Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Allison Lake, Valdez, Reconnaissance Study, September 1992
LUESKiE ENAGY AUMOTIY Allison Lake (VAID E 2) Reconnaissance Study September 19S2 Walter J. Hickel, Governor Charlie Bussell, Executive Director Aleske Energy Auihorigy, Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study September 1992 Walter J. Hickel, Governor Charlie Bussell, Executive Director Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study Prepared for State of Alaska Walter J. Hickel, Governor Alaska Energy Authority Charlie Bussell, Executive Director 701 East Tudor Road PO Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519 (907) 561-7877 September 1992 Prepared Under Contract No. 2800483 by: HOR Engineering, Inc. Building B 4446 Business Park Bivd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503-7118 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. Hydrology 4. Preliminary Designs and Costs For Diversion Alternatives 5. Selection of Best Allison Lake Alternative 6. Analysis Of Other Alternatives 7. Environmental Evaluation 8. Economic Analysis 9. Conclusions and Recommendations 10. References Appendices . Drawings . Detailed Cost Estimates-Tunnel and Pipeline Options Tunnel vs Pipeline Cost/Benefit Evaluations Cost Estimates For "Other Alternatives" . Environmental Evaluation Supporting Documentation . Economic Analysis Model Output . Report Review Comment Letters and Responses . Alternatives 8 & 9 Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project Tables 1. Summary of Gages 2. Monthly Linear Regression Correlation Coefficients 3. Monthly Multiple Regression Correlation Coefficients 4. Allison Creek Average Monthly Flow Data 5. Comparison of Average Annual and Monthly Flows 6. Economic Analysis Results-Solomon Summer Generation of 28,600 MWh Figures . Estimated Average Monthly Flows Project Flow Duration Curve Stage Storage Curve For Allison Lake . Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro-Project Development Schedule . Fuel Cost Forecasts and Load Growth Forecasts . Diesel Expansion Plan Deferral Savings Model DAP WN ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Maps 1. Site Vicinity Map 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to perform a reconnaissance study of the proposed Allison Lake Diversion Project located near Valdez, Alaska. The project concept is to divert water from Allison Lake to the Solomon Gulch reservoir in order to provide additional winter hydro generation for the Valdez-Glennallen area. This additional hydro resource would displace diesel generation, which is presently required to supplement Solomon Gulch hydro during the winter months. 1.1 Project Design, Cost, and Energy Generation After comparison of both tunnel and pipeline alternatives to divert water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir, the tunnel alternative is preferred. Tunnel construction would start at Solomon Gulch Reservoir and proceed to Allison Lake where a “lake tap" would be made about 100 ft. below the surface. Water would be withdrawn from Allison Lake and conveyed about 11,950 feet in the tunnel to Solomon Gulch, where it would pass through a hydroelectric generating facility before discharging into Solomon Gulch Reservoir. Additional power generation would occur when the water is subsequently run through the existing Solomon Gulch generating facility. The following page shows the pertinent technical data for the preferred project. The construction cost of this development is estimated at $30,937,257 (excluding mc) in 1992 dollars, including contingencies ranging from 20% to 30%. Average annual energy from the development is estimated at 27,396 MWh. All of this energy would be generated during the winter. 1.2 Alternatives to the Project Alternatives to the proposed Allison Lake Project were examined including continued diesel generation, raising the Solomon Gulch dam by either 5 feet or 32 feet, lowering the Solomon Gulch Plant intake elevation allowing additional reservoir drawdown, a stand-alone hydroelectric project located at the Allison Creek confluence with Prince William Sound, and end-use conservation in the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) service territory. One additional alternative, a hydro development at Silver Lake, was added to this study during the final draft review process. It is discussed separately in Appendix 8. Pertinent Data Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro Hydropower Option RESERVOIR Water Surface Elevation, feet above mean sea level Maximum 1,367 Minimum 1,267 Usable Storage, acre-feet 21,900 HYDROLOGY Drainage Area, square miles He Monthly Flow, cubic feet per second Average 47.9 Maximum 128.8 Minimum 4.3 POWER AND ENERGY Average Annual Energy, MWh Powerhouse @ Tunnel Outlet 135775 Additional Solomon Gulch Generation - 43.621 Total 27,396 Capacity (Powerhouse @ Tunnel Outlet) kW 3,145 COSTS (1992 dollars) Initial Construction’ $30,937,257 Annual O&M 275,000 BENEFITS (1992 dollars)? Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings $3,278,039 Net Benefits $20,313,221 Benefit - Cost Ratio 1.70 ' Does not include interest during construction 2 AEA Recon fuel forecast, $0.03165/kWh variable O&M savings, Medium load forecast 1.3 Results of Economic Analysis The preferred Allison Lake tunnel diversion was estimated in the base case to produce net benefits of approximately $20.3 million over its economic life, with a benefit:cost ratio of 1.7. The table below shows estimated net benefits, benefit:cost ratio, and average annual diesel energy displaced for each of the alternatives considered in this study, again using base case assumptions. ALTERNATIVE Net Benefits | Benefit:Cost Average Ratio Annual Diesel Displaced (MWh) alison Lake Ppelnew/ Hye [0.99800 [1.1 | 1504 _| i a ee Raise Solomon Gulch Spiivay 5. | $738,169 | 1st | 1500 ‘| ee ee a [End Use Conservation | stiaag7 | 28 | 40 [Allison Lake Stand Alone Hydro [s16,883,971)_| 0.63 | 15645 1.4 Environmental Impact No unusual impacts from construction or operation of the proposed tunnel alternative were identified. Air quality improvement is expected from reduced diesel generation. 1.5 Recommendations We recommend that further work be performed to increase the detail and accuracy of cost estimates for this project, including site surveying, bathymetric surveys of Allison Lake, geotechnical work to reduce uncertainty with subsurface conditions, work to help tie down the exact location of the lake tap in Allison Lake, and initial design and specification preparation to the 25% completion level to allow firmer construction cost estimates to be obtained as well as to reduce overall project contingency. Environmental work needs to be pursued as well, including agency consultations early in the design process, water and land rights investigations and fisheries and minimum instream flow studies. 2.0 INTRODUCTION HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) was retained by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to perform a reconnaissance study of the costs and benefits of various methods to divert water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir and to compare this potential project to other scenarios for meeting the future energy needs of the Valdez-Glennallen area. Allison Lake is located about 8 miles south of Valdez, Alaska at elevation 1367 ft. normal water surface elevation (See Map No. 1). The lake is also situated about 1.5 miles west of Solomon Gulch Reservoir (el. 685 ft), which is the storage reservoir for the existing Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project. The Solomon Gulch Project is the main source of energy for the Valdez-Glennallen area. Presently, the Solomon Gulch Project operates 10 to 11 months of the year. Late in the winter season each year, the reservoir storage is exhausted before the spring melt begins to refill it, and the hydro facility is forced to shutdown. Power generation is then accomplished for the area by the use of diesel generators until the spring again brings water back into Solomon Gulch and the hydro can be restarted. If a source for additional water could be found to add '0 Solomon Gulch Reservoir during the winter season, it may be possible to significantly reduce or eliminate the need to operate the diesel generators. Allison Lake is one potential source for additional water. Of further interest is the elevation difference between Allison Lake and Solomon Gulch, about 680 vertical feet, which could lend itself to additional hydroelectric generation associated with the water diversion. This study provides preliminary designs and cost estimates for two primary alternative methods to deliver Allison Lake water to Solomon Gulch Reservoir. It also provides an environmental assessment of the proposed project and makes an economic comparison of Allison Lake diversion with other energy alternatives for the area. The Allison Lake Project has been studied several times in the past as a stand-alone project that would generate hydroelectric power from Allison Lake water diverted to a new powerplant near sea level. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) published two studies of this project, one in 1978 and one in 1981 (See References 1 and 2). Since the water.runoff pattern in the Allison Lake Basin is almost identical to the runoff pattern at Solomon Gulch, energy generation from a stand-alone Allison Lake Project would be distributed throughout the year identically to Solomon Gulch, and an energy shortfall in the late winter would likely still be a problem. Further analysis of this development alternative follows later in this report. The starting point for an analysis of the Allison Lake Project is a study of how much water may be available in this drainage basin for diversion, power generation and maintenance of existing water needs and uses. Once water volumes can be predicted, preliminary design of diversions, waterways and other project features can logically proceed. Project Titte Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study Sheet Tite SITE VICINITY MAP 3.0 HYDROLOGY This section contains a detailed hydrologic study of the Allison Creek asin. It summarizes the simulated mean monthly flows and presents a flow duration curve, a monthly average flow histogram, an Allison Lake storage capacity curve, and estimated water volumes available for diversion. 3.1 Review of Previous Studies HDR reviewed the report entitled "Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska Stage IT Checkpoint Report Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes for Valdez, Alaska" prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in 1978 (See Reference 1). The study looked into the technical, economic, social, and environmental conditions of the Valdez, Alaska electric power market area as related to electrical needs and resources. The study identified two feasible project sites for energy generation at Solomon Gulch and Allison Lake, and developed hydrologic run-off data for Allison Creek from a linear regression analysis of actual flow data of Solomon Gulch Creek and Power Creek. 3.2 General Allison Lake is formed by small creeks and melt water which originate from glaciers on Mount Kate at an elevation of approximately 4,500 feet. The outflow from Allison Lake forms Allison Creek. The Allison Creek Basin is oriented in a southeast to northeast direction and drains from south to north into Prince William Sound. The total drainage area of Allison Creek Basin above the diversion site is approximately 5.7 square miles. The average annual discharge per square mile is about 8 cfs. The average annual precipitation over the basin is about 60 inches, varying from moderate amounts in the lower elevations to heavy in the mountains. As pointed out in the COE report, the orographic effect of the Chugach Mountains ensures heavy precipitation in the upper elevations of the basin and lesser amounts in the lower basin. Storms are generally light in intensity, with few convective-type storms of cloudburst magnitude. Snowfall is generally confined to October through April and constitutes approximately 27 percent of the mean annual precipitation. Approximately 25 percent of the basin area is occupied by glaciers. A stream gage was installed on Allison Creek in 1982 and daily flow data were obtained for the period 1982 through 1985. Ideally, a historical record of discharge (streamflow) of 50 years or more is desirable for the stream of interest to provide statistical confidence in the data. Most of the time, long-term streamflow records are not available for the stream of question. Typically, to address this problem, the surrounding region is analyzed for USGS and other streamflow gages with an adequate period of record, and similar geologic and hydrologic characteristics. Data from a nearby stream can then be correlated to the stream of interest and a synthetic flow record can be developed. The Power Creek Basin near Cordova was identified in our studies and by the COE to have a long period of streamflow record with similar hydrologic characteristics to Allison Creek Basin. The Power Creek Basin has a drainage area of 20.5 square miles. Approximately 24 percent of the drainage basin area consists of glaciers. The basin is oriented in the north-south direction and flows in a southerly direction. Hence, Power Creek Basin would experience earlier spring melt than the Allison Creek Basin. The average annual discharge per square mile for the Power Creek Basin is about 12.0 cfs. 3.3. Data Availability 3.31 Streamgaging Records Daily streamflow data were available from the following USGS stations. 1. USGS gage # 15216000 with a drainage basin area of 20.5 square miles is located on Power Creek near Cordova with a period of record from 1947 through 1990 water years. (Water year is defined as the calendar year from October 1 of a previous year to September 30 of the current year. For example, water year 1970 includes months from October of 1969 through September of 1970). 2. USGS gage # 15212000 with a drainage area of 20,600 square miles is located on the Copper River at Million Dollar Bridge near Cordova and has a period of record from 1955 through 1990 water years. * 35 USGS gage # 15258000 with a drainage area of 634 square miles is located on the Kenai River at Cooper Landing with a period of record from 1947 through 1990 water years. 4. USGS gage # 15225945 with a drainage area of 7.5 square miles is located on Allison Creek Above The Mouth near Valdez with a period of record from 1982 through 1985 water years. 5. There are four USGS streamgages located on Solomon Gulch Creek. All four of these streamgages have a period of record from 1986 through 1990 water years. USGS gage # 15225996 is located on Solomon Gulch Tailrace near Valdez, USGS gage # 15225997 located on Solomon Gulch at top of Falls near Valdez, USGS gage # 15225998 is located on Solomon Gulch Bypass near Valdez and USGS gage # 15226000 is located on Solomon Gulch near Valdez. 3.32 Precipitation Records The monthly precipitation data for the period 1950 through 1989 for Cordova were obtained from "CLIMATEDATA". "CLIMATEDATA" is a laser disc database program developed by U.S. West for USGS gages. 3.4 Gage Selection The gages selected for the analysis are as follows: i USGS gage # 15225945 with a drainage area of 7.5 square miles, an elevation of 60 feet at Allison Creek, and with a period of record from 1982 through 1985 water years. 2: USGS gage # 15216000 with a drainage basin area of 20.5 square miles is located on Power Creek near Cordova at elevation of 33.5 feet with a period of record from 1947 through 1990 water years. The selection of the gages is summarized in Table 1. USGS gage # 15212000 on the Copper River at Million Dollar Bridge near Cordova was not used because the drainage area was considerably larger than Allison Creek. USGS gage # 15258000 on the Kenai River at Cooper Landing was not used because of the difference in the drainage area and the gage being further away from Allison Creek. Finally, none of the Solomon Gulch streamgages were used because the flows were regulated by Solomon Gulch Reservoir and the period of record was very short. 3.5 Analysis Daily streamflow records for the gage at Power Creek were obtained using "HYDRODATA". "HYDRODATA" is a laser disc database program developed by U.S.West for USGS gages. Daily streamflow records for Allison Creek were obtained in hard copy from the USGS in Anchorage where it was recently reduced from streamgage stage data. These data are provisional and are considered "fair". For the winter months November through March, all of the data for Allison Creek was estimated by USGS each day due to stream gage freezing. The Power Creek gage has a complete period of record from 1947 through 1990 water years. The Allison Creek gage has a period of record from 1982 through 1985 water years. With the overlapping years i.e. 1982 through 1985 of Allison and Power Creek gages, a linear regression analysis was performed on the monthly streamflow data. The correlations obtained between the two gages were good for the months of April through May and September through November. The correlation between the two gages obtained for the months of December, January, February, June and July were poor. Table 2 illustrates the correlation. To improve the prediction of flow at Allison Creek using the Power Creek gage, a multiple regression analysis was carried out for water years 1982 through 1985. Actual average monthly streamflows for the period 1982 through 1985 for the Allison Creek gage were correlated with 1-3 TABLE 1 SELECTION OF USGS STREAM GAGES GAGE GAGE NAME GAGE # DRAINAGE AREA | ELEVATION | PERIOD OF RECORD | AVG DISCHARGE SQUARE MILE FEET YEARS CFS DIVERSION SITE NONE 5.7 1267 NONE 47.9 ALLISON CREEK GAGE 15225945 Ue) 60 1982 - 1985 58.9 POWER CREEK GAGE 15216000 20.5 33.5 1947 - 1990 254.0 the streamflow at the Power Creek gage and precipitation at Cordova (The variables incorporated into the multiple regression analysis were area and precipitation). The multiple regression analysis considerably improved the correlations. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the linear regression correlation coefficients and multiple regression correlation coefficients, respectively. The multiple regression analysis for the winter months of December, January and February provided a negative sloped equation with improved monthly correlations compared to the linear regression analysis. However, a negative-sloped curve does not correctly simulate flows. Hence, to provide a correct simulation of flow for the winter months of December, January and February, the daily flows of Allison Creek and Power Creek for the period 1982 through 1985 were plotted individually for each month. The scatter diagram for each month was used to estimate flow at Allison Creek during the winter months. The results of the multiple regression analysis for the months March through November and the scatter diagram results for the months December through February were used to simulate flow at Allison Creek for 40 years for the period 1950 through 1989. The estimated minimum and maximum average monthly flows for the period 1950 through 1989 varied from 4.3 cfs in March to 128.8 cfs in July. Table 4 gives summary of the average flows in detail. For the period 1950 through 1981 and from 1986 through 1989 the table lists simulated flows, from 1982 through 1985 the table shows actual gaged flows. Figures 1 and 2 show the estimated average monthly flows and predicted flow duration curve. 3.6 Discussion The current study provides an estimate for natural, non-regulated flows. Table 5 shows a comparison of the simulated average monthly flows at Allison Creek at the diversion point from the current study to the results of the 1978 COE study. There is a good agreement between the two sets of data. In this study the average annual flow at the lake outlet was estimated to be 47.9 cfs and the 1978 report estimated 48.0 cfs. The current analysis is based on a multiple regression analysis using actual flow at Allison Creek and Power Creek. The 1978 COE report based its analysis on a linear regression analysis of actual flows at Solomon Gulch and Power Creek. No actual flows for Allison Lake were then available. m-4 TABLE 2 MONTHLY LINEAR REGRESSION CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS POWER CREEK GAGE AND ALLISON CREEK GAGE (NOT USED IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS) (DIVERSION AREA ALLISON CREEK) NOTE: A MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED Qs=Qr*B+A AIS A CONSTANT IN THE LINEAR EQUATION B IS THE AREA CORRELEATION Qs IS THE SIMULATED FLOW Qr IS THE REFERENCE FLOW AT POWER CREEK JAUNARY |FEBRUARY| MARCH | APRIL MAY JUNE JULY | AUGUST | SEPTEMBER | OCTOBER | NOVEMBER| DC-CEMBER l l CONSTANT A 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.36 -0.05 0.27 0.09 0.22 0.12 -0.13 -0.16 COEFFICIENT B 4.007 2.910 1.141 2.346 5.689 16.070 13.95 12.75 20.55 2.799 18.174 3.461 —— COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION 0.22 0.01 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.01 0.31 0.54 0.82 0.97 0.1 | 0.78 AREA CORRELEATION 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 TABLE 3 MONTHLY MULTIPLE REGRESSION CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS POWER CREEK GAGE AND ALLISON CREEK GAGE JAUNARY |FEBRUARY| MARCH | APRIL MAY JUNE JULY | AUGUST so NOVEMBER] DECEMBER CONSTANT A 16.18 4.74 0.58 3.28 4.17) -73.97| -48.77 70.32 13.31 29.78 40 88 20 62 COEFFICIENT B -0.352 0.228 0.079 0.176 0.326 0.578 0.51 0.07 0.08 0.123 0.140 0145 COEFFICIENT C 3.966 3.759 0.292} -0.786| -2.181 -9.658 | -8.086 1.489 5.424 0.303 4.844 0321 COEFFICIENT OF : DETERMINATION 0.64 0.78 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.59 0.96 0.58 0.84 0.99 0.47 090 COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.74 0.95 0.76 0.95 0.98 0.96 0.81 0.83 O81 ACOE 1978 STUDY AREA CORRELEATION 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 0.757 (DIVERSION AREA ALLISON CREEK) NOTE: A MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED Qs=Qr*B+C*P+A AIS A CONSTANT IN THE LINEAR EQUATION B IS THE AREA CORRELEATION C IS THE PRECIPITATION CORRELEATION P IS THE PRECIPITATION Qs IS THE SIMULATED FLOW Qr IS THE REFERENCE FLOW AT POWER CREEK TABLE 4 ALLISON CREEK AT DIVERSION AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW DATA IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND YEAR| AVG| OCT NOV | DEC JAN FEB | MAR| APR| MAY JUN JUL | AUG} SEP | | | I —_—_— — en 1950 | 47.3 | 71.2 20.5 9:9) 6.0 4.0 a3 3.2 22.5 139.5 87.1 | 81.9 | 118.1 | —- —— | 1951 | 48.0 35.4 30.5 7.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 23.0 57.0] 149.5] 82.1) 174.3] | 1952| 47.4 48.0 12.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 18.5 | 112.3] 199.5 86.3 68.7 | | 1953} 60.0] 84.2 1.9 11.0 6.0 103.7 | 1954 | 44.9} 58.2 28.5 9.0 6.0 5.0 i | 1955 | 44.8 63.0 15.2 8.4 6.2 5.0 3.0 am 23.1 77.2 185.3 97.2 45.5 | | 1956 | 46.7 38.2 31.9 7.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.3 32.2 87.0 173.8 103.4 71.8 | | 1957 | 48.8 | 36.5 13.0 12.1 6.3 | 4.0} aK 4.5 44.3 123.5 113.7 87.4 136.5 | 1958 61.0 62.7 21.7 9.6 7.5 5.0 3.5 10.4] 64.3 167.2 219.2 103.0 $2.9 | 1959 | 45.7 60.7 20.4 10.6 6.0 4.6 2.6 3.3 53.9 141.1 105.0 78.7 58.6 | 55.0 56.7 1960 1962 | 39.8 51.8 6.7 8.9 7.0 5.0 4.0 6.5 37.3 65.4 120.6 78.2 83.1 1963 | 43.0 48.6 23.0 14.5 7A 7.2 8.6 11.9 51.5 57.9 135.5 85.6 60.9 1966 49.5 56.9 34.1 8.4 6.0 4.0 3.9 5:9) 24.7 95.3 100.7 105.3 147.6 jn —— 1967 | 52.2 58.9 23.1 7.9 6.0 5.0 4.2 12.4 42.6 101.8 114.6 93.4 154.2 | 1975 | 48.1 69.4 15.4 10.8 6.2 5.0 2.5 2.9 40.2 60.5 164.4 78.7 116.8 1976 | 72.3 49.3 28.4 7.2 6.0 4.7 el 9.3 107.2 261.8 162.8 86.3 141.6 1977 51.8 66.5 4.6 20.0 8.9 9.4 4.6 8.6 40.7 109.4 154.9 87.0 103.0 1978 | 40.0 56.4 31.2 6.7 6.7 5.4 4.4 6.6 49.3 66.2 98.0 80.2 65.8 | 1984} 44.3 54.5 25.4 14.6 11.0 7.8 7.6 12.1 49.4 107.6 98.9 90.2 50.5 | AVG | 47.9) DISCHARGE, CFS FIGURE | ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS ALLISON LAKE OUTLET 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 aa 70 60 — 50 40 aed 30 }+—— 20 = 10 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR) APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP DISCHARGE, CFS FIGURE 2 PROJECTED FLOW DURATION CURVE ALLISON LAKE OUTLET 200 190 i 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 N 110 + Y 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 40 60 80 100 % EXCEEDANCE TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE ANNUAL AND MONTHLY FLOWS FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP CURRENT STUDY 5.1 43 6.5 43.5 101.3 128.8 91S] 933 a a 1978 ARMY CORPS OF 5.0 4 5.0 46.0 123.0 99.0 83.0 ENGINEERS STUDY me 3.7 Minimum Instream Flow Requirements in Allison Creek There are two instream flows which are considered for the total minimum instream flow requirement. IG Flow reservation for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 2. Flow reservation for fisheries downstream of the Alyeska intake. According to the water rights permit (granted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources) the total appropriation of water at the Alyeska Valdez Marine Terminal is 283,000 gallons per day which is 0.44 cfs. This water rights permit also requires a minimum instream flow of 2 cfs below the Alyeska intake. The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company is considering filing for an amendment Appropriation of 400,000 gallons per day (gpd) based on “historical usage" and projected future demands. Hence, on a year round basis, Allison Creek would be required to maintain approximately 3.0 cfs as minimum instream flow upstream of the Alyeska intake. 3.8 Allison Lake Storage The Allison Lake stage storage curve was estimated using the USGS 1:24000 topographic map. From the USGS map of the site, the side slopes of the lake canyon were estimated to be about 45 degrees. The sides of the canyon were then extended down at that angle to about elevation 1267 ft., 100 feet below the normal lake elevation of 1367 ft. The upstream end of the lake was assumed to be of the same fairly flat gradient as the slope upstream of the lake. The downstream end of the lake was assumed to be sloping downward at about 25 degrees. Figure 3 shows the estimated stage storage curve for Allison Lake. I-5 ELEVATION, FEET 1400 1360 FIGURE 3 STORAGE CURVE FOR ALLISON LAKE |_| ++ Seeeee Ho be : rit ft 5000 1000 15000 20000 25000 STORAGE, ACRE-FEET 30000 3.9 Run-off Data Based on the above hydrology, the following data were developed: Year (1973) iy Aan [asso Ps Opes | vasbace | a | Lake Inflow Nov. 1 to Apr 30 3,324 ac-ft * 1,960 ac-ft Total Diversion (Tunnel) 25,224 ac-ft 23,860 ac-ft (Storage + Inflow) | Total Diversion (Pipeline) 14,038 ac-ft 12,674 ac-ft (Storage +Inflow-Min Flow) Nov-Apr Ave Flow (Tunnel) 69.7 cfs 65.9 cfs Nov-Apr Ave. Flow (Pipeline) 38.8 cfs 35.0 cfs * 1972 was lowest flow year for the 6 month period in the 40-year record. ** This is pumped back to Allison Creek when necessary from Solomon Powerhouse, so this water is available to be used in generation. Il-6 4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COSTS FOR DIVERSION ALTERNATIVES There are two basic alternatives that were studied in this report for diversion of water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir; 1) a diversion tunnel from Allison Lake directly to Solomon Gulch Reservoir; and 2) a diversion pipeline from Allison Lake running downslope from near the natural lake outlet, over a ridge and around the face of the foothills rising from Prince William Sound to Solomon Gulch Reservoir. Each of these two options was examined with three alternate methods of discharging water into Solomon Gulch Reservoir; 1) direct discharge through an energy dissipating valve; 2) direct discharge through an energy dissipating valve with provisions for future addition of a hydroelectric generating facility; and 3) discharge through a hydroelectric generating facility. This results in six alternatives studied for this first phase of the study. Analysis of these alternatives follows. 4.1 Tunnel Alternative The tunnel alternative consists of a 8 ft. diameter horseshoe-shaped tunnel excavated from an entrance portal at elevation 710 ft. near Solomon Gulch reservoir to a point beneath Allison Lake where a “lake tap" would be made at approximate invert el. 1250 ft., or about 117 feet below the normal surface of Allison Lake. (Refer to Appendix 1- Drawings) This elevation was selected because it represents approximately the maximum drawdown that can be reliably refilled the following spring season due to rain and snowmelt. In a dry year, drawdown below this level might not be refilled before the following winter season. The running tunnel would be excavated after considerable subsurface geotechnical exploration to determine the type, strength and other characteristics of the rock. In order to successfully complete the lake tap, site characterization, ‘design and careful construction planning will have to take place. The exact location of the tap into the lake is of critical importance; it will be important to thoroughly investigate the rock properties in and above the area of the proposed tap as well as the condition of the lake bottom, amount of sediment build-up there and the possible presence of debris such as logs or boulders. It is likely that either divers or a small remote-control submersible with video equipment will be necessary to conduct underwater pre-construction studies. Seismic surveys and core drilling will also be carried out in the vicinity of the tap. It would be very useful to core drill to the proposed tap location in winter from the lake ice. Review of existing geotechnical data from the site by Lachel and Associates, including some core drilling logs from locations near the Allison Lake outlet, indicated that there is considerable debris on the lake bottom near the outlet. The assumed location of the lake tap was therefore placed about 2/3 of the way up the lake to a location where the maximum lake depth and steepest side slopes are expected. This will likely be the best tap location. There exists the possibility that some dredging of bottom sediments off of the tap location will be necessary, depending what is found there. No costs have been included in the estimates to cover activities such as this. An access road about 0.5 mile in length would be cut from the end of the existing road at Iv-1 Solomon Gulch Dam along the west side of the reservoir to the tunnel portal site. A staging area would be leveled at el. 695 ft. about 100 ft. x 200 ft. in area. The tunnel portal access ramp would be constructed from the staging pad about 200 ft. in length and 40 ft. wide sloping up to the portal (invert el. 710 ft.) which would be about 300 ft. from the shore of Solomon Gulch Reservoir. A pipe diameter of 42-inches was selected based on a variety of factors including pipe material cost, energy loss due to pipe friction head loss, and experience with pipeline design. Experience with a wide variety of pipeline projects indicates a flow velocity at full load of around 10 feet-per-second will usually result in an economic pipe diameter sizing. In this case, for about 70 cfs, a 36-inch diameter pipe would be selected. However, in this case the full load flow is also the average flow, and it was decided to use a somewhat larger diameter of 42-inches to minimize head losses. Design velocity is 7.4 feet-per-second for the 42-inch pipe. Head loss at full load is about 38 feet or 5.6% of gross head. The 8 ft. horseshoe-shaped tunnel of total length 11,950 feet would be excavated using a standard drill-and-blast technique sloping uphill in the direction of Allison Lake at an approximate 5% grade. When the tunnel reaches elevation 1210 ft., it would level off and excavation would proceed carefully, using probe holes and pilot drilling, to the tap location. At this point, a drift would be extended upward toward the lake bottom at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. When the drift is within typically about 10-15 feet of the lake bottom, depending on rock strength, tunneling would stop, and this final plug would be left in place until the remaining work is completed. Once the tap was completed, it would provide about 100 ft. of drawdown in Allison Lake while maintaining adequate tunnel entrance submergence to prevent vortex formation. A rock trap would be excavated beneath the 45-degree drift as shown on the attached tunnel section drawing (See Appendix 1). This rock trap would collect most of the debris pulled into the tunnel when the tap is made. If a 10 ft. plug is left, the debris would amount to about 50 cu yd assuming 60% swell. The rock trap would be constructed to hold twice this amount. About 200 ft. downstream from the rock trap a secondary rock trap would be constructed as backup to the first and also to collect sediment and debris that come into the tunnel over its operational lifetime. Finally, 350 ft. downstream of the tap, a tapered concrete plug 30 ft. long would be placed in the tunnel. Embedded in the plug would be a 42 inch diameter pipe that will serve as the penstock to convey water to Solomon Gulch Reservoir. The invert of this pipe would be several feet above the invert of the tunnel, creating a third sediment trap in the tunnel. Two valves (one a butterfly valve and one a spherical valve), one to backup the other, would be installed in the pipeline downstream of the plug to provide a method of dewatering the penstock and to facilitate the lake tap. A separate access adit would be necessary to get around the plug for workmen to blast out the final plug of the lake tap. Just before the tap is made, Lachel and Associates recommends that snow or ice be packed into the tunnel upstream of the concrete plug to act as a cushion when the tap is made. After final charges are set, workmen exit through the adit, seal it and blast out the plug. After the lake tap has been accomplished, the 42" diameter steel penstock would be run from the shutoff valves at the plug down through the unlined tunnel on concrete saddles on 32 ft. centers. The penstock would exit the tunnel portal and run down the ramp of the staging area to the valve house constructed on the shore of Solomon Gulch Reservoir. Two additional features of the tunnel option include the tunnel entrance trash rack and rock slide protection. After the first drawdown of Allison Lake to IV-2 partially expose the lake tap entrance, a steel rack would be pre-fabricated and bolted and grouted into place to protect the tunnel from inhaling any large debris. To provide some protection from rock slides, a "V" shaped deflection wall would be constructed on the shore of Allison Lake directly above the tunnel intake. The valve house (see valve house plan and section drawings- Appendix 1) on the shore of Solomon Gulch Reservoir will contain the pressure dissipating valve that reduces the water pressure from about 300 psi to atmospheric pressure for release into the lake. If the water were released without a pressure dissipating valve, the extremely high velocities would cause erosion problems and extreme turbulence would create severe ice build-up problems in the winter months. Therefore, a submerged discharge valve such as a Bailey Polyjet or equivalent will be used to dissipate the energy in a chamber, with the water overflowing a weir and running down the reservoir side embankment in a 60 inch pipe to below the minimum Solomon Gulch Reservoir level. In early winter, the valve pit will be just above reservoir level, but as drawdown occurs, water will have to run downslope as much as 65 feet to get to the reservoir. Keeping the water inside a pipe until it is released below water surface level in the reservoir should minimize ice build-up problems. In addition to the dissipating valve, the valve house would also contain electrical equipment to operate the penstock shutoff valves and instrumentation such as a flow meter, pressure transmitters and a leak detection system. Upstream of the valve house, a bifurcation will be provided in the penstock for connection to a power generating facility that could be constructed on the staging pad adjacent to the reservoir. If constructed, the powerhouse would consist of a 46 ft. x 42 ft. concrete building. housing a single two jet pelton turbine rated at 69.7 cfs full load, 604 feet of net head with 3,145 kW full load output. (See powerhouse drawing) Water would exit the powerhouse through a 5-foot opening into a 60 inch diameter steel pipe that would carry the water to the reservoir. Switchyard and transmission facilities would carry generated power to the Solomon Gulch powerplant where it would intertie to existing transmission lines. It would still be necessary to construct the valve house if the power generating plant is constructed, since it will be necessary from time to time to shutdown the powerplant and dewater the penstock periodically. An alternate means to convey water to Solomon Gulch Reservoir should be provided in the event of extended powerplant shutdown as well. The valve house provides this means. A final feature is necessary to return water back to Allison Creek to provide minimum instream flows for fisheries protection and to provide water to the Alyeska terminal for their use in accordance with their established water rights. As discussed in more detail in Section 3 of this report, about 3 cfs will be required at all times in Allison Creek. Once lake drawdown occurs below normal lake outlet level, no further flow into the creek can be counted on from Allison Lake, although some seepage through the moraine at the lake outlet is expected to continue. Approximately 1.8 square miles of drainage basin exists for Allison Creek between the diversion point at Allison Lake and the Alyeska terminal. Average basin runoff is estimated at 8 cfs per square mile, so on average, about 14.4 cfs should be available at Alyeska’s withdrawal station. There will be times, particularly during the winter months, when flows will be much less than this average. In order to insure that 3 cfs is available at all times, a pipeline with pumping Iv-3 facilities will be constructed from existing Solomon Gulch powerhouse to Allison Creek just above the Alyeska withdrawal point. The pipeline would be a 10 inch schedule 40 buried steel pipe about 9,100 ft. long, pumping 3 cfs (1350 gpm) via a 75 horsepower pump. A spare pump would also be installed to provide full duplex operation, thus ensuring a very reliable installation. It is expected that the pump station would only have to operate 1 or 2 months of the year. Figure 4 shows a development schedule for the tunnel option. The two most important aspects to the overall schedule are the FERC amendment process timing and the tunnel construction timing. Figure 4 shows 26 months for the FERC Process. The actual time required could be shorter if the project is able to gain the support of the regulatory agencies and the public. It is envisioned that a major FERC amendment would be required, triggering the statutory need for the formal FERC three stage consultation process. If everything went very smoothly, an 18 month approval might be obtained. The schedule for tunnel construction is based on an estimated tunnel progress of about 30 feet per day. This would require about 13 months for just the tunnel excavation, not including mobilization, portal construction and the final lake tap. Figure 4 estimates a total of 19 months will be required for tunnel construction. 4.2 Pipeline Alternative A pipeline alternative is being analyzed because it offers the advantage of less excavation than the tunnel alternative. The critical design aspect of the pipeline option is the intake design. It is necessary to obtain as much drawdown as possible from Allison Lake in order to maximize benefits to the entire project. Several options for intake design were examined including constructing a large dam at the Allison Lake outlet to raise the lake level, a tunnel intake, and a siphon intake. After discussion with AEA staff, it was decided to use an intake design that avoided tunneling, with it’s associated high mobilization and unit costs, and to stay with surface excavation and pipe in an attempt to design the lowest cost intake alternative and thus bracket the highest and lowest cost projects with the two alternatives, tunnel or pipe. In order to achieve the deepest possible drawdown in Allison Lake, the pipeline intake will be constructed with maximum submergence beneath the surface of the lake, and it will be arranged to act as a siphon to allow lake drawdown approximately 20 feet below the pipe apex. Drawing 1 (Appendix 1) shows the proposed arrangement. A strip of land about 50 feet wide adjacent to Allison Creek is cleared and excavated down to a level 5 feet above normal lake level. A cofferdam is constructed out into the lake down to a depth of 20 feet with 3 feet of freeboard, and the area is dewatered. A deep trench is then excavated starting at the lake and working downstream until it daylights approximately 500 feet downstream of the natural lake outlet. This trench will have a slight vertical curve, with the apex about 50 ft. inshore from the lake edge and sloping downward in both directions. The 30 inch diameter pipeline will be constructed in the bottom of the trench, with the lake end fitted with a flanged connection and the landward end fitted with a butterfly valve where the pipeline daylights. A large concrete manhole will be constructed over the apex of the pipe, and vacuum pumps and other siphon related equipment will be installed here. A concrete cut-off wall will be built across the trench to provide a Iv-4 ‘vepared 3/92 FIGUBE4 ALLISON LAKE- TUNNEL OPTION WITH HYDRO PRELIMINARY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE : YEAR 6 ET EEE ES a eT PUBL ts eae 7s — =S PERC Licensing Servoying Sale Gectechadcal Lave igstions Deaige: Ba gpmeccinng, ‘Bid and Award Tunnel Contract ‘Access Road Comsrection Dulid Powerkomse & Vale Hones Tremeeriecton ine Come etic Start-up and Toning Begs Commnnrciad perio Dia positive barrier to seepage from the lake into the trench. The entire trench would then be backfilled. The cofferdammed area would be flooded and the cofferdam removed. At this point, the rest of the intake pipe consisting of about 250 ft. of pipe and a intake drum screen section as shown in Drawing Sheet 4 (Appendix 1) would be constructed and floated out into the lake. Once in position, it would be flooded and sunk to the lake bottom, where it would be connected to the flanged connection on the intake pipe and anchored in place on the bottom by divers. The intake would need to be set at or below el. 1320 ft. or approximately 47 feet below the present normal lake surface elevation (el. 1367 ft.). The pipe apex would be at elevation 1347 ft. After this construction is completed, a 12-foot-high rockfill dam with an unregulated overflow spillway would be constructed at the lake outlet, raising the normal lake elevation to 1379 ft. As pointed out in previous studies, the existing soil conditions in the moraine at Allison Lake outlet are likely to be marginal for use as a dam foundation. We believe, however, that a small structure such as this 12-foot-high dam is feasible if care in the spillway design and downstream apron sizing are exercised. Assuming the siphon would be effective down to about 20 feet of suction lift, this arrangement would provide drawdown from 1379 ft. to 1327 ft. or 52 ft. This seems to be about the maximum practical limit for this intake arrangement. Clearly, in final design, steps could be taken to attempt to deepen the trench or raise the dam height to marginally improve this option. Without geotechnical information about the nature of the materials at the natural lake outlet, we believe that the 20 ft. deep trench excavation necessary in this option is the deepest that should be reasonably assumed at this stage. Dewatering and side slope stabilization will definitely be challenges but we believe they could be reasonably overcome. . Once the intake is completed, the pipeline installation will proceed using standard techniques. A buried pipeline is assumed from Allison Lake to the first steep slope encountered at about station 25+00. Here the pipeline will travel above ground on concrete saddles on 32 ft. centers down the steep slope. At the base of the slope, the line is buried again and tums east to generally follow the contours around the face of a hill to Solomon Gulch Reservoir. A single- lane access road with turnouts will be constructed along the pipeline route from Solomon Gulch Reservoir to the base of the steep slope. It is assumed that a high line will be used to construct the steep section and that access for all work near Allison Lake will require helicopter mobilization. Pipeline bedding materials will be manufactured on site with a small crushing plant using native materials. Bedding for upper reaches of the pipeline will be transported with trucks and up the high line. At approximate station 22+00 (approx. el. 1300 ft.) of the pipeline, before it begins to drop down the steep slope toward Solomon Gulch reservoir, an 8 inch diameter 1500 foot long branch connection pipe will tap into the 30 inch pipeline and will carry 3 cfs of water back to Allison Creek to provide for required minimum instream flows. This pipe will be valved with a motor- operated valve in an insulated concrete manhole that can be operated from Solomon Gulch powerhouse. It would be opened only when there is insufficient natural flow in Allison Creek Iv-5 to meet the minimum requirements. The pipe would be buried along its length for freeze protection, and would discharge into Allison Creek at a rock-lined plunge pool constructed for that purpose. The downstream end of the 30 inch pipeline would reach Solomon Gulch Reservoir at the same location as the tunnel option. The access road and staging area pad would also be the same. The pipeline would end at the valve house, and the bifurcation and powerhouse arrangements would be the same as in the tunnel option. If constructed, the powerhouse would consist of a 46 ft. x 42 ft. concrete building housing a single horizontal shaft two-jet pelton turbine rated at 38.8 cfs full load, 618 feet of net head with 1,800 kW full load output (see powerhouse drawing- Sheet 6) Water would exit the powerhouse through a 5-foot-square opening into a 60 inch discharge pipe that would carry the water down the bank into the reservoir. Switchyard and transmission facilities would carry generated power to the Solomon Gulch powerplant where it would intertie to existing transmission lines. It would still be necessary to construct the valve house if the power generating plant is constructed, since it will be necessary to periodically shutdown the powerplant and dewater the pipeline. 4.3 Cost Estimates The following chart shows the 1992 estimated construction costs of the various options. Detailed estimates of each option arranged in FERC format are included in Appendix 2. eee | an [eee] se (1992 Dollars) Cost* Ac-Ft Raton | aca [ase | asa | Cri Rasa arasre [ese | ae | [renters anstan [oser [ame Preieeowy [suse [ever [oe ee eee *Does not include IDC 4.4 Energy Generation The electrical output of the Allison Lake Project will consist of two components; additional generation at Solomon Gulch due to the additional water in Solomon Gulch Reservoir; and as an option, generation from a hydroelectric facility installed at the downstream end of the diversion pipeline/tunnel. IV-6 The generation records of the Solomon Gulch Project were reviewed and the following information was observed. First, generation at Solomon Gulch produces about 560 kWh per ac- ft at full reservoir head and about 510 kWh per ac-ft at minimum pool, for an average output of about 540 kWh/ac-ft of water used. This information will be used to calculate Solomon Gulch generation from water diverted from Allison Lake. Second, annual records show the following trends: a Year Began Spilling | Stopped Spilling | Generation Began [ise | mo | tons | ges Piss | m2 | tons sis pies | mo | tos | sts rise [ 68 | 100 | aan Piso | see] ioe | ss Yr Based on these data, diversion from Allison Lake into Solomon Gulch Reservoir would serve no purpose from July 1 to about October 20 each year, and would be of only marginal value from May 1 through July 1. Therefore, the Allison Lake diversion will take place from November ' through April 30 each year. To make maximum use of the installed pipeline, a constant flow should be diverted from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch that will result in the maximum available diversion volume over the 6-month period. As shown in Section 3, Hydrology, the average year flow rates that result in the target diversion volumes and lake drawdown are: Lake Tap/Tunnel Option: 69.7 cfs Pipeline Option: 38.8 cfs These flow rates were used to size the diversion pipelines and to calculate average gross and net heads for the diversion pipeline and for an associated hydroelectric generating facility. Energy generation was then calculated with the following results: amount of water amount of water 5.0 SELECTION OF BEST ALLISON LAKE ALTERNATIVE The overall goal of this study is to identify the best of the six alternatives for diversion of water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir, and then to compare this alternative to a variety of other potential projects that could be beneficial to energy users in the Valdez-Glennallen area. It was therefore necessary to select which of the six alternatives to carry on to the next phase of this study. In order to establish a ranking of the alternatives, two simplified economic evaluations were performed; 1) a cost of energy estimate; and 2) a simple calculation of net present value of each alternative. Results are included in Appendices 2 and 3. For the cost of energy evaluation, it was assumed that the 1995 project estimated cost would be financed by the sale of 30 year revenue bonds yielding a 9% interest rate. Annual costs were assumed to include debt service payments and an allowance of 7 mills per kWh to cover incremental operations and maintenance costs. The resulting total annual cost was divided by the annual average kWh output resulting in a 30 year average cost of energy shown in the table below. To calculate net present value of each alternative, a simple model of costs and benefits was assembled on a Lotus 123 spreadsheet. For costs, 30 year financing at 9% interest rate was assumed to calculate annual debt service. An estimate of project related O&M costs was made for each alternative. Total present value of the costs was calculated for a 50 year project life assuming a 9% discount rate. To calculate benefits, it was first assumed that all energy produced would be consumed in the Valdez-Glennallen market and would all directly offset energy presently generated using diesel generators. The last three years average diesel generation by CVEA was only 15 million kWh, but recently CVEA signed a memorandum of understanding with Petro-Star Refinery to supply 24 million kWh/yr to a new facility in Valdez beginning November, 1992 and construction of the facility has begun. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume all hydro energy from an Allison Lake alternative could be used to offset diesel generation. To estimate savings from diesel offset, a diesel fuel price forecast was used. The 1989 AEA Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study probability weighted average forecast was used (See Reference 5). In addition, $0.01 per kWh savings in variable diesel O&M costs was assumed as a further benefit. Using a 9% discount rate the present value of the benefits was calculated. Net present value (benefits-costs) is shown in the table below. Alternative ene Cost Of Energy, Net Present V Value Ann. kWh $/kWh-9 %, 30 yr. ($) =* Tunnel Only- 13,621,000 $0.2553 ($11,221,940.) Tunnel w/Future 13,621,000 $0.2563 ($11,373,128.) Hydro Tunnel w/Hydro 27,396,000 $0.1467 $6,332,991. Pipeline Only 7,581,000 $0.2085 ($5,251,081.) Pipeline w/ 7,581,000 $0.2104 ($5,402,269.) Future Hydro Pipeline w/Hydro | 15,434,000 | $0.1301 | _-$1,874,355. ** Note that these Net Present Values represent relative benefits of the six options, but their absolute values should not be used for other analyses. See economic analysis that follows. It should be noted here that the economic assumptions used in this simple analysis are not the same assumptions that will be used in a complete detailed analysis, but are rather reasonable assumptions that are being used here to screen the alternatives. It was found that in this screening process, large changes in the assumptions changed the cost of power and the net present values, but did not affect the overall ranking of the alternatives. Complete and detailed economic analysis of alternatives follows in a later section of this report. The results of this simple analysis show the two options with hydroelectric built right away as clearly superior to other options. This is reasonable, since once the water diversion and conveyance systems are in place, addition of hydro generation is extremely cost effective. The advantage of the pipeline option is primarily its lower initial capital cost. In the situation of limited capital resources, this option has merit. Under all other reasonable criteria, the tunnel option with hydro is the most attractive based on a comparison of net benefits. Several engineering features of the tunnel option also make it attractive, including better protection from freezing, improving winter performance, better security, lower maintenance costs and less overall visibility making it aesthetically more acceptable. These initial results were reviewed with AEA staff and on February 24, 1992, it was agreed that the tunnel option with hydro would be the alternative used in further analysis in this study. All further references after this point to the Allison Lake Diversion Project are to be assumed to refer to the tunnel option with hydroelectric. Because the pipeline option with hydro also appears to be relatively attractive, it will be carried into the detailed economic analysis as well. 6.0 ANALYSIS OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES A variety of alternatives to the proposed Allison Lake Diversion Project were examined to develop cost and potential energy generation estimates. These alternatives were then compared to the proposed project to develop an overall ranking of alternative methods for providing power to the Valdez-Glennallen area. The alternatives studied are described in the following sections. Cost estimate details for these alternatives are included in Appendix 4. In addition, the cost estimates for the two alternatives chosen earlier in this study for further analysis, the Allison Lake Tunnel and Pipeline Diversion Alternates with Hydro, were revised slightly in the estimate of interest during construction (IDC). A real interest rate of 4.5% was used for the IDC calculation to put all the alternative estimates on the same basis. The slightly revised estimates for the Allison Diversion alternatives are included in Appendix 4 also. 6.1 Stand Alone Power Generating Project: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) prepared a detailed study of a stand-alone project on Allison Creek in 1981 (See Reference 2). This project consisted of a low level "lake tap" type intake in Allison Lake, with a combination of tunnels and pipelines that conveyed water to a new hydroelectric power generating plant located along Allison Creek just upstream from its mouth near sea level. The COE estimated the direct cost of this project at $24,506,000 in 1981 dollars and estimated the annual energy production at 37,250 MWh per year. In order to update the cost estimate for this project, HDR applied the same 1992 unit prices to the quantities developed by the COE as were used in all the Allison Lake alternative arrangement. estimates. The resulting cost estimate is shown in Appendix 4. This document shows both COE estimated prices and today’s estimates. The result shows the stand alone project would cost $53,666,932 in 1992 dollars. The energy production at this stand alone project would be generated in a similar pattern to the energy generated at the Solomon Gulch Project. It might be possible to operate the stand alone project in a similar manner to the Allison Lake Tunnel Diversion Project by drawing the lake down as far as possible in the winter period. This method of operation would require a much larger turbine than the Tunnel Diversion Option and would be considerably more expensive to construct than the diversion project. Therefore, the operating pattern similar to Solomon Gulch was selected as it maximized annual energy production and duplicated operating plans from previous studies so results could be compared more easily. From previous studies (see Reference No. 5) and data provided by Copper Valley Electric, October through May generation at Solomon Gulch was assumed to be 25,900 MWh/year, or about 47% of the annual total. The same distribution through the year was assumed for the Stand Alone Allison Lake Project. 6.2 Raising Solomon Gulch Spillway With Inflatable Weir This alternative would allow more water to be captured in Solomon Gulch Reservoir, reduce spill, and allow generation to continue at higher levels for a longer period into the winter season. Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) commissioned a study of this alternative late in 1991 (see Reference 4). The results of that study showed an estimated cost of $1,582,368. to VI-1 raise the dam height five feet, which was determined to be the maximum practical height increase with a spillway flap gate or inflatable weir. The cost estimate for this alternative is shown in Appendix 4. The additional annual energy developed by this increase in storage was estimated by the CVEA report at 1,702 MWh per year. About 84% of this additional energy comes from additional water storage and about 16% comes from a slightly higher average net head at the Solomon Gulch Plant due to the reservoir height increase. Most of this additional energy would be generated in the period November | through May 1 each year. 6.3 Raising Solomon Gulch Spillway With Rockfill Dam This alternative is similar to the previous one, except that a rockfill dam will be used to increase the spillway height instead of a rubber weir. This allows the spillway to be raised considerably higher. The project as presently designed has a maximum net head of 645 ft. Raising the spillway increases the head on the pipeline and the turbine casings and increases thrust loading on the turbine bearings. Typically, there are factors of safety designed into pipelines and turbines that will allow some amount of increase in pressure without jeopardizing safe operation. Before an actual maximum reservoir height increase can be determined, a detailed study of the design and current conditions of the pipelines and turbines would need to be conducted. We believe that a ten percent increase in head would likely place stresses on the pipeline steel in excess of safe limits. Therefore, for this study, we will assume a maximum increase in head of 5% would be possible. This equates to a dam height increase of 32 feet. Extrapolating from existing stage-storage curves for Solomon Gulch Reservoir, a 32 ft. height increase would provide an additional 23,600 ac-ft of storage. Present annual water use at Solomon Gulch is about 66,000 ac-ft per year. Annual average run-off is 103,000 ac-ft per year. Therefore, additional storage of 23,600 ac-ft appears to also be close to the reasonable maximum that could be utilized while still being able to refill the reservoir each year. Using factors developed in the CVEA Rubber Weir Study (Reference 4) this additional storage would provide an additional 13,240 MWh from utilization of the stored water and about 1,800 MWh from the higher average head at the project for a total additional energy production of 15,040 MWh from this alternative. Cost of this alternative was estimated at $25,438,178 (1992 dollars). Details are shown in Appendix 4. The major cost items are concrete for the spillway section and additional rockfill to add to the height and base width of the existing dam. 6.4 Lowering The Solomon Gulch Intake To Increase Reservoir Drawdown The intake for the penstocks at the existing Solomon Gulch dam is a concrete structure that was constructed behind an old low level concrete dam at the upstream toe of the existing rockfill dam. The crest elevation of the old dam was 615.66 ft. The lower penstock has a centerline elevation of 600.0 ft. When the reservoir is close to maximum drawdown, water has to spill over the old concrete dam into an intake box and finally into the penstock. The lowest reservoir drawdown of record was elev. 616.6 ft. and typically gets down to about elevation 617 ft. each VI-2 year. If an opening was cut into the old concrete dam down to elevation 600 ft., it should be possible to drawdown the reservoir an additional 13 feet to elevation 603 ft. Based on the elevation-storage curve for Solomon Gulch, each foot of storage at this low level contains about 167 ac-ft of water. The 13 feet of additional drawdown should therefore yield an additional 2171 ac-ft of water. From the turbine efficiency curves for Solomon Gulch, energy production at this low head level averages 472 kWh per ac-ft. Average energy available for this alternative is therefore 1,025 MWh. To accomplish this intake lowering, the work would have to take place in the winter after the reservoir is drawn down to its lowest possible level. A cofferdam would be constructed of material stockpiled nearby earlier to allow dewatering of the area of the old concrete dam to be removed. A combination of saw cutting and concrete core drilling would be used to loosen and remove a 6-foot-wide section of the old dam into the intake box. A bar screen rack would be placed over the new opening and the cofferdam would be removed. This work would have to be accomplished in about 6 weeks to minimize risk of flooding out the cofferdam should a thaw occur. Cost of this project is estimated to be about $1,129,768. in 1992 dollars. This alternative assumes an additional 13 feet of drawdown is physically possible in Solomon Gulch Reservoir. Reports from CVEA staff of some large boulders or possibly an old rock slide on the reservoir bottom upstream from the dam raise the possibility that the reservoir could be blocked from incremental drawdown. Site surveys including depth soundings beneath the ice during late winter would be necessary to confirm the engineering viability of this ere Cost estimates are included in Appendix 4. 6.5 Alyeska Power Recovery Turbine This alternative would consist of addition of a power recovery turbine to the Alyeska oil pipeline to take advantage of the approximately 1200 feet of available net head in the pipeline from the oil as it passes over Thompson Pass at elev. 2771 ft. down to sea level. A detailed study of this alternative was performed in 1981 (Reference 6) and it found that at design conditions, 9 MW of power was available. At the reduced pipeline flow at the time of the report of 1.5 million barrels/day, output was down to 4.7 MW with an annual energy generation of 37,354 MWh net. Costs estimated in the 1981 report were escalated to 1992 dollars, for an estimated project cost of $16,500,000. There are some serious concerns about the implementation of this project. Alyeska is presently not tied into the power distribution grid of CVEA. Their interconnection could involve solving issues such as liability for power outages and possible environmental impacts due to power outages. Another issue is the projected lifetime of the North Slope oil reserves. As oil reserves dwindle, pipeline flows will begin to decrease, reducing available energy from a power recovery turbine. Uncertainty over the lifetime of the project would become an issue during project financing. After review of the 1981 study, this option was discussed with AEA staff and it was decided that the uncertainties involved made it difficult to establish accurate cost and energy production estimates. It was agreed that this alternative would be dropped from further study VI-3 in this report. 6.6 Diesel Generation at CVEA It is very likely that diesel generation will continue to play a role in the mixture of supply side energy resources for the Valdez-Glennallen area well into the future. The questions about use of diesel generation that are pertinent to this study are; 1) What are the anticipated future diesel capacity requirements for CVEA based on projected load growth; 2) When will expansion of existing diesel generation facilities become necessary; 3) What will the costs of diesel expansion be in the future; and 4) What are the savings that can result from reduced diesel generation or deferred expansion? Diesel generation will be assumed for this study to be the “base case" or "do nothing" alternative. The present situation at CVEA is that hydroelectric generation is maximized to the extent possible, and diesel generation meets the balance of the demand. If none of the alternatives in this study are implemented, diesel generation will continue to increase as loads increase over time. If, on the other hand, one or more of the alternatives in this study are implemented, diesel generation may be reduced or eliminated temporarily, resulting in considerable savings in purchases of diesel fuel, diesel O&M costs, and the possibility of deferring expansion of the present diesel facilities, resulting in additional savings. These savings are the primary incentive for proceeding with other, lower cost options. In the economic analysis that follows in this report, savings from offset diesel generation will be calculated using several different diesel cost forecasts and several different load growth scenarios. These different forecasts will constitute a sensitivity analysis of the various options to the assumptions used for calculating savings. In addition, the economic model estimates how long each alternative might delay expansion of the diesel system and the savings associated with this delay. The details of these calculations are discussed below in section 8. There are environmental costs associated with the generation of electricity by use of diesel engines, primarily associated with air pollution. There are a variety of methods that have been used to calculate the dollar value of these effects. Air emissions from a diesel engine consist primarily of particulates, nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur oxides (SOX), and carbon monoxide (CO). Typical emissions from a basic uncontrolled diesel engine were estimated from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Report AP-42 (Reference 12) as follows: Particulates - 3.3 Ib./.MWh NOX - 33 Ib./MWh CO : 8.6 lb. MWh SOX - 3.7 Ib..MWh Current annual diesel generation at CVEA of about 15,000 MWh would therefore produce about 247 tons per year of NOX, and smaller amounts of the various other pollutants. A report prepared for the U.S. Dept. of Energy in 1991 (Reference 13) estimates the total societal costs of air pollution from combustion of #2 diesel oil at about $0.03/kWh delivered. For the current base case at Valdez, this is a cost of about $450,000 per year. Doubling annual diesel generation would theoretically double this “environmental cost". These costs are an estimate and are difficult to confirm with actual observation in the field. They are based on estimated health impacts to the public and other factors that are variable depending on geographic location and background levels of air pollution. They are therefore inexact, but they do allow us to at least examine the possible order of magnitude of these impacts. Air pollution technology and environmental impact costs are probably most studied and dealt with on a regular basis in the State of California, where the nation’s strictest air pollution regulations have been enacted. A system of trading "emissions credits" has developed where the emissions of a permitted stationary air pollution source can be sold to the highest bidder if that source is shut down. Current prices range as high as $1,500/ton of NOX per year (personal conversation, Lee Freeman of Pacific Energy, Los Angeles, CA). Based on this price level, current NOX emissions at CVEA are worth approximately $370,500. Recently, advances in diesel technology have realized reduction in NOX and CO emissions of up to 80% from older, uncontrolled designs. We assume that any new diesel expansion at CVEA would utilize the latest technology, so impacts would be greatly reduced on a kWh delivered basis in the future. As old units are retired, impacts would also be dramatically reduced. These factors make it difficult to estimate the costs associated with air pollution in a method with the same order of magnitude of accuracy as the rest of the economic analysis that follows. It was decided to present these figures here as reference, but to not include them directly into the economic comparison of alternatives. There is an additional cost of air pollution that could become applicable to CVEA in the near future, that of annual permit fees. Stationary air pollution sources such as the diesel units operated by CVEA are permitted based on their maximum possible output, not actual output. The approximately 15 MW of installed capacity at CVEA could generate 131,000 MWh annually if operated 100% of the time. This would equate to about 2170 tons per year of NOX, and under proposed regulations from ADEC, annual fees of $25,000 could be assessed for pollution sources in this size range. 6.7 End Use Conservation One of the most direct ways to save energy and reduce costs is to improve system efficiency. Historically, a lot of effort has been put into improving the efficiency of generating equipment and other supply side improvements, but in the last ten years, considerable effort has also gone into developing demand side programs to increase efficiency on the energy use side. In 1991, a demonstration study (Reference 7) was performed in the CVEA service territory by Stone & Webster Management Consultants that included an analysis of 23 different demand side technologies that might improve system efficiency. Some of the technologies studied included high efficiency motors, high efficiency lighting, fuel switching, high efficiency refrigeration and occupancy timers, to name a few. Through use of public surveys and estimates of implementation costs and potential savings, the demonstration study concluded that five end use conservation programs, three residential and two commercial, were the best programs for CVEA to consider implementing. The five programs were: 1) High Efficiency Refrigerators 2) High Efficiency Freezers 3) Residential Compact Fluorescent Lights 4) Commercial High Efficiency Fluorescents 5) Commercial Compact Fluorescents The Stone & Webster demonstration study in Exhibits II-4 and III-6 (see Appendix 4) presented estimated annual energy savings and implementation costs for each of these programs for the estimated program life of 20 years. Without any manipulation or other verification of the projections, we utilized the projected energy savings each year to predict displaced diesel savings and calculated the present value of implementation costs. Diesel savings are less than total end use savings because a portion of the annual savings occur during the summer when diesel is not displaced. Average annual diesel savings amounted to 540 MWh and the present value of implementation costs over 20 years equaled $411,199. The resulting year by year savings projections were inserted into the economic analysis model along with the present value of implementation cost. Market penetration rates of the various conservation programs and CVEA administrative costs for each program are included in the energy savings and the implementation cost projections of the Stone & Webster study. 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This section includes a description of the environmental setting, an environmental evaluation of the project alternatives, agency concerns and permitting requirements. The review is not designed as a complete environmental impact assessment or list of all the necessary permits. Rather it reflects the results of preliminary research conducted by HDR staff. Where possible, state and federal agency staff were contacted (see Appendix 5 for list of contacts). However, HDR recommends further consultation with agencies prior to beginning actual project permitting. 7.1. Environmental Setting Climate. The climate in the project vicinity is characterized by moderate temperatures with cool, rainy summers and high winter snowfall. Precipitation is abundant in all seasons with the majority occurring during the fall. Valdez averages 188 days yearly with precipitation greater than 0.1 inch. Annual precipitation is 62 inches. Annual snowfall is 269 inches. Snowfall constitutes 27% of the precipitation. The high mountain ridges provide a considerable barrier to the flow of cold continental air from the interior of Alaska during the winter. The coldest temperatures at Valdez occur when cold air flows down the mountain slopes during clear and calm conditions. The lowest temperature was -28 degrees F recorded several times in mid-winter. Summer temperatures are moderated by lower temperatures of nearby snow and ice fields in combination with the ocean. The average daily maximum temperature in June, July, and August is about 60 degrees F. (Reference 8). Topography. The Port Valdez area is a northeastern extension of Prince William Sound. It is a glacially created fjord, approximately 14 miles long by 3 miles wide with a flat outwash plain and moraine deposits. The terrain has been glaciated and is characterized by cirques, u- shaped valleys, rock-basin lakes, and grooved rock. The Chugach Mountains within the study area are composed mainly of a thick section of alternating dark shales and graywackes known as the Valdez Group (Reference 8). Vegetation. Allison Creek supports alder with some salmonberry, blueberry, and devil’s club. The area of the Alyeska Terminal and pipeline corridor are already disturbed. The slopes surrounding Allison Lake are covered by alpine tundra with a small wetland area at the south end of the lake (Reference 2). Wetlands. According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Reference 9), there are lacustrine, palustrine, riverine, and estuarine wetlands in the general project area. Lacustrine wetlands are found next to both Allison Lake and Solomon Reservoir. However, according to the NWI map, the area proposed for the second powerhouse, staging area and access road at Solomon Reservoir is not in a lacustrine wetland area. There are palustrine wetlands and riverine wetlands found along Allison Creek. Estuarine wetlands occur at the mouth of both Allison and Solomon Creeks. vu-1 The riverine system includes all wetlands and deep water habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). The lacustrine system includes permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs, intermittent lakes, and tidal lakes with ocean-derived salinities below 0.5 ppt. The palustrine system includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. The estuarine system consists of deep water tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land (Reference 9). Fisheries. | Most of the major streams and rivers entering Port Valdez support salmon spawning. According to staff at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), the intertidal areas of many streams are used for spawning by pink and chum salmon (Dennis Gnath and Don McKay, ADFG, personal communication). Much of the intertidal spawning takes place in the sand, gravel, and/or silt fans present at the mouths of many stream, including Solomon Creek and Allison Creek. However, there seems to be some disagreement on exactly where spawning occurs. According to recent discussions with Don McKay of ADFG, spawning may occur as far as 1 mile up Allison Creek. Previous correspondence from ADFG (letter from Cevin Gilleland, January 18, 1990), states that spawning occurs 1.5 miles below the outlet of Allison Lake. In addition, the 1981 COE Feasibility Report states that spawning occurs only 1/4 mile from the mouth of Allison Creek. The location of spawning habitat on Allison Creek may need to be more clearly described during the pre-design phase. The salmon population in Port Valdez is both wild stock and hatchery fish produced by the Solomon Gulch Hatchery. Dolly Varden are also present in Port Valdez and spawn in the Lowe and Robe River drainages. They do not spawn in intertidal areas. Pacific herring are also seasonally abundant and occasionally available year-round in the Port Valdez area. It is unlikely that the upper reaches of the creeks support fish; there may be some resident sticklebacks in the lakes (Dennis Gnath, ADFG, personal communication). Wildlife. Most birds in the Port Valdez area are classified as either waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, or raptors. Peak populations occur during spring and fall migrations, in April and May and from late August through October. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are no known bald eagle nests in the study area except in the Dayville Road area (Gary Wheeler, USFWS, personal communication). The known nests along Dayville Road are located near Lowe River and are approximately 3 miles from the project area. The USFWS recommends that, prior to construction, AEA conduct a survey of eagle nests; the survey should be conducted between May 15 and June 15 when vegetative cover is minimal. In the event a nest is found, USFWS will work with AEA regarding the location and timing of activities. The USFWS has developed a set of draft guidelines to assist land managers and resource planners in the management of bald eagles (see Appendix 5). Wildlife species in the project area include brown bear, black bear, mountain goat, wolf, wolverine, marten, porcupine, and snowshoe hare. Wildlife surveys conducted by ADFG in 1978 for the Solomon Gulch Hyaroelectric Project FEIS indicated that the Solomon Creek drainage provides relatively good habitat for black bear and that the coastal area was prime habitat. Inland populations of black bear occur in the semi-open forested areas. Brown bears also inhabit the coastal areas, which provide a richer food supply than the upland areas. (Reference 10). The Allison Creek drainage habitat is similar to that of the Solomon drainage and likely supports similar wildlife. According to the 1981 COE Feasibility Report, the most commonly observed mammal near the proposed Allison Creek site is black bear. Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna. According to the USFWS, there are no known endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna in the study area (Brian Anderson, USFWS, personal communication). Local Environment - ¢ Government: Valdez is a home rule municipality incorporated on June 11, 1901. A home rule municipality is a city or borough which has adopted a home rule charter by public vote. Such a charter gives that local government "all legislative powers not prohibited by law or charter" (Article X, Section 11 - Alaska Constitution). © Population: Population near the project area is concentrated in Valdez. The current population of Valdez, based on figures from the 1990 U.S. Census, is 4,068. The population of Valdez, in contrast to the rest of the state, has quadrupled since 1970. A temporary increase in the local population from the construction work force could result. Construction personnel could be accommodated by existing facilities in the city. ¢ Economy: The largest employer in Valdez is the Alyeska Marine Terminal. The terminal employs approximately 22 percent of the Valdez work force, followed by government services and education/health sectors, each employing approximately 17 percent of the work force. (Reference 11). © Land Use: All the proposed project alternatives are located inside the city limits of Valdez. The Allison Lake area is currently vacant. The land around the Solomon Lake area is vacant with the exception of the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project. The entire area present has no land use zoning designation (Dave Dengel, City of Valdez, planning director, personal communication). The study area is located on State of Alaska land under management of the Alaska Department Natural Resources (ADNR). The Dayville Road is under the management authority of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). 7.2 Alternatives The following evaluation is a review of the environmental concerns for the various alternatives under consideration. The evaluation is based on research and agency consultation. Most of the environmental concerns are associated with the main structural alternatives--the tunnel alternative and the stand-alone power generating project on Allison Creek. 7.2.1 Tunnel Alternative Noise. Noise levels during construction phase of the tunnel alternative will increase temporarily and will decrease to near normal during actual operation. Fisheries. Impacts to the fish habitats of Solomon and Allison Creeks can be divided into construction and post-construction impacts. Construction impacts will be limited to the tunneling operation. The tunnel spoil will be stockpiled in upland locations, however, drainage associated with the tunnel spoil will need to be managed to minimize erosion into the creeks. Post-construction impacts will occur as a result of changes to the flow regime in Allison Creek. Diverting water from Allison Lake to Solomon Reservoir will dewater the upper reaches of Allison Creek. Once lake drawdown occurs below normal lake outlet level, no further flow into Allison Creek can be counted on from Allison Lake. There could be times during the winter months when instream flow in Allison Creek could be reduced. Impacts regarding instream flow are difficult to predict because of mixing from streams entering the drainage downstream from where the dam will be placed. However, it is not anticipated that significant dewatering of the creek will occur during the time when spawning occurs or between July and September, and instream flows will be maintained at 3 cfs as required by ADFG in the water rights authorization to APSC (discussed in detail in Section 3). A water pipeline will reroute water back to Allison Creek and must cross several anadromous fish streams along Dayville Road. A temporary impact to water quality resulting from increased sedimentation may occur during installation of the pipeline. Construction timing windows as well as silt screens may be required to minimize the introduction of silt into these streams. According to ADFG, the in-water construction timing window is June 1 through July 15. Birds. Impacts to waterfowl] using the mouth of Solomon Creek are directly related to the level of activity associated with the construction of the water pipeline along Dayville Road. Wildlife. Blasting necessary for the tunneling operation could act as a deterrent to migratory or resident mammals and some may be displaced from the area. This is of particular concern to ADFG and the USFWS. Consultation with both agencies is recommended prior to the commencement of construction activities. Upland construction activities can be scheduled to avoid sensitive times (hibernation, nesting, denning, etc.) for nearby wildlife. Erosion Control. During construction of the tunnel, powerhouse, access road and staging area, dust control measures and silt fences may be required by state and federal agencies to minimize vu-4 the introduction of additional materials into Solomon Creek and Solomon Reservoir. Agencies may also require a re-contouring and revegetation plan to stabilize disturbed areas. If clearing vegetation is required, it should be performed during the dry season to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and the impact to stream water quality induced by heavy rainfall, a well documented local condition. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. Consultation with the ADNR SHPO indicates there may be several historic sites along Solomon Creek below the reservoir. There is one reported historic site near the outlet of Solomon Lake and there are several cabins in lower reaches of the creek. Consultation with SHPO prior to construction at the Solomon Gulch site is recommended. There are no known sites in Sections 28 and 29 between Allison Lake and Solomon Reservoir. However, a pre-construction archaeological and cultural resources survey of the tunnel route may be required as per AS 41.35.070 as part of the permitting phase (Joan Dale, SHPO, personal communication). Visual Impacts. Allison Lake and Solomon Reservoir can only be viewed by air, and only a few would see the impact of Allison Lake drawdown. The natural landscape could be visually marred by the deposition of tunnel tailings. A revegetation plan could be initiated if this becomes a concern. Other aspects of the project will not likely impact the visual quality of the area because the majority of the structures would not be visible except by air. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Solomon Creek is not classified as a Wild and Scenic River (Brad Cella, NPS, personal communication). 7.2.2 Stand-alone Power Generating Project Noise. Valdez is typical of many small Alaska cities with moderate traffic and limited sources of noise. Background noise levels are low except for transient boats and aircraft. The Alyeska .Marine Terminal generates some ambient noise. Noise levels during the construction phase of the stand-alone power generating project will increase temporarily but will decrease again during actual operation. Fisheries. Impacts to the Allison Creek fish habitat may occur as a result of changes in water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation) and flow regime. Allison Creek is a high gradient creek, and fish movement is restricted to the lower reaches. According to the 1981 COE Feasibility Report, spawning habitat for pink and chum salmon occurs approximately 1/4 mile from the mouth. Staff with ADFG have stated that spawning habitat could extend as far as 1 mile upstream. The actual extent of the intertidal spawning area depends on tidal fluctuations. Further study may be warranted to determine the upper spawning limits of the creek. Instream flow is most critical during the time when spawning occurs. Adult pink and chum salmon spawn from July through September. As was done with the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project, the powerhouse for the Allison Creek alternative would be built as close to tidewater as feasible to maintain as much head as possible; monitoring of instream flows vu-5 would also be conducted. In addition, if instream flows in Allison Creek are reduced below the 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) required by ADFG for Allison Creek and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) water rights authorization (permit No. LAS 11813), water would be pumped from the Solomon Gulch Plant tailrace back into Allison Creek. Stream temperatures in Allison Creek may be reduced below the powerhouse during the summer months. The high water temperature of Allison Creek between July and September is from 8 to 11 degrees C. Salmon spawn earlier in the season in colder water and later in the season in warmer water. Although there will be natural flows occurring from the drainage basin below the dam, stream water temperatures could decrease. During years with normal runoff, water temperatures with the proposed project would be within normal limits. During low water years, however, temperatures may decrease below the critical level. Intertidal spawning may also be affected by reduced temperatures although the marine influence may compensate for the colder freshwater from Allison Creek (Reference 2). The project’s impact on water quality is directly related to the natural flushing processes. This process could be affected by the installation of the penstock and tailrace and stream bed scour could be reduced, resulting in increased sedimentation of spawning gravels. However, Allison Creek has a stable stream bed with very smal] amounts of sands and gravels, so sedimentation of the spawning beds may not occur because very little fine material will enter the system. In addition, during high water years, extra runoff may provide adequate flow for flushing, and tidal fluctuation could keep the spawning area free of sedimentation. In addition, planned drawdown of Allison Lake could increase turbidity and flows. Placement of the lake tap structure should be coordinated with the optimal time for the fishery and water used for the drilling of the penstock should be diverted so as to not reenter Allison Creek. Birds. According to ADFG, it is not likely waterfowl use Allison Lake; there may be a few puddleducks using it for resting habitat (Dennis Gnath, ADFG, personal communication). Waterfowl and shorebirds found at the mouth of Allison Creek may avoid the immediate area during the construction phase with no long term adverse effects. The possible increase of freshwater into the bay may cause minor shoreline icing during the winter and could reduce available habitat. Wildlife. A moderate level of human activity associated with construction in the project area could act as a deterrent to migratory or resident mammals. However, construction activity will have varying effects during different phases of construction. For example, the construction of the transmission line associated with the stand-alone power generating project on Allison Creek could increase displacement of some animals. Erosion Control. During construction of the stand-alone power generating alternative, dust control measures and silt fences may be required by state and federal agencies to minimize the introduction of additional materials into Allison Lake and Allison Creek. Agencies may also require a re-contouring and revegetation plan to stabilize disturbed areas. If clearing vegetation is required, it should be performed during the dry season to reduce sedimentation, erosion, and Vu-6 impact on stream water quality induced by heavy rainfall, a well-documented local condition. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. Consultation with the ADNR Suate Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicates there is at least one historic site in the project vicinity; Fort Liscum is located west of the mouth of Allison Creek. There may be other unreported sites in the Allison Creek drainage. The SHPO may require a pre-construction archaeological and cultural resources survey of the area as per AS 41.35.070 as part of the permitting phase (Joan Dale, SHPO, personal communication). Visual Impacts. Valdez is referred to as the “Switzerland of Alaska" because of the surrounding views of the mountains, glaciers, and rivers around Port Valdez. Views across the water are already obstructed by industrial development along the water’s edge. However, the large scale of the mountains tends to overshadow even such developments as the Alyeska Marine Terminal. Allison Lake can only be viewed by air, only a few would see the effect of lake drawdown. The project components will not likely impact the visual quality of the area as the majority of the structures are near an already impacted area--the Alyeska Marine Terminal. Upland structures would not be visible except from the air. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Allison Creek is not a Wild and Scenic River (Brad Cella, National Park Service (NPS), personal communication). 7.2.3 Diesel Generation at CVEA Noise. Additional diesel generation is not anticipated to increase noise beyond existing levels. Fisheries. No impacts to the fisheries resources are anticipated. Wildlife. No impacts to wildlife resources are anticipated. Air Quality. It is estimated that additional diesel generation by CVEA will produce 16 pounds of nitrogen oxide for each MwH of power generated. This is based upon representative uncontrolled levels of pollutants for stationary diesel engines. The uncontrolled amounts have been reduced by one-half to account for the cleaner burning engines produced today which would be used for this project. HDR has estimated the environmental cost for the emissions produced in section 6 previously. Because of the uncertainty of these estimates, environmental costs were not added directly into the economic analysis, but they are presented for information. Erosion. There are no erosion-related impacts associated with increased diesel generating capacity at CVEA. State Historic Preservation Office. Expansion of the existing CVEA facilities is not anticipated to impact archaeological and cultural resources. vu-7 Visual. No impacts to visual resources are anticipated. The site of the existing CVEA facility is in the general urbanized area of Valdez. 7.2.4 Remaining Alternatives The remainder of the alternatives evaluated included: raising the Solomon Gulch spillway with an inflatable weir, raising the Solomon Gulch spillway with a rockfiii dam, lowering the Solomon Gulch intake to increase reservoir drawdown, and end use conservation. Environmental impacts anticipated with these alternatives include impacts to air quality with increased diese] generation and water quality impacts associated with the placement of a new intake structure to lower the level of the Solomon Gulch Reservoir. Temporary increases in sedimentation of the Solomon Gulch Reservoir could occur during the installation of the intake structure, although silt screens could be installed to minimize the introduction of silts into the reservoir. 7.3 Regulatory Requirements This section provides a review of the permitting requirements for the various alternatives under consideration. HDR recommends consultation with state and federal agencies prior to beginning actual project permitting. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval would be required in various forms for most of the alternatives studied. The Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Project would be considered an addition to the Solomon Gulch Project, and would require a "major amendment" to the existing Solomon Gulch FERC License, including the "three stage consultation process" mandated by ECPA (The Environmental Conservation Policy Act of 1986). Obtaining this amendment will be critical to the overall timing of construction of the project, since construction could not begin until final FERC approval of the amendment is obtained. The alternatives that consist of dam or intake changes at the existing Solomon Gulch Project will also require amendment of the existing FERC License. The lowering of the intake could be determined by FERC to be a "minor amendment" and would therefore be exempt from the three stage consultation process. The raising of the spillway options, either 5 feet or 32 feet, would likely be considered significant actions and would require three stage consultation. The stand alone Allison Lake Project would be considered a new and separate project, and would therefore likely require its own new FERC License. Due to its size, it would be considered a "Major Unconstructed Project". Three stage consultation and full agency and public involvement would be required throughout the licensing process for such a project. Diesel system expansion and/or end-use conservation projects could take place without regulatory approvals from FERC. Vu-8 —_ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Allison Creek is not considered by the COE as a navigable creek. Therefore, the stand-alone power generating project would not require a Section 10 Permit for structures or work affecting navigable waters of the United States. The penstock and powerhouse for the stand-alone power generating project may require a Section 404 permit from the COE if the location of these structures affects wetland areas. The tunnel alternative components (powerhouse, staging area, access road) may require a Section 404 permit. However, it appears from the NWI map that the area selected for location of these project components is not wetlands. The raising of the Solomon Reservoir with a rockfill dam may also require a COE permit for the placement of fill. If fill is required to expand the diesel generating facilities at CVEA, a COE Section 404 Permit may be required. A jurisdictional determination from the COE for these activities should be secured as soon as possible to avoid any delays in project implementation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that federal agencies considering modifications to a body of water which requires a federal license or permit, first consult with the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). HDR informally consulted the USFWS regarding potential impacts of each of the. proposed alternatives. USFWS had the greatest concern with the stand-alone power generating project on Allison Creek. Fewer environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources were associated with the other structural alternatives. In the event a bald eagle nest is found between now and the design phase, HDR recommends that AEA work cooperatively with the USFWS to determine a solution that affords the protection needed for nesting bald eagles while allowing development to proceed. A copy of the draft USFWS guidelines are attached in Appendix 5. Alaska Coastal Management Program. The project is located within the coastal zone of Alaska. The proposed activities will require review for consistency with the standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and enforceable policies of the City of Valdez Coastal Management Program. All projects located within the Alaska coastal zone are required to be reviewed for consistency with ACMP standards. These standards (6 AAC 50) provide for a coordinated interagency review process for reviewing and issuing state permits for proposed development. The Office of the Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) coordinates the review of projects by the state resource agencies (Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources) and the City of Valdez if permits are required from two or more state agencies or from a federal agency. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The Alaska Department of vu-9 Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has regulatory authority over a variety of activities. For example, ADEC issues a Section 401 Certificate of Reasonable Assurance if a COE Section 404 permit is required. If potential air emissions exceed the regulatory thresholds established by the Clean Air Act, additional ADEC air quality permits may be required. Further consultation with ADEC may be necessary to determine if any additional diesel generation emissions require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit or if CVEA can operate under a PSD Avoidance Permit. As a point of information, ADEC is currently preparing a user fee schedule per requirements of the Clean Air Act. If emissions generated per year are between 2000 tons and 4000 tons (a range into which CVEA will likely fall), the proposed permit fee could run as high as $25,000 per year. In addition, to insure that water and soil are not permanently impacted by the proposed project, the contractor should be held responsible for cleaning up any hazardous materials generated during construction. Any hazardous material discovered or exposed or released into the air, water, or ground during construction shall be reported to ADEC immediately. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Allison Creek and Solomon Creek have been designated as important for the spawning and rearing of anadromous fish (pink, chum, and coho salmon) in accordance with AS 16.05.870(a). HDR informally consulted with ADFG staff regarding potential impacts to fisheries resources from the various project alternatives. These concerns are described in the preceding environmental evaluation. A Title 16 Fish Habitat permit may be required for the stand-alone power generating project on Allison Creek and for any changes to Solomon Creek as a result of the tunnel alternative. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. The proposed project alternatives for the stand- alone power generating project and tunnel alternative are located on ADNR land. Several authorizations from ADNR may be required for the project alternatives. ¢ The following authorizations may be required stand-alone power generating project: land lease for the powerhouse, penstock, tailrace, and any staging areas; rights-of-way for the transmission lines; water rights authorization for water use; dam safety permit; and material sales contract if construction uses state resources. san erP ¢ The following authorizations may be required tunnel alternative: a. land lease for the additional powerhouse and staging area; b. right-of-way for the tunnel and access road along Solomon Reservoir; VII-10 c. right-of-way for the water pipeline along Dayville Road; d. water rights authorization for water use; and e. material sales contract if state resources are used. The alternatives that raise the level of the reservoir may require additional water rights authorizations and possibly a dam safety permit. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Dayville Road is not a ADOT&PF right-of-way. The land belongs to ADNR, but ADOT&PF has a 300 foot easement from ADNR. Further consultation with ADOT&PF is recommended at the pre-design phase for the tunnel alternative. Local Requirements. The alternative selected will require a coastal zone consistency determination from the City of Valdez. In addition, the stand-alone power generating project nay require a conditional use permit from the City of Valdez Planning Commission. vo-11 8.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS An economic analysis was performed to compare the Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Project to six other alternative development plans. Summarizing, the development alternatives compared were: 1) Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro 2) Stand Alone Allison Lake Project 3) Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 5 Feet 4) Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 32 Feet 5) Lower Intake At Solomon Gulch 6) Allison Lake Pipeline with Hydro 7) End Use Conservation The analysis consisted of a Lotus 123 spreadsheet model constructed specifically for this project. The model looks at the capital and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of each alternative and compares the costs to the benefits. The benefits of each alternative consist of savings in diesel fuel purchases, savings due to deferred diesel system expansion and savings in O&M costs associated with reduced diesel generation, including variable costs only for the smaller input alternatives and variable plus labor costs for the larger impact alternatives. The benefit:cost ratio was calculated for each alternative along with the net benefit of each project, defined as the present value of benefits minus the present value of costs. 8.1 Details of Economic Model Construction The economic analysis model was constructed using Lotus 123 rev 3.1. Flexibility to change assumptions of interest rates, discount rates, inflation rates and a variety of other factors was built into the model. The model consists of eight separate smaller spreadsheets or "pages" that are all linked together. Page A is the master input section where variables such as discount rate and inflation rates can be selected. An output summary table is also included on page A. Each subsequent page covers one of the alternatives. All analysis was done for a 50 year period. The two main features of the model on each page are the cost side and the benefit side. 8.1.1 Costs Project costs were obtained from the detailed estimates performed earlier in this study as described in sections 4 and 6 and Appendices 2 and 4 of this report. Capital costs were treated in real 1992 dollars including estimated development costs and interest during construction, all expressed in one figure as a 1992 expenditure. O&M costs were estimated for each alternative in 1992 dollars and reduced to their present value. 8.1.2 Benefits The key to calculation of benefits of any of the options is to accurately predict the amount of diesel generation that can be saved through implementation of that alternative. To accurately predict diesel savings, a variety of factors are involved. LOAD GROWTH FORECASTS The generation load in the CVEA system has to be predicted for the 50 year analysis period. For this analysis, three different forecasts were used to provide some sensitivity analysis of this critical assumption. The three forecasts are a low, medium and high growth case. All three scenarios predict load growth out 20 years and then hold the predicted year 2012 load constant for the remainder of the 50 year analysis. The low growth case assumes a 1990 CVEA total demand of 59,000 MWh (the actual demand) and a 1% annual growth. This is somewhat less than the historical load growth experienced by CVEA, and should therefore bracket the low end of possible load growth scenarios. The medium load growth forecast is a forecast being currently used by CVEA from a power requirement study done in 1989 (see Reference 14). This forecast assumes an approximately 2.5% load growth each year based on observed loads from years 1985 through 1989. To obtain 20 years of load growth predictions, the 1989 forecast was extended to year 2011 using "best fit" curve analysis. This medium scenario is essentially identical to the medium forecast used in the recent Stone & Webster Least Cost Plan Demonstration Study and was confirmed by CVEA to be the best currently available forecast. The high load growth forecast is the medium forecast with an addition of 24,000 MWh per year beginning in 1992 to account for the potential addition of a large new load at CVEA from the planned Petro Star Refinery. The Petro Star project is planned to be completed by November 1992 and would add a load of about 2,000 MWh per month to CVEA. CVEA has signed a memorandum of understanding with Petro Star to supply the energy if the project goes forward. As of this writing, prospects for actual construction of the project look very good (Mike Easley, CVEA, personal communication). FUEL PRICE FORECASTS Two fuel price forecasts were used in the analysis. One is the AEA Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study forecast, which is agreed to be a reasonable planning assumption by both AEA and CVEA staff. It predicts 1992 costs of about $0.81 per gallon which correlates well to the actual rate being paid by CVEA today of about $0.77 per gallon. A second forecast was developed for sensitivity analysis to reflect the possibility of lower fuel costs in the future, and was defined as $0.15 per gallon less than the base case AEA Recon Forecast in 1992 dollars. The Fuel Cost Forecasts and Load Growth Forecasts used in the model are shown on Figure 5. VIl-2 : od EASON AD AND G IN_PATTERN: Currently, CVEA attempts to maximize hydroelectric generation throughout the year and supplements generation as aecessary to meet demand with diesel. In the winter, inflow to the Solomon Gulch Project is greatly reduced, so as the reservoir is drawn down, diesel generation becomes necessary. Finally, in late winter or early spring, the reservoir is completely out of water and the whole system load is carried by diesel for typically one to two months. In the summer, excess water is available at Solomon Gulch and all load is presently served by the hydro project, with some excess capacity. As discussed in the AEA Railbelt Intertie Reconnaissance Study and in the Glennallen to Fairbanks Intertie Preliminary Assessment (Reference 4) winter (October through May) generation from Solomon Gulch is estimated to be 25,900 MWh per year. We believe this is a reasonable assumption. Summer generation (June through September) has been estimated in the same studies referenced above to be about 28,600 MWh. CVEA has suggested and our analysis confirms that there is a potential to generate up to 36,500 MWh from Solomon Gulch in the summer if the demand were present and the reservoir could be kept nearly full throughout the period. Therefore, when constructing the model we considered two alternatives for Solomon Gulch energy availability, as shown below: | Period | cases | cose 2 | | Cetober through May (Gwh) | 25.9 | 25.9 _| | June Through September (GW) | 28.6 | 36.5 | [Toms (cwny | 545 | oe When the detailed analysis of all alternatives was made and model output for all combinations of loads, fuel forecasts and summer Solomon Gulch energy production was examined, it was found that changing Solomon Gulch summer output from 28.6 MWh to 36.5 MWh had no impact on over 90% of the possible scenarios. In the cases where this change in summer energy did alter the net project benefit, it was found to be a very small impact (less than 10%). Therefore, no separate results will be shown in this report for the 36.5 MWh summer output scenario. The complete economic model will be supplied to AEA and will be kept on file at HDR. i i | \ } | Load distribution at CVEA was estimated (Reference 4) to be about 30% in the summer 4 month period June through September and 70% during the eight month winter period. This is based on DOE Forms IE-411 submitted by CVEA and confirmed in the CVEA 1989 Power Requirement Study (Reference 14) as being reasonable. This split of 30:70 will be used in the analysis. Finally, the distribution of energy generated by each alternative had to be estimated. This turned out to be quite straightforward. Distribution between summer and winter periods were estimated as follows for each alternative: Figure 5 Fuel Cost Forecasts YEAR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 BERSR ESB aRREER 2047 ‘ AEA Recon $0.82 $0.83 $0.85 $0.86 $0.88 $0.89 $0.91 $0.92 $0.94 $0.95 $0.96 $0.97 $0.99 $0.99 $1.00 $1.01 $1.03 $1.05 $1.06 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 $1.07 AEA Discount $0.67 $0.68 $0.70 $0.71 $0.73 $0.74 $0.76 $0.77 $0.79 $0.80 $0.81 $0.82 $0.84 $0.84 $0.85 $0.86 $0.88 $0.90 $0.91 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 $0.92 Load Forecasts (MWh) Low 60186 60788 61396 62010 Medium 56,384 57,480 58,651 60,049 61,497 63,049 64,543 65,981 67,537 69,313 71,135 73,006 74,926 76,896 78,918 80,993 83,123 85,309 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 87,551 High 80,384 81,480 82,651 84,049 85,497 87,049 88,543 89,981 91,537 93,313 95,135 97,006 98,926 100,896 102,896 104,993 107,123 109,309 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,554 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,554 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 111,551 1) Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro- All energy generated October to May, by design 2) Stand Alone Allison Lake Project- Energy generation pattern identical to Solomon Gulch plant 3) Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 5 Feet- 11% in summer due to increased head, rest in winter 4) Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 32 Feet-11% in summer due to increased head, rest in winter 5) Lower Intake At Solomon Gulch-100% in winter period when reservoir drawn down 6) Allison Lake Pipeline with Hydro- All energy generated October through May by design 7) End Use Conservation- Savings spread evenly month by month through the year. With these factors defined, the amount of diesel offset or saved each year was calculated as in the following example: 1. For year 1, the model would find the load from the load forecast- e.g. 80,000 MWh 2. In the summer, load is 0.3 x 80,000=24,000 MWh. Solomon Gulch summer generation is up to 28,600 MWh, so no diesel generation would be necessary in this summer and any generation from the alternative would be useless in this summer period. 3. In the winter, the load would be 0.7 x 80,000=56,000 MWh. Solomon Gulch winter generation is 25,900, so the non-hydro demand would be 56,000-25,900=30,100 MWh. This would have to be met by diesel in the base case, or could be met by a combination of diesel and energy from the alternate under study. 4. If the alternate being studied can generate 25,000 MWh in the winter period, for example, only 5,100 MWh would have to be generated by diesel, for a savings in diesel generation of 25,000 MWh. 5. Using an assumed heat rate of 11,000 BTU/kWh and a heating value of 140,000 BTU/gallon of diesel fuel, the number of gallons of oil saved in this example would be about 1.9 million gallons (46,000 bbl) at a savings of almost $1.6 million at $0.81 per gallon. This general methodology is repeated each year of the 50 year analysis. Complete printouts of ‘the results are shown in Appendix 6. DEFERRED DIESEL SYSTEM EXPANSION SAVINGS It is assumed that CVEA would purchase new diesel generation equipment in the future if none of the alternative projects is implemented. If an alternative is implemented that can offset significant amounts of diesel generation, it is assumed that expansion of the diesel system can be postponed, resulting in savings. As discussed in the Fairbanks to Glennallen Intertie Assessment (Reference 5), one reasonable system expansion model is to assume that 3.0 MW of new generation would be installed in 1996, and an additional 1.5 MW in 2004. This pattern is then repeated every 12 years. Cost of the installed diesel facilities was assumed to be $450/kw in constant 1992 dollars. The present value of these investments through year 2041 was calculated to be $3,278,039 using 1992 dollars and a 4.5% discount rate. To estimate savings from deferral of this expansion model, it was noted that present day Vil-4 generation by diesel amounts to about 15,000 MWh per year and that the existing diesel system is close to needing expansion in order to maintain an approximate 2:1 ratio of installed capacity to demand that CVEA is comfortable with (telephone conversation, Mike Easley, CVEA). For purposes of this model, it was assumed that if an alternative could be implemented such that actual annual diesel generation was below 15,000 MWh, then the diesel expansion plan could be deferred. Each year, the model calculates the needed diesel generation, and when it again climbs to the 15,000 MWh per year level, that year is assumed to be the first year of the diesel expansion model discussed above when 3.0 MW is first installed. The present value of the deferred investments is then calculated and the difference from the base case is assigned as a benefit to that alternative. Figure 6 shows typical model output for the diesel expansion deferral section of the model. O&M COSTS Savings in O&M costs have been estimated in several previous reports on a dollars per kWh basis in the range of $0.01 to $0.03165 per kWh saved. These costs were discussed with CVEA and it was agreed that it is difficult to precisely predict this value, particularly under a variety of project development scenarios. Generally, if labor can be reduced by actual staff reductions as a result of some project, the variable savings will be high, in the $0.03/kWh range. If an alternative would allow a diesel machine to be run at 40% load instead of 60% load, for example, some wear and tear on the machine is reduced, but no actual labor savings are realized. In this case, reduced maintenance costs and other factors result in variable costs savings of only about $0.01/kWh. The Glennallen To Fairbanks Intertie Assessment.(Reference 5) used $0.01 to represent variable O&M costs only while the recent Stone and Webster Least Cost Plan Study (Reference 7) for CVEA used $0.03165. For the purposes of this study, we will assume that the key aspect of O&M savings is whether or not new project energy is sufficient to allow reduction in labor force. If output from an alternative is in the range of 15,000 MWh per year or higher, it will be likely that significant labor savings could result. For smaller projects where annual energy savings amount to 1,000 MWh or less, it is unlikely labor savings will result. It was decided to perform sensitivity analysis on the benefits of four projects to changes in O&M costs of between $0.01 and $0.03165/kWh. These projects are 1) Allison Lake Tunnel Diversion w/ Hydro; 2) Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro; 3) Stand Alone Allison Lake; and 4) Raise Solomon Spillway 32 feet. Analysis of the other 3 projects will only use the assumption of $0.01 savings/kWh. 8.2 Results The results of the analysis are shown on the attached Table 6. While other assumptions could result in different benefit estimates, the range of results in this reconnaissance study consistently rank the Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Option as the best alternative scheme and show it to have very significant economic benefits. The analysis also confirms that there are several other development schemes that could provide significant benefits. Based on the base case analysis, net benefits for the seven alternatives are shown below: VI-5 VW FIGURE 6 DIESEL EXPANSION PLAN Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 4.5 1.5 MW Diesel Plant Cost (1992 $): 675,000 3.0 MW Diesel Plant Cost (1992 $): 1,350,000 Existing Diesel Plant Capacity (MW): 15 Dependable Capacity of Existing Diesel Plant (MWh): 15,000 Base Case Diesel Plan Cost (1992 $): 3,278,039 New Total MWh Cost of Cost of Diesel From Expansion Expansion Year Output Diesel (Future $) (1992 $) 1992 0 131,400 0 0 2003 3 157,680 1,350,000 831,868 2011 1.5 170,820 675,000 292,479 2015 3 197,100 1,350,000 490,523 2023 1.5 210,240 675,000 172,464 2027 3 236,520 1,350,000 289,243 2035 15 249,660 675,000 101,696 2039 3 275,940 1,350,000 170,556 2047 1.5 289,080 675,000 59,966 Total Cost of Diese! Expansion Plan: 2,408,796 (If the total cost of the diesel expansion plan is equal to 0; then the expansion will take place after year 2041.) Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro $20,313,221 Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro $10,838,004 Eerwa Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 32 ft. Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 5 ft. HE Heres leo) | 4 ides | soon Lower Solomon Gulch Intake TT esaoeesen TT aati [End Use Conservation | isa.ag7 | 1.28 | Allison Lake Stand Alone Hydro All the alternatives have positive net benefits except for the stand alone Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project. Its economics are poor because its energy production pattern would be the same as Solomon Gulch, so that its summer output is not needed and its winter output is too small to allow offset of much diesel generation. As discussed in section 6, the stand alone Allison Lake Hydro Project could be operated either similarly to the Solomon Gulch Project, with resulting winter energy shortfalls, or similarly to the proposed Allison Lake Diversion Tunnel with Hydro. If it were operated like the diversion project, it would result in a similar amount of winter energy production as the diversion alternative, but at a much higher cost due to the need for much larger turbines (8 MW vs 3.1 MW) and considerably more expensive civil works construction costs. Since the diversion alternative was clearly more beneficial in this mode of operation, the Stand Alone Project was assumed to operate in much the same way as the Solomon Gulch Project, as assumed in previous studies as well. The Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro alternative has about twice the benefit of the pipeline option in most scenarios, but both of the Allison Lake diversion options, the tunnel and the pipeline alternatives, have attractive NPVs. VIII-6 TABLE 6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESULTS —- PROJECT NET BENEFITS SOLOMON GULCH SUMMER GENERATION 28,600 CASE ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AEA Recon Fuel Forecast __Low Fuel Cost Forecast O&M SavingskWh Low Med wh Petro w/ Petro _ Med w/o Petro High w/ Petro ALTERNATIVE Z : 1. Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro $0.03165 $14,949,613 $20,313,221 $20,320,658) _ __ $15,464,133 $15,200,391 $0.01 $7,074,621 $11,405,592 $10,914,882 $6,556,504 $5,794,614 2. Stand Alone Allison Lake Hydro $0.03165 ($14,914,333 ($16,883,971 (812,191,263] ($17,838,358) ($19,807,996 ($15,703,340 $0.01 ($20,285,678 ($22,255,316 ($18,642,843 (323,209,70 (825,179, 34 : ($22,154,921 3. Solomon Gulch Lower Intake $0.01 $530,133 $530,132 $530,132] $291,401] $291,400 $291,401 4. Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 5 feet $0.01 $783,169 | $783,169 $1,009,602 ___ $477,023] $477,023] $674,521 5. Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 32 feet $0.03165 $7,123,193 | $5,064,922 $6,509,336] $4,648,659| $2,590,387 $3,788,437 $0.01 $2,577,548 | $519,277 $1,511,126 _ $103,014 ($1,955,258] ($1,209,773 6. Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro $0.03165 $12,807,642 $10,838, $9,805,844 $9,923,053| $7,953,415] $6,921,255 $0.01 $7,508,739 $5,539,101 $4,506,941 $4,624,149| $2,654,511 $1,622,351 7. End Use Conservation $0.01 $114,497 $114,497 $300,069 $44099| ———$44,098| $205,541 Note: For Cost Benefit Ratios For Each Option, see Appendix 6 | 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 General Conclusions The clear conclusion of this study is that the Allison Lake Tunnel Diversion Project with Hydroelectric is the most beneficial of all the options studied to help meet the present and future energy demands of Copper Valley Electric Association and the Valdez-Glennallen area. The project has expected net benefits in the range of $20 million depending on the assumptions used. The Allison Lake Pipeline Diversion project with Hydro was also very attractive, with expected net benefits of nearly $11 million. Both these projects evaluated well because they have been designed and laid out to generate power in the winter season, when CVEA needs it the most. Furthermore, both these projects add water into Solomon Gulch Reservoir that is re-used to generate additional power at the existing Solomon Gulch Plant. This existing plant is presently under-utilized and has a low capacity factor. By adding water to Solomon Gulch Reservoir, extra generation is obtained with no additional investment for generating equipment, since the existing generators are just used in this case at a higher use factor. This is very cost effective and is the underlying reason why these two options are so attractive. 9.22 Recommendations 9.2.1 Technical There are a variety of technical recommendations that should be considered if the decision is made to further investigate the Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Project. The most important technical features of this project are the tunnel and the proposed lake tap. To be successful, the construction cost of these features must be estimated to a high level of accuracy before long term funding is arranged for the project. This reconnaissance study has produced cost estimates that contain 20% to 30% contingency which amounts to almost $6 million for the tunnel project. Higher accuracy cost estimates will allow the contingency to be reduced and will result in much higher confidence levels in the success of the project. We recommend the following steps be considered to move this project forward toward implementation: 1. Perform site surveying to confirm locations, elevations, distances and unit quantities of the major project features. 2. Perform a depth survey in Allison Lake to establish the lake bottom profile. This will be critical in confirming the suitability and exact location of the lake tap. 3. Perform site geotechnical reconnaissance. Some test borings have been made in the area, but not at the best locations for this particular project. Test holes should be considered in the downstream tunnel portal area, along the tunnel route and as close to the lake tap IX-1 location as practical. Consideration should be given to bottom test sampling in the winter from the lake ice in the selected lake tap area. 4. A stream gauge should be re-established on Allison Creek to continue to gather hydrologic data. The more data that is available, the higher will be the confidence level that the planned performance will be achieved. A gauge protected from winter freezing would provide valuable data not currently available. 5. A project design package including specification outlines and a drawing set up to about the 25% complete design level should be prepared. Based on these documents, contractor and vendor pricing should be obtained for the project and cost estimates to the 10% contingency level should be prepared. This detailed information should then allow AEA to make a final decision to proceed with the project. 9.2.2 Regulatory and Environmental HDR recommends that the pre-design concepts for the selected alternative be presented to the appropriate state and federal resource agencies and the local coastal district early in the development process. At a minimum, the following agencies should be involved: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FERC, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, City of Valdez, and Division of Governmental Coordination. Pre-application consultation avoids multiple design changes and subsequent delays in project implementation. HDR has identified several areas that warrant further study depending on the development approach taken by AEA. A. Further analysis of the water rights issues on both Solomon and Allison Creeks is needed to ensure that the water requirements of the project can be met. For example, there are several holders of water rights on Allison Creek that will need to be consulted before AEA applies to appropriate additional water. This will minimize conflicting interests. Specifically, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) holds water rights on Allison Creek and currently diverts water for use at the terminal facilities. Coordination with APSC regarding water rights on Allison Creek during the pre-design phase for any of the Allison Creek related power generation projects is suggested. B. Additional studies on instream flow, fish habitat and fish population may be needed. The need for these additional studies will be clarified once a design alternative has been selected. IX-2 A wetlands jurisdictional determination from the COE should be secured to determine if any of the project components are located on wetlands. This should be done as early as possible to avoid delays in project implementation. At this time we do not believe that the powerhouse, access road, and staging area components of the tunnel alternative will require a Section 404 permit. We recommend confirmation of this with the COE, however. Consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should begin once AEA has selected a design alternative. IX-3 10. REFERENCES 1. Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Stage II Checkpoint Report, Hydroelectric Power and Related Purposes for Valdez, Alaska, US Army Corps of Engineers, April, 1978. 2. Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Electrical Power For Valdez and The Copper River Basin, US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, March, 1981. 3. Alaska Energy Authority intemal memorandum from Eric Marchegiani to Rudy Etheridge, Dated Sept. 18, 1985; Re: Solomon Gulch Project/Capital Project Modifications 4. Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project, Reservoir Capacity Increase Feasibility Study, Copper Valley Electric Association, Valdez, Alaska, November, 1991. 5. Glennallen To Fairbanks Intertie: Preliminary Assessment, Alaska Energy Authority, March 4, 1991 6. Pressure Reducing Turbine Study, International Engineering Company, Inc, Robert W. Retherford Associates Division, Anchorage, AK, July, 1981. 7. "Final Report On Least-Cost Utility Planning Demonstration Study", Copper Valley Electric Association, Stone and Webster Management Consultants, Inc., Edgewood, . Colorado, November, 1991 8. Valdez Terminal Oil Spill Contingency Plan, June, 1991. 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States", December, 1979. 10. Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project FEIS, 1978. 11. Environmental Baseline Data, Proposed LNG Plant/Marine Terminal Site, Port Valdez, Yukon Pacific Corporation, 1991. 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report AP-42, August, 1984, Table 3.4-1, Emission factors for stationary large bore diesel and dual fuel engines. 13. "Externality Costs For Oil Fired Units", Environmental Costs of Electricity, Pace University Center For Environmental Legal Studies, Oceana Publications, Inc., New York, 1990. 14. Power Requirement Study, Copper Valley Electric Association, Glennallen, Alaska, November, 1989. APPENDIX 1 DRAWINGS | 1 A foe MA oA .. VW YOU pe ROWERHQUSE/ JX 2! Se eee a : fo NEW D POWERHOUSE j \ AREY IPELINE ALTERNATIVE p= PIPE \G 5 a 10” MIN. FLOW PIPE RETURN TO ALLISON Wa iv / / LISON TARE” “NORM. ELEV.. 1367. 00": SUBMERGED INTAKE PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND ALYESKA / TERMINAL / 1800 0 1800 3600 5400 eS ; ean VACUUM VENT / \ A \ / ROCKSLIDE DEFLECTOR BIFURCATION FOR FUTURE / jiwecae BYOROP OWE Y7_1367.00’ NORM. POOL LAKE PLANT: TUNNEL PORTAL 4 VALVE HOUSE 42°9 STEEL PENSTOCK 10’ HORSESHOE TUNNEL CONCRETE SUPPORT SADDLE 32’ 0.C. NORM. MAX 685.00’ POOL SOLOMON GULCH RESERVOIR EL. 710.00’ Y_.1267.00" MIN. POOL 350’ = W_1250.00' So TRASHRACK V_1210.00’ PRIMARY ROCK TRAP 60’ x 12’ DEEP STAGING AREA EL. 695.00’ MIN. POOL 60” DISCHARGE PIPE A ROCK TRAP 60° x 6’ DEEP 30’ LONG CONCRETE PLUG SECONDARY ROCK TRAP 4'-0" ROOM DOUBLE WATER TIGHT DOORS SECTION A-A sata et TYPICAL TUNNEL SECTION SCALE: 1° = 4 B alll VACUUM VENT si \ Y/) iN ROCKSLIDE DEFLECTOR BIFURCATION | FOR FUTURE HYDROPOWER ALLISON Y7_1367.00’ NORM. POOL LAKE PLANT- TUNNEL VALVE HOUSE PORTAL 42°96 STEEL PENSTOCK 10° HORSESHOE TUNNEL CONCRETE SUPPORT SADDLE 32’ 0.C. NORM. MAX 685.00’ POOL SOLOMON GULCH RESERVOIR EL. 710.00’ Y_ 1267.00’ MIN. POOL 350’ = W_1250.00" Se TRASHRACK 1210.00° PRIMARY ROCK TRAP 60’ x 12’ DEEP STAGING AREA EL. 695.00’ MIN. POOL 60” DISCHARGE PIPE A ROCK TRAP 60° x 6’ DEEP 30’ LONG CONCRETE PLUG SECONDARY ROCK TRAP 5 l ’ + ROOM DOUBLE WATER TIGHT DOORS S A-A SCALE: 1° = 20 NE ew) TYPICAL TUNNEL SECTION SCALE: 1” = 4’ ALLISON LAKE PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY TUNNEL & LAKE TAP OPTION a fe DESGNED BY: J. SNYDER ao ee el DRAW BY: C. SAXE DATE: 02/05/82} ANCHORAGE ALASKA | B SET NO eco remse carn eee ee y-NEW 12’ HIGH ROCK FILL DAM VACUUM PUMP HOUSE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE NEW NORM. POOL V7_1379.00’ EXISTING NORM. POOL _Y_ 1367.00’ NEW BURIED 30 |.D. PIPELINE NEW 12’ HIGH ROCK FILL DAM ALLISON LAKE ee er CONCRETE LINED SPILLWAY CHANEL 300’ eS id NEW BURIED 30” pte I.D. PIPELINE RS @ INTAKE EL. 1318.00’ LV eee VACUUM PUMP HOUSE ay TRENCH CUT—OFF WALL BACKFILL AFTER PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION ~~ tee. COFFERDAM (REMOVE AFTER PIPELINE INSTALLATION) ALLISON LAKE PROJECT RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PIPELINE INTAKE SITE PLAN é& SECTION OSS 0825 ONS 58 SL SSS MOSK o, ¢ oS $2525 SOON SOCK) SRG $62] LS S59 ansatsest 4 255 $255 250525 S555 SERRE] $505] ~ RRR KRG RSI SRRSRNG RSS 5S RRR BSI arereratecene, RRR RRRSRRING ESRI RRRRENS RSS 250525 RSS RSS eS RRR RON N OS a uw Oo So % z o < EFS a <a o = co o = os One = oc mY WH oO 3 ii ij uJ WW Zz oY W5>— O68 cw Leh + 89 oS < > pL ND Oct 7 @ tab al nZs <I ws 2 2s os on> 7 _\ iB << ui ets lu oO - = nal Ww <3 Oo ( 3s E 22 ES Ly! 3 GS >F 6O= Ly i oO < Se wn . = an Sa g 9 SK 3 2 Oo ~ _ < Bb eo OS oO <=> GBs We >a b uJ wo RKO ONION BOO SRI] SSR SCSI SRK KKK SRK RRR) ereraterecerer ered erererererarecerereceree 2505555052505 araratateretatene, SSOP] SOS SRK] oretaretetateceracere, S555 SONS SRR RSIS ROKR LSS RRR ERR) RRR RY SKK KK) RON) © z So = | ae ol wie wn Sei Qnty Wi co THz SRK] oreteretetetetetate: 5555 SHS SRS SKK KK KKK) RSS Weretetatatetetes SRR KRIS 55052525 62505 RRR QRS? QRRM TINY RECONNAISSANC! ALLISON LAKE PROJECT : 4 DESIGNED BY: J SNYDER DRAWN BY. C. SAXE CHECKED fy: NAME 30” ID PENSTOCK SCALE VACUUM PUMP HOUSE 1 00° REVISIONS 1318 EL = 4’ PLAN PROFILE SIPHON INTAKE SCALE: 1” *XOUddV RRR KY RSI SSRI RS RRR BS RRR KS d KS 4 RS ORG RSS RSS SSC 5 RSI RG > q Sy DOOOOOOOO"d TN el LAKE SURFACE LAKE BOTTOM METAL ROOFING CMU WALLS DISCHARGE PIPES DISSIPATING 12’ x 26’ VALVE HOUSE BIFURCATION TTT TTI TT} PT TTT TTT TT} PIPELINE ALTERNATIVE 30” PIPELINE 42’ x 46’ POWERHOUSE “ ere (OPTIONAL) : “\— stacine AREA i o> ieee VALVE HOUSE SECTION SCALE: 1” = 10’ DISCHARGE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 50’ 60” DISCHARGE PIPE VV EL. 616.00’ MIN. POOL ALLISON LAKE PROJECT DATE REVISIONS RECONNAISSANCE STUDY i SOLOMON GULCH / DISCHARGE AREA SITE PLAN & SECTION j [ ' (ED BY: J. SNYDER DATE: 02/14/92 YZ_EL. 610.00’ / a oe eel NASIR CHORAE MASI | Seas er eemeee owe wna APPENDIX 2 Detailed Cost Estimates Tunnel and Pipeline Options ALLISON LAKE COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES _ DESCRIPTION Land and Land Rights Structures and Improvements Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways Turbines & Generators Accessory Electrical Equip. Miscellaneous Mechanical Equip. Structures & Improvements (Trans) Substation Equipment & Structures Fixtures, Conductors & Devices Fees & Contingencies 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy—MWhyyr 30,010,533 $34,740,943 0.0000 13621 $34,892,132 0.0000 13621 ALT 3 Tunne! w/ Hydro $200,000 | $1,522,850 $17,122,400 $975,000 $240,000 $45,000 $30,000 $112,000 3,975,505 $39,330,895 3.1450 27396 ALT 4 Pipeline Only $230,000 $1,136,300 $6,552,000 13,554,783 $15,691,355 Future Hydro 07015—V10—14y 03/10/92 f\hyd\585\altsum.wk 1 ALT ALT 5 6 Pipeline w/ Pipeline w/ Hydro __ $230,000 $230,000 | $1,136,300 $1,870,700 $6,632,900 $6,685,400 $0 $585,000 $75,000 $315,000 $45,000 $30,000 $65,000 $300,000 $6,736,170 $16,862,270 $15,842,544] $19,520,185 0.0000 1.8000 7581 15434 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073 -010— 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/1092 ALTERNATIVE 1 - TUNNEL ONLY f:\hyd\58S\tun lest wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) \| j ; Unit Amount Description Quantity | Unit | Price ($)_ LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights — Generation Plant | 1| Ls $40,000! $40,000 USFS Special Use Permit 1) LS | $30,000; — $30,000 Surveying 1} Ls $100,000| $100,000 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees 2| YR $15,000} $30,000 Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights |__ $200,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical auabhi” POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection 2 oll 2 3 4 5 6 PA 8 SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road Excavation Surfacing Drainage/Containment ion ora Subtotal | $765,450 Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS HORSESHOE TUNNEL Access Portal Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) $10,575,000 Rock Bolting $587,500 TUNNEL PLUG SECTION | Excavation (30’— Drill & Shoot) $72,000 Penstock $4,500 Concrete (Structural) $132,000 Valves | Butterfly (42”} $10,000 Spherical (42") $20,000 Watertight Doors $25,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 7073 -10— 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10;92 ALTERNATIVE 1 - TUNNEL ONLY fhyd\S85\tun lestwk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Doilars) FERC Unit Amount Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price ($)_ 3 INTAKE SECTION | | | | zl Rockslide Deflector 1}; LS $150,000 $150,000 a Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) 350; LF $900} $315,000 3 Vacuum Vent | 200} LF $150 $30,000 4 Rock Traps i 60| CY $450 $27,000 5 Lake Tap j 1} LS $300,000 | $300,000 6 Sediment Removal | LS $300,000 | $0 7 Trashrack 1} LS $25,000 $25,000 4 PENSTOCK ok Steel Penstock Material (42") 11950} LF $150 | $1,792,500 2 Supports (Concrete) 450| CY $1,000; $450,000 3 Installation 11950} LF $80 $956,000 4 Bifurcation LB $5 $0 5 Energy Dissipating Valve (24" Polyjet) 1} LS $40,000 $40,000 6 Outlet Pipe (60") 100} LF $500| $50,000 5 M.LF. PIPELINE A Steel Pipeline Material (10") 9100} LF $10} $91,000 7 Installation 9100| LF $25 $227,500 2 2-75 hp Pumps & Controls 1} Ls $50,000 50,000 $16,180,000 Tunnelling Equipment Mobilization (5%) 809,000 Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Wate 16,989,000 | 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitey) Er Supply Ls $750,000 $0 2 Install LS $225,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators $0 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT d Switchgear | LS | $50,000 $o 2 Station Service LS $40,000 $0 3 Control Panel | LS | $90,000 $0 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables LS $50,000 $0 5 Lighting Ls $10,000 $o Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical ipment $0 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT A Cooling Water System | ES {| $10,000 $0 2 Crane LS $35,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment $0 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) D Substation Foundations ES {| — $10,000 $0 2 Oil Spill Containment LS | $10,000 $0 2 Grounding Grid LS $10,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements $0 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1 - TUNNEL ONLY DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description 4 Quantity | Unit _| SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES | Main Transformer | Accessory Switchgear Equipment i | us | ian FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures || | | | New Pole Line | MILE SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESER *"YIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURB1 -S AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESS JRY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy—M Wh/yr Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 -1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 07073 -010— 149 03/10/92 f:\nyd\585\tun lest wk1 $200,000 $788,450 $16,989,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,977,450 $1,617,971 $500,000 $400,000 $1,438,196 $21,933,617 $0 $5,393,235 $2,683,682 $30,010,533 $34,740,943 0.000 13621 N/A N/A $3,381,557 $0.2483 $0.0070 $0.2553 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 2 - TUNNEL W/ FUTURE HYDRO DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) J10-149 03-1092 f\hyd\S85\tun2estwk 1 FERC Unit Amount | Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price ($) | 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS A Land Rights — Generation Plant | 1{ LS | $40,000; $40,000 2 USFS Special Use Permit | 1| LS $30,000; $30,000 3 Surveying | 1! LS | $100,000} $100,000 4 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees | 2} YR $15,000 $30,000 | Total - Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights | | IE $200,000 | | | | 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS | A VALVE HOUSE | | A Excavation/Backfill 120} CY $50 $6,000 2 Concrete (including reinforcing) 70| CY $1,000 $70,000 3 CMU 800} SF $6 $4,800 4 Roofing 320| SF | $8 $2,400 S Miscellaneous Metals 2,000; LB $3 $6,000 6 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1| LS $10,000 | 2 POWERHOUSE oh; Excavation/Backfill | cy } $50 2 Concrete (including reinforcing) CY $1,000 3: CMU } SF | $6} 4 Roofing SF $8 Ss Miscellaneous Metals i LB $3 6° HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical LS $50,000 7 Grounding Grid : | LS | $10,000 8 Fire Protection LS $15,000 3 SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK A. Access Road 05|}MILE| $300,000; $ 2 Excavation 24500; CY $20 3 Surfacing 750| CY $s} 4 Drainage/Containment 1| Ls $15,000 Subtotal $765,450 Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and ements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS A HORSESHOE TUNNEL a Access Portal | 1} LS | $250,000} $250,000 2 Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) 11750| LF $900 | $10,575,000 3 Rock Bolting. | 10954. LE $500} $587,500 2 TUNNEL PLUG SECTION A Excavation (30’— Drill & Shoot} 160} CY $450| $72,000 2 Penstock 30| LF $150 $4,500 3 Conerete (Structural) 110} CY $1,200} $132,000 4 Valves a Butterfly (42°) 1j Ls $10,000} $10,000 .b Spherical (42") 1| Ls $20,000| $20,000 5 Watertight Doors ns 1] Ls $25,000{ $25,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073 -010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/1092 ALTERNATIVE 2 — TUNNEL W/ FUTURE HYDRO f:\hyd\585S\tun2est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description lo INTAKE SECTION Rockslide Deflector Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) Vacuum Vent Rock Traps Lake Tap Sediment Removal Trashrack NaWebne a PENSTOCK Steel Penstock Material (42°) Supports (Concrete) Installation Bifurcation Energy Dissipating Valve (24" Polyjet) Outlet Pipe (60") M.LF. PIPELINE Steel Pipeline Material (16°) Installation 2-75 hp Pumps & Controls Tunnelling Equipment Mobilization (5%) Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways | DAWawre won” $16,257,000 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitef) Supply Install Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear Station Service Control Panel Conduit/Wire/Cables Lighti Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Cooling Water System Crane Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spill Containment Grounding Grid Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 37073 =) 10 — 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 33.10.92 ALTERNATIVE 2 - TUNNEL W/ FUTURE HYDRO f: hyd\S85\tun2estwk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description Quantity | Unit SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES | Main Transformer i | Ls | Accessory Switchgear Equipment LS Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures || FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line SUMMARY 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS $200,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $788,450 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS $17,069,900 333. ¢ TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) $0 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT $0 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT $0 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES . $0 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES $0 Total Direct Construction Costs $18,058,350 Design Engineering @ 9% $1,625,252 Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys $500,000 FERC and Other Licensing $400,000 Construction Mgmt. @ 8% $1,444,668 Subtotal: $22,028,270 Contingency (20% on equipment) $0 Contingency (30% on remainder) $5,417,505 Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) $2,695,361 1992 Estimated Project Cost $30,141,135 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) $34,892,132 Plant Max. Output (MW) 0.000 Projected Annual Energy—MWh/yr 13621 Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 N/A — 1995 N/A Annual Debt Service $3,396,273 (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.2493 O&M Allowance $0.0070 Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 $0.2563 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 3 - TUNNEL W/ HYDRO DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights — Generation Plant USFS Special Use Permit Surveying FERC/USFS Land Use Fees Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights | | STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection oh 2 3 4 5S 6 a 8 SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road Excavation Surfacing Drainage/Containment unto Subtotal Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS HORSESHOE TUNNEL Access Portal Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) Rock Bolting TUNNEL PLUG SECTION Excavation (30’— Drill & Shoot) Penstock Concrete (Structural) Valves Butterfly (42") Spherical (42") Watertight Doors | Quantity | Unit | us | | ts | | ¥R | 11750| LF 1175} LF 160| CY 30| LF 110{ CY 07073 -9010-149 03/10/92 f:\hyd\S85\tun3est.wk1 Unit Price $40,000 | $30,000 | $100,000 | $15,000 ; | | $1,478,450 44, |_ $1,522,850 $250,000 $10,575,000 $587,500 $72,000 $4,500 $132,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 17073 = 10 — 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03.10.92 ALTERNATIVE 3 - TUNNEL W/ HYDRO fahyd\S8S\tunjestwk 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) FERC Unit Amount Acc No Description Quantity | Unit | Price ($) 3 INTAKE SECTION A Rockslide Deflector i 1} Ls $150,000} $150,000 2 Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) 350| LF $900! $315,000 3 Vacuum Vent i 200 LF | $150 $30,000 4 Rock Traps I 60| CY $450| $27,000 5 Lake Tap | ES $300,000| $300,000 6 Sediment Removal | LS $300,000 | $0 Hf Trashrack 1} LS $25,000 $25,000 4 PENSTOCK | i Steel Penstock Material (42") 11980} LF $150 $1,792,500 2 Supports (Concrete) i 450| CY | $1,000} $450,000 3 Installation 11950} LF $80} $956,000 4 Bifurcation 15400} LB | $5| $77,000 5 Energy Dissipating Valve (24" Polyjet) 1} Ls $40,000} $40,000 6 Outlet Pipe (60") 200; LF | $500| $100,000 5 M.LF. PIPELINE A Steel Pipeline Material (10°) 9100} LF | $10} $91,000 2 Installation 9100} LF $25| $227,500 3 2-75 hp Pumps & Controls 1] LS | $50,000 0,000 $16,307,000 Tunnelling Equipment Mobilization (5%) 815,400 Total - Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways| | --| $17,122,400] 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitet) i Supply 1| Ls $750,000} $750,000 2 Install 1; LS $225,000} $225,000 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators $975,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 1 Switchgear 1} LS $50,000} $50,000 2 Station Service 1) | ES $40,000} $40,000 3 Control Pane! 1] LS | $90,000} $90,000 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables TPES $50,000} $50,000 5 Lighting 1} Ls | $10,000} $10,000 Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment $240,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT | f Cooling Water System i} Ls $10,000; $10,000 Q Crane 1| LS $35,000} $35,000 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment $45,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) 1 Substation Foundations } 1] Ls $10,000} $10,000 2 Oil Spill Containment . 1| LS $10,000 $10,000 3 Grounding Grid i[cES $10,000} $10,000 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements $30,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 ALTERNATIVE 3 — TUNNEL W/ HYDRO f:\hyd\585\tun3est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) ij Unit Amount Description Quantity | Unit Price ($) SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES | | Main Transformer 1} LS | $62,000 | $62,000 Accessory Switchgear Equipment | 1| LS | $50,000 | $50,000 1 | 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy—MWh/yr Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 —1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) ° 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 _|__ $112,000 $200,000 $1,522,850 $17,122,400 $975,000 $240,000 $45,000 $30,000 $112,000 $300,000 $20,547,250 $1,849,253 $500,000 $400,000 $1,643,780 $24,940,283 $334,400 $5,662,575 $3,038,248 $33,975,505 $39,330,895 3.145 27396 $10,803 $12,506 $3,828,326 $0.1397 $0.0070 $0.1467 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 17073 -910- 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03.1092 ALTERNATIVE 4 - PIPELINE ONLY f:.hyd\S85 pipe lest.wk | DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Unit Description Quantity | Unit Price ($) LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights — Generation Plant | 1/ Ls | $40,000} — $40,000 USFS Special Use Permit 1} LS $30,000 | Surveying | 1] LS | $130,000| FERC/USFS Land Use Fees 2; YR Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights || | | STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical bQQF 629 chobeegg Le48Q9 $6,000 $70,000 $4,800 $2,400 $6,000 $10,000 POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 VACUUM PUMP HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) Miscellaneous Metals Vacuum Pumps & Controls $123,750 $150,000 $24,000 $40, SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road. Excavation Surfacing Drainage/Containment $150,000 $490,000 $11,250 $15,000 el t 2 2 4 5 6 2 ok. az 3 4 s 6 F 8 S ae 2. 3 4 4 Lh 2 3 4 Subtotal Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS INTAKE SECTION Care of Water (Cofferdam, etc) Trenching (Cut & Fill) Penstock (500’} Installation Screened Intake (w/ 300° sabmerged penstock) Installation ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 4 — PIPELINE ONLY DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) 07073 -010-149 03/1092 f:\nyd\S85\pipe lest.wk1 \| Unit Amount Acc No Description | Quantity | Unit _—~Price (S) 2 ROCK FILL EMBANKMENT DAM i | | | Excavation 5000} CY $50; $250,000 2 Fill 4500| CY | $50! $225,000 ce) Concrete Cut—off Wall CY $1,000; $800,000 800 PENSTOCK Ll Access Road 2| MILE $300,000 $600,000 2) Steel Penstock Material (30") 15000| LF $75 $1,125,000 3 Supports (Concrete) 370; CY $1,000} $370,000 4 Installation 15000| LF $75 | $1,125,000 aS Bedding & Backfill 16060} YD $25; $400,000 . Bifurcation LB $5 $0 7 Energy Dissipating Valve 1} £S $40,000 $40,000 8 Outlet Pipe (60") 100] LF $500} $50,000 4 M.LF. PIPELINE el Steel Pipeline Material (8°) 1500; LF $10 $15,000 2 Supports (Concrete) 100| CY $1,000 3 Installation 1500; LF $25 Mobilization (5%) Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, D: & Wate: LL 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excite) 2 A Supply Ls $450,000 2 Install LS $135,000 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators L 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Al Switchgear LS $50,000 - Station Service LS $40,000 3 Control Panel LS $90,000 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables LS $50,000 5 Lighting Ls $10,000 6 Power & Controls to Intake 15000} FT $5 Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment ae MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT A Cooling Water System LS $10,000 z Crane LS $35,000 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) all Substation Foundations Ls $10,000 2 Oil Spill Containment LS $10,000 3 Grounding Grid LS $10,000 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements | 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES A Main Transformer LS $35,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 97073 =) LO = 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03.10.92 ALTERNATIVE 4 - PIPELINE ONLY f\hyd\585'pipe lest.wk 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description Quantity | Unit Accessory Switchgear Equipment LS Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures | FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES i | New Pole Line | MILE | SUMMARY 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS $230,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $1,136,300 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS $6,552,000 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) $0 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT $75,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT $0 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 353 SUBSTATION EQUII MENT & STRUCTURES $0 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES $0 Total Direct Construction Costs -- $7,993,300 Design Engineering @ 9% $719,397 Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys $200,000 FERC and Other Licensing $400,000 Construction Mgmt. @ 8% $639,464 Subtotal: $9,952,161 Contingency (20% on equipment) $15,000 Contingency (30% on remainder) $2,375,490 Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) $1,212,132 1992 Estimated Project Cost $13,554,783 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) $15,691,355 Plant Max. Output (MW) 0.0 Projected Annual Energy- MWh/yr 7581 Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 N/A - 1995 N/A Annual Debt Service $1,527,339 (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.2015 O&M Allowance $0.0070 Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 $0.2085 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 ALTERNATIVE 5 — PIPELINE w/ FUTURE HYDRO f:\nyd\585\pipe2est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) | | Amount Description Quantity | Unit i (S$) LAND AND LAND RIGHTS | Land Rights — Generation Plant i LS $40,000 USFS Special Use Permit \| | LS | | $30,000 Surveying LS $130,000 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees | YR $30,000 Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights | $230,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical $6,000 $70,000 $4,800 $2,400 $6,000 $10,000 482Q bQQ98 5622 GEEBSS99 Gs iv POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 ok 2 3 4 ) 6 ee 8 VACUUM PUMP HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) Miscellaneous Metals Vacuum Pumps & Controls $123,750 $150,000 $24,000 $40,000 awe a SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road Excavation Surfacing Drainage/Containment $150,000 $490,000 $11,250 Subtotal | $1,103,200 Mobilization (3%) | Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements | 1,136,300 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS INTAKE SECTION Care of Water (Cofferdam, etc) $250,000 Trenching (Cut & Fill) $550,000 Penstock (500’) $37,500 Installation $75,000 Screened Intake (w/ 300’ submerged penstock) $90,000 Installation LS $100,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY J7073 =J10 = 145 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/1092 ALTERNATIVE 5 - PIPELINE w/ FUTURE HYDRO f\hyd\S85\pipe2est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) FERC Unit Amount Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price _($) 2 ROCK FILL EMBANKMENT DAM “ l A Excavation i s000| CY $50| $250,000 5} Fill | 4500| CY $50} — $225,000 3 Concrete Cut—off Wall | 800} CY $1,000| $800,000 8 PENSTOCK al Access Road 2|MILE| $300,000} $600,000 2D Steel Penstock Material (30") | 15000} LF $75 | $1,125,000 3 Supports (Concrete) 370} CY $1,000| — $370,000 4 Installation | 15000] LF | $75} $1,125,000 IS Bedding & Backfill 16000} YD $25} $400,000 6 Bifurcation 15400| LB | $5 $77,000 4) Energy Dissipating Valve 1} LS $40,000 $40,000 8 Outlet Pipe (60") | 100| LF $500 $50,000 4 M.LF. PIPELINE | | if Steel Pipeline Material (8°) 1500, LF $10} $15,000 2 Supports (Concrete) 100| CY $1,000; $100,000 3 Installation 1500} LF $25 537,500 $6,317,000 Mobilization (5%) $315,900 Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Wate: 16,632,900 | 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitet) Pe tt Supply LS $450,000 | $0 2 Install LS $135,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators $0 ee tale 334. ~ ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT at Switchgear LS $50,000 | $0 2 Station Service LS $40,000 $0 3 Control Panel 4 LS} $90,000 $0 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables LS $50,000 $0 5 Lighting . LS | $10,000 $0 6 Power & Controls to Intake 15000} FT $5 $75,000 Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment $75,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT A Cooling Water System. LS $10,000 $0 yo} Crane LS $35,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment $0 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) i Substation Foundations | Ls {| $10,000 $0 Db Oil Spill Containment | LS $10,000 $0 3 Grounding Grid a LS | $10,000 $0 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements so 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES A Main Transformer LS | $35,000 $0 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 5 — PIPELINE w/ FUTURE HYDRO DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description Accessory Switchgear Equipment SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy—- MWh/yr Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 -1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 07073 -010- 149 03/1092 f:\nyd\585\pipe2est.wk 1 Unit Amount Price (8) $30,000 | $0 | $0 $230,000 $1,136,300 $6,632,900 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,074,200 $726,678 $200,000 $400,000 $645,936 $10,046,814 $15,000 $2,399,760 $1,223,811 $13,685,385 $15,842,544 0.0 7581 N/A N/A $1,542,055 $0.2034 $0.0070 $0.2104 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY y-o73 =) 10 = 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 33 1092 ALTERNATIVE 6 — PIPELINE w/ HYDRO ft: hyd\S85 pipejest.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Unit | Acc No Description Quantity | Unit Price ($) 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS i rl Land Rights — Generation Plant i 1! LS | $40,000| $40,000 wh USFS Special Use Permit | 1; LS $30,000 | $30,000 3 Surveying | 1] LS | $130,000! $130,000 4 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees 2) YR $15,000} $30,000 Total — Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights | |__ $230,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS Al VALVE HOUSE | alt Excavation/Backfill 120}; CY $50 2 Concrete (including reinforcing) 70| CY $1,000 3 CMU 800} SF $6 4 Roofing 320| SF $8 5 Miscellaneous Metals 2,000} LB $3 6 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1} LS $10,000 2 POWERHOUSE A Excavation/Backfill 500} CY 2 Concrete (including reinforcing) 430| CY 3 CMU 3000; SF 4 Roofing 2000} SF Ss Miscellaneous Metals 50,000} LB 6 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical 1} LS a, Grounding Grid 1} LS 8 Fire Protection 1| LS 3 VACUUM PUMP HOUSE od Excavation/Backfill 1650} CY z Concrete (including reinforcing) 100; CY 3 Miscellaneous Metals 4000; LB 4 Vacuum Pumps & Controls 1; LS 4 SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK aE Access Road 05; MILE 2 Excavation 24500} CY 3 Surfacing 750} CY 4 Drainage/Containment 1} LS Subtotal Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and rovements 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS All INTAKE SECTION al Care of Water (Cofferdam, etc) 2 Trenching (Cut & Fill) 3 Penstock (500’) 4 Installation 4 Screened Intake (w/ 300 sabmerged penstock) 6 Installation ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010- 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 0310.92 ALTERNATIVE 6 — PIPELINE w/ HYDRO f\hyd\585'pipe3est.wk 1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Unit Amount Description _ Quantity | Unit Price (S) ROCK FILL EMBANKMENT DAM | | Excavation | 5000; CY $50; $250,000 Fill I 4500! CY | $50| $225,000 Concrete Cut-off Wall $1,000; $800,000 PENSTOCK | | Access Road $300,000 $600,000 Steel Penstock Material (30") | $75 | $1,125,000 Supports (Concrete) $1,000; $370,000 Installation | $75 | $1,125,000 Bedding & Backfill $25| $400,000 Bifurcation $5 $77,000 Energy Dissipating Valve $40,000 $40,000 Outlet Pipe (60") $500| $100,000 Dundee BrE > M.LF. PIPELINE Steel Pipeline Material (8°) $10 $15,000 Supports (Concrete) | Installation $25 $6,367,000 Mobilization (5%) Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways | TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) Supply Install | Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators | ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear Station Service Control Panel Conduit/Wire/Cables Lighting Power & Controls to Intake Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment | MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Cooling Water System Crane | Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment/| STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spill Containment Grounding Grid Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES | | Al Main Transformer 1} LS $35,000 $35,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/1092 ALTERNATIVE 6 - PIPELINE w/ HYDRO f:\hyd\585 pipe3est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) | | | Description | Quantity | Unit | 1] ts Accessory Switchgear Equipment | Total - Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures | FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES SUMMARY 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS $230,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $1,870,700 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS $6,685,400 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) $585,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT $315,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT $45,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $30,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES $65,000 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES $300,000 Total Direct Construction Costs - $10,126,100 Design Engineering @ 9% $911,349 Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys $200,000 FERC and Other Licensing $400,000 Construction Mgmt. @ 8% $810,088 Subtotal: $12,447,537 Contingency (20% on equipment) $262,000 Contingency (30% on remainder) $2,644,830 Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 9%) $1,507,903 1992 Estimated Project Cost $16,862,270 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) $19,520,185 Plant Max. Output (MW) 1.8 Projected Annual Energy-MWh/yr 15434 Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 $9,368 — 1995 $10,845 Annual Debt Service $1,900,024 (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.1231 O&M Allowance $0.0070 Estimated Annual Cost — 1995 $0.1301 APPENDIX 3 Tunnel Pipeline Options Cost / Benefit Evaluations ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 f:\nyd\S85\econsum.wk1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% Interest Rate: 9.0% Heat nate) 10500 BTUKWh PV PV COST BENEFITS $34,740,943 $36,961,117 $25,739,176 ($11,221,940 TUNNEL w/ FUTURE HYDRO = $34,892,132 $37,112,305 $25,739,176 ($11,373,128 TUNNEL W/ HYDRO $39,330,895 $45,436,371 $51,769,362 $6,332,991 PIPELINE ONLY $15,691,355 $19,576,658 $14,325,578 ($5,251,081 PIPELINE w/ i heer HYDRO $15,842,544 $19, 727,847 ae 9 520.185 .. } ALLISON LAKE 07073—010—149 COST ESTIMATE 02/20/92 f\hyd\585\o&m.wk1 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ALT ALT i ALT 2 3 5 6 Tunnel w/ Tunnel w/ i TEM Future Hydro tydro | lydro Maintenance (2% of equip. costs) $5,000 2 $5,000 Pipeline Maintenance $10,000 $20,000 Pump House/Intake Maintenance $0 ; $30,000 Road Maintenance $2,500 $5,000 Insurance $40,000 ; $40,000 Labor $40,000 $60,000 FERC & Other Permit Fees $2,500 4 S $2,500 Fuels/Oils/Consumables $0 $10,000 Administrative Costs $0 $2,500 $100,000 $175,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Perea ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ara f\hyd\S8S\econ 1.wk} TUNNEL ONLY 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% "95 Con. Cost: $34,740,943 Variable O&M $0.0100 $/k Wh Interest Rate: 9.0% Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: 10500 BTUAWh Ann. tyme 0 $3,381,557 BENEFITS Prin. & Int. O&M i Equiv. Rate Var $3,102,346 $96,330 $3,198,676 , $0.0105 $1,105,925 $2,846,189 $92,795 $2,938,984 . $0.0110 $1,080,818 $2,611,182 $89,390 $2,700,572 . $0.0116 $1,052,593 $2,395,580 $86,110 $2,481,690 . $0.0122 $1,029,164 $2,197,780 $82,950 $2,280,729 $0.0128 $996,044 $2,016,312 $79,906 $2,096,217 $0.0134 $967,715 $1,849,827 $76,973 $1,926,801 $0.0141 $937,512 $1,697,089 $74,149 $1,771,238 . $0.0148 $911,054 $1,556,963 $71,427 $1,628,390 . $0.0155 $882,795 $1,428,406 $68,806 $1,497,212 $0.0163 $853,204 $1,310,464 $66,281 $1,376,746 $0.0171 $830,603 $1,202,261 $63,849 $1,266,110 $0.0180 $802,483 $1,102,992 $61,506 $1,164,497 $0.0189 $776,866 $1,011,919 $59,249 $1,071,168 $0.0198 $753,249 $928,366 $57,074 $985,440 $0.0208 $728,411 $851,712 $54,980 $906,692 $0.0218 $702,710 $781,387 $52,962 $834,349 $0.0229 $676,450 $716,869 $51,019 $767,888 -. $0.0241 $649,894 $657,678 $49,147 $706,824 $0.0253 $623,263 $603,374 $47,343 $650,717 $0.0265 $596,745 $553,554 $45,606 $599,160 $0.0279 $570,498 $507,848 $43,932 $551,780 $0.0293 $544,653 $465,916 $42,320 $508,235 $0.0307 $519,317 $427,445 $40,767 $468,212 $0.0323 $494,578 $392,152 $39,271 $431,423 $0.0339 $470,505 $359,772 $37,830 $397,602 $0.0356 $447,152 $330,066 $36,441 $366,508 $0.0373 $424,560 $302,813 $35,104 $337,917 $0.0392 $402,760 $277,810 $33,816 $311,626 $0.0412 $381,769 $254,872 $32,575 $287,447 $0.0432 $361,599 $31,380 $31,380 $0.0454 $342,254 $30,228 $30,228 : $0.0476 $323,732 $29,119 $29,119 y $0.0500 $306,026 $28,050 $28,050 Y . $0.0525 $289,122 $27,021 $27,021 $0.0552 $273,008 $26,029 $26,029 $0.0579 $257,663 $25,074 $25,074 $0.0608 $243,069 $24,154 $24,154 $0.0639 $229,203 $23,267 $23,267 $0.0670 $216,041 $22,414 $22,414 : . $0.0704 $203,560 $21,591 $21,591 $0.0739 $191,733 $20,799 $20,799 $0.0776 $180,536 $20,036 $20,036 . $0.0815 $169,943 $19,300 $19,300 $0.0856 $159,928 $18,592 $18,592 $0.0899 $150,465 $17,910 $17,910 $0.0943 $141,530 $17,252 $17,252 $0.0991 $133,098 $16,619 $16,619 $0.1040 $125,145 $16,009 $16,009 . $0.1092 $117,648 $15,422 ___ $15,422 $0.1147 $110,583. $36,961,117 —35.739.176 ’e 940° 1 2 3 | 4 | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BRE 828 SBSKEESSESSRYBRR ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 f:\hyd\585\econ2.wk1 TUNNEL w/ FUTURE HYDRO 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% °95 Con. Cost: $34,892,132 Variable O&M $0.0100 $/kWh | Interest Rate: 9.0% Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: 10500 BTU/AWh Ann. Payment: $3,396,273 Costs BENEFITS Calander Prin. & Int. O&M Total || Hydro Gen Diesel Equiv.Rate VarO&M Avoided Year (MWh) (AEA S/gal) _(S/kWh) __(S/kWh)_ Cost 1996 1] $3,115,847 $96,330 $3,212,177 13621 $1.04 $0.0780 $0.0105 $1,105.925| 1997 2) $2,858,575 $92,795 $2,951,370 13621 $1.11 $0.0833 $0.0110 $1,080,818 1998 3| $2,622,546 $89,390 $2,711,936 13621 $1.18 $0.0885 $0.0116 $1,052,593 1999 4) $2,406,005 $86,110 $2,492,115 13621 $1.26 $0.0945 $0.0122 $1,029,164 2000 5| $2,207,344 $82,950 $2,290,294 13621 $1.33 $0.0998 $0.0128 $996,044 2001 6| $2,025,086 $79,906 $2,104,992 13621 $1.41 $0.1058 $0.0134 $967,715 2002 7| $1,857,878 $76,973 $1,934,851 13621 $1.49 $0.1118 $0.0141 $937,512 2003 8} $1,704,475 $74,149 $1,778,623 13621 $1.58 $0.1185 $0.0148 $911,054 2004 9| $1,563,738 $71,427 $1,635,166 13621 $1.67 $0.1253 $0.0155 $882,795 2005 10| $1,434,622 $68,806 $1,503,429 13621 $1.76 $0.1320 $0.0163 $853,204 2006 11| $1,316,167 $66,281 $1,382,449 13621 $1.87 $0.1403 $0.0171 $830,603 2007 12} $1,207,493 $63,849 $1,271,342 13621 $1.97 $0.1478 $0.0180 $802,483 2008 13) $1,107,792 $61,506 $1,169,298 13621 $2.08 $0.1560 $0.0189 $776,866 2009 14) $1,016,323 $59,249 $1,075,571 13621 $2.20 $0.1650 $0.0198 $753,245 2010 15] $932,406 $57,074 $989,481 13621 $2.32 $0.1740 $0.0208 $728,411 2011 16| $855,418 $54,980 $910,398 13621 $2.44 $0.1830 $0.0218 $702,710 2012 17| $784,788 $52,962 $837,750 13621 $2.56 $0.1920 $0.0229 $6764 2013 18| $719,989 $51,019 $771,007 13621 $2.68 $0.2010 .. $0.0241 — $649,8 2014 19} $660,540 $49,147 $709,687 13621 $2.80 $0.2100 $0.0253 $623,263 2015 20} $606,000 $47,343 $653,343 13621 $2.92 $0.2190 $0.0265 $596,745 2016 21} $555,963 $45,606 $601,569 13621 $3.04 $0.2280 $0.0279 $570,497 2017 22} $510,058 $43,932 $553,990 13621 $3.16 $0.2370 $0.0293 $544,65 2018 23| $467,943 $42,320 $510,263 13621 $3.28 $0.2460 $0.0307 $519.31. 2019 24| $429,306 $40,767 $470,073 13621 $3.40 $0.2550 $0.0323 $494,578 2020 25| $393,858 $39,271 $433,129 13621 $3.52 $0.2640 $0.0339 $470,50: 2021 26| $361,338 $37,830 $399,168 13621 $3.64 $0.2730 $0.0356 $447,15: 2022 27| $331,503 $36,441 $367,944 13621 $3.76 $0.2820 $0.0373 -$424,56U 2023 28} $304,131 $35,104 $339,235 13621 $3.88 $0.2910 $0.0392 $402,760 2024 29| $279,019 $33,816 $312,835 13621 $4.00 $0.3000 $0.0412 $381.76 2025 30} $255,981 $32,575 $288,556 13621 $4.12 $0.3090 $0.0432 $361.59 2026 31 $31,380 $31,380 13621 $4.24 $0.3180 $0.0454 $342,256 2027 32 $30,228 $30,228 13621 $4.36 $0.3270 $0.0476 $323,732 2028 33 $29,119 $29,119 13621 $4.48 $0.3360 $0.0500 $306,02 2029 34 $28,050 $28,050 13621 $4.60 $0.3450 $0.0525 $289.12 2030 35 $27,021 $27,021 13621 $4.72 $0.3540 $0.0552 $273,008 2031 36 $26,029 $26,029 13621 $4.84 $0.3630 $0.0579 $257,662 2032 37 $25,074 $25,074 13621 $4.96 $0.3720 $0.0608 $243,06 2033 38 $24,154 $24,154 13621 $5.08 $0.3810 $0.0639 $229,2C 2034 39) $23,267 $23,267 13621 $5.20 $0.3900 $0.0670 $216,041 2035 40 $22,414 $22,414 13621 $5.32 $0.3990 $0.0704 $203,56" 2036 41 $21,591 $21,591 13621 $5.44 $0.4080 $0.0739 $191.7 2037 42 $20,799 $20,799 13621 $5.56 $0.4170 $0.0776 -$180,5_- 2038 43 $20,036 $20,036 13621 $5.68 $0.4260 $0.0815 $169,943} 2039 44 $19,300 $19,300 13621 $5.80 $0.4350 $0.0856 $159.9; 2040 45 $18,592 $18,592 13621 $5.92 $0.4440 $0.0899 $150.4 2041 46 $17,910 $17,910 13621 $6.04 $0.4530 $0.0943 $141,5.- 20420247) $17.252 $17.22 13621 $6.16 $0.4620 © $0.0991 $133,098 2043 48, $16,619 $16,619 13621 $6.28 $0.4710 $0.1040 $125.1 ~ 2044 49 | $16,009 $16,009 13621 $6.40 $0.4800 $0.1092 $117.6 2045 50 $15,422 $15,422 13621 $6.52 $0.4890 $0.1147 ___$110,50. $37,112.305 Tr. 11,373.1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-)10- 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/1092 f:\hyd\S85\econ3. wi} TUNNEL W/ HYDRO 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% "95 Con. Cost: $39,330,895 Variable O&M $0.0100 $A Wh Interest Rate: 9.0% Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: 10500 BTUAWh Ann. Payment: $3,828,326 Z f : 9 05 O&M: COsTS BENEFITS Prin. & Int. O&M Diesel Equiv. Rate Var O&M Avoided (MWh) (AEA Sigal) (S/kWh) ($/kWh) Cost $3,512,225 $264,908 $3,777,134 27396 $1.04 $0.0780 $0.0105 $2,224,354 $3,222,225 $255,187 $3,477,412 27396 $1.11 $0.0833 $0.0110 $2,173,856 $2,956,170 $245,822 $3,201,992 27396 $1.18 $0.0885 $0.0116 $2,117,087 $2,712,082 $236,801 $2,948,884 27396 $1.26 $0.0945 $0.0122 $2,069,963 $2,488,149 $228,111 ‘$2,716,260 27396 $1.33 $0.0998 $0.0128 $2,003,349 $2,282,706 $219,740 ‘$2,502,446 27396 $1.41 $0.1058 $0.0134 $1,946,372 $2,094,225 $211,676 $2,305,902 27396 $1.49 $0.1118 $0.0141 $1,885,623 $1,921,308 $203,908 $2,125,216 27396 $1.58 $0.1185 $0.0148 $1,832,408 $1,762,668 $196,426 $1,959,093 27396 $1.67 $0.1253 $0.0155 $1,775,571 $1,617,126 $189,217 $1,806,343 27396 $1.76 $0.1320 $0.0163 $1,716,054 $1,483,602 $182,273. «$1,665,875 27396 $1.87 $0.1403 $0.0171 $1,670,597 $1,361,103 $175,585 $1,536,687 27396 $1.97 $0.1478 $0.0180 $1,614,039 $1,248,718 $169,141 $1,417,859 27396 $2.08 $0.1560 $0.0189 $1,562,516 $1,145,613 $162,934 $1,308,547 27396 $2.20 $0.1650 $0.0198 $1,515,014 $1,051,021 $156,955 $1,207,976 27396 $2.32 $0.1740 $0.0208 $1,465,058 $964,240 $151,195 $1,115,435 27396 $2.44 $0.1830 $0.0218 $1,413,364 $884,623 $145,647 $1,030,270 27396 $2.56 $0.1920 $0.0229 $1,360,548 $811,581 $140,302 $951,883 27396 $2.68 $0.2010 .. $0.0241 $1,307,135 $744,570 $135,153. $879,723 27396 $2.80 $0.2100 $0.0253 $1,253,572 $683,092 $130,193 $813,285 27396 $2.92 $0.2190 $0.0265 $1,200,237 $626,690 $125,416 $752,105 27396 $3.04 $0.2280 $0.0279 $1,147,447 $574,945 $120,813 $695,758 27396 $3.16 $0.2370 $0.0293 $1,095,464 $527,472 $116,380 $643,852 27396 $3.28 $0.2460 $0.0307 $1,044,506 $483,919 $112,109 $596,028 27396 $3.40 $0.2550 $0.0323 $994,747 $443,963 $107,995 $551,957 27396 $3.52 $0.2640 $0.0339 $946,329 $407,305 $104,032. $511,337 27396 $3.64 $0.2730 $0.0356 $899,350 $373,674 $100,214 $473,888 27396 $3.76 $0.2820 $0.0373 $853,921 $342,821 $96,536 $439,357 27396 $3.88 $0.2910 $0.0392 $810,073 $314,514 $92,994 $407,508 27396 $4.00 $0.3000 $0.0412 $767,854 $288,545 $89,581 $378,126 27396 $4.12 $0.3090 $0.0432 $727,286 $86,294 $86,294 27396 $4.24 $0.3180 $0.0454 $688,378 $83,127 $83,127 27396 $4.36 $0.3270 $0.0476 $651,125 $80,077 $80,077 27396 $4.48 $0.3360 $0.0500 $615,511 $77,138 $77,138 27396 $4.60 $0.3450 $0.0525 $581,514 $74,307 $74,307 27396 $4.72 $0.3540 $0.0552 $549,102 $71,580 $71,580 27396 $4.84 $0.3630 $0.0579 $518,240 $68,954 $68,954 27396 $4.96 $0.3720 $0.0608 $66,423 $66,423 27396 $0.3810 $0.0639 $63,986 $63,986 27396 $0.3900 $0.0670 $61,637 $61,637 27396 . $0.3990 $0.0704 $59,376 $59,376 27396 z $0.4080 $0.0739 $57,197 $57,197 27396 : $0.0776 $55,098 $55,098 27396 d $0.0815 $53,076 $53,076 27396 $0.0856 $51,128 $51,128 27396 $0.0899 $49,252 $49,252 27396 $0.0943 $47,444 $47,444 27396 $0.0991 $45,703 $45,703 27396 $0.1040 $44,026 $44,026 27396 $0.1092 $42,410 $42,410 27396 $0.1147 $222,415 $45,436,371 33: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 f:\nyd S85\econ4.wk1 PIPELINE ONLY 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS | Discount Rate: 9.0% 95 Con. Cost: $15,691,355 Variable O&M $0.0100 S/kWh Interest Rate: 9.0% Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: 10500 BTUAWh Ann. Payment: $1,527,339 COSTS BENEFITS Calander | Prin. & Int. O&M Total |} Hydro Gen Diesel Equiv.Rate WarO&M Avoided’ Year | (MWh) (AEA S/gal) ($/kWh) (S/kWh) Cost| 1996 1) $1,401,229 $168,578 $1,569,807 7581 $1.04 $0.0780 $0.0105 $615,522 1997 2| $1,285,531 $162,392 $1,447,923 7581 $1.11 $0.0833 $0.0110 $601,548 1998 3| $1,179,386 $156,432 $1,335,818 7581 $1.18 $0.0885 $0.0116 $585,839 1999 4) $1,082,006 $150,692 $1,232,697 7581 $1.26 $0.0945 $0.0122 $572,799 | 2000 5 $992,666 $145,162 $1,137,827 7581 $133 $0.0998 $0.0128 $554,365 2001 6| $910,703 $139,835 $1,050,537 7581 $1.41 $0.1058 $0.0134 $538,598 2002 7 $835,507 $134,703 $970,210 7581 $1.49 $0.1118 $0.0141 $521,788 2003 8 $766,520 $129,760 $896,280 7581 $1.58 $0.1185 $0.0148 $507,063 | 2004 9} $703,229 $124,998 $828,227 7581 $1.67 $0.1253 $0.0155 $491,335 2005 10} $645,165 $120,411 $765,576 7581 $1.76 $0.1320 $0.0163 $474,865 2006 11} $591,894 $115,992 $707,886 7581 $1.87 $0.1403 $0.0171 $462,286 2007 12 $543,022 $111,736 $654,758 7581 $1.97 $0.1478 $0.0180 $446,636 | 2008 13) $498,185 $107,635 $605,821 7581 $2.08 $0.1560 $0.0189 $432,378 2009 14) $457,051 $103,685 $560,736 7581 $2.20 $0.1650 $0.0198 $419,233 2010 15 $419,313 $99,880 $519,193 7581 $2.32 $0.1740 $0.0208 $405,410 2011 16 $384,691 $96,215 $480,906 7581 $2.44 $0.1830 $0.0218 $391,105 2012 17 $352,927 $92,684 $445,611 7581 $2.56 $0.1920 $0.0229 $376,490 2013 18 $323,786 $89,283 $413,069 7581 $2.68 $0.2010 .. $0.0241 $361,709, 2014 19 $297,052 $86,006 $383,058 7581 $2.80 $0.2100 $0.0253 $346,888 2015 20 $272,525 $82,850 $355,375 7581 $2.92 $0.2190 $0.0265 $332,129 2016 21 $250,022 $79,810 $329,832 7581 $3.04 $0.2280 $0.0279 $317,521 2017 22 $229,378 $76,881 $306,260 7581 $3.16 $0.2370 $0.0293 $303,136 2018 23| $210,439 $74,060 $284,499 7581 $3.28 $0.2460 $0.0307 $289,035 2019 24| $193,063 $71,342 $264,405 7581 $3.40 $0.2550 $0.0323 $275,266 2020 25; $177,122 $68,724 $245,846 7581 $3.52 $0.2640 $0.0339 $261,86 2021 26; $162,497 $66,202 $228,699 7581 $3.64 $0.2730 $0.0356 $248,87 2022 27| $149,080 $63,773 $212,853 7581 $3.76 $0.2820 $0.0373 $236,296 2023 28; $136,771 $61,432 $198,203 7581 $3.88 $0.2910 $0.0392 $224,16 2024 29; $125,478 $59,178 $184,656 7581 $4.00 $0.3000 $0.0412 $212, 2025 30 $115,117 $57,006 $172,123 7581 $4.12 $0.3090 $0.0432 $201,2: 2026 31 $54,914 $54,914 7581 $4.24 $0.3180 $0.0454 $190,488 2027 32| $52,899 $52,899 7581 $4.36 $0.3270 $0.0476 $180,175 2028 33 | $50,958 $50,958 7581 $4.48 $0.3360 $0.0500 $170,32 2029 er $49,088 $49,088 7581 $4.60 $0.3450 $0.0525 $160,916 2030 35 $47,286 $47,286 7581 $4.72 $0.3540 $0.0552 $151,947 2031 36 | $45,551 $45,551 7581 $4.84 $0.3630 $0.0579 $143,40 2032 37 | $43,880 $43,880 7581 $4.96 $0.3720 $0.0608 $135,28 2033 38 | $42,269 $42,269 7581 $5.08 $0.3810 $0.0639 $127.56 2034 39| $40,718 $40,718 7581 $5.20 $0.3900 $0.0670 $120,242 2035 40) $39,224 $39,224 7581 $5.32 $0.3990 $0.0704 $113,29. 2036 41) $37,784 $37,784 7581 $5.44 $0.4080 $0.0739 $106.71: 2037 42) $36,398 $36,398 7581 $5.56 $0.4170 $0.0776 $100, 2038 43 $35,062 $35,062 7581 $5.68 $0.4260 $0.0815 $94,585 2039 44 $33,775 $33,775 7581 $5.80 $0.4350 $0.0856 $89,01 2040 45) $32,536 $32,536 7581 $5.92 $0.4440 $0.0899 $83,74 2041 46) $31,342 $31,342 7581 $6.04 $0.4530 $0.0943 $78,771 2042 47) $30,192 $30,192 7581 $6.16 $0.4620 $0.0991 $74,078 2043 48 | $29,084 $29,084 7581 $6.28 $0.4710 $0.1040 $69,65 2044 49) $28,017 $28,017 7581 $6.40 $0.4800 $0.1092 $65.47 2045 50 $26,988 $26,988 7581 $6.52 $0.4890 $0.1147 $61,547 | $19,576,658 = $14,325,57° PV: 5,251.08 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07072 —010— 149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 f:\nyd\S8S\econ5.wk1 PIPELINE w/ FUTURE HYDRO 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% "95 Con. Cost: $15,842,544 Variable O&M $0.0100 $/k Wh Interest Rate: 9.0% Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: 10500 BTUkWh Ann. Payment: —_ $1,542,055 Og 09 95 O&M: COSTS BENEFITS Prin. & Int. O&M Diesel Equiv.Rate Var O&M (MWh) (AEA Sigal) (SkWh) _(S/kWh) $1,414,730 $168,578 $1,583,308 7581 $1.04 $0.0780 $0.0105 $1,297,917 $162,392 $1,460,309 7581 $1.11 $0.0833 $0.0110 $1,190,750 $156,432 $1,347,182 7581 $1.18 $0.0885 $0.0116 $585,839 $1,092,431 $150,692 $1,243,123 7581 $1.26 $0.0945 $0.0122 $572,799 $1,002,230 $145,162 $1,147,392 7581 $1.33 $0.0998 $0.0128 $554,365 $919,477 $139,835 $1,059,312 7581 $141 $0.1058 $0.0134 $538,598 $843,557 $134,703 $978,260 7581 $1.49 $0.1118 $0.0141 $521,788 $773,906 $129,760 $903,665 7581 $1.58 $0.1185 $0.0148 $507,063 $710,005 $124,998 $835,003 7581 $1.67 $0.1253 $0.0155 $491,335 $651,381 $120,411 $771,792 7581 $1.76 $0.1320 $0.0163 $474,865 $597,597 $115,992 $713,589 7581 $1.87 $0.1403 $0.0171 $548,254 $111,736 $659,990 7581 $1.97 $0.1478 $0.0180 $502,986 $107,635 $610,621 7581 $2.08 $0.1560 $0.0189 $461,455 $103,685 $565,140 7581 $2.20 $0.1650 $0.0198 $419,233 $423,353 $99,880 $523,233 7581 $2.32 $0.1740 $0.0208 $405,410 $388,397 $96,215 $484,612 7581 $2.44 $0.1830 $0.0218 $391,105 $356,328 $92,684 $449,012 7581 $2.56 $0.1920 $0.0229 $376,490 $326,906 $89,283 $416,189 7581 $2.68 $0.2010 .. $0.0241 $361,709 $299,914 $86,006 $385,920 7581 $2.80 $0.2100 $0.0253 $346,888 $275,150 $82,850 $358,001 7581 $2.92 $0.2190 $0.0265 $332,129 $252,431 $79,810 $332,241 7581 $3.04 $0.2280 $0.0279 $317,521 $231,589 $76,881 $308,470 7581 $0.2370 $0.0293 $303,136 $212,467 $74,060 $286,526 7581 $3.28 $0.0307 $289,035 $194,923 $71,342 $266,265 7581 $0.2550 $0.0323 $275,266 $178,829 $68,724 $247,553 7581 $3.52 $0.0339 $261,867 $164,063 $66,202 $230,265 7581 $3.64 $0.0356 $248,870 $150,517 $63,773 $214,289 7581 $0.0373 $236,296 $138,089 $61,432 $199,521 7581 $3.88 $0.0392 $224,163 $126,687 $59,178 $185,865 7581 $0.0412 $212,480 $116,226 $57,006 $173,233 7581 $4.12 $0.0432 $201,254 $54,914 $54,914 7581 $4.24 $0.0454 $190,488 $52,899 $52,899 7581 $4.36 $0.0476 $180,179 $50,958 $50,958 | 7581 $4.48 $0.0500 $170,324 $49,088 $49,088 7581 $4.60 $0.0525 $160,916 $47,286 $47,286 7581 $4.72 $0.0552 $151,947 $45,551 $45,551 7581 $4.84 $0.0579 $143,407 $43,880 $43,880 7581 $4.96 $0.0608 $135,284 $42,269 $42,269 7581 $0.0639 $127,567 $40,718 $40,718 7581 $5.20 $0.0670 $120,242 $39,224 $39,224 7581 . $0.0704 $113,295 | $37,784 $37,784 7581 $0.0739 $106,712 $36,398 $36,398 7581 $0.0776 $100,480 $35,062 $35,062 7581 : $0.0815 $94,585 $33,775 $33,775 7581 $0.0856 $89,010 $32,536 $32,536 7581 $0.0899 $83,744 $31,342 $31,342 7581 $0.0943 $78,771 $30,192 $30,192 7581 $0.0991 $74,078 $29,084 $29,084 7581 $0.1040 $69,652 $28,017 $28,017 7581 . $0.1092 $65,479 $26,988 $26,988 7581 $0.1147 $61,547 $19,727,847 814,525,578 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03/10/92 f:\hyd\S8S\econ6.wk1 PIPELINE w/ HYDRO 50 YEAR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS CONSTANTS Discount Rate: 9.0% 95 Con. Cost: $19,520,185 Variable O&M $0.0100 $k Wh | Interest Rate: Fin. Period: 30 yrs Heat Rate: BTUAWh Ann. Payment: | COSTS BENEFITS Calander Prin. & Int. O&M Total || Hydro Gen Diesel Equiv.Rate VarO&M Avoided Year | MWh AEA S/gal ‘Sic Wh S/A Wh Cost 1996 1} $1,743,141 $337,156 $2,080,297 15434 $1.04 $0.0780 $0.0105 $1.253,1281 1997 2| $1,599,212 $324,783 $1,923,995 15434 $1.11 $0.0833 $0.0110 $1,224,678 1998 a $1,467,167 $312,865 $1,780,031 15434 $1.18 $0.0885 $0.0116 $1,192,697 1999 4, $1,346,025 $301,383 $1,647,408 15434 $1.26 $0.0945 $0.0122 $1,166,149 2000 5 $1,234,885 $290,323 $1,525,208 15434 $1.33 $0.0998 $0.0128 $1,128,621] , 2001 6 $1,132,922 $279,669 $1,412,591 15434 $1.41 $0.1058 $0.0134 $1,096,521 2002 7 $1,039,378 $269,406 $1,308,784 15434 $1.49 $0.1118 $0.0141 $1,062,297 2003 8 $953,558 $259,520 $1,213,078 15434 $1.58 $0.1185 $0.0148 $1,032,319 2004 9) $874,824 $249,996 $1,124,820 15434 $1.67 $0.1253 $0.0155 $1,000,298 2005 10} $802,590 $240,822 $1,043,412 15434 $1.76 $0.1320 $0.0163 $966,768 2006 11 $736,322 $231,984 $968,306 15434 $1.87 $0.1403 $0.0171 $941,159 2007 12 $675,524 $223,471 $898,996 15434 $1.97 $0.1478 $0.0180 $909,296 2008 13 $619,747 $215,270 $835,018 15434 $2.08 $0.1560 $0.0189 $880,270 2009 14 $568,575 $207,371 $775,946 15434 $2.20 $0.1650 $0.0198 $853,509 2010 15 $521,629 $199,761 $721,389 15434 $2.32 $0.1740 $0.0208 $825,365 2011 16 $478,558 $192,430 $670,989 15434 $2.44 $0.1830 $0.0218 $796,243 2012 17, $439,044 $185,368 $624,413 15434 $2.56 $0.1920 $0.0229 $766, 2013 18 $402,793 $178,566 $581,359 15434 $2.68 $0.2010 -- $0.0241 $736,39 2014 19 $369,535 $172,013 $541,548 15434 $2.80 $0.2100 $0.0253 $706,22 2015 20 $339,023 $165,701 $504,723 15434 $2.92 $0.2190 $0.0265 $676,174 2016 21 $311,030 $159,620 $470,650 15434 $3.04 $0.2280 $0.0279 $646,437 2017 22 $285,349 $153,762 $439,111 15434 $3.16 $0.2370 $0.0293 $617,14 2018 23 | $261,788 $148,120 $409,907 15434 $3.28 $0.2460 $0.0307 $588,44_ 2019 24| $240,172 $142,684 $382,856 15434 $3.40 $0.2550 $0.0323 $560,408 | 2020 25 $220,342 $137,448 $357,790 15434 $3.52 $0.2640 $0.0339 $533,13 2021 26 $202,148 $132,404 $334,552 15434 $3.64 $0.2730 $0.0356 $506,66' 2022 27| $185,457 $127,545 $313,002 15434 $3.76 $0.2820 $0.0373 $481,07. 2023 28 $170,144 $122,865 $293,009 15434 $3.88 $0.2910 $0.0392 $456,368 2024 29 $156,096 $118,356 $274,451 15434 $4.00 $0.3000 $0.0412 $432,58 2025 30 $143,207 $114,012 $257,219 15434 $4.12 $0.3090 $0.0432 $409,72 2026 31 $109,828 $109,828 15434 $4.24 $0.3180 $0.0454 $387,81U 2027 32 $105,798 $105,798 15434 $4.36 $0.3270 $0.0476 $366,822 2028 33 $101,916 $101,916 15434 $4.48 $0.3360 $0.0500 $346,7§ 2029 34 $98,176 $98,176 15434 $4.60 $0.3450 $0.0525 $327,60 2030 a5) $94,573 $94,573 15434 $4.72 $0.3540 $0.0552 $309,346 2031 36 $91,102 $91,102 15434 $4.84 $0.3630 $0.0579 $291,95: 2032 a7 $87,759 $87,759 15434 $4.96 $0.3720 $0.0608 $275,4 2033 38 $84,538 $84,538 15434 $5.08 $0.3810 $0.0639 $259,7 2034 39 $81,436 $81,436 15434 $5.20 $0.3900 $0.0670 $244,7 2035 40 $78,448 $78,448 15434 $5.32 $0.3990 $0.0704 $230,6°* 2036 41 $75,569 $75,569 15434 $5.44 $0.4080 $0.0739 $217.2 2037 42 $72,796 $72,796 15434 $5.56 $0.4170 $0.0776 $204,5_ 2038 43 $70,124 $70,124 15434 $5.68 $0.4260 $0.0815 $192,563 2039 ae $67,551 $67,551 15434 $5.80 $0.4350 $0.0856 $181,2°* 2040 45 $65,072 $65,072 15434 $5.92 $0.4440 $0.0899 $170,4 2041 46 $62,684 $62,684 15434 $6.04 $0.4530 $0.0943 $160,3__ 2042 47 $60,384 $60,384 15434 $6.16 $0.4620 $0.0991 $150,814 2043 48) $58,168 $58,168 15434 $6.28 $0.4710 $0.1040 $141,80- 2044 49 $56,033 $56,033 15434 $6.40 $0.4800 $0.1092 $133,m 2045 50| $53,977 $53,977 15434 $6.52 $0.4890 $0.1147 $125,3u5 $27,290,791 APPENDIX 4 Cost Estimates for "Other Alternatives" ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073 =—J10-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 04 16.92 ALTERNATIVE 3 — TUNNEL W/ HYDRO f\hyd S85 tun3estwk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights — Generation Plant USFS Special Use Permit Surveying | FERC/USFS Land Use Fees \| Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights IL ] STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill Concrete (including reinforcing) CMU Roofing Miscellaneous Metals HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Grounding Grid Fire Protection 88 3000 2000 50,000 | 1 1 1 SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road Excavation Surfacing Drainage/Containment | Subtotal $1,478,4: Mobilization (3%) 44,400 Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements 8 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS HORSESHOE TUNNEL Access Portal Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) $10,575,000 Rock Bolting $587,500 TUNNEL PLUG SECTION Excavation (30’— Drill & Shoot) $72,000 Penstock $4,500 Concrete (Structural) | $132,000 Valves Butterfly (42") $10,000 Spherical (42") $20,000 Watertight Doors $25,000 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 04/1692 ALTERNATIVE 3 — TUNNEL W/ HYDRO f:\hyd\585\tun3estwk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description INTAKE SECTION Rockslide Deflector Tunnel Excavation (Drill & Shoot) Vacuum Vent Rock Traps Lake Tap Sediment Removal Trashrack Bobehah PENSTOCK Steel Penstock Material (42") Supports (Concrete) Tastallation Bifurcation Energy Dissipating Valve (24" Polyjet) Outlet Pipe (60") $450,000 $956,000 $77,000 $40,000 $100,000 Boe SQh M.LF. PIPELINE Steel Pipeline Material (10°) Installation 2-75 hp Pumps & Controls $91,000 $227,500 $50,000 $16,307,000 fa Sy Tunnelling Equipment Mobilization (5%) Total - Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitef) Supply Install Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear Station Service Control Panel Conduit/Wire/Cables Lighting Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Cooling Water System Crane Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spill Containment Grounding Grid Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 AD SKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 3 - TUNNEL W/ HYDRO DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES Main Transformer Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures | | FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES | New Pole Line Total — A SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 45%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy- MWh/yr Cost Per Installed kW - 1992 —-1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 07073-0i0-149 04.16.92 f\hyd\585\tun3estwk1 Unit Amount Price (3) $62,000 $62,000 $50,000 $50,000 | _ $112,000 | $200,000} $300,000 $200,000 $1,522,850 $17,122,400 $975,000 $240,000 $45,000 $30,000 $112,000 $300,000 $20,547,250 $1,849,253 $500,000 $400,000 $1,643,780 $24,940,283 $334,400 $5,662,575 $1,392,176 $32,329,434 $37,425,360 3.145 27396 $10,280 $11,900 $3,642,848 $0.1330 $0.0070 $0.1400 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010—149 ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 04/1692 ALTERNATIVE 6 — PIPELINE w/ HYDRO f:\nyd\585 \pipe3est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) l Amount Description | | i | (S$) LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights — Generation Plant $40,000 USFS Special Use Permit | $30,000 Surveying $130,000 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees $30,000 Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights $230,000 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS VALVE HOUSE Excavation/Backfill $6,000 Concrete (including reinforcing) $70,000 CMU $4,800 Roofing $2,400 Miscellaneous Metals $6,000 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical $10,000 POWERHOUSE Excavation/Backfill $25,000 Concrete (including reinforcing) $430,000 CMU $18,000 Roofing $15,000 Miscellaneous Metals $150,000 HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical $50,000 Grounding Grid $10,000 Fire Protection $15,000 Al 2 3 4 Si 6 oe 8 VACUUM PUMP HOUSE Excavation/Backfill $123,750 Concrete (including reinforcing) $150,000 Miscellaneous Metals $24,000 Vacuum Pumps & Controls $40,000 t abn” a SOLOMON GULCH RES. SITE WORK Access Road $150,000 Excavation $490,000 Surfacing $11,250 Drainage/Containment $15,000 Subtotal $1,816,200 Mobilization (3%) Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS INTAKE SECTION Care of Water (Cofferdam, etc) Trenching (Cut & Fill) Penstock (500’) Installation Screened Intake (w/ 300’ submerged penstock) Installation ALASKA ENERGY Al THORITY ALLISON LAKE P..OJECT ALTERNATIVE 6 — PIPELINE w/ HYDR' O DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) 07073 —910-149 04.1692 f\hyd\585 pipe3est.wk1 BERG | Unit | Amount Ace No Description Quantity | Unit | Price | $ iP ROCK FILL EMBANKMENT DAM j | 4 Excavation 5000} CY $50} $250,000 v2 Fill 4500; CY | $50 $225,000 z Concrete Cut-off Wall 800; CY $1,000/ $800,000 8 PENSTOCK ll Access Road 2| MILE $300,000 $600,000 a Steel Penstock Material (30") 15000; LF $75 | $1,125,000 3 Supports (Concrete) 370} CY $1,000; $370,000 4 Installation 15000| LF $75| $1,125,000 i} Bedding & Backfill 16000; YD $25 $400,000 6 Bifurcation 15400/ LB $5 | $77,000 7 Energy Dissipating Valve PELs $40,000 $40,000 8 Outlet Pipe (60°) 200/ LF $500} $100,000 4 M.LF. PIPELINE al Steel Pipeline Material (8*) 1500} LF $10 $15,000 ) Supports (Concrete) 100; CY $1,000} $100,000 3 Installation 1500}; LF $25 7,500 $6,367,000 Mobilization (5%) 8.400 Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterv 6,685,400 333. - TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & excitet) el Supply 1, LS $450,000 $450,000 2 Install 1} LS $135,000 $135,000 Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators $585,000 8345115 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT rl Switchgear Ty Ls $50,000 $50,000 ea Station Service UES $40,000 $40,000 3) Control Panel 1} LS j $90,000 $90,000 4 Conduit/Wire/Cables 1| LS $50,000 $50,000 5 Lighting 1] LS $10,000} $10,000 6 Power & Controls to Intake 15000| FT $5 $75,000 Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment $315,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT al Cooling Water System 1} Ls. $10,000 $10,000 2 Crane Lisa $35,000 $35,000 Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment ue $45,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) all Substation Foundations 1] LS $10,000 $10,000 a Oil Spill Containment aioe $10,000 $10,000 3 Grounding Grid 1] Ls $10,000| $10,000 Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements $30,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES J Main Transformer 1| LS $35,000 $35,000 330 331 332 333 334 335 352 353 356 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 6 — PIPELINE w/ HYDRO DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description | Quanti Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS (incl. governor & exciter) ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 4.5%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy—-MWh/yr Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 -1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 07073 -010— 149 04/1692 f:\nyd\S85\pipe3est.wk1 $230,000 $1,870,700 $6,685,400 $585,000 $315,000 $45,000 $30,000 $65,000 —_$300,000_ $10,126,100 $911,349 $200,000 $400,000 $810,088 $12,447,537 $262,000 $2,644,830 $690,947 $16,045,314 $18,574,457 18 15434 $8,914 $10,319 $1,807,970 $0.1171 $0.0070 $0.1241 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY OTe" 3—910 = 249 STAND ALONE ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 03 1692 CORP OF ENGINEERS- ALTERNATIVE 2 f. hyd S$8S.coelest.wk! DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) 1981 | 1981 1992 1992 Description | Quantity Unit Unit Price | Amount ($) Unit Price Amount ($) LAND AND LAND RIGHTS | Land Rights - Generation Plant j $324,000 $40,000 | $40,000 USFS Special Use Permit | so $30,000 $30,000 Surveying } $0 $100,000 | $100,000 FERC/USFS Land Use Fees | f $400,000 $15,000 $15,000 | | Total - Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights || $724,000 | $185,000 >,! STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS POWERHOUSE Excavation Concrete (including reinforcing) Building Superstructure HVAC, Plumbing & Electrical Miscelianeous Metals Inlet Valves SEEGES ACCESS ADIT & STAGING AREA Excavation Rock Common Concrete Reinforcement Excavation (Adit) Rock Boits $238,500 $34,000 $95,000 $o $53,750 P2G222 BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & UTILITIES Maintenance Building & Equipment b Subtotal Mobilization Total - Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements) RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS PORTAL Excavation Rock Common Concrete Reinforcement Rock Bolts Tunnel Excavation Railway Railway Trestle $510,420 $1,500,090 $2,250,135 $120,400 $172,000 $8,325 so $77,000 $77,000 $40,000 $40,000 $100,000 $100,000 BEEEIA? HORSESHOE TUNNEL Excavation Concrete Reinforcement Rock Bolts $4,896,675 $9,793,350 $2,933,400 $4,889,000 $183,338 $0 $1,750,980 $2,918,300 E22 GATE CONTROL ROOM Excavation Concrete Reinforcement Rock Bolts Gates (2) Mechanical Equipment Miscellaneous Metais $697,500 $1,255,900 $527,800 $904,800 $38,000 $0 $87,500 $122,500 $80,000 $192,000 $120,000 $250,000 $25,000 BEESQAQR INTAKE SECTION Tunnel Excavation Concrete Reinforcement Rock Bolts Lake Tap Trashrack $157,500 $36,000 $o $8,750 $200,000 $90,000 BESEQ2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 STAND ALONE ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 04/1692 CORP OF ENGINEERS- ALTERNATIVE 2 f.\hyd\S8Sicoe 2est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) 1981 | 1981 1992 { 1992 Description Unit_| Unit Price | Amount ($)} Unit Price | Amount ($ ian TAILRACE Excavation Rock cy $25 $1,000 Common cy $10 $960 Concrete cy $300 $38,000 Reinforcement LB $0.75 30 Steel Pipe LB $2.25 $540,880 Miscellaneous Metais LB 32.50 $81,132 Stoplogs EA $7,000 $20,000 aLauig,t PENSTOCK Steel Penstock Material (48°) $2.50 $2,126,000 Supports (Concrete) $300 $206,000 Stiffeners, Anchors & Supports $3 $223,230 Bifurcation $36,000 $80,000 M.LF. PIPELINE Steel Pipeline Material (10°) $0 Installation $0 2-75 hp Pumps & Controls Subtotal Mobilization Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir, Dams, & Waterways) TURBINES AND GENERATORS Supply $1,817,000 Install $0 Total - Acc No. 333 - Turbines and Generators} $1,817,000 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Switchgear : $250,000 Control Panel $90,000 Misceligneous Electrical $100,000 Total - Ace No. 334 — Acc. Electrical Equipment MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Heating & Ventilation Crane Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Equipment STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spill Containment Grounding Grid Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES Main Transformer Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SOLOMON GULCH RESERVOIR HEIGHT INCREASE DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (January 1992 Dollars) (taken from CVEA Study, November, 1991) FIVE FOOT INCREASE CASE ITEM oon n 10 12 13 14 15 16 DESCRIPTION Mobilization Rubber Dam Including Controls (2-Five Foot Dia. X 225’) Control House Building Electrical : 480V Service To Control House Control House Internal Wiring Dam Installation: Remove Splitter Piers Concrete for Dam support (form & pour) Drill in Rebar Set Anchors Form and Pour new center pier Install Rubber dams Bridgestone Site Rep. Start-up and Test Design Engineering Construction Management SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION Contingency TOTAL-CONSTRUCTION ONLY Page 1 of 2 Quantity 1 1260 17 wurel 45 Unit Is ea wp? Unit $ $10,000 $471,000 $75 $6,000 $500 $1,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $10,000 $600 $5,000 $60,000 $25,000 Cost $ $10,000 $471.0 $18,750 $5,040 $6,000 $8,500 $502,000 $3,000 $2,000 $5,000 $27,000 $5,000 $60,000 $25,000 $1,168,290 $233,658 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 07073-010-149 STAND ALONE ALLISON LAKE PROJECT 04/1642 CORP OF ENGINEERS- ALTERNATIVE 2 f.\nyd\S8S\coe2est.wk1 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) y 1981 Description 1 ouastity Unit_| Unit Price SUMMARY 330 LAND AND LAND RIGHTS $724,000 $185,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $1,460,500 $1,521,053 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS, AND WATERWAYS $19,242,113 $29,032,224 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS $1,817,000 $2,730,000 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT $564,000 $440,000 335 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT $127,000 $45,000 352 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS so $30,000 353 SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES $240,000 $200,000 356 FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES $327,250 $400,000 Total Direct Construction Costs $24,501,863 $34,583,276 | Design Engineering @ 9% $3,112,495 Geotechnical, Borings & Seismic Surveys $500,000 FERC and Other Licensing $400,000 Construction Mgmt. @ 8% $2,766,662 Subtotal: $41,362,433 Contingency (20% on equipment) $763,000 Contingency (30% on remainder) $9,230,483 Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 4.5%) $2,311,016 1992 Estimated Project Cost $53,666,932 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) $62,126,182 Plant Max. Output (MW) 8.000 Projected Annual Energy- MWh/yr 37250 Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 . $6,708 -1995 $7,766 Annual Debt Service $6,047,136 (100% debt, 9%, 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.1623 O&M Allowance $0.0070 Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 $0.1693 COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SOLOMON GULCH RESERVOIR HEIGHT INCREASE DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) THIRTY TWO FOOT INCREASE CASE ITEM DESCRIPTION Quantity Unit Unit $ Cost $ 1 Mobilization Leis $500,000 $500,000 Dam Geotechnical Invesugations 1 ea $200,000 $200,000 2 New Concrete Spillway Section Foundation preparation Aah is $50,000 $50,000 Form and Pour Concrete For Spillway 14350 cu yd $600 $8,610,000 Post— tensioned anchors 45 ea $1,500 $67,S0C 3 Raise Existing Dam & New Central Dike | Site and Foundation prep 1 Is $30,000 $30,000 | Rockfill 256389 cuyd $15 $3,845,83: | Aggregate Fill 9797 cuyd $20 $195,94( Riprap 11000 cuyd $20 $220,00 Asphalt paving 3000 cuyd $50 $150,001 Concrete wave wall 1350 cuyd $800 $1,080,001 Toe cut—off wall 2000 cuyd $800 $1,600,001 Roads and Misc. Site Work 1 Is $50,000 $50,001 | 4 Subtotal $16,599,27. | 5 FERC Licensing 1) is $300,000 $300,900 6 Design Engineering (6%) 1 Is $995,957 $995.55 7 Construction Management (5%) 1 Is $829,964 $829,956 | 8 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $18,725,158 9 Contingency 30% $5,617,5: | 10 TOTAL-CONSTRUCTION ONLY ae | Interest During Construction (2 yr @ 4.5% on 1/2) $1,095,4 | 1992 Estimated Project Cost $25,438,1' | 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@ 5%/yr) $27,796,91 | Projected Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 130 Annual Debt Service (100% Debt, 7%, 30 yr) ! $2,240,0 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.14 O&M Allowance $0.00 Total estimated Annual Cost Per kWh—1995 ef FERC Licensing: (Assumes Minor Amendment) 17 Prepare Draft Licensing Plan & Proj. Desc. 1 ls $15,000 $15,000 18 Agency Consultation 1 Is $12,000 $12,000 19 Draft Amendment Application 1 Js $5,000 $5,000 20 Agency Review and Comment 1 Is $10,000 $10,000 21 FERC Filing and Follow-up 1 | ils $5,000 $5,000 22 Contingency 30% $14,100 | Subtotal FERC Licensing $61,100 FERC Licensing: | (Assumes Major Amendment) | 17A Prepare Draft Licensing Plan & Proj. Desc. 1) is $20,000 $20,000 | 18A Agency Consultation i |e $15,000 $15,000 \ 19A Conduct Public Hearing(s) 1) Js $5,000 $5,000 | 20A Perform Required Studies 1) 1s $30,000 $30,000 21A Draft Amendment Application 1 Is $10,000 $10,000 22A Agency Review and Comment As $12,000 $12,000 | 23 FERC Filing and Follow-up 1 Is $12,000 $12,000 24 Contingency 40% $41,600 | Subtotal FERC Licensing $145,600 25 TOTAL COST (Minor Amendment) 26 TOTAT. COST (Major Amendment) i Note: Estimated licensing costs are based on the assumption that CVEA staff will provide | significant support for required field work and studies, including labor, small tools and transportation | Interest During Construction (1 yr, 4.5% on 1/2) $34,820 | 1992 Estimated Project Cost $1,582,368 1995 Estimated Project Cost (5%/yr) $1,831,789 | | Projected Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1702 | Annual Debt Service (100% Debt. 7%, 30 yr) $147,617 | | 30 Year Levelized Power Cost Per kWh $0.0867 O&M Allowance $0.0070 Total Estimated Annual Cost Per kWh— 1995 | Page 2 of 2 ) - Computation M {Computed | Date Sudje Carise K 22 [Checked [Date ial : | ask {Sheet |Of Zesty Dan 1 Zoo lng x GFK 2652 19139 ya? 4C| bo' x x 350" = _77% yhF asplact | 2300 ya” 4" “ + 330 yh? Crnbe Tr Ue well + I\,ee¢o yh heasre ae ee © aed , Ve Sen 1000’ ine a PSS aR Bo low Ae oleae 3 Vole = 630 4+ Boo 769% Cyd Tee 6S x reas ~ 6S ce yd* Ail 60K Imo + ees fence ve? opal + (ooo yf? Creefe 2 urmwce we ee + Zeoo ys? te at J, walt = COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION SOLOMON GULCH- LOWER INTAKE ELEVATION DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) ITEM DESCRIPTION Quanuty Unit Unit $ Cost $ Mobilizanon (all winter work) 1 Is $200,000 $200,000 2 Build Cofferdam around intake 8000 cuyd $40 $320,000 3 Drill concrete 30 ea $500 $15,000 4 Saweut concrete 1 | $5,000 $5,000 5 Remove concrete from el. 616 to el. 600 43 cuyd $50 $2,150 6 Add bracing and bar screen 1 ls $10,000 $10,000 a Remove cofferdam 8000 cuyd $25 $200,000 8 Subtotal $752,150 9 Design Engineering (8%) als $60,172 $60,172 10 Construction Management (5%) WS _ $37,608 $37.608 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION $849,930 Contingency % $254,979 | TOTAL-CONSTRUCTION ONLY Interest During Construction ( 1 yr @ 4.5% on 1/2) $24,860 1992 Estimated Project Cost $1,129,769 | 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@ 5%/yr) $1,234,529 | | Projected Annual Energy (MWh/yr) 1025 | | Annual Debt Service (100% Debt, 7%, 30 yr) $99,486 | 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh $0.0971 O&M Allowance $0.0070 | | Total estimated Annual Cost Per kWh- 1995 Sa ' ry ous = : | HVO ALIA? — 1 /E $22YS aas i 13¥IN0) 010 — 0as6—4 NIVLIND INOYD | nou.vonnos WYO eli | — he. USA oon om we = om re “GW ABOLTAGIA NOLOL/M] (NW) 99SGWe © G13'1 142 NI 17W4~Q? ONY BWI 4AZIG XVW 8 IvIzalvW Nsmoe TD BNOZ ~ , DB ANO2 Gv BiiT™ Riu Ginavaminoas xD 415 NOLL van? Bano? NITE “a c ¥ as any 1417 1 aNOz auvbsabey aanenar,y ox \ y\ ' G oe alc . ” £/3 avs 02 C Ren “NO? LWHdSV,2) a > 4Lv0Z 1v3S LIVKSSY THINS MWY Z-$Y7 G99 79 AwmTIs COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION EGEAS DSM INPUTS HIGH EFFICIENCY REFRIGERATORS NEW ANNUAL ENERGY COINCIDENT ANNUAL TOTAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM SAVINGS DEMAND SAVINGS UTILITY PROGRAM UTILITY YEAR RATE PARTICIPANTS KWH Kw INCENTIVES COSTS COSTS 1990 0% 0 0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 1991 10% 11 856 0.1 $338 $203 $541 1992 25% 29 3,106 0.4 $876 $526 $1,402 1993 25% 30 5,395 0.7 $895 $537 $1,432 1994 40% 49 9,140 1.2 $1,464 $878 $2,342 1995 40% 50 12,973 1.7 $1,499 $899 $2,398 1996 40% 51 16,900 2:2 $1,535 $921 $2,456 1997 40% 53 20,937 2c, $1,578 $947 $2,525 1998 40% 54 25,063 3.2 $1,613 $968 $2,581 1999 40% 55 29,256 3.7 $1,640 $984 $2,623 2000 40% 56 33,545 4.3 $1,677 $1,006 $2,683 2001 40% 57 37,931 4.9 $1,715 $1,029 $2,744 2002 40% 58 42,416 5.4 $1,754 $1,052 $2,806 2003 40% 60 47,003 6.0 $1,793 $1,076 $2,870 2004 40% 61 51,695 6.6 $1,834 $1,101 $2,935 2005 40% 63 56,493 7.2 $1,876 $1,125 $3,001 2006 40% 64 61,400 7.9 $1,918 $1,151 $3,069 2007 40% 65 66,416 8.5 $1,962 $1,177 $3,149 2008 40% 67 71,550 9.2 $2,007 $1,204 $3,210 2009 40% 68 76,799 9.8 $2,052 $1,231 $3,283 2010 40% 70 82,167 10.5 $2,099 $1,259 $3,358 From Stone & Webster Least Cost Plan Demonstration Study November, 1991 (5 pages) YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 NEW PARTICIPATION PROGRAM RATE 0% 10% 25% 25% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% PARTICIPANTS 0 7 18 19 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION EGEAS DSM INPUTS HIGH EFFICIENCY FREEZERS ANNUAL ENERGY COINCIDENT ANNUAL SAVINGS DEMAND SAVINGS —_ UTILITY KWH KW INCENTIVES 0 0.0 $0 658 0.1 $135 2,362 0.3 $348 4,102 0.5 $356 6,950 0.8 $582 9,864 1.1 $596 12,850 1.4 $610 15,920 1.6 $628 19,057 2.1 $641 22,245 2.5 $652 25,506 2:9) $667 28,841 3.2 $682 32,252 3.6 $697 35,740 4.0 $713 39,307 4.4 $729 42,955 4.8 $746 46,686 5.2 $763 50,502 5.6 $780 54,404 6.1 $798 58,395 6.5 $816 62,477 7.0 $835 PROGRAM COSTS $0 $81 $209 $214 $349 $358 $366 $377 $385 $391 $400 $409 $418 $428 $438 $448 $458 $468 $479 $490 $501 TOTAL UTILITY COSTS $0 $215 $557 $569 $932 $954 $977 $1,004 $1,026 $1,043 $1,067 $1,091 $1,116 $1,141 $1,167 $1,194 $1,221 $1,248 $1,277 $1,306 $1,335 reo mK gq 3) m u me a o roe tt Woe YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CUMULATIVE COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION NEW ANNUAL ENERGY PARTICIPATION PROGRAM RATE FRRIGIRATSISSIIRI2ars PARTICIPANTS 0 88 204 394 592 970 994 1,022 1,044 1,061 1,085 1,110 1,135 1,161 1,187 1,214 1,242 1,270 1,299 1,328 1,358 SAVINGS KWH 0 12,678 29,541 57,004 85,711 140,380 143,795 147,848 151,089 153,579 157,052 160,618 164,265 167,995 171,809 175,710 179,700 183,780 187,953 192,220 196,585 EGEAS DSM INPUTS COMPACT FLUORESCENT (Residential 1.3 Lamps/household) COINCIDENT ANNUAL DEMAND SAVINGS — UTILITY Kw. 0.0 4.8 11.2 21.7 32.6 53.4 54.7 56.3 57.5 58.5 59.8 61.1 62.5 63.9 65.4 66.9 68.4 69.9 71.5 73.2 74.8 INCENTIVES $0 $1,640 $2,181 $3,552 $3,713 $8,711 $2,623 $4,077 $4,133 $9,033 $3,072 $4,538 $4,604 $9,516 $3,566 $5,043 $5,120 $10,044 $4,105 $5,595 $5,685 PROGRAM COSTS $0 $984 $1,309 $2,131 $2,228 $5,227 $1,574 $2,446 $2,480 $5,420 $1,843 $2,723 $2,763 $5,709 $2,139 $3,026 $3,072 $6,026 $2,463 $3,357 $3,411 TOTAL UTILITY COSTS $0 $2,624 $3,490 $5,684 $5,941 $13,938 $4,197 $6,523 $6,612 $14,453 $4,916 $7,261 $7,367 $15,225 $5,705 $8,068 $8,193 $16,070 $6,569 $8,951 $9,096 COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION EGEAS DSM INPUTS HIGH EFFICIENCY FLUORESCENT (Commercial) ANNUAL ENERGY COINCIDENT ANNUAL TOTAL PARTICIPATION SAVINGS DEMAND SAVINGS UTILITY PROGRAM UTILITY YEAR RATE KWH KW INCENTIVES COSTS COSTS 1990 0% 0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 1991 1% 20,941 6.5 $3,793 $2,276 $6,069 1992 2% 41,882 13.1 $3,793 $2,276 $6,069 1993 % 62,823 19.6 $3,793 $2,276 $6,069 1994 4% 83,764 26.2 $3,793 $2,276 $6,069 1995 % 104,705 32.7 $3,793 $2,276 $6,069 1996 7% 146,588 45.8 $7,586 $4,552 $12,138 1997 I% 188,470 58.9 $7,586 $4,552 $12,138 1998 11% 230,352 71.9 $7,586 $4,552 $12,138 1999 13% 272,234 85.0 $7,586 $4,552 $12,138 2000 15% 314,116 98.1 $7,586 $4,552 $12,138 2001 19% 387,410 121.0 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2002 22% 460,704 143.9 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2003 26% 533,998 166.8 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2004 29% 607,291 189.7 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2005 33% 680,585 212.6 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2006 36% 753,879 235.4 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2007 40% 827,173 258.3 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2008 43% 900,466 281.2 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2009 47% 973,760 304.1 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 2010 50% 1,047,054 327.0 $13,276 $7,966 $21,242 TUX IO | 98eg «a COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION EGEAS DSM INPUTS COMPACT FLUORESCENT (Commercial) ANNUAL ENERGY COINCIDENT TOTAL PARTICIPATION SAVINGS DEMAND SAVINGS REBATE PROGRAM UTILITY YEAR RATE KWH KW COSTS COSTS COSTS 1990 0% 0 0.0 $0 $0 $0 1991 2% 17,534 5.5 $1,667 $1,000 $2,666 1992 ™% 26,301 8.3 $833 $500 $1,333 1993 % 35,068 11.0 $833 $500 $1,333 1994 ™ 61,369 19.3 $4,166 $2,500 $6,666 1995 10% 87,670 27.5 $3,333 $2,000 $5,333 1996 13% 113,970 35.8 $3,333 $2,000 $5,333 1997 15% 131,504 41.3 $5,833 $3,500 $9,332 1998 18% 157,805 49.5 $5,833 $3,500 $9,332 1999 21% 184,106 57.8 $5,633 $3,500 $9,332 2000 24% 210,407 66.0 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2001 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2002 27% 236,708 74.3 $5,833 $3,500 $9,332 2003 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2004 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2005 27% 236,708 74.3 $5,633 $3,500 $9,332 2006 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2007 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2008 27% 236,708 74.3 $5,633 $3,500 $9,332 2009 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 2010 27% 236,708 74.3 $8,333 $5,000 $13,332 APPENDIX 5 Environmental Evaluation Supporting Documentation OONHAPWN> seas Ons oO; AGENCY CONTACTS Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities City of Valdez, Coastal District Coordinator, Planning Department National Park Service, Air Quality Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch . Environmental Protection Agency . Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services . Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Section . Forest Service, Chugach National Forest Sece NNNnNM DRAFT NOTE TO READER: The management practices and other information discussed in this brochure are advisory and are intended to assist owners, managers, and users of public and private lands in protecting bald eagles, their nests, eggs, and habitat in Alaska. This information is not regulation nor does it represent changes to existing interagency agreements. Compliance with or disregard of the suggested management practices contained herein does not, of itself, show compliance with or violation of the Eagle Protection Act or noncompliance with Federal agency policies. DRAFT USF&WS BALD EAGLE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES (referenced in report Section 7) DRAFT DRAFT In order to afford the protection needed for nesting bald eagles, a two-zone management system is recommended in areas around nest trees. The greatest degree of protection is needed within the Primary Zone because activities occurring within this Zone would be most likely to affect nesting eagles. Activities in the Secondary Zone need less restriction but could affect the birds during the nesting season or the integrity of the nesting habitat within the Primary Zone. Because the level of protection needed is variable due to individual eagle responses to human activity and due to topography, vegetation, and other site-specific conditions, land managers and resource planners are encouraged to work cooperatively with the Service to find mutually beneficial solutions to eagle/resource management issues. When activities occur in proximity to a nest site, observations should assess if the activity is causing nesting eagles to significantly alter their behavior. Indications of significantly altered behavior include the giving of alarm calls, flushing birds from the nest or perch, and aggressive behavior by the birds. If you have questions about an activity to be conducted in the 9 vicinity of a bald eagle nest, please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate contacts are provided in this brochure under the section entitled "Who to Contact for Planning Aid." imar n This zone should extend a minimum of 330 feet from the nest tree. Where nesting occurs in sparse stands of timber, or treeless areas, or where activities are to occur within line-of-sight of the nest (i.e., the activities are in full view of birds on the nest), the Primary Zone should be increased to sufficiently screen the nest from human activities. Where topography or vegetation do not provide adequate separation between the nest and human activities, the resource manager should extend the zone up to a distance of 1320 feet (0.25 miles). The actual size of the zone would be dependent on site conditions and the eagles’ tolerance for human activity. The additional setback distance would compensate for the lack of trees to screen human activities from the eagles. Eagles are most likely to be adversely affected by human activities within this zone during the nesting season, except under unusual circumstances (e.g., where a particular pair of eagles is DRAFT DRAFT known to be tolerant of closer human activity). Also, activities that significantly alter the landscape and vegetation will adversely affect eagle use of this area. Substantial resource use or development activity should be planned to avoid active nest areas during the nesting season. Timber cutting or vegetation clearing can leave eagle nest trees susceptible to blowdown. Consequently, vegetation clearing should be limited to Maintain nest viability. Due to the sensitivity of this area to vegetation clearing, the Service encourages resource users or planners to contact the Service if any significant vegetation removal is planned in the Primary Zone around a nest tree. Land-use Recommendations Activities such as these should be avoided within the Primary Zone: *Significant vegetation clearing, including harvesting of timber *Development of commercial and industrial sites *Home, road, powerline, and other substantial construction activity *Surface mining 10 The following activities should not occur within the Primary Zone during the nesting season (March 1 - August 31) except where they have successfully coexisted with nesting: *Operation of all-terrain vehicles *Operation of heavy construction equipment *Obtrusive human use activities *Concentration of vessels (e.g., boats involved with commercial fishing or crabbing) or mariculture facilities ngar n The area within this zone extends outward from the edge of the Primary Zone (330 feet from the nest tree) to a minimum of 660 feet from the nest tree. Because eagles exhibit differing tolerances to human activities, the width of the zone may need to be expanded to sufficiently protect eagle nesting activities. Where nesting occurs in sparse stands of timber, or treeless areas, or where activities are to occur within line-of-sight of the nest the width of the zone may need to be extended up to 2640 feet (0.50 miles) from the nest tree. Human activities in this area, particularly irregular loud or sudden noises, may adversely DRAF: DRAFi affect eagles during the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). However, at any particular nest site, eagles should be obse~ ed to assess the effect of the activity. Additionally, land uses within this zone shoul be compatible with bald eagle habitat values in order to maintain nesting habitat within the Primary Zone. Land-use Recommendations The following activities should be avoided within the Secondary Zone: *Construction of permanent facilities that are obtrusive or would be associated with noisy or otherwise intrusive activities (e.g., oil refining, rock-crushing operations, open- pit mines, surface mining) *Construction of roads or trails within line-of-sight of the nest Resource managers and planners should schedule the following activities within the Secondary Zone to avoid active nests during the nesting season (March 1 - August 31): *Timber harvesting operations, including activities such as road construction, chain saw operations, yarding operations. After June 15, timber operations could begin at unoccupied nest sites. Timber cuts should be ll designed to avoid blowdown within the Primary Zone (a source of future nest trees). *Land-use activities that produce intermittent loud noise during construction (e.g., home, road, powerline, and other construction located out of sight of the nest). The following activities could occur year-round within the Secondary Zone: *Land-use activities that are short-term, not obtrusive, and/or demonstrated not to interfere with the subject nesting pair of eagles (e.g., use of existing roads, trails, homes, and other facilities) mm. ion *Important eagle roosts and food sources should not be destroyed or degraded. *Blasting should not occur within 1/2 mile of an active eagle nest during the nesting season without prior coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service. *Aircraft Corridors (temporary or permanent) should be located no closer than 1000 feet from an active eagle nest during the nesting season. DRAFT DRAFT *Toxic Chemicals (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers) should not be broadcast or widely applied except by following State and Federal laws, and manufacturer’s instructions regarding application. Small- scale, spot treatments with pesticides are acceptable so long as application instructions are followed and eagles are protected from taking prey killed or incapacitated by pesticides. 12 n for Planning Aid U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raptor Management Office P.O. Box 021287 Juneau, AK 99802-1287 Phone: 907/586-7243 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage Field Office 605 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907/271-2888 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fairbanks Field Office 101 12th Ave., Box 20 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907/456-0203 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Habitat Division 333 Raspberry Road Anchorage, AK 99518 Phone: 907/267-2285 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Habitat Division 802 3rd Street Douglas, AK 99824 Phone: 907/465-4290 Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game Habitat Division 1300 College Road Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907/451-6192 DRAFT ices ee ' 7 a s VT Pe ra ‘i ie | | | a Sg ST i \ n Wy) ty 4 AN 4, Vora t READ ey ( I 4 4 tS “‘ i : y ‘mI s\§ vi My I! th = nae ™ na ! F-?® TABLE 3.4-1. EMISSION FACTORS FOR STATIONARY LARGE BORE DIESEL AND DUAL FUEL ENGINES® EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Witrogen Particulate? | oxidest Rnogine type Diesel 1b/103 hpe Dusl fuel 10/107 hpn Representative uncontrolled levels for each fuel, determined by weighting date free several manufacturers. Weighting beeed on 2 of total horsepower selé by each asau- facturer during @ five year period. NA © not available. eeiom Pactor Rating: &. Approximation based om test of 6 Gedium bore diesel. Baiseions are miniaum expected for engine operating at 50 = 1002 full rated lead. At OZ load, emissions would increase to 30 g/l. Reference 2. Swessured os NO.. Factores are for engines operated at rated lead and epeed. (wonmethana VOC is 90% of totel VOC from diesel engines but only 252 ef tocel voc emiseione froe dual fuel engines. Individusl chemical species withia the sene wethane fraction are mot identified. NMelecular weight of senmethans gee stream is aseowmed te be chet of methane. . “Based on aseumed sulfur content of 0.4 weight 2 for diesel fuel and 0.46 g/sen (0.20 ge/sct) for pipeline quality natural gas. Dusl fuel 802 emissions based ca 52 041/953 gaa mix. Emissions should be adjusted for other fuel ratice. frnese factors calculated from the sbove factors, eeeuming heating values of 40 W/2 (145,000 Beu/gel) for o11 and 41 NJ/sem (1100 Beu/eet) for aatural ges, and en average fuel consumption of 9.9 MJ/kih (7000 Beu/hph). References for Section 3.4 1. Standards Support And Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, a, U. S. Enviromental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979. 2. Telephone communication between William H. Lemason, Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards, U. $. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, and John H. Wasser, Office Of Research And Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 15, 1983. ‘ 3.42 EMISSION PACTORS 8/84 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF ELECTRICITY TABLE 2 (Emissions - lbs/MMBTU) Externality $/tb w (1) so, $ 2.03 (2) wo, $ 0.82 (3) Particulates $1.19 (4) CO, $ 0.0068 Totals: (5) S/MMBTU Input (6] Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) (7) $/kWwh Generated (8) Skwh Delivered Notes: [A]: Unit Values derived in Chapter V. Boiler #6011 G38 $) a) 0.54 0.357 0.055 169 3 2.60 10,400 $ 0.027 3% 0.032 Boiler #60il Os $)- (cy 1.08 0.287 0.09 169 3 3.68 10,400 $ 0.038 $ 0.045 Boiler #6 0il 2.2% S) i) 2.38 0.357 0.17% 169 $ 6.48 10,400 $ 0.067 $3 0.079 Campus tion Turbine #2 0iL C$). (62 0.16 0.498 0.036 161 $3 1.87 13,600 _ $ 0.025 $ 0.030») (B][C}(D][E}: Emissions are from PLC (1989); SO, and CO, emissions have been restated as Ibs SO, and Ibs CO,. All emissions are expressed as Ibs/MMBTU fuel input. [1]: SO, emissions are uncontrolled in each case. [2]: NO, emissions are uncontrolled in each case. (3]: Particulates emissions are calculated from EPA Ap-42 using the formula: 0.02 + 0.07 x S, where S ia the sulfur content in percent. [4]: CO, emissions are derived in PLC (1989). (5): Sum of (value x emissions for each externality) for each plant. [6]: Assumed heat rates for each piant. (7): [5]*{6}/1,000,000. [8]: Assumes 15% marginal energy losses. APPENDIX 6 Economic Analysis Model Output ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY ECONOMIC MODEL SPREADSHEET MAP APRIL, 1992 Filename: ALLISON.WK3 Lotus 123 rev 3.1 /PAGE A—MASTER INPUT AND SUMMARY SHEET | Al To print entire output file | | | type “ALT P* Standard Input Form | | (Input applies to | To switch between sheets A—H |whole model) | type "CTRL PgUp or PgDn’ | | Changing fuel or load forecasts | | on sheet A changes them for the | | F19 entire spreadsheet A22 Summary table of results T41 | from sheets B thru H Fuel Forecasts | SHEETS B THRU H—ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATES 1-7 Al K1 Project specific input table Diesel Deferral capital cost, energy output, etc. 112 Model A13 Copy of standard input from Sheet A For reference only P26 041 135 Diese! needed calculation for A36 summer and Fifty year cost benefit analysis winter with totals at the bottom $93 1100 Note: Any “MOVE command may Sone eS nO TEs ese WTEC pnt eV. ACLO NaS TIES Note: This is the configuration of the spreadsheet as of April 3, 1992 Some minor changes will result as part of final revisions, but major model components will remain in the same relative positions shown here. » ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Real Interest Rate (%): Inflation Rate (%): Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 490 Load Forecast Used (Low, Mediu igh): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Allison Lake Tunnel with ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | | Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | Alternative Project Input Hs | Capital Cost (1992 $): 434 Stuart Year 1998 | Anpual O&M Cost (1992 $):__ $275,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May. 2), | Average Annual MWh, June — September: o Total Aaaual Energy (MWh): 27,36 | ee | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): o Discowat Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savin, Wh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recoa=1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 11000 & 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: Winter Load Multiplier: 0. ae | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): Solomoa Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): Summary of Output Deferred Diese! aan = BIR Net Benefit = 37, 1 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1m s\é aE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS 15-Apr-92 Name of Alternative: ’ Allison Lake Tunnel with H ro } | PV | PV MWh Saal. Needed | PV Fuel PV YEAR | ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Useable Fuei Cost De Savis: O&M Savin; 1992 so $0. ol $0.22 | 16,230 | $0} $0 1993 $0) $0) o| 3033) 16,62 | $0 Ee $0 1994 $0) so o| so.as| 17,077 $0 $0 1995 $0 so] 0 LC $0.36 17,507 =| so 1996 so! 30] 0 $0.38 ‘17,941 | $0 $0 1997 30 30) 0 [ 3039| 18379] 30 30 1998] $24,025,635 s21171| 1852 | 3091) 0 $1,020,451 | $144,534 | 1999 $0| $202,078 | 19 02 0 $1,023,093 $141,59 2000 | so] $193,376 | ea $0.94 0 $1,004,758 $138,675 2001 $0 | $185,049 | 20177 30.95 o $1,014,463 2002 $0 | $177,080 20,638 3096 0 $1,008 313289 2003] so] s169.4ss 2118 3097 2004 | so] $162,158 21573 30.99 $989,965 $127210 2005 $0 $155,175 22,048 $0.99 | __se7aez9] $124,411 | 2006 | $0 $148,493 msm| sino] ssa] $121,643) 2008 30 31 2350 05 2009 | sol sizaizs] a3.g0s] sos] to s93z 233] 5113539] 2010] $0 sizaszo] aus] soso sotgzas| $110,909] 2011 $0 sugiss] 2aaoe| stor] oT seaaas3] $106133 | 2012 $0 $114,027 | sasas77| $101,562 | 2013 0 $109,117 | $813950| $97,189 | 2014 30 $104418 | _s77ass9| $93,004 | pois] So] esas] ee] sor] sass] $88,999] ois] sot s9seis| aan stor] sizer sas,166 2017 30 ist [___s107| 0] _seaase7| $81,089] 2018 $0 [0] sasaiss| $7,989] 2019 30 = ee ee 2020] so net use| ner | oss sna ——— a TOTALS: $24,225,635 $4,360,962 $29,345,768 53,637,410 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278.03 Net Benefit = 57,074,621 Benefit:-Cost Ratio = 124 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone in Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $): Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Aaaual MWh, October — May: Average Aanual MWh, June ~ September: Total Aanual I Standard Input 0 LInQatioa Rate (%): Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomoa Guich Summer Ont; 22600 Solomon Guich Winter Output 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = Benefit-Cost Ratio = 056 Fra TunNITANIEATEUTATFUITAIUUUUMBUUTUUUTUUUTUTTUTNUUTTUADUUTUUDTUUTUTTUUUNUUTUNTTAGUUTITUVUITNUTAAINITUTUINANIUIVNNTUTTANTNTUUTUTNNNTUNTNOT ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Pv PV MWh Spl. YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuet Cost 1992 $0 so 0} $0.82 | 16 30 2 1993 30. $0, oO. $0.83 | 16,652 30 30 1994 $o| $0) 0) 08s 17,077 = $0] 1995 0 30 0 4 17,507, 30 __30| 1996 $0 30] o} $0.38 17,941 30 30 1997 $0 30] o| 3039] 1837 | x0 0 1998 | _$41.210,608 | $230,369 | 15,645 30.91 3,17 179 $120137 1999 so] $220,449 15,645 390.2 3,624 $530.66 $114,964 2000 so] $210,956 | 15,645 30.94 4,076 $812,959 $110013 2001 | $0! $201,871 | 15,6 $0.95 4532 95, $105,276 | 2002 | So} 15, $0.96 4,993 rau save [ 2003 | so] 15, $0.97 s 458 | 2004 | $0 | 15, 0.9 |_| sa | 2005 | 30 15,645 30.99 : 103 | sean | | 2006 | $0 15,645 $1.00 53] $665,886 | a | 2007 | $0 15, 31.01 7367] s6a3gao| $80,841 | | 2008 | $0 15,645 $1.03 7a86[ sezagz7| $77,360 | | 2009 | 7) $141,953 15,645 $1.05 0 2 wi jen 2010 $0 $135,840 1564s $1.06 9 0,841 2011 so $129.91 15 $1.07 | __ $867,737] 367,80 | | 2012 30 $12 15, $1.97 |_ = 3543289] $64,871 | 2013 0 $119,03 15,648 sio7| gag] ssigage| $62,077 | 2014 30 $113,910 s s | gag] a97sos| $59,404 | [2015] so $109,005 [| kgag| 476002] $56,846 | 2016 $1 ‘Seen ee ae rrr — rrr zoi7] so] sop is oas| so] ano] gasses] $52,086 pois] sO} sssai] seas | 7 | tga] saz] sais | ze ata [_—sio7| 49] sy9nzae| 507,409] s| sig] age] ssaa.oss| ‘ 345 SS SS | 202 $0 580,100 S ; 349,53 M17 a 2024 sO SO iS 5320. 53 252 2026 0 $67,169 645 [$293,361 | 35,0 | 20 2 __ssazis s[ sir] aa] 280,729 533,520 2 s| si] ta] sa ceo| 32.077) ss so sg ar] | ar TOTALS: 2031 [$0 355500 | 15 | san] ages sx3s.008 | 2008 pout go] sam] tsoas[ so] teas] sisisas| $18,100) po] got ss] tsous| sao] gga] sass] $17,221] 2043 — 0 BBLS __isss__ugt__age sin, __an6s35 =| st aa ae — 2047 [0 ere 15908 | an | peo sna | sa gous; sooo son aso $41210,60 $4,757,413 $19,923,313 52,480,991 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 Net Benefit = $20.21 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 056 f ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | Name of Alternative: Solomon Guich — Lower Intake Alternative Project Input Capital Coss (1992 $): Aaaual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Aanual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — September: Start Year. 1993 Total Annual Eaergy (MWh): 4 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Ducount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/k Wh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recoa =1, Low Fei =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 11000 Summer Load Multiplier: Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomoa Guich Summer Energy Owtput (MWh): 20 nL Solomoa Gulch Wiater Output E 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = 133 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 143 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i3—Apr= ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower intake | mie ale ate) Loe La YEAR ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Unotte OAM Savi 1992 so} 30) o| 16,230 | 1993 $1,081,118 | $7,656 12s] =a 15,627 ma 309 1994 so] 573% | 1,025 $0.85 16,052 62,05 $9,386 1995 0. $7,010 | 1,025) 30.36 16,42 360,474 $8.9 1996 so $6,708 | 1,025] $038 16,916 $59,281 $8,595 1997 so $6,420 1,925 | 3039 17384 357,404 $3225 1998 $0 | $6,148 | 1,025 | $0.91 17,797 $562 s7571| 1999 30 35,879 | 1,025 | 30.92 —__ 354,22 = = 2000 | $0 $5,625 | 1,025 | 30.94 $53.262 2001 30 1,025 ae : —— 3513 2003 | e 1,025 oe 316 2004 | so 1,025 2005 0 1,025 023 2006 30 1,02 21,58 — = 7 =o | 2008 | 30 1,02 2.476 0 i 2009 | $0 12 | 970 | pom | $4,850 | 2010] $0 1,02 = seso| $4,641 | 2011 | so 1,025 23 [ s4.aan | 2012) so 1,02 B, 35,94] $4,250 | [ast 0 a 40] sags] 54007] | 2014 $0 yas] stor] ewe] ses] se | gov] oT oe mos] sor] aw | oss] $3,410 | 2018 sol se] noes} so] ew ss] 83264 | ti 4 2019 | ___ 0) sew ngs _st7|__maa@|__aguse} 3.103] 2a| #[ ea 2023 | = 00 i's | | | 85 2] 2024 | sol sigs] teas] sio7] we oes] 92,505 | 2o26f so] am tas] si] ew] sigot 2.295 | zoom} so] saa] nas] som] ew Sw] | zoss| oso] gas sor] ew | si7o] ie | 2029 [_$0/_$1.s)__ gs) gee ee) se 2031 0 | 0 gas | sar | rs | 315.03 size] bs it ie it it 2032 sol sigs] mas] sto] ew] sas] 8172 | 233] os] oes] sto] ewes] 81 os | | 2034 gol sizeof mas] stor] ew] siz sis| 14 | pos] ssf es stor] news| 81.478 |_20s7}__ ge} sijee} tas} art gee) sie) sii oss] ost] mes] tor] ews] 8133 | oo] gosto] asf stor] an] somes] $1,295 | |__2900}____s0}__gser/_ as} ett __ gaat sage) ____ size pot got sete] amas or] wg | S185 | poz] ogee os] stor] new] se] S115 | pos] sooo stor eae go 8 a ) 2046 [age sot 8 port gop soo sor ass got pousp sooo tor ass go it it ® TOTALS: $1,081,118 $1580 31,566,785 5202561 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $0 Net Benefit = $530,133 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.43 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Guich — Raise Spillway 5 feet I Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $): Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, June — September: 22 Total Annual Eaergy (MWh): 1.72 Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): 4 Inflation Rate (%): Discount Rate (%): Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recoa=1, Low Fuel =2): 11 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W Load Forecast Used a as _ ; Low Summer Load Multiplier: Winter Load ree : 0. Solomon Gulch Summer Eaergy Output (MWh): _| Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savia; Net Benefit = Benefit:-Cost Ratio = ln lo Slelo — in = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS a YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spil | wefan oh ae | oe oe de YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useabie alas nie 1992 | so} 1993 30| 1994 $0) 1995 30 1996 | $1326,9 $10,063] 1997 $9,629 | 1998 $9215 | $3,818 | 33.438 i $8,075 | $7,727 | $7,394 | $7,076 ele fatele ibs ile hells halle he ele ts le TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,30 52,058,129 $259,761 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = 3783,169 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 131 Mf ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet a | | Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $): 25, Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Aanual MWh, Juae — September: | Total Anmual Ewergy (MWh): | Standard Input 0 | Real Laterest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discowat Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recoa =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~50 YEAR ANALYSIS Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Name of Alternative: $0.s2| $0.3 sa] $0.36 | 30.88 17,941 30 $039 1837 $0 90.91 $582 $726,257 | $101,669 $0.92 02 02 9 30.94 30.95 16230 | 16, 17,077 | 17,507 | 3/8/88 |8 18 |8 : Ty zu a asia] $13,023) $13,423 TOTALS: $19,533,86 $12 $16,360,63 a sd Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 3272.0 Net Benefit = 2.577, Benefit:Cost Ratio = 113 (Pes \4 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Input EECEEREEE| Capital Cost (1992 $): Start Year: 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May. 15,434 Average Annual MWh, June — ber: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 [Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 | Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): oor Fuei Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recoa = 1, Low Peei =2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: ie 1992 Diese! Cost (3: Solomoa Gulch Winter Eaergy oo na x. Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,099 Net Benefit = $708,739 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1a ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: 1992 30! $0) o} $0.82 \ 30 30 1993 0 x0! 0 0.3 16,62 x x0 1994 $0] 30 of 0 3085 17,077 30 30 1995 $0, $0 _o} $0.36 17,507 0 $0 1996 $0 $0) o} 30.38 17, 2 30 1997) $0 $0] Oo] $0.59 1839 $0 $0 1998) $12,321,128 | $268,764 | 15,434 | 30.91] 3388) $846,605 | Bast) 1999 so! $257,190 | 15,434 092 33 $319,461 $113,413 2000 $0) $246,115 | 15,434 30.94 4287 $80 $108,530 2001 | Al $235,517 15,434 30.95 4743| __$77S987| ___—_—$103,856 | | 2002 | $0] $225375 15,434 $0.96 S206] s7sa7si | $99,384] | 2003 | $0 $215,670 sam] sog7| 5,669] $726,212) 395,104 2004 $0 $206382 15,434 sos] 6139| 708,240 $91,00 i 2005 $0 $197,495 15,434 0.99 [eae sess i 2006 wa $188,991 15,434 $1.00 eal — ie a 2007 31 a 15,436 31.01 [ 2008 [ 15,434 $1.03 6 2009 $0 a 2010 |____s0|__sisaaso|_1s43e_sia6/_oe0_ss 73546 |_sea.ms 2011 0 $151,656 15,434 | 9,060] $560,080 | 6 | 2012 $0 $145,125 15,434 a= oe 2013 0 3138376 sam] $1.07] 9.060] ssizsez] $61,240 | ois] Csi SOSCSC#SZBOS| sass] sor] 9,060| sasazes| $58.03 | 2015 }___so}__sizz73]_ts4se]___si47|_seee}_sssnee)|_ss48? | iB 2047 0 331, 1 — - Be. of stra] $13,711 | 2048 $0 $0 0 To 80 TOTALS: $12,321,128 $5,590315 $19,454,613 2 $30 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 32783 Net Benefit = 57,508,739 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.42 15% ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS L Name of Alternative: End—Use Conservation | Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $): $429,703 Start Year: 1993 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): » 67% 3s Average Annual MWh, October - May: Average Aanual MWh, June — rm ber: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discowat Rate (%): 45 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: End—Use Conservation Pv PY MWh Ngai. YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useabie Fuel Cost 1992 $0 | 30 0 $0.2 1993 $411,199 | 0 35 30.53 | 19941 sol 6 304s | 1995 | 30! 110 30.36 1996 x0 165 30.88 1997] so | | 237 30.39 | 1998 | $0, 289 $0.91 1999 | so| 336 90.92 2000 | so! l 389 30.94 2001 | $0] “1 30.95 2002 | 2011 oo rs st | “28 | 57s | se go2t sop soos stor ant sol saa) gers} got ge arte oust soto og pois} sop soto stort aang sos} ois] sot oso ae ot vot ops stor ease sot aos; sop sot oso ease cog org] soto sortase got rool so] gosto aos ot got soporte] go] wtf rst sop oor east go post soos east go zosf of soto stor aase 0 isis 2048 of of oF sn | ne 9 2] TOTALS: $411,199 20 $59,732 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 20 Net Benefit = $114,497 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): Discount Rate (%): Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): Ave Diese! Heat Rate BTUAWh: 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): Summer Load Multiplie: Winter Load Multiplier: Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output h): Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): ~ is A 2 8 Blelo|e bel Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Mediem | 1] $501 | 1.6] 1] Solomon Guich ~ Raise Spillway 5 feet [Medium [ 1{ smai@| asi] 1500 | Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Medio | a) ssieg77 |S} a Allison Lake Pip tine wi ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunne! with Hydro Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $32.29.434 Sturt Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $275,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May: 27,396 | Average Annual MWh, June — September. 0} Total Annual Energy (MWh) 273% | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflation Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2):_ 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 (1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium | Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 | | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese] Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | Net Benefit = $11,405,592 _ Benefit-Cost Ratio = 139 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY =4 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel! with Hydro re Pv -oMwe | Spl | Needed PVFud | Pv YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable | Fuel Cost Q4Wh) | Savings | O&M Savings 192 $0 sO 0 $0.82 1350 $0 so 1993 $0 sO 0 $0.83 143% $0 $0, 1984 $0 so 0 $0.85 | 15,156 | $0 $0) 1995 $0 so 0 $0.86 16.1354 $0 $0) 1996 $0 so 0 $0.88 17,148 | $0 so] 1997 so so 0 $0.89 18.234 | $0 $0) 1998 $24.5.635 $211,171 19.280 $0.91 | oO} $1,057.576 $148051 1999 so $202,078 20,287 $0.92 | 0] $1,077,112 $149,072 2000 » $193376 213% iz 30.94 | 0} $1,110,753 $150312 2001 $0 $185,049 2.619 | $0.95 | 0 $1,137237 | $152205 2002 $0 $177,080 23.89 $0.96 | 0 $112,261 | $153,863 | 2003 $0 $169,455 | 25,204 | $0.97 | o| $1,185,926 | $155,308 | 2004 $0 $162.158 | 26,548 | $0.99 | 0| $1,218,252 | $156,545 $0 $155,175 | 27396 | $0.99 | an saa 7) $148,493 | 27,396 | s100| $1,166,034 $147,931 | $0! $142.098 | 27396 | $1.01 $1,127,445 $141,561 so $135,979 27396 | $1.03 sol $130.124| 27396 | $1.05) $0 $124,520 273% $1.06 | 7,990 $124,049 $0, $119.158 | 2 $1.07] 7,990 $118,707 | so| $114,027] $0) $109,117 | $0) $104,418 | so] $99,221 Sol _—$95.618 $0 $91,501 so! $37,561 $0 $301 $0 | : Pal 7,990 2,604 $73,147 | 2023 | $0] $70,263 | 273% | $1.07 7,990 24 $69,997 2024 so) $6737 27,396 $1.07 7,990 60,979 $66,983 2025 So. $64,342 273%| si.07] 7,990] $5365 $64,099 2026 | $0| $61,571 | % ! 7,990 $513,706 $61,339 2027 $0 | $58,920 | 7,990 $491, 358,09 2028 | 30] $56,383 7,990 2029! so) $53,955 7,990 $450,159 $53,751 2030 | $51,406 2031 | $49.21 2032 | $47,102 2033/ $45,073 2034 | $43,132 2035 / +41 2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 2040 2041 2042 | 2043 | 2044 2045 | 2 2047 2048 | | | TOTALS: $24,025,635 $4,360,962 $33,199,772 $4,114,378 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | Net Benefit = $11,405,592 | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 139 | 7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $): $53,666,932 Sunt Year. 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): $300,000 Average Annual MWh, October — May” 15,645 | Average Annual MWh, June ~ September 21,605 Total Anowal Energy (MWh): 372590 | | | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45s _| Inflation Rate (%): 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 | | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWb 11000 a | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): _ 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 531 | | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 052 } | | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS WS-Apr- 2 Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand— —Alone | T Diesel T PV PV | MWh | ; | Needed PV Fuel PV | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost | Useable |__FuetCoss | (MWh) Savings | O&M Savings 1992 $0 so 0 $0.2 13,50 30) $0 | 1993 $o so 0 $0.83 143% | 30 $0] 1994 so so 0 $0.85 15.156 | $0) $0] 1995 $0 $0 0 $0.86 | 16,134 | $0 | $0 1996 $0 30 0 $0.88 17,148 | $0} 30 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.89 18254 so $0 1998 $41.210.608 $230,369 15,645 $0.91 3,635 | $858,179 $120,137 1999 so $220.449 15,645 $0.92 4,642 $830,664 $114,968 2000 $0 $210.96 15.645 $0.94 | S731) $812959 $110,013 | 2001 $0 $201.871 15,645 | $0.95 | 6,974) $786,595 | $105,276 | 2002 $0 $193,178 | 15,645 | 30.96 8250] $760,994 | $100,742 2003 $0 $184,860 | 15.645 $0.97 | 9,559 $736,140 | $96,404 | 2004 $0 $176,899 | 15,645 | $0.99 | 10,908 $717,923 | $92,253 2005 $0) $169.281 | 15,645 | 30.99 | 1222 $688,602 $88,280 2006 $0! $161,992 | 15,645 | $1.00 | 13,698 $665, $84,479 2007 $0! $155,016 | 15,645 | $1.01 15,150 $643,849 $30,841 | 2008 so] $148341 | 15,645 | $1.03 16,641 628,82 $77,360 2009 so! $141,953 | 15,645 | $1.05 18,171 $607.82 $74,@ 2010 30! $135,840 | 15,645 $1.06 19,741 $587,469 $70,841 2011 | so $129.91 . 15.645 $1.07 19,741 $567,737 $67.90 2012 30! $124,393 15,645 | sur! 19,741 See __seum 2013 $0 | $119,036 15,645 | $1.07 19,741 9 20141 $0 | $113910 15,645 | $1.07 19,741 $497,506 $59,404 2015 | so] $109,005 15, $1.07 | 19,741} $476,082) ($56,846 | | 2016 | $0 $104311 15,645 $1.07 19,741 $455,531 $549 | 2017) 30 | $99,819 15,645 $1.07 19,741 963 0s | 2018 | $0! $95,521 15,645 $1.07 19,741| $417,189| $49,814 | 2019) so! $91,407 15,645 | $1.07 19,741 $399,224 $47,669 2020 | so] $87,471 15,645 $1.07 19,741 5382,03 $45,816 2021 | so! $83,705 15,645 sio7] 19,7e1 | $365,582 | $43,652 2022 | SO. $80,100 15,648 $1.07 | 19,741 — — Ses, $41,772 | 2023 | $0! $76,651 15,645 sig] 19,741 | 3 $39,973 2024 | so! Sees ee art eet $38,252 | 2025 | $0 sroin| sous] $1.07] _—i9,741 | $306,546 $36,605 2026 | 30 $67,169 15645] $1.07] 19,741 | 29 35,2 2027! $0! me 6 a 520 2028 | $0 os] 5,6as| $.07| 19,741 | $268 640 | $320 2029 | $0 a $30.8 | 2030. so Sesto _sug)___ aa 2031 $0 2032 | so | 2033/ 30 20364 so 2035 | $0 2036 | 0 2037 30 2038 | x 2039 0 zoo] So] 6269] seas] S07] gran | sisson] sia, | or] So] sats oas| sor] tga] sisisse{ $18,100] j_2042|_ $0 | | 30} 1 $0| | 30] ! | 2046 | 30 $27,851 r ! | 30 $26,652 ! $0 0 0 ! | | TOTALS: $41,210,608 $4,757,413 $19,203,313 $2,490,991 | | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = $22,255 31 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 052 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS i Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Alternative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $): $1,129,768 | Surt Year. 1993 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $8,000 Average Annual MWb, October — May: 1,025 Average Annual MWh, June ~ September 0 Total Annual Energy (MWh): 1,025 | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 | Inflation Rate (%): 0 | Discount Rate (%) ! 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/Wh): 0.01 (Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuei=2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11000 _ [1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 | | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium | Summer Load Multiplier: 03 i] | Winter Load Multplier: 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output bh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): 25900 i | | Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Et) Net Benefit = $530,132 | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.43 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY s-Apr- ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~—50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake i | Diesel | PV py | MWh Seal Needed | PVFudt PV YEAR Project Cost O&MCost__| Useable | FuetCose_ | (MWh) | Savings O&M Savings 1992 so $0 0 $0.82 13.50 Fy $0 1993 $1.081.118 $7.656 1,025 30.83 13311 | $63,223 $9,809 | 194 so $73% 1,025 $0.85 14,131 $62,05 | $9,386 | 1995 so $7,010 1,025 $0.86 | 15,109 | $60,474 $8.98 | 1996 so $6,708 | 1,025 $0.38 16123 $59,281 | $8.595 | 1997 so $6.40 1,025 $0.89 1720 $57,404 $8,225 | 1998 so $6.143 1,025 30.91 18.255 | $56.25 37.371 1999 so 35.89 1,025 | 02 192@ | $54,<2 $752 2000 so $5,625 1,025 | $0.94 | 20.351 | $53.62 $7208 | 2001 $0 $538 1,025 | 30.95 | 21,594 $51,535 $6897 | 2002 30 $5,151 1,025 | $0.96 | 2sn $49,857 $6,600 2003 $0 $4930 | 1,025 | $0.97) 24,19 $43.29 | $6316 | 2004 $0 $4.717 | 1,025 | $0.99 | 2553 $47,036 $6,044 2005 so $4514) 1,025 | 90.99 26,92 $45,115 $5,784 2006 $0 $4320 | 1,025 | $1.00 28318 $43,26 $5,535 2007 $0 $4134] 1,025 | $1.01 29,70 $42,182) $5,296 2008 $0! $3,956 | 1,025 | $1.03 31,261 $41,198 $5,06 2009 so $3,785 | 1,025 | $1.05 | 32,791 $39,222 | x4 2010 $0 | $3.62 | 1,025 | $1.06 | 34361 $38,489 $4,641 2011 | $0] $3,466 | 1,025 $1.07 34,361 $37,196 $4441 2012] so! 3317! 1,025 $1.07/ 34,361 $35,994 __ 4250 2013 30 | $3,174 1,025 31.071 34361 $34,061 $4,067 2014 $0} $3,038 1,025 $1.07 34361 $32.59 $3,292 2015 | 301 2.907 ao2s{ $1.07] 34361] $31,191 | $3,724 2016 $0 2,72 6 329, 3,56 | 2017/| $0 | 262; 1,025] . $3,41 2018 Pl 2, | $27,333 | $32 2019 sol $2,438 | $26,156 $3,123 | 2020 | so! 233 $25,@ $2,999 2021 $0, 222 | $23,951 $2,860 | 2022 | Sol $2,136 $2,920 $2,737 | 2023 | $0 $2,044 6 £21,933 2,619 2024 | $0) $1,956 361 $20,989 $2,506 2025 | Pl $1,872 20, 2 2026 so! S171 - — ar 2027 $0! __ $1,714 1 $18.9 52,196 2028 | _ $01 $1,640 $17,600 2,102 2029 | so! $150 [sio7] 34361] $16,842 | $2,011 2030 | 30! sisa] ozs] $1.07] ai{ $16,117] $1,9% 2031 $0 | $1,437 [ior] ae tsis,03] $1.80 2032 | 30 sigs] as] si.o7] 3a sen] $14,759 | $1,72 2033 | 30! sizie| _—i,02s| $14,123 $1,686 2034 | 0 $1260 $13,515 $1,614 2035 0 $1,205 $12,933 31 | 2036 sol suas] noas| sao] 34 son | $12,376 | $1478 2037 | gol si sos]toostso7] Saou] 511,563 | $1414 2038 | 0 0S as] Sio7| 361] $11,533 | $1353 2039 | 30 0 02 suo] ase] sioas| $1,295 | \ 2040 | 0 02 sio7] ss 3a3eu| Sis] 81289 | | 2041 | 7) $1.07 3. $9,931 $1,186 2042 | so} (8886 | 1,02 $1.07 EI $9,50 $1,135 | 2043 | 0 30 0 $1.07 35 7) $0 | 2044 | so $0 0 $1.07 3535| $0 $0 2045 $0 | 0 of siov[ 35 306[ S| 0 2046 | so! 0 . 0 $1.07 35 7) 0 | 2047 | so | $0 0 $1.07 35,38 so so | 2048 | $0) 30 0 $1.07 35,386 1) Et) | TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,566,785 $202,561 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 | Net Benefit = $530,132 ate | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.43 | LS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | 15-Apr-92 Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | Capital Cost (1992 $): $152,368| __Suart Year. 1996 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $12,000 | | Average Anaual MWh, October ~ May: 1 | Average Annual MWh, June — September: 202 pToul Annual Energy (MW) 1.72 | | | | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 In dation Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (%): 45 } Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 | Load Forecast Used Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Eaergy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gukch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Et) } | Net Benefit = $783,169 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 151 ~ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | | | {Diesel | | PV i pv i mw | | Needed | PVFual PV YEAR | ProjectCost_| O&MCost_ | Useabie | FuelCoss_ | (MWh Savings O&M Savings 1992 so so! 0 $0.82 13560 30 so 1993 $0 0 0 $0.83 14,336 30, 30 1994 0 7) 0 $0.85 | 15,156 | $0 | 30) 1995 $0 $0 0 $0.86 16,134 | 30 $0 1996 $13%.913 $10,063 1,500 $0.88 15,648 $86,753 $12,578 1997 so $9,629 1,500 | $0.89 | 16,734 $84,006 | $12,087 | 1998 0 $9215 1,500 O91. 17,780 $82,280 $11,518 | 1999 » 33.818 1,500 | 30.92 | 18,787 | 579,42 $11.02 2000 so $8.438 1,500 $0.94 | 19,876 $77,944 | $10,548 | 2001 so $3,075 1,500 | $0.95 | $75,417 | $10,034 | 2002 $0 $7,721 1,500 | $0.96 | $9,659 2003 so} $7,394 | 1,500 $0.97 | $928 2004 so $7,076 | 1,500 | $0.99) | $8,245 2005 $0 | $6,771 | 1,500 | 90.9 26,427 $66,221 $8,464 2006 so $6,480 | 1,500 | $1.00 $8.10 2007 $0! $6201 | 1,500 $1.01 2008 so! $5,934 | 1,500 | $1.03 2009 $0) $5,678 | 1,500 $1.05 | 2010 so $5,434) 1,500 S106] 33, | 2011 $0 | $5200 | 1,500 | $1.07 2012 so | $4,9%6 | 1,500 $1.07 | 2013) so} $4,761 1,500 $1.07 | | 2014 | $0} saa] 1,500 | $1.07 2015 | $0} $4360 | 1 31.07 \ 2016 | | $4,172 1 \ 2017) sol $3,993 1 $1.07 2018 | $o{ $3,521 1 $1.07 | 2019 | $0 a $3,656 1 $1.07 | 2020 | $0 | 33,49 | 1,500 $1.07 | 2021 | $0 | $3,348 1,500 $1.07 2022 | $0) 33200] 1,500 $1.07 a 2023 | $0 $3,066 1,500 $1.07 2024 so! 2.9% 1,500 | $1.07 2025 | $0. $2.80 1,500 $1.07 2026 30) $2,687 1,500 $1.07 | 2027 | 7) 2.571 1 $1.07 30 2460 1 $1.07 30 2 1,500 $1.07 : | $0 52,253 1,500 sio7| 33,886 | | $0 $2,156 1,500 $1.07 3,886 | $0 | | ) Net Benefit = Benefit:Cost Ratio = 37. 169 151 | TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207, 129 $259,761 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 x7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-SO YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet | Alternative Project Input | | Capital Cost (1992 $) $25,438,178 Start Year. 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $). $8,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May. 1320 | | Average Annual MWh, June — September. 1,300 | | Tota! Annual Eaergy (MWh) 15,040 | | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 | InQation Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | Variable O&M Savings (S/W): 0.01 (Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuei=2): 1 (Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($k W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Mediua | Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Eaergy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 25900 | | Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,219,768 [Net Benefit = $519, | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.03 f ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS iS=Apr-92 Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spiliway 32 feet | Pv PV | MWh | Seal Needed PV Fuel PV \ YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost | Useable | Fuel Coss (MWh) Savings O&M Savings 1992 so » 0 $0.82 1350 so sO, 1993 $0 $0 0 $0.83 14336 | $0! $0) 1994 $0 $0 0 $0.85 15,156 | $0 | $0) 1995 so so 0 30.86 | 16,134 | LH so) 1996 » 0 0 30.88 17,148 | 2, 30) 1997 so sO 0 30.89 | 18.234 | 0, 0) 1998 $19.533.868 36,143 13.240 $0.91 6,040 | $726,257 | $101,669 1999 so $5,879 13.240 $0.92 7,047 | $702,971 $97.91 2000 sO 35.625 13240 | 30.94] 8.136) $687,983 | $93,102 2001 $0 $538 13240 $0.95 | 9379] $665,677 | $89,093 | 2002 so $5,151 | 13240 | $0.96 | 10,655 $644,012 | $85 256 | 2003 $0 $4,990 | 13240 | 30.97 | usa $622,978 $81,585 2004 so $4,717 13,240 | 30.99 | 13,308 $607,561 $78,071 2005 $0 $4514) 13240 0.99 14,687 $74,710 2006 $0 $430 13240 | $1.00 ig) $71,492 | 2007 | $0 | $4,134 13,240 | $1.01 17,555 | $68,414 2008 | $0 2009 | so! 2010 $0! r 2011 | so! 2012 so i 2013, $0 \ 2014) so! 2015 | BS) 2016 | so} 2017 so! 2018! so! 2019 so. 2020 | So, 2021 | $0 2072 $0 | 2023 | sO) 2024 so] 2025 | $0 | 2026 | so! 2027! $0 2028 | | 2029 | $0 | 2030 | $0 2031; 30 2032 | $0 6 2033 | $0 $182,432 $21,783 | 2034 $0 6 $174,576 $20,845 2035 | sol 1205 | | _ $167,059 | $19,947 2036 $0 | $159 $19.0 2037 | so | __$152,980 | $1 | 2038 | so} st0ss| 13,240 | | $146,393 | $17,480 | 2039 7) a0 | 2040 | 0 0S $16,00 2041 | $0 [$128,286 | $15,318 2042 so| sas] i320] sao] ws] $122,759 | $14,685 2043 | so $117,473 $14,027 2044 | so! $112,414 $13,03 | 2045 | so] $107,574 $12,845 2046 | 30| $102,941 $12,292 | | 2047 | $0! 598 50 $11,762 | 2048 | so! 30 30 | TOTALS: $19.533.868 $126,864 $16 $2,099,605 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,219,768 | Net Benefit = $519,277 [Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.03 a EAGT, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $16,045,314 | Sunt Year 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $):_ $350,000 Average Annual MWh, October — May: 15,434 | Average Annual MWh, June — September. 0 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 15,434 | _Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fvei=2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 11000 [1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 31 401 Net Benefit = $5,539,101 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 131 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS iS=Apr-92 Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro 1 [Di } i | | i Diesel PV PV { MWh a Seal Needed | PV Fuet Pv YEAR _| ProjectCost__| O&MCost_! _Useabie Fuel Cost own) Savings O&M Savings | 1992 so 0 0 30.82 1358 » $0 | 1993 $0 7) ol $0.83 | 143% | $0, 30 1994 so $0 0 $0.85 | 15,156 | $0, Fy 1995 so so 0 $0.86 16,134 | $0 | $0 1996 so so 0 $0.88 17,148 | $0 | so] 1997 so so 0 $0.89 | 18.24 0 $0 | 1998 SIZ 3N1,128 5268764 15,434 30.91 | 3,846 | $846,605 | $118517 | 199 $0 $257,190 15,434 $0.2 4,853 | $819,461 | $113.413 2000 so $246.15 15,434 | $0.94 | 5,942) $801,995 | $108,530 | 2001 $0 $235.17 | 15,434 | $0.95 | 7,185 | $775,987 $103,856 | 2002 $0 $225,375 | 15,434 $0.96 | 8,461 $750,731 $99.384 $0} $215,670 | 15,434 $0.97 9,770 62121 $0 $206,382 15.434 $0.99 | 1s $91,009 $0 | $197,495 | 15,434 90.99 12,493, $87,090 $0} 5188991) 15,434 | $1.00 | 13,909 $83,339 | Pl $180.852 | 15.434] $1.01] so! $173,064 | 15,434 $1.03 $01 $165,612 | 15,434 $1.05 x0 $158,480 | 15.434) $0 | $151.656 | 15.434 | so! $145,125 15,434 so! $138.876 15,434 so] $132,895 | 15,434 so! $127,173 15,434 $0 $121,696 $0 $116,456 15,434 | $1.07 30. $111,441 | 15,434 $1.07 $0 | $106,642 | 15.434 $1.07 x so $102,050 15,434 $1.07 19,952 ! Pl $97,655 | 15,434 $1.07 19,982 | 2022 | $0) $93,450 | 15.434 $1.07 19,952 $345,121 $41.09 2023 | $0 | $39.26 | 15,434 $1.07 19,952 $330,259 $39,434 2024 | $0| $85,575 | 15.434 $1.07 19,952 $316,037 $37,736 2025 | $0) $81,890 | 15,434 $1.07 19,982 $302,428 $36,111 2026 $0 | $78,364 15,444 $1.07 19,952 $289,405 334 20271 so] $74,989 15,434 sio7] 19.9s2] $276,942] $33,0 \ 2028 | $0) $71,760 15,434 $1.07 19,952 5265,017 $31 TOTALS: $12,321,128 $5,550,315 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = $559,101 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 131 JA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: End—Use Conservation Alternative Project Input = | | Capital Cost (1992 $): $429,703/ Stuart Year 1993 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) 7) | Average Anaual MWh, October - May: 67% | | Average Annual MWh, June — September: 33% | Total Annual Energy (MWh): | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%): 4s | Inflation Rate (%): 0 } | Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Variable OceM Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output b): 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 30 | Net Benefit = $114,496 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 128 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~50 YEAR ANALYSIS iS-Apr-32 Name of Alternative: End—Use Conservation | | 1 cena | | PV | PV i MWh Saal | Needed PV Feet Pv | YEAR | ProjectCost__| O&MCost | Useable | FuelCost | (MWh) Saviags O&M Savings | 1992 $0 so 0 $0.82 13.568 Py 30) 1993 $411.199 so! 35 $0.83 14301 2.17 | $336) 1994 $0 $0 69 $0.85 | 15,087 | $4,190 $630) 1995 $0 $0 110 | $0.86 16,025 | $6,466 | $960 | 1996 $0 $0 165 $0.88 16,983 sos] $1300 | 1997 x0 $0 237 $0.89 | 17,997 | $13,276 | Sis@ 1998 so so 289 $0.91 | 18,991 | $15,875 | 222 1999 30 30 336 | 3092 19,950 | | $17,364 | s2.472| 2000 $0 $0 389 | 30.94) 20.987 | $20,209 | 2.735 | 2001 $0 $0 441 $0.95 | 22,178 | $22,170 | $2,967 | 2002 $0 $0 494 | _23,401 | $24,017 $3,179 2003 $0 $0] $68 | al 24,637 26.711 $3.48 | 2004 $0) $0 | 624 | $0.99 | 25,924 $28,645 $3,681 2005 | so] $0" 681 30.99 | 27246 “29,972 $3.80 | 2006 | $0, $0) 738 | $1.00 28,605 $31,406 $3,984 2007 so! $0] 795] $1.01 30,000 $32,716 $4,108 2008 so] so 352 | $1.03 31,434 $34,255 $4214 | 2009 $0 gio] $1.05 | 32,90 $35, $4,305 2010 | $0 $0) 967 | $1.06) 34,418 36,0 $4300 2011] 30] . 1,025 | $1.07 3430 $37,205 442 2012 | $0 $0 1,083 $1.07 | 4 3@ $37,20 $4,492 2013 | so 30) 0 $1.07 35,386 0 30 | 2014! $0 sol 0 $1.07 35 $0 $0 2015] $0. 30 0 $1.07 1s $0 | 2016 $0 0 0 $1.07 pl go a | 2017 so nee a a * 2018 sop sot or] 353a6 so] so | 2019 i ie) ene: ae) $o — 2021 so 0 0] $1.07 6 $0 2022 so! $0 of stor] 353e5[ 80] 30 2023 | so] so] 0 sio7] 353a5] 80 $0 2026 | so} $0 0 $1.07 st $0 225] =] =| aT oe 0 20271 $0] 30 $1.07 30 2028 | $0 $0 PST ST eget 1 Tg 30 \ 2029 | = solo ior s3as[ so] $0 2030 sol of sor] 353a6[ so $0 2031 2 et ol a el so 2032 | [sion] 353as[ so] 0 2033 suo] 35306] | 0 2035 3% ote $1.07 $0 | 2036 sol soto to pass] $0 Se 2038 $0 0 er) $0 2040 | 30 0 2 2041 |g ets TOTALS: | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savin 30 Net Benefit = $114,496 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 128 2046 7 a) 0 207] so] 9 2048] 0 $0 Q S411. 18 0 964 B a IF ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input ! Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): Ula) Variable O&M Savin: kWh ): $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2):_ 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 490 Load Forecast Used w. Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Summa Average Annual Displaced Allison Lake Stand-Alone Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Solomon Gulch — Raise Spi 5 feet Solomon Guich — Raise Spillway 32 feet Allison Lake Pipeline w_.ivdro End—Use Conservation 34 wa 3le ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $32,29,434 | Sunt Year 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $275,000 | | | Average Annual MWh, October — May ns Average Annual MWh, Juse — September 0 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 273% | | Standard Input j | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | LInQation Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (%) 45 | Variable O&M Savings (S/W>) 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon #1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh. 11000 | 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 __| | Load Forecast Used Medium, Hi } Summer Load Multiplier. 03 | Winter Load Multplier. 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh 23600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $869.243 Net Benefit = $10,914,322 Benefit-Cost Ratio = 137 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Name of Alternative: = { j t Diese! T | PV i PV | MWh | Sigal. Needed PVPud =| PV YEAR | Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost (MW) Savings | O&M Savings 192 Py $0 0 $0.82 38 $0 x0 1993, so $0 0 $0.83 31,136 $0, so 1994 so $0 0 $0.85 31,956 $0 $0] 1995 so so 0 $0.86 | 32.934 | so so | 1996 $0 $0 0 $0.88 33,948 $0! so 1997 $0 $0 0] $0.89 | 35,034 $0. so | 1998 $24.25.635 $211,171 273% $0.91 8.684 | $15@.760 $210,373 1999 $0 $202,078 27,396 $0.92 9,691 $1,454,577 $201,314 2000 so $193,376 27,396 | | 10,780] $1,423,575 $192,645 | 2001 so $185,049 27,396 | 12,03 | $1,377,409 | $184,349 | 2002 $0 $177,080 | 27.386 | 1329] $132,579 | $176410 | 2003 So, $169.455 27396 15,110] $1,289,056 | $168814 2004 so! $162.158 | 27396 [ 17,030 $1.257.156 | $161,544 2005 so $155,175] 27.396 19,000 $1,205,813 | $154,588 | 148493) “ai 2006 | $0] $148,493 | 27.396 | $1.00 21,000 $1,166,034 $147.931 2007 | so, $142,098 | 27,396 $1.01 23,097 $1,177,445 $141,561 2008 | so] $135,979 | 27,396 $1.03) 2s $1,101,140 2009 $0) $130,124] 27,396 $1.05 | 27,413 $1,064 $129,631 2010 $0! $124,520] 27,396 | $1.06 | 29,655 $124,049 2011 | so] suis 27,396 | $1.07| 29,655 2012! $0 | suger 27,396 | $1.07 29,655 2013] so] $109,117 2014 | so, $104,418 il vlebehe 30} so! 2021 | Pi $76,729 27396 2022 | so] $73,225 21, 2023 | $o| $70.26 om 2024 | so! $67,237 27,396 | 2025 | 30) $64,342 27,396 | 2026 | $0} $61,571 2027 | so} $58,920 2028 | $0! 6 2029 $0 $53,955 2030 $0 $51,631 203i so! $49,408 27.3% 2032 7) $47,280 27,39 2033 | $0 $452 27,38 2034 | 7) $43,296 27,3 ! 29.6 20357 0 $41,62 273% | $1.07] 29,655] $345,675 | 2036 so 27,396 $1.07 29,655 2037 | s0 0 21, $1.07 29, 2038 30 $3630 27 $1.07 29, $302,914 $36,169 oso] sot sams] 27395] s.07] 29,655 | 0 6 oso] so 37] 27s si.o7] 29,655 | $33,121 2041 so] sisi | 96 | 29,6ss| $265,442 | $31,605 —— 2043 | so $29,134 % 5243.0 $29,004 —3 —— 3 8 Se oe | 2045 so $26,679 6 5.222.590 52 2046 | x0 $25,530 27,396 Br mss $213,00 325,64 | 2047 | so} 24,61 21, $1.07 6 $203,832 24,3 | 2048 7) $0 0 $1.07 57,051 30 _ 30} | roTALs. $24,225,635 $4,360,962 $34,887,765 $4,344,470 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $369.243 [Net Benefit = $10.014,882 | Benefit:Cost Ratio = | | 137 37 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Altermative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $): $53,666,932 | Surt Year. 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $300,000 | | Average Annual MWh, October - May 15,645 | | | Average Annual MWh, June — September 21,665 | | | Total Anowal Eaergy (MWh) 37250 | | | | Standard Input 9 | | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 | | Inflation Rate (% 0 | | Discount Rate (%): 45 | | Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.01 Fuei Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuei=2): 1 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High j Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 T] Solomon Guich Summer Ea. Output : Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $276241 Net Benefit = (318,642,843) Benefit-Cost Ratio = 059 11 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ieacr- ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY i PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake i Diesel T PV i PV i MWh | Seal Needed | PV Fue Pv YEAR Project Cost O&MCost__| Useable | —FuelCost |W) Saving | O&M Savings 1992 $0 $0 0 $0.82 038 0 $0) 1993 $1,081,118 37,656 1,025 30.83 wlll 363,23 ia 39.309 1994 so $73% 1,025 30.85 30,931, 362,05 39.3% | 1995 $0 $7,010 1.025 $0.36) 31,909 $60,474 | 38,90 | 1996 so $6,708 1,025 $0.88 3293 | $59,281 | $3,595 | 1997 so $6.40 1,025 $0.89 34,009 | $57,404 $8225 1998 so $6.143 1,025 $0.91 35,055 | $56.25 | $7871 1999 $0 $5,879 | 1,025 $0.92 36,082 | $54,020 $752 2000 $0 $5,625 1,025 30.94 37.151 | $53,282 | 3728 2001 so $5,383 1,025 | 30.95 | 38304) $51,535 | 36.897 | 2002 so $5,151 1,025 30.96 39,670 | $49,857 | $6,600 2003 $0 $4,930 | 1,025 | $0.97 | 41,481 $43.29 | $6316 | 2004 so $4,717 1,025 | $0.99 | 43,401 $47,036 | $6,044 | 2005 $0 $4514 | 1,025 | $0.99 | 45371 2006 so! $4320 | 1,025 | 2007 so $4134 | 2008 $0 33.956 | 2009 $0 $3,785 | 2010, $o| $3.62 | 2011 so! $3.466 | 2012 | $0) $3317 | 2013 301 $3,174 | 2014 | $0 | 2015] so} 2016 | so! 2017} 30! 2018 $0, $2,547 ; 2019 | $0 | 32.438 2020 $0 233 2021 7) 222 | 2022 30 32.136 | 2023 | $0, 22,046 1 2024 | $0! $1,956 2025 | $0, $1,872 2026 | so, $1,791 2027 $0) $1,714 2028 | so $1,640 2029 | $0. $157 2030 | 7) $1,5@ 2031 | so] $1,437 2032 | 30 $1 2033 | $0 $1,316 2034 | 7) $1260 2035 30 31,20 2036 30 $1,183 2037 | $0 $1,104 2038 $0 05 2039 $0 0 200] so g867 | 2041 | $0 $926 2042 so 3886 2043 | $0 30 2044 30 7) 2045 30 30 2046 | 30 $0 2047 | $0 FE) 2048 | $0 $0 | | TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096, | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = | Net Benefit = $530,133 | Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.43 | | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 3 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone T | Diesel | PV i PV | MWh Spl | Needed PV Fuel PV YEAR ProjectCost__| O&MCost__| Useable __|_ FuetCost__ | Wa) Saviag | O&M Savings © 1992 so so Oo; 30.82 W308 | sO 30) 1993 #0 so Oo. $0.83 31,136 | $0) 30) 1994 so $0 0 $0.85 31,956 | 30| 30) 1995 0 $0, 0! $0.86 | 32,934 | $0| $0) 1996 x0 $0 0 $0.88 33,948 | 0 $0) 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.89 | 35,034 | $0 $0) 1998 $41.210.608 $230369 15,645 $0.91 | 20,435 $858179 $120,137 1999 » $220,449 | 15,645 | 30.92 | 21,42 | $830,664 $114,964 j 2000 $0 $210.956 15,645 $0.94) 253 | $312959 $110013 2001 $0 $201,871 15,645 | $0.95 | BM '$786595| $105.76 | 2002 so $193,178 15,645 | $0.96] 25,050 | $760,994 | $100,742 2003 so $184,860 | 16,147 | $0.97 26399 $759,751 | $99,496 | 2004 $0 $176,899 | 16,723 | $0.99 | 27,708 $767,381 $98,608 | 2005 | $0 | $169281 | 17314 | 0.99 29,08 | $762,053 $97,087 2006 $0. $161,992 | 17,914 $1.00 30,482 | $762,451 $96,730 | 2007) so] 31550161 18,543 $1.01 31,950 $763,108 $95,815 2008 sol si4asai| 19,12 $1.03 33,44 acs7| $94,849 2009 30 $141,953] _ 19.838 $1.05 349 a7is $93,867 2010 so] $135,840 | 20,510 | $1.06 36,541 0,160 $92,871 2011] so! $129.991 | 20510 $1.07 36541 o $38,871 2012 | sol $124,393 | 20,510 Hgy__sase $712,242 $85,044 2013 | 0 $119,036 | 20,510 $1.07 6,541 $681,571 | $31,382 | 2014! so 3113910] 20,510 — 8 6,541 $652221 $77,878 | 2015] $0. $109,005 20,510 36,541 $624,135 $74,526 | 2016 | $0 $104311 20sio] 07] 56 Sai] 8597258 | S71 315 | 2017] sol $99,819 | 20,510 | 36,541 | $571,539 $682 | 2018 | $0] $95,521 20,510 [36541] $546,927 | $65,305 ! 2019 | $0 $91,007 20,510 $1.07] 36,541] 8523375 | $62,493 2020 | $0 | $87,471 20,510 $1.07 36,541 00,83 $59,302 2021 so! $83,705 20,510 $1.07 36,541 $479271 $5727 2022 so] $80,100 20,510 31.07 36,541 $458,632 $54,763 | 2023 | Pi $76,651 20510] $1.07 36,541 $438,882 $52,404 2024 | Pal $73,350 | 20,510 $1.07 6,541 $419,983, $50,148 2025 | so $70,191 20510| $1.07] 36541 | $401,898 | $47,988 ae cn er 2027 30! 364,276 20,510 : $368,030 $43,944 2028 | $0 | $61,508 20,510 $1.07 36,541 $352,182 $42,052 | 2029 | 60 20,510 $1.07 6,541 $337,016 $40,241 2030. $0 es] sto] SOT] 365 Sa | $322,503 538.50 | 2031 | $0 $53,900 20,510 $1.07 36541 $308,616 $36,850 eos eet et 2 2 2033 0 $49,358 20,510 (282,60 $33,745 [ 2034 30 47z2 20510] $1.07 270 132,29 2035 | x0 345,198 20s] 1.07] 36 Sa | £258,793 330,901 2036 sol a3252] 20510 | $1.07 2247, $29,570 ~ 2037 so] suizes] 20510] $1.07 1 23 232 | 2030) sof sag a siof sor] 36 San | $217,014 | 25,12 2040 | sol s36269] oso] sor] 36 Sai] $207,669 | $24,6 zon] sol saat sto] 8.07] 36,541 | $198,726 23,729 | 2 —— oo ee | 2043 7) $31,733 20,510 $1.07 36,541 $18 $21,729 | 2044 $0 $20,793 2045 0 $29,104 20,510 $1.07 | $166,644 | 19,89 | 2046 | $0 27,51 20,510 $1.07 1] $159,468 | $19,061 2047 | 0 226,65 20,510 $1.07 iL $152,601 $18,221 | 2048 0 30 0 $1.07 $7,051 0 0 | | TOTALS: $41.210,608 $4,757,413 $24,058,993 $2,979,945 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 [Net Benefit = $18, 3) Benefit:Cost Ratio = 059 FF ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 15-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Capital Cost (1992 $) $1,129,768 Sunt Year. 1993 ‘Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $3,000] Average Anaual MWh, October - May 1,025 Average Annual MWh, June — September. 0 Total Annual Eaergy (MW) 1,025 _Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 i Inflation Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuei=2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 {1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High | Summer Load Multiplier. 03 | Winter Load Muluplier: 07 | Solomon Gukh Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): _ 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $530,133 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 143 f | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet Alternative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $): S152.368 | Sunt Year. 1996 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ $12,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May: 1,500 | Average Annual MWh, June ~ September: 202 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 1,702 | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 [Inflation Rate (%):_ 0 | | Discount Rate (%): 4s | | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): 0.01 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 | | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 i 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High | | Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 | Solomon Gulch Summer Eaergy Output (MWh): 28600 i Solomon Gukch Winter Esergy Output (MWh): 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $1,009,602 | Benefit-Cost Ratio = 1.66 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE sTUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | H i | |) Demet | Pv | PV | MWe | S| Needed PV Fuel Pv YEAR | ProjectCost__| O&MCost_ | Useable _| FuelCost | (MWh) Savings _| O&M Savin, 1992 $0 so Oo! $0.82 038 30, $0, 1993 30 1) 0 $0.83 31,136 | so 30) 1994 so so 0 $0.85 | 31,956 | so} so) 1995 $0 $0) o, $0.86 | 32.934 30 | 30] 1996 $13%.913 $10,063 1,500 $0.88 32,448 $36,753 $12,578 1997 sO $9,629 | 1,500 | $0.89 | 33,534 | $84,006 | $12,037 | 1998 $0 $9215 | 1,500 $091 34.580 $82,280 $11,518 j 1999 $0 $3.818 1,500 | $0.92 | 35,587 | $79,642 | $11,022 | $0 $3,438 __1,$00 | 30.94) 36.66 $77,944 | $10.548 | $0 $8,075 | 1,500 $095 | 37,919 $75,417 | $10,094 | so! $7,727 | 1,500 $0.96 | _ 39,195 $9,659 $0 | $7,394 | 1,702 ri $10,488 | $0 $01 so $0 0] 30 $0 so $0 2043 sol sign] esr] 55309] $15,101 | 3138 2044 t f $1,725 { 2045 | 9 $1,651 2 —t 2047 2048 0 TOTALS: 31 913 $207,809 2. 12 11 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savin; 0 Net Benefit = $1,009,602 | Benefit-Cost Ratio = 1.66 | Ay ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS 15-Apr-92 Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Capital Cost (1992 $) $25,438,178 | Surt Year. 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $):_ $8,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May 132 | | Average Annual MWh, June — September. 1,800 | | | Total Annual Eaergy (MWh) 15,040 | | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 =i | Inflation Rate (%): 0 = Discount Rate (%): 45 | Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuei=2): 1 } | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owtput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 2276241 | Net Benefit = $1,511,126 { Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.08 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SsApr—-7 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -~50 YEAR ANALYSIS J Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet { | Diesel Pv i PY | MWe | Sigal Needed | PV Fuel | PV | YEAR ProjectCot_| O&MCost__| Useable | FuelCost__| (MWh) | Savings O&M Savings 1992 $0 so 0 $0.32 3036 | $0 $0 1993 3) $0 0 $0.83 | 31,156 $0| $0 | 1904 0 0 0 $0.85 | 31,956 | so) 30 1995 $0 so 0 $0.86 32,934 | $0) $0 1996 so $0 0 $0.88 | 33,948 | $0 $0 1997 30 $0 of $0.89) 35,034 | $0 $0 1998 $19.533,368 $6,143 13.240 $091 280 $726257 $101,569 | 1999 3o $589 13.240 30:92 23847 $702,971, $97.91 | 2000 $0 $5,625 13.240 | $0.94 24,936 | $687,988 | $93,102 | 2001 so $5383 13240 | 30.95 | 26,179 | $665,677 | $89,093 | 2002 so $5,151 13,240 | 30.96 | 27,455 | $644,012 | $85 256 | 2003 $0 $4,930 | 13,7 | $097 28,764 | 3646589 | $34,677 | 2004 so $4,717 | 14318 | $0.99 30,108 | $657,020 $84.07 | 2005 $0 $4514] 14,909 | $0.99 31,487 $656,199 $34,126 | 2006 | $0 $4320 | 15,040 $1.00 33,356 $640,136 $81212) 2007 $0! S41) 15,040 $1.01 35,453 $618951 STUNTS 2008 | so} $3,956 | 15,040 | $1.03 3758 04,510 $74 2009 | $0 | $3,785 | 15,040 | $1.05 39,70 321 $71,166 2010! so! $3.62. | 15,040 | $1.06 | 42,011 $68,101 2011] $0] 33.466 | 15,040 $1.07 42.011 $65,169 2012! soy $3,317 | 15,040 | $1.07 aor $62,362 2013 | so $3,174 15,040 | $1.07 O11 $59, | 2014 so! $3,038 | 15,040 $1.07 2,011 $57,107, | 2015 | sol 2.907 15,040 $1.07 — $546 2016 so, CU7e 15,040 sio7] azo | $437,964 | $52.29 [ 2017] $0! 262 15,040 $1.07 2,011 $419,104 $50,043, 2018! so $2,547 15,040 $1.07 zon] $401,056 | $47, 20191 $0) $2,438 15,040 sio7] azo] $383,786 | $45,226 2020 $0 233] 15,040 $1.07 on $43,352 2021 so 22 15,040 $1.07 ou $351,444 $41,964 202 $0 $2136 15,040 $1.07 O11 $336310 $40,157 2023 | $01 sos 15,00| ___—*S1.07 4011 $521.22: 338,08 2024 so! $1,956 15,040 $1.07 2,011, $307,969 $36,773 2025 | so! $1,872 isa] st.o7] aon | $294,708 $35,189 2026 | 30, $1,791 15,040 sio7] azo] $282,017] $33,676 2027 | $0 | $1,714 15,040 | ——#192__aa-_asas_ssazze| 532.224 2028 | $0 SL 15,040 [azo] sosaasi] $30,536 | 2029 | 0 $1 15,040 $1.07 api] 20730] 09508] 2030 | 30 $1,5@ 15,040 $1.07 [eon eseas | nasa] 2031 | $0 31437 15,040 |__sig7|__eou|__saz4ses| $27,022 2032 | sol sigs] sow t sio7] azo | 21 $25.85 2033] $0 040 2,0 2034) $0 hia __ioe__sior/_gait!_sisgsto_suete 2035 | 30 205 ow] sv] eon | $189,770] $22,659 2036 sl sis] tsomtsno7] 42.011 | $18 21 2037] 0 oo] sao7] aon | $173,778 | $20,750 2038 s 2039 2040 2041 | 2042] | 2043 2044 2045 2046) i 2047! [ 2048 | | TOTALS: $19.533,868 31 31 6 2 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 | Net Benefit = $1,511,126 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 1.08 | | | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1S-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL —S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $): $16,045.314 Sur Year 1996 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $). $350,000 Average Annual MWh, October — May” 15,434 | Average Anaval MWh, June — September: 0 Total Annual Eaergy (MWh): 15,434) | | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 | Discount Rate (%): 45 | Vanable O&M Savings (S/W!) 0.01 ] | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuei =2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 11000 | | 1992 Diese! Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High al Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Multiplier. 0.7 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600, Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 1 Net Benefit = $4,506,941 Benefit:Cost Ratio = 125 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY iS-Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro : { | } Diesei | | PV i Pv ww | Sal | Needed | PV Fuel PV YEAR ___ ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Useabie | FuelCot | anwn i Savia, O&M Savin) 192 so so 0 $0.82 3030 $0. $0 1993 so $0 0 $0.83 | 31,1% $0 $0) 1994 $0 $0 0 $0.85 | 31,956 | $0, $0 1995 so so! 0 $0.86 | 32,934 so) so] 1996 so $0 0 $0.88 33,948 | t $0) 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.39 35,034 | I so! 1998 $12.01.128 $268,764 15,434 0.91 4 20,646 | $846,605 | $118517 | 1999 $0 $257,190 15,434 $0.92) 21,653 | $819,461 | $113413 | 2000 $0 S246115 15,434 $0.94 | 278] $801,995 | $108530 | 2001 so $235517| 15,434 | $0.95 23,985 | $775,987 | $103.856 2002 so $225375 15,434 | $0.96 | 25.261 | 2003 so $215,670 | 15,434 | . 219n 2004 so $206,382 | 15,434 | 2005 $0) $197,495 | 15,434 | 2006 $0) $188991 | 15,434 2007 ri sisaas2|_ 15,434 2008 | $0] $173,064 | 15,434 | 2009 so! $165,612 | 15.434 ia 2010 $0. $158,480 15,434 | | 2011 | 30) $151,656 | 15,434 | 2012 $0! $145,125 15,434 | | 2013 | $0 | $138,876 15,434 2014, $01 $132,895 15,434 | 2015 | $0) $127,173 15,434 | 2016 $0 $121,696 2017/ $0 $116,456 sae] s.07] 41,617 | 2018 | sol $111,441 15,434 $1.07 41617] $411,563 | $49,142 2019 | $0 | $106,642 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $393,840 347,26 20201 $0} $102,050 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $376,880 $45,001 2021 | so! $97,655 15,434 $1.07| 41,617 $360,651 $43,063 2022 so] $93,450 | 15.434 $1.07 41,617 $345,121 $41.209 2023 $0) $39.06 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $330.25 $39,434 2026 | so! $35,575 | 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $316.03 $37,736 2025 | $0. $31,890 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $302,428 $36,111 2026 | $0) $78 15,434 $1.07 41,617 $289,405 $34,556 2027 | $0, $74,989 15,44 $1.07 4117] $276,942 | $33.06 2028 | | $71,760 15,434 $107] aner7| $265,017 | 316 | 2 $0 0 sae] sn.o7] 41,617 | $253,606 | $30,281 | 2030 $0 sosm3| samt stor] an617 | $242,686 | 524 2031 | so} 362,883 | 15,434 $1.07 41,617 232,233 $27,730 2032 $0 | $60,175 1s4[ $1.07] 41,617 222.233 526,53 2033 so 66 2034 | so] $55,104 | | 2035) to] 852,731 2036 $0 2037 30 : 2038 | sol su6zo8f 15.434 | 2039] so] Saris] sae] $1.07) 2040 $0 2041 | 30 _ 15,4 i 2042 30 | 2043 so} sso] sae] sion] agi7| $136,940 | | 2044 $0 | 2045 | 0 | 2046 | H | 2047 | 30 2048 | bt) | TOTALS: $12.21,128 Net Benefit = Benefit:Cost Ratio = 125 | M8 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS 1 w —Apr- 92 Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input End —- Use Conservation Capital Cost (1992 $) $429,703 | Start Year. 1993 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) 0 Average Annual MWh. October — May: 67% | Average Annual MWh. June — September. 33% Total Annual Eaergy (MWh): | _Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 4s | InDation Rate (%): o | Discount Rate (%) 45 | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): 0.01 (Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 (Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 [1992 Diesel Cost ($/eW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 07 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): _ 28600 — | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): _ 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 20 Net Benefit = $300,069 Benefit-Cost Ratio = 1.73 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: End—Use Conservation j | Diesel | T PV i PV | MWh Sgal | Needed YEAR ProjectCost__| O&MCost | Useable | FuelCost | (MWh) 1992 so $0 0 $0.82 038 1993 $411,199 $0 35 $0.83 31,101 1994 $0 so 69 | $0.85 31,887 | 1995 $0 so 110 $0.86 | 32,825 1996 so 0 165 | $0.88 | 33,78 1997 $0 $0 237! $0.89 | 34.797 1998 x0 $0 289 $0.91 35,70) 199 $0 $0 336 | $0.92 | 36,750 | 2000 ) so 389 $0.94 37,787 2001 $0 so; 441) $0.95 | 38.978 | 2002 so $0 494 | 40.201 | 2003 $0 30, 852 | 41,654 2004 $0 sol 936 43,490 2005 0 so! 1,021 45375 2006 so sol 1,107 4729 2007 | $0 $0) 1,192 49. 2008 | $0 $so1 1278 S134 2009 | $0 1) 1 1365 | $3,444 2010. 2. so 1451 $5,600 1538 $5513 2012| 30 so| 1,625 $5,426 $56,430 6,78 2013 so! $0] 0 $7,051 30 so] 2014 | so! so] 0 $7,051 $0 Py \ 2015 $0 $0 0 $7,051 30 $0 | 2016 $0 x0 o} es sio7] soit $0] 30 2017 2 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 $0 30 $0 so 0 $1.07 $7,051 so] $0 30 0 $1.07 sas 2 30 2020 so! $0 0 $1.07 $7,051 0 0 2021 | $0 Fy 0 $1.07 $7,051 0 0 2022] 30 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 Py $0 2023 | $o| 30 0 $1.07 $7,051 0 0 | 2024 | 30 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 2 0 2025 | $0} so o $1.07 $7,051 Py $0) 2027 $0) 0 0 $1.07 57,0511 0 so 2028 | 30 x0 0 $1.07 sri] SO] SO 2029 | so; 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 2 so 2030 $0 | 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 0 F) 2031 so] 0 0 $1.07 57,051 sol 0 2032 | $0 30] _0] sio7|ss7,0st| «8 $0 2033 | 30 Py 0 31.07 s7osi| S| 30] = 2 A S— 7 2035] $0 $0 0 [ szosif S| $0 2036 x0 %0 0 $1.07 s7osi| S| 0 2037 slo] ssf S| 0 | 2038 | sl oto stor s05i | $0 2 2039 | 0 0 0 $1.07 $7,051 — 0 2040 2 Ey 0 $1.07 $7,051 30 gor sop or spss] oS 2042 7) 30 0 7) 2043 0 20 0 0 | ul $0 $0 0 [ srosi[ so] | 2045 0 0 0 0 | 2046 0 $0 0 0 | 2067) 0 so} 0 7) 2048 | 30 x0 0 0 | | TOTALS: $411,199 so $80,205 | | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $300,069 } Benefit-Cost Ratio = 1.73 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input I Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 | Discount Rate (%): 45 | Vanable O&M Savin) kWh ): $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): Load Forecast Used F Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Summa a Benefit: Average bi Annual Displaced Used Diesel (MWh Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Pie [a] aman 23743 Allison Lake Stand-Alone 15645 Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake ieee |e eer Ic raat 102s Solomon Guich — Raise Spillwav 5 feet [ tow | 2] _ $477,923 | 131 1500 Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet [tow [2] si03oi4 {1.01 | 13240 Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro [ Low | _2| _ $4,624,149 | 126 15434 End—Use Conservation Low 2 $44,099 1.11 ; 540 SA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel! with Hydro Alternative Project Iaput z | Capital Cost (1992 $) $2329.434 | Sar Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember hk Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 InQaton Raw (% 0 Discount Rate (%) Variable O&M Savings (SkWh Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1. Low Fuel =2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High) Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multpber- 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput(MWh 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca: Savings = $3278,G9 Net Benefit = $2,787,673 BenefitCost Ratio = 1.10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1O=Apr=32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hyd | PV is Svgal. ‘i YEAR Project Cost onnc Cost aoe Fue! Cost b i rn 192 $0] of set 230 | $0 193 $0 sol + 16652 30 $0 1994 $0} $0} 0 a 17,077 $0 $0 1995 so} $o | 0} $0.71 17,507 so 30 196 30] sol 0 $0.73 17.941 $0] $0 1997 | $o | $0 0 $0.74 18379 $0! 30 1998 | $24,825.35 | $211,171 18s $0.76 0 $62,108 | $144.534 | 1999 | $0 $202,078 19269 a7 0 $856212 $141,596 2000 | $0] $193,376 19721 $0.79 7 $138,675 | 2001 $0] $185,049 | 0177 $135.73 | 2002 | $0 $177,080 20638 =} $132,893 { 2m | $0 $169,455 21103] Sosy «$89,709] $130,038 | sol $162,158 21,573 a $127210 25 [| so sissa7s[ oss sass | $23,802 $124.41 5 a 2006 sol siagag3 masa sass $815,459] $121,643 2007 | $0 siazos] som] sags $806,881 $118,907 2008 | so] _sissg79] ss 2asort sos] $807,630] $116,205 2009 sol sisorzs{agos[ soso ot 598.420] $113,539 2010 | so] sisszot aaa sagt 789.032] $110,909] zony CSOT atase | aagat sos] 563,768 $106,133 202 so] sisaon7]—taaget soz} $730,879] $101,562] 2013 sol siog.117| aaa] sage 8699, 406) $97,189 2014 — ea zos[ sof sesei tease sagt oT $610,067] 2016 [ss sts pase pas] o | sor] —— ss] 2017] $0] so1sor| 2444] ssa] 0] _ssa.ass| ___ssi.as9| 2a@0 [$0 | sas [24058 | a9 | | ssn] $71,417 zeit sot st6.729 tase] sagz} sap 812] $68,342 | 2022 — 5 BS zaasa| soszt 8470633] $65.399 2@3 $0263 aaa soz oT $450,367] $02,583 | zest sof 567237 aaa sagz} $080,973) $59,888 zest sof sean aaa sage saz st | $57,309 zmsf sof seis aagat sosa] sp 6s $54,841 2m7[ sof ssaz0f aagat saga] 537,660] 2,479 208 so] ss63es[ aaa] saga of $361,397] $50.219 zes[ sot ssagss[ ease soszt of ssgas] $48,057 [amo sof ssissit ease saga 30.942] 4.987] [of sot senses taaoat sont ot $316,691 $44,007 2035 sof sansa | 205] sae | 0 as es $36,903 za6] sof sees teas] saga oT s5atz9f $35,314 207 — ee ee $33,793 2o2f Sof sas ease saga ot si9sast $27,117) 23 sof ss tease] sagat ot si867ai] 525.949 | zos| sof sane] aaa saga oT si7toos} $23,763 | 2og] sof sasszo] tae sasaf oT $63,601] $2,739 zou7] sof seas | aoa soe 1s6.soa] $21,760 [ost sof so of sa ae sof TOTALS: $24,825535 $4,360,962 $25,058,521 $3,637,410 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 NetBeneft= $2,787,673 5F3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staad—Aloae Alternative Project Iapat [Capital Cost (1992 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June ~ Sepember- Total Annual Ene: Standard Input 9 Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflaron Rate (%) 0 Discount Raw (% 45 Vanable O&M Sevi ngs (S/kWh) 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1. Low Feel =2) 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/Wh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (SW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): SummerLoad Mulipher Winter Load Mulépler Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca) Savings = Net Beefit = 703 BenefitCost Ratio = 050 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: . Allison Lake Stasd—Alone | PV PV MWe Spl. YEAR| ProjectCost__| O&MCoot Useable Fue! Cost 192 $0 $0 | 0! $0.67 1993 30 so] 0) = ___$068 1994 so] ~ so] 0] $0.70 1995 $0] sof 0 $071 1996 $0 $0 __o} $0.73 | 1971 0 30 | 0 3274] 1998] $41210508 | 0369] 15,645 | $0.76 3177 | 5716589 $120,137 199 30] s70.49| 15.645 $077 3,624 $095,170 $114,964 2000 so] $210.956 | is64s] sare] 4076 [$683,301] $110,013 2001 | $0) $201,871 is6as]sasot 4s] $662,520] $105276 | 2002 | $0 $193,178 1s64s| Sagi] 4.993 | $642,262] $100,742 | 2003 30 $184,860 15.645 a 404 2004 | so] _sivegoo] seas] Sosa] S98 | $609,196] g [st sar] ss] sae] | $0 Poss] ses] $566,321] $84,479) c sat sO $155,016 [ soss[ 7367] ssas.s72] 00.841 | 2008 sol sag3ai] seas] sass] 78s6| $537,653] $77,360 | {2009 sO $141,953 15,645 sosol 8350] __$820.579| $74,028, 2010 $0 $135,840 15,645 sos] 8gag | $503,978 | $70,841 [ou] CSO seni] sous] soz ssa | 5as7.842| $67,790 root SOT Sitaz3ftseas[ soca geo] - $466.834| $64,871 out sof sizgiof seas] sos2| teen] seas] $59,404) zos] sot stopoos| seas] sasz | tee] swooas| $56,846 ois] Sof stasis seas] saga] gan] sanacs| $54,398 orf sof smsigt seas] saga] tga] saacni| $52,056] 2018 so] swsszif seas] sag] gan | $358,480] $49,814 2019 ee ee ee $47.69 2a@0 Eases ats 345.616 2@1 —— OS ah $43,652 202 $80,100 be Po saset seg | 300.607] $41,772 203 a 7 399 26 | so] smasso[ sas] sagz| saan | $275.275] $38,252 a a CT TT) TT 2ws| so] ser. 150s] saga] 446] 2078] $35.09 2m? so] se _1ss[ soa[ 830] s935| $3520] 2s [sete ss |e | 2 as] sr nme] so] sssaso| 10s snso] sa] saogos| sa 250 so] ——ss608] 1548 | san | s0 | sos] 37] zai] so| $3900] 1545 saga] ta] samo] $28,109 [aa | so sis] seas] suena | seo zuss| sof saat] uses] sare ag | ssasel a nga $0] snzm| 1s] soo] se] _sivas7| sn eT 2ms| so] sezs2] 1sees]| saa] sg] siezzo0| ___s20556] 2037] $0] _se3eo| 1545| saga] sg] s1ss50| __s215as 2s] so| span] 15s| sao] ss | _suangan| 0485 209] s0| ss] 155] -saso] sa | __saza0| $19,766] 2000| $0] $5529 1565] suse] sg | siseis| suasia] ou] 0] $707 ses] soso| sg] suso2se| $18.00] 2002] _so| sais] 15s] sao] sg0 | sees] 17.21] 203 $0] suis 1ssas| saa] e201 _sia7| sie] 2o5| s0| 9,0e[ 15605] soa] a2] _s10o2as| 15.178] zoe] so -sz7asi| 15605 soso] a2] _stoasza] sas] 2007] $0 sseso| 1560s soso] s20 1 soo | $13.99] 2s] sol so] 0] sam] puss so] 0] TOTALS: $41210508 $4,757,413 $16,999288 $2,480.91 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = $3278.39 Net Benefit = ($23209,703) Bene fitCost Rato = 050 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower latake Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Ansual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh. Juae - Sepember. Total Annual E Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%): 45 Inflaton Raw (% 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Feel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/AWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Mulipher. 0.7 Solomon Gulch Winer Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $0 Net Benefit = $291,401 BenefitCost Ratio = 124 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io=Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS \Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Lower Iatake Pv | PV MW, } YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost _|___Useadle 192 | sol $0 | 1993) $1,081,118 37.656 | 1.025 1994 $0] $7326 | 1.035 | 1995 | so $7,010 | 1,025 1996 | $0] $6,708 1,025 19971 so] $6420 | 1,025 198 Py $6143 1,025 1999 | 30] $5879 | 1,025 2000 | $0] $5,625 1,025 : 2001 | $0] $5383) 1.035 $080 19,152 $8,406 $6897 | 2002 | $0 $5,151 1,025 $081 1963 g.079| $6,600 | | 2003 | $0 $4,930 1,025 soxz| 20078] $40,785 | 6316 | 2004 $0 $4717 1,025 oss] 2asas [$39,912] 6,044 2006 $0 $4320 1,025 $37,103 $5535 2007 sol saisa os Sots] 2987] sas.40] 85.296) 2008 | sol sagss[ os oss] 76 | sass] $5,068 | a ze pet an — see —— ae 2010 $0. 62 1,025 osi| aco | sig $4,541 | got Sot sass | os saz 2a] 831961 S44 202 30 $3317 Laas po sas} a9] soses] $4250) 20 | $0 A som] 23469] $29.268 | $4.067 2018 | so sosz| 23469] s.oos| $3892 | 2018 a a [save rassn | saa sa 2016 20 | so] sagen | 1.005 | suse | 23409 | uses] ssa [20] so] sav] 1.005 | saga] 23400 saaese] $3264 [309 $0] 238] 005] saga] 23469] s.475] 33133 2mo| so] sass] 1.05] saga] zaaoo] 0107] sa] 2a] so] saxo] 1005] sao] 2ae0| sansa] 2.800] 2a ad gos | saga | 2346 sis] sa737| 1gas| soa] 23469 siga7| 2619] = so sigse uns [saga asa ss 250s 205] so] sis] 1.005] sna] 23469] 17258] 22356 2m6| so] sum] 1005] sao] 209] 8165515] 32235 2@7| so] suru] 4.005] saga] ane] $1504] 32.196 2es| so] sieso]| 1.025] sso] 2069] 315.03] 2102 2es| so] suso] 1025] sage] 2309] s1442]| 2011] 20] so] suse] 105] sage] 24069] s13a9] $1924] [301 [so [ "sas 1.025 | "3092 | 23.460 | 13283] 31302 [303 "so "sis tos] soso | as | si s1.68s zus| sof sagas] noosf sagt aan $11,113] 1 zee] sof sats3f a oasT sat aaaeoT stosss| $1,478 | 207| so 81,106 | os| sas] agp | 810,17 $1414 23] got 81,056 | | saset 69 | 59,738 | $1,353 zag] sof ston os saset aco sea 51.295) zoo] sof ser fos saat rasp | sags 51.239) zit sof sg oas[sase[ maueo | sasza] 51,186] 2062 }—_-301_sme}___ igs} saga} aan} sage] sus] 23] sof sof of samt ee $0] pea ee 2ousf oP so of saga ae sof 0] 2ogf oP sof of sas 2aase 30 0 zou7{ sof sof of sas aan $0] so zog[ sof soo sae 24ega TO 50] so TOTALS: $1,081,118 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = $158,096 $1,328,053 $202,561 Bene fi tCost Rato S57 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL —S0 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Altermative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | Alternative Project lapsut | Capital Cost (1992S) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Anaual MWh. June — Sepember bh): Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%) o Discount Raw (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese] Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = so Net Benefit = $477,023 BenefitCost Ratio = 131 a ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-39 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alteraative: Solomes Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | | ] i MWh Sal. PV | eo oc | Useable Fuel Cost M - O&M Saving _— L ry 0 $0.67 16230 so] sO 193 | so] = I 0 $0.68 16652 8 194) so! $0 | 0 $0.70 17.077 | 1995] $0 30 | 0 $071 | 1996 aear [6 ee1 | $71,929] $12,578 197! $0 $12,037 1998 | $0} $11518 199 $0 + $1102 2000 | so} $10.548 2001 $o | $10,094 | 2002 $0 | $9,659 | 2003 $0} $9243 2004 $0 $7,076 [sn [sng] 2 073 | sso | sas | 2005 so samij soo] soe t 2054s] $56,006] $8,464 | | 2006 | $0 $6,480 1500 EB aa ee 2007 0 $6201 1st goss st sszss6] $7,751] 2008 30 $5,934 uso] sass] oor | ssisagf 57.417 | oot So] sera] Sco soso aos} saz] 57.098 | 2010 $0 st ol sogn] 994] sas 320] $6,792 | 2011 $0 [saz] 94] sa6.773| $6500 | 202 - = EW BES rst saz] ea a.759| $6220 | 203 $4,761 rsa] sot et seas] 35.952] gout So Sasso] so] saga] 94] sgs7| ($5.696 | zos{ Sot a0 sot saz} | ez 85.450 2016 sol sara soo} saat ge ssa] 85216 | 2017 sol s3g993[ soo] saat ge 85.917) S991 | 2018 sof saan sm] sas] 94 | $4,370] $4,776 2019] so] 34861500 saz] 9a smas0 84570] nwo] so] 34991500 saga | zagpa [snare 84374] 221 sol suse] 1500 savage sos] sa | pe 0] 954] 1500] sa | 950 28393 33667] soe | tn | $e | | se] a] (326 "so "$2687 | 1500 [$092 | age se [8388 |; arf sof sas seo] gas] eee) sts es) 0 584 5500 092] 2994 | 2. | 03] zmoft sot sass soo] sage gee] 267] $2816 | roif sof sais sof saat ga] si9.3e4| $2695 | zeus] sot sist soot saszt esa] 87,760] S248 | zas[ so] sigso soo sas] gg] i6.995| $2362 | 205 Sag eset siege 206] so sarzof sco] sas | 2e7] ots sot saz er [asf sof susan] st saz] gest sa2si[ $1980 2ast so sass] soo] saga} oes] $3.638] 81.895 | 2omof sof suas [sof sat oT si3.0so] S183 | zor sot sazast soot saset ons] sizes] 81,735 | 2ou2; sof sazzo soot saga gee sitgsi | $1661 | oat soz sf saat aoe stosea] 51521] zos| sof sates soot saga] oes st0472| 1.455 2ogf sof sof of saga asa sof 8 ort sof off sage aoa so 8 gos] sop goof soe ease so 80 4 if 'f ip < i, TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,751,983 $359,761 Deferred Diesel Capacy Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $477,023 BenefitCost Rato = 131 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Altermative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillwa Alternative Project Iaput Capital Cost (1992S Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): | Average Annual MWh. October — May Average Annual MWh, June - September: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese] Heat Rae BTU/Wh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost SAW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Muli pier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier. 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25800 Summary of Output eee SSE Ee Deferred Diesel Ca: Savings = 8,039 Net Benefit = $103,014 BenefitCost Ratio = 1.01 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Tes AgT = ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Alteraative: as Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet PV Py MWh Sal. Needed PV Feel PV YEAR ProjectCost__| O&MCost Useable Fuel Cost MWh) Saving O&M Saving 1992 | so | so | 0 sos7] 16230 | so | 1993 | sol El 0 $0.68 [ee] $0 1994 | $0) $0 | 0 $2.70 17,077 so 1995 | so] $0 0 $071 17,507 = $0 1956 | 30 $0 0 $0.73 17,941 $0 197 | sol 30 - 0 $074 18379 30 30 198 | $19.533,368 | $6143 13.240 $0.76 $52 $606,433 | $101,669 199 | $0] $5,879 13.240 $0.77 6.00 | $588,307 $7291 2000 | 30] $5,625 13240 ae STE $93,102 2001 sot $5383 100 $29,093 2002 $0 $5,151 1 - ele $85.256] 2003 | so] $4930 13,240 o[ son, | 728 | 3505] $31,585 2004 Pil $4717 13240] Sosa] 3] ssissag] $78,071 | | 2005 $o $4514 1x20[ sass] sos] sensor] $74,710 } 2o6f Sof sazz0Tt32so]saas[ 92a8 | 479.265] $71.492 2m7] So ae 32aof sagt rm] $464.24 $68.414 2os] sot sa9s6[ zat sass] 10261 | $5,003 $465,468 2009 $0 785 0 $0.90 1a7ss|saaossa] 52.649 | 2010 Ga _— $091 11254] $@6sos| $59,951 [zou] So] sass | two] saz nse] soz sag $57.369 2017 sol] sage] 1240} sage tase sai7.oas| $44,054] 2018 so] sasa7{t3zeo] saz] nasa] s303373] $0,156] 2019 so] saazg] 13240] saz] asa 90309] 40341] 206 so} suai] t3zgot saga 2sa] $23.327] $29,644 | 207 sol sau] t3zaot saga] n2s4] saetai| $28,367 zms] so} ios] tazso| saga] nse] $195,350] $27,146 | 2@9 so] _esis7o] —tgzao| saga 2sa | sia6.938] $25,977 2030 so} sisoz] 3240] saa] zsa| sieges] sass 201 so ___Sae| ae eae 2037 7 [sitoal13240| sage] 11254] SI3L4S2 sia 2038 so] soso] 13zeo] soz | nse sizs.rg2] $17,480] 29} Of stonf1324oT saga] 2s4T siz037s[ $16,727] oof sof sf aso sas tise [sisi | $16,007] 2061 go] ssf i3za0f saat asa sinozsif sis3is| 2042 o| sme ttzzao| saz tase siosega| $14,658 2084 sol sann[ taza] soset asa sessos[ $13,423] 2045 | sg] ta2aof saat 2se | sezaas[ siz.ss] 2046 ps3] aaaof saga] nse [ sasass] $2292) zou7{ sot sf tgzao suse | tizsa | sacag | $11,762] TOTALS: $19.533868 $126,864 $14,386,106 $2,099,605 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278,09 Net Benefit = $103,014 Bene fitCost Ratio = 1.01 &. Ss ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | |Altermative Project Iapst Capital Cost (1992 $) $16,045 314 Sun Year 1998 _| Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): | Average Anpual MWh, October — May | Average Annual MWh, June - September: Total Annual Energy MWh) | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Raw (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 ; Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fwel =2): 2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTUAWh Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High) Summer Load Mult pier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ouput h): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output hb): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278,089 Net Benefit = $4,624,149 a Bene fitCost Ratio = 126 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro i Diesel 1 | _ Spl. Needed PV Fuel PV | YEAR ecan patito Useable Fuel Cost MW b) Saving O&M Saving 1992 | so | 0 $0.67 16230 30 so 1993 _ 50 $0.68 | 16652 30 $0 | 1994 | $0} $0.70 17,077 30 $0 1995 | so! $0.71 17,507 30 $0 1996 | so] $0.73 17941 30 $0 197] so] $0.74 18379 $0 $0 198 | $12.321.128 | $0.76 3388 $706,924 $118.517 199 | so! $077 3.835, $685,795 $113.413 200] sof 3079 4287 [$674,085 $108,530 2001 | so we us $103,856 | 2002 | $o 39 | 2003 $0 15,434 a $95,104 2004 so su} _e1}__samseo/_ssipos| L 2005 so $197,495 15,434 6.614| __ $576,674 | $87,090 Le 2006 so $188.91 15.434 sat dp 2007 $0 $180,852 15.434 $0.86 2008 $0 $173,064 15,434 soss] 8.067 | 830,402] $76,316 | 200] CSO] ~SSCSIGS S12] SAS] Soo] sei] $513,558) $73,030 2010 8 sista ee) sgn) ___oeg__sar.)_se zouy CSS Sasingse{ isasa] saat 9.0m | Sasize2| $66.876 2012 tp at ns sae] ns] seo | se] $3.96] 203; SCSCSOSSCSCtSI3B.B7G| Sa] saz] | $40,706] $61.240) [ow Sot siszags[ isa] sas2] 9060] seize] $58,603) [2015 | $0 327173 1544] so] 9000] _s03.s6a| $56,079] zo] So] stanoss [tsa] saga] 9,060 | saa6,is9| $53,665 | sou] sof sunt ise] __saga|_soao|_ssneas|_sv.t zoo; CSOT S106.6a2] saa] saz] 9.00] sx384i6] $47,026 2mot CSO Stz.0so[ saa saszt 0c | sz3.g43| 45.001 201 —— a eT 203 ——— zest SO] sass7s] sam] saat oc] sz7i.se3| $37,736 | 2@s so sae 90 | 9.000 | 958 | $6. aes] SOT ST saa sat oc sus.c7s| 534.556] 2a7, SOT sa gagf saa] saz] 9.0m] 237.969] $53,065 | 2s] SOT 760 asus] soso | sara} $31 644 2po] SO] $as.713] suse] sas2] 9,060 | s08.s32| 528,97 wif Sof sess] isasaf sag] 9.00] $199,552 $27,730 2e2] SO] Sos] saa saz] 9.060] $190,959] $25.535 | zs So ss7sea[isasa[ saat 90m] $1sz.736] $25.39 | ost SOT SS5,t0a [saga] sag] 9] si74s67| $4,299 | 2035 2] sexi ise sans} seta} _suass 2040 [so] —— ses] isa] —sn2 | 00 | ——stsazr9| sins] zoif sof swage isa soso] 9m] sizgag7|__ $17,856 ort sof saeres| saga sag] 90] simzses| $17,087 | 2o3[ sot soso saz] sag] 9.060 | __ $117,669 $16, a zouf sot sasaas [sea saa] 9.00] $112,601 $15.6 2045 $1 a pos] sof saga] saga saga] 90m] $103,113 _—$14.328 | zu7[ so] sips sea] saga] 90] $98,672) $13,711 gust sot soto sae aace | 8 $1232112 $5550315 $16,770023 $2,447,530 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Altermative: Ead—Use Conservation |Altermative Project lapat Capital Cost (1992 $29,703 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember: Total Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 0 | Real laterest Rae %) 45 [Inflaton Raw (%): 0 | Discouat Rae (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi Wh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multpher: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ouput hb): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output h): 25900 i of na Deferred Diesei Ca) Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $44,099 Bene fitCost Ratio = 111 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY tom Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS ‘Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation eal | | PV PV |___YEAR ProjectCost__| O&M Cost TT 8/s/s|s|sl¢]¢] 3 S/s|sisis IT] f 8 8/8 |S s/s Tr amet Sof soo sage aaa sot zo7t ot soo saat asa sot oosf Too sage aaa sot omgf sof soo sant ace so 2080 so] sof sos aac] 261 sop soto saat eae] 8 2032 sof soto saga aaa sof 8 23 sof soo saga ase sof 8 2034 $0 0 EE Be 2037 0 —— —sas2 | 24490] 50] 2] 2038 [sat ae sot 2039 SS 2040 so} soto saga eae SO 2061 of sof sae aoe ot S| TOTALS: $411,199 30 S395 566 $99,732 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = so Net Benefit = $44,099 BenefitCost Rato = ill Summa Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Allison Lake Stand-Alone Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet Solomon Guich — Raise Spillway 32 feet Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro End—Use Conservation Discount Rate (%): 45 Vana ble O&M Savin; kWh): $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer En Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input I Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflauon Rate (%): 0 PT Benefit: Average Cost Annual Displaced Ratio Diese! (MWh | Medium | 2 | $6.556,506| 1.22 26:8 | Medium | 2] ($25,179341))_ 0.45 | 1564 [vedas [3 en | ze] | Medium | 2] sar7o23| 131 | [| Medium | 2|($1.955.258)| 0.90 | ss [| Medium | 2] s2.esasii] 1.15] 15434 Medium 2 $44,098 1.11 540 16-Apr-92 os ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel! with Hydro Alternative Project lapat | Capital Cost (1992 $) $22329,434 San Year 1998 i Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $275,000 | | Average Annua! MWh, October — May 27396 | | Average Annual MWh, June ~ Sepember 0 | Toul Annual Energy (MWh): 27,396 | | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflation Raw (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi SkWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWhb 11000 192 Diese! Cost (SW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium SummerLoad Mulipler. 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh). 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWb 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capaan, Savings = $3278.89 Net Benefit = $6556,504 Bene fitCost Ratio = 12 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lomApr—-F2 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tusnel with Hydro | a | PV | pv | awa Seal. Needed PV Feel PV | __YEAR ProjectCost_ | O&MCost_ | Useable __ | Fae! Cont | 1992 SO) 30 ol $0.67 1993 $0 $0} ome $0.68 | a) 1994 $0 so] 0} $0.70 | 15,156 a) 1995 so! so| | 16.134 a) 1996 Pal so] o| 17,148 — 2 197 $0) $0 0} . 18234 1998 $24.82553S $211,171 19.280 | $076] | ~—_—«S883,088 | $148,051 199 | $0 | $202,078 | 20287 | $07 — $149,072 | 2000 so} $193.376 | 21376 $0.79 2001 | so} $185,049 2519 $0.80 2002 $0 | $177,080 o3sos[sosif oT seogza| $153,863] L 2003 | $0] $169,455 2206] soto Si.con.sas|$155.308) 2004 | so $162,158 2esas] Sosat oT $1,033.753] 156.545 | 2005 sol sissi7s] 27396] Sasa] 531] X 2006 | $0 soss[ga7 | sopnes7| $147,931 | 2007 $0 soss] 339 | s960,606] $141,561 | 2008 $0 soss| 4800] somiags] $135,465 209 so $130,126 [ise] $080 | a0 | sonar] ssi] 2010 sol sizsszoT273e6[ soon] 7.990] sas2si7] $124,049) 2011 so] si.ss] 27396 sa 7990] sase26i] $118,707] zoo] si SSSCSLU4,027| 27396] oso 7990] saiza7e] $113,596 203 sol sioai7]— 27396] soset 7.90] 782272] $108,704] 2ost SO] Stoasig [27396] saga] oso] sas. se6] $104,023] [ost sot sgn a73e6[saszt 79%] s716.3so| $9543 [20s Tso seis] 273e6| saszt 7.90] sens.soz]_$95.257| [or sof soisor[ z73e6[saszt 790] sass.ga3] 91.155 [ows Sot srser[273e6[saset 79] sez7.7as] 387230] 2019 2@0 sol sw790| a73o6 | saz 79 | $600,703] $83,473 | sol swt z7ae6[ soz 790] 57436] 79.879] 2024 2@s j 206 207 208 2@9 202 265 206 207 268 209 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Deferred Diesel Capacity Saving Net Benefit = BenefitCost Ratio = 2@1 8} same _ziaes|__sgz)_io}_sssnea/_sas) 202 27396] soz] 790] ss6394] 373.147] 23, SO] S263] 2736] soszt 790] $503,727] $69,997 sol ser237] 2736] saz] 7.990] saszo3s| $66,983 | so sea3an] 27396] sos] 7990] sa61278| $64,099 | so] soismi[ 736 sont 7.990] swstata| $61,339 so] sssszo[273e6[ sont 7.990] seasog| $58,697 $0 356383] 2736 soz 790] sana2ig| $56,170 | so] ssaoss[ 2736] saszt 7990] 386809] $53,751 zoof SOT susan] 27396] sagt 790 $370,153] 851.436 2oil SO] Sao] 27396] sagt oso 354213] sa9.221 | $0 2a) aegis) 5 gi 7990] $4363] $45,073 | oe [0 ts [27996] 052 790 | srsa7] 0338] poss] sof soo sage sszesT sof 80 TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4360.962 528.350 683 $4.114378 B= $3,278,089 6556.90 12 “7 76 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | | ‘Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Alteraative Project Input Ca | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June ~ September: | Total Annual E: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%) 45 Inflavon Raw (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/k Wh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fue! =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 4590 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High Medium SummerLoad Mulipier: Winter Load Mult Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 179,341 Bene fitCost Ratio = 0.45 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io-Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone 1 i | Pv PV MWa Sigal. YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fue] Cost 1992 | Ly - $0 0} $067 | 1993 | $0 _30T ol $0.68 30] 30] $0.70 30) 30 $0.71 = $0 “sol 3073 $0 so] sare] 1998] $41.210508 | $330.36 | 15.645 | $0.76 | $716.589 $120.137 1999 so] spas | 15.645 $077 $095,170 $114,964 2000 30 $210,956 15.645 nn saan $110.013 2001 | $0 | $201,871 15,645 6.974 $105276 | 2002 | $0) $193,178 15,645 aa at ee 2003 so] $184,860 15,645 a 959 | $622,520) $96,404 | 2004 $0 $176,899 15,645 Mo ah sake ES 2005 $0 $169.281 15,645 I $88,280 2006 | $0 a | 2007 $0 $155,016 [sosstsisofssas.s72] $0,841 | 2009 $0 $141,953 15,645 $0.90 $74,028 2010 $0 $135,840 15,645 sosi] 19,741] $503,978] $70,841 | zou] —ss—“i‘ SOC Stog.opn | sous] Sosa] 19.741 | $47,842 $67,790 202 —_£, siza393] seas] sas] 9741 | $466,834] $64,871 | 203 [sii.036] seas] saga] ara] $aae73i] $2.07] 2014 sists | sas] tren] sere] ae 2015 sol siopoos[ s6as| saga | 9,741 | so.o8s| $56,846 | 2016 ———*. | sioa sin] seas] sag2| 9.741] sap1469| $54 398 | or] CSO ssig | asses] saz] 19.741] 374611] $82,056 | sn) al ost SO] sao] sas] sasz] gai] $343,043] 47.669] 200 sol ssan[ seas] soszt igi] sz] 45.616) 2@1 so] swxrost seas] sosz| trai 314.135] $43,652] 2mot sof swtoof seas] sag2] 9.741] $300,607] $41.72 | 203 $0 Sees isas saa enh __ars 2m4 $0 | ——-sssot___iseas[___snga}__tget|_s2152751_s8.252 2@s [tS iss] 9090 te] 2@6 series sess aa) __sg74)_sis.on zero seuz7eTiseas|sagzt 19.741] $un223| $33,520] 208 a =< 209 sol ssasoo] sas} 30.92 | 1971] s0.s9s| $30,695 | 2030 sol sso32s] seas] sas | 1g7ai[s21i3s3] $29,374 wif so]ss.g00f seas] save] gai] som280| $28,109 | 2oso} sof ssisme] seas _sagz|__s741 |_s1635691_s5. 858 Serre | as] sof sasige | ts6as| sas2 | 19741] $169,624] $3,571 | 2037 go] saizes[ seas] saat tsar] s1ss330] 821585 | 2038 sol sso7| seas] sas | 19741] $14agai| _$20.655 | mo] got saga iseas] sas2| 19741 [ $142240| $19,766 2040 [ ___ so] _sss2e9[ asses sage 19741] $136,115] $18,914 | 2041 of surort seas] sosz| 19.741] st30.25a| $18,100 | 2042 so] smzis]isgas] sos gen | sizacas] 817321 | 2043 sol ssizes[ seas] soe igri] si9277| $16,575 2064 sol swat iseas| saga] i974 | siatai| 15.861 os[ sof os iseas sas2y sre] stone] 815.178 | zos[ sof sas seas] saga] sre] si0eszz] $14,524 2ou7{ so] sases2] seas] soset 19.741] $100,021] $13,899 | TOTALS: $41210508 $4,757,413 $16,999.28: $2.480,91 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = ($25 179.341 Bene GitCost Ratio = 0.45 Ay ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower Intake |Altermative Project laput Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, Juae — September Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% 45 Inflation Raw (%): 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (Sk Wh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh. 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium | SummerLoad tae 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Oupput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Guich Winter Esergy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $291,400 BenefitCost Rato = 124 ALASKA ENERGY ACTHORITY 16— Apr -32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS \Name of Alternative: _ Solomon Gulch — Lower Iatake | | 196 | sO} =] so so] $7208 : —— 2002 | 30 $0.31 $2,079 6,600 2003 | $0 $4,930 io] soz] 24179 | sun7as| $6316 | 203) 2004 | $0 717 uo] Sosa] 25523| 9912] $6,044 | 2005 so $4514 10s] sos] 26902] S298] 85,784 | 2006 1,025 soss| a3 $37.03] 85.535 | [— 2007 $0 $4,134 [| sass40| 85.296 | 2008 $0 $3,956 = we [| ssz2s| $5,068 | a —— 2010 | soi] $4 64 | 2011 [so se [as | s050 | sas] sige] sana] 2012 sir | || ats] zopf sot sia oss ge] ses] $4,067] es |e | 2015 BR ee Be 2017 0 669 | ns | 2 | so) | ssa] zos{ sof sasa7] noms] sasat3aser | sa aas| $3,264 2mof sot sass] goat ei] sziso7| 2.989 zeit So] ses soz 34361] sossi| $2860 | zest sof sags6[ os] sas] 34361] 8.035] $2506 | est oT sizrzfosTsaszt3asei | si72ss] $2398 | zeif sof 81.437] os] sasz| ase] 13.253] 1.842] ze2f so saz7sf os soszt 34361] sizssz] $1,762 2m3f sot Siz] } sas] 1 ss] ($1,686 | rast sot sizeof os] ssa on | 613] 8.614 | 2035 }—__#o|____ suas} aes} saga} ake SL shee TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,328,653 $202,561 Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = 0 Net Benefit = $291,400 VE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Altermative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet |Altermative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) Anpual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October — May | Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember Total Annual Energy (MWh): Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Rae (% 45 Variable O&M Savings (SkWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Feel =2): 2 ‘Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Mulfplier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ovput bh): 28600, Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $477,023 | Bene fitCost Ratio = 131 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16 Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANAL YSIS [Name of Alternative: jane Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet PV PV MWh ; YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost 1992 $0 $0 | 1993] $0 E $0 194 0 so 1995 | $0 e 16134 1996 | $1,326,913 $10,063 $073 15,648 71 $12,578 1971 so! $9,629 1,500 $0.74 16,734 | $09,820 $12,037 1998 | so | $9215 1500 | $0.76 17,780 | $68,705 $11518 1999 | 30] $2818 150 $077 18787 $66,651 $1192 2000 | so} $8438 1,500 $0.79 19,876 $65513 $10.548 2001} $0] $8,075 1,500 $0.80 21.119 $63,521 $10,094 2002 | $0 sym] soot Sasi] 2395] 561578 | $9,659 2003 | $0 sz] soot soz] 2.706] ss9.6s6] $9,243 | 2004 $0 szoms[ soo] Sass] 25.048} ssa.cos| sagas | 2005 so] sam [Soo] sasst 26427] 856,046] 88464 | rost CSOT SHasoT Sot Sas] 27843] 854.297 $8,100 so P sos] 2929s] sszso6] $7,751 ol soss| aes] ssisag] $7,417 $5,934 - a8] $308] | oes 2010 sol ssaza [soo] sos] 33ge6] $48,320) é zo So] 5200 soo saz] 3ass6 | $46,773] é 208 [so] $4996 | 500 | sn | saan | $7991 saz20] Sa 1soof saga] 33aes| seasi] $5952] 2016 iso] sas] 33886] 540.987] $5,696 2os[ So] Saco soot sage sages] sez] ss.4so] zoie{ Sof aie soot sasa | ago | 37533] 85.216 | [ows sof sas soot saz} 3886] $34:370] $4,776 zosT So] s3es6 [soot soz ages | season] $4570 zmof SOT zag sf sas] 33sse] $3474] $4374 amit So] saa sof sont sase6] suns] s4.ias | zt so] saz0e fs] sas2| sass6 | songz $4,005 | [23 sot szo66 [sof sosz | 3386 | $27,580] $3,833, [east sotsasse son soz] 33sa6| $25,393] a6) [ams sof sos soofsasz | 33886] $25.256 Ss | a | | $0 }—__szs7i|__.sao] sez | __ sane | __sz3.0a)_ saz 209 [0 354 [500 | sa sas 2.9] 2.943 zpot sof saass] sof saga] 33886] 520267] $2,816 zoif sof ase soot sasz|338e6| 519,394] st [aaa sof 2063 sof saset asa 318.559] 2083 $1 en te ars fr fe zust sot sassot sof save asses] si699s| $2,362 | zas{ sof sgos| sm] saga] 33ss6] $16,263] 260 zest so sarsoT soo] sag] saeo| 515563] $2,163 | ze7] sof sisss] soot sasat3ass6] $14,893 0 zest sof sisest soy saga] asso] si42si] $1,980 | oof of sasig fst saszt33se6[ sizes] 81.895 | zomif sot suze] sof sa] sagas | sizass] $1,735 zor; sot sazzgT soot saga s3se6 | sttgsi] $1,561] zou3} so] siz soot sage 33ge6 | si14s6| $1,589 | zogf sof siz soo sae asec] singe] $121] 2os[ sof sites soo saga sages] si0.472| $1,455 | 28 | SS 9 fe gh TS aT ga PSC 267 na aU gy | SDN DN gy | ITS SIRT DNV ga | anni] a TR i TTUSLL $9 zosf sot sof of sam asses so Is in 6 TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,751,983 $259,761 Deferred Diesel Capaciy Savings = x Net Benefit = $477,023 Bene fitCost Rato = 131 75 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alteraative Project Iapat [Capital Cost 1992$ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October — May" Average Annual MWh. June ~ Sepember: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%). 45 Inflation Raw (%) 0 | Discount Rae (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BIUAWh 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): SummerLoad Mult pier. Winter Load Mulfplier: Deferred Diesel Cap Bene fitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to=Apr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name ofAlteraative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spilway3lfect SSO | | Diese! | | PV | Pv MWh Sal. Needed PV Peel PV |___ YEAR | ProjectCost__| _O&MCost ;__Useable Fee! Cost f ue Saving O&M Savings \ 1992 | $0 | so | o| $0.67 $0 | 1993 $01 so | 0 $0.68 — 30 SS : 195 | so | $0 0 $071 ae $0 1996 | so | so 0 $0.73 a so 197 | so] sol 0 $0.76 18 Py | 1998 | $19533868 | $6143 | 13.240 | $0.76 | 6,040 — $101,669 1959 | $0] $5,879 | 13.240 $0.77 | 7.047 $583.307 $7291 | 2000 | so] seas 13240 $0.79 8.136 3578261 $93,102 2001 | sol $5383] 13240 $0.80 930 $560,675 $39,093 2002 | so] $5,151 13240 $081 10655 $543,532 $85,256 2003 | sol sas30 3240] somo] ges ss26.e2s|s8is8s] 2004 | $0 $4717 13240] sass] 13308] ssissag] $78,071 | 2005 $0 sasia] 320] Sosa|4es7 | 594.697 $74,710 2006 80s) spss ___isign __seass__ sua 2007 $0 $4134 [7555] Sa6h244 [568.414 | | 2008 | af $3,956 03| _—$45,468 | 2009 $0 $3,785 ae 0,576 2010 | so See ee eT 359.951 2011 $0 sass] 13240] saz] | saz ss | 357369 [op So 83317 zat saz] as | 95.071] 854.899] poo] SOT sae eof savas sa7a.oss[ $52,535] [ows Sot sss amo sont ao | $361.78] 850272 zos[ sot sagen] tgzso soe tas | s46,199[ $48,108 | 2016 | sa7sz] 1320] saz} as | S291] $46,036 2017 | sagen] 1240] saz} 45 | s317,025] $44,054 | | sasa7] tao] sag] as | 503373] 0.156 —# asso 2a@0 $0 Se ee 2@2 sol $2136 | $35351 2003 re $33,529 s 204 sof sigs] 3240] saga] as | $252,959] $2372 zest sot sig [i320 sagzt ae] $22,927) sure 206 sol} suroif tazeo} saat ag | $213,327] 2027 sol siw] 13200] saga] 16] smatet] 08 367 2s] so] sia] 13240] sosz] _zause| isso] 27,146] 209 sol sisrot i320 sant as] sis6g3s] 525,97) 2030 so] sisoz] 3240] saat tas | 8178.88) 2 2G1 sol sia37] 3240 saga] as | $171,185] $23,788 27 so 51.106 | saga as | $131,452 $18.266 asf sot 81.056 | | sas f tas] $125,792 $17,480 2041 Lo $906 | 200] $092 | za | sno sisi 22] sof sag izaot sagt tas | s10sasa| $14,658 | zs] so] sees] izzo] soz} 146 | $100,942] $14,027 zous[ sof sme iaaaot saat as] s943s] S185 | zog sot a3 ao saszt tag] sazass| 812.292 | orp sof sizeof soset ras] sa4sag | $11,762 pos] sof soo samt aszast so 80 TOTALS: $19,533.368 $126,864 $14, 10 32,099,005 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1219.768 Net Benefit = $1,955 .258 BenefitCost Rato = 0.90 Va ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Iupat Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh. June — September: Total Annual E MWh | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rave (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Rae (% 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1. Low Fuel =2) 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multpler: 03 Winter Load Mulipler: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 11 BenefitCost Ratio = 115 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: sO sO 1993 | so 30 194 | so so 1995 | $0 $0 1996 | $o| 1) 1997 so| so} 1998 | $12.321.128 | $268,764 15,434 $0.76 3,846 | $706,924 $118.517 199 | 0] $257,190 15.434 307 4353 | $685,795] $113,413 | | 2000 | 2 $246,115 15.434 ns [ssa] seraoss| $108,530] 201] $5517 Bas [7.18 | $083.5a5] $103.856 | 2002 |} —— ee el ae | 2003 | : a a Ye 2004 $0 $206 15434] Sagat iii] seoogso] $91,009] 2005 $0 5197495 1s434{__ Sasa] 12493] $576,676] $87,090 206 So] Sissgoi[isa3a] sass] 13909] $558,684/ $53.339 2o07[ So stzoaszt saa] sage] 15,361 | $541,174 39751 20s[ S| si73,o6a[ saga sass] 1682] ss30402| $6 316 | 209 | $0 $165,612 P sas] tase] sass] $73,030 | | 2010 $0 $158,480 Pp sasi] 19.952] sas7,isi| $69,885 | 2011 $0 sisiess[ sasa[ saz] 9.952] sasizea| $66,876! 202 sol sias.2s] saat sas2] 9.952] $a60.s38] $63,996 [os sot siza.s%6f tsasef saz] 9952] $440,706] $61.240 [oso suszses]isasa saga] 19952] sazi.7z8| $58,603 | pos] So sims] saat soz] 19.952] $03.68] $56,079 | pois] SOT sizes | saa] saga] 19.952] 86,189] $53,665 | 207] sot i656 [tsa3a] sagz| 19.952] $369,559] $51,354 zowt so] star isaza] saz] 9.952] sasz.eas| $49,142 zoist SOT $05,642] tsa sas2]99sz2| S846] $47,026 | 2mof sof sioaosof isasa]sasztig.9s2] $323,843] wm eit SO] sess] saa] soz] 19952 [$309,898 | a a TI [m3] So sag saga saga] t99sz | sags.7e3| $39,434 [ms sot sass7s[ sass sagt 19952] $271,563 $57,736 [2st sot sisson sass sam] i952] $259,868 $36,111 [mst SOT sea saa sagat 19952] sag.7a] $34.56) 27] SOT Sageg | asaza saat ig9s2] $237,969] $33,068 | zost SO] r60 | asasat sama] 9952] sara] 31 644 209 [| —___ sof -serof agape] sus |__is9e2|_szizaié}_ss0281) 2032 ss [iss] $080 | 19952 | 003939] 35] 23] sof ssrsea[ saa saga] isesz]sigz736| $25,383 zest sot sssos[ asaza] saga] 9.952] $174,867 ey) 2035 ;____sof___ssuraif suse snsz | _isgsn}__s167.397}_s23253) 2037 $0 senza | 15030 | suse] 19982 | 3153235] 2123 2us{ go] saszos | isa3a]saszt 19952] $146,636] 0376 [ mofo seazissasaT saszt 19.952] $140.32 519.499 zmo[ sof seaisT saga] saz i99s2]s134279] $18,659) zor] sof saoaga | isasa soso a99s2]sizsag7|__ 817,856 | or] sot seras[isasa]sasz| 9.952] $122,964 17,0 2o3[ sof saroso]isaze] saz t99s2]sir7.669| $16,351 | rout sof sass saat sog | ig9s2]sirzgoi] $15,647] zus[ sof sgss[ saat saga]ig9s2] $107,753] $14.973| TOTALS: $12321,128 $5550315 $16,770,023 $2,447,530 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = $2.654.511 BenefitCost Rato = LL 79 SC ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Coaservation | Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ $9,703 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): | Average Annual MWh, October - May Average Annual MWh. June — September: {Total Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflaton Raw (% 0 Discount Raw (%) 1992 Diese! Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium SummerLoad oa 03 Winter Load Muli plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 290 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Ca Savings = i) | Net Benefit = $44,098 e_—__": 2.0... nn. nnn”. aa) BenefitCost Ratio = 111 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY iO— Apr st ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation |___YEAR | seca Casio = a ee 1972 | 1931 _ 1994 | 1995 1996 | 1997 | 2001 | + sll Trt He 198 199 | 2000 ~ 2002 | ¢ glelelelelelels|elels|s/Sle {sls + I rk 8 [8 |S /s [s/s Se eg er i eg ee ae cet 2990 | ea 6] SCL 0) Lean | AUIS gh 99) cmos $5 39g USIRAIATTAL 99) ini | Lan gc] AN ISU) | An gi URI n 95-396 endeavored 90 ieToticraretelt vA | neste go] SSE 9 NRPS | SENN ong nbs 3-35 iene Qf lcindnizlasas $| 2018 [| sof sof of sage} ___s3e6__s}__30] 2mo[ SOT oT sagt 3sze6] 80 2021 Pe rag gee gece eae a itz | Manag | sg] icles | a Taanlnls itop] SISISIDIE ng. 99g | AIDA A $9 | ISIN $9) 2@s st ef 2a7{ sof soo sas} 35386] 8 zoif sof so ose 3536] 80 2082 ae ease arg aa aaa 20994 | SST gy STs gy | EES FMR ggg | RII $9 | IMEI 9) ESI S| 2035 a) a a zee sof sof of sage 3sze6] $0 2a7[ got [saat 3s3e6[ 80 zas] sof 88 ae ae ee 20089 Sal AL SSVI gf nee | Rte St G2) PSUs apy | Mentnerapen gp | miaiaeteaUe 90) 200[ sof ge of sasat s3eef of 26641] LALA gp | VATA gg | DLAI | Un linbgg y| RTA sg | STIs gg | citer) 2042 [geoff of santas | so} a os [sof sof of sont sss sot 8 20067 | USL ginning Sesesetotntain | eS gis | RISTO a IRIS 9 | RUT 9 | 2 | tential 9 ai 9 snl J ASSIA gag | ASI hg] e110) gap] evn 9 TOTALS: $411,199 0 3395. $99,732 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $44,098 Be ne fi tCost Rato = 1 5&/ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input i | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 | Inflanon Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 KS | Vana ble O&M Savings ($/kWh) $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11,000 SEER 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used i igh): i Used Ratio [Allison LakeTunnelwithHvdro | High =| 2 | 5.794614] 1.20 -Alison Lake Stand Alone __|_High _{_a}_(aasaganj _o.s2 End—-Use Conservation 16-Apr-92 Average Annual Displaced ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16=Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | | |Alternative Project Input oe | | Capital Cost (1992 $) $22.329.434 | San Year 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ $275,000 Average Annual MWh, October — May: 27,396 Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember 0 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 27,396 | | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Infaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 : Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W) 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High High Summer Load Mulépiier. 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer E nergy Ouput (MW): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $869.243 Net Benefit = $5,794,614 Bene fitCost Rato = 120 epee ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-30 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~S0 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hyd st | | t | Pv PV MWh Needed tw Fe Pv | | YEAR| Project Cost O&M Cont Useable pas on O&M Sevi ag 19972 | $0 30 0 br [CSCS 1993 | so $0 0 +23 | 1994 $0} $0 0 | 1995 | $0] so | 0 | 1996 | so] $0 0 1997 | $0 | 30 0 1998 | $24. 825535 $211.171 | 1939 | so} $202,078 | 2000 | 30] $193376] 2001 so $185,049 [2002 $0 $177,080 13399 | 2003 $0 $169,455 27396 15,110 [ue | an | 2004 so $162,158 27396 7 | 2005 sO $155,175 273% a 2um6[ Sof stazan3] 27306] sos] 21000] sonies7| $147,931 | 2007 [27396] sass | 23097 | $960,606] $141,561 | zug] sot siss79| 273e6] sows] aszz7 | somteas| $135,465 2009 [27396] soot 2743] siiss7| $129,631] 2010 $124.520 27396 [sagt] 2965s] sasasi7| $124,049] 2011 $119,188 27396 [saz] 2965s] sasaz6r] $118,707] 2012 [$5 steer pe gan ss aerate 203] so} i097] 27396] sausa | a9.6ss | s7azz72|____ $108,704] zowf sof tosis | 27396] sagt 2965s] s7s.ss6] $104,023] zos{| So] sees | 27396] sag] ss] $716.350] 399.543] zoe] Sof seis] 27396] sas 296ss] seussoz] $95.257] zor sot soisorf 27396] saz | 2965s] sasscas] 391.155] zo] sot sarseit 27396] sas] 29685] sz7.73s|_$87.230] zoi9] sot se790 [27396] sas} 2965s] $00,703] $83,473 | 2mo[ sol smn 27306] sag] 26ss| 3574836] $9,879 | zaif so serr9f ses saz | 296ss | sssooe2| $76,439 Sts fas ss] 2m3f sof 826327396 | $092 29.655 $503.727 $8.97 aesf Sof 867237 2736] sagt aes] sazo3s| $66,983 | 2@s |—____so|_sesea}____27996/_____saga)__z4ss}_sasiz7s}__s44.099 sis 207 [sol 58500 | 27396 | sn90 | 79655 | s.0s] 58.67 zest Sot ss633]273s6] saga] 2965s] saa2i6| $56,170 zegt sof ssagss[ 27396] soszt aaess| sas6zog] $53,751 zwot so ssassi[ 2736 saat ass] s370s3] 851436 zeit so] senses 386] soz | a96ss| 5354213] $49.21 | 2u3[ So] sass aes saat ass] gases] $45,073 | zos| sot sea z96| 27306] sage} ess | 310396] $43,132 | zms| sot satasz 27396] saga] ass] so7.ca9| 541275 | 2m6[ Sot sesus a6] sas2t 26s] soazse] 9.498 237] sO} s37g4o] 27396] saa] 296ss| 271.999] ‘$37,797 zm9] sot sa7a3| 796] saa] 6ss| smoo77| $34,612 zit sot saisis| zze6] saga] aness]szaoes| 531.695 22] SO] as 27396] saz a9ess| 218266] $30.330 23 So] ee 2396] saz 2965s] sese7| $29,024 | 2oaf sof sssot a6 sant aaess| sisns72] $27,774) 2045 |-____$0}_sase7o|_zie|___ansz|_aaass}_sisizss}_sass78] ost so cst 21396 | s92 935] 175147] $4338) Po aos sof soo soe sos sof TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4,360,962 $29,767498 470 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $369.243 Net Benefit = 794,614 BenefitCost Ratio = 20 55 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~-S5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Allisoa Lake Stand-Alone Alternative Project Iapat Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: Total Annual Energy (MWh | Standard Input 0 Variable O&M Savi ngs ($/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Feel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/AWh: 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Summer Load Mulfpier. Winter Load Mulipher: 07 [WiseerLosd Mul6 pier | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winer Energy Output (MWh): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 9276241 Net Benefit = 1 1 052 BenefitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr—%% ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS 'Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staud—Alone 9 Diese PV PV MWh Sigal. Needed | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cos: Useable Fuel Cost 192 | 30 30 0 | 1993 | $0 $0 0 1994 | $0 $0 _o| 1995 | so! $0 0 $071 1996 | 30] so af 197 | so! $0 0 1998 | $41210508 | $230.369 | 15,645 20.435 | 3716589 1999 | so] $20,449 | 15.645 21,442 $65,170 $114.964 2000 | $0] $210,956 15,645 m= = i— -9 | 2001 | $0 $201,871 15,645 [| es $105.276 | 2002 | $0 $193,178 15,645 25080] $642,262] $100,742 2003 $0 $184,860 16147 7 [| 26359] s6e2.487| $99,496 | 2004 | $0 $176,899 +16 Sat, 27.703| sasi,i64| $98,608 | 2005 $0 $169.281 17314 29082 | $646,910] $97,697] 2006 sol sisig2t get Soas] 3aaez | $648,448] $9,730 2 2o7f oT siss.ors] tasa3] soe] 31.950] sas0.183] $95,815 2008 a a sast $94,849 2009 | $0 $141,953 $0.90 $93,867 ot sot sao ast sas2] 36541 | $639.551 $88,871 2012 $0 siz4393] aso] saz] 36 Sai] $62.011] $85,044 203] So] sig.o36[2asioT saz 36sai | ssas.6s6] 881382) 204] so] _simsio| mas] _sasa|___sasa1| __sseouse] __s7va78| 2os[ so] sio9o0s[ 2asiot sosz taser] $536,303] 1 zoe] sof sons] aso soca tsar] $515,208 | 71315 zo] sot sm sig| aso] saz} 36541] $9,109] 68.244 zo] sot sosszu] asso] saga] 36s] $469,960] $65,305 zoisT oT sogorf2asiotsaszt sai] $aa.723] SOAS 2@0 2 BR ee aS zmif so] sasrost asso] saz} 36541] $a 825] $572 zat sof smoot asso] saszt 36541] saan] 854,763 | 203 [ssa ans sage | sear sero] 2,404 zes[ sof aso] aso saga fase] $360,881 $50,148 zest sot sma aso] saszt 36 san | S340] $47,988 zesf Sof sort | asf saga] 36sei | s30469] $45,922] ze7f Sot sez asi sas2] 36sei | $36238] $43,944 zms| sof seisos] sto] saz] esa] samaez0] $2,052 zmo] sot ssasoo} aso] saga] 36541 | $289,589] 0241 2080 BL SigaBS gases 3 2031 0 8,500 | aso] "sao | ses] sss] 050] se | ss] i] | sa | ___2us8___s}____sease} ase) sas} eset esse Seas 2035 [ae | tesa sn gare 2037 ots [9s sa | 1 ns ss | na 2us[ ot secon] asiofsas2t esau] sisases] $27,078) Lot sot srgoi asi saga] s6ser[ $i86.474] 325.912] 8 3 i> |S 2007| so] sos.652] 2asw| soso] 451] __suai.126] sist [rust sol of of sav] sro] so] so TOTALS: $41210608 $4,757,413 $20,556 915 52,979,945 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 Net Benefit = 522,154,921 BenefitCost Ratio = 052 ) aN) CG ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower lIatake |Alteraative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $) $1,129,768 Sunt Year 1993 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June - September: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%) 45 Inflation Rat (% 0 Discount Rate (% 45 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): Z 1992 Diese! Cost ($/kW): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High i Summer Load Multpiier: 03 Winter Load Muli plier. Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca: Savi Eo) Net Benefit = | BenefitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo Apr=32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gelek = — Lower Iatake | ] Diese! Ti | PV | MWh Spl. Needed PV Paei Pv YEAR Project Cost eels __| Useable Fuel Cost Wh Savings O&M Saving 1972 | so | so| 0 CY 2) ey 1993] $1,081,118 | $7556 | 1035 | sass] 30,111) $52,063 $9,809 1994 | sol $7326 1,025 $070] ——=3931| ~——«$51.362| $9386 1995 | 301 $7,010 1,025 somi| 31909] $49,888 | 982 1996 | $6,708 1,025 $0.73 ——- BS es 1971 $6420 | 1,025 $0.74 2 | 1998 | $6,143 | 1,025 $0.76 | 35.055| $46,948 | $7871 | 1999 | $5.879 | 1,025 som] 36,062 | $45.545 $7532] 2000 | $5,625 | 1,025 ee $7208 2001 | $5383 | 1,025 $6897 2002 | $5,151 | 1,025 | ——— rr { 2003 | $4,930 1,025 soxz| anes | sores] $6316] i ~ 2004 | $4,717 = | sosst azaon | s912] $6,044 | | 2005 $4514 oos| sass] asami | saszos[ $5,784) 2006 soa | sf 35.535 2007 saisa[oas| sass] 49a | $35,940 | $5296 2008 tee 06 2009 sol sa7asT ors soso seat sao] $4,850 2010 SRE sas gate gop sot saesefoastsasz| seas] $31 961 | 2012 sss su | see | gs | {ost so} sae os sas2] segs] s26s| $4,067 | zowf sot sass] oes} ssa] sao26 | saz.cos| 53.892 zoe] so} sarez | toes} gauga| sos | sa5cas| 3.564 | 2017 2 BE Bee Ss eT as 2@0 sess eT $2,989 2m1| so] saan} 105] san] 06 | $0581, 860 2 2 Ss 1005 |_s090 | sane | 19.95] 2737 203 195 |-saso | sae] siasa7] 2619 204 [so 986 [tas | se | ss | ss $2506 zest sof sisrz fossa] 566] 817.288] $2398 zas[ sot sant oes] sas2} 56026 | $16,515) $2295 2e7{ sare cos] sas] 56026 | $15,804] 32.196 zms{ sooo foes] sage seons| $15,123] 2.102 [ap sofsiz7s 02s] saz} $6026] $12,682 $1,762 203 sof siz oes saszt S606] $12.36 | $1,686 as[ sot sizes ors sont sana] sinsss| 81, saa 2u7] sof satos] noas| saga] 56026 | $10,177 $144 zas[ sof sts] oasT saga] soos | 99.738] $1353) 2mof sof ston os] saz S626] 9319] $1295 200; so ses7 [ozs sas2y secs] sags | $1239 2041 sol set toast sose| eons] sass] 1,186) zou2[ sof ses oas sas t séozg | satée | $1,135) 00 | a cg EVE # aaa aT SVN gS a ag MST zoe} sot ge a se goes | ese] go Ie [i a PIT SLE, ee | ge) NG 1S] A TNA 9 0 TTT 1 9 SV eg TS Se TT ee 6 $0 MRT. SUSUMU algo saga ap UTE Ds YSIS Sg LANA gS | Te SO $0 I 2 | ISIN | nT | ta | A ia] = 7959 ST 99 $0 $1,081,118 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr =92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Altermative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet VAiteraative Project Iapat | Capital Cost (1992 $): 3$1582.%6 San Year 1996 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): $12,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May 1500 | Average Annual MWh, June — September: 22 Total Annual Energy Wh): 172 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (% 45 {InQaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1. Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese! Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $674 521 BeneSitCost Ratio = 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | | | j | | PV PV MWh Spl. PV Puri PV |___ YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost ¥ Saving O&M Saving 192 | $0 | a ~ $0.67 soso | so] 1993 $0] $0 Of sas fies 136i) igo [ee $0] 1994 $0 | so | of $0.70 31,956 so] ga] 1995 | $0 | so} 0 $0.71 52,934 | inary 1996 | $1,326,913 | $10,063 | 1,500 929 1997) so $9,629 | 1,500 | 1998 | $0 39215 | _ 1500 J 1991 soy $5818] 1-500 3077 2000 | $0] $8,438 1 Le 36676 f 2001 | af mors 37919 ee | 202 | ; 00 7) 1 2003 FS ee 2004 $0 $7,076 yet sos ara Tse 274] $10,036 2005 $0 $6771 ue] sass tone | sess] $9,604 2006 0 $6,480 17etsosst soa] 61509] $9,190] 2007] $0 $6201 iat sass] aro | $59,678] $8,795 | 2008 | $0 $5,934 yet sass] sage ssaagi| $8,416 | 2009 $0 $5,678 [soso] S307] $56,633] $8053 | 2010 so $5,434 iyo] sos] ss 39 ssago7| $7,707 2011 $0 $5200 }—___178| ___ sage] sage} amare) sizes zo] so] sare 17m] _saso{ __ssaa9|_—- sso.7ae] $7,057] po ows soto nt sas2|ss3a9| season] $6753 out sof asset mm} sas} ss3ag | $46,507] $6,463 | zos[ Sof sazeo Tm sage ssa] saasoa] $6184 oe] so] aie esa] 553g] sess7] $5918] zo7f so] sages esos ss 3g] sanrsal $5,663] gost So] san mf sas] sug] sxa.g99] 5.419] 2019 ee _ son ss) ___a ig sss zeof sot stasp fesse sagt sas7i2] $4963 | 2@1 snes 202 pet saat ss3agT s.703 fsa saa | 203 s 066 P| soz | 55349] 31294] 84.349 | 2@4 so ss || sng | 55308 |] sat zest sot esos et soset zag] szu6s7| $3982 | aes Sof szes7 fry sasztssaag | sz7az3] 538i | 2e7f So sas rey sag2 yt ssaag | sa5242] $3647 | (3s $0 3060 | pe | sn | 5309 | se) 80 po amo sot assaf met saa 5539] sos] $3,339 | 2mof[ so] sass son 55349] sags | $3,196 | orf sof sass mt saga] sag] soos] S3.058 | maf sot oes fet saa sag] szipss| $2926 | | 23st so saga ret saga] sszug | sas] $2,800] gos] sof sagso| mm} sasa|ssao | si9zss| 2.680 | os} so igs] sage] ssa] siz.as3] $2,564 | zosf so] samo amet sage sssag | sizsso $2454 2e7] so sss me sase| ss3ag | sisass] 234s | Les] so siseat rey sagz| ssaag | si6.r70] $2247] zoo} sof sass] met saga] ss3ag]sisa7a] 2.150] 2mof sot suas] met saga] ssag] siagos | $2058] zou so] sages] mm save sssag | starrot 81.9609 22; sof asap mf sage sssao | si3seolsi.sse 2om3] sot size sos t sagt sing76| 1,803 | gout sof sia ame sane sszagT sizer] 51.725] 2st sot sags sasetss3agT siigas[ $1651] zou f sof soo sant sisi so 80] 7] got gt ant sos got 004g] nana g | aang | aL ARALLS ] TSTET NUN gq | RTT 97 9541] IN cLaTT:g | nN $0 | eB ie in Bis it 4 TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,924,931 $224311 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $674 521 : ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alternative Project lapsut | Capital Cost (1992 $) $25,438,178 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh. October — May” Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember- Total Annual Emergy (MWh) Sart Year 1998 | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Rat (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savi ‘SAWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multpier: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = $276.241 Net Benefit = ($109,773) BenefitCost Ratio = 0.94 PT ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i6-Apr-22 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise S way 32 feet ' | MW YEAR Piet pre Cot Useable | 1992 | bt) 1931 $0 “ai $0 | 1994 | E. so} so] 195 | $0 | $0 | 0 | 1996] sol $0 $0 1997} 30 30 $0 1998 | _$19.533868 | $6143 | 13240] $0.76 | 2.840 $606.43 | $101,669 1999] 30] $5879 13240 $07 23847 $588,307] $7291 2000 sol $5.625 13240 $0.79 24.936 $578,261 383.102 | 2001 | $0] $5383 is2ed sso 26,179 $560,675 $39,093 = 383 | | 2002 $5,151 27.455| $543,532 | $35, 2003 [sis $84,677 zoos] SO] Sa] aziz] sass anos] $557,517] $84,427 ue sss] ee eS $84,126 | 15,040 $81212 | = ——s 15,040 15,040 eT isoao[ soso] 39,769 | $500,448 | = 166 = —— 2011 15,040 se. 169 202 2 —— zest sot sais tsomotsosa] azn] seagase| 359.677] zowf sof szoasT soso] sagz} aon | __—$410,962| 357.107 ros] sot szgo7 | somo saga] zon} 5393266] $54,648 | zoe] So] sare soso] soz} aeons | $376,331] 852.295 | zort So] sso sean] saz | zi | $360,125] $50,043 | zowt SOT ssa] soot sag] zon] 8344617] 847.888 | aot SOT szazs somo] sag} aout] sm9.777| 545.826] 2mo[ SOT 82333] sovofsas2t aon] $315,576] $43,852 201 sol so232[tsoaoT soszt azo] saorge7] $41,964 | 2m2[ SOT Sas sosof sas aor soas.oe3] $40,157) 23 So] some soa f saga] azn | 8276538] $38,428 | zes[ so] sass] tsosof soz] azo] s2sa63o] $36,773 2st SOT Sm] sao sas] anon] $253.23] $35.189 | zms[ SOT stort soso saszt azo] saa2.330] $33,674 [ar sof sre soso] saset zou] sasisoa] $2.24 [mst oT sasao soso soszt azo] szzi.go9| $30,836 zest SOT SSO] somo] sage] aon] se3s3] $9,508 | 2aot Sot sso] tsoaot soma] somos] 28.238 2oif SO] Sies7] somo sag] zon] sisaass] $27.02 ro2[ So] siz7sT somo f sas2] aon] si86.osa] $25.888| 203 EE ) 2 ) 24 | —__so] size} asowof____sasa}__azoun|__s17oags}__s23.679 2061 [sa 6 15.080 | sas2 | zo | ss2i7| 517.00 ort sof sass somo Tsoset zou} sirgg2s| $16,651 203 sof seas somo soset azo | s14.g6s| $15,934 orf sot st somo soset azo | $95,153] $13,361 pt TEI if Ht I go] Si ERISA yen gg] ean 57.9 y cimaiatiir 9g [rene Sa.g9 ) TOTALS: $19,533368 $126,864 315,866) $2308.42 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 Net Benefit = ($1209.73) Bene fitCost Rato = 0.94 GS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Altersative Project Iaput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — Ma} Average Annual MWh, June - Sepember: Total Annual E Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%): 45 Infaton Raw (%) $$ —————— Discount Raw (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi 3 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon #1, Low Fuel =2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 [Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High 3 High SummerLoad Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Mult plier. 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWb): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Esergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 3276241 Net Benefit = $1, 1 BenefitCost Rato = 1.09 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY tom Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANAL YSIS [Name of Alternative: f Allisos Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro i | | Diesei j | PV PV MWh Saal. Needed PV Fuel PV | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost_| Useadle Fue! Cost MW) Savings O&M Savings | 1992 | Sol 0 | 0 soses[ so] 1993 | $0 | soy 0 31,136 a) 194 | 30] 30 | 0 31,956 sol CSO 195 Py soy 0 934 $0 30 1996 | sol 30 0 33,948 30 x 1997 so] $0 0 35,034 so $0 k 198 | $12321.128 | $268,764 | 15,434 20,646 $706,924 $118.517 1999 | 30] $257,190 15.434 21.653 $685,795 $13.413 2000 $0| $246,115 15.434 m2] seva.oss|_$108.530] L 2001 | so] $235,517 15.434 Ses _ sss s45__s103. 56, 2002 so] $25,375 15,434 25261 2003 so BS 670 SO | 2004 30] a] isa3al Sosa] 28992] $600,980] $91,009 | 2005 $0 ssa08 isaza[soss|sasez| 8576674] $87,090] 2006 | $0 $188,991 1sa3a]Soas[ 32962] $558,684] $8339 2 | So] _sisossz]tsa3a] Sass] 35,059] $541,174] $79,751 so] $173,064] 154s] sass) 3289] ss30.a02| $76,316 = po sot si6ssi2f isasa soso | 39375] $513,558] 1324 2oiof sof sissago] saa] saga] 6x7 | $97,181) Ce eee eee be oof Sof stasizs[ saga] saga] 41617 | — $460,538] $63,996 2013 so] sisgsr6]tsasa saga] anor | $440,706] 561240 | nos] so] sm7i73| 1544] saga] «117 sa03.soa| $56.0 zoe] sot siztooe [sas] sasatats17 | $386,189] $53,665 got sol sitsase[ sas saat asi | $369,559] $51 zosf sof] sitsaaitsazat saz} aagt7 | $s3.6as] $49,142 zoist Sot Siow tsaa] saga] ner7 | sageis] $47,026 2@0 sol sioz.0so[ saat saat ary] $223,843 $45,001 2@1 $0 | sage] 4.67 |___— $309,898 | $43,063 202 | so $93,450 | cose] at17 | __—$296,553] $41209 2003 sol swan] saga] sos2| 617 | 583,783] $99,434 | 2@4 sof swss7s[ saa saga anor | sam. sea] $37,736) 2@s so] ssiasot saa saz] anor] ss9.g6s] $36,111 zest oT seat saa saset gr] sag.o78| 534.556 207 sof suseg] saa soszt sr] $37,969] $3,068 | rms] Sots] tsaza] sose| anor] sara 31 saa | zest so} sezg70f saga] saga or | szs7gig| 30281 | 261 so] sazsest saa] saga] anor | si99ss2]_ $27,730 | {22S ses saat saat 4ngi7 | $190,959] $25,535] Last sot sg7seat sasa | sag2 |r| $2736] $25,393 rast sot sss tisasa] saat anor | 174.867] $4 299 206] so] soago | saga] saga] aor7 |] 60,131] $2252 2037 so] saszes| ses] saga] anor? | ss3z3s] $21293] zaof so sais saa saat er] soz] $19,499] 2040 so] seit saa] saat ai] 134279] 818.659] zoif so] suas sa3a] save gr] sisao7] $17,856] zouz] sot sagt isase[sosz tan s7] siza.gea | $17,087] 2o3] sol soso sae] sas aa gr7 | sirrgeo| $16,351 | 2044 so] sass] suse] saga] anor] sient] $15,647] 2ois[ sot soss[ sae sat ener] $107,753] $14,973] zou so] sags saa saat anor $103.13] $14,328 27] so] stipes] sase] saat ang | seer] 813,711 | gos] sof soo sae stesso TOTALS: $12321,128 $5,550 5 $16,770,023 $2,447,530 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $276241 BenefitCost Ratio = 1.09 GS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Sy 6-7 Sunn EUR Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation Alternative Project Iapst Capital Cost (1992 $): Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June — September: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%): 45 Inflaton Rate (%): 0 Discouat Rae = : 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fue! =2): 2 ‘Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/AWh. 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High High Summer Load Mulfpler. Winter Load Mulipler: Soiomon Gulch Summer Energy 03 07 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca Savi x Net Benefit = Bene fitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io- AD ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alteraative: Bad—Use Coaservation + PV Pv Mwa sec in t YEAR P Cost O&M Cost Useable sad ears 192 | so eT 1993 $411.19 $0 3s] Sass] ator S1.783] $36) 1994 $0 30] 69 1995 | so | so | 110 sont gost ssa] $950 1996] sol sol ws] sors] 33783] sca] $1380 197 so] $0 27] sors] 3797] stipe] $1,902] 1998 | sO $0 299 sor] 3s] 325s] 222 | 1999 $0 so 3% $077 36750] Sta.95o] 2.472 | 2000 | ~30] 30 38 $0.79 37787 | 316.986 [2.735 2001 $0 $0 wil sasol ass] si8.673[ $2,967 | 2002 | $0] so] as] Sasi] sao | 0270] 8179 | 2004 F $0 gu sass] zag | 5.460] 85,521] | 2005 $0 $0 yoo] sass] as37s| sauss| $5,764 | 2006 $0 $0 rif sos] 47289] sao] $5,976 | | not SOC sats] ao sor yf saigi2] $6162) zoot sof so essay 5542] sasags| $6738] ros sop soo sae sosit sot 8 | so} 0 | 0 | gan} singe} 2015 p sof sof of sagt szosif sof 80 2018 soos | srs | 20] 7] ost oT soto sue} ssi] So] [amo sop sof of sas szosif sof 88 amit sof oo sagt stosif so] 8 zt sop soo sage stosi] so] 8 zest soto] soe ssn so] 8 | zesf sof soo sage srosif go zest sof soo saat szosi| so 8 zes[ SOT sagatszosif so 80 (a7 so soo sat srosit so 8 zest sof oo sagt szosif sot 2mgf sof sof of sont toss so] 0 2eo[ sof sof of sagt szosif so] 80 orf soso sae stasis 8 2e2f sof sof of saga sos ofS zu3[ oP so of saat stosif so 8 zes[ sof gop of sant stosif sot 8 er] soso sae srosif so zest go soo sae sts] sot 8 eof gogo of sasat tosis go zoof goss sts] so zoif sot goto soe stasis] so S| 2042 }—_9e} gp} ot gas) sigs} ee TOTALS: $411,199 x $536,535 $80,205 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = 5205541 Bene fitCost Rato = 150 G7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | Real Interest Rate (%): 45 | Inflauon Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Vana ble O&M Savin; /k Wh): $0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used ww. Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Summa {| Benefit: Average a Annual Displaced Used Diese! (MWh Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Pie emma =e Allison Lake Stand—Alone Cie [sien] oa 1564 Solomon Guich — Lower Intake ise a sone Solomon Gulch ~ Raise Spillway 5 feet 1500 Solomon Guich — Raise Spillway 32 feet eee 13240 Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro TEETER 15434 End—Use Conservation Low 1 eae 540 (OC ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | |Altermative Project Iaput IF | Capitai Cost (1992 $): $22329.434 | Sar Year 1998 [Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh. June - September | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 27,396 | Standard Input plete} Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflaton Rate (% 0 Discount Rae (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/W): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1. Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWb 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low SummerLoad Multiplier 03 Winter Load Multiplier. 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 : Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca; Savings = 8,089 Net Benefit = $14,949613 BenefitCost Rato = 151 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i6=Agr=22 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tuanel wi with Hydro if j Diesei | PV | PV |; MWh Sigal. Needed | PV Fuel PV |__YEAR ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost MWh Savia O&M Sev. 192 so | op $0.82 | 16230 | 30 $0 1993 | $0 | $0 | 0! $0 $0 1994 so] $0} 9 A 30 $0 1995 SO} so! oO} $0.86 17507 | $0) $0 1996 | $0} | 0] $0.88 17941 $0 so 197] 30! sof of $0.89 18379 30 2 1998 $24,825 635 $211.171 | 1882 $091 0 $1,032,451 $457,449 | 1999 | $0 $202,078 | 19,269 $0.92 0 $1,023,083 | $448,152 2000 | sol $193,376 19,721 $0.94 0 $1,024,758 $438,906 2001 = $185,049 | 20,177) 30.95 0 $1,014,463 | $229,722 \ 2002 | $0 $177,080 20.638 sox[ | $1,003,858 $420,608 2003 | = $169,455 21,103 $097 ~ =. $411572 2004 $0 $162,158 $0.99 $989.965 $402,621 | 2005 | $0 $155.175 pos] sows $970,429 $33.761 2006 sol siag.ag3] sont 00] 8958.83) $384,999 | 2007 | % [sionf oT s947,022 $376,341 | 2008 $135,979 sug |_o._sseast $367,789 2010 | $124520 . = | ss 745 $351,026 2011 = Psuis.iss[ aoe] 07] | 8888.853] $335,910 2012 so] _sirson7|_—aa | So7 | stsosm7] seas 2p tC‘ KO: CSHO9I7) ~—S—sihaoa] So] 83.950] $307,603) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2@0 203 2@4 2@6 207 2@8 2@9 am TOTALS: Net Benefit = [ams| so sensu ange sto] to sar9.9s7| $181,382 [awa sof ssassif aaasetsno7f oT $385.142 $145,550 (as || sta sr] a | el rs (es 9] saa] 2aasat gov] $309,057 | $116,797 (2g so seas aasa | sio7 fo 5295,749| $111,767 so] sioasig| 2aaca| sao} 878.899] $294,357 sof sort daacat suv] of 8745.358 $231,681 sof seis] ease] so7] 873261] $259.551| po sof soisort aga stom] ot sem sa7] $257,944] so] seseu[ 2aaoat sor] to sasz.ass] $246,836) Po sof sist taaogst so7| 598,113 | $226,035 zeot oT sarst ease sto | to 547.710] s6.987 so] sm2es|____2aaa] 107] 0] _ssva25] _si907] PO sof sez37 asa suo | $501,555 $189,544 so] soism[ 2aagat stor sas9z9] $173,571 sol ssasn0[ aaa suor] ot Sas9,sii] $166,097 [sol sse3e3[aasaT suo $20 S84 $158,945 [sof ssagss[ ease sao] ot sao.a73] $152,100 so] sass] 2aaga stv] ot s68.ss7] $139,283 sol serzsot aaacat nov] to ss2,66] $133,285) aes[ SO Saze6[ aaa siov] to sg] $122,053) [sof scot ease sono 283.013] $106,955 | PO sof 35306] ease sio7| 270,826 | $102,349 se aaa asia] __ sa $24,825 635 $4.360,962 $29,345,768 $11512.402 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3 39 $14,949613 Bene fitCost Ratio = 151 Wt/ MC. a “A ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LA ©E RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECO.:OMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staad—Alone Alternative Project lapat Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — September: | Total Annual Emergy (MWh): Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Rae (% 45 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low SummerLoad Multiplier: 03 28600 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = $3.278,09 Net Benefit = 14,914,333 Bene fitCost Ratio = 0.68 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Tesactays ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staad—Alone T PV | PV PV —_ so| | 30 so i so] sO 1 $0 so 1994] $0] a 0] $0.85 17.077 | _ 30] Ey | 1995 | $0 so | 0 $0.86 17,507 $0 $0 1996 | so} 0 0 $0.88 17,941 | $0 $0 197] so} $0 $0.89 18379 | $0 0 1998 | 10608 } $230 369 15,645 $0.91 3,177 $858,179 $380.235 1999 | $0! $220,449 15.645 $0.92 3.624 1 $530,664 $363,861 2000 | x $210,956 15,645 $0.94 4.076 $82.959 $348,192 2001 $0 $201,871 15,645 $0.95 452 $333,198 2002 | sol siszi7s]—sgas]sags[ a3 | $760,994] $318,850 2003 | so | ——_sisaaeo [seas] sag7|____ sass |_srag.o $305,120 | 2004 | $0 $176,899 is 2.8 $291,980 | 2005 $0 $169281 6.403 $279,407 | 2006 $0 $161,992 15,645 sie sa $2673375 2008 $0 [7856 | sag.sz7| $24.84 | 2009 30 esas at $234,300 zoo] —Sss—s—=C‘ SO) ~CS3S.840| tsa] S06 | 8,80 | $224211 2011 2 i 0) i $119,036 15,645 $519,894 el 475 ze [sot sissiof seas suo7] gap | say7.Sos] $188,014 zos[ sot sios,oos{ seas] sug7| tse | sa76oe2| $179,918 [og [sot sions] seas sug7] ga sassssit $172,170] 207, so] ssi] seas sxo7| tap | sass.963] $164,756) zo [sof sassai]soas{ sto | sso sara] $157,662 zoi9f SOT sono] tseas| sno7] gas |e] $150,872] aot Sof sear tseast sio7] gap | saaoss] $144,375} zeit So] sasrost seas] suo7[ gap | s365.se2] $138,158] zat so smoot seas] sio7[ gga | sug.g39| $132,209] 2m3[ SOT ses] sous] sio7] ga Tsar] $126,516] zas[ sot sso issasT sio7] tap] moss] $121,068] zes[ oT smi seas] suo7] sag] $306.563] 115.854 2es[ SOT Sess [seas sig7[ seg 3.361] 110.865 | 2a7y So snare seas] suo7[ sag 280.729] $106,091 | zes[ sot seisos| seas sio7[ geo sss.cuo] $101,523 2eo[ sof ssescol seas] suo7] geo | ss7.072| $97,151 | [zai [sof ssas00 [seas suo7[ age | szasaos| $83,964 2a so sss seas sio7] aga] saszmit $85,133 2u3[ sof sass] seas] sio7] tga] sziss7o| $8467 zus[ sof sasstoe | iseasf sno7] sap | sig7.4oa| $74,502 zur] sot saizegtiseas[sio7] sap] siso,769| $68,315 zuof sot srgort seas] sio7] ga] $16ss3s| $a. 8 | zoo] sof s62e9f seas] sio7] tga siseco7| $99,864 zor] sof serv] seas] sio7] seo | sisises| $57,286 202] sof sz] seas] suo? tsa] stasoss] $54,819] zo] sof saigas seas] sio7] se si3gsi2| ss2.459/ 2os| sof oat iseas| sio7] kw sizrtis| 548.038 | zug] sofas seas] sio7] sap siznsao| $45,969 2o7[ so sases2] seas] sio7] tT sii6scn| $43,990] gous sof soo sor aaa so] 0 TOTALS: $41210508 $4,757,413 $19,923313 $7,852,336 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 53 39 BenefitCost Ratio = 0.68 /0F ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Galch — Lower latake Alternative Project Iaput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — Ma’ Average Annual MWh. Juae — Sepember Total Annual Ene: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (% 0 Discount Rate (% }: 45 Variable O&M Savi Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel =2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 22600 Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capaci yy Savings = 30 Net Benefit = 3968,676 BenefitCost Ratio = 1.78 Yl, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY \O—ASr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Altersative: - Suomen Galch — Lower Intake a i Diesei | en eae Needed | ProiectCost | Ok M Cost Useable pelea | Q4Wh) $0 sol 2 199. $1,081.118 | $7,656 | i so] $7326 | 1995 | $0 | $7,010 | 1996 | so 708 197 $0 $6,420 1998 » $6143 1999 | $0 | $5,879 | c f F 2000 | so] $5625 | 1,025 $0.94 18696 $53.262 mie 2001 | $0] $5.383 | 1,025 $0.95 19,152 | $51535 | 2002 | $0 $5,151 1,025 $096 19,63 $49,857 | 2031 am $4,930 1,025 $0.97 [ern si “2004 | so] 34717 1,025 $299 2005 so $4514 1.025 $0.99 [$e soe 2006 so $4320 1,025 $1.00 | $43,626] $17,517] | 2007 so $4134 1,025 $1.01 [sez] $16,763) 2008 $0 $3,956 105[ 0376 | $1,198 | $16,041 2009 30 53.785 1os[sios[ 70 | 2 | $15,350 2010 | $0. sot ost S06] 2.069] $8 489 | $14,589 zof sof sacs os] stor] ago | $37,196 $14,057 202{ sol saan] 10] sor] _2a09| _— sasssa] __s13.s2| pos sof sar toast sto7} 23469] seoei | $2872] 2oef sof goss tors] ston} zaaco | $32,595 $2318 20s [sof sponsor | 23 eeo | $31,191 | $11,788 2o6[ sot samen noas| stor} eco so gas | $11,280 zo] sof seen toast sno7] aco son ses] $10,794] 2018 sosa7[ os] sao7]aaaep | 827333] $10,329 2019 Po szess fost so7| 23469 | $25,156 59.885 2@0 s2333 [os sto7| ee | $5,029 | $9.459 zmif so] soos oas| stor} ee} saz 9s $9,052 202 Po sais [ozs sio7} 23469] $2,920 62 2e3] sot some oas| stor | ee] $21,933] 204 $1,956 is | st] a9 | sn g09 1922] | 2@s Psusrz [os sio7] 23469] sos] $7590 206 Po sarenT os suo7]_ aoa | st9220/ $7283 207 Po surg Toa sive sig3e2] $4951] ows] So] sage nos stor] seen 17.600] $6651 | 2@9 ee eee $0 s sisis is ie 2080 S02 os] sio7f 23469] st6.7] $6091 | 261 so [stesso] 20s [iss | 09] 2082 $0 sisis] ows sig7] aes sia7s9] $5578 | zu3f of size os suv] zag 36.3] $5337) 2034 sof sizsofoas stor] ae | siz sis] $5,108 | zus{ gol sagas] ors] stv | seco suzess] seas 2036 sol siiss[ aos] sav asco sizz76] $4,677 re7] sof sutosfoassio7]aaaeosinga3| 84476 | os] sosnose Toms sio7 [aso | sin3a3 $4283 | 2039 }_21_ sign] ages} ee | snes) se TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,566,785 $641,104 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $0 Net Benefit = $968,676 Bene fitCost Rato = 1.78 VES) L6G ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | oak Name of Altermative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet Alternative Project Iaput Capital Cost (1992 $ Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Infaton Raw (% 0 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 1992 Diese] Cost (SW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low | SummerLoad Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Maltper 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput(MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $0 Net Benefit = $1,345,551 BenefitCost Ratio = 188 nd ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io= Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Altermative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | | | PV | YEAR | Project Cost 192 sO) | 1993 _$0| 19s so ne 195 sO 1996 $1.326.913 Hi 197 so 198 $0 1999 | so | 2000 | $0 | 2001) so! { 2002 $0} | 2003 30] 2004 | 30 32 | 2005 so ism] sag] 2asas | $66,021 | $26,789 2006 30 1,500 21,028] $03,843| 825.635 | 2007 $0 1,500 ase] $61730/ $24,531] 2008 | 30 iso] i803 oon | $6290] 823.475 | | 2009 | $0 isool sos} as] 58.277] 52,464 [ 2010 | $0 8 __sa. sios[ gee] $56,325 | 21497 2011 $0 $1.07 2994] $54,433 | $20571 202 $0 $4,976 1so[sio7[ a $2,089 $19,685 2013 $0 $4,761 1s, Sio7| apa | Sapsas| 818.837] 2014 30 $4556 1soo] i074 7,700] $18,026 | zos{ So] Sasso soot sto7f goa | sas gas| 817.250] zoe] So] saz soo sno7 | goa | sazsso| $16,507 207, So] 3993 soot sieve sat zg9| 515,796] zos[ sof saan] ts] so7| oe | s9.999| 8.116] zoisf Sot saese[ soot so7] gpa | 838.277] 814.465 | 2@0 $0 psio7] 4 | 36,628] $13,842 | 201 | So Errata ge 202 sof saz so sto7] ages 542] 812.576 2m3[ sof 3066] sf sio7] oes sz097] $2,130 | 204 $0 soou[ sot snore sors] i108 | essa sag | sen | sno7] age} sia) sa 206 sof sacs7[ soot sio7} os s.z7] $10,629 207 so] sas] 1500] _si07| _zagea| _sa5915| 10.172] ms] So] seco soo sio7] goa 55.756] 89.734 | 209 sol sassa[ soot sio7 | gna | sca] 593315 | mofo sass sof sio7] ons ssa] $913 | 2@1 sol saiss[ sof sivas | szsro] $8530] 2e2f sof sesso] sio7] a | $2 S98 | $8,162 2a3[ sot sige soot sort gpa $0668 | $7811 204 sol sigso[ soot sor] goa] 89,78 $7,474 2a sof sigos[ sof sio7] gee sig.g27]_ $7153 | 2m6[ sof sao sof siz gest] 8584s | 2a7f sof sassef sof snore 517,332 $6550 | zeus] so sseat soot sio7| 9a | 516.585 | sass 209 so] sisis| sof sieve sis.s71| 2040 St a 2061 }_ao}__siges| seo} sig7 | ___zasee}| siesta ss SIs iN ip 2042 sol susp] soot si07|_ gna 813.908 5, 2om3{ so] siz soo] sio7 fg] 813,309 | $5,030 2044 sof sian st stoves | 812.736! M35 8 zosT sot sites soot sor age sizis7] $4,606 | BORG] LAAN 90 TA TUT gg ee Vabeetar | TEN Te Seg. ed te page| A Tg ft aN Seo Eta acre TT eae eager ge gee Cc a TOTALS: $1326,913 $207,809 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = $1,345,551 $2,058,129 $822,143 107 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | — Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alternative Project laput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October - May” Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual Energy (MWh): Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rae (%): 45 Inflaton Rae (%) 0 Discount Raw (%). 45 Vanable O&M Savings (Sk Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/Wh. 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low SummerLoad Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Oupput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 039 Net Benefit = $7,123,193 BenefitCost Ratio = 136 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY To Apr—3e ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alteraative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spilway 32 fect SCS 7 ‘ 1 i PV PV MWh [_YEAR ProjectCost__| OckMCost Useable \ 192 $0 | so] so 193 “sol 30] 30 1994 $o| $0 | $0 195 $0} $o | $0 196 so| “30! $0 1997 so x0 0 so! 1998 $19.533.868 $6143 13,240 | $091 552 $726.257 $221,784 199 | sO $5,879 | 13.240 $0.92 | 6.029 $02,971 $307,927 2000 $0 | $5,625 | 13.240 $09] 6.481] —«$687,988| $294,667 2001 | $0 $5.383 | 13240 $0.95 —* $281,978 2002 so] $5,151 13.240 $0.96 $644.01 ae 835 | 2003 | so] $4,930 [ase sae as | seen ae I 2004 | $0 $4717 13240 $0.99 3 I 205 | $0} $4514 13240 $0.99 san} iiss $236.456 2006 | so [sesso | sna ele 2007 | so] SIs] toon] mT $544874] $216,530] 2008 | $0 i i i $207,205 2009 so 785 0 [——si0s 10955 ——-s514399 | s1982a3] 2010 z 62 Psno6 fsa} sap7.sei| $189,744 | 2011 $3.466 [sor] sa] $480,463 $181,573 ee a (208 so] save] 13200] $107] 11286] saag.gre| __166272| 2014 sol saxo3s[tazsot Sov] 2sa]seno2s| $159,112] ois] SOC eof 8.07] asa] sassas| $145,704] [oC SOCC‘éS G62 tgs] 07] ans] s368.g4s| $139,429] [ow oT sasar taro stor] .2sa] $353,058] $133,425 zogf Sof zea] 3240] suo] tn2s4 $337.884] $127,680 zo sof saz aso] .o7 | 25a] $323,305) $12.12 amit so] soe tszeosno7 fn zsa $309,383] $116,920 zea sot sass J tgzsoTsno7] 1254] $296,060| $11.88 2e3] Sof soma aan suo] tn2s4 $283,311] $107,067 zest sof sags azsot stom] tsa} sa. $102,457 20s 0 saat gest srt asa gsr aes 205 $0 31.791 [____suo7| 11254] sass] 3.03 227 so[ sur [ a0 suo [nase [sre] s.r [9 $0 ss0 | 13200) si | nase esa D216 2030] so] _s1soa]| 13340 s.o7| 1154] sa0u.uss 576 208 86 | p00 | st. 07 | 1s | se $55.32 zmof sof ston 3zsoT stor 254] si4o.os9] $52,941 | mo] sof sez ao sio7ftn2sa] $134,056] $50,662 2041 asta aaa zoat so] sain iaasof suo] tse] sizsis| 2045 | sales oust sot sag amo stor tsa $102,941 $38,903 27} sot st azo suo7| nasa sa sos] $7228 | 268 | HILT ga {TERI eel U) { SERIA 97] Munn pg] SV 9] ena 99 TOTALS: 319533368 $126,864 316,860,637 $6,645.50 Net Benefit = BenefitCost Rato = 109 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—50 YEAR ANALYSIS | oa of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Altersative Project laput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October - May: Average Annual MWh, Juse — Sepember: Total Annual E bh): Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% 45 Infaton Raw (%) 0 Discowat Rae = 4s Variable O&M Sew: Wh): 0.03165 Fue! Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diese! Heat Rate BIU/Wh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Mulfpler. 03 Winter Load Mult pier 0.7 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owput (MWh): 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca) Sevings = $3,278.89 Net Benefit = $12,307 642 Bene fitCost Rato = 1.72 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL —S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Diesei lo—Apr-92 [Name of Alternative: PV PV MWh Sil. Needed YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost __| 192 | $0 so] of sam | 1993 | so| so | 2 $083 1994 | sol 30 | 0 $0.85 1.077 | 1995 | so] + ol $0.86 507 1996 | so} so of $0.88 197] so] so] of $0.89 198] $12,321,128 | $268,764 | 15.434] $0.91 3.388 | $846,605 $375,105 1999 | so] $257.190 15.434 $0.92 3.835 $819,461 $358,953 2000 | 30] $246,115 15.434 $0.94 4287 $801,995 $343,496 | 2001 $0 $235,517 | Ba 00 4 am $775,987 $228,704 2002 | $0 $225,375 15,434 $750,731 $314,550 | 2003 | $0 eal __15,434 Ce & 00s | 2004 $0 $206 382 isa3a] ago] 639] 708240] 288.043 | | 2005 $0 $197,495 15.434 $0.99 este | semis ars 2006 7) $188,991 15,434 $1.00 $253,769 2007 30 $180,852 15,434 sioi] 7578] «$635,165 | $252,411 2008 sol si73,06a[ saa 03] 8.067 | 034g] S241 541 | [209 so si6s6i2]saza tos| sei] $999,620] $231,140 [om SO sisgazo] sasa S06] 9.060] $579,546] $221,187 zonf So] sisiose[ saga] si07] 9.060 | $560,080] $211,662 [om sot siastzst saat sio7] 9.060 | — $535,962] $202,547] pos so sisge76] sas] si07] 9.060 | size | $193,825 zou] sof siszgos| 43a] $07] 9.060 | $490,796 $185,479 [ors sof sim} sae | 07] 9,060 | 569.61] $177,491 zoe] Sot size] sa3e| 07 | 9.060 | 449.437] $169,848 | zow{ sof stigese[ isa3a} 2.07] 9.6 | $430,083] $162,534] 2018 so] sien saa] sto7| 9.060 | $411,563 $155,535 [of sot $106.642] suze} $07] 9.060 | 93.840] $148,838 | [mot sot siozoso] saa] sio7] 9.060] $376,880) $142,428 zmif sol sorgss| tsa3a] Sov} 9.060 | $360,651] $136,295) mi] sof sm asot sae] sto7 | 9.0 | $345,121 | $130,426 m3 So spare] tsasat sor] 9.0 | $30,259 $124,809 204 sol sass7s[ saa] suv] 9.0] $316,037] $119,435 zest so saiasof saat sio7[ 9.060 | $302,428 $1429 zesf sot sm sass] sto7] 9.060] $289,405 | $109,370 sr sre [se st 9 |e] ste [peg geo isee roe |tr|nass SR MB 220 ta sears |__| sa ss] san || a 2m3] Sot sg7saa] saa] so7] 9.0 | gases | 580368 | 24 so] sss.xo4| tsasa| S07 | 9,060 | sams sos] $6,907) 205 }__geo}_ serait sae} sig7| eget sient _ sae 204 so |_saas]__goe}____sigr|__sae|__ see _ saa TOTALS: $12.321,128 $5550315 $19,654613 $7,746 G4 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = $3278.69 Net Benefit = $12,807 642 JH 19 //A ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Alternative: Ead— Use Conservation Alteraative Project lapat Capital Cost (1992 $) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember. Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflaton Rat (%) 0 Discount Raw (%): 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/AWh 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): SummerLoad Mult Winter Load Multiplier. 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput h): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Esergy Output 1»): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $243.816 BenefitCost Ratio = 159 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY o> Agr =D ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS ‘Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Coaservation $0 | 1993 $411.19] 30] | 1994 $0} $0 1995 | sO) 0) 1996 | sol = 165 197] $0) $0 | 231 021 | 1998 | $0 | sol 299 18533 $15,875 $7,034 1999 so; $0 | 336 $092 18933, sae $7,825 2000 | 30] $0 | 389 $0.94 19332 $8,656 | | 2001 | $0] 0} “i $0.95 ee $9391 2002 | 30| 30 amu[soss[ ais sa017| $10,063] 2003 so] 30 ses{sag7] 20536] $25,711 | $11971 | 2005 | $0 $0 oul saggy] 2asag | scas| 511.550] 2005 sO $0 esi] sag] 2367] sg] 812.161 | 2006 $0 $0 mf too 2.790] 31406] 812.610] 2007 $0 $0 7e5 0 Co ghpp fe ae geri | $13,001 goal go gg gs $1333 a ) } |) 1 ee $13,624 2010 HE go] sing] 23527, 36325] $13,864 | 2011 ios] so7[ 23469] $37,205 $14,060 zon sof sof os stoves] $37.20] $4217] eae ee 1 | ry Epes | alates go’ Aetatatel adsl gg) i tcteTaaP aN g | eset tigpg7.|EUTITLT phope | dalebeiaetclele gg | ENTSE 99) 2696 | ALO SCUSRTRACE inf US gf AAT Ng gr. LNA NL ag RTD Ti gg | HSNO | | aN NES IAT TE gg TPR LT Leger: [eat ag LT gg | ET gg 2006] TEAL 90) anna | Aesetelaaet oi | whtalslf a. ANTAan 24,4 | ealtehnehaeta 96 | sternal 90) 20a eninghAete 9 | CACKAT Seats 9) edetetae LNT | CONN Wears $1.07: ne davai 2Gap TTT a go | ened $0 | A | We leLON NADAS ONs $6 fk ATLL | AeA NDT | HERAT NTT SRT | AEN aT aa HeRL NaI gp UIST leteaTA 9 | esa | Acetate of cADML nts | MfafeV vi ggg] Rarotonga vedi gg | ctarettcteia ga | as | MAL Lanna ASAT SN] WOPOUATN ARAN gg: | UN 94g] FDLOL LAL gf eae 99 F779 EE} EE) EE) TD TE -) E" 3 7 1 ) eT a) |) 2@s i Pn nn rn nn) ee} 296 | Ta AR$ | MANGAS ey | ARN] OMALSAoNVn $0.7 okolnnnk ayaa | oA IeAgVoF 90 | cine eninTetnt $0} ene UT Te TT eee ea 0 $0 | TST TT ate uss $2-87. Te aeege | ITE ego FO AISI $0 | CeR8 | TARR gc Ueda AE $f HOE ETL eg dened eee sega. | 2 nena peep | tebe alae gg AAT gO) 2029 [PEI go [er Engg OO rg fa 107g SL aeap feoTr Wlel g@ 10 UT ge 26030] Lan A | AAMT esas | ACTON gy | detonatwal 247498) | HNaTAnD TaITaTAR 99 | tafe 90) 20511] ASD TAAL | a GRAIAANON gael | SN TRL ga.g7 | SPT a | minal havaelse go | tacTavtetrie 99) 2g | ANNAN oy | FLAN NDB 9 ERR TION | ACUTE S77] waa eo Pech nanele a 99 aataNtoleaeED 9 2083 einai 90 | ET 90 Tale S087 [eR ELE EN g8 | £20: | USCS oy eM gy | AAD ASNON | en Ne 9 WANDS pag Wd SNeI eg | NevabTetentsTNT gD | eT To Egg | CT elo [eee cigs Eee et ge 99] 2088 100 e $F gg FTE TI @ YT SF |e CT Lag) aee9 | see ge eof ccter egaon | Cr eee ae] eis] 20000 | 1 NTA TAN 9 5 HOUTA gL NON TEL MAK Yee gla Na a UN gy] etal ddan ga AES | go gp gg gh ger gaa ge go] TOTALS: $411,199 30 465 $189,051 Deferred Diesel Cap Savings = so Net Benefit = $243,816 1/13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Summer Load Multiplier: Winter Load Multiplier: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro End~Use Conservation Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): o Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savin: kWh ): $0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High Medium PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Solomon Gulch Summer En Output (MWh): Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Summary ; Allison Lake Tunnel with Hvdro aa — Allison Lake Stand— Alone gegen La aera Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Medium ; Maa Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet 2 Meg [ Medium | 1] $5,064,922 | Metieg [1] siomseooe| ta Medios [1] Soese| 15] 16-Apr-92 Average Annual Displaced Diese! (MWh 26745 15645 1@s 1500 12240 15434 540 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | |Altermative Project laput | Capital Cost (1992 $): $2329.44 | Sart Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ $275,000 Average Annual MWh, October — Ma 27.3%, Average Annual MWh, June - Sepember: 0 Total Annual Energy (MWh 27,396 | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflation Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%). 45 Vanable O&M Savi skWh 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel=2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rae BIU/AWh. 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 4530. Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium : SummerLoad Mulipier 03 Winter Load Mulfpher. 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput(MWh 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = BenefitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY ALTHORITY es ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alteraative: Allison Lake Tease! with Hydro | | | | Diesel | | PV \ BY. | oMWa Val. | Needed | PV Puel PV | YEAR | ProjectCost__ | O&MCoar | Useable FuelCost | (MWh) | ‘Sama O&M Sewage | 1 so $0 0. $0.82 13.569 $0 30) 23 x0 30 0 $0.83 | 14,336 | $0 $0 so! so 0 $0! so $0 $0 0 so $0 so! $0 | 0 $0 $0 so » 0} 30. $0} S24 825535 $211,171 19280 | $0.91) 0} $1,057,576 | $468 582 | - - — a —— + so $202,078 | 20287 | $0.92 | 0] $1,077,112 $471,814 $0] $193,376 21,376 | ke 0 $1,110,753 $475,738 sol $185,049 | 2519 | 0 $1,137.37 es. n9 $0 | $177,080 | 23.895 eel 0 pee see $0 $169.455 | 2200] sag7TSa.ts.26] $491,550] $0 $162,158 | 26548 sos] | $1218252| 3.495.465 | $0] $155,175 27396 soso] S31] $1.205.813| $489271 so] $148,493 27396 $1,166,034] $468,202 | 3007 $0] $142,098 27396 | 3,39 | $1127.45] $448,040 | | 208 | $0 $135,979 27396 sio3] asco] sito1i4o] $428,746] ja —— 2 2009 | so $130,124 27396 sios| 6.40] $1,064.366[ $410.23 | 2010 | $0) $124520 27396 $1.06 7.990} _$1.028.718| $392.616 2011) so $119,158 27396 sio7] 7.990 | $994,166] $375,709] | 2012 | $0 | $114,027] 273396 | $1.07 1990] $91,385] $359,530] 203 $0 sio91i7] 27396] 07] 7.990] $910,387] 5344.048 | 2018 | $0 $104,418 27306] s.07| 7.990] sig] $29.232] [aos so sega as6f sio7| 7.990 | sa3.c69| 535.055] 2016 $0 $5618 rae] 07] 7.990] $757,769 S01 88 | nur} sof ssison rage __sug7}_7ga0|_ss.16|_u8 505) [os so ssrsext 273e6[sio7f7.990 | $730,541] $276,082 [mot so sao 36| s.g7| geo] sa. | $252,816 2mit So] sero ses] sor] gs | seni | $41,929] 202 esas] ase] suet | _s0|_semeou $3151 (2s sos 263] asf sio7] 7990 ss86z26] $21,542] TT 206 $6157 ——396| so | 1950 $513 706 | 5194136] 2@27 z [ssasz0[ 273e6[ sto] sen see $185,776 2@8 | sso3s3[ arses] sno7] 7.990] $470,416) $177,777 a TT CT aot SOT susan] 2ae6[sio7f 790] sear] $162,795 | zeit so] spss aes] sor] | saz] $155,785 2e2[ So] arzsotrae6f sor] 990 | sap4e72| $149,077] 23, SOT Sasa rae6| sno7] 9m] ssr7ase| $142,657] \ zes[ SO] sna ras] sir] 7990] 545.675 | $130,635 207; sos saot aes] stort 7990] $316 545] $119,627) 2ust go] si6z06 fessor |g] sam gna| $114,675 | 2039 | __gof sues} zigee] sunt 790) sap.g70} _ $109,546 a a 7] s100314 2o2[ oT saoaasf 273s6[ sio7] 7.990] $254,012] $85,994 | | 2ou3[ so sat z7ae6] sno7 [7.990] $03,073] $91 361 | TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4360.62 $33, 199,772 $13,022,007 0B Net Benefit = $20313221 Bene fSitCost Rato = 1.70 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr-S2 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone | Alternative Project lapat | | Capital Cost (1992 $) $33,666 932 San Yer 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ $300,000 | Average Anaual MWh. October - May 15,645 | Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember 21,605 | Total Annual Emergy (MWh) 37250 | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Raw (%) 45 | InQaron Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 Vanable O&M Sevi ngs (SkWh 0.03165 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 4390 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium SummerLoad Mulipier: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28500 Solomon Gulch Winer Energy Owtput (MWh): 239800 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 16,883,971 BenefitCost Ratio = 0.63 ALASKA ENERGY ACTHORITY =o ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staad—Aloae ;} ow | YEAR _|_ProtectCost__| 1992 $0 193 30) 194 so 1 195 so 196 so! 197 so 198 0508 $330 369 15.645 $0.91 3.635 $858,179 | $380.235 199 so $220,449 | 15.645 | 3092 462 $530.664 | $363,861 2000 30! $210.956 15.645 30.94 5.731 $812.959 $348,192 2001 so $201,871 15.645 $0.95 = $786.595 | $333,198 202 so $193,178 15,645 30.96 | 3760,994 | $318,850 | 2003 | so] $184,860 a a a 2004 so] $176,899 15645] soso 1ag903| $717,923] $291,980 | 2005 | so sisg28i] S64] S99] tag] Seus.oo2| $279,407) 2006 so $161,992 15,645 sioo] 3698 [$665.86] $267375] | 2007 | so | sissoie] —sts.as| S01] S150 [$643.9] $255,861 | | 2009 | Psiost aim | sores] $234,300) i 2010 | $0 Saale aera ea) 2011 so sso] seas] s.07| 19.7en | $567.737| $214.56 200 | sol siza3oa] sous] s07] 9.741 |. 8543289] $205.316] 203 so] siss.o36]tSgas[ 07] 9.741] s59.894] $196.47] zowf Sot sisssiof seas] sio7] 974i | $497.56] $188,014] zost sot $09,005] seas] sio7| gran | $476,082] __ $179,918] 2016 sol sioa3zin] seas] sto7] gran | sassssi] $172,170] zo7] CSO ssi] seas] suv] gran] $435,963] $164,756] now] SOT s9sszu] seas] sao7] gai] saz] $157,662] 209] $0] so1ao7] 154s] 197] 1971 | $9226] 150872] 2mot SOT seas] sous] suv] 9.741] 32.033] $144,375 | zeil CS] sass7os[ seas] 107] 97a | ss sez] $138,158] 202 sol saoo| asses] stv] 7a] sug39] $132,209 | 23, CSO GSI] sous] sor] 9.741] s3a.77a| $126,516) 2@4 so smaso] iseas[ sio7] 974i | s20.358 $121,068 zest SOT Sto aseasTsio7{ i741] $306.563] $115,854 | 206 so] sor.ep[assas[ sor [i741] $293,361] $110,865 | 207 sol sexx issas|sig7] ig 7a | $280,729] $106,091 | estes seas] sio7] i9.7ar | sas.s4o] $101,523] [nest Sot ssxscofiseas[ sio7] 97a s3s7o72] $97,151 | ool SO C886 3ST isgas[ sor] 974i] sa6.001| $92,967 | awit CSO] 3900 aseas[sio7] i741 | szas.sos] $88,964 | zw2f SOT SSIS7pTseas[sao7] gai] szasz7i| $85,133 | 23, CSCS seas[ sno7[ igi s2iss7o| 81.467 [pa as gar 19 Tota arg ! zeus; SOT Sasso iseas| sion] gai] si974oa| $74,602 | 2es[ SOT Swazszt sess] sion] t9.7ai | sigs903| _$71389 | 207] SO Sasa seas] suv] gra] $190,769] 68.315 | | 2us[ SO scarf iseas[ stor] gai] si72ces| $65,373 | 2u9, Of sagan iseas[siov[ig.7ai | $i6s.s3s] $62.58 200, SO] $35269 seas sio7] i741] sise.so7| 399.864] zon] SOT Saro7] seas] sio7] igen] $1siss6] $57,286 2042 | spais[ sas sur _aaan |__sasse_ssua TOTALS: $41210508 $4,757,413 $19,923313 $7352.36 Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = ($16,883,971 BenefitCost Rato = 0.63 1/7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lom Apr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~-50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomoa Guleh — Lower latake |Altermative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWb, October - May | Average Annual MWh. June - Sepember | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Raw (%) 45 | | Infaton Raw (%) 0 Discouat Rae (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings (SkWh 0.03165 | Variable O&M Savings (S/W) 08 1S Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 . Average Diese! Heat Rae BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Mulépler 03 Winter Load Multplier: Solomon Guich Summer Exergy Ouput Solomon Guich Winter Eaergy Output Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Caan Savings = x0 Net Benefit = 3958.676 Bene fitCost Rato = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo= Apr =32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gelch — Lower latake i Diesel | | MWh Sigal. Needed PV Peel PV |_YEAR pe oacas Useable Fue! Cost _OAWh Saving O&M Savi ngs 1992 | $0 | 0} $0.82 13569 $0 $0 1993 $1,081,118 | Hal 1.025 | $0.83 13311 | $463,623; __—=—*$31.044] 1994 $0 | $7326 | 1,025 $0.85 14131] $2,425] $29,707 at iprtaree 2 1995 | so] $7,010 | 1,035 $0.86 “15,109 $23,428 1996 | so} $6,708 1,025 | $0.88 16123 $59.281 $27,204 1997 | so! $6.420 | 1,025 $0.89 17209 $57,404 $25,033 1998 | $0 | $6,143 | 1,025 | $091 18255 $56.25 $24,911 1999 | 30 $5,879 1,025 $0.92 19.262 $54,422 $23,839 | 2000 | $0 $5,625 1,025 $094 20351 $53,262 $2812 | 2001 | 30 $5383 | 1,025 $0.95 21,594 $51,535 $21330 | 2002 | $0 $5,151 1,025 | ‘s i $20,890 | 2003 so $4930 1,025 24,179 $19,990 SS SSS SS SS | 2005 $0 $4514 26,902 $18,306 2006 $0 $4320 el | 2007 | $o $4134 [1035] 101] 2970] sea $16,763 2008 8 ise tgs ___sigs__ataet |_saiist)__t.941 2009 | $0 $3,785 | os| sos] 32791 seg] $15,350] 2010 $0 62 = [sio6[ 34361] Saag] $14,689 202 $0 $3317 ro] sio7| 34361] $35.594] $13,452] 203[ SOT saeco sort 3aen] seos1 812.872] ay | so} 3988 |--—_—\ 1908 |—___$1.97]___3asgy | Sees} Sia os} OTe] nos] 07] 331] Siig | $11,788] zoo] SOC S72] os] 07] en] Sas] 11.280) —. PSO] Sez] tos] 7] 3361] 88563] $10,794 | sol sasa7] coos] stor aon] 27333] 510.329] eee 2mol SC SOCSC“‘SSzYT tos] S07] 3361] SS (89.459 2@1 2 EE ae) 1,025 -— se 204 [0 1956] 1.905 [sir | sar] sarge | 792 | zest SOTCSa2] coos] ov] aon] Sacas| 57.590] za6{ gol s.3s3 os] sio7| on] 8376] $4677) a7] sof si 104 | os] stor] 343en | inga3| 84.476 zas[ sof 1,056 | yom] sio7} e133] $4283 | TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,566,785 $641,104 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = x Net Benefit = $968,676 Bene fitCost Rato = 1,78 /A/ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet | |Altermative Project Iaput _ _| [Capital Cost (1992 $): $1, San Year. 1996 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $12,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May” 1 | Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember: 22 | Total Annual Energy (MWh). 1,7@ | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (% 45 Inflation Raw (%): 0 Discount Rate (%) 45s Variable O&M Savi ‘SkWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium | Summer Load Mult plier. 03 Winter Load Mult pher- 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capaciy Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $1,345,551 BenefitCost Ratio = 1.88 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo—Apr-s2 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Alternative: Solomons Gulch — Raise Spileay Se | / ce E=tMirs | EAR. | triacs eae Useable Ealcon eure Sui | 0 al a i iis = 1994 | z = zs 15,156 | He o}__ 1995 x0 of 16134 1996 ey $10,063 | 1,500 | 4 15,648 ro am 197] $0 | $9,629 1,500 | soso | 16,734 | $84,006 $38,096 1,500 $091 17,780 | $2280 $36,456 1.500 $0.92 18787 $79,642 $34,886 2 $0 1,500 $0.94 19876 $71,944 $3384 2001 | $0 $8075 1.500 $0.95 21,119 $75.417 331.946 | 2002 so] —ssam7]— so] Sos] 395s g62| $0570] | 2003 sols s73mati SO] S770 S79] 529.254 2004 $0 $7,076 iso] sage] sous seb.32] 827,994 | 2005 so $6771 1s] sage] 26427] S602 | $25,789 2006 sO $6,480 P 27a] s3.sa3 [525.635 | 2007 c ~ 30, $6201 [zest 61730] 54.531] 2008 $0 $5,934 [3a7a6[ 0290 $23,475 | 2009 $0 $5,678 [32316] 88277] Sas | 2010 0 eis} __sios/_sause|_sseans}__ 7) 2011 $0 | 33886] 54.433] $20,571 | 2018 $0 [ser 1500 ——s1.07] anne | $9999 | 1.116] 2019 sol sa6ss[ soot sav} 3ga6| e827] 814.465] 2@0 [ssa] soot sio7]33so [$6,628] $13,842 2@1 Sessa) nate as) _tae 204 $0 [a9 [15500] 07 | 33486] sos | si zest SO] Samos sf stor] 3asasT $9392] $11,108 | 206 so] szes7] soot so7] 33886] sae7| $10,629) zero] sass soo] sio7] 33sse]sas.gis] $10,172) 2mo[ SOT Sasa soo] stor | 3a] saga7| 89315 | (aw so sas sot stor] 3aaa6| sas7o] $8530 2u3[ sot sista soot sio7] 3asse] sons 57811) 2ms[ so sugog] soof sto] ago sigg27| $7.13 zur] so sasse fu sootsio7] asso] i732] $6550) zug] of suse sof sion] 3age6 | si6.sas| $6268 | m9 go sass [sof sor asec] sissm| $5998 | oot sot saasi [soo] sio7]3e6| sisi] 85.740 | 2omif sof sazes sof sion] 33a6 | stasza| $5,492 | 2u2[ Sosa zzg soo sion] aa si3.sos| $5256 2u3[ sof siz [sof stor | sas] $13,309] $5,030 | zoat Sots stor saa] siz] sas | ost sof Sates ns suo] 33ses] siz] $4,605 | zug oP Sos as3esf so 8 3 ys TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $2,058,129 $222,143 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $1345 551 BenefitCost Ratio = 1. /23 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Altermative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet | Alternative Project Iaput Capital Cost (1992 $) Sunt Year 198 [Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: [Total Annual Energy (MWh) 15,040 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%) 45 Inflaton Rat (%): 0 Discount Rae (% 45s Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fue! =2):_ 1 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 | 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multpler: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Oupput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Eaergy Output h): 29900, Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = $1219,768 Net Benefit = $5,064,922 Bene fitCost Ratio = 126 ee eee ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS lo—Apr=92 Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet | | i Diesel j PV PV MWh Sigal. Needed PV | [YEAR| Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost MY 1992 | so| so} 0} sas2 | 13569 1993 | S| $0 | 0 ee 14336 1994 so! so | 0 $0.85 | 15,156 1995 | SO) so] 0 $086] 16.134 1396] 30] sol of $0.88 17,148 1997 so! 30 | 0 $0.89 | 1 198 | $19.533.368 $6143 im 1240] $091] 6,040 a 1999 | $0 $5,879 | 13.240 $092 | 7.047 $202,971 $307,927 | 2000 | so] $5,625 13.240 $0.94 8.1% $687,988 $294,667 2001 | $0] $5383 13240 $0.95 939 $281,978 { 2002 | so} $5,151 13.240 sos] ta6ss]s6a4.o12] $259,835 | 2003 | Po $4,930 13240] som] tn gee] sexs] $258,216) 2004 | so] $4717 13,240 $299 13,30 2. $247,096 205 | so] $4514 13.240 $2.99 14.687 $82 $236.456 | 2006 | $0 $4320 13240 $1.00 16,103 $26273 | 2007 | $0 | $4.134 13.240 $1.01 $216.530 2008 | $0 $3,956 13240 $1.03 19,046] —-$532,162| $207,205 | 2009 $0 785 13.240 $1.05 0576] ——$514389| $198,283 | 2010 | $0 $362 13240 sio6| 4g | $497,161 $189,744 2011] $0 $3,466 13240 $1.07 22146] $480,463 | $181,573 202 $0 $3317 13.240 $07] 146 | ~~ $459,773 | $173,754 Lows SO ae twot S07] ae | $439,974] $166.272 zos| SOT szoss[ taza sv as | $21,028 | $159,112 [ois] SOs ts] 7 | es | son.g97| $152,260] 206] CSO] 782] 32H] 7] tes | Sas sas| $145,704) zo] CSCS tM] S| es | 68.945] $139,429] 2018 os 13200 tr | 85088] $133.425 Caos] CSOT 4OT sao] tas | s57.854] $127,680) [2moy C(O S33] tao] Sov] as | $23.305] $12.18 [mn So ssa tao so] as | $309,383 | $116,920 zat SO] Sze] 3240 sor] tes | $296,060 $111,885 23] CSCS | 3240] sco] tas | somsztt | __ $107,067) zest SO]SCitS9SG | tao] stor] tao | semana | $102.457] 20s so sis] 13240] s.07] as | $259,437] $98,045 2@6 sol sim tao S07] as | 248.265 | $93,823 zo7] SOs T3240 07] tas | $237,574] $89,782 208 so] sigsofaz40] 07 as | 8227344 | $85,916 2@9 [sof susjo| _iazeol_ sv} aes} szizssa|__smazic} zoo| tO] CSOD] 20] S07] ts | Smgias| $78,676) 2031 sol sias7]—tzzgo sor] tas | __ 8199220} 2032 so ee eet ee 203 sol size] 3240 sor as Tsiszase] $68,944 2034 so] ssizsot 3240] 7] as | 174576] $65,975 205 |______so}___sizns|___1gzao}__si7|_zaas|_$167 99) 3,134 2037 0 [——si1o4 | 132001 07] 22146 | s1s.000 $57.81 2038 a 7) 2039 sol suonnf 3240] sor as | si4ooag| $52,941 | zomo; sot sf ao sivas | $34,056] $50,662 | na 2 Be essa es to] ar] sn ms Po sof seta sor] tas | 5107574] $40,654] 2067 of sig tag | see sos| $37,228) 2048 sol sof oso asec so 80 TOTALS: $19.533368 $126,864 $16,360,637 6,645 250 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $1219.768 Net Benefit = $5,064,922 Bene fitCost Rato = 126 SHS Sy [Name of Altermative: |Altermative Project Iaput ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS I Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | ’ Capital Cost (1992 $ 3$16,045314 Sart Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ $350,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May: 15,434 Average Annual MWh, June — September 0 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 15,434 Standard Input o Real Interest Rae (%)_ 45 Infaton Raw (% 0 | otscomt Fast ( 6}: Ls Ta EVO OL Ean ns naan 1992 Diese! Cost (SW 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High Medium SummerLoad Muliplier. 03 Winter Load Mulépher- 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = $10,838,004 BenefitCost Ratio = 161 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to- Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: . Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | | | PV | YEAR | Progect Cost cata 1992 so} 1 1993 _ 30] 194 $o| 1995 | $0} 1996 | » po 1997 | so! 198 $12.321.128 | $268.7 199 | 30 $257.190] | 2000 | $0! $246,115 | 2001 | so ! $235,517 } 2002 | $0) $25,375 2003 so Be 670 15,434 2004 $0 =| ise] ao] eral 200s sol TIT 1sa3a] soo] 12.493] 679315] $275,639) 2006 | so] $188,991 15434] S100 13909[ $656,905] $263,769 | [207 $0 =| $180,852 sas] S01] 158361] Sas.u6s[ $252,411] 2008) $173,064 15,434 + — ei 2009 | $0 Lael sae Stas | ase | aso sc. 2010 $0 $158,480 ars sios] —_ig9s2{ss79,sag] $221,187) 2011 so $151,656 sio7]—sig9s2{ $560,080] $211,662 202 $0 sisi2s] Sasa S07] 19.952] =~ ss3s.962[ $202,547] 203 so] sisg.s76] asa] S07] t9.9s2]ssizgaz] $193,825) 2ost SO] sisasgs[isasa]sio7] i952] $490,796] $185,479] zois[ sof sa7a73] saga] s.g7| 9,952 | $469,661] $177,491 | zoe] SOT sizes | asea| 07] 19.952] $49,437] $169,848 | zo sot siigase]tsasa] sto7| 19952] sazoos3| $162,534 zo] SO] Stunaan | tsaza]sno7] 9.952] $411,563 $155,535 [oT SOT $106,642 saa io7]t9.9sz | s93.g4o]$148.838) [mot sof stoz.osof saga suv] 19.9s2] $376,880] $142,428 | omit SO] sess] isaza] stv] 9.952] $360,651 | $136,295 zat sot smasot sas] st.o7 | ag.9s2 | $45,121 | $130,426 203 ese __sss2__sguoaso,___se age 2@4 sass] saa] 1.071.952] $316,037] $119.435 20s = ee $114.292 res; CSCC BHA] SSA] S07] 19.952] $289,405 $109.370 207 $0 suse] ssa] S107] 19,952] $276,942] $104.60 zest SOY STi oo| saa] sio7| t9.9s2]sass.oi7| $100,153] 2mo[ SO saz o7o | isaza] sio7] 9.952] $253,604] $95,841 | oil so] sessst suse] suv] 9.952] $232,233 $87,764 2082 sol sews suse] so7]aggs2 | $222.233) $53,985 2083 |__sofss7see}ts4ge} $167) ___8952)_ 2689 /_ sms] [2s sol sso.agoT isasat sio7 | g.9s2] $1636] $70,426 | 2037 sol sezes[isasafsio7]ig9s2 | $178331/ $67 2042 sol swras[ sass] sio7 | tg.9s2 | s143,c2] $4,080 2u3[ CSO] sa7oso | tsasa | sto] ggsz] $136,940] $51,751 | 2064 sol sasaes[isasa[ stov] 19952] $131,043] $49,523 2045 sol smoss[isaza]sao7 [9.952] $125.40] $47,390) 2046 sol smass]tsaza[sio7] 19.982 | ooo] $45,350 207[ SOS saa] sno7| t99s2 | siaazz| $43,397] 2048 sol soto sso 8 TOTALS: $12.321.128 35550315 $19,654 613 $7,746 G4 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = $10,838,004 /. a so ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | Name of Altermative: Ead—Use Corservation } Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ $229,703 Sart Year 1993 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): 30 Average Annual MWh, October — Ma’ 67% Average Annual MWh, Juae — September: 33% Total Annual Ener, (Wh): Standard Input 0 [Real Interest Rate (%) 45 [InDaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Rae (%): | (%) “5S Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 490 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Mulipler: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Exergy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $243.816 | BenefitCost Ratio = 159 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to—Agr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS \Name of Altermative: Ead—Use Couservation i T T | | | MWa Sal. | { YEAR a | ae Useable Fuel Cost 1992 | $0] $0 | 0| $0.2 | 13.569 | 30 $0 1953 S411199) 30] 35] $083 14301 22179 $1,063 1994 | $0 | 69 $0.85 15,087 $4.190 $1,994 1995 | 0 | $0] 110 $0.86 16,025 6466 040 1996 so] $0 | 165 $0.88 16,983 $9521 $4369 197] so] x0 27 $089 17.997 $13.276 6021 1998 | so so 289 $0.91 18991 $15,875 $7,034 1999 | $0] $0 | 336 $092 19.950 $17,864 37.825 2000 | $0] $0 | 389 $0.94 20,987 209 $8,656 2001 $01 so] “i 3295 Bin $2.170 $9391 202 $0] a 44 $24,017 $10,063 2003 | $0 $0 s 2 as $1171 2004 | $0) $0 25,924 $645] _—_—*$11550] =a 3 — at te — et — | 2006 $0 Ea 738 | swags | as] $12.619 2007 | 30 so} 795 —- 2. sooo] sm.7i6] $13,001 | 2008 $0 $0 852 31434 ae 323 2009 | $0 $0 gio] _—ssiost 32907] $38,344 | $13,624 zoo] ssi] C“‘CéSO!!OOO7] S06 | 3s | $36,325 $13,864 [ou] SC SOTC“‘#OCY toes] Sov] 3360] 837.205 $14,060 [opt —“‘é SOL:OOUUCSOT Com So7 | 34302] $57.620) 814.217] 208] so] so] 0] sio7]| sss] sso) —S—ss0 vost CC SO]CC“‘éSOWSOUUUUOO] Stoves] Sot 2015 [—_sof_ so} of sit} saat $0 208 jsf sof fs fsa} sat oof sof so of sion 3s3a6] $0 2040 a a | a] orf sof soo sor asza6] sot 2o2t sop goo stor asze6] so] 80 20463 po sof of ear sane sats roast sop soo stor 3s3e6] 8 2045 3 i 5 pao sof so of sig asgas ofS zou7f sot soo stor asses sof 8 $189,051 TOTALS: $411,199 0 $465 964 129 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—50 YEAR ANALYSIS Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflauon Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): Vanable O&M Sain E Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 Summa Ps : Average Annual Displaced Diese! (MWh Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro High iz $20,320,658 1.70 27396 Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5S feet 1674 Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet [ High [| 86509336] 1.33 14817 Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro 15434 End—Use Conservation 747 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro [Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $) $2329.434 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October - May” Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember Total Annual Energy (MWh 27396 Sart Year 198 | Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflation Raw (%): 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 | Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diese] Heat Rae BTU/AWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used a Medium. aa - SummerLoad Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh. 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $369.243 Net Benefit = 3203206 Bene fitCost Ratio = 1.70 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo= Apr =I. ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS LName of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro i PV ts PV MWa | val. |___YEAR Proj cot O&MCoss | Useable Fel Cont 1992 # $0 | o} son 30,369 | 30 | $0 | 1993 | 0 $083 31,136 | sols 19941 _ 0 $0.85 31,956 sol CCS 1995 o| $0.86 | 52054) LEI ANT. gf i aT $9 | | 16 | ol sos | 33.948 sof 0 1997 | =I EE 0] $089 | 35,034 | $0 $0 1998] __$28.825835 | $211,171 : 273% $091 8.684 $1,502,760 $665.30 1999 | $202,078 27396 302 | 9,691 $1,454 $637,158 2000 | so! $193,376 | 27,396 $0.94 10,780 $1,423,575 $609,720 2001 | B $185,049 | 21, $095 12.023 $1,377,409 $583,464 2002 $177,080 27396 $0.96 13299 $1.332,579 $558,339 2003 | : [$169,455 | 27396 xe 15,110 $1,289,056 $534.296 2004 | $0 $162,158 27396 17.030 $1,257,156 $511288 200s $0 $155,175 27396 eT $489.271 2m $0 $148,493 27,396 $468 20 $0 | ——suczonszraee sn anger | sara su er | asa at| — sn [2009 so siz0tzsf27ae6] sos] 2743] $1,064,366 | sos 2010 so] sussz0| _27396[ _sios| 28685 | _sioza7is| __s2.616] zounf so] sii.tsaf 273e6[sio7 [2965s] sates] $375,709] zon [sof sisor7[ zrae6[ stoves] s9513ss|_ $359,530] 2o3 [sot si0917] 27396] st07 | 296ss | $910387] $344.0 zoe] sot sionsis| 27396] sor] ss] semiiss| 09.232] 2015 sol swt] 7306] stor] 265s] sx33.669] $315,055] 2ois[ sot seis] 27396] so7| 29ss| 797.769] 01.488 | of sof soison] 27396] so7| 296ss| $763.46] $288,505] [ows sof srsext 27396] sio7 2965s] $730,541 $276,082 [of sot sa90f 27396] 07 | a9.6ss | sep9.osz] $284,193 | 2a@0 so] sws2] 27396] s.o7| sss] $668,978 $252,816 zeit sot sr29f 27396] sto7| ss | $640,171 $241,929 202 so] smans[ 273e6[ sev] 26ss| $612,604] $231511 203 sof sm263] 27396] sor] ess] sseezz4] $221,542) 204 so] se7237] 2736 sor] 2965s] $560,979] 212.002 2s] so] seasaz|__27396] _suo7| 29655] _ssseazo] sa rms] so] __sets71| 27396] _so7| 29685] 513,706] $194,136 27] so] ssg920| 27396] s1o7| 29655] sep1.ssa] 185,776 23s so] 56383 77396] s.o7] 29655] soa] ___ $177.77 29] so] 53955] 27396] _sio7] 29655] __saso.iso] 170.121] 2050] so] $5131] 27396] sv] 29655] _saao,774] ___$162.795] 21] so] _sgaos| 27396] suo7| 29655] semzze] 155.785] 2052 so| sezz0| ase su ss [seers 3] so] saszua] 27396] _so7| 29455] sors] surg ee ee 205] so] _saax] 77396] _so7] 29655] sus.o75] $130.35] 26] so] smeas] 77396] 107] 265] smo.7s9] $125,010] 2037] so] smgao] 27396] 107] 29655] sous] ___si9.€27] 2s $0] 35306 | 27396] so7| 29655] samara] $114,475] [239] so] 54.743] 27396] s1.97]| 29.685] __s089870| 109,546] [2040] 30] sssza7] 27396] so7| 29685] sz7n3e7| __s1o«28] 20] so] susis| 27396] sir] 29655] sass.uaz] 100314) 2002] so] swaas] 27396] _si.o7| 29655] _sasa.o12| $95,994] 2003 $0] son.4| 77396] so? 29455] saus.ors|_____soiasi (207 | so] sues | 27396] _s107]| 29485] _som.gso]| $7,031] 2m] so) Ss so] —Ss—idtSSCSSC | Cos] CSCitO SSC A: it A TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4360,962 $34,387,765 $13,750247 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $369.243 Net Benefit = $20,320658 BenefitCost Ratio = 1,70 aD ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Alternative Project lapat Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual E 4 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%): 45 Inflaton Rae (%): 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/k Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owput(MWa): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 3276241 Net Benefit = 12,191.263) BenefitCost Ratio = 0.73 SPY ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1o— Apr =92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of ue Allison Lake Stand—Alone | Diese! | | Sigal. Needed PV Feel PV | YEAR Heal osc _ eae Fuel Cost MW. Saving OSM Sawing 1972 | _o} $a82 30369 30 $0 1993 > i ol $0.83 31,136 | $0 30 1984 so] = 0] $0.85 31,956 30 $0 1995 sol 0 o| $0.36 32,934 30 $o 196 | $0] mI 0 $0.88 33.948 $0 $0 1997 | sO so 0 $089 35,034 30 Py 1998 34121008 | $30.369 15.645 $0.91 20,435 ss eH $380.235 1999 | $0] $220,449 15.645 ne 21,442 $363,861 2000 $0 $210,956 15,645 2531 ses | aan 2001 $0] $201,871 a a a | 2002 | so $193,178 mn a a $318,850 tai 2003 32 6147 - BE as __ sea, | 2004 | $176, : m3] soso] 27,703 5767381] $312,095 2005 Sa ore $309211 2006 so sisig2] gat Stoo snag $762,451] $306,149 2007 so] $155.016] 18543 $101] 31,950] $3.08] $0324] 2008 $0 — ESM es __ sa $300,196 2g [sof sisigss[ isa] sos] 4971 | _ $70,718 | $297,090 2010 eee oe $293,936 zounf so] suzgsoi | asso] sn.o7| 36541] S7a4zg2] 5281278] zon tof sizaze3]2asio| Sov] 36541] $7242] $259,166] [ot sot siiso36| aso sio7| 36541] $681,571] $257.575 2osf sot sissiof aso] s.o7] esau] seszzzi | $246,483 zosf sol si0900s{ aso] so7] 36541 | seas] $235,469] 2016 }__so}__siesin|__2agyo}_s197)_sese1}|_swv7gss}_sias,72 ges] sof saaso] aso] sio7] 36541] sai9.983 | $158,717 zest sof smn ast sor] 36 sai | Saonses| $151,883) [mrt so senzrg | 2asiot sio7] sai] $368,030] $139,083 mot sol] 856325] aso] s.o7 | sar | sz sos] $121,878 2oif sof ss3g00f asso] sno7] 36541] smseis] $116,630) m2] sof ssis79f aso] sor] 36541] $295,326] $111,608 2u3[ sot sweasa] asi] sio7] 364i] samz.sos| $106,802) 2a4f sot serzsat ast sor] ese sz70439| $102,203 [ont sot stor] aso l sor] ssa si98726] $75,101 | [out sotsz3f asl sto] se sar sis0,e9[ $71,367] Long sot sizes asl sor] se san | sisi.g7[ $68,773] Lou sot sonra ast suo esa] si7esas] $5,811] [ou sot smasi[ asl sion[ esa] sisoces | $60.265 | ean 20 Ca ona oy] SNUG PnP NI | WI $97 unl $7 | Ing | aS TOTALS: Hans $4,757,413 224.0 $9,431,525 Deferred Diesel Capaaty Savi 8276241 Net Benefit = $12,191263) BenefitCost Ratio = 0.73 / = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower latake Alternative Project lapat Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: Total Annual E Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Rate (%): 4s Variable O&M Savi Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Summer Load Mulip Winter Load Multpher: Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owput a): Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output 3 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $968,676 BenefitCost Rato = 1.78 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY To—Apr- 7 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANAL YSIS Name of Alternative: Solomons Gulch — Lower latake | | { 1 | | PV i Pv | YEAR | ProiectCost_| _O&MCost 1992 | $0 $0 1993 $1.081.118| TA 1994 0 | $7326 | 1995 | so} $7,010 1996 | $0 $6,708 | 197] 30] $6,420 1,025 $089 34,009 $57,404 $25,033 | 1998 $0 | $6,143 | 1,025 | so9i| 35.055 $56.25 324.911 | 1959 | 30] $5,879 1,025 3092 36,062 | $54,422 $33,839 | 2000 $0! $5.625 1,025 mx El $53.262 $2.812| { 2001 | so] $5383 | 1,025 $51,535 321330 | 2002 | so] ss.isi 1,025 a a $20,890 2003 | $0] $4,930 1,025 son] aiasi| saszo9] 19.990] { 2004 | A $4717 1,025 sos] 43.401] ———«$ 47,036 | $19,029 2005 | $4514 os] sag asazmi | 845.115] $18.306 2006 || ana | seo] ar = as nasa 2008 [ 103s $16,061 2009 $0 a zoo; SO] STs] Ss | Sgn | Sago] $14,689) 2011 |__|. __semag |__s.186| $14,057 202 | 56.026 | — $35,594 $13.452 2013 $3,174 1,025 | 56026] $34,061 | $12,872 [=o ss | sts | 8s] si zos| sol soon] os | stor] 026 | sion | izes] zoe {sot sare os] stor] 5026 | sagas] $1280) ov} sot soon fos | stor] 56026 | sonse3| $10,794] 2018 sof sasa7[ noms] sv] sears | 27333] $10.329] [of sot szaza os sio7] Sec26 | $5.56] 59.885 | [mot sot sz3a3] oes] sto] sos | 5.029] 39.459 RR gt 2022 £2,136 ros] sio7| S626] szg20| $8662] 203 = 52.044 os] sio7{ 56026 | saga3] $8289 | 2@4 $0 $1,956 10s] sio7| S626 | somes] $7,932) esto] sist ost sion sacs | smpoas| $7590] 206 sol surf ost sig] seaa6T sso] $7263] 207 sol simu fos] sto7 | Soe | 818.392] $6,951] ms} so sau} noas| ov} 56026 | 17,600] $6651 | 29 so| sis7o|_ nos] .o7|_ 56026] S682] $6365 | mo] sot sison tos] stor] 56,026 | $16,117] $6091 | zoif so} Stas] os | stor] 56026] 815.423] 85.829 | }__so|___ sigs] ae) ae) | saree) es TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 31,566,785 $641,104 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $968,676 BenefitCost Rato = 1.78 / ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | (Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet |Altermative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, Juae — Sepember. Total Annual Energy MWh Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rae (%) 45 InQaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Ra (%) 45 OEE EEE EE Ere Vanable O&M Sevi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Mulipher: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Oupput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Exergy Output b): 23900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $ 135 BenefitCost Ratio = 2.06 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Agr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Raise Spillway 5 feet jName of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — t YEAR Pia ec 1992 | 1993 | = | = 1994 | . 30 | 195 so/ 30] “of sass 32.934 1996 | $1,326,913 $10,063 | 1,500 $088 32.448 | 197] so! $9,529 | 1,500 $0.89 33534 | 1998 | 30) $9215 | 1500 | $0.91 34580 | 1999 | so] $4818 | 1.500 $092 35.587 2000 | sol $8,438 | 1,500 $0.94 36.676 2001 | $0 $8,075 | 1,500 $095 37919 375.417 $31,946] [ 2002 | so | $7,727 1,500 sas] 399s | $72,962 | $30,570 | 2003 | so] $7394 172 sos7]4agoa $80,084 | $3,194 2004 #2 $7,076 172 soso] aaa] $78,102 | $31,764 2005 $6771 172 soso] aso starz] $0396) 2006 seen po |g |] $29,087 orf So ozone sion} agri $70,044 | $27,835 qws[ So] some mf sos sagas] $68,409 126,636 | 2ogf sot ssorgf ne stosfsano7| $66,125 | $25,489 [2010 8 see 172 2 Bk BS 2011 wel sio7| ss3ag | $61,763 iz 202 [$s ss sts || zo [Sot Serer fae sao7fss3ag | $56sso] $21374] [oso sassef met sor] saa] sss] $20.454) zoe] Sota et sto7 | ssa] sop sez | $18,730] zor] sof sages | so7| S539 | Saas | $17,924) gos] Sosa] mt so7] ssaag | saszas| _ si7.152] zoot sot saesef met sor] ssp] sa3a3n |] 516.413] zeof so] sap fm snort 55349] $atsor| $15,706) amit So] sas ae sor ss3ag] srt $15,030] zt so] saz0e Te sort ss3ag | sasosot $14,383] 2m3f sof 3066 af sto] ssa] $36,420] $13,763 | zest sof sae af snort sssag [sas] 813.171] 20s sol soue| 17a] si] ssa] smasi] _si2.604| 2@6 a_i ___auigit_ioh 207 sof sas fet sto] S39] $30,540 | $1542 208 C$ Saale a es aes pao so sisi ey siov|ss3ag | sis.o08] $6,806 | [oso cotta ae sto7| 5539] 817233] $8513 zonf sof sages amt sio7|ss3a9 | sigan] $6232 | 2042 sol siszoT esto ss3ag | sis.7ai] $5,964 | gost sotto ae stor 539] sisi] $5,707] 2004 sof siz stor ssaagsaasi] 85.461] oust so] stesso ss3ag | si3ga9| $5226 | 2046 sol sof of sion sas] sot 20047 | sienna $0 aint Sg iniabnbaeginlng J talvaablels $4.97) syosi] got 200k] Se ag} aS gy] MRD Teen $9 97, ] Ian $798 ¢ 1] TeTnnIsta gf | vlnintli'g)} TOTALS: $1.326,913 $207,809 $2.260,012 $899,344 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $1,625,135 75 => ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr—92 \ ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Altermative: Solomon Galeh — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $):_ Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual E h): Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%): o Discount Raw (% 45 Variable O&M Sevings (SAWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (SW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Summer Load Multpler: Winter Load Mult plier. Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ovput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): 29900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 8276241 Net Bebefit = BenefitCost Rato = 133 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY to—Apr-s2 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet PV PY MWh Sal. Needed | I YEAR Project Cost O&MCost | Us Fuel Cost | 192 | so} so| 0 $0.82 30369 $0 so { 193] so 30 of $083 31136] ——S0| $0 1994 | $0} $0 ol $0.85 319s] So] SO] 1995 | so | $0 | 0 $0.86 gut So] SO) 1996 | so! so | 0 $0.88 33948 $0 $0 1997 | 30} 30 0 30.89 35,034 so so 1998 | $19533.868 | $6143 13240 se = $726.257 $221,784 1999 | 2 $5,879 13.240 $02.971 $5190) 2000 | $0 $5.625 13.240 le ste 2001 30] $5383 1x20] sasst 26179] $665.67] $281,978 | | 2002 % [ssusi [saan nae ares | senna sera | 203 | $4,930 - + | sag7| 2764 | $646,589 | = 2004 | = psari7] a3] sage] 310s | $457,020) = 1 2005 setae sn | a | a86.199 | 0255] 2006 s $4320 [33356] $640,136] $257,036 2007 $4,134 15.040 [35.453] $618,951 | Susss! 2008 Sr [_s3ose| —sisoao| S103] 37.583] $604,510] $235,375 2009 sss | sce] a [20] —“‘( TC SRO Sowa] S.06| aon | $564,751 $215,540 2011 $0 $8066 15000) sn | 20 | $545 72 $206259 re $197.37 zo fo] same sou sio7{ aon | __$499,789] $188,877 2014 [st S| | | gn | scent a zo; S| Sez | somo] sno7| aonn | sat.z0¢] $158,385] 2018 so sosa7]isoaoTsuo7] azn san.0s6| __ $151,565] [of SOT Saaz somo suo7] aon | $383,786 $145,038 2@0 sof sa3s3[ somo sao7] aon | $367259] $138,792 amit SO] Sp tsowo] sno7] aorn | $351,444 32,816 202 sof sais] sow so7] aon | $336,310 $127,096 2m3[ SOT Soma Tso] stor] aon | 2,228 | $121,623 204 sol sige] soso suv] zor | $307,969] $116,386 20s so[ sis] soso suovt zona] s24.7os] $111,374] zesf oT suf soao] 2.07] 4.01 | $282.0 207 soy siz soso] sao7] aor] 269.873] $101,989] ea $1375 isoao[ sio7[ aon] $216,560 | Ss | af ef aa—s a go 1305 5000 | s.r 20 | 9 70] $71,717 2e6[ got saas3fisosotsio7|azorn | si8i,sse| $68,629 2087 gol sisosT somo] sio7] aon | 873,78] $65,673 | 2mof sot sez soaoTsio7] aon] 152281] $57,549 2041 BBR gmap Sgt agg) suas.) ash TOTALS: $19,533,368 $126,864 $18,586.976 $7,306,852 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 pe GtCost Ratio = 133 ay /4/ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS ‘Name of Alteraative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Ansual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June — September: Sart Year 1998 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%) 45 Inflation Raw (%). 0 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oo =1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh. 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medivm, High): High Summer Load Multiplier. 03 . Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output h): 25900 Summary of Output i $276,241 Deferred Diesel Ca; Sevi Net Besefit = 39,805 844 Bene fitCost Ratio = 155 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 10 Apr—we ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -5S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: | Lake Pipeline w/ Hi re | i | ] | PV PV MWh rib Peel PV | YEAR Protect Cost — 1 Useable Pa D O&M Savings 192 | $0) aC | a $0) $0} 1993 | sol . 31,136 $0 $0 194 | $0} $0} a eel | 31,956 30 x 195 | 30) sol 0 $0.86 934 $0 $0 1996 | Py so] 0 $0.88 33,948 $0 $0 197 $0) so | 0 $0.39 | 35,034 $0 $0} 198] $12.321.128 | $258.764 | 15.434 | $091 20,646 $375,106 | 1999 | so] $257,190 | 15.434 $092 21,653 $358,953 | 2000 $0] $246,115] 15.434 30.94 2742 E $343,496 200 t so $235.517 | | 15,434 $0.95 23985 | —_—$775,987] $328,704 2002 30 | $5375 15,434 $0.96 1] $730,731 | $314,550 2003 | so] $215,670 $097 ee 2008 | $0 $206, soso] 2ag92| $708,240] $288,043 200 | $0 sigz49s] sau] soe 3962] 8679315) $275,639 | 2006 $0] $188,991 [2962] $656,905 | $263,769 [ 2007] $0 $180,852 | 3s.ase] $435,165] $252,411 [ 2008 | ~ so} $173,064 teh 37189] $20,346 $241,541 | 2009 | $0 $165,612 39375 | $599,629 | $231,140 [ owt So] sisgago| sea] sts | anor7 |] s579sag] $21,187] 2011 sisiess] saya st.o7] 4.617 | $560,080] $211,662 oof So suasaizs[ suze sav angr7 |] $535,962] $02. s47] is 2o3[ Sof susssr6 sae sio7] aor] s512.882 | $193,225 2014 so] suszsos[ saat sio7]aar7 | $90,796] $185,479] pos; Sot sims] saa stor] ans | $69,661] $17,491] 2016 $0 $121,696 }—_isase|___sig7}___eagi7|____ seens7)_ sen ges| 2018 $0 sii] 1544] ___s107]| 1617 | ___sai1.so3 5155535 2019 $0 $106,642 sass stor angi] __savauo|___stasa [2moySSSCSSOYSSCSC*C*«SHOD.OSO] SS] SOT] anor | S376,880] $142,428) 2@1 so — $136,295, 202 $0 $33,450 [snort ator | $345,121 | $130,426 203 $0 saa26| saa] S07] 617 | S30.259| $124,809] 204 sol sass7s] saa] 07] an.7 | $316,037) $119.435 res] t—i‘SOT:SCC*“‘SUOOY;:*O™OCO#O#CUSA34] S07] 4.617 | $302.428| $114,292 i 8s seg |_| __aias. $109.370 207 sss] isa3a{ S07] anor | $276,942] $104,660 208 eee ee 2@9 sol seas70| —stsa3a] 07] wor | $253,604] $95,841 | rool —s—=iSOSSCC*C‘ SMB] CSSA] CSO?) 617 | Sez ose] $91,713) 2031 sol sagas] saga] stor] ang? | 5232233] 887,764 | 2082 sol smorrs]tsa3a] S07] anon | Sa 233] 883.985] 2033 sol ss7saa|tsa3a] S207 aor | Sose3| 80.368) 204 So] ss5,10a| SS stsa3a] =Car | $203,505] $76,907) zos[ sof serif isase sto] anor7 $194,762] $73,596 zu7] so saszas TO isasa| stor aor] s7g3zi] 367.394 | 2038 sol suse [saga] suo7[ anor | $70,652] $64,492 | 209 sof suwzist saga sor angi | $163,303] $61,714 | zomoT so seat saat sio7 fans] s1s6271| $99,057 zorf sof suas saga sno7]a.6r7 | sta9,sai] $56,514 2042 $0 sass sig7}__aig7_s143,.02,_s40 ua Po sot saosofisazasno7] anor | s136,.940] $51,751 | so [sass] 1s] stor] ate] snip] $93] 20 P sof sass] ssa sio7] asi] sizsoo| 547390] 2048 og gt ts Ps TOTALS: $12.321,12 $5550315 $19,654513 $7,746.34 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 3276241 Net Benefit = $9,805 844 BenefitCost Rato = JA 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | Name of Altersative: Ead—Use Coaservation | |Alternative Project Iaput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June - September: | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%): 45 Inflafon Raw (%) 0 é Discount Raw (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 430 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High SummerLosd Mulipler: 03 Winter Load Mulipier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Owput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Owtput (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = P77 BenefitCost Ratio = 2.15 ALASKA ENERGY ACTHORITY to—Apr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Bad—Use Coaservation Diesei | PV PV MWh Sal. Needed PV Pael PV i YEAR Protect Cost O&M Cost Useadle Fuel Cost AW) Savags O&M Saving L 1992 | so $0 $1 so.s2 30369 30 so | 1993 | $411.199 $0 | $0.83 | 31,101 $2179 $1,063 1994 | $0 $0 $0.85 31,887 $4,190 $1,994 1995 | so so 110 $0.86 25 $6.46 00 1996 i so! x0 165 30.88 33,783 $9521 | 1971 so $0 2 sa9 34797 aie 198 so | $0 29 $091 | 199 | so] $0 336 3092 | 2000 | so] so | * $0.94 | 2001 | so] $0 ¥ 3 $2,170 | 2002 $0] $0 a eee | 2003 | $0 $0 swooss| $16,607 —— == aoe 2005 | 30 $0 a Po sase] ass] seagsat $18,202 | 2006 $0 sotto S00 47289[ ser sost 18.916] 2007 | sop oie stort aor sa.074] $19,502] 2008 so #23 __u)| _sieas|_sstsen__sps 2009 so {| sos] s34ea] ss3.0is| $20,436 | 2010 E resi] Sos | 55,600] ssaass] $20,796] 2011 is] sion [sss] ssssos] $2191 | ED sof soto stor szosif sof $0 an Posto ssi sof 80] 2015 SB ag 16 | stor] ssi sof 80 20) [orf sof soo stor stasis sof 0] [aos sof oof si07] szosi] so] 2o9f sot soot srosif sof 80] zmof sot sof of stor ssi sof 30] zeit sot sotto ssn} 8 got soso oso ssi so] 2m3] so} gots} sos] sot 2@s $7.051 so] 50 = po soso of 81.97 srosi{ sof 80 a EE | sort ssi} S80) [stor] ssi got S| = Po sot cotton stosif sos] zao] so} sof ost} ssi] so] 8 woif sof ot stosi so 80 22] SOP sto sos sot 50) 2m3{ ot Sotto ssn] so 80] ze7f gts ssi so 8 2g] SOPs sor soso 80) zuof gogo sig srosi sos] zoo] sof goo si srosn so 50} zon sot soso sas [soso] orf got goo torsos sos] post got goo sof stosi gos] zou} so] sor stoi so 50] zmst so] oso sas so 50] gost oP oo so sos sof $0] orf sof goo so T5981 so 50] oust sot soo so spss so 80] TOTALS: $411,199 0 $631,062 $253,850 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $473,713 Bene fitCost Ratio = 2.1 ie ie / Ja & ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS peuandaud Input {| Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Vara ble O&M Savings ($/kWh): $0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/«W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium High): Low Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 ans Take Tune ah pre ig ee alls Lake Siand=Alone tea asia na | Solomon Gulch -LowerInake | Low | Solomon Gulch — Raise SpillwaySfeer_ | stow 2 Stoapaos| 1.68 | | Allison Lake Pipeline w/Hvdro | Low || sosz3os3] 1.56 [End—Use Conservanon | tow 2 5173.48 | | 2] s9sag | 159] 16-Apr-92 Average Annual Displaced Diesel (MWh V4 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | |Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | |Altermative Project Iapat Capital Cost (1992S) SRI2946 | Sun Year 1998 Annual Oct M Cost (1992 $) $275,000 [Average Annual MWh, October — May” 27,396 Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember 0 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 27,396 | Standard Input Real Interest Raw (% 45 Inflaton Rae (% 0 Discount Rae (%) 45 [Vanable O&M Savings (kWh) 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fue! =2) 2 Average Diese] Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High Low SummerLoad Multiplier 03 Winter Load Muliplier 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 a of sens : Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 78,039 Net fit= $10,662,566 Be ne fi it Ratio = 137 _—————— ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo=Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Tuanel with Hydro i i 7 t Diesel TT | i | Pv PV ; [ Val. Needed [L PV Feel PV | } YEAR | Project Cost l O&M Cost i Useable Fuel Cost (MWh) Savings O&M Savings 192 $0, $0 0} $0.67 16.230 | $0 $0 1993, so sot ol sosst 16652 | so so 194 so} so oO} $0.70 | __17,077 $0 30 195 | $01 sol of $0.71 17507 | $0 $0 “sl. $01 1996 30 sol 0] $073 17.941 | sol $0 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.74 18379 30] $0 1998) __$24.825635 | mini 1882 $0.76 = s3e2.108 | $457,449 1999 | so $202,078 19269 $077 0 $856,212 $448,152 2000 | so} $193376 | 19,721 $0.79 0 $861,320 $438,906 2001 | $0 | $185,049 20177 $0.80 0] ___—sasaass| ~—Ss«_—s $29,722] | 2002 | so] $177,080 20.638 sosi| i suas $20,608 L_ 2003 | $0] $169,455 21,103 sont i Hee | 2004 | sol $162,158 mS sos, 0] $440,039] sz.a2i] 2005 so $155,175 sos] 0] __sm3soo] $393,761 | 2006 $0 $148,493 a $384,999 2007 so] suzo8] 30m] Sase] $306,881 $376,341 | 2008 so] $135,979 soss]| | 8007,530] $367,789 2009 $0 $130,124 sos] $798,420 $359.350 2010 $0 aa 8 $351,026 2011 $0 $119,158 ease] soa $763,768) $335,910 202 so a 203] CSO] St09,17| aaa] sage S699,406] $307,603 | 2014 Sate gaa __ sta [oss | aaa saz] $640,467) om. ast ie st e080 ar] Se 7 ty 2018 sof ssrsei] aga] saz] 8561239] 846.836 | 2019 $0 BE eke ggg ss me [mot sof sai aaa soz} to s513.943] $226,035] | 2@1 to ER 24494 a 202 24.494 | sega} ___o/___se7o.s3| _s.987 203 sol sm263 aasa sat 550367] $198,074) 2@4 [Ss se] ss] [sera] sie 2@s Ce rr ams so] seismi[ aaga sont sass] $173,571] 207 sol; ssaszo] aaa soz} 37,660] __— $166,097 208 so] sssse3[ ang] saga 61397] $158,945 2@9 so] ssagss] aaa saga] 45.835 $152,100 2030 ast a sara $145,550 203 sol sas2aa| 24494] sosn] 0] sa90,004] _s127.545] i S it gos} sot sage ae TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4,360,962 $25,058.821 $11,512,402 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 53 (39 Net Benefit = $10,662,566 BenefitCost Ratio = 137 149 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone | Alternative Project Iapst Capital Cost (1992 $ $33, Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May: | Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual Energy (MWh): Sart Year. 198 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Raw (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa = 1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low Summer Load Mult : 03 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output BenefitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo— Apr=92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alteraative: Allison Lake Staad—Alone so so $0 x0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 17,507, $0 $0 17,941 | 1997 | sO! so 0 $0.74 18379 2 30 1998] $41210608 | $230 369 | 15.645 16 3.177 $716,589 | $380,235 199) $0] $220.49 15.645 3.624 | 2000 | $0 + ee er { 2001 | $0 i $201,871 a a $333,198 | 2002 | $193,178 P4993 | $642,262] $318,850 | 2003 SSeS ett so sag gas 2004 : [_si76.s99| —sisoas| Sosa] 5.978 | $009,196] $291,980 2005 [| wast ss] us| os [ase 2006 $161,992 iseas] sass] 68a] $566,321] $267375 |} ee ae a 2008 | sol sissei]——stssas| —sass[78s6| $537,653] 4 [ 209, s—=(“‘ OY: Stat gS3| tsa] Sogo] 8.350] $520,579] $234,300 [owt CC‘: S3S uo isoas[ soo] ep] $503,978 | $224.21 [_2ou,—Ss—(“‘;é*SOY;:CO~#C#CSI | Cas] ~~ Sag] sso] sas7aaz| S24 556] po so size ze3]aseastsaszt 8a] sas6a3a| $205.316] 2013 [$3 ee ee toes [owt sof sissiof seas[ saga] tte] sea7aga| $188,014! 2ois| Sot si09,o0s| seas] saz} tte | swonoas| __si79.918| ois] Sof sions | seas] saz ge] sp4e9| $172,170] zo] sof sm sig | seas] soe tga | sa74ctn| $164,756 zost Sof ssszuttseas| saz} tap] 358.480] $157,662 209 SO] saor [sous] saszt 8a] $343,043] $150,872] z@of OT sera [seas saga] gag] $x28271| $144,375 zeit SOT seos| seas] sose| geo | $314,135) $138,158 2mt so] smoot seas sosz tse | sz00607| $132,209 [m3 sof srsesifiseas| saga] gap] $287,663] $126,516 [sf sof sao seas saszt ge] $275,275 | $121,068 [est sot sms assess saszt geo] $263.421| $115,854 zesf Sof sersso | seas sasz] tzu] $252,078 $110,865 ert SOT senz76 | seas | saszt tga] $201.23] $106,091 208 $0 en ee 101,523 TOTALS: $41210508 $4,757,413 $16,999 283 $7852,336 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278.09 Net Benefit = ($17,838,358) BenefitCost Ratio = 0.61 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | |Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower Iatake > |Altermative Project lapat Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ 58,000, Average Annual MWh, October - May: 1,025 1,03 Total Anoual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 0 Inflaton Raw (% 0 Discount Raw (% 45 Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oo =1, Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/kW): 430. Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low SummerLoad Mult 03 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = so Net Benefit = $729,944 7 BenefitCost Ratio = 159 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY To- Apr=30 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Solomon Gulch — Lower Jatake iName of Alternative: I | |. | MWh Sigal. PV YEAR oe | ics Useable Fuel Cost 7 O&M Se 192 30] $0 | ol $067 16230 Poet ee eee ae} 1993 $1,081.18 | 37.656 | 1,025 | $068 15,627] $52,063] ——*S31p44| 1994 30] $7326 | 1,025 | $0.70 ae $51362] $29,707] 195 $0] $7,010 1,035 so71 s49gss| $23.428) 1956) $0 $6,708 1,025 $073 ieee 1997 | so x0] 1,025 | $0.74 17354 $47,710 1998 $0 $6143 1,025 $0.76 17,797 | $46,948 324.911 1998 | $0] $5879 | 1.025 $07 18244 $4S.S4S $33.839 2000] $0] $5625 | 1.025 un 18696 [ oi | sof $5383] 1.025 1gsz[ $3406, 521.830] | 2002 $0 $5,151 -= mn [ 2003 | $0 | $4,930 SO ER ee | 2004 | $0 $4717 goss] 2asas[ siz] si9,129 | 2005 so $4514 1 | sass 21023] 538.298 | $18,306 | 2006 $0 102s] soas| 21903, $37,103 $17.517 [ 2007 | $0 — ios; sass[2oe7 | sas.s40[ $16,763 | 2008 $0 1025 | sass] 2476 | sass] si6.041 | 2009 sol saves] ons soso p70 su.t06 | $15,350] zoo] si SO] SG os] san] eso] soi] s14.689| ios] sag2] 23469] $31,961] $14,057 202 io] saz] 3.469 | _ $30,585 | $13,452 fo ows sot arma ozs sasa | 239 | 529.268 | 312.872 2045 sof soto saat ae so 80) oust sof soo sat ae sof so] 2067 | NESTE A) IETOOTENITENE 0) ASTIN | AUNTIE er] MUERTE: 44 | TRIN NID 90 | Hiv 9) 20g | Pag [nang] SnAg Fetes Qc. | aioe: 4copg toteretatatett go | eetieeetatete l= 99 TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,328,053 $641,104 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $729,944 BenefitCost Rato = 1359 15.3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Sepember: ge Annual MWh. June — Total Annual Energy Wh): Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rae (% 45 Inflaton Raw (% Discount Raw (% Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput Solomon Guich Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 ~* Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $1,039,405 Bene fitCost Ratio = 1.68 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY tom Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS J L Name of Alteraative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet i Diese! | 2 YEAR | Project Cost osha st thane a 1972 | _ so | $0.67 1953 30] [sass 1994 | 30 | = ino 195 | sot so 196] $1326,913] $10,063 1 1997 so] $9,629 a 1998 | 30] $9215 1.500 $0.76 | ; 199 30] $18 | 1,500 $0.77 17.769 i 534.886 | 200 $0] $8.438 | 1,500 $079 18221 $65,513 $3384] | 2001 | $0 | $8075 1500 $0.80 18677 $31,946 | 2002 | so] um 1,500 sosi[ igi3s] $61,578 | $30,570 | 2003 $0 1so[ so] 19.603] $59,686 | Pe) | 2004 $0 [Sires | sug | ans | ssaoe | se 2005 set san saa} __zasg__ssee}_sas] 2006 | 30 1soo[ sass] 2102s] $4297] $25,635 | | zat 30 1s [ saset se] $52,596] $24,531 = 2 ism] soa] ——zzonn] ss 540 | srs — om] sasof asst sepgi2] sz aa | a: $5,434 ol sosif gna} sas z20] 521,497 zoit SOL soo] asf saa] aes sas. 773 | sa s71 | zat Sasso saszt oa — suse] $19,685] 2013 sol sare] sf saz] es sensi] $18,837] owt SO] Sasso] st sas2] 4] suogs7| $18,026) zos| Sof aso nso} coset gs | sz] 817250) zois] SO saz soo} saat go | 857.533] 816,507] 27, CSOT |S] saat gms sasoi7| $15,796) zo; SOT sae soo] soz} gee 84370] 818.116] 209] SOT saes6[ soo] sosz| gma ssp] 514.465 | mol SOT Saag sof sasz oat sara] 813.802 omit SOT sas sot sont oes sis] $13,246 | zm} sot sazos soot coset gs] sz | 512.675) 23, SO] S0eg [sof sas] ges | sz sao] $12,130 zest sof sae sf saga] oes $5393] $11,608 2@s sol sososT sf saz] eat $25.256] 11.108 | 206 sof es iso soszt oss] S469] $10,629 2e7y SOT sas sf saat est ss] $10,172] zest SOT Sus sof sof oes set s9.734 | 209 sol sasss[ sof soz tgp | sans] 89315 | 2030 sof soass[ soot soe ges] 267] $8913 | 261 sof saise[ soo] soszt oa sigze4| $8530 2032 sof aos sof saz] os si8.sso] $8162 | zu3[ oT sigs soo saat esa si7.760] $7811) zest so] sigsg soot soe gpa] st6.995] $7,474 zas[ so] sigost soot saset ome 516263] $7153] 2e6[ sof sao sf saat eases] 8,845 | sof sisse[ soot saz] gests] $6550 zas[ sof sa sesf sm] saat ong] s42si] $6,268 | asf sof isis st sat eT si3.638] $5,998 zomg] sof suas sf saat aT $13,050] $5,740 2onf sof sizes sof saat oes sizass| $5,492) 2042 sol sizzp[ soo] soe goa stigsi] $5,256] 2043 [sof siz sof sage ass] stiase| __$5,0301 2os[ sof sates sao sas2 asset si0a72] $4,606 | os sof so of sas aoa got 8 2m7] so goof sasat aoe got 20005] SINT gy ee angi ele gy Mn ary | alent ppg} Aneel | ee 99) Sip 8 a iN N 8 Ht N TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,751,983 $222,143 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 2 Net Benefit = $1,039,405 VES [5 fe ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Solomoa Galch — Rause Spillway 32 feet | |Alteraative Project Iapat_ | Capital Cos (1992 $) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ | Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh. June - Sepember: Total Annual Energy MWh): Sun Year 198 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTUAWh. 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): SummerLoad Multiplier. 03 Winer Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput a Solomon Gukh Winter Energy Output Summary of Output a ee Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278.09 Net Benefit = $4,648,659 BenefitCost Ratio = 124 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet | Diese! | PV Py MWh Seal. Needed L YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fue! Cost L 192 | $0 30 of S067 | 1993 so} so} 0} $0.68 { 1994 | $0} $0 | 0 $0.70 195 sol 30 ol $071 1996 so] $0 0 $073 1997] so] $0 “o| $0.74 1998] __$19.533868 | $6143 | 13240 $0.76 i 1999) so! 35.379 | 13240 | $077 {_ a 2000 | $0] $5625 | 13.240 $0.79 | 2001 | so] $5383 13.240 soso] 6.937 | —=«8:560.675 SS | 2003 sol $4,930 13240 7863 $526,825 [ 12004 | sol 717 13.240 so[ 835 [ $515,549] 2005 | $0 | os 13240 soss[ 8.808 | $494,697 2006 $0 13.240 soss|9zas|$479.265| $226,273 | | 4 a a co $0 3 o36 sass] 1a261 | $4ss.o03] $207,205 | : — a 30 $091 a a $189,744 2011 CS sax 1254] surz.s4g| $181,573 202 -—— ee eee [os 0 sate] tao] sage] __12sa| __ss7a0se| 166.272] 2014 [sof sane | aze0f sos) st | ___ Se $159,112 2018 so 73200 | suse] 11254] sara] sis. aos; SSO Sasa] taza] saz n2sa] $290,309] $127,680] zo] SSO] S333] saga tnzsa sz77sos|sizz.ia2 | amit SOS |g] sag] tsa] $365,845 $116,920 202 [sof sass | tazao} saga} nase] 497) _s1. ass) 2m3| SSO] Sua] 30] Sagat zsa | $43,442] $107,067 es] SO]SC.9S6 | t3zaof saat t2sa]szsz9so] $102,457) est SOT Sus 32a0f saat tsa] 222.927] $98,045 zest SOS to saat asa] 23327] 393.823) ar so sre za saga 25a [$204,141 | $29,782 zest CSO] Soo] tszeoT sage tsa] $195,350] $85,916 [mst so] SS70 za soset a zsa] $186,938] 2.216 2mo| so] _sisoz| 13240] —sasz|———st sal sivas] $78,676] weit sso] sus] tszaof saga an2se]simiaas| $75.28 2082 | —__sof sists [az] sage} _uiasa{_suesais}_s72046| 2033 [| —__sof susie [iso sage} __11254|_s156 759 $68,944 157 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | f Altersative Project Iapat Capital Cost (1992 $ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) | Average Annual MWh, October — May | Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual Energy MWh 15,434 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (%): 45 Inflaton Raw (%) Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Summer Load Mult plier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Oupput (MV Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278.69 Net Benefit = $9, 3 BenefitCost Rato = 156 ' ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo= Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name ofAltermative: ___ Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | I | Diese! i PV PV MWh Spal. Needed PV Peel PV | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable A 1992 $0} $0 | 0 193 so] 30] 0 1994 $0 30] 0 1995 | $0 | 30 | 0 1996 | $0] _$0 | 0 197 | ot _$0| 9 1998) $12.321.128 | $258,764 | 15,434 19997 30 | $257,190 15,434 | 2000 | | $246,115 15,434 | 2001 } _ $0} $235.517 15,434 2002 | Sol $225,375 15,434 | 2003 | 30 $215,670 15434] Sagat 5,669 | —$614,125| | 2008 so Ee 3 See Se $288,043, [ 2005 so $197,495 psossT sia | $576,674] $275.639 2006 $0 7,094 — See $283,769 2007 $0 = $252,411 [ 2008 $0 $241,541 2009 30 Po oo $21,140 2010 nos $091 | er $221,187 2011 15.434 sas2 $211,662 202 [3] sass | ses] S080 | sino || —— es] p20] SO] stseg76] tsa] sasz| 9,060 | $440,706] $193,825] zou] so] siszgos| saat sag2t 9.00] sears] $185,479] [owsf sot siz7i73] tsa] sage] 900 | saoa.s6s | $17,491] [orf sot sizteog | sas saszt 90 | 86189] $169,848] zo} SO} sit6.4s6] saa | saga | 9,060 | 369,559] $162,534] [aos sot sina saga saga 90g] sas3.cas] $155,535] zo So] st06.gaz saat saz 9c] smsig] $148.838] 20 SE 1sa3sa]_sag2| 9,060 | $23,843] $142,428 $97,655 saga] saz] 9.060 | sx0p.g98| $136,295 eso] || | eal sa sol sare] tsaza sagzt 9.0] s3.783] $124,809] on so] sass7s[asaza] saga 9.0m] sz7ises]$119.435] 2@s so} __ssisso] sas] saa] 9.060 | 259.868] $114.292| zes] SO] R364] tsa] saga] 9.060 | 48.678] $109,370] 207 sol smuseo|1sazat saz 9.00] $237,969] $104,660] zos} So] soo} sass | soz | | saa} $100,153) zm] so} seu.g70| sas] saa | 9,060 | szi7.9i6| $95,841 | 2wo] sot 85.713] sae saat 9.060 | $208,532 $91,713 261 159 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation __| Alternative Project laput (Standard Input 0 : Real Interest Rae (%) 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 | Discount Rae (&). 45 Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel=2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh: 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Low SummerLoad Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Mulf plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput ‘h): 23600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output h): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $173,418 Bene fitCost Rato = 1.42 Po ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo—Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Bad-Use Coaservation | } Diese! | | PV PV MWh Sigal. Needed PV | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost awa) O&M Saving \ 1992 | so so 0 $0.67 16230| «S| 7) 1993 | $411.19 $0 35 $0.68 | 16616] ——si783|——«S'1.063 | 1954 | $0 —soT 69 $0.70 I $3,447 $1,994 195] Sol $0 110 $071 $5,334 $3.040 1996 | $0} x 165 $0.73 $7.39 $4369 197 | sol so aI $0.74 sips] $6021 | 1998 | $0 so] 29 $0.76 $13.255 $7,034 | | 199 | so] $0 3 $077 $14,950 $7.25 | | 2000 | sol so so79| 19332] $16,986] 88.656 | | 2001 $0 so soso; 19.736] 18.673] 59391 | | 2002 | $0 $0 rm TT | 2003 $0 so Q $11971 | 2s a a 21,367 $25,443 $12,161 30. Z| ——s| ——“nupe| sa $12,610 | 201 $0. es 001 $0 — a $0 ee = sop sot sos 235273363] $13,864 | zoit STC] sas ee | 831,968] $14,060 rot SOs so ai sme6T $14,217) zost SOT Osage ae $0 2014 eT '] ost sot soos as so 80] zmof sot sof ose | zoif sot soos | eae | sot 203 sop soto sug aoe} so] zest soos eae oT zesf sop soos aaa} SO} zest oP osu | asa | SO 2m7f so soos | ae 8 [asf sot soto suet age | so] [ama sof soo sage ae sot Lasso soto sage aoa sot 80] zus| sot soso a sO] o7{ gota eas so 80 zee} sot soo sae aga sot 80) 2e9f go] goose aaa oS oo] SOPs aaa O88 zonf sot soo soe gage sot 8 ort soto soe aoe sot post sot soo soe age so] TOTALS: $411,199 0 S395 566 $189,051 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 30 Net Benefit = $173,418 BenefitCost Rato = 14 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input | == Interest Rate (%): Caan Rate (%): Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 1992 Diesel Cost ($/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Summer Load Multiplier: Winter Load Multiplier: Solomon Gulch Summer En Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): Summa Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro Allison Lake Stand-Alone Solomon Gulch — Lower Intake Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro End—Use Conservanon Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuei=2): Output (MWh): fntusaweey 11,000 450 Medium 03 0.7 28,600 25,900 Net Benefit: Average Benefit Cost Annual Displaced Ratio Diesel (MWh | Medium | 2] sis.464133| 53] 26745 | | 2 (si9g07,996)| 057] 15645 | Medium | 2] s7z9.sqn | so] tes | simaig] 1.42 | 540 1 , ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16= Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro r 1 Alternative Project laput [Capital Cost (1992S) $232946) Sun Year 1998 a | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): $275,000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May 27,396 | Average Anoual MWh, June — September 0 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 27396 Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): 45 = Inflaron Raw (% 0 Discount Rae (%) 45 S Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2): 2 ‘Average Diesel Heat Rae BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): 4530 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium SummerLoad Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput(MWh 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Caer Savings = $3278 39 Net Benefit = $15,464,133 TOU = 153 . ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS ‘Name of Altermative: eae 1992 | fom 1993 30 1994 zt $0 { 1995 | $0) $0 | 1996 | $0 | so 1997 so 0 | 1998 | $24. 825535 i $211,171 19280 | 30.76 0 $883,083 $468 582 | 1999 | sO} $202,078 20,28 mz 0 $901,420 $471,814 I 2000 | so $193,376 21376 0 $333. ze $475,738 2001 | $0 be ee $481,729 2002 $0 = 23.895 stl sete ser] | 2003 $0 $169.455 Baa SA __ Sn 2005 so $155,175 27396 —enos | 2007], $0 $142,098 27396 $0.86 % $960,606 + — 2008 so] siss979| —=s27396| ~~ Sas] a 80] Soaiaas| $08,746] 2009 | sol sizoizs] 27396] sao] 6s] 591.587] 3410283 2010 $091 2011 $0 $119,158 27396 som] 7.990 | s8s4261] $375,709] [on sot sisoa7] 27396 sot 790] sai7e74| $359,530] 203] Sof i097 27396] sae} 7.90) sre z72 $344,048 zou So] Stoasig| a73o6] sot 7g] susses| $09232] 2osf so] swat 273e6] saz} 7.90] $716 350] $315,055 ort SO] soson[ 273e6] saz 7990] $455,983] $288,505 zos[ So] srsexf 2736] saszt 7.90] saz7.73s| $276,082 zo] So] sro arses suse | 7990 | $600,703 $254,193 2wo[ So] sw] z6f sas] 7.990] $574,836] $252,816 2mif SO] s5z9[ z7ae6[saszt 790] $550,082 $21 z= 2mo[ so] sraans[z7ae6| soa 9s0T ss6see] $231,511] 2@3[ Sof sm263] a6] saga 7.990] $503,727 e252 zest sof se7237] 27396] sos 7.990] $482,035 $212,002 2ms[ So] seen args] sage 7.990) $1278 5202 zest SO] Seis] 27396] sas] 7.990] seataia| $194,136] aes] So] ssezaz[ arses soszt 7.90] $404.26) $177,777 zest SO s39ss] za%6]saszt 7.90] 386.809] $170,121 | 2mof[ Sof ssigsi[ ace saszt 7.9] $370,153] $162. 795 | 2u3[ So] asa arses saat oso] 54363] $142,657] $43. - 799 3 4 zest SO] aia] zas6] saz gs] sa7.czs| $130,635 2m6[ SOT se eas | 273s] sas2] 7.990] ssaza9| $125,010] [2a7[ so srsaot zrae6[saszt 790] sz7i.gs9| $119,627) 2ms[ sof sas3z06] ages sas 7.gs0 | sso286| $14,475 | 2mg[ sof sere azs6 [sas] 7.g90 | sus.o77|__$109,546) 2oif sot ssigis| aes] suse 79m] szzsoss| $100,314 2o2[ sof seas] 273e6[ saszt 7.90 $21.266] $95,994 203, SOT ra azes [saz 790 saasc7| $91,361 | zus[ Sof sasero[ age sas] 7.990] sign 26s| $84,120] 2o7[ sof snes f age sag 7.990] s17s.147]_ $77,031 | zos[ sof sof of sae asses sof aa TOTALS: $24,825 635 $4,360,962 $28.350683 $13,022.90 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = $15,464,133 Bene fitCost Ratio = 153 VOD) ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Alternative Project laput Capital Cost (1992 $) Sart Year | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October - May-_ Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember Total Annual Energy (MWh) | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflaton Raw (% 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 a Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450, Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium SummerLoad Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput h): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b): 25300 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 19,807, BenefitCost Ratio = 057 am ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo—Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Staad—Alone | f T : | PV i YEAR Progect Cost | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | | 1997 | | 1998 | $41.210,508 | 1999 | | 2000 | 2001 — i | 2002 $193,178 L 2003 | . $184,860 2004 & $176,899 2005 $169,281 | 2006 so $161,992 2007 $155.016 pT sasst 1s isolssag.s72[ $255,861 | l ros; s=(“‘ SOC. 3u| ~—S—stsoas| Sass] 6641 | $537,653] 4,844 | ee ee 2010 $091 197a1| $503,978] $224.21 zits SOS] sous] sagz] 19.71] $as7gaz| $214,556 rom CSO Sua393 sas] saz] 19.761] $466.834] $205,316 2By CC‘ SOTCCSI.OB6| SSS Sag2| 9,741] $446,731] $196.475 | zou] CC SOS IO sous] saga] ia | 74] $188,014) zos]Sss—“‘SON~St0900s| sous] sag2| 19,74 | Saonoss| $179,918) 2016] CSO) SSK 11) ~~ oas| soz] 974 | sae | $172,170) 207, Ss—“‘ CCI Sous] soz] 97a | 374.611] $164,756) ro; SSCS] CaS S| Sasz] 9a | Sas.4so| $157,662! zoisy CSOT |= 6aS| Sagzt 19.741] $343,043] 2m@o]—~—=‘SOYYSC“‘CNCSVATUX«Y;:~OCCC*dGSGUS| =~ Satan | Smesz7i| $144,375) 201 8 $8 isso ga snes __sia st 2022 swwo[ issas[ saga] 97a] s300,607| _— $132,209) 203 $s ea] [segs] 1s.64s| sas | 19.741] $287,663] $126,516) 2@4 }___sof_srssso[ seas sage | __gzat|_szzs2s|_ sz 06 ost SOT Sm seas] saz] 9.741] sas3.azi| $115,854 | 2@6 ars es | 5059 | ise] s.r] sta 2m7, SOT Sz | seas] sosztig7ai] $241.23] $106,091 | zwif So] ss3.900 tseas[saszt a7] somz280| $88,964 2e2[ SOT ssa s7pfissas] sas2] 741] $193,569] $88,133 | 2u3[ So] sweass[iseas[ sasz trait si8sz34] $81,467) 2034 |__| segunfasees{ saat _ig7a1|__stz7as7}__$71959| 208 $0] 07 | iss | sn | 19701 | seat | sr zoot of sagontseas|sasztig.7ai | $42.240| $558 2040 | __sof sige asus [saga _agven | _si36.uis}__ss964 2st so] sais] iseas|soszt igen] sists] __$50,200| 2oas| 30] 9,04 15645 | saga] 19741] _s10oas| sag. zoe[ sof sas] seas] saat 97 | sio4szz| $45,969 zou7] sof ses] seas] sogzt i741] s00,021|___— $43,990 TOTALS: $41210508 757,413 $16,999288 $7,352,336 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Net Benefit = 19,807,996 BenefitCost Rato = 057 VAT ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower latake Alternative Project Iaput Capital Cost (1992 $) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh. June ~ Sepember: Surt Year 193 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 1,035 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (%) 45 | Vanable O&M Saw ‘SkWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on = 1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (SW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Mult pier: 03 Winter Load Mulip Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Ca: Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $729,944 Bene fitCost Rato = 159 V8 aw ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 10—Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Lower Iatake | PV = MWe |__ YEAR ao O&M Cost Useable Palco | 192 so! “sol | 1993) $181,118] $7,656 | 1, BL | 1994 | $0] 1995 | s0| 1996 | so | 1997 | so! CL 1998 | so 198 | 30 2000 | $0] 2001 | 30 root CSOSA] CS] SOI] 870] ———.079| 2003 $0 2004 200s [ 2006 30 207, SOT SIT 1.05 | 208[ SO 209[ 0 | 2010 $0 : 2011 $0 $3466 ros] saz] azo] ssigei] 514.057) 202 30 $3317 1os[sas2[ 4361] S085] 813.452) zo] oT sae os saset ser se2es[ siz.s72] 2014 $0 s3o3s| 0s] saz] 34361] SaB.008] S12 318) ois; So] sz go7] tors] sage] 3361] 5802] 11,788 | 2016 30 g27s2| tos | sag | 34361] SS as | $11,280) zo] CSO] SCCSCSG2 | ws] Sas 1] S43| «$10,794 | 8 2@3 2@4 TOTALS: Net Benefit = BenefitCost Rato Deferred Diesel Capac $1,081,118 Savings zo] SOs] tos] sage ase] Sass] 510.329] 220 zai] 80] [zag] ozs] saz} 3361] S475] $9885 | P2333 oes] saszt aor] S2tso7| 89.459 [saps Toes] saszt ator | sossi[ $9,052 gee | toms] saat 34361 | sisg47| $8289 | sisse[ os] saszt sazor | i8.03s| $7932 20s so ts |e ais] zest so sare os sasat3a3e1 | si6sis| $7263 | zero se os saset43e1|siszos] $6951 | 208 }—___90}_siaeo|_ ast sase| sane) sia) a wo] so] usm] 1s | sao | sasor] sin 09 | soon] 201 po sot suas] oas saga} aser| $13,253] 85.829 | o2f so] 837s toasts ase sizge| $5578 | m3} so] size Toast samt ase sis] $5337] ros] sof stzost os} sont 3a3en| S13] Ss | zo7f sof Suton oas saga sasersi0.r77]_ 54476 | 2038 }_se1___ suse} ast aah) ee /4@Q 76 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr —92 | j ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY i PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Solomoa Gulch — Raise Spillway 3 feet Alternative Project Iaput Average Annual MWh. June - Sepember [Total Annual E Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Infaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used ‘Len, Medium. High): Medium SummerLoad Mulfpler: 03 . Winter Load Mulfplier. i Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ovput Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output Summary of Output : Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $1,039,405 BenefitCost Rato = 168 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS 16-Apr-92 Solomon Guich — Raise Sp thay 3 feet Name of Alternative: | | Lat ss Spl. ease | YEAR| = cm cee Useable Wa) 192 $0| 2 | 13,569 19931 sol so] 14336 1994 so] $0 | 15.156 — —— 195 30 | so] 16134 1996 | $1,326; 913) $10,063 1 15,648 197 | so] $9,629 | 1,500 | $0.74} 16,734 1998 $0] $9215 1,500 | $0.76 17,780 ’ 199 | sof $3818 1,500 $077 18787 $66,651 $34,886 2000 | so $8438 1500 = Piss76 [65513] $3384 | | 2001 | $0 $8,075 1,500 $31946 2002 | $0 $7,727 1,500 = | 395] $61,578 | $30,570 2003 | $0 $7394 1,500 sox 329. 2004] so _$7,076 =e soss[ 2504s] $58,408 | $27,994 2005 so $6.71 soss[——26.427| $56,046] $25,789 | | 2006 | $0 ee ee $25,635 2007 solemn] SCS] Sas] 29295] 852.596) $4531 2008 [sof asset soo] sng | snes) __ssisaa $3475 203 [1 sige | sare $17,760 - ER TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,751,983 $222,143 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $1,039,405 /7/ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alternative Project laput [ Capital Cost (1992 5) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember Total Annual E. Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (% 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rae (%): 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Mulfpier. Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1219,768 Net Benefit = $2,590,387 BenefitCost Ratio = 1,13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lom Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS ‘Name of Alternative: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 32 feet | Diesei PV PV Mwah Sal. Needed PV Puel PV. YEAR ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Useable Fue! Cost Wh) Saving O&M Saving 1992 | $0] 30 | 0 $067 13,569 $0 $0 1983 so] sot 0 $068 14336 30 3 194 sol so] 0 $2.70 15,156 $0 $0 19s sol o of $071 16.134 so] $0 1956 | so] so] 0 $0.73 17,148 $0 $0 19971 $0 sol 0 $0.74 1 30 30 1998] $19.533.368 | $6,143 | 13240 $0.76 6,040 $606,433 $21,784 1999 $0] 35.879 13.240 $0.77 7,047 $583,307 $307,927 | 2000 | $0] $5,625 13.240 $0.79 8.136 $294.67 | 2001 $0 | $5383 13200] sosol 93m] $560,675] $281,978 f 2002 | so] $5,151 13240] sosil iaess] $543,532] $259,835 2003 | $0 $4,930 13240 sox] nse | $526,825] $258,216 2004 | $0 $4717 13.240 soss| 13308] ssissag] $247,096 | 2005 so $4514 13240[ sass] 14687] $494,657] $Z36.456 | 2006 so $4320 [ soss] 16103] $479.265| $26273 2007 7) $4134 [sossti7sss| $4642ee] $216.530) 2008 so] —ss39s6{ 240] sags] i046] $ass.003] $207,208 | [2007 —=“‘é SOCY#*COW#*#S37@si| ~~ 1a240| Sago] 20576] saaassa| $198.23 | 2010 sol saexzt aan saga 146 | 26,505 $189,744 out t—i‘SOTCC‘SRS | tao] sage as sarzsag| 8181573] 202 sol saa tao] saat as sescomn| $173,754) 203 sol saims[ aso sae as sa7aoss] 166272) 2016 sol sara] tzzao| sage] as | 3291] $145,706) 2017 sol seer] 3240] sas} as | 37,025] $139,429] 2m3[ Sot Some tazaof saga] tas | 543,442 $107,067 zest sot sgse] seo] saz} us| $232.959] $102,457 20s [ sof sist 30 sagzt a5] 222.927 $58,045 206 sof surf aaoT sage tas] $203.327] $93,523 [mrt sot su 3zsoT saat tas saa tar | $89,782 [mst sot sigso fT tazsof suse tas] si9s3so] _s8s.916 omg sof sisro]tszeo] sont as] sis6g3s] s.216) 2060 sol saison] t3za0f soz] tas | 878.288 | $78,676 (an sos] 320] soz} as | 871,185 $75.288 [asa sof siz7sT aso saset as] 63.13] $72,046 Passo size 13240 saset 145] $156,759] $68,944 204 sigs aao ssn ma | __sis.o05 |_ssos. zus[ sot sizostiszeoTsoset tag] $143,549] $63,134 Pogo sass iazao] soset ag | $137,367] sais | = po sof sion tszeofsagat es] sizias2] 857.813 | sof suoss] 1320] saga as] $125,792] 855.324 | a CT 8 8 8 8 Bae 8 20468 Se eCe gee gee ene eet eT ET TOTALS: $19.533.368 $126,864 $14,386,103 5.250 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1219,768 Net Benefit = $2590, Be ne fitCost Rato = 1.13 I7F ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS { [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project Iaput Capital Cost (1992 $) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember. Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (%). 45 [InQaton Raw (% 0 Discount Rae (% 45 Vanable O&M Savi ‘SkWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BIU/AWh: 11000, 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 4590 Load Forecast Usd (Low, Medium High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput(MWah): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter tome ome ae 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 : Net Benefit = $7,953,415 BenefitCost Ratio = 145 (TH ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY To-Apr=3e ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro | Diese! | PV PV MWh Sal. Needed PV Pel PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost sw Saving O&M Savi: 192 $0} $0 o} $0.67 13.569 | 30} $0 | 1993 30) $0 | 0 30.68 14,336 | 30 $0 1994 $0] $0] 1 $0.70 iss] SSO S=«S 1995 so} so] Oo] $071 wise] sof 50) 1996 | $0 so] 0] $073 asl 1997 | $0 so 0 $0.74 18 30 $0 1998 $2321.12 | $258,764 15,434 we a $706,924 $375,106 | 1999 | so} $257.190 15,434 $685,795 $358,953 [ 2000 | $0] $246,115 15,434 —— i re L 2001 | So} $235.517 1sa3a] soso 7.185 | $653,585 $328.704 2002 so] $25,375 15434] $081] 8.461] $033,600] $314,550] | 2003 | sol sziss70[ saga] Some] $614,125] $301,005 | 2004 so] sone 3e2[ saa Sosa is] se00980] $288,043] | 2005 so $197,495 15.434 | 2006 $o $188.91 1434] soss] 13909] $558,684] $263,769] 2007 $0 $180,852 15434] Sass] 8361 ss4ni7a] $252,411] ros; SO] 73,064] saa] Sos] ie as2]ss30402] $241,541 2009 sol siss6i2]_— isa] soso t3s2 | ssi3sss] $231,140] 2010 RR a a 2011 sol sisi.oss] —isa3a| soz | 19.952] Sag262] $211,662 | Lon 80 SE 19.952 — SE 2013 30 15,434 19952] $440,706 2014 -—— S| na ae zowt sol sizes] tsasa | saga] 9.952] sas.tag| $169,848] zo7[ Sot stt6 ase] sazat saat 19.952] sasossol $162,534] 2018 so] sunnaai] 15434] saga | 9.952] $383,645] $155,535 zo So si066a2 tsaza| sagztig.9s2] $338,416 $148.38 2@0 So siozoso]sa3a] saz] 19.952] $23,843] $142,426 zmif sof sorgss| tsaza| sag2| 19.952 s309.898] $136,295 2022 RE RB = ee 204 . $85,575 15,434 $092 19,952 sae $119.435 zes{ Sot sags] saa] saga] 19,982] $259,868 | $114292 2035 0 $931 1550 | ss | 19982 | sor 26] sol sso sa3a] sage] 19952] $160,131] $70,426 2u7{ got saszas| sass sat i952] $153.25] $67,394 [ams so sas zog saa sage | ig9s2] $146,636] $64,492 209 }_—____01_segzis|_ ssa} soa} sassa sweat ___seuie} 3 9 ‘ zouf So] stsags fsa saat ig9s2t sien] $9523] | 2ousT sot sasgss suse saga] 952] $107,753] $47,390] ous] oT sags saga saga] is9s2] $103,113] $45,350) zo7| so] stipes] saga] sos 19952] see.672] $08,397] gos] sof soo sage asses sot TOTALS: $12321,128 $5,550,315 $16,770,023 $7,746,434 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = $1,308,401 Vie ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16= Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Name of Alternative: Bad— Use Conservation |Altermative Project Iaput Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh, October - May: Average Annual MWh. June — Sepember Toul Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 sey Inflaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/k Wh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese] Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High Medium [Summer Load Multpier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 07 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Ow 3 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $173,418 Bene fitCost Rato = 1.42 /Tie ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lO Apr=32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~S50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation | Diesel MWh Saal. Needed PV YEAR Cost Satie Useable Fuel Cost AW) O&M Swi | 192 | $0 Pal 0 $0.67 13se9] SO 8 { 193 $411,199 | $0 | 35] $0.68 14301 31.783] ‘$1,063 | 1994 | $0 $0 | 69 $0.70 15,087 sau7]__$i,.994| 1995 | so | sol 110 som] igors] $5334) $3,040 | 196 | $0} $0 165 37,894 6 ee ——- suas | 1998 | $o| $0 29 $13.255 [is $0 $0 ss [~“sis9s0| $725] ———_ ao | 2001 30 0 ra 2178 $18.673| $9,391 | 2002 = $0 $0 494 el 2003 $0 so sa] some] 437] sases| $1971) 2004 sol sof os soa asm sn 3o7] 11650) post sof sows sos ares | 55.443] 812.161 | 2o6f ToT sos zasost soso] $12.610 Te 2ms[ so] S| $0.88 31,434 28 zmof so] so] to sao 32907] 0270] $13,624 | 2010 8.8 = sosi] 34eis | $31,163] $13,864 | 2011 1,025 so] seo] ssiseg| $14,060] zoo] SO] Sos sae toa seso6] $14217] 2p [sot so of saga as3zes[ sot 80] zou fot so of saga 3s3ze6 [sof $0] ros] so] sot soe szes fot] 20] $0] so] 0] saz] ssa] 0] 0] 2mof sot soo saat 3s3e6f sot 80] zt sot soto soe sas] sof 2m3| soto sage 35386] so] zest sot os} 3sze6] so] 20s [sasat3sze6f SO 8 2m7f Soo sage 3szeot sot 80 gost so] soo soe sszasf sot 80 | oi} so] soso asze6 sot 8 2u2{ So] soo samt 3sae6[ sof 80] 2033 }—_———}_so} ___a}__sasz|__sssas|___go} 80 TOTALS: $411,199 %0 $395 566 $189,051 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = so BenefitCost Rato = 14 IAD ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 | Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): $0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 25,900 Used Used [Allison LakeTunnel with Hydro | High || [Allison Lake Stand-Alone SSSSCSdSCMigh =| 2 | (515,703,340)| | 19666 | Solomon Gulch — Tower antake [ High | —s2| Ss $7zggaa] aS] 0S | ee as earn TE ge TT COT FTES eee cree [Solomon Guleh = Raise Spilways2feet | High [a s.zapaz7} __ug}_aei7] [Allison Lake Pipeline w/Hydro High =| S| S6.921255[ 1.39 | 154 eee PPT TPT DPT ee sane a /8b ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | | | [Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro | i f | |Altermative Project laput Capital Cost (1992S) $2,329,434 Sur Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $):_ Average Annual MWh, October — May" Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember Total Annual Energy (MWh) 27396 i} Standard Input Reai Interest Raw (%) 45 Inflaton Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (SkWh 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2):_ 2 Average Diesel Heat Rae BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High) High z Summer Load Multiplier: 03 Winter Load Multiplier. 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output b 25900 Summary of Output Net Benefit = Bene fitCost Rato = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16=Apr—-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL —S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Altermative: : Allison Lake Teane!l with Hydro | Diesei | PV PV | MWh ile Saal. Needed PV Fuel PV | | YEAR ject Cost O&M Cont Useadle Foe! Cost (MW) Savi O&M Savi | 1992 | 30} 30) o $0.67 30369 $0 | $0 1993 | “sol so 9 $0.68 31,136 | $0 so 1994 | _30| $0 0 $0.70 31,956 0 $0 1995 | $0| so} 0 $0.71 32934 $0 $0 | 1996 | so] soy 0 $0.73 33948 | $0 so | 197 | $0 so] 0 $0.74 35,034 $0 so - — 1998] $m0.825635[ s2un.i71 | 27.396 $0.76 8.684 | $1254.21 $665,830 199 | seman Zim $077 9691] $1217315 $637,158 2000 | 30 $193,376 | $0.79 10,780 $1,196,529 $609,720 2001 | | $0 $185,049 = 96. soso] 12.023] $1,160,141 | $583,464 2002 | $0 $177,080 r3%]sosi] 13299] $1,124.667[ $558,339] | 2003 | $0 $169,455 27396] sosz] 15110] $1,090,007] ___$534296] i 2004 $0 $162.158 23%] sasat 17.030] $1,066.65 | $511288 ost SO] Sass.7s|27396[ Sosst 19.000] $1,023.20 $489.271 ——2 $142,098 21, $448,040 27,396 2 RB tats $28,746 27396 #2) __ssr__satass, ae fst fat sa 2011 [ss] fist] ase] sae | ss | ssa a 709 2oz{ Sot sisor7 [race saszt aos] ssrzara[ $359,530] 2o3f sof sio9n7] 27396] sas] ness] smmz72| $344,048 zou[ sof siossis 27396] soe tags] smug ss6] $209.232) zos[ sof suit 736] saz} a96ss|$716.350] $315,055 ow] Sof seis] 27396| saat 2965s] saassoz] sa01.4ss) zo7t so soisoit 27396] suet 2965s] 5a5sca3] $288,505] zoe sot sersoit 27396] sag2|29.6ss| saz7.73s|_ $276,082] [orf sof sero 27396] saga] 2965s] $400,703] $264,193 a __som_ss_ssiuane_sie [| se729] 27396] gas] 2965s] $550,082 $241,929 a [smaas|zze6 | saa] 29.65] $526,394] $231,511 p23 sof ses] z7ge6| saga | 2965s] $503,727 $21542 [asf sof se7237z7see| saa] 2965s] $482,035] 212.002 zest sot seismi fares soz | aa6ss | seanata| $194,136) 2a7] So] seo zz6| sage] aes] sezz4o6| $185,776) zs] SO] 56383] zrzes| sus | 29.655] $404.26 | $177,777 mofo ssissi] 27396] sas 2965s] $370,153] $162,795 zoo] sot senza 7396] sasz| 296ss| siss6o| $149,077] 2033 — B. Mea Sees _sies_itepiph_tans zast sot sexze6[ ses] saz aes $310,396) si zeas[ sof sata z3s6] saga] ess] $297,029 $130 as] sot seas] 27ss6 | sasa|296ss| $2429 $125,010 2o7[ got s7gao] zee] saga} 965s] $271,999) $119.62 us] go] saszo6 Tres saz a96ss | s36o2a6| $114,475 | 2u9f got saras aes soset 2965s] s9.077| $109,546 oof sot set aes] soz | z96ss | sz3g3s2| $104,828 zit sof sists] aes] saz ess] szzsoss| $100,314 oz; so soa] 273e6] saat aa6ss| 218266 $95,994 | 2u3[ sot st aae6[ saz 2965s] smesc7| 91.361 2os[ sot sase7p[ae6[sasztaesss] sisizes| __ss4,r20 | Fd ) eT ) TT } eT 71h a) er} TOTALS: $24 225 635 $4360,962 $29,767 A98 $13,750247 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = $369,243 Net Benefit = $15,200391 BenefitCost Ratio = 152 /F/ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Altermative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone Alteraative Project laput [Capital Cost (1992) Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): oo 000 | Average Anaual MWh, October — May” : = Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember Total Annual Energy Wh): Standard Input 0 | Real loterest Rae (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%) a Discount Rate (%): Fuel Cost Forecast Used AEA Reco =, Low Fuel =2): 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Multiplier. 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Eaergy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276,241 Net Benefit = 15,703,340 Bene fitCost Rato = 0.66 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io—Apr=32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Stand-Alone | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost pes ae 1992 | so | sO 1 0 $0.67 1993] so] 30 | 0 $0.68 Bee so} $0 - $0.70 2 as = “30| so] 0 $071 1996 | sol $0 | 0 $073 197 | so] $0 0 $074 198] _saiziosos| 50369 15.645 $076 as 1999 | $0 | $20,449 | 15.645 $077 , $695,170 $363,861 | 2000] so] 8210956 iss] sare] ssi [$683 301 | $348,192] 2001 | so] $201,871 1s6as[ soso] 237%] $662,520] $333,198 { 2002 | $0 $193,178 15,645 sosi] ___—25,0so|$642.262] $318,850 | { 2003 $0 $184,860 16147 6 $314,906 2004 ek a_i $312,095 2005 $0 $169,281 17314 $309.211, 2006 $0 $161,992 17914 $306,149 2a $0 $155,016 18543 [| ise set $0 $148,341 igisz| sass] saat] $659201| $300,196] TOTALS: Deferred Diesel Capacity Sevings = 3276241 Net Benefit = ($15,703,340) BenefitCost Ratio = 0.66 [he $0] sss 98 | sso | sag | seeps | sr [orf sot si3ssao]zasiof sasi] 36541] $660,705] $293,936 2011 $0 $129,991 zasio] saga] 36541] ses9ssi] 281.278 | goof soy sizg393] aso saga] esa} sorzoin| $259,166] 23 sot sia asi sas] esa] ssas.ese] $257.575] zo4t sot sissiof aso saga] esa] 3560436] $246,483] 2015 22 ER Gr ae te zoe] Sof $1043 | asso} saa] 3 San | 8513208] $225,712 2017 $0 a zos[ so ssszit asso] saz] se sai] $59,960] $206,691 | zoigf Sof soar ast saat ese] seag.723] $197,791] zmof sof sears ast soca tsi] 3430357] $189.273 | zmif sof se rost zasiot saga tse sen ft setneos| $181,123] zm sof sao} asso} soz] 36 5a1 | $94,091 $173.32 2m3f sot sss] aso saga] 36s41 | __ $377,120] $165,360 aes] sot sasso] asso soz] 36541] $360.88: $158,717 zest sof smi astot saat 3a 5a1] $345,340] $151,883 zest so sor.t6p fT 2aswot saat a sei] sa0se9 | $145.342/ 2027 [$0] ___seazie|___asao} ange] 36st |___ssitzae|_st39 083 2ms| sol soi sos| asi] saat 36541 | , $133,004 209 [0] ss60 | 20510 | suse | sear | 59599] 12738] 2wot sot ss632s[ ast saga] sesan | sz7sig| siz a7) zoif sof ss3g00] aso] saz] asa] sass] $116,630] 2m2] sot 51579] aso] saz} 36 S41 | $253,766 $111,608 us| sot asset asm] saat sar] sz 37a] ss 801 | 2a7| got satzeg| aso] saga} esa] $03,635) $3560 2uo] sot sso aso saszt 36 sai] sis647a| $82,013) zoit sot sro] 2aswot ose esa] $170,760] $75,101 | 2042 | _sszis[ aus] san | saan __sues.ao7|_s1367/ 23] sot sizes asm] same] 6541] $156,370) "7 rout sof sais] asso sasz| 36541] $149,637) oat 2045 $e at] sas) gos] sof sass asi saat ese 137.027] 560.265 | 2047 }_so|__ssesa}_2asyo}___gosz|___sesai|__sisi.ia}_3974701 os[ sof goof sae srs 8] $41210508 $4,757,413 $20, 1S $9,431,525 a ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Altermative: Solomon Gulch — Lower latake _| Alternative Project laput | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — September: Total Annual Emergy (MWh) 1,025 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% ) 45 Inflation Rae (% 0 DiscountRawe (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec on =1, Low Fuel =2): Average Diesel Heat Rae BTUAWh 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW): SummerLoad Mult plier: 03 Winter Load Mulé 07 Solomon Guich Winter Eaergy Output h): 25900 Summary of Output Net Benefit = BenefitCost Ratio = ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16— Apr -92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL ~S50 YEAR ANALYSIS |Name of Alt s ch — Lower Iatake | ven atm date | a (att) = Loe let | YEAR | F--rect Cost O&MCost | Useable Pela ata C 1992 $0] 30 | 0 $0 1993] $1,081,118] $7.656 1,025 Saas Sa ae ae 194 _soy $7326 1,025 $0.70 3os3i | s51362]$29.707] 1995 $0 "$7010 | 1,025 | $071 31,909 | sap.ggs[ $28,428 | 1996 $0] $6,708 1,025 somz| 32923] Saptsi] 527.204] 197] 30 | $6,420 1,025 | $0.74 1998 | $0] $6,143 1,025 $0.76 35,055 | 1999 | $0 $5.879 1,025 $0.77 [sens ss | 2000 % | $5 = LS sa7o[ 371s] sua767] S812] 2001 soso] 34304) $406] 01830] 2002 sas | st a a8 $4,930 — sot aiasi| swo7as| $19,990) 4717 1,025 bee ee 208 — $4514 45371 | $38,298] 518.306 | $0 a el so] sam] 1.005] sous] e968] $s.o40| $16,763 a a 2og| SOC SBS tos] soso] 53784] $34,106] $15,350) 2010 SB __k_sautg_spgie_siuots 2011 | ___so|__sases|_ezs|_sagz|_saus|_ss1asi/_sia.s?] 202 |} —— | — eee 8 spss | | se | sa] govt sot sez oas| saga] 56026 | 54,543] $10,794] zos[ so] ssa os| saz] sean] sags] 510329] zois[ Sof Saas fos] saat 56026} 475] 89.885 | zmof sot sas33 Jos] saga] S626 | szso7| 89.459 | zoif sof sas aos saat seoz6 | sn ssi| $9,052 zt sot ss | tos} soz} 56026] $19,695] $8,662 | 2m3{ sof soe | os} soz] 56026] $18.847| $8,289 | zest so sgse] os] saz} eons | sss] $7932 zest oT stoi toast sat saoas|si6sis| $7263 2@7f SO sass} saz | S026] $is.804] $8,951 | 208 }___3o}___sueso}_ as} ssn) saat sis) aes 2080 0 00 hs sa] $006 | si 9 sor zoif sof saag7] toast saga] saozs] 813253] 85.829 | ze2f sof 37st ost case] aos | Sze] 85.578 | 203 [__ sof sigi6} a5} ____sasz}___s426)___st.06/_35397| 2008 | 0 | | ——o - sa] $7081 ol sr TOTALS: $1,081,118 $158,096 $1,328,053 $641,104 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $729,944 IBS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS (Name of Altermatrve: Solomon Gulch — Raise Spillway 5 feet I | |Altermative Project Iapat Capital Cost (1992S) Annual O& M Cost (1992 $): | Average Annual MWh, October — May: Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: Total Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (% 45 Inflaton Raw (%): 0 Discount Raw (%): 45 Vanable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High SummerLoad Mult pier 03 Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Ouput (MWh): 23600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output —— Deferred Diesel Capaciy Savings = 30 : [Net Benefit = $1,290,055 BenefitCost Ratio = 184 ene! ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY io— Apr—92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL—50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Solomoa Galch — Raise Spillwa war feet ca STs | YEAR Pi Cost aekcas eo care Seviag 1972 $0.67 | ae | eae $0) KIRIN 0} 193] _ $0.68 ojo 31136 —_*#___# 1994 | of $0.70 31,956 1995 | = ah $0.71 934 = = 1996 | $1326, 3131 ao isa $0.73 448 $71929 $9811 1997 | 30] $9,629 1,500 | $0.76 = 34] $69,820 | $33,096 | | 1998 | so] $9215 1,500 $0.76 $68,705 536.456 { 1999 % $8818 a $0.77 $6,651 $34,886 | 2000 $8,438 $0.79 $3384 2001 = a a $31.946 noo] so] $177] 1900] sosi] 399s] sois7s] $30,570 203f sof sree tsa] sagas] $67,723 $33,194 ost so] so76 Tm] suse} ars | $665,274 8 = zost Sot sam fm] sass] aaooa | $03,593] | zus[ SOT Seago met sosstaeoa | $6109] 9.087) 2007 SS tna oe soso[ sato7 | $56,633] $25,489] 2010 17@ soni] __ss3ag | s54g27| $4392 | Lon sot ssz00T | saz | 5539 | $53,072] Bx zoe So] aoe sat ss3ag | $50,786] zosf sof serene | saa] 539 | Sasso] 821374] zouf sof assem} saa] sag] su5so7] $0454 zos{ sof sazeo ef soa sao] sea soa] 519,573] zos{ sot sar] saga] sug | seo ss7|_ $18,730] zor] sot sages] nm sae] ssa] saorsa] $17,924] osf sof sass tsa} s3ag | sase9| $17,152] oot oT saesef met saz] sso] $7319] $16,413 2mof sot sxaso fT sasat sagt sas.7i2] $15,706! zeit sof aes mt soszt ss 349] sa.t7a| $15,030) 2m3f so] sss | sont ss 34g] 31294] $13,763 [sof sagem sas ssaag]spse7f 813.171] 2es[ sof tos et saga sssag] sa.es7] $12,604 | 2ms[ Sot sae ae sasetss3agT sz7az3] $12,061 | zoif so] sass mf saga sssao | szzo0s| 9,678 | zest sot sige me] saga] ssa] soasi| $8,863 | za7] sof suas] mm] saa] ss3ag | sissss| $7432) ast so sasest my saat ssaug] sig, ro] $7.12 | zuo[ sot sass f my saga ssaag | sisa7e] $6,806] 2omof so] stasif sasz| 55349] si4gos] $6513 | 2g] osama saset ssa] siz976| 85,707 goat sof sip sasat sug] sizai7] 85,461 | os} SO] sais} saga ss3ag | siigas| 85.226 | 7 1 on] Se ) ee ) | ee) 047 | Renan ge | TT TNE | TNL) NNT 9g NTL S 7s nine gg | lala gg | TOTALS: $1,326,913 $207,809 $1,924,931 $399,844 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = 0 Net Benefit = $1,290,055 Be ne fi tCost 1 107 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS | |Name of Alternative: Solomoa Galch — Raise Spillway 32 feet Alternative Project laput - Capital Cost (1992 $ $25,438,178 Sart Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): 000 Average Annual MWh, October — May” Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: Standard Input 0 Real Interest Raw (% Inflaton Rat (% Variable O&M Savi : Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese] Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast at Medium a ae Summer Load Muliplier: 03 Winter Load Mulipier 0.7 Solomon Gulch ‘Summer Evergy Ouput MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Exergy Output b): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 Net Beaefit = $3,788,7 Bene fitCost Ratio = 1,19 eae ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16—Apr- ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alt i T Diese! PV PV MWh Sal Needed Pv YEAR ject Cost O&M Cost Useable Fue! Cost Wd) i O&M Savi. 1992 | So, s0 0 $0.67 30.369 | $0 | 1993 $o| so 0 sass ie] SOS = a —— — a TY 1995 | SO} $0 0 $0.71 ar) 1997 | So) $0 0 $0.74 a) 1998] 19533368 | $6,143 13.240 1999 | $0 h- 35.879 13240] som] 2 ga7 | s5a8.307] $307,927] 2000 | soy $5,625 13240 24,936 S26 _s.so 2001 so $5383 13.240 26179 Tr | 2002 $0 $5,151 ee | 2003 $0 930 13,742 re ene | 2004 $0 717 14318] saga] aos] $557,517] 5257211] 2005 $0 1ago9] Sass[snas7] $57,080] $266,259] 2006 30 1soao[ oss} 33356] SS44421] $257,036] 2007 $0 isoso| sass] 35453] 527.358] $245,967] 2as |e 1500] sass] 37543 | ssa] 235.375] 2009 5378S 15000] sao] 39769 | ssooas | ____ $225 240] 2010] so] sseza] 15040] sag1] «2011 sagaago] __s215,540] 2011] so] $3466] 15040] saga] «zou]| _ ss8.976] 5206259] 20] so] _sasi7] 1500 saga] «zon swa.7i] ___$197377| 203] so] sai] 1500] sao] 2011] s9.4se] $188.87 zou] so] saass| 1s040] sao] «2011| _sawoez] 180.744] 20s] so] 2907] 15040] sso] «2011 _$393266] 172.960] 2016] so] sam] 15040] sas] 2011] __ss76331] $165.12] 2017] so] saa | 1040] saga] «2011 _sswo,i2s] $158,385] [01s |] "sof —"s2sa7 15000 sage] «zon | a7] 181.565] 20] so] sax] 150] sas] 2011] 015576] $38,792] 21] so] s22%2| 15000] save] «011 _ss01.987] __s1s2.816] 203| so] soo] 15040] sao] 2011] sz7os38| 121,623] 2ms| so] si9ss| 1040] sao] 2011] sasa.o30| 116.386] res] so] sis] 150] saga} «zoun] __sas3a3s]____si11374| 26] so] sir] 15040] sao] e201] soea330] $106,578] 27] so] siz] 1500] sas] 2011] samiapa| 101989] 2ms| so] s1a0| 15040] sso] 2011] _szi.goo| 9797] 6 < ie 2083 |} sas] seo] saat azo} si7go7i| $8317] 2034 Bian saat 2us| so] stasis] sage] aon | $163,065] $71,717) 2036 a 2u7] gosta] soot sasat aon sagas] $685,673 zmot go ston soa soca azo] $136,740] $60,139 | oif so] sees somo sage taza sizszi7]sss.071 | 2ou2] so seas] suo saat aon] sitgazs| $82,700] [of so} sas soo sagat aon] sita,ses[ $50,430] gout sot san suo saga zor] sio9.727] 548.259 zus| sof sg] soot saga azoin | si0s.oo2] $46,180 | post so] sof oso srosif sot 80 TOTALS: $19.533.368 $126,364 $15,866 0 37,306.85 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276241 Net Benefit = $3,788,437 BenefitCost Rato = 1.19 10°q © i ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 | ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY | PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S0 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name ofAltermative. Allusom Lake Pa 7 |Name of Altermative: Allisoa ¢ Pipeline w/ Hydro Alternative Project laput | Capital Cost (1992$):_ Annual O&M Cost (1992 $): Average Annual MWh, October — Ma: Average Annual MWh, June — Sepember: Sant Year 198 Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rae (% 45 Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rae (%) 45 Variable O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Rec oa =1, Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High Summer Load Mulipler: 03 Winter Load Mult plier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh). 29900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276.241 Net Benefit = $6921.255 Bene fitCost Ratio = 139 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo- Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~50 YEAR ANALYSIS | [Name of Alternative: Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro i | Pv PV MWa Sigal. | _YEAR ProjectCost__| O&MCost_ | Useable Fuel Cost 1992 | so $0 | 0} $0.67 1993 | $0 $0 = $0.68 $0 1994] so] $0 0 $0.70 956 | $0 1995 | sol $0 ol $071 334 $0 0 1996 | so] so | 0 $0.73 33.948 $0 so] 1997 | so | $0 0 $0.74 se $0 30] 198] $12321.128 $258,764 | 15434] $0.76 $706,926 | $375,106 1999] 2, $257,190 15.434 a7 = $685,795 $358,953 2001 | so] $B5517 15.434 $228,704 | 2002 $0] $25,375 15,434 mo =o i 2003 ~— E 470 15,434 EE a zt so 15.434 $576,674 [ease 2006 15.434 32962] $558,684] $253,769] Se 2008 a 3 or 2009 $165,612 oso] 39375] ssi3sss] $231,140] 200] ~~ so|~—=*=tsgago] —tsa3a| S91] ag? | Sprig] $2,187] 2011 so] sisiss6| —stsa3a| Sag] aoa | Sasi262| $211,662 zon So] stastzs[ saa sas] 4617 | $as0s38| $202.47] zo Sot siss76] suse] sas2|an617 | $440.06] $193,825] 2014 sof siszsgs| suse] saga] ator | sazi.7zs]_ $185,479] 2015 sol siz7a7s]_ saga] sag] ator] sa03.sea] $177,491 | post So] sizneoe [suse saga] anor | st6,is9| $169,848 2017 sol siwsase[ suse] suse asr7 | s69,sso] $162,534] 2018 sol sumnai[asaza[saszt a7 | ss3.64s] $155,535] 2019 so] siosgaz[ suse sasztaier7 | saasig] $148,838) zmot CSO SSC Snoz.aso[ saga saszfaner7 | saz3.aaz | $142,428 zeit SO] srgss[isasaf saga] 4617 | saop.asa| __ $136,295 | amt SO s3.aso saa] sasz| asx] $296,553] $130,426 2m3] CSO Swag] asaza | sosz| aor] soma.7e3| $124,209] 204 sol sass7s[sasa[saszf anor] sa7ses| $119,435 | zest SOT saizso] sea saz asi] sass] $114292/ rms; CSO] SR SGAT saa] Sosa] aier7 | saaz.e7a|_$109.370] 2m7t SOT smgegT saa] saszt ast] $237,969] $104,660] | zest SOT sie] sesa] sage ange] sz7.7z2] $100,153 zest SO] Sa 670 asaza| sont ar] sar7o6| 595,841 zpol SOT Sas.7i3fasaza[soszt angi] sansssz] $91,713 2038 [90] ssn | 15456] sas] er | sana] sea 209 ) ) TOTALS: $12321,12 $5550315 $16,770,023 $7,746.34 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $276.241 /9/ SO ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 16-Apr-92 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS [Name of Alternative: Ead—Use Conservation Alternative Project Iaput | Capital Cost (1992S) $29,703 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $ Average Annual MWh, October — May 67% Average Annual MWh, June - Sepember: 33% Total Annual E: : Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%): 45 InQaton Raw (%) 0 Discount Raw (% 45 VariaBle O&M Savi ngs (S/kWh) 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel =2): 2 Average Diese] Heat Rae BTU/kWh: 11000 1992 Diese] Cost (S/W): 4590 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High): High SummerLoad Mulipler: 03 Winter Load Muléplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $0 Net Benefit = $379,186 BenefitCost Rato = 1.92 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY lo Apr-32 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS LN ame of Alternative: Bad—Use Conservation “aa | ee [es |___YEAR cae caccen | Useable Fue! Cost My : O&M Saving 1992 | _30| So} 0 $067 30369 $0 $0 | 1993 | S411. 199) so 35 $0.68 31,101 $1,783 $1,063 | | 194 $0) _ 30] 69 $0.70 31,887 $3,447 $1,994 | 1995 | so} $0 = $071 ps| «$5,334 | $3,040 196 | 30] so 3073] 705 | 4941 $4,369 197 | so} $0 . [saret a re7] 511934 6,021 | | 1998 | $0 | $0 289 sams] 37 [$1325] 20M | 1999 | $0 | $0 33% sary] 36750] $14,950] 200] 30] 30 388 a = — 2001 | sol $0 wit soso] agra] 818.673] $9391 ! 2002 $0] 0 au] sosi] sani | 20.270 $10,063 2003 $0 $0 sz] som] wigs] ssss2[ $16,607] [ 2004 | $0 30 g[ sass] azapo seco 517.475 | L 2005 so so oa] sass[ 457s] $38,165 | $18242 2006 $0 $0 mio] soas[ 47289] $40,065 | $18.916 2007 30 $0 rig] sos] aor Saisi2] $19,502 | 2009 | #2 __g0__sat_sssss $20,436 2010 Po sosi] ss600 | sas.74a] $20,796 ont sof so sas saset sss] se7g9s4] $21091| zozf so] so 6s saz ssazg | sagas] $21,325] fo soso of sass so go zat soto 8092 | syst] SO SUAS 293 ATT | STN | LST | Png tT 43 Sa TA $9) nl a 9 SES 9 | TM] UIP | LST y | cing ena 9] ae nT ga ang 247 CAAT | Ua VU i LR DU | OT | sc $9.25] san ena ISI 9 | ST ALT | MAA/ALAIAIN $j ILS PUI pee | TSN $s 9] Union 90] sini saa $9 | zoof sof sofas sas 8 18 20s sof goof gag srpsn sof so] 206 sof soto saat srs} ot 207 90 ITE genes a | La ge | TTA Ss enltIeaeat 9 | Mesias: $0 2028 | Tg TTS 0ST seg gS ie | enn gage indents gg | smialisininli gy) ______2a9f sof sof of gas} ses} 2031 Pere Cernag ECO ate | ele ca 20052 | aI CLAN | UAL STS Vane ap ellen $7 en | Nena gj TI a 203 | NI $0 nn 9a f Tee Ng) NIDA 9 PULA 9} 20554) | Sg] gy eg gaa Tye | i a 99 | re] a) a | a -) a“) wer, go ge of este 26e08 | cn | SLUMS: 9 SMES I Sy nie ule 99 | Teena qo geo aaa ag 20000 | ESET | SST a aT SL see eg LL 1 TSS) 2 tind alg | eels 9) gene ig gy aa ema ge ge ed a Tag Te gi Tg 0 TT Tg 203[ sof go of saset sot got 0 ie se eo aa ey ge OAS | aN enone 9] Li te eT LN TTT Sag] Sa a] LTS zosf sof so of saat ssi got 2007 | ee og] Ag SLT | gi ey SE gf GLE gi STOTT 99 TOTALS: $411,199 by $536,535 $253,350 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = fiend APPENDIX 7 Report Review Comment Letters and Responses APPENDIX 7 Report Review Comment Letters and Responses After this report was issued in draft form for review and comment, seven comment letters were received from various local, State and federal agencies as follows: 1) National Marine Fisheries Service 2) US Army Corps of Engineers 3) City of Valdez 4) Alaska Department of Natural Resources 5) US Fish and Wildlife Service 6) Alaska Department of Fish and Game 7) Copper Valley Electric Association Copies of each of these letters follow as Exhibits 7-1 through 7-7. A brief response or clarification to issues raised follows each comment letter. In addition, a public hearing was held on May 15, 1992 to present the report to the public and to collect input from interested parties. A copy of the meeting minute from this meeting are shown as Exhibit 7-8. : = : UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE esky! National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rue April 30, 1992 Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0869 ATTN: Richard Emerman Dear Mr. Emerman: Thank you for your letter concerning the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study. We have reviewed the draft Report and have no comment to offer at this time. We anticipate additional coordination and analysis will be necessary through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing project. We would, of course provide detailed comments during that process. Z_)\ Sincerely, / \ \ f ee (MALO , Ronald. Morris Western Alaska Office Supervisor Protected Resources Management Division Response to Exhibit 7-1, letter from National Marine Fisheries Service; National Marine Fisheries Service had no specific comments at this time. As anticipated by NMFS, extensive additional consultation, coordination and analysis will be necessary if and/or when the project begins the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY pe ee U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA i < P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 REPLY TO Se in MAY. 1 1 1992 rare: Project Formulation Section RECEIVED Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority ALASKA EXERSY AUTHORITY P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study, transmitted by your letter of April 17, 1992. The study appears to be well researched and presents the data in a logical format. During our review we noted frequent references to the Corps of Engineers report "Electrical Power for Valdez and the Copper River Basin, Interim Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement," March 1981. We are pleased that our document was of assistance in the preparation of your report. The concept of diverting water from Allison Lake to augment the winter flows for the Solomon Gulch hydropower project so as to utilize the full capacity of the existing generators is a logical one. We concur in your recommendations to perform further work to increase the detail and accuracy of cost estimates for this alternative. We look forward to seeing the results of this additional planning. Please contact Mr. Stan Brust of our Project Formulation Section at 753-2621 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Khe tee /Claude V. Vining Chief, Engineering Division Response to Exhibit 7-2, letter from US Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps of Engineers reviewed the draft report and expressed concurrence with the recommendations made in the report to perform additional studies to increase the detail and accuracy of cost estimates for this project. No specific questions were raised in this comment letter. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ADE car tose Alaska Energy Authority P. O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 Attn: Richard Emerman This letter is the City’s comments on RECEIVED Allison 7 1992 IGY AUTHORITY Lake Reconnaissance Study prepared for the Alaska Energy Authority by HDR Engineers. Section 4 on Page 3, where it talks about running a 9,000 ft. long, 10" steel pipeline from Allison Creek to Alyeska, very inefficient method of handling this problem. seems to be a There must be a better way. Such as, doing a tap into the lake when the lake is at its maximum drawdown or revising a portion of Alyeska’s feed to come from Sawmill Creek. very small benefit. If you have any further questions or comments, hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, i abees City Engineer WLW/gjm c: Clayton Hurless, General Manager/CVEA Doug Griffin, City Manager/City of Valdez Dave Dengel, Community Development Director/City of Valdez AA BAY 2N7 « WAIME? Al ASKA QQKRA please This seems to be a large expense for a don’t Response to Exhibit 7-3, letter from City of Valdez: The primary comment from the City of Valdez related to the proposed method of insuring minimum instream flow could be supplemented in Allison Creek during critical low flow periods. The report suggested a 10" pipeline from the Solomon Gulch Plant to Allison Creek (9,000 ft) which could be used to pump back supplemental water. The City suggested two methods, an additional lake tap or utilizing some flow from Sawmill Creek nearby. About $318,000. was allowed in the project cost estimate for this feature. We agree that there may be alternative methods available to perform the same function. During the next phase feasibility study, details such as this will be examined more thoroughly than in this reconnaissance level report. We are comfortable that the dollar allowance should cover whatever final method of adding supplemental water to Allison Creek is finally agreed upon. The Sawmill Creek option should be looked at in the feasibility study. The lake tap idea would work from the engineering standpoint, but would likely be uneconomic due to the very high cost and difficulty of making successful lake taps. It is anticipated that the possible construction of a well water source nearby would also be investigated during the feasibility study. MEMORANDUM STATE O SKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISIONGR EATER) Ly 22 i892 TO: Richard Emerman DATE: May19,1992. Senior Economist Asashe| EFOr oy Auinerin, Alaska Energy Authority TELEPHONE NO.: 762-2571 FROM: Gary Prokosch Rl SUBJECT: Allison Lake study Chief, Water Management Division of Water Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. My comments will not address the economic aspects of this project but will deal with a few minor issues that may or may not make a difference in the cost benefit analysis. The report mentions that the stream gage records for Solomon Gulch Creek are for the years 1986 through 1990, which were post project flows. The USGS has a few pre project records on this creek for the years 1950 through 1956 which might be usable for stream flow analysis. Check past records for USGS on gage # 15226000. The report state that the minimum flow requirements for Allison Creek would be 3 CFS based on past water rights and the minimum stream flow conditions placed on the water rights. The author of the report was correct in interpreting the water rights conditions but, the conditions were most likely set to reflect fall, winter and spring low flow conditions and were not meant to reflect the high flow summer conditions. I believe that a the minimum flow will have to be reviewed for mid-July through August to account for the flows necessary for salmon migration. Thank you again for the chance to comment and if the Division of Water can assist in any way please call. Response to Exhibit 7-4, letter from Alaska Department of Natural Resources: Several points were raised in the Alaska DNR comment letter as follows: 1) Comment: Some USGS stream gage data is available from Solomon Gulch Creek from 1950-1956 that could be used in streamflow analysis. Response: The Army Corps of Engineers streamflow analysis for Allison Creek used this 1950's Solomon Gulch data. For our analysis, we decided to use another alternate, but still valid method, | ing Power Creek data, which has a much longer period of record, and then to compare our results with the Corps results as a confirmation check. This comparison is presented in Table 5 of the report. Using these two very different methods, our analysis predicts an annual average flow of 47.9 cfs versus a prediction of 48.0 cfs from the Corps analysis, within 0.2% of each other. This close agreement tends to improve the confidence level in both analyses. 2) Comment: DNR comments that the 3 cfs minimum instream flow assumption does accurately interpret existing water rights conditions, but recommends that a review of this flow may be necessary for the mid-July through August period which is critical for salmon migration. Response: Instream flow issues will be a key aspect of future feasibility studies of this project. hy ' . a 2 —m United States Department of the Interior sas TT sae cnaaamaaiaaaa et: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE = = Anchorage Field Office = . Ecolugical Services and Endangered Species 605 West 4th Avenue. Roum 62 RECEIVE D Anchorage. Alaska 99301 M A AY 2 9 6 1992 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY MAY “* 2 1099 Mr. Richard Emerman Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0869 Dear Mr. Emerman: We have reviewed the draft Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. and offer the following comments in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). In our opinion, the report does not sufficiently describe the expected impacts of the project or alternatives on the fish, wildlife, and habitat values of Allison Creek or Allison Lake. Allison Creek drainage supports Dolly Varden (Arctic char), pink, and chum salmon.2/ Although not well-documented, the project area may support black and brown bear, wolves, wolverines, Dall sheep mountain goats, lynx, red fox, land otter, mink, marten, short-tailed weasel beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe hare. 2/ We agree the starting point for analysis of the Allison Lake Project is an assessment of the quantity of water available for diversion to Solomon Gulch and power generation while maintaining existing water needs for fisheries anc other uses. We question, however, the accuracy of flow predictions for Allison Creek because the linear regression analysis is based on only five months of provisional streamflow gage data taken from Power Creek. We do not consider such a data base adequate to accurately predict seasonal flows in Allison Creek. We also do not consider the Power Creek data appropriate for predicting the project’s impacts on quality and quantity of spawning anc rearing habitat in Allison Creek. We recommend the Alaska Energy Authority conduct a comprehensive assessment of seasonal flows in Allison Creek. An Instream Flow Incremental Analysis or similar methodology should be utilized to assess the availability of fisheries habicat during different flow regimes in the creek. The study should clearly document any impacts diverting water from the lake might have on spawning anc rearing habitat in Allison Creek, especially during winter low flow periods. Several years of data collection are needed to allow for natural variation in precipitation and to provide a sufficient sample size to accurately predict seasonal flows with confidence. The level of detail provided in the draft report regarding the economics of the project is detailed. Nevertheless, the economic analysis should be reevaluated to include mitigation costs associated with adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat values under preferred action and for each of th alternatives considered. In summary, we recommend a study be conducted that assesses the potential impacts of the alternatives and preferred action on fish, wildlife, and habitat values in the project area. Additionally, the economic analysis should be restructured to include mitigation costs. Please refer questions or comments to Larry Dugan, the project biologist, telephone 271-2789. Sincerely, Cows David McGillivary Field Supervisor Literature Cited Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide Volume 1. Ir Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Southcentral Railbelt Area, Alaska, Stage II Checkpoint Report, Hydroelectric Power & Related Purposes for Valdez, Alaska. Response to Exhibit 7-5, letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service: Several points were raised in the US Fish and Wildlife comment letter as follows: 1) Comment: Insufficient work was done to adequately describe all the expected impacts to fish and wildlife in the Allison Creek basin due to the project. Response: We agree that all the expected impacts to fish and wildlife were not completely described by this study and that more data needs to be gathered. The scope of this study was to perform a reconnaissance level assessment of several alternative project developments in the region. Developing details of expected impacts to an environmental impact study level will proceed only after enough engineering, financial, economic and fish and wildlife impact information is developed in enough detail to allow an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with this project. Most of the fish and wildlife species specifically mentioned in the US Fish and Wildlife letter are mentioned briefly in the report (see page VII-3). The Allison Lake Basin has been studied in several reports in the past, specifically by the US Army Corps of Engineers in their 1978 and 1981 Southcentral Railbelt Reports (see References 1 and 2), and considerable background information on the fish and wildlife resources of the area was reviewed during this reconnaissance study. In addition, a full EIS was prepared by the Corps for a proposed hydroelectric development on Allison Creek in 1981 (see Reference 2) to which the US Fish and Wildlife Service provided significant and very useful input. It is expected that if a decision is taken to proceed with a development at Allison Lake, the Corps EIS, the Solomon Gulch EIS and other study work previously performed will make an excellent starting point for adequately describing potential fish and wildlife impacts from the proposed development. 2) Comment: USF&WS questions "the accuracy of flow predictions for Allison Creek because of the linear regression analysis based on only 5 months" of data from Power Creek. Response: A misunderstanding may have occurred in the review of pages III-1 through III-4 of the report. A linear regression was performed, but was found to be unacceptable. Therefore a multiple regression analysis was performed that was proven in the report to have high statistical accuracy. The analysis was based on 4 years of actual flow data on Allison Creek, which in itself gives a fairly accurate prediction of Allison Creek flows. Power Creek data from 1947 to 1990 (43 years) was used in the multiple regression analysis along with rainfall data from Cordova for the period 1950-1989 (39 years). 3) Comment: Additional studies to assess potential impacts of the proposed project to fish and wildlife are recommended, including IFIM streamflow/habitat studies and seasonal flow variation studies. Response: We agree that should the decision be made to proceed to the feasibility study stage for this project, additional studies such as those suggested should be conducted. USF&WS will be contacted for input to potential studies at the feasibility study stage. ss = == — = = x 7 1a\ © V7 - j ae = - a gt aS oe =o eee, OSes eee / DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Sees / ANCHORAGE 4 / PHONE 907 RECEIVED MAY 2 6 1992 ALASKA E fay 26, 1992 GY AUTHORITY Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, AK 99519-0869 Attn: Mr. Richard Emerman Dear Mr. Emerman: Re: Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the subject document regarding diversion of water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir and has the following comments for your consideration. While we understand that this report is the result of a reconnaissance level study, fish and wildlife have not been adequately considered in the initial analysis. The report contains a recommendation that "Additional studies on instream flow, fish habitat and fish populations may be needed." We recommend that the instream flow assessment be conducted prior to any decisions by the Alaska Energy Authority to proceed with pre-design or feasibility analyses. The major flaw in the reconnaissance study is that only 3 cfs of flow is to be reserved in Allison Creek to meet fishery needs and Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's water right. Allison Creek is an anadromous fish stream and an adequate flow regime will need to be developed and implemented to maintain fishery resources. The flow regime should provide sufficient water to support spawning, rearing, migration and incubation requirements of the fish that use the creek. Three cfs will not meet those requirements. Consequently, because a significantly larger quantity of water will be required for maintenance of the fishery, you may wish to reevaluate the economics of this project. In addition to the instream flow and fishery issue, we recommend that the impacts of diverting water from Allison Lake to Solomon Gulch Reservoir to wildlife also be evaluated. ADF&G staff will be available to meet with you to discuss our concerns and participate Mr. Richard Emerman Oi May 26, 1992 in scoping studies necessary to collect the appropriate fish and wildlife information on which to base decisions on project feasibility. Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. Please contact me at 267-2284 if you wish to discuss our comments. Sincerely, Gas Lance L. sky Regional Supervisor Habitat Division Region II Phis 267-2542 CGE Rue, ADF&G Estes, ADF&G Westlund, ADF&G Gilleland, ADF&G McGillivary, FWS Morris, NMFS WDOQUNN Response to Exhibit 7-6, letter from Alaska Department of Fish and Game: Comments from Alaska DF&G included recommendations that instream flow, fish and wildlife studies be conducted prior to decisions to proceed with the next phase of project development. We agree that additional studies such as those suggested should be conducted. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game will be contacted for input to potential studies at the start of the feasibility study stage for the project. ADF&G also commented that a major flaw of the study was that only three cfs of flow was reserved in Allison Creek to meet fishery needs and Alyeska water rights. There are several reasons that 3 cfs was selected as the appropriate flow to be used in the study. First, the existing water right to Alyeska issued by the State of Alaska, #4310 (amended) dated August 18, 1978 allows some water withdrawals from Allison Creek down to 2 cfs and places no limit on withdrawals if the streamflow is 5 cfs or more. This is the current legal existing condition. Secondly, a review of considerable correspondence regarding instream flows in Allison Creek between various State and federal agencies, including ADF&G, and Alyeska Pipeline Service Company indicates general agreement that 2 cfs must be maintained in the creek to support the anadromous fishery resource. Finally, we believe, as indicated in the report on page IV-3 of the report, that the 1.8 square miles of drainage basin of Allison Creek below the Allison Lake outlet will contribute an average of over 14 cfs to the streamflow at the Alyeska water withdrawal point. We believe that without any IFIM studies or other technical basis to assume anything else at this time, that the 3 cfs assumption is the most valid available. COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. SO ROY 45 Pail eae u PO BOX45 GLENNALLEN. ALASKA 99588-0C+5 (907) 822-3211 (907) 835-4301 (907) 822-5586 RECEIVED JUN 01 1992 May 26, 1992 Dick Emerman Senior Economist Alaska Energy Authority P.O. Box 190869 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 SUBJECT: Request for comments on Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study Dear Mr. Emerman: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this reconnaissance level study. We have reviewed the study and have the following comments. I spoke with Jack Snyder on numerous occasions during the study regarding the latest developments at CVEA. I am sure that I told Jack about the certainty of the Petro Star load, but this case does not seem to get much focus in the study. Perhaps the base case scenario should include the Petro Star load. Since the refinery is currently under construction this should be a safe assumption. This additional 20 million KWH’s of energy use by Petro Star does seem to change the ranking of the projects due to effects on O&M costs. It seems that the study demonstrates that the true long term solution for CVEA is to eliminate the need for supplemental diese! generation. The more a project can work towards this end, the more favorable the impacts will be to CVEA. We would also like to see some comparison of the cost per KWH of energy derived from this project verses the energy available from Solomon Gulch. We realize that these numbers are just estimates, but feel this information would be valuable to use in analyzing the impacts to CVEA. SERVING MEMBER-OWNERS IN THE COPPER RIVER BASIN AND VALDEZ Page 2 Dick Emerman May 26, 1992 In reviewing the scope of the work involved in each of the various options several questions come to mind. We are not requesting that the study be revised to address these questions; however, we would like to get some feed back regarding them. 1. Could the siphon pipeline option be used in conjunction with a pump to maintain a draw down approaching that of the lake tap? The siphon option is approximately $10 million cheaper than the tunnel option. 2. Would it be wise to include a means of pumping water from Solomon to Allison? During the summer months this could allow for a recharging of Allison with Solomon spill, and could eliminate the Allison recharge problem. 3. Could the inflatable dam option be included with the project in such a manner as to gain more than the original 1.5 million KWH’s projected with a single filling of the additional capacity? I think it is worth noting that the inflatable dam option has a cost benefit ratio of 1.88 under the Petro Star case. This ratio would seem to double if the additional storage was used more than one time. Does this 1.88 cost benefit ratio hold true under CVEA’s current conditions? 4. The costs relating to the substation equipment may be low and also needs to include SCADA and communication dollars. CVEA recognizes that all possible options cannot be investigated. It appears that a lot of effort was used in looking at the other alternatives such as the Power Recovery Turbine, new CVEA diesels, and End Use Conservation. We were wondering why the tie line did not merit any consideration in this study? It appears that this solution may be the only way to eliminate the need for diesel generation under normal circumstances. This study seems to indicate that a $30 million expenditure is reasonable for 27 million KWH’s annually. If CVEA could secure this money towards the tie line in conjunction with other possible revenue sources the tie line option should also seem reasonable. Page 3 Dick Emerman May 26, 1992 Please do not take our comments critically, we are quite pleased that AEA decided to fund this study, and we feel that some valuable insight has been gained in the process. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, we look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, raat Ue ‘ s q Pl Leh lee all Michael E. Easley, PE Manager, Engineering Services cc: Clayton Hurless Charlie Bussell c:\wp5 1\me92\92-51.meb Response to Exhibit 7-7, letter from Copper Valley Electric Association: Several points were raised in the Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) comment letter as follows: 1) Comment: Estimated Petro Star load should be included in the Base case. Response: Since the Petro Star refinery is now under construction, and given the memorandum of understanding between CVEA and Petro Star noted on Page VIII-2, we agree that the Petro Star load would now properly belong in the Base Case rather than the High Case. However, due to limited funds available for this reconnaissance study, we have not attempted to make the extensive revisions to the report that would be needed to fully incorporate this updated judgement. We can, however, offer some related observations: A. For the Allison Lake "Tunnel with Hydro" and "Pipeline with Hydro” options, the benefit/cost ratios and estimates of net benefit are compared in the table below for the "Base" and High" load forecasts as defined in the draft study (i.e., the "High" case includes the Petro Star load, the "Base" case does not.) Net Benefit ($Millions) Fuel Price Load Forecast Tunnel w/Hydro $.01 AEA Recon Base 1.39 $11.4 Pipeline w/Hydro $.01 AEA Recon Base 1S) $5.5 $.01 AEA Recon High Si $10.9 $.01 AEA Recon High 1.25 $4.5 Tunnel w/Hydro $.03165 | AEA Recon Base 1.70 $20.3 Pipeline w/Hydro | $.03165 | AEA Recon Base 1.61 $10.8 Tunnel w/Hydro $.03165 | AEA Recon High 1.70 $20.3 Pipeline w/Hydro | $.03165 | AEA Recon High 1.55 $9.8 Including the Petro Star load does not change the ranking of these two Allison Lake alternatives. Tunnel w/Hydro Pipeline w/Hydro B. For all of the alternatives examined in the study, benefit/cost ratios and estimates of net benefit are shown in the table below for the "High" load forecast and Low (i.e., $.01/kWh) O&M saving: Fuel Price "B/C Net Benefit Forecast pee Ratio AEA Recon er $10.9 AEA Recon AEA Recon gs [s ($18.6) $.01 AEA Recon $1.0 $.01 AEA Recon 7 « $0.5 $.01 AEA Recon $1.5 ofan ah For the following three alternatives, the benefit/cost ratios in the table above are more favorable than the Allison Lake diversion options: (SMillions) Allison Tunnel w/Hydro Allison Pipeline w/Hydro Allison Stand-Alone Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft Solomon/Lower Intake Solomon/Raise Spillway 32 ft a. Raise the Solomon Gulch spillway by 5 feet b. Lower the Solomon Gulch intake Cc End-use conservation In terms of net benefit, these three alternatives are far below the Allison Lake diversion options because they are estimated to displace much less diesel energy. Except for end-use conservation, these rankings are identical for the Base load forecast. C. Although we agree that the Petro Star load properly belongs in the Base load forecast, we do not have a good understanding of the possibility for future changes including expansion of the refinery load, possible cogeneration, or downside business risks. 2) Comment: Request to compare the cost per kWh from Allison Lake diversion with the cost per kWh from Solomon Gulch. Response: The following rate illustration was presented at a meeting in Valdez on June 10, and is intended only to suggest the general magnitude of rates that could be assessed for energy from the proposed Allison Lake tunnel w/hydro project: A. Construction cost in 1992 dollars = $28.0 million. (Based on a eventual reduction of the contingency allowance to $3.0 million.) B. Inflation = 4.5% per year. C. Construction cost with inflation = $34.5 million. (Project on-line at the end of 1998.) D. Interest rate on project revenue bonds = 9.0%. (Assumes taxable bond financing.) E. Bond size including interest during construction and costs of issuance = $40.0 million. (State contribution is for feasibility study and FERC licensing only -- all other costs are bond financed.) F. Annual debt service and project O&M = $4.3 million. (Beginning in 1999, with inflation.) The rate for energy from the project in 1999, with inflation, is estimated at 15.7 cents/kWh based on the foregoing assumptions. This is equivalent to 11.5 cents/kWh in 1992 dollars. Additional State contribution beyond the feasibility study and FERC licensing costs would reduce the project energy rates in proportion to the size of the contribution. For example, if the State contributed one-third of the project costs (roughly $10 million), the project energy rate would be expected to be roughly one-third less. The wholesale power rate for Solomon Gulch is presently 6.4 cents per kWh. Among the factors that can influence this rate in the future are changes in O&M costs for the Four Dam Pool, changes in kWh sales from the Four Dam Pool, and the impact of the scheduled "rate reopener" in the year 2000. 3) Comment: Could the siphon pipeline option be used in conjunction with a pump to maintain a drawdown approaching that of the lake tap? Response: In order to increase the drawdown of the lake in the pipeline option, either the pipeline high point must be buried deeper, or a submersible pump would have to be placed at the submerged end of the pipeline to pump water over the pipeline high point. For this reconnaissance study, we were attempting to develop a workable project at the least possible cost. Burying the pipe high point more deeply is probably feasible on an incremental basis, but we felt that its proposed setting about 20 feet below the existing lake level was a practical limit for conventional track driven excavators, in particular due to the nature of the soils at the lake outlet, which are primarily morainal deposits. Therefore, we opted not to bury the pipe any deeper than 20 feet. Use of a pump on the end of the pipeline would require some type of deep structure be constructed out in the lake in water up to 100 feet deep. We calculate that a pump to provide the 38.8 cfs design flow would need to be about 200 horsepower in size assuming an average lift of 40 feet. Facilities to bypass the pump when it was not needed would also be necessary so at high lake levels, flow would not be forced to pass through the pump. Such an arrangement is possible from an engineering standpoint, but will likely be very expensive to construct. Operation of this system, which will primarily be in the winter, would be difficult since it is in an area of difficult winter access and would be all under water or ice. The very large submerged pump necessary for this service would be a technically challenging piece of equipment to design and operate. +) Would it be wise to include a method of pumping water from Solomon back to Allison, to allow refill of Allison with Solomon spill to avoid an Allison recharge problem? Response: We do not expect to experience difficulty recharging Allison Lake. Total diversion under the tunnel option is about 25,200 ac-ft maximum. Average inflow to Allison Lake is 34,678 ac-ft and the lowest year of record inflow based on the flow simulation model was 26,425 ac-ft (1973) as discussed in section 3.9 of the report. If a pump were used to recharge Allison Lake, more energy would be used to pump the water up than would be gained by returning it through a hydro generator due to efficiency differences between pumping and hydro turbine operation. This, however, would likely not be a large concern if excess generating capacity was available at Solomon Gulch as it is now. If the excess generating capacity is used up in the future, the pumpback scheme would be uneconomic. Finally, a pumpback system would increase project costs considerably because a pump or pump turbine needs to be set at an elevation below reservoir water level to maintain a flooded suction. This would require a deep excavation below Solomon Gulch Reservoir level and a much larger and deeper structure for the powerhouse at the downstream end of the tunnel. 5) Comment: Can the inflatable dam option (i.e., raising the Solomon Gulch spillway 5 feet) be included with the Allison Lake diversion in a manner that increases the effectiveness of the inflatable dam alone? Response: The Allison Lake diversion would not noticeably increase the amount of energy that could be gained by the inflatable dam beyond the amount previously estimated. The only way the inflatable dam could, in effect, do "double duty" would be if Allison Lake were full and releasing excess water into Allison Creek, and if such water could be diverted instead to the additional storage created by the inflatable dam in the Solomon Gulch reservoir. It would be expected, however, that the only time excess water would be released from Allison Lake would be in the latter part of summer, when more than enough water to use the additional storage created by the inflatable dam is currently available in the Solomon Gulch drainage. There might be opportunity for this to occur sometime in the future if loads increase to the point that all available Solomon Gulch summer water is being utilized. For clarification, the benefit/cost ratios and estimates of net benefit for the inflatable dam provided in the report are shown below for a selected set of assumptions. For O&M savings, only the $.01 per kWh assumption is shown, since the amount of diesel displaced is too small to allow any noticeable labor savings. Fuel Price B/C Forecast mace Ratio Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 AEA Recon 151 Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 AEA Recon =e i Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 AEA Recon Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 Bu Solomon/Raise Spillway 5 ft $.01 a 131 vr High ase The inflatable dam option could be combined with the Allison Lake diversion, and the benefits estimated separately for each could still be realized if sufficient winter load develops. 6) Comment: Costs relating to substation equipment may be low and needs to include SCADA and communications dollars. Response: Estimated costs for this equipment may be somewhat low based on recent CVEA experience. Our estimate contains dollars for substation and communication equipment in several places, including items 334, 352, 353 and 356. These 4 items cover all the switchgear, substation equipment and transmission line and total $682,000. We assumed for the purposes of this reconnaissance level study that a single turbine of just over 3 MW would be installed, generating at 13.2 kV. Indoor switchgear would be used and transmission would be on wood poles down to the Solomon Gulch plant where a step- up transformer would raise the line voltage to match CVEA's existing line. For SCADA, we assumed a simple microprocessor based controller accessed by modem through a single pair conventional phone wire from the Solomon Gulch Plant. We believe that with care in design and specification, our estimated costs should be sufficient. However, the project is carrying almost $6 million in contingency allowance at this reconnaissance level. If substation and SCADA costs were to double to $1,360,000 only 10% of the available contingency would be appropriated, leaving over $5.3 million in the contingency fund. We believe that if our estimated costs are indeed somewhat optimistic, that overall project economics, feasibility and ranking will be unaffected. 7) Why was the proposed intertie between Fairbanks and Glennallen omitted from consideration in the study? If Copper Valley could secure $30 million in conjunction with other possible revenues, would the intertie option look reasonable? Response: The Alaska Energy Authority conducted a preliminary assessment of the Glennallen-Fairbanks intertie proposal in 1991 at the request of Copper Valley Electric Association. The construction cost of the proposal was estimated at $92.5 million in 1991 dollars. Under all sets of assumptions examined at that time, the economic benefits of the proposal fell considerably short of the estimated costs. This was the basis for excluding the proposed intertie from the Allison Lake reconnaissance study. Applying 4.5 percent annual inflation to the $92.5 million estimate yields a construction cost of roughly $120 million in nominal dollars by 1998. Including interest during construction and costs of issuance, the nominal dollar bond size required for debt financing would be on the order of $135 million. At a 9 percent taxable interest rate, debt service would exceed $13 million per year. If, for illustration, 50 million kWh per year were wheeled over the line, the wheeling rate would be over 25 cents per kWh. While reduction in the cost of intertie construction may be possible, this example is based on a relatively high volume of transfers and excludes any intertie O&M cost or any payment for purchased p: ‘=r. As with Allison Lake, a government grant contribution would be expected to reduce the wheeling rate in proportion to the size of the contribution. Thus, if the contribution were one-third of the project cost, the expected wheeling rate would be reduced in similar proportion. an 2 as Ge I tw ALLISON LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES MAY 15, 1992 VALDEZ CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 P.M. Introduction The meeting started at 7 p.m. in the Valdez City Council Chambers. Dick Emerman, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), opened the meeting by introducing HDR staff and presenting the project. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the draft Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Report to the public and take comments. Mr. Emerman began by discussing AEA involvement in the project and relevant issues. The existing Solomon Gulch project has limited storage capability for winter generation; there is not enough water stored to generate electricity to meet Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) demands. Solomon Gulch currently produces approximately three-quarters of the power needed and diesel produces the remaining one-quarter. The Allison Lake project will allow the Solomon Gulch project to produce substantially more energy during the winter, thereby reducing the reliance on diesel generation. Diesel is relatively expensive and susceptible to cost inflation. Mr. Emerman discussed the structure and magnitude of diesel generation costs and how these were calculated. He also noted that to this point the Alaska Legislature has not appropriated the $600,000 necessary to do the feasibility study and FERC license application for the Allison Lake project. Jack Snyder, HDR Engineering (Bellevue), presented the Allison Lake project alternatives and showed a videotape of the site. Mr. Snyder discussed the alternatives and issues associated with each. Specifically, he discussed the drawdown of Allison Lake as it relates to fish spawning habitat and water rights on Allison Creek. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC) is required to maintain 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the creek (1/2 to 1 cfs for water withdrawal and 2 cfs for fish habitat). While drawdown of Allison Lake could dewater the upper reaches, there is approximately 1 1/2 miles of drainage basin that will provide an average 14 cfs of runoff to lower Allison Creek. Mr. Snyder discussed measures to minimize impacts to spawning habitat at the mouth of Allison Creek and maintain flow to meet APSC water rights permit requirements. Mr. Snyder also presented an overview of the cost and benefits of each of the alternatives. In addition to the fish spawning and water rights issues, Mr. Snyder presented the other environmental impacts and mitigation associated with the two alternatives. There will be temporary construction impacts associated with all the project alternatives -- these can be mitigated by working with the resource agencies to devise erosion control measures to minimize siltation and displacement of wildlife. Diesel generation will be reduced resulting in improved air quality. Allison Lake Hydroelectric 2 May 15, 1992 Project Public Meeting Minutes Public Comments Clayton Hurless -- Mr. Hurless asked if the project was figured with a 30 year financing scheme. Mr. Emerman responded that 1992 dollars were used with a 50 year evaluation period and 4 1/2 percent real discount rate. No financial analysis is included in this report. Mike Easley -- Mr. Easley asked about the assumptions used for the summary. Mr. Snyder responded that he used the fuel price forecasts from the recent AEA railbelt studies and a medium load growth forecast from the most recent CVEA power requirement study. Mr. Snyder stated that he would add a description of the assumptions to the executive summary. Clayton Hurless -- Mr. Hurless asked how project benefits were calculated. Mr. Emerman described the process AEA used to calculate benefits and that costs were expressed in 1992 dollars with zero inflation (AEA compared present value of Allison Lake costs with the avoided costs of diesel displaced). Mr. Emerman discussed AEA bond counsel advice regarding "2 county rule" or local furnishing rule as it relates to the ability to finance the project using tax-exempt bonds. Questions were asked regarding whether or not it would make a difference if the City owned the project or the utility. Questions were asked regarding the relationship between load growth and rate of inflation. Mr. Emerman responded that there is no relationship. Questions were asked regarding consumer costs -- would they be lowered and by how mucn? Mr. Snyder and Mr. Emerman responded that the reconnaissance report was not structure to show rate impacts -- the report discusses and ranks alternatives based on long term cost comparisons. The impact on consumer rates will depend on many factors, including interest rates and the amount, if any, of state contribution to the project. The discussion concluded with miscellaneous project questions -- how much will the tunnel cost per foot ($875.00); how long will it take to construct (@30ft/day it will take 19 months to construct); and, how much funding has been appropriated by the legislature (none specifically appropriated for Allison Lake although $250,000 may be appropriated for statewide project planning and development). The meeting concluded at 8:30 p.m. ALLISON LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Alaska Energy Authority Public Hearing - May 15, 1992 NAME ORGANIZATION ADOR PHONE NO. Ni a ireeonaee Pye Aner ine ee eee n:07073.010:1:d1 APPENDIX 8 Alternatives No. 8 and No. 9 Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project APPENDIX 8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Energy Model - Alternative A Table 2 - Energy Model - Alternative B Table 3 - Cost Estimate - Alternative A Table 4+ - Cost Estimate - Alternative B Table 5 - O&M Cost Estimates Table 6 - Results of Economic Caparison of Projects Table 7 - Comparison of Alternatives LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Estimated Average Monthly Flows Figure 2 - Silver Lake Storage Curve LIST OF DRAWINGS Drawing | - Silver Lake - Alternative A - Site Plan Drawing 2 - Silver Lake - Alternative B - Site Plan Appendix 8 Introduction Silver Lake is located approximately 15 miles southwest of Valdez, AK. The lake is approximately 3 miles long, has a maximum width of about 0.7 miles, and has a surface area of about 978 acres at water surface elevation 306. The outlet of Silver Lake forms the Duck River which flows into Galena Bay. Silver Lake was identified by the USGS in 1915 as having significant hydroelectric generating potential. The project was most recently studied in 1982 as part of the Cordova Power Supply feasibility studies. HDR was contracted by the Alaska Energy Authority in the summer of 1992 to incorporate the alternative of a Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project into their Allison Lake Reconnaissance study as a means of providing power to the City of Valdez, AK. This appendix contains an up-to-date reconnaissance level estimate of the costs and energy production for two alternative Silver Lake project arrangements as discussed below. The costs and energy production estimates were then inserted into the Allison Lake economic evaluation model and the results compared to the other Allison Lake alternatives. General Project Features A variety of possible configurations for a hydroelectric project at Silver Lake have been proposed in the past, each with different project features, dam height and energy output. To select the configuration as the subject of this reconnaissance report, HDR reviewed the extensive literature developed by USGS, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Alaska Power Authority in the 1982-83 time period. HDR also interviewed Mr. Thom Fisher of Whitewater Engineering of Bellingham, WA, who is the project proponent of a potential project on Silver Lake. Since the completion of the draft Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study, the future energy demand situation in Valdez has been clarified somewhat by the actual start of construction of the Petro Star refinery (making the “high" load energy growth scenario much more likely). Annual energy requirements of the refinery should average about 25 million kWh/year. That, with the Valdez current diesel requirement of about 15 million kWh/year, indicates that a Silver Lake project of at least 40 million kWh/year would be desirable to be able to offset all diesel generation, at least for some time into the future. A Silver Lake project with 45 million kWh/year capacity or more would be desirable to allow diesel generation to be avoided at CVEA for a longer period into the future. Based upon these developments, HDR selected two basic Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project configurations to be used for this reconnaissance evaluation. Alternative A is the largest of the Page 1 Appendix 8 alternatives studied by Stone & Webster Engineering in their 1982-83 work (Reference 8). It would incorporate a 125-foot-high RCC (roller-compacted concrete) dam, 6,000-feet of 108-inch pipeline and a 15 MW powerhouse located at El. 65 on the Duck River. The powerhouse would be equipped with three 5 MW Francis turbines. Transmission to Solomon Gulch would be via approximately 22 miles of overhead transmission line. Annual generation would be about 44.8 million kWh/year as discussed below. Alternative B is the general project configuration being proposed by Whitewater Engineering in 1992. It would consist of a 100-foot-high RCC dam, 10,000-feet of 108-inch pipeline along the access road and a 14 MW powerhouse located at el. 10 on Reverse Creek. The powerhouse would be equipped with two 7 MW Francis turbines. Transmission would be via 2.2 miles of overhead transmission line to Galena bay and then by a submarine cable to Valdez. Annual generation would be about 48.8 million kWh/year. For each alternative, selected turbine size was based on the anticipated peak demand load from Valdez so the project could act as a backup to Solomon Gulch. Site plans of the two alternatives can be found on Drawings 1 and 2 at the end of this appendix. An alternative briefly considered was the concept of a tunnel and lake tap into Silver Lake with no dam. This alternative has potential of producing about 29 million kWh/year. Compared to the Allison Lake Tunnel with Hydro option, this project would be more expensive both to build and operate. It would require roughly the same tunnelling volume (shorter length but large diameter), a much larger powerhouse (roughly 15 MW vs. 3.5 MW) and a much longer transmission system. Since this alternative would be very costly and would not meet Valdez’s demand as described above, it was ruled out for further study. Presently, the only access to the Silver Lake area is by air or water. Each alternative plans to make use of a new permanent dock situated on Galena Bay connected to the project site by about 2 miles of permanent access road. The project would be operated remotely from Valdez. A caretaker would be required to perform routine maintenance and observation tasks and would live at or near the site. Options for project configurations might include a concrete gravity or arch or embankment dam instead of the RCC dam proposed, or a tunnel to replace the pipeline as a means of conveyance. It is felt that generally these options would be more of a technical challenge and would be more costly than the configurations studied here. The selected configurations, in our opinion. represent projects that are large enough to displace the diesel requirements for CVEA while remaining technically straight-forward. Although several optional configurations for each alternative exist, optimization of the design is beyond the scope of this study. Hydrology Hydrologic information for the Silver Lake basin is very limited. Stream gage data for Duck Page 2 Appendix 8 River is only available for a seven-month period in 1913 and a five-month period in 1982. Normally, at least a 10-year period of record is desired to synthesize flow records with any confidence for a given stream. Due to the lack of data, we have chosen to make use of monthly average stream flow data based on a correlation to Power Creek as referenced in Table A-VI of Reference 5. Based on this correlation, the average monthly flows are shown in Figure | below. Based on our review of the methodology used to generate this data, we believe it to be of acceptable accuracy for this level of study. SILVER LAKE ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS CFS DISCHARGE | It is assumed that due to the large storage capacity of Silver Lake, the Silver Lake Project would be operated as a fully regulated project. This method of operation would allow the project to Page 3 Appendix 8 produce power on demand. The reservoir storage and the sizing of the units would also allow the project to serve as a backup to the Solomon Gulch Project, supplying all of CVEA’s capacity requirements in the event Solomon wulch had to shutdown temporarily. A reservoir storage curve for Silver Lake is shown in Figure 2. To simulate energy production for Silver Lake, a spreadsheet model was developed which assumes this totally regulated flow. In the model, the reservoir is assumed to start full in October. The monthly average energy requirement that would be placed on the project is determined by assuming a total yearly energy demand for Valdez from the load forecasts and subtracting what could be generated from Solomon Gulch. Valdez’s demand is assumed to be distributed 70% for winter and 30% for summer as in the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study. To calculate energy production for a given month, an average head is determined by making use of the reservoir storage curve and comparing inflow to outflow. For each of the Silver Lake alternatives we have assumed that a 5 cfs minimum instream flow release would be required. Head loss in the system has been assumed to be a constant 10-ft. Efficiencies and losses have been assumed as follows: Efficiencies Losses Turbine 92% Station Service 1% Generator 98% Downtime 4% Transformer 99% Transmission .3%/mile The combination of these efficiencies and losses results in an average net efficiency of 80%. To determine the maximum energy production capacity for each alternative, the yearly energy demand is increased in the model until it reaches a point at which the Silver Lake alternative is just able to meet the demand and still be able to refill to the original starting pool elevation. The simulations can be seen in Tables 1 & 2. The model indicated that an average of approximately 44,750 MWh (43,575 MWh winter/1,175 MWh summer) annually could be produced from Alternative A and 48,750 MWh annually (46,375 MWh winter/2,375 MWh summer) could be produced from Alternative B. Alternative B, with a lower dam, makes more energy than Alternative A because the powerhouse is set closer to sea level, increasing the average net head. Project Costs Project costs were determined by estimating quantities for major construction features and applying unit costs to these quantities. To estimate the costs for Alternative A, quantities established by Stone & Webster (Ref. 10) were used with the same 1992 unit costs applied as Page 4 Table 1 f: hyd S85 silver silver wk} ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Alternative A — Stone & Webster Engineering Yearly Demand 99250 MWhrs Intake Elev.: 306 Storage Sol.G.Summer 28600 MWhrs Pool Starting Elev.: 425 162233 Sol.G. Winter 25900 MWhrs Powerhouse Elev.: 65 ft Un-met Summer 1175 MWhrs Assumed Head Loss: 10 ft Un-met Winter 43575 MWhrs Assumed Eff. 08 Min. Instream Flow: S cfs Pool Pool Monthly | Avg | Start Monthly Ending | Average Energy Month Inflow Acre-ft| Demand) _ Elev Flow Storage Elev Generation Oct 329 19922 5447 425 315 163175 425 $447 Nov 172 9937 5447 425 317 153995 423 5447 , Dec 64 3628 5447 420 324 138084 | 415 5447 Jan 53 2951 5447 410 334 120874 | 405, 5447 Feb 51 2555 5447 399 346 102539 393 5447 Mar 33 1722; 5447 387 361 82515 381 | 5447 Apr 35 1785 5447 374 379 61471 366 | 5447 May 195 11683 | __5447 358 396 49301 354 | 5447 June 441 (25944 294 349 21 73981 359 294 July 545 33204 294 368 20 106005 : 379 | 294 Aug 506 30806 294 389 18 135703 399 294 Sept 48628622 294 408 17 163276 | 417 294 Ending Pool Elevation 425 SUMMARY OF GENERATION Storage Used: 171721 Winter Production 43575 100% Replaced:_172759_ Summer Production 1175 100% 1038 OK 44750 MWhrs Table 2 f:\nyd'S8§ silverisilver.wk1 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Alternative B — Whitewater Engineering Yearly Demand 103250 MWhrs Intake Elev.: 306 Storage Sol.G.Summer 28600 MWhrs Pool Starting Elev.: 400 121490 Sol.G. Winter 25900 MWhrs Powerhouse Elev.: 10 ft Un-met Summer 2375 MWhrs Assumed Head Loss: 10 ft Un-met Winter 46375 MWhrs Assumed Eff. 0.8 Min. Instream Flow: 5 cfs i Pool | | Pool Monthly { | Avg Start Monthly Ending | Average Energy Month Inflow | Acre—ft!| Demand! Elev Flow Storage Elev Generation Oct 329 = 19922 5797 400 309 122807 | 400 5797 Nov 172 9937 5797 400 | 311 114016 | 398 | 5797 Dec 64 3628 5797 395 317 98510 390 5797 Jan 59) 2951 5797 384) 327 81740 379 $797 Feb 51 2555 5797 373 | 338 63891 367 $797 Mar 33 1722 5797 360 353 44349 353 $797 Apr 35 1785 5797 345 | 370 23796 337 5797 May 195 11683 5797 328 388 12107 323 $797 June 441 25944 594 317 39 35696 328 594 July 545 33204 594 338 36 66705 350 594 Aug 506 30806 594 362 34 95454 372 594 Sept 486 28622 594 382! 32 122124 391 594 Ending Pool Elevation 400 SUMMARY OF GENERATION Storage Used: 172130 Winter Production 46375 100% Replaced:__172759 Summer Production 2375 100% 629 OK 48750 MWhrs Appendix 8 SILVER LAKE STORAGE CURVE 460 = a 44C = 420 + 400 + 2 360 — g ~ 360 + | > | | R 340 é | = 320+ | Lo u | / 2 300 + | o | = 280+ | < | | > | a 2s0 + | a | 1 zao L | eles 220- | / | \7 200 + f i 1e0 U—+ , ——___—__—_ 0 | 100 | 200 | 300 | so 150 250 350 C Thousands) STORAGE Cacre-ft) Figure 2 were used for all alternatives in the Allison Lake Reconnaissance study. For Alternative B, new quantities were estimated and the same unit costs applied. As a basis for the estimate, it is assumed that access to the site would be via boat to a newly constructed dock on Galena Bay and then by a permanent access road to the powerhouse and dam. The pipeline has been assumed to be placed in the finished road bed. The dam was assumed to be constructed of roller-compacted concrete. RCC was selected due to its speed of installation and low cost as compared to conventional, formed, structural concrete. The RCC gravity structure was assumed to be lined with structural concrete to provide additional freeze-thaw and erosion protection. Page 5 Appendix 8 The powerhouse is assumed to have a structural/mass concrete foundation, CMU walls, and a metal, trussed roof. Additional line items have been included in the estimate for HVAC, plumbing, electrical, miscellaneous metals, and inlet valves. Mobilization was considered to be a significant factor affecting the cost of construction. The remote access and climatic conditions are going to hamper construction and limit the number of contractors vying for the construction contract. The short construction season may require multiple mobilizations. It has been assumed that once the major equipment has been mobilized and a base camp established, construction will proceed at conventional rates. Due to the lack of accommodations in the area, an additional cost will be incurred in either housing or transporting the work force. To account for these factors, a 15% mobilization cost has been added to the dam and powerhouse cost estimates. The estimated 1992 construction cost of the two alternative configurations are: Alternative A (Stone & Webster) $54,350,000 Alternative B (Whitewater) $60,560,000 For a detailed breakdown of the above costs, refer to the attached detail sheets, Table 3 & Table 4. It is assumed that both options would start in 1998. In establishing these costs, it should be noted that unit quantities and prices were estimated so that adjustments could be made easily in the future. These opinions of probable construction costs are based on only this reconnaissance level study of the site. However, unit prices used in these estimates are the same as in all other estimates in the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study. Therefore, we believe the relative ranking of projects that will result from the economic analysis that follows will be valid. Environmental Consi tion: This section provides a brief description and discussion of some of the environmental issues that may arise as a result of development of a project at Silver Lake. This review is not intended to be a complete environmental impact assessment as this is beyond the scope of this level of report. Rather it is intended to highlight some of the environmental differences between the two studied alternatives and identify environmental impacts of both alternatives that might require further studies in the future. Reference 5 represents the most extensive environmental research done to date at and around the project site. Topography Silver Lake is situated in a glacially formed bow] surrounded by steep mountains on three sides. The eastern-most section of the lake is bordered by a low lying delta. The natural normal pool Page 6 Table 3 ALASKA ENERGY ALTHORITY SILVER LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A - STONE & WEBSTER DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Soon te LO) i is $1392 fhvd $85 sdverswsuver.wxl FERC 1982 1982 1992 1992 Acs No - Desenption Quanuty Unit _ Unit Pnce__Amount($)f Unit Price Amount($} = LAND AND LAND RIGHTS t Land Rights - Generation Plant 1 ; $837.300 $837.300 $1,000,000 $1.000,000 a USFS Special Use Permit 1 Ls so $o $30.000 $30,000 3 Surveying 1: Ls $0 $o $100,000 $100,000 + FERC USFS Land Use Fees 3. YR so so $15,000 $45,000. Total — Acc No. 330 - Land and Land Rights $837.300 $1,175,000 331 STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 1 POWERHOUSE ol Excavation 4500; CY $16 $72,000 $75 337.500 a Concrete (including remforcmg) 1.1007 (CY $1,995. $2,194.500 $1.000 $1.100.000 3 Building Superstructure 1; LS $366.188 $366,188 $600,000 | $600,000 4 HVAC. Plumbing & Electrical Ly OLS so $o $100,000 $100,000 5 Miscelianeous Metals 1; LS $0 $o $50,000 $50,000 6 Inlet Valves 3. EA $o $o $50,000 : $150,000 Subtotal $2.632.688 Mobilization | __$0 Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements 2,632,688 332 RESERVOIRS, DAMS. AND WATERWAYS al DAM. INTAKE. SPILLWAY al Dock | 1/ LS | $150,000; — $150,000 a Access Road 28000' LF $60| $1.680.000 3 Excavation 5000; CY $40.00| — $200.000 4 Rock Drilling (Grout holes & drams) 4,000 LF $25| $100,000] a Grout Curtain 1400! CY | $50; $70,000 6 Concrete a Structural 1500; CY | $780 | $1.170.000 b. RCC . 50000| CY | $60 $3,000,000 a Diversion & Care of Water 1' LS | 1000000; $1,000,000 : | 2) PENSTOCK ! | el Stee] Penstock Material (108" installed) | 6000! LF | $2,400 | $14,400,000 =) Supports (Concrete) i 4000: CY $780 | $3,120,000 a Surge Tank ' 140000| LB $4; $560,000 4 Trifurcation i 1: Ls $0) $0 Subtotal | $25,450,000 Mobilization |; Total — Acc No. 332 — Reservoir. Dams. & Waterways |! 333 TURBINES AND GENERATORS \ al Supply | 3| EA | 2 Install | 3! EA | Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators | 334 ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT a Switchgear | 1 | Ls | B) Control Panel \ 1} Ls | 3 Miscellaneous Electrical 1| Ls | Total — Ace No. 334 — Ace. Electrical Equipment | f | \ 335) MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT i | \ al Crane (20Ton) 1] Ls | $0| so} $50.00 $50,000 Total — Acc No. 335 - Misc. Mechanical Equipment | $o $50,000 Table 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE A - STONE & WEBSTER DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Description STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY) Substation Foundations Oil Spul Contamment Groundmg Grid Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES Main Transformer Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures FIXTURES. CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line Total = Acc No. 356 = Fixtures. Conductors & Devices ' SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS. DAMS. AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES. CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering @ 9% FERC and Other Licensmg Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest Durmg Const. (2 yrs @ 4.5%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estimated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max. Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy-MWh/yr Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 -1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt, 9%. 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost per kWh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost— 1995 1982 1982 Unit Price Amount (S$ $o so so so $500,000 so $500,000 $9,350,000 $837.300 $2.632.688 © $26,050,000 $2,970,000 $300,000 so $o $500,000 $9.350.000 $42.639,988 t hyd S85 suverswsiver.wk1 1992 1992 Unit Price Amount (S$) $1,175,000 $2.571.250 20.6 19.500 $4,095,000 $440,000 $50,000 $30,000 $300,000 $6.600.000 $35.880.750 $3,229,268 $400,000 $2.870.460 $42.380.478 9.829 $54.336.032 $62,900,749 15.000 44750 $3,622 $4,193 $6.122.529 $0.1368 $0.0070 $0.1438 Abinto STEN LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B - WHITE WATER ENGINEERING DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Descnption Quanuty Unit LAND AND LAND RIGHTS Land Rights - Generation Plant 1: LS USFS Special Use Permit lets Surveying 1 ws FERC.USFS Land Use Fees SYR Total — Acc No. 330 — Land and Land Rights STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS POWERHOUSE Excavation Concrete (including reinforcing) Budding Superstructure HVAC. Plumbing & Electncal Miscellaneous Metals Inlet Valves Subtotal Mobiization Total — Acc No. 331 — Stuctures and Improvements |! RESERVOIRS. DAMS. AND WATERWAYS DAM. INTAKE. SPILLWAY Dock Access Road Excavation Rock Drilling (Grout holes & drains) Grout Curtain Concrete Structural RCC Diversion & Care of Water PENSTOCK Stee! Penstock Material (108") Installation Supports (Concrete) | Surge Tank ij Bifurcation | Subtotal | Mobilization | Total - Acc No. 332 — Reservoir. Dams, & Waterways | TURBINES AND GENERATORS | Supply | Install | Total — Acc No. 333 — Turbines and Generators | ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT | Switchgear | Control Panel Miscellaneous Electrical | Total — Acc No. 334 — Acc. Electrical | MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Crane Total — Acc No. 335 — Misc. Mechanical Unit Price $1,000,000 $30,000 $100,000 $15.000 $1,500,000 | $450,000 | | $250,000 | $90,000 $100,000 Amount (S$) $1.000.000 $30.000 $100,000 $45,000 $1.875.000 $375,000 $200.000 $140,000 $5,000,000 $1,430,000 $500,000 $4,000,000 $6,000.000 Table + ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B - WHITE WATER ENGINEERING DETAILED COST ESTIMATE (1992 Dollars) Descnption STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS (TRANSMISSION FACILITY ) Substation Foundations Ou Spill Containment Grounding Gnd Total — Acc No. 352 — Structures & Improvements SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES Main Transformer Accessory Switchgear Equipment Total — Acc No. 353 — Substation Equipment & Structures FIXTURES, CONDUCTORS & DEVICES New Pole Line Submarine Cable to Valdez Total = Acc No. 356 = Fixtures. Conductors & Devices SUMMARY LAND AND LAND RIGHTS STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESERVOIRS. DAMS. AND WATERWAYS TURBINES AND GENERATORS ACCESSORY ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT & STRUCTURES FIXTURES. CONDUCTORS & DEVICES Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineenng @ 9% FERC and Other Licensing Construction Mgmt. @ 8% Subtotal: Contingency (20% on equipment) Contingency (30% on remainder) Interest During Const. (2 yrs @ 4.5%) 1992 Estimated Project Cost 1995 Estumated Project Cost (@5% per Year) Plant Max Output (MW) Projected Annual Energy-MWh/r Cost Per Installed kW — 1992 —1995 Annual Debt Service (100% debt. 9%. 30 yr) 30 Year Levelized Power Cost perk Wh O&M Allowance Estimated Annual Cost—1995 i Ayd 585 wwsiver.wx: Unit Pnce Amount (S$) $1,175,000 $1.236.250 $26.335.000 $3,900,000 $440,000 $50,000 $30,000 $300,000 $6.660.000 $40,126.250 $3,611.363 $400.000 —$3.210.100 $47,347,713 $2,270,000 $8.632.875 $2.311.016 $60.561.604 $70.107.626 14.000 48750 $4326 $5,008 $6.824.021 $0.1400 $0.0070 $0.1470 Table $ SILVER LAKE COST ESTIMATE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ALT 07073-010—149 08/13/92 f: hyd\S85 silver'silvro&m.wk1 ALT Major Replacements Reserve Fund Fuels/Oils/Consumables dministrative Co: Notes: 1. This assumes two operators living in housing provided at the site. 2. Project will have to maintain a seaworthy boat to insure access to site under most conditions, a snowcat to insure access to dam and powerhouse all winter, as well as a truck, plow and small backhoe. 3. Travel costs to site cover costs for maintenance crews to get to and from site for any major repairs, annual shutdowns, inspections, etc. 4. Assumes salary of $50,000/yr for each of two operators. A B Stone & Webster Whitewater ITEM Engineering Engineering Hydro Maintenance (4% of equip. costs) $120,000 $120,000 Pipeline Maintenance $20,000 $20,000 Road Maintenance $40,000 $40,000 Operator Subsistance $50,000 $50,000 Boat\Air Travel Costs To Site $17,000 $17,000 Snow Equipment Costs $15,000 $15,000 Insurance $80,000 $80,000 Labor $100,000 $100,000 FERC & Other Permit Fees $18,000 $18,000 $575,000 S. This assumes no annual charge for use of native lands or related annual fees. Appendix 8 elevation of Silver Lake is El. 306. The outlet to Silver Lake forms the Duck River which flows westerly for about 1.5 miles where it discharges into The Lagoon at the head of Galena Bay. The upper portion of Duck River flows through steep rock canyons and has 5 waterfalls of at least 10 feet, the highest waterfall being about 60-feet-high located about 3000 feet upstream of the lagoon. This waterfall has been considered by many to be the first impassible fish barrier on the Duck River. Wildlife Habitat Silver Lake and the surrounding area is the home of a sizeable goat population and is one of the most popular goat hunting areas in Prince William Sound. Black bear habitat in the region is also rated good to excellent, with bears feeding on the salmon that spawn in the area. Deer are few in the area and waterfowl use is not extensive (Ref. 8). There will be a loss of habitat associated with both of the alternatives proposed for Silver Lake due to the raising of the lake elevation. For Alternative A, the pool elevation would be raised 125 feet to El. 425 increasing the surface area of the lake by about 700 acres. Alterative B would raise the lake 100 feet to El. 400, increasing the surface area of the lake by about 600 acres. The effect of raising the pool elevations on loss of wildlife habitat for both alternatives will have to be studied further before any conclusions can be drawn. What is known is that access and exposure to the region will be increased with any development in the area. Both alternatives as studied in this appendix will use a pipeline to convey the water from the intake to the powerhouse. At this time it is envisioned that the pipeline will be buried for the majority of the route and that it shouldn’t pose a barrier to the free travel of wildlife. Air Quality An advantage of either of the hydroelectric project alternatives investigated here is the improvement of air quality in Valdez due to the reduction of required diesel generation. The amount and duration of the air quality improvement is variable and dependent on a number of factors. A detailed review of this is beyond the scope of this section. Fisheries The Duck River and surrounding lagoon area is reported to be one of the most productive regions in Prince William Sound for pink salmon. Pink salmon escapement has been estimated to average around 51,000 per year (Ref. 8). Chum salmon and Dolly Vardon are also abundant in the area. Salmon spawning beds have been identified in the Duck River, The Lagoon. Reverse Creek and a number of other small tributaries in the area. Development of a Page 7 Appendix 8 hydroelectric project at Silver Lake will introduce some issues that will require further study. Perhaps most importantly is the issue of minimum instream flow. How, when, and where this flow is released could have an effect on salmon production in the region. The distinguishing factor between the two alternatives presented here is the location of the tailrace, or the point where flows are returned to the stream. The Alternative A powerhouse is located on the Duck River at El. 65 above what is considered to be the impassible fish barrier. Water would be returned to the Duck River prior to reaching the salmon beds. Minimum instream flow for this alternative would most likely be based on supporting the aquatic life in the bypassed reach of the Duck River above the impassible salmon barrier. This requirement is anticipated to be small and attainable. Alternative B on the other hand plans to make use of a powerhouse located on Reverse Creek. This configuration will permanently lower the flows on the Duck River even in the spawning areas and increase the natural flows on Reverse Creek. What effect this altered flow regime will have on the overall fish population for the area will require detailed further study. Each alternative will be using an intake located at or about El. 300. At certain times water would be drawn from deep within the reservoir. This water would tend to be colder and have a lower dissolved oxygen content than the corresponding surface water. How this would affect the fisheries is unknown, however much could be done with regulation and design detail modifications to offset or mitigate these concerns. Other There are additional environmental issues associated with project development at Silver Lake, including erosion and sedimentation control, aesthetics, noise, recreation, and others. It is reasonable to expect some level of study will be necessary to address each of these issues if further project development proceeds. Detailed review of these issues is outside the scope of this study. Economic Evaluation Using the estimated construction costs, the two alternatives were plugged into the economic analysis model developed for the Allison Lake Reconnaissance study. Annual O&M costs were estimated for both alternatives to be about $575,000 per year (see Table 5). Variable O&M savings for both alternatives were taken at the high level ($.03165/kWh) since at least in early years, all diesel generation by CVEA could be offset. Runs were made for all combinations of load growth and fuel price escalation as in the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study. Run output is attached at the end of this section. The results are shown below in Tables 6 & 7. The project with the highest benefit:cost ratio is still the Allison Lake w/ Hydro option, as found in the Page 8 Appendix 8 Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study. Table 6 Results of Economic Comparison of Projects Net Benefits Benefit: Cost Average Ratio Annual Diesel Displaced (MWh) ALTERNATIVE (3) Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro (1) $20,320,658 Silver Lake Alternative A (1) $29,291,969 1.58 44053 (Stone & Webster Engineering) Allison Lake Pipeline w/ Hydro (1) $9,805,844 Silver Lake Alternative B (1) $29,440,364 1.53 47439 (Whitewater Engineering) Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 32 ft. (1) $6,509,336 133 14817 Raise Solomon Gulch Spillway 5 ft. (2) $1,009,602 1.66 1674 Lower Solomon Gulch Intake (2) $530,132 End Use Conservation (2) $300,069 Allison Lake Stand Alone Hydro (1) ($12,191,263) Uses variable O&M savings of $0.03165/kWh. Uses variable O&M savings of $0.01/kWh. All cases using "High" load growth forecast (w/ Petro Star) and AEA fuel price escalation forecast. wn Page 9 Appendix 8 Conclusions The Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro option has the highest benefit:cost (BC) ratio of all options investigated, with a net benefit of about $20.3 million. Both Silver Lake options investigated had slightly less but still attractive BC ratios of 1.58 and 1.53. Net benefits of both options were higher than Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro at about $29.3 million. Clearly, both Allison and Silver Lake projects have attractive features. Allison Lake Tunnel w/ Hydro has a lower 1992 capital cost of about $34 million compared to Silver Lake at about $54 million. Operating uncertainties are less with Allison Lake, and its proximity to Valdez makes construction logistics easier to handle. The Allison Lake project, however, does not satisfy all of CVEA’s diesel generation demand for the high (w/ Petro Star) load growth case. Silver Lake does, at least in early years of operation. Silver Lake, being a larger project than Allison Lake, also generates a higher net benefit. The analysis of the Silver Lake Project points out one area of possible risk with the project. Referring to Table 7, it can be seen that under the high load growth forecast (with Petro Star) the Silver Lake Project has the highest net benefits. Under the medium or low load growth forecasts, however, the net benefits drop considerably, and are negative for all cases in the low load growth projection. This is because under low load growth, not all the energy from the project could be used right away, reducing the fuel and O&M savings. Although the Petro Star load and the economic activity from the Alyeska Pipeline appear stable at the present, it is possible the pipeline could shutdown sometime early in the next century. If this occurred, and the Petro Star load was lost, Silver Lake project economics could be adversely affected. We believe that constructing either of these two projects, Silver Lake or Allison Lake, does not tule out construction of the other. As can be seen from the high load growth case economic model runs, if either Silver Lake option is constructed and is on line by 1998, CVEA will still need to resume some diesel generation by 2004, only 6 years after the project comes on-line. Should load growth exceed the "High" case scenario, diesel generation would be needed again even sooner. An integrated approach to providing power for CVEA and the Valdez area is necessary. From the technical standpoint, projects at Allison Lake and Silver Lake are feasible. Under high load growth projections, both projects are beneficial. Under medium or low load growth scenarios. the Silver Lake project is less beneficial. We recommend both projects be studied in greater detail. Selection of which project to proceed with first will depend on actual load growth. availability of capital to both CVEA and the State of Alaska, and other institutional issues. Page 10 Appendix 8 References I 10. Alaska Power Authority, Application for Preliminary Permit for the Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project, P-6861-000, November 18, 1982. Alcat Engineering, Cordova-Valdez DC Transmission Tie Line Feasibility Report. May 1, 1982. DOWL Engineers, Cordova Power Supply Feasibility Analysis: Silver Lake Alternative - "Study Plan" Environmental, May 1982. DOWL Engineers, Geology and Geotechnics of the Proposed Silver Lake Hydropower Project, Draft, Spring 1983. DOWL Engineers, Draft Environmental Field "Study Plan" (1983-84), Silver Lake Alternative, Cordova Power Supply Feasibility Analysis: Phase I, June 10, 1983. International Engineering Company, Inc., Final Report: Reconnaissance Study of Energy Requirements and Alternatives for Cordova, June 1981. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cordova Power Supply, Interim Feasibility Assessment, Executive Summary, June 1982. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cordova Power Supply, Interim Feasibility Assessment, Volume 1, June 1982. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cordova Power Supply, Interim Feasibility Assessment, Volume 2, June 1982. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Cordova Power Supply, Interim Feasibility Assessment, Addendum 1, Revised Cost Estimates, November 1982. Page 11 / —s <= To soLomon GULCH Ty 7: as aoa ee aa pias s00aR woroca— Nf x ‘e NX ’ teo+00a & @ 1504004" Se) a SN Yi” +S \\\ © '40 +008 ALLISON LAKE RECONNISSANCE STUDY SILVER LAKE - ALTERNATIVE A (STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING) SITE PLAN DRAWING 1 For a W040. 7 we S LAYDOWN = web BATCH PLANT SITE STN eee a ated ~" TRANSMISSION LINE i i --~ TO VALDEZ DOCK SITE ~*\ ix = POWERHOUSE | = \_ SITE { . —~ ALLISON LAKE RECONNISSANCE STUDY SILVER LAKE - ALTERNATIVE B (WHITEWATER ENGINEERING) SITE PLAN DRAWING 2 avr ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY = Nee =e SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY : PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate | 7 \ 4.8 I ton Rate: 7 0 Discount Rate | i 45 | Variable O&M Savings (S$ kWh): | $0.03165 | Fue! Cost Forecast Used . AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1} Average Diesei Heat Rute BTU kWh ! 11,000 | 1992 Diese! Cost (S$ kW) | 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High) | Low _| Summer Load Multuplier | 03 Winter Load Multiplier | 0.7 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh) | 28.600 | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): | 25.900 | T Summary | cat i 5 2 AltA — Stone & Webster Alt_B — White Water Engineering $6.706.573 Average Annual Displaced | | Diesel (MWh) ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1i-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: AltA — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $) $54,336,032 Surt Year 1998 Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May” 43.575 Average Annual MWh. June - September 1,175 [Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44.750 | | Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Low Summer Load Multplier 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output(MWh) 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = ($6,706.573) BenefitCostRato = 0.87 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY — Ade = es ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL —-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster | Diesel j j Py PY MWh Sgal | Needed | PV Fuel PV YEAR Projec tCost O&M Cost Useable FuelCost | (MWh) | Sawngs | O&M Savings 190° $0 $0 0 son 16236 $0 $0 13 $0 50 0 $08 16.652 So! $0} 1994 $0 so 9 $0 85 17.077 $0 $0 198 $0. $0 0 $0.8 | 17,507 $0 so 1996 so so 0 50.88 | 17.941 so so 1997 St $0 0 $0.89 18.379 so! so 198 $41 723.307 $441.540 18.22 $091 0 $1.2. 451) $457,449 1996 si 19.269 $07 | 0! $1.003.093 $448,152 2000 so 19.721 $0.94 1 0 $1.04.758 $438.900 2001 so $386.920 | 20.177 30.95 J ee $1.014,463 fel 9:72 2002 so $370258 | 20,638 $0.% 0 iL $1,003,858 $420.608 | 2003 so $354.313 | 21.103 30.97 oO; $992.969 $411.572 2004 $0 $339,057 | 21573 | $0.9 0 $989,965 | $402.621 | 2005 $0} $224.456 Ht 22,048 | $0.9 ot $970.429 $393.761 | 2006 So} $310.84 | 22.528 | $1.0 | o| __ $958,423} $384,999 | 2007 so] $37.15] 23.012] $1.01 0 $947,022 $376.341 | 2008 “so | $284 320 | 23.501 $1.8 ol} $944,586 $367,789 2009 so! $272.076 23.995 | $1.05 | 0 $932.233 $359,350 | 2010 SO $260.360 |__ 24.494 $1.05 | oO} $919,745 $351.026 2011 $0 | $249.149 | 24.494 | $1.07 | 0 st) $335.910 2012! $0 $238.420 24.493 | si | of $850577 $21.445 | 2013 | sol $238,153 | 24.494 | $1.07 | 0 $813,950 $307,603 | 2014 so | $218,328 sion 0 $294,357 2015 $0 | $208,926 | Qo} $281,681 | 2016 | $0} $199,929 | $0 $191,320 $0 $183.081 | , $246.836 so $175,198 | 24.494 | $1.07 0 $0 $167,653 24.494 | 0 $598,113 201 $0 $160.434 | 24.494 $1.07 0 $572.357 | $216.302 | 202 so] $153,525 | 24.494 $1.07 0 $547,710 so | $146.914 24.494 | $1.07 0 $524,125 $198,074 $0 | $140,587 24.494 | $1.07 0 $501,555 | $189,544 | so | $134,533 rags] sno] 479,957] $181382 | $0 $128,740 24.494 $1.07 0 $459.289 $173.571 $0 $123.196 24494] _—*$1.07 | 0 $439,511 $166,097 so | suzsa] sans sno 20,584 | $158.945 $0 $112815 24404] «$1.07 | 0 $402,473 $152,100 sol siov9s7]_ ass] sn To $385,142 | $145,550 $0 | $103.308 24.494 | sio| ot $368.557] $139.283 $0 $98,859 24.494 $1.07 0 $352,686 $133.285 $0 $94,602 24,494 $1.07 0 $337,498 $127,545 sol ssoszs[ sans | $1.07 | 0 $322.965 $122,053 io 30 24.494 $1.07 $295,749 $111,767 sof sms3s0f eas sion fo $283.013] $106.955 $0 $75,913 24.494 $1.07 $270,826 $102,349 $0 $72,644 24.494 | $1.07 397.941 °o $0 2saoa] $1.07 | $309,057 $116,797 | $2.399 o colo so] ssio| tsa St] $248,003 | $3.724 $o 0 $237,324 $39.68 | $0 $63.658 24.494 suo [of $227,104 | $85,826 sO $0917 24,494 $1.07 $2.10 ee $0 | $55,783 24.494 | 3107 0 $199.011 50 $53,381 24.494 | $1.07 0 $190,441 $71970 $0 $510s2] saga] ——s$1.07 | 0 $182240 $68,871 $0, 0 S107 rsa] S| so lea 724.407 $9,118375 $29,345.768___$11,512.402 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 Net Benefit = ($6,706.573) | BeneSitCostRato = 087 L &LASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECE ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Alternative Project Iaput | Capatal Cost (1992 $) $60,561 604 | Surt Year. 198 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 Average Annual MWh. October - May 46.375 Average Annual MWh. June — September 2375 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (7) 45 fatal | Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2) 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 A [1992 Diesel Cost (SEW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High Low | Summer Load Muluplier: 03 | Winter Load Muluplier- 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | } Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 [NetBenefit = ($11,487,163) | BenefitCostRato = 0.79 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY = Agave ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ait. B — White Water Engineering _ | Diese! PV PV Mwah | Seeded PVFuel PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost (MWh) Savings _ __ O&M Savings x $0 so 9 $0.2 1630 So, $0 So $0 0 $0.8 16.652 $0 $0! 5 $0 9 $0.85 17.077 $0 So) so so o $0 % 17.507 So. $0) 1996 $0 $0 0 $0.88 17.941 soi So 107 s $0 0 $0.99 18.379 so! so! 19s $6 504,998 $441,540 18.62 $091 | 0 $1,082,451 $457.439 10 $0 $102,526 19.269 SOR 9 $1,03.093 | $448.152 | So $405.331 19.721 $0.94 | oO} $1.24.758 | $438.906 | so $386,920 20.177 | $0.% Oo} 1.014.463 | $429.72 so $370258 20.638 $0.% 0} $1.003.858 | $420.608 $0 $354.314 21,103 | son | O| $992,969 | $411,572 $0 $339,057 21.573 $09 | Oo} $989,965 $402.621 $0 $4456 | 22.048 | $0.9 | oO} $970.429 | $393.761 | $0 $310.484 228 | $1.00 | ol} $958.823 | $384.99 | $0, S716 | 23.012 | $1.01 | 0 $947,022 $376,341 | $0) $284,320 | 23.501 $1.8 | 0 $944.56 $367,789 so | $272,076 23.995 | $1.05 | 0 $932233 $359.350 so $260.360 | 24.495 | $1.06 1 $919.745 | $351,026 $249,149 | 24.494 | $1.07 $888.853 $335.910 $199,929 0 0 24.494 $1.07 | o| $850.57 | SE1.445 24.494 $1.07 0 $813,950 $307.603 24.494 | $1.07 0 $778,899 $294,357 0 $745.358 $281,681 $269,551 _$0| $191,320 | $0 $183,081 | | $0] $175,198 | | $167.653 | ! $598.113 $26.035 | $0 $160.434 | $1.07 | 0 $572:357 | $216,302 $0 | $153,525 | 24.494 | $1.07 0 $547,710 $206,987 | so} $146,914 24.494 si.o7 | 0 $524.125 | $198,074 $140,587 $1.07 | 0 $134,533 0 $128.740 0 $173,571 0 $166,097 0 $158.945 0 0 $385,142 $145,550 0 $368.557 $133.285 $122,053 $116,797 | $106,955 $102,349 TOTALS $46.504.998 $9.118.375 $29.345.768 $11512.402 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | Net Benefit = $11,487,163) 0.79 | BenefitCost Rato = ene: ost Kato ee ®X ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) [ 4.5 | Inflanon Rate (%) _0| | Discount Rate (%): ee ass) Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): | $0.01000 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) eel) | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium High): Low | Summer Load Muluplier 0.3 | Winter Load Multiplier: Soiomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 11-Aug-92 Benefit: Average Cost Annual Displaced Ratio Diesel (MWh) LAILA — Stone & Webster Alt. B — White Water Engineering _ Eperaaaeaaea ees eles ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY l= Aug—92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: AltA — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input [Caputal Cost (1992 $) $54 336.032 Surt Year 1998 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh. October - May” 43,575 | Average Annual MWh. June — September 1175 | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44.750 Standard Input LEE Ht tte} | Real Interest Rate (%)_ 45 [aflanon Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 4s Vanable O&M Savings ($.kWh) 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SW ) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Low | Summer Load Muluplier 03 Winter Load Mulupber: 07 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 Net Benefit = ($14,581,565 | BenefitCostRato = 0.71 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY aaa ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Alt A — Stone & Webster | Diesel PV PV MWh Saal | Needed = | 9 PVFuel Pv | YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fue! Cost (MWh) i Sawin gs O& M Savings x2 Si si } sox 16330 $0. $0 | 163 $0 $0 H $08 16.652, $0 so 19s $0. so 0 $0.85 17.077 + $0. $0 | as $0 $0 0 $0. 17,507 | $0) $0 | 1995 $0 $0 ° $0 88 17.981 $0 $0 ar Si $0 0 $0.89 18.379 $0 $0 1908 $31 724.407 $441,540 18.2 $0.91 0 $1.032.451 $144,534 1990 $0 $422.526 19.269 Son | o| _$1.023.093 $141,596 204 so. $104.331 19.721 $0.94 0 $i.@4.758 $138.675 so $386,220 20,177 | $0.95 | Oj $1,014,463 | $135,773 $0. $370.258 20.638 | $0.96 0} $1,003.858 | $132.393 | $0 $354.314 | 21,103 | $0.77 | Oj __ $992,969 | $130.038 | $0 $339,057 21.573 | $0.9 o| $989.965 | $127210 | $0 $224.456 22.088 $0.9 | 0 $970,429 sss | so $310.484 2.28 $1.00 | 0 $958.823 $121,643 | so $297,114 23.012 $1.01] oO} $947,022 | 5118907 | So! $284.320 23.501 | S18 | 0 $944 586 $116205 | $0 $272.076 23.995 | $1.05 | 0 $932233 | $113.539 $0 __$260.360 24.494 | 9 $919.745 | $110,909 $0 $249.149 24.494 | 0 $888,853 $106.133 $0 $238.420 | 23.495 | S107] 0 $101,562 | $0 | $28,153 | 24.494 | $1.07 | o| $97,189 “sot 5218328 | 24.494 | si] 0 $718.89, $93,004 so | $208.926 | 24.494 0 $745,358 $88,999 | $199.929 | 24.494 0 $713261 $191,320 $183,081 | 0 $175,198 | 24.494 | 0 $74.631 20 sol $167,653 | 0 aod so $160.434 | 24.494 | 0 202 $0 $153,525 | 23.494 | $1.07 0 $547,710] $65.399 2@3 so | $146,915 | 24,494 31.07 $62,583 | 2s $0 $140,587 | 24.498 $1.07 0 $501,555 $59,888 | 205 so] $134.53 | 24.493 sio{ i $479.957 | $57.309 226 | $0 | $128,740 24.393 $1.07 0 $459,289 $54.841 207 | so | $123.196 | 24.494 | $1:07/| imino) $439,511 $52.479 | 208 | 30 $117,891 24.494 si] | 20.584 | $50219 209 | so $112815 gio} | 002.473 | $48,057 2030 | $0 $107,957 $45,987 201 $0 $103,308 $44,007 2032 | $0 $98,859 $2.10 203 | sol $94 602 $0299 2s so] $90,528 $38,563 205 $0 $36,903 206 $35.314 207 $33,793 | 208 | $2,338 2039 | $30.945 | 2040 | $29.613 | 2081 | $28,337 2082 | $77.117 2083 | $25.949 2085 | $24,832 | 2085 | $3763 2086 | $2.739 2087 $21,760 2048 | $0 TOTALS $41,724.07 $9,118375 $29,345,768 $3.637.410 | | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | Net Benefit = ($14.581.565) | | BenefitCostRato = O71 j /0 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Alternative Project Input | | Capual Cost (1992 $) $60,561,506 | Surt Year 1998 may | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh, October — May 46.375 | | Average Annual MWh. June ~ September 2375 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48,750 | | | Standard Input 0 | Reai Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 | Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuei=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUKWh 11000 1992 Diese! Cost (S/W): _ 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. Hi Low Summer Load Muluplier: 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = ($19,362,156 BenefitCostRato = 0.65 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Paes ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Ait. B — White Water Engineering | | Diese! PV MW Sga Needed PV Fuel PV ProyectCost ) Useable FuelCost_ | (MWh) Savngs O&M Savings so $0 S02 16.230 $0 $0 1 si $0 0 508 16.652 $0 $0 1903 so $0 0 $0.88 17,077 $0 $0 1998 $0 so 0 $0.8 ie 17,507 $0 so 188A $0 $0 0 $0.88 17.981 so, $0 190° $ $0 0 $0 39 18.379 so $0 198 $46 $93 998 $441,540 18.22 $0.91) 0 $1.02.451 S144 SM we s $422.526 19.269 son 0 $1,003,093 $131.596 2000 so $404,331 197et 30.94 0 $1.04.758 $138.675 2001 s $386,920 20.177 $0.95 0 $1.014.463 $135.773 a so $370258 20.638 $0.96 0 $1.003.858 $132.893 2003 $0 2 $354.314 21.103 | $0.97 | - $992.969 i $130.033 | 2004 so $339.057 21,573 | S09 | 0 $989,965 | $127210 t $0.9 | ot 1 2005 $0 $24.456 | | 2.088 | $0.9 | 0 $970,429 | $2s411 | 2006 $0 $310,484 | 22.528 $1.00 o| $958,823 | $121,643 | 2007 so | $297,114 | 23.012 | $1.01 Oo] $947,022 | $118.907 | 2008 sO $285.320 | 23.501 | $1.6 | o] $944 586 $116.205 | 2009 | so $272.076 | 23.95 | $1.05 i 0 $932233 $113.539 | 2010 | $0, $260.360 24.494 | $1.06 | ol $919.735 | $110,909 | 201 so} $249.159 | 24.494 $1.07 | ol} $888,853 $106.133 | 2012 so | $238.420 | 24.494 | si.o7 | 0 $850.57 $101,562 | 2013 | So | $23,153 | 24.494 | S107 + 0 $813,950 | $97,189 | 2014 sol $218,328 | 24.494 | $1.07 o| $778,899 | $93,008 | 2015 | $0 | $208.926 | 24.494 | 0 $745 358 $33,999 | | 2016! so | $199,929 24.494 0 $713,261 166 | 2017 | so} $191,320 24.494 | 0 $682,547 2018 | $0 | $183,081 | 24.494 | 0 | 2019 | so | $175.198 | 24.494 | 0 ; 200 so $167.653 | 24.494 | $1.07 | 0 $598,113 $71,417 221 $0! $160.435 | 24.494 1 $1.07 oO} $572,357 | $68.342 202 so $153.525 | 0 $547,710 $65,399 | 203 $0 | $146.914 | . oO} 724.125 | $62.583 204 so] $140,587 24.494 $1.07 0 $501,555 $59,888 | 20s So] $134.533 | 24.494 | $1.07 0 $479,957 | $57,309 | 2e6 | sof 128.740 [ 24.493 $1.07 0 $459,289 $54.831 | 207 $o $123.196 | 24.494 $1.07 0 $439.511 $52.479 28 | $0] $117891 24.494 $1.07 o| $20,584 | $50219 | 200 $0 | $112815 24.494 sio| $402,473 $48,057, 2080 so $107,957 $45,987 261! $103.308 $44,007 | 2032 $98.859 . ! $22. 2 263 | z ee a ZI $02 2034 | so 24,494 | $1.07 ae 2085 | $0 $86,630 24.494 $1.07 $309.057 $36,903 266 | $0 eT 2087 | sol smo asa suo To 283.013] 833.793 | 2038 sol _swsoi3| tsa ior] $270,826 | $0,338 2039 | so] 72.644 | ; i $259,164 $30.945 | 2080 | $0 $248,003 $29.613 2081 | $0 $237,324 | $23,337 | 2082 | so ! ! i $27,104 $2117 2083 so $60.917 24.494 suo] 8217325 | $25,949 2oss | so | $58.29 24,494 $1.07 0 2085 $0 $55,783 24.494 $1.07 2 He. O11 $23,763 ' 2086 | so! $53,381 24,494 $1.07 $2,739 2087 | $0 $51.082 | 24.494 | $1.07 $21,760 2048 | $0 so 0 $1.07 so | TOTALS $46.504.998 $9.118375 $29,345,768 $3,637,410 | | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | Net Benefit = ($19.362.156) ad BenefitCostRato = 06S | | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input 1 | Real Interest Rate (%) =I 4.5) Inflation Rate (%) SI 0 Discount Rate (%) _| 45 | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): __| $0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh 11,000 "1992 Diesel Cost (SkW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): __| Medium | Summer Load Muluplier: “03 / | Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28,600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25.900 11-Aug-92 Summary LAltA - Stone & Webster Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Medium $7,491,886 Benefit: Average Cost Ratio Annual Displaced | | Diesel (MWh) __| 1.15 | 33161. /4f ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input AltA — Stone & Webster Capital Cost (1992 $) $54.336.032 | Sart Year. 198 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 43.575 | Average Annual MWh. October — May Average Annual MWh June — September: Total Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input 1 15 | 44,750 i | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Vanable O&M Savings ($ kWh) 0.03165 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SkW) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High). Medium | | Summer Load Mulupler 03 | Winter Load Mulapler: 0.7 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output(MWh) 25900 | | aT | i Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = Net Benefit = BenefitCost Rato = $3,278,039 $7,491,886 115 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ajt A — Stone & Webster Diese! PV PY MWh Sz Needed PY Fuel PV Proje: :Cost O&M Cost Useabie FuelCost_ | MWh) San gs O&M Savings $0 $0 0 SOR 13.569 $0 $0 wa $0 $0 0 $0 3 14.336 | $0 $0 $0 So 0 $0.85 15.156 | so so | so so 0 $0 % | 16.134 | So. so | So $0 D $0.88 17.148 | $0 | sO s $0 0 $0.89 18.234 | $0 $0 $4) 724 307 $431,540 19.280 $091 0 $1,057,576 $468,582 $o $402,526 20287 $02 | 0 $1.077.112 $471.814 So $404,331 21376 $0 % Ol $1,110,753 | $475.738 so $386.920 2.619 30% of $1.1372371 $481,729 | 30 S370258 23.895 50.96 | 0] $1.162.261 | $486.97 | $0 $354314 25,208 som | of $1,185,926 | $491,550 so $339,057 26.548 | $0.9 o| $1.218252 | $495.465 | so $304.456 27,927 | $0.9 | ol $1,229.193 | $498.757 so $310.48$ 29.343 | $1.00 | 0 $1248.86 $501,369 | 50 $297.114 | 30.795 | $1.01] 0 $1.267331 $503.629 $0 $284.320 32.286 | 0 $505276 so! $272.076 33.816 | $1.65 | 0 so | $260,360 | 35,386 | $1.06 0 so! $249.149 | 35,386 31.07 | 0 $0 $238.420 35.386 | $1.07 | _of so | $28.153 | so! $218.328 | k $0 | $208,926 | 35,38 so] $199.929 | $0 | $191,320 | 3 . $0 | $183,081 | 35,386 0 $356,597 so | $175.198 | 35,386 s1.07 | 0 r $341241 so] $167,653 | 35,386 si.7 | 0 $364,078 $326.547 $0 $160.835 | 35.386 | si.07 | 0 $526,869 $312385 SO. $153525| 35.386 $1.07 | 0] $791.262 $299.029 | —— so] $146,914 | 35,386 sir 0 $757,188 $286,152 so] $140,587 | 35.386 | $1.07 0] $724,582 $273.829 so] $134,533 t 35,386 $1.07 0 $603,380 $262.038 | $0 | $128.740 | 35,386 sio7{ i $663.52 $250.754 $0 | $123.196 35.386 | $1.07 —- $634.949 $239.956 | so] $117,891 | 35,386 $1.07 $607,607 $229,623 So $112815 35.386 ese $219.735 $0 | sio79s7] 35386] si] $556,404 $2102.72 so | $103,308 ae $532.44 $201218 | I $9859] 35.386) «SOT | $509,515 $192,553 $94,602 35.386 $1.07 ost $90,528 35,386 $1.07 $466,578 $176,326 — Sige ° slels|slels|elelsis|sisls Ee 3/6 le i ele |S io lO alg Tt : ale Se Bz $168.733 $161.467 $141.493 $135,400 35,386 35,386 0! $58,294 35.386 so! $55,783 | 35,386 $1.07 eee so] $53,381 | 35.386 so] $51,082 | 35.386 $0 $0 ol | | TOTALS $41,724,407 $9,118,375 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | Net Benefit = $7,491,886 | BenefitCostRato = | | 115 oy (ry /b ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY 11-Aug-92 PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alternative Project laput Alt. B — White Water Engineering — — | Capital Cost (1992 $) 360.561 504 | Surt Year 198 J | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May” 46.375 | Average Annual MWh. June ~ September 2375 [Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48,750 | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflauon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | Vanable O&M Savings ($/kWh). 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2) 1 =| | Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/KWb 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier: 03 __} Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 [Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh). 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = $2,711296 | BenefitCostRato = 1.05 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY So Aa ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Diesel PV MWh Sgal | Needed PV Fuel PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable | Fuel Cost L (MWh) | Sain gs O&M Savings 1992 S. $0 0 sox 13.569 im so so 1993 $0 so Oo} 30.8 14.36 $0 so cH $0 $0 0! $0.85 | 15.156 So. 50 | 1995 so sO 0} $0.86 16.134 so $0 1386 sO $0 oy $0.88 17,138 | 50 $0 199° So $0 0 $0 89 | 18234 | so so! 1998 $b Sos 998 $441,540 19.280 $0.91 Oi $1.057.576 $:468.582 1990 Ss SA2.S26 20.287 son oO, $1.077.112 SAL 814 20 so $404,331 21.376 $0 94 0} $1,110,753 | $475.738 | 2 $0 $386,920 2.619 530% 0 $1.137237 $381,729 $0 $370258 23.895 | $0.9 | oO} $1.162261 | $486,977 $0 $354.314 25.204 | $0.77 | 0} $1,185,926 | $491.550 2003 $0 $339,057 26548] 80.99 | 0! $1.218252 | $495.465 | 2005 $0 $24.456 27.9727 | $0.9 | 0 $1.29.193 | $498,757 | 2006 so $310,484 29.343 | $1.00 | st Si ns.801 $501,469 | 2007 so $397.114 30.795 $1.01 | of 31267331] $503,629 2008 | so | $284,320 32.28 $1.8 | a $1,297,690 | $505.276 | 2009 $0 $272,076 | 33816, $1.05 | 0 $1,313,803 $506 334 2010! $0 $260.360 35.386 | $1.05 | 0 $1,28.730 | $507.117| 20n1 | $o | $249.149 | 35.386 | or | $1284.102 | 2 2012] $0 2 2013 $0 | hs $218,328 | 2015 | 2 | $208.926 | 35.386 $1,076,798 | $406,937 2016 $199,929 | 35,386 | $389.313 2017 | aT $191,320 | 35,386 | 2018 | so! $183,081 | 35,386 $356,597 2019 $0] $175.198 35,386 sio7| $3H1251 | 2@0 30 $167.653 | 35.386 | $1.07 | $326.547 2001 soy $160,435 | 35,386 $1.07 $312.48 | 202 sot $153,525 | 35.386 | $1.07 $299,029 | 2003 so! $186.913 35.386 | si.07 | 0 ] $286.152 | 204 $01 $140,587 | 35,386 $1.07 0 $724,582 $273,829 2s $0 | $134.533 35.386 | $1.07 | 0 $262.038 | 226 $0 $128,740 | 35,386 3107 —— $6352 $250,754 207 so] $123.196 | 35.386 $1.07 $239,956 208 so] $117,891 | Swe [ne har $607,607 $29,623 | | 209 so | $112815 $219,735 2080 $0 $107,957 ae $210272 281 $0 $103,308 35,386 $1.07 $201218 2082 | so] 398.859 35.386 Src cee $192.553 203 | $0 sooo] —3ssae) ST) SCC 7.S7S | 184.261 | 264 $0 eof Sov] 866,578 | $176,326 | 2035 | So $36,630 Psion $00.487 | $168.73 2036 sol smacol3szes| sa] S760] 161,467 | 2037 | $0 $79.330 35386] sao] $008,861 | $154.514 208 $0 $75,913, 35,386 po 91.255 | $147,860 209 $0 $72,644 35,386 Po s374.406 [151.493 | 2040 $0 $0,516 35,386 $1.07 0 $135.400 T reatanille 2081 so | $66,523 35,386 31.07 0 $342,855 $129,570 2082 so] $63,658 35,386 $1.07 0 $328,091 $123,990 2083 | sol $0917 35,386 $1.07 0 $118651 2044 so $58,294 35,386 $1.07 0 $300,443 $113541 2045 | so] $55,783 | 35.386 $1.07 0 $287.505 $108,652 | 2087 | $0 $51.082 35,386 s 0 $263277 $99,496 i 2088 so sof of sit stet 80 $0 | TOTALS $46,504.98 $9.118.375 $39,603,844 $15.452.786 | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | Net Benefit = $2.711296 J | BenefitCostRato = 1.05 | | | | /§ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—50 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input \ Real Interest Rate (%) | as} Inflation Rate (%): 0 Discount Rate (%): 45 Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): $0.01000 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh: 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): Medium Summer Load Multiplier 03 | Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 1a ee Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25,900 | Summary _| \ | Benefit: Average i | Annual Displaced | | Diese! (MWh) AILA — Stone & Webster LAlt. B — White Water Engineering __ S ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $54.336.032 1 Sturt Year 1998 [Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575.000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May” 43.575 | Average Annual MWh. June - September 1,175 | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44,750 | _| | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%). 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWb) 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUkWb 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (SW 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High). Medium | Summer Load Multplier 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 07 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Ourput( MWh) 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 Net Benefit = (33,078.503 BenefitCost Rato = 0.94 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ee ae ALLISON LAKE RECO NNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ait A — Stone & Webster \ j Diesel PV PV MWh Segal Needed PV Fuel PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable FuelCost jf (MWh) Savings | O& M Savings i902 $0 $0 0 s0n 13.869 $0 $0 1993 $0 $0 0 30.8 | 14.36 $0) so. 1994 so $0 0 $0.85 | 15.156 | so so | 195 x $0 ua $0.86 16.134 $0 | so} 1996 $0 so 0 $0.88 17.148 so so | 199 3 $0 0 $0.89 18234 $0 so | 198 $1,724.40" SA$1.540 19280 $0.91 0 $1 057.5761 $148.05) 1990 $0 $42.526 20.287 $02 | 0] $1,077,112) $149,072 $0 $404 331 21.376 $0.94 | 0 $1.110,753 $150.312 3 sO $386,920 2.619) 50.9% 0| $1,137237 $152.205 2002 $0 $370258 23.895 | $0.96 | ol $1.162261 | $153.863 | 2003 so $354,314 25 204 $0.97 | 0 $1,185,926 | $155.308 | 2003 $0 $339,057 26.548 $0.9 | 0 $1.218252 $156,545 2005 | $0 $24,456 | 2727 | 509 | o| $129,193 $157,585 2006 $0 $310.484 29.333 | $1.00 | o| $1.248.886) $158,442 2007 50 SITs 30.795 | $1.01 0 $1,267,331 | $159,125 2008 so] $284,320 | 32.286 | $1.6 0 $1,297,690 $159,645 2009 $0 $272.076 33.816 $1.05 | 0 $1,313,803 $160.01 2010 so $260,360 35,386) $1.05 0 | 2011 $0 $249.149 | 35.386 | 0 2 r + ——— 2012) 50 | $238.420 | 35.386 | 0 | 2013 | so $28,153 35,386 0 | 2014! so] $218.328 = 0 ES oo ———— | 2015 | so | $208,926 | 35.386 0 | 2016 | $0 | $199.929 0 ‘a 2017] so] $191,320 | ; i 0 . i 2018 | so] $183,081 | ; $i 0 jaca 2019 sol $175,198 | 35,386 i 0 $902,961 $107.817 2x0 | so $167,653 | 35.386 | si.o7 | 0 $364,078 $103,174 2@1 $0 $160.35 | 35.386 | $1.07 | 0 $226,869 | $98.731 | 202 $0] $153,525 | 35.386 | $1.07 0 SP1262 $94,480 | 203 so! $146,914 35,386 si.o7 | 0 $757,188 $90,411 204 $0| $140,587 35.386 | S107 0 $724,582 $36,518 2@s $0 | $134,533 35,386 $1.07 0 $693,380 $2.72 206 | so size.740 | 35,386 $1.07 0 $663,522 $9227 2027 so $123.196 as3eo[ snov{ $634,949 | $75.815 | 208 | $0] $117,891 35,386 $1.07 0 S551 209! $0 $112815 7] nn 7 $581,442 $9,426 2030 | so] $107,957 35,386 $1.07 0 $556,404 2031 | so] si03308| asseo[ stom] 8532.44 | $63,576 202 $0 | $98.859 353e6[ St] 8509515 | $60,838 203] sol soscon[ 35386] $1.07 | $58.218 204 | $0 $55.71 205 | sO [$446,487 | $53.312 2086 | $0 2037 | 30 a 2638 | $0 Fae $46,717 2039 $0 $72.644 35.386 | $1.07 0 $374.406 2040 | sol $9516 | 35,386 sio[ to 8358284] $42,780 | 2081 | $0 $66,523 35.386 $1.07 ol] s3a2.gss| ($40,938 | 2042 | $0 $63,658 35.386 $1.07 2043 | $0 $60,917 35,386 sig] | 8313,963] 837,488 | 2044 | so | $58.294 35.386 2 Ee 2045 $0 | $55,783 35,386 [ot 287,505] $34,329 | 2086 | so] $53.381 35,386 31.07 3 $275.124| $32.851 | 2087 | $0 | $51.082 35.386 $1.07 $31.436 2048 so! $0] 0 $107 oe er a | | TOTALS $41,724.407 $9.118375 $39.603,844 $4,882,397 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3278.039 | Net Benefit = (53,078,503) 7 | | BenefitCostRato = 094 ao —— of ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1i-Aug-92 SIL VER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering Alternative Project Iapat Capatal Cost (1992 $) $60.561504 | Surt Year 1998 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh. October - May" 46.375 | | Average Annual MWh. June - September 2.375 | | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | | | Standard Input 0 | | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (% 45 | | Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.01 — Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuei=2 1 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium, High) Medium a | Summer Load Multipber: 03 | Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 imal Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh). 25900 | | | | Summary of Output a Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | [NetBeneft = (57.859.093) | BenefitCostRato = 0.86 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY eae ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Diese! PV i PY Mwah Segal | Needed PV Fuel PV YEAR ProjectCost_ | O&M Cost Useable FueiCost_ | (MWh) | Sawngs | O&M Savings 1992 $0 $0 0 30.2 13.569 I) $0 1993 so $0. 0 $0.3 13.36 so $0 16s $0. so. 0 $0.85 15.156 $0 $0} 1995 $0 $0 0 $0.% 16.134 $0 $0 | 196 $0 $0 0 $0.88 17138 | $0 $0 1997 Si $0 0 $0.89 18234 | so! $0! $46 503 998 S441.540 19.280 $0.91 0 $1,057,576 $148,051 $0 $122,526 20.287 $07 oO} $1,077,112 | $149.072 | $0 $404 331 21.376 $0.94 0} $1.110.753 | $150.312 | $0 $386,920 2.519 $0.95 | ol $1.137237,__—$1$2.205 | $0 $370.258 23.895 $0.% | 0 $1,162.261 $153,863 $0 $354.314 | 25.204 | $0.77 | 0] $1,185,926 | $155,308 | $0 $339,057 26.548 | $0.9 | o| $1.218252 | $156.545 | $0 | $324.456 27.927 509 0) $1.29.193 | $157,585 | so] $310,484 | 2933 $1.00 | of $1248, 886 | $158.442 | so, $297.114 30.795 | sioi | of $1,267,331 | $159,125 sol $284,320 | 32786 | $1.6 | Oo! 7,690 $159.645 | so] $272,076 | 33.816 | $1.05 | 0 $1,313,803 | $160.011 so $260,360, 35.386 | a; $1.328.730/ $160227 | sO; $249.149 | 35,386 | 0 $153,327 $0 | $238.420 35,386 0 $146.724 $0) $28,153 | 35.386 | 0 $218.328 | 35,386 | 0 $128.574 0 $123,037 $191,320 0 $117,739 $183,081 | 35.386 | r 0 $112.669 $0 $175,198 | 35,386 $1.07 | 0 $107,817 | so | $167.653 | 35.386 107] of $364,078 $103.17 | so 1 $160.434 i 35.386 | $1.07 0 } $226,869 $98.731 202 so | $153,525 35.386 | $1.07 0 $791.262 $94.480 | 203 $0, $146.91 | 35,386 | $1.07 0 $757,188 90.311 | 204 $0] $140,587 35.386 $1.07 0 $724.58 $86,518 | 2as | so $134,533, 35.386 $1.07 0 $693.380 $22,792 206 so! $128,740 35,386 | $1.07 0 $663,522 $79.27 | 207 | $0 $123.196 $1.07 of $634.949 $75,815 208 | $0 | $117891 $1.07 0 $607,607 $72.51 209 | So] $112815 aL a ee $9,426 200 | $0 sioros7] 3s3e6] so] S556.404] 566.437 | 2031 | $0 | sio3308[ 35.386] Sto] $532,444 | 563576 | 202 $0 | sesso] 353e6] Sto | 8509515] $60,838 2033 | $0 souson] 35386] Stor] 587,575 | $58.218 2035 | sol —ssms2s] 35.386) S| 8 066.578 | $55,711 205 | $o| $86,630 | 35,386 $1.07 0 $446.487 $53.312 2036 | $0 a a $51017 2037 so $79,330 35,386 $1.07 $408,861 $48,820 208 | $0 ae ee ee $46,717 2039 | $0 $72,644 Sse) __sigy___o__siago|__sat ios 2040 | sol sesis| 35386) Stor] 858.284 | $22.780 | 2041 | $o SS $40,938 2042 | so] sasess] 3536] 81.07 | 0 $228,091 $39,175 \ 2043 $0) a a se $313,963 $37,488 | 2048 $0) | _ $300,443] $35,874 | 2045 | so [——sssres 5386 [sor] | 599 2046 | $0 tuo ala 2087 $0 $51,082 35,386 $1.07 $31,436 2048 sot $0 0 si] 35386] ~SSSS—«*SOY so | t | TOTALS $46.504.998 $9.118375 $39,603,844 $4.882.397 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 Net Benefit = ($7.859.093) —| | BenefitCost Rato = 0.86 | dy ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—50 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) | Inflation Rate (%) Discount Rate (%) Variable O& — Savings (S/kWh) | $0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) fl Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh 11,000 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): High Summer Load Multiplier: 0.3 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28.600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): | 25,900 AILA — Stone & Webster Alt. B — White Water Engineerm High $29.291.969 11-Aug-% Average \ | Annual Displaced | Diesel (MWh) le ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY hi-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input | Capital Cost (1992 $) $54.336.032 | Surt Year 198 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) __ $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh. October — May _ 43.575 | | Average Annual MWh. June — September 1,175 | | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44.750 | | Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (% ) 45 | | Inflavon Rate (°%) 0 [Discount Rate (%) 45 aa | Vanable O&M Savings ($kWh) 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU kWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (SkW) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High High Summer Load Muluplier 03 Winter Load Muluper: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 _] Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | NetBenefit = $29.291,969 mimi BenefitCostRato = 158 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY in Ace =e ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Alt A — Stone & Webster | Dresei PV PV MWh Sigal | Needed | PVFuel Pv YEAR Pryec:Cost__| O&M Cost Useable | FuelCost_ | wh) | Sawngs ORM Savangs 198) S. $0 0 son 30.369 $0 $0 1903 Si $0 0 $0.8 31.136 | So! $0 1984 so 50 Oo. $0.85 31,956 $0 $0) 19s so $0 9 $0 % 32.34 | $0 so | 1996 so $0 0 $0.88 | 33.048 $0 | $0 = $ $0 0 $0.89 35.08 $o $0 : $31.734.40° $41.540 36.080 | $0.91 0 $1.79.) $876,887 $0 $42,526 37.087 son 0 $1,969,100 $862,537 so $404.331 38.176 | $0.94 | 0 $1,983,729 | $819.636 so $386,920 39.419 $0.95 0 $1,981,903 | $839,525 | $0 $370.258 40.05 $0.96 | Oo} $1,979.437 | $229,367 | sO $354.315 | $2,506 | $0.7 | 0] _$2,000.023 | $228,981 | 50 $339.057 44.426 | 50.9 | of $2.038.635 | $29.16 | so, $204.456 | 44.750 | $0.9 | 1,686 | __ $1,969,635 | $799,199 so $310.484 44.750 | $1.00 | 3,646 | _$1,904.659 $764,784 sO S297.115 43.750 | $1.01 5.743 | $1,841,626 $731,851 $0 $284.320 | $4,750 | S1B $1,798,658 $700,335 $0 $272.076 | 44.750] $1.05 $1,738.589 $670.177 SS= $0 $260.360 44.750 | $1.06 $641.318 so, $249.149 | 44.750 $1.07 $613.702 $0 | $238.420 | 347 | so] $228,153 | 44.750 $218328 | $191,320 $183,081 so] $175,198 | ; so) 51676537 44.750 or | : 2 so! 160.434 | 44.750 $1,045.687 | $395.179 SO; $153.525 | $4,750 sia] 12.301 $1,000.657 $378,162 | so! $146,914 a 31.07 12.301 $957,567 $361,878 so | 140.587 | 44.750 $1.07 12,301 $916.332 $346.294 | so] $134.53 | 44.750 sio{ 12301 | $876,873 | $331,382 | $0 | $128,740 44.750 $1.07} 12.301) $839,113 | $317,112 so] $123.196 $303.457 so| $117.891 | 44.750] sao | 12301 | $768,401 | $290,389 $0 $112815 44. si] 12301] ——_—$735312| $277.884 50 $107,957 3107 12.301 $265,918 So | $103,308 aes] $254.467 $0 | $98.859 44750[ stor] 13.301 | __seua3sn | __$243.509] $0 soscon] sat50| S| 2301 | $616,604 | $233,023 $0 sig | 12.3501 | $590,052] 822.989 | 30 sig] 12,301 | $564,643 | $213.386 ‘ so $540.328 $204,197 267] 30 S51 $195,404 208 0 $186,990 2040 | $0 i soe $1712 2041 $0 nl | __—-$433.587 | $163.858 2042 $0 12301] ($414,915 | $156,802 2083 | $o a ae $150,050 2044 $0 558296 Pee 50T sa] zor | $379,951 | $143,588 2085 | so | $55,783 44,750 | $1.07 | 12,301 $363,589 $137,405 046 | $0 | $53,381 44.750 | $1.07 12,301 $347,932 $131.488 2017 $0 $51,082 44.750 $1.07 12.301 $332,949 $125,826 ‘= 2048 $0 $0 0 $1.07 57,051 $0 so | TOTALS $41,725.407 $9.118375 $55,177,620 $21679,092 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | | Net Benefit = $29.291.969 } BenefitCost Rato = 158 AL ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineerin | Alternative Project Input aa | Capital Cost (1992 $) $60,561,604 | Start Year 1998 | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May 46.375 | Average Annual MWh. June — September: 2.375 | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48,750 | | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings ($/kWh): 0.03165 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1. Low Fuel=2): 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUKWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): High Summer Load Muluplier 03 Winter Load Mulopber: 07 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 ata Net Benefit = $29,440,364 BenefitCostRato = 153 Leora eee eee eae ae EES eRe ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY emAcgm ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY - PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Dnese! PV PV Mews Sra | Needed PVFuel | Pv YE. ProyectCost__| O&M Cost Useable | FuelCost_ | (MW) Sawngs | O&M Samngs sO $0 0 sox 30.369 $0, so 50 30 0! SOB 31.136 50 50 SO $0 0! $0.85 31.956 | sO so $0 SO of $0.86 | 32.534 | sO so $0 $0 0! $0.88 33.048 $0 $0! si $0 oO; $0.89 35.085 | $0 $0 $46 S04 998 $441,540 36.080 SO91 | oO} $1.979.111 $876.887 | $0 $422.526 37.087 | Son 0, $1,969.100 $862,537 SO $404.331 38.176 | $0.98 oO] $1,983,729 $819,636 | so $386,920 39.419 $0.9 o $1.981.903 $839,525 $0 $370258 | 40.695 | $0.96 | 0 $1.979.437 | $29,367 $0 $354.314 $2,506 | 307 | 0 $2,000.023 $28.981 | 2a $0 $339.05 $4.26) $09 | o| $2.038.635 $£9.116) 2005 $0 $R4.456 46.396 $0.9 | 0 | $2,042,083 $£8.595 2006 $0 $310.484 $8.396 | $1.00 | oO} $2.059,840 | $27.094 | 2007 so] SO7.115 48.750 | sio1] 1.743 | $2.006240 | $797267 | 2008 $0 $284.320 | 48.750 | 31.6 | 3873 | $1,959,432] $762.935 | 2009 so $272,076 48.750 | $1.05 | 6.059 $1,893,994 | $730.082 | 2010 $0 | $260.360 48.750 | $1.06 | 8301 | $1.830.559 | $098.653 | 2011 | sol s249.149 | 48.750 | 31.07 8301 $1,769,075 $068.58 2012 | so | $238,420 | 48.750 | $1.07 8.301 $1,692,895 $639.768 2013 | So) $28,153 | 43,750 | S107 8301 $1,619,995 20181 so] $218328 | 48.750 $107 8301 51550234] $585.85 | 2015 so | $208,926 | 48.750 $1.07 8301 $560,627 | 2016 | $0 $199,929 | 48,750 | $1.07 8301] $1.419596] $536.85 | 2017 | 50 | $191,320 48.750 $1.07 8.301 $1,358,465 $513.383 | 2018 so] $183,081 | $8,750 $1.07 8301 $1,299,967 $491.275 2019 so | $175,198 | $8,750 07 8301 $1.243,987 $470.120 | 2020 | so | $167,653 48,750 $1.07 8,301 $1,190.418 $439.875 | 201 $0] $160,434 | 48,750 | si.o7 | 8301 $1,139,156 $430,503 | 202 $0 $153.525 | 48.750 31.07 8301 $1,090,102 $411,964 203 | “so $146,914 48,750 | $1.07 8,301 $1,043,160 $393223 | 203 so | $140,587 48,750 $1.07 3.301 $377248 2a | $0 $134.533 48.750 $1.07 8.301 | $955,252 $361.003 206 so} $128,740 48.750 $1.07 8301 $914.117 $345,457 | 207 $0 | $123,196 48.750 $1.07 8301 $330.581 208 | 0 5117891 48.750 31.07 8301 $316,346 | 209 50 $112815 48,750 $1.07 3301 $302,723 | 2030 1 $0 $107,957 48.750 $1.07 8.301 $766,543 2031 so $103,308 43750) S| 8.301 | $733,534 $277213 202 | $0 | $98,859 $1.07 8.301 $701,947 $265.275 23 | $0 soucon | aa.750| $1.07 | 8301 $671,719 $253,852 2034 so] swszatss.7s0f stor] 8.301] $682,794 | $242,920 2035 | & —o 3.750 $1.07 8301 $615,113, $232,460 2036 | $1.07 3301 $588,625 $22,450 207 | = $1.07 8,301 $563.278 $212.870 208 sol s7s913[ 48,750 | a a $203,704 2089 $0 $72,644 SE $194,932 2080 | so $9516 ol si] 8301 | (893.598 | $186,538 2081 $0 $66,523 tse 2082 $0 $63.658 43.750] Su. | 8301] $452,003] $170,818 | | 2043 | $0 $6917 48,750 $1.07 [asf seas] 2044 | so | $58.29 48.750 ES 2045 | $0 | $55,783 48,750 $1.07 es eet 2046 | $0 $53.381 48.750 $1.07 ae 2087 | $0 $51,082 48.750 $1.07 8301 $362,710 $137.073 | 2088 | $0) $0 oP sof 7.051] 50 so | | TOTALS $46.505.998 $9.118375 $58.745.708 $23.039.989 | BenefitCostRato = | 153 Deferred Diesei Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | | NetBenefit = $29,440,364 4 Arn 30 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL—50 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) | Inflation Rate (%): 0 % | 45 | Discount Rate (%) | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh) Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 1 $0.01000 | | Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11.000 | | 1992 Diese! Cost ($/kW): 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High): High Summer Load Multiplier 0.3 | Winter Load Multiplier | 0.7 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28.600 | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25.900 | eee |i | AltA — Stone & Webster Alt. B — White Water Engineering $13,679,992 1i—Aug-2 Average Annual Displaced Diesel (MWh) =z ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input | Capral Cost (1992 $) $54.336.032 | Surt Year 1998 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | [Average Annual MWh, October — May 43.575 | | Average Annual MWh. June - September 1,175 [Total Annual Energy (MW) 44.750 | | Standard Input | | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 [Inflanon Rate (%) 0 [Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Vamable O&M Savings ($kWh 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 1 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 — | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW) 450 — Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium, High) High | Summer Load Multipber: 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 07 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 Net Benefit = $14,462,511 BenefitCostRato = 128 eee eee eee ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Sa, Name of Alternative: AltA — Stone & Webster | Diese! PV Pv MWh Sai Needed = | = PVFuel PV YEAR Projec Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost (MWh) | Sawngs | O&M Savings 1992 sO $0 0 sox 30.369 $0 SO 1993 so $0 0 S08 31,136 30 $0 1994 so $0 9 $0 85 31.956 | So, So) 1995 $0 $0 0 $0.36 | 32.934 | so! $0 196 $0 $0 0 $0.88 33.948 so} $0 197 $0 $0 0 $0.89 | 35.084 | $0] $0 1998 $41.724.407 $441.540 36.080 $0.91 0 $1,979.11) $277.058 1999 30 $422.56 37.087 Son | 0] $1.969.100 | $272,524 2000 $0 $404,331) 38.176 | $0.94 | 0 | $1,983.729 | $268 447 2001 so $386,920 | 39.419 | $0.% | 0] $1,981,903 | $265253 | 2002 $0 $370258 30.85 | $0.6 | 0] $1.979.437 | $262.03 | 2003 $0 $354.314 | 42.506 | son | 0 $2,000,023 | $261,921 | 2004 $0 $339.057 | 44.06 | 50.99 | 0 $261.964 | 200s $0 $204.456 | 44.750 | 309 _ $1,969,635 $252,512 | 2006 $0 310.484 | 44.750 $1.00 $1,904.659 $241,638 2007 $0 $297.114 7 44.750 | $1,841,626 $331232 | 2008 | so | $234,320 | $4,750 $21275 2000 $0 $272.076 | $4,750 | 2010 $0 $260.360 | 43.750] T $1,680,359 $202,628 2011} $0 | $239.149 | 34.750 | $1.07 | 12.301 $1,623,920 $193,903 2012 $0 $238,420 | $4,750 $1.07 12.301 $1,553,990 $185,553 | 2013 $0 $28.153 4. wos 31.07 12301 $177,562 2013 $0 | $218328 | $1.07 & 23.036 $169.916 | 2015 | $0 ecicpaesen | naad pe ge $162,599 2016 | $0. $199,929 14.750 $1.07 12.301 am 16 $155.597 2017 | $0 $191.320 44.750 | sion 2301] $1247.01 $148.897 | | 2018 $0 $183,081 $4,750 31.07 $1,193,303 $142,485 | 2019 | $0 $175,198 44.750 | $1.07 $136,349 | 2@0 | $0 | $167,653 $4,750 $1.07 $130,478 | 21 | so} $160.43 43750] S.o7 | 12.301 | __51.045.687 $124.859 202 $0 | $153,525 $4,750 $1.07 12.301 $1,000.657 $119.483 203 $0 $146,914 $4,750 31.07 12301 $957.567 $114.337 204 { $140,587 44.750 $1.07 see: $109.414 205 | $0 $134.533, $4,750 $1.07 $104,702 206 $0 | $128,740 $4750| S107 | 120 | $839,113} $100.193 207 $0 | si3i96 | sersof tov 12.301 $802,979 $95.879 2s | so $117,891 ayo] sto] ton] segeorf $91,750 | 209 | sol suzsis]as.750] Sov | 12301 | $735,312 35.799 200 $0 —suongst | saso sit | __sm.ga7 stat 201 | s [sio3.sos[se.750[ 1.07 | 12.30 $673.347 $80,400 2032 eee $76,938 203 [+2 2 ee ee 2034 | sol ssoszs]aa750] So] 12301 | $590,052 $70.455 | 2Bs sol saee30| ss aa7so| St] 2301 | $564,643 | $67,421 206 | so [_swsso] 750, sin] 2201] _ssoze] _—saasi7| 267 | sol sm3x0[sa507 Sto] ton $517.060 | $61,739 208 | $0 ___ss913) 4780] sig] 12.301 | $494.79] $59,080 2089 sol smcaa] 4.750] $1.07 | 12.301 $473.487 $56,536 2080 | » eee ws sks 2081 | 2042 | saat [12.301 | __serasis]| 349.543 | 2043 | S ~<a Bae 2044 | $0 ssszoa]sat50] S| son | $379,951 | 2085 $0 8a gr 2046 $0 ss33si] sao] ov | zon] 5347932] Saas | 2087 $0 | $51,082 $¥9.755 Te) a er $0. i | | TOTALS $41,724,407 $9,118375 $55,177,620 $6,819.634 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | | Net Benefit = $14.462.511 | BenefitCostRato = 128 at — Or ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering Altermative Project Imput r | Caprul Cost (1992 $) $60.561 504 | Surt Year 198 = Annual O& M Cost (1992S) $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh. October — May” 46,375 Average Annual MWh. June ~ September 23 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | ] | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 Inflanon Rate (%) 0 Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Vamable O&M Savings ($/kWh): 0.01 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2) 1 | Average Diese! Heat Rate BTUKWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SkW) 450 | [Load Forecast ae Medium = a | | Summer Load Muluplier: 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 23600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 ai] Net Benefit = $13,679,992 BenefitCostRato = 125 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY -ALi- ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ait. B — White Water Engineering | Diese! Pv PV MWh Sgal | Needed PV Fuel j PV YEAR Project Cost O& M Cost Useable Fuel Cost | (MWh) Savings O&M Savings 12 si $0 0 sox 30.369 $0 $0 1993 SO $0 0 S08 31.136 so, so cr So $0 oO} $0.85 31.956 | so $0 1985 0 $0 9 $08 32.934 | so] $0) 1996 s $0 0 $0 88 33,948 so $0 [a7 si $0 0 $0.39 35.4 | So | $0 $46,514,998 $441,540 36.080 $0.91 OL $1979.11 $277.058 $0 $422.526 37.087, $02 | oO} $1,969,100 $2721524 so $404.331 38.176 | $0.94 o! $1.983.729 $268.447 $0 $386,920 39.419 | $0.5 0 $1.981,903 | $265.253 so $370.258 40.095 | $0.96 | 0 $1.979.437 | $262.043 $0 $354.314 42.506 | son 0 $%61.921 $0 $339.057 44.426 | $0.9 | 0 $261.96 | so $4456 | 36.396 | $0.9 | 0 | _ $2.042.083 | $261.79 | 0) $310.484 | $8,396 | $1.00 | > $2.059.840 | $261,325 | so SO711s 48.750 | $1.01} 1.743 | $2.006240 | $251,901 | $0 $284.320 48.750 | $1.8 | 3.873 $1,959,432 | $241,056 | $0 $272.076 48.750 $1.65 | 6,059 $1,893,994 | $230.673 | $0 $260,360 | 48.750 | $1.06 8.301 $1,830,559 $20,740 | so | $249,149 | $8.750 | $1.07 3.301 | $1,769,075 $211.235 $0 | $238,420 | 48.750 $1.07 8.301 $1,692,895 $202.138 so | $28,153 48,750 $1.07 8,301 $1,619,995 $193,434 | $0 | $218,328 | 48,750 | $1.07 8,301 $1.5502 $185,103 | | so} $208.926 | 48.750 E $1.483.478 $177,133 | L $0) $199,929 | 48,750 $1.419.596 $169.505 | $191.320 $1,358,465 $162206 | 29 $155221 | $175,198 | ; $148.537 | 2@0 so | $167.653 | 48.750 $1,190,418 $142,141 | 221 $0 $160.434 48.750 31.07 | [ 5153525 | 48.750 $1.07 $1.139.156 $136.020 so 8 $1,090,102 $130,163 2023 so $146,914 | 48.750 $1.07 | 8.301 $1,043,160 $124.557 224) “of $140,587 + 48.750 | $LO7 8 a Setes $119.194 20s $0. $134,533 $8,750) —=sS107| ~~ 301| ~—S—«$95S.252| $115,061, 26) $0) $128,740 | 43.750 — 8301 $914.17 $109.149 a7 = i $123.196 48.750 8.301 $874,753 $104.449 208 | $117,891 48,750 a 209 | : snasis) a 150 1 80] 00.038] $95.647 2030 | so $107.957 43750] S| 8301] $766,543 | $91528 2031 | 50 | $103,308 48,750 SR $87,587 2052 | so | $58.859 wo] SL, S7.47] S815 | 2333 | so | $94.602 eee 2034 $0 $0528] 48750) _si7| 8301) $642,794] $76,752 2035 | so $86.630 agro] SOT] 8301 | $615.113) SB.447 2036 | $0 0.899 asso] si | 301] $588,625 | $70.284 207 | so 379.330 a0] sto | 301] 563.278 | $67258 2038 $0 ee ee 209 | sol smoss[ sz. 50] Si] 8301 | $515,810 $61590 | 2040 $0 0518 Bs 2081 | $0 18,750 $56,400 2042 | So sess 4 wo] sig] 8301] $452,003 | $53.971 2043 | so} ea SEE $432,539 $51.647 204s | $0 3301] $413.913) $49,423 | 2045 | So = 783 SL enol Stren] 96 00 | $47.295 2086 | so] 53381] 48750] __s1.07] _8301| 379.032] __s4s2s8| 2087 | $0 $51,082 48.750 $1.07 | 8301 $362,710 $43.309 2083 | So $0 of sto 57.0851 | $0 $0 | TOTALS $46.504.998 $9.118375 $58.745.708 $7.279.617 | | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | NetBenefit = $13.679.992 | | BenefitCostRato = 125 | ———EE 26 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-S50 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%):_ panel 45 Inflation Rate (%) | 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45} Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh):_ SO. mie | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): _ z Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh: 11.000 | | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): Low | Summer Load Muluplier 0.3 Winter Load Multiplier Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): [Summary | | | Alt A — Stone & Webster [Alt B — White Water Engineering Load Fuel Cost Net Average | Forecast Forecast Benefit Annual Displaced | Used Used Diese! (MWh) $10,993,520 ($15.774.111 0.72 | 23743 | 23743 | IEF ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input Capua! Cost (1992 $) $54.336,032 Surt Year. 1998 | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh. October — May _ 43.575 | [Average Annual MWh, June — Septem ber 1,175, | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44,750 | | Standard Input | | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2) 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWb 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SW) 450 | [Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Low | | Summer Load Multiplier 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh 28600 | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = ($10,993,520 BenefitCostRato = 0.78 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ae ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Ait A — Stone & Webster | Diese! PV Pv Mwh | Sigal | Needed PV Fuel PV ! Project Cost O&M Cos: Useable FuelCost | (MWh) | Samngs O&M Savings | 1 Si 3 0 $067 16230 $0. $0 _— 1963 $0 $0 0 $0.68 | 16.652 5 $0 so! ws $0 $0 0 $0 17.077 | $0 $o | 199s si sO 0 $0.71 | 17,507 $0 so | 1996 si $0 0 $03 17.941 $0 $0 | +. 4 = 1397 s $0 0 $0.74 18.37 $0 $0 1998 1 7 $441,540 18.©2 $0.7 0 $862,108 $457 449 En si $422,526 19.269 $0.7 0 $856212 $448,152 2ubu $0 $404.331 19.721 $0.9 Q $861,320 $438 906 201 so $386.920 20.177 $0.80 0 $854,445 $129.72 $0 $370.258 20.638 $0.81 0} $847234 $420.608 | $0 $354.314 21.103 | $0.2 | o| $839,709 $311,572 | so $339,057 21573 | $0.84 | ol] $840,039 | $402.621 | $0 $224.456 | 2.048 | $0.8] 0! $23,802 | $393.761 | so $310.484 22.528 | $0.85 | Oo! $815,459 | $384,999 | 2007 $0 $297.13) 23.012] $0.86 | | $806.881 | $376.341 | 2008 $0. $284.320 | 23.501 | $0.88 | $207,630 | $367,789 | 2000 so $272.06 23.95 | $0.90 | | $798.420] $359,350 | 2010 so $260.360 24.495 | $0.91 | $789,032 | t. ps 2011 so $249.149 24.494 | + A P0127 soy $238 420 | 24.493 | 2013 so} $28.153 | 24.494 son $0 $218.328 | 24.494 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 $0 0 $0 | $199,929 0 $0 | $191,320 | 0 $0, $183.081 | 0 “SO! $175.198 o| $537,071 | sol $167,653 | 0 $513,943 $0 | $160.434 | 24.494 $0.2 0 $491,812) $216.302 | 202 so] $153,525 | 24.494 $0.2 0 $470,633 $206.987 | 203 $0 $146,914 | 24.494 | $0.2 0 $450,367 $198.074 | so} $140,587 | | 0 $430,973 | $0, $134.533, 0 $412414 $0 | $128.740 0 $173,571 207 $0 | 0 $166.097 208 $0 | $117.891 $158,955 | 209 | so! $112.815 $0.2 0 $345,835 $152.100 2030 so $107,957 $0.2 0 $330,942 $145.550 201 | $0, $103,308 24.494 $0.2 0 $316,691 $139283 262] $0 swaso[ sana] soto $303,054] $133.85 2033 | $0 secon] 2asoa] S07 | 0 $290,008 $127545 204 $o $90,528 | 24.494 | $0.2 0 $277,515 $122,053 2035 So $36,630 24.494 | $0.99 ISL g [gags S65 [I $146.797.| 2086 $0 $22,899 24.494 $0.2 0 $254,129 $111,767 207 $0 24.494 $0.2 0 $243,186 $106.955 2038 | sol _s7soi3[ aaa some $232,714] $102,349 2039 $0 $72.644 $0.2 0 $222,692 $97.941 2040 | $0 $0516 24,494 $0.2 ol $213.103 $93,724 | 2041 sol $5523| 24,494 | $0.2 0 $203,926 $89,688 2043 $0 $60.917 24,494 $0.2 0 $186,741 $22,130 | 2084 | $0 | $58,294 24,494 $0.2 0 $178,700 $78,593 2045 | so} $55,783 24,494 $0.2 0 $171,005 $75.209 2046 $0 $53.381 24,494 $0.2 0 $163,641 $71970 2087 | $0 $51,082 24.494 $0.2 0 $156,594 $68,871 2048 $0 $0 o| son So TOTALS $41,724,407 $9,118,375 $25,058,821 $11512.402 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | [Net Benefit = $10,993,520) | | BenefitCostRato = 0.78 | | } ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY li-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering Alternative Project Input a Capital Cost (1992 $) $60.56 1504 Surt Yer 1998 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | | Average Annual MWb. October — May” 46,375 | Average Annual MWh, June - September 2.375 Total Annual Energy (MWh) aol | | Standard Input 0 [Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | [Discount Rate (% 45 | Vanable O&M Savings ($/kWh ) 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUKWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/kW/): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High Low __} Summer Load Mulupher: 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 mal Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 NetBenefit = ($15,774,111) BenefitCostRato = 0.72 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Lica ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANAL YSIS Name of Alternative Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Diesel PV Pv MWh Sgai | Needed PV Fuel PV YES Projec tCost OSM Cost Useable FuelCost | (MWh) Samags O&M Savings _ 1992 so $0 0} $0.67 16230 $0 $0 1993 $0 so 0 $0 68 16.652 $0 $0) 19s so so 0 $0.70 17,077 so so 1995 $0 $0 0 $0.71 | 17,507 $0 sO 1996 s $0 0 $0.73 7981 $0 $0} 1907 Si so 0 $0.74 18.379 so so} 198 $46 504.995 S441.540 18.22 $0.76 oO} $862.108 $457,449 19g so $422,526 19.269 $0.77 | 0} $856212 $448.152 | 2000 so $404.331 19.721 so 0 $861,320 $438,906 | 2001 so $386,920 20.177 | $0.80 | ol} $854.435 $129.722 | 2002 so $370.258 20.638 | $0.81 | of $as7234 $420.608 2003 so $354314 21103 | S02 | 0} $839,709 | $411.57 2003 | Sol $339,057 21573 $0.84 0] $840,039 | $402.621 2005 sO $304.456 | 22.088 | $0.88 | 0 $£3.802 | $393.761 2006 $0 $310.48 | 22.528 | $0.85 ol $815.459 $384.999 | 2007 30 | s7.is] 23.012 $086] o] $806.81 | $376.341 | 2008 $0 $283320 | 23.501 | $0.88 | o| $807,630 | $367,789 2009 sO $272,076 23.995 | $0.90 | o| $798.420 | $359.350 0101 so] $260.360 | 24.495 | $091 | o| $789,032 | $351,026 2011 | $0 $219.149 | 24.494 | $0.32 | 0 $763,768 | $335,910 2012 so | $338.420 | 24.393 $0.2 — $730,879 | $221,445 | | 2013 $0 $23,153 | 26494] 302 0 $099,406 $307,603 | | 2013 so | $218328 | 24.494 | $0.2 0 $669,288 $294357 $0) $208.926 | 24.494 2 0 $640.467 | $231.681 [ $0 | sis979 | 24.498 | 0 \ 2017| so| $191,320 mee 0 | 2018 | so | $183,081 24.494 0 2019 | $0 $175,198 24.494 0 2x0 | so] $167,653 i 24.494 | 0 21 so | $160.433 | 24.494 | ol] 202 | $0 $153,525 23.494 | $0.2 0 | 2003 | $0 $i46.915| 23,395 | $02 0 $198,074 2s $0 $140,587 24.494 $0.2 0 $430,973 | $189.54 | 2035 | $0 $134.533 24.494 | $0.2 0 SH12414 $181,382 2026 $0 $128,740 | 24.494 | son 0 $394,655 $173.57 207 so $123.196 raa[ So Ci $377.60 $166.097 2008 $0 | suzsa[ aaa somo $61,397] $158,945 2091 $0 $112815 i ee [s345.835]$152.100 | 2@0 | $0. | _siorss7} awe) so} $330,942 $145.550 2081 so] 3103308] 24.498) so | $316,691 $139.283 | 262 | so a a a $133.285 2033 $0 | smoon[ 2sanaT som | $290,004 $127,545 263 | $0 | __ssosza] zene | soa __o|__szm7sis| $122,053 205 | so ____sassa0____ cassis $116,797 2036 sol smsso[ sana] som | to sasarz0 $111,767 | 267 | so 2 ee ee <3 $106,955 208 | so [ ——ss| see son $102,349 209 | sol seat aaa] som sz nt $97,941] 2080 * [ssi] 24a[ som] 0] __s213uos| $93,724 2081 24.494 | 0 $203,926 $89,688 2042 | = [ses] see] mo] of $85.826 2043 Ea 0 $186,741 $2130 2044 mf east somo _ $178,700] $78.593 2045 5 m3] aaa soe] 8171.005 $75.209 | 2046 CCorCLtiag A TTT agen CT agg gt s163,641 | $71970 2047 | So $51082 ee] son o_o $68.871 \ 2048 | 7) ee) a $0 TOTALS $46,504,998 $9.118375 $25,058,821 $11512.402 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 [Net Benefit = ($15,774.11) | BenefitCost Rato = O72 | ZL, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL~S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): Inflauon Rate (%) | Discount Rate (%) | Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): _ Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/AWh | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): | Summer Load Multuplier | Winter Load Muluuplier: | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): __ | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) | | AltA — Stone & Webster Alt. B — White Water Engineerng — Benefit: Average | Cost Annual Displaced | Ratio Diese! (MWh) 44 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY i SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $54 336.032 Surt Year _ 198 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 Average Annual MWh. October — May 43.575 Average Annual MWh. June — September Total Annual Energy (MWh) £l- 2h | | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) 45 4 Inflanon Rate (=) 0 | | Discount Rate (%} 45 | Vamable O& M Savings (SkWh) 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 | | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SW) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Low | Summer Load Muluplier 03 | Winter Load Muluper 07 ——_—| | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = 53,278,039 | Net Benefit = $18, 13) | BenefitCostRato = 0.63 | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL - 50 YEAR ANAL YSIS Name of Alternate Alt A — Stone & Webster Diesel PV PY MWh Spal | Needed PV Fuel PV YE Proyec O&M Cost Useable FuelCost | (Wa) Samags | Oe M Savangs 2 so $0.67 16.230 $0 $0 1903 $c 9 $0.68 16.652, $0 $o | 1904 $0 $070 | 17.077 $0 $0 1995 So 0 $071 17.507 $0! $0) 1996 si $0 0 $03 17.941 $0 $0) 199" A $0 0 $0.74 18.379 $0 $0. L998 ~ $451.540 18.222 $0.76 1 0 $862.108 S144 534 we s $422.526 19.269 $07 of $856212 $141,596 $0 $405,331 19.721 $0.9 0 $361,320 $138,675 0 $386.920 20.177 $0.80 0} $854 445 $135.°73 $370.258 20.638 $o.8i | ol $347234 $132,893 $354314 21,103 | $0.2 | 0! $839.709 | $130.038 | $339.087 | so.ss | o| $840,039 | $127210 $4456) $0.84 | o| $823,802 | $2331 $310,484 $0.85 | ol $315.459 | $121,643 | $37,114) $0.86 | 0 $306.881 | $118,907 | $284,320 $807,630 | $116205 $272.076 | $798.420 $113.539 $260.360 | $789.032 $110.909 | $249.149 | $763,768 $106,133 So; $238.20 | $101,562 $0 $28,153 | $218,328 | $208.926 | $88,999 $0 | $199.929 $85,166 | $0 $191,320 | : $81.49 so | $183,081 | sea $77,989 so $175.198 | $537,071 374.631 | $0 | $167,653 | $513,943 $71,417 $0 | $491.812 $0 $470.633 0 $450.367 $62.583 | 0 $430.973 $59,883 | i o] 4124141 $57,309 $0 $128.740 0 $394.655 $54,841 $0 | $123,196 0 $377,660 $52.479 $0 | $117.891 24.494 $02 0 $361,397 $50.219 $0 $112815 0 $345,835 $48,057 | sio79s7| sana som 830,942 $45.987 | $0 $103.308 $316691 $44,007 $0 | $98.859 $303,054 $2.10 $0 $94,602 $290,004 $0299 $0 | $90,528 $277.515 $38.563 4 = so $2.89 : $o $75,913 so 2041 $0 523 2042 $0 sae ! 2083 $0 $917] 2444] som] 0] _$186,741| $25,949 204s | $0 | $58,294 24.494 30.2 leo $24,832 2045 | so | ss5.7a3|_2aaoaT som | 171,005 | $B.763 2046 | $0 $53.381 | 24.494 som] | ~——__—«$ 163.681 | $2,739 | 2087 $0 | $51,082 | 24.494 som} si $21,760 2048 $0! $0 ol $0.2 | 24,494 $0 | | TOTALS $41.724.407 $9.118375 $25,058,821 $3.637,410 | Deferred Diese! Capacin Savings = $3278.039 i [Net Benefit = ($18.868.5 13) | [BeneitCostRato = 0.63 VO ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Alternative Project Impat an Capntal Cost (1992 $) $60.561 604 | Start Year 1998 =e Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh, October — May 46.375 (Average Annual MWh, June - September 2375 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | | | Standard Input 0 Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings ($/Wh): 0.01 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fue!=2 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (SkW 450 | | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): Low Summer Load Multplier: 03 | | Winter Load Mulplier 07 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28600 | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 an! Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | NetBenefit = ($23,649,103, BenefitCostRato = 057 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY pumice as ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Alt. B — White Water Engineering Diese! PV PY MWh Seal | Needed PV Fuel PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost | (MWh) Savings O&M Savings re $0 $0 0 $0.67 1630 so sO 23 $0 $0 0 $0.68 16.682 $0 $0 1a si $0 0 $0.70 17.077 $0 $0 ws si $0 0 $071 17.907 so $0 | 196 si $o 0} $0.73 17.941 $0, $0 17 S$ $0 0 $0.74 18.379 $0 so 198 $46 504.998 S441540 $0.76 0 $862.108 $144,534 1990 SC can $0.77 0 $856212 $141,596 2000 $0 $404,331 $0.7 | 0] $861,320 | $138,675 2001 sO $386,920 $0.80 0 $854.435 7 $135.73 $0 $370258 $0.81 1 0 $8472. $132.893 s $354.314 $0.2 | O| $839,709 | $130,038 So $339,057 $0.84 | ol} $840.039 | $127210} so $324.456 | $0.84 | o| $23,802 | $124.$11 | So $310.484 $0.85 | 0} $815.459 | $121,633 | $0 $297,114 | $0.86 0} $806.881 | $118,907 $0 $284.320 $0.88 | of $07,630 | $116205 | so $272.076 S $0.90 | 0 1 $798.420 | $113.539 | $0 $260.360_ 24.494 | $0.91 | o! $789.032 | $110.909 | $0 | $249,149 | 24.494 | $0.2 | 0 $763,768 | $106,133 | $0 $238.320 | 24.494 $02 0 $730,879 | $101,562 | \ $0 | $28,153 = 24,494 $0.2 0 $699,406 $97,189 | so! $213.328 | 24.498 | $0.2 0 $669.288 | $93,004 | so | $208,926 | 24.494 $0.2 0 $640,467 $38,999 $0 $199.929 | 24.494 $02 0 $612.87 $85.166 $0 | 5191320] 24.494 0 $586,495 $81.499 so | $183,081 0 $0 $175.198 0 $537,071 $74,631 | $o | $167,653 | a4 | 0 $513,943 $71,417 | $0! $160,434 | 24.495 | $0.2 0 $491,812 568.342 $0 $153,525 | $0.2 0 $470,633 $65,399 | $0 | $146.914 | $0.2 0 $450,367 $02,583 SO $140,587 son; | $430,973 $59.88 #2 | $134,533 $0.2 0 $412.414] $57,309 $128,740 —, $0.2 o| $394,655 S54.841 > | $123.196 24.494 | $0.2 0 $377,660 $52.479 | 30] 117891 | 24,494 S02 0 $361,397 $50219 $0 $112815 24,494 $0.2 0 $345,835 $48.057 | $0 | $107.957 $45.987 so, $103.308 f 0 $316,691 $44,007 $0. $98,859 : : 0 $303,054 $2.12 | so] $94,602 24.494 $0.2 0 $290,004 $40.299 $0 $90,528 24.494 | $02 9 $38.563 so $36,630 24.494 $0.2 0 $265.565 $36,903 so] smsoo| nssos] som 8254129] $5,314 | so| sms] 24a] ——=ssome | SSC CS 8 | $33,793 $0 $75,913 son] of s32.7141 $30,338 so $72.64 $0.2 - $222,692 $30.945 | $0 | $09.516 $02 $29.613 So} __$66.523 po som to 803.926 | $23.37 so | $63,658 : $0.2 so $60,917 24.494 som] 0] $86.71] 25.949 | $0 | $58,294 24,494 $0.2 a $0| $55,783 24.494 ~ #2 $23.763 So | $53,381 24.494 $163,641 $2,739 $0 $51,082 24.494 se $21.760 $0 | $0 0 $0.2 24.494 $0 | TOTALS $46 504.998 $9.118375 $25,058.821 $3.637.410 | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | Net Benefit = ($23,649,103) BeneficCostRato = 0.57 _| “& ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S50 YEAR ANALYSIS | Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) Inflauon Rate (%) Discount Rate (%) Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh): | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/Wh | 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W): Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): Summer Load Multiplier | Winter Load Multiplier Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh) | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): L | | | lm a | 4.5 $0.03165 4 Z 450 Medium | 45) 0 11.000 | | AltA — Stone & Webster [Alt B — White Water Engineering Forecast Medium Fuel Cost Forecast Used Used Medium 2 $1.737.633 Benefit Cost $3.042,958 11-Aug-92 Average | Annual Displaced | Diesel (MWh) 33161 | 33161, G ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY li-Au SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $54 336,032 Surt Year 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 Average Annual MWh. October — May 43.575 | Average Annual MWh. June - September 1,175 Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44.750 | | Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | |Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.03165 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUAWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (SW) 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Medium 7 Summer Load Multplier 03 Winter Load Mulopber 0.7 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh 28600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 __} Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 Net Benefit = $1,737,633 “| BenefitCostRato = 1.03 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY R= neseea ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS. Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster i Diese! Pv Py MWh Saal | Needed | PV Fuel PV | YEAR Project Cost O& M Cost Useable Fuel Cost (MWh). Sawn gs O&M Savings | 1982 $0 $0 $0.67 13.569 $0 so 1993 $0 $0 0 $0.68 14.336 $0 | so | 164 so so $0.70 15.156 So, So | 1995 $0 $0. Q $o71 | 16,134 | $0 | $0 196 $0 so 0 $0.73 17.148 iu so $0 | 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.74 | 18.234 | $o so} $41724.4¢ $441,540 19.280 $0.76 | ol $383.088 $468,582 | $0 $422.526 20287 $o77 | oO) $901.420 | $471,815 | $0 $404.331 21376 $09 0 $933,599 | $475,738 | so $386,920 2.619 $0 80 | $957.853 $0 $370.258 | 23.895 | $0.81 | | $980,922 | so. $354.314 25.204 | son } $1,002.885 | $491,550 | so | $339.057 | 26.548 | $0.84 | | $1,033,753 | $495.465 | so $24.456 27927) $0.84 | $1,043,468 $498,757 | $0 $310.484 | 29.383) $0.85 | $1,062.150 $501.469 | $0 $297,114 30.795 | $0.86 | | $1,079,791 $503,629 olololololololololololololo $0} $284.320 | 32.286 | $505276 $o $272.076 | 33.816 | so! $260.360 | 35.386 | $249.149 | T $238.420 386 | | 50 | $228.153 | 35,386 so} $218,328 | 35.386 | so] s208.926 | $199.929 | $191,320 $183.081 so] $175,198 | 35.386 2 so! $167,653 35,386 $226,547 so | $160.335 | 35.386 | $02 | ol] $710.507 SOI + i so] s1s3.52s 35,386 30.2 Oo] $679,911 $299,029 | sol $146.914 35.386 S02 0 $286,152 $0 | $140.587 | 35.386 | $0.2 0 $273,829 | so] $134,533 35,386 $0.2 0 $262,038 $0 | $128,740 35.386 %. E Bj $570,147 $250.754 So | $123.196 $545.595 $339.956 $0 $112815 $0.7 $499.618 $219,735 | $0 $107,957 6[ somo sa78.103] $210272 $0 a $457,515 $201.218 so} ssesso[ 35386] soma $437.813] 8192553] $0 S94, 35.386 som] 0] __s418960| 184261 | $0 $90,528 35.386 $176326 sol sas630 [35.386 | S02 $168,733 $0 $0.2 $367,133 $161,467 207 | sot sm330[353e6[ som $351,324] sisasia 208 | so | EE 2039 $221,718 = 493 2040 $307,864 $135,400 2081 | so i $294,606 $129.570 2042 | sot sexes] 353e6[ somo $281,920] $123,990 2043 | $0 $00,917 35,386 82 $269,780 $118.651 | 2084 so $58,294 35,386 $0.2 $258,163 $113.541 \ 2045 so $s5.793| 35.386) so | $287,046 | $108,652 2046 | $0 | $53381 35386] som] $236,407 $103.973 2087 | $0 $51,082 35.386 $0.2 0 $226.227 | 2088 | $0] $0 | 0 SOR 35,386 sol so | | TOTALS $41,724,407 $9.118375 $33,849.591 $15.452.786 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | Net Benefit = $1.737.633 BenefitCostRato = 1.03 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 1i-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineerin Alternative Project lapat Caprtal Cost (1992 $) $60,561 | Surt Yer 198 | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | | Average Annual MWh, October - May” 46,375 | Average Annual MWh. June — September, 235 [Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48,750 | | | | | | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | (Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (% 45 | Vanable O&M Savings ($/kWh) 0.03165 | |Euel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1. Low Fuel=2 2 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUKWh 11000 | [1992 Diesel Cost (SW). 450 | | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) Medium Summer Load Muluplier 03 $$$ Winter Load Multiplier: 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = ($3,042,958) | | BenefSitCostRato = 0.95 | | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY =. ee ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering _ Diese! | PV i Pv MWh Sea Needed | PVFuel | PV YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable FueiCost_ | (MWh) Samags O&M Savings 1992 so sO Q $0.67 13,569 $0 $0 1903 $0 $0 Q $0.68 14.336 $0 $0 1994 sO sO Q $0 15.156 SO $0 19S 50 sO 0 som 16.134 | 50 $0 1996 $0 $0 QO} $0.73 17 148 | so $0 199° $0 So 0 $0 74 18.234 i: so $0 | 1998 $46 504.998 S441.540 19.280 $0.76 0 $883.088 $468 S82 1990 So $422,526 20287 $077 oO] $901,420 Ss71.813 | 2000 so $404.331 21.376 909 Oo} $333.599 $475.738 2001 50 $386,920 2.619 | $0.30 0) $957,853 | $381,729 2002 so $370258 | 23.995 | $0.81 | 0] $980.922 «$486,977 2003 $0 $354.314 | 25.203 $0.2 | 0 $1,002.885 | $491,550 | 2004 50 $339.07 26.548 | $0.84 | 0 $1,033,753 $495,465 | 2005 $0 $324.456 27.727 | $0.84 | of $1,043,468 | $498.757 | 2006 SO $310.484 29343 $0.85 | 0 $1,062,150 $501,469 | 2007 | $0 $297.15 | 30.795 | $0.86 | of s1.079.791 | $503.629 | 2008 $0; $234 320 | 32.286 sos] 0 $1,109,537 $505.276 2009 ! so $272.076 33.816 | $0.90 | 0 $1,1025218 $506 434 | 2010! so | $250,360 35.386 | $0.91 | 0 $1,139.89 | $507.117 | 2on1 | so | $249,139 35.386 | 30.2 | 0 $1,103,395 $485.280 | | $238.420 35,386 | 0 $1.055.880 | $465. 382 | $0 $28,153 35,386 0 $1,010,412 $444,385 so $218,328 35,386 0 $966,901 $125.249 L 2015 $0 $208,926 | 35,386 | 2016 | $0 | $199,929 | 35,386 0 2017 sol $191,320 35.386 0 [ 2018 so | $183,081 35,386 2 | 0 2019 | so] $175,198 35,386 $02 0 $775,891 $31251 | 20 | so] $167.653 | 35.386 | $0.2 0 $742,479 $326,547 | 21 | so] $160,434 35,386 son 0 $710,507 | $312585 | | 202 so] $153,525 35,386 $0.2 0 $679.911 $299.029 | 203 | $0 $146.914 | 35.386 S02 0 $650.632 $236,152 204 | so | $140,587 | 35,386 S02 0 $622.614 $273.829 206 | 50 | sis7so] 35.386] S02 | 0 $570,147 $250.754 207 | $0 | $103.196 35,386 $0.2 0 $545,595 $239,956 2081 50 | $117,891 35.386 som] CSS 100| $29,623 | 209 | sol _suizgis] —S—si35,386| S| (8499618 $219.735 200 | $0. $107.957 35.386 $0.2 0 $478,103 $210272 2031 | so] $103,308 | 35,386 $07 0 $457,515 $201218 | 22) SCt SRS] 35.86] S| $437.813] $192.53 | 2033 so] $94.602 | 35.386 S02 0 $418,960 $184 261 2085 | so] $90,528 | 35,386 S02 0 $176,326 205 | sol 86.630 | 35.386 $0.2 of s383.6s¢] $168.73 | 206 | so] smaco|3s3eo] So] $67,133) $161,467 2037 | $0 2038 | $0. 209 | $0 2080 | so |___ $135,400 | 2081 $0 6 i 2082 | $0 r 2043 | so 0 $269,780 $118.651 2048 | so] $5829 35386] so] szsgne3] $113,541 | | 2045 | $0 $55,783 35.386 $0.2 o| $247,046] ——-$108.652 | | 2046 $0 $53,381 2047 | $0 | ssiosz[3s.3es som] oT sem] 99.496 | 2088 | so slo 35386f SO] SO | LTOTALS $46,504,998 $9.118375 $33,849,591 $15,452,786 | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | Net Benefit = $3.042.958) BenefitCost Rato = 0.95 SY ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%) Bit 4s | Inflation Rate (%) | 0) Discount Rate (%) 43) Variable O&M Savings (S/kWh): | $0.01000 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2): eee Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/KWh __|___11.000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): | Medium Summer Load Muluplier — 0.3 Winter Load Multiplier: 0.7 | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): Summary | Load Fuel Cost Net Benefit Average | Forecast Forecast Benefit Cost Annual Displaced ' Used Used Ratio Diese! (MWh) [AltA — Stone & Webster | Medium _| 2| (8,832,756 0.83 | 33161. | Alt_ B — White Water Engineermg [| Medium _| 2] ($13,613,346 0.76 | 33161 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11- Aug SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster a [Alternative Project Input | Capral Cost (1992 $) $54336.032_ Surt Year 1998 | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | | Average Annual MWh. October — May” 43.575 | Average Annual MWh. June — September 1,175 | | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44,750 __| | Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | | Discount Rate (%) 45 Vanable O&M Savings ($kWh) 0.01 | | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/AWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W ): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High Medium | Summer Load Mulupber 03 Winter Load Multplier 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output( MWh) 28600 i | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output( MWh) 25900 __| | Summary of Output Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 NetBenefit = ($8,832,756) BenefitCostRato = 0.83 ——— a rt ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ait A — Stone & Webster i Diese! PV PV MWh Sal Needed | PVFuel PV YEAR ProjectCost O&M Cost Useable Fue! Cost (MWh) Samo gs O&M Savings | a % $0 0 S067 13.68 3% 50 123 s0 $0 0 30.68 14.336 50 $0 es $0 $0 0 3070 15.156 $0] 50 aos so so 0 $071 16.134 | so} $0 | 16 $0 50 oy $0.73 17.148 | 50 $0 | 1 si $0 0 $078 13234 | 30 30 eR $8724.40" $251 540 19.280 $0.76 0 $383,088 $138,051 we s $22.526 20287 $07 0] $901.420 $139.07 000 30 $404,331 21.376 S00 O) $933,500 $1S0312 2001 $0 $386,920 22.619 30.0 | 0] _$957.853 $1220 2002 SO $370258 23.895 | S081) o] $980.92 $153.863 | 003 30 $354315 25208 | son | oO] Sioz.sss| $155,308 200s $0 $359.087 26.548 | $0.84 | of $1,033,753 5156545 | 2005 50 $324,456 27.27 | $0.84 | 0] $1,043,468 $157,585 | 2006 50 310.484 29.343 | $0.85 | 0 $1,062,150 $158.432 | 2007 so, SO7118 30.795 | $0.86 0 $1.079.791 $159.125 | 2008 SO; $284,320 32.286 | $0.88 0 $1,109,537 $159,645 | 2009 so $272.076 | 33.816 | $0.90 0 $1.125218 $160.011 2010 so | $260,360 | 35.386 | 50.91! 0] $1,139.89 $160227 zou "$0; $249.149 | 35,386 | $02 | ; $1,103.395 5153327 2012 30 | $238.420 35.386 | 50.2 | 0 $1.055.880 $136.72 2013 $28.153 35,386 | S07 0] $1,010412 $130,406 $218328 | $966,901 | $134,360 $199.929 | $191,320 | $183,081 $175,198 $167,653 $160.434 | $710,507 $128,574 — so $72,644 $0 gear a 35.386 $153,525 | $679.911| 480 | $146,914 35,386 0 632 R so | $140.587 | 35.386 | S02 0 $622.614 $86.518 | so | $134,533 35.386 | $0.2 ol $595,803 $2,792 $0 $128,740 35,386 $0.2 0 $570,147 $9.27 so $123.196 35.386 som] «545.595 $75.815 SO $117,891 | 35.38] SO] Ci $522,100 SPSS) $0 $112815 35,386 $0.2 $499.618 | $9.426 $0 $107,957 35,386 30.2 | __$478,103 | $06.437 so $103,308 35.386 $0.2 Q $63.576 | So $98.859 35,386 $0.2 so $94,602 ee TCT $58218 | $0 $90,528 35.386 $0.2 $400.919 $55,711 $0 $36,630 35,386 $0.92 re $53.312 so] sso] 3sze6| som | $567,133) $51017 so 35.386 som] ot 381.324] $48,820 | = | $336,195 | $46,717 | $221,718 $44,706 so soss23| _3s.sgo| som] ——0|~—«$24.606 | $40.938 sot — met sae see 1 $0 $00.917 35,386 som] 0] $269,780] $37,488 $0 $58,294 35.386 som] | $258,163 | $35.874 $0 | $55,783 35,386 som] | s2a7.046 | 834.329 | so | $53.381 35.386 j soe os. $2.851 $0 | $51,082 35.386 | 0 | —saszar{ se] so | $0 0 = z 35.386 $0 | | TOTALS $41,724.407 $9.118375 $33,849,591 $4,882,397 Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | | NetBenefit = $8.832.756) i BenefitCostRato = 0.83 7 ed o7 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY li Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering |Altermative Project Input | | Capital Cost (1992 $) $60,561,604 | Sturt Year 1998 | | Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 Average Annual MWh. October - May __ 46375 | Average Annual MWh. June ~ September: 2,375 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | | | Standard Input 0 | | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 ] Discount Rate (%) 45 | | Vanable O&M Savings ($/kWh) 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1, Low Fuel=2) 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU kWh 11000 1992 Diesel Cost (S/W) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High): Medium Summer Load Multpler 03 Winter Load Mulupler 07 Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 | | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 a; Summary of Output [Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | Net Benefit = ($13,613,346 BenefitCost Rato = 0.76 ( vy ‘ ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY =A_:- ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Ait. B — White Water Engineering | Diese! PV ev MWh Sgal Needed | PV Fuel i PV Project Cost O& M Cos Useable Fuel Cost (MW) { Sawn gs _ O&M Savings so su 0 $0.67 13.569 Soy sO $0 si 0 $0.68 14.336 $0 so! $0 $0 o) $0.0 15.156 | 50. $0 | ‘ $0 9 so71) 16.134 50 $0 | w65 $0 0 so 17,148 so so an $0 0 $0.74 | 18.234 ds $0! so os Sto 50 098 19.280 $0.76 oO] $883.08 $138,051 $0 20.287 $0.77 | ol] $901.420 $149.072 $0 31 136 so | Oo] $933,599 $150.312 so $386,920 22.619 $0.80 | of $957,853 $152.08 $o $370258 M 23.895 4 $0.81 0 | $980.922 $153.863 | $0 $354.314 25204 sow | 0] $1,002,885 | $155 308 so $339,057 26,548 | $0.85 I oO} $1.033.753 1 $156.545 | sO $324.456 27927] soss | Oo] __$1.043.468 | $157,585 | $0 $310.84 29.33 | $0.85 Q $1,062.150 $158,442 | sO $297.114 30.795 | $0.86 | 0 $1,079,791 | $159.125 so | $234,320 32.286 | $0.88 0 $1,109,537 $159,645 | so $272.076 33.816 | 0 $1,125218] $160.011 | $0 $260.360 35.386 | 0 $1,139.89 $160227 | $0 $249.149 | 35,386 0 $1,103,395 | $153,327 | $0 $238.420 35.386 | o| $1,055,880 $146,725 | so] $28.153] 35.386 S02 a $1,010.12] $140.06] so $218,328 | 35.386 | 0 $966,901 | $134,360 | so] 208.926 | 35.386 | $0.2 0 $108,574 so | $199.929 | 35,386 $0.2 0 $885,420 $123,037 | $0 | $191.320 35,386 $0.2 0 $847292 $117,739 so | $183,081 35.386 $0.2 of] $810,806 | $112669 so] $175.198 | 35,386 SOR 0 $107,817 | so] $167.63 | 35.386 S07 0 $742.479 | $103,174 | so | $160.434 | 35,386 SOR 0 $710,507 $98,731 so | $153.525 | 35,386 $0.2 | 0 so79911| $95.480 So | $146,915 35,386 sO7 0 $650,632 $90.311 $0 | $140.587 | 35, $0.2 0 $622.614 $86.518 | so] $134.533 | 35.386 $0.2 0 $595,803 $2.792 | $0 $128,740 35,386 S02 0 $79.227 a $123,196 [tsi $555,595 $75.815 $0 $117.891 $522,100 $7551 $0} $112815 $499,618 $69,426 $0 $107,957 $478, 18 $66,437 $0 $103.308 wet gel ee $63,576 $0 | $98,859 35,386 or 2 $437.8 . $60,838 so] msn 35,386 us 960 558218 sol _ssosos[ 35386] som] $5000.919 $55,711 so [seo ae of oa $53,312 | so | sesso] ss3zee] som] 867.133 | $51,017 so] sm330]szee[ som | 8351324 | $48,820 so] __svs913| 35386] som] 0] $36,195] $46,717 $0 353 gon} 821,718 | $44,706 | $0 $0516 35.386 som] | ——s«8307.864| $42.780 | $0 35,386 som] «$284,606 | $10,938 $0 $63,658 35,386 som| $281,920 $39,175 $0 $60.917 $269. $37,488 so] $58,294 $35,874 $0 | $55,783 $34.329 | $0 — ESL gy mie $0, $31.436 | so] $0 | TOTALS $46,504,998 $9.118375 $33,849,591 $4,882,397 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 Net Benefit = $13.613.346) | BenefitCostRato = 0.76 | r St Ny ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL—50 YEAR ANALYSIS 1i-Aug—-92 GO Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) 4.5 | Inflation Rate (%) 0} Discount Rate (%) as] Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh) $0.03165 Fue! Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 Average Diese! Heat Rate BTU/kWh 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium High): High Summer Load Multiplier Winter Load Multiplier: | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): | Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh): | AltA — Stone & Webster | Alt. B — White Water Engineering Net Benefit $21,219,186 $20.860.815 Average Annual Displaced Diesel (MWh | | 1.38 | 47439 | / oO ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Aug-92 Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster Alternative Project Input Capital Cost (1992 $) $54 336.032 Sart Year 1998 Annual O& M Cost (1992 $) Average Annual MWh. October — May” Average Annual MWh. June - September Total Annual Energy (MWh) Standard Input | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 tt | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | [ Discount Rate (%) 45 | Vanable O&M Savings ($kWh) 0.03165 | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon =1. Low Fuel=2) 23 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTUWhb 11000 1992 Diese! Cost ($/kW) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) __High | Summer Load Mulupber: 03 Winter Load Muluplier: 0.7 = [Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh 28600 | | Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | Summary of Output Jel | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | NetBenefit = $21219,18 BenefitCosiRato = 1.4 — | ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt A — Stone & Webster i Diese! PV PY MWh Sil | Needed PV Fuel PV j YEAR Project Cost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost | (MWh) Sawogs _ O&M Savings | 1992 so $0 0 $067 30.369 $0 $0 1903 So so 0 $0.68 31.136 | $0 so! 18s so so 0 $070 31.956 | so so, 1948 so so 0 $0.71 | 32.934 So! so | 1996 so so 0 $0.73 | 33.948 $0 $0 | 197 si $0 0 $0.74 35.4 $0 so 198 $31 725.407 $441.540 36.080 $0.76 0 $1,652,579 $576,887 ioe si $122.526 37.087 $0.7 0} Si.647.911 $362,537 2000 so $404 331 33.176 30% __ $1,667,345 $849.636 2001 si $386 920 39.419 $0.30 | $1,669284 $839.25 | so $370.258 40.695 $0.81 of $1,670,600 | $229,367 $0 $354.314 | 42.506 $0.2 | 1 $1.691.330 | $28.98! so $339.057 $4.26 | $0.83 | | $£9.116 | So $324,456 44.750 | $0.84 | 1.646 | $799,199 | $0 $310.48 | 44.750 | $0.85 | 3.646 $1.619.871 | $764,784 | So $297.14 $4.750 | $0.86 | 5.743 $1.569.102 | $731,851 | so} $284 320 | $4,750 | $0.38 | 7.873 | $1,537,869 | $700.35 | So} $772.076 44.750 | $0.90 | 10.059 $1.489.031 $670.177 $0 $260.360 | 44.750 soo | 12.301 $1441.47] $641,318 | $0 | $249.159 | 44.750 so. | 12.301 | $1.395.392 $613,702 $238.420 | 44.750 | $02 12.301 | $1.335.303 $218328 $122,777 $537.785 | $208.926 | 44.750 | $514.626 $199,929 $1,119,734 $492.465 [ $1,071,516 $471.259 so | so] $175.198 | ? $981.219 $0 | $167,653 | $4,750 | : k $938,965 $412.963 | sol $160.43 | 44.750 | $02 12.301 $898.532 $395,179 | $0 | $153.525 | 44.750 | S02 12.301 $859,839 $378,162 $0 sise9is1 43.7501 $07 12.301 $22,812 | $361,878 | $0 | $140,587 | 44.750 S02 12.301 $787,380 | $346.294 | so | $134,533 44.750 $0.2 12,301 $753.474 $331,382 so $128,740 44.750 | $07 12.301 $721,028 $317,112 | $0 | $123,196 44.750 $om| _—_—12.301| _—_—$689.979| $303.457 | $o $117891 44.750 $0.2 12.301 $660.267 $290,389 so $112815 44.750 S02 12.301 $631,834 $277.84 so sio79s7] sa. 750] som] zon | $608,626 | $265.918 so $103,308 12301 | $578,589 $254.467 $0 $98.59 12.301 $553,674 $243,509 so $94,602 $529.832 $233,023 so $90.528 $222,989 so $36,630 $213.386 | $0 $2899 $204.197 207] $0 $79330 y ; $195.404 2038 | so] ssoi3]aa50 soe | zon | $005,164] $186,990 2039 | so] sme 43.780] som] sor] Seos.ass[$178.937 | 2040 so] sosis{ ss. 50| sos 23 | $389,335] $171.232 2041 | so] soso] ss.750] soe | zi] s372.s70] $163.88 | 2082 | $0 $63.658 A ; $356.526| $156,802 | 2083 | $0 $60,917 2oss | $o $58,294 $143,588 2045 | $0 | $55,783 2046 30) 355381 som] 12301] s38.960| 8131.88] 2087 | so | $51,082 $125,826 | 2038 so so so | | TOTALS $$1.724.407 $9,118,375 $47,104,837 $21679.092 | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = | Net Benefit = | BenefitCost Rato = | $3278.039 $21219.186 1:62 VELA CY ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 11-Aug-92 SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering Alternative Project Impat Capual Cost(1992 $) $60.56 1504 | Start Year 198 i Annual O& M Cost (1992S) x | Average Annual MWh, October — May" 46,375 | Average Annual MWh. June - September 2375 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48,750 | | | | | Standard Input 0 | Real Interest Rate (%} 45 | | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | Varable O&M Savings (SkWh) 0.03165 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 | | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU kWh 11000 | 1992 Diesel Cost (SW). 450 | | Load Forecast Used (Low, Medium. High High | Summer Load Muluplier 03 | Winter Load Multiplier: 07 7 Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 | Summary of Output | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 | NetBenefit = $20,860,815 | [BenefitCostRato = 138 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY stRiAce=s2 ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY j PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Diese PV i PY MWh Szal | Needed PVFuel | Pv YEAR ProjectCost__| O&MCost Useable FuelCost | (MWh) |___ Savings |_ O&M Savings i993 x so 0 $067 ol 30,369 sO $0 [oes so $0 0 $0.68 31.136 | so $0 | 1a so so 0 $0.70 31,956 $0 $0, 1995 $0 $0 oO} $0.71 32.934 | so} $0} 1996 $0 $o 0 $0.73 33.948 | so 1 $0 199° S so 0 $0 74 35.B4 so so $36.5: 095 $31.540 36.080 $0 % 0 $1,652,579 $876.88" SO $422,526 37.087 $0.7 | of si.6s7.911) $62,537 $0 $404,331 38, 176 | $0.79 Ol $1.667.345 1 $849.636 | $0 $386,920 39.419) $0.80 0} $1,669.28 | $839,525 | si $370258 40.095 | $081 | 0 $1.670.600 $29,367 $0 $354.314 | 42.506 | $0.2 0} $1,61.330 | $£8.981 so $339,057 | 44.426 | $0.83 | 0} $1,729,891 $£9.116 sO $24.56 46.396 | $0.8 0] $1,733,533 $28.59 | so $310,485 | 48.396 | $0.85 | 0] $1,751,850 $27,094 | so 97.114! 48.750 | $0.8 | $1.709.357 | $797.67 | $0 $284,320 | 48.750 | $0.38 | 3873 $1,675.32 $762,935 $0 $272,076 | 38.750 | $0.90 | 6.059 | $1,622,129 $730,082 sO $260.360 48.750 $0.91 | 8.301 $1.570.401 $698.643 | so] $249.149 | 48.7501 $0.2 8.301 $1,520.20 $668,558 | $0 $238,420 | 48.750 | so 8.301 $1.454.660 $639.768 | $0 $28,153 48.750 8,301 $1,392,019 $612218 so | $218.328 $8,750 $585,855 $0 | $208.926 | 48.750 $1.274.714 so | $199,929 48,750 $1,219.82 $536.485 $0 $191,320 | 48.750 $513,383 $0 | $183,081 | $8,750 so | $175,198 | 48,750 | 502 8.301 $1,068,926 $470,120 so] $167,653 48.750 8.301 $1,002.895 $449,875 $0 | 160.434 | 48.750 | 8.301 $978,847 $430,503 | $153,525 $411,964 $146,914 $394.224 | $140,587 ! ; $377248 r_____2@5! $0 5134533 48.750 $0.2 8.301 $220.823 $361,003 206 so | $128,740 43.750] sso] «8,301 | $785,477 $345.57 207 | so | $123.196 as7so[ soz | 8301] $751.653 $330.581 | 208 so! $117,891 48,750 16,346 | 209 | $0 $112,815 4a750| sso | 8301] 8688.31 | $302,723 260} so | $107.957 48.750 $658,671 $289.687 2031 | so] $103,308 ago] som 8301] $630,307 | $277.213 2032 | so | $98,859 48,750 $0.2 8301 $603,164 $265275 2033 | $0 sooo] s8,7s0] som] zon] ss77,i91 | $253,852 | 203 | [8301 | [$242,920 | 265 | $232.460 206 2037 | $212870 2058 209 | 2040 $186,538 2081 | $178,505 2082 $170,818 2083 | . t : r $163.462 2083 $0 | $58.294 $8,750 som] 8301 | __—$ 355,664 | $156,423 2045 | $0 | $55,783 48,750 $0.2 8,301 $340,349 2046 $0 $53,381 48,750 302 8301 $5,692] $143,241 | 2087 | so] $51,082 2088 so | 00 | Senn HTN] nT $0 x2 | SV IOE'S 7,05 1) SUNIL 9] ATA SO) | TOTALS $46.504.998 $9.118375 $50,166,159 $B,039.989 | Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 | NetBenefit = $20.860.815 | BenefitCostRato = 138 | OE bb ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL-—S0 YEAR ANALYSIS Standard Input Real Interest Rate (%): eee 458 | Inflation Rate (%): el ee 0} Discount Rate (%):_ 4.5 Variable O&M Savings ($/kWh) $0.01000 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2): 2 Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU/kWh 11,000 | 1992 Diesel Cost ($/kW): 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) High | Summer Load Multplier: 0.3 Winter Load Multiplier _0.7 | | Solomon Gulch Summer Energy Output (MWh) 28.600 Solomon Gulch Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25,900 Summary | | | AltA — Stone & Webster Alt. B - White Water Engineermg Load Fuel Cost Forecast Forecast Used Used High High 1i-Aug-% Benefit: Average | Cost Annual Displaced | Ratio Diesel (MWh) GP ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Aug SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Input Alt A — Stone & Webster Capital Cost (1992 $) $54 336.032 Surt Year. 1998 | Annual O&M Cost (1992 $) $575,000 | Average Annual MWh. October — May 43.575 | Average Annual MWb_June — September 1175 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 44.750 | | | Standard Input | | Real Interest Rate (%) 45 [Inflanon Rate (%) 0 [Discount Rate (%) 45 | Vanable O&M Savings (kWh) 0.01 Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1. Low Fuel=2) 2 | Average Diesel Heat Rate BTU kWh 11000, } 1992 Diesel Cost (SW) 450 | Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium, High) High Summer Load Multiplier 03 j Winter Load Muluplier 07 ] | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh) 25900 — | Summary of Output Deferred Diese! Capacity Savings = $3.278,039 | NetBenefit = $6 389,727 | BenefitCostRato = 1.13 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY wit Ale ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Ait A — Stone & Webster | Dresel Py | PY MWh Sigal | Needed | PW Fuel i PV YEAR Proyec tCost O&M Cost Useable Fuel Cost (MW) Savings O& M Savings cs so $0 0 $067 30.369 so so. 163 $0 $0. Q $0 68 31.136 so so Laos $0 $0 0 $00 31.956 SO, so] 1995 $6 $0 0 so71} 32.934 so $0 1996 $0 so | 0 $0.73 33.948 $0 so | 1907 s $0 0 $074 35.84 so] so 1908 $41724.407 $441.540 36.080 $0 %6 0 $1,652,579 $277,088 1999 S $422.526 37.087 $0.7 0 $1,697.91 $272,524 zon $0 $404.33] 38.176 $079 Oo} $1,667345 | $268.35" so $386,920 39.419 | $0.80 | 0| $1,669.284 | $265 253 | so $370.258 40.695 $0.81 | 0} $1.670.500 | $262.043 | so $354,314 42.506 | $0.2 | 0| $1,691,330] $261,921 | so $339.057 | 44.426 | $0.34 | o} $1.729.891 so $324.456 $4,799 | $0.84 | 1,646 $1,672,032 $252.512| $0 $310.484 | 44.750 | $0.85 | 3.646 ! $1.619.871 $241.638 $o $397.114| 44.750 | $0.86 | 5.743 | $1,569.102 | $31232 $0) $284.320 $4,750 | $0.88 | 7873 $1,537,869 $21275 SO) $272.076 | 43.750 | $0.90 | 10.059 | $1,489,031 $211.746 so | $260,360 44.750 | $0.91 12.301 $1,441,547 | $202.628 $0 $249.149 | 44.750 | $0.2 | 12.301 so] $238.420 | 44.750 | $0.2 | 12.301 : 44.750 2 | $218,328 44.750 | $0.2 $208,926 | 44.750 | $0.2 $199.29 44.750 S02 5183.081 | 12301 | $981.219] I $175.198 44.750 | $0.2 $0 $167,653 44.750 | 2] 2301 | _$938.965 | so $160.434 | 44.750 | SOR $124.859 | $0 | $153525 | $3,750 | $119.483 | so} $146,915] $4,750 $114.337 | so $140,587 44.750 12.301 | $787 380 $109,414 | $01 $134.533 ee $104,702 $0 | $128,740 44.750 | $0.2 $100.193 | so | $103,196 43.750 $9 2 12.301 3 979) $95.879 | $0 5117891 | $4,750 12.301 $91,750 | so | $112815 [eee |e aa $87.79 so] _sio7.9s7{_ 4.750] soe 12301 | $604,626 | $34,018 | $0 $103,308 44.750 a $80.40 $0 | $98,859 44.750] soz | 12.301 | $553.674 $76,938 $0 — 0 Sek $0 $86,630 $0. 2 12.301 $485,183 $67.421 $o $2.39 12301 Seta $64,517 207 | $0 4. = ua 20) he $61,739 208 | $0 $59.080 2080 | $0 ~ $02 $389,335 $54.10 2081 | $0 $0.2 12,301 $372.570 $51,772 2082 $0 — a: 5 $0.2 12,301 $356,526 $49,543 2043 | $0 $60,917 43750] some i230 | $341,173 | $47,409 2044 | so | $58,294 44.750 som] 2301 | 826.482 | $45.368 2045 | so} $55.783 wa75o] som] 2301 | $312,423 $43,414 2086 | $0 | $53.381 44.750] soz | zon | s98.969| Sa 5s | 2087 so} $51,082 | a7] som sor s286.09s| $9,755 | 2088 | $0 so | (a 7 | | | | TOTALS $41,724,407 $9.118.375 $47, 104.837 $6,849,634 Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3.278.039 H | NetBenefit = $6,389,727 | | BenefitCostRato = 113 | 70 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY li-Aug SILVER LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS Name of Alternative: Alternative Project Iaput Alt. B — White Water Engineering Capnual Cost (1992 $) $60.561604 | _ Surt Year 1998 | Annual Oe M Cost (1992 $) $575.000 | | | Average Annual MWh. October - May” 46,375 | Average Annual MWh. June ~ September: 235 | Total Annual Energy (MWh) 48.750 | | Standard Input 0 | | Real Interest Rate (%) 48 | Inflanon Rate (%) 0 | Discount Rate (%) 45 | [Vanable O&M Savings (S/kWh) 0.01 | | Fuel Cost Forecast Used (AEA Recon=1, Low Fuel=2 2 | Average Diese! Heat Rate BTUKWh. 11000 [1992 Diesel Cost (S kW). 450 Load Forecast Used (Low. Medium. High) _High | Summer Load Muluplier 03 ——— Winter Load Muluplier: 07 | Solomon Guich Summer Energy Output (MWh): 28600 _| Solomon Guich Winter Energy Output (MWh): 25900 oo — Summary of Output | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = $3,278,039 Net Benefit = $5,100,443 | BenefitCostRato = 1.09 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ALLISON LAKE RECONNAISSANCE STUDY PROJECT ECONOMICS MODEL -50 YEAR ANALYSIS tr Augo Name of Alternative: Alt. B — White Water Engineering | Diesel j PV | PV MW Sgal | Needed PV Fuel | PV YEAR ProjectCost__| O&M Cost Useable FuelCost_ | (MWh) Savags | O&M Samngs 1992 so EY!) 0 $0.67 30.369 so hu so 1993 so $0 Q $068 31.136 so 50 1995 $0 $0 0 $070 31.956 sol $0 1995 $0 $0 | 0 $0.71 32.934 | 50 | $0 | 1986 $0 $0 0 $0.73 33,088 so) $0 1997 $0 $0 0 $0.74 | 35.084 so] $0 1998 $46 504.998 $441.540 | $0.76 ie 0 $1.652.579 $277.058 1988 50 $122,526 0s $0.7 0, Sies7911 $272,524 2000 so $404,331) 38.176 07m Oo} $1.667.345 | $268.447 2001 $0 $386,920 39.419 | $0.80 0] $1,669.284 | $265253 | 2002 sO $370258 40.095 $0.81 0] $1,670,600 | $262,043 | 2003 $0 | $354.314 2.506 | som | 0] $1,691,330 | $251,921 | 2004 | $0 $339,057 | 44.226 | sos | 0 $1,729,891 $251,965 | so $25.456 | $6,396 $0.84 o] $1,733,533 $261.79 | $0 $310.483 $3,396 $0.85 | 0] $1,751,850 | $261,325 $0, $297,114 48,750 $0.86 | ia | $1, 709.357 $251,901 $0 $284.320 $8,750 $0.88 3873] $1,675332] $241.054 | So, $772,076 | 38,750 | $0.90 | $330,673 so | $260.360 | $8.750 | $0.91 | _$0] $249.149 | 48,750 | $0.2 | $211.235 so | $238.420 48.750 | $0.2 | $202.138 | a - —— ~ | so! $238,153 | $8,750 be 3.301 $1,392,019 $193.34 $0] 5218328 | 48,750 8301 $185,104 | | so | $208.926 | 48,750 | soa $20) _ sire i, $177,133 $0. 5199.29 | _ 48.750 son $169,505 | $0 $191.320 | 48.750 $0.2 nn $1,167.94 $162206 so | $183.081 $8,750 $02 ma $155.21 | so] $175,198 | 48,750 son 8301 $148,537 | $o | $167,653 | 48.750 | $0.2 8.301 $142.141 “so $160.34 | 48.750 | SOR 8.301 $136,020 sol $153,525 | 48.750 | $0.2 8.301 $130.163 | so] $146914] 48.750 S02 8301 $124.557 $0 | $140,587 | 48.750 $0.2 8301 $857,760 $119.194 | $0 $134,533 48,750 $0.2 8.301 =a $114.061 $0 $128,740 $8,750 $02 3301] $785.47] $109.19 | $0 | $123.196 750 $0.2 a $104.49 | SO suzsa| asso] som T8301] $719,285 | $99,951 $0 $112815 C0 Be $95,647 $0 $107,957 $0.2 $91528 $0 $103,30 [ae] asa $87,587 | so | $98.859 $0.2 Rn | $0. $94,602 Peet et $0 $90.528 sel patel pr 2 so $36,630 aa7s0] So] son] sszassi] _$73.447 | 2036 48,750 $0.2 [stl sol sa | 2037 $0 $79.330 48.750 $02 $67.258 2038 | $0 era nena cee a eet ee $64,361 2039 | $0 ee ee ee $61590 2040 so [sete aso [ef ssa 2041 | $0 ——— zor] Sof sescss[ asso] sos 301] S388.394] $53,971 | 2083 | $0 $0917 Rea ___ spe sat 48.250 = | __ $355,664 | $49,423, 48.750 _ 2 $340,349 $47295 So $51,082 48.750 $02 sr sa $43.309 $46.504.998 | Deferred Diesel Capacity Savings = | Net Benefit = | BenefitCost Rato = se $9.118.375 $5.100.443 1.09 $3,278,039 of sot szasit Sots $50,166,159 $7.279.617 VA Telephone Conversation HDR Record Project: Allison Lake Project No.: 07073-010-149-03 Date: August 10, 1992 File Code: B.9 Call to: Greg Smith Call from: Paul Berkshire Organization: N.W. Pipe & Casing Phone No.: (800) 824-9824 Discussion, Agreement and/or Action Asked Greg Smith for reconnassiance level price quote for 6000 feet of 108” steel penstock, epoxy lined, 80-mil tape coating delivered at or near Valdez, AK. Max. static head of 300’. Quotes: 3/8" $265/ft 1/2" $330/ft Shipping $60/ft cc.