Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEvalution of cost estimates Copper Valley 1996peer Engineers FAX Planners fez Economists — Seattle Office Scientists TEL: (206) 453.5000 FAX: (206) 562-5957 Fax #: (907)683-2998 Total Pages: 26 To: Dennis McCrohan From: Dave Gray Company: AIDEA Date: January 23, 1996 Message: Attached is the cost estimate memo in draft form. The risk analysis section needs to be added. The risk analysis write-up for the Intertie will be sent to you this afternoon. {QQ 5 sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this information is prohibited, If you do not The information in this fax is confidential and proprietary and is Intended only for the individual or entity named on the cover receive all of the pages or have received this fax in error, please notify us immediately at the above telephone number. T@*d CGH WeeT:TT 966T ‘fe Nor 8662 £89 406 701 ¥AS-TNIH W2HD :WONs TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CHMHILL Evaluation of Cost Estimates for Copper Valley Intertie and Alternatives PREPARED FOR: Dennis McCrohan PREPARED BY: Dave Gray DATE: January 23, 1996 Summary it t eStimates for the Copper Valley This memorandum presents CH2M HILL’s analysis 6f, alley Flectric Association. The Intertie and other power supply altematives fos,Copp' power supply alternatives are: ‘ ¢ All Diesel generation (continuatio j g thod of generation) ¢ Intertie to natural gas generation’ ka’ Ubelt region ¢ Allison Lake hydroelectric gener iptt e Silver Lake hydroelectric.generation” « Valdez Coal eee, _S ee 4 4 Construction cost estitmates for eagh blternative and opcralion and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for one alternatiyé'with’relatively high O&M costs (the All Diesel alternative) were evaluated. For selected, Itertiatives, analysis was also conducted of the risk of costs actually varying from estimated levels. The cost estimates evaluated were presented in the Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study completed in 1994 (referred to as the “Intertie Feasibility Study”); these estimates were subsequently used in the Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study Update in 1995 (referred to as the “Intertie Feasibility Update”), Public comment on the Intertie Feasibility Update was made during mectings in held in the first week of December, 1995. Aunumber of the comments made during these meetings reflected concern about the accuracy and consistency of cost estimates for the alternatives evaluated, This memorandum is intended to respond to these concerns. a, CH2M HILL reviewed the approach taken to develop construction cost estimates for each alternative and checked the consis ese estimates. Risk analysis to test the probability o 1 duc or t-cost alternatives, SEA/COST-EST.DOC 1/23/96 1 CO'd C6PH WYCT:TT SE6T ‘fe NUL 8662 £89 406 701 YAS-TNIH WHO :WOadSs Summary results of the overall analysis are shown in Table 1. Cost estimates for the various alternatives were either developed for the Intertie Veasibility Study or taken from other studies, Estimates taken from other studies were adjusted to 1993 dollars, as shown in the first three columns of Table 1. Adjustments CH2M HILL made to these estimates are reflected in the fourth column. Comparison between the third and fourth columns show that CH2M HILL generally accepts estimates made for the Intertie Feasibility Study. Table 1 also shows costs for a new design proposed for Silver Lake (Option C), This estimate is based on a proposed design by Whitewater Engineering. Cost estimates prepared by Whitewater were evaluated and adjusted to the $39.6 million estimate shown in the table. < project will not likely —— . there is an 80 Risk analysis of [ntertie construction shows that the cost to _ vary by substantial amounts from the cost estimate. As tablg'l sh : n'goncludet that replacement tion efficiency and ant with the “Modified All nalysis included in the Feasibility fon of including evaluation of the Silver nin Table 2, this new design option makes Silver Lake one of the le $'with the Intertie and the All Diesel alternative (assuming CV ea leeds ai théwhedium-low to medium-high range). On the basis of data currently" ite able, Lake is still not considered as a realistic option because of the Four ‘ool charge as$gCciated with this alternative. (The effects of this charge are not reflect Table 2) } ig al Following this summary a he fa déctions. The first section contains a description and analysis of the cost estimate foreach alternative. The second section is a risk analysis of three least-cost alternatives: the Intertie, the All Diesel, and the Silver Lake Option C alternatives, Each of the two sections begins with a brief review of the approach taken for the analysis in the section. ow F SEA/COST-EST.DOC £O'd C6hH WeZT:TT S66T ‘£2 Nor 8662 £89 426 :OL YAS-TIIH W2HD :WOYS Table 1 Analysis of Construction Cost Estimates for Copper Valley Intertie and Alternatives Original Cost Estimates Oollars (000 Basis Year Dollars (000) Dollars (000) All Diesel intertie Allison Lake Silver Lake Option A Silver Lake Option C Valdez Coal 1/23/96COST-SUM.XLS v@*d Co6PH WET: TT S66T Intertie Feasibility Study 11,625 47,604 30,937 52,496 na 36,600 ‘fe Nor 1993 1993 1992 1992 na 1993 1993 11,625 47,604 32,240 54,185 na 36,600 8662 £89 206 CH2M HI E; i Base Estimate Risk Adjusted Estimates In 1993 20th 50th 80th Percentile Percentile Percentile 3240 §4,18 na 9638 36,000 :0L Os “a (to be developed) 45,400 47,400° 49,800° na na na na na (to be develaped) na na YaS-TNIH W2HD:WOYsd Alternatives 1994 All Diesel Modified 1995 All Diesel Interte Allison Lake ¢ Silver Lake-Option A Sltver Lake—Option C Valdez Coal 1994 All Dlesel Modified 1995 All Diesel Intortie Allison Lake * Silver Lake-Option A Silver Lake-Option C Valdez Coal 1994 All Diesel Modified 1995 All Diesel Intertie Allison Lake * Silver Lake-Option A Silver Lake—Option C Valdez Coal Table 2 Present Value and Benetit-Cost Ratlo for Power Supply Alternatives ‘ Low Fuel Cost Escalation —With Petro Star. Without Petre Star_ Med. High Med. Low M-H/M-L' M-H/M-L? Fet. LoadFet, boadFet, Load Fct. w/Alyeska Present Value of Costs ($000): 60,483 65,924 35,673 81,263 67,632 61,697 66,955 49,592 35,706 5 75,772 66,054 55,893 56,088 54,227 47,685 , 59,740 $9,101 56,603 59,972 55,606 44,168 77,933 69,911 68,109 61,654 66,139 58,644 $6,895 88,683 83,962 73,938 104,811 0 ° ; 9,528 6,332 7133 4,395 1,697 12,112 6,094 511 4177 9,426 7,004 1,839 7,852 4,205 +28,200 -16,867 —-17,877 1,00 1.00 1.04 1.10. 116 108. 1.07 1.07 0,95 0,90 198. 11a 4.07 0.68 0.67 0.48 0.78 0.80 0.78 1 Possible generation resources at Alyaska and Petra Star are excluded from this analysis due to lack of data on resource development costs. 2 M-H/M-L = Medium-High/Medium Low. Since tho difference between the medium high and medium low forecasts Is only the fength of time Petro Star's Valdez refinery Is in operation, thaso forecasts aro identical if Petro Star is assumed to leave the CVEA system. 3 1993 dollars based on a 4,5 percont discount rate 4 Excludes 4-Dam Pool charga 1/22/96RESULT3.XLS S@'d 6p WYET:TT 966T ‘fe NOL 8662 £89 406 201 High Fuel Cost Escalation —With Pelo Star ___Without Petro Star _ Med. High Med.Low M-H/M-L? M-H/M-L' Fet. LeadFet, LoadFet. Load Fet.. wiAlyeska 39,984 40,373 49,296 44,781 61,892 69,302 0.58 92,414 87,853 64,293 85,249 91,186 101,172 4,561 26,121 7,165 1,228 -8,758 1,00 1.05 1.44 1.08 1,01 ost ¥3S-TNIH WHS :WOaes Evaluation of Cost Estimates for Each Alternative Approach Evaluation of the cost estimates for each alternative was conducted through: e Review of reports and other documentation supporting each estimate. This review was performed by experts in the primary technology employed for gach alternative « Aworkshop focusing on the various estimates and consisten¢ among the estimates. Workshop participants included the individuals reviewing’ gost estimate for each alternative, individuals who developed the original estirh teSparid cost estimating and risk analysis facilitators. A checklist was developed. as * basis ti consistency of inclusion of specific cost elements jrt th estimate also conducted. if, ha . rine of information eT from the oT iB, dogiimentation and the me # “hy Oss analysis was the cost estimates were warranted on the gr consistency among the estimates. All Diesel Alternative Project Description wo " Currently, diesel generatoze’a rate bing ‘used. at Clennallen and Valdez for generating and re- serve requirements alo ve those thetby hydroelectric generation at Solomon Gulch. These two sites each have seven ching jjas shown in Table 3. SEA/COST-EST.00C 98'd C6PH WepT:TT 966T ‘£2 Nor 8662 £89 2406 701 YAS-TIIH WHS: WONs TABLE 3 CVEA Existing Diesel Generation Glenallen Capacity (kW) Valdez Capacity (kW) Unit 1: Fairbanks Morse 300° Unit 1: Fairbanks 600 1959 Morse 1966 Unit 2: Fairbanks Morse 300* Unit 2: Fairbanks 600 4959 Morse 1966 Unit 3: Fairbanks Morse 600 Unit 3: Fairbanks 600 1963 Morse 1966 Unit 4: Fairbanks Morse 600 Unit 4; Enterprise 1700 1966 4972 si “ Unit 5: Fairbanks Morse 600 Unit 5: Entergi sg” 2500 1966 1975" iy, lh, Unit 6; Enterprise 2200 erpristhy, 950 1975 ‘ thy Unit 7: Enterprise 2200 (Turbine) 2800 1975 76 *Unit is no longer in service, The all diese! alternative assumes that Solomoh | Gulchvan esel generation would con- tinue to be used to meet CVEA generation and i igserve requirements. Under this alterna- tive, several new units would be, ee h a existing units at the time that major overhauls would otherwise occa, Mh, New generating, units would" Beschoben supplier is intended to aioid's Support ands upply problems exhibited with the existing y En- terprise (recently) an Fal — pa (historically) units. The size of engine to be pro- vided is set between 1, Oe an 100 kW, presumably to support ease of installation and provide flexibility in’ n Yeadkfotl fpting Wy, The addition of an additional’ wtline generator at Glennallen can be accommodated with the existing building configuration-additional units would require expansion of facilities. There is presently no room for additions at the Valdez plant. Also, it is assumed that a 300,000-gallon fuel tank would be required at Valdez to supplement the current fuel system. Modifications to plant switchyard systems could certainly be required at either plant, due to the age of the present system and due to the demands of new generating equipment. Cost Estimate Engine generator cost estimates developed R.W. Beck in the 1994 Intertie Feasibility Study are shown in Table 4. SEA/COST-EST.0OC 6 28'd C6PH WopT:TT S66T ‘£2 Nor 8662 £89 406 701 YAS-TIIH W2HD:WOYs 88'd TABLE 4 R.W. Beck Diesel Generator Cost Estimates Description Caterpillar 3606 (1993 dollars) Caterpillar 3608 (1993 dollars) Output (kW) 1,610 840 Engine $749,560 $883,875 Generator $80,500 . $107,500 Cooling System $50,930 $67,540 Exhaust System $10,230 $12,210 Alr Start System $26,400 $26,400 Fuel System $27,500 $27,500 Station Battery $7,700 $7,700 Switchgear $110,000 $110,000 Total Equipment $1,062,820 $1,242,725 Engine Cost/kW ' $692 $527 Permitting, Site Prep, . Engineering, Installation $298,254 Delivery $37,281 Contingency $186,409 Total $1,764,669 Cost per kW $821 "haa Mi, | This estimate was perfdtméd at ay spiminary level of detail, which is not unusual for a facility of this kind. Mia, The contingency amount shown is about 15 percent of equipment costs. Delivery is 3 percent of equipment costs, and permitting/site preparation/enginecring/ installation costs are shown as 24 percent of equipment costs. Costs included in the estimate that may be overestimated or may even not be incurred are: * Costs shown for permilting/site preparation/engineering/ installation do not necessar- ily reflect the existing conditions at the sites. Provisions generally exist for new ma- _ chines, particularly if they replace existing machines. Air permits may be simply revised, site work may be minimal and engineering is limited to building and system changes (engine engineering is included in the purchase price). Installation is partially covered by engine support (provided by the supplicr). « Switchgear costs assume upgrade and/or new equipment provided with the new ma- chines. Existing electrical systems may be sufficient, or require minimal changes, to support the new machines. SEA/COST-EST.DOC C6rpH WUST:TT 966T ‘£2 Nor 8662 £89 406 :0L YAS-TNIH WHS :WOdS Costs that appear not to be included in the estimate are: * Fuel system upgrade costs are not shown; Valdez may required a new fuel storage tank, estimated by R.W. Beck at $1.5 million. ¢ Switchyard improvements are not shown; either site may require substation and other improvements, estimated by R.W. Beck at $550,000, e Engine foundation and structural support systems may not be adequate for the new machines. The area provided for expansion (or developed for expansion) may require foundation preparation or piling to support the new machine. « Air shed capacities are limited at Valdez. Both plants operate ahove PSD limits and hence Title V air permit requirements apply. This could tranghité'to air modeling and other air permitting work, triggered solely by the additio Sf modern equipment-the last machine was added at Glennallen in 1975 and at Valdg2'in "1976 vn in Table 5, TABLE 5 ty CH2M HILL Adjustments to R.W, Beck Ca ital icase Stimates! ‘All-Diesel Alternatives Cost (1993 dollars) R. W. Beck CH2M HILL $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,214,000 $6,214,000 $ 550,000 $550,000 $ 186,000 $186,000 Structures and Improvements Engine Generator & Accessories re Substation/Transmission f Delivery Total Direct Construction $8,950,000 $8,950,000 asta, Permitting i 0 $500,000 Engineering & Design $1,401,000 $1,491,000 Subtotal $10,441,000 $10,941,000 Contingency $1,184,000 $1,184,000 Total $11,625,000 $12,125,000 This cost estimate reflects installation of five 3608 CAT engines (as shown in 1995 CH2M HILL report) at Glennallen (2) and Valdez (3). It assumes retirement of Unit 6 at Glennallen and Units 4, 5 and 6 at Valdez, and relocation of Unit 7 at Glennallen to Valdez. This cost estimate also shows $500,000 in permitting costs, recognizing potential problems at both sites with air shed and permitting to Title V requirements. SEA/COST-EST,DOC 68'd C6rH WYST:TT S66T ‘£2 NUL 8662 £89 2486 701 YAS-TIIH WHS :WOYs Possible limitations to this cost estimate are as follows: ¢ Fuel system changes have been discussed for the Valdez plant, but were not acknowl- edged for the Glennallen plant. Cost at either site may not be adequately addressed in the cost estimate. ¢ Electrical substation improvements have not been defined at vither plant. The allowance shown in the cost estimate may not be sufficient for both plants. Conclusion The engine generator cost estimates provided for this alternative are reasonable, and typical for projects of this type. However, they may not adequately reflect powerplant building changes, significant fuel system changes or electrical substation imiptovements, all of which could be required, " Copper Valley Intertie Project Description ii Mig The proposed 138-kV transmission line betwee the.town allow the Copper Valley Electric Association € BA), f'Sutton and Clennallen would ( ure Hase relatively low-cost power from the generating utilities of Alaska’s Railbelt regign.“Fhe approximately 134-mile-long intertie project would connect CVEA’ Association (MEA) transmission,éVat BYKV system to the 115-kV a Electric MEA isisdrved by the Chugach Electric Associa- tion transmission grid which is interconheected { Light and Power gas-fired generat 5 ith Chugach and Anchorage Municipal réources: “th, ie Cost Estimate eé ) ’ Table 6 shows a summiary’of the cbs t estimate of the intertic prepared by R.W. Beck as part of the 1994 Copper Valleyilntestié Feasibility Study. This estimate was intended to be an appropriately accurate repfagentation of the total cost to develop and construct the project, so that fair economic comparisons can be made with the other power supply options. The estimate was based on investigations conducted by R.W. Beck and its consulting, part- ners. The estimate was based on consideratio electrical s act, the a preferred line route, and a specific construction concept. Dames and Moore. Inc. was responsible for the environmental analysis, and Power Technologies, Inc. (PTI) was responsible for the electrical system analysis. PT modeled the Railbelt system with the CVEA system connected through the intertie. Numerous loading and system switch positions were used in computer simulations to determine the limitations imposed by the intertie. PTI found that with one Chugach 115-kV line segment out of service, CVEA loads above the planni ‘oximately 15 MW would require the addition of a Static VAR Compens: (SVC) at the new Sutton substation. ‘lo avoid the installation and a the expense of the SVC, CVEA has elected to sever the intertic under these conditions and meet system load with a mix of available resources of including load shedding, if necessary. These are consistent with railbelt utility practices. SEA/COST-EST.DOC Ql'd C6pH WOOT: TT S66T ‘£2 NUL B66C £89 406 701 YAS-TNIH WZHD :WOds TABLE 6 Copper Valley Intertie Cost Estimate Cost Description (1993 dollars) Transmission Line Construction Structures $7,717,699 Foundations Guys and Anchors Framing Conductor Right-of-Way Clearing 2,792,960 Mobilization 1,284,405 Subtotal Transmission Line Construction 30,765,457 Substation Construction New Sutton Substation 1,824,316 1,793,903 3,799,130 Direct Construction Cost 34,564,587 Engineering sent ' 3,337,900 Construction ane 2,159,352 Environmental Services and Pe 1,405,000 Right-of-Way Acquisition 713,000 Owner's Costs 1,360,392 Subtotal 43,540,231 Gontingency 5,245,036 Total Cost 47,604,356 Preferred Route Alternative D. SEA/COST-EST,DOC TT*d C6PH WodT:TT S66T ‘£2 NOL 8662 £89 406 701 10 YAS-TIIH W2HD :WOas The R.W. Beck study includes estimates of the construction cost for four candidate line routes and recommends an “apparent preferred” route, as mentioned above, These esti- mates are both comprehensive and high ily detailed. The analysis supporting the estimate begins with basic constructio erous linked spreadsheets for the extension of material and labor costs. For ors the study considers the overall cost impact of several conductor types that meet the economic conductor size, The study also includes preliminary design of the strength, weight, and cost of several types of structures. The estimate itemizes the quantity and distribution of structure heights, span lengths, and construction assemblies, including insulators, nuts, and bolts, for each of the four distinctly different segments of the line route. The four line segments are referred to as structural Loading Zones that are distinguished by the weather exposure, terrain, vegetation, and soil conditions . Cost estimate contingencies are normally included to provide that cannot be anticipated at the time of the estimate but coufel agohebly be expected. Such costs might include material and labor cost increases)'¢hanges ‘during construction due to soil conic, eeu rule changes, or inagveién nt design 6 issions. The R.W. Evaluation of Cost Estimate The Power Engin tudy of 19931 develops dollars Of $40 428,919 cd yaaa with the RW The assumed design a. both esfinates are similar. However, several design assumptions that would sen nat tomake k ke the eck estimate higher than that by Power Engi- neers. First, because of "off agess pebbl s at the existing O’Nei! Substation, Beck determined that the Sutton terminal eal anew substation some distance from the old sub- station, Second, Beck ass ‘Sqrhewhat larger and stronger ACSR conductor (605 kcmil Teal) compared to thet ndtictor their estimate. These design differences probably account for approximately $1,000,000 of the estimate dif- ference. * large difference also appears in Right-of-W: isition while Beck estimates $2,118,000 ower estimates $449,000; a $1,669,000 difference. c tal Impact Study that was not anticipated as s ower at the time of their estimate. Beck included 12 perce: r overall contingencies (construction and other cost) while Power included 10 percent. This difference accounts for or about $1,000,000 of the difference between the Beck and Power estimates. The Beck contingency i es 15 percent on direct construction costs and 10 percent on other costs. A 10 percent } Power Engineers, Suttan to Glennallen 138kV Transmission Intertia Project, Volumo 2, Final Report, prepared for the Copper Valley Electric Assaciation, Dated January, 1993. 2 The Beck and Powor Enginears routes are similar over the western-most 40 miles. At Syncline Mountain, the route assumed by Power Engineers travels to the south and that assumed by R.W. Beck travels to tho north. From that point to the east end of the project, Beck’s route remains 2 to 5 miles to the narth of the Power Engineers route. The Power Engineers routa runs just to the North and parallel to the Glonn Highway. SEA/COST-EST.COC W Cl'd C6hH WOLT:TT 966T ‘fe NUL 8662 £89 406 701 YAS-TIIH W2HD : WON contingency on construction is often appropriate for projects that are designed and ready for bidding. However, becatise the geotechnical survey and detailed design has not been completed for this project, and because the foundation work is such a large part of this a project, we feel that the Beck 15 percent contingency on construction is appropriate. Adding the above estimate differences to the Power estimate brings the Power estimate to about $45,000,000 which is within 5 percent of the Beck estimate. During public meetings regarding the intertie in early December 1995, two questions were raised about specific aspects of the intertie cost estimate, Answers to these questions follow. Helicopter costs : R.W. Beck includes the use of helicopters in their construction estimate where they are either required or economical to use. Beck estimates'683 hours at $239/hr for a Bell personnel helicopter and 573 hours at $3 -lift Vertol 107-2 heli- copter. “hy / Comparison with other 115-kV or 138-kV Construction Pr i divides the line route into four loading zones that regull ‘in differing cost i Conclusion The R.W. Beck estimate is* overall [ntertie costs fot options. hy adeq atéiart credible representation of the itemized and papel eédnomic comparison with other power supply iy Project Alternative Allison Lake Hydroelégti} Project Description Allison Lake is located about 2 miles southwest of Solomon Gulch Reservoir. The Allison Lake Project evaluated in the 1994 Intertie Study and the 1995 update, would divert water from Allison Lake to the Solomon Gulch Reservoir during the winter months in order to provide additional generator at the Solomon Gulch Project. Several design options at Alli- son Lake were reviewed in the Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study, prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) in September 1992. The preferred option identified in this study consists of an 11,950-foot-long tunnel from Allison Lake to the Solomon Gulch Reservoir, a lake tap approximately 2,100 feet below the surface of Allison Lake, and a 3,145-kW hydroelectric generation facility located at the discharge from the tunnel into the Solomon Gulch reservoir, Water would be withdrawn from Allison Lake, flow through the tunnel, and then pass through the generation facility and discharge into Solomon Gulch Reservoir. This water from Allison Lake would then be available to provide additional generator at the existing Solomon Gulch generation facility. The total expected average an nual energy to be SEA/COST-EST.DOC 12 ET'd C6pH WYBT:TT S66T ‘£2 NUL 8662 £89 406 701 ¥AS-TNIH W2HD :WOYS produced from the new powerhouse plus the increased production from the existing Solomon Gulch facility was estimated to be about 27,400 MWh. Another alternative, that would not require the passing of Lake Allison water into the Solomon Gulch reservoir or any other modifications to the Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project, would be a stand-alone project on Allison Creek. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers studied such a project in 1981 and their construction cost estimate was subsequently updated by HDR in 1992. The project would consist of an Allison lake tap and a combina- tion of tunnel and pipeline to convey water down to a new powerhouse on Allison Creek just above its mouth near sea level. The estimated project cost was substantially higher than the preferred option ($53,666,932 in 1992 dollars) and the expected average annual energy was assumed to be somewhat lower (25,900 MWh). my Currently the Alaska Business and Industrial Development Co Sopdtion (ABIDC) holds a FERC Preliminary Permit to study a standalone project on Alison @yeek. The project con- cept is similar to that studied by the Corps of Engineers ind'9at exteptifor the following: ! ‘hy « A trench and siphon intake would replace the lake'tap ay ¢ The water would be conveyed down to the powe by pipeline only, rather the tunnel/ pipeline combination. i! ABIDC is currently proposing a 5-MW install prepared by ABIDC. i, Cost Estimate Table 7 provides a summary co! summary of a more detailed cash estignae preBared in 1992 by HDR as part of theic Alli- son Lake Reconnaissance'Stud ; I < SEA/COST-EST.00C 13 bI'd C6PH WYET:TT S66T ‘£2 NOL 8662 £89 2406 70L YAS-TIIH W2HD :WOsS ST'd C6pH WH6ET:TT S66T ‘fe NUL Table 7 Alison Lake Project Summary Construction Cost Estimate pate (1992 3 Lard and Land Rights $ 200,000 Structures and Improvements $ 4,822,860 Reservoirs, Darrs, and Waterways $ 17,122,400 Turbines and Generators (Ind, Gov. & Exciter) Fy 976,000 Accessory Electical Equipment $ oy 24Q000 Mscellansous Mecharical Eqiprent mu Structures and Improvements (Trans. Facilites) Substation Eqiprert &Stuctres Fixtures, Conductors & Devices Total Oirect Construction Costs Design Engineering (994 Geotedtrical , Barings, & Scisric Surveys FERC and Other Licensing Evaluation of Cost Estimate The level of cost detail provided for this alternative was ample for a reconnaissance-level investigation. The estimate included a cost contingency of approximately 24.0 percent of construction and other costs. This appears appropriate for this level of study. The major uncertainty with this alternative is with the construction of the “lake tap” underneath Allison Lake. Considerable amount of debris apparently exists on portions of the lake bottom, and to the e unknown at this time. No cost allowance for any dredging was included i addition the exact location at which the lake t it exists at the proposed lake ta location is e estimate. [In ap is to be made is of critical importance and considerable subsurface investigation and analysis will be required before construction can begin. Poor rock conditions could even potentially render this alternative unfeasible. SEA/COST-EST.0OC 8662 £89 406 :0L 14 ¥3S-TNIH W2HD:WOus Conclusions In our opinion, the cost estimate as developed by HDR is reasonable and the project, as configured, appears to provide for a “utility grade” (50-year) facility, consistent with the standards we believe are necessary. Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project Alternative: Option A Silver Lake is situated about 15 miles southwest of Valdez, The outlet from the lake forms the Duck River which flows into Galena Bay. The Allison Lake Reconnaissance Study briefly reviewed two options for project development: Option A, proposed by Stone & Webster in 1982 and 1983, and Option B proposed by Whitewater Engineering Corporation (Whitewater) in 1992. Following is an evaluation of Option A. . Project Description This option includes a 125-foot high roller-compacted conereté (I 108-inch pipeline, and a 15-MW powerhouse located abélevation 6 e powerhouse would be equipped with three 5-MW Eraneis turbines. ‘TrahSmission to the Solomon Gulch Project would be accomplished with!a 22s 1ilé-long overhead transmission line. The total expected average annual energy. to be praduted by this option was estimated to be about 44,800 MWh. co “y # Cost Estimate Table 8 provides a summary constrticti ect. It is a summary of a more detaijéd c< their Allison Lake Reconnaissancty Study y _polilluy Evaluation of Cost Estimate, The original cost estinjate for this of a Cordova power subply,jnteri i= was prepared in 1982 by Stone & Webster as part oly asibility assessment. HDR developed the costs con- tained in Table 2 by using'the’ xiantities previously developed by Stone & Webster and applying their o nit pricés..FIDR presented the estimate in about the same level of detail as provided in their Allison Lake estimate. In recent discussions with HDR it was agreed that a cost allowance for geotechnical investigations should by added to their 1992 estimate-and that has be: , as shown in the table. This estimate included a contin- gency of approximately 22.5 percent on the construction and other costs, which again appears appropriate for this level of study. The Silver Lake site is more remote than the Allison Lake which will make access for diffi- cult and expensive. However there doesn’t appear to be any major technical barriers to development of a project at Silver Lake. , The Duck River and surrounding lagoon area is reported to be a very productive region for pink salmon. The elevation 65 site for the powerhouse is above what has been considered to be an impassable fish barrier. Thus the environmental impacts on the fishery have been viewed as minimal. SEA/COST-EST.0OC 15 ST'd C6hH WYET:TT S66T ‘£2 NUL 8662 £89 2406 701 YAS-TNIH WHS: WOYs Table 8 Silver Lake (Option A) Project Summary Construction Cost Estimate (1982 $ Description Land and Land Rights Structures and Improvements Tuttines and Generators (Ind. Gov. & Exciter) Accessory Electical Equprrent Mscellansous Mecherical Equprrent Structes and Improvements (Trans. Facilities) Substation Equprrent & Sructures Fixures, Conductors & Oevices Total Direct Construction Costs Design Engineering (994 ‘Geotechnical , Barings, & Seisrric Surveys 1982 Estimated Construction Ggst ‘Induded by HOR in 1996 : Conclusions The cost estimate for this option, as developed by HDR, in our opinion is reasonable and the level of accuracy appears consistent with the Allison Lake Project estimate. This Silver Lake option appears to also provide for a “utility grade” installation. ~ Silver Lake Hydroelectric Project Alternative: Option c ) 5 e Project Description As mentioned abové, Option B to hydroelectric development at Silver Lake was developed by Whitewater Engineering in 1992. Whitewater updated its plan and related cost estimate in a letter to AIDEA, dated November 13, 1995, The updated Whitewater plan is referred to as Silver Lake Option C. It is similar to the Silver Lake Option A, except the powerhouse SEA/COST-EST.DOC 16 aT'd C6pH WeOZ:TT 96E6T ‘£e NOL 8667 £89 406 :OL ¥YAS-TIIH W2HD:WOYS site would be lowered from elevation 65 to elevation 35 and a submarine transmission cable would be substituted for the overhead transmission line. By locating the powerhouse down at elevation 35 there would be some increase in energy production over the elevation 65 site, but that value has not been calculated yet. Whitewater recently received a FERC Preliminary Permit to further study the site. Cost Estimate A summary of Whitewater’s current construction cost estimate for Silver lake (Option C) is shown in Table 9, This estimate was provided in Whitewater’s November 13, 1995, memo which it updated on January 18, 1996. Some adjustments to the latest estimate were made by CH2M HILL. The January 18 Whitewater estimate as adjusted by CH2M HILL is also shown in Table 9 (in the column entitled “CH2M HILL”). oy Evaluayen of ne expeod the table for consistency because this was n estimate. fytGwater costs with the following { i modifications: « Anallowance of $1,000,000 % the necessary land rights to develop irt'the Silver Lake (Option A) estimate. e wsed sat owner(s) would be paid a royalty on i jecome an operating expense. We assumed that penne up-front payment. Me for the a ‘superstructure, The Silver Lake eo A) estimate con- tains a $600,000 allow: ice for a more substantial concrete/ masonry building super- structure. For consistency between the two alternatives, we added the difference ($350,000) to our estimate. (Ifa prefabricated metal building were installed, mainte- nance would increase above assum: els, * Weused Whitewater’s November 13, 1995, costs for installation of the penstock. SEA/COST-EST.DOC iz 8T'd C6PH WYTS:TT S6E6T ‘£e NUL 8662 £89 406 70L ¥AS-TIIH WHO :WOuS Table 9 Silver Laks (Option C) Project Sunmary Construction Cost Estimate Cost (1996 $) Description Whitewater CH2M HILL Land and Land Rights $ 216,000 $ 1,216,000 ‘Structures and Imoovemecnts $ 1,462,500 $ 1,612,500 Resencirs, Dams, and Waterways r 12869000 ¢ 14,069000 Turtines and Generators (Ind, Gov, & Excited) $ 308,000 $ 390.000 Aczassary Elearica Equipment $ 914000 3 91Q000 Msoefaneous Mocharical Equipment $ x Structures and Inmprovemorts (Trans. Facilites) $ Substation Equiprrent &Srucures $ Fixtures, Conductors & Devices 9 Mobilization $ Total Direct Construction Costs, Design Engincering FERC and Otter Liconsing Construction Management Sbotal Contingency ih 1966 Estirered Constucién Cl e We used Whitewater’s November 13, 1995, costs for purchase and installation of the turbine and generator equipment. 2 We marginally increased Whitewater’s contingency from 15 to 20 percent. We are satisfied with a 20 vontinge! ather e 24 percent figure used in the Allison Lake estimate and 22.5 percent used in the Silver Lake Option A estimate. - Locating the powerhouse down as low as elevation 35 could result in adverse impacts on the salmon fishery. Whitewater has indicated that the upstream migrating salmon turn in Bennett Creek before they reach the proposed powerhouse; but this will require further study. Also the swift currents and rough bottom conditions in Prince Williams Sound may make it quite difficult to build and maintain the submarine transmission cable as proposed by 18 SEA/COST-EST.OOC 6T'd C6PH WYTe:TT 966T ‘fe NUL BEEZ £89 2406 701 ¥aAS-TNIH WZHD:WOuSs ” this time. Whitewater. However the cost allowance for this cable is probably adequate to build an overhead transmission line. Conclusions Whitewater’s cost estimate presumably reflects the intent of a private power developer and engineer to take full financial responsibility for the planning, design, construction, and perhaps even the ase of this project. Therefore it is a ffic ‘aw a direct cgst comparison betwe ¢ other ives whose e: by inde . However, in our opinion, we believe that Whitewater would be capable of developing this project to “utility-grade” standards (50-year life) for $39.6 million. sy, Valdez Coal Plant Alternative Project Description e , Coal-fired powerplant to be located in Valdez, adjacent’ toiCVE A's exist diesel powerplant. The project, proposed by a private dey oper (Algska Co ration Systems, il: Inc. [ACSI]) includes twin boilers (coal-fired and oilfiréd); tWin steam turbines (6 MW and 12 MW), a district heating system, limestone ag scrubber ool dry scrubber ayaa, The district heating hot water sygiét and dockside facilities, but therg,. Coal for this project is peo N by the project developer" Coal woul ‘ontainerized from the mine and 1 shipped over-the- road to the railhead, thentranspartd id to Whittier for truck transport to the site. The cost of coal (estimated at $50/t6n), Wes mining, all transportation and delivery to the site. The site is reported to be suitepie for construction of a powerplant (bedrock), has nearby sewer and water supplies from Valdez, and is near the diesel plant switchyard for power sales. Ash removal will be to a nearby landfill or backhaul to the mine. The developer has air permits filed for a former project that he feels will apply to this project. Operation of the plant will be primarily on coal fuel, 10 months of the year. Output will vary from 10 MW firm capacity to 1 - 1.5 MW during late spring. Shutdown will be during the summer periods (June - August), Maintenance of the plant will be performed primarily during the shutdown. Projected schedule for construction is 18 months. Cost Estimate Costs submitted by ACSI have been summarized by R.W. Beck in their 1994 report, as shown in Table 10. The contingency amount shown is 8 percent of total costs. SEA/COST-EST.DOC 19 G2"'d C6pH Weee:TT 966T ‘fe NUL 8662 £89 406 :0L ¥AS-TNIH WHS :WOYSs Evaluation of Cost Estimate The estimate provided has good detail in most areas and can be compared and evaluated easily with other powerplant estimates. The contingency shown for this project is 7.5 per- cent of construction and other costs; CH2M HILL recommends at least 15 percent of construction and other costs for a well-defined project. TABLE 10 ACSI Cost Estimate for Valdez Coal Alternative Cost Description {1993 Dollars) Site Acquisition Foundation and Buildings Bollers Turbine Generator Utility Work $500,000 Other $1,000,000 Piping $1,000,000 Electrical $2,200,000 Subcontractor Services $600,000 Miscellaneous Equipment $400,000 Oistrict Heating System $3,000,000 Water Supply and Treaty ty ‘ $500,000 Contractor Overhead and ict, $1,600,000 Total Direct Construction Co e $18,500,000 Permitting : $150,000 Engineering and Design $850,000 Construction Management $1,000,000 Coal Reserves $2,300,000 Legal & development costs $1,900,000 Subtotal $24,700,000 Contingency $2,000,000 Total $26,700,000 SEA/COST-EST.0OC 20 Te*d C6pH Weee:TT 966T ‘£e Nor BEEZ £89 206 701 ¥AS-TIIH W2HD:WOdS Costs ACSI included in the estimate that may be overestimated or may even not be incurred include the following: ¢ Engineering & Design: the developer intends to rely heavily upon the design documents done for the proposed Air Force OTH-B project. If this is possible, engineering costs would be minimal. ¢ Permitting: the developer hopes to use existing air permits from the OTH-B project. If true, permitting costs would be minimal. Costs that appear not to be included in the estimate include the following: ¢ Coal handling equipment: not specifically called out in the es quately provided for. te, may not be’ ade- CH2M HILL recommends the Valdez Coal Pip f shown in Table 11. I, 4 tl There are several potential "fatal ft this project. They include: ¢ ACSI apparently has little or tion and district heat gperatign. "Th and sophisticated poWerplan esifn (a would challenge voi] the most éxpertenced developer. ht i ¢ Refurbishment costs'fgr'the ilers and turbines are almost impossible to verify, but are well below new equipmignt'cests. If these equipment items cannot be refurbished, the need for new equipment Will make the project more costly than construction with new equipment. ¢ The lack of contracted district heating customers could severely hamper the economics and operations of the coal plant. Steam demands determine the power levels possible from the turbine generators. Revenue dollars from the heating plant offset project costs and substantiate the cogenerator status of the project. Without full development of the steam market, revenue requirements from the electric operation would increase to pro- portionately higher levels. ¢ The technical basis of the project is questionable, in several areas. First, operations of a coal plant ona part-time or reduced load basis is unprecedented and will result in fuel handling problems and early deterioration of equipment. Second, conversion of an old stoker boiler to a fluid-bed boiler cannot be verified or guaranteed to any acceptable level of confidence. Third, the planned goal of electrical interconnection of the plant at the existing diesel plant substation may well be impossible (since both plants may be SEAICOST-EST.00C g 21 C2'd ~S6rH WeS:TT SEGT ‘Se NUL 8662 £89 2406 701 YAS-TNIH WHS :WOuSs required to operate at the same time), resulting in unplanned substation and distribu- tion system costs. ¢ The proposed transfer of air permits from past projects and equipment may not be ac- cepted on a new project. Permitting in the Valdez area is anticipated to be difficult due to the number of emission sources currently in operation. The proposed re-use of engi- neering documents for this project may be flawed due to changes necessary for this project. TABLE 11 CH2M HILL-Adjusted Cost Estimate for Valdez Coal Alternative Description Site Acquisition Foundation and Buildings Boilers $4,000,000 Turbine Generator $2,000,000 Utility Work $1,000,000 Other $4,000,000 Piping $1,000,000 Electrical $2,200,000 Subcontractor Services $600,000 Miscellaneous Equipment $400,000 District Heating System $3,000,000 Water Supply and Treatment $500,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit $4,000,000 Total Direct Construction Cost $25,000,000 Permitting $250,000 Startup, Commissioning and Training $100,000 Engineering and Oesign $850,000 Construction Management $1,000,000 Coal Reserves $2,300,000 Legal & development costs $1,900,000 Subtotal $31,400,000 Contingency $4,600,000 Total $36,000,000 S€A/COST-EST.00C 22 £2'd CobhH WYET:TT S66T ‘£2 NUL 8662 £89 206 701 ¥AS-TIIH W2HD :WOYS Conclusion The cost estimate provided by the project developer is substantially low, when compared against projects of similar complexity and technology. Construction costs alone for a project of this type should be on the order of $25 million (as shown in Table 11), assuming used equipment. New equipment would raise the cost much higher. Total costs for this project should be on the order of $36 million. All Diesel Alternative--Operation and Maintenance Description As described in the discussion of the construction cost for the A Diesel alternative assumes that Solomon Gulch and diesel g: used to meet CVEA generation and reserve requirements, this:alternative, several new diesel units would be purchased to replace existin ‘upi at thé:titte major overhauls of the existing units would otherwise occur. Full cap to.meet local,péak loads and reserve requirements would be continue to be mairi t both Glennallen and Valdez. ‘es esel alternative, the All ation would continue to be ch f operator, four engine opera- fox Oh rotation) and one engine ditional CVEA staff are not easily Staffing levels at Glennallen presently total si tors (three operators / three shifts per day and, mechanic. Due to the isolation location of Glép available. we Valdez maintains a plant staff of,four'p ‘ hief operator, two engine operators and one engine mechanic, The Valdég Blany ! tolthe Solomon Gulch hydro plant, which has additional CVEA staff for that’gpe ration “ind a dispatch control center (including SCADA system monitorjstg),,F y ‘dro pla {, staff are cross-trained in diesel plant operations, and hence offer addiiaptia q ower For the All-Diesel A. ative, th ibe RW Beck study indicated that three new operators would be added to the Valdez, P nt by 1997, to support new equipment and the increased generation role. we The 1995 CVEA Power Supply Study assumed staffing requirements, indicating the termi- nation of five operators (four at Glennallen and one at Valdez). This was assumed due to installation of new, more reliable engine generators and the installation of supervisory SCADA equipment in both plants. This can be summarized as follows: S£4/COST-EST,00C 23 ve'd Cop Webe:TT S66T ‘£2 NUr 8662 £89 406 701 YAS-TIIH W2HD:WOds All Diese Alternative Case Glennatlen Plant Staffing Valdez Plant Staffing Status Quo five four 1994 Study five seven 1995 Study one three Evaluation The All Diesel Alternative must have an appropriate nu for engine (or gas turbine) generators that run in a pri levels (five at Glennallen and four at Valdez) are apptq; lation of SCADA monitoring and newer generating équipm, for close supervision of equipment, particularly if CVEA, ‘ants to control damage to equipment in an expeditious manner. Howeper,t ha SCADA System would allow CVEA to proceed with the All Diesel alternative sli operation and maintenance staff. 4 Current staffing ative. The instal- Fr i i An increase in staffing levels for ‘the'Alt mative (as recommended in the 1994 study) is not warranted, eye: vwith’'the Ff power generation, Similarly, a reduction in staffing for this Alterrtativécquld sériotisly endanger the availability of generators at the i" i SEA/COST-EST.DOC 24 S@*d @6pH Wepe:TTt 966T ‘£2 NUL 8662 £89 406 :0L YAS-TIIH W2HD :WOds ROCCO COCO OCCA COCOA COCA AACA OO OCC OOOO AACA OOK O OOOO AOAC OOOO COA OOOO OOO I OAC O OC NK xk POL x i TRANSACTION REPORT x x (a JAN-23-96 TUE 10:14 AM x x X x DATE START — SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE x x XK x JAN-23 10:01 AM CH2M HILL-SEA 13°12" 25 RECEIVE OK x X x OOK KKK KKK KKK KOK KKK KKK KKK KK KKK KOK KKK KKK KKK KOK KKK KOK KKK KK KKK KOK KKK KK KKK KOK KKK KKK CRHMHIL FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY To; Dennis McCrohan Firm Name: AIDEA City: Fax Phone Number: (907) 561-8998 Total number of pages, including this page: 2 From: Dave Gray Date: September 27, 1995 FAX OPERATOR: TIME SENT: AM _PM Office: State: Verification Phone Number: Retum original?;: #+YES NO Office: SEA Employee No.: 760 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES OR THE TRANSMISSION IS UNCLEAR, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FAX OPERATOR. REMARKS: Dennis-- At your request, I have updated the analysis of AIDEA’s long term real cost of money originally conducted by Dick Emerman in 1992. J have followed the approach outlined in Dick’s December 21, 1992, memo to Ronald Garzini. Briefly, Dick’s approach was to estimate AIDEA’s Jong term real cost money for both taxable and nontaxable bonds. The real taxable bond rate was estimated on the basis of the difference between projected interest rates for A-rated utility bonds and inflation as measured by the national CPI; the real nontaxable bond rate was estimated on the basis of the difference between the projected interest rates as measured by the Tax-Exempt Revenue Bond Index published in the Bond Buyer and inflation as measured by the national CPI. In this update, projections were from the “Consensus Forecast” published for long term trends in the March 1, 1995, issue of Blue Chip Economic Indicators. Projections for the Tax- Exempt Revenue Bond Index were ratioed off of the Blue Chip forecast for interest rates on 30-Year Treasury Bonds on the basis of the historic ratio of the interest rate associated with each. Forecasts for each of these parameters is shown in the chart entitled “Consensus Forecast of Inflation and Interest Rates”. The difference between the projected interest rate for each of the three securities and the projected rate of inflation is shown in the chart entitled “Consensus Forecast of Real Interest Rates”. The top line in this chart is for A-rated utility bonds. This is the parameter that Dick concluded most closely represented AIDEA’s long term real cost of FAX TRANSMITTAL Page 2 September 27, 1995 money for projects that would be financed with taxable bonds. Dick’s analysis showed that this parameter was 5 percent. In this update, the parameter is slightly lower at 4.8 percent. As you know, the real long term cost of money was set at 4.5 percent in the 1994 Intertie Smidy and in our update to that study. The long term real cost of money for nontaxable securities was calculated to be 3.1 percent in Dick’s 1992 analysis on the basis of the implicit forecast of tax exempt revenue bonds. As shown in the second chart, this is now forecast to be slightly lower at 2.8 percent. I will check in with you tomorrow to see if you have any questions or need additional information. Best regards. —Dave vat 2 Shee eanszanm Consensus Forecast of Inflation and Interest Rates Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds 8 = i 4 ——— WYear Treasury Y¥I TT SET 204 2003 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1996 CR/IF/RO 9/27/95*Sheet1 Chart 2 WUUSsUUS raa L0-it US/ Zisr3ea 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 25% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 9/27/95*Sheet1 Chart 3 ; crite ERP Rest hes Consensus Forecast of Real Interest Rates 2000 2001 2002 2003 SERS : a ‘A Utility Bond —— — 30-Year Treasury -++->- +Tax Exempt Revene Bonds = ate a) ee Peewee Oe ° MME cncincess Vets hy y MMMM ecnnes i | Ue App Economists au Mi MME scientisis a September 1, 1995 117526.C0.ZZ Mr. Dennis McCrohan Deputy Director-Energy Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority 480 West Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Dennis: As we have discussed, the scope of CH2M HILL services to update the Copper Valley Intertic Feasibility Study for AIDEA has evolved since our work began in June. The purpose of this Jetter is to document these changes, list additional tasks needed to complete the work process you outlined earlier this week, and request an increase in our fee to cover these extra activitics. Scope of Work Completed To Date In addition to work identified in our June 12, 1995, letter to Riley Snell, we have performed the following tasks: ° valuation of alternative bases for power supply from the Railbelt including economy energy, firm energy, and firm energy with the cost of the Intertie integrated into the rate base of Chugach Electric Association (CEA). ° Evaluation of two configurations for Copper Valley Electric Association's (CVEA) all-diesel alternative . Evaluation of CVEA’s power supply plan . Review of future electric load possibilities associated with the Trans-Alaska Gas System an the High Altitude Auroral Research Project ° Critical review of R.W. Beck’s resource cost model Scottie Office 777 108th Avanue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 206 453-5000 P.O. Box 91500, Bellevue, WA 98009-2050 Fax No. 206 462-5957 er . ==: i tee we eee Ce sur te 29s s'torii #eOe F.ue Mr, Dennis MeCrohan Page 2 September 1, 1995 1)7526.C0.ZZ . Evaluation of potential electric supply development at Silver Lake and at Alyeska ° In addition to documentation of our technical analysis, dcvclopment of a detailed report for both technical and nontechnical audiences including preparation of several draft reports ° Several planning and briefing trips between Seattle and Anchorage Upcoming Tasks l understand that you would like for us to continue to support AIDEA on this project in the following ways: ° Conduct additional analysis as outlined in our August 29 meeting (the scope of these changes were faxed to you on August 30) and prepare a new draft report. ° Direct and evaluate computer analyses for 36 different rate impact scenarios (these computer analyses were outlined in a August 30 fax to you) . Critically review R.W. Beck’s rate impact model ° Continue to edit the draft report for understanding by nontechnical audiences . Participate in meetings with project stakeholders including: CVEA, Petro Star, CEA, Alyeska, the Trustees for Alaska, Sutton community representatives, Glennallen community representatives, and Valdez community representatives . Brief the Copper Valley Intertie review committee on study findings and answer questions . Prepare three additional iterations of the project report . Present study findings at a formal public meeting Of course we will also be available to continue to meet other ATDEA needs that may develop as the evaluation process continues. Cost Estimate The estimated cost to complete this work for AIDEA is $30,800. As shown in the attached tabulation, this includes a 20 percent contingency for tasks that may develop between now and hone nace Sen lus ver obi ose ser “ 1995 5:49PM #282 P.@3 Mr. Dennis McCrohan Page 3 September 1, 1995 117526.C0.ZZ completion of the project. Jf the need for these contingencies do not develop, the estimated cost is $26,500, We Jook forward to continuing to be of service to AIDEA and the review committee as the States deliberation on the Intertic continues. As always, please do not hesitate to call me with any questions or concerns you may have about our services to you. Sincerely, ane David A Gray / Project Manager tree See tu: yur wus “uss vor Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study Update Workplan for Project Completion Task Description 1 Analysis outlined in August 30 fax; prepare new draft report 2 Direct and evaluate 36 rate analyses 3 Critically review R.W. Beck rate model and analysis 4 Edit for nontechnical audience (up to 2 additional draft reports) 5 Participate in stakeholder meetings 6 Brief Governor's review committee : 7 Prepare up to 3 additional iterations of project report 8 Present study findings at a formal public meeting Total Copper Valley Intertie Feasibility Study Update Budget for Project Completion Labor $21,200 Support and Expenses 5,300 Contingency 4,300 Total $30,800 fs L230 oh Ww lw 25 oroerrl HoOS r. us