Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Metlakatla Power Alternatives, Findings & Recommendations 1986
Metlakatla Power Alternatives FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Brent N. Petrie Director, Rural Technical Support 3685/546(1) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS METLAKATLA POWER ALTERNATIVES MAY 1986 PROJECT TEAM: Kathryn Eberhart Project Economist Tanzeem Rizvi Project Manager Peter Hansen Project Manager Robert D. Heath Executive Director Alaska Power Authority Don Shira Director, Program Development TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....... Rretelotteleleloteorretelerotclorererslelerekerere Line siete Seles Ic Introduction ues seecielclecietelelaisrsreler arotevarelotatetslelerctoleterctelerereteteictete II. Review of Chester Lake Feasibility Study .........-..eeseeee EL Me thodo LOGY is sicislereoree clererercrers clerelclere cietelel arerelerersieye:slevelefolorsrcvelorelciere LV ENE NGY a USENPrOs eG til ONS! Irererye crercicterelercleletereieveleieicioroelsleisicierere siete arr A) |) Load iForecasts |2. <1. ereietereiere eitetaretevereretererste lereloreleleierelelerer> Ba RG@OK: | DamaNG rere cleiacererere cleraleverelsielcieleloiciere ele CCN eOee er Keeeee C. Enmergy Demand ......... aielarelerel elehstelerereclorersio eteieistelere Rreteretele D. Energy Generation ..... Bleferstetolelofolerstererorelelers mloleleleterercievers eels V. Generating Plant Capacity ....... Blorelelelale cleleretoleleloleleleletel cleleletoisye A. Purple Lake Hydro Plant--Existing ..........ceeceeeeees B. Chester Lake Hydro Plant--Proposed .............- eer Gor iimensmissiOn Ane iesicie cee ceielecciecicrle sere Bellereeioiielersieletelere Di) |) BRESETs GENERATION | c[o1c +) cle:oicrere:olele\sloferelcrersieieicler® eteretelelelarererereye 1.) | )}Ofesel Base) Case) -yeciccieeccie sere o afofetelsieleleieteteleroterelers 2. Chester Lake Hydro Plan .............. eielsioteleroneloleists Se MNGANSMESS TON INE UPI ANN cclecletelslcieiclelersre/ole clove eeloletelerere Vic mProsecced |Annuat COSTS Ieiyaclera cic iclelolecicioieicraerelerere mfoleralcloistelevotcterer= Ae OMB ON TOW: areic 10, cle\s)0lels)clels ciciois)e\s(e(ele'e1e aloloieistelereletelolelarelercieterele B. Hydropower .......... deavaawennneneauewes seen ee Wenn ean Go) | RensmISSIOM Ine circ) crecrejecreceieseie ooreloKeteleleielcietolersierererelare De) Oaesel Power Piant | cr. clcjieie/e)\cjererisicielelevels sfelevelevetalsleieleletolelotels VIT.. “Parameters ...... elolaloieoleielsleloteloleloleiersievere Jasenaeenes ounenene od VII.) Conservation) <.<./........ alot feloreterolerelayateveielsl elelelelateleloferelelaiereleretclere Rea OVEV AGW core croiclorclore ele icicle iolelarele eielclejore aroletelelsterotensiclsreielelerals B. Energy Assistance a CoMRENGVEVAUSE Nc rerercte) svete oiolel ol oleic relelor oie rerele\elelcle oielalooieieisiel*lcieielelelers 1. Residential ; Zee NON=PaY ING CUSCOMENS ico ercreicicle'o1cleieioielsle sioie 1-1 s/sleisicle'© Di AUCOMIRG IVES) ocler)creieiclelolotcreisisleleeiorclc clefe'eis sroleletaistercloraietersleie) 1. Weatherization ....... spaleverelerelevereierers aveleteielerelorelsisiere oe 2. Home Heat Conversion ........eeeeeeee oaonbod erteraes En Waste Heat RECOVENY: ere oo cic ciclo aiclocicie sc clsicieiociciviciclo sicleisisiels 3685/546(2) i no fe Ar PRPwWwW w Wwwnrnr oa a Ann uo OWOWDONNNND TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page IX. Findings and Recommendations ..... BS OOO GOO OUOUUIUCOOUDUOIQ00N 10 (Ae ECONOMI CHANANYS Sirs ciereiclelcleleierercicicrciers ciel oioicicieiciclerclels' ci jeleiciars 10 i eeeD A CSO BaSCRCASCaisiepeersiererelelorercieieisciocciciclcletoiotelcielel ators 10 CoSeSUVANSMISS ONIUTNES PV AN Sereloisreccrs ois cro ocielcielersieicleloleraicrer 11 3. Chester Lake Hydropower ......... EBOBOOS Bielefeleleveterere 12 Birstaie UMANGTANEANAINLYS 1S = opci< cl oforeferoverolevererererereverersielalcieletoiotevelshelotorere i} SSAVONAGO) COSCS arcrcioletctotoratoierafsieverniciorercioreieleicioieorersiereieteleiefer= 13 Zoom Present: ValuesOt- GOStSmcrctarcresie sis <cisiicleicis eteieiclelsici-.$:6 13 CSS S SUMMA RY Sorererererccicieroreseletersietelere Belclereteieieeire artes 16 D. Recommendations ............. eiereerreeiet eerie SSoeece ys LSE SNORT SN QUM Iicterereicisioicrclorcioierciciere EreTereiereverelelsioieretetalsiclciorcicie 17 ota ONG=T @VM irciercievelelsiclolclsleloicrs!cieveloleleie cletoioreiolcl<\eiclelelele}oisiays 17 Appendix A - Transmission Line B - Chester Lake Hydropower Tables: 1 - Metlakatla Home Heat Sources 2 - Metlakatla: Weatherization Program Participation 3 - Home Weatherization: Estimated Payback Periods 4 - Economic Analysis: Summary 5 - Financial Analysis: Cost Comparison, High Load Forecast 6 - Financial Analysis: Cost Comparison, Medium Load Forecast 7 - Financial Analysis: Summary B-1 - Chester Lake Project: Detailed Cost Estimate Figures: 1 - Site Maps 2 - Financial Analysis, Plan Comparison, High Load Forecast 3 - Financial Analysis, Plan Comparison, Medium Load Forecast 4 - Profile Along Penstock 5 - Chester Lake Powerhouse, Plans and Sections 3685/546(3) ii METLAKATLA POWER ALTERNATIVES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Metlakatla Community is faced with decisions on how to best meet their future power needs. Alaska Power Authority staff reviewed and updated information contained in the 1985 Chester Lake Project Feasibility Report prepared by HARZA Engineering Co. The APA Metlakatla Power Alternatives report includes the proposed transmission line between Annette Island and Ketchikan as well as the most viable power options from the HARZA study. Alternative Power Production Scenarios Base Case: Purple Lake hydro and diesel generation (including the option of using waste heat to heat the community swimming pool and nearby buildings). Transmission line: construct between Metlakatla and Ketchikan, maintain Purple Lake hydro for base loads and diesel generation for backup. Hydropower: construct 1 MW hydro plant below Chester Lake, base load Chester Lake and Purple Lake hydropower and use diesel generation for backup. Energy Use Projections e “medium’ projection is considered to represent a slowing economy and extensive conservation. Power use is shown decreasing to about 16,000 MWH in 1986 and 14,000 MWH in 1990, then increasing to about 16,000 MWH by 2000. The "high" scenario reflects recent completed and planned construction projects and a strong economy. Loads are projected to increase to about 23,400 MWH by 2000. Generating Capacit Parete Lake Hydropower: provide 12,000 MWH annually. Chester Lake Hydropower : proposed 1 MW plant would have the capacity to generate an estimated 7,650 MWH annually. Transmission line: a 10 MW line would supply all of Metlakatla's foreseeable power needs. Construction Costs Transmission Line $4.4 million Diesel Generators $440/KW for 4000 KW Chester Lake Hydropower $5.8 million (including penstock) Projected Annual Costs (1986 dollars) Hydropower Operating & Maintenance expense $.015/KWH Transmission Line 0&M $55 ,000/year Diesel power plant 0&M $.015/KWH Diesel power plant fuel cost $.05-.06/KWH 4122/586/1 iii FINDINGS Residential Conservation Metlakatla is second only to Cold Bay in terms of average energy use per household. Residential energy conservation is a _ preferred method for stretching the availability of power. Being prepared to implement conservation programs as the cost of producing power rises will decrease economic hardships that might otherwise occur. Waste Heat Recover Utilizing waste heat to heat the schools, swimming pool, and planned housing is not economically feasible if the diesel plant is located at the Quarry site. The simple payback is estimated at nearly 10 years. The distance to the schools and activity center adds significant construction costs. Potential benefits are minimized because heat jis currently generated with oil-fired boilers. The exception is the swimming pool which uses electric heat. The most cost effective solution to the high cost of heating the pool is to replace the electric system with an oil-fired system. Economic Analysis The Economic Analysis compares the Present Value of Costs in non-inflated dollars and without including financing costs. 1). Chester Lake hydropower is the recommended alternative. Assuming that favorable financing is available, it has a generally lower present value of costs than the other two options. 2) The diesel base case is the second best option -- a high load forecast and high fuel price scenario cause the diesel plant operating costs to be significantly higher than hydropower. 3) The Transmission Line alternative is the least feasible of the three studied. To be feasible, the transmission line must carry enough power to make the capital cost only a small part of the total cost. Higher fuel prices, and lower costs of Swan Lake power would also favor the transmission line alternative. Financial Analysis The Financial Analysis takes the basic data used in the Economic Analysis and incorporates assumptions on the cost of financing. 1) Chester Lake hydropower has the lowest costs under the following assumptions: 1) high load forecast, 2) high fuel price scenario, and 3) finance $4.6 million of the $5.8 million capital costs under favorable terms. If the entire $5.8 million is financed under a bond issue, the advantage of Chester Lake hydropower over the diesel base case diminishes. 2) Under the medium load forecast, the diesel base case shows lower costs than the Chester Lake hydro alternative until 1995. After 1995 the hydropower option has the lowest costs. 3) The transmission line appears to be a viable alternative to diesel generation after 2000. 4122/586/2 iv alr REC INTRODUCTION The Metlakatla Indian Community faced a power crisis during the fall of 1985 as record low temperatures were recorded and only because the Louisiana Pacific Mill tied their generators into the community's power system was disaster averted. The cold temperatures placed an extreme demand on the diesel and hydroelectric power supply system which was unable to meet the demand. One diesel generator burned and the hydroplant reservoir was drained to a very low level which limited hydroelectric plant production. As it was, the Governor declared a state of emergency in Metlakatla, which enabled Metlakatla to lease a back-up diese! unit to replace the fire damaged unit. HARZA Engineering Company completed a report in March 1985 for the Alaska Power Authority evaluating the feasibility of various power generating improvements which could be made on Annette Island. The purpose of this analysis is to review the conclusions of the March 1985 study in light of current conditions, update any factors that may have changed, and consider the feasibility of constructing a transmission line between Annette Island and Mountain Point near Ketchikan (Figure 1). References in this draft to items in the Harza report are referenced by "CLPFR". REVIEW OF CHESTER LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY (March 1985) Metlakatla's power is supplied from a hydropower plant at Purple Lake and diesel generators. HARZA evaluated plans to build either a run-of-river or storage hydropower project at Chester Lake, addition of a fourth unit at Purple Lake, or construction of a hydroelectric project at Triangle Lake. The base case was defined as Purple Lake and diesel generators. Cumulative present value of economic costs was calculated for three load growth and three fuel price scenarios for each alternative. The results varied considerably--Chester Lake hydropower was the best option when high load growth and high fuel prices were assumed. Lower load growth and fuel price scenarios resulted in the base case continuing to be the best option in the economic analysis. Due to changing financing options at the time, an estimate of financial costs was not in the scope of services of the March 1985 report. A pro forma financial analysis is detailed below. METHODOLOGY Three possible power plans have been evaluated: - Diesel/Purple Lake hydro base case - Transmission Line to Ketchikan/Purple Lake/diesel - Chester Lake hydro/Purple Lake hydro/diesel 3685/546(4) 1 KETCHIKAN ——— DETAIL A eee | Metlakatla HARBOR CANNERY 2 KETCHIKAN Or PUBLIC UTILITIES O LINE (34.5 kv) PROPOSED WASTEHEAT PIPELINE _ LG "MOUNTAIN Mountain Point / ountain oin , POINT Race Point ol f SUBMARINE CABLE CROSSING An Walden Point en, e QUARRY SITE (Proposd Diese! Plant Site) PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE a Round Mountain Triangle Lake Chenango Mountain i WATER / PIPELINE ) 7 DETAIL A Melanson — a 7 a) AM | A sire g a> 7 2 “Edgecombe C Giestor 5 es Lake Lake 1 S i o- i i PROPOSED POWERHOUSE SITE PENSTOCK “| eunbig Purple Lake = PURPLE LAKE PLANT <i HYDRO PLANT a / BULK FUEL ! STORAGE uo1je907 Y9ef0ldg VILVYVILAN Ayluoyjny 4amMog eysely |! off el ei! <M eft f/! i Tamgas Leke . a SSAILVNYALIV YAMOd The analysis is divided into two parts: 1. Economic Analysis 2. Pro Forma Financial Analysis The Economic Analysis shows the overall costs over a 5? year period in terms of the common denominator--cumulative present value. All costs are in "real" dollars; inflation jis zero. Although, typically this type of analysis is concluded with a benefit/cost ratio, in this case benefits are not quantified, rather present value of costs for each alternative are compared to costs of the diesel base case. Cost categories included in the Economic Analysis are: - Capital Costs - Operating & Maintenance Costs - Salvage Value (added back in the last period) - Wholesale Power Purchases - Fuel Cost The Pro Forma Financial Analysis provides a method to arrive at an estimate of the cost of power ($/KWH) to Metlakatla Power & Light's customers before costs of distribution, profit, etc. are added. Cost categories included are: Debt Payment (principal and interest) Non-financed Capital Costs Wholesale Power Purchases Operating & Maintenance Costs - Fuel Cost - Taxes, insurance The financial analysis is in "nominal" dollars; figures (except for debt service) are adjusted for average expected inflation. Tnflation is assumed at a constant annual rate of 5.5 percent for 20 years then held at zero. In the Economic Analysis, "real" growth in fuel prices was estimated; in the Financial Analysis fuel prices are increased by the inflation rate to reflect "nominal" levels. IV. ENERGY USE PROJECTIONS A. Load Forecasts The high load forecast is a composite of the "high" forecast prepared in 1985 by HARZA and growth projected for the next few years by MP&L. The result is consumption of 19,800 and 20,700 KWH in 1986 and 1987, respectively, followed by a straight-line increase until 2000. Forecast for 2000-2038 is the same as HARZA's 'high' scenario (CLPFR, Exhibits, 33, 34). It is assumed that future loads will be about 8 percent lower under the Transmission Line Plan/high load forecast because of the higher cost of power. The medium load forecast for the 3685/546(5) 2 Transmission Line Plan is adjusted upward for waste heat recovery that is not possible without consistent use of diesel generators. B. Peak Demand Based on information on new energy users coming on-line and assuming that current large consumers maintain the status quo, MP&L has projected peak demand of 7,000 KW in 1986, 7,500 KW in 1987, and 8,000 KW in 1988. These figures are 38 percent higher than the HARZA projections for 1988 and 7 percent higher than shown for 2005. The peak for 1988 is then held constant for the remainder of the forecast period. Under the medium load forecast, peak demand is shown at 5000 KW in 1987 and 5,300 KW in 2000. CS Energy Demand During the five year period of 1981-1985, approximately 90 percent of energy generated by MP&L was sold (CLPFR, Exhibit 5). Sales aS a percentage of production have been improving--95 and 96 percent in 1984 and 1985, respectively, compared to 79 percent in 1979 and 81 percent in 1975. D. Energy Generation Energy generation is assumed to be 10 percent higher than the load forecast. V. GENERATING PLANT CAPACITY A. Purple Lake Hydro Plant--Existing Purple Lake has three generators rated at 1300 KW each for a total of 3900 KW capacity (Source: MP&L). MP&L is currently (1986) overhauling one generator ‘at an estimated cost of $77,100) and is scheduled to overhaul a second unit in 1987 and a third in 1990. It jis assumed that this overhaul schedule will be repeated in approximately 20 years. Energy generation at Purple Lake is shown at 10,000 MWH in 1986 and 12,000 MWH per year from 1987 through 2038 (Source: MP&L). These figures are scaled down from previous estimates of 14,500 MWH (CLPFR, Exhibits 33, 34) because recent water levels have been lower than expected. B. Chester Lake Hydro Plant--Proposed The Chester Lake hydropower alternative shows a 1 MW plant coming on-line in 1989. The plan calls for upgrading the existing water supply line with a 20 inch pipe designed to penstock standards. The proposed power plant would be located 3685/546(6) 3 near the end of Walden Point Road (a detailed description is provided in the Appendix). Under this plan and assuming the "high" load growth scenario, Chester Lake would generate approximately 5,200 MWH in 1989, increasing to 7,650 MWH by 1997 and remaining at that level through 7938. If lower load growth occurs, production may be reduced, particularly in the early years. Chester Lake could supply about 30 percent of Metlakatla's power needs. The current cost estimate for completing the project is $5.8 million (1985 dollars). This cost is approximately the same as the "Run-of-River" project described by HARZA (CLPFR, pp. III-2-8, Table 5) and is significantly lower than the Chester Lake storage dam alternatives (CLPFR, pp. III-8-12, Tables 6, 7). For the purposes of this analysis, the dam that was constructed on Chester Lake during 1985-1986 is considered a sunk cost. It is also assumed that the upgraded water line will be constructed with funds remaining (approximately $1.2 million) in the Chester Lake account. Ce Transmission Line A 34.5 KV, 3 phase, pole overhead transmission line between Metlakatla and Ketchikan would be designed for a capacity of 10,000 KW. This will be approximately 14 miles of overhead line and one mile of submarine cable crossing. Total cost of constructing the transmission line is estimated at $4.4 million (1986 dollars). Under the "high" load forecast, energy supplied through the transmission line is projected at about 4,500 MWH in 1989, 9,300 MWH in 1990, and increasing to 11,300 MWH by 2000. It is assumed that Purple Lake will continue to supply Metlakatla's base load needs and that diesel generating capacity will be maintained for meeting peak load requirements as well as providing emergency back-up. (See Appendix for detailed deoctetiaer.) The source and cost of financing is a major factor in determining the feasibility of this project. If a bond issue is used to provide financing, the amount that would be borrowed to cover principal, interest during construction, debt reserve funds, and related costs is estimated at about $6.5 million. Scenarios assuming REA financing at 5% and 10% interest were also evaluated. D. Diesel Generation MP&L's diesel plant currently has 4,950 KW of capacity. MP&L has received council approval and is proceeding with purchase of a 4,000 KW diesel generator for $1.765 million. Installation is scheduled for completion by January 1987. 3685/546(7) 4 Utilization of diesel power generation is described specifically for each plan: 1. Diesel Base Case Diesel generation is assumed to produce all power not supplied by Purple Lake hydro and to be supplied primarily by the unit described above. Diesel generators would be scheduled for overhauls every 20 years. Cost for each overhaul is estimated at $250,000 (1986 dollars). 2 Chester Lake Hydro Plan Under this plan, both Purple Lake and Chester Lake hydro plants provide for base loads. The diesel generators are used to meet peak loads and supply power during other times that the hydro plants cannot meet energy demands. Under the "high" load growth scenario, energy generated by the diesel plant is projected to decline to about 4,000 MWH in 1989, then gradually increase to about 6,300 MWH in 2000. 3. Transmission Line Plan Diesel generating capacity is maintained to assist as-needed in meeting peak load requirements and to provide back-up in the event of outages. It is projected that, once the transmission line is operable, the diesel plant will provide, on average, 2 percent of the power needs. The diesel plant will supply about 30 to 50 percent of the power needs until the transmission line is jin operation. VI. PROJECTED ANNUAL COSTS A. Overview Operating and maintenance (0&M) costs are projected for each source of power. O&M costs for hydropower generation is based on actual costs experienced by MP&L in 1985 (REA form 12f). O&M costs for diesel generation are based on estimates provided by MP&L. Fuel is a major cost of diesel generation and is shown separately. B. Hydropower Operating and maintenance expense was $.0146/KWH for Purple Lake in 1985. It is assumed that O&M costs for a hydro power plant at Chester Lake will be about the same. The Financial Analysis includes an estimate for taxes and insurance of $25,000 per year for Purple Lake and $1°,000 annually for Chester Lake (1985 dollars). 3685/546(8) 5 Transmission Line Operating and maintenance for the transmission line are estimated by APA staff at about %55,000 per year. Wholesale power purchase and debt service are the major costs of the transmission line. Power purchased by MP&L from Ketchikan Public Utility could run between $800,000 and $1,000,000 per year at $.07/KWH. A lower rate, such as $.0582/KWH (the 4-dam pool rate), would trim $100,000 to $150,000 from the cost each year. Diesel Power Plant MP&L's diesel plant O&M expenses in 1985 (salaries, maintenance, etc.) were $.0339/KWH. However, O&M expense for the plant being purchased is estimated at $.015/KWH. Taxes and insurance are estimated at $20,000 per year for the Financial Analysis (1985 dollars). VII. PARAMETERS - Real discount rate 3.5% - Inflation rate 555% - Base Fuel Prices (1986) #2 diesel $.8394/gallon - Fuel price escalation scenarios Low High 1986 Base Year 1987 -4% 0 change 1988 -4% 0 change 1989-2005 0 change +2%/year - Diesel generating fuel efficiency High speed generator 15 KWH/gallon - Diesel generator capital cost $440/KW - Loan Terms A) REA financing at 5% or 10% interest, 35 year term B) 9% interest for tax exempt bonds (35 years) C) 8% interest for financing diesel generator (7 years) VIII. CONSERVATION A. Overview Conservation provides a long-term solution to rising energy costs. It can save the energy consumer money. Lowering power requirements can help a utility to manage its investment in new generating equipment as well as schedule operations to better use the most efficient plants. These savings should be 3685/546(9) 6 passed on to the customers. Home weatherization provides a major source of conservation, generally including: - caulking and weatherstripping - ceiling, wall, and floor insulation - water heater insulation - storm and thermal doors and windows - vapor barriers It is estimated by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs that energy usage in poorly weatherized homes in Alaska can be reduced by as much as 50 percent. On the average, home energy use might decrease by 20 percent after basic weatherization is completed. Waste heat recovery from diesel generators is a form of conservation utilizing energy that would otherwise be lost. If construction costs are not too high, this can be an effective cost-saving, as well as energy-saving, measure. B. Energy Assistance In addition to conservation programs, there are _ energy assistance programs. These generally help homeowners pay their electric and fuel bills but do not address conservation. For example, between November 1984 and June 30, 1985, 76 households in Metlakatla received a total of $34,000 through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program may not, however, be a long-term solution to lowering costs of energy since its federal funding must be appropriated by Congress each year. Ce Energy Use 1. Residential Metlakatla has high energy use, "...the average consumption per household (fluctuates) between 17,100 and 18,500 KWH per year...residential consumption is high, due to the use of electric heat. By comparison, the average residential consumption per customer in Ketchikan is 9,000 KWH." /CLPFR, p. TT-10) Harza surveyed 73 homes in Metlakatla for information on electrical use, appliances, and heating sources (Table Le 3685/546(10) 7 TABLE 1 Metlakatla Home Heat Sources primary secondary percentages wood none 15% elec., fuel oil wood 75% fuel oil none 5% electricity none 5% Source: Survey of Energy Use, 1984 (CLPFR, p. II-12) The survey found that 80 percent of the 23 homes surveyed had insulation in walls, ceilings, and floors, and caulking and weatherstripping. Fifty percent had storm or thermal windows and storm doors. Most homeowners indicated that they were not planning to add more insulation in the near future. Most homes also were found to have major appliances such as freezers and electric clothes dryers (80%) and dishwashers (35%). Non-Paying Customers Electricity is also provided free of charge to churches and some retired MP&L employees. It is estimated that this jis 2-3 percent of total sales (Harza, MP&L Preliminary 2-Year Work Plan 1986-87, REA). Although this is a relatively smal! percentage of the total energy use, it could mean about $10,000 to $20,000 per year in lost revenue to the utility. Use by this group could also increase because there is no monetary incentive to conserve. D. Alternatives Te 3685/546(11) Weatherization A major source of funding for home weatherization is the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The Alaska Residential Conservation Program operates with a combination of state and federal money. Communities are prioritized on a regional basis and contractors or non-profit organizations submit bids. Homes targeted for weatherization must be designated as low income; elderly and handicapped individuals receive priority. No home can receive weatherization funds more than once. Metlakatla received weatherization assistance from the State Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) in 1980, 1981, 1983, and 1984 (Table 2). DCRA has classified Metlakatla as "completed". TABLE 2 Metlakatla: Weatherization Program Participation Number Investment Source of Year Of Homes Per Home Funds * 1980 10 $1,800 DOE 1981 7 1,800 DOE 1982 0 0 ae 1983 17 1,800 DOE 1984 16 2,000 DOE/DCRA * DOE = U.S. Department of Energy DCRA = Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Individual homeowners benefit from weatherization program grants through lower electric bills. Under the existing rate structure, the payback on weatherization investment (assuming average circumstances) is exceedingly long--an estimated 10 years (Table 3). However, a homeowner with very high electricity use would recoup his investment through lower monthly payments in a much shorter period of time. In addition, if electric rates increase, the payback period for weatherization capital outlays decreases. For example, at $.10/KWH the time needed to recover the investment is halved--under average use an estimated five years and under high energy use about three years (Table 3). TABLE 3 Home Weatherization Estimated Payback Periods: $2,000 Investment, 20% Annual Energy Savings Avg. Cost/Month Ests Avg. Cost/Month Est. 1500 KWH 1200 KWH Payback | 3000 re 2400 KWH Payback Cost/KWH| Per Month Per Month (Years) Per Month Per Month (Years) $.055 $82.50 $66 10.1 $165 $132 5.0 - 100 150.00 120 Deo 300 240 2.8 . 150 225.00 180 Sl 450 360 1.9 -200 300.00 240 2.8 600 480 1.4 2. Home Heat Conversion Conversion to alternative space heating sources such as oil furnaces or wood stoves is typically paid by the homeowners. Once wood stoves are installed, the extent of their actual use depends on 1) availability and cost of fuel, 2) household income, and 3) availability of time to gather and cut wood. The declining price of fuel oil can be expected to make oil heat more attractive, 3685/546(12) 9 although there are significant costs associated with retrofitting homes with electric heat. (CLPFR, pp. II-12-I1-15) E. Waste Heat Recovery Opportunity exists for energy savings due to waste heat recovery under the Diesel Base Case (high and medium load forecasts) and the Chester Lake Hydro Plan (high load forecast only). It is assumed that the Diesel Plant will be located at the Quarry Site and water, heated at the plant, will be piped along Skaters Lake Road to the Town Hall, both elementary schools, the high school, and the activity center. Senior apartments (25 units) and about 20 houses are planned for construction along this route. It is assumed that they would utilize waste heat. Construction cost is estimated at $518,000. The distance between the proposed plant site and the buildings to be heated adds significantly to the installation cost. Operating & Maintenance expense would be about $19,000 annually. Annual energy replaced by waste heat recovery would be the equivalent of 90,000 gallons of fuel oil. The debt service for the waste heat recovery system is estimated at $61,000, assuming a twenty year loan and 10 percent interest rate. Assuming 0& of $19,000, total annual costs would be about $80,000. If a fuel oi] is valued at %.84 per gallon, "benefits" would be about $75,000 per year. Thus, costs exceed benefits by about $5,000 per year. IX. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The effect of changes in the load forecast, fuel prices, and type of diesel generator were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for changes in the wholesale power price (transmission line plan) and cost of financing (transmission line and Chester Lake hydro plans). This section presents a summary of the results of the analysis of three power supply plans for Metlakatla: transmission line pian with generation from Purple Lake hydro and diesel backup available, Chester Lake hydro plan with generation from Purple Lake and diesel backup, and diesel Kage case with generation from Purple Lake. A summary of the results from both the Economic and the Financial Analyses follows. A. Economic Analysis The "bottom-line" of the economic analysis is the calculation of present value of costs over the period 1986 through 2038. The present value of costs is intended to be used as a "common denominator" for comparing the various plans and providing a 3685/546(13) 10 basic indication of the long-term cost of each alternative project. Although there may be a tendency to rank projects based on present values, these do not present the total picture. Results of the economic analysis should be evaluated along with the financial analysis and other pertinent factors. 1. 3685/546(14) Diesel Base Case The present value of economic cost ranges between $17 and $37 million for the various scenarios evaluated (Table 4). The load forecast and price of fuel were the major factors affecting costs. Transmission Line Plan The transmission line plan has the highest economic cost of the three alternatives. Although construction cost is estimated at $4.4 million and O&M costs are projected to be low, purchase of wholesale power from Ketchikan Public Utility represents a significant cost. However, "additional" sales of 4-Dam Pool power may be at a lower rate. KPU will also have to receive adequate payment to cover costs associated with moving the power. The present value of economic costs for the transmission line plan is in the range of $22-$30 million for all scenarios evaluated using the high load forecast (Table 4). Under the medium load forecast, the present value decreases by about $8 million. This occurs largely because of a savings of approximately $350,000 annually in wholesale power purchases. A comparison of the Transmission Line alternative and the Chester Lake hydropower plan shows that, assuming comparable financing if the transmission line cost is $5-$6 million, wholesale power must be Jess_ than $.055/KWH. If transmission line capital costs are $6-$7 million (or if a bond issue is used) the wholesale power price must be less than $.05/KWH. Approximately a ten percent margin between energy generation and consumption is included. 11 TABLE 4 Economic Analysis: Summary Metlakatla Power Alternatives Comparison To Fuel - Present Diesel Discount Inflation Load Price Value Present Rate Rate Forecast Scenario (1986-2038) Value Transmission Line Alternative A 355 5-5 high high $30.2 1-23 B 375 5-5 high low 29.8 1.02 Cc 325 5.5 med high 2266 .89 D 3.5 5.0 med low 22.0 tT Diesel Base Case A 25 5.5 high high $3721 1.0 B 3-5 55 high low 30.4 Te C 3.5 535 med high 19.8 1.0 D a5 5.5 med low 16.9 150 Chester Lake Alternatives A 3.5 S.5 high high $31.0 1.20 B ae 5 5.5) high low 27.6 1210 G SIAR) 5.5 med high Lee 155 D 3.5 556 med low 16.8 1.01 3. Chester Lake Hydropower It is assumed that energy generated at Purple Lake will be fully used first to meet base load demands, then Chester Lake power will be used. Use of Diesel generation is anticipated about 5 percent of the time, during outages and to meet peak requirements. Power from Chester Lake will be fully utilized under the high load forecast (7,650 MWH annually) and diesel generation is estimated at 4,000 MWH in 1990 and 6,350 MWH in 2000. Fuel costs of $235,000 in 1990 and $450,000 in 2000 are projected (using the high fuel price escalation rate). In comparison, under the medium load forecast, diesel generators would be used minimally, less than 1,000 MWH per year. This decreases the fuel requirements significantly, about $65,000 in 2000. The present values of economic costs range between $17 and $37 million for the scenarios evaluated (Table 4). Medium load growth and low fuel prices result in the 3685/546(15) 12 lowest costs and high load growth and high fuel prices show higher figures. B. Financial Analysis Irs 3685/546(16) Average Costs The Financial Analysis allows comparison of the actual costs that can be anticipated under each plan. Debt service (principal and interest) and taxes/insurance as well as O&M, fuel cost, and wholesale power purchases are included. Values are adjusted to reflect an assumed 5.5 percent annual inflation rate. The present value of financial costs is calculated for 1986-2005 (in terms of nominal dollars) and the average annual cost per KWH is shown. A comparison of the financial costs of each plan in 1990 and 2000 is shown in Tables 5 and 6. The transmission line plan is shown with higher debt service than the other two alternatives. Under the high load forecast, diesel base case, cost of fuel purchases exceed wholesale power purchases in the transmission line alternative (Table 5). Hydropower has the lowest average cost/KWH in both 1990 and 2000. By 2000, the cost/KWH under the Diesel Base Case exceeds the transmission line alternative (Figure 2). Under the medium load forecast, diesel base case fuel costs are about the same as the wholesale power costs in the transmission line plan (Table 6). In 1990, the diesel and hydro alternatives are comparable (about $.07/KWH). By 2000, hydro has dropped to $.06/KWH while the diesel and transmission line alternatives are at $.09/KWH and $.10/KWH, respectively (Figure 3). Present Value of Costs Table 7 compares present value of financial costs for the various scenarios under each power supply plan. Present values are $24-$32 million for the transmission line plan, $17-$35 million for the diesel base case, and $16-$28 million for Chester Lake hydropower. Cost-to-cost ratios were calculated to compare '‘like' scenarios to the diesel base case. All four scenarios shown for Chester Lake hydropower have cost-to-cost ratios greater than 1.0. Under the transmission line alternative, only the scenario with the high load forecast and high fuel prices has a ratio greater than 1.0. Any one of the alternatives decreases in attractiveness relative to the others if the capital costs or financing costs are higher than projects. 13 Debt Payments Non-Fin Cap Csts Fuel Purchases Whls] Pwr Purch. Tax Insurance Total Cost/KWH 3685/546(17) Financial Analysis: TABLE 5 Cost Comparison High Load Forecast, High Fuel Price Scenario DIESEL 339,000 95 ,500 434,300 843,200 55,700 1,767,700 -07 1990 642,300 95,500 430,500 291,400 70,600 1,530,300 -06 14 850,800 95,500 294,300 35,300 670,900 55,700 2,002,500 -09 DIESEL 815,100 2,102,600 95,200 3,012,900 12 2000 303,300 0 808 ,600 953,700 120,600 2,186,200 08 511,800 0 506 ,000 89,500 1,394,600 95,200 2,597,100 aL Average Cost/KWH METLAKATLA POWER: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS High Load Forecast; High Fuel Prices 0.21 + : 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 Tt “Ty T | 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year Oo Hydro + Diesel © Trans Line FIGURE 2. TABLE 6 Financial Analysis: Cost Comparison Medium Load Forecast, High Fuel Price Scenario 200 0 | DIESEL | HYDRO LINE. DIESEL HYDRO LINE. Debt Payments Non-Fin Cap Csts O&M Fuel Purchases Whls1 Pwr Purch. Tax Insurance Total Cost/KWH 339,000 95,500 280,400 246 ,000 55,700 1,016,600 07 3685/546(18) 1990 642,300 850,800 0 95,500 95 500 0 279,100 289,100 557,700 55,600 15,200 884,600 --- 288,400 ~-- _70,600 55,700 95 200 1,143,100 1,594,700 | 1,537,500 .07 .10 .09 15 303 ,300 0 553,500 134,300 120,600 1,111,700 -06 511,800 0 497,700 50,200 782,700 95 5200 1,937,600 0 Average Cost/KWH 0.18 Ost7 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 METLAKATLA POWER: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Medium Load Forecast; High Fuel Prices TT T TT! T 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year o Hydro = Diesel ° Trans Line FIGURE 3. If REA financing is not available and bonds are used to finance the project (at $5.8 million and 9 percent interest), the 20 year present value would increase by an estimated $6.6 million. Comparing cost-to-cost ratios of Chester Lake hydro to the diesel base case under these alternate financing scenarios, the ratio is greater than 1.0 as long as assumptions include: a) high load forecast, b) high fuel prices. Under the other scenarios, the diesel base case appears to be the better alternative. TABLE 7 Financial Analysis: Summary Metlakatla Power Alternatives Comparison To Fuel Present Diesel Discount Inflation Load Price Value Present Rate Rate Forecast Scenario (1986-2038) Value Transmission Line Alternative A 3.5 525 high high $32.4 1.07 B 35 5.5 high low S21 98 c 365 55 med high 24.9 .76 D 325 525) med low 247, -68 Diesel Base Case A 3D 555) high high $34.6 130 B 3.5 525 high low 29.7 1.0 G 3.5 S55 med high 18.9 1.0 D AL) 5.5 med low 16.9 1.0 Chester Lake Alternatives A 3.5 549 high high $28.3 L2e B 3.5 555 high low 25.9 1305: c S15) 5.5 med high 16:57 LOLs D 335 io) med low 16.4 1503 C. Summar. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. Although it is probable that events will fall within the outlined ranges, the community should evaluate study results with its view of the future. For example, successful promotion of economic development could change the current "most likely" power 3685/546(19) 16 demand scenario and, possibly, the most feasible power supply plan. Conservation programs can save energy, possibly deferring outlays for additional generating capacity. Differences in actual energy consumption from the projections as well as fuel prices may affect the advantages of the various alternatives. Much higher loads than those projected (for example, if industrial expansion occurs) could make the transmission line alternative a more attractive option. Higher fuel prices would be expected to have the same effect. Conversely, low fuel prices, low energy consumption (perhaps partially as a result of a successful conservation program), high wholesale power prices and favorable financing should make the Chester Lake alternative or the diesel base case that much more attractive. DS Recommendations i Short-Term Hydropower - Upgrade existing water line from Chester Lake to a 20 inch line constructed to penstock standards. Diesel Generation - Proceed with installation of diesel generators which have been purchased. Conservation - Initiate a conservation program, for example: a. Target residential customers with highest energy use. b. Determine if a sufficient number of homes qualify for the state weatherization programs. Submit information to Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) before September 1986 to be considered for the 1987 weatherization program. c. Distribute educational materials (such as_ those available through DCRA) to encourage home energy conservation. Waste Heat - Waste heat recovery is not cost effective if the diesel plant is located at the Quarry Site. However, installation of an oil fired boiler to heat the swimming pool is a much lower cost alternative with a payback period of less than one year. 2. Long-Term Construct a 1 MW hydro plant using Chester Lake water if REA or state loan/grant funds are available to finance 3685/546(20) 17 3685/546(21) the remainder of the project at a low interest rate. Development of Chester Lake hydro will help protect Metlakatla from future energy cost escalation due to increases in fuel prices. This analysis shows that only one of the two alternatives - Chester Lake hydro or a transmission line - can be built to supply Metlakatla's future power needs. Even under the high load forecast, Metlakatla will not have sufficient demand to support both projects. Once one is constructed, building the other would be a case of overkill, significantly increasing power costs to the community. Advantages to the transmission line alternative include: - Being part of larger svstem would minimize power fluctuations in the Metlakatla system. - Cost reductions could result from sharing of reserves with Ketchikan Public Utilities. - Significant surplus energy is presently available from the existing Swan Lake hydroplant. Data available at the time this analysis was undertaken showed the Chester Lake hydropower option as the most economically and financially feasible. However, if a project is not begun immediately, conditions that could change and affect the relationship between the two alternatives might include: - Lower wholesale power price from Swan Lake project. - Energy demand higher than the "high" load forecast. - Fuel prices higher than projected. - Interconnect of Southeast Alaska with the BC Hydro grid. - Lower market interest rates. - Availability of "grants" for at least a portion of capital costs. 18 APPENDIX A TRANSMISSION LINE INTERTIE Another possibility examined here to satisfy long-term energy needs for Metlakatla is to connect it with the larger Ketchikan system which has surplus hydroelectric energy from the Swan Lake project, via a transmission line. The reconnaissance level feasibility of such an intertie is analysed here. Intertie Route: The proposed transmission line will pass through Annette Island which is largely owned by the local Native Community. The northeastern part of the island has been logged quite extensively in the last several years and has some logging roads which could be utilized for the construction of this project. The suggested route for this line will start near the eastern end of Metlakatla, follow the coast line in a _ northerly direction for about 4 miles, then head northeasterly between Chenango Mountain and Round Mountain. The line would head northerly again along the eastern side of Bush Mountain towards Annette Bay and follow the coastline all the way to Race Point. A submarine type cable crossing will be used at Race Point to connect Annette Island with Ketchikan Public Utility System at Mountain Point substation. The total length of such a transmission line is approximately 15 miles including about one mile of submarine cable crossing. Design Parameter: Analysing long-term load forecast and electrical and mechanical performance of such transmission lines, it was determined that 10MW capacity will adequately serve Metlakatla's need. To keep the construction cost to a minimum a 34.5KV conventional 3 phase wood pole type configuration was selected. It is expected that such a line will have minimal impact on the environment. Most of the northern segment of the line will be along already logged terrain. There will be some clearing at the southwest end of the line, but that is not expected to have any adverse impact on the environment. Construction Cost Estimate: Following is the capital cost estimate for 14 miles of 34.5 KV 3 Phase wood pole overhead transmission line with approximately one mile of submarine cable crossing. This estimate assumes summer construction, and includes a switching station at Ketchikan and one substation at Metlakatla. The submarine cable crossing is made with 3 conductor solid dielectric armoured cable. Factors for upgrades to the Ketchikan Public Utility system or for land or land rights are not included. The figures are in 1986 dollars. 3685/546( 22) A-1 Mobilization & Demobilization $ 250,000 Substation (10MW capacity) 400,000 Switching Station 70,000 Clearing 560,000 34.5 KV Overhead Line 1,610,000 Submarine Cable Crossing 265 ,000 Submarine Cable Crossing Terminals 20,000 SUBTOTAL $ 3,175,000 Engineering & Const. Management 15% 476,000 20% + 090 000 Contingency TOTAL $ 7,400,000 3685/546(23) A-2 CHESTER LAKE RUN-OF-RIVER PLAN (Expansion Plan III) Under this expansion plan, a hydroelectric powerplant would be installed at Port Chester similar to Expansion Plan II. For Plan III the powerplant will be located at the end of Walden Point Road and be served by a penstock that will follow the present water line route. The penstock can serve a dual role as penstock and water supply line insuring that the maximum energy is extracted from the high head project. A pressure reducing station on the water line after it leaves the penstock would insure that only the amount of pressure necessary to fill the water storage tank is consumed and the rest of the energy will be available to the hydroelectric unit. The 1.0 MW plant is most compatible with the water supply and will be sized to utilize flow from a 20" waterline. The 20" line serving a dual purpose becomes marginal during the short period of greatest water demand but that period only lasts for 3 months. Accordingly, Plan III will use a 20" penstock and a 1.0 MW unit. Advantages of Plan III over Plan II - Locating the power house at the end of the road provides vehicular access that will support better operations and maintenance. Using the penstock for water supply will eliminate the two line tanks and valves with their inherent maintenance problems. Plan III will also permit the line to be built as the first phase of a possible power project but primarily as a water line project. The power phase of the project could be added at anytime. The elimination of the 1800 feet of walkway and transmission line which are required in Plan II will offset the larger cost of the Plan III penstock. The Plan III project consists of the following principal elements. 1. It will use the new water supply dam with a spillway crest at Elevation 850. Both the water supply outlet at E1 830.75 and the penstock outlet at E1 835.92 will be used. 2. The water conduit will be 3400 feet long and will connect to the dam at the 30 inch penstock conduit and the 12 inch water supply outlet. Both lines will be manually operated at the dam by separate valves. By using the water supply outlet, the water supply can continue to be supported when the lake level is too low to support power production through the 30 inch outlet. The line will be 20 inch steel on concrete saddles with concrete anchor blocks at alignment changes. 3. A powerhouse will contain the turbine, generator, control equipment, and electrical switchgear for a 1.0 MW hydroelectric unit. The 1.0 MW unit will be a Pelton type unit to take 3347/570(1) B-1 greater advantage of the high head. The transformer and transmission line pull-off structure will be located adjacent to the powerhouse. 4. A transmission line 1,000 feet long will connect the project with the existing distribution system east of Metlakatla along Walden Point Road. Description of the Project Power Facilities Power Intake - A power intake with a fixed bulkhead on the upstream end projects through the dam at an elevation of 835.9. A water supply intake projects through the dam at elevation 830.75 and is currently supplying water to the existing water supply line. Both of these conduits are to be connected to a new 20 penstock which will supply water to the powerhouse and the community water system. The connection is to be configured to allow the water supply intake to continue to supply water even when the lake level is too low to supply water to the power intake. Both conduits at the dam would be controlled by butterfly valves to permit maintenance to the line. Powerhouse - The powerhouse will have a_ reinforced concrete substructure supported on piling and a pre-engineered steel superstructure with insulated metal walls and roof. The roof will have a 12x15 foot removal panel (hatch) over the unit to permit hoisting and setting of the turbine or generator by a mobile crane. The Pelton turbine will drive a_ horizontal generator designed to continuously deliver the maximum rated turbine output at a 0.80 power factor without exceeding an 85°C winding temperature rise. It will be three-phase, 60 Hz, and have a 4,160 V terminal voltage. The main transformer located outside adjacent to the powerhouse wi’! be three-phase ? winding rated 12/5-4.16 KV and will be oil-filled, self cooled. The generator switchgear will include all necessary devices to support safety and local and remote operation of the power unit. Access - Access to the dam and penstock will be by foot or helicopter. A cableway or tramway is possible for penstock construction but the steep terrain makes the installation of a road impractical. For purposes of the estimate for this plan, it was assumed all access to the dam and penstock route will be by helicopter except the lower portion of the penstock is accessible on foot. The powerhouse site is easily accessible by highway vehicles. Transmission Line - A single circuit 12.5 KV transmission line will connect the project with the Metlakatla Power and Light transmission and distribution system. The transmission line will follow Walden Point Road to an intersection with the 3347/570(2) B-2 transmission line coming in from the Purple Lake Project. The new wood pole line will be constructed in accordance with REA Type 408. Like the existing transmission line, the new line will have four 2/0 ASCR conductors (three phase and neutral). Construction Cost - The construction costs for this plan are detailed in Table B-l. These construction costs include the direct costs of civil works, purchase and installation of equipment, contractor's indirect costs and profit, contingencies, engineering, and owner's costs, but exclude price escalation beyond March, 1985 and interest during construction so as to be comparable with the costs of other plans in this study. 3347/570(3) B-3 SHEET 1 OF 3 TABLE B-1 CHESTER LAKE PROJECT 1.0 MW RUN-OF-RIVER DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON DETAIL COST ESTIMATE Expansion Expansion No. Description Plan II Plan III 1. Mobilization $ 319,500 $ 319,500 2. Access (includes walkway in Plan II) 414,250 319,850 3. Dam, Spillway & Intake 30,000 30,000 4. Penstock 428,275 512,504 5. Powerhouse 432,914 387,495 6. Mechanical & Electrical Equipment 1,189,000 1,189,000 7. Transmission Line 158,000 80,000 8. Contractor's Indirect Costs 713,265 681,204 9. Contractor's Profit 250,000 238,421 Subtotal $3,935,204 $3,757,974 Contingencies 20% 707 ,040 751,595 Total Contract Cost $4,722,245 $4 509,569 Engineering & Owner's Costs 1,062,505 1,014,653 Total Construction Cost @ March 1985 Price Level $5,784,750 $5,524,222 3347/570(4) B-4 TABLE B-1 CHESTER LAKE PROJECT 1.0 MW RUN-OF-RIVER PLAN COMPARISON DETAILED COST ESTIMATE SHEET 2 OF 3 Unit Expansion Plan II Expansion Plan III No. Description Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 1. Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $ 319,500 LS $ 319,500 2. Access to Site Ze, Helicopter 1LS 269,850 LS 269,850 2.2 Access Walkway, Permanent 1 LS 144,400 LS --- 2.3 All Other 1 LS 50,000 LS 50,000 Subtotal Item 2 $ 414,250 $ 319,850 3. Dam, Spillway & Intake 3.1 Intake Trashracks 1 LS $ 5,000 LS - 5,000 See Maintain Water Supply 1 LS 25,000 LS 25 ,000 Subtotal Item 3 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 4. Penstock 4.1 Penstock Steel & Couplings 24" Dia. 91.93 2,800 LF $ 257,404 3,400 LF 312,562 4.2 Penstock Anchor Blocks 693.30 120 CY 83,196 145 CY 101,024 4.3 Penstock Steel Supports 3.81 14,400 LBS 54,864 17 ,845# 66,618 4.4 Penstock Rock Anchors (Included in 4.3) 4.5 Penstock Rock Excavation 78.37 300 CY 23,511 23,000 4. Penstock Valve 24" Dia. Manual 9,300 LS 9,300 Subtotal Item 4 $ 428,275 $ 512,504 5. Powerhouse 5.1 Clearing 2.50 750 SY $ 1,875 0 --- 52 Line Drilling/Presplitting (Included in 5.3) --- 5.3 Excavation Rock 32.59 1,000 CY 32,590 0 --- 5.4 Concrete 524.55 290 CY 152,119 300 Cu Yd 157,365 5.5 Formwork (Included in 5.4) --- --- 5.6 Reinforcing Steel 0.59 58,000 LBS 34,220 58,000 Ibs 34,220 5.7 Prefabricated Metal Building 15.00 3,090 SF 46,350 3,090 SF 46,350 5.8 Structural Steel Crane Support, Including Crane Rail 1.90 21,000 LBS 39,900 21,000 Ibs 39,900 5.9 HVAC ELS 8,400 LS 8,400 3347/570(5) B-5 TABLE B-1 CHESTER LAKE PROJECT 1.0 MW RUN-OF-RIVER PLAN COMPARISON DETAILED COST ESTIMATE SHEET 3 OF 3 Unit Expansion Plan II Expansion Plan III No. Description Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount 5.10 Architectural Treatment 1kS $ 50,000 LS 50,000 5.11 Crushed Rock Fill 40.00 12 CY 480 12 CY 480 §.12 Fence 30.00 26 LF 780 26 LF 780 5.13 Drilling For Drains 40.00 405 LF 16,200 0 --- 5.14 Rock Bolts on Slope 20.00 2,500 LF 50,000 Piling 50,000 Subtotal Item 5 $ 432,914 $ 387,495 6. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment 6.1 Turbine, Governor, Generator 1 LS $ 800,000 LS $ 800,000 6.2 Accessory Electrical Equipment ELS 220,000 LS 220,000 6.3 Substation & Transformer 1 ES 60,000 LS 60,000 6.4 Supervisory Controls 1LS 65,000 LS 65,000 6. Powerhouse Crane 1LS 44,000 LS 44,000 Subtotal Item 6 $1,189,000 $1,189,000 Ts Transmission Line 7.1 Clearing 1 LS $ 8,000 LS -0- 7.2 Poles and Fixtures 1 LS 90,000 LS 50,000 V3 Conductors and Overhead Devices ELS 60,000 LS 30,000 Subtotal Item 7 $ 158,000 $ 80,000 8. Contractor's Indirect Costs 1 LS $ 713,265 LS $ 681,204 9. Contractor's Profit 1 LS $__ 250,000 LS $ 238,421 Subtotal Items 1 through 9 $3,935,204 $3,757,974 AAWT/EINIAY B-6 256" SCALE SECTION A-A 30 Feet ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY CHESTER LAKE KYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 2.0 CHESTER LAKE POWERHOUSE PLANS € SECTIONS — ALONG ¢ PENSTOCK PROFILE ae "cer ee ——s —" Se