Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBPMC Meeting January 14, 1993 1Revised Acuun Nos. - September 7, 1993 BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPROVED MEETING MINUTES RECORL VOPY January 14, 1993 FILE NO 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Highers called the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Management Committee to order at 10:15 a.m. in the Training Room at Chugach Electric Association in Anchorage, Alaska to conduct the business of the Committee per the agenda and the public notice. 2. ROLL CALL Alaska Energy Authority Ronald A. Garzini, Alternate Representative Chugach Electric Association David L. Highers, Designated Representative and Chairman Golden Valley Electric Association Mike Kelly, Designated Representative City of Seward Paul Diener, Designated Representative Homer Electric Association Norm Story, Designated Representative Matanuska Electric Association Ken Ritchey, Designated Representative Municipal Light & Power Tom Stahr, Designated Representative Others Present: Ron Saxton, Ater, Wynne, Hewitt, Dodson & Skerritt David Burlingame, Chugach Electric Association John Cooley, Chugach Electric Association e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 2 of 13 Gene Bjornstad, Chugach Electric Association Tom Lovas, Chugach Electric Association Bob Hufman, AEG&T Dave Fair, Homer Electric Association Mike Yerkes, Homer Electric Association Doug Hall, Municipal Light & Power Moe Aslam, Municipal Light & Power Tim McConnell, Municipal Light & Power Bob Price, Municipal Light & Power Dave Calvert, City of Seward David R. Eberle, Alaska Energy Authority Stanley E. Sieczkowski, Alaska Energy Authority Larry Wolf, Alaska Energy Authority Denise Burger, Alaska Energy Authority 35 PUBLIC COMMENT There being no public comment, the meeting continued to the next agenda item. 4. AGENDA COMMENTS Item 12. E, Authority Over Budget Revisions, was added to the agenda. S APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 9, 1992 The minutes of the November 20, 1992 Bradley PMC were approved as submitted. 6. TECHNICAL COORDINATING SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Burlingame reported that the TCS had not met since the November Bradley PMC meeting. Mr. Burlingame noted that modifications had been made to the Woodward governor as a result of testing performed in November, and that efforts to resolve the unstable Kenai oscillation problem were in progress. 7. BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Ritchey informed the BPMC that the Budget Subcommittee would be requesting authorization to make changes to the Bradley O&M budget that were within ten percent of the budget (agenda item 12. E). Changes over ten percent of the budget would be brought before the Bradley PMC. e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 3 of 13 The Budget Subcommittee is currently reviewing the proposed FY94 Bradley O&M Budget. The Subcommittee will be meeting again at the end of February and expects to have a budget ready to present to the Bradley PMC by the March meeting. The BPMC was reminded that the budget needed to be completed and adopted by the first of April. Mr. Ritchey noted that the Bradley PMC had been informed of an O&M budget surplus of $910,411 at the November 20, 1992 meeting. Mr. Ritchey explained that this amount included approximately $450,000 carried forward from FY92 to FY93. To avoid large swings in the utility payments from year to year, the Subcommittee plans to carry the remaining estimated $450,000 into FY94. Mr. Ritchey noted a letter sent by Ron Saxton to Ron Garzini requesting information regarding use of Bradley bond funds. In question is whether a portion of the remaining construction funds could be transferred to Section 31 to cover the HEA Fritz Creek transmission line construction cost. HEA's Fritz Creek transmission line construction costs are considered to be a utility expense and meet the criteria for use of Section 31 funds, however Section 31 funds have been depleted. Mr. Saxton noted that redirecting construction funds to Section 31 funds would not impact the financial obligation of the utilities or the Energy Authority. Mr. Garzini has forwarded the request to Eric Wohlforth, AEA bond counsel, for review and advisement. A. Bradley Lake Construction Cost Review To clarify any previous misunderstanding, Mr. Ritchey noted that the construction cost audit had been approved as a construction cost item and was not an O&M cost. Pending successful completion of reference checks, Metzler & Associates has been tentatively selected by the Subcommittee to perform the construction cost audit. Mr. Ritchey anticipated Metzler & Associates would begin the audit shortly after confirmation. B. FY93 Budget, AEA Administrative Costs Update No comments were made regarding this issue. Cc. Bradley Lake O&M Cost Audit Update Mr. Ritchey reported that the O&M audit being performed by Parisena & Stromberg was more than half way complete. The Budget Subcommittee expects an audit report by February 2, 1993. e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 4 of 13 8. AGREEMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Sieczkowski reported that changes to the Soldotna Substation Agreement (with HEA) were made at the December 11, 1992 Agreements Subcommittee teleconference meeting. Offering the assistance of the Bradley PMC, Chairman Highers asked if anything could be done to expedite the agreement negotiation process. Mr. Sieczkowski stated that the Subcommittee's comments had been incorporated and that no other issues remained to be resolved. Changes to the Transmission Line Maintenance Agreement made by the Subcommittee at a December 21, 1992 teleconference meeting have been incorporated. Additionally, new drafts of the Daves Creek and Soldotna SVC Facilities Maintenance Agreements were distributed for review on December 18, 1992. Comments are expected from the utilities by January 29, 1993. 9. OPERATION & DISPATCH SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT A summary of the Operation & Dispatch Subcommittee meeting of January 7, 1993 was distributed to the PMC (Attachment 1). Mr. Wolf reported that the Subcommittee reviewed an operations report presented by AEA. Beginning with January 1993 information, the report (a summary of project generation statistics, reservoir hydrology data, and operations and maintenance events) will be distributed as an attachment to the Subcommittee meeting minutes. DECnet programming was discussed at the meeting. AEA requested AML&P and GVEA develop and implement their own DECnet programming. Updating his report given at the November 20, 1992 BPMC meeting on the progress of the annual maintenance, Mr. Wolf stated that no additional problems were discovered during completion of the maintenance work. However, due to insufficient time during the annual maintenance to repair a transformer nitrogen leak, a one day outage would be needed to perform the repair. Reservoir Draw-down Mr. Wolf reported on the blockage of the Bradley Lake fish water bypass intakes. Early in November, reduced flow was noted through one of the fish water bypass valves. Suspecting a blockage, the operators unsuccessfully tried to clear the intake with a back flow of compressed air. During a visual inspection of the area on November 17, 1992, Mr. Wolf noted erosion of overburden and loose fill from the bank above the intakes and suspected that the e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 5 of 13 material was migrating into the intake area. AEA contracted a diver to inspect the intakes on November 19, 1992, however, due to uncooperative weather conditions, the dive was not made until December 8, 1992. The diver reported finding large, smooth rocks, debris and silt. Discrepancies in the diver's report with known information raised some question as to the accuracy of this assessment. Mr. Wolf explained that there were no large, smooth rocks in the area, and stated that the diver's inspection was hindered by inability to see due to the high level of glacial silt in the water. Because of the discrepancies in the initial dive inspection report, AEA is arranging for a second dive inspection by another dive company utilizing hard hat (rather than scuba) gear. If the material causing the blockage can be easily removed, the divers will attempt to clear the intake area. Assessing the currently available information, Mr. Wolf stated that any remaining loose material above the intake area should be removed and the intakes cleaned and modified to avoid a repeat of the problem. In order to minimize the risk of damaging the intakes, Mr. Wolf anticipated that the reservoir would need to be lowered to 1068' to clean and modify the intakes. A request for an engineering proposal to provide a design for modification of the intakes and contract specifications for the removal of the overburden and cleaning and modification work was made to Stone & Webster Engineering the first week of January. The O&D Subcommittee was informed of the situation and discussed associated problems of operating the project at a reservoir level under 1080' at its January 7, 1993 meeting. Mr. Wolf stated that unknown tunnel transient effects could cause a problem when operating the project below 1080' and recommended a transient analysis study be performed. Mr. Wolf explained that, according to the design engineer, a sudden needle closure below this level could cause a vacuum and subsequent tunnel failure. Mr. Wolf noted that, barring a needle closure, the project is capable of generating 105 to 109 megawatts between the 1068' and 1080' reservoir level. Additional reservoir storage capacity between 1068' and 1080' is 18,734 acre-feet. In lieu of successful clearing of the intakes by the divers, Mr. Wolf outlined three options to clear and modify the intakes: Option I: At the current reservoir level, either on the ice or on floats, utilize a clam to clear the debris. The work would be done in 70' of water and includes a high risk of damaging the intakes. Modification of the intakes would have to be done by divers. High repair costs are anticipated for this method. e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 6 of 13 Option II: At a reservoir elevation of 1090", access the intake area from the adjacent bank using a hoe or clam. The work would be done in approximately 20' of water. Risk of damaging the intakes would be less, however, modification of the intakes would still have to be done by divers. Anticipated repair costs would be less than Option I. Option II: Lower the reservoir to 1068' to facilitate use of on-site equipment and perform work under dry conditions. Repair costs would be lower, however impact to the utilities schedule would be the highest. Mr. Wolf explained that the fish water bypass was a FERC license requirement. A water release of 40 cfs is required November through April and 100 cfs June through September. Under present conditions (at a reservoir elevation of 1136') the maximum obtainable release is 86 cfs. Release from the blocked intake is limited to a flow of 7 cfs. Mr. Wolf noted that favorable weather conditions could provide the necessary flow to meet the FERC requirement, however, if the requirement was not met, FERC could fine the project up to $10,000/day. Ultimately, the license could be revoked. The Committee elected to discuss agenda item 12. C., Reservoir Draw-down. Chairman Highers initiated the discussion stating that the draw-down would greatly impact CEA's maintenance schedule. Mr. Stahr questioned use of underwater camera equipment to evaluate the situation. Mr. Wolf explained that a camera would not be useful because the glacial silt prevented visibility. It was noted that sonar equipment could be effective under these conditions. Mr. Garzini recommended that the Operation & Dispatch Subcommittee continue to work on the problem until the technical options are defined. If differences develop which cannot be resolved at the Subcommittee level, Mr. Garzini suggested that a special Bradley PMC meeting be called at that time. Mr. Bjornstad reiterated that the problem particularly impacted CEA's maintenance schedule. Mr. Bjornstad requested an immediate second dive inspection and notification of the results to the utilities, stating that this information was critical to CEA's planning. Mr. Stahr asked if enough water could be pumped over the spillway to meet the FERC requirements. Mr. Wolf explained because the 100 cfs was measured down stream of the dam, some greater amount had to be released at the dam in order to meet the requirement. Mr. Stahr expressed the need for an expedient assessment of the problem and requested that AEA keep the utilities informed of changes to the availability of Bradley generation. e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 7 of 13 10. Warranty coverage of the problem and the possibility of design error were questioned. Mr. Eberle stated that assessment of those issues at this time would be premature because the cause of the problem was unknown. No determination had been made as to how the cost was to be handled (i.e. operation, or construction, or warranty). Chairman Highers concurred with Mr. Garzini's recommendation that the O&D Subcommittee continue to handle the problem. Mr. Wolf noted that the Energy Authority needed to be informed of the utilities' maintenance schedules in order to facilitate planning the maintenance needs of Bradley Lake. Chairman Highers added that maintenance at Bradley Lake should be a coordinated effort between the utilities and AEA to meet the utilities' needs as well. Referring to the January 7, 1993 O&D Subcommittee meeting, Mr. Wolf stated that revisions to the Allocation & Scheduling Procedures had been approved for recommendation to the BPMC. The revised procedures will be forwarded to the general managers in advance of the next Bradley PMC meeting. An additional item of discussion at the Subcommittee has been HEA line losses. Mr. Wolf stated that HEA was in the process of developing their loss numbers for further discussion at the next Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Lovas noted that, in the past, CEA had provided those numbers to HEA. Mr. Burlingame clarified that the "line loss" being discussed was the difference between the total sum of retail kilowatt hours sold by HEA and the total wholesale megawatt hours purchased. REVIEW OF PROJECT STATUS Mr. Eberle reported that AEA had received ten contaminated soil clean-up technical proposals which are currently being reviewed. Price proposals are expected in February. AEA is continuing efforts to obtain a clean-up waiver from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Eberle reported that the capacitor bank of the second harmonic filter failed during on-line testing of the Daves Creek Substation Static Var Compensator System (SVC) in December. Initially, the problem was suspected to be a possible harmonics condition that the system was not designed for. However, after studying the problem, ABB concluded the system could handle the harmonics. Subsequent study and inspection of the capacitor bank by ABB identified a combination of several problems which resulted in the failure: use of wrong size fuses, improper attachment of the spring ejectors on the fuse links, and mis-manufactured (under sized) capacitors. ABB will be replacing the majority of the capacitor bank at the Daves Creek Substation. All fuses will e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 8 of 13 be checked and modifications made to the spring ejectors. ABB also plans to modify the alarm and protection system. In spite of the additional work, ABB expects to be able to maintain its schedule and have the system on line by mid- March. Mr. Eberle noted that a contract was being issued to Woodward Governor to resolve the unstable frequency oscillation problem. Design, testing and implementation of the system modifications is expected to be completed by the end of June. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Spinning Reserves/Under Frequency Load Shedding Update Tom Lovas reported that the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council (ASCC) Reliability Criteria Committee met with its consultant, Bill Masters, in December. The Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) has received a proposed load shedding schedule (based on current conditions, including Bradley Lake) from its Reliability Criteria Subcommittee. The recommendation includes implementation of a specific load shedding schedule which includes requirements for load shed in lieu of spin. Mr. Lovas stated that the schedule will accommodate the current operating conditions and improve the reliability of the interconnected system. Questions regarding character of the spin, resources of the spin, and the location of the spin remain to be resolved by the IOC. Bradley Scheduling vs. Spin Requirement Update Referring to the November 20, 1992 BPMC meeting, Chairman Highers noted his request that the utilities provide written comments on the spin requirement issue to Mr. Saxton. Chairman Highers urged the utilities to submit written comments as soon as possible, noting that AML&P had already submitted comments. 12. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Committee Expenses Mr. Ritchey distributed a chart of Ater Wynne legal fees and expenses encompassing August 1992 to January 1993. Mr. Ritchey explained that the August and September expenses were included on the chart because they had not been paid (although they had previously been approved). e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Ritchey noted that the expenses were well above the budget line item approved for FY93. Mr. Kelly motioned to approve the submitted expenses for payment. The motion, seconded by Mr. Ritchey passed by the following roll vote (Action 93-148):! City of Seward Yes Matanuska Electric Association Yes Chugach Electric Association Yes Homer Electric Association Yes Golden Valley Electric Association Yes Municipal Light & Power Yes Alaska Energy Authority No Mr. Garzini stated his objection to administering payment of legal bills to cover the ABA administrative cost law suit. Mr. Saxton stated that the money paying for the legal expenses was not AEA's money, explaining that the money was only handled by AEA as a result of the technical provisions of the Power Sales Agreement. Mr. Garzini objected to the payment of legal expenses for what he considered an unnecessary law suit. In response to questioning by Chairman Highers, Mr. Garzini stated that the Energy Authority would administer the payment of legal expenses approved by the Committee. Directing his comments to Mr. Garzini, Mr. Kelly recalled the history behind the AEA administrative cost issue. After negotiating with Mr. Bussell, the Committee felt that there was too large a difference to resolve through continued negotiation. The Committee was also concerned that the issue would return every year. It was the consensus of the utilities that the best course was to seek a legal determination in order to put the issue to rest. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Garzini's desire to work directly with the utilities to resolve the issue, however, stated that changing the present course of action would be difficult. Mr. Garzini expressed hope that future problems could be resolved either technically or through the managerial process. Mr. Garzini added that his ultimate goal was for the utilities to play a greater role in the management of the project. B. Fritz Creek Segment Funding Chairman Highers noted the January 8, 1993 memorandum prepared by Tom Lovas which was previously distributed to the utilities (Attachment ! To facilitate record keeping, commencing with calendar year 1993, the secretary will assign sequential numbers to all actions taken by the Bradley PMC in accordance with the Committee Bylaws (Article 14.1). e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 10 of 13 2). Mr. Story stated that repayment of HEA's Fritz Creek transmission line construction costs had been left unresolved. HEA recently invoiced the utilities for the line costs, however, HEA was receptive to other options of payment (i.e. capitalization of costs). Mr. Saxton, referring to his earlier comments on the possible restructuring of the remaining unused bond funds, stated that the Fritz Creek costs met Section 31 qualifications. Mr. Lovas commented that it was unfortunate that the costs had not been submitted under Section 31 prior to bond issue. Mr. Lovas noted that Item 12 of the Transmission Agreement clearly expressed the intent to include the Fritz Creek costs under Section 31. Additionally, in lieu of qualification as a Section 31 cost, Item 12 outlines a mechanism to treat the transmission line cost as a project operation expense during the first 3 years of operation. Mr. Lovas suggested the transmission line could be paid for as a Section 13 (project construction) cost, or, paid for by HEA through a bond issue (to be paid back by the utilities). Mr. Lovas recommended that HEA submit a reimbursement plan to the Bradley PMC. Mr. Story objected to the burden being placed on HEA and requested additional discussion or suggestions. Mr. Kelly suggested that HEA self-finance the cost and the utilities repay HEA by the same terms as if it had been submitted under Section 31. Repayment of the cost as a project operation expense in this manner would have minimal impact on the utilities. Mr. Lovas reiterated that the first step was to determine if bond funds could be used to cover HEA's Fritz Creek transmission line costs. If bond funds cannot be used, Mr. Lovas stated that HEA would then need to provide the BPMC with a mechanism for repayment which would least impact the utilities' cash flow. Mr. Garzini informed the Committee that AEA was already investigating a variety of options and was willing to assist in resolving the problem. Chairman Highers requested that HEA and AEA work together to find an acceptable method of repayment of HEA's cost. Bradley Draw-down This item was discussed earlier under Item 9, Operation & Dispatch Subcommittee Report. BPMC Control Over O&M Decisions and Agreements Mr. Saxton introduced three issues for discussion: (1) control over O&M, (2) identification of appropriate parties to various agreements; and (3) the relationship of the multiple agreements and contracts that have been issued. e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 11 of 13 Control Over O&M Referring to the Power Sales Agreement, Mr. Saxton stated that Section 13 created the Project Management Committee, Section 13 (b) established Committee rules, and Section 13 (c) outlined Committee responsibilities. Paraphrasing Section 13 (c) (i), Mr. Saxton stated, "Subject to certain non-delegable rights, the PMC shall be responsible for the management, operation, maintenance and improvement of the project, in recognition that as take-or-pay purchasers of project capacity the purchasers have substantial long term interest..." Additionally, Mr. Saxton stated the Agreement established the Committee's responsibilities as follows: "The Committee is responsible to arrange for the operation and maintenance of the project, and the scheduling, production, and dispatch of project power." In order to accomplish this, the utilities agreed that AEA would become the initial project operator. Mr. Saxton pointed out that the contract clearly stated the Committee was ultimately responsible for operation of the project. Identification of Appropriate Parties to Various Agreements Mr. Saxton stated that agreements had been prepared under the authority of AEA with an approval signature of the BPMC, however, the BPMC could retain authority as the principal signer with an approval signature of AEA. Mr. Saxton stated that either case worked, but the ultimate responsibility belonged to the BPMC. It was noted that differences on which way the authority was viewed was causing difficulties in the agreements process. Relationship of Multiple Agreements and Contracts A list of agreements prepared by Tom Lovas (Attachment 3) was distributed to the Committee. Mr. Saxton recommended that the agreements be catalogued and, preferably, reviewed to determine their effect on each other (i.e. potential conflicts). Chairman Highers requested that the utilities review the list to ensure the inclusion of all agreements and submit any changes to Tom Lovas (Action 93-149). Mr. Yerkes asked if the BPMC could contract legally. Mr. Saxton could not provide an answer without further investigation, however stated that the BPMC could contract in joint venture or partnership. Mr. Saxton noted that the same result could be obtained if AEA e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 12 of 13 contracted with the recognition that it was the BPMC who made the decision. Mr. Saxton expressed concern about the introduction by AEA of a potential additional step to the Committee's decision making process wherein AEA assumes that its approval of a decision is required before the decision is carried out. (Mr. Saxton referred to AEA's objection to administering payment of approved Committee legal fees.) Mr. Garzini reiterated his desire for the utilities to control more of the operation and maintenance of the Bradley Lake (and Four Dam Pool) Project(s). However, in addition to ownership of the project, AEA has an obligation to FERC and a bond obligation which must be fulfilled. Mr. Garzini stated that beyond these requirements, all other issues were open to the management of the Committee. Mr. Kelly noted that AEA's responsibilities had been protected by the inclusion of veto rights. Referring to the Power Sales Agreement, Item 13 (b), Mr. Saxton confirmed that AEA had certain non-delegable rights and that in these matters the utilities and AEA had to agree. Mr. Saxton stated, in order to avoid potential problems, it was necessary to clarify who was responsible for contract commitments made by AEA prior to execution of a contract. Mr. Garzini suggested that the BPMC wait until after the Alaska Energy Authority's strategic plan was presented to its Board of Directors on January 22, 1993 before taking any action on the issue. Pending the response of the Board of Directors to the plan, Mr. Garzini hoped to call a meeting of all the utilities (Four Dam Pool and Bradley Lake) to begin discussing the transfer of responsibility. Mr. Saxton stated that the Agreements Subcommittee could not finalize some of the agreements now being worked on without guidance on the authoritative roles of the BPMC and AEA. Mr. Kelly recommended that the Agreements Subcommittee be informed that the BPMC wished to retain the power that was intended by the Power Sales Agreement, noting that, in some respects, AEA's participation was absolute within the BPMC. Chairman Highers expressed the concurrence of the Committee, requesting that it be noted in the minutes. Responding to inquiry by Mr. Lovas, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the existing agreements should be re-opened to "reformulate the participants." It was clarified that the substance of the agreements would not change. Mr. Lovas introduced the concept of one master Bradley Lake operational procedure agreement designed to incorporate all operational issues (rather than the e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93a BPMC Meeting Minutes January 14, 1993 Page 13 of 13 introduced the concept of one master Bradley Lake operational procedure agreement designed to incorporate all operational issues (rather than the present series of agreements). Mr. Story expressed concern over the potential for further delays to the completion of present draft agreements. Authority Over Budget Revisions Mr. Ritchey moved that the Bradley PMC grant authority to the Budget Subcommittee to manage budget line items. However, if the Subcommittee anticipates an increase to the approved overall operating budget of more than ten percent, the Subcommittee would seek BPMC approval. The FY93 operating budget is $2,699,928. Therefore any budget changes greater than $269,993 would require approval of the Bradley PMC. Mtr. Ritchey noted that the request was, in part, inspired by the need to pay the BPMC legal bills which had exceeded the budgeted line item amount. Mr. Ritchey explained that the Subcommittee wanted to establish a means by which it could make adjustments to the budget (within limitations). It was clarified that the ten percent limit referred to cumulative budget changes. The motion seconded by Mr. Kelly, was approved by a unanimous role call vote (Action 93-150). 13. © COMMUNICATIONS A. Schedule Next Meeting March 11, 1993 10:00 a.m. CEA Training Room 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further business or communications before the Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p Attest: e:\dburger\word\minutes\pmc\01-93 SENT BY: 1- 8-93: 2:07PM: CHUGACH ELECTRIC- AK ENERGY ALTHORITY:# 1/ 3 C1 ATTACHMENT 2 hugach ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 5601 Minnesota Drive hci, saa waniniD FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Phone: 907-563-7494 = DATE: 1/8/93 Stan Sieczkowski, Dir. Facilities Ops. & Eng. Dave Highers SUBJECT: Bradley Draw-down COMMENTS/MESSAGE: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGNS TRANSMITTING: ____ 3 (Includes: Cover Sheet) ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 701 East Tudor Road P.O. Box 190869 RECORD VOPY Anchorage, Alaska 99519-L_-- ee FILE NO E ¥ ae 1603 JOB NO. PB 1 (907) 561-7877 Phone pvelaty 2arkoes i | eo se (Uz 6 Lebar mex David L. Highers 1/19193 RE Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project ae TO Chugach Electric Association P.0. Box 196300 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300 GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU @ Attached © Under separate cover via____—=—=.» ~—~=—=—SS—SSSsthe following items: O Shop drawings O Prints O Plans O Samples O Specifications O Copy of letter O Change order _ _( _Approved Meeting Minutes 0 COPIES DATE h DESCRIPTION 1 11/20/92 Bradley Lake PMC Meeting Minutes (Approved January 14, 1993) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval O Approved as submitted O Resubmit______copies for approval O For your use O Approved as noted O Submit________copies for distribution O As requested O Returned for corrections O Return_____corrected prints O For review andcomment 0 O FOR BIDS DUE____19_____—s()«~ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS. Please sign and return to me. Thanks. COPY TO. — Denise Burger, Operations Assistant If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. wx eos