Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBPMC Meeting January 18, 1990 1% FILE COPY Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) inci Page 1 0f 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) =— / Y BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE January 18, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER Due to the flight delay of Chairman Kelly, Vice-Chairman Highers served as Chairman and called the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to order at 9:10 a.m. in the Training Room of Chugach Electric Association to conduct the business of the Committee per the agenda and the public notice. 2. ROLL CALL The roll call was taken and a quorum was established. In attendance were the following: Designated Representative ___Designated Alternate —_— Representing Robert E. LeResche Brent Petrie Alaska Energy Authority Ken Ritchey Myles Yerkes Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. David L. Highers Tom Lovas Chugach Electric Association, Inc. Michael P. Kelly* Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Thomas R. Stahr John Cooley Municipal Light and Power Kent Wick Homer Electric Association Everett Paul Diener City of Seward *Joined meeting at 9:40 a.m. Representatives Absent Alternates Absent sae Representing iain: Fred Arvidson City of Seward Bob Hansen Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. Sam Mathews Homer Electric Association Others Present ene Representing : Ron Saxton Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc Dave Eberle Alaska Energy Authority Julie Becker Alaska Energy Authority Donald L. Shira Alaska Energy Authority Dan Bloom Chuguch Electric Association Lance Duncan EBA Engineering (public) Dave Burlingame* Chugach Electric Association Norm Bishop* Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. John Yale* Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. *Joined meeting for agenda item 12., Report on Surge Tank Analysis. Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 2 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) 3. PUBLIC COMMENT There being no public comment, Chairman Highers proceeded to agenda item 4. 4. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA State Legislation regarding the Power Development Revolving Loan Fund (PDRLF) was added under New Business as item 13.c. Consideration of CEA Microwave Link as a Bradley Lake Project Cost was added as item 15.d. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 30, 1989 6. BOND FINANCE TEAM REPORT Mr. Petrie reported that Bond Finance Team activity will increase during the next month as the Team prepares for the final bond issuance. The intent is to have preliminary work on the bond finance completed by the end of June, 1990, with issuance e dependent on market conditions prior to November 1, 1990. 7. TECHNICAL COORDINATING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Yerkes reported that the TCS recommends acceptance of the Load Acceptance Analysis report prepared by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). (reference Committee action under agenda item 12., Report on Surge Tank Analysis). Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) is in the process of summarizing the results of the Kenai generator performance testing in a final report. AEA is negotiating with the SCADA supplier for Decknet software. This software will allow direct communication with the various utilities at an estimated cost of $116,000 with Landis and Gyr. The TCS intends to recommend action on this item at their next meeting. The TCS recommended that the cost of the microwave communications link direct to CEA headquarters be a Bradley Lake Project cost, since this item is necessary for dispatch. Mr. Yerkes said that the cost of this item would not exceed $50,000. (reference Committee action under agenda item 13.d. Consideration on CEA Microwave Link as a Bradley Lake Project Cost). Mr. Yerkes reported that the TCS recommended that the AEA negotiate contractual modifications with Fuji to provide for a third mode of operation for the Woodward governor control system. This system would be a "water wasting" mode which would be activated to provide quicker, more stable and secure operation in the event that the system senses a disturbance.. (reference Committee action under agenda item 12., Report on Surge Tank Analysis). e@ The TCS received a schedule for stability additions (i.¢., Static Var System, Series Capacitors), which provides an optimistic completion date of mid-1992, subject to completion of the stability analysis by PTI, which has now been delayed until all generator testing has been completed. Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 3 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) Mr. Yerkes reported that comments by the utilities are due to the AEA by January 25, 1990 regarding technical specifications for the breaking resistors. The AEA Board, at their January 17, 1990 meeting, approved issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for testing of the major generators in the Railbelt (i.e., Fairbanks and Anchorage utilities, since Kenai machines have been tested). The Intertie Operating Committee has agreed to provide 1/2 of the funding (Not to Exceed 1/2 of $175,000) for this scope of work, with the other half as a Bradley Lake Project cost. Mr. Yerkes said that the TCS recommends that the PTI studies, which will utilize this testing information, be delayed until this study is completed. (reference Committee action under agenda item 13.b., Funds for Generator Performance Testing). Mr. Yerkes said that the utility TCS members believe that project testing prior to commercial operation should actually be comprised of the following two test periods: 1) __ specific equipment component testing, and 2) performance testing of the project as a whole after it is brought on-line ("operational testing"). Mr. Yerkes stated that the utilities prefer a 90 day operational testing period. Copies of the January 17, 1990 letter from N.A. Bishop, SWEC, to D.R. Eberle, AEA, were distributed. This letter stated that SWEC believes that the results of the recent studies analyzing the existing Kenai to Anchorage transmission lines suggest that a second transmission line from the Soldotna substation to the University substation may be justified in terms of improved reliability and increased power export capabilities from Kenai to Anchorage. 8. INSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Petrie reported that SWEC had been authorized two weeks ago to proceed with a risk assessment evaluation for the Bradley Lake Project. Completion of this scope of work is anticipated to take an additional ten weeks. Copies of the scope of work were made available to the Committee (reference Risk Assessment Evaluation Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, revised: January 11, 1990). The risk assessment evaluation will estimate the value of the losses that could be reasonably expected over the 30 year life of the bonds issued for the project. Mr. Kelly joined the meeting at this time and proceeded as Chairman. 9. BUDGET AND FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Unreimbursed Bradley Lake Costs Mr. Saxton referenced the one page item which had previously been telecopied to the members; Unreimbursed Bradley Lake Costs. Mr. Saxton explained that the list was not an exclusive list of items to ultimately be reimbursed. The intent of this list was to provide for monthly submittals with back-up by the utilities to the AEA (with a copy provided to Mr. Saxton) of on-going costs. At this time, the costs would primarily be 1990 TCS expenses (A5) and costs for conducting Committee meetings and general business (B2). It was noted that the members would receive a formal transmittal of this document with a letter of instruction and that the costs may not necessarily be reimbursed after submittal. Bradley Budget Proposal Timeline for Annual Budget Process Mr. Saxton said that there were two key dates set by the Bond Resolution in this timeline: "Bradley PMC (BRADAPRS) Page 4 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) 1) April 2, the date by which the annual budget must be adopted by either the BPMC or the AEA (Mr. Saxton noted that the Committee loses the right to control the budget for that year if the budget is not adopted by April 1), and 2) July 1, the first day of a fiscal year and the date the budget takes effect. Mr. Saxton said that ten months after the fiscal year budget takes effect (May 1), the Committee will compare the budget to actual costs to determine if additional payment (or refund) is due. The Budget and Finance Subcommittee suggested that all budget input be submitted to the AEA by December 1 of a given year and that the AEA subsequently submit a complete proposed budget to either the BPMC or applicable subcommittee by January 15 (it was noted that these dates are for development of a typical fiscal year budget and distinct from the current "dry- run" budgei exercise). Appointment of Budget Subcommittee It was noted that the focus of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee had changed. As such, the subcommittee was renamed Budget Subcommittee and the following individuals were appointed: Budeet Sul 5 ffiliati Ron Saxton, PMC Utilities Tom Lovas, CEA Ken Ritchey, MEA Brent Petrie, AEA Laurie Prentice, ML&P Draft Bradley Lake Annual FY O&M Budget Inputs and Sources Mr. Saxton reviewed the Draft Bradley Lake Annual FY O&M Budget Inputs and Sources. It was noted that dry-run budget amounts for items 6 (Operations and Dispatch) and 7 (Homer Transmission Line) need to be provided by CEA and HEA, respectively. There was some discussion to show a combined payment obligation (i.e., insurance) as item 10, Alaska Intertie Budget Component. The consensus was to defer this and consider it again after the first dry-run budget had been developed. Mr. Shira reviewed the Draft (January 10, 1990) Bradley Lake Annual FY O&M Budget, which listed FERC accounts, inputs, amounts (for AEA items), and sources/comments. Mr. Shira explained that the primary inputs for this document were developed for the 1989 R.W. Beck Consulting Engineer’s Report and that the major differences were in the provision of more exact numbers for the FERC expenses and on-going studies. Mr. Shira was asked to provide manpower assumptions for this budget and he responded that this budget provides for 4 maintenance/emergency operators at the site (reference FERC Acct. 541), AEA supervision/administrative support (FERC Accts. 535 and 920), and considers contracting line maintenance to a utility. Mr. Saxton said that a meeting of the Budget Subcommittee would be convened in the near future to review the dry-run budget. This item was placed oa the agenda for the next BPMC meeting and it was noted that the members should plan for a lengthy discussion of the draft budget at that time. me . Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 5 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) 10. OPERATING AND DISPATCH AGREEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Shira reported that the Operating and Dispatch Agreement Subcommittee had received a presentation on January 16, 1990 by SWEC on three items: 1) project hydrology, 2) turbine efficiencies/governor modes, and 3) reservoir model for forecasting reservoir inflow and matching projected utility demand. The Subcommittee will meet again on February 15, 1990. SWEC is to proceed with the reservoir inflow forecasting model; the utilities have developed their anticipated usage to feed into this model. It was noted that coordinating the DFI hydro thermal coordination model with the Bradley scheduling model is an eventual objective. Mr. Shira reported that the contract with Frank Moolin and Associates had been increased by $15,000, as directed by the BPMC at their November 30, 1989 meeting (reference page 4 of 11-30-89 meeting minutes). 12. OLD BUSINESS REPORT ON SURGE TANK ANALYSIS The following individuals made an overview presentation regarding the Load Acceptance Analysis (i.e., surge tank study) prepared by SWEC and PTI; Norm Bishop, Lead Bradley Engineer for SWEC, and John Yale, Assistant Control Engineer for SWEC. Mr. Bishop said that the purpose of the study was to investigate potential project modifications to maximize the ability of Bradley units to provide spinning reserve to the Railbelt system. Mr. Bishop pointed out that the spinning reserves provided by Bradley can be classified in two general categories: 1) rapid load acceptance to respond to the initial generation need and thus avoid frequency drop and, 2) slower load acceptance to reduce the load on combustion turbines that have provided the initial generation need. It was noted that the relative amount of spinning reserve provided by Bradley Lake is related to the rate of load acceptance by the hydroelectric units and that the rate of load acceptance is dictated by the turbine needle opening times. The following three different turbine needle opening times were simulated in order to evaluate the potential Bradley Lake spinning reserve capabilities: Alternative Capital Cost, Modification 1) Existing hydraulic/turbine/governor design $ 0, No modifications required (72 second effective needle opening time) 2) Existing hydraulic design with governor $1.2 M estimate for hydraulic control and governor software control system modification (30 second effective modification, exclusive of any construction delay cost turbine needle opening time) 3) Addition of surge tanks (10 second effective $15.2 M direct cost for extensive modifications and 2 surge tanks; needle opening time) delay costs not included Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 6 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) The spinning reserve capabilities of Bradley Lake were summarized as follows: ~Rapid Response" Spinning Reserve Interconnected System Kenai Isolated Bradley Needle Opening Time (lost gen-CT spinning reserve) _(1: f ick 72 seconds 27MW 3 MW 30 seconds 27 MW 0MW 10 seconds 45 MW 10 MW Bradley Needle Opening Ti Time Full Load (f 1-no-load) Spinning R P ial*® 72 seconds 80 seconds 119 MW 30 seconds 40 seconds 119 MW 10 seconds 13 seconds 119 MW *CT Peak Rating Operation allowed from 108 MW for minimum head to 119 MW for 30 foot range at top of reservoir; however, these MW may be limited by the transmission condition (i.e., power transfer capability of the Anchorage-Kenai Intertie) to 40 MW. Mr. Bishop also displayed ramping curves for various needle opening times and noted that the most erratic ramping curve was for the 30 second needle opening time. Mr. Bishop said that the alternative associated with this erratic curve was not recommended due to control system instabilities, flow instability and vibrations causing equipment wear. Surge Tank Conclusions and Recommendations by SWEC Mr. Bishop summarized that in all cases the combustion turbines, if allowed to be used in a peaking mode, would return to normal capacity in less than 90 seconds. It was concluded that the use of decreased needle opening times below the existing 72 second needle time, facilitated by surge tanks or other measures, does little to avoid load shedding or to increase the spinning reserve capability of Bradley Lake. Mr. Bishop said that for the small increase in spinning reserve value, the cost for the associated sophisticated requirements do not appear to justify the added expense for the required modifications. It was noted that during Kenai import, to control frequency in the event of intertie loss, combustion turbines must be operated on the Kenai regardless of the needle opening times for Bradley Lake. Mr. Bishop provided the following recommendations based upon the results of this study (reference Report on Load Acceptance Analysis, Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project prepared by SWEC, January, 1990): 1) Maintain the current load acceptance rate (72 second needle opening time), and current hydraulic and equipment design. Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 7 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) 2) Implement an additional needle operating mode providing for simultaneous operation of all six needles and allowing for deflectors to cut into the water stream. 3) Discontinue any further investigation of revised needle opening times or modified hydraulic system design including surge tanks. It was noted that the additional governor operating mode (i.e., recommendation 2 or mode 3) was presently being included in the existing project. Mr. Highers motioned, seconded by Mr. Ritchey, that the BPMC accept the above three recommendations presented by Mr. Bishop. Discussion followed regarding the above motion. Mr. Stahr said that the BPMC should look at the surge tank in terms of what the cost would have been initially, at the beginning of design rather than in terms of today’s costs. Mr. Stahr also said that not all trips result in instantaneous loss of load and that this case should be reviewed. Mr. Stahr expressed concern with the prudence of operating in the peak mode without a reliable transmission line to the Kenai Peninsula. Mr. Stahr concluded that the BPMC should not reject the surge tank until a wider range of load sheds is explored. 11. REVIEW OF PROJECT STATUS Mr. Eberle reported that the Bradley Lake Project was 62% complete as of the end of December, 1989, compared to scheduled completion of 61%. In terms of the general civil construction contract, the lower power tunnel elbow is being concreted, with lining scheduled to begin by January 30, 1990. The penstock manifold testing was successful. Powerhouse unit 2 has been enclosed in concrete and encasing of unit 1 is in progress. Mr. Eberle reported that the cofferdam is no longer needed and is being removed. The completion schedule for the powerhouse can potentially be decreased by 4-5 months and a revised completion schedule has been requested from the contractors. Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 8 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion of Test Period Power Sales Agreement Mr. Saxton said that the Test Period PSA needs to define the test period leading to commercial operation to minimize impact on the bond resolution issue, define the rights to use the test power (i.e., in the same proportions as after commercial operation), and set the price of the test power. Chairman Kelly referenced the utilities cost of power adjustment with the Commission and suggested that this issue be considered in developing a non-disruptive cost of power (i.e., a "weighted weighted cost of power"). The consensus was that a discussion draft of this document would be distributed to the Committee prior to the next meeting. b. Funding for Generator Performance Testing Chairman Kelly said that Chairman Orr, Intertie Operating Committee (IOC), had suggested that the cost of the generator performance testing could be minimized if the IOC performed the testing through PTI (i.e., in order to avoid overhead costs associated with SWEC providing the work through PTI). It was noted that the AEA Board of Directors at their January 17, 1990 meeting had approved issuance of a separate RFP for this testing in order to maintain competitive pricing. It was also noted that this item could not be added to the current contract with PTI due to the estimated cost. Mr. Yerkes requested that the subsequent draft contract for generator performance testing be reviewed by the TCS prior to execution. Mr. Eberle suggested that the TCS and IOC representatives serve in an advisory capacity relative to this work. c. State Legislation regarding Power Development Revolving Loan Fund (PDRLF) Mr. Petrie reported that the amendment to the bill currently in the Senate Rules Committee of the Legislature regarding the PDRLF virtually wipes out the PDRLF by depositing all funds back in the General Fund with the requirement for subsequent appropriation by the Legislature. Mr. Petrie said that the Four Dam Pool Project Management Committee at their last meeting passed a resolution asking that the two sections amending this legislation be removed in order to allow flexibility by the AEA in providing quicker response times to emergencies. Mr. LeResche provided the example whereby the AEA was available to provide timely funds to repair the Solomon Gulch transmission line after the avalanche in the Thompson Pass area. The FDP PMC intends to submit a letter accompanying their resolution to the Legislature which they request the BPMC co-sign in support. d. Consideration of CEA Microwave Link as a Bradley Lake Project Cost Mr. Yerkes explained that the direct microwave link betwen the Division of Communications (Divcom) and the CEA main headquarters had been discussed at a previous TCS meeting and this discussion centered on the funding of the link partially by CEA or entirely as a project cost. It was noted that CEA staff had previously said that CEA would fund 1/2 of this cost; however, concern was expressed that this cost should be distributed to all customers receiving benefit, rather than just CEA customers. The TCS at the meeting of January 17, 1990, recommended that the PMC approve the microwave link as a project cost. ot Bradley PMC (BRADAPR6) Page 9 of 9 January 18, 1990 (as adopted) e. Schedule Next Meeting The next meeting of the BPMC was scheduled as follows: Date February 27, 1990 Location CEA Training Room Time 9:30 a.m. 14. COMMUNICATIONS It was noted that Senator Kelly had called a hearing regarding the power outage for January 26, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. from the Legislative Information Office (LIO). Senator Kelly’s office had requested that an AEA representative (Mr. Eberle) initiate the hearing discussions by providing a summary description of the event. The utilities were requested to provide input to Mr. Eberle relative to what happened and how the (proposed) interties would have affected the outage. Mr. Dave Hutchens said that he had prepared an allocation of benefits of the interties. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business befgre the Committee, the Committee adjourned by acclamation at 12:25 p.m. Chairman Kelly ATTEST: re ea: Secretary Approved by PMC at meeting held February 27, 1990.