Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Study Kokhanok to Newhalen Electrical Tie Line 1985FEASIBILITY STUDY KOKHANOK TO NEWHALEN ELECTRICAL TIE LINE Prepared for KOKHANOK VILLAGE COUNCIL Kokhanok, Alaska By DRYDEN & LaRUE, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANCHORAGE, ALASKA OCTOBER 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Il. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS III. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD WORK Iv. PROPOSED CABLE ROUTING Vv. ELECTRICAL ANALYSIS vI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS VII. APPENDIX A. CABLE SPECIFICATION B. INDUCTIVE REACTOR SPECIFICATION C. VOLTAGE DROP AND LOSS CALCULATION NOTES DRAWINGS (ENCLOSED) : A. CABLE ROUTING ON USGS BASE DRAWING KOK.STUDY 1 B. DEPTH SOUNDINGS FOR ROUTES DRAWING KOK.STUDY 2 C. ELECTRICAL ONE LINE OF PROPOSED SYSTEM DRAWING KOK.STUDY 3 I. INTRODUCTION The electrical system for Newhalen, Iliamna and Nondalton was built in 1982. There was discussion at that time of extending the lines, via underwater cable, east to Pedro Bay and south to Kokhanok. Preliminary design was done for the Pedro Bay cable in the spring of 1983 and funds were appropriated in 1984 to con- struct the Pedro Bay distribution system and tie line. In that same year, Kokhanok received funds to complete a distribution system within the village and a small power plant. Kokhanok's funding also provided for completion of a feasibility study concerning intertie between the Iliamna, Newhalen, and Nondalton systems and Koknanok. The Pedro Bay Tie Line has been designed, the cable pur- chased, permits acquired, and a contract price for installa- tion established. With such data for a basis, we feel that this study can be relatively brief and accurate. Il. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Technically, the project is quite feasible. The bottom conditions, routing, and termination locations present no major problems. It is a far better route than Iliamna to Pedro Bay which has quite a bit of deep water and some very jagged bottom. The electrical interconnection to the system is easily accomplished with a rotary converter. This makes a compat- ible interface with the school service. The losses of the system look acceptable if the load remains between 10 and 200 kW. (Over 75 kW, a new transformer and rotary converter would need to be installed.) If the system in Kokhanok were to grow, two more cables could be added to increase the capacity to about 600 kW. The ultimate capability could be realized by increasing the operating voltage to 25 kV (maximum allowable for this insulation) increasing the capacity to about 2000 kW. We have attempted to use the most realistic numbers avail- able to us at the present time. We used two economic cases, both over a 20-year period. The first case uses a 5% infla- tion environment with 5% escalation of fuel price. The second case used 5% inflation and a 10% escalation in fuel price. This was done to test for sensitivity to fuel price. The major economic advantage of the tie line is improved fuel utilization and so it will become more favorable in higher priced fuel conditions and with increased energy usage. Both charts show that over 20 years the tie line is less expensive, 2% less in the 5% fuel case and 22% less in the 10% fuel case. Initially, the self generation case is the least cost, but as load and fuel cost rise the tie line becomes more favor- able. The crossover occurs in 1994 for the lower fuel escalation and in 1990 for the higher fuel escalation. If a discounted money approach was used or a more realistic interest rate, such as 9%, the crossover would be much farther out and for the lower fuel escalation it would not cross. It would seem that installation of this tie line is not dictated on a pure economic basis at this time but probably will be in the next 5 or 6 years. The major advantages of the cable tie is more efficiency in the use of fuel and reduction in maintenance on the plant and operating labor. The installation of a hydroelectric project in the area might dictate interconnection, in order to utilize the capa- city of the hydro. Perhaps electric heating would be considered, which would dramatically increase the potential load. This would need to be recomputed as the hydroelectric project is solidified and loading data accumulated on the new system at Kokhanok. III. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD WORK Dryden & LaRue engineered the Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Electric Cooperative (INNEC) system in 1982 and has been working in the area since that time. The most intense work on Iliamna Lake was in the spring of 1983 when the prelimi- nary survey work was done for the tie line to Pedro Bay. A tie to Kokhanok was always in our mind and much of the information gathered during this work was applicable to the Kokhanok tie line. The equipment used was as follows: BOAT Zodiac Mark III GR with 25 hp. electric start outboard which provided instrument power. LORAN C RECEIVER Used for navigation to points and between points. Morrow LCS-4000 with T4000A antenna SN 10615. This is a reliable, but simple loran receiver providing micro-second timing information, cross- track steering information, and a microsecond indication of distance to destination. This latter is relative to distance between points but bears no easy correlation to absolute distance. (It can be computed.) DEPTH Heath depth sounder MI-2916, a digital sounder with transom mount transducer. This unit was used during general navigation and provided audible alarms for depth, saving several propellers. This was also a cross check against the depth chart recorder. Lowrance Eagle Mach 1 computer depth recorder provided charts of the depths which are shown on Drawing KOK.STUDY #2. The primary field work for the Newhalen-Kokhanok tie line was done between July 23 and July 26, 1985. We began by getting Loran fixes on various points of interest and run- ning test plots across various paths. We found that the most direct route seemed to be the best, providing moderate depths, good beach conditions, and a minimum of shallow water. Referring to drawing KOK.STUDY #1, we first explored a route which went from Newhalen, just west of Tommy Point, and through the bay to what we call South Point, then to Kokhanok. We found that between Newhalen and Tommy Point there was some very deep water, approaching 500 feet, and what appeared to be very abrupt crevasses in the bottom. Once approaching Tommy Point the water became very shallow (2 to 5 feet) in spots, primarily to the east of each island. Tommy Point to South Point looked possible to lay a cable but certainly not ideal. From South Point to Rock Island to Kokhanok was a reasonable route and it is plotted out on Drawing #2. South Point is a round, rocky point having rocks up to two feet in diameter on the bottom. The bottom comes up from about 50 feet to the surface over about 200 feet. It would not seem feasible to bury the cable in this bottom. Rock Island consists of a vertical rock face on the west end. The bottom consists of rock rubble about 2 feet under the surface, falling away to 60 feet deep or so in about 100 feet. The east end of the island is lower, tapering into the lake and providing a long narrow shoal easterly. At Kokhanok, there is a piece of vertical rock about 20 feet high which cuts back into the gravelly beach. It was our intention to lay the cable right up to this point and then proceed westerly along the rock and up the beach. This would give excellent protection to the cable. On the map you will also find an island which we named "Notch Island" because on the west end is a notch into the 20-foot height, vertical face which is about 100 feet wide and 200 feet long. At the end is a nice gravelly beach, an excellent place for a cable exit and entrance. I assume the waves reach almost all the way up the rock wall at the end of this notch and therefore a sectionalizing cabinet and reactor would need to be positioned up on the flat ground at the top of the rock face. There is a small island between the notch and the beach at Newhalen. A straight line route just touches the east end of this island. It is assumed that the cable will be laid in a straight line except near this island where about a 200-foot detour would maintain depth. The beach at Newhalen is nice gravelly material about 1-1/2 inch minus. The only problem is the shallow water approach- ing the beach. The Newhalen River deposits gravel ridges in front of and to the west of this suggested termination point. It may be that a slight deflection of the cable route to the east will maintain a better depth. I suspect that the last 200 yards or so will be at about 10-foot depth under the best routing. The LORAN unit used gives us timing information which can be related to specific points on the map, once these points have been visited and recorded. It also provides informa- tion to keep the boat on a straight line between two points and gives a relative distance along that line. For example: From Kokhanok to Rock Island the two timing positions are entered into the LORAN unit. It now provides us with a direction to steer from Kokhanok to Rock Island, an indica- tion of how far we are off that line, and a distance in microseconds, which is 18.4 in this case. As we travel down the line the 18.4 decreases toward zero,proportionate to distance travelled. When it reads 9.2, we know we have travelled halfway. You will find the measured distances from the maps, the total leg microsecond timing, and the number of feet each microsecond represents on drawing #2. The chart recorder has on it a button which causes a verti- cal black line to be placed on the chart. The chart recorder was started at the beginning of each leg with the first mark falling on the first integer microsecond reading. For instance the first mark on the 18.4 microsecond leg was 18.0. These marks were made each microsecond until the destination was reached, completing the leg and that chart. As the boat speed varied, the spacing between marks varied, but the marks provide a method of actually placing depths on the line in even increments. The LORAN worked well for our purposes, easily repeating positions to within 50 feet. As our speed increased, the response time for steering signals was a little slow and seemed to cause us to wander as much as 200 feet off line between Notch Island to Newhalen. We judged this by keeping a visual backsite. Also on July 23, early in the morning, we had some problems with the LORAN around the small island between Notch Island and Newhalen. This was probably atmos- pheric conditions compounded by proximity to the rock islands. On the 26th, we re-ran this area and had no problems. The LORAN is subject to bad readings in localized areas of tall rocks and on very clear, sunny days when signal levels may be low and skywaves present. This was noticed on the trip to Pedro Bay in 1983. A little care and cross checking prevents misinterpretation. The two depth recorders usually agreed within one or two feet and this was verified by dropping a weighted tape over the side in about 250 feet of water. All three measurements were within two feet. Our depth data is, of course, related to the surface of the water, and this changes several feet from summer to winter. We did not have any convenient way of measuring or repeating the level when the survey was done. In front of the Samovar Inn at Iliamna, there is a culvert in the roadway. The water was about at the bottom of that culvert or about a foot below highest water. None of the information here or feasibility assumptions are changed by this variation. Iv. PROPOSED CABLE ROUTING After our survey of the lake we felt that the best route for a cable would be from the rock point at Kokhanok, directly to the notch on Notch Island where a sectionalizing cabinet and inductive reactor would be located, and then directly to the beach at Newhalen, with only a slight detour around the east end of the small rock island. At the notch the route is about 100 yards offshore, turning into and out of the notch. The path is only two legs long, the first being 6.05 miles long and the second 13.53 miles long. The entire path runs at a depth of between 50 and 125 feet except for two points which dip to 240 feet. The bottom seems fairly uniform with maximum grades of between 10 and 15 percent. The shape of the bottom would seem to be fairly smooth, judging from other areas which clearly showed abrupt changes on the chart. The bottom, which can be seen down to about 25 feet, was smooth and gravelly with round rocks sitting on it, up to two or three feet in diameter. Another consideration in final route selection would be the possibility of other residential development in the area needing electrical service. The most probable, I believe, would be the Tommy Point and Leon Bay area. Two methods to serve this would be to change the route closer to Tommy Point and the other possibility would be to lay a cable from the sectionalizing point at Notch Island over to Tommy Point. The reroute would add about 4.5 miles to the tie line, counting the tap to Tommy Point and would route the cable through what appears to be unfavorable bottom conditions. A tap from Notch Island over to Tommy Point would be 6.75 miles and pass through a route which is 50 to 150 feet deep. Although we did not chart this course, we ran across it enough to believe that a good route could be found. We feel that the preferred route should be followed and the Tommy Point Tap treated as a separate issue. -10- Vv. ELECTRICAL ANALYSIS This is a long line with a very light load on it. The key problem is the capacitance of the cable and the current that flows because of it. This current causes losses which can be a substantial percentage of the load served and also causes problems with the power plant at Newhalen, presenting a very leading power factor. We experimented with various combinations and locations of reactors and came to two general conclusions. a. The reactors have little impact on the overall voltage drop of the tie line. b. The reactors have a major impact on the line loss of the system and therefore their. proper sizing and placement is very important to the economic success of the project. We have provided an analysis on the recommended system but have provided computation notes within the Appendix. The tie line needed to be analyzed in detail. This was done utilizing an HP41 and Circuit Analysis Package (Hewlett- Packard). Unfortunately this package does not drive a large printer and so the printout tape are offered with the notes. A summary is provided on the next page. In summary, the system as proposed would operate quite well between about 10 kW and 75 kW; this upper limit dictated by size of the step down transformers and rotary converter. With upgraded termination equipment, the tie line could -ll- provide up to about 250 kW before line loss and voltage drop became unacceptable. -12- Kokhanok Study Electrical Performance of Tie Line Load Voltage Line Equip Total Loss kW Drop Loss Loss * Loss % of Input oO 0.0 % 2.4 1.4 3 100.0 10 O.5 % 0.7 1.4 2 17.1 25 1.0 % 0.9 1.4 2 8.3 50 2c1-% 1.4 1.4 3 5.5 100 4.3 % 4.6 1.4 é 3.7 250 10.4 % 25.2 1.4 27 9.6 500 19.0 % 85.0 1.4 B46 14.7 * Equipment Losses 40 kVar Reactor 0.37 40 kVar Reactor 0.37 75 kVa Trans. Padmnt. Oe235 Rotary Phase Conv. 0.30 75 kVa Dry trans 0.10 1.37 20 194 84 J 17-4 f 18-4 \ / 15 - Zo / 13 a 12-4 a aid E 10 5 > 34 t a f 5 oad Ve a ss 4-4 3-4 2-4 14 ° T T T T i 3° 10 25 50 100 250 500 Villoge Lood kW o Voltoge Orop %& + Loss % vi. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS We have attempted in this analysis to provide a comparative analysis between operating the Kokhanok system as an inde- pendent generation entity and tying it in to the INNEC system with the proposed tie line. The question of best choice is many times a matter of the scope of those parties to be considered. For example: A. This tie line could be judged only in regard to Kokhanok. Considerations would include: 1. Benefit of local employment - plant operator. 2. Local control of utility, rates and personnel. 3. Responsibility to keep system operating - negative. This could be expanded to encompass the overall benefit to the east end of Lake Iliamna, including Iliamna, Newhalen, Nondalton, Pedro Bay, and Kok- hanok. Items to consider: 1. Better economy of scale with improved fuel efficiency, reliability, and reduced opera- tion labor costs. 2. Possibility of centralized billing and re- duced overall administration costs. 3. Ability to participate in centralized gener- ation projects, such as a hydroelectric pro- ject. 4. These positive benefits are accompanied by loss of local employment for the smaller villages and loss of local control. -13- Cc. From the point of view of the State of Alaska and all its residents, it is important to spend the State's money in an efficient manner to reduce overall cost to the residents of the State asa whole. This would include consideration of: 1. Higher overall efficiency to reduce subsidy to the utility customers (power cost assist- ance). This also means reduced adverse impact when the PCA is no longer funded or reduced. 2. Utilization of present capital funds to set in place utility infrastructure which will enable communities to be more self-sufficient in the future. Long term return on invest- ment. Since it is unlikely that the communities themselves would ever independently fund a tie line we feel like it is from the perspective of the state overall that the economics must be approached. The present economics of these village utilities are not based on anything solid. The majority of the facilities have been provided by grant funds. Kokhanok is going into its operating life completely debt free while the INNEC system is carrying about 30% of its capital investment as debt. These are circumstances of political whim and do not reflect true economics of the situation. I have attempted to approach this analysis by disregarding the financial past of each utility and looking only to the future. What would be the impact of this tie line on future spending. Power cost assistance and other subsidies warp the economic perspective of each individual community and so we have tried to stick to actual cost. -14- The individual sections of this economic analysis consist of: (A) Cost Estimate, (B) Kilowatt Hour Energy Projections through 2007, (C) Economic Comparisons Between Self Genera- tion and Tie Line. (A) Cost Estimate Most of the data on cost was taken from actual equip- ment and material purchases during 1984 for Pedro Bay. The cable price is based on the 1984 purchase of the same cable from Okonite at a price of $1.88 per foot FOB Anchorage. The installation labor contract price was derived from a contract proposal provided to the Alaska Power Authority by Jacobsen Brothers, a well-known cable laying contractor from Seattle. This bid proposal was to lay the cable from Iliamna to Pedro Bay, a very comparable project. His bid included transportation of the cable from Homer and amounted to $143,000. I have used $150,000 in this estimate for a one year escala- tion. The rotary converter is based on a Kay Industries unit but several other firms produce similar equipment. The estimated price contains no substantial contingency and should not be used directly for grant or loan purposes. It is assumed that permitting and other administrative expenses will be similar to Pedro Bay. -15- Kokhanok Tie Line Feasibility Study COST ESTIMATE Material Description Oty $Each Extend Cable — 113,000 ft. 5% margin FOB Homer 113000 1.9 214700 Primary Meter and base 450 450 1 Primary PT 7.2 kV 1 500 300 Primary CT 7.2 kV 1 450 450 40 kVar Reactors— Feedthrough Deadfront 2 6000 12000 75 kVA pdmnt transformer 7.2 kV-480 v, 1 phase 1 3500 3500 Oil Switch- 1 ph. Overhead type 100 Amp 1 1300 1300 Sectionalizing Cabinet w/ground sleeve, 1 phase 2 375 750 15 kV Elbow termination 10 40 400 Splices for cable 35 85 2975 Rotary Converter 75 kVa unit 1 53000 5000 75 kVA Dry Tnsfmer 480 Delta to 277/480 Gnd Y 1 1200 1200 Single phase fused disconnect switch 200 Amp 1 300 300 Three phase fused disconnect switch 200 Amp 1 450 450 Misc. Electrical Materials and Other 1 53000 5000 Transportation on all but conductor 1 5000 5000 Total-—Material 253975 Contract to Install Cable and Freight on wire from Homer 150000 Electrician Install Equipment © Kokhanok Plant—Contract 10000 Labor to prepare pads for equipment all along route 5000 Line Crew Labor to terminate and place equipment—Contract 10000 Engineering, Permit Work, Construction supervision 25000 Administrative Costs 25000 Total for Labor 225000 Project Total 478975 (B) Energy Use Projections Kokhanok was just provided with an electrical system in early 1985 and has no substantial consumer history to build upon. For this reason, I have used usage levels from Igiugig, a similar community at the west end of Lake Iliamna. The Igiugig system has’ been operating for two years. The schools do not keep track of their own energy use. I have used my personal knowledge of the school peak loads based on the ability of different sized generators to carry the load and then applied a 30% annual load factor. This is a typical number and checks well with similar schools which are metered. I believe the projections to be reasonable and probably conservative. Much depends on the economy of the region and the cost of power. -16- KILOWATT HOUR PROJECTIONS FOR KOKHANOK RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC BLDGS PHS WATER SCHOOL Year # kWH/Ann # kWh/Ann kWh/Ann kWh/Ann TOTAL 1987 30 2400 i 6000 20000 125000 223000 1988 31 2472 1 6600 21000 131250 235482 1989 ae 2546 1 7260 22050 137812 248594 1990 3S 2622 1 79786 23152 144702 262366 1991 34 2700 1 8784 24309 151937 276830 i9s2 35 2781 1 9662 25524 159533 292054 1993 36 2864 1 10628 26800 167509 308041 1994 37 2949 i 11690 28140 175884 324827 1995 38 3037 1 12859 29547 184678 342490 1996 3? 3128 1 14144 31024 193911 361071 1997 40 3221 1 15558 sao75 203606 380579 1998 42 3317 i 17113 34203 213786 404416 1999 44 3416 1 18824 35913 224475 429516 2000 46 3518 1 20706 37708 235698 4559740 2001 48 3623 1 22776 39593 247482 483755 2002 50 3731 1 25053 41572 259856 513031 2003 52 3842 1 27558 43650 272848 543840 2004 54 S757 1 30313 45832 286490 576313 2005 56 4075 1 33344 48123 300814 610481 2006 58 4197 1 36678 50529 315854 646487 2007 60 4322 1 40345 53055 331646 684366 Residential— number of cons 1.050 Residential-— annual kwh---— 1.030 Public Buildings-—number———— 1.500 Public Buildings—kWh 1.100 PHS-Water System————— 1.050 School Kkwh-———— = 1.050 (C) Economic Comparisons Between Self Generation and Tie Line Four cases are presented here: 1. Kokhanok Self ) 5% inflation 5% fuel price inflation Generation ) 2. Kokhanok with ) 5% inflation 5% fuel price inflation Tie Line ) 3. Kokhanok Self ) 5% inflation 10% fuel price inflation Generation ) 4. Kokhanok Self ) 5% inflation 10% fuel price inflation Tie Line ) Assumptions were made as follows: Fuel -- present cost of fuel at Iliamna and Kokhanok is’ the same $1.46. In the future the INNEC system may install bulk fuel storage and gain an advantage over the smaller villages but it is unlikely to be too large as long as the major cost is getting the fuel up the river into the lake. Efficiency of plants -- this is taken from the current records at Igiugig reflecting about a 6 kWH per gallon rate with an identical power plant and distribution system. This is assuming that the school continues to purchase power providing some economy of scale. The 12 kWH per gallon rate for the Newhalen plant is from their present records. Operator Labor for Kokhanok is based upon 10 hours per week @ $15 per hour and an overhead multiplier of 1.4. Igiugig actually spends less than this, but this is dictated more by village politics than need. Also the first two years of a new system will tend to be low maintenance. Miscellaneous and Lube Oil Misc. paper products, tools, etc. 500/year Lube O11 300 gallons (1% of Fuel) @ $6.00 1,800/year Other misc. 800/year Total Annual $3,100 217s Continued: (C) Economic Comparisons Between Self Generation and Tie Line Other Cost Item for INNEC - This is a crude estimate of what INNEC would add to their fuel cost within a wholesale power agreement for the tie line. This is a tough number to entirely justify but is typical of cost outside of fuel for larger diesel plants. The actual cost would be highly dependent upon local politics, and a good deal of rate philosophy applied to the complex financial foundations of INNEC. The PUC would be involved. A person would be quite imprudent to guess at what the outcome would really be. I believe the 10 cents is realistic. Kokhanok Plant Expenses after the Tie Line - This is assumed to drop drastically as noted. Cable Debt Service Term: 30 years Interest Rate: 5%/annum - single annual installment Principal: $478,975 Annual Payment: $ 31,158 I did not break this into depreciation and interest, but rather used a constant debt service number for pay back, mainly for simplicity. Even if this is a grant, this is a realistic evaluation of cost to the State at a 5% rate. The real value is probably more like 9%. Cable Maintenance I have assumed that once every five years repair may be needed that could cost approximately $10,000. This works out to $2,000 per year. Again there is little basis for this. It could operate trouble free for 20 years, or it could have a failure which could cost $50,000 to repair. It is not thought that this is a high risk investment. The most likely damage would occur at the cable exits on and near the beaches. This could be repaired inexpensively. -18- 5% INFLATION 5% ANNUAL ESCALATION IN FUEL PRICE Cost of Operating Power Plant Without Tie Line Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 kh 223000 235482 248594 262366 276830 292054 308041 324827 342490 361071 380579 404416 429516 455940 483755 513031 543840 576313 610481 646487 684366 Cost kWh Fuel Fuel /gal Cost 1.53 6 56865 1.61 6 63050 1.69 6 69889 1.77 6 77449 1.86 6 85805 1.95 6 95049 2.05 6 105265 2.15 9 6 116551 2.26 6 129033 2.37 6 142836 2.49 6 158080 2.62 6 176381 2.75 6 196694 2.89 = 6 219234 3.03 6 244239 3.18 6 271971 3.34 6 302719 3.51 6 336835 3.68 = 6 374645 3.87 6 416578 4,06 6 463034 Opratr Labor 10920 11466 12039 12641 13273 13937 14634 15366 16134 16941 17788 18677 19611 20591 21621 22702 23837 25029 26280 27594 28974 Inflation Factor Applied to Fuel & Lube Inflation Factor Applied to All Other--- Maint Cost 6500 6825 7166 7525 7901 8296 8711 9146 9603 10084 10588 11117 11673 12257 12870 13513 14189 14898 15643 16425 17246 1.05 1.05 Misc. & Lube 3100 3255 3418 3589 3768 3956 4154 4362 4580 4809 5050 5302 9567 5846 6138 6445 6767 7105 7461 7834 8225 Total Cost 74291 81347 89101 97621 106985 117288 128616 141069 154777 169866 186462 206181 227984 252088 278736 308192 340751 376768 416574 460604 509262 Total--4724561. Cost /kWh 0.35 0.3% 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.48 0.50 0.52 0,54 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.67 0.69 0.72 0.76 Cost of Operating System with Tie Line Newhalen Plant Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sales kath 223000 233482 248594 262366 276830 292034 308041 324827 342490 361071 380579 404416 429516 455940 483755 513031 943840 576313 610481 646487 684366 Sales + 10% Loss 245300 259030 273453 288603 304513 321259 338845 357310 376739 397178 418637 444858 472468 501534 532131 564334 598224 633944 671529 TLL136 752803 Cost Fuel 1.53 1.61 1.69 1.77 1,86 1.95 2.05 2.15 2.26 2.37 2.49 2.62 2.75 2.89 3.03 3.18 3.04 3.91 3.68 3.87 4.06 kWh Fuel /gal Cost /kWh 12 28433 12 31825 12 34945 12. 38724 12 42902 12 47525 12 52633 12 58276 12 64517 12 71418 12 79040 12 88190 12 98347 12 109617 12 122120 12 135986 12 151360 12 168417 12 187322 12 208289 12 231518 = BD ee nee ee mee eee een ee ee ee ee PF SRzotet eon aaa s ococoesescoscesse2reoeses 0.22 9.23 0.24 0.25 0.27 Inflation Factor Applied to Fuel and Lube Oi] Inflation Factor Applied to All Other-------- Other Cost Cost 24530 27198 30148 33409 37014 41002 45408 50277 99662 61615 68192 76086 B4B48 94572 105358 117321 130585 145301 1616! 179700 199741 1.05 Kokhanok Plant #------------- ---- * Qpratr Maint Misc. Labor Cost & Lube 1000 §=1000 = 500 1050 1050 = 25 1103 1103) 55 1158 1158 = 579 1216 1216 608 1276 1276 38 1340 1340 470 1407 1407, 704 1477, 1477739 1551 1551 776 1629 1629 B14 1710 17100855 1796 61796 = B98 1886 «1886 = 943 1980 «1980 = 990 2079 2079-1039 2183 2183 1091 2292 «22921146 2407 2407-1203 2527. 2527-1243 2653 2653-1327 Total-- Tie Line Debt Service 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 31158 Total Cost 88621 94606 101212 108501 116544 125428 135229 146043 157985 171172 185720 203131 222435 243832 267546 293820 322925 355191 390922 430519 474357 4635736, Cost kh 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0,42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0,53 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.69 550 500 + 450 4 COST CF POWER DOLLARS (Thousands) 50 a — — a 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 YEARS o Cost w/b Tie Line & Cost with Tie Line 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 e 2 oO 0.80 a £ Pe 0.55 2 0.50 v o Oo 0.45 0.40 0.35 63 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Yeor + Cost/kwh w/b Tie a Cost /kwh with tie S% wWFUTioas S°% ESCALATION of FUEL 5% INFLATION 10% ESCALATION IN FUEL PRICE Cost of Operating Power Plant Without Tie Line Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 kWh 223000 235482 248594 262366 276830 292054 308041 324827 342490 361071 380579 404416 429516 455940 483755, 513031 543840 57613 610481 646487 684366 Cost Fuel 1.53 1.68 1.85 2.04 2.24 2.46 2.71 2.98 3.28 3.41 3.97 4.37 4,80 5.28 5.81 6.39 7.03 7.73 8.51 9.36 10.29 kWh /gal 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Fuel Cost 56865 66053 76704 89048 103353 119941 139157 161414 187210 217104 251717 294231 343741 401377 468450 546480 637227 742804 865527 1008233 1174038 Opratr Labor 10920 11466 12039 12641 13273 13937 14634 15366 16134 16941 17788 18677 19611 20591 21621 22702 23837 25029 26280 27594 28974 Inflation Factor Applied to Fuel & Lube Inflation Factor Applied to All Other---- Maint Cost 6500 6825 7166 7525 7901 8296 8711 9146 9603 10084 10588 W117 11673 12257 12870 13513 14189 14898 15643 16425 17246 1 1.05 Misc. & Lube 3100 3410 3731 4126 4539 4993 3492 6041 6645 7310 8041 8845 9729 10702 11772 12949 14244 15669 17236 18959 20855 Total Cost 74291 84350 9215 109220 124533 142180 162507 185932 212953 244134 280098 324031 375031 434231 302946 382701 675259 782737 907456 1052259 1220265 Total--8573029. Cost /kWh 0.35 0.37 0.40 0.43 0.47 0.50 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.70 0.76 0,82 0.90 0.98 1.06 1.16 1.27 1.39 1,51 1.66 1.81 Cost of Operating System with Tie Line Newhalen Plant Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sales kWh 223000 235482 248594 262366 276830 292054 308041 324827 342490 361071 380579 404416 429516 455940 483755 513031 543840 576313 610481 646487 684366 Sales + 10% Loss 245300 259030 273453 288603 304513 321259 338845 357310 376739 397178 418637 444858 472468 501534 532131 564334 598224 633944 671529 711136 752803 Cost Fuel 1,53 1.68 1,85 2.04 2.24 2.46 2.71 2.98 3.28 3.61 3.97 4,37 4,80 5.28 5.81 6.39 7.03 7.73 8.51 9.36 10.29 kWh Fuel /gal Cost /kWh 12 28433 12 33026 12 38352 12 44524 12 51677 12 59970 12. 69578 12 80707 12 93605 12 108552 12 125858 12 147115 12 171871 12 200689 12 234225 12 273240 12 318614 12 371402 12 432764 12 504117 12 587019 Inflation Factor Applied to Fuel and Lube Oil Inflation Factor Applied to All Other Other Cost Cost 0.10 © 24530 Q.t1 © 27198 0.11 © 30148 0.12 33409 0.12 37014 0.13 41002 0.13 45408 0.14 50277 0.15 © 55662 O16 61615 0.16 = 68192 0.17 76086 0.18 © 84848 0.19 = 94572 0.20 © 105358 0.21 117321 0,22 130585 0.23) 145301 0.24 © 161611 0.25 179700 0.27 199741 11 a 1.05 Kokhanok Plant Opratr Maint Misc. Labor 1000 1100 1210 1331 1464 1611 1772 1949 2144 23358 2594 2853 3138 3452 3797 4177 4595 5054 9560 6116 6727 Tie Line # f--------- Debt Cost & Lube Service 1000-500) 31158 1100-550 31158 1210 605) 31158 1331 666 = 31158 1464 73200158 1611 B05 1158 1772, 886 = 31158 1949974 S158 2144 1072) 1158 2358 «1179 31158 2594 «1297, S158 2853 «1427, M1158 HIB 1569-31158 345201726 = 31158 3797) 1899) 1158 4177 2089) 34158 4595 2297, M158 5054 2527 31158 5560 2780 31158 6116 3058 =—-31158 6727) 3364 1158 Total-- Total Cost 88621 96233 104888 114734 125940 138709 153254 169828 188739 210323 234950 264913 299315 338820 3B4195 436320 496210 565081 644246 735319 840043 6630678. Cost kWh 0.40 0.41 0,42 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.70 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.91 0.98 1.06 1.14 1.23 (Millions) Cast of Power in Dollars COST PER KWH IN DOLLARS 1.3 1.2 -4 114 14 i 0.9 fo oa] } 0.7 - x o.B 4 0.5 4 yA 0.4 4 0.34 ga 0.2 o.1 o +, es ; : 1987 13992 1997 2002 2007 Yeors Oo Cost w/o Tie Line é Cost with Tie Line 1.9 1.8- 174 0.3 SaaS ies cers See —_— ——— 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 YEARS + Cost/kwh w/b Tie & Cost “kwh with tie 8%. THELATIOAY 1lo% ESCALATION OW FOKC SPECIFICATION UNDERWATER CABLE CABLSFEC. TXT SPECIFICATION FOR 25,000 VOLT FOWER CABLE--ALUMINUM This specification covers single conductor 25,000 volt concentric neutral power cable insulated with an ozone and discharge resistant, flexible, rubber-like thermosetting dielectric for medium voltage applications which shall be suitable for wet and dry applications in conduit, underground direct burial, and laid in freshwater. The specific intended application for this cable is to lay it from a barge as a tie line between the community of Iliamna and the community of Fedro Bay, both located on Lake Iliamna in southcentral Alaska between Cook Inlet and Bristol Bay. The lake is extremely pure fresh water, almost distilled. The tie line will be about 19 miles in length, laid close to shore, with sectionalizing points about every two miles. A loop of cable will be laid around Fedro Bay to serve about 25 customers. The owner is Fedro Bay Improvement Corporation (FPBIC). The cable will be energized at 7200 volts 60 Hz. and be equipped with compensation reactors. A route has been explored which primarily stays in water less than 100 feet in depth. However, there are exceptions to this and we would have much greater flexibility in routing with cable able to withstand 150-foot depths. There is one spot about 100 yards in width where the depths reach 260 feet and one, non-critical crossing which is about 400 feet in depth. We understand that installation in deep water is beyond the normal application for URD type conductors and for this reason we have specified a high level of insulation (260 mil or 27.7 volts per mil). Various utilities within Alaska have installed stan- dard URD conductors in lake bottoms with depths of up to 80 feet with good reliability. Some of the conductors have been in ser- vice for 15 years and longer. Based upon this experience, we feel the cable, as specified, is probably over insulated but should be reliable. We also understand that it would be unreasonable to require a warranty from the manufacturer against water treeing in excessive depths. Any comments from the manufacturer about this application would be most welcome. It is our intent to purchase a cost effective and reliable cable. Any information which you can provide to help meet this end is very welcome. 1.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.1 All cable shall conform to the current = standards; Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA), Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), National Electrical Code (NEC), and Underwriters Laboratories (UL). 1.2 Each reel of cable furnished shall be newly manufac— tured (no more than 12 months old ) and shall bear a tag contain- ing name of manufacturer, NEC designation, and year of manufac— ture. All cable shall be furnished in continuous lengths and shall be free of kinks and defects at time of delivery. 1.3 The conductor shall be marked every two feet with a five digit footage. These numbers shall be sequential and continuous throughout each reel and reasonable effort should be made to apply unique number sets to each reel (i.e., do not start each reel with 00000). 2.0 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS solid 2.10 The conductor shall be stearded 1/0 aluminum, +eusder eompeesses, covered with an extruded semi-conduction EFR strand screen, =60 mils of ethylene propylene rubber insulation, xtruded EFR insulation screen, a full concentric neutral of annealed coated copper wires, round or flat strap, and an outer layer of polyethylene, at least 80 mils thick, over the neutral wires. This outer jacket shall fully encapsulate the neutral conductors. 2.2 The conductor strand screen, insulation, and insulation screen shall be extruded simultaneously (triple tandem extrusion). Color differentiation shall be accomplished by using black, semi-conducting layers and red insulation. 3.0 TESTS 3.1 Furnish certified test reports of all applicable test per AEIC 6-75 and ICEA to the purchaser at the time of delivery. When in conflict the more stringent test shall apply. 3.2 Corona Test: The completed cable shall be tested for corona discharge and shall comply with AEIC requirements. A copy of the original X-Y plot showing discharge levels ghall be submitted at time of delivery. 3.35 The Owner reserves the right to observe any tests and the manufacturing process to the extent that it does not interfere with the normal process within the plant. 4.0 PACKAGING-REEL LENGTHS 4.1 The cable shall be furnished on non returnable reels and in lengths of approximately 4000 feet. The exact length is not important but rather most efficient use of standard reels. 4.2 The owner shall be furnished with a summary of all reels shipped, their individual lengths, as well as the starting number and end number on each reel. hd 3.0 WARRANTY S.10 The manufacturer shall warranty the cable to withstand standard field acceptance tests and be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of two years after delivery. 6.0 DELIVERY TIME and PLACE 6.1 The Owner desires to obtain and install this cable with all reasonable haste. The construction season is drawing to a close. Delivery time will be a major consideration in any bid. Be specific in your schedule of delivery. 6.2 The Cable shall be quoted FOR Anchorage, Alaska. We might suggest that the cable be surface shipped to Seattle and then shipped VIA Sealand, Inc., Totem Ocean Express, or even Alaska Hydrotrain. Various truckers are available for freight over the Alaska Highway such as Consolidated Freightways. These companies have offices in Seattle. Frice should include delivery to the Air Carrier of the Owner*s choice at Anchorage Inter- national Airport. This is included by most freight lines. 7.0 TIME TO RESFOND Tol The Owner would like to award the contract for this cable on Monday, the 16th of April. We will accept bids until 5:00 p.em., Thursday, the Sth of April at our Anchorage office. 7.2 Respond to - FRIC, c/o Dryden & LaRue, F.G. Box 111008, Anchorage, Alaska 99511; or deliver to 6426 Homer Drive, Anchorage, Alaska; Telephone (907) 349-6653. 8.0 SFECIAL NOTES 8.1 As stated previously we are seeking to purchase a dependable, cost effective cable. We are open to any reasonable comments and suggestions. Flease feel free to take exception to code requirements, testing requirements, anything else within the specifications which you feel may be restrictive or unduly expensive. Please explain any such exceptions and realize that this will be compared against the other manufacturers for cost/benefit. 9.1 The bid will not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder but rather a combination delivery time, Price, and quality, will be used to choose the supplier of this conductor. The Owner withholds the right to refuse any and all bids for failure to meet the specifications in his judgment. SPECIFICATION COMPENSATING INDUCTIVE REACTORS SPECIFICATION FOR 15,000 VOLT INDUCTIVE REACTORS This specification covers single phase and three phase inductive reactors in padmount metalic enclosures, deadfront options for high votage isolation, 15kV loadbreak bushings for underground cable terminations. These reactors are to be installed on the Fedro Hay tie-line and on the existing Iliamna cable system to offset the capacitive reactance assosiated with this type distribution conductor. The Fedro Bay tie- line requires single phase shunt reactors to be energized at 7.2 kV. The Iliamna system requires three phase shunt reactors to be connected grounded wye, and energized at 7.2/12.5 kV. The material purchaser will be Fedro Bay Improvement Corporation. Respond to FBIC c/o Dryden & LaRue, F.O. Box 111008, Anchorage,Alaska 99511. 1.0 General Requirements 1.1 All reactors shall conform to the current standards; National Electrical Manufacturing Association (NEMA) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1.2 Each reactor furnished shall be newly manufactured (no more than 12 months old) and shall bear a stainless steel nameplate containing the name of manufacturer, year of manufacture, electrical wiring diagram, reactor impedance (ohms) or EVAR at rated voltage, operating voltage, BIL rating, power factor or percent resistance, unit total weight, serial number and any other information pertinent to the operation of the unit. 1.3 Each enclosure will be of the deadfront type in order to isolate the high voltage live parts from inadvertant human contact. Each enclosure will be padmount type with bottom cable entry and exit. 2.0 Technical Requirements 2.1 The enclosures will be coated with two coats of high quality industrial grade paint, outdoor type, with a high zinc primer undercoat (ZRC). 2.2 Single phase units will be of the loop feed type with 200 amp, 15kV loadbreak cable termination bushings. Each phase will be equipped with one extra termination bushing to connect a surge arrestor using a standard 200 amp, 15kV loadbreak elbow. 2.3 Three phase units will be feed-through type, grounded wye configuration with 200 amp, 15kV loadbreak cable termination bushings. Each phase will be equipped with one extra termination bushing to connect a surge arrestor using a standard 200 amp, 15kV loadbreak elbow. SPECIFICATION FOR 15,000 VOLT INDUCTIVE REACTORS (CONTINUED) 2.4 All line reactors will be rated for 40 kVAR per phase, shunt type. Each three phase unit will have a total capacity of 120 kVAR to be grounded wye connected. 2.5 The single-phase units will be operated at 7200 volts, 60 hertz and the three-phase units at 7.2/12.5 kV, 60 hertz. 2.6 Reactors will be equipped with current limiting fuses, bayonet draw out type. 2.7 Neutral termination bushings, 600 volt insulated for neutral connection. See attached one line drawing. Seperate grounding lug termination for case grounding. Both will be copper and aluminum compatible. 2.8 Reactors will be designed for a minimum of 110 kV BIL insulation level rating. 2.0 Quantity Required 3-1 @ea. Three-phase, 40 kVAR per phase, 15 kV , 200 amp class. 3.2 4ea. Single-phase, 40 kVAR, 15 kV, 200 amp class. 4.0 Tests 4.1 Furnish certified test reports of all applicable tests per the aformentioned standards to the purchaser at the time of delivery. When in conflict the more stringent test will apply. 4.2 The owner reserves the right to observe any tests and the manufacturing process to the extent that it does not interfere with the normal process within the plant. 5.0 Warranty S.-1 The manufacturer shall warranty all reactors to be free of defects in material and workmanship for a period of one years after delivery. This warranty will cover standard field acceptance tests. 6.0 Shipment 6.1 All reactors will require high quality palletization for shipment to Alaska. Frices should be quoted F.O.B. your factory. VOLTAGE DROP LOSS COMPUTATION NOTES WATTS LOSS © 2S as 4a KUYAVE UNITS. ~ ZDd KOS LOAKING, 1 \WOT Poste. 2ZAAB2 WATTS. OoTPoT Powsee © TBO VOLTS 24,023 UWATTS, Ao\ WATTS LOSS. Se Kod LoAQNG, \NOOT POE Aq, 100 ~USATTS, ovréut Post © 7048 VOUS, 47,534 Warts, \S6KQ WATTS, 3 fo) 22-141 50 SHEETS ie, @A. 22-142 100 sHeers amen®’ 99.144 200 SHEETS Bo KUM REACTORS 40 Kone REACTORS, NO LOAD, NOLOAD, t =3,78 | co. 18, 098, 8O+)50, 8, 89 ISS ames - Sy8l AMes MA 2717 aL. ZB Kal Loss, \ us LOSS, MOVING REACTIES AouN\O, Th (a \ \ ‘i ( 22-141 50 SHEETS . @ . 22-142 100 SHEETS aMPAD 22-144 200 SHEETS LS=1,51E-2 2L=048, 88+J415, 98 VOLTAGE Dee _ VOLTAGE OOP + NOLTAGE BEF VOLTAGE OOP USAGE PKOP Ls 2h 4% 1o% IS %o WITH TUso BS KUAS KEACTOeS , ad 22-141 50 SHEETS \ J @A. 22-142 100 seers aman” 99.144 200 SHEETS VOLTAGE VOLTAGE VOLTAGE NISLTAGE Voltage VOUTAGE BeoP O% . peor 1% - pene 2% peor 4% DROP 10% BRP 19% eet eee ee 6A kd LOSS 137 kod LOSS ALS kes Lass 25,2 ku LOSS BS Kus LOSS Fov2 IO Kes, 17 Kus LOSS 4% Loss 8% ss, 4.8% Loss, \\% Loss 2) * LOSS 22-141 50 SHEETS . 22-142 100 SHEETS ampao 22-144 200 SHEETS VocTOGe BoP VOLTAGE Deo? VOrTAse DPeaP UolTAGE DMCOP VOLTAGE BLOF 4% j 2% AN 1O%e \Q Yo LUsith TWH! SO KVAE REACTORS, KoK, STUDY = 9/2/78, alllia a Aigfieldy aa = SECTIONAL EING Cae: INDUCTIVE REACTS! et = || ||| FER IDRYDEN ¢ ILalRuUE ENGINEERS — TM Ra eT $2017 pepe tat ss ISUND NOTH © WEST END OF NACH wedeebebe. bow b. KOKHONAK 7D KECK ISLAND eRSSN ee S\.6 sec, RotkK 1S LANG trp adds 6.05 MILES NOTCH ISLAND TO KOKHOAIAK SAAC | SCAND, iii ae ar Perr 3 HEH ORAS tHe ; he EAGLE , ERG GLE i 619’/usec, | ReCK (SLANO wan h apn dqaennlen-- ‘ 1 | |ERGLE Same 1.Bami, 16.2 see 613’ J/usec. ABCK ISLOND 7. SOUTH POINT ae 1 | Aas pe eoGel cunt data 4o 700 @ Kertonjiatd yi oy He oi ae oe wee penepen-fb---p--- \ { | belt ohn oe Be th eee ewe ead 7.0 43€C. SOUTH POINT ot eed sda a re TO fo TOS’ /usec, Noted 1 SLAND Bons 4 a 1 ’ ' ' ' ‘ ' ik pita arecee stead ne uel hewn dene sede nena ofa ee a et ap toa en ere ‘ orraaecnotee rire merce OOO Cay et sr emaepenn a Thiet ye { on Srp? Pot seep iset mit 8 a Hh te ese et teen fei s beep cee cee ee ode eee ee ee eee be ee ON NEUHALERN RIVEG DELTA SCAT MONING VERY SLOW CU ie ae ea. a . eo EAGLE : ACH O AIF CARIAL # lit asec, NOCH /SCANID 13.5 bO 3 Ailes 627" Jyasec. TO BEACH AT NEWHALEA 4 { i . NEWHALEN-KOKHONAK TIE LINE ENGINEERS CONSULTING SION CHECKED BY OATE *7- 28-/985 REVISIONS DRAWING NO. KOK.STUDY 2 ne a 92917 NEWHKALEN POWER PLANT KOKHAUCK, POWER PLANT Lu & — id | Oil Suntcr NG OVERHEAD © poo fH, $4 7.2 } A Fi S00" 16 7.2 ks 34,200) i¢ 72K as | 7200/2470 WYE ‘ 271/ 48BO wouYE << . : | PRIMARN ‘D) | METER < el a | ! a ; fT \ | NRVETINE REACTOR (S WA CRY TRA aa an \ | LOCATED MEXT TO Su@STATION 4 é : 4RO VOLT PEL | = 4 ae = ee 277/480 VOUT bp UNE | a z | BETES ONLY Come = | TEN, (Ae im | | 3 a= | ae BA4 mu Ea Ae 3.4 par cpu WS) MART VS et, age 3 ®, x COHMS SOURCE st c pipe ue oe LOO: Ager [Boe / yO KuUY | GLEE oot 6 Te BY 2521 | oe ! aaa 25kw | 1680-0 | 2.24y BSG eee, Bey! ill &40 tol WY 419 el as 2 ie 4 100 KU ato n | O55 Ry 207 — ae 250 KW 1G@ a. | o2eHy eB c = Sod KUD a4 Owl HT 4) ASSUME OF Powe FacToR ‘ = e | 5 =| | | oe | | 20 - - © 13 d =— 18 > — 17 + / WK 18 A / a \ / Kokhanok Study <i “ va f 7 Electrical Performance of Tie Line 2 - a Edad Voltage Line Equip Total Loss => z kW Drop Loss Loss * Loss %-oef input Cy e fe ee en 6 re | o 0.0 4 ei 104 3 100.0 ' a > 3 10 oS 7 0.7 1.4 2 Ye ¢ . a4 25 1.04 0.9 1.4 = 8.5 s b 7 - 50 Dai Pe ic4 3 5.5 IOESIGN: Ret a £ e 100 e415 4.6 1.4 é 5.7 CHECKED BY | sco 250 10.4 % 25.2 1.4 2 9 bs DATE G-15-85 | ‘4 ni eae 7 ne revisions = 4] REVISIONS ‘ Pe ae 4 * Equipment Losses 40 kVar Reactor 0.37 . 2 ao oo ae — ee 75 kVa Trans. Padmnt. 0.23 Milloge Lood kw Rotary Phase Conv. 0.30 BD Voltoge Drop % + less & 75 kV¥a Dry trans 0.10 DRAWING NO. KOK.STUDY 3