Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
BPMC March 21, 2014
Bradley Lake Project Management Committee ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Regular Meeting Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Notice is hereby given that the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee will hold a regular meeting on Friday, Marc 21, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. For additional information contact Teri Webster. This meeting will be conducted by electronic media pursuant to AS 44.62.310 at the following location: Alaska Energy Authority Aspen Room, 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska; a teleconference line has been set up for those unable to attend in person. Dial 1-800-315-6338, Enter Code 3074#. The public is invited to attend. The State of Alaska (AEA) complies with Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act « 1990. Disabled persons requiring special modifications to participate should contact AEA staff at (907) 771-3074 to mak arrangements. Attachments, History, Details Attachments Details Agenda-Mar 21-Draft.doc.pdf Department: Revision History Category: Created 3/18/2014 9:17:58 AM by tawebster Sub-Category: Location(s): Project/Regulation #: Publish Date: Archive Date: Events/Deadlines: Commerce, Community and Economic Development Public Notices Advisory Committee Meetinc Statewide 3/18/2014 3/22/2014 > Fz, BA Baa ts Sa sate Ron Uoolf “Budget subcoumllee chat hi: ae overview Opaccin Ss is up @Ql) cflers _CRSig BE - Why incre ZO c A Wf of apentting Dud get ~ 3 ff HEA tbudyd 0k tor Fires ; studies, Suma Marrierdence , SVE f Bd-place hador F100" wankik debined Cary Ard seopeo? Work ___ Cory Aden cost -Sweto dydib _ Alan- (abo r <.& ” 4% esnact-uncon in gage, £8 UBK ARom 04D, HA BENE ae ee 50 = wndinrstand lode he + UY FT operator + Trainee, Suporintenterf — Bon/bofP days , SD% font Hage Ni? ; D% Beh ieee “Dady Marntence -only 2 : Arck Millec- last seven budget loo the sane Pk ro proyects being deferred : j iz SQ-Cory Molin tor nes budget Lito mahe cecom Hc 3 mole ofecent _ Commilee ass qnment budget Comm te 8A Disputor (esoluhon com - Cory, Bras J, toe tp Week ne Pore Hime _ me ‘ hv relTuwTSSeeesecueruecrvu eTUsee PEN (epocing FeO YUyremerte O&D - pietcan lots A) pe. hot = oo @@@C2O8 © Gf @ @ G.2.8 Gf @ OO O28 C.8 Oni GnteOsOeie? 6 Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Friday, March 21, 2013 @ 1:00 P.M. “PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY** =| cai®Uy ORGANIZATION O Wwt\5 & ERMIE Jn Yo — Deng ra MMA FOUN SON Wad Evry) Matt C Larleson | Ban Be I\ ; Cha bs DU RL. CAH BFELR be won trie (PUA © ia SPM WUFP S10 AL Ate AGDd PEALE i447 AZ4> — ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING () 0 eo keh Age ooh BPMC 3/21/14 Roll Call Roll call from top to bottom ending with Chair Golden Valley Electric Association p Homer Electric Association |Matanuska Electric Association City of Seward Alaska Energy Authority | Municipal Light & Power [Chugach Electric Association First a Second Roll call from top to bottom ending with Chair Golden Valley Electric Association Homer Electric Association Matanuska Electric Association City of Seward Alaska Energy Authority Municipal Light & Power Chugach Electric Association Next Meeting: xxxx xxXxx XX, XXXX ATTENDANCE — BPMC REGULAR MEETING, Mar. 21, 2014 @ 1:00 pm COMMITTEE MEMBERS ALTERNATE Brad Evans, Chairman CEA Burke Wick Brad Janorschke, Vice Chairman HEA Harvey Ambrose Sara Fisher-Goad, Secretary/Treasurer AEA Bryan Carey ghoe- Corey Borgeson GVEA Lynn Thompson Daniel Kendall MLP Richard Miller John Foutz SEW Jeff Estes Evan Joe Griffith MEA Gary Kuhn Public Members COUNSEL “Ron bolF¥ a 6yeA phiorekirk Gibson, McDowell Rackner & Sfoomy “Bucky Her Gibson PC airie — Brian Bjorkquist, Dept of Law Shere Moy -¥ ghee AIDEA AEA AIDEA and AEA Staff AIDEA AEA AIDEA and AEA Staff AIDEA AEA AIDEA and AEA Staff Webster, Teri Kelli Veech BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REGULAR MEETING Alaska Energy Authority, Anchorage, Alaska December 12, 2013 December 23, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Evans called the regular meeting of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Management Committee to order at 1:07 p.m. 2. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ROLL CALL Brad Janorschke Homer Electric Association (HEA) Cory Borgeson Golden Valley Electric Association (phone) (GVEA) Sara Fisher-Goad Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Bradley Evans Chugach Electrie Association (CEA) Joe Griffith Matanuska Electrie Association (MEA) James Posey Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (AML&P) John Foutz City of Seward (SEW) 3. STAFF/PUBLIC ROLL CALL Bryan Carey, Gene Therriault, Kelli Veech, Kirk Warren, Teri Webster, and Yolanda Inga (AEA); Kirk Gibson (McDowell Rackner.& Gibson); Brian Hickey, Paul Johnson, and Burke Wick (CEA); Brian Bjorkquist (Department of Law); Lynn Thompson, Alan Gray (GVEA); Rick Baldwin, Robert Day, Alan Owens, Mark Perry, Carrie Buckley and J.D, Graves (HEA); Marvin Yoder, Kit Jones (MEA); Dan Kendall, Rick Miller, and Jeff Warner (AML&P); Gary Dixon (Swalling & Associates); Bernie Smith (Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA); Sunny Morrison, and Miranda Stucktill (Accu-Type Depositions); 4. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 5. AGENDA COMMENTS/MOTION FOR APPROVAL The agenda was approved as amended. 6. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES - July 9, 2013 The July 9, 2013 meeting minutes were approved as presented. 7. NEW BUSINESS 71. Fish Water screen debris removal Mr. Day gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation regarding the fish water screen debris removal issue. He stated controlling the fish water has proven to be rather difficult. Mr. Day noted there are agency requirements to maintain certain minimum flows in the lower Bradley river. This is BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page | of 21 accomplished by releasing water through the dam through two manifolds with a number of different sized valves. In May of last year, all the valves were open and the flow could not be maintained, which could have resulted in a violation. An investigation was conducted and the determination was made that the two bird cages, that were installed over the fish water inlets in 1993, were clogged. One cage was in a foot of mud with debris piled around it and the other was buried under 13 feet of rock and debris. The debris field is approximately 500 cubic yards and extends into the mouth of the diversion tunnel, so that the stop logs cannot be dropped in their slots to block off the tunnel. There are four basic options to unclog the bird cages. The first option is an airlift hydraulic dredging with divers and a floating platform. An issue with this solution is the fish water release valves cannot be opened while divers are in the water. The question for the agencies is if fish water flow has to be maintained at all times. Option two is to drain the lake level down to the top of the diversion tunnel intake and remove the material out through a water dredging action (sluicing). The same question about the fish water flow has to be addressed. Option three is to pull the lake level down all the way to 1,068 ft. to the level of the horizontal apron in front of the diversion tunnel and place an excavator and backhoe on the apron to conduct a thorough cleaning. This option requires either a huge expense in pumping or a pass from the agencies on the fish water release. Option four is to delay any solution for a year to allow for further study. A standby pump would be recommended to be in place. Mr. Posey asked where the debris will be moved so it does not go down the tunnel. Mr. Day stated if the debris are pushed off the front end of the apron, it will go out into the old lake area. Mr. Posey asked could the agencies take three to four months to make a decision and delay any work until next year, and who, other than Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), has to give an answer on moving forward with timing and options. Mr. Day responded he does not know how long it will take the agencies to make their decisions but FERC is expected to get their advice from the environmental agencies. Mr. Griffith asked what would make us think the environmental agencies would not demand the current continued operations. Mr. Day stated he has personal experience with the issues regarding Battle Creek releases where the fish water was going to be warmer, so the fish were going to be fatter and more easily caught by predators. Chair Evans asked for an explanation of what happened when debris was removed from the power tunnel. Mr. Day stated the stop logs were put in, but cleaning the debris in the Power tunnel has nothing to do with the lake level. Mr. Griffith believes the agencies are not going to roll over on their fish water release flow. Chair Evans asked if we are in jeopardy if we take the time to ask. Mr. Day stated if Mr. Griffith is correct, then option one is really the only option to proceed and complete this year. Chair Evans suggested knowing whether or not dragging up pumps to do a fish water release is necessary before communicating with the agencies. Mr. Day stated he will find out. Mr. Griffith commented option one and two run the risk of not being able to do it correctly and tearing up something. Mr. Griffith agrees with the Operations & Dispatch (O&D) Committee that BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 2 of 21 option three should be chosen. The question remains regarding a waiver or a reduction in the fish water flow. Chair Evans asked if we are in jeopardy if a waiver is requested. Mr. Carey commented he does not believe we are in jeopardy, because the lake level can continue to be drawn down during the winter. He recommended meeting with the agencies in January to get their response. Chair Evans stated it takes time to logistically organize each of these options and if it takes the agencies 120 days or longer to provide an answer, the jeopardy is not being able to mobilize the operations this year. Chair Evans asked how long it will take the agencies to answer. Mr. Carey stated Fish and Game should provide an answer fairly quickly and Fish and Wildlife should provide an answer by a date certain. Chair Evans asked Mr. Day if we can run some of this to ground and have a meeting at the beginning of January. Mr. Day agreed. Mr. Day asked Mr. Gray if Global has indicated their timeframe. Mr. Gray stated he does not have a specific time of when they would need a contract in place and will ask them. He commented if there is no answer by the middle of February, then it would be difficult to get the logistics organized. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted she is concerned about the dam safety and the working conditions that are needed for the valves and believes there needs to be a plan to correct the problem in 2014, regardless of the response from FERC. Ms. Fisher-Goad commented it would be nice to have more information on what type of leeway there is with respect to dam safety also being a concern. Mr. Posey commented the only reason a delay to 2015 would occur is if the agencies cannot come together timely enough for the work to be completed in 2014. Mr. Day stated one of the options would be to put the contract in place with a cancellation clause, pursuing option one and option three at the same time and cancelling whichever option is not possible. Chair Evans recommended this issue needs to be taken out of the boardroom and back to the O&D Committee and refine the options with the emphasis on getting it completed in 2014. Chair Evans suggested returning at the beginning of January and have some of the information worked down to a level where the Board can make the final call. Mr. Day commented his point was to ensure the BPMC understood this is significant money that has not been budgeted and has not been planned. Mr. Janorschke asked if there is a chance there would be a fish water bypass violation due to lack of flow in 2014 and if so, what are the penalties. Mr. Day stated we were right at the cusp of having a violation last year and it is weather-dependent. Mr. Carey said if spring comes late and there is no supplemental pumping of water, there is a good chance of having some type of violation. He noted FERC has not been attaching penalty fees. The position of AEA is not to have any violations. Mr. Griffith asked if the single pump provides enough flow to meet the known reductions. Mr. Day stated it is based on the idea that 75 percent of the required flows can be reached and the pump is big enough to provide the extra 25 percent flow, if needed. Chair Evans asked Mr. Day if the task is clear for the next meeting. Mr. Day stated he will pursue with the agencies and will come back with an answer. Chair Evans requested he provide information on what happened the last time a draw down occurred for debris removal. Mr. Posey requested contacting the proposed contractor regarding the specifics of a cancellation clause. Mr. Day expressed his appreciation to Mr. Owens for the amount of work he has done regarding this issue. Mr. Carey stated his goal is to receive some answers from FERC within the next seven days. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 3 of 21 7J. Fish water flows Mr. Carey gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation on maintaining minimum fish water flows at tidewater. It takes anywhere from three to five hours from when water is released at the dam to when it makes it down to the tidewater. Starting in 2010, there is a five-year trial amendment with FERC allowing short-term deviations of up to 7.5 percent, as long as the moving 24-hour average is above the required amount of CFS. Mr. Carey recommends this trial amendment become permanent, with a possible change of deviations of up to 10 percent. Chair Evans asked if the detection measuring infrastructure is working correctly. Mr. Carey stated during the winter when it is ice affected, they realistically cannotell,how much water is coming down. During the summer, a FERC standard USGS gauge is used, which is accurate up to plus/minus 10 percent. Mr. Griffith asked if the instrument is ever checked. Mr, Carey noted U.S Geological Survey (USGS) downloads data and check the instruments“approximately every six weeks and after a storm they recheck the channel, recalibrate their rating curve and change their historical numbers. Mr. Carey recommends discussing with FERC and agencies any alternatives that would start running closer to the minimum flow, which would produce more energy, but still protect the habitat. Mr. Griffith commented relying entirely on USGS metering may be part of the issue. He asked if there was any possibility of placing different, more trustworthy equipment to model the flow. Mr. Carey stated gauge equipment can be placed, but FERC will still take the USGS numbers. Mr. Carey noted a read out is receiyed fron»the USGS on 15-minute intervals. Mr. Carey commented below the North Fork, closer to tidewater, a small 10-foot tall re-regulation dam (re-reg) can be put in to. smooth out the different pulses of water. Mr. Griffith asked if it would be like a surge tank on the river. Mr. Carey agreed and gave the example of if we could reduce the excess water by 10,000. acre-feet that would bemore than 10,000 megawatt hours at $100 a megawatt hour, which is again of a million dollars of energy per year. Mr. Griffith asked where the re-reg dam. would be placed. \Mr. Carey, stated it would need to be placed between tidewater and where the middle fork comes in, Mr. Griffith asked if that is where the flow, irrespective of what the fish do. Mr. Carey agreed and noted the salmon do not go far past the tidewater gauge because they are faced with falls.. Mr. Griffith requested that option be reviewed. Mr. Carey stated under the Chair's direction, he could request the engineer to provide a concept of costs. Mr. Owens explained when the dam was originally constructed; the control system did not have the capability to be modulated. It was either fully open or fully closed. He noted HEA has installed a control system that can now handle modulation of the valves; the hardware will be in place by the end of this year. Mr. Owens explained they do not have a decent analog signal from the USGS. Chair Evans requested this issue be reviewed by the O&D Committee and refine what is the best way forward before a budget item or project is approved. Mr. Griffith asked if BPMC is currently a member of the National Hydropower Association involved in the Operational Excellence Program. Mr. Carey stated AEA has not been using the program because it is more of a recent initiative. Mr. Carey commented HEA or Chugach may be interested in the program. Mr. Griffith stated BPMC probably ought to become a member. Ms. Fisher-Goad noted AEA is a member of NHA and any of the operations of taking advantage of the Operational BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 4 of 21 Excellence Program can be covered under AEA's membership and would be useful to BPMC. Mr. Posey said Eklutna would like to think about utilizing the program for the same reasons. Mr. Janorschke believes HEA is also a member of NHA. 7M. Status of governor Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) replacement project Mr. Day commented the Bradley Governor PLC Replacement Project is part of this year's budget and is moving forward. Mr. Owens provided an update on the replacement project. Mr. Griffith asked who is going to the factory acceptance test. Mr. Owens stated he is and he would like to get at least one of the operators with extensive knowledge of the control system. Mr. Griffith asked if the new control system will do anything for modulating the valves. Mr. Owens explained they are separate systems, but the new control system (the DCS) does have the ability to add any kind of logic the controls may need. Mr. Posey asked what is the age of the VA Tech and ist no longer supported or is this an update. Mr. Day stated is it seven years old and the software and hardware are not.supported. They are still operating, but it has been nearly impossible to find anybody to assist with correcting issues. VA Tech flew in a software technician from Austria to work on the system and thatcould have caused more harm than good because some of the algorithms and control parameters changed when the software was installed. Chair Evans asked if anything they have done has had an effectjon the failures of the governor. Mr. Day noted that would be hard for an engineer to say», Something has changed and they cannot find anybody who can assist in correcting the present issues with the current equipment because it is no longer made or supported. ChairEvans asked if replacing the governor will solve the problem or is this overspending to solve the problem. Mr. Day,explained the governor is a computer control system that is broken and.is no longer supported. Chair Evans asked if any internal upgrades have been made to the governor. Mr. Day stated no internal upgrades have been made to the governor. Chair Evans asked fora description of what hasbeen done to date. The older SCADA system and annunciator systems were updated put in one box (the DCS). Chair Evans asked if the controls in the governor were updated to a newer version. Mr. Day stated the controls of the Governor were not updated. Chair Evans noted his concern the money could be spent and still have a stability problem. Mr. Day believes with good people, good hardware and good programming, we will have a better product than we have today. Chair Evans asked if Emerson is the right answer or if they are six months away from being obsolete. Mr. Day/Stated Emerson is the right answer. Mr. Owens noted Emerson is a world class control system. Chair Evans noted VA Tech is as well. Mr. Owens stated Emerson has a track record of maintaining 20-year-old systems. Mr. Owens pointed out that if Emerson becomes obsolete then CEA’s SPP plant will be in the same boat as they have an Emerson control system at SPP. Chair Evans commented the last time an upgrade was done there was a technical group involved to do vetting and AEA was a lot more involved. He asked if this upgrade is being handled in the same way. Mr. Day stated no, and does not believe it needs to be handled the way it was previously. Mr. Griffith asked if Mr. Day feels fully confident that in five years the story will be a success. Mr. Day believes the story will be a success in a year. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 5 of 21 Chair Evans commented it has been his experience that there is all kinds of help when something is being bought and then after the item is bought, the same relationship problems will occur with Emerson that are occurring with VA Tech. He noted his concern is that all of the work completed to identify and correct the stability problems is not connected to what is occurring now. Chair Evans expressed he is uncomfortable because there was a tremendous effort not that long ago. Mr. Posey agreed with Chair Evans and noted they had to wait for one specific person from Europe to help and ended up with a product that became obsolete. Mr. Posey stated he is sympathetic to how the problem is being approached because the last upgrade was not easy and this time will not be easy either. He believes working with the folks in Petersburg is probably the right thing to do. Chair Evans stated that same risk is run on any project. He noted/his,concern is what BPMC has control over, which is the work that was done to solve the stability problems. Chair Evans believes there needs to be a great deal of care to ensure all of that prior work does not get missed in the implementation. Mr. Posey agreed with Chair Evans and remembered a big part of the previous problem was the hardware not working correctly with the software. Chair Evans advised there.needs to be some assurance in paying attention to the implementation of this system so that it achieves the same result as the first system. Chair Evans recommended some of the people who worked on the last system review this system and given their opinion. ; Mr. Day commented he welcomes the Chair and Committee's assignment of people who would like to conduct technical review of the. documentation. Chair Evans said he would feel more comfortable if a technical coordinating committee was convened fo discuss these issues and come back to the Board with the recommendation. Mr. Owens requested names and email addresses of the people Chair Evans would recommend be part of the technical coordinating committee so.Mr. Owens can provide the information to them before the engineering review. Chair Evans noted he was on the previous committee, but will not attend this committee. Mr. Griffith stated he might attend. 7P. Budget Amendment Ms. Fisher-Goad invited Ms. Veech to speak on one aspect of the budget issue. Ms. Veech requested a specific dollar amount to the budget amendment noted in the July 9th, 2013 minutes regarding the approval of an increase in contract for relay and meter replacement. Ms. Veech noted the interest earnings for the FY 2014 budget were estimated to be $2.2 million. Ms. Veech advised there will be a shortfall of those earnings of $717,000. Ms. Veech stated the other item of interest was the fish water screen debris removal action. She commented this item looks like it has been delayed. Ms. Veech requested specific dollar amounts to revise the budget and can bring the revised budget to the Committee at the next meeting in January. Chair Evans stated it sounds like Ms. Veech has enough input so she can take care of what we know now and then when the fish water screen debris numbers come in, she can revise the budget again. Chair Evans asked if there was a sense of urgency in making the fish water screen debris adjustment now. Ms. Veech stated ideally if a budget amendment was approved in January, collection would start February through June. Chair Evans believes the amount will be large enough to appear in their BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 6 of 21 billing but not affect the power sales agreement. Chair Evans stated the Committee could probably pass the budget amendment and then work on contract numbers for the fish water screen debris removal item and get that processed as quickly as possible. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated the three issues are the relay and meter replacement project, the interest shortfall, and the fish water screen debris removal. Chair Evans suggested budgeting the top range for the fish water screen debris removal. Mr. Griffith stated he would prefer to budget the top range numbers for the fish water screen debris removal. Chair Evans requested Ms. Veech look up the numbers for the top of the range as she understands it today and use that for the revised budget. Mr. Griffith thought there was a number attached to the relay and meter replacement project. Ms. Veech stated she has $410,000 for the relay and meter replacement project. Mr. Owens stated $410,000 is the correct number. Chair Evans asked if that money is going to be spent before the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Owens agreed and advised the relayyproject is 99 percent complete. Mr. Owens reported the project is currently $140,000 under budget witha few remaining items to complete. Chair Evans asked if this is an additional $310,000 over what has already been spent. Mr. Owens explained initially there was $900,000 budgeted for this project. The project came in on bid at $1.4 million. Mr. Owens stated BPMC was asked for the shortfall of $410,000 to meetithe bid estimates. He explained with the bid estimate of 1.4 million, the projectds currently at 1.3 million. Chair Evans stated it does not sound like more funding is needed. Mr. Owens agreed no more funding is needed and is expected to come in under budget. 7A. 2013 Financial audit - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to approve the Resolution 7A. that the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee accept the Fiscal Year 2013 audit report and approve the refund to the utilities. Motion seconded. Chair Evans asked if the money has to be moved because the Committee is going to turn around, do a budget adjustment and spend the money. Mr. Posey,stated the money has to be moved at the end of the year. Mr. Griffith stated previously the money did not have to be moved, but Anchorage Municipal Light and Power hada problem with that procedure. Mr. Posey said an audit occurred and it was determined the procedure has to take place under the agreement. Ms. Veech explained FY13 is closed and the funds have to be refunded. Mr. Dixon noted each utility makes an entry in their books for this refund amount before they close the books for their year-end audits. Chair Evans requested Mr. Dixon explain the audit in more detail and specifically identify where the refunded funds came from. Mr. Dixon reported this audit covers the revenue and operating funds. Page four of the financial statements show the monies contributed by the participating utilities. The most significant budget variance is in the operations and maintenance line. Page 13 has the detail of the variances between the budgeted monies collected and how they were spent on operations. Mr. Dixon explained the monies being refunded come from two buckets. The first bucket is from the Renewal & Contingency (R&C) fund, which has a cap on it. The expenditures have been low enough that the R&C fund has reached its cap. Any amount above the cap that would be in the fund, minus any unpaid bills, will be refunded at the end of the year. Mr. Dixon explained the second bucket represents the residual amounts budgeted and collected that were greater than expended. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 7 of 21 Chair Evans stated the FERC land use fees were more than double what was budgeted. He thought that was resolved and asked how that issue was missed. Mr. Carey explained historically the budget was at about $61,000 a year for the FERC land use fees. He believed the fees were going to jump to about $178,000, but they did not for the first year. There was a first year special, which was about 75 percent or $130,000. Chair Evans asked if that is a loss of 300 percent. Mr. Bjorkquist stated Chair Evans could characterize it that way. Chair Evans asked if the FERC land use fees were going to get worse. Mr. Carey stated there was a per acre fee increase and believes next year the fee will be in the $180,000 range. Chair Evans would like to have it clear on the record that our people fought the good fight and they took some casualties, but we came out ahead Chair Evans asked AEA for an explanation on how the insurance came out substantially less than what was budgeted. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes a refund was received through the insurance. Mr. Carey stated there was a recent refund of $20,000 to $30,000 and the insurance policy was a little less than expected by about $20,000. Chair Evans asked if the FERC administration fee wasiat 10 percent and did they actually do some work for BPMC. Mr. Carey explained FERC funds their operations fromthe administration fees on the different licensees. The fee can change year-to-year and it is based on capacity. Mr. Gibson noted it is like the RCA regulatory fee. Mr. Griffith asked if anyone knows what happens to the $200,000 fee to AEA. ChairEvans stated in the beginning, that number was a seven-figure number originally and then it was negotiated down. The appropriate fee was decided because AEA was providing enough of an owner's effort to warrant the current fee. Ms. Fisher-Goad said a part of the fee pays for Mr.Carey's time and staffs time in the finance department. Mr. Griffith stated $670,000 was spent to help Battle‘Creek. Mr. Gibson noted there are monies running through the R&C fund that were spent that are not part of this statement. Ms. Veech stated there are two Battle Creek grants which are not part of this statement. Mr. Dixon stated the actual books of Bradley are wider than the columns we look at here. Chair Eyans asked if the R&C fund was originally established through the indenture and has the R&C fund lived through all of the iterations of the new indentures for the new debt financing put in place. Mr. Griffith agreed. Chair Evans asked if the R&C fund amount is a minimum amount. Mr. Griffith agreed. Chair Evans requested the Committee members review the appropriateness of that level, given the plant is being depreciated, but it doesn't really get collected. Chair Evans stated $5 million does not go very far, given the nature of the plant and how expensive things are. He said the consumers that are benefiting today are consuming the asset and not doing anything to replace it. There is the argument that the mew members have to get a loan and start all over again. Mr. Griffith thinks it would be good to review the R&C level. Chair Evans requested the Budget Committee start a discussion on that. The motion was approved unanimously. 7B. Bradley Static Var Compensator (SVC) maintenance agreement - Action Item MOTION: Ms. Fisher-Goad made a motion to table this item to the next meeting date. Motion seconded by Mr. Posey. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Janorschke requested a red line copy from the current SVC maintenance agreement before the next meeting. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 8 of 21 7C. Homer Electric Association (HEA) transmission tariff filing - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to adopt Resolution 2013.02. Motion was seconded by Mr. Posey. Mr. Janorschke stated he has concern with some of the whereas clauses. He does not believe the tariff is in dispute with the BPMC with the transmission system. Mr. Janorschke believes it falls within the regulatory arena with the RCA. Mr. Griffith stated he does not accept and does not agree with Mr. Janorschke's comments. He does not know who will adjudicate this disagreement. Mr. Griffith noted right now they are operating under the wheeling agreement which requires arbitration if there is a disagreement. Mr. Griffith believes the disagreement does not belong in the RCA filing in place. Mr. Griffith believes the BPMC members think Mr. Janorschke's assessment in the tariff filing is inaccurate. Mr. Janorschke stated he appreciated the discussions he has had with Mr. Griffith in the past regarding this issue and stated he knows they have different views of the agreement. HEA's position is to take it to the Regulatory Commission to resolve the dispute and if the Regulatory Commission believes they are not the appropriate party to resolve the disputetthen the dispute gets taken back to the BPMC or to the resolution process. Mr. Griffith commented in the interest of pursuing dual paths on this issue, the rest of us have an intent to file with the Superior Court at the same time.to enforce the existing agreement. Mr. Griffith noted he made Mr. Janorschke aware of this the other day. Chair Evans asked Mr; Janorschke if debate is going‘to help this issue. Mr. Janorschke stated debate will not help because he disagrees with some of the whereas clauses in the resolution. Mr. Griffith stated it is not clear inthe Wheeling agreement who declares that the disagreement should go to arbitration, Mr. Gibson explainedthere is a dispute resolution process under the BPMC bylaws. By the way the positions have been set out;HEA does not believe it falls under the BPMC. The services agreement has adifferent dispute resolution process. Mr. Griffith noted the lease agreement expires at the end of this month, but the services agreement does not expire at the end of this month. Mr»Gibson commented if the BPMC was putting the actions under the services agreement, then the dispute resolution would naturally follow the services agreement. Mr. Griffith asked if thatis logical. Mr. Gibson stated there is a choice because it is a BPMC issue and it could also fall under the-BPMC bylaws concerning dispute resolution. Mr. Gibson advised if the BPMC believes this disagreement is a violation of the services agreement, then it has to be resolved using the dispute resolution from the services agreement. Mr. Griffith asked Mr. Gibson if the bylaws say any dispute is adjudicated in court. Mr. Gibson explained the process as the Committee decides if it can act. If the Committee can act, the Committee decides its actions. Any action will be subject to judicial review. If the Committee does not know if it can act, the court makes the determination. Mr. Griffith asked if judicial review means the Superior Court. Chair Evans asked for an explanation of how the resolution process works in the services agreement. Mr. Gibson explained the services resolution dispute resolution process is a little odd because 10B talks about having a meeting between the parties, but it gives Chugach a strength in the agreement BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 9 of 21 because the affirmative vote from Chugach is required for adoption of any procedures. Mr. Griffith noted 12C states everything continues as-is until the dispute is resolved. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Janorschke commented part of his disagreement with the resolution is HEA has tried to resolve these issues for quite a while and have made it very clear for a lengthy period of time HEA's intent to file a tariff across their system. He strongly disagrees that HEA's filing has improperly put at risk the reliability of the transmission system, improperly subverted the priority of the project, and improperly increased the cost of delivering power. Mr. Janorschke stated the intent is to start collecting the fair fees associated with delivering power across HEA's system that historically have not been adequately collected. He does not believe anyone is asking to go across the GVEA system or the Chugach system without proper compensation. Mr. Griffith stated it is done all the time to MEA's system, but¢hat is another story. Mr. Posey commented MEA has a contract with the state. Mr. Griffith’stated MEA does not have a contract, but they do have an order from the Commission. Mr. Janorschke stated the filing of the tariff was modeled after what GVEA and Chugach have done, but the fees charged are lower than both GVEA.and Chugach. Mr. Janorschke stated this has a huge impact on operations and he will vote against Resolution 2013-02. Mr. Baldwin expressed his concerns about whether the BPME action has standing toiget involved in this situation and recommended careful review before any filing to avoid procedural wrangling. Mr. Baldwin noted the parties will have an interest in the tariff and requested examination of that question. Mr. Borgeson commented that Golden Valley Electric Association is interested in finding a negotiated resolution to this matter. Mr. Borgeson stated GVEA is in support of the Resolution 2013-02. Mr. Foutz apologized for needing explanation of the issues and requested a summary of the tariff at issue withthe RCA. Mr. Janorschke explainedthe current lease agreement HEA has with Chugach expires at the end of 2013), HEA is setting up their own dispatching area and have filed a wheeling tariff for any energy going across HEA's system. He stated this is very similar to what Golden Valley Electric Association and\Chugach has done with their systems. Mr. Janorschke stated part of the reason for the tariff is other users want touse HEA's system and it does not matter whether they are Bradley participants or independent power producers (IPP). He stated HEA has also filed a tariff on the losses issue, which does have a significant impact on their system. He noted the biggest challenge right now is trying to go back and recover the costs HEA is incurring having the Bradley power go across their system.«Mr. Janorschke stated it is much more extensive than Bradley power just flowing up the east side of HEA's system, between Bradley Junction and Soldotna. He stated if there are doubts whether the Bradley project impacts HEA's system, he recommended talking to Mr. Burlingame. He explained this is an integral part of their system, including the other generation assets which do support the peninsula. Mr. Borgeson asked what the annual dollar amount is that HEA wishes to collect under this tariff and the Bradley participants. Mr. Janorschke believes it is $2.9 million. He noted HEA utilized consultants the members have previously used to help draft the tariff and the basis for the numbers. He stated they are requesting approval on an interim refundable rate from the Regulatory Commission. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 10 of 21 Mr. Foutz asked Mr. Janorschke if the tariff is for losses and wheeling. Mr. Janorschke stated there are two different tariffs. Mr. Foutz asked if this resolution geared toward one tariff or both tariffs. Mr. Janorschke stated this resolution is geared just toward the wheeling tariff. The motion was approved with one opposed (HEA). RECESS FOR THE DAY The meeting will be recessed until December 23, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Chair Evans recessed the meeting at 3:35 p.m. Monday, December 23, 2013 CALL BACK TO ORDER Chair Evans reconvened the meeting at9;38 a.m. Committee members Borgeson, Fisher-Goad, Griffith, Posey, Janorschke, and Foutz werepresent. 7D. Adoption of Reliability Standards - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to adopt Item 7D. Motion seconded by Mr. Borgeson. Mr. Griffith stated the document was approved by Intertie Management Committee (IMC) within the last 60 days. Mr. Griffith commented it is entirely appropriate for the BPMC adopt these reliability standards because it is a most accurate representation of how the system operates. He will be voting in favor of adoption and recommends all other do the same. Mr. Janorschke commented by voting affirmatively on this resolution the members are acknowledging that we have been briefed by staff or have read the reliability standards. Mr. Janorschke stated he has some questions regarding the documents. He did not get to read all of the documents because\Exhibits F and G were excluded from what he received. Mr. Janorschke asked if the Bradley O&D Committee has reviewed the implementation of these standards and has their recommendation been given to the BPMC Committee. Mr. Griffith stated he does not know if the O&D Committee formally acted on it. The same people created the Railbelt Reliability Committee (RRC). Mr. Janorschke stated these standards are not the same as the RRC. Mr. Griffith stated these standards have been changed and updated in the last 60 days to correct syntax, English errors, reference errors and things like that, but does not believe any substantive changes were made. Chair Evans commented the big change was that AEA took the standards through a very lengthy public process and advised comment. There were changes in adoption of the open access language which RRC did not include. Mr. Griffith advised there was a precise listing of the suggested changes. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 11 of 21 Mr. Janorschke asked if he was correct in understanding the BPMC O&D Committee has not reviewed the implementation of these standards. Chair Evans stated that is not a fair characterization, because it was the same people and it went through a public process. He said these standards will be given to the O&D Committee to review and they will determine what is appropriate for a power plant to operate in the system. Mr. Janorschke stated that as an IPP, Bradley has a spin requirement. Chair Evans stated he does not know about that. Mr. Janorschke stated everyone has agreed Bradley is an IPP. Chair Evans does not know that anybody at the table has agreed Bradley is an IPP. Mr. Griffith said he has stated that, but is not sure everybody agrees with him. Mr. Griffith does not believe the state views Bradley as an IPP. Mr. Griffith commented Bradley acts and looks to him like an IPP, but does not know if it has a spin requirement. Chair Evans explained there is a spin requirement if MEA's schedule constitutes his largest unit. Mr. Griffith agreed with that characterization. Mr. Janorschke asked if the IPP has the spin requirement/associated)with it, does HEA reserve on the transmission system capacity for that spin requirement»This will reduce the available deliverability of power from the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage. Chair Evans stated that,is already a common practice and is not changing. Mr. Janorschke noted they have not put a spin requirement on Bradley. Chair Evans stated Mr. Janorschke could have had spin, but if it is transmission constrained, it cannot be booked. Mr. Janorschke stated that is one of his questions for the O&D Committee. Mr. Janorschke stated he understands in Exhibit F there is a requirement to have 100 percent backup for 45 consecutive days of operation. He askedbif this is required for the governor project this summer and if so, that will have a huge impact. Mr»Griffith advised the language says "45 days of operation fully backed up." Mr. Griffith believes the 100,percent backup is already occurring. Chair Evans agreed. Mr. Janorschke stated the standards also require interconnection agreements, relays, metering, switches and communication equipment, essentially putting a substation at Bradley Junction. Mr. Janorschke said he is not opposed to that) but wants to ensure these standards have been reviewed before the O&D Committee suggests numerous,exceptions. Chair Evans does not read the standards that way and believes Mr. Janorschke's interpretation is very liberal. Chair Evans stated the O&D Committee can debate that issue. Chair.Evans said he is not going to debate the standards line-by- line at the table. Chair Evans commented for every one exception that can be found in the standards, there are 1,000 items in the standards which are the way BPMC wants to operate. Mr. Janorschke was not aware the IMC has been the railbelt reliability coordinator for the grid for over 25 years and requested clarification on what they have done in that period of time. Mr. Janorschke requested an explanation of the use of best interest in the sentence, "the Committee has determined it is in the best interest of the purchasing utilities to implement these standards." Mr. Janorschke stated he was not aware Bradley had a problem and asked what is the issue with the standards. Mr. Borgeson commented the IMC has adopted these reliability standards, so they are already in place. Mr. Borgeson stated the group of utilities have adopted the reliability standards and have indicated the intent to file them as part of the tariffs. Mr. Borgeson noted he supports the passage of the resolution with a clear understanding that these are organic agreements and standards that will change. He said there are going to be problems with the standards and exceptions will need to be made, but there needs to be some basic reliability standards for the transmission lines that are interconnected to protect the system. Mr. Borgeson stated he asked the IMC last week the question about Bradley having a spinning reserve. He reported the answer was Bradley does not need a BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 12 of 21 spinning reserve because of the protocols that are in place. Mr. Borgeson recommended the O&D Committee work on whatever issues need to be amended. Mr. Borgeson said it is a good start, but not the end. Mr. Foutz agreed with Mr. Borgeson's comments. Mr. Foutz said his concern is ensuring the state is finished reviewing and amending the reliability standards before BPMC adopts the resolution. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised the state is comfortable with the resolution and believes it is a good working guide. The state has supported the reliability standards at the IMC. She noted there is an understanding there may be some amendments to them along the way and the state is committed to working with the utilities to formalize the way the system has been operating. She noted enforcement mechanisms and sanctions are on a separate track. She reported 354 pages, which included Exhibits F and G, have been on the AEA web page since October for public comment and advised for the record that no public comments were received.“ An unidentified speaker noted CIRI requested a meeting with AEA to discuss the documents. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the state intends to support the adoption of these reliability standards. Chair Evans commented one of the reasons for adopting the reliability standards is there has been more pressure regarding open access and how the system is being operated. ‘He noted more IPP's want to be on the system, so there has to be standards for the IPP's to adhere tovand let them know how the system operates. Chair Evans noted everyone'realizes these standards areorganic and any issues that do not make sense or that are disruptive to the day-to-day operations will be addressed. These standards provide established practices and framework that new producers will have to follow, including incorporating their generation, using the transmission} serving their customers, and how they conduct business on the system. Chair Evans stated the benefits of the interconnection through all of the generation and substations needs to\be protected by these niles and regulations. He said there is a docket downtown currently that is making disparaging remarks about the BPMC. He noted all of the rules and regulations have been in place inthe Lower 48,and the multitude of IPP projects in the Lower 48 have managed to come online with these rules and regulations. Chair Evans advised this system is being modeled as much as possible on industry standards that are supported through other important regulations. He stated ifthere is goingto be open access on the system, there has to be rules and regulations and it is a work in progress. Mr. Janorschke stated he agreed with most of Chair Evan's comments. The intent of his questions were focused)on how these standards apply, to Bradley and the amount of exceptions and waivers going forward. Chair Evans stated he is not saying there are going to be any waivers for Bradley. Chair Evans commented if Mr. Janorschke wants the same people who have been reviewing these standards for the last five years to sit down and see what they have missed, that is fine, but it is not a reason to stall this resolution. Mr. Borgeson commented another reason he is in favor of this resolution is it properly places this issue into the Bradley group. He noted he likes the idea of the inclusion of all of the utilities sharing the expense and effort in reviewing these standards. Mr. Borgeson stated he shares some of the same concerns as Mr. Janorschke regarding waivers and how issue could arise from that. Mr. Posey stated AML&P supports the resolution. He noted there are exceptions for the consideration for those who are less than 10 megawatts. He believes this is the right thing to do. Mr. Day stated he is troubled as the agent of this Committee in terms of managing and operating Bradley. He is glad-to do whatever BPMC instructs, but has concerns about what the standards say about interconnection standards, spin requirement standards and testing standards. He commented he BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 13 of 21 either obeys those standards or he does not obey those standards and he is unsure as to which standards he is supposed to follow as the operator of the facility Chair Evans commented he is sure the issues can be sorted out because they have been doing it for years. Mr. Griffith expressed appreciation to Mr. Day for making his argument for a TRANSCO or a single operator. Mr. Griffith stated it seems Homer is requesting to send these reliability standards to the O&D Committee and Mr. Griffith has no objection to that. He recommends passing the resolution and then sending it to the O&D Committee. Chair Evans stated the reliability standards will go to the O&D Committee after the resolution is passed. The motion was approved with one opposed (HEA). 70. Bradley dispatching, losses and scheduling Mr. Janorschke requested Mr. Day give his presentation on losses and scheduling. Chair Evans invited other technical members to the table, as well. Mr. Day gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled Bradley Dispatch. He noted the information is given not as the operator of the plant, but as a participant. Mr. Day explained this issue came to his attention through the months of September, October and November. He stated the Bradley Lake Hydro Project governing contract has a requirement that the utilities have a weekly schedule so losses can be known. Mr. Day explained that when Bradley is in the mode of impending spill, where the water levels are above 1,175 fi., and if any of the participants cannot take their share of that excess energy, then it is required the excess energy be offered,to the other utilities. Mr. Day showed a timeline illustrating when Bradley was in imminent spill. Mr. Day showed graphs illustrating there is no output schedule and energy was wasted during the middle of the day. He stated this wasted energy was not offered'to the other utilities, but should have been. Mr. Day commented Chugach is dispatching this joint facility forits own benefit. Every time the units are ramped up and down, a certain amount of loss of life.is used to the detriment of the rest of the participants. Mr. Day does not believe this is appropriate. Mr. Janorschke stated this presentation has to.do with the agenda item on dynamic scheduling that will come later in the meeting. Mr. Janorschke showed what the outlook will look like with dynamic scheduling, as opposed to the existing contract stating block scheduling. Mr. Griffith said it is his view they are showing dynamic scheduling. Mr. Day stated it is being done by Chugach for their benefit. Mr. Griffith commented he has a different view of that. Mr. Griffith does not believe the document that required scheduling considers the language in the transmission services agreement that says Chugach may dispatch the system under certain conditions to their own benefit and the benefit of their customers. He noted the transmission services agreement clearly gives Chugach the authority to do what Mr. Day is objecting to. Mr. Day commented there is language that allows Chugach to skip schedule or to use Bradley and replace the energy to the other utilities, but not to this degree. Mr. Griffith does not believe there is any degree. Mr. Day stated there is a requirement for a week ahead schedule, which is not being done or followed. Mr. Day said no one is objecting to Chugach doing a true-up at the end of the period. Mr. Day stated he supports dynamic scheduling and he stated that basically all of the energy that is produced during imminent spill is free to the participants. Mr. Day reported HEA got a bill BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 14 of 21 from Chugach Electric for wholesale power that is out of line, because the energy for that month was free. Mr. Griffith noted he will have to check his bill. Chair Evans requested Mr. Day give his presentation on losses. Mr. Day gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Why Losses Matter to HEA." He explained Bradley losses have the potential to cost HEA a lot of money and this problem can be solved by pre-scheduling per the contracts. Chair Evans noted those presentations covered the CEA dispatch dispute and the Homer Bradley Lake system losses. 7E. Implementation of dynamic scheduling - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to adopt the dynamic scheduling resolution as amended. Motion seconded by Mr. Posey. Mr. Griffith requested a brief description of dynamic scheduling with an explanation of how it would function in the railbelt. Mr. Johnson explained the owners of a jointly owned unit will model their piece of the plant based on their ownership shares. If dynamic scheduling is)selected then Bradley has to work with that party to telemeter their controhsignal over a data link. The control signal allows outside entities to treat Bradley like it was one of their ownunits. The actual Bradley control signal would be a composite of the schedules or the dynamicschedules. As each party receives their dynamic schedule, they will need to use that. value in their real-time Area Control Error (ACE) calculation, or their load balancing control. Mr. Johnson was asked to explain how Homer losses might be handled under dynamic scheduling. Mr. Johnson explained within the energy management system.there are dynamic schedules and interchange schedules, Ifa schedule.is known ata given hour, a prediction can be made regarding what the losses will be. Chair Evans asked if a participant changes their schedule and went from zero to 10, the dynamic schedule reads the losses and recommends dispatching 11 to get the 10. This is transparent across the intervening system. Mr. Johnson stated if the energy management system can manage a dynamic schedule, the Bradley piece should be treated as one schedule and then the delta on Bradley would be allocated and)be an offset to their real-time interchange. Chair Evans asked how Mr. Johnson is handling losses today across the system to participants and if it is still inadvertent. Mr. Johnson commented the Bradley losses are handled with Bradley and all of Homer being part of the load balance area. He explained FERC has a methodology where at the end of the month, the energy is rebalanced with Bradley. Mr. Johnson reported there is a proposal to address Mr. Day's concern and if the wheeling of Bradley power is causing six megawatts of losses, then Chugach would generate that. The wheeling piece would be broken up and be generated in real- time and continue to true those up with some adjustments. Chair Evans asked if there was some reason why Bradley cannot generate the losses. Mr. Johnson stated Bradley can generate the losses, but any generator is treated as part of the generating resources. Mr. Johnson said the losses could be trued-up after the fact or moved into the normal daily scheduling. Mr. Griffith noted it does not matter who generates the losses, as long as the credit for them fits in their nominations. Chair Evans commented there is a real-time way for the intervening transmission BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 15 of 21 systems, which would be Homer and Chugach, to have those losses made up, so the balance of the generation is transparent. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Wick stated up to the end of this year, MEA, Homer, City of Seward, and Chugach have all been the same system essentially. He believes Mr. Day showed a dynamic schedule for Bradley Lake. Mr. Wick stated the unit is run with a reg assist with the system and it is all inclusive. As it breaks out, each utility will be able to have a dynamic schedule and schedule the losses and allocated it to each utility based on their Bradley load so they are made up in real-time. The losses in the schedule are rounded to the nearest megawatt and will be trued-up at the end of the day. Mr. Johnson stated Chugach is in the middle of updating with their vendors the current release and proposes to defer the dynamic schedule implementation until after the update. Mr. Griffith asked if Chugach is operating the Open System International (OSI) system. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Griffith noted that is the same system MEA has. Chair Evans stated‘it does not matter what interchange schedule and package system the participant has and it does not have to be the same as Chugach's. Mr. Borgeson requested AEA's opinion on whether or not the state supports the dynamic scheduling resolution. Ms. Fisher-Goad said the way she reads the resolution, it is directing the O&D Committee to work with Chugach to develop this process to be able to performithe dynamic scheduling. She has no issues with that. Ms. Fisher-Goad requested to hear HEA's input because it sounds like this resolution would help the concerns Mr. Day outlined during his presentation. Mr. Borgeson asked if GVEA will be able to use Bradley power.to follow their wind if there is dynamic scheduling at Bradley. Mr. Griffith stated’GVEA can buy, it cheaper from MEA and they will not have to address Chugach's rate over their transmission lines. Mr. Johnson stated once Bradley goes to dynamicscheduling, the participants send a control signal to Bradley and can treat it like another generators Mr. Johnson.commented if GVEA can follow wind with another generator, then it can be followed with the dynamic schedule. Mr. Borgeson asked if Mr. Johnson's answer was affirmative that he believes GVEA will be able to use Bradley power to follow their wind if Bradley goes to dynamic scheduling. Mr. Wick noted GVEA snight be right now, by trying\to keep the tie loaded as much as possible and if GVEA is going to dynamically move Bradley up and down on their share, part of the line has to be kept unloaded to handle the ups and downs. Mr. Borgeson stated as unit two is brought on, the tie is not going to be loaded nearly as much as it is at this point, which would allow for the flexibility. Chair Evans commented all of the intervening restrictions in the request.will have to be incorporated. Mr. Wick noted there will be a significant change when Healy comes online. Mr. Borgeson asked how does Chugach's requirement to schedule ahead its gas impact dynamic scheduling. He asked if Chugach is really able to do dynamic scheduling if they have to allocate all of their gas a day ahead. Mr. Borgeson asked if the reason Chugach is using Bradley at this point and ramping it up and down is because they already have a commitment for gas. Mr. Wick stated when Chugach is regulating with Bradley, it does cut down on the amount that is moved around on the fuel nominations. Chugach does have some leeway to move on those nominations and they do smooth it with hydro, which includes Eklutna power plant and Cooper Lake power plant as well. Mr. Borgeson asked if the day ahead scheduling of the gas will impact Chugach's ability to do dynamic scheduling based on factors that intervene in the day. Mr. Wick disagreed and stated the day ahead scheduling of the gas should not impact Chugach's ability to do dynamic scheduling. Mr. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 16 of 21 Wick noted they still have unit commitments and it should not impact that. Mr. Griffith stated Chugach will be affected if they end up with an outage on the transmission line or some anomaly occurs and then the gas assumption will probably be off. Mr. Wick commented under normal conditions, there will be no impact, but if there are unit trips or line trips, Chugach currently has to reschedule those and would still have to reschedule those depending on what the anticipated length of the outage. Chair Evans noted that scenario is true even if it is not a Chugach unit trip. Mr. Johnson stated the load forecast could possibly be inaccurate. If the load is higher or lower, then hydro becomes a resource that can be used to help balance it out. Mr. Borgeson asked what the budgeted cost increase to the Bradley participants if this resolution is passed. Mr. Johnson does not believe there has been a budget item allocated. The software licensing is already within the standard. A contractor would be used to implement it and would be onsite for a couple of weeks. Mr. Johnson estimates the number is in thé tens of thousands of dollars and under $50,000. Mr. Johnson advised each party would be responsible for implementing their connection piece, including any software needed to send the signals Mr. Borgeson asked what the estimated cost increase is for the participants on an annualized and ongoing basis and what kinds of charges will the project see. Mr. Johnson stated there is no licensing fee. He commented the initial cost is for moving to the, dynamie Schedule, including professional services for implementation and testing. After that, there arethe normal maintenance.costs. Mr. Wick stated utilities will still submit schedules on Bradley Lake, even with dynamic scheduling. Mr. Borgeson advised Golden Valley strongly supports this resolution and expressed his appreciation to Chugach and knows it takes time and effort. He noted,that moving forward and discussing a TRANSCO independent system operator, the load balancing becomes something everyone really wants to have. Mr. Janorschke stated he likes this resolution. Mr. Janorschke offered a written friendly amendment to the resolution directing the O&D Committee to address the issues regarding dynamic scheduling, losses and.conflicts with the existing agreements. The friendly amendment was amended and accepted. Mr. Gibson read the amendment as a guide to help the Committee understand, ""The Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the purchasing utilities and their respective customers or members that the dynamic scheduling be implemented for the project. To that end, the Committee directs the Operation and Dispatch Subcommittee to work closely with Chugach to develop a scope, schedule and budget for the implementation of master station dynamic scheduling as quickly as is reasonably practical. This review shall include recommended changes to existing contracts (i.e. Bradley Lake Hydro Electric Project allocation and scheduling procedures and agreement for Bradley Lake resource scheduling) and any applicable standards necessary to allow dynamic scheduling without violation of the documents. It must include methods to apportion losses caused on all the utility participants when a participant changes their dispatched amount and further, to develop a budget amendment for this project and submit this amendment to the BPMC at their next quarterly BPMC meeting." The motion was approved unanimously. 7F. HEA proposed load balancing area - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to adopt Resolution 2013-05. Motion seconded by Mr. Posey. No vote was taken. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 17 of 21 MOTION: Mr. Janorschke made a motion to table Resolution 2013-05. Motion seconded by Mr. Foutz. The motion to table was approved with four in favor and two opposed (MEA & CEA). MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to bring Resolution 2013-05 Telemetry of Bradley Lake of the Chugach load balancing area to the next Bradley Lake Project Management Committee meeting to be called by the Chair. Motion not seconded. No vote was taken. 7G. HEA O&M operator status - Action item MOTION: Mr. Griffith made a motion to adopt Resolution 2013-06 as amended, Change of project operator. Motion seconded by Mr. Borgeson. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated she is going to vote no on this resolution and requests discussion at some point with respect to the concerns. She noted BPMC is\six months into,a five-year contract. Mr. Griffith asked if AEA has veto authority onhis resolution. Mr. Gibson’stated his review of this resolution is that it is an advisory resolution, which would need a majority of the quorum to pass. Mr. Janorschke requested explanation of the basis for the statement regarding that this is no longer in the best interest of the project. He asked ifa cost analysis has been prepared. Mr. Borgeson does not believe a cost analysis has been done. Mr, Borgeson explained his support for this resolution comes from the fact that the last time the contraet was renéwed there was\not a cost analysis done on whether Homer should continue. He stated there is no intent to break the existing contract and believes it is time to put everyone.on notice, especially Homer, there will be a different process the next time this comes up for review. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated her issue is that the first, “be it further resolved” is not consistent with the discussion. Chair Evans believes the nature of the wording is a housekeeping issue and AEA would be obligated to inform HEA of the vote and does not preclude any other activities. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes the message has been delivered, given the fact there is a motion to adopt the resolution. Chair Evans respectfully disagreed because it was eclipsed the last time the contract was renewed. Mr. Borgeson requested Mr. Gibson expound,on his reason for believing this resolution is advisory. Mr. Gibson explained the direction is to immediately provide notice that the contract will not be renewed. It is nota termination notice. Mr. Bjorkquist believes the concern with the language in this resolution is in giving notice, the contract is not going to be renewed. This changes the dynamic of the contract between AEA and Homer Electric. Currently the way the contract works is the agreement continues unless two years' prior notice is given. This resolution is saying the contract will not be renewed. If this passes, AEA has to affirmatively do something different to get a new operator in 2018 or to continue the contractual relationship with Homer, rather than just allowing the automatic renewal to take place. Mr. Gibson stated nothing can be done for four years and six months. The BPMC is instructing AEA, the contractor of the O&M agreement, to not automatically renew the contract for another five years. Mr. Bjorkquist stated this resolution would take away the possibility of an automatic renewal in 2016. He noted in order for AEA to contract with Homer, AEA will have to proactively do BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 18 of 21 something, rather than allowing the automatic renewal under the current agreement. Mr. Gibson stated the BPMC could pull this resolution back. Mr. Bjorkquist is not certain the notice can be withdrawn, which is the concern. He advised this is implementing a contract between AEA and Homer Electric and AEA cannot unilaterally force Homer back into what was the provision with the automatic renewal. That is under the contract as it now exists. Homer would have to at least accept the withdrawal and agree to it. Mr. Borgeson asked how many automatic renewals are there in the contract with Homer as the operator. Mr. Bjorkquist stated it is on a five-year rotating basis. Mr. Borgeson asked if the term ever ends. Mr. Gibson stated there are ways to terminate it, but there are going to be three evergreens and stop. There are issues that if Homer cannot perform under the budget they are given, they can provide notice. Mr. Bjorkquist stated there are mechanisms for termination if there is cause. Mr. Borgeson asked for an explanation as to why there is automatic renewal in the contract. Mr. Gibson stated that was bargained for in the agreement between HEA, AEA and the BPMC. Mr. Bjorkquist stated it also provides some administrative efficiencies for AEA. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated her issue with this language is what happens between now and four-and-a- half years, because right now this resolution is saying AEA needs to provide notice that the O&M agreement will not be renewed. The resolution gives AEA no directional perspective what the BPMC wants done with respect to how,the consistency of the operation of the projectshould be maintained. Ms. Fisher-Goad said it was mentioned no analysis was done in 2008 when this was originally negotiated, perhaps BPMC would like.to give AEA some direction with respect to that issue. She noted there are costs associated with terminating, wind-down and demobilization. Ms. Fisher-Goad commented there are clearly some issues the BPMC wants AEA to explore with respect to Homer, butshe does not believe this resolution addresses those issues and is incomplete. She recommends the BPMC to give direction to AEA. Ms. Fisher-Goad gave a commitment to work to make sure that AEA does,the appropriate analysis with respect to the operation of the project. Two amendments were given and accepted. "Now, therefore, it is hereby resolved by the Committee as follows: That AEA is directed to immediately provide notice to HEA that the project O&M agreement will not be automatically renewed without a cost benefit analysis and management review being performed." The second amendment reads; "AEA notify the Committee when the notice has been provided to. HEA that its services as operator under the project O&M agreement will not be automatically renewed without a cost benefit analysis and management review being performed and therefore could conclude July 1, 2018." Ms. Fisher-Goad recommended AEA will come back at the next quarterly meeting with any budget impacts with respect to the work that needs to be completed for the cost benefit analysis. Mr. Borgeson stated AEA can bring any budget impacts to the next annual meeting. Mr. Janorschke requests the sentence be stricken which reads; "the Committee has determined that it is in the best interest of the purchasing utilities." Mr. Janorschke does not believe anything has been determined yet, other than the desire to have a management and budget review. Mr. Janorschke stated he was surprised to hear counsel reference some concerns regarding HEA and AEA referenced issues regarding HEA. Mr. Janorschke noted he is not aware of any concerns or issue at Bradley and HEA's performance to date. Mr. Janorschke requested if any participants have issues or concerns on how Bradley is operated and maintained, please let HEA know because corrections cannot be made if the issues are not brought forward. BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 19 of 21 Mr. Janorschke asked if the next agenda would include a resolution on the dispatch agreement. He believes it is appropriate to review all of the agreements. Chair Evans stated he would place Mr. Janorschke's request on the next agenda. The motion was approved with one opposed (HEA). 7H. Battle Creek update Chair Evans invited Mr. Carey to provide an update on Battle Creek and asked if he was substantially increasing the budget for the project. Mr. Carey advised an independent cost estimate has been conducted and came in verbally at $60 million but he has not seen the document yet. Chair Evans asked if the numbers have been rerun on the economics at the $60 million target. Mr. Carey stated he has not rerun the numbers. Chair Evans asked if we,are still standing by the 36,000 megawatt hours. Mr. Carey believes the FERC amendment is using 37,000 megawatt hours. Mr. Borgeson stated he does not believe the additional cost will dramatically,impact the cost of power out of the project. He asked over how many years the cost will be spread, Mr. Carey believes they are using 35 years. Chair Evans noted that is a 20jpercent ifierease. Mr. Carey thinks the interest rate will be one of the biggest drivers. : Mr. Griffith asked what happens if there is no additional state money added to this project. Mr. Carey advised AEA would proceed with the amendment and the go/no-go decision with regard to construction can be made after returning from FERC. There will be amuch greater financial analysis completed on the different rates and different financing assumptions. Mr. Griffith asked if the idea has been abandoned of the 50/50 Bradley Lake participation arrangement. Mr. Griffith asked if Mr. Carey is suggesting the utilities carry all of the debt. Ms. Fisher-Goad requested to answer instead of Mr. Carey. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated there will be a point when'the BPM@will need to make a decision if'state support cannot be found for a portion of the costand whether it is worth the continuation, potential construction and financing. Ms. Fisher- Goad noted Ms. Walker has been brought back to look at this issue and help work through the existing power sales agreement and bring potential financing options back to the Committee after session. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised there is no,additional cost to BPMC for this because it is part of the current financial arrangement. Mr. Griffith commented a lot more will be known after session. Mr. Borgeson asked if the utilities need to contribute any additional funds to do the studies to get to a go or no-go decision. Ms. Fisher-Goad believes no additional funds are needed. Mr. Borgeson asked if the utilities would have a chance to opt out or not pay for any additional expenses on this issue before they were incurred. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised that the process would be similar to other motions the BPMC has made to support this project with additional funds, because there are a combination of Renewable Energy Fund dollars associated with this, the state's direct appropriation through the existing project, and also the $500,000 from BPMC. Mr. Griffith believes the contribution was $670,000. Mr. Borgeson asked if BPMC would be able to stop all further work on this project by a vote. Ms. Fisher-Goad agreed. Mr. Borgeson asked if AEA would have a veto power over this vote. Chair Evans stated BPMC came up with the original seed money to do the concept and high level engineering. He noted Chugach procured a grant and turned that over on behalf of the BPMC to the BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 20 of 21 state of Alaska for further evaluation, plus the BPMC contributed budget money. Chair Evans believes the total contribution has been between one million and $1.5 million. Ms. Fisher-Goad reported there are federal lands associated with the project boundaries and AEA has asked Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to evaluate seeking the conveyance of those lands. Since FERC has changed their rules, there is an economic benefit for those BLM lands to potentially be conveyed to the state. AEA is working with DNR and expect to have another update. Mr. Posey asked approximately how many acres would be transferred. Mr. Carey stated a bit over 5,000 acres. Mr. Posey asked if these acres come out of the state's entitlements. Mr. Carey and Ms. Fisher-Goad agreed. Ms. Fisher-Goad advised it has been selected, but has not been conveyed and those are some of the issues AEA is working with DNR. Mr. Posey asked if there are competing selections or other groups. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated DNR needs to provide their evaluation. There is a financial benefit to the utilities and the rate payers that was not there previously. Chair Evans asked if there are any plans by the state tovassess a fee to the project for the land. Ms. Fisher-Goad does not believe so. Chair Evans advised the next agenda will not include an update on Battle Creek. Item 7F was tabled and will be on the next agenda. The transmission services agreement will be on the next agenda. Unfinished Items L., K. and N. will be.on the next agenda, The work assignments include O&D to address the dynamic scheduling resolution) reliability rules as they apply to the plant, and the previous assignment was a management reviewoof the governorproject. Chair Evans believes there was a recommendation that the technical coordinating committee would be reformed under that assignment. Chair Evans advised he will send out a memo to reform the TCC and work with the state of Alaska. Chair Evans stated the O&D Committee should provide a recommendation for the appropriate treatment of losses across utility systems: Mr. Griffith asked what was the assignment concerning the fish water debris removal issue. Mr. Owens stated AEA was to address the FERC and the other state agencies to see about the variance of fish water flows. Mr. Janorschke invited the BPMC to meet at Bradley for the next meeting and the Committee can tour the facility. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the committee, the meeting adjourned. BY: Bradley Evans, Chair Attest: Bryan Carey Alaska Energy Authority, Secretary BPMC Minutes 12/12/2013 and 12/23/2013 Page 21 of 21 Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Meeting Monday, March 3, 2014 Agenda Item: 7A MOTION: Move that the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee approve the fiscal year 2015 Operating and Capital budget as presented. Move: Second: OVERVIEW OF BUDGET CHANGES BETWEEN FY14 AND PROPOSED FY15 FY14 Utility Contributions 17,674,624 Schedule A Decrease in projected interest earnings (49,860) Decrease in Non R&C Capital - See A1 for detail 335,500 Decrease in debt service 232,050 Increase in projected arbitrage transfer (2,000) Decrease in Operating Reserve 206,196 Increase in O&M Operations (801,832) Increase in R&C Fund Repayments 180,256 TOTAL 100,310 FY15 Utility Contributions 17,574,314 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Schedule A REVENUES, EXPENSES & CHANGES IN SURPLUS FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 INC(DEC) FRM ACTUALS = =»-_- ACTUALS = ACTUALS = Amended PY ORIGINAL BUDGET REVENUES UTILITY CONTRIBUTIONS 15,814,310 14,634,942 16,176,157 17,674,624 (100,310) INTEREST INCOME 1,905,127 1,959,302 1,936,516 1,500,900 (49,860) OTHER MISC INCOME 0 oO 0 STATE OF ALASKA BATTLE CREEK FEASIBILITY GRANT 0 22,637 477,363 oO 0 0 17,719,437 16,616,881 18,590,036 19,175,524 (150,170) EXPENSES OPERATIONS 4,174,014 3,540,297 3,928,577 4,828,670 801,832 RENEWALS/REPLACEMENTS (R&C FUND REPAYMENTS) 802,925 419,007 1,142,155 1,430,574 (180,256) NON R&C FUND CAPITAL PURCHASES-SEE A1 309,822 401,579 554,627 475,500 (335,500) GRANT FUNDED PORTION OF BATTLE CREEK FEASIBILITY oO 22,637 477,363 oO O TRANSFER TO (FROM) OPERATING RESERVE 97,250 (63,500) 82,552 45,830 (206,196) DEBT SERVICE (net of Capital Reserve Reductions) 12,105,450 12,100,750 12,107,950 12,104,950 . ARBITRAGE TRANSFER 229,976 196,112 296,812 290,000 CURRENT YEAR SURPLUS (DEFICIT) Qo (0) (0) 0 (0) BEGINNING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 0 0 (0) (0) 0 ENDING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 0 _ 0 = 0 BALANCE SHEET ASSETS REVENUE FUND OPERATING FUND RECEIVABLE FROM R&C OTHER RECEIVABLES PREPAID EXPENSES LIABILITIES PREPAID UTILITY CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE TO UTILITIES R&C REPAYMENT OTHER INFORMATION OPERATING RESERVE * MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS * Required to be 20% of budgeted operating expense 2,225,125 910,338 156,350 0 0 944,100 1,176,630 1,310,642 0 0 0 773,898 769,228 0 0 190,270 0 0 o 0 5,640 5,640 5,640 0 0 —a eee ee a 1,453,862 1,297,869 1,210,449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,373,372 1,568,636 1,031,411 0 ° 537,901 : {0) o 0 0 135 505 2,241, 0 0 902,652 910,338 910,338 965,734 1,126,100 1,446,451 1,219,579 1,348,013 1,472,885 1,464,526 3/20/201412:11 PMH:\Accounting\AEA FY15 FS Shared Files\Bradley Lake\Budget\2015 BradieyBdgt Proposed.xisxSchedule A-Budget Summary ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Schedule A-1 poe ACU aD ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET yO [CAPITAL PURCHASES NOT FUNDED BY R&C FUND (31/20 [Cathodic Protection Replacement) Acquire, develop Work Management Syste 30.973] lEmergency/Standby Facilities Diese! Generator DCS & Vibration Syst [Snow Cat with plow Tools x Ss SlSlolole © clol lolol 8 lololol 8 [Blo ll cee e Replace Office Furniture Replace Furniture/Lockers/Appliances in Crew Quarters 8 Vidmar Storage Cabinets for Shops & Warehouse SI now hop HLL Ie Ball Zs s 2 Sli} 2 ISIS] - BS] ce} toto to iS] 8 Test Equipment \ccusonic Flow Meter Monitoring Unit Replacement | 000 [Replace Fish Water Valve Actuators 20,000} Airport and Barge Dock Building Upgrad |__32,166] G Floating Dock Repairs Utility Vehicles x PT GateHouse UPS Batteries Replace Potable Water Storage Tank in Warehouse ‘orklift with outside capabil insulate domestic water well head and piping Replace JEM meters with ION meters Road Grader snow removal attachments Replace 160 ton Bridge Crane Controls Weather Stations Roof ice Guards for Main Transformer, curity Interface for Data Access Generator Partial Discharge Monitor Lube Oil Purification Syste Replace 1998 Chevrolet Crew Cab Vehicle Replace 1990 Ford Single Cab Vehicle 3 3 sisi 8 lo Items being reviewed by O&D not approved Engineering work to design Bradley Junction System Studies for Bradley Operation LH IT LL a ni iL Diamond Ridge Breaker Mitigatio This will effectively modify the two duplexes from a 2 dwelling unit to a 4 dwelling unit; this will help support space availability for an apprentice position-FY10 and complete 3 duplex units in FY14 AI gency source of power is needed to provide backup power in case of future trouble ith the normal facilities power. This will provide cost savings for replacement power and Originally approved $100,000 in FY10; could not find used equipment in good repair for that 1$20,000 originally approved In FY11, not completed. Budget subcommitte split across two TS. Furniture and beds are aged and in need of repairs and replacement. Several appliances need| placement. for the power house shop and the maintenance building. Originally d not complete in FY12, Quoted price for new unit is $16,000. Originally approved 10,000 in FY12, no monies spe Term Maintenance Plan. R two actuators, need to continue cing actuators a few at a time. [Floating Dock floats are in poor condition. Long Term Maintenance Plan. e e aged and obsolete, need up to di ontinue rep old analog systems with digital. ‘Tracks for Utility Vehicle for winter access; previously done with snowmachines or helicopter Battery are past d in life and have reduced cap Tank interior is full of rust in bottom. Replace with Poly Tank. Metal and Sheet Metal Working Equipment, Band Saw Replace old JEM revenue meters with ION meters for better resolution and accuracy. New meters support DNP for better communications and data collection |Snow wing and front blade attachment for improved ability to remove heavy snow from lenbankments and airpo Push forward not completed items from FY12 to offset cost of controls replacement. Restore crane functionality. Crane needed for Aprin 2012 outage. Have received second bid, revised Mount guards on roof to preve fehicle is past it's usable life, non-existant safety features. Replace with 4 door crew cab type ehicle for Supt and move 2009 Supt. vehicle into fleet. Identify operating parameters to determine correct Bradley Lake Unit operation, amount idependent on scope of work. Provide q of other means to mitigate voltage collap BRADLEY LAKE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE B (A) HEA O&M Contract FERC 537 - Hydraulic Expenses (A) HEA 08M Contract FERC 538 - Electric Expenses (A) HEA O&M Contract FY2013 BUDGET SUMMARY (A) HEA Annual Operations & Maintenance 2,431,229 (B) CEA Dispatch and Substation/SVC Maintenance 133,500 (C) Other O&M and Maintenance Projects 864,987 (0) Insurance Costs 614,490 (E) Regulatory Costs 303,714 (H) Contingencies 0 4,347,920 {F) Administrative Costs 260,600 12/3113 FY2014 FY2014 BUDGET yo 676,905 2,647,014 935,142 (183,405)} 161,274 37,472 131,991 919,445 251,299 78,596 572,237 519,652 (33,563) 271,000 90,374 (250)} 0 0 670,274 4,570,970 1,833,940 9,669 257,700 230,935 [———________— |__ 4,608,520 3,928,577[ 679,943 | 828,670 | __2,064,875 | FERC 535 - Operation Supervision & Engineering |FERC 539 - Misc. Hydraulic Power Generation Expenses (A) HEA O&M Contract (C) HEA Circuits and Radio - To Bemice Lake (C) CEA Circuits -Bemice Lake to Anchorage FERC 540 - Rents (C) Bradley Lake FERC land use fees FERC 541 - Maintenance Supervision & Engineering (A) HEA O&M Contract FERC 542 - Maintenance of Structures (A) HEA O&M Contract (C) Engineering/design/scope for Equipment Barn FERC 543 - Maintenance of Reservoirs, Dams & Waterways (A) HEA O&M Contract (C) Power Tunnel Maintenance (C) Diversion Tunnel Maintenance (C) Nuka Repair FERC 544 - Maintenance of Electric Plant (A) HEA O&M Contract 275,481 247,827 27,654 291,80 145, 275,481 247,827 27,654 291,804 145.5 143,111 82,269 30,842 113,512 49,470 113,114 82,269 30,842 113,512 49,470 222,043 283,620 (61,577) 324,401 123,364 222.043 283,620 (61.577) 324,401 123,364 473,896 228,761 245,135 511,124 175,045 90,000 90,000 0 90,000 45,000 30,000 28,746 4 30,000 14,373 593,896 347,507 246,389 631,124 234,418 62,623 132,158 (69,535, 175,000 0 62,623 132,158 (69.535 175,000 0 167,770 194,407 (26,637) 171,510, 116,349 167,770 194,407 (26.637) 171,510 116,349 162,355 151,453 10,902 182,773 61,032 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 187,355 151,453 35,902 182,773 61,032 13,519 1,604 11,915 13,519 276 21,630 0 21,630 43,260 19,478 61,800 19,770 42,030 0 0 21,630 118,248 96,618) 21,630 463 118,579 139,622 (21,043) 78,409 20,217 425,378 330,064 95,314 426,894 170,064 Netchange % Change 224,371 326,726 (16,715) 37,400 129,000 700,782 101,050 801,832 23,990 3,656 (42,000) (44,675) 5,000 42,720 (7,800) 86,940 8% 203% ™% 48% 15% 39% 17% 8% 3% 13% 3% 25% 4% includes intern help plus bridge analysis 111% includes $30,000 LT repair study & $25,000 update PSSE mode! FERC 545 - Maintenance of Misc. Hydraulic Plant (A) HEA O&M Contract (C) Automate Fish Water Design FERC 556 - System Control & Load Dispatching (A) HEA 08M Contract (C) SCS Snow Measurement (C) UAF Seismic monitoring and reporting (C) USGS Streamgauging (C) State of Alaska Permits FERC 562 - Station Expenses (B) CEA SVC/Substation Maintenance Contract FERC 571 - Maintenance of Overhead Lines (A) HEA Overhead Line Maintenance (C) Bradley Junction switch removal (H) Contingencies FERC 920 - Administrative Expense (F) AEA Admin Fee AEA Administrative Costs PMC Costs (F) Bradley Lake Audit fees (F) Bradley Lake PMC Legal (F) Bradley Lake Arbitrage Report (F) Bradley Lake Trustee fees PMC Costs TOTAL FERC 920 FERC 924 - Property Insurance (0) Insurance Premiums (D) Homer Electric Insurance (D) Risk Assessment FERC 928 - Regulatory Commission Expenses (E) FERC administrative fees (E) Contractual Engineer - FERC license issues TOTAL BRADLEY LAKE BUDGET (A) HEA-Power House PCs & Develop Electronic Ops L: 425,378 330,064 95.314 426 894 170,06 136,444 186,106 (49,662) 168,081 88,650 30,900 10,015 5 o o 58,493 18,959 39,534 89,699 2,778 of 30,500 2,692 27,808 0 0 10,500 10,000 500 10,130 10,000 56,500 54,391 2,109 56,500 28,308 244,304 269,568 (25,264) 282,725 133,678 100 100 oO 200 oO 400,397 355,710 44,687 439,25 174,764 133,500 316,905 183,405) 161,274 37,472 133,500 316,905 183,405) 161,274 37,472 352,239 26,562 325,677 353,697 2,587 210,000 0 210,000 210,000 0 483,984 53,616 51,910 9,980 0 15,000 303,714 337,277 63 271,000 90,374 828,670 064,875 69,600 33,680 36,545 326,726 101,050 37,400 129,000 801,832 16% includes $30,000 for loader tires includes $20,000 update plant documents 8% includes $301,000 SVC project 203% $30,000 Transmission imedance 0% ‘Swalling Financial + mgmt operator audit $100,000) (Probable max loss) ™% includes fishwater re-reg dam $50,000 48% 17% SCHEDULE C PERCENT POWER PURCHASER SHARE CHUGACH ELECTRIC. 30.4% MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE 25.9% AEG&T-HEA 12.0% AEG&T-MEA 13.8% GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC 16.9% CITY OF SEWARD 1.0% Rounding 100.0% PERCENT POWER PURCHASER SHARE CHUGACH ELECTRIC 30.4% MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE 25.9% AEG&T-HEA 12.0% AEG&T-MEA 13.8% GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC 16.9% CITY OF SEWARD 1.0% 100.0% BUDGET FY2013 TOTAL §,231,100 4,456,764 2,064,912 2,374,644 2,908,080 172,080 13) 17,207,567 FY2013 MONTHLY 435,925 371,397 172,076 197,887 242,340 14,340 1,433,965 FY2014 BUDGET 5,373,084 4,577,724 2,120,952 2,439,096 2,987,016 176,748 8 17,674,628 FY2014 MONTHLY 447,757 381,477 176,746 203,258 248,918 14,729 1,472,885 1,464,526 FY2015 BUDGET 5,342,592 4,551,744 2,108,916 2,425,260 2,970,060 175,740 2 17,574,314 FY2015 MONTHLY 445,216 379,312 175,743 202,105 247,505 14,645 FY2015 Change 141,984 120,960 56,040 64,452 78,936 4,668 FY2015 Change 11,832 10,080 4,670 5,371 6,578 389 38,920 3/20/201412:10 PM H:\Accounting\AEA FY15 FS Shared Files\Bradley Lake\Budget\2015 BradleyBdgt Proposed.xlsxSchedule C Utility Contrib BRADLEY LAKE R&C FUND DISBURSEMENTS AND REPAYMENTS SCHEDULE D ‘Actual Actual Actual PROJECTED Actual PROJECTED [PROJECTED PROJECTED TO REPAY TO REPAY 1213113 TO REPAY TO REPAY Description Disburse at 06/30/12 Disburse at 06/30/13 Disburse at 06/30/14 Disburse at 06/30/15 IR&C FUND PROJECTS overno 0.00 2,779,953.51 58,252.20 2,838,205.71 127,700.00 2,965,905.71 | 133,038.00 3,098,943.71 Replace RFLS 0.00 251,092.69 0.00 251,092.69 0.00 251,092.69 0.00 251,092.69 Replace Runners 0.00 1,946,732.79 0.00 1,946,732.79 0.00 1,946,732.79 0.00 1,946,732.79 Replace cable from dam to power house 0.00 2,321,922.94 0.00 2,321,922.94 0.00 2,321 ,922.94 0.00 2,321,922.94 Replace power system stabilizer 447,531.38 591,444.40 27,760.70 619,205.10 0.00 619,205.10 0.00 619,205.10 Replace two RTUs 0.00 86,905.27 0.00 86,905.27 0.00 86,905.27 0.00 86,905.27 Culvert Repairs 0.00 675,966.79 0.00 675,986.79 0.00 675,966.79 0.00 675,966.79 Trans Towers Frost Jacking Repairs 0.00 887,596.62 0.00 887,596.62 0.00 887,596.62 0.00 887,596.62 Replace Plant and SCADA Controls 1,008,298.67 1,008,298.67 336,384.38 1,344,683.05 0.00 1,344,683.05 0.00 1,344,683.05 fibration Monitoring System 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 0.00 490.00 Battle Creek Feasibility-Note A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fire Alarm System Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Replace Electro-Mechanical Relays 0.00 0.00 499,893.38 499,893.38 399,563.12 899,456.50 0.00 899,456.50 Battle Creek Diversion 0.00 0.00 479,657.87 479,657.87 758,193.58 1,237,851.45 0.00 1,237,851.45 Fishwater Screen Debris Removal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 | 725,000.00 725,000.00 [ 1,455,830.05 10,550,403.68 1,401,948.53___11,952,352.21 | _1,285,456.70 13,237,808.91 | 858,038.00 __13,370,846.91 Current Year R&C Repayment (1,142,156.37) (1,224,975.10) (1,250,318.32) Adjust bal to $5 mill 0.00 Less Interest in Fund Applied to Repayment 0.00 Net Transfer from Revenue Fund 1,224,975. 10) 1,250,318.32) FY12 Interest Cumulative Prior Years R&C Repayments (7,890,873.12) (8,841,653.14)| (9,983,809.51)| (11,208, 784.61)| Due back to Utilites 773,897.74 IR&C Cumulative Interest (Retained) Applied As Part of Repay 531,773.16) . 8,841,653. 14) '9,983,809.51 11,208,784.61 NET DUE TO R&C FUND 1,708,750.54 1,968,542.70 2,029,024.30 911,743.98 R&C FUND CASH FLOW PROJECTION Beginning Investment Balance 3,872,242.58 4,671,504.45 3,031,457.30 2,970,975.70 Disbursements-current year (849,472.60) (1,401,948.53)| (1,285,456.70) (858,038.00) Disbursements-prior year accrued (82,071.19)| (606,357.25) 0.00 0.00 Utilities’ R&C Repayment 537,901.26 1,142,156.37 1,224,975.10 1,250,318.32 Current year interest earnings 309,829.60 0.00 0.00 Current year Participants Contributions to R&C 883,075.00 0.00 0.00 Due back to Utilites A Ending Investment Balance 4,671,504.45 3,031,457.30 2,970,975.70 3,363,256.02 Accrued R&C Payable at year end-Due to Utilities (773,897.74) Accrued R&C Payable at year end (606,357.25) PROJECTED NET DUE + ENDING INVESTMENT BALANC §,000,000.00 §,000,000.00 §,000,000.00 4,275,000.00 REPAYMENT AMOUNT $238,606 X 25% 59,651.54 [4th yr $954,181.80 X 25% 238,545.45 [3rd yr 238,545.45 [4th yr "$756,665.11 X 25% 189,166.28 [2nd yr 189,166.28 }3rd yr 189,166.28 '$1,455,830.05 X 25% 363,957.51 Jist yr 363,957.51 }2nd yr 363,957.51 363,957.51 $1,401 ,948.53 x 25% 350,487.13 |1st yr 350,487.13 350,487.13 $1,285,456. x 25% 321,364.18 321,364.18 $858,038 x 25% 214,509.50 851,320.77 1,142,156.37 1,224,975.10 1,250,318.32 Bradley Lake BPMC Meeting January 27th, 2014 - March 19th, 2014 Operators Report Unit Statistics: Generation Unit 1 (MWhrs) Unit 2 (MWhrs) Total (MWhrs) January 2014 18,567 20,942 39,509 February 2014 12,389 17,530 29,919 Hydraulics Avg. Lake Level (ft) Usage (ac ft) Fishwater (ac ft) January 2014 1,153.83 39,313 3,053 February 2014 1,147.12 30,152 2,691 Lake Level —- March 17: 1,142.2 Incidents and CEA callout: e 1/30 - 2215, CEA dispatch called out a Bradley Operator to standby for operation contingencies due to a loss of SCADA control. CEA is doing a software upgrade that is contributing to minor control problems. e 1/31 - 2130, CEA dispatch callout same as above. Operator standby during SCADA upgrade. e 2/9 - 0805, Unit #1 and #2 entered Divider 1 control mode to regain frequency control due to a transmission line disturbance. Unit #1 load = 52.9 MW, Unit #2 load = 40.7 MW. The governor controls reduced generator output to 3.89 MW Unit #1, and 3.09 MW Unit #2. The dividers and needle valves functioned as designed to establish system frequency. Refer to the Trend1-HSR for further documentation. e 3/11 — The Bradley Facility Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan (SPCC) was put into action due to a loss of Unit #2 governor hydraulic oil. There were no indications that oil was released into the environment, however the SPCC plan and a parallel path of Unit inspections was put into action to determine the cause of the oil leak and to prevent any oil release. It was determined that Unit #2, needle valve #1 had developed an oil leak in the internal actuator housing. It was also determined that the oil was contained within dedicated drain piping and captured in the facility Dirty Water Sump (DWS). All state and federal agencies were notified following the SPCC plan. Visual and manual inspections of the bay were conducted and no oil release occurred. Refer to the complete incident report that is attached to this document. e 3/14 - 2000 hrs, Unit #1 governor speed no load condition resulted in a load rejection of 19.38 MW. The Bradley operator returned the unit within 5 minutes. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 1 Maintenance and training: e The penstock flow meter equipment supplied by Accusonic experienced a control board failure. Accusonic provided a temporary replacement board while they conducted software upgrades and testing on the failed board. They determined the cause to be a result of a memory card failure. The repaired control board was installed in the unit and is functioning properly. e 2/17-19 — Jeff Rice of EPS was on site to conduct Bradley Operator training for ARC Flash compliance and power distribution system labeling. This project is almost complete pending final ARC Flash calculations. Projects: e¢ Governor — Project management and Emerson control engineers were at the Bradley facility March 11-13 to conduct governor logic, operation, and graphic review. Emerson provided complete documentation and descriptions of the governor control logic and how it will be migrated from the VA-Tech PLC to the existing Emerson DCS system. It should be noted that this project in no way compares to the scope of work performed in 2004-2006 during the VA-Tech Bradley unit governor replacement. In 2006 the following work and equipment replacement was performed. 1. New forged turbine runners were installed to replace the cast runners. 2. New heavy metal water flow dividers were installed to replace the original water flow deflectors that are deployed during system frequency disturbances. 3. The divider mechanical rams were reconfigured to operate from outside of the water stream moving into the stream. This is 180 degree change from the original deflectors that moved from inside the water stream to the outside. New divider hydraulic ram was installed. . Additional air tanks were installed in conjunction with the existing oil/air tanks to provide additional hydraulic system capacity to the governor needle valves and divider hydraulic rams during system frequency disturbances. 6. New governor needle servo valve and replacement hydraulic control blocks were installed. . Anew divider hydraulic servos and control blocks were installed. . VA-Tech installed a SAT brand programmable controller (PLC) with new software control schemes to replace the original Woodward governor controls. ws On 2014 governor project scope. 1. The VA-Tech PLC programmable controller will be removed from service and the governor control software will be incorporated into the existing Emerson DCS system that was installed at Bradley in 2012. Emerson engineers have studied the VA-Tech control philosophy and is using the information gained as the base to build the Emerson governor control logic. Emerson has extensive expertise in control of isolated generation and transmission systems such as those that exist in Alaska. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 2 Emerson Documentation and Logic that has been provided to the O&D Committee for review: Emerson control logic drawings. Emerson governor control mode descriptions. Emerson DCS control graphics. Emerson governor installation Scope of Work (SOW) that will be coupled with HEA requirements that will be sent to potential wiring contractors to perform the Emerson control system hardware installation that will replace the VA-Tech PLC during the July-August unit outage. PWN The next critical project date is the Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) to be performed at the Emerson Pittsburg, PA facility on April 4/2 1-25/2014. To date according to the Emerson/Bradley lake contract agreement, Emerson has been paid for the following project milestones: 10% upon award of contract and issue of purchase order $62,980.00 10% upon control hardware setup and acceptance $62,980.00 25% upon hardware configuration and initial |/O testing on factory floor $157,450.00 The next milestone to be met is final acceptance of the control logic and system graphics. Bradley Lake Operator Report Page 3 Trend1 - HSR 2/9/2014 8:10:17.000 AM SDN-XLN-FRQ.UNIT1@NETO SOLDOTNA LN FREQ 60.770 1PH-GEN-MWT-SM.UNIT1@NE U1 M WATTS SMOOTH 13.397 2PH-GEN-MWT-SM.UNIT1@NE U2 M WATTS SMOOTH 1.289 1UG-NDL1-POS.UNIT1@NETO NEEDLE #1 POSITION INDICAT 30.900 2UG-NDL1-POS.UNIT1@NETO NEEDLE #1 POSITION INDICAT 8.200 1UG-DIV-POS.UNITI1@NETO DIVIDER POSITION INDICATIO 60.100 Actual Value Actual Value RRRREST 2UG-DIV-POS.UNIT1@NETO DIVIDER POSITION INDICATIO 44.500 ‘Actual Value MW total at start = 93.6 MW MW total at bottom = 6.98 MW Diverter 1, 93% 94.7% [| Diverter 2, 91% i Unit #1 MW | 52.9 MW Freq high 61.3 Hz i Needle 1 high 79% eee Unit #1 Needle Freq 60.8 Hz Unit #2 MW L Diverter 1 | 60.38 Hz Freq Unit #2 needle 50.9% Did low 45%, 53% here +50% Soldotna Freq 60 Hz Needle 2 high 53% D-1 low 34% 3.89 MW Unit 1 U-2 MW 3.09 MW Unit 2 e , ||| ee | Ls | || a Le so Lee sh ee |] || Le ae ae ae a ae 0 ee a: a le Poe ee oe ee ee ee ee ae 2/10/2014 12:08:03 PM 4 BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO * ice 3977 Lake Street 1, /gome Homer Electric Association Inc. Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 ZN A Touchstone Energy” Cooperative MgO Phone (907) 235-4400 FAX (907) 235-4445 BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Incident Date: 3-11-14 Time: 0900 Employee Name: Paul Parsons and Tim Quirk 1* report Called out by: Unit load (if required): Reported problem or event: Paul Parson notified the Plant Superintendent of a loss of Unit #2 Governor Hydraulic System Oil. Dates and information as reported on 3-11-14 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2-24-14 — The Bradley Operators received a general hydraulic sump level low alarm. They responded by adding 55 gallons of oil to the system. They inspected the area for leaks and found no evidence of oil accumulation on the turbine area or turbine tailrace. A few months ago some water had migrated into the system and they made the judgment that the low oil level was due to water removal by the filtration system over time. Again there was no visual or verifiable evidence of an oil discharge. 3-10-2014 — The Bradley Operators again received a general alarm of low sump level. They added 55 gallons of oil to return the system to full functionality. Again they conducted an inspection of the turbine area and tailrace and found no evidence of an oil spill. 3-11-2014 - DETERMINED THAT A POTENTIAL FOR SPILL HAS OCCURRED The Operators noted that the governor oil sump level had dropped overnight and reported it to the Bradley Superintendent. The decision was made to remove the Bradley Unit #2 from service to conduct a full unit inspection. There was still no evidence of an oil spill, however precautions were taken to protect the equipment and environment until a final determination could be made. Unit #2 was removed from service and a full inspection of BRADLEY LAKE HyDRO 1 ;/ PRA Homer Electric Association ,Inc. Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 aM A Touchstone Energy” Cooperative EX Phone (907) 235-4400 FAX (907) 235-4445 all above water systems was conducted. No oil leak, accumulation or evidence of a spill was noted. The Unit remained off line pending further investigation. Alan Owens Plant Superintendent and Bob Day Power Production Manger were on site at the Bradley facility. Bob Day is the on-site incident commander. 3-12-14 — Preparations were started to Lockout/Tag out Bradley Unit #2 to conduct a full turbine needle valve and hydraulic system inspection inside the turbine runner pit. There was still no noticeable or verifiable indication of a spill in the turbine area or tailrace discharge. As a precaution, the following inspections, notification, and preventive actions were taken. 1. Notified HEA management personnel of spill precautions and inspections being taken. Brad Janorschke (General Manger) Harvey Ambrose (Director of Power Production) Bruce Linton (Environmental Compliance) 2. Attempted to notify Bryan Carey (AEA) of the inspection activities. He was out of the office. 09:00 am . As an alternate to Bryan Carey, Sara Fisher-Goad (AEA) was notified. 09:10 am. 4. Notified Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Don Fritz, Jay Gamble, Gay Harpel in Anchorage office. 09:18 am . Notified National Response Center (NRC) report # 1076489 . Notified US Coast Guard (Johnathon Alexander 907-235-3293) . Conducted helicopter observation and photos of Bradley tailrace and Kachemak Bay. Several photos were taken for record keeping. No noticeable or verifiable indication of an oil spill in the turbine tailrace or Kachemak Bay 8. 1030 notified CEA dispatch to remove unit #1 from service to enable full inspection of tailrace and to allow deployment of oil containment equipment is needed. 9. 1130, Reconfirmed with Don Fritz of ADEC. Gave full description of project, water flow and MSDS. They requested MSDS and plant information. donfritz@alaska.gov 10. 1130, Reconfirmed with US Coast Guard, Petty Officer Alexander. Requested photos and MSDS. jonathan.c.alexander@USCG.mil 11. Confirmed with Sara Fisher Goad (AEA) that NRC and US Coast Guard were notified. 12. 1210 pm. Stop logs in place in Bradley Unit #2 to contain tailrace and prepare for turbine needle valve/turbine pit inspection. 13. 1219. Bryan Carey of AEA returned phone call. Notified Bryan of suspected oil loss and updated him on status of inspections. There is still no evidence of an oil spill; however, we are taking all precautions and preventative measures. 14. Bradley Unit #1 removed from service and spill collection boom deployed to gather samples of tailrace water and as a preventative spill precaution. 15. 1649 Preliminary report (email) to Coast Guard and ADEC. Report has MSDS for material, initial draft of report / log, tailrace inspection photos, and photos of the suspected equipment. Ww NAM BRADLEY LAKE HYDRO : = 3977 Lake Street 1, [ppm Fiomer Electric Association .Inc. Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 Ze A Touchstone Energy” Cooperative ®t * Phone (907) 235-4400 — FAX (907) 235-4445 3-12-14 time not noted. Proceeding with Lock out Tag out to “safe” the unit. 0900 observed and inspected settling pond and oil boom. Water flat calm and smooth with no indication of oil. A scum was seen, inspected and it turned out to be organic (pond scum). Some bubbly froth was found and inspected and was just that, froth. No indication of oil. 0929 hours — Phone discussion with Don Fritz at ADEC. Discussed unit | restart. ADEC has no restrictions on Unit 1 restart pending Coast Guard Concurrence. Offer to hold conference call if necessary. 0945 second phone discussion with Don Fritz ADEC. Suggested site visit and inspection. ADEC not able to visit at this time but intends to and desires to have an orientation tour sometime in the future. Bob Day indicated that Bradley would be glad to accommodate ADEC at their convenience. 1112 contacted Coast Guard (Petty Officer Jonathan C. Alexander) and discussed the Bradley Unit | restart; Petty Officer Alexander had no issues but needed to discuss the situation with his superiors and anticipated a conference call with ADEC, Bradley, Coast Guard and AEA. 1120 Bob Day working on getting conference call set up and parties notified 1130 Received call from Petty Officer Jonathan C. Alexander indicating restart of Unit 1 is OKed. No conference call required. Bradley to observe tail race on start up. 1136 Sent email notifying parties of no conference call required 1130 Removed oil boom from settling pond in preparation for Unit | Start up. Inspected boom for oil residue, none found. 1230 Unit 1 started and released to Dispatch for operation, Bob Day observed settling pond during start up and for 15 minutes after and saw no indications of oil. 1316 Bradley personnel proceeded to turning inspections inward to the plant to see if the oil is contained in some manner. 1330 Inspecting the dirty water sump (DWS). The DWS is a large reservoir in the bottom of the power plant, all floor drains drain to the DWS. The contents of the DWS are then pumped into an oil water separator and any clean water is pulled off and is discarded in the normal effluent stream. Any oil that remains is pumped into barrels and is transported off site for proper disposal. The DWS is a confined space and does not lend itself to inspection very easily. 1345 The oil water separator showed no oil but the missing oil was discovered in the DWS. Apparently the missing oil in the DWS was floating on the water (recent very heavy rains in the last week) such that the forwarding trash pumps (DWS to oil water separator) were only forwarding water since the light hydraulic oil was floating on the residual water in the DWS. 1402 called Don Fritz ADEC to let him know of the discovery of the oil. 1409 called Petty Officer Jonathan C. Alexander to let him know of the discovery of the oil. DETERMINED THAT NO OIL WAS LOST TO THE ENVIRONMENT BRADLEY LAKE HyDRO . we 3977 Lake Street HE #4 Homer Electric Association ,Inc. Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 Ze A Touchstone Energy’ Cooperative Rex Phone (907) 235-4400 = FAX (907) 235-4445 3-13-14 - Turbine Pit needle O-ring and external needle inspections- Manually operated each needle valve and conduted visual inspection of o-ring seals and external hydraulic cylinders inside turbine pit/tailrace area. No external oil leaks noted. Turbine pit and tailrace area is oil free. During this process we also conducted preliminary hydraulic cylinder inspections to determine which needle valve(s) were leaking. This inspection verified no oil was released to the environment. 3-14-14 — All oil was contained within the Dirty Water Sump (DWS) as verified by the turbine pit inspection on 3-13 and visual inspections of the trailrace and waterway. The next inspection activity was to verify the amount of oil contained within the DWS. Dirty water sump (DWS) oil reclaim operatons — All visual inspections verified, the governor oil was contained within the DWS. The DWS is a large 10,000 gallon concrete containment sump with a 24” access cover. In order to quantify the amount of oil contained in the sump, a skimmer pump was lowered into the sump to remove the floating oil. The oil was pumped into barrels to allow measurement. Skimmer pump operations allowed the removal of approximatey 95 gallons of the oil contained in the sump. Oil absorbant tubes were then placed into the sump to gather the remaining oil to allow quantity verification. Total oil extracted from the sump equaled 172 gallons. The oil gathered slightly exceeds the governor oil lost most likely due to small amounts of residual oil remaining in the sump from previous small oil drains and prior maintenance activites. Turbine drain piping inspections verified that oil leaking from a needle valve hydraulic actuator was contained within the mechanical seals that drain to the DWS sump. 3-15 through 3-17- 2014 — Needle valve leak testing and indentification - Hydraulic oil flow to each needle valve was manually isolated utilizing local valves installed in the indivual oil supply lines. Each needle was individually tested in the CLOSED and OPEN positions to determine which needle valve hydraulic cylinder(s) were leaking. The testing indicates needle valve #1 hydraulic seals have developed a leak when the valve is placed in the open position. 3-18-14 — Conclusion — All turbine governor hydraulic oil leaking from needle valve #1 was captured by the internal drain system and contained in the DWS. No oil was released into the environment as verified by: 1. Visual inspection of the tailrace and waterways both locally and by helicopter. 2. Deployment of oil retention booms into the tailrace gathered no indication of oil release. 3. Quantity of oil reclaimed from the DWS is congruent with the amount of oil leaking from the #1 needle valve seal. aA she BRADLEY LAKE HyDRO . oat 3977 Lake Street Homer Electric Association ,Inc. Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 A Touchstone Energy” Cooperative mr a La ——_ Repair/rebuild timeline and cost analysis - Due to the complexity and manpower requirements to remove and repair a needle valve it is determnined at this time to return Bradley Unit #2 to restricted service. Needle valve #1 will be disabled so it will remain in the closed position. The unit will be returned to dispatch control with a load restriction of approximately 38 MW due to restricted needle operation. A needle repair/rebuild plan and scope will be developed with cost estimates and approximate timelines that will be presented to the Bradley oversight commitees for approval. SeenON eee ea oir 10. oly NO ¢ ~ \ BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ae REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 3, 2014 10 a.m. — 12 noon Alaska Energy Authority’s Board Room 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, AK CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL (for Committee members) PUBLIC ROLL CALL (for all others present) PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA COMMENTS / MOTION FOR APPROVAL APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES -— Dec 12 & 23, 2013 OLD BUSINESS A. Resolution 2014-04 — Update Loss Factors B. Kenai Outage Nov. 22, 2013 NEW BUSINESS A. OPERATORS REPORT A. HEA operators report evaluation by the O&D COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS ADJOURNMENT To participate by teleconference, dial 1-800-315-6338 and use code 3074#.