by itself, would be capable of picking up the load if power from the north were suddenly interrupted. If a second line were in place, there should be no outage on the Kenai Peninsula due to comparable failure of the existing line. When power is flowing north from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage over the existing line alone, failure of the line could cause an outage on the Kenai Peninsula as well as in Anchorage depending on the amount and type of generation operating on the Kenai Peninsula at the time of the line failure and on the response characteristics of the Bradley Lake project. For example, if only hydro is operating on the Kenai Peninsula at the time and if exports to Anchorage are at a relatively high level, it is not clear at this point whether Kenai Peninsula generation will be able to adjust such that Kenai Peninsula outages are always avoided. A second line, however, would prevent Kenai Peninsula outages for these events. 6-5 Overall, the Initial DFI Report concluded that the reliability value of the new line is in the range of $12.8 million to $19.7 million (1990 dollars). The 138 kV DFI Report concluded that the reliability value is between $32.3 million and $49.6 million. In contrast, an argument critical of the DFI work was raised that the reliability value could not exceed $17 million, based on the idea that regular transfers over the existing line would produce no more than $17 million of benefit in the future. If these transfers were eliminated, then failure of the existing line would not produce outages in any of the major regions, and reliability equivalent to that provided by a second line would therefore be "purchased" at a cost of $17 million in lost transfer benefits. DFI responded that they disagreed with the logic of this cap on reliability value because a second line would have additional reliability impact not directly related to failures of the existing line. Further, DFI maintained that the value of transfers over the existing line in the future would be $33 million rather than $17 million. This raises once again the issue of whether a second line would help to reduce or avoid outages for which the initial cause is something other than failure of the existing line. For example, switching errors have occasionally occurred that produced outages due to inadvertent cut-off of power flow over the existing line. A second line can reduce the adverse impact of such operating errors. Further, there may be events such as loss of a generating unit that would cause an outage in the absence of a second line. With the second line, however, the system would be more resilient and might be able to survive the same event either with no outage, a smaller outage, or perhaps a shorter outage. Such benefits could be due to greater accessibility of spinning or non-spinning reserves, or to improved system stability. This potential and its associated value is even more difficult to gauge than the relatively direct reliability impacts addressed in the DFI studies. Whatever the value is of generally "stiffening" the transmission system in this fashion, it would be in addition to the value debated in the previous studies. A reliability assessment of the Railbelt systems was conducted in early 1990 by the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). Their report is included in Appendix B. It is clear that the existing transmission connections in the Railbelt fall short of the reliability standards maintained elsewhere in the country. The following excerpts are drawn from the Overview in the NERC report: "The unique geographic, economic, and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in [the Railbelt] have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric Interconnections of the North American Reliability Council." "The existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area constrain the sharing of generation between and among load centers and pose a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages." "In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed Soldotna-[Anchorage] 138 kV transmission line provides a second circuit between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Fairbanks area." Although the NERC subcommittee did not attempt to suggest how much the reliability improvement would be worth, their perspective on traditional standards of transmission reliability merits consideration in the benefit/cost assessment. 6.1.2 Generation Dispatch and Efficiency As described in Chapter 2 of this volume, the proposed intertie would have a significant impact on the capacity to transfer energy between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula, and on the transmission losses associated with such transfers. According to the DFI analysis, most of the value of these impacts lies in the improved capability they provide for coordinating the output of Kenai hydro plants with Anchorage area gas-fired plants such that the gas-fired plants are operated at higher efficiency levels. This is the concept that DFI refers to as "hydrothermal coordination" and to which, in their 138 KV Report, they attribute roughly $40 million of benefit. Energy transfer benefits would be much easier to grasp and to quantify if they involved primarily the substitution of cheaper energy from one area for more expensive energy in another, or if the issue were primarily a reduction in transmission losses for a constant pattern and level of transfer between the two areas. For the proposed Kenai-Anchorage intertie, however, the analysis leads to an area of benefit potential that is more difficult to visualize and assess. Thermal generating units such as the combustion turbines and combined cycle units prevalent in the Railbelt are most efficient when operated at or near their maximum output levels, and are substantially less efficient when operating at part load. Hydroelectric units, however, are much less variable in efficiency throughout most of their output range. The basic concept of hydrothermal coordination is to vary the output of the hydro plants in a manner that keeps the output of thermal plants as close to full output as possible when they are on-line. For the Railbelt, the main opportunity for this will be to coordinate the output of Bradley Lake with Anchorage area gas-fired generating units, which will require sending power back and forth between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. While this can be accomplished to a limited extent with the existing transmission system, a substantial increase in hydrothermal coordination benefits can be realized with the new line, according to the DFI analysis, due to its favorable impact on transfer capability and transmission losses. In the case of the Railbelt, all of the available hydro energy will be consumed over the course of a typical year in any event. As a result, the total amount of electrical energy produced from thermal plants will be the same over the course of a year whether or not hydrothermal coordination benefits are realized. The concept, then, is not to get more or less total energy out of a given thermal generating unit over the 6-7 course of a year, but to obtain a given amount of energy in a different pattern. Without hydrothermal coordination, the thermal plant is operated to a certain extent at part load and provides both energy and spinning reserve? With hydrothermal coordination, the thermal plant is operated over fewer hours but at a higher average output level. As a result, efficiency is higher, the thermal unit is shut down for more hours, and spinning reserve from the unit is reduced. The savings arise due to the operation of the thermal units at a more efficient operating level, which means that less fuel is needed to produce the required amount of electrical energy output. One important issue is that hydrothermal coordination reduces spinning reserves by reducing the part load operation of thermal units. A certain minimum level of spinning reserve, however, is routinely maintained by the utilities for reliability in accordance with existing policies and operating agreements. Therefore, in order to realize hydrothermal coordination benefits, there must be more than the defined minimum level of spinning reserves available in the system. Further, for the benefit to be attributable to the new intertie, spinning reserves above the minimum level must still be available after accounting for whatever hydrothermal coordination can be accomplished over the existing transmission system, and for whatever other improvements could be made in coordinated system operations. DFI examined recent unit commitment and dispatch records in the Railbelt and reported that substantial excess spinning reserves were frequently in evidence. However, although there is considerable quantitative analysis and debate presented in the reconnaissance study, there has not been a clear resolution of the extent to which the benefit of reduced part load operation of thermal units depends upon the new intertie. The DFI estimate of roughly $40 million presented in their 138 kV Report has been the subject of a quantitative critique that included, among other issues, identification of a significant arithmetic error. Following that critique, however, DFI used a revised methodology that yielded a new benefit estimate consistent in magnitude with their initial estimate. The type of production simulation model used for the reconnaissance study was appropriate for a broad comparison of numerous generation, transmission, and conservation options over a range of fuel price and energy demand assumptions. However, the type of model that is manageable for that purpose cannot simulate the hourly detail of system operation needed to clarify the opportunities and constraints for hydrothermal coordination under varying transmission assumptions. In the absence of a sufficiently detailed simulation and associated analysis, we are left with an uncertain estimate that a large potential exists for hydrothermal coordination savings attributable to the new intertie. Spinning reserve is generating capacity that is immediately available to pick up load. For example, a 60 MW combustion turbine that is operated at 40 MW output is also providing 20 MW of spinning reserve. 6-8 6.13 Generation Reserve Requirements The 138 kV DFI Report attributes another $33 million of benefit to the impact of the new intertie on generation reserve costs: $24 million is saved through deferral or reduction of future requirements to purchase new generating capacity, and $9 million is saved by increased reliance on Bradley Lake in lieu of Anchorage area gas-fired units to provide spinning reserve. A little over half of the $24 million capacity savings are due to anticipated capacity deferrals. This is based on the idea that the Anchorage area will face a capacity deficit during the mid-1990s, and that the new intertie will allow Anchorage to draw upon the capacity surplus on the Kenai Peninsula to a greater extent and thereby defer the necessity of future capacity additions. The projection of a capacity deficit in the Anchorage area during the mid-1990s is based on a generation retirement schedule that is roughly consistent with each unit’s book life (e.g. 20 year economic life for combined cycle facilities). A criticism has been raised that existing plants may be maintained and operated beyond their formal "book lives," and that the emergence of a capacity deficit in the Anchorage area might then be delayed for a number of years. If the capacity deficit is delayed, then the benefit of deferring new capacity additions would be reduced. On the other hand, the analysis assumed that Anchorage would be willing to fulfill a large part of its capacity reserve requirement by reliance on Kenai surplus capacity available over a single transmission line. Because Anchorage does not yet face a capacity deficit within its local area, a policy of reliance on capacity outside the local area over a single line has not yet been established. Anchorage utilities could decide in the future not to rely on reserve capacity that is available only over a single transmission line, particularly if it has a reliability history like the existing Kenai- Anchorage line. In that event, building a second line to the Kenai Peninsula could have a larger impact on capacity savings than estimated by DFI. A little less than half of the $24 million in capacity savings is attributed by DFI to capacity avoidance, i.e. a reduction in the total amount of capacity that is needed to provide a given level of generation reliability. At issue in this case is the level of confidence that sufficient generating capacity will be available at all times to serve load requirements. This level of confidence, in turn, is based on the number and size of generating units that are accessible via transmission facilities, and the probability that one or more of the accessible units will be unavailable due to planned maintenance or forced outage. Presently, the Railbelt utilities have agreed to maintain a 30% capacity reserve margin. The point made by DFI is that a second intertie to the Kenai Peninsula would allow the utilities to maintain the same level of generation reliability with less than 30% capacity reserves, by increasing the amount of generation that is accessible to the load centers via transmission facilities. The $9 million benefit estimate for spinning reserve savings depends on the assumption that Bradley Lake can reduce the spinning reserve requirement from thermal units by 30 MW during the summer and by 50 MW during the winter. The 6-9 mechanism by which this could occur without a decline in reliability is somewhat complex. Bradley Lake will be able to pick up additional load at a rate of roughly 1 MW per second, which is much slower than the response time of thermal units that are typically used to provide spinning reserve in the Railbelt. By itself, Bradley Lake would be unable to compensate for a loss of generation elsewhere in the system quickly enough to avoid a limited outage, and therefore by itself would not be able to provide spinning reserve comparable to thermal units. However, thermal units can operate for a limited time at output levels somewhat above their normal power rating -- wear and tear is increased but not necessarily by an unacceptable amount. Use of Bradley Lake as spinning reserve requires that the output level of thermal units be allowed to rise above the normal power rating when necessary, and remain at above normal output long enough for Bradley Lake to pick up the additional load. As Bradley Lake output is increased, the output of the thermal units would be backed down to normal power ratings. If the higher level of thermal unit output that can be sustained for limited periods is 10% above the normal rating, and if between 300 MW and 500 MW of thermal capacity are on-line, then Bradley Lake could provide between 30 MW and 50 MW of spinning reserve under this scenario assuming it is also on-line at the time at an output level at least 30-50 MW below its capacity. The benefit of using Bradley Lake for spinning reserves is attributed in part to the new intertie because access to these reserves would otherwise be constrained by the limited availability and capacity of the existing line. The Railbelt utilities will seek to maximize the spinning reserve benefit of Bradley Lake, but the extent to which they can do so without loss of reliability remains uncertain at this time. 6.1.4 Benefit Summary: Kenai-Anchorage Line This section has discussed the potentials and uncertainties associated with the major benefit categories perceived for the Kenai-Anchorage line: reliability, hydrothermal coordination, generation reserve requirements. There are additional uncertainties that are discussed in the critiques included in the reconnaissance study, and there are additional areas of benefit as well. For example, because the existing line is about 30 years old, it will be the subject of a long-term reconstruction program that will take the line out of service for significant blocks of time over the next 10 to 20 years. This will interrupt the transfer of energy between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula and also interrupt the availability of capacity from the Kenai Peninsula. However, with a second line in place, the long-term reconstruction of the existing line can be effected with minimum system disruption and associated cost, and the expense of the reconstruction program can also be deferred to some extent. Another example is simply the savings in transmission losses, which tend to be overshadowed by hydrothermal coordination in the discussion of transfer benefits. Reduced transmission losses alone would produce substantial savings over the life of the new line. There is no question overall that the new line would produce millions of dollars of benefit that would accrue to Railbelt consumers. The issue for the benefit/cost 6-10 analysis is whether these benefits are sufficient to compensate for the cost of building and maintaining the new line. As noted earlier, a considerable range of quantified benefit estimates have been developed: some imply a favorable benefit/cost outcome and others imply an unfavorable outcome. It may therefore be necessary to go beyond the quantitative debate to judge whether the project represents a worthwhile investment. An important perspective is provided in the following excerpt written by Power Technologies, Inc. in their 1989 study on Kenai power export limits: "At 75 MW export, the Kenai-Anchorage tie operation goes beyond the Railbelt practice of lean system design. Nowhere in the Railbelt is so much resource so critically dependent on stability aids and a single line... A new line from the Kenai area to Anchorage would provide Kenai-Anchorage interconnection reliability at least on a par with most of the remainder of the Railbelt system. It would be a step ahead of the present Anchorage- Fairbanks interconnection design. The great length of the two lines would prevent the interconnection from being classified as a_ strong interconnection, but it would be less "lean" than the present Anchorage- Fairbanks intertie and closer to a par with most of the remainder of the Anchorage area and the Kenai area (once the second line from Soldotna to Fritz Creek is operational)." These remarks are consistent with views of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) discussed earlier. The implication is that a second Kenai- Anchorage line would be considered an essential element of a well-designed transmission network according to prevailing industry standards. 6.2 BENEFITS OF HEALY-FAIRBANKS LINE The Initial DFI Report investigated several alternatives for upgrading the transmission system between Anchorage and Fairbanks but did not evaluate the Healy-Fairbanks 138 kV proposal that was subsequently developed. The only benefit estimate that was specifically prepared for this project is presented in the 138 kV DFI Report. As a result, the analysis in the 138 kV Report will be the focus of consideration in the sections below. The expected value of total benefit presented in the 138 kV Report is $105.8 million in 1990 dollars. Again, this expected value is distilled from a range of cases: the lowest reported case is $83 million and the highest reported case is $127 million. This is a relatively narrow range compared with the Kenai-Anchorage analysis, and the variation shown is mostly attributable to alternative load forecast assumptions. The largest category of benefit depends on the substitution of gas-fired energy from the Anchorage area for oil-fired energy in the Fairbanks area. The value of this substitution depends on the price differential between the two fuels and on the amount of substitution that occurs. While the spread in price between gas and oil does not vary widely in the analysis, the amount of substitution does vary widely and 6-11 is dependent on the Fairbanks load forecast assumptions. Other significant categories of benefit reported by DFI are reliability and generation capacity sharing. There are two alternative approaches to framing the project assessment, both of which are presented in the 138 kV Report. One approach is to evaluate the entire proposal, including both the SVS additions and the new intertie between Healy and Fairbanks, as a single project with an overall cost and benefit estimate associated with it. The $105.8 million benefit estimate noted above is based on this overall project definition. Another approach is to consider the SVS additions and the Healy- Fairbanks intertie as separable projects. Viewed in this way, the SVS additions alone result in a certain level of costs and benefits, and the Healy-Fairbanks intertie then adds an increment of cost and an increment of benefit. Because the SVS additions alone appear to be cost-effective, some attention has been focused on whether the incremental benefits of the proposed Healy-Fairbanks transmission line exceed its incremental costs. In the 138 kV Report, DFI estimated that the incremental benefits of the Healy-Fairbanks line are $59.9 million, which implied an incremental benefit/cost ratio of 1.1. Discussion of incremental benefits is included in the sections below. 6.2.1 Reliability Benefits The estimate of reliability value for the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kV Report is $11.5 million. Of this amount, $5 million is achieved with the SVS additions alone and $6.5 million is due to the addition of a second Healy-Fairbanks transmission line. The reliability benefit attributed to the SVS additions is based on the idea that the duration of certain outages in southcentral Alaska can be reduced as a result of the increased transmission capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks that the new equipment provides. If Fairbanks can send more of its surplus generation to the southcentral area during certain emergencies, then outage hours among southcentral customers can be reduced. An additional factor not considered in the DFI report is that the SVS additions will substantially improve stability, and that a consequence of improved stability should be a reduction in the extent of outages in the Fairbanks area as well. System disruptions that can presently cause a blackout in the Fairbanks area may result in more limited outages due to the improved stability provided by the SVS additions. The reliability benefit attributed to the second Healy-Fairbanks transmission line is based on an earlier estimate of the savings that would result from a second complete circuit between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Because the distance from Healy to Fairbanks is roughly one-third of the distance between Anchorage and Fairbanks, the Healy-Fairbanks line would provide roughly one-third of the transmission redundancy that a second complete circuit from Anchorage to Fairbanks would provide. On this basis, DFI estimated that the new Healy-Fairbanks line would provide one-third of the reliability value of a second Anchorage-Fairbanks line. This is consistent with the assumption that one-third of the transmission failures between 6-12 Anchorage and Fairbanks occur on the section of line between Healy and Fairbanks, and that line failures on that section would no longer produce outages due to transmission redundancy. The DFI analysis was based on the assumption that the only generation located at Healy would be the existing 25 MW coal-fired power plant. However, if a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is added at Healy as presently planned, then the overall improvement in reliability could be very significant if a second Healy-Fairbanks line were added as well. As stated by Power Technologies, Inc. in their recent screening study: "New generation at Healy combined with a new line between Healy and Fairbanks may raise reliability of electrical service in the Fairbanks area nearly to that presently available in the Anchorage area. With a second line between Healy and Fairbanks, and a system design that will withstand loss of a 50 MW unit at Healy or [loss of] a line from Healy to Fairbanks, blackouts in the Fairbanks area should be far less frequent than at present.” A system design in which most of the on-line generation supplying the Fairbanks area is connected to the load center over two transmission lines clearly represents a major reliability improvement over a design in which most of Fairbanks’ power requirements are generated much further away (i.e. in the Anchorage area) and transported over a single line. 6.2.2 Economy Energy Benefits: Substitution of Gas for Oil The economy energy benefit for the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kV DFI Report is $76.9 million. Of this amount, $31.8 million is estimated from the SVS additions alone and $45.1 million is attributed to the addition of a second Healy- Fairbanks transmission line. Natural gas-fired generation from the Cook Inlet area is less expensive than oil-fired generation in the Fairbanks area because the price of Cook Inlet gas delivered to the local market has historically been lower than the price of oil, and is expected to remain lower throughout the planning period. By increasing transfer capability between Anchorage and Fairbanks and by reducing transmission losses, the proposed upgrade allows more benefit to be realized from the substitution of gas-fired energy from the Anchorage area for oil-fired energy in the Fairbanks area. The estimated impact of the proposed upgrade on transmission losses used for the 138 kV Report is comparable to the reduction in losses shown in Chapter 2 of this report, Table 2.6. Regarding transfer capability, the 138 kV Report assumed that the SVS additions alone would increase the maximum level of output that could be delivered from Anchorage to Fairbanks from 62 MW to 84 MW. For the defined upgrade including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line, the 138 kV Report looked at two scenarios for the maximum level of Fairbanks import: 99 MW in one case and 112 MW in the other case. Given the load forecast 6-13 assumptions on which the DFI analysis was based, the benefit estimate was almost identical for the two cases. Although raising the maximum level of Fairbanks import of Anchorage energy to 99 MW produced substantial benefits, further increasing the maximum import level from 99 MW to 112 MW did not produce a significant difference in the DFI benefit assessment. Overall, then, the DFI analysis concluded that $31.8 million in benefit would be realized from the SVS additions by increasing the maximum import level of Anchorage energy into Fairbanks from 62 MW to 84 MW. It also concluded that an additional $45.1 million in benefit would be realized from the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line by further increasing the maximum import level from 84 MW to 99 MW and by reducing transmission losses across the full range of energy transfer levels. The recent PTI report referenced in Chapter 2 included a stability analysis of the upgrade alternatives, and yielded a set of stability limits for Anchorage-Fairbanks transfers that are somewhat lower across the board than DFI assumed in the 138 kV Report. Table 6.1 shows a comparison of maximum transfer levels drawn from the DFI report with those that emerge from the recent PTI analysis. These are estimates of the maximum level of Anchorage energy that can be delivered north of Healy to serve Fairbanks area loads, assuming that the existing 25 MW Healy coal plant is operating at full output. TABLE 6.1 MAXIMUM DELIVERY OF ANCHORAGE ENERGY TO SERVE FAIRBANKS AREA LOADS 138 kV Dec. 1990, DFI Report PTI Report Present level 62 MW 49 MW With SVS additions only 84 MW 80 MW SVS plus new Healy-Fairbanks line 99 MW 90 MW * These represent stability limits for normal operation. Several observations are apparent from this table: . As noted in Chapter 2, the present level of energy import into Fairbanks often exceeds the stability limit for normal operation recently estimated by PTI. 6-14 . The SVS additions will have a greater impact on raising the stability limit than previously assumed, but the maximum import level will remain slightly below the 84 MW modeled by DFI. . The new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line will further increase the maximum import level by about 10 MW rather than the 15 MW assumed for the DFI incremental benefit estimate. Although smaller than DFI assumed, this increment of transfer capacity occurs at a slightly lower loading level which would tend to increase its value. These revisions by themselves (i.e. with all other assumptions held constant) would be expected to have the following impacts on the economy energy benefit estimates presented in the 138 kV DFI Report: If Fairbanks were assumed to adjust its energy imports to stay within the recently estimated stability limits, then the benefit of the SVS additions would be substantially more than previously estimated by DFI. Further, if Fairbanks were assumed to exceed the stability limit by a comparable margin with and without the SVS additions, then the benefit estimate for those additions would still be substantially more than previously estimated. . The increase in economy energy benefit produced by the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line appears to be somewhat less than previously estimated, since the line appears to add about 10 MW to the stability limit for Fairbanks imports rather than the 15 MW modeled by DFI. On the other hand, this does not imply a full one-third reduction in the incremental economy energy benefit for the following reasons: a) As noted above, almost no benefit resulted from increasing the maximum import level from 99 MW to 112 MW in the earlier DFI analysis. Although the maximum import level implied by the PTI report is about 90 MW assuming both the SVS additions and the new line, it is not clear how much value is lost by foregoing imports between 90 MW and 99 MW. b) Also as noted above, the 10 MW increment in transfer capacity occurs at a lower loading level than the previous assumption of 15 MW. c) A significant part of the economy energy benefit of the new line is due to its impact on transmission losses throughout the range of possible transfer levels rather than its impact on maximum transfer capacity. The revisions by themselves should not have a major effect on the magnitude of economy energy savings for the upgrade estimated by DFI, in view of their mixed effects as described above and also in view of the approximate nature of these estimates and benefit calculations overall. 6-15 Benefits from increased economy energy and reduced transmission losses should be roughly similar whether or not a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is constructed at Healy. The new plant would not reduce the amount of energy flowing between Healy and Fairbanks; therefore, the transmission loss savings attributable to the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line would be of similar magnitude. As noted earlier, some level of SVS addition will be necessary simply to operate 75 MW of Healy capacity at full output and stay within stability criteria. Further upgrade would be necessary to allow transfers from Anchorage in addition to Healy output. In the context of a new Healy coal plant, the proposed upgrade would allow the transfer of roughly 55 MW of Anchorage energy into the Fairbanks area to supplement the 75 MW available from Healy. As in the case without the new Healy plant, this increment of transfer capacity would allow Fairbanks to avoid the costs of oil-fired generation that would otherwise be needed to meet full power requirements. 6.2.3 Capacity Sharing Benefits The capacity sharing benefit of the proposed upgrade presented in the 138 kV Report is $17.3 million. Of this amount, $9.0 million is estimated from the SVS additions alone and $8.3 million is attributed to the addition of a second Healy- Fairbanks transmission line. Consistent with the analysis of the Kenai-Anchorage line, these benefits are estimated for both capacity deferral and capacity avoidance. For the proposed northern upgrade, however, nearly all of the benefit is estimated in the category of capacity avoidance ($16 million of the $17.3 million total). As described earlier, the concept of capacity avoidance benefits is that generation reliability is improved sufficiently by the transmission project to allow a reduction in the capacity reserve margin. Generation reliability is improved by increasing the amount of generation that is accessible to the load centers via transmission facilities. A reduction in the capacity reserve margin translates into a lower requirement for future plant additions. 6.2.4 Benefit Summary: Healy-Fairbanks Line Roughly 75% of the total benefits estimated by DFI for the northern upgrade (including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks line), and 75% of the incremental benefits of the Healy-Fairbanks transmission line are in the category of "economy energy," i.e. increased substitution of gas-fired for oil-fired energy and reduced transmission losses. As described above, the estimated impact on transfer capability has been refined since the 138 kV_DFI Report was prepared, though it does not appear that these revisions would have a major impact on the benefit estimates. Other uncertainties inevitably surround the issue: . The economy energy benefit is highly sensitive to the Fairbanks load forecast: as loads grow, benefits of additional transfer capacity increase. As presented in Chapter 5, the Fairbanks load forecast used for the DFI study anticipates slow growth in the Mid case averaging 1.2% per year. Possible developments 6-16 such as the proposed Fort Knox gold mine could result in significantly higher load growth. . The analysis assumes that a significant price differential between fuel oil in Fairbanks and Cook Inlet natural gas in Anchorage will persist for many years into the future. However, one analysis prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority in 1988 suggested that Cook Inlet gas prices could rise substantially perhaps 20 years from now assuming depletion of supplies and a corresponding increase in the cost of production, which could substantially reduce the oil/gas price differential. On the other hand, that analysis is based on one estimate of the total gas resource that may exist in the Cook Inlet area, and may be considered as much an illustration as a prediction of what could happen to long-term Cook Inlet gas prices. It is possible that the gas-oil price differential could increase in the long run depending on future resource discoveries and markets. Overall, the long-term price differential is a significant uncertainty in the analysis. A significant share of the economy energy benefit is based on the present use of a 60 MW oil-fired combustion turbine at North Pole to meet Fairbanks peak demand when transfers over the intertie are insufficient. Because the unit is relatively inefficient when operated at low output, a minimum loading of about 40 MW is presently observed. When intertie transfers are found insufficient to meet load requirements, a North Pole unit is often brought on- line at 40 MW and intertie transfers are scaled back accordingly. The necessity to scale back intertie transfers substantially whenever a North Pole unit is brought on-line results in a significant lost opportunity to benefit from the relatively low cost of gas-fired generation. The benefit analysis implicitly assumes that this necessity to scale back intertie transfers during peak consumption periods due to the 40 MW minimum loading of a North Pole unit will not be solved or mitigated in the future in some other way. This too, then, constitutes an area of uncertainty in the analysis. Overall, the DFI analysis concludes that the project (including both the SVS additions and the new Healy-Fairbanks line) is cost-effective. It further concludes that the benefit/cost ratio for the SVS additions alone is higher than the incremental benefit/cost ratio for the new Healy-Fairbanks transmission line, though both are above 1.0. This suggests that the sources of uncertainty in the analysis have a higher potential to affect the feasibility outcome for the new transmission line than for the SVS additions, and that the feasibility of the line itself is therefore subject to greater uncertainty. There is, however, a significant additional benefit of a new Healy- Fairbanks line not considered in the DFI analysis. The existing Healy-Fairbanks line was constructed in 1967 and will therefore be 30 years old soon after the proposed new line is completed. A phased program of line reconstruction over a five year period is anticipated by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), the owner of the existing line. Sections of the line will be out of service for an estimated 7 months per year between April and October during the reconstruction program, which will prevent Fairbanks from importing gas-fired 6-17 energy from Anchorage. Installation of a second line as proposed would allow for continued supply of Anchorage power to the north during reconstruction. GVEA estimates that the cost of isolation from Anchorage over these 7 months would be at least $7.7 million per year. By allowing Anchorage and Fairbanks to remain connected during reconstruction of the existing line, the new line would eliminate this anticipated cost. The present value of this additional benefit would be about $29.6 million. As in the case of the proposed Kenai-Anchorage line, there are considerations beyond the quantitative debate that bear on the feasibility judgment for a new Healy- Fairbanks line. As discussed earlier under the heading of reliability, a system design involving two lines between Healy and Fairbanks would be particularly effective in the event that a new 50 MW coal-fired power plant is built at Healy. Even if the new 50 MW plant is not built, the representatives from the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) maintain that a second line to Healy would be a necessary, though not sufficient, step towards compliance with prevailing industry standards. From the overview in the NERC report attached in Appendix B: "The proposed Healy-[Fairbanks] 138 kV transmission line is needed for the reliability of electric supply to the Fairbanks area. It provides a second transmission path from Healy to the Fairbanks area for both Healy generation capacity and capacity purchases from the Anchorage area (and the Kenai Peninsula)... [B]ased on traditional planning criteria, the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area. In fact, under traditional reliability criteria, a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required..." If a new Healy coal plant is constructed as planned but a new Healy- Fairbanks intertie is not approved, it is expected that reconstruction of the existing line would begin sooner in order to complete the job before the new coal plant comes on-line. If a new intertie is approved, reconstruction of the existing line would be deferred until the new line is completed. 6-18 APPENDIX A Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study: List of Volumes RAILBELT INTERTIE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Volume Number 1 10 11 Addendum* * LIST OF VOLUMES Volume Title Economic and Demographic Projections for the Alaska Railbelt: 1988-2010 Forecast of Electricity Demand in the Alaska Railbelt Region: 1988-2010 Analysis of Electrical End Use Efficiency Programs for the Alaskan Railbelt Fuel Price Outlooks: Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Fuel Oil Anchorage-Kenai Transmission Intertie Project Anchorage-Fairbanks Transmission Intertie Expansion and Upgrade Project Railbelt Stability Study Northeast Transmission Intertie Project Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants in the Alaska Railbelt Region Estimated Costs and Environmental Impacts of a Natural Gas Pipeline System Linking Fairbanks with the Cook Inlet Area Benefit/Cost Analysis Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt This volume includes revised benefit/cost analysis and critiques by independent reviewers. APPENDIX B Railbelt Reliability Assessment: North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE RAILBELT INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS OF THE ALASKA SYSTEMS COORDINATING COUNCIL 1990-1999 March 16, 1990 by a Subgroup of NERC’s 1990 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee John H. Stout, Chairman (Manager of Engineering Design and Development Houston Lighting & Power Company) Chisna H. Fleming, Vice Chairman Manager, Advanced Engineering and Planning Ohio Edison Company) Richard E. Phillips, Operating Committee Representative Operating Manager New York Power Pool) Virginia C. Sulzberger, NERC Staff Coordinator (Director-Engineering North American Electric Reliability Council) Preface A subgroup of NERC’s 1990 Reliability Assessment Subcommittee (RAS) recently reviewed the overall reliability of the Railbelt interconnected electric utility systems of the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC) at the request of ASCC. This assessment reviewed the adequacy of the existing system and the proposed generation and transmission plans for the Railbelt electric systems over the 1990-1999 period. Included in this review were the reliability impacts of two proposed transmission interconnections — a Soldotna to University 138 kV line and a Healy to Fort Wainwright 138 kV line. This assessment was performed over an approximate eight week period from mid January to mid March 1990. In preparing this report, the RAS subgroup interviewed representatives of the Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, Chugach Electric Association, and Golden Valley Electric Association. These interviews were conducted February 12-14, 1990 in Anchorage, Alaska. In addition to the interviews, the assessment is based primarily on electric utility data and plans for 1990-1999 provided by the Railbelt interconnected systems on a basis consistent with the annual April 1 Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program (IE-411) Reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy by each of NERC’s nine Regional Reliability Councils and from the completion of additional annual data submittals generally requested by the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee from the nine Regions. Several reports of others, either prepared by outside consultants for the Railbelt electric systems or prepared by individual Railbelt electric systems, were also reviewed and provided background information. This reliability assessment report is the culmination of these efforts and reflects the expertise, judgment, and interpretations of the RAS subgroup. Reliability Assessment of the Railbelt Interconnected Electric Utility Systems Overview The Alaska Railbelt electric utility systems began interconnected operations in 1984 by linking together the Fairbanks area with the Anchorage Bowl. (The Anchorage Bowl had been previously interconnected with the Kenai Peninsula in the 1960s.) The unique geographic, economic, and electrical characteristics of the electrical systems in these three areas have resulted in an interconnection that is far less reliable than the four major electric Interconnections of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). For example, the relatively small electrical size of the Railbelt interconnection causes automatic shedding of customer load to take place following most generation and Railbelt interconnection transmission line contingencies. Nonetheless, this Railbelt interconnection has improved the reliability of electric supply to utility customers, primarily in the Anchorage Bowl area. Two important reliability issues face the Alaska Railbelt interconnected systems. First is the need for additional transmission interconnection lines between the three major load centers and their generation facilities. The existing area interconnection lines are single, limited capacity lines prone to outage by weather and avalanche. Second, is the need to maintain a proper balance between economy and reliability. The cost of reliability is exceptionally high for the Railbelt systems resulting in compromises to the generally accepted electric utility reliability criteria in the lower 48 states and most of Canada. The expectations of the Alaska Railbelt customers toward reliable electric supply show signs of increasing. As a result, the interconnected Railbelt’s seven members are recognizing that, along with sharing the economic benefits of interconnection operation, they must also share the responsibilities of reliability. Assessment of the 1990-1999 generation adequacy clearly indicated that sufficient generating capacity margins exist in each of the three major load areas: the Fairbanks area, the Anchorage Bowl, and the od the Kenai Peninsula. Neither forced outages or maintenance outages are expected W to adversely impact generating reserve adequacy. These three areas all have capacity margins well above the interconnection agreement requirement of 30% generation reserves. As electric demand within the Railbelt systems increases, the member systems should recognize that these margins will likely move down toward the 30% minimum. Of concern is the fact that the 30% reserve criteria is not founded on technical reliability studies such as loss of load probability analyses. The Alaska Railbelt systems should reassess carefully the justification of a 30% criteria and revise their interconnection agreement in accordance with such a reassessment. The existing single line transmission interconnections between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area constrain the sharing of generation between and among load centers and pose a significantly higher than traditional reliability risk for system-wide blackouts due to single contingency outages. In terms of traditional reliability criteria, the proposed Soldotna-University 138 kV transmission line provides a second circuit between the Kenai peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl and is necessary to help improve the reliability of electric supply to the Kenai peninsula, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Fairbanks area. This line will increase the electric transfer capability between the Kenai peninsula and the Anchorage area, improve system stability, and help to reduce the number of load shedding incidents in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas and the black out or loss of electric supply to Kenai peninsula customers following certain system outages or contingencies. It will also help to reliably distribute the output of the Bradley Lake hydro generating facility to the appropriate utility purchasers of the hydro capacity. Without this line, reliability in the Kenai peninsula will likely be reduced following the completion of the Bradley Lake project. The proposed Healy-Fort Wainwright 138 kV transmission line is needed for the reliability of electric supply to the Fairbanks area. It provides a second transmission path from Healy to the Fairbanks area for both Healy generation capacity and capacity purchases from the Anchorage area (and the Kenai peninsula). This line provides both improved reliability and economic benefits (Bradley Lake capacity) to the Fairbanks area. Its reliability impact, however, will not be as dramatic as the Soldotna-University 138 kV line, but based on traditional planning criteria, the tie is required to assure an adequate source-to-load path from Healy to the Fairbanks area. In fact, under traditional reliability criteria, a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required (either via Teeland and Healy, or preferably via a separate transmission path such as from the Anchorage Bowl to Glennallen to Jarvis Creek). Finally, many of the planning and operating practices and procedures followed by the Railbelt systems have evolved and been developed from years of experience. In many systems, these guidelines needed for reliability have not been written down or formalized. Therefore, the Railbelt utilities should develop, formulate in writing, and approve appropriate planning and operating reliability criteria for their respective systems and service areas as well as for interconnected planning and operations. Peak Demand and Generation Adequacy A comparison of planned capacity resources, projected available resources, and projected winter peak demands in Figure 1 indicates that the Alaska Railbelt interconnected electric utility systems should have adequate capacity resources throughout the 1990-1999 assessment period. However, the assessment of the Alaska Railbelt systems generation adequacy should not be made solely on an aggregate interconnection basis. This is because the transmission interconnections between the three major load centers: the Fairbanks area, the Anchorage Bowl, and the Kenai Peninsula consist of single, limited capacity transmission lines. As such, these interconnection lines constrain the sharing of generation between load centers. A proper assessment of generation adequacy requires that the Fairbanks (Golden Valley- Fairbanks) area, the Anchorage Bowl, and Kenai Peninsula be evaluated individually. The distribution of installed generating capacity among the three geographical regions of the Railbelt electric utilities is generally proportional to the load distribution as shown in Table 1. About 63% of the winter peak demand of the Railbelt is located in the Anchorage Bowl area, 22% in the Fairbanks area, and 15% in the Kenai Peninsula. Similarly, the installed generating capacity is 67% in the Anchorage Bowl, 20% in the Fairbanks area, and 13% on the Kenai Peninsula. The small mismatch is not significant as all areas have capacity margins of 35% or more in the early years of the assessment period. With the addition of Bradley Lake hydro plant in 1991 at the southern extremity of the Kenai Peninsula, along with some planned retirements and replacements of capacity, the distribution of installed capacity by the winter of 1999/2000 will shift slightly resulting in about 61% in the Anchorage Bowl, 20% in the Fairbanks area, and nearly 19% on Kenai. The capacity margins will continue to be adequate in the three load areas and are projected to range from 38% to 54% at the end of the assessment period. The makeup of the generating capacity and the relative economics of operating the various types of capacity in the three areas distort the apparent balance of generating resources and demand requirements. As shown in Figure 2, about 92% of the 1989/1990 installed capacity is primarily gas- or oil-fired with only abies 4% consisting of coal-fired steam turbines (with fth all 45 MW of hong located in the Fairbanks area) and the remainder about 4% hydro. About 32 MW of the 49.2 MW of hydro capacity is located in the Anchorage Bowl with the remaining hydro on the Kenai Peninsula. With the addition of Bradley Lake hydro plant (and other generating capacity replacements and retirements through 1999), the proportion of ts hydro will shift to nearly 13% with 125 MW of the 157 MW being concentrated on the Kenai Peninsula. Due to relative fuel costs, the Fairbanks area relies primarily on its coal-fired steam generation and significant imports from the south. That is, depending on the time of the year, some 50% or more of its electrical energy requirements are imported over the single 170 mile line from the Anchorage Bowl area. These imports plus the output of the 25 MW coal- fired steam turbine at Healy, in turn, depend upon the single 103 mile line to Gold Hill substation to reach the Fairbanks area customers. Similarly, except for a small amount of hydro and one combustion turbine spinning in standby at Bernice Lake, there is limited generation normally operated on the Kenai Peninsula, and the 89 mile transmission interconnection line from Quartz Creek to the Anchorage Bowl is relied on for imports approaching 60% of the load requirements of the Kenai area. However, after the completion of the Bradley Lake 108 MW hydro plant, that import situation will change. The Kenai Peninsula will become a net exporter of capacity entitlements to the systems north of the peninsula via the Anchorage Bowl during most of the year over that same single 89 mile interconnection line. In the Anchorage Bowl area today, the electrical generation output is generally equal to twice the customer requirements in the area, or more. Net exports from the Bowl therefore equal or exceed the Bowl area demand. Nearly one-half of the generation in the Anchorage Bowl is located at Beluga generating facility at the western extremity of the Bowl on the western shore of Cook Inlet. This is also the most economical generation. The output of Beluga and the 32 MW of hydro at Eklutna (near Palmer), along with some generation in downtown Anchorage are relied upon heavily to support both the Anchorage Bowl load and the exports to the Fairbanks area and the Kenai Peninsula. This result is a mix of generation of some 80% or more of the total operating capacity in the Railbelt interconnection concentrated in the Anchorage Bowl, 10 to 15% in the Fairbanks area, and 5% or so in the Kenai Peninsula. After the addition of Bradley Lake in 1991, it appears that the typical operating generation mix would shift to approximately 65 to 70% in the Anchorage Bowl, 20% in the Kenai Peninsula, with the Fairbanks area retaining its 10% to 15% share. Sufficient generating capacity exists in the three major Railbelt electric areas for normal and emergency operation. However, the economic realities of the cost of operating that generation results in a preponderance of the electrical energy requirements of the Railbelt interconnection being generated in the Anchorage Bowl area. The Fairbanks and Kenai areas rely heavily on imports of that generation to supply their electrical requirements. Therefore, the transmission interconnection transfer capability and its reliability both north and south of the Bowl are critical Although the addition of the Bradley Lake hydro plant will somewhat reduce the generation requirements in the Anchorage Bowl area and would result in Kenai Peninsula being a net exporter much of the time, the same transmission interconnection between Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula would be relied upon to maintain that supply and the capability and reliability of the north and south transmission interconnection lines would continue to be important. Assessment of generation adequacy clearly indicates that sufficient generating capacity margins exist in each of the three Alaska Railbelt areas. Neither forced outages or maintenance outages are expected to adversely impact generating reserve adequacy. However, while the individual utilities or areas may have capacity margins well above the interconnection agreement requirement of 30% reserves, the Railbelt member systems should recognize that as demand increases the margins will likely move down toward the 30% minimum. Of concern is the fact that the 30% criteria is not founded on technical reliability studies such as loss of load probability analyses. The Alaska Railbelt systems should reassess carefully the justification of a 30% criteria and revise their interconnection agreement in accordance with such a reassessment. Transmission Adequacy As the loads and generating capacity of the Railbelt electric systems are generally in three geographically separate areas, each of the areas had developed its own transmission systems prior to establishing interconnected operation. As a consequence, there are three transmission voltages (115 kV, 138 kV, and 230 kV) in use that are interconnected by transformation at five substations in the Anchorage Bowl area as shown in Figure 3. In addition, there is underlying subtransmission in each of the areas consisting primarily of 69 kV facilities as well as some 34.5 kV. In the Golden Valley area, which encompasses Fairbanks and extends from Denali Park up the Tanana River valley past Fairbanks to Delta Junction, the transmission system is a single 138 kV circuit of approximately 212 miles in length, except for a 33 mile section between the North Pole and Carney substations currently bridged 5v 69 kV facilities. However, there are plans to add a 138 kV segment to complete this system in 1994. The Fairbanks area (Golden Valley and Fairbanks) is interconnected with the Anchorage Bowl area by 170 miles of single circuit line between the Healy generating plant near Denali Park to Teeland substation. Teeland substation is an interconnection point for all three transmission voltages of these systems and is located in the northwestern portion of the Anchorage Bowl area. The Kenai Peninsula is the southernmost of the three areas and has a transmission system of 115 kV which is essentially a single circuit serving the peninsula with branches to Homer, Lawing, and Bernice Lake. Approximately 180 miles of 115 kV transmission line serves the Kenai Peninsula. (Future plans are to convert 24 miles of 69 kV line south of Lawing to 115 kV thereby extending the 115 kV branch to Seward.) The Kenai Peninsula is interconnected with the Anchorage Bowl by a 89 mile 115 kV circuit between Quartz Creek substation (41 miles north of Seward) and University substation. University substation is another interconnection point for three transmission voltages and is located in the southeastern portion of the Anchorage Bowl area. The Anchorage Bowl area includes the city of Anchorage and the surrounding countryside between the Turnagain and Knik Arms of Cook Inlet, extending northward to Palmer and the Matanuska Valley area, and westward to the area north and west of the Knik Arm. The transmission system within Anchorage is 115 kV with an extension southward to the three voltage University substation and one north to Palmer and westward to the Teeland substation interconnection point. In addition, there is an overlay of about 98 miles of 230 kV transmission extending from Beluga generating station on the west shore of Cook Inlet to a 230/138 kV stepdown substation at Point MacKenzie, then north to the Teeland substation interconnection point as well as eastward from Point MacKenzie across Knik Arm (via submarine cable) to Anchorage where it is interconnected to the 115 kV system, and then southward to University substation with another transformation to 115 kV. The 230 kV loop is closed by 138 kV, transformed from 115 kV at University substation, along the southern boundaries of Anchorage to Point MacKenzie stepdown substation and extended west to the Beluga generating plant. The transmission in the Anchorage Bowl area is such that it can be considered a network and, as such, should be able to withstand loss of any given circuit. The Kenai Peninsula is essentially a branched circuit with underlying subtransmission on the cross-peninsula sections, such that loss of any branch should be sustainable with only loss of the area served by that branch. However, the 89 mile single circuit tie between Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl is, and has historically been, subject to outages due in large part to avalanches. These 4. outages place the Kenai Peninsula in jeopardy from the effects of isolation from the Anchorage Bowl. The addition of the 108 MW Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant at the southern extremity of the peninsula near Homer along with 60 miles of 115 kV transmission between Fritz Creek and Soldotna will tend to exacerbate this situation with the further problem that loss of the existing Kenai-Anchorage Bowl interconnection would interrupt Bradley Lake capacity entitlements of the Anchorage Bowl and Fairbanks area utilities. The addition of the proposed 138 kV circuit between Soldotna substation, requiring transformation from 115 kV at that point, to the 138 kV portion of University substation would not only provide a parallel path to the existing tie but would also make the Kenai electric system more of a loop arrangement. It is in view of this that the following comments are offered as regard reliability aspects: @ The existing 115 kV interconnection line has a poor reliability history and has a transmission transfer capacity limit under 75 megawatts (MW). The chances of significantly improved performance is not great due to its physical/geographical location and system conditions that exist. @ The second (currently proposed Soldotna to University 138 kV line) Kenai interconnection to the Anchorage Bowl area would improve reliability by preventing the shedding of customer load if the existing interconnection line trips, (with the possible exception of those times when the Kenai Peninsula generation is operating in anticipation of loss of the existing tie). @ When Bradley Lake comes into service, reliability will suffer without a second interconnection tie. That is, the second Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage Bowl line is necessary to support Bradley Lake and to help reliably distribute the Bradley Lake capacity to the purchasing systems, to minimize blackouts in the Kenai Peninsula, and to minimize underfrequency load shedding in the Fairbanks area and the Anchorage Bowl. As indicated above, the Golden Valley-Fairbanks area transmission system is essentially a 212 mile single circuit from the primary electrical source at the Healy generating plant to the eastern extremities of the system at Jarvis Creek substation near Delta Junction. Of this, only about 50 miles has underlying transmission and therefore this system is highly exposed for loss of any single 138 kV circuit segment, particularly the 103 mile circuit between Healy and Gold Hill. It is in view of this that the following comments are offered as regard reliability aspects. @ The addition of the proposed 105 mile 138 kV circuit between Healy generating plant and Fort Wainwright substation would not only provide an alternate path for loss of the circuit to Gold Hill, but would also provide essentially loop service between the Healy plant and the major part of the load in this area. @ The reliability of the Healy-Gold Hill line has been good, such that additional facilities will not have as dramatic an impact on reliability as the second Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage Bowl tie. However, based on traditional planning criteria, the Healy-Fort Wainwright tie is required to assure an adequate source- to-load path from the dual sources at Healy (Healy generation plus the capacity purchases from the Anchorage Bowl and later from Bradley Lake) to the Fairbanks area. The 170 mile interconnection line between Teeland substation and Healy generating plant is vulnerable to single circuit outage and would cause loss of transfer capability between the Anchorage Bowl area and Healy. Future consideration should be given to providing an additional transmission path between the Anchorage Bowl area and the Fairbanks area. Under 7. traditional reliability criteria, a second transmission line between the Anchorage Bowl and the Fairbanks area would likely be required (either via Teeland and Healy, or preferably via a separate transmission path such as from the Anchorage Bowl to Glennallen to Jarvis Creek). Operations The following comments are made concerning the operational aspects of the Alaska Railbelt interconnected systems: Each Railbelt system indicated it brings on additional generation for reserves in recognition of adverse weather conditions. These reserves were indicated to be geographically located such that they would not be bottled by transmission contingencies. This type of response enhances reliability and should be encouraged. It was indicated in the interviews that customer load would be shed if economy or non-firm transactions were interrupted. This does not confirm to the traditional interpretation of NERC criteria for these types of transactions in the interconnected systems of the lower 48 states. The three traditional broad categories of electrical transactions and a summary of their application is as follows: — Economy transactions are, by definition, immediately withdrawable. Receiving systems have the obligation to maintain generation backed-off and spinning to replace the economy without loss of load. Non-Firm or Interruptible — The receiving system must have generation available to replace the purchase within a specified time. The seller must maintain the delivery for the duration of this same specified time. Interruption of the transaction within this predetermined time frame is accomplished without any loss of load. Firm — A firm purchase is treated as a generator on the receiving system and a load on the sellers system. Lack of agreement exists over who must cut what generation schedules if a transmission constraint exists. This condition is partially due to conflicting terms between new and existing contracts, e.g. contracts between Chugach and Fairbanks and contracts associated with Bradley Lake. There is also a lack of definition in the area of transmission ownership vs use. These are policy decisions that should not wait for shift dispatchers to solve when the condition occurs. Additional spinning generator reserves will not always prevent underfrequency load shedding for the loss of generation. Reliance on load shedding as spinning reserve is not traditional and is avoided by most NERC systems. However, due to the unique nature of the Railbelt systems, their generation inertia and size of loads, this technique may not only be appropriate, but essential. Each Railbelt system should develop written operating criteria and procedures for its system. These criteria and procedures could then be compared and utilized to develop overall operating criteria and procedures for the Railbelt interconnection. Reliability Issues The existing Railbelt utilities lack comprehensive planning and operating criteria as well as interconnection criteria for integrated planning and operations. Therefore, the existing and proposed Railbelt electric utility systems were evaluated against traditional reliability criteria and practices followed by the interconnected electric systems of NERC’s Regional Reliability Councils in the lower 48 states and Canada. For example, NERC’s Planning Guides recommend to the extent practicable that an excessive concentration of generating capacity in one unit, at one location or in one area, be avoided, that excessive dependence on a single transmission line be avoided, and that a system be designed to withstand credible contingency situations. Under traditional criteria, a single generation or transmission contingency generally would not black out an entire interconnected system or cause the shedding of a portion of system load. In contrast, within the Alaska Railbelt systems, a single contingency such as the loss of fuel supply to the Beluga generating plant on December 11, 1989 can and has blacked out the interconnected Railbelt electric systems. Similarly, based on information given to the RAS subgroup, during periods of high capacity transfers from the Kenai Peninsula Bradley Lake project, the sudden outage of the existing 115 kV interconnection line between the Kenai peninsula and the Anchorage Bowl would likely cause load shedding in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas and a blackout of the complete Kenai electric system. These two examples illustrate the lack of compliance with traditional NERC planning and operating criteria. Based on a comparison of the current Railbelt interconnected systems planning and operating procedures with traditional electric utility planning and operating reliability criteria in NERC-U.S. and NERC-Canada, the RAS subgroup offers the following comments: « Planning and Operating Criteria The Railbelt utilities should develop, formulate in writing, and Kc aipin appropriate planning and operating reliability criteria for their respective electric systems and service areas. In addition, coordinated interconnection planning and operating reliability criteria should similarly be developed, formulated in writing, and approved under the auspices of the existing Interconnection Agreement or under the ASCC umbrella. NERC’s Planning Policies encourage the development of planning and design criteria by Regional Councils, power pools, and individual systems applicable to their Region or area. © Load Shedding and Spinning Reserve Studies The Railbelt utilities are currently conducting two important reliability related studies. The first involves the application of underfrequency load shedding schemes. Underfrequency load shedding is critical to the Railbelt utilities, because it is the primary method of preventing system blackouts following a loss of generation or certain transmission line outages. This is because the relatively small electrical size of the Railbelt interconnection and the mismatch between generator governor response and system transient response albeit acai load shedding take place following most generation and interconnection transmission line contingencies. The second study involves spinning reserve requirements after the Bradley Lake hydro project comes into service. This study will also play an important role in determining the ability of the Railbelt utilities to:avoid uncontrolled loss of customer load following a system disturbance. Both studies are likely to result in Railbelt members having to make difficult decisions affecting the balance between economy and reliability. Interconnected operation will require that such decisions be made, and complied with, as one, rather than as seven separate systems. The importance of these studies dictates that they be completed promptly and that the Railbelt utilities quickly —— and implement whatever policy and procedures are identified by those studies. The Bradley Lake hydro project, on the Kenai Peninsula, is nearing completion, but the Railbelt utilities have not yet received approval for construction of the transmission facilities needed to reliably transfer capacity from the project to major load centers. As discussed elsewhere in this assessment, this is a direct threat to the reliability of the Railbelt systems. However, it is also an indication of an even greater threat, the lack of an integrated, coordinated process of planning transmission to accompany generation resources. Electric system reliability is much like a chain, with generation, transmission, and distribution facilities as individual links. Making the generation link stronger is ineffective unless the transmission link is at least as strong. In the future, the Railbelt utilities must proactively and collectively plan and build transmission to support any generation or purchased capacity options. Reliability will likely suffer if transmission planning and construction continue to lag behind the soaring and construction of new generation sources. The most significant issue affecting the reliability of the Railbelt utilities is maintaining a proper balance between economy and reliability. If judged against the reliability levels generally maintained by the NERC Interconnections, it would appear that, within the Railbelt utilities, economics has encroached on reliability. However, given the unique geographic, electrical, and economic circumstances facing the Railbelt systems, the existing balance may be proper. The cost of providing reliability is chopeciesially high for the Railbelt utilities, but there are indications that the reliability expectations of the customers in the Railbelt utilities are increasing. The lack of a clear, written definition of what constitutes adequate reliability for the Railbelt utilities makes a final judgment impossible. However, one judgment that can be made is that more than in any other NERC Region, the balance between economy and reliability is of concern. The members of the Railbelt utilities must pay utmost attention to this balance. It is easy to share in the economic benefits of an interconnected system. It is more difficult, but nevertheless just as important, to also share the responsibilities of maintaining reliability. Table 1 RAILBELT INTERCONNECTED ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS OF ASCC PEAK DEMAND & CAPACITY RESOURCES — MW Winter Season . Major Electric Load Centers Utilities 1989/1990 1999/2000 Demand Capacity Demand Capacity Fairbanks GVEA 109 197 122 221 Area FMUS 30 _44 33 28.5 Total 139 241 155 249.5 Anchorage CEA 163.8 413.8 170.0 383.9 Bowl APAD 0 32 0 32 MEA 97 0 113 0 AML&P 143 3318 135 331.8 Total 403.8 777.6 438 747.7 Kenai CEA 13 99 13.3 63.7 Peninsula HEA 73.9 40 76.3 40 SES 10.5 10.5 14 13'S AEA —? —2 —2 —108 Total 97.4 149.5 103.6 225.2 All Systems Total 640.2 1168.1 696.6 1222.4 Sources: Draft of the Railbelt interconnection’s responses for the 1990-1999 period to the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy’s annual April 1 Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program (IE-411) Report and the NERC Reliability Assessment Subcommittee’s data request forms 01 through 08. Figure 1 Alaska Railbeit Electric Utility Systems Peak Demand & Projected Available Resources snug (1990 - 1999 Forecast) 89/90 90/91 99/00 Projected Available Resources are equal to Planned Capecity Resources less average unaveilabie capacity at the time of system peak. Figure 2 Alaska Railbelt Electric Utility Systems Generating Capacity by Fuel TU co = BB ot ZA tyro | oy 1400 he ‘ na J : @ Pilot Blutt Fogiee GM , Ft Wairweight , cB we f Figure 3 Alaska Railibelt Electric Utility —— Systems 1 APPENDIX C Comments on Draft Report —— = United States Departmentoftheheiar —_—_ ni — =, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 IN REPLY REFER TO: KNWR/WAES/NAES/RE Mr. Richard Emerman MAR 0 4 1991 Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study, dated January 1991, prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority. Although the document addresses both the proposed Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage intertie and the Fairbanks to Healy intertie, we will have separate concerns for each project. We offer the following comments for your consideration. GENERAL COMMENTS There are several important issues associated with these proposed projects that will need to be addressed in the preparation of future documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We believe the proposed interties represent major actions and will require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because of the right-of-way issues and potential impacts to the human environment. We recognize that public review of the feasibility study represents a first step in the NEPA process. Future NEPA documents need to include: 1) detailed analysis of the potential project impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat for each alternative considered; 2) thorough analysis of the no action alternative; and 3) effective mitigation measures for each alternative, including incorporation of raptor protection measures in the designs of the overhead transmission lines. A habitat unit analysis or similar approach could be used to assess impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and to develop an acceptable mitigation plan. Section 1505.1(e) of the National Environmental Policy Act requires that all reasonable alternatives be included in the range of alternatives for the proposal, and Section 1502.14 requires an examination of all reasonable alternatives that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint. The “no build/no action" alternative should be included and evaluated in your future EIS document. The Alaska Energy Authority will need to work closely with appropriate resource agencies to identify measures to mitigate project impacts for each alternative presented. For example, potential impacts to raptors may be avoided and/or minimized by including raptor protection measures in the design of power lines. We recommend that you review a report entitled "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of The Art in 1981" for technical assistance in designing and constructing transmission lines. The preferred alternatives currently under consideration will involve the building of roads and trenching in wetlands. We recommend that you consult with the Army Corps of Engineers and our Ecological Services, Anchorage and Fairbanks offices to review the permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. We also suggest that you contact our Realty Division in order to discuss the application process for a Service Right-of-Way permit under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). COMMENTS ON THE KENAI PENINSULA TO ANCHORAGE INTERTIE The Preferred Enstar Route would have more adverse environmental effects on Kenai National Wildlife Refuge lands than the Tesoro Route. The proposed Enstar Route affects about 500 acres of forested refuge lands with new access routes to approximately 220 adjacent pole structures and a new right-of-way. The Tesoro Route, in contrast, would require no clearing of refuge lands. The Tesoro Route would require 59 miles of new construction, while the Enstar Route would entail 68 miles of disturbance. Page 1-4, Conclusions. According to this section, the cost-benefit ratios for the Enstar Route and the Tesoro Route are roughly comparable and are equally reliable, with the Tesoro route having a nine percent higher project cost. However, the Tesoro Route would avoid potential impacts on important moose migration corridors; the Chickaloon Flats waterfowl staging and nesting area and waterfowl flyways; bald eagle, brown bear, black bear, wolverine, wolf, and lynx use areas; and high value habitats for many other species. The preferred Enstar Route does not consider potential impact on Kenai Refuge visitors, refuge fish and wildlife, or refuge policies, but is based on projected economic concerns. We believe that when all alternatives are examined, the Enstar Route through the refuge will not be acceptable. Current laws and regulations governing non-program uses on national wildlife refuge lands require a compatibility determination. Also, under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, a determination of whether there is an economically feasible and prudent alternative to this route and whether other alternatives would result in fewer or less severe impacts on the refuge or its resources will need to be made. The feasibility document identifies such a route in the Tesoro Route. If the Enstar Route is to be pursued beyond this feasibility phase of project planning, the Alaska Power Authority will have to apply for a right-of-way permit issued by the Service’s Realty Division. Page 2-2, 2.1.1 Description of Enstar Route, second paragraph. Future documents should specifically identify the location of the transition from a buried transmission line to an overhead configuration. The proposed project calls for the transmission line to remain buried until north of Potters Marsh; we request that a site-specific location be identified. We are concerned about the proximity of an overhead powerline to Potter’s Marsh and the potential for bird strikes and raptor electrocutions. Page 4-1, 4.1.2 Water Quality. The document’s assumption that neither alternative route would substantially affect water quality will need to be better supported by design criteria, proposed mitigation measures, and detailed, site-specific plans addressing water crossings, wetland crossings, and construction timing windows. We believe that the development of access roads through wetlands and riparian areas along stream crossings could adversely affect water quality unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the road design. Page 4-2, 4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife, first paragraph. Your conclusions that "impacts to fish on the Kenai Peninsula leg are thus considered generally low for the Enstar Route, with a potential for localized moderate impact, and low for the Tesoro Route," should be supported with scientific data; the feasibility report contains no information to support your statement. Page 4-3, 4.1.3 Fish and Wildlife, last paragraph. As stated above, the document needs to clarify the exact location of the proposed Enstar Route (and any alternative entry) near the Potter’s Marsh area. We recommend that the powerline be buried from the submarine crossing near Potter’s Marsh to north of the intersection of Rabbit Creek Road and the New Seward Highway. The document should also address potential impacts to shorebird habitat in intertidal areas adjacent to the railroad right-of-way from burial of the powerline in the Enstar alternative. Furthermore, proposed timing of construction to avoid and minimize impacts to shorebirds was not identified. COMMENTS ON THE FAIRBANKS TO HEALY INTERTIE Maps provided with the document are not of sufficient detail for adequate review and may be inaccurate. For example, the legend for Figure 2.3 lists existing transmission lines and the Enstar Gasline, but neither are depicted. The existing transmission line is important in that it should be considered as an alternative, but it is not discussed. Both proposed routes in the Healy-Fairbanks section cross the Tanana River just east of Nenana. The south route crosses the Tanana River twice more near Fairbanks. Both routes pass within a mile of cliffs east of Nenana which have been used for nesting by endangered American peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum). The south route, which crosses the Tanana River 15 miles southwest of Fairbanks, has no known peregrine falcon nest sites in the immediate area. There are several bald eagle nests along the Tanana River from Fairbanks to Nenana. More detailed route maps would be required to evaluate the proposed routes, their proximity to the cliffs, and bald eagle nests in the area. : Given the close proximity of both proposed routes to peregrine or peregrine and bald eagle nest sites, alignment changes/and or construction windows will need to be considered prior to approval. The map in the document lacks enough detail and scale for an adequate review. River corridors are often major bird migratory routes and structures in these areas are a major hazard during spring and fall migration. This document discusses the potential for bird collisions, but does not address marking schemes which could decrease the likelihood of bird collisions with powerlines. Marking lines will need to be addressed, particularly in nesting areas and along migration routes. Access for construction and year-round maintenance could have significant adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and their habitats, especially in wetlands. Winter activities could influence movements of mammals, the hunting success of predators, and trapping harvest of furbearers. Activities during other seasons could impact water quality by erosion, change in drainage patterns, alteration of plant communities, disturbance of nesting and staging migratory birds, increased public access and associated disturbances, and other secondary impacts. A mitigation plan for the Fairbanks-Healy Intertie should be prepared in cooperation with the Service and other resource agencies prior to initiation of the proposed project. Costs for mitigation and monitoring requirements need to be factored into the feasibility report, as they are an essential facet of the project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and look forward to working cooperatively with you in upcoming planning of these intertie projects. Sincerely, G.7 gional Di or noe AP A. AAW a / PATS ME MAMA Hf O\ | Hite FOV JOY \ tak 70) | WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR \ { ml a ay ; DEPARTMENT OF NATURALRESOURCES / 3601 C STREET BOX 107005 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7005, DIVISION OF LAND AND WATER March 6, 1991 SOUTHCENTRAL REGION Alaska Energy Authority Attn.: Dick Emermen P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 RE: Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Emermen: As requested, staff from the Division of Land and Water has reviewed the Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study (draft report) and offers the following comments. 1. Land Status - Due to the scale of the maps that were provided with the feasibility study, it was difficult to determine the effects of the transmission line construction on state lands that are encumbered by leases or permits issued by this Division. By reviewing state status plats to determine land ownership along the general alignments of each proposal, it was determined that Mental Health Grant Lands, pending and issued leases, right-of way permits and other land actions administered by this Division would be impacted. It should be noted that at this time applications for permits or leases on Mental Health Lands can not be adjudicated due to a court injunction that prohibits this Division from issuing such authorizations. Enclosed is a list of sections within townships that may be affected, along with Mental Health Land Index Maps that depict the townships that were selected in southcentral and northcentral Alaska. 2. Required DLW authorizations prior to construction - It would be necessary for the Alaska Energy Authority to submit applications for right-of-way permits, leases (should addition land be required for facilities associate with the proposals) ; and permanent water rights, if appropriate. In addition, permits for temporary access, water use and materials (sand\gravel) may also be required. 3S printed on recycres er ZS onnted on recyces = 2c The Division of Land and Water appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed projects. If you should need further information please contact this office at 762-2270. Sincerely, “Dawe Shey Dave Perez Natural Resource Officer ENCLOSURES A:Railbelt .Rew The following is a list of lands that may be affected by Mental Health Grant selections: Southcentral proposals: Seward Meridian Township Range Section (s) 7 North 11 West 9 8 North 11 West 36 8 North 10 West 19 12 North 4 West Exact alignment is required to determine MH lands. 5 North 10 West 23 5 North 7 West 7,8 5 North 8 West 8,,9),40),12 12 North 3 West Exact alignment is required to determine MH lands. Northcentral Proposals: Fairbanks Meridian Township Range Section (s) 12 South 7 West 205) 11 South 7 West S2 6 South 8 West ihe cause 7o0 5 South 7 West Dieser ecoe lige, 1A, LT 3 South 4 West 6 1 South 3 West 18 1 South 1 West 24,25 1 North 3 West 11 .12,.13),:14,25 1 North 1 West 17719),.20 1 North 1 East a7. STATE OF ALASKA Mental Health Lands Index Map Southcentral Region (Seward & Copper River Meridians) MENTAL HEALTH GRANT LANDS Before toking any. action on these lands, check the current status on the state public land record system with the Stote of Alasko, Department of Natural Resources. Detoiled maps (state status plots) are available ot the regional offices of the Division of Lond & Water Management in Anchorage, Junecu, and Foirbonks. Department of Notural Resources Division of Management, Lond Records Informofion Section ~~ eC STATE OF ALA SKA Mental Health Lands Index Map Northern Regio (Fairbanks Meridian) aS WENTAL HEALTH GRANT LANDS n Before on the Depar: . are available ot the regional offices of the Division Management in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbonks. toking ony action on these lands, check the ci state public land record system with the Stat Primary date source: Aleske Oepertmen! of Nature! Resources Lond Administration System (LAS) Township grid based on Buren of Lond Wonagement’s stetevide Wop projection: Alber's Equal Aree urrent status ¢ of Alaska, nt of Natural Resources. Detailed maps (state status plats) of Land & Water proteaction files it | ” Department of Notural Resources Nivisinn of Ma. —— aA Fn ™~ A” I 7 ’ een St a\ : = je3 Ay foi SS fi &) dA y it uJ aie) EP i4 7 OCA) Ne US Uses WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR Jor) DEPARTMENT OF NATURALRESOURCES jdt BOX 1247 DIVISION OF PARKS & OUTDOOR RECREATION Se he ahaa RECEIVED MAP 04 1991 Energy Authority February 28, 1991 ; a Richard Emmerman niask Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emmerman, I have reviewed the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study report and would appreciate being placed on your mailing list for future information regarding this project. The Southern Line's Tesoro Route does pass through Captain Cook State Recreation Area and Park Use Permits will be required for any construction within the recreation area. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the recreation area or our permitting process. Sincerely, Chun ka 2) 1A Christina D. Titus Kenai Area Superintendent CDT/sf {,\ iA\ WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH ANDGAME | aT Ean ANCHORAGE: ALASKA 99518-1599 / PHONE: (907) 344-0541 RECEIVED February 27, 1991 wae 04 1991 piaske energy Authority Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: Re: Draft Report Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study; Anchorage to Soldotna Section. The Southcentral Region of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has completed a review of the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study report with a focus on the Anchorage to Soldotna project. Our Northern Region has reviewed and commented on the proposed Healy/Fairbanks Intertie project addressed in this draft report. The ADF&G previously reviewed and commented on this project ina memorandum to Hart Crowser, in April 1987. The project has changed slightly since our last review, in that the proposed 230 kV line has been reduced to a 138 kV line. This change eliminates the need for construction of approximately 22 miles of transmission line between Bernice Lake Substation and Soldotna. This reduction in scope of work should provide for a more favorable benefit/cost ratio for this route, but is not reflected in the “Engineering and Design" section (Section 2.1, Southern Line: Route Selection and Right-of-Way) on page 2-1 (last paragraph). The draft report identifies four alternative routes for the Soldotna to Anchorage Intertie. The Seward/Sterling Highway (Existing) Route, the Enstar Gas Pipeline Route which parallels the Kenai Mountains and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the Tesoro Products Line Route which follows the Sterling Highway and the West Forelands-Beluga Station Route. The Seward/Sterling Highway and West Forelands-Beluga Routes were eliminated from further consideration in the draft feasibility study and the Enstar Gas Pipeline Route was identified as the Preferred Route. The ADF&G has no objection to either route presently under consideration although the Tesoro route would have slightly less impact to fish and wildlife resources. We offer the following es ZB onnted sn recy. Richard Emerman -2- February 27, 1991 comments for your consideration in finalizing the feasibility report and in preparing for permitting a project in the future. ie Fisheries Related Impacts. Construction of the transmission line along the Tesoro Products Line Route would result in the traversing of fewer designated anadromous fish streams (15) than the use of the Enstar Route (16). Stream crossings should not pose any significant problem as the crossings would be elevated pole mounted spans with no inwater construction. Stream crossings with vehicles can be scheduled to take advantage of winter ice crossings or occur during periods when anadromous fish are not likely to be adversely impacted (i.e. mid May through mid July). These conditions would be included in the Fish Habitat Permit required from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ‘aie Wildlife Related Impacts. The potential wildlife impacts associated with either the Enstar or Tesoro routes would be Similar. Waterfowl utilize the wetland habitats on the Potter Marsh area of the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge during the spring and fall migration periods. Waterfowl are also present in the Point Possession area on the Kenai Peninsula. Scheduling of transmission line construction to avoid important migration and nesting areas would minimize construction related impacts associated with either route. Moose habitat impacts would also be similar between the two alternatives, however, the greater amount of timber removal associated with clearing a ROW along and through the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge could result in greater impact to the moose population through increased vulnerability to hunters along the cleared ROW. ays Both the Tesoro and Enstar routes would require the burial of a portion of the transmission line in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge located adjacent to Turnagain and Knik Arms south of Anchorage. The Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge was established in 1971 and expanded and renamed in 1988 for the proteetiom of waterfowl, shorebirds, salmon, and other fish and wildlife species and their habitat, and for the use and enjoyment of the people of the state. Burial of the cable would be a requirement of the Special Area Permit required for crossing this refuge pursuant to AS 16.20.060 and 5 AAC 95. Recent surveys of other buried submarine cables serving Anchorage indicate the need for adequate burial depth and cable protection from scouring, abrasion and vandalism which could expose the cables resulting in electrocution of fish, wildlife or the recreationists using the Cook Inlet shoreline and mudflats. Richard Emerman =3= February 27, 1991 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft feasibility study. Should you have questions regarding our comments or wish to discuss them further, please contact Mr. Gary Liepitz at 267-2284. Sincerel Lance ° Trasky Regional Supervisor Region II Habitat Division Clausen, ADF&G Spraker, ADF&G Bendock, ADF&G Nelson, ADF&G Tarbox, ADF&G Liepitz, ADF&G Westlund, ADF&G Millington, ADNR McGillivary, USF&WS Morris, NMFS Kohler, COE North, EPA Frensdorff, KPB cc: eee AWTOAONAUAROAHD . STATE OF ALASKA / “=~ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1300 COLLEGE ROAD FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701-1599 January 28, 1991 RECEIVED FEB ~ 1 199) Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Energy Attn: Richard Emerman Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: RE: Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Region IIIf (Interior) of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the referenced draft report sections which cover the proposed Healy/Fairbanks Intertie upgrade. Region II (Southcentral) will review and comment on the Anchorage/Soldotna Intertie sections. We recognize that this is a feasibility document rather than an environmental impact assessment. However, we believe there are environmental conditions which need to be more fully addressed before selection of an alternative is determined to be feasible. The following comments are offered for your consideration: Section 2.2, Northern Line: Route Selection and Right-of-Way. The legend on Figure 2.3 (continued) contains a code for Enstar Gasline but such a feature is not shown or known within the study area. This section also identifies the "South Route" as the preferred alternative because it is shorter and traverses less private land. The decision on route selection does not appear to have considered access to the route for either construction or operations and maintenance nor the construction along 30-50 additional miles of "wetlands" versus the more upland "North Route.” Section 4.2.5, Terrestrial Impacts (Vegetation and Wetlands). “Wetland disturbance would be kept to a minimum by route selection, minimizing new road construction, careful tower placement, construction timing .. .". This statement seems to be contradicted by the selection of the "South Route” particularly the portion from near Bonanza Creek to Fairbanks. Section 4.2.6., Recreation Resources. The "South Route” would pass through an area where considerable airboat use occurs. Increases or decreases in airboat access caused by powerline clearing and construction should be addressed. 4.2.7, Visual Impacts. Most major airlines and many private airplanes approach Fairbanks International Airport from the southwest and a "South Route" powerline would be highly visible for many miles. This visual impact should be addressed. 11-K17LH Richard Emerman -2- January 28, 1991 In summary, we believe route selection has been premature. We recommend collection of more detailed information concerning ground conditions, access, construction, wetland avoidance, recreational resources, and visual impacts. Please contact Alan Townsend at 451-6192 for additional information or assistance. Sincerely, ee Met Alvin G. Ott, Regional Supervisor Habitat Division Department of Fish and Game CG: Frank Rue, ADF&G, Juneau John Clark, ADF&G, Fairbanks Chris Smith, ADF&G, Fairbanks Terry Haynes, ADF&G, Fairbanks Keith Schultz, ADF&G, Fairbanks Rick Smith, ADNR, Fairbanks Pete McGee, ADEC, Fairbanks Patrick Sousa, USFWS, Fairbanks Junior Kerns, Ft. Wainwright ST AWE 0} c fi LL AN § K i Ra Lance, counmnoa DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER TELEPHONE NO. P.O. "RECEIVED ALASKA 99801-1800 (907) 465-2600 FEB 11 1991 February 4, 1991 ajaska Energy Authority : Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: The Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Draft Report and found the Environmental Impact section to be adequate for comparing the different routes proposed for the southern and northern lines. Regardless of the route ultimately selected, any air or water quality issues will be resolved by the Department in the context of site specific construction permits. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. Sincerely, fa A. Sandor Commissioner NZ = \ Municipality of Anchorage Municipal Light & Power 1200 East First Avenue R FE C E | VE Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1685 (907) 279-7671, Telecopiers: (907) 276-2961. 277-9272 FEB 22 1991 ‘piaska Energy Authority February 20, 1991 Mr. Dick Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P. O. Box 19086 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Re: ML&P Comments on the Draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Emerman: The discussion in section 6.1.2 on hydrothermal coordination benefits of a second intertie between Kenai and Anchorage does not consider the threshold limit for coordination efforts over the existing line. While it is true that some hydrothermal coordination can be accomplished over the existing intertie, there is some threshold limit of benefits below which the utilities would choose not to rely on Kenai generation to supply Anchorage loads. With two lines between Anchorage and the Kenai, the utilities clearly plan to rely on Kenai generation to supply Anchorage loads. If there remains only a single line, the utilities have not had to make a final choice on how to operate the system. Therefore, it is not clear that the hydrothermal coordination benefits available from a single line should be subtracted when determining the benefits attributable to a new line. At section 4.1.1, Municipal Light and Power (ML&P) management disagrees with the study conclusion that there would be negligible air quality impacts in the operation of the Kenai-Anchorage intertie. Quite the contrary, ML&P's analysis of air quality impacts strongly suggests that there will be a favorable impact on air quality over the Anchorage and Beluga air sheds. This conclusion is based on the fact that construction of the intertie will significantly reduce line energy losses below current losses, transfer a portion of the burden of spinning reserves to hydro resources, and will promote hydrothermal coordination. All of these factors directly decrease the use of thermal generation resources in Anchorage and Beluga, which in turn, decreases the emissions of air pollutants from these resources. Our simple analyses suggest that emissions of NOx, co, voc and particulates can be reduced significantly. Putting Energy Into Anchorage Alaska Energy Authority Mr. Dick Emerman Draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study February 20, 1991 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study. If you should have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, a 2 Thomas R. Stahr General Manager Analysis North a Alaska's Utility Consumer Advocate 911 West 8th Avenue, Suite 204 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907-272-3425 RECEIVED February 28, 1991 “E828 1991 rey 26 199 ALASWA ENERGY ANTHARITY Alaska Energy Authority Attn: Richard Emerman P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: Thank you for the invitation to review the "Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study", Draft Report, January 1991. Except for new intertie cost estimates that assume very little Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) involvement with the construction of the interties, this report primarily repackages and comments on information from older studies concerning the projects. Prior work by the Alaska Energy Authority on the topic of Railbelt intertie benefits has been more even- handed in its presentation. In particular, the "Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study" (AEA- Recon), June 1989, and the February 15, 1990 memo from you to Robert E. LeResche, "Review of Railbelt Utility Intertie Analysis", presented a fairer picture of the benefits of intertie upgrades, in my opinion. I understand that this current report "was drafted to explain the reasons for the position reached by LeResche and the agency’s board"', perhaps explaining the more optimistic conclusions concerning intertie cost-effectiveness contained in the report. Because there is little new information in this report, I have not changed my previous conclusion that the limited upgrade of the Anchorage-Fairbanks line is probably cost- effective, and that new lines from Anchorage to the Kenai Peninsula and from Healy to Fairbanks are probably not cost-effective. Those conclusions were supported in substantial detail in "A review of "Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt’", February 1990 by Analysis North. The only additional comments I would like to make concern Railbelt power reliability and the interties’ expected impact on reliability. Project advocates have continually touted the reliability benefits of the interties, but the utility-funded analysis of the projects indicates that the interties will reduce power outages by an average of 26 minutes per customer per year, a relatively small impact compared to the 5.5 hours per year that the average Railbelt customer is without power. Although this review offers comments on the cost-effectiveness of the intertie projects, I believe that a Legislative debate about the technical and economic details of the projects is ‘Anchorage Daily News, "Intertie Line Backers Try for Funding", Tom Kizzia, February 10, 1990. Page 2 February 28, 1991 somewhat pointless. The best way to ensure that the intertie projects are built if they are cost-effective, or not built if they are not cost-effective, is to provide no specific subsidy for their construction. The Railbelt utilities’ capital investment process is not perfect, but it is more accurate than the outcome of a Legislative debate concerning intertie merits. The Railbelt utilities will build the interties if they make sense. The Legislature can still lower electric rates with the remainder of the Railbelt Energy Fund by using the fund to pay off or make payments on existing Railbelt utility debt, or using the fund to provide a credit on each customer’s monthly electric bill. Providing generic subsidies such as these would not distort the utilities’ normal decision-making process concerning capital investments and operating choices. To facilitate the discussion in the following sections, I will use the following abbreviations to designate the various intertie studies: AEA-Recon - "Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study", June 1989, prepared by Decision Focus Inc. (DFI) for the Alaska Energy Authority. $2 million AEA analysis of 230 kV Railbelt interties and other Railbelt energy projects. Utility-DFI - "Economic Feasibility of the Proposed 138 kV Transmission Lines in the Railbelt", December 1989, prepared by Decision Focus Inc. for the Railbelt electric utilities. Utility-funded analysis of 138 kV intertie proposals. AEA-Feasibility - "Railbelt Intertie Feasibility Study", January 1991, prepared by the Alaska Energy Authority. The study that is the subject of this review. Interties Are Not the Cure-All for Railbelt Reliability Problems This new study gives the impression that the Railbelt is on the brink of a reliability disaster, and new interties will solve the problem. An overall look at power reliability statistics and estimates of the reliability improvement expected from the interties indicates otherwise. Figure 1 gives power outage statistics for most of the Railbelt utilities and a sampling of non- Alaskan utilities. The figure shows the average hours of power outage during the year incurred by a typical customer of the utility. About half of the Railbelt outage hours are due to problems with generation plants and problems with high-power transmission lines. The rest of the outages are caused by problems with lower-power distribution lines, the power lines found in neighborhoods and subdivisions. The recent Christmas episode of ice-laden trees short-circuiting Railbelt power lines was a distribution line problem. New interties can affect generation and transmission-related power outages but do not reduce distribution-related outages, roughly half of Railbelt customer outage hours. Even if the interties were the perfect cure for generation and transmission problems in the Railbelt, customers would still suffer significant outages due to distribution line problems. Page 3 February 28, 1991 Chugach ’85-89 Anchorage MLP '85-90 Homer '86-90 Matanuska '85-89 Copper Valley ’86-90 Golden Valley '85-89 Fairbanks MUS ‘88-89 II Estimates of Interim AEA-Recon ———e Expected Outage Reductions | from Proposed Interti Final AEA-Recon @P ‘es Utility-DFI NY Ry ST Yellowstone Valley Idaho County Vigilante Electric Puget Power Boston Edison Canadian Avg, '89 | | 0 2 4 6 8 10 Outage Hours per Customer per Year Figure I - Power Outage Comparison. Seward Electric System data not available. Other data from direct communication with utilities and from AEA "Alaska Electric Power Statistics", 1988- 89. However, the new interties are not expected be the perfect cure for all generation and transmission problems. The first estimate of improved reliability due to the new interties was a 7 minute per year average reduction in power outages (not counting the Northeast intertie through Glennallen). This estimate was presented in the Interim Report of the AEA Intertie Reconnaissance study. After the review process--a process dominated by project advocates--the final AEA-Recon estimate was increased to about 24 minutes per year. The next analysis was funded by the Railbelt utilities, Utility-DFI, and determined the reliability improvement due to the proposed interties to be about 26 minutes, a relatively small decrease compared to the total outage time of about 5.5 hours per typical Railbelt customer per year, as shown in Figure 1. These outage reduction estimates are averaged across all Railbelt customers; Kenai Peninsula customers will benefit the most, and Fairbanks customers will benefit the least. Page 4 February 28, 1991 Railbelt Power Reliability Is Not Dramatically Different from Lower-48 and Canadian Reliability Figure 1 also compares Railbelt reliability to reliability in the Lower 48 and Canada. The small REA electric cooperatives in the Figure--Yellowstone Valley (Montana), Idaho County, and Vigilante Electric (Montana)--have relatively high outage rates from 4 to 10 hours per year per customer. The larger utilities--Puget Power (Washington State) have outages times near 2 hours per customer per year. Fairbanks utilities and Anchorage Municipal Light and Power have outage times not far above these larger Lower-48 utilities. Finally, an extensive survey of Canadian utilities done by the Canadian Electrical Association determined that Canadian customers were out of power an average of 4.3 hours during 1989. Reliability Benefits Have Been Included in the Past Intertie Cost/Benefit Analyses In the AEA-Recon study, the 24 minute per year power outage reduction was valued at $19 million (1991 $); i.e., the authors assumed that consumers would be willing to make a one-time payment of $19 million to achieve a 24 minute per year outage reduction over the next 35 years. In Utility-DFI, a higher value was placed on power reliability; the 26 minute per year reduction for 40-50 years was valued at $54 million (1991 $).” In my review of Utility-DFI, I argued that both the estimate of reduced power outage minutes and the valuation of that reliability improvement were excessive. I believe that the reliability benefits presented in the AEA-Recon analysis are more accurate. Note that the Utility-DFI valuation of power reliability implies that Railbelt consumers should be willing to pay about $660 million ($3,900 per customer) to have perfectly reliable power (no outages) for the next 40-50 years. The NERC Railbelt Reliability Study Suggests Rules-of-Thumb that Are Probably Not Applicable in Alaska The AEA-Recon analysis and the Utility-DFI analysis approached the question of the reliability impact of the proposed interties by attempting to identify specific types of system outages that would be avoided by the existence of new interties. Estimates of the number, magnitude, and duration of these avoided outages were used to determine that the interties would reduce customer outages by 24 - 26 minutes. The Railbelt utilities also initiated a separate reliability review of the Railbelt system by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC. This review is cited frequently in the AEA-Feasibility study and is included as an appendix in the study. The Utility-DFI study assumed a longer intertie life than the AEA-Recon study. Page 5 February 28, 1991 The NERC study claims that based on traditional planning criteria, additional interties are needed between Kenai and Anchorage, Healy and Fairbanks, and even Anchorage and Healy. These traditional planning criteria appear to require that generation sources be connected to loads by multiple transmission paths. Does this planning rule also mean that Copper Valley Electric needs two more expensive interties from the Solomon Gulch hydro project to Valdez and Glennallen? A response to the question--beyond applying a transmission planning rule-of-thumb--must involve a balancing of the cost of duplicate transmission paths against the improved reliability and other benefits the lines would bring. This is exactly the type of analysis that was done in the AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study. Power outage reductions were estimated and then quantified in terms of their dollar value to consumers. Besides mentioning a tradeoff between economics and reliability, the NERC study entirely failed to address in quantitative terms the magnitude and value of the reliability improvement that the new interties will bring. The authors did not state whether they thought that the Utility-DFI 26 minute outage reduction estimate was high or low. They did not state whether they thought that $54 million was too high or too low a valuation of that 26 minute reduction. It is very likely that the cost/benefit tradeoff weighs in favor of building duplicate transmission paths in the Lower-48. The power flows on the Lower-48 transmission paths are hundreds and sometimes thousands of megawatts (MW). Figures in the Utility-DFI study indicate that power flows on the existing Kenai-Anchorage path will only average about 26 MW after Bradley Lake comes on line, if Railbelt generation units are optimally coordinated. If the Railbelt utilities do not implement generation coordination strategies, the flow could be substantially less. The reason power flow will be so low is because most of Bradley Lake’s 42 MW of average power output will supply the Kenai Peninsula’s average load of 54 MW. Without Bradley Lake, much of Kenai’s load has been served from Anchorage via the existing Kenai-Anchorage line. Power flow on the Healy-Fairbanks path will average about 70 MW. The power flow on the lines from the Solomon Gulch hydro project average less than 5 MW. Duplicate transmission paths are much more difficult to cost-justify with power flows of 26 - 70 MW compared to the hundreds of megawatts flowing on Lower-48 transmission lines. The consequences of power flow interruption are not nearly as severe with small power flows. Because of these differences between the Lower-48 and Alaska, I question the application of transmission planning rules-of-thumb in the Alaskan environment. Will Reliability Get Worse in the Railbelt Without New Transmission Lines? The AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study indicate that reliability on the Kenai peninsula will be improved when Bradley Lake comes on line in the next year. Much of the Page 6 February 28, 1991 Kenai electrical load will be served from Bradley Lake instead of the less reliable Kenai- Anchorage transmission line. After Bradley’s completion, Anchorage will spend part of the year importing power from the Kenai peninsula. A failure of the existing transmission line while Anchorage is importing energy may cause a limited outage in Anchorage. The AEA-Recon study and the Utility-DFI study estimated the effect to be an increase of about 12 minutes per customer per year of power outages. In my review of the Utility-DFI study, I argued that even this low estimate was overstated because the analysis did not acknowledge the small power flows imported by Anchorage. Relative to the 5 hours of outages per customer per year in the Anchorage area, these reliability impacts are not tremendous. In conclusion, I believe that the current AEA-Feasibility study tends to exaggerate the issue of the proposed interties’ impact on Railbelt power reliability. The above discussion provides a more rational perspective on the reliability issue. Sincerely yours, Won Mike dos Alan Mitchell Utility Analyst APPENDIX D Independent Cost Estimate: Dryden & LaRue, Inc. COST ESTIMATE KENAI/ANCHORAGE AND HEALY/FAIRBANKS 138 kV TRANSMISSION LINE INTERTIES Prepare for: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Prepared by: DRYDEN & LaRUE 6436 Homer Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99518 March 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .ccccccccccvccccce GS oiieiS S| 6 Bile ie!S & She-ler@ @ shale, lore 6! sie 1 GENERAL COST PHILOSOPHY ....ccccccccrcccccccccccvcccscece 3 COST SAVING CONSIDERATIONS .......-...- ec cc cree ccccccces 11 APPENDICES A. EXECUTIVE COST SUMMARY WITH MAPS) .....- cere cece eees A-1 B. SUBSTATION COST SUMMARY... cece ccc ccc c cece cer cccee B-1 C. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE... ccccccccccccvccvccce Cc=1 Enstar Route wscsccccscscsvecesecsvvccvccesccve C=2 TeESOrO ROUT] ... cree eee ccccccccccccssccccece c=21 Healy Route ......... Sere ee ee eee ie o Cc-42 D. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS Cec c crc e rere e rc vcercecesces D-1 Overhead Construction Unit Costs ............. D-1 Overhead Link UNLtS oss swiss cass swims s ows oo ors D-6 Underground & Submarine Construction Units ... D-13 Right-of-Way Unit Costs ............ oliet.© je] siisiles © | ara D-21 E. COST ASSUMPTIONS) ....cceccccccccceee ce o Sieliee © S886 © 8's E-1 Overhead Structure Data ....ceeeecccccccccceee E-1 Substations ...........6. ae oe aisles © safes es aussle|s E-18 INTRODUCTION The line and substation for this report are primarily based on the previous in-depth cost studies: Power Engineers May 1987 - 230 kV Enstar Route Part One & Two May 1987 - 230 kV Tesoro Route Harza Engineers Aug 1987 - 230 kV Healy Route The above studies were supplemented by both Engineers with brief letter reports in April 1989 for 138 kV lines. We have utilized the base data from the in-depth reports, such as: conductor size, climatological loadings, substation one-lines and geologic data to form the basis for our estimate. Line routes from the previous studies have been assumed fixed. We have not made a strict review of the original cost data only. In order to feel comfortable with an "independent estimate", we have relied heavily on our recent experience with the Bradley Lake transmission lines and made some changes to the original Power and Harza designs. In some instanc- es, these modifications were required to change from the 230 kV to 138 kV. The most significant difference is in our selection of the steel-xX tower for all overhead line sections, not restricted by right-of-way, instead of using wood-H structures in some sections. Comparison of the two structures types is further discussed in the General Cost Philosophy section following. Also, we have used our own selection for foundation types, cable terminations, substation yards, etc. to develop our independent cost estimate. None of the construction unit costs from the previous estimates has been used. Our approach is to select designs that are likely to be constructed and then estimate the individual pieces or building blocks (con- struction units). The construction units are then assembled into line sections (links) based on our estimate of the quantities -l- needed. Final line costs are then a summation of the appropriate links. Following this introduction, is a more detailed discussion on our cost philosophy and some items that could be appropriate for cost savings. The cost data is presented as an increasing detail. The Executive Summary gives costs for each link, design and support for each of the three routes: Enstar, Tesoro, Healy along with route maps. Following this is a Substation Summary Cost with a labor and material breakdown and one-line diagram. Following this is the complete Construction Cost Estimate with labor and material break- down for each item. Background for the Construction Cost Estimate is included in the Construction Unit Costs and Cost Assumptions sections. GENERAL COST PHILOSOPHY Developing a cost estimate for any project requires some consid- eration for the construction climate in addition to the estimates for the physical pieces. One of the significant factor in the cost of a transmission line is the degree of difficulty of the overall administrative system that is required by the owner. Private utilities can be more responsive to the contracting process than the state. We have assumed in this estimate that the private sector will be responsible for construction of these lines. Following is a brief description of the cost philosophy for the major items used in this report. Details of the individual con- struction units and cost assumptions are included in Appendix D & E. OVERHEAD LINES Steel-X vs. Wood-H There are several aspects to consider in the selection of a struc- ture type for any transmission line. Before the design of any transmission line, a structure study will need to be completed to determine the best choice. For this study, we need to pick a structure type that is most likely to be selected. Based on our experience we agree with the Power and Harza studies that Wooden-H and Steel-xX structures are the most logical first choice for these lines. Both structure types have a proven record for 138 kV class lines in Alaska. The decision on when to use which structure type is dependent on many variables including: aesthetics, reliability, maintenance, constructability and cost. The following discussion gives a brief comparison of these variables for the two structure types and the reasons for selecting the steel-X for this cost estimate. Aesthetics Either a wood pole or the weathering steel-X are considered minimal visual impact due to their ability to blend into the surrounding Alaska environment. Existing vegetation and topography can screen views of structures if their silhouette is not overpowering. Lattice structures are best suited for minimum silhouette because of their low mass. Both of the structures compared here will produce considerable silhouett- ing due to the two solid poles. Depending on the number of X- braces and vee-braces in the final design, the wood structures could end up with more impact than the tubular steel which will maintain the same silhouette regardless of load changes. Another item which influences visual impact is the number of structures per mile. A longer ruling span will give less structures per mile to impact the environment. Ruling span is influenced by many factors, but structure strength is the most significant. The steel-X can be manufactured for very long ruling spans with a small increase in cost compared to the wood. Reliability and Maintenance A simple structure design will be reflected in the reliability and amount of required maintenance. A vee-braced and X-braced wood-H has considerably more parts and pieces than a six piece steel-X. The weight of a complete wood-H is about 1/3 more than a comparable steel-X. Weight usually is directly related to construction costs especially in difficult access locations all of the line routes in this study are primarily difficult access. Wood poles have an advantage in terms of their famil- iarity to maintenance personnel and availability of local stocks. Should a catastrophe break a structure, the steel is often repairable and wood can only be replaced with new poles. Steel is a workable material and normal welding, bending, straightening, etc. techniques can be used to repair the -4- damaged parts. Also, the hinged base of the steel-xX is de- signed to allow a tip-up installation with minimal equipment. This is a definite advantage over wood-H type structures. The steel-X has a distinct advantage for longitudinal loadings outside the design parameters due to the hinged base and guying system. The load release system in the steel-xX guy yoke is a method of reducing longitudinal loads prior to structure laydown. The steel-X longitudinal guying system can also be considered a disadvantage because of the guying pieces not present in the wood-H. Constructability The ability to construct a transmission line in a particular location is dependent on many factors that have nothing to do with the comparison between the two structure types. Founda- tions are one major difference between the two structures that can be compared. The normal foundations for the wood-H (in order of progressive expense) are: direct embedment, select backfill for direct embedment and a separate support such as a piling cluster that is attached to the pole. The selection of the foundation type correspondence to the support capabili- ties of the soil. It is not always practical to know in advance the soil conditions for most of the structure loca- tions. A foundation type that is not influenced by the soil type is a construction advantage. The normal foundations for the steel-X (in order of progressive expense) are: a single driven piling, a double piling and a piling cluster. Any of the steel-X foundations requires the same equipment and the connection to the structure is much easier than a pile cluster connection to a wood pole. There are several advantages for the normal driven piling over the normal direct embedment including: ability to adjust the structure connection in case of frost heaving, ability to increase ground clearance for new conditions such as clearance to a new road, addition of new piling for settling conditions and the ability to use metal working techniques for unusual situations. Cost Cost of a transmission line should include all of the above factors for the required life of the line. A 50-year life is a common period used for transmission lines. We normally design for a 50-year return interval on loading conditions and it is expected that a transmission line will last this long without significant maintenance. The life of a wood pole is dependent on many variables and especially in Alaska, the life is an unknown. Regardless of the selected life, wood will not last as long as steel. If we assume that a 50-year life is reasonable, then the steel-X will have an advantage over the wood. Most financing is based on approximately 30-year life for transmission lines. Wood-H with a 30-year life will cost about 13% more than a steel-X with a 50-year life. The Power Engineers study shows steel-X to be 17% more costly than wood- H which is close to the overall cost difference. We prepared a cost comparison of wood-H vs steel-X in 1986 for the Bradley Lake Project. Our conclusion at that time, and we believe it is still valid, was that the cost of these two structure types is very close and it is mostly dependent upon foundation costs. The steel-X potentially should have a foundation cost advantage in poor or frost-susceptible soils. The geology investigation of the Enstar route shows pilings are acceptable on all line sections and direct embedment poles are acceptable on about 1/2 of the line. This would allow both types of structures to be used, but on a single construc- tion project (and at this level of estimating) we believe it is advantageous to select one type of construction that is ac- ceptable throughout. There is no definitive geologic data for the Tesoro route, but frost-jacking potential is noted in the Power Engineers study. -6- The Harza study of the Healy line classifies every link as high frost and thaw potential except link 1 which is moderate. The recommended foundation type is piling. The previous studies show piling as the favored foundation type and we believe the steel-xX structure will be less expen- sive on this foundation than the wood-H. + Conclusion The above discussion is only a quick comparison of wood-H vs. steel-X. Our approach to this cost estimate is to use the structure most likely to be selected. Based on the above factors we believe, it is most likely that the steel-xX will be chosen. Structure Loadings It is very difficult to estimate the loading conditions for trans- mission lines in Alaska. Normally the location of a transmission line has no local data for wind, ice, snow or the expected combina- tions of these that might occur over the life of the line. The best that can usually be done is to extrapolate weather data from many miles away using the most knowledgeable meteorologist avail- able. Recent problems with transmission lines in Alaska may indi- cate that using the NESC guidelines alone is not adequate. Some portions of Alaska need to consider loadings greater than NESC Heavy and the possibility for unequal span loadings. This require- ment appears to be spread from as far as Southeast Alaska to the Railbelt. We have used our knowledge of the local conditions to estimate the loading for each line link. For this estimate we have assumed the following general loading conditions. More specific details are included in the Overhead Structure Data Section. Enstar extreme load 0°, 1" ice, 4# wind at 60% Initial 30°, O ice, 36.9# wind at 60% Initial ear Tesoro extreme load 0°, 2" ice, 4# wind at 60% Initial 30°, 0 ice, 36.9# wind at 60% Initial Healy extreme load 0°, 1" ice, 4# wind at 60% Initial 30°, 0 ice, 36.9# wind at 60% Initial Nenana Canyon 32°, 0 ice, 57.6# wind at 60% Initial Construction Unit Costs The recently completed Bradley Lake project is the most current data available for the cost of steel-X structures. Since it was designed by Dryden & LaRue, we are most familiar with the construc- tion units and propose to use the same units for this estimate wherever applicable. Tower weights and average spans are adjusted to relate to the extreme loading conditions listed above. Single shaft self-supporting towers were selected for two line links with anticipated limited right-of-way. Link 3.2A of the Tesoro line was routed within the existing highway right-of-way and link 6 of the Enstar route is along streets in Anchorage. Basis for these esti- mates is a quick tower weight design and discussions with Meyer Industries. Foundations for these towers is assumed to be some type of driven or augered steel sleeve or large pipe pile. A sketch of each construction unit along with cost estimates is defined in the section Construction Unit Costs. SUBMARINE AND LAND CABLES Suppliers of submarine and underground cable were contacted and asked for price quotes on both solid dielectric and oil-filled 138 kV underground and submarine cable. Those contacted included Fujikura, Mitsui & Co., Les Cables DeLyon, STK, and Pirelli. At the time this report was prepared, only Mitsui & Co. and Pirelli had responded. Based on the information received, oil-filled cable was the least expensive and most reliable for the proposed intertie. Both Pirelli - 8 - and Mitsui & Co. recommended using oil-filled cable in the loca- tions proposed for the intertie. Pirelli did not supply a quote for solid dielectric cable. Mitsui & Co. did supply a price that was higher than for oil-filled cable. Another factor in choosing oil-filled cable was that cable manufac- turers recently declined to bid on solid dielectric cable for installation in Knik Arm of Cook Inlet. In October 1989, Chugach Electric Association requested bids for solid dielectric and oil- filled submarine cable. Chugach received four bids for oil-filled cable, but none for solid dielectric cable (see Section D). The cable manufacturers did not bid solid dielectric apparently because they believed their products would not be reliable in Cook Inlet. This project will take several years to complete and changes in technology and manufacturing techniques may make solid dielectric cable a competitive option. The cost of submarine cable used for this estimate is $105 per foot. This cost is based on our review of the cable manufacturers estimates and our best guess of a future price. This is a very difficult estimate because it depends on many variables that are not readily predictable such as: manufac- turers plant loadings, currency exchange rates and the final cable specification after reconnaissance. Also, delivery time affects the cost. At this time, it seems that a long lead time could be allowed for delivery, however when the specs finally are completed it may be a typical restricted time-line and the cable price will reflect it. The cost of installing the submarine cable includes laying the cable. Burial of submarine cable is expensive and has not been included in this estimate. The cost to benefit analysis for burial of an electrical cable in Turnagain Arm is beyond the scope of this cost estimate. We have included the cost for shore end burial only. We have also included two sections of oil-filled underground cable due to environmental concerns. Enstar link 3 must be buried be- -9- cause the Congressionally mandated management plan for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge prohibits construction of aboveground facilities outside of the pipeline right-of-way or across Chicka- loon Bay flats (see 1987 Hart-Crowser study page 6-17 and the May 6, 1987 letter from KNWR manager). The Alaska Department of Natural Resources stated in their letter to Hart-Crowser of May 5, 1987 that they would require portions of the transmission line that pass through Captain Cook State Park to be buried. Captain Cook State Park abuts the KNWR, so in may not be possible to go around it. SUBSTATIONS The substation costs are all based on the One-Line Diagrams from the previous reports corrected for 138 kV lines instead of 230 kV lines. Unit costs for the various components were first developed independently and then applied to the substations as required. Substation communications are strictly dependent upon the specifics of each location and have not been included in these estimates. Detailed assumptions are included in Cost Assumptions Section. - 10 - COST SAVING CONSIDERATIONS In the preparation of this study, several items have been noticed that appear to warrant consideration as a means to reduce the costs. + The SVS system for the Healy line may already be optimized, however it is a single item with significant cost impact and should be considered for review. + Access to a transmission line is a cost benefit initially and during maintenance. All of the line routes should be consid- ered in terms of access. + The submarine and underground cables are the major components of the Enstar and Tesoro routes. An additional effort should be considered to: develop realistic delivery schedules, a preliminary specification, a method of maintaining the propri- ety of the bids, and considerably more discussion with the manufacturers. Without an American manufacturer we are sub- ject to currency exchange rate fluctuations and this has significant impact. Also, the cable manufacturers appear to be quite busy right now and the cost may change with market variations. In essence, the cable costs are so critical to the project cost that some method of better understanding and tracking the cable industry should be considered. -i11- A. EXECUTIVE COST SUMMARY The following three sheets present a summary of the cost estimate. Opposite the cost data is a map showing the line links and substa- tion locations. One line diagrams of the proposed substations are included in the next section "Substation Cost Summary". Link 1 Soidotna Substation IN suB/0.H. TERMINAL j 4X Huffman \O Substation Link 6 IDRYDEN | CONSULTING DATE: 03/12/91 BY: DRB ILalRue ENGINEERS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE ROUTES ENSTAR ROUTE DRAWING NO. A - 2 LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 6 SOLDOTNA HUFFMAN LINK 3 LINK 4 & 5 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR ENSTAR ROUTE 16.10 MILES 33.75 MILES 2.95 MILES 5.10 MILES 9.90 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL X-STRUCTURES STEEL SINGLE POLE SUBSTATION SUBSTATION SUBTOTAL R/W & ACQUISITION DESIGN 4% CM 4% SUBTOTAL 1 UNDERGROUND CABLE SUBMARINE CABLE SUBTOTAL 2 UTILITY ADMIN 1% (SUB 1&2) AEA ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY 10% (SUB 1&2) ESTIMATED TOTAL * Includes $500,000 AEA estimate for permitting Kenai National Moose Range $4,698,120 $10,404,345 $953,690 $1,719,800 $678,200 $18,454,155 $2,500,000 $738,166 $738,166 $22,430,487 $10,457,341 $34,548,140 $45,005,481 $674,360 $250,000 $6,743,597 $75,103,925 Bernice Lake Substation -— EXISTING 115kV 0.H. TO REMAIN Soldotna Substation Pt. Woronzof Substation K Link 3.10 “Link 3.9 UNDERGROUND IDRYDEN CONSULTING i ILalRue DATE: 03/11/91 BY: ORB ENGINEERS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE ROUTES TESORO ROUTE DRAWING NO. A- 4 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A 11.50 MILES STEEL SINGLE POLE $3,392,736 LINK 3.3 24.75 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURE $9,210,447 LINK 3.10 2.40 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURE $791,367 BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION $2,300,000 WORONZOF SUBSTATION $406,350 SUBTOTAL $16,100,900 R/W & ACQUISITION $2,700,000 DESIGN 4% $644,036 CM 4% $644,036 SUBTOTAL 1 $20,088,972 LINK 3.2B 4.00 MILES UNDERGROUND CABLE $8,073,954 LINK 3.4 13.65 MILES SUBMARINE CABLE $42,915,640 LINK 3.9 2.20 MILES UNDERGROUND CABLE $4,465,948 SUBTOTAL 2 $55,455,542 UTILITY ADMIN 1% (SUB 1&2) $755,445 AEA ADMINISTRATION $250,000 CONTINGENCY 10% (SUB 1&2) $7,554,451 ESTIMATED TOTAL $84,104,411 SCALE 1:250,000 Healy Substation Devoen /WalRuc | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY DRAWING NO. CONSULTING ? ENGINEERS PROPOSED HEALY-FAIRSANKS iNTERTIE DATE: 01/08/91 SOUTH ROUTE BY: DRS | | SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR HEALY/FAIRBANKS ROUTE LINK 1 26.00 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURES $11,682,101 LINK 2 29.50 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURES $12,721,443 LINK 3 27.00 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURES $11,487,410 LINK 4 12.50 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURE $7,950,747 LINK 5 5.50 MILES STEEL X-STRUCTURE $2,384,193 HEALY SUBSTATION $406,350 WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION $406,850 SUBTOTAL $47,039,094 R/W & ACQUISITION $460,000 DESIGN 4% $1,881,564 CM 4% $1,881,564 SUBTOTAL 1 $51,262,222 HEALY SVS $4,904,000 WAINWRIGHT SVS TEELAND SVS $3,200,000 $10,322,000 SUBTOTAL 2 $18,426,000 UTILITY ADMIN 1% (SUB 1&2) $696,882 AEA ADMINISTRATION $250,000 CONTINGENCY 10% (SUB 1&2) $6,968,822 ESTIMATED TOTAL $77,603,926 B. SUBSTATION COST SUMMARY The following pages present summary costs and one-line diagrams for the substations. TO CHICKALOON TERMINAL rity 138 kV PCB 115 kV PcB 115/138 kV 100MVA S.A ‘| +~» ; AUTO TRF SOLDOTNA SUB. SPARE BAY NOTE: NEW SUBSTATION AT SOLDOTNA NOT REQUIRED FOR THE TESORO ROUTE. / IDRYDEN ¢ ILalRue ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY CONSULTING PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE DATE: 03/11/91 ane NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION DRAWING NO. B- 2 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT COST ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL UNIT LABOR $305,450 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $1,155,150 $123,000 $1,246,550 $196,000 $1,719,800 TO INTERNATIONAL SUBSTATION. ASSUMED EXISTING i/o « +f V.T. 1 J 138 kV MAIN BUS TRANSFER 8US 138 kV FCB — ie ¢ vit. TO POTTERS MARSH TERMINAL STATION IDRYDEN / ILalRue CONSULTING / ENGINEERS DATE: 01709791 BY: MUP ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE ADDITIONS TO HUFFMAN SUBSTATION DRAWING NO. 12/28/90 16:21:55 AEAG CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M STEEL STRUCTURES FOUNDATIONS PROJECT COST $165,400 | $512,800 $678,200 Sesssaessssssssssesaeessssssessssssssssssessssssssssesssssssssssssssssssssesssses SESSasesessssssezesess=ssse222222 138 kV TO PT. POSSESSION TERMINAL 138 kV PCB 7 115/138 kV a 100MVA AUTO TRF 115 kV PCB 115 kV VI. PCB u 115 kV TO BERNICE LAKE SUB. 115 kV PCB S.A. S:A; ‘IL-e ¢ V.T. — 115 kV TO SOLDOTNA SUB. “4 | | f pe IDRYDEN [ ILalRue CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: 03/11/91 BY: MLP ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI INTERTIE NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION DRAWING NO. B-6 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE PROJECT: UNIT DESCRIPTION: MOBILIZATION MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT COST ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE $1,863,300 $2,300,000 TO BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION 138_kV V.T. EXISTING BUS Devoen / WLalRuc CONSULTING / ENGINEERS DATE: 01/99/91 BY: MLP ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED ANCHORAGE-KENAI !NTERTIE ADDITIONS TO PT, WORONZOF SUBSTATION | DRAWING NO. R- 28 01/09/91 15:36 AEAS CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT DESCRIPTION: MOBILIZATION STEEL STRUCTURES FOUNDATIONS EQUIPMENT PROJECT COST $ TOTAL UNIT LABOR $17,600 $36,200 134,050 SHEET 3 OF TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $52,800 $202,550 $272,300 5 $406,350 TO FORT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION 138_kV EXISTING MAIN BUS EXISTING TRANSFER BUS IDRYDEN / ILAlR CONSULTING / ENGINEERS DATE 01799791 BY: MLP UE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED HEALY-FAIRBANKS iNTERTIE ADDITIONS TO HEALY SUBSTATION DRAWING NO. B - 10 12/28/90 14:41:26 AEA7 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY SUBSTATION TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 FOUNDATIONS $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT COST 11 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM 52 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM TOTAL PROJECT COST SSesssssssssssssssessesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss= $36,200 $134,050 $134,050 $272,300 $704,000 $4,200,000 $5,176,300 $406,350 $704,000 $4,200,000 $5,310,350 ee 138 kV FCB } TO HEALY SUBSTATION EXISTING MAIN BUS EXISTING TRANSFER BUS IDevoen ¢ tLalRue CONSUL TING DATE: 01/99/91 BY: MLP ENGINEERS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROPOSED HEALY—FAIRBANKS iNTERTIE ADDITION TO FT. WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION DRAWING NO. B- 12 12/28/90 16:56:12 AF AS CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M FOUNDATIONS | $25,250 $16,950 | $42,200 EQUIPMENT $36,200 $203,050 $239,250 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $0 $5,000 ssssseseee=222=2: PROJECT COST $134,050 | $272,800 | $406,850 GOMVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM COST $3,200,000 | $3,200,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $134,050 | $3,472,800 | $3,606,850 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: MOBILIZATION STEEL STRUCTURES PROJECT COST 60 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM 48 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM TOTAL PROJECT COST SpesssssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssssssssssesssssssssSassssssssssssessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss55=== ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TEELAND SUBSTATION B- 14 SHEET 3 OF 3 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $50,000 | | $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $7,200,000 | $7,200,000 . $0 | $3,072,000 | $3,072,000 $50,000 |$10,272,000 | $10,322,000 C. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ENSTAR ROUTE CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP snsausenenenennnennenszesesus . STX-10 | TANGENT X-STR. EA o| $ $11,800 STX-12 ]ANGLE 3-POLE EA 4 | $21,800 | $20,700 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 6 | $24,000 | $23,500 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 3 so | $11,800 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $o | $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR = 9,000# 1,000' SPAN SECTION #2 X-STRUCTURES sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $8,000 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA 0 $16,000 $22,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 - 16.10 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION Pd oe NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $223,720 $o SURVEY MILE | 16.1 $10,000 $0 CLEARING MILE | 16.1 $6,000 $0 EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS $223,720 | $223,720 so | $223,720 $10,000 | $161,000 $0 | $161,000 $6,000 $96 , 600 $0 $96,600 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $481,320 so | $481,320 aeeeeeaeueansceeeee $28,300 | $1,155,000 | $826,000 | $1,981,000 $42,500 $87,200 $82,800 | $170,000 $47,500 | $144,000 | $141,000 | $285,000 $11,800 $0 $35,400 $35,400 $23,500 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,386,200 | $1,085,200 | $2,471,400 we ee = 2 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 $18,500 $0 $0 $0 $38,500 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL uM $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 - 16.10 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND. "DRAKE" 795 ACSR 1000'| 259 $2,100 $1,250 $3,350 $543,900 $323,750 $867,650 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000'; 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $543,900 | $323,750 secnees: sauscecssssensssesscssssesseeess=s FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 120 $800 $800 $1,600 $96,000 $96,000 $192,000 FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 50 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $60,000 $80 , 000 $140,000 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 207 $800 $800 $1,600 $165,600 $165,600 $331,200 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 41 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $49,200 $65,600 $114,800 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 42 $750 $900 $1,650 $31,500 $37,800 $69, 300 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 21 $450 $0 $450 $9,450 $0 $9,450 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 21 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $21,000 $0 $21,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $432,750 | $445,000 | $877,750 FOP-17.5|FON SLEEVE-17.5' EA $4,500 | $1,596 | $6,096 $0 $0 $0 0 FOP-25 |FON SLEEVE-25' EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 0 0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $o $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 1 - 16.10 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOL OF | sewer ciesosess ease ross sscere Sasa ccnes Sos oatatssecewesasscrnenesssas NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 1 - 16.10 MILES LABOR MATERIAL SEC. #1 |STARTUP $481,320 $0 $481,320 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $1,386,200 | $1,085,200 | $2,471,400 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $543,900 $323,750 $867,650 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $432,750 $445,000 $877,750 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $0 $0 $0 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $2,844,170 | $1,853,950 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 - 33.75 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $495,445 $0 | $495,445 $495,445 $0 $495,445 SURVEY MILE |33.75 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $337,500 $0 $337,500 CLEARING MILE |33.75 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $202,500 $0 $202,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,035,445 $0 | $1,035,445 STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR. EA 158 $16,500 $11,800 $28,300 | $2,607,000 | $1,864,400 | $4,471,400 STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 10 $21,800 $20,700 $42,500 $218,000 $207,000 $425,000 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 11 $24,000 $23,500 $47,500 $264 ,000 $258,500 $522,500 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA t $0 $11,900 $11,900 $0 $83,300 $83,300 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 $23,600 $23,600 $0 $23,600 $23,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR = 9000# 1,000' SPAN TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X- STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $2,436,800 sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE] EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 - 33.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF [oon nen nn cence ccc n esc c wenn c nec cc ccc eeserc cc enc ccecweccccccesccscscocces NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR ‘AND ‘AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND. | "DRAKE" 795 ACSR 1000'| 535 | $2,100 | $1,250 | $3,350 | $1,123,500 | $668,750 | $1,792,250 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000! 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,123,500 $668,750 | $1,792,250 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 294 $800 $800 $1,600 $235,200 $235,200 $470,400 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 99 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $118,800 $158,400 $277,200 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 12 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $52,800 $12,000 $64 , 800 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 465 $800 $800 $1,600 $372,000 $372,000 $744,000 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 87 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $104,400 $139,200 $243,600 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 12 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $14,400 $1,200 $15,600 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 100 $750 $900 $1,650 $75,000 $90,000 $165,000 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 65 $450 $0 $450 $29,250 $0 $29,250 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 40 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,041,850 | $1,008,000 | $2,049,850 FOP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDON SLEEVE-25' EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 $10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 4 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,000 $0 $1,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #7 MISCELLANEOUS SEC. #1 SEC. #2 SEC. #3 SEC. #4 SEC. #5 SEC. #6 SEC. #7 STARTUP X-STRUCTURES SINGLE STEEL POLES CONDUCTOR FOUNDATIONS - 1 FOUNDATIONS - 2 MISCELLANEOUS ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 2 - 33.75 MILES ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 2 - 33.75 MILES UNIT COST NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR REQUIR AND MATERIALS TOTAL UNIT QUANTITY $0 $1,035,445 $3,089,000 $0 $1,123,500 $1,041,850 $1,000 $0 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 $2,436,800 $0 $668,750 $1,008,000 $0 $0 TOTAL MATERIAL $4,113,550 $1,035,445 $5,525,800 $0 $1,792,250 $2,049,850 $1,000 TOTAL L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 3 - 5.1 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |------------- 2222-222 eee eee eee ne [eee eee ee eee eee eee ee eee eee NO. OF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT!LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1.00 | $497,969 $0 | $497,969 $497,969 $0 $497,969 SURVEY MILE | 5.10 | $12,000 $0 $12,000 $61,200 $0 $61,200 CLEARING MILE | 5.10 $6,000 $0 $6, 000 $30,600 $0 $30,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $589, 769 $0 $589, 769 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE | 5.10 $0 |$1,710,720 |$1,710,720 $0 | $8,724,672 | $8,724,672 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION LABOR MILE | 5.10 | $58,000 $0 $58, 000 $295 ,800 $0 $295 ,800 SPLICES (FOR 4 CABLES) EA | 5.00 | $28,500 $36,000 $64,500 $142,500 $180,000 $322,500 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTER ENDPOINT PRESSURIZATION | EA | 2.00 $3,000 $25,000 $28,000 $6,000 $50,000 $56,000 MIDPOINT PRESSURIZATION | EA | 2.00 | $28,500 $98,000 | $126,500 $57,000 $196, 000 $253,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION: CHICKALOON FLATS WATERFOWL AREA UNDERGROUND TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $501,300 $9,150,672 $9,651,972 STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 | $18,300 $18,000 $36,300 $18,300 $18,000 $36,300 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 | $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA | 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65 ,000 $66 , 800 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 REMOTE SITE EA 1.00 | $35,000 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT SOUTH END OF CHICKALOON TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION - REMOTE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $134,500 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 3 - 5.1 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF|--- ie - NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3 - 5.1 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $589,769 $0 $589, 769 SEC. #2 |UNDERGROUND CABLE $501,300 | $9,150,672 | $9,651,972 SEC. #3 |TERMINAL STATION $81,100 $134,500 $215,600 SEC. #4 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,172,169 | $9,285,172 | $10,457,341 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINKS 4&5 - UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF [oonn nnn nec cece cern nee NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D MOB-DEMO|MOBILIZATIOI EA 1.00 | $25,000 $0 SURVEY MILE | 9.90 | $10,000 $0 * MOST OF THE COST OF MOBILIZATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SUBMARINE CABLE. UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP SUBMARINE CABLE MILE | 9.90 $0 |$2,217,600 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION INCLUDING: MILE | 9.90 |$858,586 $0 SEA BOTTOM LAYING SHORE END WORK DELIVERY TO SITE MOBILIZATION SHORE END EMBEDMENT EA 2.00 |$350,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SUBMARINE CABLES ACROSS TURNAGIN ARM SECTION #2 SUBMARINE CABLE STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 | $28,100 $25,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 0.00 | $13,200 $26,700 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA | EA 2.00 $700 $30,900 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 $500,900 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. | EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 2.00 $7,800 $19,800 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 REACTOR EA 1.00 |$150,000 $700,000 REMOTE SITE EA 1.00 | $35,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT NORTH END OF CHICKALOON SECTION #3 UNDERGROUND TO SUBMARINE TERMINAL STATION - REMOTE 9.9 MILES $25 , 000 $10,000 $2,217,600 $858,586 $350,000 $5,000 $53,100 $39,900 $31,600 $502,400 $16,700 $16,700 $27,600 $5,000 $850,000 $35,000 $25,000 $99, 000 $8,500,000 $700,000 $35,000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $240,200 UNIT MATERIAL $21,954,240 $o UNIT MATERIAL $21,954,240 $2,500 $25 ,000 $0 $61,800 $500,900 $65,000 $65,000 $39,600 $2,500 $700,000 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $1,462,300 AND MATERIALS $25,000 $99,000 $21,954,240 $8,500,000 $700,000 $31,154,240 $5,000 $53, 100 $0 $63, 200 $502, 400 $66 , 800 $66 , 800 $55,200 $5,000 $850,000 $35,000 TOTAL UNIT uM $1,702,500 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINKS 4&5 - 9.9 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |----- 22-22-2222 eee n een e nent eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eens NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 | $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 | $20,100 $19,000 $39, 100 $20, 100 $19,000 $39, 100 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 | $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26, 700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA | EA 1.00 $700 $30,900 $31,600 $700 $30,900 $31,600 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 | $1,500 | $500,900 | $502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA | 0.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $0 $0 $0 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. | EA | 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65 ,000 $66,800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 | $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 REACTOR EA 1.00 |$150,000 | $700,000 | $850,000 $150,000 $700,000 $850,000 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 | $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT POTTER MARSH TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE TO OVERHEAD TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL u/M $1,367,300 $1,567,400 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 4 & 5 - 9.9 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $124,000 $0 $124,000 SEC. #2 |SUBMARINE CABLE $9,200,000 | $21,954,240 | $31,154,240 SEC. #3 |TERMINAL STATION $240,200 | $1,462,300 | $1,702,500 SEC. #4 |TERMINAL STATION $200,100 | $1,367,300 | $1,567,400 SEC. #5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $9,764,300 | $24,783,840 | $34,548,140 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 - 2.95 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO iOF | seme i===<i-e cee sms oo NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 2% TOTAL EA 1 $18,700 $0 SURVEY MILE | 2.95 $10,000 $0 CLEARING MILE | 2.95 $10,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP AND MAT'LS $18,700 $10,000 $10,000 $18,700 $29,500 $29,500 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 AND $18,700 $29,500 $29,500 STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR. EA 0 $16,500 $11,800 STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 0 $21,800 $20,700 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $24,000 $23,500 STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 0 $o $11,800 STX-15 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #2 X-STRUCTURES $28 , 300 $42,500 $47,500 $11,800 $23,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 20 $4,600 $3,236 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 4 $10,500 $14,500 sP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA 5 $16,000 $29,000 $7,836 $25,000 $45,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES $92,000 $42,000 $80 , 000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $214,000 $64,720 $58,000 $145,000 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $267,720 $156,720 $100,000 $225 , 000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 - 2.95 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO.| OF [a --etercsa eta recnns apse ninecocnncnvencccioess ese aserseesesese= NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND. "DRAKE" 795 ACSR 1000! 47 $2,100 $1,250 $3,350 $98,700 $58,750 $157,450 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000! 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $98,700 | $58,750 | $157,450 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 Fp-2 FON 2-PILE EA 9 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $10,800 $14,400 $25,200 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 12 $800 $800 $1,600 $9,600 $9,600 $19,200 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 15 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $18,000 $24,000 $42,000 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 12 $750 $900 $1,650 $9,000 $10,800 $19,800 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 6 $450 $0 $450 $2,700 $0 $2,700 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 6 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $6,000 $0 $6,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $56,100 $58,800 $114,900 FOP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 20 $4,500 $1,596 $6,096 $90,000 $31,920 $121,920 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25' EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $7,280 $o $0 $0 Fp-3 3-PILE FON EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $o $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 MATERIAL L/M $31,920 $121,920 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: ENSTAR ROUTE LINK 6 - 2.95 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIAL UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF ennai ninn renin nm nnn ns nnsin SSSR eSSe SSeS esc sccm sencncceccceicsccoceees NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIR ‘AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY | LABOR | MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 ENSTAR ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 6 - 2.95 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $77,700 $0 $77,700 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $214,000 | $267,720 | $481,720 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $98,700 | $58,750 | $157,450 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $56,100 | $58,800 | $114,900 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $90,000 | $31,920 | $121,920 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $417,190 | $953,690 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF [occen soo nceoscccccsocconecosoowes | mcsescmesccssaecesesoeuceseeeseceses No. OF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV DEAD END STR. EA. 1 $8,000 | $24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV DISC. SW. STR. EA. 2| $1,400 $4,200 $5,600 | $2,800 $8,400 $11,200 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA. 1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 138KV V.T. SUPPORT EA. 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA. 3 $800 $2,400 $3,200 | $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 115KV DISC. SW. STR. EA 2 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 115KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $4,800 $6,400 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $600 | $1,800 $2,400 $1,800 $5,400 $7,200 138KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $400 | $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 115KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $400 | $1,200 $1,600 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 115KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $8,000 | $24,000 $32,000 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $32,600 $97,800 $130,400 138/115KV AUTO TRF. EA 1 $9,750 | $5,850 $15,600 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 | $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 138KV DISC. SW. EA 2 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 | $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T. EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 | $1,800 $1,350 $3, 150 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 | $1,200 $900 $2,100 | $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $1,200 $2,800 | $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $8,500 | $5,100 $13,600 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 3 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $4,500 $2,700 $7,200 115KV PCB EA 1 $2,750 | $1,650 $4,400 $2,750 $1,650 $4,400 115KV DISC. SW. EA 2] $1,600 | $1,200 $2,800 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 $1,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 115KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $1,200 $2,800 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 115KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $7,500 | $4,500 $12,000 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 115KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV ARRESTER SUPPORT EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $38,400 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF foncscccccccwcccccccncncsccscsecaas [escewcccccseserecccsecvcccccccsccess NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND ‘AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138/115KV 100MVA AUTO TRF] EA 1 | $15,000 | $750,000 | $765,000 | $15,000 | $750,000 | $765,000 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 | $100,000 | $104,500 | $4,500 | $100,000 | $104,500 138KV DISC. SW. EA 3 | $2,500] $9,000 $11,500 | $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T. EA 3 $500 | $6,000 $6,500 | $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 | $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9, 750 138KV INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 115KV PCB EA 1 $5,000 | $90,000 $95,000 | $5,000 $90,000 $95,000 115KV DISC. SW EA 3 | $2,000} $8,000 $10,000 | $6,000 $24,000 $30,000 115KV_ INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $400 $450 $450 $3,600 $4,050 CONTROL WIRE Ls 1 $5,000 | $5,000 $10,000 | $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 RELAY & CONTROL PANELS | EA 3 | $2,500 | $25,000 $27,500 | $7,500 $75,000 $82,500 BUS & FITTINGS Ls 1 $5,000 | $10,000 $15,000 | $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 GROUND ING Ls 1 $4,000 | $4,000 $8,000 | $4,000 $4,000 $8,000 CONDUIT Ls 1 $3,000 | $3,000 $6,000 | $3,000 $3,000 $6,000 MISC. ELECTRICAL Ls 1 | $25,000 | $25,000 $50,000 | $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 115KV ARRESTER EA 3 $250 | $2,500 $2,750 $750 $7,500 $8,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL LM $91,400 | $1,155,150 | $1,246,550 STATION SERVICE Ls 1 | $10,000 | $30,000 $40,000 | $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 FENCING LF 800 $10 $10 $20 | $8,000 $8,000 $16,000 WELL & SEPTIC Ls 1 $5,000 | $5,000 $10,000 | $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 TESTING Ls 1 | $20,000 $0 $20,000 | $20,000 $0 $20,000 SITE WORK Ls 1 | $15,000 | $35,000 $50,000 | $15,000 $35,000 $50,000 CONTROL BUILDING Ls 1 | $10,000 | $40,000 $50,000 | $10,000 $40, 000 $50,000 T.L. TO SOLDOTNA SUB. Ls 1 $5,000 | $5,000 $10,000 | $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $73,000 $123,000 $196,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: STEEL STRUCTURES FOUNDATIONS MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT COST ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE $123,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS 138KV DEAD END STR. 138KV DISC. SW. STR. 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. 138KV V.T. SUPPORT 138KV BUS SUPPORT 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT UNIT DESCRIPTION: STEEL STRUCTURES sasnsssssssesseses==: 138KV PCB 138KV DISC. SW. 138KV V.T. 138KV BUS SUPPORT 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. 138KV DEAD END STR. OIL RETENTION 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT UNIT DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATIONS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNITS LABOR MATERIAL 1 $8,000 $24,000 4 $1,400 $4,200 2 $2,000 $6,000 6 $400 $1,200 8 $800 $2,400 6 $400 $1,200 e $3,250 $1,950 4 $1,600 $1,200 6 $600 $450 8 $1,200 $900 2 $1,600 $1,200 1 $8,500 $5,100 2 $1,500 $900 6 $600 $450 C- 18 Seeessesssessss=: $32,000 | $8,000 $5,600 | $5,600 $8,000 | $4,000 $1,600 | $2,400 $3,200 | $6,400 $1,600 | $2,400 so so so $0 so $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $16,800 $12,000 $7,200 $19,200 $7,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT $32,000 $22,400 $16,000 $9,600 $25,600 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,200 $10,400 $11,200 $6, 300 $16,800 $5,600 $13,600 $4,800 $6,300 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF few seccsccccccennasscccccccesececen | coccccccsoscocsscsess NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND UNITS MAT'LS 138KV PCB EA 2 | $4,500 | $100,000 | $104,500 | $9,000 | $200,000 138KV DISC. SW. EA 6 | $2,500 | $9,000 $11,500 | $15,000 | $54,000 138KV V.T. EA 6 $500 | $6,000 $6,500 | $3,000 | $36,000 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 6 $250 | $3,000 $3,250 | $1,500 | $18,000 138KV INSULATORS EA 24 $50 $450 $500 | $1,200 | $10,800 CONTROL WIRE Ls 1 $3,000 | $3,000 $6,000 | $3,000 | $3,000 RELAY & CONTROL PANELS | EA 2| $2,500 | $25,000 $27,500 | $5,000 | $50,000 BUS & FITTINGS Ls 1 $5,000 | $10,000 $15,000 | $5,000 | $10,000 GROUND ING us 1 $1,500 | $2,000 $3,500 | $1,500 | $2,000 CONDUIT Ls 1 $1,500 | $1,000 $2,500 | $1,500 | $1,000 MISC. ELECTRICAL us 1 | $10,000 | $10,000 $20,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL $55,700 | $394,800 a — SaeSeEESESeneEse! TESTING Ls 1 | $10,000 $0 $10,000 | $10,000 $0 RETERMINATE EXIST. T.LINE| LS 1 $1,500 | $1,000 $2,500 | $1,500 | $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR | MATERIAL $11,500 | $1,000 SEaeaeESeaaEEaGEeaeEEeEReReSeESeESEeTeTeTeTaSesSateSaeSeiresT===e=aceneae=seesemneseeres Tee eesee $209,000 $69,000 $39,000 $19,500 $12,000 $6,000 $55,000 $15,000 $3,500 $2,500 $20,000 $450,500 $10,000 $12,500 2eezeessese CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: HUFFMAN SUBSTATION ENSTAR ROUTE PROJECT COST C - 20 $165,400 $512,800 $678, 200 TESORO ROUTE STX-10 STX-12 STX-13 STX-10 STX-15 SP-10 SP-12 SP-13 SPARE-10 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP TANGENT X-STR. EA 0 | $16,500 | $11,800 ANGLE 3-POLE EA 0 | $21,800 | $20,700 DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 | $24,000 | $23,500 SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 0 $o | $11,800 SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 | $20,700 UNIT DESCRIPTION 9,000# 1,000' SPAN SECTION #2 X- STRUCTURES TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA | 145 | $4,600] $3,776 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 6 $10,500 $14,500 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE| EA 3 | $16,000 | $29,000 SPARE SP-10 TANGENT EA 7 so | $3,776 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES $28 300 $42,500 $47,500 $11,800 $20,700 $8,376 $25,000 $45 , 000 $3,776 $66,524 $115,000 $69,000 $250,524 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $778,000 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A - 11.5 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |------------2 222222222 eee e eres NO. oF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL | LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND UNITS MAT'LS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 2% TOTAL EA 1 | $66,524 $0 | $66,524 SURVEY MILE | 11.5 | $10,000 $0 | $10,000 CLEARING MILE | 11.5 $6,000 $0 $6 , 000 UNIT MATERIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT MATERIAL $0 $547,520 $87,000 $87,000 $26 , 432 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $747,952 AND $66,524 $115,000 $69,000 $250,524 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,214,520 $150,000 $135,000 $26 ,432 TOTAL UNIT L/M $1,525,952 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS COND. "DRAKE" 795 ACSR SW SHIELDWIRE UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #4 CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE FP-1 FON 1-PILE FP-2 FDN 2-PILE FR-1 FDN ROCK AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #5 FOUNDATIONS - 1 FOP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' FOP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25' FP-3 3-PILE FON AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST T= THERMOPILE UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 FOUNDATIONS - 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A - 11.5 MILES NO. OF |------- 222-22 222222 een o nner eee een eee eee eee UNITS LABOR MATERIAL REQ'D 182 | $2,100 | $1,250 0 0 $800 $800 9} $1,200] $1,600 0 | $4,400 | $1,000 18 $800 $800 9} $1,200] $1,600 0} $1,200 $100 0 $750 $900 0 $450 $0 2| $1,000 $0 $6,096 $7,280 $10,500 $10,500 $1,000 $3,000 $382,200 $0 $382,200 $0 $10,800 $0 $14,400 $10,800 $0 $495,000 $175,000 $0 $227,500 $0 MATERIAL $227,500 $0 $14,400 $0 $14,400 $14,400 $0 $0 MATERIAL $43,200 $175,560 $79, 800 MATERIAL $255,360 AND $609, 700 $25,200 $28,800 $25 , 200 $670,560 $254,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2A - 11.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | ones ese ssereseensee corso sme ccccerccecesesscersrensesesesisssesecsreree NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK LABOR L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $250,524 $250,524 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $0 $0 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $778,000 $747,952 | $1,525,952 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $382,200 $227,500 $609, 700 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $38,000 $43,200 $81,200 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $670,000 $255,360 $925 ,360 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL SUMMARY MATERIAL L/M $1,274,012 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2b - 4 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOs, OF [2 8s8as sian ces ee as esass sees ene sSess [SSSeSEs SSS SSResicn ss —snmemceasas sacs NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1.00 | $384,628 $0 $384,628 | $384,628 $0 $384,628 SURVEY MILE | 4.00 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $40,000 $0 $40,000 CLEARING MILE | 4.00 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $24,000 $0 $24,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE | 4.00 $0 [$1,710,720 |$1,710,720 $0 | $6,842,880 | $6,842,880 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION LABOR MILE | 4.00 $26,000 $0 $26,000 | $104,000 $0 $104,000 SPLICES (FOR 4 CABLES) EA 3.00 $19,000 $36,000 $55,000 $57,000 $108,000 $165,000 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTER ENDPOINT PRESSURI ZATION EA 2.00 $2,000 $25,000 $27,000 $4,000 $50,000 $54,000 MIDPOINT PRESSURIZATION EA 1.00 $19,000 $98,000 $117,000 $19,000 $98,000 $117,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNDERGROUND CABLE THROUGH CAPTAIN COOK PARK. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $184,000 | $7,098,880 | $7,282,880 STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $o $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66 ,800 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT SOUTH END OF PARK. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.2B - 4 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION -- NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND MAT'LS STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 $14,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $13,200 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $7,800 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT NORTH END OF PARK. TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.2B - 4 MILES LABOR SEC. #1 |STARTUP $448,474 SEC. #2 |UNDERGROUND CABLE $184,000 SEC. #3 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 SEC. #4 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 SEC. #5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 TOTAL LABOR $711,074 MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $5,000 $5,000 $13,000 $27,000 $26, 700 $39,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65, 000 $66 , 800 $0 $0 $19,800 $27,600 $2,500 $5,000 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT MATERIAL L/M $132,000 $171,300 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 MATERIAL L&M $0 $448,474 $7,098,880 | $7,282,880 $132,000 $171,300 $132,000 $171,300 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL MATERIAL L/M $7,362,880 | $8,073,954 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 - 24.75 MILES MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 2% TOTAL EA 1 | $180,597 $0 SURVEY MILE |24.75 | $10,000 $0 CLEARING MILE [24.75 $6,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP STX-10 |TANGENT X-STR. EA 142 | $17,500 | $13,000 STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 15 | $21,800 | $20,700 STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 8 | $24,000 | $23,500 STX-10 SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA t $0 $13,000 STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 so | $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR = 10,000# 800' SPAN SECTION #2 X-STRUCTURES SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA SPARE-10]SPARE SP-10 TANGENT EA $4,600 | $3,776 $10,500 | $14,500 $16,000 | $29,000 $0 | $3,776 eooo UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |on-- mercer cece rene een = NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D $180,597 $10,000 $6,000 $30,500 $42,500 $47,500 $13, 000 $23,500 $8,376 $25, 000 $45, 000 $3,776 $180,597 $247,500 $148,500 $2,485,000 $327,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $0 UNIT MATERIAL $0 $1,846,000 $310,500 $188,000 $91,000 $23,500 MATERIAL $2,459,000 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 AND $180,597 $247,500 $148,500 $4,331,000 $637,500 $380 , 000 $91, 000 $23,500 TOTAL UNIT L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 - 24.75 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOS OF eessemaiee sesso ers sss ecratsisssscsce ates ss see nrseas ao see sesso NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS COND. "DRAKE" 795 ACSR 1000'| 392 $2,100 $1,250 $3,350 $823,200 $490,000 | $1,313,200 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000! 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $823,200 | $490,000 | $1,313,200 FP-1 FDN 1-PILE EA 224 $800 $800 $1,600 $179,200 $179,200 $358,400 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 129 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $154,800 $206, 400 $361, 200 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 386 $800 $800 $1,600 $308,800 $308, 800 $617,600 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 129 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $154,800 $206, 400 $361, 200 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 60 $750 $900 $1,650 $45,000 $54,000 $99,000 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 45 $450 $0 $450 $20,250 $0 $20,250 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 40 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $40,000 $0 $40, 000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $902,850 $954,800 | $1,857,650 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0 | $4,500 | $1,596 $0 FDP-25 FON SLEEVE-25' EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 $0 FP-3—-|3-PILE FON EA o| $8,000] $2,500 $0 AP-3 —_|3-PILE ANCHOR EA o| $8,000 | $2,500 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 0 UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.3 - 24.75 MILES / UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | owen menor c sce sec cccccnccccoccceconcccosencccccosccnsessesecsesessesess No. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL uM $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.3 - 24.75 MILES LABOR MATERIAL Lam SEC. #1 |STARTUP $576,597 so | $576,597 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,004,000 | $2,459,000 | $5,463,000 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $823,200 | $490,000 | $1,313,200 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $902,850 | $954,800 | $1,857,650 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $0 $0 $0 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $3,903,800 | $9,210,447 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.4 - 13.65 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | -2==---o-m-n-- 9-2-8555 NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOBILIZATION * EA 1.00 $25,000 $0 SURVEY MILE |13.65 $10,000 $0 * MOST OF THE COST OF MOBILIZATION IS INCLUDED IN THE INSTALLATION COST OF THE SUBMARINE CABLE. UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP SUBMARINE CABLE MILE [13.65 $0 |$2,217,600 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION INCLUDING: MILE |13.65 | $622,711 $0 MOBILIZATION SEA BOTTOM LAYING SHORE END WORK DELIVERY TO SITE SHORE END EMBEDMENT EA $350,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SUBMARINE CABLES ACROSS TURNAGIN ARM SECTION #2 SUBMARINE CABLE STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $28,100 $25,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $13,200 $26,700 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA | EA 2.00 $700 $30,900 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 $500,900 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA 0.00 $450 $16,250 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. | EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 1.00 $7,800 $19,800 REACTOR EA 1.00 | $150,000 $700,000 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 REMOTE SITE EA 1.00 $35,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION AT PT. POSSESSION. SECTION #3 OVERHEAD TO SUBMARINE TERMINAL STATION - REMOTE " u $25,000 $10,000 $2,217,600 $622,711 $5,000 $53,100 $39,900 $31,600 $502,400 $16,700 $16,700 $27,600 $850,000 $5,000 $35,000 $25,000 $136,500 $0 $28,100 $13,200 $1,400 $1,500 $0 $1,800 $7,800 $150,000 $2,500 $35,000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $241,300 UNIT MATERIAL $30,270,240 $0 UNIT MATERIAL $30,270,240 $5,000 $25,000 $26,700 $61,800 $500,900 $0 $65 ,000 $19,800 $700,000 $2,500 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $1,406,700 AND $25,000 $136,500 $30,270,240 $8,500,000 $5,000 $53,100 $39,900 $63 , 200 $502, 400 $0 $66 , 800 $27, 600 $850,000 $5,000 $35,000 TOTAL UNIT L/M $1,648, 000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.4 - 13.65 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION em || a aa al a NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT'LS MATERIALS STATION GROUNDING EA 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE EA 1.00 $28,100 $25,000 $53,100 $28,100 $25,000 $53,100 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA 0.00 $13,200 $26,700 $39,900 $0 $0 $0 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA | EA 1.00 $700 $30,900 $31,600 $700 $30,900 $31,600 OIL PUMPING PLANT EA 1.00 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 $1,500 $500,900 $502,400 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66, 800 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. | EA 4.00 $450 $16,250 $16,700 $1,800 $65,000 $66, 800 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA 2.00 $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 $15,600 $39,600 $55,200 REACTOR EA 1.00 | $150,000 $700,000 $850,000 $150,000 $700,000 $850,000 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK EA 1.00 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION PT. CAMBELL. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT SUBMARINE TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $202,000 $1,433,900 $1,635,900 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.4 - 13.65 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $161,500 $0 $161,500 SEC. #2 |SUBMARINE CABLE $9,200,000 | $30,270,240 | $39,470,240 SEC. #3 |TERMINAL STATION $241,300 $1,406,700 $1,648,000 SEC. #4 |TERMINAL STATION $202,000 $1,433,900 $1,635,900 SEC. #5 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $9,804,800 | $33,110,840 | $42,915,640 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 2 PROJECT: TESORO LINK 3.9 - 2.2 MILES UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |----- 22-22-2222 2 eee e eee eee e eee [oon eee n scene eee e eee eee e eee ec eee NO. OF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT!LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA | 1.00 | $212,664 $0 | $212,664 | $212,664 $0 $212,664 SURVEY MILE | 2.20 | $10,000 $0 $10,000 | $22,000 $0 $22,000 CLEARING MILE | 2.20 | $6,000 $0 $6,000 | $13,200 $0 $13, 200 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL $0 UNDERGROUND CABLE MILE | 2.20 $0 |$1,710,720 |$1,710,720 $0 | $3,763,584 | $3,763,584 4 OIL FILLED CABLES INSTALLATION LABOR mite | 2.20 | $26,000 so | $26,000 | $57,200 $0 $57,200 SPLICES (FOR 4 CABLES) | EA | 1.00 | $19,000 | $36,000 | $55,000 | $19,000 $36,000 $55,000 MATERIALS SURGE DIVERTER ENDPOINT PRESSURIZATION | EA | 2.00] $2,000] $25,000 | $27,000 | $4,000 $50,000 $54,000 MIDPOINT PRESSURIZATION | EA | 1.00 | $19,000 | $98,000 | $117,000 | $19,000 $98,000 | $117,000 MATERIALS FOR JOINTING SURGE DIVERTER RESERVOIRS UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNDERGROUND CABLE IN KINCAID PARK TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNDERGROUND CABLE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $99,200 | $3,947,584 | $4,046,784 STATION GROUNDING EA | 1.00 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SITE PREP AND FENCE ca | 1.00 | $14,000 | $13,000 | $27,000 | $14,000 $13,000 $27,000 DEADEND STRUCTURE EA | 1.00 | $13,200 | $26,700 | $39,900 | $13,200 $26, 700 $39,900 POTENTIAL TRANS - 50 kVA 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 OIL PUMPING PLANT 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNDERGROUND TERM. & ARRES| EA | 4.00 $450 | $16,250 | $16,700 | $1,800 $65, 000 $66 , 800 SUBMARINE TERM. & ARRES. 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWITCHING STRUCTURE EA | 1.00 | $7,800 | $19,800} $27,600 | $7,800 $19,800 $27,600 MISC ELECTRICAL WORK cA | 1.00 | $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 | $2,500 $2,500 $5,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TERMINAL STATION NORTH OF KINCAID PARK. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT OVERHEAD TO UNDERGROUND TERMINAL STATION LABOR MATERIAL L/M $39,300 $132,000 $171,300 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT: TESORO LINK 3.9 - 2.2 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO’ OF |: $888 s6nis neice Sesh Se ases SERERSRERER SORES RRR SSSG SSS a San Sees sisie:ssidis <ieisis, NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MAT!LS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 TESORO ROUTE SUMMARY LINK 3.9 - 2.2 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $247,864 so | $247,864 SEC. #2 |UNDERGROUND CABLE $99,200 | $3,947,584 | $4,046, 784 SEC. #3 |TERMINAL STATION $39,300 | $132,000 | $171,300 SEC. #4 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL uy $386,364 | $4,079,584 | $4,465,948 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 2% TOTAL SURVEY CLEARING UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP STX-10 [TANGENT X-STR. STX-12 |ANGLE 3-POLE STX-13 |DEADEND 3-POLE STX-10 |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. STX-13 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE SECTION #2 X- STRUCTURES SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE SPARE-10|}SPARE SP-10 TANGENT SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 - 2.4 MILES UNIT COST WO. OF [oc en cree ccc ccccwenecnscscscccese UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR REQ'D AND MAT!LS 1 | $15,517 $o | $15,517 2.4 | $10,000 so | $10,000 2.4 | $3,000 so | $3,000 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES 1 | $17,500 | $13,000 | $30,500 2 | $21,800 | $20,700 | $42,500 1 | $24,000 | $23,500 | $47,500 0 $0 | $13,000 | $13,000 0 so | $23,500 | $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR = 10,000# 800' SPAN $4,600 | $3,776 | $8,376 $10,500 | $14,500 | $25,000 $16,000 | $29,000 | $45,000 so | $3,776 | $3,776 ocoo°o $15,517 $24,000 $7,200 $192,500 $43 , 600 $24,000 $0 $0 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $0 MATERIAL $0 $143,000 $41,400 $23,500 $0 $0 UNIT MATERIAL $207,900 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 AND $15,517 $24,000 $7,200 $335,500 $85 ,000 $47,500 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 - 2.4 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOs; OF | ossssceicnas< sec esscisicsoss sis vciccies@csssecice ssc scinnacasacccceen ccc NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS COND. "DRAKE" 795 ACSR 1000! 38 $2,100 $1,250 $3,350 $79,800 $47,500 | $127,300 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000! 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $79,800 $47,500 | $127,300 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 10 $800 $800 $1,600 $8,000 $8,000 $16,000 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 10 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $12,000 $16,000 $28,000 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $4,400 $1,000 $5,400 $0 $0 $o AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 48 $800 $800 $1,600 $38,400 $38,400 $76,800 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 4 $1,200 $1,600 $2,800 $4,800 $6,400 $11,200 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $1,200 $100 $1,300 $0 $0 $o FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA t $750 $900 $1,650 $5,250 $6,300 $11,550 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 4 $450 $0 $450 $1,800 $0 $1,800 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 4 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $4,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $74,250 $75,100 | $149,350 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0] $4,500 | $1,596 | $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FOP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25! EA o| $5,000 | $2,280] $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 |3 PILE FON EA 0} $8,000] $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 _|3 PILE ANCHOR EA o| $8,000 | $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST (EA)| EA 0} $1,000 so | $1,000 $0 $0 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA o| $1,000 | $2,000] $3,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 0 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR | MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY TESORO ROUTE LINK 3.10 - 2.4 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND MAT'LS UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #7 MISCELLANEOUS LABOR EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS SHEET 3 OF 3 MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 STARTUP X- STRUCTURES SINGLE STEEL POLES CONDUCTOR FOUNDATIONS - 1 FOUNDATIONS - 2 MISCELLANEOUS 35 $46,717 $260, 100 $0 $79, 800 $74,250 TOTAL LABOR $460, 867 MATERIAL LL &M $0 | $46,717 $207,900 | $468,000 $0 $0 $47,500 | $127,300 $75,100 | $149,350 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL MATERIAL | L/M $330,500 | $791,367 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOs OF ase NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND UNITS MAT'LS 138KV DEAD END STR. EA. 2 | $8,000 | $24,000 | $32,000 138KV DISC. SW. STR. EA. 6} $1,400} $4,200] $5,600 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT | EA 6 $400 | $1,200 | $1,600 138KV V.T.SUPPORT EA. 6 $400 | $1,200 | $1,600 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA. 12 $800 | $2,400 | $3,200 115KV DISC. SW. STR. EA 3] $1,200] $3,600] $4,800 115KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $4,800 | $6,400 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 2 $600 | $1,800 | $2,400 115KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $8,000 | $24,000 | $32,000 115KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT | EA 3 $400 | $1,200 | $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: STEEL STRUCTURES 138/115KV AUTO TRF. EA 1 $9,750 | $5,850 | $15,600 138KV PCB EA 3] $3,250] $1,950] $5,200 138KV DISC. SW. EA 6] $1,600] $1,200] $2,800 138KV V.T. EA 6 $600 $450 | $1,050 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 12 | $1,200 $900 | $2,100 138KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT | EA 6 $600 $450 | $1,050 138KV DEAD END STR. EA 2| $8,500 | $5,100 | $13,600 115KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 | $1,950 | $5,200 115KV DISC. SW. EA 2] $1,600] $1,200] $2,800 115KV BUS SUPPORT EA 2| $1,200 $900 | $2,100 115KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $1,200 | $2,800 OIL RETENTION EA 5 | $1,500 $900 | $2,400 115KV DEAD END FND. EA 1 $7,500 | $4,500 | $12,000 115KV ARRESTOR SUPPORT | EA 3 $600 $450 | $1,050 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATIONS 36 LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $16,000 $48,000 $64,000 $8,400 $25,200 $33,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 $9,600 $28 800 $38,400 $3,600 $10,800 $14,400 $1,600 $4,800 $6,400 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $8,000 $24 ,000 $32,000 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL uM $54,400 | $163,200 | $217,600 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 $9,750 $5,850 $15,600 $9,600 $7,200 $16,800 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 $14,400 $10,800 $25,200 $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 $17,000 $10,200 $27,200 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 $2,400 $1,800 $4,200 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 $7,500 $4,500 $12,000 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $94,950 $63,000 | $157,950 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS 138/115KV 100MVA AUTO TRF 138KV PCB 138KV DISC. SW. 138KV V.T. 138KV SURGE ARRESTER 138KV INSULATORS 115KV PCB 115KV DISC. SW 115KV INSULATORS CONTROL WIRE RELAY & CONTROL PANELS BUS & FITTINGS GROUND ING CONDUIT MISC. ELECTRICAL 115KV SURGE ARRESTERS UNIT DESCRIPTION: EQUIPMENT STATION SERVICE FENCING WELL & SEPTIC TESTING CONTROL BUILDING SITE WORK UNIT DESCRIPTION: MISCELLANEOUS Ls LF Ls Ls Ls Ls ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST NO. OF |----------2---22-e eee ee eee ene e ee UNITS LABOR MATERIAL REQ'D 1 | $15,000 | $750,000 3} $4,500 | $100,000 6 | $2,500 | $9,000 6 $500 | $6,000 6 $250 | $3,000 36 $50 $450 1 $4,000 | $90,000 3 |} $2,000] $8,000 6 $50 $400 1 $6,000 | $6,000 5 | $2,500 | $25,000 1 | $20,000 | $25,000 1 $5,000 | $6,000 1 $5,000 | $4,000 1 | $50,000 | $50,000 3 $250 | $2,500 1 | $10,000 | $30,0 800 $10 $ 1 $5,000 | $5,0 1 | $25,000 1 | $10,000 | $40,0 1 | $20,000 | $40,0 37 100 10 100 $0 }00 }00 AND MAT'LS $765, 000 $104,500 $11,500 $6,500 $3,250 $500 $94 ,000 $10,000 $450 $12,000 $27,500 $45,000 $11,000 $9,000 $100,000 $2,750 $40,000 $20 $10,000 $25,000 $50,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $13,500 $15,000 $3,000 $1,500 $1,800 $4,000 $6,000 $300 $6,000 $12,500 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $50,000 $750 $159,350 $10,000 $8,000 $5,000 $25,000 $10,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $300,000 $54,000 $36 , 000 $18,000 $16,200 $90,000 $24,000 $2,400 $6,000 $125 ,000 $25,000 $6,000 $4,000 $50,000 $7,500 MATERIAL $1,514,100 $30,000 $8,000 $5,000 UNIT MATERIAL $123,000 AND MATERIALS $765 ,000 $313,500 $69,000 $39, 000 $19,500 $18,000 $94,000 $30,000 $2,700 $12,000 $137,500 $45 , 000 $11,000 $9,000 $100,000 $8,250 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: NEW BERNICE LAKE SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M MOBILIZATION $50,000 $50,000 STEEL STRUCTURES $54,400 $163,200 $217,600 FOUNDATIONS $94,950 $63,000 $157,950 EQUIPMENT $159,350 | $1,514,100 | $1,673,450 MISCELLANEOUS $78,000 $123,000 $201,000 PROJECT COST $436,700 | $1,863,300 | $2,300,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NWO. OF [enon ccc c cece nec cc ccc cr sen n en ececs fone ee ne cnn nce cc cceccccccocccccce NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3 soo | $2,400 $3,200 | $2,400 138KV SW. STR. EA 2} $1,400 | $4,200 $5,600 | $2,800 138KV V.T. STR. EA 3 $400 | $1,200 $1,600 | $1,200 138 KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP| EA 3 $400 | $1,200 $1,600 | $1,200 138KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $8,000 | $24,000 $32,000 | $8,000 | $24,000 | $32,000 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $2,000 | $6,000 $8,000 | $2,000 | $6,000 | $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR | MATERIAL LM $17,600 | $52,800 | $70,400 ,200 $900 $2,100 $3,600 $2,700 zazz 8KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3] $1 138KV SW. STR. EA 2} $1,600 | $1,200 $2,800 | $3,200 | $2,400} $5,600 138KV V.T. STR. EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 | $1,800 | $1,350] $3,150 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.| EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 | $1,800} $1,350] $3,150 138KV DEADEND STR. EA 1 $8,500 | $5,100 $13,600 | $8,500} $5,100 | $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 1 $1,500 $900 $2,400 | $1,500 $900 | $2,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $1,200 $2,800 | $1,600 | $1,200] $2,800 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 | $1,950 $5,200 | $3,250] $1,950] $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR | MATERIAL L/M $25,250 $16,950 $42,200 C= 39 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS 138KV PCB EA 138KV DISC. SW. EA 138KV V.T. EA 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 138KV INSULATORS EA BUS & FITTINGS Ls CONTROL WIRE Ls CONDUIT Ls MISC. ELECTRICAL Ls GROUND ING Ls RELAY & CONTROL PANELS EA UNIT DESCRIPTION: EQUIPMENT TESTING Ls UNIT DESCRIPTION: MISCELLANEOUS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY WORONZOF SUBSTATION NO. OF UNITS REQ'D Boo ooo oWwWWo TESORO ROUTE UNIT COST LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $4,500 | $100,000 $104,500 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $500 $6 , 000 $6,500 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $50 $450 $500 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $10,000 | $10,000 $20,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,500 | $25,000 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 | $0 $5,000 e ° S$888sesess LABOR MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $100,000 | $104,500 $27,000 | $34,500 $18,000 | $19,500 $9,000 | $9,750 $4,050 | $4,500 $6,000 | $11,000 $1,500 | $3,500 $1,000 | $2,000 $10,000 | $20,000 $1,000 | $2,000 $25,000 | $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT MATERIAL uM LABOR | MATERIAL L/M so | $5,000 ausutusesssuseuseanes CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: . WORONZOF SUBSTATION TESORO ROUTE UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 $o $5,000 PROJECT COST C - 41 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 - 26 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |----- 22-22-2222 eee eee ee ee ee eee | eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee ee eee NO. OF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'S MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $556,291 $0 | $556,291 $556,291 $0 $556,291 SURVEY MILE 26 | $14,000 so | $14,000 $364,000 $0 $364,000 CLEARING MILE 26 $8, 000 $0 $8,000 $208, 000 $0 $208,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE 26 | $10,000 $0 | $10,000 $260, 000 $0 $260, 000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT UNIT STARTUP MATERIAL uM $1,388,291 so | $1,388,291 STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR. EA 158 | $19,000 | $15,400 | $34,400 | $3,002,000 | $2,433,200 | $5,435,200 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 6 | $24,000 | $20,700 | $44,700 | $144,000 | $124,200 $268, 200 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 8 | $26,500 | $23,500 | $50,000 | $212,000 | $188,000 $400,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 8 so | $15,400 | $15,400 so | $123,200 $123,200 STX-138 |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 so | $23,500 | $23,500 $0 $23,500 $23,500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR W/STATIC = 76',12,000#, 800' SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT UNIT X-STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $2,892,100 SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE 0 $4,600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #4 CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 232 $800 $800 Fp-2 FON 2-PILE EA 27 $1,200 $1,600 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 99 $4,400 $1,000 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 232 $800 $800 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 96 $1,200 $1,600 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 138 $1,200 $100 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 69 $750 $900 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 34 $450 $0 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 34 $1,000 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #5 FOUNDATIONS - 1 FOP-17.5 FON SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 FDOP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25' EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 FP-3 3-PILE FDN EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 $8,000 $2,500 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 7 $1,000 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 0 $1,000 $2,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 FOUNDATIONS - 2 43 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 - 26 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS COND. "CARDINAL" 954 ACSR 1000'} 412 $2,600 $1,630 SW SHIELDWIRE 275 $700 $500 $6,096 $7,280 $10,500 $10,500 $1,000 $3,000 $1,071,200 $192,500 $1,263,700 $185,600 $32,400 $435,600 $185,600 $115,200 $165,600 $51,750 $15,300 $34,000 $671,560 $137,500 MATERIAL $809,060 $185,600 $43 , 200 $99,000 $185,600 $153,600 $13,800 $62,100 MATERIAL $742,900 MATERIAL $0 $1,742,760 $330,000 $2,072,760 $371,200 $75,600 $534,600 $371,200 $268, 800 $179, 400 $113,850 $15,300 $34,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 1 - 26 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | ---- 0 nnn n nnn nnn nnn nnn nn nnn nnn nnn rrr n nnn n nnn n anne nen nn enn ne een nccee NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 1 - 26 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $1,388,291 $0 $1,388,291 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,358,000 | $2,892,100 $6,250,100 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $1,263,700 $809,060 $2,072,760 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $1,221,050 $742,900 $1,963,950 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $7,000 $0 $7,000 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL MATERIAL L/M $4,444,060 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 - 29.5 MILES EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF occcncsseer er aciesascemescmnissaest||Ssess encciee sacle sacnaesmismeronsrssseorce NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MAT'LS MATERIALS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 $605 , 783 $0 | $605,783 $605 , 783 $0 $605,783 SURVEY MILE | 29.5 $14,000 $0 $14,000 $413,000 $0 $413,000 CLEARING MILE | 29.5 $8,000 $0 $8,000 $236,000 $0 $236,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE | 29.5 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $295 ,000 $0 $295,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL SECTION #1 UNIT STARTUP LABOR MATERIAL $0 STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR. EA 142 | $21,000 | $17,800 | $38,800 | $2,982,000 | $2,527,600 | $5,509,600 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 9 | $25,000 | $25,900 | $50,900 | $225,000 | $233,100 $458, 100 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 6 | $29,000 | $30,000 | $59,000 | $174,000 | $180,000 $354,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 7 so | $17,800 | $17,800 so | $124,600 $124,600 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 | $30,000 | $30,000 $0 $30,000 $30,000 STX-RVR |RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2 | $53,000 | $56,500 | $109,500 | $106,000 | $113,000 $219,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #2 UNIT UNIT X- STRUCTURES MATERIAL L/M $3,208,300 SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 600 $3,236 $7,836 $0 $0 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 $25,000 $0 $0 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 $45,000 $o $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #3 UNIT UNIT UNIT SINGLE STEEL POLES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 FDOP-17.5 FOP-25 FP-3 AP-3 FPT Fa CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS "CARDINAL" 954 ACSR SHIELDWIRE UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #4 CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE FON 1-PILE FON 2-PILE FDN ROCK ANCHOR 1-PILE ANCHOR 2-PILE ANCHOR ROCK ADD'L PILE W/WELD PRE-AUGER PILE UPLIFT TEST UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #5 FOUNDATIONS - 1 FON SLEEVE-17.5' FON SLEEVE-25' 3-PILE FON 3-PILE ANCHOR SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST THERMOPILE UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 FOUNDATIONS - 2 1000! 1000" UNIT COST NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL REQ'D 467 $2,600 | $1,630 312 $700 $500 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 - 29.5 MILES 178 $800 $800 151 $1,200 | $1,600 0 $4,400 | $1,000 199 $800 $800 238 $1,200 | $1,600 0 $1,200 $100 77 $750 $900 38 $450 $0 38 $1,000 $0 0 $4,500 | $1,596 0 $5,000 | $2,280 4 $8,000 | $2,500 4 $8,000 | $2,500 0 $1,000 $0 56 $1,000 | $2,000 46 $6,096 $7,280 $10,500 $10,500 $1,000 $3,000 $1,214,200 $218,400 $1,432,600 $142,400 $181,200 $0 $159,200 $285 ,600 $0 $57,750 $17,100 $38 , 000 $32,000 $32,000 $761,210 $156,000 MATERIAL $917,210 $142,400 $241,600 $0 $159,200 $380,800 MATERIAL $993,300 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $132,000 $1,975,410 $374,400 $284 , 800 $422, 800 $0 $318,400 $666 ,400 $0 $127,050 $17,100 $38,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 2 - 29.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |------- 22-22 -- none nnn ence eee e cence ence ence een ee nen eneeenecnecenenenes NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMAI LABOR MATERIAL L&M SEC. #1 |STARTUP $1,549, 783 so | $1,549,783 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,487,000 | $3,208,300 | $6,695,300 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 | CONDUCTOR $1,432,600 | $917,210 | $2,349,810 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $881,250 | $993,300 | $1,874,550 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $120,000 | $132,000 $252,000 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,250,810 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR. EA 130 $21,000 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 8 $25,000 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 5 $29,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 7 $0 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $0 STX-RVR |RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2 $53,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR W/STATIC = 97! SECTION #2 X- STRUCTURES SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE) EA 0 $16,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES ,14,000#, 1,000' ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 - 27 MILES MATERIAL $17,800 $25,900 $30,000 $17,800 $30,000 $56,500 SPAN $3,236 $14,500 $29,000 $547,020 $14,000 $8,000 $10,000 UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. Of | == aces sn ass sess anssessesieseses NO. OF UNITS LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $547,020 SURVEY MILE | 27.0 $14,000 CLEARING MILE | 27.0 $8,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE | 27.0 $10,000 $38,800 $50,900 $59,000 $17,800 $30,000 $109,500 $7,836 $25,000 $45,000 $547,020 $378 , 000 $216,000 $270,000 $2, 730,000 $200 , 000 $145,000 $0 $0 $106,000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $0 MATERIAL $0 mcmeeae $2,314,000 $207,200 $150,000 $124,600 $30,000 $113,000 MATERIAL $2,938,800 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 AND MATERIALS $547,020 $378, 000 $216,000 $270,000 $5,044,000 $407,200 $295,000 $124,600 $30,000 $219, 000 TOTAL UNIT L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 - 27 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO... OF |< -2 360 ccs cees ses asin Sack Saisie Saas eS SSaSSSS Sees Tsie cise cise Sains Sas <SeSSsSe 6 NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND. "CARDINAL" 954 ACSR 1000'} 428 $2,600 $1,630 $4,230 | $1,112,800 $697,640 $1,810,440 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000'} 285 $700 $500 $1,200 $199,500 $142,500 $342,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,312,300 $840, 140 $2,152,440 FP-1 FON 1-PILE EA 180 $800 $800 | $1,600 | $144,000 | $144,000 $288,000 FP-2 ‘| FDN 2-PILE EA a9 | $1,200] $1,600] $2,800 | $106,800 | $142,400 $249,200 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 30 | $4,400 | $1,000 | $5,400 | $132,000 $30,000 $162,000 AP-1 [ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 282 $800 $800 | $1,600 | $225,600 | $225,600 $451,200 AP-2 |ANCHOR 2-PILE EA go | $1,200] $1,600] $2,800 $96,000 | $128,000 $224,000 AR-1 |ANCHOR ROCK EA 30 | $1,200 $100 | $1,300 $36, 000 $3,000 $39,000 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 66 $750 $900 | $1,650 $49,500 $59,400 $108,900 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 33 $450 $0 $450 $14,850 $0 $14,850 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 33 | $1,000 so | $1,000 $33,000 $0 $33,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $837,750 | $732,400 | $1,570,150 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0 | $4,500] $1,596 | $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FOP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25! EA 0 | $5,000] $2,280] $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3_|3-PILE FON EA 4 | $8,000} $2,500 | $10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000 AP-3 —_|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 4 | $8,000} $2,500 | $10,500 $32,000 $10,000 $42,000 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 | $1,000 $o | $1,000 $0 $0 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 50 | $1,000 | $2,000] $3,000 $50,000 | $100,000 $150,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR MATERIAL LM $120,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 3 - 27 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT | NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |----------2-- enn e ewe e nnn e nent eee nn en tn eee neecn eee neeeneee nen een nneneene NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D ‘AND ‘AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY | LABOR MATERIAL uM $0 $0 $0 $0 HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 3 - 27 MILES LABOR MATERIAL L&mM SEC. #1 |STARTUP $1,411,020 so | $1,411,020 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $3,181,000 | $2,938,800 | $6,119,800 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $1,312,300 | $840,140 | $2,152,440 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $837,750 | $732,400 | $1,570,150 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $114,000 | $120,000 $234,000 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $4,631,340 | $11,487,410 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR. EA 59 $21,000 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 4 $25,000 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 3 $29,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 3 $0 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 STX-RVR |RIVER CROSSING TOWER EA 2 $53,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION SECTION #2 X- STRUCTURES X-STR W/STATIC SP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 SP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA 0 $16,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 - 12.5 MILES MATERIAL $17,800 $25,900 $30,000 $17,800 $30,000 $56,500 97',14,000#, 1,000' SPAN $3,236 $14,500 $29,000 - 51 $378,607 $14,000 $8,000 $10,000 UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NG. [OF | =22s5 S222 sesses SesSs-eesoe sr eers NO. OF UNITS LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQU'D UNITS MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $378,607 SURVEY MILE | 12.5 $14,000 CLEARING MILE | 12.5 $8,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE | 12.5 $10,000 $38,800 $50,900 $59,000 $17,800 $30,000 $109,500 $7,836 $25 , 000 $45,000 $378,607 $175,000 $100,000 $125,000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $1,239,000 $100,000 $87,000 $0 $0 $106,000 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $0 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 sscsz= $1,050, 20 $103,600 $90,000 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $1,410,200 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $0 AND MATERIALS $378,607 $175,000 $100,000 $125,000 $2,289,200 $203,600 $177,000 $53,400 $0 $219,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 - 12.5 UNIT COST NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS COND. "CARDINAL" 954 ACSR 1000'| 198 $2,600 $1,630 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000'| 132 $700 $500 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #4 CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE FP-1 FDN 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 FP-2 FON 2-PILE EA 20 $1,200 $1,600 FR-1 FDN ROCK EA 0 $1,000 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 0 $800 AP-2 ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 20 $1,600 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 $100 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 4 $900 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 2 $0 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 2 $0 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #5 FOUNDATIONS - 1 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5' EA 0 $4,500 $1,596 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25! EA 0 $5,000 $2,280 FP-3 3-PILE FON EA 123 $8, 000 $2,500 AP-3 3-PILE ANCHOR EA 166 $8, 000 $2,500 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 $1,000 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 26 $1,000 $2,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #6 FOUNDATIONS - 2 MILES $6,096 $7,280 $10,500 $10,500 $1,000 $3,000 UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | -------- 2-22-22 - nnn ee nn nn nnn nnn nn nnn nn nen nn nn ee eee eee ee eee ee eee eee eee $514,800 $322,740 $92,400 $66 , 000 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL $607,200 | $388,740 $0 $0 $24,000 $32,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24 , 000 $32,000 $0 $0 $3,000 $3,600 $900 $0 $2,000 $0 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL $53,900 $67,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $984,000 | $307,500 $1,328,000 | $415,000 $0 $0 $26,000 $52,000 TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL $2,338,000 | $774,500 $837,540 $158,400 $0 $56, 000 $0 $0 $56,000 $0 $6,600 $900 $2,000 $0 $0 $1,291,500 $1, 743, 000 $0 $78,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 4 - 12.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT | NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |------------ 22-2 nen n enn n ene e nnn nn eee e eee n eee e ene e eee e een e en enneeee NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D ‘AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL LM $0 $0 $0 $0 Lam SEC. #1 |STARTUP $778,607 $0 $778,607 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $1,532,000 | $1,410,200 | $2,942,200 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $0 SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $607,200 | $388,740 $995,940 SEC. #5 |FOUNDATIONS - 1 $53,900 $67,600 $121,500 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $2,338,000 | $774,500 | $3,112,500 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY UNIT DESCRIPTION: SECTION #1 STARTUP STX-10S |TANGENT X-STR. EA 26 $21,000 $17,800 STX-12S |ANGLE 3-POLE EA 2 $25,000 $25,900 STX-13S |DEADEND 3-POLE EA 1 $29,000 $30,000 STX-10S |SPARE TANGENT X-STR. EA 1 $0 $17,800 STX-13S |SPARE DEADEND 3-POLE EA 0 $0 $30,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: X-STR W/STATIC = 97',14,000#,1,000' SPAN SECTION #2 X-STRUCTURES sP-10 TANGENT SINGLE POLE EA 0 $4,600 $3,236 sP-12 ANGLE GUYED SINGLE POLE EA 0 $10,500 $14,500 SP-13 DEADEND GUYED SINGLE POLE} EA 0 $16,000 $29,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: SINGLE POLE STEEL STRUCTURES SECTION #3 SINGLE STEEL POLES $38,800 $50,900 $59,000 $17,800 $30,000 $7,836 $25,000 $45 , 000 $113,533 $77, 000 $44,000 $55,000 $546,000 $50,000 $29,000 $0 $0 TOTAL UNIT LABOR $0 MATERIAL MATERIAL $0 $462,800 $51,800 $30,000 $17,800 MATERIAL $562,400 TOTAL UNIT MATERIAL $o AND MATERIALS $113,533 $77,000 $44,000 $55,000 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 - 5.5 MILES UNIT COST UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO, (OF | ===s2asesssecasssessacssecsess= NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND MOB-DEMO|MOB & DEMOB 5% TOTAL EA 1 | $113,533 $0 | $113,533 SURVEY MILE 5.5 $14,000 $0 $14,000 CLEARING MILE 5.5 $8,000 $0 $8,000 GEOTECH PROGRAM MILE 5.5 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $1,008,800 $101,800 $59,000 TOTAL UNIT L/M $0 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 - 5.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF Jenn nnn merece cence nc cnc wenn cnc cece nce cece ccc ccccc cece ccccccceccccce NO. OF UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL | LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS COND. | "CARDINAL" 954 ACSR 1000'| 87] $2,600] $1,630 | $4,230 | $226,200] $141,810 $368,010 SW SHIELDWIRE 1000'| 58 $700 $500 | $1,200 $40,600 $29,000 $69,600 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #4 UNIT UNIT UNIT CONDUCTOR & SHIELDWIRE LABOR MATERIAL L/M $266,800 | $170,810 $437,610 FP-1 FDN 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 | $1,600 $0 $0 $0 FP-2 FDN 2-PILE EA 61 $1,200 | $1,600 | $2,800 $73,200 $97,600 $170,800 FR-1 FON ROCK EA 0 | $4,400] $1,000] $5,400 $0 $0 $0 AP-1 ANCHOR 1-PILE EA 0 $800 $800 | $1,600 $0 $0 $0 AP-2 |ANCHOR 2-PILE EA 82 | $1,200] $1,600] $2,800 $98,400 | $131,200 $229,600 AR-1 ANCHOR ROCK EA 0 | $1,200 $100 | $1,300 $0 $0 $0 FP-ADD |ADD'L PILE W/WELD EA 14 $750 3900 | $1,650 $10,500 $12,600 $23, 100 FP-AUG |PRE-AUGER EA 7 $450 $0 $450 $3,150 $0 $3,150 FUT PILE UPLIFT TEST EA 7 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $7,000 $0 $7,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #5 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 1 LABOR MATERIAL LM $192,250 | $241,400 $433,650 FDP-17.5|FDN SLEEVE-17.5! EA 0} $4,500] $1,596] $6,096 $0 $0 $0 FDP-25 |FDN SLEEVE-25! EA 0} $5,000} $2,280] $7,280 $0 $0 $0 FP-3 _|3-PILE FON EA 0 | $8,000] $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 AP-3 —_|3-PILE ANCHOR EA 0 | $8,000} $2,500 | $10,500 $0 $0 $0 FPT SOIL/ROCK PROOF TEST EA 0 | $1,000 $o | $1,000 $0 $0 $0 FT-1 THERMOPILE EA 12 | $1,000 | $2,000} $3,000 $12,000 $24,000 $36,000 UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #6 UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS - 2 LABOR MATERIAL L/M $24,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY/FAIRBANKS LINK 5 - 5.5 MILES UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF | 99 <<< 9 new ween nen enn nan wnwicwwnwwnncceseseescesaceesnesesesese=ea~: NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS UNIT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SECTION #7 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY LABOR MATERIAL L/M HEALY/FAIRBANKS SUMMARY LINK 5 - 5.5 SEC. #1 |STARTUP $289,533 $0 $289,533 SEC. #2 |X-STRUCTURES $625,000 $562,400 $1,187,400 SEC. #3 |SINGLE STEEL POLES $0 $0 $o SEC. #4 |CONDUCTOR $266,800 $170,810 $437,610 SEC. #5 | FOUNDATIONS - 1 $192,250 $241,400 $433,650 SEC. #6 |FOUNDATIONS - 2 $12,000 $24,000 $36,000 SEC. #7 |MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LABOR MATERIAL L/M $1,385,583 | $998,610 | $2,384,193 == a = CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 1 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY SUBSTATION UNIT COST UNIT | NAME AND DESCRIPTION -- seeeee NO. OF MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS AND AND MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV BUS SUPPORT 3 $2,400 $3,200 $7,200 $9,600 138KV SW. STR. 2 $4,200 $5,600 $8,400 $11,200 138KV V.T. STR. 3 $1,200 $1,600 $3,600 $4,800 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.| EA 3 $400 $1,200 $1,600 $3,600 $4,800 138KV DEAD END STR. EA 1 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $24,000 $32,000 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $6,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT STEEL STRUCTURES LABOR MATERIAL L/M $17,600 $52,800 $70,400 SSSRERSSSsssssssssssssssssssssesssssssssssssesessssssssssssssssssBVssssasssssssssssssssssesseseseLssssss22ssSes222=55== 138KV BUS SUPPORT EA 3] $1,200 $900 $2,100 | $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 138KV SW. STR. EA 2] $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 | $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 138KV V.T. STR. EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 | $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.| EA 3 $600 $450 $1,050 | $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 138KV DEADEND STR. EA 1 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 | $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 OIL RETENTION EA 1 $1,500 $900 $2,400 | $1,500 $900 $2,400 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 | $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 | $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT FOUNDATIONS LABOR MATERIAL W7 $25, 250 $16,950 Cu=857 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: HEALY SUBSTATION UNIT | NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO. OF |-------- 2-222 -n eee eee e reenter e eee e [eee e eee e nen ee eee een e eee nee eee nes NO. OF UNITS | LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 | $100,000 | $104,500 | $4,500 | $100,000 | $104,500 138KV DISC. SW. EA 3] $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 | $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T. EA 3 $500 $6,000 $6,500 | $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV_ INSULATORS EA 9 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 BUS & FITTINGS Ls 1 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 | $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 CONTROL WIRE Ls 1 $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 | $2,000 $1,500 $3,500 CONDUIT Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 | $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 MISC. ELECTRICAL Ls 1 | $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 | $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 GROUNDING Ls 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 | $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 RELAY & CONTROL PANELS | EA 1 $2,500 $25,000 $27,500 | $2,500 $25,000 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $36,200 | $202,550 | $238,750 DSuCESeSsanensenueenaensentes aunSuaGneRSGESSGnESeReESentesessnnssnacusnuaneuusensnssnannanseesesvenESnssacenessenes TESTING Ls 1 $5,000 $5,000 | $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL LM $5,000 $0 $5,000 anuunnnnnnsanannsnnssaseeusensnessensensnsnnunsanzzsnnssnssnsscseussasesesssssesssseesesessasazezenssnzzszszsess CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: PROJECT COST 11 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM 52 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM TOTAL PROJECT COST ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HEALY SUBSTATION $134,050 $134,050 SHEET 3 OF 3 UNIT $272,300 | $406,350 $704,000 | $704,000 $4,200,000 | $4,200,000 $5,176,300 | $5,310,350 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION UNITS 138KV BUS SUPPORT 138KV SW. STR. 138KV V.T. STR. 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP. 138KV DEAD END STR. 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. UNIT DESCRIPTION: STEEL STRUCTURES ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION UNIT COST NO. OF [ocoreceecccccccoscoc= UNITS | LABOR | MATERIAL REQ'D 3 $800 | $2,400 2] $1,400} $4,200 3 $400 | $1,200 3 $400 | $1,200 1 $8,000 | $24,000 1 $2,000 | $6,000 138KV BUS SUPPORT 3 $1,200 $900 138KV SW. STR. 2 $1,600 | $1,200 138KV V.T. STR. 3 $600 $450 138KV SURGE ARRESTER SUP.| EA 3 $600 $450 138KV DEADEND STR. EA 1 $8,500 | $5,100 OIL RETENTION EA 1 $1,500 $900 138KV PCB BYPASS STR. EA 1 $1,600 | $1,200 138KV PCB EA 1 $3,250 $1,950 UNIT DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATIONS pannunasnsacsezssaseceusessessessecunensesseesasssess C - 60 AND $2, 100 $2,800 EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS LABOR | MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS $2,400 $7,200 $9,600 $2,800 $8,400 $11,200 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $1,200 $3,600 $4,800 $8,000 $24,000 $32,000 $2,000 $6,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $17,600 $52,800 SEEEEEEeEEseuceneaLeeueeeeceree $3,600 $2,700 $6,300 $3,200 $2,400 $5,600 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 $1,800 $1,350 $3,150 $8,500 $5,100 $13,600 $1,500 $900 $2,400 $1,600 $1,200 $2,800 $3,250 $1,950 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL uM $25,250 $16,950 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION WO. (OF [==== NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIRE AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS 138KV PCB EA 1 $4,500 | $100,000 $104,500 $4,500 $100,000 $104,500 138KV DISC. SW. EA 3 $2,500 $9,000 $11,500 $7,500 $27,000 $34,500 138KV V.T. EA 3 $500 $6,000 $6,500 $1,500 $18,000 $19,500 138KV SURGE ARRESTER EA 3 $250 $3,000 $3,250 $750 $9,000 $9,750 138KV INSULATORS EA 2 $50 $450 $500 $450 $4,050 $4,500 BUS & FITTINGS us 1 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 $5,000 $6,000 $11,000 CONTROL WIRE ls 1 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 CONDUIT us 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 MISC. ELECTRICAL Ls 1 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 RELAY & CONTROL PANELS EA 1 $2,500 $25,000 $27,500 $2,500 $25,000 $27,500 GROUND ING us 1 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $203,050 zaseess: Sessensesssssssz: aaa: TESTING us 1 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $o $0 so $0 so so $0 $0 so so so so $o so so so $0 so TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M $5,000 so $5,000 siesssesssessssssssssssssssssssssssassssssssssssssssssessss525555555SS525S5555SS5555255555255555555525555=5=2== CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: PROJECT: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FT WAINWRIGHT SUBSTATION SHEET 3 OF 3 FOUNDATIONS EQUIPMENT PROJECT COST G4OMVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM COST TOTAL PROJECT COST TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT LABOR MATERIAL L/M $50,000 | | $50,000 $17,600 | $52,800 $70, 400 $25,250 | $16,950 $42,200 $36,200 | $203,050 | $239,250 $134,050 | $272,800 | $406,850 $3,200,000 | $3,200,000 $134,050 | $3,472,800 | $3,606,850 CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHOI PROJECT: TEELAND SUBSTATION UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NOS (OF [=<=s=<==<== NO. OF UNITS LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQ'D UNITS UNIT DESCRIPTION: STEEL STRUCTURES UNIT DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATIONS RITY MATERIAL LABOR AND MATERIALS SSSSSESSESESESSS $o $0 $o $0 so $o so so so so $o $0 so so C - 63 SSSSSSSSSSSSESSSE UNIT UNIT 5 8 SESESSESSESSES LS “ TOTAL UNIT UNIT MATERIAL $0 $0 $0 $0 so $o $0 so so $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 LABOR MATERIAL so $0 $o Seessessssessecs $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 2 OF 3 PROJECT: TEELAND SUBSTATION UNIT COST EXTENDED LABOR AND MATERIALS UNIT NAME AND DESCRIPTION NO’) OF | Raweecseesensec eres cceessennHees=s| <tsen<asaneessecera ces sss<scscsana>= NO. OF UNITS LABOR MATERIAL LABOR LABOR MATERIAL LABOR CONSTRUCTION UNITS REQUIRE AND AND UNITS MATERIALS MATERIALS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT EQUIPMENT LABOR MATERIAL L/M so $0 saaaaasaesssseeeenesssssssssssssesessseeeesessessessssssssesssesesss2sssszesssesessssssszsszssszss2sszeeses222 so $o $0 $0 $o so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so $0 so so so so so $0 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS LABOR MATERIAL L/M so so SSSSSSsesssssssssssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssssssssesssassssssssssssesssssssssssssssssssssssessse2s====: CONSTRUCTION UNIT ESTIMATE FOR: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SHEET 3 OF 3 PROJECT: TEELAND SUBSTATION UNIT DESCRIPTION: UNIT UNIT UNIT MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 PROJECT COST $50,000 $0 $50,000 60 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $7,200,000 | $7,200,000 48 MVAR STATIC VAR SYSTEM $0 | $3,072,000 | $3,072,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $50,000 |$10,272,000 | $10,322,000 D. CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS The following pages give the individual pieces of the cost esti- mate. The overhead lines are primarily based on the Bradley Lake project. The submarine and underground are based on recent quotes with a comparison to a recent bid. OVERHEAD CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS Figure Description STX-10 Tangent X-Tower 89’ STX-12, 3-Pole Angle 90- STX-13, 3-Pole Deadend 90 - Material Coreten Steel Coreten Steel Coreten Steel CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS ENSTAR & TESORO Towers Labor Mat’1 Weight Cost Cost $1.20/# 9,000# $14,000 $10,800 10,000# 15,000 12,000 $1.30/# 15,000# 17,300 19,500 $1.30/# 17,000# 19,000 22,100 Insulator & Guys Labor Mat’] Total Total Cost Cost Total Str. $24,800 $2,500 $1,000 $3,500 $28,300 27,000 2,500 1,000 3,500 30,500 36,800 4,500 1,200 5,700 42,500 41,100 5,000 1,400 6,400 47,500 —Description _ FP-1, AP-1 25’ Pile Fdn or Anchor FP-2, AP-2 2-25’ Pile AR-1 12’ Rod Anchor FR-1 Rock Fdn w/Grouted Rods FDP-17.5’ Fdn Sleeve 28" dia. FDP-25’ ’ Fdn Sleeve FP-3, AP-3 3-25’ Pile Fdn or Anchor w/3 Splices 3 Add’1 Pile 1 Weld Conn. Material HP 12x57 Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Weight Labor Cost $ 800 1,200 1,200 4,400 1,330# 4,500 1,900# 5,000 8,000 Towers Mat’1 Cost $ 800 1,600 100 1,000 $1.20/# 1,596 2,280 2,500 Insulator & Guys Labor Mat’l Total Cost 1,300 5,400 6,096 7,280 10,500 Figure ! t r Description SP-10 Self- supporting 60’ (400’k) 60’ (600’k) SP-12 Guyed Angle 75’ Pole 10k Vert SP-13 Guyed D.E. 75’ Pole 140k Vert CONDUCTOR Drake Cardinal Static Material Weight Coreten 2,280# Steel Coreten 2,730# Steel Coreten 10,000# Steel Coreten 20,000# Steel per ft ACSR 1.094# ACSR 1.229# ALWLD = ,5# Towers Mat’1 Insulator & Guys $4,000 4,000 7,000 9,000 2,100 2,600 700 $1.20/# $2,736 3,276 $1.30/# 13,000 $1.30/# 26,000 /1000’ 1,250 1,630 500 Labor Total Cost $6,736 $600 7,276 600 20,000 3,500 35,000 7,000 3,350 4,230 1,200 Mat’ Total Cost. Total Str: $500 $1,100 $7,836 500 1,100 8,376 1,500 5,000 25,000 3,000 10,000 45,000 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS HEALY & FAIRBANKS Towers Labor Mat’1 Figure Description Material Weight Cost Cost $1.20/# STX-10S Tangent Coreten 12,000# $16,000 $14,400 X-Tower 76’ Steel (800’ span) 97’ (1000’ span) 14,000# 18,000 16,800 $1.30/# S STX-12S, 3-Pole Coreten 15,000# 19,000 19,500 ' Guyed Angle Steel ~ 76’ 97’ 19,000# 20,000 24,700 STX-13S, 3-Pole Coreten 17,000# 21,000 22,100 Deadend 76’ Steel 97’ 22,000# 23,500 28,600 River Crossing Coreten 40,000# 40,000 52,000 1,600’ span Steel =143’ sag e- 190’ tower Total $30,400 34,800 38,500 44,700 43,100 52,100 92,000 Insulator & Guys Labor Mat’) Total Cost Cost Total $3,000 $1,000 $4,000 $34,400 3,000 1,000 4,000 38,800 5,000 1,200 6,200 44,700 5,000 1,200 6,200 50,900 5,500 1,400 6,900 50,000 5,500 1,400 6,900 59,000 13,000 4,500 17,500 109,500 The following percentages will be used for construction unit quantities unless other circumstances override. Construction Unit Spare Tangent Tower Spare Deadend Tower Pile PreAuger Pile Uplift Test Rock Anchor Test 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% SO Oty a Ons Tangent Tower Quantity Angle & D.E. Tower Qty Total Pile Quantity Total Pile Quantity Total Rock Anchor Qty OVERHEAD LINK UNITS OVERHEAD Enstar Route Link 1 - 16.10 Miles Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Qty STX-10 70 FP-1 (2) 120 9000 # FP=2 (2) 20 1000'span AP-1 (2) 120 AP-2 (2) 20 STX-12 4 FP-2 (3) 12 AP-1 (9) 27 AP-2 (9) 9 STX-13 6 FP-2 (3) 18 AP-1 (12) 60 AP-2 (12) 12 Drake 259 Link 2 - 33.75 Miles Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Qty STX-10 158 FP-1 (2) 294% FP-2 (2) 36 FR-1 (2) 12 AR-1 (2) 12 AP-1 (2) 294% AP-2 (2) 36 STX-12 10 FP-2 (3) 30 AP-1 (9) 63 AP-2 (9) 27 STX-13 11 FP-2 (3) 33 AP-1 (12) 108 AP-2 (12) 24 Drake 535 *Estimate 10% additional piling quantity due to relocation when encountering boulders 268 to 294 pile. Enstar Route (Continued) Link 6 - 2.95 Miles, 600' Spans Structure Type SP-10 (6+4) SP-12 SP-13 Drake Qty 20 47 Foundation Type Qty FDP-17.5 (1) 20 FP-2 (1) 4 AP-1 (3) 12 FP-2 (1) 5 AP-2 (3) 15 Link 3.2A - 11.5 Miles Struc ture Type SP-10 400' span 60' pole SP-12 75' pole 400' SP=13 span 75' pole 400' Drake Link 3.3 - 24.75 Miles Struc span ture Type STX-1 10,00 63! 800! STX-1 90! soo! STx=1 90' 8oo' Drake 0 O# span 2 span 3 span oty 145 182 Qty 142 LS 392 OVERHEAD Tesoro Route (Bernice Lake to Captain Cook Park in Highway Right-of-Way) Foundation Type Qty FDP-17.5 (1) 110 FDP-25 (1) 35 FP-2 (1) 6 AP-1 (3) 18 FP-2 (1) 3 AP-2 (3) 9 (Captain Cook Park to Point Possession) Foundation —__Type Qty FP-1 (2) 224 FP-2 (2) 60 AP-1 (2) 224 AP-2 (2) 60 FP-2 (3) 45 AP-1 (9) 90 AP-2 (9) 45 FP-2 (3) 24 AP-1 (12) 72 AP-2 (12) 24 Tesoro Route (Continued) Link 3.10 - 2.40 Miles (Runway to Pt. Woronzof) Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Qty STX-10 11 FP-1 (2) 10 9,000# FP-2 (2) 1 1,000'span AP-1 (2) 18 AP-2 (2) 4 STX-12 2 FP-2 (3) 6 AP-1 (9) 18 AP-2 (9) 0 STX-13 1 FP-2 (3) 3 AP-1 (12) 12 AP-2 (12) 0 Drake 38 Link _ 1 - 26 Miles Structure Type STX-10S 76! 12,000# 800' span STX~128 76! 15,000# 80o' STX-13S 76" 17,000# 8oo' Cardinal Static Link 2 - 29.5 Miles Structure Type STX-10S 97! 14,000# 1,000' span STX-12S 97! 19,000# 1,000' span STX-13S 97* 22,000# 1,000' span Rivercross Cardinal Static gty 158 412 275 gty 142 467 312 OVERHEAD Healy Route (Healy to Rex) Foundation —_Type _ Qty FP-1 (2) 232 AP-1 (2) 232 FR-1 (2) 84 AR-1 (2) 84 FP-2 (3) 12 AP-2 (9) 36 FR-1 (3) 6 AR-1 (9) 18 FP-2 (3) 15 AP-2 (12) 60 FR-1 (3) 9 AR-1 (12) 36 (Rex to Nenana) Foundation Type Qty FP-1 (2) 178 FP-2 (2) 106 AP-1 (2) 178 AP-2 (2) 106 FT-1 (2) 56 FP-2 (3) 27 AP-1 (9) 9 AP-2 (9) 72 FP-2 (3) 18 AP-1 (12) 12 AP-2 (12) 60 FP-3 (2) 4 AP-3 (2) 4 D- 10 Link 3 - 27 Miles Structure —Type _ Qty STX-10S 130 97' 14,000# 1,000' span STX-12S 8 97! 19, 000# 1,000'span STX-13S 5 97! 22,000# 1,000' span Rivercross 2 Cardinal 428 Static 285 Link 4 - 12.5 Miles Structure Type Qty STX-10S 59 97' 14,000# 1,000'span STX-12S 4 STX-13S 3 Rivercross 2 Cardinal 198 Static 132 Healy Route (Continued) (Nenana to Rosie Creek) Foundation Type Qty FP-1 (2) 180 FP-2 (2) 50 FR-1 (2) 30 AP-1 (2) 180 AP-2 (2) 50 AR-1 (2) 30 FT-1 (2) 50 FP-2 (3) 24 AP-1 (9) 54 AP-2 (9) 18 FP-2 (3) 15 AP-1 (12) 48 AP-2 (12) 12 FP-3 (2) 4 AP-3 (2) 4 (Rosie Creek to Fairbanks) Foundation —_Type__ Qty FP-3 (2) 98 FP-2 (2) 20 AP-3 (2) 90 AP-2 (2) 20 FT-1 (2) 26 FP-3 (3) 12 AP-3 (9) 36 FP-3 (3) 9 AP-3 (12) 36 FP-3 (2) 4 AP-3 (2) 4 D- 11 Healy Route (Continued) Link 5 - 5.5 Miles (Fairbanks to Wainwright) Structure Foundation Type Qty Type Qty STX-10S 26 FP-2 (2) 52 97! AP-2 (2) 52 1,000' span FT-1 (2) 12 14,000# STX-12S 2 FP-2 (3) 6 AP-2 (9) 18 STX-138S 1 FP-2 (3) 3 AP-2 (12) 12 Cardinal 87 Static 58 o= 22 UNDERGROUND & SUBMARINE CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS UNIT COSTS FOR SUBMARINE CABLE Discussion Over the past three to five years, fluctuating exchange rates for U.S. currency, inflation, and strong worldwide demand for submarine cable has pushed the price of this cable from about $60/ft. to about $120/ft. Mitsui & Co. supplied historical data for prices on their submarine cables and exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen. Their data indicated that about 80% of the increase in cable prices was due to the devaluation of the dollar against the yen. Les Cables DeLyon representatives said that inflation had been higher in France than in the U.S. and changes in the exchange rate had devalued the dollar to about 60% of what it was worth in 1987. Mitsui did not provide prices for oil reservoirs, terminations, and other auxiliary equipment. Pirelli recommended that the prices they supplied for the auxiliary equipment in 1987 should be updated by adding 25% to the price. Our estimate follows this recommenda- tion. Quotes Received for Cable As part of our investigation, we requested prices for oil-filled and solid dielectric cable from several manufacturers. The follow- ing two price quotes were received: Mitsui & Co. (USA) .... Oil-Filled Cable: $108.90/ft. FOB Japan (with double armor). Add 15% for freight, duties, and unloading. This brings the price to $125/ft. Cross-Linked Polyethylene: $146.96/ft. FOB Japan (with double armor). Add 15% for freight, duties, and unloading. This brings the price to $169/ft. Pirells. fo cces sowie owen Oil-Filled Cable: $95-$110/ft. Add 20% for double armor. This brings the price to about $120/ft., plus or minus $10/ft. (Delivered and unloaded.) Bid Tabulations for Cable This information is a summary of bids received for submarine cable by Chugach Electric Association on October 31, 1989. These bids were made in response to a specific bid package. All bids for oil- filled cables include the cost of double armor. This information is supplied as an actual bid response for comparison to the numbers D- i3 we have used. It is not used in preparing our cost estimate. Les Cables DeLyon Oil-filled cable: $109.73/ft. Solid Dielectric cable: No Bid Mitsui & Co. Oil-filled cable: $127.10/ft. Solid Dielectric cable: No Bid STK Oil-filled cable: $120.37/ft. Solid Dielectric cable: No Bid Pirelli Oil-filled cable: $115.50/ft. Solid Dielectric cable: No Bid The cable suppliers did not believe their solid dielectric products were suitable for use in Cook Inlet. D- 14 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST OF INSTALLING SUBMARINE CABLE Discussion Conversations with Chugach Electric Association personnel confirm the reasonableness of Pirelli's quote based on their experience. Quotes Received Pirelli - $8,500,000 for installation including: Rigging Transportation Unloading the cable in Seattle Prelay Survey Mobilization of the laying barge Loading the cable onto the barge Moving the barge to Anchorage Laying four cables Landing of the cables to terminal sites D- 15 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR LAND CABLE Discussion The cost for land cables is based on two quotes recieved in December of 1990. The quote for oil-filled cable was lower than for cross-linked polyethylene, so the prices used in estimating the underground portions of the transmission line are based on the assumption that oil-filled cable will be used. Mitsui did not provide prices for oil reservoirs, terminations, and other auxiliary equipment. Pirelli recommended that the prices they supplied for auxiliary equipment in 1987 should be updated by adding 25% to the price. Our estimate uses the prices recommended by Pirelli. The price per foot of the underground cable used in this estimate is the average of the following price quotes: ($87.50/ft. + $75.00/ft.) / 2 = $81/ft. Quotes Received Mitsui & Co. (USA) ..... Oil-filled cable: $65.39/ft. FOB Japan. Add 15% for freight, duties, and unload- ing. This brings the price to $75/ft. Cross-Linked Polyethylene: $87.39/ft. F.O.B. Japan. Add 15% for freight, du- ties, and unloading. This brings the price to $100/ft. Pirelli ................ Oil-filled cable: $80-$95/ft. ($87.50 plus or minus $7.50/ft.) (Delivered and unloaded.) D- 16 CONSTRUCTION UNIT COST OF BURYING LAND CABLE Discussion Installation of 138 kV land cable is assumed to use standard land cable burial equipment and techniques. Accessible Areas Estimated trenching, select backfill, cable laying and cleanup costs in accessible areas: $5/ft. ($26,000/mile) Estimated trenching, select backfill, cable laying and cleanup costs in inaccessible areas: $11/ft. ($58,000/mile) De Li CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Discussion Each cable termination requires a small fenced station to enclose terminals, switching, structures, oil reservoirs, and other equip- ment. There are three types of station needed for the Tesoro and Enstar routes: underground cable to submarine cable, overhead transmission line to submarine cable, and overhead transmission line to underground cable. The oil pumping plants used for the submarine cable require a source of power, so a pair of power potential transformers are in- cluded in these stations. The following spreadsheets detail the estimated costs of each component of the three types of terminal stations used. Dr=a2s CONSTRUCTION UNIT COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS FILL COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Terminal Description Underground to Submarine Overhead to Submarine Overhead to Underground Terminal Description Underground to Submarine Overhead to Submarine Overhead to Underground Fence Area length sq. ft. 90 6300 90 6300 70 4200 Fill Remote Site Price Fill Price Fill per cu. yd. | per cu. yd. Total $35.00 $50.00 $32,666.67 $35.00 $50.00 $32,666.67 $35.00 $50.00 | $21,777.78 $31, 11011 Terminal Type Fence Fence Total Price per Total Length (ft.) Kenath (ft.) [Length (ft.) Foot Cost Nadersround to sikescing 70 90 320 $20.00 $6,400.00 Overhead to Submarine 70 90 320 $20.00 $6,400.00 Overhead to Underground 60 70 260 $20.00 $5,200.00 SITE WORK COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Fill for Site Remote Site Terminal Fill Remote Fence Prep Prep Description Total Site Total Total Total Underground to an $32,666.67 $46,666.67 $6,400.00 $39,066.67 $53,066.67 Overhead to Submarine $32,666.67 $46,666.67 $6,400.00 $39,066.67 $53,066.67 Overhead to Underground $21,777.78 $31,111.11 $5,200.00 $26,977.78 $36,311.11 STEEL STRUCTURE cess FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Structure Description Deadend 20000 $8,000.00 | $24,000.00 $32,000. 00 Switching 4000 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $6,400.00 Peilic 500 $200.00 $600.00 $800.00 Termination and Arrestor 500 $200.00 $600.00 $800.00 De wg FOUNDATION COSTS FOR TERMINAL STATIONS Structure Volume Description (cu. yd.) Deadend 16 $4,000.00 $2,400.00 $6,400.00 Switching 8 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $3,200.00 P.T. 2 $500.00 $300.00 $800.00 Pumping Plant 6 $1,500.00 $900.00 $2,400.00 Termination & Arrestor 1 $250.00 $150.00 $400.00 TOTAL STRUCTURE COSTS Structure Foundation Steel Insulators Description Labor Material Labor Material Labor Material Deadend Structure $4,000.00 $2,400.00 $8,000.00 $24,000.00 $1,200.00 $300.00 Switching Structure $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $200.00 $1,800.00 P.T. - 50 KVA $500.00 $300.00 $200.00 $600.00 Pumping Plant $1,500.00 $900.00 $0.00 $0.00 Termination & Arrestor $250.00 $150.00 $200.00 $600.00 Structure Switches Prefabricated Total Description Labor Material Material Cost Labor Material Total Deadend Structure $13,200.00 $26,700.00 $39,900.00 Switching Structure $4,000.00 $12,000.00 $7,800.00 $19,800.00 $27,600.00 P.T. - 50 KVA $30,000.00 $700.00 $30,900.00 $31,600.00 Pumping Plant $500,000.00 $1,500.00 $500,900.00 | $502,400.00 Termination & Arrestor $15,500.00 $450.00 $16,250.00 $16,700.00 0 - 20 RIGHT-OF-WAY UNIT COSTS SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (ENSTAR ROUTE) PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate - 100' Right of Way Type of Miles # of Extended Parcel of line Parcels Cost CIRE 52a, ae $48,700 HEA O222 3 63,610 Kenai Moose Range 39.80 8 N/A Kenai Peninsula Borough 2.75 da 37,950 Private 7.34 76 194,500 State 0.50 a N/A Turnagain Crossing 9.0 z N/A (State) To Huffman Substation Private 2.49 60 816,000 State 1.005 6 N/A Municipality of Anch. 25 12 163,200 CEA «23 2 27,200 Total Direct Acquisition Cost: $1,350,760 Round up to: $1,400,000 Di y21 SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (ENSTAR ROUTE TO HUFFMAN SUBSTATION) Indirect Cost Estimate (Definition: Acquisition of permits, land surveying and platting requirements, title services, real property appraisal, negotia- tions, and condemnation preparation.) ls Permit Acquisition $12,500 Ze Platting (Permit Exhibit) 8,400 Se Title Services 49,000 4. Surveying/Platting A. Project Mapping 10,000 B. Center Line Surveying 38,500 C. Individual Plat Preparation 63,600 5. Acquisition Appraisals 132,300 6. Negotiations 205,800 Wie Condemnation Preparation 60,000 Total Indirect Acquisition Cost: $580,100 Round up to: $600,000 D122 BERNICE LAKE TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (TESORO ROUTE TO PT. WORONZOF) PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate - 100' Right of Way Type of Miles # of Extended Parcel of line Parcels Cost ANCSA 0557 az $ 3,100 CEA O=2 aL 5,500 Kenai Penin. Borough 13.39 61 155,650 Private 24.29 227 1,558,900 State See 6 N/A Turnagain Arm (State) 1 N/A Anchorage Municipality of Anch. 4.69 9 1517500: State my | 1 N/A Total Direct Acquisition Cost: $1,880,450 Round up to: $1,900,000 D - 23 BERNICE LAKE TO ANCHORAGE TRANSMISSION LINE (TESORO ROUTE TO PT. WORONZOF) (Definition: requirements, Indirect Cost Estimate Acquisition of title services, permits, land surveying and platting real property appraisal, negotia- tions, and condemnation preparation.) ee Permit Acquisition $26,500 2. Platting (Permit Exhibit) 10,000 as Title Services 56,810 4. Surveying/Platting A. Project Mapping 10,640 B. Center Line Surveying 40,000 Cc. Individual Plat Preparation 79,500 oy Acquisition Appraisals 159,000 6. Negotiations 319,000 7. Condemnation Preparation 92,000 Total Indirect Acquisition Cost: $793,450 Round up to: $800,000 D- 24 HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE PARCEL ANALYSIS Direct Cost Estimate - 100' Right of Way Type of Miles # of Extended Parcel of line Parcels Cost Coal Lease 2, aL $45,000 Mining Claims 0-3 6 30,000 Residential 0.3 8 40,000 Timber Sales 0.8 6 30,000 Native Qa) x 50,000 USA (Top filed) 303 al 60,000* USA (Other & Mil.) 24.8 O+ N/A State** 58.7 1+ N/A Borough 2 3 N/A Private 1.0 z 25,000 Total Direct Acquisition Cost: $280,000 Round up to: $300,000 * This amount to be placed in escrow in the eventuality that a Native Corporation receives title to the affected lands. + For the purposes of this analysis, all USA lands are con- sidered as one parcel, and all State lands are considered as one parcel. ** This category excludes the State lands encumbered by the Coal Lease, the mining claims, the residential disposals and the timber sales. D- 25 HEALY TO FAIRBANKS TRANSMISSION LINE Indirect Cost Estimate (Definition: Acquisition of permits, land surveying and platting requirements, title services, real property appraisal, negotia- tions, and condemnation preparation. ) ye Permit Acquisition $ 2,800 ae Platting (Permit Exhibit) 1,400 an Title Services 10,000 4. Surveying/Platting A. Project Mapping 10,000 B. Center Line Surveying 46,500 C. Individual Plat Preparation 12,500 a5 Acquisition Appraisals 22,500 6. Negotiations 35,000 7. Condemnation Preparation 10,250 Total Indirect Acquisition Cost: $150,950 Round up to: $160,000 D - 26 E. COST ASSUMPTIONS The following pages present the assumptions used in developing the cost estimates. We have tried to include all assumptions, but some non-written judgements are also used in the estimates. OVERHEAD STRUCTURE DATA Aelhi /7Tsost QBNGLE fece (Pe (4g _ _$F& Ss’ “DRAKE ConrspuctoR ——- i Slume 38%/FT Cowd, LoAding 5! EUSA oy r wu eeu Goo' sPAN' 3 ' 0 ‘Pore ZO Zo ° 4 342'kK Ho! ie 47 le PLYS OC. Assume #F "ler Covwd, Lok brrwcs TESEO Zoo’ sPAN Se" co 70! ’ Sate oto" 747'K | ptvs O.6.F. ‘ | Deteem ing Pore € Fva's Foe! Yece GRP Cig Momenr 60 H00'lk ZF G00'kK | 50 325 ~¢ S25 'e | 70 H7o'le J GIO'K | | | | | 1214-90 13:45 @314i 993 2061 Y & A ENGRS. STL --- Y&A (TAMPA. FL) Go002 Contract. No’ Wl Pere TAL UIUTLT EEEP IL UL T t Biseeeeeees tr Subject: Sheet No. YA & CHP 12/14/% » ee . s LE SABI VMEEL 4A De. Chet aWG ChemGe= 6 BOE > Lb¢-P Ao Z tw, Gaoovro Ceéarrves 4 Zusre Clzazauece (Jace Z70-/) = £85 FZ. 2 Aeormoewte Geeaneanee For Lec rwtes Su Cxecess OF 22K C&vref 255 C22) SEHP AVR = EROC-22 = C46EK.¢¥ = ZK GE Dw. ox Z./ AT, ZF svesve, Saserrws £ Fm2e6e Pecomweces. a Tr. £, LAewnvnaed STe. WE/6H"rT = ZZ.6 Hz se 25 77 Zee 2 = —— al => Ss <S _ V2" “2 ” wo 8 eee = roa aD lao? =_=— 4Oe 7? —o— S2teen Sys. SCevorwe. Fo Mnevowsse —Vesees Cours swnEe We eaer LO - Fo Bw prrrad ne! $e? Kr Zee Ao Lino 2S SOV. ZT $VMEeSseE Lrerr , e J22%7 Ze FR HLH ecome =a Ga wn ) Sot Aro Ze F SEP HtIwno © 60RZ=z Steoerwvwe— Ft Lwowontee — Gusrqe Loere Ssr-77E We Vesoro Sxuecer MEW LAe eS oe (V2 Dee £* Lela > Lore O° 7" = 6 SR Lebnwe @ Azer ve Seweus Hoo “— ern Come Ze, SELMA SA Mint Pmt Fagen Ze 8 EIe0wee E - 4 Subject: SSc pore. Fe Aveworgeé - Lusmp Br y Pie ini mr ian Zio /2ft1fFo Zo70. SAE (Fes tent. es 2 “Dyes a") Leerwa SHAM Yoo “7, 70.28 rr. Ziwae G@ov 7 19.76 Fr. o Foo FT 36.57 7. ez evo 7 $8.60 Fs, 4220 FY, Gb.0/ =r. /éoo FT. J1V09 EF. . S72. 4er68ar aeews Se00 Yoo FT. SV +25 4+ 16,22 = Y¥038 Goo 7. S/H ZS5H+SI70 YP. BE Sono FT, SAK ZS + FC-S7 G6.67 /owo FT, S./ + 254 S660 FE.70 (220 FT, S.4 +257 86.0/ Alb:// (oo FT, S/S #ZSH+I/R09 = LEAF 4 ARIE AR OFAN DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS = 31,500 01/17/91 AREA = .7264 DIAMETER = 1.1080 WEIGHT = 1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-537 (RECORD = 3) SPAN = 400.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP _ICE WIND CONST. SAG TENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 .00 3.46 6334. 3.08 7115. -10.0 .00 0 .00 3.15 5831. 3.27 6701. 0.00 0 .00 4.08 5371. 3.47 6300.* 0 .50 4.0 .30 6.22 8074. 5.96 8427. -0 1.00 4.0 .00 7.53 10268. 7.53 10268. 10.0 .00 0.00 4.42 4958. 3.70 5915. 20.0 .00 0 .00 4.77 4589. 3.94 5549. 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 8.03 8927. 7.82 9170. 32.0 .00 -0 .00 521 4204. 4.26 5139. 32.0 .50 0 = .00 6.66 6301. 6.08 6895. 40.0 .00 0 .00 5-51 3978. 4.48 4884. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 6.44 3812. 5.35 4588. 90.0 .00 0 .00 1-21 3039. 6.02 3638. 120.0 .00 0 = .00 7.70 2848. 6.98 3140. 167.0 .00 Oo .00 8.46 2592. 8.42 2605. SPAN = 600.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP. _ICE WIND CONST. SAG TENSION _SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 =.00 8.30 5939. 7.11 6925. -10.0 .00 0 =.00 8.78 5616. 7.46 6604. 0 .00 0 =.00 9.26 5323. 7.82 6300.* 0 .50 4.0 .30 12.45 9087. 11.90 9506. -0 1.00 4.0 .00 14.47 12034. 14.47 12034. 10.0 .00 0 .00 9.75 5058. 8.20 6013. 20.0 .00 0 .00 10.23 4819. 8.58 5742. 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 15.08 10712. 14.77 10940. 32.0 .00 0 .00 10.81 4561. 9.06 5441. 32.0 .50 0 .00 12.94 7301. 11293 7913. 40.0 .00 0 .00 11.20 4405. 9.38 5254. 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 12.43 4450. 10.63 5201. 90.0 .00 -0 .00 13.50 3657. 11.45 4307. 120.0 .00 0 .00 14.17 3484. 12.69 3890. 167.0 .00 0 .00 15.17 3256. 14.55 3395. RR REO WHE WR He ou ~~ © > RH WH HWM ee uo x oo > Iq eee Iq eee DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 AREA = .7264 Drake RTS = 31,500 DIAMETER = 1.1080 WEIGHT = 1.0940 01/17/91 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-537 (RECORD = 3) SPAN = 800.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP. _ICE WIND CONST. -20.0 .00 0 -10.0 .00 0 -0 .00 0 0 .50 4.0 .0 1.00 4.0 10.0 .00 0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 -0 32.0 .50 0 40.0 .00 0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 -0 120.0 .00 0 167.0 .00 0 SPAN = 1000.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP_ _ICE WIND -20.0 .00 0 -10.0 .00 0 SOOO 0 30)/ 580 4.0 -0 1.00 4.0 10.0 .00 0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 0 32.0 .50 0 40.0 .00 -0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 0 120.0 .00 0 167.0 .00 0 -00 -00 -00 -30 -00 00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 FINAL SAG TENSION 15.11 5805. 15.69 5589. 16.27 5390. 20.32 9910. 23.02 13469. 16.85 5206. 17.42 5036. 23.70 12137. 18.10 4849. 20.82 8077. 18.54 4733. 20.01 4920. 21.22 4140. 22.14 3970. 23.33 3768. FINAL SAG TENSION 23.73 5780. 24.38 5626. 25.03 5482. 29.79 10577. 33.11 14649. 25.67 5347. 26.30 5219. 33.84 13298. 27.04 5076. 30.28 8689. 27.54 4986. 29.18 5276. 30.50 4506. 31.61 4350. 32.97 4171. 12. 13. 13. 19. 23. 14. 14. 23. 15. 19. 15. AT: 18. 19. 22. 20. 7Qle 21 28. 33. 22% ee 33. 23. 28. 24. 25. 26. 28. 30. INITIAL SAG TENSION 95 6765. 43 6526. 91 6300.* 42 10369. 02 13469. 40 6087. 90 5885. 27 12357. 49 5660. 32 8698. 89 5518. 44 5639. 38 4776. 83 4427. 04 3988. INITIAL SAG TENSION 62 6647. 19 6469. 76 6300.* 49 11057. 11 14649. 33 6139. 91 5987. 30 13512. 59 5814. 25 9307. 05 5705. 84 5954. 85 §113. 49 4821. 97 4438. OW We ee i Sh Gale fe sie eh _@ 6. on ol 6 os _ te. Re eH WH EWR ee Iq eee Iq rae DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - ENSTAR ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake AREA = .7264 SPAN = 1200.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP _ICE WIND CONST. -00 -00 -00 -50 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -50 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -20. -10. 10. 20. 30. 32. 32. 40. 60. 90. 120. 167. OCO0000CCOCCCOCOCOCCOO ro P+ eoo000000N0CDCVDCVCOCOCO 36. -00 -00 -00 30 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 DIAMETER = 1.1080 SAG 34 34. 35. 40. 44. 36. 36. 45 VE 41. 38. 39. 41 42. 44. elit 81 50 86 76 18 86 92, 66 33 18 98 38 62 14 RTS = 31,500 WEIGHT = 1.0940 FINAL TENSION 5798. 5683. 5573. 11120. 15630. 5469. 5370. 14258. 5257. 9179. 5185. 5553. 4789. 4651. 4494. 01/17/91 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-537 (RECORD= 3) INITIAL SAG TENSION 30.10 6564. 30.74 6429. 31.37 6300.* 39.13 11607. 44.76 15630. 32.00 6177. 32.63 6059. 44.86 14465. 33.38 5923. 38.74 9784. 33.88 5837. 35.86 6185. 36.93 5359. 38.72 5114. 41.43 4783. ee OO We WO Iw eR a LIZA. SA8 CesKemie Nes “Lane” EP Swern SPAAI YI ES Soo Fr. Sit 2AZEr 1A, 25° ss = Sv.65 Goo Fr, ‘Sas ef Sai 2h Fos> Fr, SA r CEA FSSC zH CKOZ ¢ Gam Fr, Si/*+ ZE5+60,62= Yo.7z2 SA p25 + F307 = L/8./7 4“Zco FZ /$¢aoo FT, Sol we SO RANI = 7 SV-27 aANNnIeNn Vian DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 AREA = .7264 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. SPAN = 400.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND -20.0 .00 0 -10.0 .00 -0 0 .00 -0 0 .50 4.0 -0 2.00 4.0 10.0 .00 -0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 -0 32.0 .50 0 40.0 .00 -0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 0 120.0 .00 -0 167.0 .00 0 SPAN = 600.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP ICE WIND -20.0 .00 -0 -10.0 .00 0 0 =.00 0 0 .50 4.0 -0 2.00 4.0 10.0 .00 0 20.0 .00 0 30.0 .00 36.9 32.0 .00 0 32.0 .50 -0 ( 40.0 .00 -0 60.0 .00 6.0 90.0 .00 -0 120.0 .00 -0 167.0 .00 0 Drake CONST. -00 -00 00 30 -00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 CONST. -00 -00 -00 30 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 DIAMETER = ONNNONDODNH NOS VE 13. 13. 15. 2. 13. 13. 18. 13. 16. 14. 15. 15); 15. 16. al SAG 82 19 96 38 730 93 -30 07 col 89 63 29 -43 92 -68 SAG 62 04 26 75 55 47 68 00 94 36 11 02 17 80 77 RTS = 31, 080 WEIGHT = 1.0940 FINAL TENSI 4541. 4221. 3940. 6814. 15903. 3694. 3478. 7912. 3368. 5319. 3304. 3371; 2949. 2768. 2526. FINAL TENSI 3909. 3784. 3723. 7193. 18900. 3665. 3608. 8991. 3542. 5785. 3499. 3685. 3256. 3127. 2948. 500 ON DODANE APNINWWHUOWWW ON ne OHNO E— 10 10. 12 10. 11; 12. 13; 15. 01/17/91 1-537 (RECORD = 3) INITIAL SAG TENSION 08 TALS. sri 6701. -47 6300.* -96 8427. 35 15903. -70 5915. 94 5549. -82 9170. 26 5139. -08 6895. -48 4884. 35 4588. 02 3638. -98 3140. -42 2605. INITIAL SAG TENSION 15 6046. “53 5775. 93 5522. 76 8872. -55 18900.* 33 5284. 74 5064. 53 10405. 23 4820. 87 7341. 56 4669. 77 4700. 62 3910. 82 3572. 61 3164. WEIGHT -0940 -0940 -0940 -5089 - 9894 -0940 -0940 -5784 -0940 -0942 -0940 -2263 -0940 -0940 -0940 Be ee EH WH HOME He WEIGHT -0940 -0940 -0940 -5089 - 9894 -0940 -0940 -5784 -0940 -0942 -0940 2263 -0940 -0940 -0940 bot be bat bet eNO bt WO et et COND st _ eee DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake RTS = 31,500 01/17/91 AREA = .7264 DIAMETER = 1.1080 WEIGHT = 1.0940 STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-537 (RECORD = 3) SPAN = 800.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND CONST. SAG TENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 -0 .00 29.52 2986. 25.72 3421. 1.0940 -10.0 .00 -0 .00 29.75 2964. 26.13 3368. 1.0940 0 =.00 -0 .00 29.97 2942. 26.53 3318. 1.0940 0 .50 4.0 .30 32.64 6204. 29.28 6904. 2.5089 0 2.00 4.0 .00 38.52 18900. 38.52 18900.* 8.9894 10.0 .00 -0 .00 30.20 2920. 26.93 3269. 1.0940 20.0 .00 -0 .00 30.42 2899. 27.33 3223. 1.0940 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 34.79 8311. 31.97 9032. 3.5784 32.0 .00 -0 .00 30.69 2874. 27.80 3169. 1.0940 32.0 .50 -0 .00 33.30 5077. 29.65 5692. 2.0942 40.0 .00 0 .00 30.87 2858. 28.11 3134. 1.0940 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 31.73 3118. 29.11 3394. 1.2263 90.0 .00 0 .00 31.96 2762. 29.99 2940. 1.0940 120.0 .00 0 .00 32.60 2708. 31.08 2839. 1.0940 167.0 .00 0 .00 33.59 2630. 32.73 2698. 1.0940 SPAN = 1000.0 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND CONST. SAG TENSION SAG TENSION WEIGHT -20.0 .00 0 .00 51.68 2684. 48.44 2858. 1.0940 -10.0 .00 0 .00 51.89 2673. 48.80 2838. 1.0940 -0 =.00 0 .00 52.11 2662. 49.17 2817. 1.0940 0 .50 4.0 .30 54.75 5820. 51.39 6188. 2.5089 0 2.00 4.0 .00 60.62 18900. 60.62 18900.* 8.9894 10.0 .00 -0 .00 52.33 2651. 49.52 2797. 1.0940 20.0 .00 0 .00 52.55 2641. 49.88 2778. 1.0940 30.0 .00 36.9 .00 56.83 8006. 53.91 8426. 3.5784 32.0 .00 0 .00 52.81 2628. 50.31 2755. 1.0940 32.0 .50 -0 .00 55.42 4800. 51.83 5123. 2.0942 40.0 .00 0 .00 52.98 2620. 50.59 2740. 1.0940 60.0 .00 6.0 .00 53.79 2893. 51.49 3019. 1.2263 90.0 .00 0 .00 54.05 2570. 52.33 2652. 1.0940 120.0 .00 -0 .00 54.68 2541. 53.35 2602. 1.0940 167.0 .00 -0 .00 55.66 2498. 54.91 2530. 1.0940 EQ=<11 DRYDEN & LARUE ENGINEERS SAG AND TENSION DATA FOR SOLDOTNA TO ANCHORAGE 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE - TESORO ROUTE 795.0 KCMIL 26/7 Drake AREA = SPAN = 1200.0 DESIGN POINTS TEMP -20. -10. 10. 20. 30. 32. 32. 40. 60. 90. 120. 167. oooooocoocoooco°oeo°oe°ce°oeo . 7264 ICE WIND CONST. -00 -00 -00 -50 -00 -00 -00 -00 -00 50 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 36. PS oooocoooowoco0coeoeo 0 -00 -00 -00 -30 -00 00 00 00 -00 -00 -00 00 -00 -00 00 79. 79. 79. 82. 88. 79. 80. 84. 80. 82. 80. 81. 81. 82. 83. DIAMETER = 1.1080 SAG 20 41 62 22 07 83 05 26 30 90 47 25 51 14 10 RTS = 31,500 01/17/91 WEIGHT = 1.0940 FINAL TENSION 2544. 2538. 2531. 5630. 18900. 2525. 2518. 7845. 2511. 4663. 2506. 2783. 2475. 2457. 2430. E = 12 76. 76. 76. 78. 88. 77. 77. 81. 77. 79. 78. 79. 79. 80. 82. STRESS-STRAIN DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-537 (RECORD = 3) INITIAL SAG TENSION WEIGHT 23 2639. 1.0940 57 2628. 1.0940 91 2616. 1.0940 91 5855. 2.5089 07 18900.* 8.9894 25 2605. 1.0940 58 2595. 1.0940 30 8116. 3.5784 99 2582. 1.0940 36 4860. 2.0942 26 2573. 1.0940 10 2855. 1.2263 92 2522. 1.0940 90 2493. 1.0940 41 2449. 1.0940 Pro; ie Ie I ea A Sess BEA LY De Poer LLAMA G pd o tC? F212 £0) 4 Zo suidries f S22 WARS suai 6 PGs Zesec, SENSO Si = SACL SWE SienowneeE = F.sz0” Corr Smia On S7OO FT. ace’ SV Fr, as Zz. A e222 27 Sas Ose Aeawe Gesz “Gweo-nwde val ZZerw6s S79n Yoo -r. Goa =. (25 Fr. Frade D9 Fr, or FSD LB2ro = F77.28 =. ” SOoo Fr. = SECK FF “ Yeon FF = 85.14 Er “ (foo FT, = W206 FF. “ . LE 4 CLS 7 C yorarra a Zacens Sra itu. Yte7i7. Srz.. oe PEAR * N25 = ¥PIC= SO" eGov 7, PEI AH+ZSHF ZoPY = SY,O¢= GO’ SOO FFT, Sr El +LZEr 77.28 = 25°98 = FB’ 4000 77, ERS F2ZSHSEOY = G67 FP?’ /Zoo “7, Er SSP 2S HEE = (ZB2¢= 724! AFCO 7. Or S/ 725 7% 1/70 SEE, (6 > 7S" a a = ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA SAG AND TENSION DATA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY HEALY TO FORT WAINWRIGHT 138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE §comverer CARDINAL 954.0 KCMIL 54/ 7 STRANDING ACSR AREA= -8462 SQ. IN. DATA FROM CHART NO. 1-838 ENGLISH UNITS SPAN= 400.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING - CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20. 50 4.00 .00 2.398 6.62 7260. 5.19 9245. 0. 2.00 4.00 .00 9.343 11.25 16672. 11.25 16672. O. .50 4.00 .30 2.698 7.50 7209. 6.01 8988. O. .00 12.50 .00 1.750 6.53 5371. 4.63 7569. a 0. 2.00R 4.00 .00 6.621 10.05 13222. 9.56 13897. 32. .50 2.00 .00 2.313 8.11 5719. 6.25 7409. 32% 50 .00 .00 2.284 8.08 5664. 6.21 7361. Bop .00 57.60 .00 5.871 10.38 11357. 9.56 12316. 32. .00 36.00 .00 3.793 9.20 8267. 7.88 9644. 60. .00 6.00 .00 1.367 8.14 3367. 5.61 4878. 19999 99,0099 9,054 __13 4413 553,___12,84 14182, -70. .00 00 .00 1.229 3.40 7238. 2.45 10029. -20. .00 00 .00 1.229 5.08 4842. Bn21, 7657. 0. .00 -00 .00 1.229 5.83 4219. 3.64 6760.* t 32. 00 00 .00 1.229 7.02 3507. 4.48 5485. 60. .00 -00 .00 1.229 7.99 3083. 5.36 4590. 90. .00 00 .00 1.229 8.46 2913. 6.37 3866. 167. 00 .00 .00 1.229 9.65 2555. 8.87 2778. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW E - 14 SPAN= J CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR 600 -O FEET * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F Fr LB FT LB -20. -50 4.00 -00 2.398 14.12 7668. 10.80 10012. 0. 2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 20.94 20209. 20.94 20209. j oO. -50 4.00 -30 2.698 15.28 7976. 12.05 10097. oO. -00 12.50 -00 1.750 13.95 5662. 9.81 8037. oO. 2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 19.06 15720. 17.96 16673. 4 32. -50 2.00 -00 Zea 23 15.98 6536. 12.26 8507. 32. -50 -00 -00 2.284 15.95 6468. 12.20 8442. 32. -00 57.60 -00 5.871 19.38 13706. 17.73 14973. 32. -00 36.00 -00 3.793 17.59 9748. 14.90 11489. i 60. -00 6.00 -00 1.367 15.60 3957. 11.08 5561. —i20.—__90—_ 3.000. ~0.0-_—__9.054 -23---74A- 17304~ 22++}—18028+— -70. -00 -00 -00 1.229 9.70 5707. 5.90 9382. -20. -90 -00 -00 1.229 12.14 4566. 7.44 7437. oO. -00 -00 -00 1.229 13.07 4242. 8.19 6760.* 32. -00 -00 -00 1.229 14.50 3827. 9.49 5833. 60. -00 -00 -00 1.229 15.12 3669. 10.70 SLI 76 90. -00 -00 -00 1.229 15.73 3528. 12.01 4616. 167. -00 -00 -00 1.229 17.27 3216. 15.22 3646. 5 R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 800.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F Ec LB FT LB -20. -50 4.00 -00 2.398 30.37 6367. 26.40 ead ds ! QO. 2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 37.28 20280. 37.28 20280.* QO. -50 4.00 -30 2.698 31.47 6916. 27.70 7844. QO. -00 12.50 -00 1.750 30.37 4645. 25.89 5438. QO. 2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 35.19 15209. 33.70 15867. 32. -50 2.00 -00 2.313 32.24 5790. 28.19 6608. 32. -50 -00 -00 2.284 32.20 5722. 28.14 6536. 32. -00 57.60 -00 5.871 35.57 13344. 33.51 14146. 323 -00 36.00 -00 3.793 33.73 9081. 30.57 10003. 60. -00 6.00 -00 1.367 31.56 3493. 27.61 3985. —120,—___-00 9.0.00 __.90-_ 9 05.4 __ 40-45 4 8.1.48.—_—_—_—_ 3549 —_ 4858 6.-—@_ —. =70. -00 -00 -00 1.229 26.72 3702. 21.56 4578. -20. -00 -00 -00 1.229 28.89 3427. 23.88 4137. QO. -00 -00 -00 1.229 29.72 3333. 24.78 3988. 32. -00 -00 -00 1.229 30.51 3248. 26.18 3778. 60. -00 -00 -00 1.229 31.12 3185. 27.36 3616. 90. -00 -00 -00 1.229 31.76 3122. 28.59 3462. 167. -00 -00 -00 T5229 33.38 2973. 31.60 3137 HEAVY LOADING R RIME ICE/WET SNOW E = 25 SPAN= 1000.0 FEET j CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION HEAVY LOADING DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION E IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB Re LB -20. -50 4.00 -00 2.398 51.78 5872. 47.84 6343. QO. 2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 58.64 20280. 58.64 20280.* QO. -50 4.00 -30 2.698 52.83 6480. 49.04 6966. QO. -00 12.50 -00 1.750 51.84 4280. 47.55 4656. QO. 2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 56.45 14911. 54.76 15357. 32. -50 2.00 -00 2.313 53.60 5476. 49.60 5905. 32. -50 -00 -00 2.284 53.57 5410. 49.56 5836. 32. -00 57.60 -00 5.871 56.86 13130. 54.61 13651. 32. -00 36.00 -00 3.793 55.02 8755. 51.73 9294. 60. -00 6.00 -00 1.367 52.83 3282. 49.25 S5LSI 129,00 90,00 00 9054 62.03 _18618______-6 1, 10 -__ 48891... — -70. -00 -00 -00 1.229 48.52 3206. 43.84 3540 20. -00 -00 -00 2229 50.50 3083. 45.90 3385. QO. -00 -00 -00 1.229 51.11 3048. 46.70 3328. 32. -00 -00 -00 1.229 51.80 3008. 47.97 3242. 60. -00 -00 -00 1.229 52.41 2974. 49.05 3172. 90. -00 -00 -00 1.229 53.05 2939. 50.20 3102. 167. -00 -00 -00 1.229 54.67 2855. 53.04 2940. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW SPAN= 1200.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION iE IN PSF LB/F LB/F Fr LB Fr LB -20. -50 4.00 -00 2.398 78.34 5636. 74.47 5916. QO. 2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 85.14 20280. 85.14 20280.* QO. -50 4.00 -30 2.698 79.35 6263. 75.59 6561. QO. -00 12.50 -00 1.750 78.42 4108. 74.26 4328. QO. 2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 82.90 14741. 81.09 15054. 32. -50 2.00 -00 2esLs 80.13 5319. 76.19 5582. 32. -50 -00 -00 2.284 80.10 5254. 76.15 5515. 32. -00 57.60 -00 5.871 83.32 13008. 80.98 13366. 32. -00 36.00 -00 3.793 81.50 8582. 78.17 8930. 60. -00 6.00 -00 1.367 79.30 3174. 75.93 3309. —120,—___-90- 90 00-_00-_9.-05.4- --- 8. 8.-- 6- 189.13. 8 7. F719 09 F-,-—§ ? -70. +00 -00 -00 1.229 75.26 3001. 70.89 3179. -20. -00 -00 -00 1.229 77.16 2930. 72.77 3100. QO. -00 -00 -00 1.229 77.62 2914. 73.52 3069. 32. -00 -00 -00 1.229 78.30 2889. 74.72 3022. 60. -00 -00 -00 1.229 78.90 2868. TSS 2982. “ 90. 00 -00 -00 1.229 79.54 2846. 76.84 2942. 167. -00 -00 -00 1.229 81.15 2792. 79.60 2844. R RIME ICE/WET SNOW E - 16 SPAN= 1400.0 FEET HEAVY LOADING CREEP IS NOT A FACTOR * DESIGN CONDITION R RIME ICE/WET SNOW E=1/7 DESIGN POINTS FINAL INITIAL TEMP ICE WIND K WEIGHT SAG TENSION SAG TENSION F IN PSF LB/F LB/F FT LB FT LB -20. -50 4.00 -00 2.398 110.30 5503. 106.48 5688. oO. 2.00 4.00 -00 9.343 117.06 20280. 117.06 20280.* Oo. -50 4.00 -30 2.698 111.29 6140. 107.57 6339. oO. -00 12.50 -00 1.750 110.40 4012. 106.33 4156. Oo. 2.00R 4.00 -00 6.621 114.79 14637. 112.92 14863. 32. =50 2.00 -00 2.313 112.06 5229. 108.17 5405. 32. «50 -00 -00 2.284 112.03 5165. 108.13 5339. 32 -00 57.60 -00 5.871 115.22 12933. 112.82 13189. 32. -00 36.00 -00 3.793 113.40 8479. 110.07 8719. 60. -00 6.00 -00 1.367 111.21 3112. 107.97 3200. —i29,—___900 90.00 00 9 054 120.67 ___19108____119 79 __19237,—. -70. -00 -00 -00 1.229 107.34 2893. 103.05 3006. -20. .00 .00 -00 1.229 109.13 2848. 104.92 2956. oO. -00 -00 -00 1.229 109.56 2838. 105.64 2937. 32. -00 -00 -00 1.229 110.23 2822. 106.80 2907. 60. -00 -00 -00 1.229 110.83 2807 107.80 2881. 90. -00 -00 -00 iwaad 111.46 2793. 108.86 2855. 167. -00 -00 -00 L.229 113.06 2756. 111.56 2790. SUBSTATION ASSUMPTIONS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION (TESORO ROUTE) : 6. The feed to the New Soldotna substation will be from the existing Bernice Lake Bay and transmission line from Soldotna substation. A pad would need to be constructed at the new site. Only minor site clearing involved. No modifications to existing Soldotna substation re- quired. stalled at the existing Soldotna substation site and not at the new Soldotna substation. Because the reactor will not be installed at this site, only 2 power circuit breakers will be required. NEW SOLDOTNA SUBSTATION (ENSTAR ROUTE) in 6. Feed to the New Soldotna substation will be from a spare position at the existing Soldotna substation. A pad would need to be constructed at the new site. Only minor site clearing involved. No modifications to existing Soldotna substation required. Both the Static Var System and Reactor Bank will be in- stalled at the existing Soldotna substation site and not at the new Soldotna substation. Because the reactor will not be installed at this site, only 2 PCB's will be required. HUFFMAN SUBSTATION l. 2. No site work will be required. Only minor modifications will be required to reterminate the existing 138 kV transmission line to international substation. No 138 kV bus exists at the present time. E - 18 H. WORONZOF SUBSTATION 1. No site work will be required. 2. Work will consist of the addition of one 138 kV PCB bay and the extension of both the main and transfer busses. 3. Adequate room presently exists in the existing control house for the additional panel and equipment. BE - 19 Alaska Energy Authority December 10, 1990 To: Del LaRue eee Dryden & LaRue | ( yr From: Dick Emerman /W Alaska Energy Authority < ~— // \ Subject: Healy-Fairbanks Intertie Cost Estimate -- SVS and Transformer Additions As we discussed when you began work on this project, the proposed upgrade cf the Anchorage-Fairbanks intertie consists of both a new 138 kV Healy-Fairbanks line plus additional SVS and related equipment. Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) was engaged by the Authority to develop the feasibility level specification of the equipment additions. These additions, including location and size, are shown below along with PTI's initial estimate of capital cost: SVS SVS SVS Auto Transfmr Station Total Size $/ Cost Transfmr Cost Cost Cost Location Mvar Kvar M$ MVA M$ M$ M$ FWainwright 40.0 80.0 Jee 3.2 Healy 52.0 80.0 4.2 4.2 11.0 64.0 0.7 0.7 Teeland 60.0 80.0 4.8 112.0 2.0 0.4 Hee 48.0 64.0 Seb Sel, Totals 211.0 16.0 112.0 2.0 0.4 18.4 PTI made the following cost assumptions: SVS with transformer ($/kvar): $80 SVS w/o transformer ($/kvar): $64 E>) 20 Please add this configuration of SVS and transformer additions to the proposed Anchorage-Fairbanks upgrade for purposes of your independent cost estimate. Also, please note the following comment written by Steve Haagenson in response to the PTI report: "In discussion with Marty Gustafson of Stone & Webster, the cost of the Kenai SVS's will be in the neighborhood of $100/KVAR. These units are on the street for bid in the near future, and will be very close in price to the SVS's proposed on the northern end of the line. Marty's phone number is (303) 741-7908 if you would like to verify this SVS cost estimate number." PTI's budget is used up, so they did not follow up on the suggestion. However, their reply is basically as follows: "Our estimate was based on a doubling of the hardware cost estimates quoted by manufacturers. We were given $40 per kvar and doubled this to $80 per kvar (with transformer). I'm not sure assuming installation cost to be 150% of hardware cost makes sense, but I may be underestimating installation costs in Alaska." SrA HEALY ROUTE